Definition

Michael Mumford suggests that: “Over the course of the last decade, however, we seem to have reached a general consensus that it involves the production of novel, useful products” (Mumford, 2003, p. 110), ^[1] or, in Robert Sternberg’s words, the production of “something original and worthwhile”. ^[2] Peter Meusburger reckons that these differences can be found in the literature. ^[3] As an illustration, one definition given by Dr. E. Paul Torranceit is a process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and finding the problem, searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies: testing and retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying and retesting them and finally communicating the results. ” ^[4]

Aspects

Theories of creativity. The dominant factors are usually identified as “the oven Ps” – process, product, person, and place (according to Mel Rhodes ). ^[5] A focus on process is shown in cognitive approaches that try to describe thought processes and techniques for creative thinking. Theories invoking diverging rather than converging thinking (such as Guilford ), or those describing the staging of the creative process (such as Wallas ) are primarily theories of creative process. A focus on creative productusually appears in attempts to measure creativity (psychometrics, see below) and creative ideas framed as successful memes . ^[6] The psychometric approach to creativity reveals that it also involves the ability to produce more. ^[7] A focus on the kind of the creative person considers more general intellectual clothes, Such As openness, levels of ideation , autonomy, expertise, exploratory behavior, and so on. A focus on place considers the circumstances in which creativity flourishes, such as degrees of autonomy, access to resources, and the nature of gatekeepers. Creative lifestyles are characterized by nonconforming attitudes and behaviors as well as flexibility. ^[7]

Etymology

The word in the English word creativity comes from the Latin term creō “to create, make”: its derivational suffixes also come from Latin. The word “create” appeared in English as early as the 14th century, notably Chaucer, to indicate divine creation ^[8] (in The Parson’s Tale ^[9] ). However, its modern meaning as an act of human creation did not emerge until after the Enlightenment . ^[8]

History of the concept

Ancient views

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 discovery and not creation. The ancient Greeks had no place for “to create” or “creator” except for the expression ” poiein ” (“to make”), which only applied to poiesis (poetry) and to the poets (poet, or “maker”) who made it. Plato did not believe in art as a form of creation. Asked in The Republic , ^[12]“Will we say, of a painter, that he makes something?”, He answers, “Certainly not, but only imitates .” ^[10]

It is commonly argued that the notion of “creativity” originated in Western culture through Christianity , as a matter of divine inspiration . ^[8] According to the historian Daniel J. Boorstin , “the early Western conception of creativity was the Biblical story of creation given in the Genesis .” ^[13] However, this is not creativity in the modern sense, which did not arise until the Renaissance . In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, creativity was the sole province of God; humans were not considered to have the ability to create something new except an expression of God’s work. ^[14]A concept similar to that of Christianity exists in Greek culture, for instance, Muses were seen as mediating inspiration from the Gods. ^[15] Romans and Greeks invoked the concept of an external creative ” daemon ” (Greek) or ” genius ” (Latin), linked to the sacred or the divine. However, none of these views are similar to the modern concept of creativity, and the individual was not seen as the cause of creation until the Renaissance . ^[16]It was during the Renaissance that it was first seen, but it did not lead to the divine, but from the abilities of ” great men “. ^[16]

The Enlightenment and after

The rejection of creativity in the discovery of the world and the belief that the creation of the world would have dominated the West probably until the Renaissance and even later. ^[14] The development of the modern concept of creativity begins in the Renaissance , when creation is perceived as having originated from the abilities of the individual, and not God. This article could be attributed to the leading intellectual movement of the time, aptly named humanism , which developed an intensely human-centered outlook on the world, valuing the intellect and achievement of the individual. ^[17] From this philosophy arose the Renaissance man(or polymath), an individual who embodies the principles of humanism in their ceaseless courtship with knowledge and creation. ^[18] Leonardo da Vinci is one of the most well-known and most accomplished examples .

However, this shift was gradual and would not be 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 , has become more frequent. ^[19] In the writing of Thomas Hobbes , imagination est devenu a key element of human cognition; ^[8] William Duff was one of the first to identify a genius , typifying the separation being made between talent (productive, but breaking new ground) and genius. ^[15]

As a direct and independent topic of study, the problem is one of careful thinking until the 19th century. ^[15] Runco and Albert argue that creativity is the subject of proper study in the late twentieth century in Darwinism . In particular, they refer to the work of Francis Galton , who through his eugenicist outlook took a keen interest in the heritability of intelligence, with creativity as an aspect of genius. ^[8]

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Hermann von Helmholtz (1896) and Henri Poincaré (1908) began their study of their creative processes.

Twentieth century to the present day

The insights of Poincaré and von Helmholtz were built on early in the world by Graham Wallas ^[20] and Max Wertheimer . In his work Art of Thought , published in 1926, Wallas presented one of the first models of the creative process. In the Wallas internship model, creative insights and illuminations can be explained by a process of 5 internships:

(i) preparation (preparatory work on a problem that focuses on the individual’s mind on the problem and explores the problem’s dimensions),

(ii) incubation (where the problem is internalized in the unconscious mind and nothing appears externally to be happening),

(iii) intimation (the creative person gets a “feeling” that a solution is on its way),

(iv) enlightenment or insight (where the creative idea bursts forth from its preconscious processing into conscious awareness);

(v) verification (where the idea is consciously verified, elaborated, and then applied).

Wallas’ model is often treated as four stages, with “intimation” seen as a sub-stage.

A study of the field of adaptation to the future of the evolutionary process. Simonton ^[21] provides an updated perspective on this view in his book, Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity .

In 1927, Alfred North Whitehead gave the Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh, later published as Process and Reality . ^[22] 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 exchange between literature, science, and the arts. This term has become so popular, so omnipresent, that its invention within living memory, and by Alfred North Whitehead of all people, has quickly become occluded. ^[23]

The formal psychometric measurement of creativity, from the standpoint of orthodox psychological literature, is usually considered to have begun with JP Guilford’s 1950 address to the American Psychological Association , which helped popularize the topic ^[24] and focuses attention on a scientific approach. conceptualizing creativity. (It should be noted that the London School of Psychology had instigated psychometric studies of creativity as early as 1927 with the work of HL Hargreaves in the Faculty of Imagination, ^[25] but it did not have the same impact.) Statistical analysis led to the recognition of creativity as a separate aspect of human cognitionIQ -type intelligence, into which it had previously been subsumed. Guilford’s work suggests that a threshold level of IQ, the relationship between creativity and classically measured intelligence broke down. ^[26]

“Four C” model

James C. Kaufman and Beghetto introduced to “four C” model of creativity; mini-c (“transformative learning” involving “personally meaningful interpretations of experiences, actions, and insights”), little-c (everyday problem-solving and creative expression), Pro-C (exhibited by people who are professionally or vocationally creative pretty eminent) and Big-C(thought considered great in the given field). This model was intended to help accommodate models and theories of creativity and an essential component of the field of creativity. It also, the authors argued, made a useful framework for analyzing creative processes in individuals. ^[27]

The contrast of terms “Big C” and “Little c” has been widely used. Kozbelt, Beghetto and Runco use a little-c / Big-C model to review major theories of creativity. ^[26] Margaret Boden distinguishes between h-creativity (historical) and p-creativity (personal). ^[28]

Robinson ^[29] and Anna Craft ^[30] have focused on creativity in a general population, particularly with respect to education. Craft makes a similar distinction between “high” and “little c” creativity. ^[30] and quotes Ken Robinson as referring to “high” and “democratic” creativity. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi ^[31] has defined creativity in terms of those creative judgments, perhaps domain-changing contributions. Simonton has analyzed the trajectories of eminent creative people in order to map patterns and predictors of creative productivity. ^[32]

Theories of creative processes

There has been much empirical study in psychology and cognitive science of the processes through which Interpretation of the results of these studies has several possible explanations of the sources and methods of creativity.

Incubation

Incubation is a temporary breakthrough that can result in insight. ^[33] There is some empirical research looking at the subject, as the concept of “incubation” in Wallas’ model implies, a period of interruption or a creative problem-solving problem. Ward ^[34] lists various hypotheses that have been advanced to explain why incubation is possible, and notes that some empirical evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that incubation aids creative problem-solving that allows “forgetting” of misleading clues . Absence of incubation may lead to the problem of being isolated .This work argues that the first hypothesis is that of creative solutions to problems that arise from the unconscious mind. ^[36] This earlier hypothesis is discussed in Csikszentmihalyi ‘s five phase model of the creative process which describes incubation as your unconscious takes over. This allows for unique connections to be made without your awareness of the problem. ^[37]

Convergent and divergent thinking

JP Guilford ^[38] draws a distinction between convergent and divergent production (commonly renamed convergent and divergent thinking ). Convergent thinking involves a single, correct solution to a problem. Divergent thinking is sometimes used as a synonym for creativity in psychology literature. Other researchers have used flexible thinking or fluid intelligence , which are roughly similar to (but not synonymous with) creativity. ^{[ quote needed ]}

Creative cognition approach

In 1992, Finke et al. In this paper, the term “geneplore” is used in the construction of a “phase”, where the individual constructs are called “mental states”. Some evidence shows that when they use their imagination to develop new ideas, those ideas are highly structured in predictable ways. ^[39] Weisberg ^[40] argued, by contrast, that creativity only involves ordinary cognitive processes yielding extraordinary results.

The Explicit-Implicit Interaction (EII) theory

Helie and Sun ^[41] recently proposed a unified framework for understanding creativity in problem solving , namely the Explicit-Implicit Interaction (EII) theory of creativity. This new theory is an attempt at providing a more unified explanation of phenomena (in part by reinterpreting / integrating various fragmentary existing theories of incubation and insight ).

The EII theory relates mainly to five basic principles, namely:

1. The co-existence of the difference between explicit and implicit knowledge;
2. The simultaneous involvement of implicit and explicit processes in most tasks;
3. The redundant representation of explicit and implicit knowledge;
4. The integration of the results of explicit and implicit processing;
5. The iterative (and possibly bidirectional) processing.

A computational implementation of the theory was developed based on the CLARION cognitive architecture and used to simulate falling human data. This work represents an initial step in the development of process-based theories of creativity encompassing incubation, insight, and various other related phenomena.

Conceptual blending

In The Act of Creation , Arthur Koestler introduced the concept of bisociation – that creativity arises as a result of the intersection of two quite different frames of reference. ^[42] This idea was later developed into conceptual blending. In the 1990s, various approaches in cognitive science that dealt with metaphor , analogy , and structure mapping have been converging, and a new integrative approach to the study of creativity in science, art and humor has emerged under the label conceptual blending .

Honing theory

Honing theory, developed principally by psychologist Liane Gabora, posits that creativity arises due to the self-organizing, self-mending nature of a worldview. The creative process is one in which the individual hones (and re-hones) an integrated worldview. Honing theory places emphasis on the externally visible creative outcome and the internal cognitive restructuring and repair of the worldview brought about by the creative process. When faced with a creatively demanding task, there is an interaction between the design of the task and the worldview. The concept of the task changes the interaction with the worldview, and the worldview changes the interaction with the task. This interaction is reiterated until the task is complete,

A central feature of honing theory is the notion of a potentiality state. ^[43] Honing theory posits that creative thinking process by randomly ‘mutating’ predefined possibilities, but by drawing upon associations that exist to overlap in the distributed neural cell assemblies that participate in the encoding of experiences in memory. Midway through the creative process may be made between the current task and the previous experience, but not yet, which aspects of the above are relevant to the current task. Thus the creative idea may feel ‘half-baked’. It is possible that it can be said to be in a potentiality state, because it will be able to interact with others.

Honing theory is held to explain certain phenomena not dealt with by other theories of creativity, for example, how different works by the same creator are observed in studies to exhibit a recognizable style or ‘voice’. This invention is not limited to the theory of creativity, but it is predicted by honing theory, according to which it is uniquely structured worldview. Another example is in the environmental stimulus for creativity. Creativity is commonly considered to be supportive by a supportive, nurturing, trustworthy environment conducive to self-actualization. However, research shows that creativity is also associated with childhood adversity, which would stimulate honing.

Everyday imaginative thought

In everyday thought, people often spontaneously imagine alternatives to reality when they think “if only …”. ^[44] Their counterfactual thinking is viewed as an example of everyday creative processes. ^[45] It has been proposed that the creation of counterfactual alternatives to reality depends on similar cognitive processes to rational thought. ^[46]

Assessing individual creative ability

Creativity quotient

Several attempts have been made to develop a quotient of an individual similar to the intelligence quotient (IQ); however, these have been unsuccessful. ^[47]

Psychometric approach

JP Guilford’s group, ^[38] which pioneered the modern psychometric study of creativity, built several tests to measure creativity in 1967:

• Plot Titles, where participants are given the plot of a story and asked to write original titles.
• Quick Responses is a word-association test scored for uncommonness.
• Figure Concepts, where participants were given simple drawings of objects and these were scored for uncommonness.
• Unusual Uses.
• Remote Associations, where participants are asked to find each other (eg Hand _____ Call)
• Remote Consequences, where participants are asked to generate a list of consequences of unexpected events (eg loss of gravity)

Building on Guilford’s work, Torrance ^[48] Developed the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking in 1966. ^[49] They Involved single tests of divergent thinking and other problem-solving skills, qui Were Scored on:

• Fluency – The total number of interpretable, meaningful, and relevant ideas generated in response to the stimulus.
• Originality – The statistical rarity of the responses among the test subjects.
• Elaboration – The amount of detail in the responses.

The Creativity Achievement Questionnaire , a self-report test that measures creative achievement across 10 domains, was described in 2005 and shown to be reliable and compared to other measures of creativity and independent evaluation of creative output. ^[50]

Such tests, sometimes called Divergent Thinking (DT) tests have been both supported ^[51] and criticized. ^[52]

Considerable progress has been made in an automated scoring of divergent thinking tests using a semantic approach. When compared to human raters, NLP techniques were shown to be reliable and valid in scoring the originality (when compared to human raters). ^[53] [54] The reported computer programs were able to achieve a correlation of 0.60 and 0.72 respectively to human graders.

Semantic networks were also used to score originality scores that yielded significant correlations with socio-personal measures. ^[55] Most recently, an NSF-funded ^[56] team of researchers led by James C. Kaufman and Mark A. Runco ^[57] combined expertise in creativity research, natural language processing, computational linguistics, and statistical data analysis scalable system for computerized automated testing (SparcIt Creativity Index Testing system). This system enabled automated scoring of DT Tests That Is reliable, objective and scalable THUS Addressing MOST of the outcomes of DT tests That HAD beens found and reported. ^[52]The resulting computer system was able to achieve a correlation of 0.73 to human graders. ^[58]

Social-personality approach

Some researchers have taken a social-personality approach to the measurement of creativity. In these studies, personality traits such as independence of judgment, self-confidence, attraction to complexity, aesthetic orientation, and risk-taking are used as measures of the creativity of individuals. ^[24] A meta-analysis by Gregory Feist, a more conservative, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive. ” Openness, conscientiousness, self-acceptance, hostility, and impulsivity had the strongest effects of the traits listed. ^[59] Within the framework of the Big Fivemodel of personality, some consistent traits have emerged. ^[60] Openness to experience has been shown to be consistently related to a different assessment of creativity. ^[61] Among the other Big Five features, research has demonstrated subtle differences between different domains of creativity. Compared to non-artists, artists tend to have higher levels of openness to experience and lower levels of conscientiousness, while scientists are more open to experience, conscientious , and higher in the confidence-dominance facets of extroversion compared to non-scientists. ^[59]

Creativity and intelligence

The potential relationship between creativity and intelligence has been of interest since the late 1900s, when a multitude of influential studies – from Getzels & Jackson, ^[62] Barron, ^[63] Wallach & Kogan, ^[64] and Guilford ^[65] – focused not only on creativity, but also on intelligence. This joint focus highlights both the theoretical and the practical importance of the relationship: researchers are interested not only in the constructs, but also how and why. ^[66]

There are multiple theories accounting for their relationship, with the 3 main theories as follows:

• Threshold Theory – Intelligence is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for creativity. There is a moderate positive relationship between creativity and intelligence until IQ ~ 120. ^[63] [65]
• Theory Certification – Creativity is not intrinsically related to intelligence. Instead, individuals are required to meet the requisite level of intelligence in order to gain a certain level of education / work, which then in turn offers the opportunity to be creative. Displays of creativity are moderated by intelligence. ^[67]
• Interference Theory – Extremely high intelligence might interfere with creative ability. ^[68]

Sternberg and O’Hara ^[69] proposed a framework of 5 possible relationships between creativity and intelligence:

1. Creativity is a subset of intelligence
2. Intelligence is a subset of creativity
3. Creativity and intelligence are overlapping constructs
4. Creativity and intelligence are part of the same construct (coincident sets)
5. Creativity and intelligence are separate constructs (disjoint sets)

Creativity as a subset of intelligence

A number of researchers include creativity, either explicitly or implicitly, as a key component of intelligence.

Examples of theories that include creativity as a subset of intelligence

• Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MIT) ^[70] implicitly includes creativity as a subset of MIT. To demonstrate this, Gardner cited examples of different famous creators, each of which differed in their types of intelligences eg Picasso (spatial intelligence); Freud (intrapersonal); Einstein (logical-mathematical); and Gandhi (interpersonal).
• Sternberg’s Theory of Successful Intelligence ^{[68] [69] [71]} (see Triarchic Theory of Intelligence ), including sub-theories: Componential (Analytic), Contextual (Practical), and Experiential (Creative) . Experiential sub-theory – the ability to use pre-existing knowledge and skills to solve new problems.
• The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of creativity as a subset of intelligence. Specifically, it is associated with the broad group of long-term storage and retrieval (Glr). Glr narrow abilities Relating to creativity include: ^[72] ideational fluency, associational fluency, and originality / creativity. Silvia et al. ^[73] The relationship between divergent thinking and verbal fluency tests, and reported that both fluency and originality in divergent thinking were significantly affected by the broad level Glr factor. Martindale ^[74]CHC-theory in the sense that it is proposed that they are creative in their processing. Martindale argues that in the creative process begins to understand the problem, the processing speed is increased.
• The Dual Process Theory of Intelligence ^[75] posits a two-factor / type model of intelligence. Type 1 is a conscious process, and goal directed Concerns thoughts, qui are Explained by g . Type 2 is an unconscious process, and concerns spontaneous cognition, which encompasses daydreaming and implicit learning ability. Kaufman argues that this is the result of Type 1 and Type 2 processes working together in combination. The use of each type in the creative process can be used to varying degrees.

Intelligence as a Subset of Creativity

In this relationship model, intelligence is a key component in the development of creativity.

Theories of creativity that include intelligence as a subset of creativity

• Sternberg & Lubart’s Investment Theory. ^[76] [77]Using the metaphor of a stock market, they make it easy for them to think about it – they buy low and sell high (in their ideas). Like under / low-value stock, creative individuals generate unique ideas. The creative individual has to persevere, and convince the others of the ideas value. After convincing the others, and thus increasing the ideas value, the creative individual ‘sells high’ by leaving the idea with the other people, and moves about generating another idea. According to this theory, six distinct, but related elements contribute to successful creativity: intelligence, knowledge, thinking styles, personality, motivation, and environment. Intelligence is just one of the six factors that can only be
• Amabile ‘s Componential Model of Creativity. ^[78] [79] In this model, there are 3 within-individual components needed for creativity – domain-related skills, creativity-related processes, and task motivation – and 1 component external to the individual: their surrounding social environment. Creativity requires a confluence of all components. High creativity will result when an individual is: intrinsically motivated, possesses both a high level of high skills and a high level of creative thinking.
• Amusement Park Theoretical Model. ^[80] In this 4-step theory, both domain-specific and generalist views are integrated into a model of creativity. The researchers make use of the metaphor of the amusement park
  • To get into the amusement park, there are initial requirements (eg, time / transport to go to the park). Initial requirements (like intelligence) are necessary, but not sufficient for creativity. They are more like prerequisites for creativity, and if an individual does not possess the basic level of the initial requirement (intelligence), then they will not be able to generate creative thoughts / behavior.
  • Secondly are the subcomponents – general thematic areas – that increase in specificity. Like these types of amusement park to visit (eg a zoo or a water park), these areas relate to the areas in which someone could be creative (eg poetry).
  • Thirdly, there are specific domains. After choosing the type of park to visit eg waterpark, Within the poetry domain, there are many different types (eg free verse, riddles, sonnet, etc.) that have to be selected from.
  • Lastly, there are micro-domains. These are the specific tasks that reside within each other’s individual lines in a free verse poem / individual rides at the waterpark.

Creativity and intelligence as overlaying yet distinct constructs

This possible relationship concerns creativity and intelligence as distinct, but intersecting constructs.

Theories that include Creativity and Intelligence as Overlapping Yet Distinct Constructs

• Renzulli’s Three-Ring Design of Giftedness. ^[81] In this conceptualization, giftedness occurs as a result of the overlap of above average intellectual ability, creativity, and task commitment. Under this view, creativity and intelligence are distinct constructs, but they do not overlap under the correct conditions.
• PASS theory of intelligence . In this theory, the planning component – relating to the ability to solve problems, making decisions and taking action – strongly overlaps with the concept of creativity. ^[82]
• Threshold Theory (TT). A number of previous research findings have suggested that a threshold exists in the relationship between creativity and intelligence – both constructs are moderately positively correlated up to an IQ of ~ 120. Above this threshold of an IQ of 120, if there is a relationship, it is small and weak. ^{[62] [63] [83]} TT posits that a moderate level of intelligence is necessary for creativity.

In support of the TT, Barron ^[63] [84] reported a non-significant correlation between creativity and intelligence in a gifted sample; and a significant correlation in a non-gifted sample. Yamamoto ^[85] in a sample of secondary school children, reported a significant correlation between creativity and intelligence of r = .3, and reported no significant correlation when the sample consisted of gifted children. Fuchs-Beauchamp et al. ^[86] in a sample of preschoolers found that creativity and intelligence correlated with r = .19 to r = .49 in the group of children who had an IQ below the threshold; and in the group above the threshold, the correlations werer = <.12. Cho et al. ^[87] reported a correlation of .40 between creativity and intelligence in the average IQ group of a sample of adolescents and adults; and a correlation of close to r = .0 for the high IQ group. Jauk et al. ^[88] found support for TT, but only for measures of creative potential; not creative performance.

Much modern day research reports findings against TT. Wai et al. ^[89] In a study of mathematical Precocious Youth – a cohort of elite students from early adolescence to adulthood – found that differences in SAT scores at age 13 were predictive of creative real-life outcomes. Kim’s ^[90] meta-analysis of 21 studies has been reported between intelligence, creativity, and divergent thinking. IQ’s of 120. Preckel et al., ^[91] investigating fluid intelligence and creativity, reported small correlations of r = .3 to r = .4 across all levels of cognitive ability.

Creativity and intelligence as coincident sets

Under this view, researchers posit that there are no differences in the mechanisms underlying normalization in normal problem solving; and in normal problem solving, there is no need for creativity. Thus, creativity and Intelligence are the same thing. Perkins ^[92] referred to this as the ‘nothing-special’ view.

Weisberg & Alba ^[93] reviewed by the participants complete the 9-dot problem (see Thinking outside the box # Nine dots puzzle ) – where the participants are asked to connect 9 dots in the 3 rows of 3 dots using 4 straight lines or less, without lifting their pen or tracing the line twice. The problem can only be solved if the lines go beyond the boundaries of the square of dots. Results shown that even when participants are given this insight, they still find it difficult to solve the problem, thus showing that the task is not just insightful (or creative) that is required.

Creativity and intelligence as disjoint sets

In this view, creativity and intelligence are completely different, unrelated constructs.

Getzels and Jackson ^[62] 5 steps to a group of 449 children from grades 6-12, and compared IQ tests. They found that the correlation between creativity and IQ was r = .26. The high creativity group is in the top 20% of the overall creativity measures, but not included in the top 20% of IQ scorers. The high intelligence group has the opposite effect: they are in the top 20% for IQ, but they are outside the top 20% scorers for creativity, thus showing that they are distinct and unrelated.

However, this work has been heavily criticized. Wallach and Kogan ^[64] highlighted that creativity was not only weakly related to another (to the extent that they were no longer related to IQ), but they . McNemar ^[94] noted that there were major measurement issues, in which the IQ scores were a mixture of 3 different IQ tests.

Wallach and Kogan ^[64] 5 measures of creativity, each of which has been translated into originality and fluency; and 10 measures of general intelligence to 151 5th grade children. These tests were untimed, and given in a game-like manner (aiming to facilitate creativity). Inter-correlations between creativity tests were on average r = .41. Inter-correlations between intelligence measures were on average r = .51 with each other. Creativity tests and intelligence measures correlated r = .09.

Neuroscience

The neuroscience of creativity looks at the operation of the brain during creative behavior. It has been addressed ^[95] in the article “Creative Innovation: Possible Brain Mechanisms.” The authors write that “creative innovation might require coactivation and communication between regions of the brain that ordinarily are not strongly connected.” Highly creative people who excel at creative innovation

• they have a high level of specialized knowledge,
• they are capable of divergent thinking mediated by the frontal lobe .
• and they are able to modulate neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine in their frontal lobe.

Thus, the frontal lobe appears to be the part of the cortex that is most important for creativity.

This article also explored the links between creativity and sleep, mood and addiction disorders , and depression .

In 2005, Alice Flaherty presented a three-factor model of the creative drive. Drawing from evidence in brain imaging, drug studies, and lesion analysis, she describes the result of an interaction of the frontal lobes, the temporal lobes , and dopamine from the limbic system . The frontal lobes can be seen as responsible for idea generation, and the temporal lobes for idea editing and evaluation. Abnormalities in the frontal lobe (such as depression or anxiety) High activity in the temporal lobe typically inhibits activity in the frontal lobe, and vice versa. High dopamine levels increase general arousaland goal directed behaviors and reduce latent inhibition , and all three effects increase the drive to generate ideas. ^[96] A 2015 study on creativity found that it involves the interaction of multiple neural networks, including those that support associative thinking, along with other default mode network functions. ^[97]

Working memory and the cerebellum

Vandervert ^[98] described how the brain’s frontal lobes and the cognitive functions of the cerebellum collaborate to produce creativity and innovation. Vandervert’s explanation is that the processes of working memory (responsibly for processing all thought ^[99] ) are adaptively modeled for increased efficiency by the cerebellum. ^[100] The cerebellum (consisting of 100 billion neurons, which is more than the entirety of the rest of the brain ^[101] ) is also widely known to adaptively model all bodily movement for efficiency. The cerebellum’s adaptive models of working memory processing^[102] where creative and innovative thoughts arise. ^[103] (Apparently, creative insight or the “aha” experience is then triggered in the temporal lobe. ^[104] )

According to Vandervert, the details of creative adaptation begin with “forward” cerebellar models which are anticipatory / exploratory controls for movement and thought. These cerebellar processing and control architectures have been termed Hierarchical Modular Selection and Identification for Control (HMOSAIC). ^[105] New, hierarchically arranged levels of the cerebellar control architecture (HMOSAIC) develop as mental mulling in working memory is extended over time. These new levels of the 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 approach helps explain creativity and innovation in sports, art, music, the design of video games, technology, mathematics, thechild prodigy , and thought in general.

Essentially, Vandervert has argued that when a person is confronted with a challenging new situation, visual-spatial working memory and speech-related working memory are decomposed and re-composed (fractionated) by the cerebellum and then blended in the cerebral cortex in an attempt to deal with the new situation. With the cerebro-cerebellar blending process, the cerebro-cerebellar continues to optimize the efficiency of the situation. ^[107] Most recently, it has been argued that this is the same process (only involving visual-spatial working memory and pre-language vocalization) that leads to the evolution of language in humans. ^[108]Vandervert and Vandervert-Weathers have pointed out that this blending process, because it continually optimizes efficiencies, constantly improving prototyping approaches to the invention or innovation of new ideas, music, art, or technology. ^[109] Prototyping, they argue, not only produces new products, it trains the cerebro-cerebellar pathways involved to become more efficient at prototyping itself. Further, Vandervert and Vandervert-Weathers believe that this repetitive “mental prototyping” or mental rehearsal involving the cerebellum and the cerebral cortex explains the success of the self-driven, individualized patterning of repetitions initiated by the teaching methods of the Khan Academy. The model proposed by Vandervert has, however, received incisive criticism from several authors. ^[110] [111]

REM sleep

Creativity involves the formation of associative elements into new combinations that are useful or meet some requirement. Sleep aids this process. ^[112] REM rather than NREM sleep appears to be responsible. ^[113] [114] This neuromodulation has been suggested to occur in cholinergic and noradrenergic neuromodulation that occurs during REM sleep. ^[113] During this period of sleep, high levels of acetylcholine in the hippocampus suppress feedback from the hippocampus to the neocortexAcetaminophenol and Norepinephrine in the neocortex encourage the spread of associative activity in neocortical areas without control of the hippocampus. ^[115] This is in contrast to waking consciousness, where higher levels of norepinephrine and acetylcholine inhibit recurrent connections in the neocortex. It is proposed that it should not be possible to reorganize hierarchies in the hierarchies, in which information from the hippocampus would be reinterpreted in relation to previous semantic representations or nodes. ^[113]

Affect

Some theories suggest that creativity may be particularly susceptible to emotional influence. As Noted in voting behavior , the term “affect” in this context can Refer to liking or disliking key aspects of the subject in question. This work in the field of psychoanalysis is of great importance in the field of psychoanalysis. ^[116]

Positive affect relations

According to Alice Isen , a positive affect has three primary effects on cognitive activity:

1. Positive affect makes additional cognitive material available for processing, increasing the number of cognitive elements available for association;
2. Positive affect leads to defocused attention and a more complex cognitive context, increasing the breadth of those elements that are treated as relevant to the problem;
3. Positive affect increases cognitive flexibility, increasing the probability that various cognitive elements will in fact become associated. Together, these positive lead processes have a positive influence on creativity.

Barbara Fredrickson in her broaden-and-build model suggests that a person’s available repertoire of cognitions and actions, thus enhancing creativity.

According to these researchers, the cognitive scope of the cognitive scope and the cognitive scope of the cognitive scope.

Various meta-analyzes, such as Baas et al. (2008) of 66 studies on creativity and the relationship between creativity and positive affect. ^[117] [118]

Creativity and personality

Creativity can be expressed in a number of different forms, depending on unique people and environments. A number of different theorists have suggested models of the creative person. One model suggests that there are kinds to produce growth, innovation, speed, etc. These are referred to as the “Creativity Profiles” that can help achieve such goals. ^[135]

(i) Incubate (Long-term Development)

(ii) Imagine (Breakthrough Ideas)

(iii) Improve (Incremental Adjustments)

(iv) Invest (Short-term Goals)

Research by Dr. Mark Batey of the Psychometrics at Work Research Group at Manchester Business School has suggested that the creative profile can be explained by four primary faculties with narrow facets within each

(i) “Idea Generation” (Fluency, Originality, Incubation and Illumination)

(ii) “Personality” (Curiosity and Tolerance for Ambiguity)

(iii) “Motivation” (Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Achievement)

(iv) “Confidence” (Producing, Sharing and Implementing)

This model was developed in a study of the dynamics of structural error analysis by Structural Equation Modeling. ^[136]

An important aspect of the creativity profiling approach to the tension between predicting the creative profile of an individual, as characterized by the psychometric approach, and the evidence that team creativity is founded on diversity and difference. ^[137]

One characteristic of creative people, as measured by some psychologists, is what is called divergent production . Divergent production is the ability of a person to generate a diverse assortment. ^[138] One way of measuring diverging production is by administering the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. ^[139] The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking assesses the diversity, quantity, and appropriateness of participants responses to a variety of open-ended questions.

Other researchers of creativity in the field of creativity and creativity in the field of creative expression. Hard working people study the work of people in their fields, become experts in their fields, and then have the ability to add to and read about information in innovative and creative ways. In a study of projects by design students, who had more knowledge on their subject. ^[140]

The aspect of motivation within a person’s personality Motivation stems from two different sources, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is an internal drive within a person to participate or a result of personal interest, desires, hopes, goals, etc. Extrinsic motivation is a drive towards a person and can take the form of payment, reward, fame, approval from others, etc. Although extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation can both increase creativity in certain cases, strictly extrinsic motivation often impedes creativity in people. ^[141]

From a personality perspective, there are a number of features that are associated with creativity in people. ^[142] Creative people are more self-confident, are more ambitious, self-accepting, impulsive, driven, dominant, and hostile, compared to people with less creativity.

From an evolutionary perspective, creativity may be a result of the years of generating ideas. As ideas are continually generated, the need to evolve produces a need for new ideas and developments. As a result, people have been creating and developing new, innovative, and creative ideas to build our progress as a society. ^[143]

In studying exceptionally creative people in history, some common traits in lifestyle and environment are often found. Creative people in history usually had supportive parents, but rigid and non-nurturing. Most had an interest in their field at an early age, and most had a highly supportive and skilled mentor in their field of interest. The subject was often uncharted, allowing for their creativity in the field. Most exceptionally creative people who have a creative breakthrough of fame. Their lives are marked with extreme dedication and a cycle of hard-work and breakthroughs as a result of their determination. ^[144]

Another theory of creative people is the investment theory of creativity . This approach suggests that there are many individual and environmental factors that must exist in particular ways for extremely high levels of creativity to average levels of creativity. In the investment sense, they have an opportunity to devote their time and energy to something that has been overlooked by others. The creative person develops an undervalued or under-recognized 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 extent that the investor expected. thisIn the context of a single perspective, the theory of creativity in the field of creativity , creativity and the ability ^[145]

Malevolent creativity

Malevolent creativity (TM) focuses on the “darker side” of creativity. ^[146] This type of creativity is not typically accepted by society and is defined by the intention to cause harm to others through its original and innovative means. MC is explicitly malevolently motivated. MC is often a key contributor to crime and its most destructive form can even manifest as terrorism. However, MC can also be observed in ordinary day-to-day life as lying, cheating and betrayal. ^[147]Although everyone shows some levels of MC under certain conditions, those who have a higher propensity towards malevolent creativity have increased tendencies to deceive and manipulate others to their own gain. Although levels of MC appear to be dramatically increased when an individual is placed under conditions, personality is also a predictor in anticipating levels of malevolent thinking. Researches Harris and Reiter-Palmon investigated the role of aggression in levels of MC, in particular levels of implicit aggression and the tendency to employ aggressive actions in response to problem solving. The personality traits of physical aggression, conscientiousness, emotional intelligence and implicit aggression all seem to be related to MC. ^[146]Harris and Reiter-Palmon’s research shows that when subjects are presented with a problem that triggers malevolent creativity, participants in the field of malevolently-solutions. When presented with the help of other causes of aggression, even if they were high in impulsiveness, they were far less destructive in their imagined solutions. They conclude premeditation, more than implicit aggression controlled an individual’s expression of malevolent creativity. ^[148]

The current measure for malevolent creativity is the 13 item Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale (MCBS) ^[147]

Malevolent creativity and crime

Malevolent creativity has strong links with crime. As creativity requires deviating from the conventional, there is a permanent tension between being creative and producing products that go to the point of breaking the law. Aggression is a key predictor of malevolent creativity, studies have also shown that higher levels of aggression also correlates to a higher likelihood of committing crime. ^[149]

Creativity across cultures

Creativity is viewed differently in different countries. ^[150] For example, a cross-cultural research center on Hong Kong found that Westerners view creativity in a creative personality, such as their aesthetic taste, while creative people eg what they can contribute to society. ^[151] Mpofu et al. surveyed 28 African languages ​​and found that 27 had no word which is translated to ‘creativity’ (the exception being Arabic ). ^[152] The principle of linguistic relativity, ie, that language can affect thought, suggest that the lack of an equivalent word for ‘creativity’ may affect the views of the speaker. However, more research would be needed to establish this, and it is certainly not that creative linguistic difference makes any less (or more) creative; Africa has a rich heritage of creative pursuits such as music , art , and storytelling . Nevertheless, it has been very little research on creativity in Africa, ^[153] and there has been very little research on creativity in Latin America. ^[154]Creativity has been more thoroughly researched in the northern hemisphere, but still there are cultural differences, even between countries or groups of countries in close proximity. For example, in Scandinavian countries, creativity is seen as an individuality that helps in coping with life’s challenges, ^[155] while in Germany, creativity is seen more than a process that can be applied to help solve problems. ^[156]

In organizations

It has been the subject of various research studies to establish the importance of a large extent. For any given organization, the measures of effectiveness vary, the nature of the environment, the nature of the work, the product or service it produces, and the customer demands. Thus, the first step in evaluation of organizational effectiveness is to understand the organization itself – how it functions, how it is structured, and what it emphasizes.

Amabile ^[157] arguing that to enhance creativity in business,

• Expertise (technical, procedural and intellectual knowledge),
• Creative thinking skills (how flexibly and imaginatively
• and Motivation (especially intrinsic motivation ).

There are two types of motivation:

• extrinsic motivation – external factors, for example threats of being white fired or money as a reward,
• intrinsic motivation – comes from inside an individual, satisfaction, enjoyment of work, etc.

Six managerial practices to encourage motivation are:

• Challenge – matching people with the right assignments;
• Freedom – giving people autonomy choosing means clustering to achieve achievement goals;
• Resources – such as time, money, space, etc. There must be balance between resources and people;
• Work group features – diverse , supportive teams, where members share the excitement, willingness to help, and recognize each other’s talents;
• Supervisory encouragement – recognitions, cheering, praising;
• Organizational support – value emphasis, information sharing, collaboration .

Nonaka, who looked at several successful Japanese companies, similarly saw creativity and knowledge creation as being important to the success of organizations. ^[158] In particular, he emphasized the role of tacit knowledge in the creative process.

In business, originality is not enough. The idea must also be appropriate-useful and actionable . ^[159] [160] Creative competitive intelligence is a new solution to solve this problem. According to Reijo Siltala it links creativity to innovation process and competitive intelligence to creative workers.

Creativity can be encouraged in the workplace. It is essential for innovation, and is a factor affecting economic growth and businesses. In 2013, the sociologist Silvia Leal Martín, using the Innova 3DX method, suggested measuring the various parameters that encourages creativity and innovation: corporate culture, work environment, leadership and management, creativity, self-esteem and optimism, locus of control and learning orientation , motivation, and fear. ^[161]

Similarly, social psychologists, organizational scientists, and management scientists who conduct extensive research on the factors that influence creativity and innovation in teams and organizations have developed integrative theoretical models that emphasize the roles of team composition, team processes, and organizational culture, more the mutually reinforcing relationships between them in promoting innovation. ^{[162] [163] [164] [165]}

The investigation by Loo (2017) ^[166] on creative working in the knowledge economy. It offers connections with the sections on the ” Four C ‘model’, ‘Theories of creative processes’, ‘Creativity as a subset of intelligence’, ‘Creativity and personality’, and ‘In organizations’ It is the last section that investigation addresses.

Research studies can be classified into three levels: macro, meso and micro. Macro studies refer to investigations at a societal or transnational dimension. Meso studies focus on organizations. Micro investigations center on the minutiae workings of workers. There is also an interdisciplinary dimension such as research of businesses (eg Burton-Jones, 1999, Drucker, 1999), economics (eg Cortada, 1998, Reich, 2001, Florida, 2003), education (eg Farrell and Fenwick, 2007; , Lauder and Ashton, 2011), human resource management (eg Davenport, 2005), knowledge and organizational management (Alvesson, 2004, Defillippi, Arthur and Lindsay, 2006, Orr, Nutley, Russell, Bain, Hacking and Moran, 2016), sociology, psychology, and knowledge economy-related sectors – especially information technology (IT) software (eg O’Riain, 2004; Nerland, 2008) and advertising (eg Grabher, 2004, Lury, 2004) (Loo, 2017).

Loo (2017) how do they work in the knowledge economy and how do they work? It examines this phenomenon across three countries of England, Japan and Singapore to observe global perspectives. Specifically, the study uses qualitative data from semi-structured interviews of the related professionals in the roles of creative directing and copywriting (in advertising), and developing software systems and software program managing.

The study offers a conceptual framework (Loo, 2017, p.49) of a two-dimensional matrix of individual and collaborative working styles, and single and multi-contexts. The research draws on literature sources from the four disciplines of economics (eg Reich, 2001, Quah, 2002), management (eg, Drucker, 1994, Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995, von Hippel, 2006), sociology (eg Zuboff, 1988; Bell 1973, Lash and Urry 1994, Castells 2000, Knorr Cetina 2005) and psychology (eg Gardner 1984, Csikszentmihalyi 1988, Sternberg Kaufman and Pretz 2004). The themes of the study of the theory of knowledge and the creation of a framework of creative knowledge work. These workers apply their cognitive abilities, creative personalities and skill sets in the areas of science, technology, or culture industries to invent or discover new possibilities – eg a medium, product or service. These work activities may be done individually or collectively. Education, training and ‘encultured environments’ are necessary for the performance of these creative activities. Citation needed (Gardner, 1993), and creating something that is different and novel, ie a ‘variation’ on the idea of existing ideas in a domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). This framework is evidenced by the empirical chapters on the micro-workings of creative workers in the two knowledge economy sectors from global perspectives. These work activities may be done individually or collectively. Education, training and ‘encultured environments’ are necessary for the performance of these creative activities. Citation needed (Gardner, 1993), and creating something that is different and novel, ie a ‘variation’ on the idea of existing ideas in a domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). This framework is evidenced by the empirical chapters on the micro-workings of creative workers in the two knowledge economy sectors from global perspectives. These work activities may be done individually or collectively. Education, training and ‘encultured environments’ are necessary for the performance of these creative activities. Citation needed (Gardner, 1993), and creating something that is different and novel, ie a ‘variation’ on the idea of existing ideas in a domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). This framework is evidenced by the empirical chapters on the micro-workings of creative workers in the two knowledge economy sectors from global perspectives. Citation needed (Gardner, 1993), and creating something that is different and novel, ie a ‘variation’ on the idea of existing ideas in a domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). This framework is evidenced by the empirical chapters on the micro-workings of creative workers in the two knowledge economy sectors from global perspectives. Citation needed (Gardner, 1993), and creating something that is different and novel, ie a ‘variation’ on the idea of existing ideas in a domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). This framework is evidenced by the empirical chapters on the micro-workings of creative workers in the two knowledge economy sectors from global perspectives.

This investigation identifies the definition of creative work, the three types of work and the necessary conditions for it to occur. These workers use a combination of creative applications including anticipatory imagination, problem-solving, problem seeking, and generating ideas and aesthetic sensibilities. Taking an aesthetic sense as an example, for a creative director in the advertising industry, it is a visual imagery whether still or moving via a camera lens, and for a software program, it is the innovative technical expertise in which the software is written. There are specific creative applications in the advertising sector, and the power of expression and sensitivity in the IT software sector. In addition to the creative applications, creative workers require skills and abilities to carry out their roles. Passion for one’s job is generic. For copywriters, this passion is identified with fun, enjoyment, and happiness, with regard to the product, confidence, and patience in finding the appropriate copy. Knowledge is also required in the disciplines of the humanities (eg literature), the creative arts (eg painting and music) and technical-related know-how (eg mathematics, computer science and physical sciences). In the IT software, technical knowledge of computer languages ​​(eg C +++) is particularly significant for programmers for the degree of technical expertise.

There are three types of work. One is intra-sectoral (eg ‘general sponge’ and ‘in tune with the zeitgeist’ [advertising], and ‘power of expression’ and ‘sensitivity’ [IT software]). The second is inter-sectoral (eg ‘integration of advertising activities’ [advertising], and ‘autonomous decentralized systems’ [ADS] [IT software]). The third relates to changes in culture / practices in the sectors (eg ‘three-dimensional trust’ and ‘green credentials’ [advertising], and ‘collaboration with HEIs and industry’ and ‘ADS system in the Tokyo train operator’ [IT software ]).

The necessary conditions for creative work are supportive environment such as supportive information, communications and electronic technologies (ICET) infrastructure, training, work environment and education.

This investigation has implications for lifelong learning of these workers informally and formally. Teaching institutions need to offer a multi-disciplinary knowledge of humanities, arts and sciences and it has impacts on the program structure, delivery approaches and assessments. At a macro level, governments need to offer a rich diet of cultural activities, outdoor activities and sports. This study has implications for work organizations that support collaborative work, and offers opportunities for professional development (formally and informally), and foster an environment.

Team Composition

Diversity between team members’ backgrounds and knowledge can increase team creativity by expanding the size of the team. However, under some conditions, diversity can also be broken down. ^[167] Thus, the potential advantages of diversity should be supported by appropriate team processes and organizational cultures in order to enhance creativity. ^{[162] [163] [164] [165] [168] [169]}

Team Processes

Team communication norms , such as understanding others ‘expertise, paying attention to others’ ideas, expecting information sharing, tolerating disagreements, negotiating , remaining open to others ‘ideas, learning from others, and building on each others’ ideas, increase team creativity by facilitating the social processes involved with brainstorming and problem solving . Through these processes, team members are able to access their collective pool of knowledge, reach shared understandings, identify new ways of understanding problems or tasks, and make new connections between ideas. Engaging in these social processes also promotes positive team affect , which facilitates collective creativity. ^{[162][164] [165] [168]}

Organizational Culture

Supportive and motivational environments that create psychological safety by encouraging and increasing risk. ^{[162] [163] [164] [165]} Organizations in which help-seeking , help giving , and collaboration are rewarded by providing opportunities and contexts in which team processes lead to collective creativity can occur. ^[170] Additionally, leadership styles that are downplaying status or hierarchies or power differences within an organization and empowering people to speak to their ideas or to create cultures that are conducive to creativity.^{[162] [163] [164] [165]}

Economic views of creativity

Economic approaches to creativity have focused on three aspects – the impact of creativity on economic growth, methods of modeling markets for creativity, and the maximization of economic creativity (innovation).

In the early 20th century, Joseph Schumpeter introduced the economic theory of creative destruction , to describe the ways in which things are endogenously destroyed and replaced by the new. Some economists (such as Paul Romer ) view creativity as an important element in the recombination of elements to produce new technologies and products, and consequently, economic growth. Creativity leads to capital , and creative products are protected by intellectual property laws.

Mark A. Runco and Daniel Rubenson have tried to describe a ” psychoeconomic ” model of creativity. ^[171] In such a model, creativity is the product of endowments and active investments in creativity; the costs and benefits of bringing creativity to market. Such an approach has been tested with positive utility , and for the way it analyzes the value of future innovations. ^[172]

The creative class is seen by some of the important drivers of modern economies. In his 2002 book, The Rise of the Creative Class , economist Richard Florida popularized the notion of “economic growth, Technology, Talent and Tolerance” also had high concentrations of creative professionals and a higher level of economic development.

Fostering creativity

Daniel Pink, in his 2005 book A Whole New Mind , repeating arguments posed throughout the 20th century, argues that we are entering a new age where creativity is becoming increasingly important. In this conceptual age , we will need to foster and encourage right-directed thinking (Representing creativity and emotion) over left-directed thinking (Representing logical, analytical thought). However, this simplification of ‘right’ versus ‘left’ brain thinking is not supported by the research data. ^[173]

Nickerson ^[174] provides a summary of the various technical techniques that have been proposed. These include approaches that have been developed by both academia and industry:

1. Establishing purpose and intention
2. Building basic skills
3. Encouraging acquisitions of domain-specific knowledge
4. Stimulating and rewarding curiosity and exploration
5. Building motivation, especially internal motivation
6. Encouraging confidence and a willingness to take risks
7. Focusing on mastery and self-competition
8. Promoting supportable beliefs about creativity
9. Providing opportunities for choice and discovery
10. Developing self-management (metacognitive skills)
11. Teaching techniques and strategies for facilitating creative performance
12. Providing balance

Some see the conventional system of schooling as “stifling” of creativity and attempt (PARTICULARLY in the preschool / kindergarten and early school years) to Provide a creativity-friendly, rich, fantasy-Fostering environment for young children. ^{[174] [175] [176]} Researchers have seen this as important because they are advancing our society. ^[176] In addition to helping with problem solving, where do you have problems? ^{[174] [175] [177]} See the Waldorf School as an example of an education program that promotes creative thought.

Promoting intrinsic motivation and problem solving are two areas where educators can foster creativity in students. Students are more creative when they see it as intrinsically motivating, valued for its own sake. ^{[175] [176] [178] [179]} To promote creative thinking, educators need to identify what motivates their students and structure teaching around it. Providing students with a choice of activities to complete the process of becoming more intrinsically motivated. ^[174] [180]

Teaching students to solve their creativity problems. This is accomplished by allowing students to explore problems and redefine them, possibly drawing on knowledge at first may seem unrelated to the problem in order to solve it. ^{[174] [175] [176] [178]}

Several different researchers have proposed methods of increasing the creativity of an individual. Such ideas from the ranks psychological -cognitive, Such As Osborn – Parnes Creative Problem Solving Process , Synectics , science-based creative thinking, Purdue Creative Thinking Program, and Edward de Bono ‘s lateral thinking ; to the highly structured, Such As TRIZ (the Theory of Inventive Problem-Solving) and Its varying Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving (developed by the Russian scientist Genrich Altshuller ) and Computer-Aided morphological analysis .

Creativity aussi HAS-been APPROBATION as one of the key 21st century skills and as one of the Four Cs of 21st century learning by educational leaders and theorists in the United States.

List of academic journals addressing creativity

See also