The Prominence of Affect in Creativity: Expanding the Conception of Creativity in Mathematical Problem Solving

  • Eric L. MannEmail author
  • Scott A. Chamberlin
  • Amy K. Graefe
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)


Constructs such as fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration have been accepted as integral components of creativity. In this chapter, the authors discuss affect (Leder GC, Pehkonen E, Törner G (eds), Beliefs: a hidden variable in mathematics education? Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002; McLeod DB, J Res Math Educ 25:637–647, 1994; McLeod DB, Adams VM, Affect and mathematical problem solving: a new perspective. Springer, New York, 1989) as it relates to the production of creative outcomes in mathematical problem solving episodes. The saliency of affect in creativity cannot be underestimated, as problem solvers require an appropriate state of mind in order to be maximally productive in creative endeavors. Attention is invested in commonly accepted sub-constructs of affect such as anxiety, aspiration(s), attitude, interest, and locus of control, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and value (Anderson LW, Bourke SF, Assessing affective characteristics in the schools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2000). A new sub-construct of creativity that is germane and instrumental to the production of creative outcomes is called iconoclasm and it is discussed in the context of mathematical problem solving episodes.


Affect Creativity Iconoclasm Mathematics Mathematical problem solving 



  1. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.
  3. Ambrose, R., Baek, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (2003). Children’s invention of multidigit multiplication and division algorithms. In A. J. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructive adaptive expertise (pp. 307–338). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, L. W., & Bourke, S. F. (2000). Assessing affective characteristics in the schools. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Baas, M., De Drew, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. S. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806.
  6. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (ABT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 28, 158–163.
  7. Berns, G. S. (2008). Iconoclast: A neuroscientist reveals how to think differently. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bledow, R., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. (2013). A dynamic perspective on affect and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 432–450.
  9. Boyé, A. (no date). Some elements of history of negative numbers. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from
  10. Cannon, J. W., Floyd, J. W., Kenyon, R., & Parry, W. R. (1997). Hyperbolic geometry. In S. Levy (Ed.), Flavors of geometry (Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications, Vol. 31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chamberlin, S. A. (2008). What is problem solving in the mathematics classroom? Philosophy of Mathematics Education, 23, 1–25.Google Scholar
  12. Chamberlin, S. A. (2010). A review of instruments created to assess affect in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Education, 7, 167–182.Google Scholar
  13. Chamberlin, S. A., & Mann, E. L. (2014, July 27–30). A new model of creativity in mathematical problem solving. In Proceedings of the international group for mathematical creativity and giftedness (pp. 35–40). Denver: University of Denver, CO. Retrieved from
  14. Chamberlin, S. A., & Powers, R. (2013). Assessing affect after mathematical problem solving tasks: Validating the Chamberlin affective instrument for mathematical problem solving. Gifted Education International, 29(1), 69–85.
  15. Chassell, L. M. (1916). Tests for originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7, 317–328.
  16. Common Core Standards Writing Team. (2012). Progressions for the common core state standards in mathematics (draft): K-5, number and operations in base ten. Tucson: Institute for Mathematics and Education, University of Arizona. Retrieved from
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Motivation and creativity. Towards a synthesis of structural and energistic approaches to cognition. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow and the foundation of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszenthihalyi (pp. 155–173). Dordrecht: Springer. Reprinted from New Ideas in Psychology, 6(2), 159–176. 1988.Google Scholar
  19. Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Eubanks, D. L., Murphy, S. T., & Diaz, M. D. M. (2010). Intuition as an influence on creative problem-solving: The effects of intuition, positive affect, and training. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 147–159.
  21. Feldhusen, J. F., & Westby, E. L. (2003). Creativity and affective behavior: Cognition, personality and motivation. In J. Houstz (Ed.), The educational psychology of creativity (pp. 95–103). Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  22. Forgeard, M. J. C., & Mecklenburg, A. C. (2013). The two dimensions of motivation and a reciprocal model of the creative process. Review of General Psychology, 17, 255–266.
  23. Ginsburg, H. P. (1996). Toby’s math. In R. J. Sternberg & T. BenZeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 175–282). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Glimcher, P. W., Camerer, C. F., Fehr, E., & Poldrack, R. A. (2009). Introduction: A brief history of neuroeconomics. In P. W. Glimcher, E. Fehr, C. Camerer, & R. R. Poldrack (Eds.), Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain (1st ed., pp. 1–12). New York: Academic. Retrieved from
  25. Goldin, G. A. (2009). The affective domain and students’ mathematical inventiveness. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and education of gifted students (pp. 181–194). Rotterdam: Sense Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Grant, A. M., & Berg, J. M. (2010). Pro-social motivation at work: When, why, and how making a difference makes a difference. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 28–44). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hadamard, J. (1945). An essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Halmos, P. R. (1983). Mathematics as a creative art. In D. E. Sarason & L. Gillman (Eds.), P.R. Halmos, selecta expository writing. New York: Springer. Reprinted from (1968) American Scientist, 56, 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haylock, D. (1997). Recognizing mathematical creativity in school children. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 29, 68–74.
  30. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., … & Human, P. (2000). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth: Heinemann Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Imai, T. (2000). The influence of overcoming fixation in mathematics towards divergent thinking in open-ended mathematics problems on Japanese junior high school students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31, 187–193.
  32. Jauk, E., Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). The road to creative achievement: A latent variable model of ability, and personality predictors. European Journal of Personality, 28, 95–104.
  33. Johnsen, S. K., & Sheffield, L. J. (2012). Using the common core state standards for mathematics with gifted and advanced learners. Waco: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.
  35. Kim, H., Cho, S., & Ahn, D. (2003). Development of mathematical creative problem solving ability test for identification of gifted in math. Gifted Education International, 18, 164–174.
  36. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lander, L. J., & Parkin, T. R. (1966). Counterexample to Euler’s conjecture on sums of like powers. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 72, 1079. Retrieved from
  38. Leder, G. C., Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (Eds.). (2002). Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Leu, Y., & Chiu, M. (2015). Creative behaviours in mathematics: Relationships with abilities, demographics, affects and gifted behaviours. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 40–50. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 236–260.Google Scholar
  41. Mann, E. L. (2009). The search for mathematical creativity: Identifying creative potential in middle school students. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 338–348.
  42. McLeod, D. B. (1994). Research on affect and mathematics learning in the JRME: 1970 to the present. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 637–647. Retrieved from
  43. McLeod, D. B., & Adams, V. M. (1989). Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Merkel, G., Uerkwitz, J., & Wood, T. (1996). Criar um ambiente na aula para falar sobre a matemática. [Creating a context for talking about mathematical thinking]. Educacao e Matematica, 4, 39–43. Retrieved from
  45. Movshovitz-Hadar, N., & Kleiner, I. (2009). Intellectual courage and mathematical creativity. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and education of gifted students (pp. 31–50). Rotterdam: Sense Publications.Google Scholar
  46. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014, July). Procedural fluency in mathematics, Retrieved from
  47. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.Google Scholar
  48. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expandedth ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  49. Nigstad, B., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. R., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 34–77.
  50. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(180–184), 261.
  51. Renzulli, J. S. (1998). Three-ring conception of giftedness. In S. M. Baum, S. M. Reis, & L. R. Maxfield (Eds.), Nurturing the gifts and talents of primary grade students. Mansfield Center: Creative Learning Press. Retrieved from
  52. Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 33–58.
  53. Rogers, L. (2014). The history of negative numbers. Retrieved from:
  54. Runco, M. A. (2014). Chapter 9: Personality and motivation. In Creativity theories and themes: Research, development and practice (2nd ed., pp. 265–302). Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  55. Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: An empirical test with gifted and nongifted children. The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 11, 212–218. Retrieved from
  56. Sriraman, B. (2006). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 20–36. Retrieved from
  57. Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Great minds think different. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7(1), 21–22. Retrieved from
  58. Tjoe, H. (2015). Giftedness and aesthetics: Perspective and expert mathematicians and mathematically gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 165–176.
  59. Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance tests of creative thinking-norms-technical manual research edition-verbal tests, forms A and B-figural tests, forms A and B. Princeton: Personnel Press.Google Scholar
  60. Torrance, E. P. (2008). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual, verbal forms A and B. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
  61. Torrance, E. P., Ball, O. E., & Safter, H. T. (2008). The Torrance tests of creative thinking – Streamlined scoring guide for figural forms A and B. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
  62. Tuli, M. R. (1980). Mathematical creativity as related to aptitude for achievement in and attitude towards mathematics. (Doctoral dissertation, Panjab University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(01), 122.Google Scholar
  63. van Dyke, F., & Craine, C. V. (1997). Equivalent representations in the learning of algebra. The Mathematics Teacher, 90, 616–619. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric L. Mann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Scott A. Chamberlin
    • 2
  • Amy K. Graefe
    • 3
  1. 1.Hope CollegeHollandUSA
  2. 2.University of WyomingLaramieUSA
  3. 3.University of Northern ColoradoGreeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations