Creativity

Creativity is a phenomenon whereby something new and and place (according to Mel Rhodes).[5] A focus on pro-
somehow valuable is formed. The created item may be cess is shown in cognitive approaches that try to describe
intangible (such as an idea, a scientific theory, a musical thought mechanisms and techniques for creative think-
composition or a joke) or a physical object (such as an ing. Theories invoking divergent rather than convergent
invention, a literary work or a painting). thinking (such as Guilford), or those describing the stag-
Scholarly interest in creativity involves many definitions ing of the creative process (such as Wallas) are primarily
and concepts pertaining to a number of disciplines: theories of creative process. A focus on creative product
psychology, cognitive science, education, philosophy usually appears in attempts to measure creativity (psy-
(particularly philosophy of science), technology, chometrics, see below) and in creative ideas framed as
theology, sociology, linguistics, business studies, successful memes.[6] The psychometric approach to cre-
songwriting, and economics, covering the relations ativity reveals that it also involves the ability to produce
between creativity and general intelligence, mental and more.[7] A focus on the nature of the creative person con-
neurological processes, personality type and creative siders more general intellectual habits, such as openness,
ability, creativity and mental health; the potential for levels of ideation, autonomy, expertise, exploratory be-
fostering creativity through education and training, espe- havior and so on. A focus on place considers the cir-
cially as augmented by technology; and the application cumstances in which creativity flourishes, such as degrees
of creative resources to improve the effectiveness of of autonomy, access to resources and the nature of gate-
teaching and learning. keepers. Creative lifestyles are characterized by noncon-
forming attitudes and behaviors as well as flexibility.[7]

1 Definition
3 Etymology
In a summary of scientific research into creativity,
Michael Mumford suggested: “Over the course of the The lexeme in the English word creativity comes from the
last decade, however, we seem to have reached a gen- Latin term creō “to create, make": its derivational suffixes
eral agreement that creativity involves the production of also come from Latin. The word “create” appeared in En-
novel, useful products” (Mumford, 2003, p. 110),[1] or, glish as early as the 14th century, notably in Chaucer, to
in Robert Sternberg's words, the production of “some- indicate divine creation[8] (in The Parson’s Tale[9] ). How-
thing original and worthwhile”.[2] Authors have diverged ever, its modern meaning as an act of human creation did
dramatically in their precise definitions beyond these not emerge until after the Enlightenment.[8]
general commonalities: Peter Meusburger reckons that
over a hundred different analyses can be found in the
literature.[3] As an illustration, one definition given by Dr. 4 History of the concept
E. Paul Torrance described it as “a process of becoming
sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge,
Main article: History of the concept of creativity
missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying
the difficulty; searching for solutions, making guesses,
or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies:testing
and retesting these hypotheses and possibly modify-
ing and retesting them; and finally communicating the
4.1 Ancient views
results.”[4]
Most ancient cultures, including thinkers of Ancient
Greece,[10] Ancient China, and Ancient India,[11] lacked
the concept of creativity, seeing art as a form of discov-
2 Aspects ery and not creation. The ancient Greeks had no terms
corresponding to “to create” or “creator” except for the
Theories of creativity (particularly investigation of why expression "poiein" (“to make”), which only applied to
some people are more creative than others) have focused poiesis (poetry) and to the poietes (poet, or “maker”) who
on a variety of aspects. The dominant factors are usually made it. Plato did not believe in art as a form of creation.
identified as “the four Ps” — process, product, person Asked in The Republic,[12] “Will we say, of a painter,

1
2 4 HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT

abilities of the individual, and not God. This could be at-

tributed to the leading intellectual movement of the time,
aptly named humanism, which developed an intensely
human-centric outlook on the world, valuing the intellect
and achievement of the individual.[17] From this philos-
ophy arose the Renaissance man (or polymath), an indi-
vidual who embodies the principals of humanism in their
ceaseless courtship with knowledge and creation.[18] One
of the most well-known and immensely accomplished ex-
amples is Leonardo da Vinci.
However, this shift was gradual and would not become
immediately apparent until the Enlightenment.[16] By the
18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, mention of
creativity (notably in aesthetics), linked with the concept
of imagination, became more frequent.[19] In the writing
of Thomas Hobbes, imagination became a key element
of human cognition;[8] William Duff was one of the first
to identify imagination as a quality of genius, typifying
the separation being made between talent (productive, but
Greek philosophers like Plato rejected the concept of creativity, breaking no new ground) and genius.[15]
preferring to see art as a form of discovery. Asked in The Re-
As a direct and independent topic of study, creativity ef-
public, “Will we say, of a painter, that he makes something?",
fectively received no attention until the 19th century.[15]
Plato answers, “Certainly not, he merely imitates.”[10]
Runco and Albert argue that creativity as the subject of
proper study began seriously to emerge in the late 19th
that he makes something?", he answers, “Certainly not, century with the increased interest in individual differ-
he merely imitates.”[10] ences inspired by the arrival of Darwinism. In particular
they refer to the work of Francis Galton, who through his
It is commonly argued that the notion of “creativity” eugenicist outlook took a keen interest in the heritabil-
originated in Western culture through Christianity, as a ity of intelligence, with creativity taken as an aspect of
matter of divine inspiration.[8] According to the histo- genius.[8]
rian Daniel J. Boorstin, “the early Western conception
of creativity was the Biblical story of creation given in In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, leading mathe-
the Genesis.”[13] However, this is not creativity in the maticians and scientists such as Hermann von Helmholtz
modern sense, which did not arise until the Renaissance. (1896) and Henri Poincaré (1908) began to reflect on and
In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, creativity was the sole publicly discuss their creative processes.
province of God; humans were not considered to have
the ability to create something new except as an expres-
sion of God’s work.[14] A concept similar to that of Chris- 4.3 Twentieth century to the present day
tianity existed in Greek culture, for instance, Muses were
seen as mediating inspiration from the Gods.[15] Romans The insights of Poincaré and von Helmholtz were built
and Greeks invoked the concept of an external creative on in early accounts of the creative process [20]
by pio-
"daemon" (Greek) or "genius" (Latin), linked to the sa- neering theorists such as Graham Wallas and Max
cred or the divine. However, none of these views are Wertheimer. In his work Art of Thought, published in
similar to the modern concept of creativity, and the in- 1926, Wallas presented one of the first models of the cre-
dividual was not seen as the cause of creation until the ative process. In the Wallas stage model, creative insights
Renaissance.[16] It was during the Renaissance that cre- and illuminations may be explained by a process consist-
ativity was first seen, not as a conduit for the divine, but ing of 5 stages:
from the abilities of "great men".[16]
(i) preparation (preparatory work on a problem
that focuses the individual’s mind on the prob-
4.2 The Enlightenment and after lem and explores the problem’s dimensions),
(ii) incubation (where the problem is internal-
The rejection of creativity in favor of discovery and the ized into the unconscious mind and nothing ap-
belief that individual creation was a conduit of the divine pears externally to be happening),
would dominate the West probably until the Renaissance
and even later.[14] The development of the modern con- (iii) intimation (the creative person gets a “feel-
cept of creativity begins in the Renaissance, when cre- ing” that a solution is on its way),
ation began to be perceived as having originated from the (iv) illumination or insight (where the creative
 3

idea bursts forth from its preconscious process- The contrast of terms “Big C” and “Little c” has been
ing into conscious awareness); widely used. Kozbelt, Beghetto and Runco use a little-
c/Big-C model to review major theories of creativity [26]
(v) verification (where the idea is consciously
Margaret Boden distinguishes between h-creativity (his-
verified, elaborated, and then applied).
torical) and p-creativity (personal).[28]
Robinson[29] and Anna Craft[30] have focused on creativ-
Wallas’ model is often treated as four stages, with “inti- ity in a general population, particularly with respect to ed-
mation” seen as a sub-stage. ucation. Craft makes a similar distinction between “high”
Wallas considered creativity to be a legacy of the and “little c” creativity.[30] and cites Ken Robinson as
evolutionary process, which allowed humans to quickly referring to “high” and “democratic” creativity. Mihály
adapt to rapidly changing environments. Simonton[21] Csíkszentmihályi[31] has defined creativity in terms of
provides an updated perspective on this view in his book, those individuals judged to have made significant cre-
Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. ative, perhaps domain-changing contributions. Simonton
has analysed the career trajectories of eminent creative
In 1927, Alfred North Whitehead gave the Gifford Lec-
people in order to map patterns and predictors of creative
tures at the University of Edinburgh, later published as
[22] productivity.[32]
Process and Reality. He is credited with having coined
the term “creativity” to serve as the ultimate category
of his metaphysical scheme: “Whitehead actually coined
the term – our term, still the preferred currency of ex- 5 Theories of creative processes
change among literature, science, and the arts. . . a
term that quickly became so popular, so omnipresent, that There has been much empirical study in psychology and
its invention within living memory, and by Alfred North cognitive science of the processes through which creativ-
Whitehead of all people, quickly became occluded”.[23] ity occurs. Interpretation of the results of these studies
The formal psychometric measurement of creativity, has led to several possible explanations of the sources and
from the standpoint of orthodox psychological literature, methods of creativity.
is usually considered to have begun with J. P. Guilford's
1950 address to the American Psychological Association,
5.1 Incubation
which helped popularize the topic[24] and focus attention
on a scientific approach to conceptualizing creativity. (It
Incubation is a temporary break from creative problem
should be noted that the London School of Psychology
solving that can result in insight.[33] There has been some
had instigated psychometric studies of creativity as early
empirical research looking at whether, as the concept of
as 1927 with the work of H. L. Hargreaves into the Fac-
“incubation” in Wallas’ model implies, a period of inter-
ulty of Imagination,[25] but it did not have the same im-
ruption or rest from a problem may aid creative problem-
pact.) Statistical analysis led to the recognition of cre-
solving. Ward[34] lists various hypotheses that have been
ativity (as measured) as a separate aspect of human cog-
advanced to explain why incubation may aid creative
nition to IQ-type intelligence, into which it had previously
problem-solving, and notes how some empirical evidence
been subsumed. Guilford’s work suggested that above a
is consistent with the hypothesis that incubation aids cre-
threshold level of IQ, the relationship between creativity
ative problem-solving in that it enables “forgetting” of
and classically measured intelligence broke down.[26]
misleading clues. Absence of incubation may lead the
problem solver to become fixated on inappropriate strate-
gies of solving the problem.[35] This work disputes the
4.4 “Four C” model earlier hypothesis that creative solutions to problems arise
mysteriously from the unconscious mind while the con-
James C. Kaufman and Beghetto introduced a “four C” scious mind is occupied on other tasks.[36] This earlier
model of creativity; mini-c (“transformative learning” in- hypothesis is discussed in Csikszentmihalyi's five phase
volving “personally meaningful interpretations of expe- model of the creative process which describes incubation
riences, actions and insights”), little-c (everyday prob- as a time that your unconscious takes over. This allows for
lem solving and creative expression), Pro-C (exhibited unique connections to be made without your conscious-
by people who are professionally or vocationally cre- ness trying to make logical order out of the problem.[37]
ative though not necessarily eminent) and Big-C (creativ-
ity considered great in the given field). This model was
intended to help accommodate models and theories of 5.2 Convergent and divergent thinking
creativity that stressed competence as an essential com-
ponent and the historical transformation of a creative do- J. P. Guilford[38] drew a distinction between convergent
main as the highest mark of creativity. It also, the authors and divergent production (commonly renamed conver-
argued, made a useful framework for analyzing creative gent and divergent thinking). Convergent thinking in-
processes in individuals.[27] volves aiming for a single, correct solution to a problem,
4 5 THEORIES OF CREATIVE PROCESSES

whereas divergent thinking involves creative generation science that dealt with metaphor, analogy and structure
of multiple answers to a set problem. Divergent thinking mapping have been converging, and a new integrative ap-
is sometimes used as a synonym for creativity in psychol- proach to the study of creativity in science, art and humor
ogy literature. Other researchers have occasionally used has emerged under the label conceptual blending.
the terms flexible thinking or fluid intelligence, which are
roughly similar to (but not synonymous with) creativity.
5.6 Honing theory

5.3 Creative cognition approach Honing theory posits that creativity arises due to the self-
organizing, self-mending nature of a worldview, and that
In 1992, Finke et al. proposed the “Geneplore” model, in it is by way of the creative process the individual hones
which creativity takes place in two phases: a generative (and re-hones) an integrated worldview. Honing theory
phase, where an individual constructs mental represen- places equal emphasis on the externally visible creative
tations called preinventive structures, and an exploratory outcome and the internal cognitive restructuring brought
phase where those structures are used to come up with about by the creative process. Indeed, one factor that
creative ideas. Some evidence shows that when people distinguishes it from other theories of creativity is that
use their imagination to develop new ideas, those ideas it focuses on not just restructuring as it pertains to the
are heavily structured in predictable ways by the proper- conception of the task, but as it pertains to the world-
ties of existing categories and concepts.[39] Weisberg[40] view as a whole. When faced with a creatively demand-
argued, by contrast, that creativity only involves ordinary ing task, there is an interaction between the conception
cognitive processes yielding extraordinary results. of the task and the worldview. The conception of the
task changes through interaction with the worldview, and
the worldview changes through interaction with the task.
5.4 The Explicit–Implicit Interaction (EII) This interaction is reiterated until the task is complete, at
theory which point not only is the task conceived of differently,
but the worldview is subtly or drastically transformed.
Thus another distinguishing feature of honing theory is
Helie and Sun[41] recently proposed a unified framework
that the creative process reflects the natural tendency of a
for understanding creativity in problem solving, namely
worldview to attempt to resolve dissonance and seek in-
the Explicit–Implicit Interaction (EII) theory of creativ-
ternal consistency amongst its components, whether they
ity. This new theory constitutes an attempt at providing a
be ideas, attitudes, or bits of knowledge; it mends itself
more unified explanation of relevant phenomena (in part
as does a body when it has been injured.
by reinterpreting/integrating various fragmentary existing
theories of incubation and insight). The EII theory re- Yet another central, distinguishing feature of honing the-
lies mainly on five basic principles, namely 1) The co- ory is the notion of a potentiality state.[43] Honing the-
existence of and the difference between explicit and im- ory posits that creative thought proceeds not by searching
plicit knowledge; 2) The simultaneous involvement of im- through and randomly ‘mutating’ predefined possibilities,
plicit and explicit processes in most tasks; 3) The redun- but by drawing upon associations that exist due to overlap
dant representation of explicit and implicit knowledge; in the distributed neural cell assemblies that participate in
4) The integration of the results of explicit and implicit the encoding of experiences in memory. Midway through
processing; and 5) The iterative (and possibly bidirec- the creative process one may have made associations be-
tional) processing. A computational implementation of tween the current task and previous experiences, but not
the theory was developed based on the CLARION cog- yet disambiguated which aspects of those previous expe-
nitive architecture and used to simulate relevant human riences are relevant to the current task. Thus the creative
data. This work represents an initial step in the develop- idea may feel ‘half-baked’. It is at that point that it can
ment of process-based theories of creativity encompass- be said to be in a potentiality state, because how it will
ing incubation, insight, and various other related phenom- actualize depends on the different internally or externally
ena. generated contexts it interacts with.
Honing theory can account for many phenomena that are
not readily explained by other theories of creativity. For
5.5 Conceptual blending example, creativity was commonly thought to be fostered
by a supportive, nurturing, trustworthy environment con-
Main article: Conceptual blending ducive to self-actualization. However, research shows
that creativity is actually associated with childhood adver-
In The Act of Creation, Arthur Koestler introduced the sity, which would stimulate honing. Honing theory also
concept of bisociation—that creativity arises as a re- makes several predictions that differ from what would be
sult of the intersection of two quite different frames of predicted by other theories. For example, empirical sup-
reference.[42] This idea was later developed into concep- port has been obtained using analogy problem solving ex-
tual blending. In the '90s, various approaches in cognitive periments for the proposal that midway through the cre-
6.3 Social-personality approach 5

ative process one’s mind is in a potentiality state. Other • Remote Consequences, where participants are
experiments show that different works by the same cre- asked to generate a list of consequences of unex-
ator exhibit a recognizable style or 'voice', and that this pected events (e.g. loss of gravity)
same recognizable quality even comes through in differ-
ent creative outlets. This is not predicted by theories of Building on Guilford’s work, Torrance[48] developed the
creativity that emphasize chance processes or the accu- Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking in 1966.[49] They
mulation of expertise, but it is predicted by honing theory, involved simple tests of divergent thinking and other
according to which personal style reflects the creator’s problem-solving skills, which were scored on:
uniquely structured worldview. This theory has been de-
veloped by Liane Gabora.
• Fluency – The total number of interpretable, mean-
ingful and relevant ideas generated in response to the
stimulus.
5.7 Everyday imaginative thought
• Originality – The statistical rarity of the responses
In everyday thought, people often spontaneously imag- among the test subjects.
ine alternatives to reality when they think “if only...”.[44]
Their counterfactual thinking is viewed as an example • Elaboration – The amount of detail in the re-
of everyday creative processes.[45] It has been proposed sponses.
that the creation of counterfactual alternatives to real-
ity depends on similar cognitive processes to rational The Creativity Achievement Questionnaire, a self-report
thought.[46] test that measures creative achievement across 10 do-
mains, was described in 2005 and shown to be reliable
and valid when compared to other measures of creativity
6 Assessing individual creative and to independent evaluation of creative output.[50]
ability Such tests, sometimes called Divergent Thinking (DT)
tests have been both supported[51] and criticized.[52]

6.1 Creativity quotient Considerable progress has been made in automated scor-
ing of Divergent Thinking tests using semantic approach.
Several attempts have been made to develop a creativity When compared to human raters, NLP techniques were
quotient of an individual similar to the intelligence quo- shown to be reliable and valid in scoring
[53][54]
the originality
tient (IQ), however these have been unsuccessful. [47] (when compared to human raters). The reported
computer programs were able to achieve a correlation of
0.60 and 0.72 respectively to human graders.
6.2 Psychometric approach Semantic networks were also used to devise originality
scores that yielded significant correlations with socio-
J. P. Guilford's group,[38] which pioneered the modern personal measures.[55] Most recently, An NSF-funded[56]
psychometric study of creativity, constructed several tests team of researchers led by James C. Kaufman and Mark
to measure creativity in 1967: A. Runco[57] combined expertise in creativity research,
natural language processing, computational linguistics,
• Plot Titles, where participants are given the plot of and statistical data analysis to devise a scalable system
a story and asked to write original titles. for computerized automated testing (SparcIt Creativity
Index Testing system). This system enabled automated
• Quick Responses is a word-association test scored scoring of DT tests that is reliable, objective, and scal-
for uncommonness. able, thus addressing most of the issues of DT tests that
had been found and reported.[52] The resultant computer
• Figure Concepts, where participants were given sim- system was able to achieve a correlation of 0.73 to human
ple drawings of objects and individuals and asked to graders.[58]
find qualities or features that are common by two or
more drawings; these were scored for uncommon-
ness. 6.3 Social-personality approach

• Unusual Uses is finding unusual uses for common Some researchers have taken a social-personality ap-
everyday objects such as bricks. proach to the measurement of creativity. In these stud-
ies, personality traits such as independence of judge-
• Remote Associations, where participants are asked ment, self-confidence, attraction to complexity, aesthetic
to find a word between two given words (e.g. Hand orientation and risk-taking are used as measures of the
_____ Call) creativity of individuals.[24] A meta-analysis by Gregory
6 7 CREATIVITY AND INTELLIGENCE

Feist showed that creative people tend to be “more open 4. Creativity and intelligence are part of the same con-
to new experiences, less conventional and less conscien- struct (coincident sets)
tious, more self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambi-
tious, dominant, hostile,and impulsive.” Openness, con- 5. Creativity and intelligence are distinct constructs
scientiousness, self-acceptance, hostility and impulsivity (disjoint sets)
had the strongest effects of the traits listed.[59] Within the
framework of the Big Five model of personality some
consistent traits have emerged.[60] Openness to experi- 7.1 Creativity as a subset of intelligence
ence has been shown to be consistently related to a whole
host of different assessments of creativity.[61] Among A number of researchers include creativity, either explic-
the other Big Five traits, research has demonstrated sub- itly or implicitly, as a key component of intelligence.
tle differences between different domains of creativity. Examples of theories that include creativity as a subset of
Compared to non-artists, artists tend to have higher levels intelligence
of openness to experience and lower levels of conscien-
tiousness, while scientists are more open to experience, • Gardner’s Theory of multiple intelligences (MIT)[70]
conscientious, and higher in the confidence-dominance – implicitly includes creativity as a subset of MIT.
facets of extraversion compared to non-scientists.[59] To demonstrate this, Gardner cited examples of dif-
ferent famous creators, each of whom differed in
their types of intelligences e.g. Picasso (spatial in-
7 Creativity and intelligence telligence); Freud (intrapersonal); Einstein (logical-
mathematical); and Gandhi (interpersonal).
The potential relationship between creativity and
• Sternberg’s Theory of Successful
Intelligence has been of interest since the late 1900s,
intelligence[68][69][71] (see Triarchic theory of
when a multitude of influential studies – from Getzels
intelligence) includes creativity as a main compo-
& Jackson,[62] Barron,[63] Wallach & Kogan,[64] and
nent, and comprises 3 sub-theories: Componential
Guilford[65] – focused not only on creativity, but also
(Analytic), Contextual (Practical) and Experiential
on intelligence. This joint focus highlights both the
(Creative). Experiential sub-theory – the ability
theoretical and practical importance of the relationship:
to use pre-existing knowledge and skills to solve
researchers are interested not only if the constructs are
new and novel problems – is directly related to
related, but also how and why.[66]
creativity.
There are multiple theories accounting for their relation-
ship, with the 3 main theories as follows: • The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory includes creativity
as a subset of intelligence. Specifically, it is associ-
ated with the broad group factor of long-term stor-
• Threshold Theory – Intelligence is a necessary, but
age and retrieval (Glr). Glr narrow abilities relat-
not sufficient condition for creativity. There is a
ing to creativity include:[72] ideational fluency, asso-
moderate positive relationship between creativity
ciational fluency and originality/creativity. Silvia et
and intelligence until IQ ~120 [63][65]
al.[73] conducted a study to look at the relationship
• Certification Theory – Creativity is not intrinsically between divergent thinking and verbal fluency tests,
related to intelligence. Instead individuals are re- and reported that both fluency and originality in di-
quired to meet the requisite level intelligence in vergent thinking were significantly affected by the
order to gain a certain level of education/work, broad level Glr factor. Martindale [74] extended the
which then in turn offers the opportunity to be CHC-theory in the sense that it was proposed that
creative. Displays of creativity are moderated by those individuals who are creative are also selective
intelligence[67] in their processing speed Martindale argues that in
the creative process, larger amounts of information
• Interference Theory – Extremely high intelligence are processed more slowly in the early stages, and as
might interfere with creative ability [68] the individual begins to understand the problem, the
processing speed is increased.
Sternberg and O’Hara[69] proposed a framework of 5 pos-
sible relationships between creativity and intelligence: • The Dual Process Theory of Intelligence[75] posits
a two-factor/type model of intelligence. Type 1
is a conscious process, and concerns goal directed
1. Creativity is a subset of intelligence thoughts, which are explained by g. Type 2 is an un-
2. Intelligence is a subset of creativity conscious process, and concerns spontaneous cogni-
tion, which encompasses daydreaming and implicit
3. Creativity and intelligence are overlapping con- learning ability. Kaufman argues that creativity oc-
structs curs as a result of Type 1 and Type 2 processes
7.3 Creativity and intelligence as overlapping yet distinct constructs 7

working together in combination. The use of each • Secondly are the subcomponents – general the-
Type in the creative process can be used to varying matic areas – that increase in specificity. Like
degrees. choosing which type of amusement park to
visit (e.g. a zoo or a water park), these areas
relate to the areas in which someone could be
7.2 Intelligence as a subset of creativity creative (e.g. poetry).

In this relationship model, intelligence is a key component • Thirdly there are specific domains. After
in the development of creativity. choosing the type of park to visit e.g. wa-
terpark, you then have to choose which spe-
Theories of creativity that include intelligence as a subset cific park to go to. Within the poetry domain,
of creativity there are many different types (e.g. free verse,
riddles, sonnet, etc.) that have to be selected
• Sternberg & Lubart’s Investment Theory.[76][77] Us- from.
ing the metaphor of a stock market, they demon- • Lastly, there are micro-domains. These are the
strate that creative thinkers are like good investors specific tasks that reside within each domain
– they buy low and sell high (in their ideas). Like e.g. individual lines in a free verse poem / in-
under/low-valued stock, creative individuals gener- dividual rides at the waterpark.
ate unique ideas that are initially rejected by other
people. The creative individual has to persevere,
and convince the others of the ideas value. After 7.3 Creativity and intelligence as overlap-
convincing the others, and thus increasing the ideas ping yet distinct constructs
value, the creative individual ‘sells high’ by leav-
ing the idea with the other people, and moves onto This possible relationship concerns creativity and intelli-
generating another idea. According to this theory, gence as distinct, but intersecting constructs.
six distinct, but related elements contribute to suc-
cessful creativity: intelligence, knowledge, think- Theories that include Creativity and Intelligence as Over-
ing styles, personality, motivation, and environment. lapping Yet Distinct Constructs
Intelligence is just one of the six factors that can ei-
ther solely, or in conjunction with the other five fac- • Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness.[81]
tors, generate creative thoughts. In this conceptualisation, giftedness occurs as a re-
sult from the overlap of above average intellectual
• Amabile’s Componential Model of Creativity.[78][79]
ability, creativity, and task commitment. Under this
In this model there are 3 within-individual compo-
view, creativity and intelligence are distinct con-
nents needed for creativity – domain-relevant skills,
structs, but they do overlap under the correct con-
creativity-relevant processes, and task motivation –
ditions.
and 1 component external to the individual: their
surrounding social environment. Creativity requires • PASS theory of intelligence. In this theory, the plan-
a confluence of all components. High creativity will ning component – relating to the ability to solve
result when an individual is: intrinsically motivated, problems, make decisions and take action – strongly
possesses both a high level of domain-relevant skills overlaps with the concept of creativity.[82]
and has high skills in creative thinking, and is work-
ing in a highly creative environment. • Threshold Theory (TT). A number of previous re-
search findings have suggested that a threshold ex-
• Amusement Park Theoretical Model.[80] In this 4- ists in the relationship between creativity and intel-
step theory, both domain-specific and generalist ligence – both constructs are moderately positively
views are integrated into a model of creativity. The correlated up to an IQ of ~120. Above this threshold
researchers make use of the metaphor of the amuse- of an IQ of 120, if there is a relationship at all, it is
ment park to demonstrate that within each of these small and weak.[62][63][83] TT posits that a moderate
creative levels, intelligence plays a key role: level of intelligence is necessary for creativity.
• To get into the amusement park, there are ini-
tial requirements (e.g., time/transport to go to In support of the TT, Barron [63][84] reported finding a
the park). Initial requirements (like intelli- non-significant correlation between creativity and intelli-
gence) are necessary, but not sufficient for cre- gence in a gifted sample; and a significant correlation in
ativity. They are more like prerequisites for a non-gifted sample. Yamamoto[85] in a sample of sec-
creativity, and if an individual does not possess ondary school children, reported a significant correlation
the basic level of the initial requirement (intel- between creativity and intelligence of r = .3, and reported
ligence), then they will not be able to generate no significant correlation when the sample consisted of
creative thoughts/behaviour. gifted children. Fuchs-Beauchamp et al.[86] in a sample
8 8 NEUROSCIENCE

of preschoolers found that creativity and intelligence cor- = .26. The high creativity group scored in the top 20% of
related from r = .19 to r = .49 in the group of children who the overall creativity measures, but were not included in
had an IQ below the threshold; and in the group above the the top 20% of IQ scorers. The high intelligence group
threshold, the correlations were r = <.12. Cho et al.[87] re- scored the opposite: they scored in the top 20% for IQ,
ported a correlation of .40 between creativity and intelli- but were outside the top 20% scorers for creativity, thus
gence in the average IQ group of a sample of adolescents showing that creativity and intelligence are distinct and
and adults; and a correlation of close to r = .0 for the unrelated.
high IQ group. Jauk et al.[88] found support for the TT, However, this work has been heavily criticised. Wal-
but only for measures of creative potential; not creative
lach and Kogan[64] highlighted that the creativity mea-
performance. sures were not only weakly related to one another (to the
Much modern day research reports findings against TT. extent that they were no more related to one another than
Wai et al.[89] in a study using data from the longitudi- they were with IQ), but they seemed to also draw upon
nal Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth – a co- non-creative skills. McNemar[94] noted that there were
hort of elite students from early adolescence into adult- major measurement issues, in that the IQ scores were a
hood – found that differences in SAT scores at age 13 mixture from 3 different IQ tests.
were predictive of creative real-life outcomes 20 years Wallach and Kogan[64] administered 5 measures of cre-
later. Kim’s[90] meta-analysis of 21 studies did not find ativity, each of which resulted in a score for originality
any supporting evidence for TT, and instead negligible and fluency; and 10 measures of general intelligence to
correlations were reported between intelligence, creativ- 151 5th grade children. These tests were untimed, and
ity, and divergent thinking both below and above IQ’s of given in a game-like manner (aiming to facilitate creativ-
120. Preckel et al.,[91] investigating fluid intelligence and ity). Inter-correlations between creativity tests were on
creativity, reported small correlations of r = .3 to r = .4 average r = .41. Inter-correlations between intelligence
across all levels of cognitive ability. measures were on average r = .51 with each other. Cre-
ativity tests and intelligence measures correlated r = .09.
7.4 Creativity and intelligence as coinci-
dent sets 8 Neuroscience
Under this view, researchers posit that there are no dif-
ferences in the mechanisms underlying creativity in those The neuroscience of creativity looks at the operation
used in normal problem solving; and in normal problem of the brain during creative behaviour. It has been
solving, there is no need for creativity. Thus, creativity addressed[95] in the article “Creative Innovation: Possi-
and Intelligence (problem solving) are the same thing. ble Brain Mechanisms.” The authors write that “creative
Perkins[92] referred to this as the ‘nothing-special’ view. innovation might require coactivation and communica-
tion between regions of the brain that ordinarily are not
Weisberg & Alba[93] examined problem solving by having strongly connected.” Highly creative people who excel at
participants complete the 9-dot problem (see Thinking creative innovation tend to differ from others in three
outside the box#Nine dots puzzle) – where the partici- ways:
pants are asked to connect all 9 dots in the 3 rows of 3
dots using 4 straight lines or less, without lifting their pen
• they have a high level of specialized knowledge,
or tracing the same line twice. The problem can only be
solved if the lines go outside the boundaries of the square • they are capable of divergent thinking mediated by
of dots. Results demonstrated that even when participants the frontal lobe.
were given this insight, they still found it difficult to solve
the problem, thus showing that to successfully complete • and they are able to modulate neurotransmitters such
the task it is not just insight (or creativity) that is required. as norepinephrine in their frontal lobe.

Thus, the frontal lobe appears to be the part of the cortex

7.5 Creativity and intelligence as disjoint that is most important for creativity.
sets This article also explored the links between creativity and
sleep, mood and addiction disorders, and depression.
In this view, creativity and intelligence are completely In 2005, Alice Flaherty presented a three-factor model
different, unrelated constructs. of the creative drive. Drawing from evidence in brain
Getzels and Jackson[62] administered 5 creativity mea- imaging, drug studies and lesion analysis, she described
sures to a group of 449 children from grades 6-12, and the creative drive as resulting from an interaction of the
compared these test findings to results from previously frontal lobes, the temporal lobes, and dopamine from the
administered (by the school) IQ tests. They found that the limbic system. The frontal lobes can be seen as respon-
correlation between the creativity measures and IQ was r sible for idea generation, and the temporal lobes for idea
8.2 REM sleep 9

editing and evaluation. Abnormalities in the frontal lobe ing memory and pre-language vocalization) that led to
(such as depression or anxiety) generally decrease cre- the evolution of language in humans.[108] Vandervert and
ativity, while abnormalities in the temporal lobe often in- Vandervert-Weathers have pointed out that this blend-
crease creativity. High activity in the temporal lobe typ- ing process, because it continuously optimizes efficien-
ically inhibits activity in the frontal lobe, and vice versa. cies, constantly improves prototyping attempts toward
High dopamine levels increase general arousal and goal the invention or innovation of new ideas, music, art, or
directed behaviors and reduce latent inhibition, and all technology.[109] Prototyping, they argue, not only pro-
three effects increase the drive to generate ideas.[96] A duces new products, it trains the cerebro-cerebellar path-
2015 study on creativity found that it involves the inter- ways involved to become more efficient at prototyping
action of multiple neural networks, including the those itself. Further, Vandervert and Vandervert-Weathers be-
that support associative thinking, along with other default lieve that this repetitive “mental prototyping” or mental
mode network functions.[97] rehearsal involving the cerebellum and the cerebral cor-
tex explains the success of the self-driven, individualized
patterning of repetitions initiated by the teaching meth-
8.1 Working memory and the cerebellum ods of the Khan Academy. The model proposed by Van-
dervert has however received incisive critique from sev-
Vandervert[98] described how the brain’s frontal lobes eral authors.[110][111]
and the cognitive functions of the cerebellum collabo-
rate to produce creativity and innovation. Vandervert’s
explanation rests on considerable evidence that all pro- 8.2 REM sleep
cesses of working memory (responsible for processing
all thought[99] ) are adaptively modeled for increased ef- Creativity involves the forming of associative elements
ficiency by the cerebellum.[100] The cerebellum (consist- into new combinations that are useful or meet some
ing of 100 billion neurons, which is more than the en- requirement. Sleep aids this process.[112] REM rather
tirety of the rest of the brain[101] ) is also widely known to than NREM sleep appears to be responsible.[113][114] This
adaptively model all bodily movement for efficiency. The has been suggested to be due to changes in cholinergic
cerebellum’s adaptive models of working memory pro- and noradrenergic neuromodulation that occurs during
cessing are then fed back to especially frontal lobe work- REM sleep.[113] During this period of sleep, high levels
ing memory control processes[102] where creative and in- of acetylcholine in the hippocampus suppress feedback
novative thoughts arise.[103] (Apparently, creative insight from the hippocampus to the neocortex, and lower lev-
or the “aha” experience is then triggered in the temporal els of acetylcholine and norepinephrine in the neocortex
lobe.[104] ) encourage the spread of associational activity within neo-
[115]
According to Vandervert, the details of creative adapta- cortical areas without control from the hippocampus.
tion begin in “forward” cerebellar models which are antic- This is in contrast to waking consciousness, where higher
ipatory/exploratory controls for movement and thought. levels of norepinephrine and acetylcholine inhibit re-
These cerebellar processing and control architectures current connections in the neocortex. It is proposed
have been termed Hierarchical Modular Selection and that REM sleep adds creativity by allowing “neocorti-
Identification for Control (HMOSAIC).[105] New, hierar- cal structures to reorganize associative hierarchies, in
chically arranged levels of the cerebellar control architec- which information from the hippocampus would be rein-
ture (HMOSAIC) develop as mental mulling in working terpreted in relation to previous semantic representations
[113]
memory is extended over time. These new levels of the or nodes.”
control architecture are fed forward to the frontal lobes.
Since the cerebellum adaptively models all movement and
all levels of thought and emotion,[106] Vandervert’s ap- 9 Affect
proach helps explain creativity and innovation in sports,
art, music, the design of video games, technology, math-
Some theories suggest that creativity may be particularly
ematics, the child prodigy, and thought in general.
susceptible to affective influence. As noted in voting be-
Essentially, Vandervert has argued that when a person is havior the term “affect” in this context can refer to liking
confronted with a challenging new situation, visual-spatial or disliking key aspects of the subject in question. This
working memory and speech-related working memory work largely follows from findings in psychology regard-
are decomposed and re-composed (fractionated) by the ing the ways in which affective states are involved in hu-
cerebellum and then blended in the cerebral cortex in an man judgment and decision-making.[116]
attempt to deal with the new situation. With repeated
attempts to deal with challenging situations, the cerebro-
cerebellar blending process continues to optimize the ef- 9.1 Positive affect relations
ficiency of how working memory deals with the situation
or problem.[107] Most recently, he has argued that this According to Alice Isen, positive affect has three primary
is the same process (only involving visual-spatial work- effects on cognitive activity:
10 11 MENTAL HEALTH

1. Positive affect makes additional cognitive material new observations before and after learning. This differ-
available for processing, increasing the number of ence depends on the encoder’s present subjective knowl-
cognitive elements available for association; edge, which changes over time, but the theory formally
takes this into account. The cost difference measures the
2. Positive affect leads to defocused attention and strength of the present “wow-effect” due to sudden im-
a more complex cognitive context, increasing the provements in data compression or computational speed.
breadth of those elements that are treated as rele- It becomes an intrinsic reward signal for the action se-
vant to the problem; lector. The objective function thus motivates the action
optimizer to create action sequences causing more wow-
3. Positive affect increases cognitive flexibility, in- effects. Irregular, random data (or noise) do not permit
creasing the probability that diverse cognitive el- any wow-effects or learning progress, and thus are “bor-
ements will in fact become associated. Together, ing” by nature (providing no reward). Already known
these processes lead positive affect to have a posi- and predictable regularities also are boring. Temporarily
tive influence on creativity. interesting are only the initially unknown, novel, regular
patterns in both actions and observations. This motivates
Barbara Fredrickson in her broaden-and-build model sug- the agent to perform continual, open-ended, active, cre-
gests that positive emotions such as joy and love broaden ative exploration.
a person’s available repertoire of cognitions and actions, According to Schmidhuber, his objective func-
thus enhancing creativity. tion explains the activities of scientists, artists and
[121][122]
According to these researchers, positive emotions in- comedians. For example, physicists are mo-
crease the number of cognitive elements available for as- tivated to create experiments leading to observations
sociation (attention scope) and the number of elements obeying previously unpublished physical laws permitting
that are relevant to the problem (cognitive scope). better data compression. Likewise, composers receive
intrinsic reward for creating non-arbitrary melodies
Various meta-analyses, such as Baas et al. (2008) of 66 with unexpected but regular harmonies that permit
studies about creativity and affect support the link be- wow-effects through data compression improvements.
tween creativity and positive affect[117][118] Similarly, a comedian gets intrinsic reward for “inventing
a novel joke with an unexpected punch line, related to
the beginning of the story in an initially unexpected
10 Creativity and artificial intelli- but quickly learnable way that also [123] allows for better
compression of the perceived data.” Schmidhuber
gence argues that that ongoing computer hardware advances
will greatly scale up rudimentary artificial scientists and
Jürgen Schmidhuber's formal theory of creativity[119][120] artists based on simple implementations of the basic
[124]
postulates that creativity, curiosity and interestingness principle since 1990. He used the theory to create
[125]
are by-products of a simple computational principle for low-complexity art and an attractive human face.[126]
measuring and optimizing learning progress. Consider
an agent able to manipulate its environment and thus its
own sensory inputs. The agent can use a black box opti- 11 Mental health
mization method such as reinforcement learning to learn
(through informed trial and error) sequences of actions
that maximize the expected sum of its future reward sig- Main article: Creativity and mental illness
nals. There are extrinsic reward signals for achieving ex-
ternally given goals, such as finding food when hungry. A study by psychologist J. Philippe Rushton found cre-
But Schmidhuber’s objective function to be maximized ativity to correlate with intelligence and psychoticism.[127]
also includes an additional, intrinsic term to model “wow- Another study found creativity to be greater in
effects.” This non-standard term motivates purely creative schizotypal than in either normal or schizophrenic
behavior of the agent even when there are no external individuals. While divergent thinking was associated
goals. A wow-effect is formally defined as follows. As with bilateral activation of the prefrontal cortex, schizo-
the agent is creating and predicting and encoding the con- typal individuals were found to have much greater
tinually growing history of actions and sensory inputs, activation of their right prefrontal cortex.[128] This
it keeps improving the predictor or encoder, which can study hypothesizes that such individuals are better at
be implemented as an artificial neural network or some accessing both hemispheres, allowing them to make
other machine learning device that can exploit regulari- novel associations at a faster rate. In agreement with
ties in the data to improve its performance over time. The this hypothesis, ambidexterity is also associated with
improvements can be measured precisely, by computing schizotypal and schizophrenic individuals. Three recent
the difference in computational costs (storage size, num- studies by Mark Batey and Adrian Furnham have demon-
ber of required synapses, errors, time) needed to encode strated the relationships between schizotypal[129][130]
 11

[131]
and hypomanic personality and several different (ii) Imagine (Breakthrough Ideas)
measures of creativity. (iii) Improve (Incremental Adjustments)
Particularly strong links have been identified between cre- (iv) Invest (Short-term Goals)
ativity and mood disorders, particularly manic-depressive
disorder (a.k.a. bipolar disorder) and depressive disorder Research by Dr Mark Batey of the Psychometrics at
(a.k.a. unipolar disorder). In Touched with Fire: Manic- Work Research Group at Manchester Business School has
Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament, Kay Red- suggested that the creative profile can be explained by
field Jamison summarizes studies of mood-disorder rates four primary creativity traits with narrow facets within
in writers, poets and artists. She also explores re- each
search that identifies mood disorders in such famous writ-
ers and artists as Ernest Hemingway (who shot him-
(i) “Idea Generation” (Fluency, Originality, In-
self after electroconvulsive treatment), Virginia Woolf
cubation and Illumination)
(who drowned herself when she felt a depressive episode
coming on), composer Robert Schumann (who died in (ii) “Personality” (Curiosity and Tolerance for
a mental institution), and even the famed visual artist Ambiguity)
Michelangelo. (iii) “Motivation” (Intrinsic, Extrinsic and
A study looking at 300,000 persons with schizophrenia, Achievement)
bipolar disorder or unipolar depression, and their rela- (iv) “Confidence” (Producing, Sharing and Im-
tives, found overrepresentation in creative professions for plementing)
those with bipolar disorder as well as for undiagnosed
siblings of those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. This model was developed in a sample of 1000 working
There was no overall overrepresentation, but overrepre- adults using the statistical techniques of Exploratory Fac-
sentation for artistic occupations, among those diagnosed tor Analysis followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis by
with schizophrenia. There was no association for those Structural Equation Modelling.[136]
with unipolar depression or their relatives. [132]
An important aspect of the creativity profiling approach
Another study involving more than one million people, is to account for the tension between predicting the cre-
conducted by Swedish researchers at the Karolinska In- ative profile of an individual, as characterised by the
stitute, reported a number of correlations between cre- psychometric approach, and the evidence that team cre-
ative occupations and mental illnesses. Writers had a ativity is founded on diversity and difference.[137]
higher risk of anxiety and bipolar disorders, schizophre-
One characteristic of creative people, as measured by
nia, unipolar depression, and substance abuse, and were
some psychologists, is what is called divergent produc-
almost twice as likely as the general population to kill
tion. divergent production is the ability of a person to
themselves. Dancers and photographers were also more
generate a diverse assortment, yet an appropriate amount
likely to have bipolar disorder.[133]
of responses to a given situation.[138] One way of mea-
However, as a group, those in the creative professions suring divergent production is by administering the Tor-
were no more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders rance Tests of Creative Thinking.[139] The Torrance Tests
than other people, although they were more likely to have of Creative Thinking assesses the diversity, quantity, and
a close relative with a disorder, including anorexia and, to appropriateness of participants responses to a variety of
some extent, autism, the Journal of Psychiatric Research open-ended questions.
reports.[133]
Other researchers of creativity see the difference in cre-
According to psychologist Robert Epstein, PhD, creativ- ative people as a cognitive process of dedication to prob-
ity can be obstructed through stress.[134] lem solving and developing expertise in the field of their
creative expression. Hard working people study the work
of people before them and within their current area, be-
come experts in their fields, and then have the ability to
12 Creativity and personality add to and build upon previous information in innovative
and creative ways. In a study of projects by design stu-
Creativity can be expressed in a number of different dents, students who had more knowledge on their subject
forms, depending on unique people and environments. A on average had greater creativity within their projects.[140]
number of different theorists have suggested models of
The aspect of motivation within a person’s personality
the creative person. One model suggests that there are
may predict creativity levels in the person. Motivation
kinds to produce growth, innovation, speed, etc. These
stems from two different sources, intrinsic and extrin-
are referred to as the four “Creativity Profiles” that can
sic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is an internal drive
help achieve such goals.[135]
within a person to participate or invest as a result of per-
sonal interest, desires, hopes, goals, etc. Extrinsic mo-
(i) Incubate (Long-term Development) tivation is a drive from outside of a person and might
12 14 IN ORGANIZATIONS

take the form of payment, rewards, fame, approval from of the individual attributes of a creative person, such as
others, etc. Although extrinsic motivation and intrinsic their aesthetic taste, while Chinese people view creativ-
motivation can both increase creativity in certain cases, ity more in terms of the social influence of creative peo-
strictly extrinsic motivation often impedes creativity in ple e.g. what they can contribute to society.[147] Mpofu
people.[141] et al. surveyed 28 African languages and found that 27
From a personality-traits perspective, there are a number had no word which directly translated to 'creativity' (the
of traits that are associated with creativity in people.[142] exception being Arabic).[148] The principle of linguistic
Creative people tend to be more open to new experi- relativity, i.e. that language can affect thought, suggests
that the lack of an equivalent word for 'creativity' may af-
ences, are more self-confident, are more ambitious, self-
accepting, impulsive, driven, dominant, and hostile, com- fect the views of creativity among speakers of such lan-
guages. However, more research would be needed to es-
pared to people with less creativity.
tablish this, and there is certainly no suggestion that this
From an evolutionary perspective, creativity may be a re- linguistic difference makes people any less (or more) cre-
sult of the outcome of years of generating ideas. As ideas ative; Africa has a rich heritage of creative pursuits such
are continuously generated, the need to evolve produces a as music, art, and storytelling. Nevertheless, it is true
need for new ideas and developments. As a result, people that there has been very little research on creativity in
have been creating and developing new, innovative, and Africa,[149] and there has also been very little research
creative ideas to build our progress as a society.[143] on creativity in Latin America.[150] Creativity has been
In studying exceptionally creative people in history, some more thoroughly researched in the northern hemisphere,
common traits in lifestyle and environment are often but here again there are cultural differences, even be-
found. Creative people in history usually had supportive tween countries or groups of countries in close proxim-
parents, but rigid and non-nurturing. Most had an interest ity. For example, in Scandinavian countries, creativity
in their field at an early age, and most had a highly sup- is seen as an individual attitude which helps in coping
portive and skilled mentor in their field of interest. Of- with life’s challenges,[151] while in Germany, creativity is
ten the field they chose was relatively uncharted, allowing seen more as a process that can be applied to help solve
for their creativity to be expressed more in a field with problems.[152]
less previous information. Most exceptionally creative
people devoted almost all of their time and energy into
their craft, and after about a decade had a creative break-
through of fame. Their lives were marked with extreme
14 In organizations
dedication and a cycle of hard-work and breakthroughs
as a result of their determination [144]
Another theory of creative people is the investment the-
ory of creativity. This approach suggest that there are
many individual and environmental factors that must ex-
ist in precise ways for extremely high levels of creativ-
ity opposed to average levels of creativity. In the invest-
ment sense, a person with their particular characteristics
in their particular environment may see an opportunity
to devote their time and energy into something that has
been overlooked by others. The creative person develops
an undervalued or under-recognised idea to the point that
it is established as a new and creative idea. Just like in
the financial world, some investments are worth the buy
in, while others are less productive and do not build to the Training meeting in an eco-design stainless steel company in
extent that the investor expected. This investment theory Brazil. The leaders among other things wish to cheer and encour-
of creativity views creativity in a unique perspective com- age the workers in order to achieve a higher level of creativity.
pared to others, by asserting that creativity might rely to
some extent on the right investment of effort being added It has been the topic of various research studies to es-
to a field at the right time in the right way.[145] tablish that organizational effectiveness depends on the
creativity of the workforce to a large extent. For any
given organization, measures of effectiveness vary, de-
pending upon its mission, environmental context, nature
13 Creativity across cultures of work, the product or service it produces, and customer
demands. Thus, the first step in evaluating organizational
Creativity is viewed differently in different countries.[146] effectiveness is to understand the organization itself —
For example, cross-cultural research centred on Hong how it functions, how it is structured, and what it empha-
Kong found that Westerners view creativity more in terms sizes.
 13

Amabile[153] argued that to enhance creativity in business, 15 Economic views of creativity

three components were needed:
Economic approaches to creativity have focussed on three
• Expertise (technical, procedural and intellectual aspects — the impact of creativity on economic growth,
knowledge), methods of modelling markets for creativity, and the
• Creative thinking skills (how flexibly and imagina- maximisation of economic creativity (innovation).
tively people approach problems), In the early 20th century, Joseph Schumpeter intro-
duced the economic theory of creative destruction, to de-
• and Motivation (especially intrinsic motivation).
scribe the way in which old ways of doing things are en-
dogenously destroyed and replaced by the new. Some
There are two types of motivation: economists (such as Paul Romer) view creativity as an im-
portant element in the recombination of elements to pro-
• extrinsic motivation – external factors, for example duce new technologies and products and, consequently,
threats of being fired or money as a reward, economic growth. Creativity leads to capital, and creative
products are protected by intellectual property laws.
• intrinsic motivation – comes from inside an individ-
ual, satisfaction, enjoyment of work etc. Mark A. Runco and Daniel Rubenson have tried to de-
scribe a "psychoeconomic" model of creativity.[158] In
Six managerial practices to encourage motivation are: such a model, creativity is the product of endowments and
active investments in creativity; the costs and benefits of
• Challenge – matching people with the right assign- bringing creative activity to market determine the supply
ments; of creativity. Such an approach has been criticised for
its view of creativity consumption as always having posi-
• Freedom – giving people autonomy choosing means tive utility, and for the way it analyses the value of future
to achieve goals; innovations.[159]
• Resources – such as time, money, space etc. There The creative class is seen by some to be an important
must be balance fit among resources and people; driver of modern economies. In his 2002 book, The Rise
of the Creative Class, economist Richard Florida popular-
• Work group features – diverse, supportive teams, ized the notion that regions with “3 T’s of economic de-
where members share the excitement, willingness to velopment: Technology, Talent and Tolerance” also have
help and recognize each other’s talents; high concentrations of creative professionals and tend to
• Supervisory encouragement – recognitions, cheer- have a higher level of economic development.
ing, praising;
• Organizational support – value emphasis, informa-
tion sharing, collaboration. 16 Fostering creativity
Nonaka, who examined several successful Japanese com- Main article: Creativity techniques
panies, similarly saw creativity and knowledge creation
as being important to the success of organizations.[154] In
Daniel Pink, in his 2005 book A Whole New Mind, re-
particular, he emphasized the role that tacit knowledge
peating arguments posed throughout the 20th century, ar-
has to play in the creative process.
gues that we are entering a new age where creativity is be-
In business, originality is not enough. The idea must also coming increasingly important. In this conceptual age, we
be appropriate—useful and actionable.[155][156] Creative will need to foster and encourage right-directed thinking
competitive intelligence is a new solution to solve this (representing creativity and emotion) over left-directed
problem. According to Reijo Siltala it links creativity thinking (representing logical, analytical thought). How-
to innovation process and competitive intelligence to cre- ever, this simplification of 'right' versus 'left' brain think-
ative workers. ing is not supported by the research data.[160]
Creativity can be encouraged in people and professionals Nickerson[161] provides a summary of the various creativ-
and in the workplace. It is essential for innovation, and ity techniques that have been proposed. These include
is a factor affecting economic growth and businesses. In approaches that have been developed by both academia
2013 the sociologist Silvia Leal Martín, using the Innova and industry:
3DX method, suggested measuring the various parame-
ters that encourage creativity and innovation: corporate
culture, work environment, leadership and management, 1. Establishing purpose and intention
creativity, self-esteem and optimism, locus of control and
learning orientation, motivation and fear.[157] 2. Building basic skills
14 18 NOTES

3. Encouraging acquisitions of domain-specific knowl- of Inventive Problem Solving (developed by the Rus-
edge sian scientist Genrich Altshuller), and Computer-Aided
Morphological analysis.
4. Stimulating and rewarding curiosity and exploration

5. Building motivation, especially internal motivation

17 See also
6. Encouraging confidence and a willingness to take
risks
• Adaptive performance
7. Focusing on mastery and self-competition
• Brainstorming
8. Promoting supportable beliefs about creativity
• Computational creativity
9. Providing opportunities for choice and discovery
• Confabulation (neural networks)
10. Developing self-management (metacognitive skills)
• E-scape, a technology and approach that looks
11. Teaching techniques and strategies for facilitating specifically at the assessment of creativity and col-
creative performance laboration.
12. Providing balance • Edward de Bono

Some see the conventional system of schooling as “sti- • Greatness

fling” of creativity and attempt (particularly in the pre-
• Heroic theory of invention and scientific develop-
school/kindergarten and early school years) to provide
ment
a creativity-friendly, rich, imagination-fostering environ-
ment for young children.[161][162][163] Researchers have • Innovation
seen this as important because technology is advancing
our society at an unprecedented rate and creative problem • Invention (such as “artistic invention” in the Visual
solving will be needed to cope with these challenges as Arts)
they arise.[163] In addition to helping with problem solv-
ing, creativity also helps students identify problems where • Lateral thinking
others have failed to do so.[161][162][164] See the Waldorf
• Learned industriousness
School as an example of an education program that pro-
motes creative thought. • Malevolent creativity
Promoting intrinsic motivation and problem solving are
two areas where educators can foster creativity in stu- • Multiple discovery
dents. Students are more creative when they see • Music therapy
a task as intrinsically motivating, valued for its own
sake.[162][163][165][166] To promote creative thinking ed- • Musical improvisation
ucators need to identify what motivates their students
and structure teaching around it. Providing students with • Tony Buzan
a choice of activities to complete allows them to be-
come more intrinsically motivated and therefore creative • Why Man Creates (film)
in completing the tasks.[161][167]
Teaching students to solve problems that do not have well
defined answers is another way to foster their creativ-
18 Notes
ity. This is accomplished by allowing students to explore
problems and redefine them, possibly drawing on knowl- [1] Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are
edge that at first may seem unrelated to the problem in we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity
Research Journal, 15, 107–120.
order to solve it.[161][162][163][165]
Several different researchers have proposed methods of [2] Sternberg, Robert J. (2011). “Creativity”. Cognitive Psy-
increasing the creativity of an individual. Such ideas chology (6 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 479. ISBN 978-1-
range from the psychological-cognitive, such as Osborn- 133-38701-5.
Parnes Creative Problem Solving Process, Synectics, [3] Meusburger, Peter (2009). “Milieus of Creativity: The
Science-based creative thinking, Purdue Creative Think- Role of Places, Environments and Spatial Contexts”. In
ing Program, and Edward de Bono's lateral thinking; Meusburger, P., Funke, J. and Wunder, E. Milieus of Cre-
to the highly structured, such as TRIZ (the Theory of ativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Spatiality of Cre-
Inventive Problem-Solving) and its variant Algorithm ativity. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-9876-5.
 15

[4] Torrance, Paul. “Verbal Tests. Forms A and B-Figural [19] Tatarkiewicz, Władysław (1980). A History of Six Ideas:
Tests, Forms A and B.”. The Torrance Tests of Cre- an Essay in Aesthetics. Translated from the Polish by
ative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edi- Christopher Kasparek, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
tion. Princeton, New Jersey: Personnel Press. p. 6.
[20] Wallas, G. (1926). Art of Thought.
[5] Mel Rhodes: An Analysis of Creativity. in Phi Delta Kap-
pan 1961, Vol. 42, No. 7, p. 306–307 [21] Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian
perspectives on creativity. Oxford University Press.
[6] Gabora, Liane (1997). “The Origin and Evolution of Cul-
ture and Creativity”. Journal of Memetics – Evolutionary [22] Whitehead, Alfred North (1978). Process and reality :
Models of Information Transmission 1. an essay in cosmology ; Gifford Lectures delivered in the
University of Edinburgh during the session 1927–28 (Cor-
[7] Sternberg, Robert J. (2009). Jaime A. Perkins, Dan Mon- rected ed.). New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-02-934580-
eypenny, Wilson Co, ed. Cognitive Psychology. CEN- 4.
GAGE Learning. p. 468. ISBN 978-0-495-50629-4.
[23] Meyer, Steven (2005). “Introduction: Whitehead Now”.
[8] Runco, Mark A.; Albert, Robert S. (2010). “Creativity Configurations 1 (13): 1–33.. Cf. Michel Weber and
Research”. In James C. Kaufman and Robert J. Stern- Will Desmond (eds.). Handbook of Whiteheadian Pro-
berg. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge cess Thought (Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Pro-
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-73025-9. cess Thought X1 & X2, 2008) and Ronny Desmet &
Michel Weber (edited by), Whitehead. The Algebra of
[9] “And eke Job saith, that in hell is no order of rule. And
Metaphysics. Applied Process Metaphysics Summer Insti-
albeit that God hath created all things in right order, and
tute Memorandum, Louvain-la-Neuve, Les Éditions Chro-
nothing without order, but all things be ordered and num-
matika, 2010.
bered, yet nevertheless they that be damned be not in or-
der, nor hold no order.” [24] Sternberg, R. J.; Lubart, T. I. (1999). “The Concept of
Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms”. In ed. Sternberg,
[10] Władysław Tatarkiewicz, A History of Six Ideas: an Essay
R. J. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press.
in Aesthetics, p. 244.
ISBN 0-521-57285-1.
[11] Albert, R. S.; Runco, M. A. (1999). ":A History of Re-
[25] (Hargreaves, H. L. (1927). “The faculty of imagination:
search on Creativity”. In Sternberg, R. J. Handbook of
An enquiry concerning the existence of a general faculty,
Creativity. Cambridge University Press.
or group factor, of imagination.” British Journal of Psy-
[12] Plato, The Republic, Book X – wikisource:The Repub- chology Monograph Supplement 3: 1-74.)
lic/Book X
[26] Kozbelt, Aaron; Beghetto, Ronald A.; Runco, Mark A.
[13] Albert, R. S.; Runco, M. A. (1999). ":A History of Re- (2010). “Theories of Creativity”. In James C. Kaufman
search on Creativity”. In Sternberg, R. J. Handbook of and Robert J. Sternberg. The Cambridge Handbook of
Creativity. Cambridge University Press. p. 5. Creativity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-
521-73025-9.
[14] Niu, Weihua; Sternberg, Robert J. (2006). “The Philo-
sophical Roots of Western and Eastern Conceptions of [27] Kaufman, James C.; Beghetto, Ronald A. (2009). “Be-
Creativity” (PDF). Journal of Theoretical and Philosoph- yond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativ-
ical Psychology 26: 18–38. doi:10.1037/h0091265. Re- ity”. Review of General Psychology 13 (1): 1–12.
trieved 23 October 2010.; cf. Michel Weber, "Creativity, doi:10.1037/a0013688.
Efficacy and Vision: Ethics and Psychology in an Open
Universe,” in Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco Basile [28] Boden, Margaret (2004). The Creative Mind: Myths And
(eds.), Subjectivity, Process, and Rationality, Frank- Mechanisms. Routledge. ISBN 0-297-82069-9.
furt/Lancaster, ontos verlag, Process Thought XIV, 2006,
pp. 263-281. [29] Robinson, Ken (1998). All our futures: Creativity, culture,
education (PDF). National Advisory Committee on Cre-
[15] Dacey, John (1999). “Concepts of Creativity: A history”. ative and Cultural Education. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
In Mark A. Runco and Steven R. Pritzer. Encyclopedia of
Creativity, Vol. 1. Elsevier. ISBN 0-12-227076-2. [30] Craft, Anna (2001). "'Little C' creativity”. In Craft, A.,
Jeffrey, B. and Leibling, M. Creativity in education. Con-
[16] Albert, R. S.; Runco, M. A. (1999). ":A History of Re- tinuum International. ISBN 978-0-8264-4863-7.
search on Creativity”. In Sternberg, R. J. Handbook of
Creativity. Cambridge University Press. p. 6. [31] Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály (1996). Creativity:Flow and the
Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Harper Collins.
[17] “Humanism - Rome Reborn: The Vatican Library & Re- ISBN 978-0-06-092820-9.
naissance Culture | Exhibitions - Library of Congress”.
www.loc.gov. 1993-01-08. Retrieved 2015-11-23. [32] Simonton, D. K. (1997). “Creative Productivity: A Pre-
dictive and Explanatory Model of Career Trajectories
[18] “Leonardo da Vinci | Italian artist, engineer, and scientist”. and Landmarks”. Psychological Review 104 (1): 66–89.
Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2015-11-23. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.66.
16 18 NOTES

[33] Smith, S. M. (2011). “Incubation”. In M. A. Runco & [52] Zeng, L.; Proctor, R. W.; Salvendy, G. (2011).
S. R. Pritzker. Encyclopedia of Creativity Volume I (2nd “Can Traditional Divergent Thinking Tests Be
ed.). Academic Press. pp. 653–657. ISBN 978-0-12- Trusted in Measuring and Predicting Real-World
375039-6. Creativity?". Creativity Research Journal 23: 24.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.545713.
[34] Ward, T. (2003). “Creativity”. In ed. Nagel, L. Ency-
clopaedia of Cognition. New York: Macmillan. [53] Forster, E. A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2009). Creativity evalu-
ation through latent semantic analysis. In Proceedings of
[35] Smith, Steven M. (1995). “Fixation, Incubation, and In- the 31st Annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society
sight in Memory and Creative Thinking”. In Steven M. (pp. 602–607).
Smith, Thomas B. Ward and Ronald A. Finke. The Cre-
ative Cognition Approach. MIT Press. [54] Harbison, I. J., & Haarmann, H. (2014). Automated scor-
ing of originality using semantic representations. In Pro-
[36] “Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its im- ceedings of the 36th Annual meeting of the Cognitive Sci-
plications. Worth Publishers. ISBN 0-7167-1686-0. ence Society (poster paper).

[37] Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996). Creativity : Flow and [55] Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2014). Assessing associative
the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: distance among ideas elicited by tests of Divergent Think-
Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-092820-4 ing. Creativity Research Journal 26(2), pp. 229-238.

[38] Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. [56] NSF SBIR Grant Number 1315053.

[39] Ward, T.B. (1995). What’s old about new ideas. In S. M. [57] Other members include Kenes Beketayev PhD Com-
Smith, T. B. Ward & R. A. & Finke (Eds.) The creative puter Science; Liberty Lidz, PhD Linguistics; Perman
cognition approach, 157–178, London: MIT Press. Gochyyev, PhD Statistics

[40] Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of [58] Beketayev, K., Runco, M. A. (2014) Semantics-based al-
genius. Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-2119-8. gorithmic method for assessing divergent thinking. TBP.

[41] Helie S., Sun R. (2010). “Incubation, insight, and cre- [59] Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of per-
ative problem solving: A unified theory and a connec- sonality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality
tionist model”. Psychological Review 117: 994–1024. and Social Psychological Review, 2, 290–309.
doi:10.1037/a0019532. [60] Batey, M. & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence
and personality: A critical review of the scattered liter-
[42] Koestler, A. (1964). The Act of Creation. London: Pan
ature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Mono-
Books. ISBN 0-330-73116-5.
graphs, 132, p. 355-429.
[43] Gabora, L. & Saab, A. (2011). Creative interference and [61] Batey, M., Furnham, A. F. & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intel-
states of potentiality in analogy problem solving. Proceed- ligence, General Knowledge and Personality as Predictors
ings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. of Creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, p.
July 20–23, 2011, Boston MA. 532-535.
[44] Roese, N. J. & Olson, J. M. (1995). What Might Have [62] Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity
Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New
Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum York: Wiley.
[45] Markman, K. Klein, W. & Suhr, E. (eds) (2009). Hand- [63] Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health.
book of mental simulation and the human imagination. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company.
Hove, Psychology Press
[64] Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking
[46] Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The Rational Imagination: in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence
How People Create Counterfactual Alternatives to Real- distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
ity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[65] Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.
[47] (Kraft, 2005) New York: McGraw-Hill.

[48] (Torrance, 1974) [66] Plucker, J., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric ap-
proaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Stern-
[49] http://people.uncw.edu/caropresoe/GiftedFoundations/ berg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–60). New
SocialEmotional/Creativity-articles/Kim_ York: Cambridge University Press.
Can-we-trust-creativity-tests.pdf
[67] Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In
[50] (Carson, 2005) J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 135–145). New York:
[51] Kim, K. H. (2006). “Can We Trust Creativity Tests? Plenum.
A Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Think-
ing (TTCT)". Creativity Research Journal 18: 3–1. [68] Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful Intelligence.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.
 17

[69] Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and [86] Fuchs-Beauchamp, K. D., Karnes, M. B., & Johnson,
intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of cre- L. J. (1993). Creativity and intelligence in preschoolers.
ativity (pp. 251–272). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Uni- Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 113–117.
versity Press.
[87] Cho, S. H., Nijenhuis, J. T., van Vianen, N. E. M., Kim,
[70] Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic H.-B., & Lee, K. H. (2010). The relationship between
Books. diverse components of intelligence and creativity. Journal
of Creative Behavior, 44, 125–137.
[71] Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Grigorenko, E. L.
(2008). Applied intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge [88] Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., & Neubauer, A. C.
University Press. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativ-
ity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means
[72] Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., & Lichtenberger, E. O. of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 41, 212–
(2011). Finding creativity on intelligence tests via diver- 221.
gent production. Canadian Journal of School Psychology,
26, 83–106. [89] Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativ-
ity and occupational accomplishments among intellectu-
[73] Silvia, P. J., Beaty, R. E., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2013). Ver- ally precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal
bal fluency and creativity: General and specific contribu- study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484–492.
tions of broad retrieval ability (Gr) factors to divergent
thinking. Intelligence, 41, 328–340. [90] Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be cre-
ative? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57–66.
[74] Martindale, C. (1999). Biological bases of creativity. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 137– [91] Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relation-
152). New York: Cambridge University Press. ship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted
students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personal-
[75] Kaufman, J.C., Kaufman, S.B., & Plucker, J.A. (2013). ity and Individual Differences, 40, 159–170.
Contemporary theories of intelligence. In J. Reisberg
(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology [92] Perkins, D. N. (1981) The mind’s best work. Cambridge,
(pp. 811-822). New York, NY: Oxford University Press MA: Harvard University Press.

[93] Weisberg, R. W. & Alba, J. W. (1981). An examination

[76] Sternberg, R. J. and Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment
of the alleged role of “fixation” in the solution of several
theory of creativity and its development, Human Devel-
“insight” problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
opment, 34, 1-32.
General, 110, 169 – 192.
[77] Sternberg, R. J. and Lubart, T. I. (1992). Buy low and
[94] McNemar, O. (1964) Lost: Our Intelligence? Why?
sell high: An investment approach to creativity, Current
American Psychologist, 19, 871 – 882.
Directions in Psychological Science, 1 (1), 1-5.
[95] Kenneth M Heilman, MD, Stephen E. Nadeau, MD, and
[78] Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A
David Q. Beversdorf, MD. “Creative Innovation: Possible
consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality
Brain Mechanisms” Neurocase (2003)
and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.
[96] Flaherty AW (2005). “Frontotemporal and dopaminergic
[79] Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to control of idea generation and creative drive”. J Comp
“The Social Psychology of Creativity”. Boulder: West- Neurol 493 (1): 147–53. doi:10.1002/cne.20768. PMC
view Press. 2571074. PMID 16254989.
[80] Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality [97] Mayseless, Naama; Eran, Ayelet; Shamay-Tsoory, Si-
and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) mone G (2015). “Generating original ideas: The neu-
Model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163. ral underpinning of originality.”. NeuroImage 116:
232–9. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.030. PMID
[81] Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexam-
26003860. Lay summary. These results are in line with
ining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–261.
the dual model of creativity, according to which original
[82] Naglieri, J. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2001). Understanding ideas are a product of the interaction between a system
intelligence, giftedness, and creativity using PASS theory. that generates ideas and a control system that evaluates
Roeper Review, 23, 151–156. these ideas.

[83] Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Engle- [98] Vandervert 2003a, 2003b; Vandervert, Schimpf & Liu,
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 2007

[99] Miyake & Shah, 1999

[84] Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [100] Schmahmann, 1997, 2004
[85] Yamamoto, K. (1964). Creativity and sociometric choice [101] Andersen, Korbo & Pakkenberg, 1992.
among adolescents. Journal of Social Psychology, 64,
249–261. [102] Miller & Cohen, 2001
 18 18 NOTES

[103] Vandervert, 2003a [121] Video of Jürgen Schmidhuber's keynote at the 2011 Win-
ter Intelligence Conference, Oxford: Universal AI and
[104] Jung-Beeman, Bowden, Haberman, Frymiare, Arambel- Theory of Fun and Creativity. Youtube, 2012
Liu, Greenblatt, Reber & Kounios, 2004
[122] Video of Jürgen Schmidhuber's talk at the 2009
[105] Imamizu, Kuroda, Miyauchi, Yoshioka & Kawato, 2003
Singularity Summit, NYC: Compression Progress: The
[106] Schmahmann, 2004, Algorithmic Principle Behind Curiosity and Creativity.
Youtube, 2010
[107] Vandervert, in press-a
[123] Kurzweil AI: Transcript of Jürgen Schmidhuber's TEDx
[108] Vandervert, 2011, in press-b talk (2012): When creative machines overtake man
[109] Vandervert & Vandervert-Weathers, 2013
[124] Schmidhuber, J. (1991), Curious model-building control
[110] Brown, J.; et al. (2007). “On Vandervert et al. “Working systems. In Proc. ICANN, Singapore, volume 2, pp
memory cerebellum, and creativity"". Creat. Res. J. 19: 1458–1463. IEEE.
25–29. doi:10.1080/10400410709336875.
[125] Schmidhuber, J. (2012), A Formal Theory of Creativity
[111] Abraham, A. (2007). “Can a neural system geared to Model the Creation of Art. In McCormack, Jon and
to bring about rapid, predictive, and efficient function M. d'Inverno (eds), Computers and Creativity, Springer
explain creativity?". Creat. Res. J. 19: 19–24. 2012
doi:10.1080/10400410709336874.
[126] Schmidhuber, J. (2007), Simple Algorithmic Principles
[112] Wagner U., Gais S., Haider H., Verleger R., Born J. of Discovery, Subjective Beauty, Selective Attention, Cu-
(2004). “Sleep inspires insight”. Nature 427 (6972): 352– riosity & Creativity. In V. Corruble, M. Takeda, E.
5. doi:10.1038/nature02223. PMID 14737168. Suzuki, eds., Proc. 10th Intl. Conf. on Discovery Sci-
ence 2007 pp 26-38, LNAI 4755, Springer
[113] Cai D. J., Mednick S. A., Harrison E. M., Kanady
J. C., Mednick S. C. (2009). “REM, not incubation, [127] (Rushton, 1990)
improves creativity by priming associative networks”.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106 (25): 10130–10134. [128] http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_
doi:10.1073/pnas.0900271106. PMC 2700890. PMID schizotypes.htm (Actual paper)
19506253.
[129] Batey, M. Furnham, A. (2009). The relationship between
[114] Walker MP, Liston C, Hobson JA, Stickgold R (Novem- creativity, schizotypy and intelligence. Individual Differ-
ber 2002). “Cognitive flexibility across the sleep-wake ences Research, 7, p.272-284.
cycle: REM-sleep enhancement of anagram problem
solving”. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 14 (3): 317–24. [130] Batey, M. & Furnham, A. (2008). The relationship be-
doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00134-9. PMID 12421655. tween measures of creativity and schizotypy. Personality
and Individual Differences, 45, p.816-821.
[115] Hasselmo ME (September 1999). “Neuromodulation:
acetylcholine and memory consolidation”. Trends Cogn. [131] Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K. & Manfield, J.
Sci. (Regul. Ed.) 3 (9): 351–359. doi:10.1016/S1364- (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativ-
6613(99)01365-0. PMID 10461198. ity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, p.1060-
1069.
[116] Winkielman, P.; Knutson, B. (2007), “Affective Influ-
ence on Judgments and Decisions: Moving Towards Core [132] Kyaga, S.; Lichtenstein, P.; Boman, M.; Hultman, C.;
Mechanisms”, Review of General Psychology 11 (2): 179– Långström, N.; Landén, M. (2011). “Creativity and men-
192, doi:10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.179 tal disorder: Family study of 300 000 people with severe
mental disorder”. The British Journal of Psychiatry 199
[117] Mark A. Davis (January 2009). “Understanding the rela- (5): 373–379. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.085316. PMID
tionship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis”. 21653945.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
100 (1): 25–38. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.001. [133] Roberts, Michelle. Creativity 'closely entwined
with mental illness’. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
[118] Baas, Matthijs; De Dreu, Carsten K. W.; Nijstad, Bernard
health-19959565. 16 October 2012.
A. (November 2008). “A meta-analysis of 25 years of
mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or [134] http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2009/01/creativity.aspx
regulatory focus?" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin 134 (6):
779–806. doi:10.1037/a0012815. PMID 18954157. [135] (DeGraff, Lawrence 2002)
[119] Schmidhuber, Jürgen (2006), Developmental Robotics, [136] (Batey & Irwing, 2010) http://www.e-metrixx.com/
Optimal Artificial Curiosity, Creativity, Music, and the creativity-profit/me2-spec/
Fine Arts. Connection Science, 18(2): 173-187
[137] Nijstad B. A., De Dreu C. K. (2002). “Creativity and
[120] Schmidhuber, Jürgen (2010), Formal Theory of Cre- Group Innovation”. Applied Psychology 51: 400–406.
ativity, Fun, and Intrinsic Motivation (1990–2010). doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00984.
IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development,
2(3):230-247 [138] (Guilford, 1950)
 19

[139] (Torrance, 1974, 1984) [159] Diamond, Arthur M. (1992). “Creativity and Interdis-
ciplinarity: A Response to Rubenson and Runco”. New
[140] (Christiaans & Venselaar, 2007) Ideas in Psychology 10 (2): 157–160. doi:10.1016/0732-
[141] (Amabile, 1996; Prabhu et al., 2008) 118X(92)90023-S.

[142] (Feist, 1998, 1999; Prabhu et al., 2008; Zhang & Stern- [160] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/lives-the-brain/
berg, 2009) 201004/creativity-the-brain-and-evolution

[143] (Campbell, 1960) [161] Nickerson, R. S. (1999). “Enhancing creativity”. In R. J.

Sternberg. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University
[144] (Gardner, 1993a, Policastro & Gardner, 1999) Press.
[145] (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991, 1995, 1996) [162] Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály (1999). “Implications of a sys-
[146] Sternberg RJ 'Introduction' in Kaufman JC and Sternberg tems perspective for the study of creativity”. In R. J.
RJ (2006) (eds) The International Handbook of Creativity Sternberg. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge Univer-
pp 1-9. Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-54731- sity Press.
8
[163] Robinson, K.; Azzam, A. M. (2009). “Why creativity
[147] Niu W (2006) 'Development of Creativity Research in now?". Educational Leadership 67 (1): 22–26.
Chinese Societies’ in Kaufman JC and Sternberg RJ (eds)
The International Handbook of Creativity pp 386-387. [164] Paris, C., Edwards, N., Sheffield, E., Mutinsky, M.,
Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-54731-8 Olexa, T., Reilly, S., & Baer, J. (2006). How early school
experiences impact creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer
[148] Mpofu E et al (2006) 'African Perspectives on Creativ- (Eds.), Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development
ity' in Kaufman JC and Sternberg RJ (eds) The Interna- (pp. 333-350). New York, NY: Cambridge University
tional Handbook of Creativity p 465. Cambridge Univer- Press.
sity Press ISBN 0-521-54731-8
[165] Byrge, C.; Hanson. S. (2009). “The creative platform: A
[149] Mpofu E et al (2006) 'African Perspectives on Creativ- new paradigm for teaching creativity”. Problems of Edu-
ity' in Kaufman JC and Sternberg RJ (eds) The Interna- cation in the 21st Century 18: 33–50.
tional Handbook of Creativity p 458. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press ISBN 0-521-54731-8 [166] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). Evolution and flow. In
M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The evolving self: A psychol-
[150] Preiss DD and Strasser K (2006) 'Creativity in Latin ogy for the third millennium (pp. 175-206). New York:
America' in Kaufman JC and Sternberg RJ (eds) The In- Harper Perennial.
ternational Handbook of Creativity p 46. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press ISBN 0-521-54731-8 [167] National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural
Education (1998). All our futures: Creativity, culture, and
[151] Smith GJW and Carlsson I (2006) 'Creativity under the education. UK: NACCCE
Northern Lights’ in Kaufman JC and Sternberg RJ (eds)
The International Handbook of Creativity p 202. Cam-
bridge University Press ISBN 0-521-54731-8
19 References
[152] Preiser S (2006) 'Creativity Research in German-
Speaking Countries’ in Kaufman JC and Sternberg RJ
(eds) The International Handbook of Creativity p 175. • Amabile, Teresa M.; Barsade, Sigal G; Mueller, Jen-
Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-54731-8 nifer S; Staw, Barry M., “Affect and creativity at
work,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005, vol.
[153] (Amabile, 1998; Sullivan and Harper, 2009) 50, pp. 367–403.
[154] (Nonaka, 1991)
• Amabile, T. M. (1998). “How to kill creativity”.
[155] Amabile, T. M. (1998). “How to kill creativity”. Harvard Harvard Business Review 76 (5).
Business Review
• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. West-
[156] Siltala, R. 2010. Innovativity and cooperative learning in view Press.
business life and teaching. University of Turku
• Balzac, Fred (2006). “Exploring the Brain’s Role in
[157] Leal, S. y Urrea J. “Ingenio y Pasión” (2013),
Creativity”. NeuroPsychiatry Reviews 7 (5): 1, 19–
Lid Publishers (Spanish) and Forbes India
Magazine http://forbesindia.com/article/ie/ 20.
new-trends-in-innovation-management/33905/1#
• BCA (2006). New Concepts in Innovation: The Keys
ixzz2iiuuDxVq
to a Growing Australia. Business Council of Aus-
[158] Rubenson, Daniel L.; Runco, Mark (1992). “The tralia. External link in |publisher= (help)
psychoeconomic approach to creativity”. New Ideas
in Psychology 10 (2): 131–147. doi:10.1016/0732- • Brian, Denis, Einstein: A Life (John Wiley and Sons,
118X(92)90021-Q. 1996) ISBN 0-471-11459-6
20 19 REFERENCES

• Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The Rational Imagina- • Jullien, F.; Paula M. Varsano (translator) (2004).
tion: How People Create Counterfactual Alternatives In Praise of Blandness: Proceeding from Chinese
to Reality. MIT Press. Thought and Aesthetics. Zone Books, U.S. ISBN 1-
890951-41-2; ISBN 978-1-890951-41-2
• Carson, S. H.; Peterson, J. B.; Higgins, D.
M. (2005). “Reliability, Validity, and Factor • Jung, C. G., The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Vol-
Structure of the Creative Achievement Question- ume 8. The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche.
naire”. Creativity Research Journal 17 (1): 37–50. (Princeton, 1981) ISBN 0-691-09774-7
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4.
• Kanigel, Robert, The Man Who Knew Infinity: A
• Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in Schools: tensions and Life of the Genius Ramanujan (Washington Square
dilemmas. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-32414-9. Press, 1992) ISBN 0-671-75061-5

• Dorst, K.; Cross, N. (2001). “Creativity in • Kraft, U. (2005). “Unleashing Creativity”. Scientific
the design process: co-evolution of problem– American Mind. April: 16–23.
solution”. Design Studies 22 (5): 425–437.
doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6. • Kolp, P., Lammé, A., Regnard, Fr., Rens, J. M.
(ed.) (2009). “Musique et créativité". Orphée
• Feldman, D. H. (1999). “The Development of Cre- Apprenti (Conseil de la Musique) NS (1): 9–119.
ativity”. In ed. Sternberg, R.J. Handbook of Cre- D/2009/11848/5
ativity. Cambridge University Press.
• *Lehrer, Jonah (2012), Imagine: How Creativity
• Finke, R.; Ward, T. B.; Smith, S. M. (1992). Cre- Works.
ative cognition: Theory, research, and applications.
• McLaren, R. B. (1999). “Dark Side of Creativity”.
MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-06150-3.
In ed. Runco, M. A. & Pritzker, S. R. Encyclopedia
• Flaherty, A. W. (2005). “Frontotemporal and of Creativity. Academic Press.
dopaminergic control of idea generation and cre-
• McCrae, R. R. (1987). “Creativity, Divergent
ative drive”. Journal of Comparative Neurology
Thinking, and Openness to Experience”. Journal
493 (1): 147–153. doi:10.1002/cne.20768. PMC
of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (6): 1258–
2571074. PMID 16254989.
1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258.
• Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class:
• Michalko, M. (1998). Cracking Creativity: The
And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Commu-
Secrets of Creative Genius. Berkeley, Calif.: Ten
nity and Everyday Life. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-
Speed Press. ISBN 0-89815-913-X.
02476-9.
• Nachmanovitch, Stephen (1990). Free Play: Impro-
• Fredrickson B. L. (2001). “The role of positive
visation in Life and Art. Penguin-Putnam. ISBN
emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-
0-87477-578-7.
and-build theory of positive emotions”. American
Psychologist 56 (3): 218–26. doi:10.1037/0003- • National Academy of Engineering (2005). Edu-
066X.56.3.218. PMC 3122271. PMID 11315248. cating the engineer of 2020: adapting engineering
education to the new century. National Academies
• Hadamard, Jacques, The Psychology of Invention in
Press. ISBN 0-309-09649-9.
the Mathematical Field (Dover, 1954) ISBN 0-486-
20107-4 • Nonaka, I. (1991). “The Knowledge-Creating Com-
pany”. Harvard Business Review 69 (6): 96–104.
• Helmholtz, H. v. L. (1896). Vorträge und Reden
(5th edition). Friederich Vieweg und Sohn. • O'Hara, L. A. & Sternberg, R. J. (1999). “Creativity
and Intelligence”. In ed. Sternberg, R. J. Handbook
• Isen A. M., Daubman K. A., Nowicki G. P. (1987). of Creativity. Cambridge University Press.
“Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving”.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 • Pink, D. H. (2005). A Whole New Mind: Moving
(6): 1122–31. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1122. from the information age into the conceptual age.
PMID 3598858. Allen & Unwin.

• Jeffery, G. (2005). The Creative College: building • Poincaré, H. (1952) [1908]. “Mathematical cre-
a successful learning culture in the arts. Trentham ation”. In ed. Ghiselin, B. The Creative Process: A
Books. Symposium. Mentor.

• Johnson, D. M. (1972). Systematic introduction to • Rhodes, M. (1961). “An analysis of creativity”. Phi
the psychology of thinking. Harper & Row. Delta Kappan 42: 305–311.
 21

• Rushton, J. P. (1990). “Creativity, intelligence, • Schmahmann J (2004). “Disorders of the cerebel-

and psychoticism”. Personality and Individual lum: Ataxia, dysmetria of thought, and the cere-
Differences 11: 1291–1298. doi:10.1016/0191- bellar cognitive affective syndrome”. Journal of
8869(90)90156-L. Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 16 (3):
367–378. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.16.3.367.
• Runco, M. A. (2004). “Creativity”. An- PMID 15377747.
nual Review of Psychology 55: 657–687.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502. • Sullivan, Ceri and Graeme Harper, ed., The Creative
PMID 14744230. Environment: Authors at Work (Cambridge: English
Association/Boydell and Brewer, 2009)
• Sabaneev, Leonid. The Psychology of the Musico-
Creative Process // Psyche. - Vol. 9 (July 1928). - • Vandervert, L. (2003a). How working memory and
pp. 37–54. cognitive modeling functions of the cerebellum con-
tribute to discoveries in mathematics. New Ideas in
• Smith, S. M. & Blakenship, S.E. (1 April 1991).
Psychology, 21, 159-175.
“Incubation and the persistence of fixation in prob-
lem solving”. American Journal of Psychology 104 • Vandervert, L. (2003b). The neurophysiological ba-
(1): 61–87. doi:10.2307/1422851. ISSN 0002- sis of innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.) The
9556. JSTOR 1422851. PMID 2058758. international handbook on innovation (pp. 17–30).
Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
• Taylor, C. W. (1988). “Various approaches to and
definitions of creativity”. In ed. Sternberg, R. J. • Vandervert, L. (2011). The evolution of language:
The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychologi- The cerebro-cerebellar blending of visual-spatial
cal perspectives. Cambridge University Press. working memory with vocalizations. The Journal of
• Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Mind and Behavior, 32, 317-334.
Thinking. Personnel Press. • Vandervert, L. (in press). How the blending of cere-
• von Franz, Marie-Louise, Psyche and Matter bellar internal models can explain the evolution of
(Shambhala, 1992) ISBN 0-87773-902-1 thought and language. Cerebellum.

• Andersen B., Korbo L., Pakkenberg B. (1992). • Vandervert, L., Schimpf, P., & Liu, H. (2007). How
“A quantitative study of the human cerebellum working memory and the cerebellum collaborate to
with unbiased stereological techniques”. The Jour- produce creativity and innovation [Special Issue].
nal of Comparative Neurology 326 (4): 549–560. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 1-19.
doi:10.1002/cne.903260405. PMID 1484123.
• Vandervert, L., & Vandervert-Weathers, K. (in
• Imamizu H., Kuroda T., Miyauchi S., Yoshioka T., press). New brain-imaging studies indicate how pro-
Kawato M. (2003). “Modular organization of inter- totyping is related to entrepreneurial giftedness and
nal models of tools in the cerebellum”. Proceedings innovation education in children. In L. Shavinina
of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (9): 5461– (Ed.), The International Handbook of Innovation
5466. doi:10.1073/pnas.0835746100. Education. London: Routlage.

• Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E., Haberman, J., • DeGraff, J.; Lawrence, K. (2002). Creativity at
Frymiare, J., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Re- Work. Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0-7879-5725-9.
ber, P., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when
people solve verbal problems with insight. PLOS • Gielen, P. (2013). Creativity and other Fundamen-
Biology, 2, 500-510. talisms. Mondriaan: Amsterdam.

• Miller E., Cohen J. (2001). “An integrative

theory of prefrontal cortex function”. An- 20 Further reading
nual Review of Neuroscience 24: 167–202.
doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167. PMID
11283309. • Chung-yuan, Chang (1970). Creativity and Taoism,
A Study of Chinese Philosophy, Art, and Poetry. New
• Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models York: Harper Torchbooks. ISBN 0-06-131968-6.
of working memory: Mechanisms of active mainte-
nance and executive control. New York: Cambridge • Cropley, David H.; Cropley, Arthur J.; Kaufman,
University Press. James C.; et al., eds. (2010). The Dark Side
of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
• Schmahmann, J. (Ed.). (1997). The cerebellum and Press. ISBN 978-0-521-13960-1. Lay summary
cognition. New York: Academic Press. (24 November 2010).
22 21 EXTERNAL LINKS

• Robinson, Andrew (2010). Sudden Genius?: The

Gradual Path to Creative Breakthroughs. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-956995-
3. Lay summary (24 November 2010).
• The Roots of Human Genius Are Deeper Than Ex-
pected (March 10, 2013) Scientific American
• Isaac Asimov (2014-10-20) on Cultivating Creativ-
ity
• John Cleese (2014-08-08) on Fostering Creativity

21 External links
Videos

• Raphael DiLuzio (2012-06-28) on 7 Steps of Cre-

ative Thinking
 23

22 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

22.1 Text
• Creativity Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity?oldid=705963651 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Tbackstr, SimonP, Jose Icaza,
Norm, Ixfd64, Ahoerstemeier, Ronz, Tim Retout, Nikai, Rl, Aion, Selket, Pedant17, Buridan, Fvw, Dbabbitt, Pumpie, Dimadick, Robbot,
Petermanchester, Clngre, Jfire, DHN, Seth Ilys, Alerante, Sethoeph, DocWatson42, Jyril, HangingCurve, Everyking, Guanaco, Skagedal,
Christopherlin, Andycjp, Phil Sandifer, Gscshoyru, WpZurp, Hugh Mason, Klemen Kocjancic, D6, CALR, Discospinster, Rich Farm-
brough, Vsmith, Bishonen, User2004, Notinasnaid, Pavel Vozenilek, ESkog, Lycurgus, Mwanner, Alex Kosorukoff, RoyBoy, Bobo192,
Johnkarp, Smalljim, Adraeus, Keron Cyst, Elipongo, Maurreen, Blotwell, Nlight, Helix84, Pearle, Officiallyover, Jumbuck, Danski14,
Alansohn, Somberi, Andrew Gray, Logologist, SlimVirgin, Fivetrees, P Ingerson, Kusma, Dd2, Mahanga, Ott, Kelly Martin, RHaworth,
Morning star, Iccincsm, Unixer, Benbest, CharlesC, Pictureuploader, Liface, Palica, Marudubshinki, Seishirou Sakurazuka, JiMidnite,
Sparkit, BD2412, Kbdank71, JIP, Josh Parris, Rjwilmsi, Scandum, TheRingess, DouglasGreen~enwiki, Klonimus, Protez, Moskvax,
SchuminWeb, Pavlo Shevelo, AED, Estrellador*, Nihiltres, RexNL, AndriuZ, =Julius=, Drumguy8800, Aeroknight, Ckostovny, DVdm,
YurikBot, Wavelength, Borgx, RussBot, Pigman, Nesbit, Stephenb, Gaius Cornelius, Clam0p, Epim~enwiki, Cognition, Topperfalkon,
PhilipO, RUL3R, Natkeeran, Action potential, Mysid, Igiffin, Nikkimaria, Theda, Josh3580, Livitup, GraemeL, Danny-w, Fram, Sig-
maEpsilon, Dobjsonne, Bluezy, Jeff Silvers, Victor falk, Veinor, Cowdinosaur, SmackBot, Marcusscotus1, Prodego, McGeddon, Jtneill,
Swerdnaneb, GraemeMcRae, Gilliam, Ohnoitsjamie, Frankahilario, Chris the speller, TimBentley, Whywhywhy, Oli Filth, Apeloverage,
Uthbrian, Oni Ookami Alfador, Colonies Chris, Katsesama, Darth Panda, Magenta1, Ddon, Harnad, John D. Croft, Aaker, Ligulembot,
Jashank, Vina-iwbot~enwiki, Blauhaus, Cookie90, Will Beback, Byelf2007, SashatoBot, Arnoutf, Trojan traveler, Kingfish, Kuru, Khazar,
Lakinekaki, Andrewjuren, Teal6, Masahiko~enwiki, Ckatz, RichardF, David.alex.lamb, Hu12, MikeWazowski, Iridescent, Sameboat, Joe-
Bot, Badly~enwiki, Mh29255, ACEO, Timwarneka, TheSmartDoccer, BrettRob, JForget, Robin de lange, Wolfdog, CmdrObot, Wafulz,
LMackinnon, Lighthead, Erencexor, Penbat, Isaacdealey, Gregbard, Jac16888, Cydebot, Gogo Dodo, Mattergy, Anthonyhcole, Afzalraza,
Dr.enh, Englishnerd, Letranova, Epbr123, Qwyrxian, Ishdarian, Chickenflicker, Amirelion, West Brom 4ever, VoteFair, Transhumanist,
Mentifisto, Gioto, Widefox, Thebridge, Rlanda, TimVickers, JAnDbot, Wk1~enwiki, Spiriman, The Transhumanist, Wfxy, Thinkertoy,
Xeno, Cre8tive19, Rainingblood667, Jarkeld, Acroterion, Geniac, Magioladitis, PrimroseGuy, Bakilas, Creatology, Sarahj2107, Bfiene,
Tedickey, Tremilux, Tonyfaull, Sgr927, Terjen, Spellmaster, JaGa, Oicumayberight, Yelir61, Gwern, MartinBot, R'n'B, Tulkolahten, Mau-
rice Carbonaro, All Is One, Dbiel, Sanjaydalal, J 32, Bigsnoop7, Tcaudilllg, Christian Storm, Plasticup, LittleHow, Belovedfreak, Tomas-
Bat, Brian Pearson, KylieTastic, Cometstyles, STBotD, Ichisan, Funandtrvl, Spellcast, Nievved, Lights, ABF, Leopold B. Stotch, Leebo,
Indubitably, Station1, Philip Trueman, TXiKiBoT, Oshwah, Aleliv, Deleet, Davehi1, Creativeprofessional, Abbw254, Raymondwinn, Eliz-
abethpardo, Uannis~enwiki, Billinghurst, Lova Falk, Wikidan829, Kusyadi, Cnilep, Why Not A Duck, Chenzw, MrChupon, C0N6R355,
Jongrover, OsamaK, Jean-Louis Swiners, Gil Dekel, Enkyo2, Quietbritishjim, SieBot, Calliopejen1, Nihil novi, WereSpielChequers, Mel-
dor, Dawn Bard, Caltas, Loxlok, Bentogoa, Flyer22 Reborn, Tiptoety, Pedrodurruti, CutOffTies, Sunrise, Filam3nt, CharlesGillingham,
ThisGuy62, Mr. Stradivarius, Me-macias, ClueBot, GorillaWarfare, Bob1960evens, Rjd0060, John ellenberger, WMCEREBELLUM,
Vlaze, Mild Bill Hiccup, Dannyguillory, Travis.m.granvold, Dvash, TheOldJacobite, Anat Rafaeli, Roman Eisele, Eolanys, Dr.orfannkyl,
Goldsm, Bracton, Iohannes Animosus, Tnxman307, VsevolodKrolikov, Redthoreau, SchreiberBike, Redfang60, DWmFrancis, Mikhailov
Kusserow, Taranet, Thingg, Aitias, Johnuniq, SoxBot III, Generativity, Ceri sullivan, Jengirl1988, XLinkBot, Rror, Jordanrambo, Busi-
nessclown, WikHead, RealDracaena, Vcorani, Addbot, Some jerk on the Internet, Pilibin, DOI bot, Dmccuesm, Af042, Prithu22, Cana-
dianLinuxUser, Leszek Jańczuk, USchick, Jefflithe, MrOllie, Download, Sara USA, Redheylin, Glane23, Kyle1278, Stevenmcrane, Alex
Rio Brazil, Tide rolls, Slgcat, Jackelfive, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Pink!Teen, Fraggle81, Georgi.dimitrov, Victoriaearle, Fourmiz59, Maxí,
Soiregistered, Burningjoker, AnomieBOT, DemocraticLuntz, SteveMX, VulcanOtaku, IRP, Galoubet, WillRabbit, 9258fahsflkh917fas,
Piano non troppo, Crecy99, 90 Auto, Citation bot, GB fan, Frankenpuppy, J-E-N-O-V-A, Xqbot, Dev2587, Tudorrickards, Gondwana-
banana, RedAlgorithm, Nasnema, Justykim, Sellyme, Topilsky, The Evil IP address, Pierkolp, Kevdave, Omnipaedista, Danceron, Cresix,
Propagator, Auréola, Asimzaidi, Matchtime, Aaron Kauppi, SD5, Ryangfloyd, FrescoBot, Dorimedont, Rjlx, StaticVision, Imbecileler,
Skunksforever, Haeinous, E.shakir, Lebd, Hexagon70, Citation bot 1, Gdje je nestala duša svijeta, Asnav, Annajordanous, Pinethicket,
Jonesey95, Serols, Chudhudson, Mahtabshadi, Koakhtzvigad, Jauhienij, Trappist the monk, Declan Clam, ItsZippy, SeoMac, Vezwyx,
Tinystui, Danzen~enwiki, Tbhotch, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, RjwilmsiBot, Alph Bot, Miles slow, Tonygilloz, Saniasoone, Sharlotte29, Jonmc,
Cbrookca, John of Reading, Fgasj, Faolin42, Alysakiwi, AgRince, Vkeller~enwiki, Quesco, Sepguilherme, ZéroBot, Tranhungnghiep,
JaneKT, Traxs7, WeijiBaikeBianji, Mar4d, MindShifts, Javorie, Evereadyo2, H3llBot, AManWithNoPlan, Jay-Sebastos, Krvishal, Zveta,
Senseagent230, Donner60, Gem131, J76392, Puffin, CSMasick, ChuispastonBot, AndyTheGrump, RockMagnetist, HandsomeFella,
Khannashweta2, LaurMG, TYelliot, Miradre, Woodsrock, Ideas at the Bottom, ClueBot NG, Mochomio, Zyrdorn, Jj1236, Divinecom-
edy666, Widr, Kalyan79, Uatmedia, North Atlanticist Usonian, Helpful Pixie Bot, Raafat Karimi, Footnotes2plato, Wbm1058, Nashhinton,
BG19bot, Robfiscerr, Maurice Barnwell, Jls517, Subarctica, MusikAnimal, Smcg8374, Frze, Belleville3, Chris the Paleontologist, Mark
Arsten, UrbanIndianSF, JesseColton, DPL bot, Realdaytoday, Nikkiopelli, Piggykid1, Rowan Adams, Psywikiuser, Dimanchebelleville,
Gowhar2, BattyBot, Johncalhoun21, Dreinkin, CourtChru., Hlack11, Pratyya Ghosh, Acadēmica Orientālis, Arr4, Dgonz4psy, Chris-
Gualtieri, Ekren, Guido Brandt Corstius, IjonTichyIjonTichy, Dexbot, K7L, Cogcerebellum, Numbermaniac, Frosty, Ranjithraj, Doctor
Girl, Greenfuturefinder, Maria.tomassetti, Vanamonde93, PenDavid, Ruby Murray, Odysseyhq, Jamesmcmahon0, SinnerShanky, Tivity,
Satoshi Mochizuki, NYBrook098, Johnemoag6, Ssdco, IvanderClarent, Hiba social, Zamomin, Mark Matthew Dalton, Dvorak182, Quen-
hitran, Zyouwen, FireflySixtySeven, Changer9451, TheFlash1123, Creares, Abdollahi100, Amuzesh, Monkbot, Regalizzz, Filedelinkerbot,
Martianx7, Prisencolin, Feskafi, Reylyn.Dizon, KennethAlexanderStevens, Rbfrancis94, Gcattani, Qsubject, Loraof, Gamebuster19901,
OsFish, Kfroemming, Rafaelgranato, Mebappy, Islensku, Aleksgollu, 39james, Thepcmaniac, KasparBot, ELW93, Prolumbo, Willyhick,
Sahil mulani, Pannalal Pandit (Graphic Designer), Ideaflame, Graceditthardt, Lesbin cheruvathoor, Jonesabh, Spliff Joint Blunt and Anony-
mous: 543

22.2 Images
• File:Brain.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Nicolas_P._Rougier%27s_rendering_of_the_human_
brain.png License: GPL Contributors: http://www.loria.fr/~{}rougier Original artist: Nicolas Rougier
• File:Plato-raphael.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Plato-raphael.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Unknown Original artist: Raphael
• File:Training_meeting_in_a_ecodesign_stainless_steel_company_in_brazil.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
24 22 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

commons/c/c4/Training_meeting_in_a_ecodesign_stainless_steel_company_in_brazil.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own

work Original artist: Alex Rio Brazil
• File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

22.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0