Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Processes Involved in the Generation of Novel Ideas

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Quintessence of Basic and Clinical Research and Scientific Publishing

  • 1303 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the creative process. It explains why a focus on process is more practical than the alternatives. It reviews theories and research on the creative process. Some of the earliest process theories are summarized, as are more recent theories. Associative theory and the divergent thinking model are explored in detail and recommendations are offered. These include taking one’s time when working, the justification being that this is necessary for the remote associates that tend to be highly original. The value of incubation is also presented. Very recent work using computers to test associations is summarized and leads to the concept of semantic distance. The pros and cons of working in groups are presented. Practical implications are noted throughout the chapter and collected at the end of the chapter.

Objectives of this chapter: Summarizing theories of and research on the creative process, exploring practical implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cropley AJ (2014) Is there an ‘arts bias’ in the Creativity Research Journal? Comment on Glāveanu (2014). Creat Res J 26(3):368–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rocavert C (2016) Democratizing creativity: how arts/philosophy can contribute to the question of arts bias. Creat Res J 28(3):229–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Runco MA (2014) Creativity: theories and themes: research, development, and practice, 2nd edn. Elsevier Academic Press, New York, 520p

    Google Scholar 

  4. Guilford JP (1950) Fundamental statistics in psychology and education, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, 565p

    Google Scholar 

  5. Guilford JP (1968) Creativity, intelligence, and their educational implications. Knapp, San Diego, 229p

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barron FX (1955) The disposition toward originality. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 51(3):478–485

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Barron FX (1995) No rootless flower: an ecology of creativity. Hampton Press, Cresskill, 356p

    Google Scholar 

  8. Helson R (1999) Institute of personality assessment and research. In: Runco MA, Pritzker SR (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity, 1st edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 71–78

    Google Scholar 

  9. Taylor CW (1964) Widening horizons in creativity. Wiley, New York, 466p

    Google Scholar 

  10. Taylor CW, Barron FX (1963) Scientific creativity: its recognition and development. Wiley, New York, 419p

    Google Scholar 

  11. Runco MA, Pritzker SR (2020) Encyclopedia of creativity, 3rd edn. Academic press, New York, 1663p

    Google Scholar 

  12. Albert RS, Runco MA (1987) The possible different personality dispositions of scientists and nonscientists. In: Jackson DN, Rushton JP (eds) Scientific excellence: origins and assessment. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 67–97

    Google Scholar 

  13. Miller AI (2000) Metaphor and scientific creativity. In: Hallyn F (ed) Metaphor and analogy in the sciences. Kluwer Academic, Amsterdam, pp 147–164

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Zuckerman H (1977) Scientific elite: nobel laureates in the United States. The Free Press, New York, 335p

    Google Scholar 

  15. Runco MA, Jaeger GJ (2012) The standard definition of creativity. Creat Res J 24(1):92–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rhodes M (1961) An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan 42(7):305–310

    Google Scholar 

  17. Runco MA (2007) A hierarchical framework for the study of creativity. New Horiz Educ 55(3):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  18. Simonton DK (1995) Exceptional personal influence: an integrative paradigm. Creat Res J 8(4):371–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jay E, Perkins DN (1997) Creativity’s compass: a review of problem finding. In: Creativity research handbook, vol 1. Hampton Press, Cresskill, pp 257–293

    Google Scholar 

  20. Poincaré H (2014) The foundations of science: science and hypothesis, the value of science and method, Reissue edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 570p

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Wallas G (1926) The art of thought. Harcourt, New York, 162p

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dodds RA, Ward TB, Smith SM (2012) Incubation to problem solving and creativity. In: Runco MA (ed) Creativity Research Handbook. Hampton Press, Cresskill, pp 251–284

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gruber HE (1981) On the relation between ‘AHA experiences’ and the construction of ideas. Hist Sci 19(1):41–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Spearman C (1930) Creative mind. Nisbet & Company, London, 153p

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hoppe KD, Kyle NL (1990) Dual brain, creativity, and health. Creat Res J 3(2):150–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Runco MA (1994) Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, 318p

    Google Scholar 

  27. Einstein A, Infeld L (1938) The evolution of physics: the growth of ideas from early concepts to relativity and quanta. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 226p

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wertheimer M (1945) Productive thinking. Harper & Brothers, New York, 224p

    Google Scholar 

  29. Torrance EP (1962) Guiding creative talent. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 278p

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Getzels JW (1975) Problem-finding and the inventiveness of solutions. J Creat Behav 9(1):12–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Christensen BT, Schunn CD (2005) Spontaneous access and analogical incubation effects. Creat Res J 17(2–3):207–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Adams JL (1980) Conceptual blockbusting: a guide to better ideas, 2nd edn. Norton & Company, New York, 153p

    Google Scholar 

  33. Runco MA (2020) Tactics and strategies. In: Runco MA, Pritzker SR (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity, 3rd edn. Elsevier Academic Press, New York, pp 529–532

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Mumford MD, Mobley MI, Reiter-Palmon R, Uhlman CE, Doares LM (1991) Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creat Res J 4(2):91–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Runco MA, Chand I (1995) Cognition and creativity. Educ Psychol Rev 7(3):243–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mednick SA (1962) The associative basis of the creative process. Psychol Rev 69(3):220–232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Marko M, Michalko D, Riečanský I (2019) Remote associates test: an empirical proof of concept. Behav Res Methods 51(6):2700–2711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wu CL, Huang SY, Chen PZ, Chen HC (2020) A systematic review of creativity-related studies applying the remote associates test from 2000 to 2019. Front Psychol 11:573432

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee CS, Huggins AC, Therriault DJ (2014) A measure of creativity or intelligence? Examining internal and external structure validity evidence of the remote associates test. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 8(4):446–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mednick SA, Mednick MT (1971) Remote associates test: examiner’s manual. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  41. Milgram RM, Rabkin L (1980) Developmental test of Mednick’s associative hierarchies of original thinking. Dev Psychol 16(2):157–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Runco MA (1986) Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Educ Psychol Meas 46(2):375–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Paek SH, Alabbasi AM, Acar S, Runco MA (2021) Is more time better for divergent thinking? A meta-analysis of the time-on-task effect on divergent thinking. Think Skills Creat 41:100894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bachelor PA, Michael WB (1997) The structure of intellect model revisited. In: Runco MA (ed) The creativity research handbook. Hampton Press, Cresskill, pp 155–182

    Google Scholar 

  45. Meeker MN (1999) Structure of intellect systems. teacher training. Structure of Intellect, Vida

    Google Scholar 

  46. Runco MA, Beghetto RA (2019) Primary and secondary creativity. Curr Opin Behav Sci 27:7–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pauhus PB, Dzindolet MT, Poletes G, Camacho LM (1993) Perception of performance in group brainstorming: the illusion of group productivity. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 19(1):78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rickards T, De Cock C (2012) Understanding organizational creativity: toward a multiparadigmatic approach. In: Runco MA (ed) Creativity research handbook, 2nd edn. Hampton Press, New York, pp 1–32

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ione A (1999) Multiple discovery. In: Runco MA, Pritzker SR (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity, 1st edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 261–271

    Google Scholar 

  50. Organisciak P, Dumas D (2020) Open creativity scoring. University of Denver, Denver. https://openscoring.du.edu/

    Google Scholar 

  51. Agirre E, Banea C, Cer D, Diab M, Gonzalez-Agirre A, Mihalcea R, Rigau G, Wiebe J (2016) Semeval-2016 task 1: semantic textual similarity, monolingual and cross-lingual evaluation. In: SemEval-2016. 10th international workshop on semantic evaluation, San Diego, 16–17 June 2016. ACL, Stroudsburg, pp 497–511

    Google Scholar 

  52. Miura N, Takagi T (2015) WSL: sentence similarity using semantic distance between words. In: Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval 2015), June 2015, pp 128–131

    Google Scholar 

  53. Acar S, Runco MA (2014) Assessing associative distance among ideas elicited by tests of divergent thinking. Creat Res J 26(2):229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Martindale C (1990) The clockwork muse: the predictability of artistic change. Basic Books, New York, 432p

    Google Scholar 

  55. Johnson DR, Kaufman JC, Baker BS et al (2022) Divergent semantic integration (DSI): extracting creativity from narratives with distributional semantic modeling. Behav Res. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01986-2

  56. Runco MA, Turkman B, Acar S, Nural MV (2017) Idea density and the creativity of written works. J Genius Eminence 2(1):26–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Covington MA (2012) CPIDR® 5.1 user manual. Artificial Intelligence Center, The University of Georgia, Athens, 10p

    Google Scholar 

  58. Weinstein TJ, Ceh SM, Meinel C, Benedek M (2022) What’s creative about sentences? A computational approach to assessing creativity in a sentence generation task. Creat Res J 34(4):419–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Creativity Research & Programming, Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR, USA

    Mark A. Runco

  2. Department of Educational Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

    Janessa Bower

Authors
  1. Mark A. Runco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janessa Bower
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark A. Runco .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Retired Senior Expert Pharmacologist at the Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology, and Nephrology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

    Gowraganahalli Jagadeesh

  2. Professor & Director, Research Training and Publications, The Office of Research and Development, Periyar Maniammai Institute of Science & Technology (Deemed to be University), Vallam, Tamil Nadu, India

    Pitchai Balakumar

  3. Division Cardiology & Nephrology, Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology and Nephrology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

    Fortunato Senatore

Ethics declarations

All authors declare no conflict of interest for this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Runco, M.A., Bower, J. (2023). Processes Involved in the Generation of Novel Ideas. In: Jagadeesh, G., Balakumar, P., Senatore, F. (eds) The Quintessence of Basic and Clinical Research and Scientific Publishing. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1284-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation