Theories of Creativity
Before I am able to explain several of the leading theories of creativity, one must understand a confusing intricacy surrounding this topic of study. What is different about the study of creativity is that in other fields of research the newest theory often replaces the older theories. The newest theory is often deemed as being "more correct" than the previously held school of thought. However when researching creativity, one might find that there are a multitude of theories that are seen as "correct". The theories themselves each argue that creativity is caused by different factors. They each argue that the components of creativity are different. Interestingly enough, they each are correct in their own respect. Now this may seem a tad confusing, but because creativity is a such a dynamic concept many theories are only able to define creativity in one particular field or career at one specific point in time (i.e. creativity among engineers, creativity among artists, etc.) That being said, it is important to view each model of creativity only as a single perspective among many perspectives.
Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model and Model of Creativity
One of the earliest models of creativity was created by a man named J. P. Guilford. Originally, Guilford was trying to create a model for intellect as a whole, but in doing so also created a model for creativity. Guilford hypothesized that every mental task was made up of three separate parts: an operation, a content, and a product. He stated that there were five types of operations, four types of content, and six types of products adding to a total of one hundred and twenty different types of possible metal tasks (he would later expand this number to one hundred and eighty different mental tasks, but for now let's focus on the original one hundred and twenty.) Of these one hundred and twenty different mental tasks Guilford identified one specific operation as "divergent production" and marked it as being a vital component of creativity. This divergent production coupled with a content and a product created twenty four possibilities that Guilford labeled collectively as "divergent thinking".
By labeling this group of mental tasks as divergent thinking Guilford made an important assumption for creative research: creativity isn't one abstract concept. The idea that creativity is a category rather than one single concept opened up the ability for other researchers to look at creativity with a whole new perspective.
Additionally, Guilford hypothesized one of the first models for the components of creativity. He explained that creativity was a result of having:
By labeling this group of mental tasks as divergent thinking Guilford made an important assumption for creative research: creativity isn't one abstract concept. The idea that creativity is a category rather than one single concept opened up the ability for other researchers to look at creativity with a whole new perspective.
Additionally, Guilford hypothesized one of the first models for the components of creativity. He explained that creativity was a result of having:
1. Sensitivity to problems, or the ability to recognize problems.
2. Fluency, which encompasses
-a. Ideational fluency, or the ability rapidly to produce a variety of ideas that fulfill stated requirements.
-b. Associational fluency, or the ability to generate a list of words, each of which is associated with a given word.
-c. Expressional fluency, or the ability to organize words into larger units, such as phrases, sentences, and paragraphs.
3. Flexibility, which encompasses
-a. Spontaneous flexibility, or the ability to demonstrate flexibility.
-b. Adaptive flexibility, or the ability to produce responses that are novel and high in quality
This represents the base model by which several researchers would take and alter to produce their new theories of creativity years later. This base theory stated that creativity was a result of of cognitive ability (intellect) alone. As Guilford was originally only studying intellect, it is not strange that he categorizes creativity as just a specific subset of cognitive ability.
After Guilford's initial model, researchers would begin to categorize and re-categorize mental ability into subsets that would further hypothesize how mental ability was broken up (as shown in the image to the left). These models would help others understand and put into place one specific part of creativity that Guilford brought to light: the intellectual requirement.
After Guilford's initial model, researchers would begin to categorize and re-categorize mental ability into subsets that would further hypothesize how mental ability was broken up (as shown in the image to the left). These models would help others understand and put into place one specific part of creativity that Guilford brought to light: the intellectual requirement.
Kerrie Unsworth's "Unpacking Creativity"
Moving on from Guilford's model of cognitive ability, Kerrie Unsworth proposed that there was more than just raw intelligence that influenced the creative process. Unsworth argues that context was just as important of a factor of creativity as cognitive ability was. Specifically, Unworth looked two aspects of context: The problem type and motivation. Unsworth broke down each of these ideas into two categories to better explain each context affects the creative process.
In differentiating the type of problem, Unsworth separated cases based on whether or not a given problem was known. Where closed problems are instances when a problem is clearly defined, open problem must be discovered and searched for. The first step in dealing with open problems is that one needs to discover what the problem is before they can fix it.
Regarding motivation, Unsworth differentiated types of motivation based off of what the source of the driving action was. This means that the motivation could either be internally or externally driven.
Using the different types of motivation and problems, Unsworth created a matrix (pictured above) that broke down creativity into four arch-types:
In differentiating the type of problem, Unsworth separated cases based on whether or not a given problem was known. Where closed problems are instances when a problem is clearly defined, open problem must be discovered and searched for. The first step in dealing with open problems is that one needs to discover what the problem is before they can fix it.
Regarding motivation, Unsworth differentiated types of motivation based off of what the source of the driving action was. This means that the motivation could either be internally or externally driven.
Using the different types of motivation and problems, Unsworth created a matrix (pictured above) that broke down creativity into four arch-types:
Responsive creativity: Externally driven with a closed problem type, this type of creativity has the least amount of opportunity for creative input, but is often seen in occupational and professional scenarios.
Expected creativity: Externally driven with an open problem type, this type of creativity is most often seen in art and poetry where the problem is self- discovered.
Contributory creativity: Internally driven with a closed problem type, this type of creativity often deals with volunteer behaviors as the problem is known, but an individual exercising contributory creativity is doing so on their own will and not being forced by an extrinsic motivator.
Proactive creativity: Internally driven with a open problem type, this creativity is when dealing with an uncertain problem that must be found. Often synonymous with spontaneous creativity as a problem wasn't apparent, but was found and creatively fixed.
Through this model, Unsworth shed light on the important topic that is context. As she specifically states, "There are many theories concerning the creative process, yet the proposition that the process may change depending upon the type of creativity has not been considered" (Unsworth, 294). This is to say that just as Guilford offered cognitive ability as a component of creativity, context is another factor that shapes and mold types of creativity. Additionally, Unsworth made the distinction between innovation and creativity that I had not seen explained before. She explains that innovation is used in regards to the implementation of ideas whereas creativity describes only the generation of ideas.
The Personality Connection
Apart from intelligence and context, there is one other leading theory to explain the components of creativity: The personality factor. While being closely related to cognitive ability, personality is another internal factor that affects the creative process. This theory breaks down how personality effects creativity into two options:
Little-C: Creativity that can be seen in your everyday life, but these are usually small little opportunities to adapt and change to fit a situation.
Big-C: Significant change that affects how others think, feel, and live their lives.
Depending on what kind of personality one has determines what effect it will have on the creative process. For example, say that someone has found a new way to dust shelves. The new method takes half of the normal time of dusting. Now, the little-C personality might think to themselves that this is a creative way for them to go about cleaning the house, and it will even save them a solid hour of cleaning each week. On the other hand, the big-C personality might realize that the implications of this creative breakthrough. By sharing this news with the world and garnishing support behind this new method, people everywhere might be saving millions of hours collectively dusting their shelves. The creative idea is the same in both cases, however one scenario affects just one individual, while the other situation affected millions of people. The difference is in the personality.
One of the main ways that personality is measured is through J.M. Digman's Big-5 personality traits or OCEAN: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Digman uses these traits to categorize personality types into measurable quantities. While it is not clear how each of these individual traits affect the creative process, the main point is that personality in its entirety has an influence of the creative process.
If you are interested in seeing where your personality lies on Digman's model, feel free to take the survey here to find out!
Little-C: Creativity that can be seen in your everyday life, but these are usually small little opportunities to adapt and change to fit a situation.
Big-C: Significant change that affects how others think, feel, and live their lives.
Depending on what kind of personality one has determines what effect it will have on the creative process. For example, say that someone has found a new way to dust shelves. The new method takes half of the normal time of dusting. Now, the little-C personality might think to themselves that this is a creative way for them to go about cleaning the house, and it will even save them a solid hour of cleaning each week. On the other hand, the big-C personality might realize that the implications of this creative breakthrough. By sharing this news with the world and garnishing support behind this new method, people everywhere might be saving millions of hours collectively dusting their shelves. The creative idea is the same in both cases, however one scenario affects just one individual, while the other situation affected millions of people. The difference is in the personality.
One of the main ways that personality is measured is through J.M. Digman's Big-5 personality traits or OCEAN: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Digman uses these traits to categorize personality types into measurable quantities. While it is not clear how each of these individual traits affect the creative process, the main point is that personality in its entirety has an influence of the creative process.
If you are interested in seeing where your personality lies on Digman's model, feel free to take the survey here to find out!
Takeaways From the Creative Theories
The evolution of creative theory has brought our understanding of what creativity is from Guilford's solely cognitive representation in the 1900's to our modern day model that includes intellect, context (problem type and motivation), and personality each as factors of influence. Again, I would like to reiterate that each of these models are correct in and of themselves. Each individual theory is correct not only because the next theory builds off the previous one, but also because they each help explain the creative process for different fields. For instance, personality plays less of a role than cognitive ability in the creative process when trying to find a new way to wield two pieces of metal together. However when trying to find a new way to creatively get votes for a politician, personality might have a much larger role than cognitive ability.
Creativity Misconceptions
While I believe that each of these theories have evolved and changed our fundamental understanding of creativity, some would argue that our overall perceptions and understanding of creativity has not changed. Some would say that while a few components of creativity have changed, our overlying view of creativity as a whole has not changed. This is a common misconception about creativity. Originally, creativity was thought to be one individual trait that could be measured in the same way that base intellect and physical strength are measured. However due to the research in the above theories and models, the fundamental components of creativity have in fact changed. This change in the rudimentary parts of the creative process has caused our overarching view of creativity to switch from viewing it as a personality trait to being a broad category that better encompasses all types of creativity than a singular model could ever hope to.
Why So Many Theories?
The main point these theories attempt to display is that creativity is a dynamic concept with a multitude of sub-types of creativity. Because creativity is as dynamic and diverse as previously stated, the need for multiple theories to be correct to fit any given context arises. Now that we understand that there are many different components, parts, and perspectives on what creativity is, I would like to piece together the core arguments in each of these theories to define creativity, not as an single entity, but as an broad category.