This chapter presents a broader focus on creativity, examining confluence theories of creativity, which propose that the confluence, or coming together, of many factors is critical for creative achievement. Confluence theories go beyond the individual person, examining social and environmental factors that might influence the creative process. The chapter examines Sternberg’s (2018) Triangle theory, which concentrates more on the individual, and Amabile’s componential theory of creativity, which places more emphasis on the role in creativity of factors outside the individual – that is, social factors (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Amabile has examined creativity and innovation in organizations, including business organizations. The chapter presents the general aspects of each theory, as well as research relevant to it. Points of commonality and difference between the two theories are noted, and a critique of each theory is presented. The basic question being asked in this research is: How far beyond the individual do we have to go to obtain a full understanding of creativity?

Problem-solving, an important example of creative thinking, is discussed in Chapter 3. The chapter begins with example of real-world problem-solving that had enormous historical consequences: the rescue in 1941 of the British army from the beaches at Dunkirk. The chapter then examines details of problem-solving, using three already-familiar creative advances: the Dunkirk rescue, just discussed; and IDEO’s shopping cart and Picasso’s Guernica, from Chapter 1. Problem-solving is a core component of analytic thinking, so the chapter examines in detail what we mean when we talk about “analytic thinking.” That discussion provides a set of concepts to use when we examine problem-solving and creative thinking throughout the book. We then turn to an examination of laboratory research on problem-solving to provide a more formal description of the processes involved. Again, analogy is seen as critically important in creative thinking. Finally, we reconsider the mechanisms underlying “green” creativity during problem-solving – generating a possible solution and extending the old idea to the new situation. In this chapter, we consider the relevance of those mechanisms to other situations.

The idea that one can test people’s creative potential has been around since the turn of the twentieth century. Modern interest in testing for creativity began around 1950 and evolved out of the intelligence-testing or psychometric movement in the United States. The chapter begins by examining Guilford’s pioneering proposal concerning development of tests for creativity. Guilford proposed that the thought processes underlying creativity are different than those measured by IQ tests. He used the term divergent thinking to describe the thinking underlying creativity, and he developed a set of tests to measure it. This chapter reviews the tests that have been developed to measure the capacity to think creatively. One important question whether Guilford was correct in proposing that IQ and creativity involved different thinking skills. We shall review recent research addressing that issue, specifically research that, contrary to the “divergent thinking” perspective, has provided evidence for the role of two components of IQ, fluid intelligence and executive functioning, in creative thinking.

This chapter presents background information to support the examination of creativity. There has been disagreement among researchers concerning the most useful definitions for creative and related topics, so the chapter examines the various definitions that have been proposed by researchers, beginning with Guilford’s pioneering work starting in the 1950s. The chapter then proposes a definition for use in this book: a creative advance is novel and goal-directed; that is, creativity is novelty that has been produced intentionally. The chapter then traces the historical development of the genius view of creativity, which is the general idea that creative thinking is basically different from noncreative thinking and that creative people are different in significant ways from the noncreative. The chapter examines how the concept of genius has changed over the generations, and how current psychological views concerning creativity – using Mednick’s (1962) seminal theory as an example – show the influences of ideas that have, in various forms, existed for centuries. Chapter 2 provides the background for the discussion of creativity in the rest of the book.

This chapter examines the question of whether world-class achievement – in other words, genius – is the result of talent or practice. Is the genius born or made? The chapter begins with a case study of creative development at the genius level – The Beatles – which presents the questions that can be raised concerning the role of talent versus practice in creative achievement at the highest level. Some researchers have proposed that all accomplishment is based solely on practice and that talent plays no role. In response to that strong practice view, supporters of the notion of talent have presented evidence that high achievement requires more than practice. The chapter reviews both sides of that debate. A number of researchers have proposed that the question of whether genius is born or made is not the correct question. One should study how people’s inherited characteristics and their experiences work together to produce world-class achievement. The critical question is not whether the genius is born or made but rather how one’s inherited characteristics interact with one’s experiences to result in the production of novel works. That is, geniuses are born and made.

This chapter uses case studies of two seminal advances – the creation of a new shopping cart for ABC’s Nightline by IDEO, one of the most well-known design firms; and Picasso’s creation of Guernica, his great anti-war painting – to provide evidence for the importance of analytic thinking in creativity. The chapter also presents the main themes that structure the discussion in the book. The first is that creative thinking and ordinary thinking are the same. There is no special kind of thinking – no outside the box thinking – which serves in the creation of new ideas. Second, the creative process can be analyzed into two large stages: the generation of a possible idea, based often on analogical thinking; and the attempt to extend that idea to the new situation. Third, creative thinking, since it is analytic or ordinary thinking, is conscious thinking. Finally, in order to understand creativity, we need enough information to allow us to dig deeply into the underlying psychological processes. One cannot assume that one understands the processes involved: one must obtain evidence for any claims about how the creative processes works.

Rethinking Creativity proposes that all creative advances are based on analytic thinking – on ordinary thought processes, or inside-the-box thinking. Two predictions arise from that proposal. First, analytic thought processes should be found in all examples of creativity. Second, since analytic thinking is “ordinary thinking,” ordinary folks should be capable of creative thinking. Chapter 4 examines support for those predictions. The first section presents several case studies of genius-level creative advances, which demonstrate that seminal creative advances – creative achievements at the highest level – depend on analytic thinking, in particular analogical thinking. The next level of creative achievement is “professional creativity”, advances made by people in their professional activities. Several case studies show that the analytic processes are seen here as well. On a still-lower level we have day-to-day or under-the-radar creativity: those small-scale bursts of innovation that we all exhibit in our daily lives. Under-the-radar creativity closes the circle, showing that ordinary thinking underlies all creative advances and that creativity is universal among us.

Chapter 9 examines the long-standing hypothesis that psychopathology plays a role in creative thinking – genius and madness. Modern opinions on the relationship between creativity and psychopathology vary widely, ranging from the idea that psychopathology influences creativity, to the complete opposite – that there is no relation between genius and madness. This chapter examines the complexities involved in trying to determine if there is a relationship between genius and madness. It begins with a discussion of how one might try to test the hypothesis that psychopathology facilitates creativity. We then review the literature on genius and madness; specifically, the possible relationship between creativity and two disorders, bipolar disorder (manic-depressive disorder) and schizophrenia. Many researchers have concluded that mild forms of psychopathology, rather than full-blown disorder, may be related to creativity. We examine the evidence for that conclusion. The discussion places the study of genius and madness in the broader social context and examines the many factors that play a role in determining whether or not psychopathology and creativity are related.

Creativity has become a focal point in discussions of brain structures and processes in psychological functioning. The first part of Chapter 13 examines studies that have tried to isolate brain areas involved in creative thinking. The second section reviews research examining the link between brain structures involved in memory and those underlying imagination and other creative activities. This research provides a link between creative thinking and one component of analytic thinking, recalling information from memory. The third section examines changes in brain structure as the result of the acquisition of expertise, which links cognitive research on expertise and creativity, discussed in Chapter 6, with findings from neuroscience. The fourth section reviews research demonstrating that creative performance can be affected by brain stimulation. Theof the chapter reviews research that focuses on brain networks in creative thinking, specifically the default-mode network and the executive control network. The chapter ends by bringing the discussion full circle, examining the influence of the genius view on the neuroscience of creativity.