Creativity is not something that you just pick like apples from a tree. Because creative ideas are so special, creators who come up with the best ideas are often highly rewarded with fame, fortune, or both. Nobel Prizes, Oscars, Pulitzers, and other honors bring fame, and big sales and box office bring fortune. Yet what is creativity in the first place? Figure 2. People often have difficulty describing where their creative ideas came from.
When you think of something creative, how do you typically come up with it? Creativity happens when someone comes up with a creative idea. An example would be a creative solution to a difficult problem.
But what makes an idea or solution creative? Creativity is the ability to generate, create, or discover new ideas, solutions, and possibilities. Very creative people often have intense knowledge about something, work on it for years, look at novel solutions, seek out the advice and help of other experts, and take risks.
Although creativity is often associated with the arts, it is actually a vital form of intelligence that drives people in many disciplines to discover something new. Creativity can be found in every area of life, from the way you decorate your residence to a new way of understanding how a cell works. Patent Office uses to decide whether an invention can receive patent protection Simonton, The first criterion is originality.
The idea must have a low probability. Indeed, it often should be unique. No other scientist came up with the idea. The second criterion is usefulness. The idea should be valuable or work. For example, a solution must, in fact, solve the problem. An original recipe that produces a dish that tastes too terrible to eat cannot be creative. Figure 3. The third and last criterion is surprise. The idea should be surprising, or at least nonobvious to use the term used by the Patent Office.
For instance, a solution that is a straightforward derivation from acquired expertise cannot be considered surprising even if it were original. When applying these three criteria, it is critical to recognize that originality, usefulness, and surprise are all quantitative rather than qualitative attributes of an idea. Specifically, we really have to speak of degree to which an idea satisfies each of the three criteria. In addition, the three attributes should have a zero point, that is, it should be possible to speak of an idea lacking any originality, usefulness, or surprise whatsoever.
Finally, we have to assume that if an idea scores zero on any one criterion then it must have zero creativity as well. For example, someone who reinvents the wheel is definitely producing a useful idea, but the idea has zero originality and hence no creativity whatsoever. Similarly, someone who invented a parachute made entirely out of steel reinforced concrete would get lots of credit for originality—and surprise! Figure 4. If you were tasked with thinking up as many uses for a brick as you could, how well would you do?
Would you have thought to chisel the brick into a sculpture? What about using it as sidewalk chalk? The following two measures are among the best known. Test your own creativity at this website by taking one of five common creativity tests.
Mednick believed that the creative process requires the ability to associate ideas that are considered very far apart conceptually. The RAT consists of items that require the respondent to identify a word that can be associated to three rather distinct stimulus words. The answer is spider black widow spider, spider bite, spider monkey.
This particular question is relatively easy, others are much more difficult, but it gives you the basic idea. Here, the participant is asked to generate alternative uses for a common object, such as a brick. The responses can be scored on four dimensions: a fluency , the total number of appropriate uses generated; b originality , the statistical rarity of the uses given; c flexibility , the number of distinct conceptual categories implied by the various uses; and d elaboration , the amount of detail given for the generated uses.
For example, using a brick as a paperweight represents a different conceptual category that using its volume to conserve water in a toilet tank. After structuring and planning a vague idea emerges, which is the result of the merging of memory items.
A vague idea is a cognitive structure that, halfway the creative process is still ill defined and, therefore, can be said to exist in a state of potentiality Gabora and Saab, Design processes unroll in an iterative way by the inspection and adjustment of the generated ideas Goldschmidt, A third aspect of design processes is coherence. Coherence theories characterize coherence in, for instance, philosophical problems and psychological processes, in terms of maximal satisfaction of multiple constraints and compute coherence by using, a.
Another measure of coherence is characterized as continuity in design processes. This measure was developed for a design task Jaarsveld and van Leeuwen, and calculated by the occurrence of a given pair of objects in a sketch, expressed as a percentage of all the sketches of a series. In a series of sketches participants designed a logo for a new soft drink. Design series strong in coherence also received a high score for their final design, as assessed by professionals in various domains.
