Psychology of Creativity Seminar - First Assignm ent

Contemporary M odels
Luca Bayly-Aram bur (lb2785)
01/28/2015

A.

Define creativity

To Invent. To discover or solve. Something innovative. A novel

combination. Creativity is a phenomenon, a faculty of personality, a quality and a
process that has so far conceptually defied straightforward definitions. Inasmuch as it
can be considered a way to solve problems through recombination, it has also been
hailed as the result of unconscious processes made visible. Influenced by a wide range
of developmental, social and educational experiences and their and depending on the
context, its definition varies significantly across contexts.
According to Robert Weisberg, creativity can be seen as a person producing a
novel response that solves a problem (p.4). Focusing on the process more than the
product itself, he does though emphasize that for something to be creative, it needs to
be novel, it must have value and solve a problem (p.4). Weisberg argues creativity as a
process directed towards intentional novelty. He distances creativity from the idea of the
extraordinary and instead conceptualizes it as a quite ordinary thought process geared
towards a novel solution. Others, like Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, understand creativity as
any act, idea, or product that alters a domain, field or discipline, or that leads to the
creation of a new one. Hence, for him, creativity is not an individual attribute but a
societal judgment in regards to the act, idea or product. He highlights the importance of
considering the social and cultural context when studying creativity (p.198).
Nevertheless, the common denominator - observed across disciplines and
manifestations - seems to be the focus on novelty and contribution. Contrary to the
concept that creativity is reserved for geniuses or extraordinary individuals, recent
literature on the subject actually point to the ordinary thought processes that underlie
it; given certain circumstances in regards to the mind, cognitive process, motivation and
emotions, we are all - to greater or lesser extent - prone to be creative.
B.

Contem porary M odels

a. Systems M odel (Csikszentmihalyi)

Csikszentmihalyis Systems Model (Fig. 1) posits that creativity is the result of

the interrelationship between three systems:

Culture/Domain: Which contains the symbolic rules.

Person: Which brings novelty to the symbolic field.
Field: Which recognizes and validates the act, idea or performance.

In essence, the individual utilizes the symbolic information provided by the

culture and transforms it for its own creative endeavor. If this transformation is deemed
valuable or appropriate, it is included in and expands the domain. The actions of all three
systems are needed for creativity to occur. Therefore, creativity is not an isolated
process, but is actually the interaction between social systems and individual

production. This model particularly altered the notion that creativitys value was selfcontained by instead highlighting the extra-personal factors and sociocultural elements
that influence what comes to be considered creative.
Domain: The reference and existing pattern. Thus, the domain represents
objects, rules, representations and notations. Creativity occurs when a person makes a
change in the domain that will be transmitted in time.
Field: Refers to the gatekeepers of the domain the professors, critics, judges,
experts who, given their knowledge of the domain, have the authority to impose
judgment and decide whether a certain act, idea, product or performance is valuable
and worthy of being included on the domain.
Individual: Through a creative endeavor, the individual manipulates, utilizes of
recombines the contents of the domain into a novel creation. This creation, in order to
be creative, must be validated by the field and included in the domain to be transmitted
over time.

Figure 1 - THE SYSTEM S M ODEL OF CREATIVITY (Csikszentm ihalyi)

b. Problem-Solving M odels
A problem space comes to be what lies between the initial state the
representation of the problem - and the goal state or solution. Governed by a set of
constrained sequential operations, it is in the problem space where the search for the
novel solution takes place as the individual considers and tries out various solutions
intended to reach the goal state. Problem-Solving Models of creativity deal with two
kinds of problems: well-structured and ill-structured.
Well-structured problems are ones in which all the information necessary to
solve the problem is given and a solution path is clearly defined. In such problems, no
creativity is required to reach the goal state as, given the correct application of the
algorithm given, the right answer will be reached. For example, converting quantities
from the metric to the imperial system constitutes a well-structured problem.
Contrastingly, ill-structured problems provide insufficient information to reach
the goal state or fail to yield a well-defined answer. When approaching an ill-structured
problem then, the individual must make judgments to resolve the internal
inconsistencies and external conflicts in order to propose a solution. Thus, to be solved,
ill-structured problems demand a novel path through the problem space; they demand
creativity.

Figure 2 PROBLEM SPACE (Stokes)

i. W eisbergs Increm ental M odel

Weisberg refrains from characterizing creativity as aha moments of insight that
suddenly produce something greatly novel. Rather, he prefers to conceptualize it as a
series of sequential steps directed towards solving a problem or reaching a final goal

state. Starting within a field of knowledge, the individual will embark in a problemsolving process, which, as problems are encountered and solutions are tried, reduces
the search space until a solution is reached. Creativity here then involves a trial-anderror process, where the individual is able to associate remote ideas, gain insight from
failure and adjust to improve or even to re-conceptualize an ill-defined problem. For
Weisberg, creative output is always rooted in existing work be it the individuals or
others - that is further developed. (p. 14). Creativity may seem extraordinary and
mysterious when only the initial state and the solution are considered; no wonder
creativity was conceived as great leaps of insight (p.3). Indeed, Weisberg proposes
that creativity happens at even the small steps when a novel solution brings the goal
state closer. Given the nature of this process, Weisberg affirms the importance of
personality factors in his model. Faced with repeated, motivation in particular given its
effects on concentration and knowledge acquisition - becomes crucial for creativity and
it is it, paired with experience, which generally lead to domain-changing creative output.
Nevertheless, Weisberg dispels the idea that some extraordinary ability is necessary.
Quite the contrary, a closer look to the thought process behind creative geniuses
reveal quite ordinary cognitive processes.

ii. Reitm ans Constraint M odel

Similar to Weisbergs Incremental Model, Reitmans also conceptualized
creativity as progression towards a goal state or solution, where problems (or
constraints) constantly push for novel solutions and solutions themselves lead to new
constraints. This leads to an ever-contracting breadth of possible paths, which finally
leads to the goal state. Whereas Weisberg focuses on the anisotropy of the creative
process, Reitman model instead seeks to describe the functional relationship between a
creative endeavor and the constraints that surround it. Every ill-structured problem
has, in its description, attributes that constrain the problem-solving process and the
possible solutions. As components of the problem are left unspecified, contextdependent judgment is required to close these open-ended components until a
solution is reached.
iii. Stokes Constraint M odel
In Stokes Constraint Model open constraints are progressively resolved, each
step towards the goal state results in new constraints, whose function is two-fold:
inasmuch as they limit or restrain the solution sphere, they also promote or signal
alternative paths (Fig. 2). According to Stokes, the domain is constrained by three
factors: subject, goal and task. Subject constraints limit the content of the problem. Goal
constraints specify the style of the process. Task constraints specify the materials or
resources available in the problem space. Thus, domain constraints define the structure
of the problem and delimit the possible solutions available to get to the goal state.
In this model, creativity happens contrary to the popular saying inside the
box, where a strategic use of constraints can help preclude typical solutions and
promote novel ones. This dual-action by paired constraints not only increasingly
particularizes the solution, but also helps to pinpoint a substitute for a problem standing
between the initial and the goal state. This iterative series of substitutions lead to new
paths, which eventually lead to the solution or goal state. But then, what is the box? The

box here comes to be the expertise, the previous knowledge held by the individual that
allows for an informed use of constraints and decision-making throughout the process.
Stokes also mentions that as much as the box conveys certain rigidity, the box can get
bigger through borrowing, novel association of ideas, collaboration and knowledge
acquisition. In short, the more tools in the box, the more solutions are available. Stokes
thus states that expertise tools - is a necessity for creativity so thinking outside the
box is an oxymoron (p.278).
iv. Role of Expertise (Ericsson)
As has previously been discussed, expertise is crucial to produce the novel
resolutions and influential solutions that characterize creativity. Ericsson defines expert
performance as the level reached by an individual after a merely cognitive or associative
phase regarding an activity or discipline has been surpassed. A situation of advanced
skill acquisition, it is the result of a gradual, time-consuming improvement within a
domain. With every new skill we develop, eventually we reach a point where the activity
becomes automatic and high levels of control over the performance are attained. Most
individuals nevertheless experience very little, if any, improvement past this phase.
According to Ericsson, moving past this reaching an expert level of performance
require on average ten years of experience in the domain. Additionally, expertise also
depends heavily on deliberate practice and not merely on hours clocked. Deliberate
practice involves the intentional, concentrated practicing specifically geared towards
improving ones performance and ability. Tasks involved in deliberate practice are very
specific to the domain and to the individuals necessities, generally through successive
refinements involving feedback. Only through the repeated and deliberate practice of
challenging domain-related tasks is expert performance achieved.
In regards to creativity, Ericsson posits that there seems to be no particular
stage in expert development where creativity is possible as the average peak
performance age differs greatly between domains consider a gymnast against a
scientist. It seems though that in order to make creative contributions, it is essential to
have knowledge about the domain in order to be able to produce ideas that will be novel
and rewarded within the domain itself.