Running head: THE CREATIVE PROCESS
An Exploration of the Creative Process
Annette Marino
ENG 499 Individualized Instruction
Dr. Ruth Wylie
Arizona State University
December 7, 2014
1
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
2
An Exploration of the Creative Process
Most people in the U.S. are familiar with the gooey, delicious creation called S’mores.
These iconic treats, consisting of graham crackers with a chocolate bar and a melted
marshmallow squished between them, are staples around campfires. More recently S’mores have
become popular at inside gatherings as well. Just thinking about S’mores is enough to make your
mouth water. Can’t you just imagine enjoying one of these tasty treats? But interestingly, the
exact origin of S’mores is unknown. Who thought of this creation? What process did they go
through to create such a popular treat? I’ll be using the analogy of the creation of S’mores to
explain recent research on the creative process.
This is an exploration of published research on the creative process intertwined with
insights and observations that have some surprising twists. It is designed to help you think about
your own creativity and draw your attention to the elements of the creative process you use on
possibly a daily basis.
Because the term “creativity” often gets conflated with “imagination” or “imaginative”, a
good place to begin is to clearly define and contrast the definitions of these words. I’ll start by
looking at the definitions for “create” and related words in Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary
(2014):
Create: (verb) to make or produce (something); to cause (something new) to exist
Creation: (noun) the act of making or producing something that did not exist before; the act of
creating something
Creative: (adjective) showing ability to make new things or think of new ideas
Creativity: (noun) the quality of being creative; the ability to create
To compare, the following definitions for “imagine” and related words also come from
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (2014):
Imagine: (verb) to think of or create (something that is not real) in your mind; to form a picture
or idea in your mind of (something that is not real)
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
3
Imagination: (noun) the ability to imagine things that are not real; the ability to form a picture in
your mind of something that you have not seen or experienced; the ability to think of new things;
something that only exists or happens in your mind
Imaginative: (adjective) having or showing an ability to think of new and interesting ideas;
having or showing imagination
One of the first things to note is that there is no “imagine”-related word that corresponds
to the word “creativity”, i.e. there is no “imaginativity” and the word imagination is used instead.
This in itself may be a source of the conflation of creativity and imagination. Beyond this, a
close look at the definitions shows that the “create”-related words in all cases except one refer to
activities that cause something new to exist and take place outside the body. The one exception is
that the word “creative” includes both “showing ability to create new things” (external) and
“showing ability to think of new ideas” (internal). This single reference of creativity in relation
to an internal process may also be the source of conflation of creativity and imagination.
Continuing to examine these definitions shows that the “imagine”-related words refer in all cases
to activities that occur within the body such as thinking or forming pictures or ideas in your
mind.
Based on this, the framework I will use for this exploration of the creative process is
based on a delineation of internal vs. external activities, with imagine-related words used for any
internal processes and create-related words used for any external processes. This provides a
concise framework with only one remaining gray area in that when an internal process is
externalized, such as communicating an idea with others, and yet nothing is actually created, is
this internal or external? For this exploration, I will refer to it as external because the idea is
communicated externally. So this framework relieves the conflation of imagination and creativity
by saying that I may imagine any idea or ideas and until that concept is communicated to
someone else or I manifest a tangible new item from the idea, it is an imaginative idea. However,
once I communicate the concept to others it is a creative idea or if I manifest a tangible new item
from it, it is referred to as creative item and I am considered a creative person.
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
4
You may be asking why it is important to clearly delineate imagination from creativity.
As this exploration on these topics progresses, it will become clearer how the conflation of these
items has made the research on the creative process murky. When there is a clear sense of
internal vs. external processes and activities, it is easier to put the scientific research that will be
explored into an understandable format so that research on internal, psychological processes can
be evaluated more effectively. As it stands, with these two terms being used interchangeably, it is
sometimes difficult to decipher exactly what a researcher is referring to. As this exploration
unfolds, it will become apparent that imagination is an essential part of the overall creative
process, and through recognizing this distinction it is much easier to understand, and potentially
improve, imaginative and creative abilities.