Indicating that participants with a high score for the creative quality of their final sketch seemed better in assessing their design activity in relation to the continuity in the process and, thereby, seemed better in navigating the ill-defined space of a design problem Jaarsveld and van Leeuwen, Hence, design problems are especially suited to study more complex problem solving processes. Knowledge domain represents disciplines or fields of study organized by general principles, e.
It contains accumulated knowledge that can be divided in diverse content domains, and the relevant algorithms and heuristics. We also speak of knowledge domains when referring to, e. This latter differentiation may refer to the method by which performance in a certain knowledge domain is assessed, e.
In comparing tests results, we should keep in mind that apart from reflecting cognitive processes evolving in different problem spaces, the results also arise from cognition operating on different knowledge domains. We argue that, the still contradictory and inconclusive discussion about the relationship between intelligence and creativity Silvia, , should involve the issue of knowledge domain. Intelligence tests contain items that pertain to, e.
Items of creativity tests, by contrast, pertain to more idiosyncratic knowledge domains, their contents relating to associations between stored personal experiences Karmiloff-Smith, The influence of knowledge domain on the relationships between different test scores was already mentioned by Guilford , p.
This author expected a higher correlation between scores from a typical intelligence test and a divergent thinking test than between scores from two divergent thinking tests because the former pair operated on identical information and the latter pair on different information. Studies with the CRT showed that when knowledge domain is controlled for, the development of intelligence operating in ill-defined problem space does not compare to that of traditional intelligence but develops more similarly to the development of creativity Welter et al.
The Threshold theory Guilford, predicts a relationship between intelligence and creativity up to approximately an intelligence quotient IQ level of but not beyond Lubart, ; Runco, Threshold theory was corroborated when creative potential was found to be related to intelligence up to certain IQ levels; however, the theory was refuted, when focusing on achievement in creative domains; it showed that creative achievement benefited from higher intelligence even at fairly high levels of intellectual ability Jauk et al.
Distinguishing between subtypes of general intelligence known as fluent and crystallized intelligence Cattell, , Sligh et al. Also creative achievement showed to be affected by fluid intelligence Beaty et al.
Intelligence, defined as fluid IQ, verbal fluency, and strategic abilities, showed a higher correlation with creativity scores Silvia, than when defined as crystallized intelligence. Creativity tests, which involved convergent thinking e. That the Remote Association test also involves convergent thinking follows from the instructions; one is asked, when presented with a stimulus word e. The word pair table—chair is a common association, more remote is the pair table—plate, and quite remote is table—shark.
To circumvent the problem of tests differing in knowledge domain, one can develop out of one task a more divergent and a more convergent thinking task by asking, on the one hand, for the generation of original responses, and by asking, on the other hand, for more common responses Jauk et al.
By changing the instruction of a task, from convergent to divergent, one changes the constraints the solution has to answer and, thereby, one changes for cognition its freedom of operation Razumnikova et al.
However, asking for more common responses is still a divergent thinking task because it instigates a generative and ideational process. Indeed, studying the relationship between intelligence and creativity with knowledge domain controlled for yielded different results as defined in the Threshold theory.
A study in which knowledge domain was controlled for showed, firstly, that intelligence is no predictor for the development of creativity Welter et al. Secondly, that the relationship between scores of intelligence and creativity tests as defined under the Threshold theory was only observed in a small subset of primary school children, namely, female children in Grade 4 Welter et al.
We state that relating results of operations yielded by cognitive abilities performing in defined and in ill-defined problem spaces can only be informative when it is ensured that cognitive processes also operate on an identical knowledge domain. Eysenck observed that there is little justification for considering the constructs of divergent and convergent thinking in categorical terms in which one construct excludes the other.
In processes that yield original and appropriate solutions convergent and divergent thinking both operate on the same large knowledge base and the underlying cognitive processes are not entirely dissimilar Eysenck, , p.
Divergent thinking is especially effective when it is coupled with convergent thinking Runco, ; Gabora and Ranjan, A design problem study Jaarsveld and van Leeuwen, showed that divergent production was active throughout the design, as new meanings are continuously added to the evolving structure Akin, , and that convergent production was increasingly important toward the end of the process, as earlier productions are wrapped up and integrated in the final design.
Parallel to the discussion about the intertwining of convergent and divergent thinking abilities in processes that evolve in ill-defined problem space we find the discussion about how intelligence may facilitate creative thought.
This showed when top-down cognitive control advanced divergent processing in the generation of original ideas and a certain measure of cognitive inhibition advanced the fluency of idea generation Nusbaum and Silvia, Fluid intelligence and broad retrieval considered as intelligence factors in a structural equation study contributed both to the production of creative ideas in a metaphor generation task Beaty and Silvia, The notion that creative thought involves top-down, executive processes showed in a latent variable analysis where inhibition primarily promoted the fluency of ideas, and intelligence promoted their originality Benedek et al.
The various definitions of the constructs of intelligence and creativity show a problematic overlap. This overlap stems from the enormous endeavor to unanimously agree on valid descriptions for each construct.
Not much later, Stern around noticed that, as chronological age increased, variation in mental age changes proportionally. He developed the IQ ratio, whose standard deviation would be approximately constant over chronological age if mental age was divided by chronological age. With the development of multiple-factor-analyses Thurstone, around it could be shown that intelligence is not a simple unitary trait because at least seven somewhat independent factors of mental ability were identified.
Creativity is defined as a combined manifestation of novelty and usefulness Jung et al. Although it is identified with divergent thinking, and performance on divergent thinking tasks predicts, e. Divergent thinking often leads to highly original ideas that are honed to appropriate ideas by evaluative processes of critical thinking, and valuative and appreciative considerations Runco, Divergent thinking tests should be more considered as estimates of creative problem solving potential rather than of actual creativity Runco, Divergent thinking is not specific enough to help us understand what, exactly, are the mental processes—or the cognitive abilities—that yield creative thoughts Dietrich, Although current definitions of intelligence and creativity try to determine for each separate construct a unique set of cognitive abilities, analyses show that definitions vary in the degree to which each includes abilities that are generally considered to belong to the other construct Runco, ; Jaarsveld et al.
Abilities considered belonging to the construct of intelligence such as hypothesis testing, inhibition of alternative responses, and creating mental images of new actions or plans are also considered to be involved in creative thinking Fuster, , as cited in Colom et al. The ability, for instance, to evaluate , which is considered to belong to the construct of intelligence and assesses the match between a proposed solution and task constraints, has long been considered to play a role in creative processes that goes beyond the mere generation of a series of ideas as in creativity tasks Wallas, , as cited in Gabora, , p.
The Geneplore model Finke et al. The generation phase brings forth pre inventive objects, imaginary objects that are generated without any constraints in mind. In exploration, these objects are evaluated for their possible functionalities. In anticipating the functional characteristics of generated ideas, convergent thinking is needed to apprehend the situation, make evaluations Kozbelt, , and consider the consequences of a chosen solution Goel and Pirolli, Convergent reasoning in creativity tasks invokes criteria of functionality and appropriateness Halpern, ; Kaufmann, , goal directedness and adaptive behavior Sternberg, , as well as the abilities of planning and attention.
Convergent thinking stages may even require divergent thinking sub processes to identify restrictions on proposed new ideas and suggest requisite revision strategies Mumford et al. Hence, evaluation, which is considered to belong to the construct of intelligence, is also functional in creative processes. In contrast, the ability of flexibility , which is considered to belong to the construct of creativity and denotes an openness of mind that ensures the generation of ideas from different domains, showed, as a factor component for latent divergent thinking, a relationship with intelligence Silvia, Flexibility was also found to play an important role in intelligent behavior where it enables us to do novel things smartly in new situations Colunga and Smith, They propose to include the construct of flexibility within that of intelligence.
Therefore, definitions of the constructs we are to measure affect test construction and the resulting data. However, an overlap between definitions, as discussed, yields a test diversity that makes it impossible to interpret the different findings across studies with any confidence Arden et al. Also Kim concluded that because of differences in tests and administration methods, the observed correlation between intelligence and creativity was negligible.
As the various definitions of the constructs of intelligence and creativity show problematic overlap, we propose to circumvent the discussion about which cognitive abilities are assessed by which construct, and to consider both constructs as being involved in one design process. This approach allows us to study the contribution to this process of the various defined abilities, without one construct excluding the other. The CRT is a psychometrical tool constructed on the basis of an alternative construct of human cognitive functioning that considers creative reasoning as a thinking process understood as the cooperation between cognitive abilities related to intelligent and creative thinking.
In generating relationships for a matrix, reasoning and more specifically the ability of rule invention is applied. The ability of rule invention could be considered as an extension of the sequence of abilities of rule learning, rule inference, and rule application, implying that creativity is an extension of intelligence Shye and Goldzweig, According to this model, we could expect different results between a task assessing abilities of rule learning and rule inference, and a task assessing abilities of rule application.
In two studies rule learning and rule inference was assessed with the RPM and rule application was assessed with the CRT. Results showed that from Grades 1 to 4, the frequencies of relationships applied did not correlate with those solved Jaarsveld et al. Results showed that performance in the CRT allows an insight of cognitive abilities operating on relationships among components that differs from the insight based on performance within the same knowledge domain in a matrix solving task.
Hence, reasoning abilities lead to different performances when applied in solving closed as to open problems. In doing so one explains to oneself the relationship s realized so far and what one would like to attain. Explanatory activity enhances learning through increased depth of processing Siegler, Constraint of the CRT is that the matrix, in principle, can be solved by another person.
Therefore, in a kind of inner explanatory discussion, the designer makes observations of progress, and uses evaluations and decisions to answer this constraint. Because of this, open problems where certain constraints have to be met, constitute a powerful mechanism for promoting understanding and conceptual advancement Chi and VanLehn, ; Mestre, ; Siegler, Convergent and divergent thinking processes have been studied with a variety of intelligence and creativity tests, respectively.
Relationships between performances on these tests have been demonstrated and a large number of research questions have been addressed. However, the fact that intelligence and creativity tests vary in the definition of their construct, in their problem space, and in their knowledge domain, poses methodological problems regarding the validity of comparisons of test results. When we want to focus on one cognitive process, e. The CRT was developed on the basis of creative reasoning , a construct that assumes the intertwining of intelligent and creativity related abilities when looking for original and applicable solutions.
Matched with the Matrices test, results indicated that, besides similarities, intelligent thinking also yielded considerable differences for both problem spaces.
Data gathered from intelligence and creativity tests, whether they are performance scores or physiological measurements on the basis of, e. Data are also reflections of the processes evolving within a certain problem space and of cognitive abilities operating on a certain knowledge domain. Data can unhide brain networks that are involved in the performance of certain tasks, e.
The characteristics of the task, such as problem space and knowledge domain originated at the construction of the task, and the construction, on its turn, is affected by the definition of the construct the task is meant to measure.
Here we present the CRT as one possible solution for the described problems in cognition research. However, for research on relationships among test scores other pairs of tests are imaginable, e. It is conceivable that pairs of test could operate, besides on the domain of mathematics, on content of e. Pairs of test have been constructed by changing the instruction of a task; instructions instigated a more convergent or a more a divergent mode of response Razumnikova et al.
Hence, matrices created in the CRT are original in the sense that they all bear individual markers and they are applicable in the sense, that they can, in principle, be solved by another person. For research on the relationship among convergent and divergent thinking, we need pairs of test that differ in the problem spaces related to each test but are identical in the knowledge domain on which cognition operates.
For research on the intertwining of convergent and divergent thinking, we need tasks that measure more than tests assessing each construct alone. We need tasks that are developed on the definition of intertwining cognitive abilities; the CRT is one such test. Hence, we hope to have sufficiently discussed and demonstrated the importance of the three test features, construct definition, problem space, and knowledge domain, for research questions in creative cognition research.
All authors listed, have made substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Abraham, A. Semantic memory as the root of imagination.
Creative cognition: the diverse operations and the prospect of applying a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Methods 42, 38— Akin, O. Psychology of Architectural Design London: Pion. Google Scholar. Anderson, J. Arden, R. Neuroimaging creativity: a psychometric view. Brain Res. Arnheim, R.
Barsalou, L. Beaty, R. Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends Cogn. Personality and complex brain networks: the role of openness to experience in default network efficiency. Brain Mapp. Does insight problem solving predict real-world creativity? Arts 8, — Metaphorically speaking: cognitive abilities and the production of figurative language. A first look at the role of domain-general cognitive and creative abilities in jazz improvisation.
Psychomusicology 23, — Benedek, M. EEG alpha synchronization is related to top-down processing in convergent and divergent thinking. Neuropsychologia 49, — Differential effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity. Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: the common and differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity. Intelligence 46, 73— Boden, M. Buschman, T. Top-down versus bottom-up control of attention in the prefrontal and posterior parietal cortices.
Science , — Carroll, J. Cattell, R. The theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligence checked at the year-old level. Chi, M. Ward, S. Smith, and J. The content of physics self-explanations.
Christensen, B. The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Colom, R. Gray matter correlates of fluid, crystallized, and spatial intelligence: testing the P-FIT model. Intelligence 37, — Colunga, E. Flexibility and variability: essential to human cognition and the study of human cognition. The test was administered without time restriction.
The experiment took place in a computer laboratory where groups of up to 10 participants performed all tests on a standard desktop computer. Two experimenters explained the procedure and were present during the whole session. Since this study was part of a larger screening for further investigations, participants also completed motivation scales and a speed of information processing task. The order of tasks was the same for all participants.
After completing a sociodemographic questionnaire and motivation scales, they performed the INSBAT taking about 50 min.
After a short break of 15 min, they worked on the speed of information processing task, the tasks of creative potential, the creative achievement questionnaire, and finally the BFSI personality inventory for 20 min.
The total test session took about 2. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Graz. We computed creative potential CP scores by averaging over the scores of the six divergent thinking tasks.
The internal consistency would have been lowered by the exclusion of any single task. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of all measures are shown in Table 1.
The data were checked for outliers in the multivariate distribution of the IQ score with each of the creative potential and achievement measures by means of Mahalanobis distance as well as Cook's distance. For the creative achievement score, four persons were excluded due to an excess of Mahalanobis distance. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of intelligence, creativity, and personality measures.
Big five personality measures reflect person parameters according to the IRT model. CP: creative potential. Prior to applying the segmented regression analyses, the relationships between intelligence and the measures of creative potential as well as creative achievement were tested for nonlinearity. To this end, we set up hierarchical multiple regression models to examine whether a squared intelligence variable can explain incremental variance in creative potential or achievement over and above the linear term cf.
Collinearity of the predictors was avoided by means of residual centering Lance, In all cases, beta weights were negative indicating a decrease in slope as predictor scores increase.
Thus, this relationship is likely to be linear. The segmented regression analyses were performed with the open statistic software R version 2. IQ served as the independent variable, and each of the measures of creative potential and achievement served as the dependent variable. The algorithm has to be supplied with one or more initial guess parameter s for the breakpoint s. Empirically determined breakpoints were tested for statistical significance by means of the Davies test Davies, Segmented regression analyses were computed for all three criteria of creative potential and for creative achievement.
For the criterion of ideational fluency, a breakpoint was detected at an IQ of The bivariate correlations i. The breakpoint model is shown in Fig. Breakpoint models for the fluency score a , the Top 2 originality score b , and the average originality score c. Linear model for creative achievement d.
For creative potential assessed by means of the Top 2 originality score, a significant breakpoint was detected at an IQ of The scatter plot with the segmented relationship is shown in Fig. When the average originality was considered as a criterion, the breakpoint was estimated at an IQ of Finally, segmented regression analysis was also performed for the criterion of creative achievement although no non-linear relationship was observed; see above.
The linear model is shown in Fig. Since a statistically significant threshold for creative potential Top 2 originality score could be detected at an IQ of The enter-method was used in regression analyses. Results for the two independent regression models are shown in Table 2. Below the IQ-threshold, creative potential is significantly predicted by IQ and conscientiousness, but not by openness.
In contrast, above the IQ-threshold intelligence and conscientiousness are significant predictors only by trend, whereas now openness is the strongest predictor of creative potential. Despite weak significant zero-order correlations in the total sample, agreeableness does not significantly predict creative potential in both regression analyses of IQ subsamples, which is most likely due to the reduced sample size.
Multiple regression analyses predicting creative potential by IQ and personality factors for subsamples below and above an IQ of Separate regression analyses were not performed for creative potential as defined by average originality or ideational fluency since the subsamples above As there was no threshold for creative achievement we also did not compute separate regression analyses for this measure. The prominent threshold hypothesis proposes that a certain minimum level of intelligence is a necessary condition for creativity.
However, extensive tests of this hypothesis showed inconsistent results and the suggested threshold of IQ points represents, at best, an educated guess. We investigated the threshold hypothesis by means of segmented regression analysis aiming for an empirical determination of the potential threshold between intelligence and creativity.
To our knowledge this is the first report of an application of this method in the context of the threshold hypothesis of creativity. In line with the threshold hypothesis, we found evidence for a segmented linear relationship between intelligence and creative potential.
Intelligence significantly predicted creative potential in a lower IQ range but not in the upper IQ range. Hence, the correlation between intelligence and creative potential appears to be moderated by the level of intelligence. Moreover, the actual level of the threshold was found to depend on the applied measure of creative potential.
For the quantitative criterion of ideational fluency we obtained a rather low IQ threshold of In contrast, IQ thresholds for qualitative measures of creative potential were higher: When ideational originality was defined by the two most creative ideas in divergent thinking tasks cf.
When the average originality of all ideas was considered, the estimate of The Davies test for differences in slope was not significant but correlations still differed significantly.
The data hence still meet the most conservative criterion as proposed by Karwowski and Gralewski : A significant positive relationship below the threshold, no significant correlation above it, and a significant difference between both. How could the observed discrepancy between the IQ thresholds of 86, and IQ points be explained?
Considering first the thresholds of the qualitative measures of creative potential, the most straightforward interpretation would be that it simply needs higher intelligence to produce a series of original ideas than just two of them. The observation that the IQ threshold when predicting ideational fluency is around 85 IQ points further supports this notion: While one has to have at least above-average intelligence to produce original ideas, producing a higher quantity of ideas disregarding their quality seems easier to manage.
Given a necessary minimum of intelligence of about 1 standard deviation below the population mean or higher, no significant correlation between ideational fluency and cognitive ability can be observed anymore.
This result is well in line with the finding that intelligence is more predictive of ideational originality than of fluency Benedek et al.
The differences in thresholds for different measures of creative potential might also help to explain discrepant findings of studies using only ideational fluency as a single indicator of creative potential and thereby disregarding the quality of ideas. When considering only fluency, the absence of a threshold at is well in line with our data. Indeed, the threshold hypothesis does not predict that one needs intelligence in order to produce many ideas of unknown quality, but that one needs a certain intellectual capacity in order to produce creative ideas.
But what are the mechanisms by which intelligence fosters creative potential? Past research suggests that these mechanisms include the adoption of smart strategies, high cognitive control and broad knowledge. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the relationship of creative potential and intelligence is mediated by executive processes such as cognitive inhibition and switching Benedek et al.
Finally, many creative problems strongly draw on verbal abilities and general knowledge. Crystallized intelligence was found to show higher correlations with specific measures of creative potential than other components of intelligence Cho et al. We found evidence for an IQ threshold with respect to creative potential, but not for creative achievement. Our results thus suggest that intelligence fosters creative achievement across the whole range of intellectual ability.
This is in line with previous studies reporting that IQ is predictive of creative achievement even within high ability groups Park et al. Moreover, intelligence and creative potential were found to be concurrently predictive of creative achievement Plucker, It hence can be concluded that the threshold hypothesis only holds true for indicators of creative potential but not for creative achievement. Finally, this result pattern provides evidence for the sensitivity but also the specificity of the employed analysis strategy.
When performing separate multiple regression analyses in samples of lower and higher intelligence, we found that openness to experiences predicts creative potential in the subsample above the threshold whereas conscientiousness is negatively related to creative potential in the lower IQ range. Moreover, King et al. Although further research is needed to clarify the relationship between these constructs, it could be hypothesized that high intelligence and high openness predict creative potential, which, in turn, predicts creative achievement.
In the below-average IQ sample, low conscientiousness predicted creative potential in addition to general intelligence. Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Furnham also found conscientiousness to be negatively related to self-reported ideational behavior. Analyses of the facets of conscientiousness showed that deliberation predicted ideational behavior negatively while competence was associated positively.
The authors interpret their findings in the way that ideational behavior may be characterized by an inability to restrain impulses. Moreover, the relationship between conscientiousness and creativity may depend upon the investigated sample: While artists are of lower conscientiousness than non-artists, scientists are generally more conscientious.
More creative scientists, however, show higher levels of facets that reflect low conscientiousness than less creative scientists i. Taken together, our results point to different constellations of traits that are relevant to creative potential in lower and higher IQ samples: While divergent thinking ability may be supported by a lack of conscientiousness, i.
Higher openness may foster the acquisition of a broader general knowledge and thus support creativity Cho et al. An important point for studies investigating the threshold hypothesis is the IQ range of the tested sample. It is usually considered adequate to compare lower vs. In the case of creative achievement, even highly selective groups of very intelligent individuals have been extensively studied cf.
The present study used a naturalistic sample showing a continuous normal distribution of intelligence. While an even more selective sample may be suitable to discriminate among the very brightest, this study made the attempt to perform an unbiased detection of potential thresholds within the typical range of intelligence cf.
Moreover, since the tests used in this study were able to detect significant thresholds, statistical power could be considered sufficient. Further studies are still needed to test the robustness of the obtained threshold estimates. Recent research points to the relevance of crystallized intelligence with regards to the threshold hypothesis Cho et al. Since the intelligence test battery administered in the present study was assembled in order to obtain a broad and reliable measure of g it is not suited to decompose the effects of fluid and crystallized intelligence.
Future research could employ segmented regression analyses to examine the threshold hypothesis in more detail with respect to lower order factors of intelligence.
Summarizing, intelligence is highly relevant for creativity, but the kind of relationship depends on the level of intelligence as well as on the actual indicator of creativity. In line with early assumptions, intelligence may increase creative potential up to a certain degree where it loses impact and other factors come into play. At this, it possibly applies that the more complex the measure of creativity that is considered, the higher the threshold up to which intelligence may exert its influence.
For the most advanced indicator of creativity, namely creative achievement, intelligence remains relevant even at the highest ability range. The authors wish to express their gratitude to Michaela Lenzhofer and Martin Wammerl as well as Maike Sitter for their help in organizing and conducting the test sessions.
Moreover, we are grateful to the students of the University of Graz who rated the originality of responses. The helpful comments of the journal editor and the anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Sponsored Document from. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Department of Psychology, University of Graz, Austria.
Emanuel Jauk: ta. Neubauer: ta. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract The relationship between intelligence and creativity has been subject to empirical research for decades.
Keywords: Threshold hypothesis, Intelligence, Creativity, Segmented regression, Breakpoint detection. Introduction 1. Creativity Creativity is a concept of individual differences which is intended to explain why some people have higher potential to provide new solutions to old problems than others. The threshold hypothesis The basic idea behind the threshold hypothesis is that high creativity requires high or at least above-average intelligence.
Methodological considerations for investigating the threshold hypothesis Recently, Karwowski and Gralewski tested the threshold hypothesis in light of different methodological considerations. The present research This study aims at the identification of a possible threshold in the intelligence—creativity-relationship by means of continuous data analysis methods. Method 2. Participants In order to obtain a heterogeneous and not solely academic sample, we recruited participants via a local newspaper as well as the university's mailing lists.
Assessment of creative potential Creative potential was measured by means of three alternate uses AU tasks and three instances IN tasks. Procedure The experiment took place in a computer laboratory where groups of up to 10 participants performed all tests on a standard desktop computer.
Data analyses We computed creative potential CP scores by averaging over the scores of the six divergent thinking tasks. Table 1 Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of intelligence, creativity, and personality measures.
Open in a separate window.
0コメント