Advertisement

From Dynamic Processes to a Dynamic Creative Process

  • Marion BotellaEmail author
  • Todd Lubart
Chapter
Part of the Creativity Theory and Action in Education book series (CTAE, volume 4)

Abstract

Since Wallas’ (The art of thought. Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1926) four-stage model, the sequential perspective on the creative process may be questioned. The creative process as a dynamic phenomenon is examined in this chapter. In order to understand how the creative process is dynamic, we start by examining the nature of dynamic processes in other fields such as education, cognitive science, health and social psychology. Based on the understanding of these dynamic processes, we develop hypotheses and observations on the dynamics of the creative process. This approach involves new methods to assess the complexity of the creative process.

Keywords

Creative process Dynamic process Observations 

References

  1. Ainsworth-Land, G. (1981). The dynamics of creative process — Key to the enigmas of physics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 15(4), 227–241.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1981.tb00297.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.Google Scholar
  3. Arieti, S. (1976). Creativity: The magic synthesis. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Armbruster, B. B. (1989). Metacognition in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 177–182). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Averill, J. R., & Nunley, E. P. (1992). Voyages of the heart: Living an emotionally creative life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bakker, R. M., Boroş, S., Kenis, P., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2013). It’s only temporary: Time frame and the dynamics of creative project teams. British Journal of Management, 24(3), 383–397  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00810.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Kaufman, S. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2015). Default and executive network coupling supports creative idea production. Scientific Reports, 5, 10964.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P. J., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(2), 87–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Botella, M., & Lubart, T. (2015). Creative processes: Art, design and science. In G. E. Corazza & S. Agnoli (Eds.), Multidisciplinary contributions to the science of creative thinking (pp. 53–65). Singapour: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Botella, M., Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. (2011). A dynamic and ecological approach to the artistic creative process of arts Students: An empirical contribution. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 29, 17–38.  https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.29.1.b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Botella, M., Glaveanu, V., Zenasni, F., Storme, M., Myszkowski, N., Wolff, M., & Lubart, T. (2013). How artists create: Creative process and multivariate factors. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Botella, M., Nelson, J., & Zenasni, F. (2016). Les macro et micro processus créatifs. In I. Capron-Puozzo (Ed.), Créativité et apprentissage (pp. 33–46). Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  13. Botella, M., Nelson, J., & Zenasni, F. (2017). It is time to observe the creative process : How to use a creative process report diary (CRD). Journal of Creative Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.172.
  14. Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Glaveanu, V., Botella, M., Guillou, K., De Biasi, P. M., & Lubart, T. (2014). The creativity maze: Exploring creativity in screenplay writing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(4), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brewer, M. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In H. Reis & C. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 3–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Busse, T. V., & Mansfield, R. S. (1980). Theories of the creative process: A review and a perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14(2), 103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carbon, C. C. (2010). The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologica, 134(2), 233–244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carbon, C.-C. (2011). Cognitive mechanisms for explaining dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. I-Perception, 2, 708–719  https://doi.org/10.1068/i0463aap.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carbon, C. C. (2012). Dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XVII, 8291(A), 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1117/12.916468
  20. Carson, D. K. (1999). Counseling. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 395–402). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Corazza, G. E. (2016). Potential originality and effectiveness: The dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2012). A psychological taxonomy of organizational innovation: Resolving the paradoxes. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Chiera, B. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Diagnosing organizational innovation: Measuring the capacity for innovation. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Didier, J., Botella, M., Attanasio, R., & Lambert, M.-D. (2016). Construction of notebook to observe the creative process of young students during complex solving problems in educational context. 31st International Congress of Psychology, July 24–29, Yokohama, Japan.Google Scholar
  25. Doyle, C. L. (1998). The writer tells: The creative process in the writing of liberation fiction. Creativity Research Journal, 11(1), 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Engel, Y., Kaandorp, M., & Elfring, T. (2017). Toward a dynamic process model of entrepreneurial networking under uncertainty. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 35–51  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foti, R. J., Knee, R. E., & Backert, R. S. G. (2008). Multi-level implications of framing leadership perceptions as a dynamic process. Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 178–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fusari, A. (2005). A model of the innovation-adaptation mechanism driving economic dynamics: A micro representation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15(3), 297–333.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-005-0246-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glaveanu, V., Lubart, T., Bonnardel, N., Botella, M., de Biaisi, P.-M., Desainte-Catherine, M., Georgsdottir, A., Guillou, K., Kurtag, G., Mouchiroud, C., Storme, M., Wojtczuk, A., & Zenasni, F. (2013). Creativity as action: Findings from five creative domains. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(April), 176.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goswami, A. (1996). Creativity and the quantum: A unified theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Greeley, L. (1977). The bumper effect dynamic in the creative process: The philosophical, psychological and neuropsychological link. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(4), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gruber, H. E. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gruber, H. E. (1989). The evolving systems approach to creative work. In D. Wallace & H. E. Gruber (Eds.), Creative people at work: Twelve cognitive case studies (pp. 3–24). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. The American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hass, R. W. (2017). Tracking the dynamics of divergent thinking via semantic distance: Analytic methods and theoretical implications. Memory and Cognition, 45(2), 233–244.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0659-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kellermann, P. F. (1994). Role reversal in psychodrama. In P. Holmes, M. Karp, & M. Watson (Eds.), Psychodrama since Moreno: Innovations in theory and practice (pp. 263–279). London.: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and applications. Torrance: Laredo Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  40. Lubart, T. I., & Getz, I. (1997). Emotion, metaphor, and the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lubart, T. I. (2000–2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 295–308.Google Scholar
  42. Lubart, T. (2009). In search of the writer’s creative process. In S. B. Kaufman & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The psychology of creative writing (pp. 149–165). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lubart, T. I., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., & Zenasni, F. (2015). Psychologie de la créativité [psychology of creativity] (2nd ed.). Paris: Armand Collin.Google Scholar
  44. Martindale, C. (1981). Cognition and consciousness. Homewood: Dorsey.Google Scholar
  45. Martindale, C. (1999). History and creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 823–830). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. Molenaar, P. C. M. (2013). On the necessity to use person-specific data analysis approaches in psychology. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Molenaar, P. C. M., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 112–117.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01619.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mumford, M. D., & Porter, P. P. (1999). Analogies. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 71–77). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  49. Ochse, R. E. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: The determinants of creative genuis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ohanian, A. (2014). From PlayStation to Y Combinator: The Reddit origin story, part 2. Okhuysen: American Express Open Forum.Google Scholar
  51. Osborn, A. F. (1953/1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York: Scribners.Google Scholar
  52. Patrick, C. (1935). Creative thought in poets. Archives of Psychology, 178, 1–74.Google Scholar
  53. Patrick, C. (1937). Creative thought in artists. Journal of Psychology, 4, 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Patrick, C. (1938). Scientific thought. The Journal of Psychology, 5, 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pearson, D. G., & Logie, R. H. (2000). Working memory and mental synthesis. In S. O’Nuallan (Ed.), Spatial cognition: Foundations and applications (pp. 347–359). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pearson, D. G., & Logie, R. H. (2015). A sketch is not enough: Dynamic external support increases creative insight on a guided synthesis task. Thinking and Reasoning, 21(1), 97–112.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.897255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pearson, D. G., Logie, R. H., & Gilhooly, K. (1999). Verbal representations and spatial manipulation during mental synthesis. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11(3), 295–314.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713752317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pearson, D. G., Deeprose, C., Wallace-Hadrill, S., Burnett Heyes, S., & Holmes, E. A. (2013). Assessing mental imagery in clinical psychology: A review of imagery measures and a guiding framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(1), 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Peilloux, A., & Botella, M. (2016). Ecological and dynamical study of the creative process and affects of scientific students working in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 165–170. Retrieved from.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Prins, S. (2006). The psychodynamic perspective in organizational research: Making sense of the dynamics of direction setting in emergent collaborative processes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 335–355.  https://doi.org/10.1348/096317906X105724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roels, H. (2014). Cycles of experimentation and the creative process of music composition. Artistic Experimentation in Music: An Anthology, 231–240.Google Scholar
  62. Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Westport: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent thinking. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritsker (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 577–582). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  64. Runco, M. A., & Dow, G. (1999). Problem Finding. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of creativity (Vol. 2, pp. 433–435). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  65. Russ, S. W. (1999). Emotion/affect. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 659–668). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  66. Sadler-Smith, E. (2016). Wallas’ four-stage model of the creative process: more than meets the eye ? Creativity Research Journal, 27(4), 342–352.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1087277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shaw, M. P. (1989). The eureka process: A structure for the creative experience in science and engineering. Creativity Research Journal, 2(4), 286–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shaw, M. P. (1994). Affective components of scientific creativity. In M. P. Shaw & M. A. Runco (Eds.), Creativity and affect (pp. 3–43). Westport: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  69. Simonton, D. K. (1980). Intuition and analysis: A predictive and explanatory model. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 102(1), 3–60.Google Scholar
  70. Simonton, D. K. (1990). Creativity in the later years: Optimistic prospects for achievement. The Gerontologist, 30, 626–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Simonton, D. K. (2001). Talent development as a multidimensional, multiplicative, and dynamic process. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(2), 39–43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sun, H., Steinkrauss, R., van der Steen, S., Cox, R., & de Bot, K. (2016). Foreign language learning as a complex dynamic process: A microgenetic case study of a Chinese child’s English learning trajectory. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 287–296.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tisdell, C., Wilson, C., & Swarna Nantha, H. (2008). Contingent valuation as a dynamic process. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(4), 1443–1458.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2007.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Treffinger, D. J. (1995). Creative problem solving: Overview and educational implications. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2005). Explaining after by before: Basic aspects of a dynamic systems approach to the study of development. Developmental Review, 25, 408–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vinacke, W. E. (1952). The psychology of thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  78. von Koss Torkildsen, J., Morken, F., Helland, W. A., & Helland, T. (2016). The dynamics of narrative writing in primary grade children: Writing process factors predict story quality. Reading and Writing, 29(3), 529–554.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9618-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  80. Waller, N. G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Lykken, D. T., Tellegen, A., & Blacker, D. M. (1993). Creativity, heritability, familiarity: Which word does not belong? Psychological Inquiry, 4, 235–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ward, T. B., & Wickes, K. N. S. (2009). Stable and dynamic properties of category structure guide imaginative thought. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 15–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yaniv, D. (2011). Revisiting Morenian psychodramatic encounter in light of contemporary neuroscience: Relationship between empathy and creativity. Arts in Psychotherapy, 38(1), 52–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2010.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yaniv, D. (2012). Dynamics of creativity and empathy in role reversal: Contributions from neuroscience. Review of General Psychology, 16(1), 70–77.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yeh, Y. c., Lai, S. C., & Lin, C. W. (2016). The dynamic influence of emotions on game-based creativity: An integrated analysis of emotional valence, activation strength, and regulation focus. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 817–825.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut de Psychologie, Laboratoire Adaptation Travail-IndividuUniversité Paris DescartesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations