Why the standard definition of creativity fails to capture the creative act

Bibliographic Data

ID6458481
AuthorsAnna Abraham (0000-0003-4954-8205, University of Georgia, corresponding author)
Year2024
Volume35
Issue1
Pages40-60
Publication date2024-10-29
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueTheory & Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0959-3543 • E-ISSN: 1461-7447
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/09593543241290232
OpenAlexW4403869961
LanguageEN
Citations received10
References cited90

The “standard definition” of creativity holds that a creative idea is one that is novel and useful. This judgement is customarily based on an external frame of reference as it is passed by people who are receiving the idea (the recipient). The internal frame of reference of the person who has generated the idea (the creator) is usually ignored. I make two cases in this paper. First, that employing external frames of reference in assessing creative products has been erroneously applied to understand the creative mind. Second, that any definition of creativity needs to be one that can be reasonably applied whether following an internal frame of reference of the creative experience or an external frame of reference of the creative product. With these aims in mind, I propose the following amendment to the definition of creativity: a creative idea is one that is both novel and satisfying

Cognitive psychology · Cognitive science · Creativity · Creativity technique · Epistemology · Sociology · Aesthetic Perception and Analysis · Creativity in Education and Neuroscience · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology