Chapter 12 - Eyseneck

- Problem solving requires the following:

1) there are 2 states of affairs
2) the problem solver is in one state & wants to be in the other
3) not apparent to the solver how the gap btw the 2 states is to be bridged
4) bridging the gap is a consciously guided multi-step process
- Analogical problem solving: use past experience/knowledge
→ use of analogies/similarities btw a current problem & ones solved in past
- Expertise: Individuals possessing expertise have specialist knowledge in one area
 overlap btw expertise & problem solving: efficient at solving problems in area of
expertise
 chunking theory: info stored in small chunks > breaks info down & is stored in little parts
 template theory: chunks that were used frequently develop into more complex data
structures
 routine expertise: familiar knowledge to solve familiar problems
 adaptive expertise: knowledge to develop strategies for dealing with novel problems

- Well-defined problems: all aspects of the problem are clearly specified (initial state, goal,
methods available) (maze/chess)
 used in research as there is an optimal strategy & errors can easily be identified
 goal is well specified bcs it is clear when it has been reached
 planning is much less necessary
- Ill-defined problems: definition of problem is underspecified (initial state, goal & methods
unclear
(becoming happier)
 endless strategies
 most everyday problems
- Knowledge-rich problems: can only be solved with prior knowledge
- Knowledge-lean problems: can be solved without prior knowledge as necessary info is
provided by problem statement
 most traditional research on problem solving involved knowledge-lean problems bcs
such problems minimize individual differences in relevant knowledge

Major Aspects of Problem Solving

1. It is purposeful (goal-directed)
2. Involves controlled rather than automatic processes
3. A problem only exists if someone lacks the relevant knowledge
to produce an immediate solution

In the real world: Monty Hall Problem

- People perform poorly on it
 adopt too complex strategies
- Typically use a heuristic / rule of thumb → uniformity fallacy
 fallacy involves assuming all available options are equally
likely whether they are or not
- Problem places large demands on central executive
- Most ppl mistakenly believe the host’s actions are random
- Shows our weakness as problem solvers
 produce wrong answers bcs we use heuristics / rules of thumb bcs our processing
capacity is limited

Theories
Gestalt Approach
- Early research on problem solving was dominated by the Gestaltists
- Trial-&-error learning: solution is reached by producing random responses
- Reproductive thinking: re-use of previous experiences to solve a current problem
 mostly required on well-defined problems
- Productive thinking: involves novel problem restructuring
 mostly required on ill-defined problems

Insight
= the experience of suddenly realizing how to solve a problem

- Involves a sudden restructuring of a problem

- Sometimes accompanied by the “aha-experience”
- Insight = any sudden problem solution that involves a
reorganization of the elements of a person's mental
representation of a stimulus/situation to yield a nonobvious
interpretation
- Controversy as to whether insight is a special process or
whether it involves the same processes as other thinking tasks
- Involves replacing one way of thinking about a problem with a new & more efficient way
→ cognitive conflict

Findings
- Non-insight problems: “warmth” (closeness to solution) gradually rises
→ expected bcs they involve several processes
- Insight problems: warmth stays rather low until it suddenly rises before solution

- Similar findings using the Remote Associates Test:

 3 words were presented (fence, card, master) & participants thought of a word (post)
going with each one to form compound words
 participant indicated insight was involved on some trials but not others
 feelings of warmth increased much more abruptly for problems whose solution was
accompanied by an Aha! Experience
- Limitations with the measurement of insight
 problem solvers often report Aha! experience in absence of a sudden increase in
warmth ratings & vice versa
 insight can produce wrong solutions (opposed to the Gestaltists view)
 does not explain how insight is reached
- Aha! experience = preferable measure of insight bcs it is more consistently associated with
various objective measures (problem-solving strategies; performance accuracy on insight
problems)
 Brain
- Anterior superior temporal gyrus only activated when solutions involved insight
 brain area associated with processing distant semantic relations btw word as well as
reinterpretation & semantic integration
- Anterior cingulate cortex: activated during cognitive conflict & breaking of mindsets
 important given that insight involve replacing one way of thinking about a problem
with a new and more efficient way
 associated with insight
- Prefrontal cortex: involved in higher cognitive processes

Representational Change Theory – Ohlsson

- Based on gestalt approach but emphasizing insight
- Ohlsson developed representational change theory
 according to this theory, the initial stage of problem solving involves forming a mental
representation of the problem
 after that, we access various mental operators (moves) that might be applied to this
representation, only one of which is selected & used at any given time
- We often encounter an impasse (feeling
blocked & unsure how to proceed) when
solving a problem bcs we have represented
it wrongly
- Theoretically, we must restructure the
problem representation for insight to occur
 This can happen in 3 ways (overcoming
an impasse):
o Constraint relaxation: inhibitions
on what is regarded as permitted
are removed
o Re-encoding: some aspect of the problem representation is reinterpreted
o Elaboration: additional info added
- Spreading activation among concepts/items of knowledge in LTM
> block occurs when the way a problem is represented does not permit retrieval of the
necessary operators
> impasse is broken when the problem representation is changed (Insight!)
- New = assumption that a search process may be necessary even after an impasse has been
overcome by insight
- Largely based on gestalt approach combined with information-processing approach,
emphasizing insight
 main difference to gestalt: more detailed explanation of how one gets to insight
 emphasizing that efficient search processes are often needed after & before an
impasse leading to insight
- Solution hints are most useful when individuals have just reached a block/impasse
 they have formed a problem representation, but have not become fixated on it
- Limitations
1. idealized account that ignores individual differences
2. processing sequences more complex
3. often not possible to predict when/why one changes a problem’s representation
4. little evidence of restructuring/impasse when individuals solve insight problems
5. theory doesn’t include strategies like direct application of knowledge or heuristics
 6. original theory mistakenly implies that constraint relaxation is typically sufficient to
solve insight problems

Facilitating insights: hints

- we can facilitate insight by providing hints
- hints increase the number of solutions produced on insight problems
- even subtle hints are useful
- research with strings that had to be brought together, however, they were too far away
to reach them at the same time
 exercise breaks in btw helped them to tie the pliers to one string and swing it like a
pendulum  participants could hold one string & catch the other on its upswing
 unaware of the relationship btw their arm movements during break & task
 hints can be effective without conscious awareness of their task relevance

Facilitating insight: incubation

- Incubation: a stage of problem solving in which the problem is put to one side for some
time; claimed to facilitate problem solving
- Subconscious mind continues to work towards a solution during incubation and so
incubation facilitates it
- Research on it involved comparing an experimental group having an incubation period
away from an unsolved problem with a control group working continuously
1. incubation effects reported in 73% of the studies
2. incubation effects stronger with creative problems having multiple solutions than
linguistic and verbal problems having a single solution
→ incubation often widens the search for knowledge, which may be more useful
with multiple-solution problems
3. the effects were larger when there was a fairly long preparation time prior to
incubation
→ may have occurred because an impasse or bloc in thinking is more likely to
develop when preparation time is long

Why is incubation beneficial?

- Control info relating to the strategies tried by the problem solver is forgotten during
incubation
 forgetting makes it easier for problem solvers to adopt a new approach after the
incubation period
- Forgetting misleading info is important
- Impasses are more likely to develop when preparation time was long
- Incubation effects involve active but unconscious processing of problem materials

Past experience: mental set

- Another way past experience can impair problem solving: mental set
 Mental set: tendency to use a familiar problem-solving strategy that has proved
successful in past even when it is not appropriate
 Can lead to myside bias (disregarding arguments disproving own beliefs)
 Often useful in spite of its drawbacks, it allows successive problems of the same
type to be solved rapidly and with few processing demands
Past experience: functional fixedness
- Past experience increases our ability to solve problems
 the Gestaltists argued that this is not always the case
 numerous failures on insight problems occur bcs we are misled by our past
experience
- Functional fixedness: the inflexible focus on the usual function(s) of an object in problem
solving
 Mistakenly assume that any given object has only a limited number of uses
 Duncker’s candle task: participants ‘fixated’ on tack box’s function as a
container rather than a platform
- To overcome it:
 notice an infrequently noticed or new feature
 form a solution based on that obscure feature
- Crucial obscure features are ignored bcs ppl focus on the typical functions of object based
on their shape, size, material of which they made and so on
- Functional fixedness can be reduced by the generic-parts technique:
 function-free descriptions of each part of an object are produced
 ppl decide whether each description implies a use
- High levels of cognitive control can produce functional fixedness
 Cognitive control associated with a narrow focus of attention on goal-relevant info
& specific task strategies coupled with inhibition of processing of other info sources
 Thus, high cognitive control can impair performance when a broad focus of
attention would be beneficial

Problem-solving strategies
Problem Space Hypothesis – Newell & Simon
- Central insight: the strategies we use when tackling complex problems reflect our limited
ability to process & store info
 assumes that we have limited STM capacity & that complex info processing is typically
serial (one process at a time)
- Problem space: an abstract description of all the possible states that can occur in a
problem situation
 consists of initial problem state, goal state, all possible mental operators (ex: moves to
solve Tower of Hanoi) that can be applied to change a state into a different one
- Possible to produce a computer simulation of human problem solving (= general problem
solver) → actually wasn’t
- Rely heavily on heuristics (= rules of thumb) that produce approx. accurate answers
(unlike algorithms that guarantee solution)
 Algorithms: computational procedure providing a set of steps to problem solution

Strategies/Heuristics
Hill climbing
- Hill climbing: making moves that will put u closer to the goal
- Most used when the problem solver has no clear understanding for the problem structure
- Focus on short-term goals & so often doesn’t lead to problem solution
- One step at the time, trial & error
Means-ends analysis
- Means-ends analysis: creating a sub-goal to reduce the difference btw current & goal
state
 Support: few fast moves  break  few fast moves  …
- Essence:
1) note difference btw current problem state & goal state
2) form a subgoal to reduce the difference
3) select a mental operator that permits achievement of the subgoals
- Generally, very useful and assists problem solution
- Evidence that ppl sometimes persist with that heuristic even when it impairs performance
- Use of means-ends analysis requires knowledge of goal location

Meta-reasoning
- Meta reasoning: monitoring processes that influence time, effort & strategies used during
reasoning & problem solving
- Example: progress monitoring: ppl assess their rate of progress towards the goal
 if progress is too slow to solve the problem within the maximum number of moves
allowed, ppl adopt a different strategy
- Involves stages of problem representation, planning & plan execution
- Support: 9-dot-problem  less likely to experience criterion failure = less likely to shift
strategies

Planning
- Most ppl presented with complex problems will engage in some preliminary planning
- Areas within the prefrontal cortex associated with planning and other complex cognitive
processes should be activated during problem solving
- Brain damaged persons performed worse
- Damage to PFC can lead to difficulties with real-world planning and difficulties to cope
with life
→ PFC important in planning on many problem-solving tasks

Sequential processing stages

- Planning = part of a sequence of processing stages → plan production & execution
- With complex tasks, only some moves are typically planned, so executing the initial plan is
followed by generating a further plan and then its execution
- Distinction between plan production and plan execution
- The DLPFC more active during initial planning than plan execution
 Posterior temporal areas, inferior frontal regions and dorsolateral premotor cortex
were more activated during plan execution
- On problems placing high demands on forming a problem representation, participants
alternated their gaze more often between the start and goal state
 On problems imposing high demands on planning, in contrast, the last fixation of
the start state was unusually prolonged
How much planning?
- Assumed that problem solvers typically engage in limited planning due to STM capacity
limits
- Tower of London task:
 some ppl engaged in efficient planning (preplanning of moves & high performance)
 others not (short period of preplanning & many errors)
- Amount of planning is very flexible
  increasing cost of accessing important task-relevant info (goal state) produced
increased planning & problems were solved faster
- Important problem-solving processes occur below the level of conscious awareness

Cognitive miserliness
- Many ppl are cognitive misers
 Cognitive miser: someone who is economical with their time & effort when
performing a thinking task
- Low scores on the Cognitive Reflection Test perform relatively poor on a wide range of
judgement and reasoning tasks
 bcs low scores are cognitive misers
 also, partly due to the fact that performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test
correlates positively with intelligence
 participants with the correct answer were anyways initially drawn to the incorrect
answer suggesting they inhibited the incorrect intuitive answer
 Cognitive Reflection Test: test assessing individuals’ tendencies to override
intuitive (but incorrect) answers to problems
- We use heuristics bcs we are forced to by our limited processing capacity
 In contrast: cognitive misers use heuristics bcs they are reluctant to engage in
effortful processing rather than bcs they cannot
- Type 1 processes
 intuitive, fast, effortless
- Type 2 processes
 Slow, controlled

Analogical problem solving

= Analogical problem solving involves solving problems by using analogies

- Analogy: a comparison btw two objects that emphasizes similarities btw them
- Important in everyday life
- Close links to fluid intelligence (= ability to reason & solve novel problems)
 Most used test of fluid intelligence: Raven’s Progressive Matrices
- Analogy supports problem solving under uncertainty by narrowing the space of
possibilities to facilitate quick, approximate problem solving, reasoning, & decision making
- 3 main types of problem similarity:
 Superficial similarity: solution-irrelevant details (e.g. objects)
 Structural similarity: causal relations btw the main components
> glove is to hand like sock is to foot
 Procedural similarity: procedures (actions) for turning the solution principle into
concrete operations
- Retrieval failures often underlie ppl’s inability to solve analogical problems
- High intelligence is a factor in facilitating effective use of analogies

Findings: Analogy detection

- Reception paradigm: ppl received detailed info about a possible analogy before receiving
a problem
 mostly use superficial similarities
- Production paradigm: ppl in everyday life generally produce their own analogies
 use more structural similarities
- Types of analogies ppl use depend on their current goal
- People interact with the 1. problem and are able to form a concrete mental model of it

Enhancing analogical problem solving

- Analogy retrieval more likely if the underlying structure of a current problem is made clear
 Effective encoding of the to be-solved problem is important
- It is important for problem solvers to form a complete description of the underlying
structure of the current problem
 Increases the probability of retrieving a relevant analogy & its quality

Processes in analogical reasoning

- Some processes may occur below the level of conscious awareness
 findings suggest analogies can be detected unconsciously
 Four-term analogy problems

Sequential processing stages

- Analogical reasoning involves several sequential processing stages:
 Encoding: info concerning problem stimuli is processed
 Inferring: identifying a relation (similarity) btw 2 items
 Mapping: identifying the overall relational pattern/rule governing the problem
 Applying: using the outcome of the mapping process to select the response
completing the analogy
- 2 major strategies used by ppl solving four-term analogy problems:
 According to project-first models, individuals first generate a rule relating the A & B
terms, then they map A & C terms, & finally they apply a rule generating D
 used on 50% of trials
 higher reasoning performance than the other model
 According to alignment-mapping models, individuals first align the A & C terms, &
then the B item with the target (D item)
 used on 34% of trials

Working memory
- Analogical reasoning = sufficiently complex for us to predict it requires the central
executive component of the WM system
 problem-solving performance should be impaired if a secondary task involving the
central executive is performed at the same time
 proved with four-term analogies & Raven’s Matrices problems

Individual differences
- Average correlation btw measures of WM capacity & performance on Raven’s Matrices
(which requires analogical reasoning & involves fluid intelligence) was +0.49
- Most cognitive tasks (lvl 3) require top-down, goal-focused executive attention (lvl 1)
 such tasks differ in extent to which they also require maintenance (keeping relevant info
accessible) & disengagement (removing/inhibiting outdated info) (lvl 2)
- In essence:
 fluid intelligence involves executive attention + disengagement
 WM capacity involves executive attention + maintenance
- Evidence that fluid intelligence & WM capacity both involve executive attention was
 frontal-parietal brain areas associated with executive attention were activated when
participants performed tasks involving WM or fluid intelligence
- Individuals high in fluid performed better than those low in fluid intelligence regardless
of whether problems involved a repeated or novel rule
 that they are better depends in part on their ability to disengage (= ability to think
flexibly)
 with Raven’s Matrices problems, that often involves a re-representation of problem
structure by making it more abstract
- Re-representation is critical bcs analogies are slaves to their symbolic representation

Ä In sum: successful performance on Raven’s Matrices problems requires a high level of

goal-focused executive attention & disengagement to inhibit task-irrelevant info
Ä Key aspects of the disengagement process are flexibility & re-representation

Brain Mechanisms
- Right hemisphere: important in insight
- Occipital & parietal areas: associated with visual & spatial processing, followed by
extensive involvement of the PFC
- Left rostrolateral PFC: integrates info within analogical problems
 activated with visuo-spatial & verbal analogies, probably bcs of its involvement in
mapping or relational integration.
- Dorsolateral PFC & inferior frontal gyrus: involved in inhibitory processes to prevent
distraction & interference
- Temporal lobes: involved bcs info about concept meanings (semantic memory) is stored
there

- Patients with damage to the PFC were more likely than

those with damage to the temporal area to select
semantic/perceptual distractors

Expertise
= the high level of knowledge & performance in a given domain
than an expert has achieved through years of systematic practice

- Resembles problem solving in that experts are extremely

efficient at solving numerous problems in their area of expertise
- Studies on expertise typically use ‘knowledge-rich’ problems requiring much knowledge
beyond that contained in the problem
 xMind

CREATIVITY
Cultural differences in Creativity
- Vertical thinking (deductive reasoning)
 Use of conscious intent to develop logically justifiable conclusions from a set of premises
provided
 intuitive reasoning: experience-based, opposes separating form from content and
overlooks rules and logic
> mainly used in Eastern cultures
 formal reasoning: rule-based, emphasizes logical inference and overlooks sense
experience when conflicted with rules or logic
> mainly used in Western cultures
- Lateral thinking (creativity)
 Eastern cultures emphasize mimicking existing abilities
> lack of self-exploration
 Individualistic cultures foster creativity because one has to stand out and be unique
Comparison mindset
- difference vs. similarity mindsets
- individuals who are exposed to dual cultural primes with a high level of PERCEIVED
cultural differences - have better creative performance when adopting a comparison
mindset
Revolutionary creativity
- previous research had proposed that Western cultures are creative while Eastern are not
> sampling bias, places to live out their creativity are different from culture to culture
- Eastern cultures propose that creativity doesn't have to be revolutionary
> small steps in a changing world

Stereotypes
- Allows for categorization of ppl from different groups with certain characteristics
- Development occurs when beliefs or generalizations are made by perceivers in social
conditions regarding a group of people
- Stereotype threat
 Neg. stereotype about ur group can hamper performance bcs of anxiety to prove
stereotype & lower social status
 contrary: neg. out-group stereotype enhances performance of not-targeted in-group
members
- Stereotype susceptibility
 pos. in-group stereotype becomes activated
 improves performance
Design
- Inspiration from examples
 serve as cues that help retrieve relevant concepts from long-term memory and helps
designing conceptual designs
 presence of examples can modify the search strategy from a broad one to a focused one
(more in-depth search)
 those who copied ideas from examples produced less variety of ideas
 looking at examples can significantly improve the quality and novelty of the solution
ideas produced
- General
 Goal: identify alternative strategies and solutions that are not instantly apparent with
initial level of understanding
 Revolves around a deep interest to understand the people for whom we design products
and services
 Helps us observe and develop empathy with the target users
 Enhances our ability to question: in design thinking you question the problem, the
assumptions and the implications
 Proves extremely useful when you tackle problems that are ill-defined or unknown
 Involves ongoing experimentation through: sketches, prototypes, testing and trials of
new concepts and ideas
- Stages
 Stage 1: Empathize—Research Your Users' Needs.
 Stage 2: Define—State Your Users' Needs and Problems.
 Stage 3: Ideate—Challenge Assumptions and Create Ideas.
 Stage 4: Prototype—Start to Create Solutions.
 Stage 5: Test—Try Your Solutions Out.

Deliberate practice (approach to problem solving)

- A wide range of expertise can be developed through deliberate practice (more important
than non-deliberate practice)
- 4 aspects:
 Task is at an appropriate level of difficulty
 Learner is given informative feedback
 Learner has adequate chances to repeat the task
 Learner has opportunity to correct his/her errors

Article: Revisiting the Multicultural experience-creativity link: the effects of

perceived cultural distance and comparison mind-set – Cheng

- Creative cognition approach: acquisition of different knowledge systems is precursory to

the generation of creative ideas
- Multicultural individuals exhibit higher creativity when exposed to the juxtaposition of
two cultures
Discussion:
- Individuals exposed to dual cultural primes with higher levels of perceived cultural
distance perform more well in creative insight tasks when they are predisposed/
manipulated to adopt a difference (vs. similarity) mind-set
 individuals exposed to lower levels of perceived cultural distance do not differ in their
creative performance
- Ppl more likely to engage in the dissimilarity mind-set if some extreme comparison
targets are activated
 difference-mind = useful when solving insight problems, that require creativity & a loss of
mental fixedness
 if ppl look for differences btw outcomes, they are more creative

Article: Cultural Difference in stereotype perceptions and performances in

nonverbal deductive reasoning and creativity – Wong

- Deductive reasoning: requires use of conscious intent to develop conclusions from a set
of premises
 Asians prefer applying intuitive reasoning & Westerners favored formal reasoning when
problem solving
 Intuitive reasoning = experience-based: opposes form from content, overlooks rules &
logic when at odds with intuition
 Formal reasoning = rule-based: emphasizes logical inference, & overlooks sense
experience when conflicted with rules/logic
- Creativity:
 chinese’s promote creativity to master existing skills & ideas to improve, refine, &
strengthen them
 individualistic cultures promote creativity to stand out from a group & be unique

Results/Discussion:
- Chinese & US students believe that:
 Americans are better at creative abilities
 Chinese are better at deductive reasoning skills
 Stereotype threat !!!

Multicultural experience enhances creativity – Leung

- Exposure to multiple cultures can enhance creativity

- Extensiveness of multicultural experiences was positively related to:
 creative performance (insight learning, remote associations, idea generation)
 creativity-supporting cognitive processes (retrieval of unconventional knowledge for
creative idea expansion)
- Connection btw multicultural experience & creativity is most apparent when individuals
have had the experience of immersing themselves in foreign countries
- Individual differences that account for whether ppl adapt & open themselves to foreign
cultures can boost the creative benefits of multicultural experience

Creativity
- Personality factors & contextual factors related to motivation, cognition have been shown
to facilitate creativity
 Individuals who pursue tasks for intrinsic purposes show enhanced creativity
 A distant future focus leads to more creative negotiation outcomes & insight
 Focusing on potential gains increases the accessibility of unconventional ideas &
thus enhances generating creative ideas
 Creativity better when in positive/neutral state

The Creative Cognition Approach

= proposed for understanding and specifying the cognitive processes that produce creative ideas

- Every person has potential to become creative if he/she uses ordinary cognitive processes
to produce extraordinary creative outcomes
- Two kinds of cognitive processes that happen after each other:
1. Generative process  to retrieve relevant infno
2. Explorative process  determining which idea should we processed further

Multicultural Experience and Creativity

- Prior knowledge on one culture can limit creativity  focused on only 1 possible
representation
- Multicultural experience doesn’t guarantee creativity  depends on personality & context
- Multicultural living experience may allow ppl to recognize that the same form/surface
behavior, has different functions & implications
- Individuals with rich multicultural experiences may show an increase in psychological
readiness to recruit & seek out ideas from diverse sources & use them as inputs in the
creative process
Implications
- Bringing employees & students from different cultural backgrounds into the same team
provides multicultural experience that can make ppl better at creative problem solving &
idea generation
- Demonstrating educators the positive aspects of cultural diversity can give students from
diverse ethnic & cultural backgrounds the confidence & motivation to learn in a
multicultural education setting

Revolutionary creativity, East and West: A critique from indigenous psychology

(Sundararajan)
- It might be not the case that ppl in the East are not creative
 they just express a different type of creativity
- Asians seem non-creative due to biased sampling
 they only use educated ppl from universities
- Revolutionary creativity (West): promote radical change
→ tendency to question every assumption
- Evolutionary creativity (East): promote incremental change
→ tendency to exhaust a domain, to investigate more systematically & comprehensively
than anyone has before
- Social Norm Account (of Asian Creativity): creativity shaped by social norms
→ pressure to fit in collectivistic societies undermines creativity by discouraging different
solutions
- Construal Level Theory (CLT): relation btw psychological distance & extent to which ppl’s
thinking (about objects & events) is abstract/concrete
→ the more distant object is from individual = the more abstract it will be thought of
→ closer objects will be thought of more concretely
- Eastern view of creativity: pre-condition for novelty (& next creativity) in Taoism is
mental freedom
→ can only be achieved when mind is playful in its thinking & spontaneous in its action
→ focus on new states & ways of being, rather than material products

Revolutionary Creativity
Western Model China & India (Eastern Model)

 Paradigm: creation  Paradigm: discovery

 Creation out of nothing (ex-nihilo)
 Intellect-based: acquisition & construction of
knowledge
→ focus on outcome of conquest, & on
breakthroughs in knowledge domain
 Individualistic role of creator as hero
 Sudden enlightenment, satori (aha)
 Consciousness-based: self-
transformation, self-transcendence
→ focus on participation &
involvement in process, breakthroughs
& transformations in consciousness
 Creativity = involves not only active
creation by individual, but openness to
new info