Using the example of S’mores to illustrate this delineation of imagination and creativity
and how they are used in the creative process, the person who first created the treat may have
arrived at it a few ways. It could have been a serendipitous mashup of ingredients, or they may
have had a goal of creating a tasty treat from a few of their favorite ingredients, or it could have
been a combination of these two. While serendipitous events have contributed to many creative
outcomes, to limit the scope of this exploration into the creative process I am going to focus on
goal-directed creativity, rather than observing a serendipitous event. So let’s imagine that the
S’mores creator was sitting at a campfire thinking that they would like a delicious treat. They
may think about what ingredients they like and that they have on their camping trip, and what
might go together well. Until they either communicate the ideas they come up with or create a
new treat, this is all imagination, occurring internally within them. If they get up and get the
graham crackers, chocolate bar and marshmallows and make a S’more, they have just come up
with a creative treat. Or if they first try melted marshmallows between graham crackers, they still
have come up with a creative treat, but then as they think about adding chocolate to the mix they
use their internal imagination. However, when they externally act to add the chocolate to the
recipe, they have just creatively improved the item they previously created based on an iterative
process of improvement involving imagination (internal) and creativity (external).
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
5
It is also important to understand that when measuring creativity as an external
manifestation of communication or the actual creation of something new, the judgment of what
is considered creative is actually in the perception of the external world, i.e. the team, audience
or users who perceive the idea or item. So there is an element of subjectivity in the consideration
of what is creative and what is not. Montuori and Purser (1995) contend that the environment,
including other people and their assessment of the level of creativity involved in a solution, is
always an element of the creative process. Further, Piffer (2012) and Simonton (2003) contend
that any type of measure of creativity must be measured as part of looking at the recognized
creative works of an individual. In addition, it is helpful to understand the current thinking on the
measurement that is used when classifying an item as creative. A popular definition of creativity
comes from to Amabile (1996) and states that for something to be creative it must be both novel
and useful. Again, these are measured by a subjective perception of the audience or users. A
person may think their idea is original and useful, but ultimately that is not up to them to decide.
Or they may think of something that they see as more mundane, and others may judge it to be
very creative.
So with these clear definitions of creativity (external) and imagination (internal) in hand
and a clear understanding of how concepts are deemed creative or not, we are set to explore the
goal-directed creative process of an individual. I will touch briefly on the creative processes of a
group later as context for the individual creative process, but the focus of this exploration is on
the goal-directed creative process of an individual. This exploration assumes that the goaldirected process results in a solution that is deemed creative, rather than a banal, everyday
solution, hence the word “creative” is part of the phrase “goal-directed creative process”.
The goal-directed creative process begins with a person recognizing a need for a solution,
such as in the example of the original S’mores creator desiring a tasty treat on their camping trip.
This is the initiation of the potentially creative process…remember, S’mores did not exist before
this time. In this case, we’ve already ruled out that the S’mores creation came from a
serendipitous set of circumstances, otherwise known as a “happy accident”, in which a melted
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
6
marshmallow ended up accidentally squished between a chocolate bar and graham crackers. So
in their quest for a delicious treat, the creator would have assessed their context to determine
what ingredients they may have with them on the camping trip, which ones they find delicious,
what tools they may have, i.e. a campfire and a utensil for melting marshmallows over it, etc. As
Lin and Tsau (2013) discuss, this stage is typically set in the person’s existing experiences such
as images and symbols in memory. So at this stage the person is assessing both the actual context
of what they have on hand, as well as anything related to it in their mental context. At this point,
this is all an imaginative, or internal, process the person is using. The importance of
comprehending context in imagination cannot be overstated when looking at goal-directed
creative processes. This is because it is a two-edged sword in that as previously discussed, the
measurement of whether something is creative is originality and usefulness, so it is necessary to
comprehend context in order to initiate the creative process and imagine and ultimately create
something useful and original. Lin and Tsau (2013) contend that the more experience a person
has, the more material their imagination has access to. Yet over-focus on context can also create
constraints that impair access to novel solutions. As Fairchild and Hunter (2014) contend, being
equipped with significant context of an issue is not an indicator of being able to develop new or
original solutions. In addition, Smith and Ward (2012) discuss the issue of blocking, when
implicit memory makes unnecessary material too accessible and blocks the necessary
information needed at the time. Implicit cognition refers to mental processes that are occurring
below the threshold of awareness and will be discussed further, but it is relevant at this point in
describing how blocking can occur when there is an over-focus on context in the creative
process. So goal-directed imaginative thinking cannot occur without comprehension of the
context of the goal and concepts or ideas that might be associated with that goal.
Once the goal-directed process is initiated and the person is using their internal
imagination, research shows that two types of cognition are at work, namely explicit and
implicit cognition. Explicit cognition refers to thought processes at the conscious level that a
person is attending to and involves deliberate intention, while implicit cognition occurs below
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
7
the threshold of conscious awareness (Smith & Ward, 2012). Interestingly, implicit cognition has
been shown to be quite important in the creative process. As mentioned previously, blocking of
new ideas occurs when implicit memory makes unnecessary or inappropriate information too
available, to the detriment of accessing new and possibly more useful information (Smith &
Ward, 2012). A solution to this blocking, or fixation, that occurs has been researched in the form
of incubation. Research has shown that when a person who has encountered a block or fixation
to new ideas, if they stop thinking about the issue at hand entirely and focus on another project or
something completely unrelated, implicit cognition continues to work on the issue below the
threshold of conscious awareness and oftentimes a solution or insight then seems to spring into
conscious awareness unexpectedly (Smith & Ward, 2012). An example of this is reported by
Isaacson (2014) when he states, “When Einstein was stymied while working out General
Relativity, he would pull out his violin and play Mozart until he could reconnect to what he
called the harmony of the spheres”. Most people have likely experienced this phenomenon of
fixation, as well as having an “a-ha!” or “eureka” moment when a possible solution pops into
their awareness seemingly out of nowhere, usually when they are not consciously thinking about
the situation. According to Andreasen and Ramchandran (2012), fMRI studies indicate that the
cortices related to associative processing are highly active during the resting state compared to
conscious (explicit) thought. More will be discussed about the role of associative processing in
the creative process shortly. However, beyond the literature on implicit cognition in fixation and
blocking, I propose that based on a dearth of literature on implicit cognition in the creative
process in general, this is an area that is ripe for further study to more clearly understand its role.
Two other cognitive processes used in the creative process are known as divergent and
convergent thinking. Divergent thinking refers to thinking of as many solutions to a problem as
possible, while convergent thinking refers to assessing ideas to come up with the one best idea
(Paulus, 2010). A key element that has been found in both of these is associative processing. The
research of Lee and Therriault (2013) indicates associative processing through associative
fluency in particular is a critical underpinning in the imaginative process. They describe an
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
8
individual’s associative hierarchy, or how they arrange and access information, to be on a range
of “steep” to “flat”. A less creative individual would have a steep hierarchy, with associations to
common ideas and less easy access to novel associations, while a more creative individual would
have a more flat hierarchy to make associations between remote ideas more easily. It seems to
me that because the goal-directed creative process involves the comprehension of context as
discussed earlier, the comprehension and use of that context by a person’s associative processing
ability may be among the most important elements in both generating both original and useful
ideas. Lee and Therriault (2013) also found that memory is an important element in the
imaginative process, and that intelligence plays an important role in the convergent thinking
element of the process. However, because associative processing influences both convergent and
divergent cognition abilities, this was deemed to be the most critical underpinning.
Beyond divergent and convergent thinking, another element that has been defined as
being important in novel imagination is described as properties that emerge from the
combinations of parent ideas, but that are not evident in each individually. These emergent
properties then become the basis of new generations of ideas and further combinations of ideas
(Smith & Ward, 2012). For clarity, I will use the term “emergent thinking” to reference this
process.
To tie these concepts together, I propose that while divergent, emergent and convergent
thinking are similar in that they all use associative processing, they appear to differ in how they
use associative processing and so are different processes. In divergent thinking the person
associates varying contextual elements to recognize many possible solutions. Then with
emergent thinking they may continue to associate these possible solutions in ways to recognize
emergent solutions from context that did not exist before they imagined it. Further, in convergent
thinking the person associates varying possible solutions, identified through divergent or
emergent thinking, with other contextual elements, i.e. constraints, to come up with the best
single solution. Beyond this, they may go through many cycles of divergent, emergent and/or
convergent thinking during the creative process. However, in all of three of these thought
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
9
processes, associative processing appears to be a major underpinning required to accomplish the
process.
There has been a research focus on three specific processing abilities that appear to be
important in the imaginative process in an individual. These are fluency, flexibility and
elaboration. Fluency refers to the ability to generate a large number of ideas, flexibility refers to
the ability to generate a wide variety of ideas (Paulus, 2010). These two elements are considered
to be sub-elements of associative processing and are referred to as associative fluency and
associative flexibility. The third element, elaboration, refers to thinking about further details of
the initial imaginative idea and the iterative process that an individual goes through to make it
viable or to improve upon it (Paulus, 2010). Again, at this point, the focus is still on the internal
imaginative processes of the overall creative process, when the idea has not yet been shared or
manifested externally. For clarity, I propose that while the word elaboration effectively describes
thinking about details of an idea, a better word for the iterative step of improving an idea is
“iteration”. Using the S’mores analogy, the creator’s original idea may have been melted
chocolate between graham crackers, and as they elaborated on the details of how to achieve this,
they may have recognized that an iteration of adding a hot, melted marshmallow does the trick
quite well!
A key question about the imaginative process emerges. How does a person combine all of
these inputs of goal and context and then recognize, manipulate and transform them into new
ideas, and even continue to combine and iterate those ideas in an internal state? In the literature,
the overarching concept for this is mental simulation. Mental simulation refers to mental
representations (visual, verbal, auditory, etc.) of things that are not present to the senses
(Lebreton et al., 2013). Embodied cognition theory explains many of the mechanisms of mental
simulation and how it facilitates both comprehension and ideation of novel ideas. For example, if
a person reads a sentence or hears a phrase of “You run toward the boat that is beached at the
shore”, the Indexical Hypothesis (Glenberg & Robertson, 1999) describes that comprehension
requires the person to activate their motor systems to simulate running (Glenberg & Kaschak,
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
10
2002) and perceptual memories to simulate the way a boat and a shore might look
(Rueschemeyer, Glenberg, Kaschak, Mueller, & Friederici, 2010). In addition, emotion systems
are activated to produce a pleasant feeling for those who enjoy the beach or an unpleasant feeling
for those who do not (Havas, Glenberg, Gutowski, Lucarelli, & Davidson, 2010). Further, if a
person has never seen a boat beached on a shore, they create a novel image of what that may
look like. Imagination is used to combine the various components of the sentence in a manner
that accomplishes goals specified (in part) by the syntax of the sentence. The person mentally
simulates the scene by using a combination of memories and novel imagination to fill in the
blanks if no relevant memories are available. Further, as they combine concepts, emergent
properties manifest as new ideas as discussed previously. So whether a person is “seeing” a new
molecular combination or a body movement in a dance in their “mind’s eye”, or “hearing” a
sequence of musical notes in their “mind’s ear”, or “tasting and feeling” a gooey, delicious treat
like S’mores in their “mind’s mouth”, these are all examples of experiencing or perceiving
mental representations of things that are not actually present to their senses. In a goal-directed
creative process, such as the creation of S’mores analogy, the person applies the goal (tasty treat
on a camping trip) with the context of what they know about their environment, and elaborates
details and iterates possible new combinations, improvements, or completely novel ways of
thinking of a way to reach the goal, and at this stage this is still happening as the imaginative
process, within the mind of the individual.
Beyond this, another characteristic of mental simulation is that it provides the ability for
the person to mentally time travel, or manipulate time to move backwards or forwards in their
simulation at whatever rate of speed they choose and to pause their simulation. According to
Suddendorf and Corballis (1997), mental time travel involves the mental reconstruction of events
from the past and the mental construction of future events. For example, if a person imagines a
flower such as a rose opening, they do not have to sit there for a few hours to envision this.
Instead, they have the ability to see it occur in a few seconds, and can also see it in reverse, or
pause it to look more closely at the petals at any point. This time manipulation in mental
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
11
simulation is used for both novel imagination as well as for such mundane activities as planning
a driving route to the supermarket. Mental simulation is something that people use so frequently
and innately that many people seem to not even be aware of using it until it is pointed out to
them. I propose that mental simulation is the “sandbox of the mind” and is where the imaginative
ideas first come into the explicit cognition or conscious awareness of the individual. It is where
the person can apply a goal and context and identify one or many divergent ideas that might meet
the goal within the context. It is where they can decide to expand the context or modify the goal
and identify even more divergent ideas. Or they may recognize a connection between two ideas
they are perceiving in their mind’s eye and launch into an entirely new set of ideas and iterations.
According to Davies, Atance and Martin-Ordas (2011), imagination is defined as the process
through which the person decides the details of mental imagery to achieve the desired outcome. I
propose that imagination and mental simulation are so intertwined that both seem to be necessary
for either to function, making them literally one process or at very least a symbiotic process.
So far, I have been discussing elements of the imaginative part of the creative process, or
the part of the process that takes place internally within an individual. When the idea is
externalized by the person, either by them communicating the idea to others or by taking an
action to make the idea come to fruition outside themselves, at that point the possibly
imaginative idea becomes a potentially creative idea or solution that results in the creation of
something new. So in the analogy of the creation of S’mores, as long as the person was using
internal processes to identify the idea of combining a melted marshmallow with a graham
cracker and chocolate bar, they were using their imagination. However, when they either
communicated the idea to others, or physically created the first S’more, at that point the idea
became a potentially creative idea. At this point I refer to it as a “potentially creative” because as
mentioned previously, it is up to others to decide whether they perceive the idea or creation to be
creative, using the definition of “original” and “useful”, or not. Due to the popularity of S’mores
as a delicious, well-known American treat that did not exist before the first time it was created,
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
12
S’mores would qualify as being “original” and “useful”, and would therefore be considered an
example of creativity.
Oftentimes, the creative process includes an iterative stage in which the original idea
continues to be improved. I’ve previously discussed how this occurs in the imaginative part of
the process as an individual reorganizes and transforms elements of context to improve an idea.
Once the idea is externalized, this becomes an iterative process in which the originator of the
imaginative idea, or someone else who they have shared the idea with, again uses their
imagination to internally manipulate the idea, using associative processing to add new context
they may have learned, and then it is re-shared in its iterated form. It is in this process that the
creative process alternates between imaginative (internal) and creative (externally shared), and it
is at this point that understanding this distinction of internal vs. external parts of the creative
process becomes very useful. With this distinction, it is easier to understand the dynamics of the
creative process that an individual goes through, as well as the dynamics of the creative process
in groups. Ultimately in the goal-directed creative process, a concrete work product is created or
a solution to an abstract problem is found. Along the way, at some point the idea behind the work
product or solution is deemed by other individuals other than the creator, or creators if it is a
group effort, to be a creative or not.
To summarize this exploration of the goal-directed creative process of an individual, I
have set forth a definition of imagination and creativity to avoid conflation and provided a
foundation for how the environment and audience determines whether an idea or item is creative
or not. I have used the example of the creation of S’mores to illustrate how the process is
triggered, explained the importance and use of context in the process, explained the role of
explicit and implicit cognition, discussed breaking through blocked imaginative thinking,
clarified divergent and convergent thinking, proposed an additional element of thought that I
refer to as emergent thinking and explained the critical role of associative processing in these
processes. Further, I have explained associative fluency and flexibility as well as elaboration and
iteration in the imaginative process, and provided an explanation of the symbiotic role of mental
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
13
simulation and imagination. Finally, I have illustrated the dynamics of moving from an internal,
imaginative process to an external, potentially creative process and how this can be an iterative
process to the ultimate creation of something new either on an individual or group basis, and
explained the importance of the environment and audience making the determination of an idea
or item is creative or not. Figure 1 is a preliminary diagram of this information.
Figure 1. Preliminary diagram of the creative process.
There are many open questions still to be explored in the creative process. Among these
are questions about a potentially much more widespread role of implicit processing than is
currently understood. An example of this would be research to identify if mental simulation
occurs at the implicit level as well as the explicit level. Even though it appears that all the
elements needed for mental simulation, such as associative processing, divergent thinking and
convergent thinking, are happening when a person is not attending to a topic, does this mean that
mental simulation is occurring but they cannot describe it as such because as soon as they attend
to the topic, they become aware of the mental simulation at the conscious level?
In order to identify potential research opportunities more specifically, I propose that a
next step is to create a flowchart of the interwoven processes, both confirmed and proposed, that
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
14
have been discussed in this paper. Different flowchart variations could then be created to
illustrate potential different combinations and sequences of the various processes. Through this
exercise, gaps in literature and research can be more easily recognized so that a roadmap for
further research can take shape.
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
15
Glossary
Convergent thinking: The search for the best answer or solution to a problem (Smith & Ward,
2012)
Divergent thinking: The generation of many alternative solutions to a problem (Smith & Ward,
2012)
Elaboration: Developing or building on other ideas (Paulus, 2010)
Emergent properties (leading to novelty): Conceptual combinations as the genesis of novelty;
the emergence of properties associated with a combination of properties from other
concepts (Smith & Ward, 2012)
Explicit cognition: Cognitive processes that happen with explicit awareness or intentional
cognition (Smith & Ward, 2012)
Flexibility: Ability to generate a wide variety of ideas (Paulus, 2010)
Fluency: Ability to generate a large number of ideas (Paulus, 2010)
Fixation: Blocks that obscure solutions (Smith & Ward, 2012)
Implicit cognition: Cognitive processes that happen without explicit awareness or intentional
cognition (Smith & Ward, 2012)
Incubation: Period when a person is not consciously working on a problem, then an insight
occurs (Smith & Ward, 2012)
Insight: Aha! experiences in problem solving (Smith & Ward, 2012)
Mental simulation: Mental representations (visual, verbal, auditory) of things that are not
present to the senses (Lebreton et al., 2013)
Mental time travel: Ability to mentally construct events from the past (episodic memory) and
possible events in the future and mentally expand/contract time to focus on select aspects
(Suddendorf & Corballis, 1997).
Originality: The production of unusual ideas (Paulus, 2010)
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
16
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations (Vol. 5). Boston: Harvard
Business School.
Andreasen, N. C., & Ramchandran, K. (2012). Creativity in art and science: Are there two
cultures? Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 14(1), 49-54.
Davies, J., Atance, C., & Martin-Ordas, G. (2011). A framework and open questions on
imagination in adults and children. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 31(1), 143157.
Fairchild, J., & Hunter, S. T. (2014). “We've got creative differences”: The effects of task
conflict and participative safety on team creative performance. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 48(1), 64-87. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jocb.41
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, 9(3), 558-565. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196313
Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse
Processes, 28(1), 1-26. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545067
Havas, D. A., Glenberg, A. M., Gutowski, K. A., Lucarelli, M. J., & Davidson, R. J.
(2010). Cosmetic Use of Botulinum Toxin-A Affects Processing of Emotional
Language. Psychological Science, 21(7), 895–900. doi:10.1177/0956797610374742
Isaacson, W. (2014, October 24). How innovation happens in the digital age [Blog post].
Retrieved from http://sciencefriday.com/blogs/10/24/2014/how-innovation-happens-inthe-digital-age.html?series=33
Lebreton, M., Bertoux, M., Boutet, C., Lehericy, S., Dubois, B., Fossati, P., & Pessiglione, M.
(2013). A critical role for the hippocampus in the valuation of imagined outcomes. PLoS
Biology, 11(10) doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001684
Lee, C. S., & Therriault, D. J. (2013). The cognitive underpinnings of creative thought: A latent
variable analysis exploring the roles of intelligence and working memory in three creative
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
17
thinking processes. Intelligence, 41(5), 306-320.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.008
Lin, H., & Tsau, S. (2013). The development of an imaginative thinking scale. Imagination,
Cognition and Personality, 32(3), 207-238. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/IC.32.3.b
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.m-w.com
Montuori, A., & Purser, R. E. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Toward a contextual
view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 69-112. doi:
10.1177/00221678950353005
Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating
groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(2), 237-262.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00013
Piffer, D. (2012). Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion of creativity and
general directions for future research. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 258-264.
Rueschemeyer, S.-A., Glenberg, A. M., Kaschak, M. P., Mueller, K., & Friederici, A. D.
(2010). Top-Down and Bottom-Up Contributions to Understanding Sentences
Describing Objects in Motion. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00183
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration
of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 475-494.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.475
Smith, S. M., & Ward, T. B. (2012). Cognition and the creation of ideas. In Holyoak, K. J., &
Morrison, R.G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 456 – 474).
New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (1997). Mental time travel and the evolution of the human
mind. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 123(2), 133-167.
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
18