Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

Item

Title

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

Author

Damian, Rodica Ioana

Simonton, Dean Keith

Research Area

Development

Topic

Skills and Talent Development

Abstract

Creativity is a unique feature of human thinking and behavior that is essential to our species' survival, future progress, and even the rise and fall of civilizations. To understand this highly complex phenomenon, we need to adopt an interdisciplinary and multimethod approach. Because creativity happens at many different levels both intra‐ and interindividual, the psychological science of creativity currently lacks a strong paradigmatic coherence. In this essay, we review creativity research from four different scientific perspectives: cognitive, differential, developmental, and social, and attempt to provide a unified overarching picture. We present foundational and cutting‐edge research addressing the following questions: (i) What cognitive processes are involved in creative thinking; (ii) What personality traits are characteristic of the creative person; (iii) What developmental factors lead to creative achievement; and (iv) What social factors foster creativity? We identify current debate issues and propose ways to promote unity and coherence in creativity research across psychological subfields. We offer a clear definition of creativity and identify promising theoretical models that could help integrate and direct future research.

Related Essays

Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll

Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.

Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno

Insight (Psychology), Brian Erickson and John Kounios

State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and Gábor Orosz

An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology), Sarah Hartman and Jay Belsky

Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology), Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff

Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner et al.

Neural and Cognitive Plasticity (Psychology), Eduardo Mercado III

Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef

Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth Wilson

Identifier

etrds0134

extracted text

Four Psychological Perspectives
on Creativity
RODICA IOANA DAMIAN and DEAN KEITH SIMONTON

Abstract
Creativity is a unique feature of human thinking and behavior that is essential to
our species’ survival, future progress, and even the rise and fall of civilizations. To
understand this highly complex phenomenon, we need to adopt an interdisciplinary
and multimethod approach. Because creativity happens at many different levels both
intra- and interindividual, the psychological science of creativity currently lacks a
strong paradigmatic coherence. In this essay, we review creativity research from four
different scientific perspectives: cognitive, differential, developmental, and social,
and attempt to provide a unified overarching picture. We present foundational and
cutting-edge research addressing the following questions: (i) What cognitive processes are involved in creative thinking; (ii) What personality traits are characteristic
of the creative person; (iii) What developmental factors lead to creative achievement; and (iv) What social factors foster creativity? We identify current debate issues
and propose ways to promote unity and coherence in creativity research across psychological subfields. We offer a clear definition of creativity and identify promising
theoretical models that could help integrate and direct future research.

INTRODUCTION
From our ancestors who survived and thrived in a hostile wilderness, to the
atelier of an artist, to the laboratory of a scientist, to today’s information technology giants, one key ingredient made it all possible, and that is, creativity.
But what exactly is creativity?
Creativity is the process by which creative ideas are generated, selected,
and successfully implemented. In order to count as creative, an idea must
fulfill three criteria: originality, usefulness, and surprise (cf. Runco & Jaeger,
2012; Simonton, 2012b). To be original, an idea must be novel, unique, and it
must have a low probability of being generated. To be useful, an idea should
work and should solve a problem of interest, whether technological, scientific, or artistic (e.g., a poem that is so effective that it is frequently reprinted,
quoted, and anthologized). To be surprising, an idea must be nonobvious; for
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

instance, if a solution were a simple derivation based on previous expertise,
it might be considered original but not surprising. Each of these three criteria is necessary but not sufficient to render an idea creative. In addition, each
of these criteria is quantitative rather than qualitative and has a zero point.
Hence, the creativity of an idea can be conceptualized as the product of these
three criteria. If an idea has zero originality, zero usefulness, or zero surprise,
it can also be said to have zero creativity. The higher the level of each of the
three criteria is, the more creativity. For example, in Kuhnian terms, “normal
science” would probably be high in originality and usefulness, but relatively
low in surprise, whereas “revolutionary science” would be high in all three
criteria and thus, higher in creativity.
Further complicating the definition and measurement of creativity, there
are different levels of magnitude: “little-c” versus “Big-C” creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Both types of creativity must satisfy all three criteria
mentioned earlier. However, for “little-c” creativity, the levels of originality,
usefulness, and surprise are determined subjectively, and thus are personal.
This level is also called “everyday creativity” that yields the creative ideas
that happen daily at home and the workplace. These ideas will be creative
with respect to the individual but not with respect to the world at large. At
the other extreme is “Big-C Creativity,” where originality, usefulness, and
surprise are assessed by others with relevant expertise in the domain, such
as colleagues. These creative ideas will be creative not only with respect to
the individual but also with respect to the larger world. Although “little-c”
and “Big-C” creativity are believed to share common cognitive processes that
allow for the production of creative ideas, there are also some qualitative differences. Naturally, not everyone who is capable of little-c creativity is also
capable of Big-C creativity. The latter requires much more than just creative
thinking (i.e., the ability to generate creative ideas); it requires motivation and
expertise (Amabile, 1996), as well as the right Zeitgeist, or “being the right
person, in the right place, at the right time” (Simonton, 2004). One complex
problem is how little-c precisely dovetails with Big-C creativity. Although
some researchers have just assumed that when little-c becomes high enough
it becomes recognized as Big-C creativity, the reality may be much more complex than that.
Another issue that complicates the study of creativity is the multiple levels of analysis and perspectives that may be adopted (Hennessey & Amabile,
2010). What are the cognitive processes underlying creativity? Who is the creative person, what are their personality characteristics? What developmental
aspects contribute to creative thinking and achievement? What aspects of
our social world foster creativity? Unfortunately, each of these questions is
confined to one subdiscipline of psychology: cognitive, differential, developmental, and social. The challenge in studying creativity is to operate at the

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

3

intersection of these different levels of analysis and to adopt an interdisciplinary approach. In the next pages, we give a brief overview of how each of
these subfields of psychology conceptualizes creativity, and how scientists
have attempted to bridge these different areas of research. We believe that an
integrative and interdisciplinary approach is essential to understanding the
highly complex phenomenon of human creativity. We hope this will stimulate more high-quality research on creativity, as this is one of the most sought
after modern skills. As President Obama put it, “the first next step in winning the future is encouraging innovation.” Whoever masters the science of
innovation and creativity will undoubtedly master the world economy in the
years to come.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Cognitive psychologists have long been interested in creative thinking, that
is, the cognitive processes that lead to creative ideas (Simonton & Damian,
2013). As mentioned earlier, creative ideas must be original and surprising;
this implies that memories or past experiences would not be most useful
in generating such ideas. How does one generate new ideas that have a
low probability of occurrence? Many researchers have suggested that a
“broad attention focus,” “defocused attention,” “cognitive disinhibition,” or
“reduced latent inhibition” must be the answer (Carson, 2014). Regardless of
which term we use, all of these attentional styles have one thing in common:
They expand the scope of attention, allowing for a larger pool of stimuli
and thoughts to be “scanned” and integrated as “potentially relevant” to the
problem at hand. Thus, a broad attention focus and a low latent inhibition
help people “think outside the box” because they are less likely to “filter
out” valuable information based of their a priori rules of what information
is relevant. Social cognitive psychologists support this view, showing that
creative thinking and decision making are harmed by an excessive use
of rule-based thinking, as opposed to a more intuitive broad thinking
(Damian & Sherman, 2013). A downside to reduced latent inhibition is its
association with psychopathology (Carson, 2014). The psychotic mind is
constantly bombarded by stimuli and associations that should be filtered
out to begin with.
DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Differential psychologists investigate the individual differences related to
creativity, that is, the creative person. These differences can be (i) cognitive,
such as general intelligence and special mental abilities or (ii) dispositional,

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

such as personality, motivation, and values. Individual differences can often
explain inconsistencies in findings at the level of basic cognitive processes,
so they are essential for understanding creativity. For example, the finding
that reduced latent inhibition can have both positive and negative outcomes,
namely, creativity and psychopathology, respectively, can be explained by
individual differences in general intelligence (Carson, 2014). People with
exceptional intelligence have sufficient metacognitive skills and abilities to
take advantage of the relatively unfiltered inflow of information and come
up with creative ideas, whereas those with lower intelligence become overwhelmed by that sensory and associative influx, thus being more likely to
become mentally ill. Note however, that general intelligence ceases to have
a strong correlation with creativity in the upper levels of tested intelligence
(Simonton, 2004). This declining predictive effectiveness implies that other
factors are involved, such as personality traits. We now know that creative
persons have a distinctive profile of personality traits. For instance, creativity
is highly correlated with openness to experience (as defined in the 5-factor
model of personality; McCrae & Greenberg, 2014), a personality dimension
that also correlates with reduced latent inhibition (Carson, 2014). Moreover,
the personality traits of creative people vary by domain of achievement. For
example, creative artists are more inclined toward psychopathology than
creative scientists (Simonton, 2014).
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Developmental psychologists investigate how creativity changes across the
life span. What are the environmental factors that contribute to the development of creative potential, and how does creativity change with maturity
and old age? Regarding the first question, early work focused on family background and educational experiences: Highly creative people are more likely
to come from professional families and to be well educated; good school performance is not necessarily characteristic, but an early passion for a subject
and self-directed effort is (Simonton, 2004). Regarding the second question,
researchers have studied how creative productivity and (i.e., output) changes
during the course of an artistic or scientific career, as well as key landmarks;
generally, the first big contribution comes after 10 years of operating in a
specific domain, and the best contribution occurs during the time that is also
most productive, between 35 and 45 years of age; there are, however, some
exceptions, depending on the domain of achievement and the time when the
individual started accumulating expertise in that specific domain (Simonton, 1997). Although previous research documented a decrement in creativity
with age (Simonton, 2012a), recent findings suggest a reduction in this trend,

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

5

at least in the sciences, which may be due to the increasing impact of collaborative activity (Stroebe, 2010).
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Social psychologists investigate creativity in its social context, at three
different levels: interpersonal, group, and sociocultural. At the interpersonal level, researchers have shown that external evaluation can hinder
creativity, especially if rewards or praise are emphasized, as opposed to
mere enjoyment (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). At the group level, scientists
have shown that, despite wide-spread practices in the business world,
brainstorming in large (verbally) interactive groups produces fewer and
worse ideas than the same number of individuals working alone, and this
effect is mostly due to production blocking (i.e., not everyone has a chance to
present their ideas because of “bottle-necking” when taking turns to speak,
which results in forgetting ideas). However, group brainstorming may be
effective when groups are small, when participants can write down their
own ideas at any time and have access to the growing pool of shared ideas,
and when they are encouraged to break down the problem in smaller chunks
and focus on producing original ideas (for a review, see Stroebe, Nijstad, &
Rietzschel, 2010). Furthermore, group creativity increases significantly when
group membership is highly diverse, owing to the increased heterogeneity
of perspectives and ideas (Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003). Membership
diversity can entail gender, ethnicity, training, age, and a host of other
demographic and occupational factors. At the sociocultural level, there is
evidence that migration increases creative achievement at the national level,
probably due to increased diversity (Simonton, 2003).
More recently, creativity has also emerged as a topic of social cognition,
thus, integrating cognitive and social perspectives. We now know that a
broad attention focus and the ensuing creative cognitive style (thinking
flexibly and making remote associations) can be triggered by a positive (as
opposed to a negative mood), a promotion (as opposed to a prevention)
regulatory focus, an approach (as opposed on avoidance) motivation, and
by social power (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Friedman & Foerster, 2001;
Galinsky, Gruenfeld, Magee, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008). However, when
noting these effects, one must keep in mind that there are many paths to
creativity; although a broad attention focus and its antecedents can improve
idea generation, this is not the only way to enhance creative achievement.
Negative moods, a prevention focus, an avoidance motivation, and less
social power have their benefits too; they enhance vigilance and attention
to detail, they increase persistence, and thus, make people more likely
to finish a task they started (Roskes, DeDreu, Nijstad, 2012). Perhaps the

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

ideal would be to flexibly change moods and motivation depending on
the problem solving stage. For instance, one should be in a positive mood
while brainstorming an idea and plot for a new novel, but one should be
in a negative mood while actually writing the novel, given that persistence
and attention to detail are essential for a good writing style. This is an open
question for future research, but it seems promising given that this social
cognitive model of creativity would certainly explain the high incidence of
bipolar disorders among creative writers.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Hoping to identify the cognitive processes and neural bases for creativity, psychologists have started investigating creative thinking using the
latest neuroscientific techniques, such as electroencephalograms (EEGs),
event-related potentials (ERPs), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
However, two extensive reviews of over 60 studies concluded that no
specific brain region is consistently related to creativity, and that creative
thinking is not lateralized to the right hemisphere, as it is commonly believed
(Dietrich & Kanso, 2010; Sawyer, 2011). The empirical inconsistencies are
partly due to divergent definitions and measures of creativity, and partly
due to the complexity and diversity of the creative process itself. Even across
these two extensive reviews, there are major differences in conclusions.
Although Dietrich and Kanso (2010) conclude that there is no consistent
evidence that defocused attention is related to creative thinking, Sawyer
(2011) maintains that mind wandering and intuitive thinking (unconstrained
by conscious rule-based thinking) are related to creativity. Furthermore,
and not surprisingly, imaging studies confirm that expertise is relevant for
domain-specific creativity.
Although domain-specific creativity certainly depends on expertise, some
researchers have gone so far as to argue that creativity is entirely domain specific (Simonton, 2007). As a consequence, not only will artistic creativity differ
from scientific creativity but also creativity will differ across various artistic
or scientific domains. However, Simonton (2011) has recently argued that creativity in all domains is necessarily contingent on blind variation and selective retention (BVSR). Put simply, BVSR creativity encompasses a set of processes and procedures that all share one characteristic, namely, the capacity
to consider original ideas without knowing in advance whether or not they
will prove useful. The BVSR theory of creativity has been developed using
empirical analyses, case studies, and mathematical models (e.g., Damian &

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

7

Simonton, 2011; Simonton, 2013). This theory also has been directly linked
with cutting-edge research in the next three areas.
DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Although scientists have examined most personality traits and their relation
to creativity, affective traits have been largely overlooked. In particular, trait
tendencies toward certain self-conscious emotions, such as pride and shame,
are especially important for creative achievement because they play a central
role in motivating and regulating behavior. These emotions drive people to
work hard in achievement contexts and to behave in moral, socially appropriate ways in their social interactions and relationships. Pride, in particular,
is the most closely linked to achievement. When people master a challenging task or accomplish something of societal value, they not only feel good,
they feel good about themselves. This sense of pride engenders feelings of
competence and promotes social status.
Recent research found that trait pride relates to creative thinking and creative achievement, but that it matters which specific type of pride people
are predisposed to experience. There are two conceptually and empirically
distinct forms of pride: authentic pride (“I won because I worked hard”) and
hubristic pride (“I won because I am a genius”). These two forms have different
outcomes. People higher in authentic pride showed more creative thinking
and more creative achievement; they composed more music, sold more artwork, and won more science awards. This relation was mediated by higher
intrinsic motivation (i.e., achieving for its own sake), suggesting that individuals higher in authentic pride enjoy their work more and consequently
produce more creative achievements. In contrast to authentic pride, hubristic
pride was related to less creative thinking, was unrelated to creative achievement, and was associated with less intrinsic and more extrinsic motivation
(i.e., achieving for external rewards) (Damian & Robins, 2012; Damian &
Robins, 2013).
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
New studies in this area point to multiculturalism as an important predictor of creativity (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008). Multicultural
experiences enhance the ability to think flexibly and creatively, but these
effects are often moderated by openness to experience (Leung & Chiu,
2008) and bicultural identity integration (i.e., the extent to which people
perceive their diverse cultural identities as blended and in harmony; Saad,
Damian, Benet-Martinez, Moons, & Robins, 2013). This developmental
effect may also relate to the empirical finding that functional bilingualism

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

is correlated with creativity (Simonton, 2008). A person who easily encodes
any given thought or image in two distinct languages will likely display
more cognitive flexibility. This also echoes the finding that group diversity
and national migration increase creativity, as described earlier. The question
remains: Is there something special about multicultural experiences, or
does experience with any type of “diversity,” enhance creativity? Diversity
comes in many forms: Multiculturalism, mental illness, early parental loss,
economic instability, physical disability, racial discrimination, and religious
minority are but a few. Can these experiences also enhance creativity?
Recent research proposes that these life experiences can be conceptualized as diversifying experiences—unusual and unexpected events or
situations. Regardless of their affective valence, all of these experiences
push individuals outside the realm of “normality,” and violate their existing
schemas, thus teaching them to “think outside the box.” Indeed, when
conducting a historical analysis of eminent African Americans, researchers
found that diversifying experiences during childhood (including all of the
above-mentioned experiences) predicted creative eminence in adulthood
(Damian & Simonton, 2014).
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Bridging these findings in the developmental area with a social cognitive
approach, researchers asked: Could there be a basic cognitive mechanism
by which diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility and hence
creative thinking? In one experiment, participants experienced complex
unusual and unexpected events happening in a virtual reality. In a second
experiment, participants were confronted with basic schema-violations
(such as preparing breakfast in the “wrong” order). In both experiments, a
diversifying experience—defined as active (but not vicarious) involvement
in an unusual event—increased cognitive flexibility more than active (or
vicarious) involvement in normal experiences. These experiments were the
first to provide evidence for a causal link between diversifying experiences
and creative thinking, and to suggest a cognitive mechanism underlying this
effect, namely an active schema-violation, that is, the personally experienced
violation of expectations (Ritter et al., 2012). In line with these findings,
a new study (Vohs, Redden, & Rahinel, 2013) showed that a disorderly
environment (which is a type of schema-violation) promotes creativity.
Besides these advances in the social cognition of creativity, the social psychology of group level creativity has also seen a recent boom, especially in
organizational contexts. In a longitudinal study, Amabile and Kramer (2011)
coded the daily diaries of employees from creative research teams at several

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

9

major international companies. The employees were most creative and efficient when they could feel a sense of progress and enjoyment, and the latter
predicted company performance.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The major issue in this area of research is defining creativity. As evidenced
earlier, creativity is a multidimensional and interdisciplinary topic of study.
There are different types of creativity (domain general vs domain specific),
different magnitudes (little-c vs Big-C; personal vs universal), and different
levels of analysis (process, person, product). Researchers focusing on each
of these different facets have adopted their own definitions and measures
of creativity, sometimes indiscriminately labeling all of them just “creativity
measures,” when in fact the various measures capture highly distinct facets
of creativity. This practice has resulted over the years in many contradictory
findings and arduous debates, some of which I present here. In search of a
more paradigmatic and unified science of creativity, researchers should first
and foremost strive to resolve definitional issues. Researchers in all subfields
of psychology should clearly specify what type of creativity they are measuring and which exact aspects of the process, as opposed to just saying, “we
measured creativity.” This simple practice, which can be easily achieved by
consulting this essay or the recent literature reviews and meta-analyses cited
in this essay, could prevent misunderstandings and general distrust in creativity research.
For example, social psychologists have debated for 20 years whether positive or negative moods foster creativity. Thanks to the meta-analysis by Baas
and colleagues (2008), we now know the conflicting results were due to the
use of different measures of creativity. Positive moods result in increased
cognitive flexibility (i.e., and increase in the variety of the ideas generated),
which is a blind variation (BV) process, whereas negative moods result in
increased within-category fluency (i.e., perseverance in pursuing one idea
category) and better attention to detail, which seems to be more akin to a
selective retention (SR) type of process. Thus, past results were not conflicting, they were simply indicating effects of mood on the different stages of the
creative process. If one were to write a new novel, a positive mood would
be required to come up with an original idea, but a negative mood would
be more helpful when sitting at the desk long hours to actually write it and
proofread it. This finding now raises a very interesting theoretical question:
Is a “state view” appropriate for explaining the influence of mood on creativity, or do we need to adopt a “dynamic view,” where it is the change in mood
that results in creativity, not each mood itself?

