Abstract
Keywords
Ideas are like rabbits. You get a couple and learn how to handle them, and pretty soon you have a dozen. – J. Steinbeck
1. Introduction
Even though the creative phenomenon is a constant in human experience, creativity, its conceptualization, nature, process, and valuation have changed over the course of history and will likely continue to do so. To begin this paper, we will provisionally define creativity as
There are at least four phases in the history of the term
The third phase in the history of the term
Since the mid-twentieth century, the concept of creativity began to acquire increasingly defined characteristics, thanks to a veritable explosion of research in the field of psychology in the United States. One of the main assumptions of this research was that creativity can be measured (Franklin, 2023). In this favorable context for the study of creativity, the first scientific journal focused on the subject, the
During its different phases, the history of the understanding of creativity has been shaped by the prevailing values of the corresponding time, and has been influenced by social, cultural, economic, political, technological, and scientific factors. There have been myths such as that of the
The present article provides a non-exhaustive narrative and theoretical review of the academic literature related to the individual and/or collective nature of creativity. Our aim is to identify, synthesize, and discuss works that allow for an analysis of how the individual and collective dimensions of creativity have been addressed by researchers. Although this distinction is mentioned in some studies, we believe that there is, to date, no review that compares the theoretical perspectives of works favoring an individual approach with those favoring a collective approach, as well as those that take both aspects of this distinction into account.
In the first section, titled
2. The Creative Individual
2.1. Historical roots of creativity: from divine inspiration to individual genius
Early scientific research on creativity, particularly post-World War II, assumes an individual, intrapsychological origin of creativity. This was partly because such research perceived creativity as part of the historical process of progressive individualization that began in the Renaissance and reached its climax in contemporary capitalist societies, particularly in the United States (Glăveanu & Kaufman, 2019).
However, the question of the individualistic condition of creativity existed long before the scientific formalization of the concept in the United States. For example, although there was no specific term to refer to it, creativity was not unfamiliar to the thinking of the ancient Greeks. Among them, the imaginaries about the creative process itself aimed to see it as the result of divine inspiration or as a form of madness (Contini, 2001; Whitehead, 2017). The first of these visions is known as
On the other hand, the imaginary of creativity as a form of madness is possibly due to the uniqueness of the ideas generated by individuals with psychological disorders (Romo, 1997; Whitehead, 2017). This has prompted speculation in modern times that mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism may be linked to greater creativity due to the way they affect an individual’s thinking and perception (see for example Jackson, 2015). In this regard, it is crucial to understand that while it is true that some people with certain conditions may have unique cognitive and perceptual experiences that fuel their creativity, not all creative individuals suffer from mental disorders, nor are all people with mental disorders especially creative.
Over the years, there has also been the
2.2. Creativity between conditioned behaviors and the unconscious mind
Returning to the early scientific research on creativity, the psychological school of behaviorism, prominent during the first part of the twentieth century, adopted a distinctly individualistic approach to creativity, although without necessarily conceding that there is a process of creation from scratch. According to John Watson [1878–1958], American psychologist and founder of behaviorism, if an individual is faced with a novel problematic situation, he generalizes responses previously given in similar situations, transferring to the present associations that worked successfully in the past (Weisberg, 1986). If the behaviors due to past associations are not enough to solve the novel problem, the individual gives random answers until an acceptable product is achieved.
Later, theorists of instrumental conditioning, a subsequent development of classical behaviorism, accepted the existence of creativity as an individual behavior that is mediated by external rewards. Unfortunately, in both cases the particularities of the creative process itself seem to have gone unnoticed (Gardner, 1994; further information on the early behavioral perspective on creativity can be found in Kubina et al., 2006).
In contrast to the initial behaviorist approaches, and around the same time, within the framework of classical psychoanalysis, creativity represents a mechanism for sublimating drives, a primary process in which associations are formed outside conscious awareness, as exemplified in dreams and slips of the tongue (Boden, 2004). In this context, sublimation is understood as the transformation of instinctual desires or impulses into socially acceptable behaviors, preventing their inappropriate or destructive expression.
Likewise, in accordance with the vision of creativity linked to psychological disorders, in his study of Leonardo Da Vinci, Sigmund Freud [1856–1939], Austrian neurologist and father of psychoanalysis, suggested considering intrapsychic disorder as a source of creative productivity (Romo, 1997). However, Freud’s exploration extends to unconscious dynamics and psychic conflicts, which he argues can be sublimated into creativity, challenging the prevailing view of these elements as mere disorders.
For psychoanalysis, creativity processes represent a break in continuity, a fracture in a linear development, the fulfillment of a
Following this line of thought, and according to the American psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Lawrence Kubie [1896–1973], creative thinking is a predominantly unconscious, internal process that is controlled and even inhibited by the Ego and Superego (Adams, 2019). In this context,
From Kubie’s perspective, creative thinking arises from the deepest parts of the mind, those beyond conscious control, and can be restricted by the most critical and normative aspects of the personality (Adams, 2019). In this scenario, creative thinking is inherently human and potentially liberating, while also being subject to internalized social norms and constraints, which can lead individuals to face internal conflicts between creative impulses and social and ethical expectations.
2.3. Incubation, intuition, and the eureka moment
Following the line of psychoanalysis, and based on the observations of the French mathematician Henri Poincaré, the English social psychologist Graham Wallas [1858–1932] postulates four phases for the development of the creative process with respect to problem-solving (understanding
The incubation phase is understood by the Hungarian-British writer and journalist Arthur Koestler [1905–1983], within the framework of his theory of
When the newly incubated creative idea reaches consciousness, the phenomenon known as the
The incubation theory, sometimes also referred to as
2.4. Incremental creativity: from iterative steps to lifelong development
A perspective contrasting with the incubation theory posits that creative problem-solving unfolds incrementally through a series of small, iterative steps. Rather than a sudden
The idea of the incremental development of creativity also aligns with what was proposed by the American cognitive psychologist Ronald Finke [1950–2015] in his
The recently discussed scenario is consistent with the idea of
A concept similar to primary and secondary creativity was later developed in the
2.5. Creativity: between self-realization and inner conflict
Carl Rogers [1902–1987], another renowned American humanistic psychologist, shares Maslow’s conception of the creative act as related to physical and mental well-being, also understanding creativity as a process that participates in openness to experience (Adams, 2019). In this sense, the individual creates primarily because it satisfies him/her and contributes to the journey towards self-realization, which can manifest in various domains such as art, science, and even war (López, 1995).
But the creative process is not always framed within a context of satisfaction and self-knowledge. In contrast, an approach to creativity that diverges from the humanistic framework is that of the American psychologist and World War II veteran Frank Barron [1922–2002]. According to Barron, creativity arises from conflicting internal impulses that are not necessarily associated with a good state of mental health. The creative individual is rather an observer in a complex environment, often navigating a chaotic, even tortured life (Adams, 2019). This view emphasizes the connection between creativity and neurosis, recalling the earlier approaches linking creation and madness that we have discussed.
2.6. Creativity as a break from tradition: originality versus incremental development
Another reiterative theme developed within the framework of the individualistic vision of creativity is the notion of the rupture that a creative product implies with previous lines of thought. In this regard, Manuela Romo [?-], professor at the Autonomous University of Madrid, suggests that it is unlikely for a genuinely original and creative product to emerge merely from the application of certain generative rules to previous elements, as creation involves a break or radical change with respect to what previously existed (Romo, 1997). This perspective aligns with the proposal of the English cognitive psychologist Margaret Boden [1936-], who distinguishes between
To substantiate her argument against the possibility of creative rupture, Romo (1997) uses Picasso’s cubist style as an example. This style, characterized by painting the front and profile on the same plane, is widely recognized as a significant break from preceding painting styles. However, it is known that Picasso was familiar with the caves of Lascaux and Altamira, where precursors of the cubist technique can be found (Trendall, 2004). Thus, in Picasso, as in most artists, the technical and thematic influences shaping his artistic output can be traced—even if drawing on earlier pictorial traditions sometimes meant diverging from the prevailing artistic trends of his time (di Bella, 2005). Following this logic, it seems reasonable to support the incremental view of creativity proposed by the cognitive psychologist Robert Weisberg [?-] (1986, 2018), which minimizes the notion that the
2.7. The role of serendipity and intuition in creativity
At the individual level, chance has also been considered an influential aspect of creativity. For example, the term
However, intuition also plays a role in the creative process, emerging from novel activations of cognitive schemas, triggered by the re-representation of the mental space associated with a given problem (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Minervino, 2005). These novel activations can make available to the mind new
2.8. Problem-solving, (re)productive, and divergent thinking
Another theoretical explanation of creativity that focuses on the creator’s individual characteristics comes from the German Gestalt school, which particularly emphasized the relationship between creativity and problem-solving. It views the latter as issues that require unique and independent solutions, which transcend previous experience and can also be addressed without specific knowledge (Weisberg, 2018). From the Gestalt perspective, the primary difficulty in solving a problem lies in the fact that the elements necessary for the solution cannot be integrated as a cohesive whole within the perceptual field. Achieving this integration facilitates the visualization (in a broad sense) of novel relationships between the elements of the problem, which can lead to a solution.
Likewise, Max Wertheimer [1880–1943], a German psychologist born in Prague and one of the founders of Gestalt psychology, proposed a distinction between
A little later, around 1950, the American cognitive psychologist Joy Paul Guilford [1897–1987] introduced his conception of creativity as a
Guilford’s approach led to the development of tests designed to assess convergent and divergent thinking capacities as well as individuals’ creative aptitudes, marking the introduction of the first instruments to measure creativity. In contrast, earlier attempts at measuring creativity include those made at the end of the nineteenth century by the French psychologist Alfred Binet [1857–1911], who, despite creating the first intelligence test, was unable to successfully incorporate an objective measure of creativity into it. For more details on the measurement of creativity, see Alencar et al. (2021) and Sternberg and O’Hara (1998).
2.9. Fixation and heuristics: insights from the water jug experiment
The Gestalt school also drew attention to the inconvenience of maintaining a strong dependence on the past when solving a problem, a phenomenon they called
Although some argue that the water jug experiment is not representative of everyday situations (Weisberg, 1986), which calls its generalizability into question, it did encourage further exploration of the role of expertise in problem-solving and its relationship with resolution modes such as heuristics and algorithms (generally, a
2.10. The nature of creative individuals: unique traits versus common attributes
Another important aspect in the development of the concept of creativity as an individual capacity is the debate between how unique and special versus how disciplined and generic a highly creative individual is. In this regard, the American cognitive psychologist David Perkins [1928-] proposes the
Nevertheless, adopting the nothing special approach does not imply denying that exceptionally creative individuals often share certain personality traits. While these traits do not necessarily make them “unique and great,” they can form a combination of factors that facilitate the development of creativity. Such personality traits include boldness, risk-taking ability, tolerance for frustration and uncertainty, motivation to excel, and a healthy degree of self-confidence (Contini, 2001; Lebuda, 2024; Selby et al., 2005).
In contrast, the Hungarian American psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi [1934–2021] describes the complexity of the creative personality as a tendency to exhibit characteristics that do not typically coexist, such as insight and naivety, or energy and calmness (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). This blend of traits enables exceptionally creative individuals to adapt to various contexts and leverage situations that might pose conflicts for others. Additionally, a fundamental personality trait of the creative individual would be the capacity for self-promotion. This trait allows a person to publicize their work within their field, which includes other socially recognized creative individuals who will ultimately assess the work and decide whether to endorse this new member of the community (Gardner, 1994).
The concept of self-promotion aligns with the
However, the idea of a specific type of creative personality is not universally accepted. For example, Robert Weisberg (mentioned previously) argues that the personality characteristics of exceptionally creative individuals vary depending on the field in which they work and even the stage of their career. He notes that great artists have produced both high- and low-quality works while exhibiting the same personality traits, suggesting that there is no single creative personality. Consequently, while certain personality traits may facilitate creative production, they are neither defining nor necessary conditions for the creation of high-level creative work (Weisberg, 1986).
2.11. Creativity and the brain
Another angle in the study of creativity, heavily influenced by an individualistic perspective, focuses on the neuroanatomical, neurophysiological, and neuropsychological foundations of the creative process. In this context, neuroscience aims to characterize and predict creative thinking by evaluating functional and structural brain parameters. For instance, changes in cortical volume and thickness, as well as alterations in electrical or metabolic activity, are commonly assessed to estimate creative capacity (Ross et al., 2023). Specifically, creative potential has been linked to increased gray matter volume in the prefrontal gyrus and the precuneus, the latter being involved in introspection and the retrieval of information from episodic memory (Chamberlain et al., 2014). Furthermore, variations in the volume and thickness of the right precuneus are reliable predictors of verbal creativity (Chen et al., 2015), while changes in the cerebellum are linked to enhanced artistic creativity (Adamaszek et al., 2022).
It has also been found that highly creative individuals exhibit increased activation in the right hemisphere and greater synchronization of alpha waves across different brain regions. Additionally, structural changes have been observed, such as alterations in the white matter of the lower frontal regions and increased gray matter in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the striatum (Abraham, 2013). Moreover, creative cognition has recently been associated with dopamine release in ventral brain regions (Liu et al., 2024).
From a neurocognitive perspective, creativity is regarded as a relatively stable ability throughout life and an inherent aspect of cognitive functioning. Cognitive flexibility, along with episodic and semantic memory, is often regarded as the substrate for creative thinking. However, while several authors have emphasized the role of episodic memory in creative processes, data from the meta-analysis conducted by Gerver et al. (2023) challenge this notion. Their findings indicate a much stronger correlation between semantic memory and creative cognition.
From a functional perspective, creativity involves a strong interplay between three neural networks: the
Finally, a widely held notion links the right hemisphere to creativity. Supporting this idea, Aberg et al. (2017) provided empirical evidence showing that the right hemisphere facilitates cognitive flexibility and the association of remote ideas through an asymmetrical dopamine flow involving communication between the striatum and temporal, parietal, and frontal cortical areas. Cognitive flexibility, in turn, is seen as a function of the prefrontal cortex that plays a significant and distinct role in creative processes. Specifically, rostral regions of the lateral prefrontal cortex are implicated in the creative combination of ideas, whereas lateral regions are involved in generating ideas freely and in novel ways (Gonen et al., 2013).
2.12. Creativity versus intelligence: beyond high IQ
To conclude this section, we will briefly address the relationship between creativity and intelligence from an individual perspective. In this regard, it has been proposed that an IQ above 130 does not necessarily guarantee the creation of highly creative works. This is because individuals with such high levels of intelligence are often characterized by convergent and practical thinking, which helps them execute tasks as efficiently as possible, avoiding “unnecessary paths” (Contini, 2001; Sternberg & O’Hara, 1998; see the distinction between convergent and divergent thinking discussed above).
Based on a review of the existing literature, Dutch psychologist Franz Mönks [1932–2020] argues that while most highly creative individuals tend to be highly intelligent, the reverse is not necessarily true: not all highly intelligent people are exceptionally creative (Mönks et al., 1997). Additionally, Mönks’
3. The Creative Individual in Context: Relationships and Influences
The individualistic conception of creativity prevailed until around the 1980s, when new systemic and distributed conceptions emerged (Glăveanu & Kaufman, 2019). These contextual approaches drew on social psychology and sociology to study the creative outputs generated by large and complex groups. Nonetheless, since the 1950s, some psychologists had considered the influence of the environment on creativity, though subordinated to the individual. One example is J. P. Guilford (mentioned earlier), who, in his 1950 inaugural address as president of the APA, called for the formal study of creativity (Guilford, 1950).
3.1. Evolving frameworks of creativity: from 4P to 8P
One of the many results of Guilford’s appeal was the seminal work by the American educational psychologist Melvin Rhodes [1916–1976], entitled
Although the 4P framework was a pioneering approach to organizing the study of creativity, it presents significant limitations. For instance, by separating the Person and Press/Place dimensions the model fails to capture the reciprocal dynamics between individuals and their cultural and social environments. This critique has been raised by scholars such as Glăveanu (2013), who emphasize that creativity emerges from interactions between creators and their contexts. Furthermore, the Press/Place dimension is somehow ambiguous, as it encompasses both positive and negative factors without providing an in-depth analysis of how these influence the creative process or their relative weight across different stages of creation (Runco, 2007). Another criticism is the model’s focus on a linear conception of the creative process and tangible products, as Sternberg and Karami (2022) note. This excludes more emergent and iterative forms of creativity, such as those involving unfinished or collectively redefined processes.
A hierarchical reorganization of the 4P framework of creativity is known as the
However, while the 6P framework succeeds in addressing some limitations of the 4P model by incorporating dimensions that acknowledge the social and prospective nature of creativity, it does not fully resolve the challenges of integrating individual and contextual factors into a cohesive analysis. For instance, its emphasis on elements such as Persuasion risks perpetuating a bias toward publicly recognized forms of creativity, potentially marginalizing less visible but equally valuable expressions, such as individual or emergent creativity. Additionally, while the inclusion of the Potential dimension is valuable for considering the latent capacities of individuals or groups, it risks becoming overly vague without clear criteria for measurement.
Since their introduction, the 4P and 6P frameworks have been essential in explaining the phenomenon of creativity. However, different theoretical models for the creative process have been proposed since then, including the
From a critical perspective, while this model is notable for its sociocultural approach, this same emphasis may also be its greatest limitation. By prioritizing the dynamics between the Actor, the Audience, and the Affordances, the model tends to underestimate the role of internal and individual processes in creativity, such as intrinsic motivation or internal conflict, which have been discussed in this paper. For instance, its focus on the Audience as an evaluator of creative products introduces a bias toward social and cultural acceptance, relegating to the background the subjective and transformative value that the creative process can have for the creator. Furthermore, although the inclusion of Affordances represents a step forward in conceptualizing context, the concept does not sufficiently account for structural factors such as unequal access to resources or cultural capital and their impact on creativity.
The
Although the 7C framework represents an advancement in addressing the complexity of the creative process in contemporary contexts, it has certain limitations. For instance, while the inclusion of Collaborations highlights the importance of collective work in creativity, it may reduce the importance of individual autonomy in contexts where creativity unfolds in a more introspective or solitary manner. Similarly, the Consumption dimension introduces a utilitarian perspective that may constrain the intrinsic value of creative ideas that do not necessarily seek mass acceptance. Meanwhile, the Curricula dimension, though innovative, lacks sufficient detail on how to implement pedagogical strategies that foster creativity at both the individual and collective levels, leaving open the question of how to balance these dimensions within educational contexts.
Finally, the
It should be noted that the negative consequences of creativity, often termed
On the other hand, by expanding upon earlier frameworks, the 8P framework introduce greater complexity into the study of creativity. This, in turn, may present challenges for both its theoretical and practical application. For instance, while the purpose of a creative act is undeniably important, distinguishing between positive, negative, or mixed consequences introduces a subjective component that is difficult to measure consistently. Another limitation of the 8P framework is its reliance on the social validation of creative products, which may bias the analysis toward publicly recognized outcomes, potentially overlooking less visible yet equally significant forms of creativity.
In sum, while these different frameworks of creativity represent significant advances in conceptualizing the phenomenon by addressing individual, social, and contextual aspects, they also share critical limitations regarding their scope, particularly their tendency to favor socially recognized forms of creativity. Additionally, larger models, such as the 8P and 7C, risk fragmenting the analysis by incorporating multiple dimensions that, while enriching, may complicate practical application due to a lack of clarity regarding their interactions.
3.2. Creativity and motivation: balancing internal and external drivers
Regarding the role of motivation in the creative process, it is important to consider whether intrinsic (individual) motivation alone is sufficient for generating novel and useful work or if external motivation is also necessary. In this context, the American chemist and organizational psychologist Teresa Amabile [1950-] proposes the
Providing a broader context for extrinsic motivation, Csikszentmihalyi (2014) introduces the concept of
External rewards, whether financial, material, social, symbolic, or even in the form of negative reinforcement (such as alleviating an obligation or nuisance), can provide the necessary motivational boost to help the creator complete their work. These rewards can be particularly effective in overcoming periods when intrinsic motivation fades, disappears, or drives the individual away from completing the task.
3.3. The myth of genius and the role of social recognition on creativity
With respect to the existence of unique and brilliant creative personalities, the nothing special approach, discussed earlier, aligns broadly with the so-called
Similarly, the concept of “genius” often involves social recognition, which may not always occur during the lifetime of the creative individual. In this context, Csikszentmihalyi (2014) argues that for a new and valuable idea, action, or product to cause cultural change (which is a fundamental goal of creativity) there must be a specific interaction between the
From this perspective, creativity is often recognized when a field composed of experts acknowledges it as such. However, if the field later changes its evaluation or recognizes what it previously overlooked, an individual once considered creative by society may become seen as ordinary. Moreover, in such scenarios, creative ideas might fade away if there is no receptive audience to recognize and implement them. Therefore, without the assessment of competent outsiders, it is difficult to reliably determine the validity of claims made by individuals who assert their creativity (this subject is discussed in more detail in a later section on creative inconclusiveness).
Building on Csikszentmihalyi’s postulates, H. Gardner (1994) introduces the concept of
At this point, the concepts of
Nevertheless, P-Creativity and H-Creativity are not necessarily distinct processes, as they can interact and mutually influence each other in various contexts. For example, an idea initially considered P-Creativity might eventually be recognized as H-Creativity as the cultural context evolves and embraces new perspectives. Similarly, feedback from the field to the creator not only helps validate individual ideas but can also influence their development. Constructive criticism and mentoring, for instance, can assist individuals in refining their ideas and achieving higher levels of creativity. Furthermore, collective creativity, which emerges from the interaction among multiple individuals, can produce ideas that none of them could have conceived independently.
3.4. Social networks and creativity: the power of connections
In addition to social recognition, the network of relationships and connections in which individuals live also influence creativity. For example, within organizations, creativity can be understood as the result of an interaction effect between the opportunities and limits of social networks and the personal values of individuals (Zhou et al., 2009). According to Zhou et al., weak ties create greater opportunities for creativity, especially among individuals with low values of conformity, while strong ties and the density of networks act as constraints to creativity, although the relationship between them and the former does not always seem to be the same. It is possible then that an internal network is sufficient for daily creativity, while more advanced creativity could benefit from networks internal and external to a given organization.
Another important aspect to consider, as we have already mentioned, is that the creative process does not occur in isolation. On the contrary, from a social perspective, the dispositions and talents of individuals are mobilized and oriented within a context of intersecting relationships (Cattani et al., 2013). In this way, creativity is influenced by the position that individuals occupy in the network and the strength of their social ties. According to Perry and Shalley (2003), and in line with Zhou et al. (2009), weak social ties foster creativity more effectively than strong ones, while the external connections of individuals in peripheral positions within their networks facilitate creative breakthroughs. However, over time, a particularly creative individual can end up occupying such a central and fixed place in their network that it generates significant limitations to develop their creativity.
In the educational field, a classroom can be understood as a social network that encourages both learning and creativity (Pulgar, 2021). In this scenario, the role that students assume within the social system in which their education takes place directly influences the manifestation and development of their creative capacity. For example, in classrooms where dialogue, collaboration and the exchange of ideas are promoted, students feel motivated to share their perspectives and take risks in the generation of new proposals. This environment, which values active participation and respect for the diversity of opinions, reinforces individual trust and facilitates the construction of knowledge together.
In addition, the social position that each student occupies, whether through their interaction with peers, their relationship with their teachers or belonging to certain interest groups, can determine the degree of support and encouragement they receive to explore novel ideas. In this sense, a well-configured classroom acts not only as a space for the transmission of knowledge, but also as a dynamic laboratory where creative skills are experimented with and strengthened.
Finally, culturally diverse social networks seem to favor creative processes (Chua, 2015). From this perspective, interaction in contexts that bring together a wide range of experiences and traditions allows the circulation of ideas that move away from one’s own sphere, which enriches the ability to innovate. This diversity of points of view facilitates the clash of perspectives, promoting the emergence of unprecedented solutions by combining traditional knowledge with modern approaches. In addition, contact with different cultures encourages the adaptation and reinterpretation of concepts, which can trigger creative thinking processes. Therefore, environments in which various social and cultural networks converge not only expand the collection of references, but also generate a climate of openness and experimentation, key to the development of disruptive ideas.
3.5. The role of cultural contexts in shaping creativity
While interest in the social and contextual factors associated with the creative process grew during the 1980s, attention to cultural factors and their relationship with creativity also increased (Rudowicz, 2003). This shift reflected a broader recognition that creativity is not merely an individual cognitive process but is deeply embedded in social and cultural contexts. However, for scholars such as Yong et al. (2020), research on the “moderating” effect of culture on creativity has predominantly focused on isolated cultural dimensions, such as individualism versus collectivism. While these dimensions provide valuable insights, they often fail to capture the complexity and interplay of cultural factors that shape creative expression.
In this regard, it is essential to consider the multidimensional nature of culture to fully understand its moderating effects on creativity. For instance, based on studies across several countries, Yong et al. (2020) propose the
Regarding the dichotomy between the individual and the group, and its relationship with the influence of culture on creativity, it has also been suggested that groups of people undergo stages similar to those experienced by individuals. Likewise, the characteristics associated with creative individuals can be reflected in group behavior (e.g., Borrup, 2010). For example, creative cities, businesses, and innovative environments share a variety of characteristics, including the drive for creative people to congregate in centers of cutting-edge activity. Thus, in today’s business environment, it is common for startups and business incubators to create collaborative spaces that encourage the exchange of ideas and the emergence of disruptive solutions, evidencing a process analogous to the individual development of creativity. In these environments, the diversity of experiences and knowledge is integrated into the same flow that drives innovation, similar to how different stages of individual creativity intertwine to give rise to transformative projects.
Something similar happens in the cultural sector, especially in artistic collectives and communities of practice. In these groupings, the interaction between creators allows individual ideas to enhance each other, giving rise to works and proposals that transcend the talent of each member separately. The synergy of these groups reflects the idea that, as in the personal creative process, the convergence of diverse perspectives can generate unexpected and enriching results.
3.6. Creative inconclusiveness: collective dynamics and resignification in sociocultural contexts
As mentioned earlier, from a sociocultural perspective, creativity cannot be fully understood without considering the material and social context in which it occurs (Glăveanu, 2013). Creative potential arises from the interactions between individuals and their environment, with the exchange of perspectives playing a central role. Additionally, the genesis of original ideas is heavily influenced by cultural conditions, social norms, and material opportunities, which either enable or constrain them (Corazza & Glăveanu, 2020).
At this regard, from Corazza’s (2016) perspective, creativity involves both originality and potential effectiveness, encompassing not only the outcome but also the inclusivity of the creative process. The process does not necessarily result in an original and effective product, but it includes the potential to do so. In this way, the potential for originality and effectiveness within a creative process may or may not emerge, and may or may not be recognized by the world. This assessment can vary across time, space, and cultural dimensions.
Furthermore, collectivity plays a key role in the resignification of the unfinished. According to the
On the other hand, in educational and social settings, inconclusive creativity challenges traditional criteria for evaluation and success. Incorporating this concept into educational programs can foster resilience, adaptability, and a broader view of creative contributions, valuing not only the end results but also the latent processes and potentials. This shift in perspective emphasizes the importance of promoting environments that encourage exploration and collaboration, recognizing that the meaning of a creative idea is collectively negotiated and defined within the context in which it operates (Corazza et al., 2022).
3.7. Synergies in creativity: from human collectives to artificial intelligence collaboration
As we have discussed up to this point, several authors argue that creativity is both an individual and a social phenomenon, with its characteristics depending on whether individual or collective dynamics prevail in a given context or social situation (in this respect, see also Bhawuk [2003] and Walton [2016]). In particular, Glăveanu (2020) proposes that creativity should be understood not merely as an individual process but as a phenomenon deeply shaped by social dynamics, including interaction, exchange, and the collaborative construction of meaning. From this sociocultural perspective, creativity is redefined as a collaborative process in which individual agency is enhanced through integration into communities and social contexts.
In such a scenario, the fundamental role of co-creation emerges as a key driver for creative development in both social and technological spheres. This shift not only underscores the social interaction intrinsic to creative processes but also incorporates advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), which introduce new possibilities, including the expansion of creativity into hybrid dimensions where individual capacities are enhanced through technological advances. For example, the
Similarly, the
Building on this perspective, Sawyer (2019) explores the nature of group creativity, arguing that it emerges from the dynamic interaction between group members rather than from isolated individual contributions. This process, known as
3.8. Rethinking creativity: how AI challenges and expands human imagination
Examining the relationship between creativity and artificial intelligence (AI), we encounter the concept of
One of the earliest predecessors of computational creativity can be found in the AI program
Nowadays, computational creativity not only mimics human creative processes but also expands the boundaries of what creativity means. Projects like
Moreover, beyond challenging the concept of individual creativity, AI is increasingly shaping the dynamics of collective creative processes. For instance, AI-driven systems like
In addition, AI’s role in group creativity extends beyond content generation to mediating the flow of information within creative networks, functioning as both filters and gatekeepers that determining which sources of inspiration are accessible and how creative work is evaluated (Atkinson & Barker, 2023). While this mediation can reorganize collaboration and introduce novel combinations of ideas, it also carries risks, such as reinforcing technological biases or narrowing the diversity of creative influences.
The integration of AI into creative processes also emphasizes the importance of balancing human ingenuity with algorithmic automation. At this regard, as Suchacka et al. (2021) argue, while AI can expand creative possibilities and facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration, excessive reliance on algorithms risks diminishing the role of human intuition, critical thinking, and serendipity—key drivers of creative breakthroughs, as discussed in this paper. Ethical considerations, such as transparency, authorship, and the implications of human-machine collaboration, further complicate the landscape.
In addition, traditional criteria for assessing human creativity may not suffice when applied to machine-generated works, as the processes and motivations behind them differ significantly, raising fundamental questions about how creativity should be evaluated. This has led to the development of frameworks like the
3.9. Distributed creativity in the digital age
In addition to the challenging influence of AI on our understanding of creativity, the digital era has undoubtedly influenced, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the emergence of diverse types of creative outcomes. For example, the internet is rapidly becoming a space in which the concept of the single author is gradually losing its validity. As communication processes accelerate due to the density of the network and the speed at which information circulates, the boundaries between creators and consumers are becoming increasingly blurred. This shift has given rise to a distributed collective creator (Heibach, 2000).
Moreover, the characteristics of the functioning of the internet have had a significant impact on the phenomenon of creativity, to the point of seeming to be redefining it (Literat & Glavineau, 2016). Thus, immediacy in communication, global interconnection and almost unlimited access to information and resources have transformed both the processes of generating and disseminating ideas, enhancing collaboration between individuals from different cultures and disciplines, and allowing creativity to manifest itself in more dynamic and horizontal ways. The decentralized and adaptable nature of online platforms has fostered experimentation and innovation, providing spaces where ideas can evolve and combine in continuous cycles of learning and reinvention. All this challenges and expands traditional models of creativity, and implies a redefinition of the concept in which creativity is moved from an individual and linear act to creativity as a collaborative, interactive and constantly transforming phenomenon.
In particular, children and young people born during the digital age have unique opportunities to develop creativity and innovation (Maksić, 2016). From a very early age, access to devices and a wide variety of online resources allows them to interact with multiple sources of information and experiment with various technological tools. This environment favors self-taught learning and the construction of knowledge in a collaborative way, promoting an open and adaptive mentality in the face of contemporary challenges. In addition, constant exposure to various formats and digital languages stimulates the imagination and fosters the ability to integrate ideas from different disciplines, which enriches the creative process. The possibility of participating in virtual communities and collaborative projects also facilitates the exchange of perspectives and co-creation, fundamental aspects for innovation in an increasingly interconnected world.
However, although digital media have transformed the way information is circulated and have expanded the possibilities for people to share their creations on equal terms, authors such as Hargittai and Walejko (2008) argue that dedication to creative activities continues to be unequally distributed according to social position. According to this perspective, participation in these creative processes is largely determined by economic factors, since access to digital technologies and platforms, required to fully exploit these tools, is not universal. Another crucial factor in this regard is the possession of technical skills: those with the necessary training can take better advantage of the opportunities offered by digital media, while those in less advantaged contexts may face barriers to developing and sharing their creations. This situation shows that, despite the democratizing potential of technology, gaps persist that reproduce structural inequalities in the creative field.
3.10. Non-human animal creativity and the collective nature of human creativity
As a final point in our discussion, we would like to explore some insights into the collective dimension of the creative process that can be drawn from the study of creative behaviors beyond the human species. Indeed, creativity in non-human animals—an increasingly prominent area of study—provides insights not only into the cognitive abilities of other species but also into the evolutionary origins and adaptive functions of human creativity (Kaufman & O’Hearn, 2017).
Research in this field suggests that creativity is not a uniquely human trait but rather a dynamic and adaptive process that can be observed across the animal kingdom. For instance, several studies have shown that non-human animals exhibit innovative behaviors that follow rules, limits, and models like those observed in humans (see Reader & Laland, 2003). But if such innovative behaviors often involve two or more individuals, could the creativity observed in non-human animals reflect a collective dimension that also underpins human creativity?
One compelling argument in this respect is that creativity serves as a powerful adaptive force within social contexts, enabling animals to solve novel problems and transmit these solutions to their groups (Gigliotti, 2022). At this regard, Gigliotti defines creativity as “a dynamic process in which novel and meaningful behaviors are generated by individuals with the possibility of affecting others at cultural, species, and evolutionary levels” (Gigliotti, 2022, p. 4). This perspective highlights the collective nature of creativity, as innovative behaviors developed by individuals can spread through social learning, ultimately benefiting the group as a whole. For example, certain bird species, such as New Caledonian crows, demonstrate remarkable problem-solving skills, crafting tools to access food. These behaviors are not only innovative but are also learned and shared within the group, suggesting a collective dimension to their creativity (Hunt & Gray, 2003; see also Barón, 2016).
The idea of creativity as a collective and evolutionary process aligns with broader theoretical frameworks, such as Corazza’s (2019)
Moreover, creativity in non-human animals often serves as an adaptive mechanism, enabling individuals to respond to unforeseen challenges and environmental changes (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2015). In many cases, these creative solutions are not isolated acts but rather catalysts for broader behavioral shifts. When an innovative behavior proves beneficial, other members of the group may imitate and refine it, leading to a cumulative process of social learning. Over time, this exchange of adaptive behaviors can shape group dynamics and enhance problem-solving strategies within the group.
4. Conclusions
The study of creativity, particularly in psychology, spans over 120 years. Initially, the focus was on individual aspects of the creative process, such as cognitive, personality, motivational, and emotional factors, without any of them being established as more prominent. Over time, the study of creativity expanded to encompass broader factors such as context, relationships, and criticism. This shift emphasized the characteristics of the creative process itself, the specific conditions of the problem or matter at hand, and even meta-creative elements such as the pedagogy of creativity, while broadening the scope of creativity studies to include questions about the trainability of creative thinking, the influences of modern technologies such as the internet and artificial intelligence (AI) in the creative process, and even its exploration in non-human animal models.
However, despite the progress made in the study of creativity and the various explanatory frameworks currently available, determining whether creativity is ultimately an individual or collective process may be a futile endeavor—and in any case, it certainly exceeds the scope of this paper. Perhaps the question itself is poorly posed. Nevertheless, we offer a couple of key reflections on this matter based on the discussion developed thus far.
Regarding the need for a field to determine the degree of creativity in a work, as discussed in the section on creative inconclusiveness, consider the case of the Polish composer Frédéric Chopin, of whom several waltzes were lost or remained incomplete due to various reasons. In this case, the field cannot judge them and therefore it could be argued that it is not possible to determine their creativity. What happens, then, to artists who create a work and destroy it as soon as it is finished? For example, a painting, who could say whether or not it is creative if no one appreciated it? However, the artist did create it, and in the case of Chopin, it is very likely that the waltzes were a burst of creativity, as evidenced by his other compositions. In this respect, the potential for originality and effectiveness characterizing a creative endeavor may or may not be recognized by the world.
Additionally, what would happen if in a hundred years no one appreciates Chopin, and the experts of the time label him as uncreative? Was he never creative, or did he cease to be so? The creative assessment may also change across time, space, and cultural dimensions. In consequence, while it is reasonable to postulate that without the existence of a field there is no way to judge the degree of creativity of a given product, it is also reasonable to affirm that the first to judge an artifact or work as creative is the creator themselves. Of course, this evaluation takes place within a specific temporal and cultural framework that limits the available knowledge against which the novel contribution of the potentially creative result is contrasted.
At this point, we could even speak of a
On the other hand, it cannot be overlooked that in a non-existent field situation, the absence of explicit experts, critics, and others does not imply that the creative individual lacks a mental representation of the field, along with its knowledge and practices, internalized from the context: a potential
To close this topic, consider the following reflection on music criticism by the Russian composer and theorist Igor Stravinsky [1882–1971]: “The listener reacts and becomes a partner in the game, initiated by the creator. Nothing less, nothing more. The fact that the partner is free to accept or to refuse participation in the game does not automatically invest him with the authority of a judge” (Stravinsky, 1947, p. 131).
Regarding the myth of genius, questions arise, such as: Could anyone have written something like Don Quixote? Probably not. In this regard, it is important to remember that figures like Miguel de Cervantes or Beethoven had unique individual characteristics, as well as specific environments. Their works were created within a world of meanings that, while shared and socially constructed, ultimately reflect personal and unique experiences. Anyone with enough tenacity and determination can undoubtedly produce a creative work, but it might not be fair to claim that just anyone could have written Don Quixote. This does not suggest that the creative individual is special or superior to others; rather, it implies that each creator is a unique person operating within a specific context. Their work reflects their distinctive style. Even if another artist attempts to replicate the characteristics of a work or even tries to copy it, the result will never be the same, as J. L. Borges illustrated in
Continuing with our conclusions, let us turn to the ideas of Colombian philosopher Alfredo Trendall [1933–2015] on art theory, significantly influenced by J. Ortega y Gasset. Throughout history, humans have engaged with a world that both overwhelms and inspires them, finding expression through religion, magic, and art. In the realm of art, individuals encounter experiences that move them deeply and translate these into their own unique artistic language. While artistic creation is undeniably shaped by technical, historical, personal, and cultural factors, it transcends these elements, ultimately surpassing the very artist who created it (Trendall, 2004).
Following this line of thought, creativity and the mental processes that generate it transcend social and cultural contexts. A work can transmit its creative force to its audience and move them only if they have a sufficient affinity with it. Thus, even if a work is never seen by anyone, the act of channeling the creative force that has inspired humanity for centuries is still significant. This act is inherently different from one performed without any influence or inspiration. Thus, a product can be considered inherently creative to the extent that it generates additional creative activity, a concept known as
Regarding more tangible considerations, we have highlighted in this paper that the possibility of generating computational creativity is an increasingly important topic, particularly in relation to the various forms of AI being developed and the modes of group collaboration they facilitate. At its core, computational creativity not only challenges our understanding of creativity but also expands its possibilities. By enabling computational systems to explore conceptual spaces beyond human capabilities, we open the door to innovations in art, science, and technology that could redefine the boundaries of what is considered possible.
Moreover, from a comparative perspective in cognitive sciences, programming a computer to produce creative outputs may reveal insights into how creative cognition functions in humans. This particular view encourages the development of the cognitive study of creative processes, which, as evidenced by this paper, is the psychological approach that has most extensively engaged with the subject of creativity in recent years.
However, although AI today creates works of art in painting and music, discovers scientific laws, and even publishes articles—each of which has found some measure of endorsement within its respective field (see Runco, 2023)—the field’s endorsement alone does not imply that the underlying processes of creativity are the same in machines and humans. It could be argued, for example, that scientists and programmers equip machines with specific information and variables to develop a work or solve a problem, a process fundamentally different from human creativity (in connectionist AI, this manifests as setting up input layers and initial weights of connections between nodes of information). While this is true, it is also the case that humans come from educational systems and families and follow explicit and implicit models that provide us with variables we mix, consciously or unconsciously, in original and useful ways to generate creative products.
In addition, the origin of a creative work may influence the process of value judgment. For instance, when evaluating a product created by a human, judges may consider factors such as the author’s age, “geniality,” and emotional and mental stability. Conversely, when the product has been generated by a machine and this information is known to the evaluators, their judgment may be biased by considerations of effort.
Faced with the question of the authenticity of artificial creativity, it is evident that machines now produce a range of useful and novel products through mass analysis of human creations, significantly influencing scientific and artistic developments, among others. However, it seems that these new creative machines do not experience any form of satisfaction, joy, or surprise from their own creations, nor are they moved by their works or those of others—elements that are crucial to the human esthetic experience. For this reason, we cannot fully agree with Boden (2004) when she states: “a science of creativity (…) does not threaten our self-respect by showing us to be mere machines, for some machines are much less ‘mere’ than others” (p. 24).
Future studies of creativity will undoubtedly explore the interactions between creativity and various individual factors such as emotions, learning, metacognition, and critical thinking, particularly within the framework of neuroscience. They will also examine how creativity interacts with group, social, and cultural processes, including cooperation, altruism, empathy, ethics, and, of course, extended cognition.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
Author contributions
Declaration of conflicting interests
Funding
Ethical statement
ORCID iDs