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Another example of a debate resulting from definitional issues comes from
the motivation literature: Does intrinsic or extrinsic motivation promote creativity? Initial studies suggested the former, but later studies challenged that
idea (for a review, see Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). Again, it turned out
that the two lines of research were targeting different types of creativity:
Intrinsic motivation was beneficial for creativity tasks requiring high levels of
BV, whereas extrinsic motivation was beneficial for creativity tasks requiring
high levels of SR and attention to detail and following rules.
Differential psychologists have also long been puzzled at the variety of personality traits characteristic of creative geniuses. On the one hand, they are
open to new experiences, interesting to be around, and full of energy and
enthusiasm, but on the other hand, they are hard working, introverted, and
even slightly disagreeable. If we assumed creativity was a unifaceted process, this plethora of traits would be highly confusing; however, knowing
the many types of cognitive processes involved in creativity, we can easily explain why this combination of personality traits is so prevalent among
highly creative people. The first set of traits are likely conducive to improved
BV, whereas the second set of traits are likely conducive to improved SR.
Because creativity has different facets and levels, one challenge faced by
future researchers is to adopt an interdisciplinary multimethod approach.
When one identifies a phenomenon related to creativity, one must ask: Which
type of creativity did I measure? Would this apply to other aspects and levels?
Explicitly addressing these questions is preferable to merely generalizing the
results to the indistinct and flashy word that is “creativity.”
Another important problem faced by creativity researchers is that we do
not yet know if and how phenomena observed at the little-c level in the
laboratory generalize to Big-C creativity. One way to solve this problem
is to conduct more high-quality longitudinal studies, where real-world
creativity is assessed. Using advanced statistical techniques, such as structural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, and propensity
score matching, longitudinal studies can address issues of causality, ecological validity, and the development of Big-C creativity. Unfortunately,
high-quality longitudinal studies are very time consuming and expensive.
One great example of such a longitudinal study is the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and their later achievements (Kell & Lubinski,
2014).
In addition to high-quality longitudinal studies, recent technological
advances may also benefit creativity research. We reviewed earlier the study
by Ritter and colleagues (2012) using virtual reality to simulate real-world
diversifying experiences; moreover, researchers have increasingly started
collecting data with the help of fMRI, iPhone apps, online databases, and
language analysis programs.

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

11

We hope that our brief but broad review has convinced the reader that creativity is an important topic of research, highly relevant to a variety of fields
besides psychology, such as education, business, sociology, and economics,
and that is best studied taking an interdisciplinary multimethod approach.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Amabile, T., & Kramer, S. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy,
engagement, and creativity at work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of
mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806.
Carson, S. (2014). Cognitive disinhibition, creativity, and psychopathology. In D.
K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 198–221). Oxford, England:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Damian, R. I., & Robins, R. W. (2012). The link between dispositional pride and
creative thinking depends on current mood. Journal of Research in Personality, 46,
765–769.
Damian, R. I., & Robins, R. W. (2013). Aristotle’s virtue or Dante’s deadliest sin? The
pride-creativity link and the mediating role of motivation. Learning and Individual
Differences, 26, 156–160.
Damian, R. I., & Sherman, J. W. (2013). A process dissociation examination of cognitive processes underlying unconscious thought. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 49, 228–237.
Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2014). Psychopathology, adversity, and creativity: Diversifying experiences in the development of eminent African-Americans.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, doi:10.1037/pspi0000011
Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2011). From past to future art: The creative impact
of Picasso’s 1935 Minotauromachy on his 1937 Guernica. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 360–369.
Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of
creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 822–848.
Friedman, R., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013.
Galinsky, A., Gruenfeld, D., Magee, J., Whitson, J., & Liljenquist, K. (2008). Power
reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450–1466.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology,
61, 569–598.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of
creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–13.
Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D. (2014). The study of mathematically precocious
youth at maturity: Insights into elements of genius. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.),

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 397–421). Oxford, England: WileyBlackwell.
Leung, A., & Chiu, C. (2008). Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and
openness to experience on creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 20,
376–382.
Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169–181.
McCrae, R. R., & Greenberg, D. M. (2014). Openness to experience. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 222–243). Oxford, England:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential
benefits of dissent and diversity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63–84). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Ritter, S. M., Damian, R. I., Simonton, D. K., van Baaren, R., Strick, M., Derks, J.,
& Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 961–964.
Roskes, M., de Dreu, C., & Nijstad, B. (2012). Necessity is the mother of invention:
Avoidance motivation stimulates creativity through cognitive effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 242–256.
Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 24, 92–96.
Saad, C. S., Damian, R. I., Benet-Martinez, V., Moons, W. G., & Robins, R. W.
(2013). Multiculturalism and creativity: Effects of cultural context, bicultural identity, and cognitive fluency. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 369–375.
doi:10.1177/1948550612456560
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 137–154.
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model
of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations: Strategies and
results. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through
collaboration (pp. 304–328). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2007). Creativity: Specialized expertise or general cognitive processes?. In M. J. Roberts (Ed.), Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain
specific processes in higher cognition (pp. 351–367). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Bilingualism and creativity. In J. Altarriba & R. R. Heredia (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes (pp. 147–166).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simonton, D. K. (2011). Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell’s
(1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark. Review of General Psychology, 15,
158–174.

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

13

Simonton, D. K. (2012a). Creative productivity and aging: An age decrement – or
not?. In S. K. Whitbourne & M. Sliwinski (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of
adult development and aging (pp. 477–496). New York, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Simonton, D. K. (2012b). Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A
quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97–106.
Simonton, D. K. (2013). Creative thought as blind variation and selective retention:
Why sightedness is inversely related to creativity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33, 253–266.
Simonton, D. K. (2014). More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8,
53–61.
Simonton, D. K., & Damian, R. I. (2013). Creativity. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 795–807). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stroebe, W. (2010). The graying of academia: Will it reduce scientific productivity?
American Psychologist, 65, 660–673.
Stroebe, W., Nijstad, B. A., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2010). Beyond productivity loss in
brainstorming groups: The evolution of a question. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 43, 157–203.
Vohs, K. D., Redden, J. P., & Rahinel, R. (2013). Physical order produces healthy
choices, generosity, and conventionality, whereas disorder produces creativity.
Psychological science, 24(9), 1860–1867.

FURTHER READING
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology,
61, 569–598.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2009). Cambridge handbook of creativity. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

RODICA IOANA DAMIAN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Rodica Ioana Damian (PhD 2013 University of California, Davis) is a
Postdoctoral Research Associate working at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. Her research examines the role of environmental
antecedents on personality development, and downstream consequences
for educational achievement, occupational prestige, and creativity. She
draws on multiple levels of analysis, methodologies, and data sources, in
order to build a broad and nuanced understanding of creative thinking and
achievement. In recognition of her research, Dr. Damian has been awarded
the Frank X. Barron Award for superior contributions to the psychology

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, by Division 10 of the American Psychological Association, as well as the Provost’s Dissertation Year Fellowship
and the Social Sciences Dean’s Doctoral Fellowship for Excellence Award by the
University of California, Davis.
Email: ridamian@illinois.edu.
Website: http://ridamian.weebly.com/
DEAN KEITH SIMONTON SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dean Keith Simonton (PhD 1975 Harvard University) is Distinguished
Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis. His bibliography lists more than 470 publications, including a dozen books. Among
the latter are Genius, Creativity, and Leadership; Scientific Genius; Greatness;
Genius and Creativity; Origins of Genius; Great Psychologists and Their Times;
Creativity in Science; Genius 101; and Great Flicks. Simonton received the
William James Book Award, Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding
Contributions to the Study of Creativity, the Rudolf Arnheim Award for
Outstanding Achievement in Psychology and the Arts, the Theoretical
Innovation Prize in Personality and Social Psychology, the George A. Miller
Outstanding Article Award, the E. Paul Torrance and President’s Awards
from the National Association for Gifted Children, and the Robert S. Daniel
Award for Four-Year College/University Teaching. He is Fellow of several
professional organizations, including the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the American Psychological Society, and ten
divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA). He has served
as President of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, the
Society for the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts (APA,
Division 10), and the Society for General Psychology (APA, Division 1).
Email: dksimonton@ucdavis.edu.
Website: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Simonton

RELATED ESSAYS
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Insight (Psychology), Brian Erickson and John Kounios
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology),
Sarah Hartman and Jay Belsky

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

15

Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
Neural and Cognitive Plasticity (Psychology), Eduardo Mercado III
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson



Four Psychological Perspectives
on Creativity
RODICA IOANA DAMIAN and DEAN KEITH SIMONTON

Abstract
Creativity is a unique feature of human thinking and behavior that is essential to
our species’ survival, future progress, and even the rise and fall of civilizations. To
understand this highly complex phenomenon, we need to adopt an interdisciplinary
and multimethod approach. Because creativity happens at many different levels both
intra- and interindividual, the psychological science of creativity currently lacks a
strong paradigmatic coherence. In this essay, we review creativity research from four
different scientific perspectives: cognitive, differential, developmental, and social,
and attempt to provide a unified overarching picture. We present foundational and
cutting-edge research addressing the following questions: (i) What cognitive processes are involved in creative thinking; (ii) What personality traits are characteristic
of the creative person; (iii) What developmental factors lead to creative achievement; and (iv) What social factors foster creativity? We identify current debate issues
and propose ways to promote unity and coherence in creativity research across psychological subfields. We offer a clear definition of creativity and identify promising
theoretical models that could help integrate and direct future research.

INTRODUCTION
From our ancestors who survived and thrived in a hostile wilderness, to the
atelier of an artist, to the laboratory of a scientist, to today’s information technology giants, one key ingredient made it all possible, and that is, creativity.
But what exactly is creativity?
Creativity is the process by which creative ideas are generated, selected,
and successfully implemented. In order to count as creative, an idea must
fulfill three criteria: originality, usefulness, and surprise (cf. Runco & Jaeger,
2012; Simonton, 2012b). To be original, an idea must be novel, unique, and it
must have a low probability of being generated. To be useful, an idea should
work and should solve a problem of interest, whether technological, scientific, or artistic (e.g., a poem that is so effective that it is frequently reprinted,
quoted, and anthologized). To be surprising, an idea must be nonobvious; for
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

instance, if a solution were a simple derivation based on previous expertise,
it might be considered original but not surprising. Each of these three criteria is necessary but not sufficient to render an idea creative. In addition, each
of these criteria is quantitative rather than qualitative and has a zero point.
Hence, the creativity of an idea can be conceptualized as the product of these
three criteria. If an idea has zero originality, zero usefulness, or zero surprise,
it can also be said to have zero creativity. The higher the level of each of the
three criteria is, the more creativity. For example, in Kuhnian terms, “normal
science” would probably be high in originality and usefulness, but relatively
low in surprise, whereas “revolutionary science” would be high in all three
criteria and thus, higher in creativity.
Further complicating the definition and measurement of creativity, there
are different levels of magnitude: “little-c” versus “Big-C” creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Both types of creativity must satisfy all three criteria
mentioned earlier. However, for “little-c” creativity, the levels of originality,
usefulness, and surprise are determined subjectively, and thus are personal.
This level is also called “everyday creativity” that yields the creative ideas
that happen daily at home and the workplace. These ideas will be creative
with respect to the individual but not with respect to the world at large. At
the other extreme is “Big-C Creativity,” where originality, usefulness, and
surprise are assessed by others with relevant expertise in the domain, such
as colleagues. These creative ideas will be creative not only with respect to
the individual but also with respect to the larger world. Although “little-c”
and “Big-C” creativity are believed to share common cognitive processes that
allow for the production of creative ideas, there are also some qualitative differences. Naturally, not everyone who is capable of little-c creativity is also
capable of Big-C creativity. The latter requires much more than just creative
thinking (i.e., the ability to generate creative ideas); it requires motivation and
expertise (Amabile, 1996), as well as the right Zeitgeist, or “being the right
person, in the right place, at the right time” (Simonton, 2004). One complex
problem is how little-c precisely dovetails with Big-C creativity. Although
some researchers have just assumed that when little-c becomes high enough
it becomes recognized as Big-C creativity, the reality may be much more complex than that.
Another issue that complicates the study of creativity is the multiple levels of analysis and perspectives that may be adopted (Hennessey & Amabile,
2010). What are the cognitive processes underlying creativity? Who is the creative person, what are their personality characteristics? What developmental
aspects contribute to creative thinking and achievement? What aspects of
our social world foster creativity? Unfortunately, each of these questions is
confined to one subdiscipline of psychology: cognitive, differential, developmental, and social. The challenge in studying creativity is to operate at the

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

3

intersection of these different levels of analysis and to adopt an interdisciplinary approach. In the next pages, we give a brief overview of how each of
these subfields of psychology conceptualizes creativity, and how scientists
have attempted to bridge these different areas of research. We believe that an
integrative and interdisciplinary approach is essential to understanding the
highly complex phenomenon of human creativity. We hope this will stimulate more high-quality research on creativity, as this is one of the most sought
after modern skills. As President Obama put it, “the first next step in winning the future is encouraging innovation.” Whoever masters the science of
innovation and creativity will undoubtedly master the world economy in the
years to come.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Cognitive psychologists have long been interested in creative thinking, that
is, the cognitive processes that lead to creative ideas (Simonton & Damian,
2013). As mentioned earlier, creative ideas must be original and surprising;
this implies that memories or past experiences would not be most useful
in generating such ideas. How does one generate new ideas that have a
low probability of occurrence? Many researchers have suggested that a
“broad attention focus,” “defocused attention,” “cognitive disinhibition,” or
“reduced latent inhibition” must be the answer (Carson, 2014). Regardless of
which term we use, all of these attentional styles have one thing in common:
They expand the scope of attention, allowing for a larger pool of stimuli
and thoughts to be “scanned” and integrated as “potentially relevant” to the
problem at hand. Thus, a broad attention focus and a low latent inhibition
help people “think outside the box” because they are less likely to “filter
out” valuable information based of their a priori rules of what information
is relevant. Social cognitive psychologists support this view, showing that
creative thinking and decision making are harmed by an excessive use
of rule-based thinking, as opposed to a more intuitive broad thinking
(Damian & Sherman, 2013). A downside to reduced latent inhibition is its
association with psychopathology (Carson, 2014). The psychotic mind is
constantly bombarded by stimuli and associations that should be filtered
out to begin with.
DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Differential psychologists investigate the individual differences related to
creativity, that is, the creative person. These differences can be (i) cognitive,
such as general intelligence and special mental abilities or (ii) dispositional,

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

such as personality, motivation, and values. Individual differences can often
explain inconsistencies in findings at the level of basic cognitive processes,
so they are essential for understanding creativity. For example, the finding
that reduced latent inhibition can have both positive and negative outcomes,
namely, creativity and psychopathology, respectively, can be explained by
individual differences in general intelligence (Carson, 2014). People with
exceptional intelligence have sufficient metacognitive skills and abilities to
take advantage of the relatively unfiltered inflow of information and come
up with creative ideas, whereas those with lower intelligence become overwhelmed by that sensory and associative influx, thus being more likely to
become mentally ill. Note however, that general intelligence ceases to have
a strong correlation with creativity in the upper levels of tested intelligence
(Simonton, 2004). This declining predictive effectiveness implies that other
factors are involved, such as personality traits. We now know that creative
persons have a distinctive profile of personality traits. For instance, creativity
is highly correlated with openness to experience (as defined in the 5-factor
model of personality; McCrae & Greenberg, 2014), a personality dimension
that also correlates with reduced latent inhibition (Carson, 2014). Moreover,
the personality traits of creative people vary by domain of achievement. For
example, creative artists are more inclined toward psychopathology than
creative scientists (Simonton, 2014).
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Developmental psychologists investigate how creativity changes across the
life span. What are the environmental factors that contribute to the development of creative potential, and how does creativity change with maturity
and old age? Regarding the first question, early work focused on family background and educational experiences: Highly creative people are more likely
to come from professional families and to be well educated; good school performance is not necessarily characteristic, but an early passion for a subject
and self-directed effort is (Simonton, 2004). Regarding the second question,
researchers have studied how creative productivity and (i.e., output) changes
during the course of an artistic or scientific career, as well as key landmarks;
generally, the first big contribution comes after 10 years of operating in a
specific domain, and the best contribution occurs during the time that is also
most productive, between 35 and 45 years of age; there are, however, some
exceptions, depending on the domain of achievement and the time when the
individual started accumulating expertise in that specific domain (Simonton, 1997). Although previous research documented a decrement in creativity
with age (Simonton, 2012a), recent findings suggest a reduction in this trend,

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

5

at least in the sciences, which may be due to the increasing impact of collaborative activity (Stroebe, 2010).
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Social psychologists investigate creativity in its social context, at three
different levels: interpersonal, group, and sociocultural. At the interpersonal level, researchers have shown that external evaluation can hinder
creativity, especially if rewards or praise are emphasized, as opposed to
mere enjoyment (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). At the group level, scientists
have shown that, despite wide-spread practices in the business world,
brainstorming in large (verbally) interactive groups produces fewer and
worse ideas than the same number of individuals working alone, and this
effect is mostly due to production blocking (i.e., not everyone has a chance to
present their ideas because of “bottle-necking” when taking turns to speak,
which results in forgetting ideas). However, group brainstorming may be
effective when groups are small, when participants can write down their
own ideas at any time and have access to the growing pool of shared ideas,
and when they are encouraged to break down the problem in smaller chunks
and focus on producing original ideas (for a review, see Stroebe, Nijstad, &
Rietzschel, 2010). Furthermore, group creativity increases significantly when
group membership is highly diverse, owing to the increased heterogeneity
of perspectives and ideas (Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003). Membership
diversity can entail gender, ethnicity, training, age, and a host of other
demographic and occupational factors. At the sociocultural level, there is
evidence that migration increases creative achievement at the national level,
probably due to increased diversity (Simonton, 2003).
More recently, creativity has also emerged as a topic of social cognition,
thus, integrating cognitive and social perspectives. We now know that a
broad attention focus and the ensuing creative cognitive style (thinking
flexibly and making remote associations) can be triggered by a positive (as
opposed to a negative mood), a promotion (as opposed to a prevention)
regulatory focus, an approach (as opposed on avoidance) motivation, and
by social power (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Friedman & Foerster, 2001;
Galinsky, Gruenfeld, Magee, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008). However, when
noting these effects, one must keep in mind that there are many paths to
creativity; although a broad attention focus and its antecedents can improve
idea generation, this is not the only way to enhance creative achievement.
Negative moods, a prevention focus, an avoidance motivation, and less
social power have their benefits too; they enhance vigilance and attention
to detail, they increase persistence, and thus, make people more likely
to finish a task they started (Roskes, DeDreu, Nijstad, 2012). Perhaps the

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

ideal would be to flexibly change moods and motivation depending on
the problem solving stage. For instance, one should be in a positive mood
while brainstorming an idea and plot for a new novel, but one should be
in a negative mood while actually writing the novel, given that persistence
and attention to detail are essential for a good writing style. This is an open
question for future research, but it seems promising given that this social
cognitive model of creativity would certainly explain the high incidence of
bipolar disorders among creative writers.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Hoping to identify the cognitive processes and neural bases for creativity, psychologists have started investigating creative thinking using the
latest neuroscientific techniques, such as electroencephalograms (EEGs),
event-related potentials (ERPs), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
However, two extensive reviews of over 60 studies concluded that no
specific brain region is consistently related to creativity, and that creative
thinking is not lateralized to the right hemisphere, as it is commonly believed
(Dietrich & Kanso, 2010; Sawyer, 2011). The empirical inconsistencies are
partly due to divergent definitions and measures of creativity, and partly
due to the complexity and diversity of the creative process itself. Even across
these two extensive reviews, there are major differences in conclusions.
Although Dietrich and Kanso (2010) conclude that there is no consistent
evidence that defocused attention is related to creative thinking, Sawyer
(2011) maintains that mind wandering and intuitive thinking (unconstrained
by conscious rule-based thinking) are related to creativity. Furthermore,
and not surprisingly, imaging studies confirm that expertise is relevant for
domain-specific creativity.
Although domain-specific creativity certainly depends on expertise, some
researchers have gone so far as to argue that creativity is entirely domain specific (Simonton, 2007). As a consequence, not only will artistic creativity differ
from scientific creativity but also creativity will differ across various artistic
or scientific domains. However, Simonton (2011) has recently argued that creativity in all domains is necessarily contingent on blind variation and selective retention (BVSR). Put simply, BVSR creativity encompasses a set of processes and procedures that all share one characteristic, namely, the capacity
to consider original ideas without knowing in advance whether or not they
will prove useful. The BVSR theory of creativity has been developed using
empirical analyses, case studies, and mathematical models (e.g., Damian &

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

7

Simonton, 2011; Simonton, 2013). This theory also has been directly linked
with cutting-edge research in the next three areas.
DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Although scientists have examined most personality traits and their relation
to creativity, affective traits have been largely overlooked. In particular, trait
tendencies toward certain self-conscious emotions, such as pride and shame,
are especially important for creative achievement because they play a central
role in motivating and regulating behavior. These emotions drive people to
work hard in achievement contexts and to behave in moral, socially appropriate ways in their social interactions and relationships. Pride, in particular,
is the most closely linked to achievement. When people master a challenging task or accomplish something of societal value, they not only feel good,
they feel good about themselves. This sense of pride engenders feelings of
competence and promotes social status.
Recent research found that trait pride relates to creative thinking and creative achievement, but that it matters which specific type of pride people
are predisposed to experience. There are two conceptually and empirically
distinct forms of pride: authentic pride (“I won because I worked hard”) and
hubristic pride (“I won because I am a genius”). These two forms have different
outcomes. People higher in authentic pride showed more creative thinking
and more creative achievement; they composed more music, sold more artwork, and won more science awards. This relation was mediated by higher
intrinsic motivation (i.e., achieving for its own sake), suggesting that individuals higher in authentic pride enjoy their work more and consequently
produce more creative achievements. In contrast to authentic pride, hubristic
pride was related to less creative thinking, was unrelated to creative achievement, and was associated with less intrinsic and more extrinsic motivation
(i.e., achieving for external rewards) (Damian & Robins, 2012; Damian &
Robins, 2013).
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
New studies in this area point to multiculturalism as an important predictor of creativity (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008). Multicultural
experiences enhance the ability to think flexibly and creatively, but these
effects are often moderated by openness to experience (Leung & Chiu,
2008) and bicultural identity integration (i.e., the extent to which people
perceive their diverse cultural identities as blended and in harmony; Saad,
Damian, Benet-Martinez, Moons, & Robins, 2013). This developmental
effect may also relate to the empirical finding that functional bilingualism

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

is correlated with creativity (Simonton, 2008). A person who easily encodes
any given thought or image in two distinct languages will likely display
more cognitive flexibility. This also echoes the finding that group diversity
and national migration increase creativity, as described earlier. The question
remains: Is there something special about multicultural experiences, or
does experience with any type of “diversity,” enhance creativity? Diversity
comes in many forms: Multiculturalism, mental illness, early parental loss,
economic instability, physical disability, racial discrimination, and religious
minority are but a few. Can these experiences also enhance creativity?
Recent research proposes that these life experiences can be conceptualized as diversifying experiences—unusual and unexpected events or
situations. Regardless of their affective valence, all of these experiences
push individuals outside the realm of “normality,” and violate their existing
schemas, thus teaching them to “think outside the box.” Indeed, when
conducting a historical analysis of eminent African Americans, researchers
found that diversifying experiences during childhood (including all of the
above-mentioned experiences) predicted creative eminence in adulthood
(Damian & Simonton, 2014).
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Bridging these findings in the developmental area with a social cognitive
approach, researchers asked: Could there be a basic cognitive mechanism
by which diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility and hence
creative thinking? In one experiment, participants experienced complex
unusual and unexpected events happening in a virtual reality. In a second
experiment, participants were confronted with basic schema-violations
(such as preparing breakfast in the “wrong” order). In both experiments, a
diversifying experience—defined as active (but not vicarious) involvement
in an unusual event—increased cognitive flexibility more than active (or
vicarious) involvement in normal experiences. These experiments were the
first to provide evidence for a causal link between diversifying experiences
and creative thinking, and to suggest a cognitive mechanism underlying this
effect, namely an active schema-violation, that is, the personally experienced
violation of expectations (Ritter et al., 2012). In line with these findings,
a new study (Vohs, Redden, & Rahinel, 2013) showed that a disorderly
environment (which is a type of schema-violation) promotes creativity.
Besides these advances in the social cognition of creativity, the social psychology of group level creativity has also seen a recent boom, especially in
organizational contexts. In a longitudinal study, Amabile and Kramer (2011)
coded the daily diaries of employees from creative research teams at several

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

9

major international companies. The employees were most creative and efficient when they could feel a sense of progress and enjoyment, and the latter
predicted company performance.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The major issue in this area of research is defining creativity. As evidenced
earlier, creativity is a multidimensional and interdisciplinary topic of study.
There are different types of creativity (domain general vs domain specific),
different magnitudes (little-c vs Big-C; personal vs universal), and different
levels of analysis (process, person, product). Researchers focusing on each
of these different facets have adopted their own definitions and measures
of creativity, sometimes indiscriminately labeling all of them just “creativity
measures,” when in fact the various measures capture highly distinct facets
of creativity. This practice has resulted over the years in many contradictory
findings and arduous debates, some of which I present here. In search of a
more paradigmatic and unified science of creativity, researchers should first
and foremost strive to resolve definitional issues. Researchers in all subfields
of psychology should clearly specify what type of creativity they are measuring and which exact aspects of the process, as opposed to just saying, “we
measured creativity.” This simple practice, which can be easily achieved by
consulting this essay or the recent literature reviews and meta-analyses cited
in this essay, could prevent misunderstandings and general distrust in creativity research.
For example, social psychologists have debated for 20 years whether positive or negative moods foster creativity. Thanks to the meta-analysis by Baas
and colleagues (2008), we now know the conflicting results were due to the
use of different measures of creativity. Positive moods result in increased
cognitive flexibility (i.e., and increase in the variety of the ideas generated),
which is a blind variation (BV) process, whereas negative moods result in
increased within-category fluency (i.e., perseverance in pursuing one idea
category) and better attention to detail, which seems to be more akin to a
selective retention (SR) type of process. Thus, past results were not conflicting, they were simply indicating effects of mood on the different stages of the
creative process. If one were to write a new novel, a positive mood would
be required to come up with an original idea, but a negative mood would
be more helpful when sitting at the desk long hours to actually write it and
proofread it. This finding now raises a very interesting theoretical question:
Is a “state view” appropriate for explaining the influence of mood on creativity, or do we need to adopt a “dynamic view,” where it is the change in mood
that results in creativity, not each mood itself?

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Another example of a debate resulting from definitional issues comes from
the motivation literature: Does intrinsic or extrinsic motivation promote creativity? Initial studies suggested the former, but later studies challenged that
idea (for a review, see Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). Again, it turned out
that the two lines of research were targeting different types of creativity:
Intrinsic motivation was beneficial for creativity tasks requiring high levels of
BV, whereas extrinsic motivation was beneficial for creativity tasks requiring
high levels of SR and attention to detail and following rules.
Differential psychologists have also long been puzzled at the variety of personality traits characteristic of creative geniuses. On the one hand, they are
open to new experiences, interesting to be around, and full of energy and
enthusiasm, but on the other hand, they are hard working, introverted, and
even slightly disagreeable. If we assumed creativity was a unifaceted process, this plethora of traits would be highly confusing; however, knowing
the many types of cognitive processes involved in creativity, we can easily explain why this combination of personality traits is so prevalent among
highly creative people. The first set of traits are likely conducive to improved
BV, whereas the second set of traits are likely conducive to improved SR.
Because creativity has different facets and levels, one challenge faced by
future researchers is to adopt an interdisciplinary multimethod approach.
When one identifies a phenomenon related to creativity, one must ask: Which
type of creativity did I measure? Would this apply to other aspects and levels?
Explicitly addressing these questions is preferable to merely generalizing the
results to the indistinct and flashy word that is “creativity.”
Another important problem faced by creativity researchers is that we do
not yet know if and how phenomena observed at the little-c level in the
laboratory generalize to Big-C creativity. One way to solve this problem
is to conduct more high-quality longitudinal studies, where real-world
creativity is assessed. Using advanced statistical techniques, such as structural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, and propensity
score matching, longitudinal studies can address issues of causality, ecological validity, and the development of Big-C creativity. Unfortunately,
high-quality longitudinal studies are very time consuming and expensive.
One great example of such a longitudinal study is the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and their later achievements (Kell & Lubinski,
2014).
In addition to high-quality longitudinal studies, recent technological
advances may also benefit creativity research. We reviewed earlier the study
by Ritter and colleagues (2012) using virtual reality to simulate real-world
diversifying experiences; moreover, researchers have increasingly started
collecting data with the help of fMRI, iPhone apps, online databases, and
language analysis programs.

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

11

We hope that our brief but broad review has convinced the reader that creativity is an important topic of research, highly relevant to a variety of fields
besides psychology, such as education, business, sociology, and economics,
and that is best studied taking an interdisciplinary multimethod approach.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Amabile, T., & Kramer, S. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy,
engagement, and creativity at work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of
mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806.
Carson, S. (2014). Cognitive disinhibition, creativity, and psychopathology. In D.
K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 198–221). Oxford, England:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Damian, R. I., & Robins, R. W. (2012). The link between dispositional pride and
creative thinking depends on current mood. Journal of Research in Personality, 46,
765–769.
Damian, R. I., & Robins, R. W. (2013). Aristotle’s virtue or Dante’s deadliest sin? The
pride-creativity link and the mediating role of motivation. Learning and Individual
Differences, 26, 156–160.
Damian, R. I., & Sherman, J. W. (2013). A process dissociation examination of cognitive processes underlying unconscious thought. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 49, 228–237.
Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2014). Psychopathology, adversity, and creativity: Diversifying experiences in the development of eminent African-Americans.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, doi:10.1037/pspi0000011
Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2011). From past to future art: The creative impact
of Picasso’s 1935 Minotauromachy on his 1937 Guernica. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 360–369.
Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of
creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 822–848.
Friedman, R., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013.
Galinsky, A., Gruenfeld, D., Magee, J., Whitson, J., & Liljenquist, K. (2008). Power
reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450–1466.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology,
61, 569–598.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of
creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–13.
Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D. (2014). The study of mathematically precocious
youth at maturity: Insights into elements of genius. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.),

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 397–421). Oxford, England: WileyBlackwell.
Leung, A., & Chiu, C. (2008). Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and
openness to experience on creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 20,
376–382.
Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169–181.
McCrae, R. R., & Greenberg, D. M. (2014). Openness to experience. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 222–243). Oxford, England:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential
benefits of dissent and diversity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63–84). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Ritter, S. M., Damian, R. I., Simonton, D. K., van Baaren, R., Strick, M., Derks, J.,
& Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 961–964.
Roskes, M., de Dreu, C., & Nijstad, B. (2012). Necessity is the mother of invention:
Avoidance motivation stimulates creativity through cognitive effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 242–256.
Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 24, 92–96.
Saad, C. S., Damian, R. I., Benet-Martinez, V., Moons, W. G., & Robins, R. W.
(2013). Multiculturalism and creativity: Effects of cultural context, bicultural identity, and cognitive fluency. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 369–375.
doi:10.1177/1948550612456560
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 137–154.
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model
of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations: Strategies and
results. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through
collaboration (pp. 304–328). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2007). Creativity: Specialized expertise or general cognitive processes?. In M. J. Roberts (Ed.), Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain
specific processes in higher cognition (pp. 351–367). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Bilingualism and creativity. In J. Altarriba & R. R. Heredia (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes (pp. 147–166).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simonton, D. K. (2011). Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell’s
(1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark. Review of General Psychology, 15,
158–174.

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

13

Simonton, D. K. (2012a). Creative productivity and aging: An age decrement – or
not?. In S. K. Whitbourne & M. Sliwinski (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of
adult development and aging (pp. 477–496). New York, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Simonton, D. K. (2012b). Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A
quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97–106.
Simonton, D. K. (2013). Creative thought as blind variation and selective retention:
Why sightedness is inversely related to creativity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33, 253–266.
Simonton, D. K. (2014). More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8,
53–61.
Simonton, D. K., & Damian, R. I. (2013). Creativity. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 795–807). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stroebe, W. (2010). The graying of academia: Will it reduce scientific productivity?
American Psychologist, 65, 660–673.
Stroebe, W., Nijstad, B. A., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2010). Beyond productivity loss in
brainstorming groups: The evolution of a question. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 43, 157–203.
Vohs, K. D., Redden, J. P., & Rahinel, R. (2013). Physical order produces healthy
choices, generosity, and conventionality, whereas disorder produces creativity.
Psychological science, 24(9), 1860–1867.

FURTHER READING
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology,
61, 569–598.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2009). Cambridge handbook of creativity. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

RODICA IOANA DAMIAN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Rodica Ioana Damian (PhD 2013 University of California, Davis) is a
Postdoctoral Research Associate working at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. Her research examines the role of environmental
antecedents on personality development, and downstream consequences
for educational achievement, occupational prestige, and creativity. She
draws on multiple levels of analysis, methodologies, and data sources, in
order to build a broad and nuanced understanding of creative thinking and
achievement. In recognition of her research, Dr. Damian has been awarded
the Frank X. Barron Award for superior contributions to the psychology

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, by Division 10 of the American Psychological Association, as well as the Provost’s Dissertation Year Fellowship
and the Social Sciences Dean’s Doctoral Fellowship for Excellence Award by the
University of California, Davis.
Email: ridamian@illinois.edu.
Website: http://ridamian.weebly.com/
DEAN KEITH SIMONTON SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dean Keith Simonton (PhD 1975 Harvard University) is Distinguished
Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis. His bibliography lists more than 470 publications, including a dozen books. Among
the latter are Genius, Creativity, and Leadership; Scientific Genius; Greatness;
Genius and Creativity; Origins of Genius; Great Psychologists and Their Times;
Creativity in Science; Genius 101; and Great Flicks. Simonton received the
William James Book Award, Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding
Contributions to the Study of Creativity, the Rudolf Arnheim Award for
Outstanding Achievement in Psychology and the Arts, the Theoretical
Innovation Prize in Personality and Social Psychology, the George A. Miller
Outstanding Article Award, the E. Paul Torrance and President’s Awards
from the National Association for Gifted Children, and the Robert S. Daniel
Award for Four-Year College/University Teaching. He is Fellow of several
professional organizations, including the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the American Psychological Society, and ten
divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA). He has served
as President of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, the
Society for the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts (APA,
Division 10), and the Society for General Psychology (APA, Division 1).
Email: dksimonton@ucdavis.edu.
Website: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Simonton

RELATED ESSAYS
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Insight (Psychology), Brian Erickson and John Kounios
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology),
Sarah Hartman and Jay Belsky

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

15

Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
Neural and Cognitive Plasticity (Psychology), Eduardo Mercado III
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson


Four Psychological Perspectives
on Creativity
RODICA IOANA DAMIAN and DEAN KEITH SIMONTON

Abstract
Creativity is a unique feature of human thinking and behavior that is essential to
our species’ survival, future progress, and even the rise and fall of civilizations. To
understand this highly complex phenomenon, we need to adopt an interdisciplinary
and multimethod approach. Because creativity happens at many different levels both
intra- and interindividual, the psychological science of creativity currently lacks a
strong paradigmatic coherence. In this essay, we review creativity research from four
different scientific perspectives: cognitive, differential, developmental, and social,
and attempt to provide a unified overarching picture. We present foundational and
cutting-edge research addressing the following questions: (i) What cognitive processes are involved in creative thinking; (ii) What personality traits are characteristic
of the creative person; (iii) What developmental factors lead to creative achievement; and (iv) What social factors foster creativity? We identify current debate issues
and propose ways to promote unity and coherence in creativity research across psychological subfields. We offer a clear definition of creativity and identify promising
theoretical models that could help integrate and direct future research.

INTRODUCTION
From our ancestors who survived and thrived in a hostile wilderness, to the
atelier of an artist, to the laboratory of a scientist, to today’s information technology giants, one key ingredient made it all possible, and that is, creativity.
But what exactly is creativity?
Creativity is the process by which creative ideas are generated, selected,
and successfully implemented. In order to count as creative, an idea must
fulfill three criteria: originality, usefulness, and surprise (cf. Runco & Jaeger,
2012; Simonton, 2012b). To be original, an idea must be novel, unique, and it
must have a low probability of being generated. To be useful, an idea should
work and should solve a problem of interest, whether technological, scientific, or artistic (e.g., a poem that is so effective that it is frequently reprinted,
quoted, and anthologized). To be surprising, an idea must be nonobvious; for
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

instance, if a solution were a simple derivation based on previous expertise,
it might be considered original but not surprising. Each of these three criteria is necessary but not sufficient to render an idea creative. In addition, each
of these criteria is quantitative rather than qualitative and has a zero point.
Hence, the creativity of an idea can be conceptualized as the product of these
three criteria. If an idea has zero originality, zero usefulness, or zero surprise,
it can also be said to have zero creativity. The higher the level of each of the
three criteria is, the more creativity. For example, in Kuhnian terms, “normal
science” would probably be high in originality and usefulness, but relatively
low in surprise, whereas “revolutionary science” would be high in all three
criteria and thus, higher in creativity.
Further complicating the definition and measurement of creativity, there
are different levels of magnitude: “little-c” versus “Big-C” creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Both types of creativity must satisfy all three criteria
mentioned earlier. However, for “little-c” creativity, the levels of originality,
usefulness, and surprise are determined subjectively, and thus are personal.
This level is also called “everyday creativity” that yields the creative ideas
that happen daily at home and the workplace. These ideas will be creative
with respect to the individual but not with respect to the world at large. At
the other extreme is “Big-C Creativity,” where originality, usefulness, and
surprise are assessed by others with relevant expertise in the domain, such
as colleagues. These creative ideas will be creative not only with respect to
the individual but also with respect to the larger world. Although “little-c”
and “Big-C” creativity are believed to share common cognitive processes that
allow for the production of creative ideas, there are also some qualitative differences. Naturally, not everyone who is capable of little-c creativity is also
capable of Big-C creativity. The latter requires much more than just creative
thinking (i.e., the ability to generate creative ideas); it requires motivation and
expertise (Amabile, 1996), as well as the right Zeitgeist, or “being the right
person, in the right place, at the right time” (Simonton, 2004). One complex
problem is how little-c precisely dovetails with Big-C creativity. Although
some researchers have just assumed that when little-c becomes high enough
it becomes recognized as Big-C creativity, the reality may be much more complex than that.
Another issue that complicates the study of creativity is the multiple levels of analysis and perspectives that may be adopted (Hennessey & Amabile,
2010). What are the cognitive processes underlying creativity? Who is the creative person, what are their personality characteristics? What developmental
aspects contribute to creative thinking and achievement? What aspects of
our social world foster creativity? Unfortunately, each of these questions is
confined to one subdiscipline of psychology: cognitive, differential, developmental, and social. The challenge in studying creativity is to operate at the

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

3

intersection of these different levels of analysis and to adopt an interdisciplinary approach. In the next pages, we give a brief overview of how each of
these subfields of psychology conceptualizes creativity, and how scientists
have attempted to bridge these different areas of research. We believe that an
integrative and interdisciplinary approach is essential to understanding the
highly complex phenomenon of human creativity. We hope this will stimulate more high-quality research on creativity, as this is one of the most sought
after modern skills. As President Obama put it, “the first next step in winning the future is encouraging innovation.” Whoever masters the science of
innovation and creativity will undoubtedly master the world economy in the
years to come.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Cognitive psychologists have long been interested in creative thinking, that
is, the cognitive processes that lead to creative ideas (Simonton & Damian,
2013). As mentioned earlier, creative ideas must be original and surprising;
this implies that memories or past experiences would not be most useful
in generating such ideas. How does one generate new ideas that have a
low probability of occurrence? Many researchers have suggested that a
“broad attention focus,” “defocused attention,” “cognitive disinhibition,” or
“reduced latent inhibition” must be the answer (Carson, 2014). Regardless of
which term we use, all of these attentional styles have one thing in common:
They expand the scope of attention, allowing for a larger pool of stimuli
and thoughts to be “scanned” and integrated as “potentially relevant” to the
problem at hand. Thus, a broad attention focus and a low latent inhibition
help people “think outside the box” because they are less likely to “filter
out” valuable information based of their a priori rules of what information
is relevant. Social cognitive psychologists support this view, showing that
creative thinking and decision making are harmed by an excessive use
of rule-based thinking, as opposed to a more intuitive broad thinking
(Damian & Sherman, 2013). A downside to reduced latent inhibition is its
association with psychopathology (Carson, 2014). The psychotic mind is
constantly bombarded by stimuli and associations that should be filtered
out to begin with.
DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Differential psychologists investigate the individual differences related to
creativity, that is, the creative person. These differences can be (i) cognitive,
such as general intelligence and special mental abilities or (ii) dispositional,

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

such as personality, motivation, and values. Individual differences can often
explain inconsistencies in findings at the level of basic cognitive processes,
so they are essential for understanding creativity. For example, the finding
that reduced latent inhibition can have both positive and negative outcomes,
namely, creativity and psychopathology, respectively, can be explained by
individual differences in general intelligence (Carson, 2014). People with
exceptional intelligence have sufficient metacognitive skills and abilities to
take advantage of the relatively unfiltered inflow of information and come
up with creative ideas, whereas those with lower intelligence become overwhelmed by that sensory and associative influx, thus being more likely to
become mentally ill. Note however, that general intelligence ceases to have
a strong correlation with creativity in the upper levels of tested intelligence
(Simonton, 2004). This declining predictive effectiveness implies that other
factors are involved, such as personality traits. We now know that creative
persons have a distinctive profile of personality traits. For instance, creativity
is highly correlated with openness to experience (as defined in the 5-factor
model of personality; McCrae & Greenberg, 2014), a personality dimension
that also correlates with reduced latent inhibition (Carson, 2014). Moreover,
the personality traits of creative people vary by domain of achievement. For
example, creative artists are more inclined toward psychopathology than
creative scientists (Simonton, 2014).
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Developmental psychologists investigate how creativity changes across the
life span. What are the environmental factors that contribute to the development of creative potential, and how does creativity change with maturity
and old age? Regarding the first question, early work focused on family background and educational experiences: Highly creative people are more likely
to come from professional families and to be well educated; good school performance is not necessarily characteristic, but an early passion for a subject
and self-directed effort is (Simonton, 2004). Regarding the second question,
researchers have studied how creative productivity and (i.e., output) changes
during the course of an artistic or scientific career, as well as key landmarks;
generally, the first big contribution comes after 10 years of operating in a
specific domain, and the best contribution occurs during the time that is also
most productive, between 35 and 45 years of age; there are, however, some
exceptions, depending on the domain of achievement and the time when the
individual started accumulating expertise in that specific domain (Simonton, 1997). Although previous research documented a decrement in creativity
with age (Simonton, 2012a), recent findings suggest a reduction in this trend,

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

5

at least in the sciences, which may be due to the increasing impact of collaborative activity (Stroebe, 2010).
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Social psychologists investigate creativity in its social context, at three
different levels: interpersonal, group, and sociocultural. At the interpersonal level, researchers have shown that external evaluation can hinder
creativity, especially if rewards or praise are emphasized, as opposed to
mere enjoyment (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). At the group level, scientists
have shown that, despite wide-spread practices in the business world,
brainstorming in large (verbally) interactive groups produces fewer and
worse ideas than the same number of individuals working alone, and this
effect is mostly due to production blocking (i.e., not everyone has a chance to
present their ideas because of “bottle-necking” when taking turns to speak,
which results in forgetting ideas). However, group brainstorming may be
effective when groups are small, when participants can write down their
own ideas at any time and have access to the growing pool of shared ideas,
and when they are encouraged to break down the problem in smaller chunks
and focus on producing original ideas (for a review, see Stroebe, Nijstad, &
Rietzschel, 2010). Furthermore, group creativity increases significantly when
group membership is highly diverse, owing to the increased heterogeneity
of perspectives and ideas (Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003). Membership
diversity can entail gender, ethnicity, training, age, and a host of other
demographic and occupational factors. At the sociocultural level, there is
evidence that migration increases creative achievement at the national level,
probably due to increased diversity (Simonton, 2003).
More recently, creativity has also emerged as a topic of social cognition,
thus, integrating cognitive and social perspectives. We now know that a
broad attention focus and the ensuing creative cognitive style (thinking
flexibly and making remote associations) can be triggered by a positive (as
opposed to a negative mood), a promotion (as opposed to a prevention)
regulatory focus, an approach (as opposed on avoidance) motivation, and
by social power (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Friedman & Foerster, 2001;
Galinsky, Gruenfeld, Magee, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008). However, when
noting these effects, one must keep in mind that there are many paths to
creativity; although a broad attention focus and its antecedents can improve
idea generation, this is not the only way to enhance creative achievement.
Negative moods, a prevention focus, an avoidance motivation, and less
social power have their benefits too; they enhance vigilance and attention
to detail, they increase persistence, and thus, make people more likely
to finish a task they started (Roskes, DeDreu, Nijstad, 2012). Perhaps the

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

ideal would be to flexibly change moods and motivation depending on
the problem solving stage. For instance, one should be in a positive mood
while brainstorming an idea and plot for a new novel, but one should be
in a negative mood while actually writing the novel, given that persistence
and attention to detail are essential for a good writing style. This is an open
question for future research, but it seems promising given that this social
cognitive model of creativity would certainly explain the high incidence of
bipolar disorders among creative writers.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Hoping to identify the cognitive processes and neural bases for creativity, psychologists have started investigating creative thinking using the
latest neuroscientific techniques, such as electroencephalograms (EEGs),
event-related potentials (ERPs), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
However, two extensive reviews of over 60 studies concluded that no
specific brain region is consistently related to creativity, and that creative
thinking is not lateralized to the right hemisphere, as it is commonly believed
(Dietrich & Kanso, 2010; Sawyer, 2011). The empirical inconsistencies are
partly due to divergent definitions and measures of creativity, and partly
due to the complexity and diversity of the creative process itself. Even across
these two extensive reviews, there are major differences in conclusions.
Although Dietrich and Kanso (2010) conclude that there is no consistent
evidence that defocused attention is related to creative thinking, Sawyer
(2011) maintains that mind wandering and intuitive thinking (unconstrained
by conscious rule-based thinking) are related to creativity. Furthermore,
and not surprisingly, imaging studies confirm that expertise is relevant for
domain-specific creativity.
Although domain-specific creativity certainly depends on expertise, some
researchers have gone so far as to argue that creativity is entirely domain specific (Simonton, 2007). As a consequence, not only will artistic creativity differ
from scientific creativity but also creativity will differ across various artistic
or scientific domains. However, Simonton (2011) has recently argued that creativity in all domains is necessarily contingent on blind variation and selective retention (BVSR). Put simply, BVSR creativity encompasses a set of processes and procedures that all share one characteristic, namely, the capacity
to consider original ideas without knowing in advance whether or not they
will prove useful. The BVSR theory of creativity has been developed using
empirical analyses, case studies, and mathematical models (e.g., Damian &

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

7

Simonton, 2011; Simonton, 2013). This theory also has been directly linked
with cutting-edge research in the next three areas.
DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Although scientists have examined most personality traits and their relation
to creativity, affective traits have been largely overlooked. In particular, trait
tendencies toward certain self-conscious emotions, such as pride and shame,
are especially important for creative achievement because they play a central
role in motivating and regulating behavior. These emotions drive people to
work hard in achievement contexts and to behave in moral, socially appropriate ways in their social interactions and relationships. Pride, in particular,
is the most closely linked to achievement. When people master a challenging task or accomplish something of societal value, they not only feel good,
they feel good about themselves. This sense of pride engenders feelings of
competence and promotes social status.
Recent research found that trait pride relates to creative thinking and creative achievement, but that it matters which specific type of pride people
are predisposed to experience. There are two conceptually and empirically
distinct forms of pride: authentic pride (“I won because I worked hard”) and
hubristic pride (“I won because I am a genius”). These two forms have different
outcomes. People higher in authentic pride showed more creative thinking
and more creative achievement; they composed more music, sold more artwork, and won more science awards. This relation was mediated by higher
intrinsic motivation (i.e., achieving for its own sake), suggesting that individuals higher in authentic pride enjoy their work more and consequently
produce more creative achievements. In contrast to authentic pride, hubristic
pride was related to less creative thinking, was unrelated to creative achievement, and was associated with less intrinsic and more extrinsic motivation
(i.e., achieving for external rewards) (Damian & Robins, 2012; Damian &
Robins, 2013).
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
New studies in this area point to multiculturalism as an important predictor of creativity (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008). Multicultural
experiences enhance the ability to think flexibly and creatively, but these
effects are often moderated by openness to experience (Leung & Chiu,
2008) and bicultural identity integration (i.e., the extent to which people
perceive their diverse cultural identities as blended and in harmony; Saad,
Damian, Benet-Martinez, Moons, & Robins, 2013). This developmental
effect may also relate to the empirical finding that functional bilingualism

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

is correlated with creativity (Simonton, 2008). A person who easily encodes
any given thought or image in two distinct languages will likely display
more cognitive flexibility. This also echoes the finding that group diversity
and national migration increase creativity, as described earlier. The question
remains: Is there something special about multicultural experiences, or
does experience with any type of “diversity,” enhance creativity? Diversity
comes in many forms: Multiculturalism, mental illness, early parental loss,
economic instability, physical disability, racial discrimination, and religious
minority are but a few. Can these experiences also enhance creativity?
Recent research proposes that these life experiences can be conceptualized as diversifying experiences—unusual and unexpected events or
situations. Regardless of their affective valence, all of these experiences
push individuals outside the realm of “normality,” and violate their existing
schemas, thus teaching them to “think outside the box.” Indeed, when
conducting a historical analysis of eminent African Americans, researchers
found that diversifying experiences during childhood (including all of the
above-mentioned experiences) predicted creative eminence in adulthood
(Damian & Simonton, 2014).
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIVITY
Bridging these findings in the developmental area with a social cognitive
approach, researchers asked: Could there be a basic cognitive mechanism
by which diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility and hence
creative thinking? In one experiment, participants experienced complex
unusual and unexpected events happening in a virtual reality. In a second
experiment, participants were confronted with basic schema-violations
(such as preparing breakfast in the “wrong” order). In both experiments, a
diversifying experience—defined as active (but not vicarious) involvement
in an unusual event—increased cognitive flexibility more than active (or
vicarious) involvement in normal experiences. These experiments were the
first to provide evidence for a causal link between diversifying experiences
and creative thinking, and to suggest a cognitive mechanism underlying this
effect, namely an active schema-violation, that is, the personally experienced
violation of expectations (Ritter et al., 2012). In line with these findings,
a new study (Vohs, Redden, & Rahinel, 2013) showed that a disorderly
environment (which is a type of schema-violation) promotes creativity.
Besides these advances in the social cognition of creativity, the social psychology of group level creativity has also seen a recent boom, especially in
organizational contexts. In a longitudinal study, Amabile and Kramer (2011)
coded the daily diaries of employees from creative research teams at several

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

9

major international companies. The employees were most creative and efficient when they could feel a sense of progress and enjoyment, and the latter
predicted company performance.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The major issue in this area of research is defining creativity. As evidenced
earlier, creativity is a multidimensional and interdisciplinary topic of study.
There are different types of creativity (domain general vs domain specific),
different magnitudes (little-c vs Big-C; personal vs universal), and different
levels of analysis (process, person, product). Researchers focusing on each
of these different facets have adopted their own definitions and measures
of creativity, sometimes indiscriminately labeling all of them just “creativity
measures,” when in fact the various measures capture highly distinct facets
of creativity. This practice has resulted over the years in many contradictory
findings and arduous debates, some of which I present here. In search of a
more paradigmatic and unified science of creativity, researchers should first
and foremost strive to resolve definitional issues. Researchers in all subfields
of psychology should clearly specify what type of creativity they are measuring and which exact aspects of the process, as opposed to just saying, “we
measured creativity.” This simple practice, which can be easily achieved by
consulting this essay or the recent literature reviews and meta-analyses cited
in this essay, could prevent misunderstandings and general distrust in creativity research.
For example, social psychologists have debated for 20 years whether positive or negative moods foster creativity. Thanks to the meta-analysis by Baas
and colleagues (2008), we now know the conflicting results were due to the
use of different measures of creativity. Positive moods result in increased
cognitive flexibility (i.e., and increase in the variety of the ideas generated),
which is a blind variation (BV) process, whereas negative moods result in
increased within-category fluency (i.e., perseverance in pursuing one idea
category) and better attention to detail, which seems to be more akin to a
selective retention (SR) type of process. Thus, past results were not conflicting, they were simply indicating effects of mood on the different stages of the
creative process. If one were to write a new novel, a positive mood would
be required to come up with an original idea, but a negative mood would
be more helpful when sitting at the desk long hours to actually write it and
proofread it. This finding now raises a very interesting theoretical question:
Is a “state view” appropriate for explaining the influence of mood on creativity, or do we need to adopt a “dynamic view,” where it is the change in mood
that results in creativity, not each mood itself?

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Another example of a debate resulting from definitional issues comes from
the motivation literature: Does intrinsic or extrinsic motivation promote creativity? Initial studies suggested the former, but later studies challenged that
idea (for a review, see Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). Again, it turned out
that the two lines of research were targeting different types of creativity:
Intrinsic motivation was beneficial for creativity tasks requiring high levels of
BV, whereas extrinsic motivation was beneficial for creativity tasks requiring
high levels of SR and attention to detail and following rules.
Differential psychologists have also long been puzzled at the variety of personality traits characteristic of creative geniuses. On the one hand, they are
open to new experiences, interesting to be around, and full of energy and
enthusiasm, but on the other hand, they are hard working, introverted, and
even slightly disagreeable. If we assumed creativity was a unifaceted process, this plethora of traits would be highly confusing; however, knowing
the many types of cognitive processes involved in creativity, we can easily explain why this combination of personality traits is so prevalent among
highly creative people. The first set of traits are likely conducive to improved
BV, whereas the second set of traits are likely conducive to improved SR.
Because creativity has different facets and levels, one challenge faced by
future researchers is to adopt an interdisciplinary multimethod approach.
When one identifies a phenomenon related to creativity, one must ask: Which
type of creativity did I measure? Would this apply to other aspects and levels?
Explicitly addressing these questions is preferable to merely generalizing the
results to the indistinct and flashy word that is “creativity.”
Another important problem faced by creativity researchers is that we do
not yet know if and how phenomena observed at the little-c level in the
laboratory generalize to Big-C creativity. One way to solve this problem
is to conduct more high-quality longitudinal studies, where real-world
creativity is assessed. Using advanced statistical techniques, such as structural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, and propensity
score matching, longitudinal studies can address issues of causality, ecological validity, and the development of Big-C creativity. Unfortunately,
high-quality longitudinal studies are very time consuming and expensive.
One great example of such a longitudinal study is the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and their later achievements (Kell & Lubinski,
2014).
In addition to high-quality longitudinal studies, recent technological
advances may also benefit creativity research. We reviewed earlier the study
by Ritter and colleagues (2012) using virtual reality to simulate real-world
diversifying experiences; moreover, researchers have increasingly started
collecting data with the help of fMRI, iPhone apps, online databases, and
language analysis programs.

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

11

We hope that our brief but broad review has convinced the reader that creativity is an important topic of research, highly relevant to a variety of fields
besides psychology, such as education, business, sociology, and economics,
and that is best studied taking an interdisciplinary multimethod approach.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Amabile, T., & Kramer, S. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy,
engagement, and creativity at work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of
mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806.
Carson, S. (2014). Cognitive disinhibition, creativity, and psychopathology. In D.
K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 198–221). Oxford, England:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Damian, R. I., & Robins, R. W. (2012). The link between dispositional pride and
creative thinking depends on current mood. Journal of Research in Personality, 46,
765–769.
Damian, R. I., & Robins, R. W. (2013). Aristotle’s virtue or Dante’s deadliest sin? The
pride-creativity link and the mediating role of motivation. Learning and Individual
Differences, 26, 156–160.
Damian, R. I., & Sherman, J. W. (2013). A process dissociation examination of cognitive processes underlying unconscious thought. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 49, 228–237.
Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2014). Psychopathology, adversity, and creativity: Diversifying experiences in the development of eminent African-Americans.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, doi:10.1037/pspi0000011
Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2011). From past to future art: The creative impact
of Picasso’s 1935 Minotauromachy on his 1937 Guernica. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 360–369.
Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of
creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 822–848.
Friedman, R., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013.
Galinsky, A., Gruenfeld, D., Magee, J., Whitson, J., & Liljenquist, K. (2008). Power
reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450–1466.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology,
61, 569–598.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of
creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–13.
Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D. (2014). The study of mathematically precocious
youth at maturity: Insights into elements of genius. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.),

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 397–421). Oxford, England: WileyBlackwell.
Leung, A., & Chiu, C. (2008). Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and
openness to experience on creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 20,
376–382.
Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169–181.
McCrae, R. R., & Greenberg, D. M. (2014). Openness to experience. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 222–243). Oxford, England:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential
benefits of dissent and diversity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63–84). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Ritter, S. M., Damian, R. I., Simonton, D. K., van Baaren, R., Strick, M., Derks, J.,
& Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 961–964.
Roskes, M., de Dreu, C., & Nijstad, B. (2012). Necessity is the mother of invention:
Avoidance motivation stimulates creativity through cognitive effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 242–256.
Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 24, 92–96.
Saad, C. S., Damian, R. I., Benet-Martinez, V., Moons, W. G., & Robins, R. W.
(2013). Multiculturalism and creativity: Effects of cultural context, bicultural identity, and cognitive fluency. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 369–375.
doi:10.1177/1948550612456560
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 137–154.
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model
of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations: Strategies and
results. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through
collaboration (pp. 304–328). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2007). Creativity: Specialized expertise or general cognitive processes?. In M. J. Roberts (Ed.), Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain
specific processes in higher cognition (pp. 351–367). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Bilingualism and creativity. In J. Altarriba & R. R. Heredia (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes (pp. 147–166).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simonton, D. K. (2011). Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell’s
(1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark. Review of General Psychology, 15,
158–174.

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

13

Simonton, D. K. (2012a). Creative productivity and aging: An age decrement – or
not?. In S. K. Whitbourne & M. Sliwinski (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of
adult development and aging (pp. 477–496). New York, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Simonton, D. K. (2012b). Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A
quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97–106.
Simonton, D. K. (2013). Creative thought as blind variation and selective retention:
Why sightedness is inversely related to creativity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33, 253–266.
Simonton, D. K. (2014). More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8,
53–61.
Simonton, D. K., & Damian, R. I. (2013). Creativity. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 795–807). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stroebe, W. (2010). The graying of academia: Will it reduce scientific productivity?
American Psychologist, 65, 660–673.
Stroebe, W., Nijstad, B. A., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2010). Beyond productivity loss in
brainstorming groups: The evolution of a question. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 43, 157–203.
Vohs, K. D., Redden, J. P., & Rahinel, R. (2013). Physical order produces healthy
choices, generosity, and conventionality, whereas disorder produces creativity.
Psychological science, 24(9), 1860–1867.

FURTHER READING
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology,
61, 569–598.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2009). Cambridge handbook of creativity. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

RODICA IOANA DAMIAN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Rodica Ioana Damian (PhD 2013 University of California, Davis) is a
Postdoctoral Research Associate working at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. Her research examines the role of environmental
antecedents on personality development, and downstream consequences
for educational achievement, occupational prestige, and creativity. She
draws on multiple levels of analysis, methodologies, and data sources, in
order to build a broad and nuanced understanding of creative thinking and
achievement. In recognition of her research, Dr. Damian has been awarded
the Frank X. Barron Award for superior contributions to the psychology

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, by Division 10 of the American Psychological Association, as well as the Provost’s Dissertation Year Fellowship
and the Social Sciences Dean’s Doctoral Fellowship for Excellence Award by the
University of California, Davis.
Email: ridamian@illinois.edu.
Website: http://ridamian.weebly.com/
DEAN KEITH SIMONTON SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dean Keith Simonton (PhD 1975 Harvard University) is Distinguished
Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis. His bibliography lists more than 470 publications, including a dozen books. Among
the latter are Genius, Creativity, and Leadership; Scientific Genius; Greatness;
Genius and Creativity; Origins of Genius; Great Psychologists and Their Times;
Creativity in Science; Genius 101; and Great Flicks. Simonton received the
William James Book Award, Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding
Contributions to the Study of Creativity, the Rudolf Arnheim Award for
Outstanding Achievement in Psychology and the Arts, the Theoretical
Innovation Prize in Personality and Social Psychology, the George A. Miller
Outstanding Article Award, the E. Paul Torrance and President’s Awards
from the National Association for Gifted Children, and the Robert S. Daniel
Award for Four-Year College/University Teaching. He is Fellow of several
professional organizations, including the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the American Psychological Society, and ten
divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA). He has served
as President of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, the
Society for the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts (APA,
Division 10), and the Society for General Psychology (APA, Division 1).
Email: dksimonton@ucdavis.edu.
Website: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Simonton

RELATED ESSAYS
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Insight (Psychology), Brian Erickson and John Kounios
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology),
Sarah Hartman and Jay Belsky

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity

15

Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
Neural and Cognitive Plasticity (Psychology), Eduardo Mercado III
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson



Media

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity