At the time of writing, the article 'The Standard Definition of Creativity' remains the most-cited paper in the Creativity Research Journal–one of the leading journals in creativity research–and has accumulated thousands of Crossref-indexed citations (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). While the qualitative standard definition–requiring both originality and effectiveness–has achieved wide acceptance , translating this qualitative definition into a quantitative scoring rule has proven to be methodologically challenging: common additive models allow compensation between criteria, while simple unweighted multiplicative models impose rigid importance assumptions and can introduce score-compression artifacts. This paper proposes a weighted geometric mean as a practical scoring framework for product-based creativity, preserving the intended joint-necessity (“veto”) logic (Simonton, 2018) while enabling context-sensitive weighting of component criteria. This weighted geometric mean framework is presented first as a two-component model combining originality and utility, and then generalized to an 𝑛-component formulation that can incorporate additional dimensions discussed in the literature (e.g., surprise, intentionality, authenticity) when warranted by evaluative goals. By separating (i) the definition of component indices from (ii) the weighting structure used to aggregate them, the proposed model offers a flexible, interpretable, and extensible approach to product-based creativity assessment across domains and contexts.

Previous research reported that gifted students tend to be more creative than their nongifted peers, which is consistent with some conceptualizations of giftedness that are inclusive of creativity. The first objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the performance difference between gifted and nongifted students in creative potential, as assessed by divergent thinking (DT) tests. The second objective was to test whether or not differences between gifted and nongifted students vary as a function of culture, gender, age, the definition of giftedness, testing conditions, originality scoring method, test instructions, document type (peer-reviewed articles vs. theses/dissertations), publication language, DT test and DT indices used, and task modality. A three-level multivariate meta-analysis was performed with 358 effect sizes from 54 studies and a total sample size of 12,526. Results indicate that gifted students showed moderate-to-large levels of DT relative to their nongifted peers (g = .658, 95% [.504, .811], p < .001). Data were heterogeneous, Q(T) = 2,898, I-2 = 87.6%. Only one moderator significantly explained the variability in the mean effect size: culture (East vs. West vs. Other non-West vs. Africa). The difference in DT performance was significantly larger in studies conducted in Eastern and other non-Western cultures than in Western cultures. The practical implications and limitations of the current study are discussed.

Creativity-related cognitive processes and personality traits are not often examined together in educational contexts, particularly when discussing high-achieving subgroups of medical students. This study investigated these predictors of academic performance among high-achieving and typical-achieving medical students within a problem-based learning (PBL) environment of a medical school. Data were collected from 274 Doctor of Medicine students at Arabian Gulf University during the 2024–2025 academic year. Participants completed assessments of convergent thinking (Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices and Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal), divergent thinking (Alternative Uses Test and Figural Divergent Thinking Test), and openness to experience (NEO-FFI). Students’ grade point averages (GPAs) were obtained from institutional records. Hierarchical regression analyses and moderation tests were performed, controlling for age and sex. Convergent thinking (β = 0.20, p < .001) and divergent thinking (β = 0.25, p < .001) emerged as modest-to-moderate positive predictors of GPA, whereas openness to experience showed a small negative association (β = −0.13, p = .026). Achievement status, defined as high-achieving versus typical-achieving GPA, significantly moderated the effects of both convergent and divergent thinking, such that the academic benefits of higher thinking skills were meaningfully stronger among high-achieving students, while these associations were weaker among their typical-achieving peers. No moderating effect was observed for openness to experience. Convergent and divergent thinking independently enhance academic performance in medical students, with amplified effects for high-achieving students. In contrast, openness to experience was negatively linked with GPA, reflecting the complex interplay between personality traits and structured medical training. These findings underscore the need for medical curricula that balance convergent reasoning with creative problem-solving while considering diverse student cognitive and personality profiles.

This brief article examines an argument presented by Brandt (2024) that Beethoven used divergent thinking when composing. The earlier analysis was compelling, in part because it quantified one aspect of classical composition (e.g., harmonic progression). The current article raises the possibility that Beethoven may have relied more on deviation amplification than divergent thinking. It presents lyrical examples from another musical genre (i.e., Rock ‘n Roll) and quotes (e.g., Bob Dylan, Jimmy Buffet, Rolling Stones) in order illustrate the wide use of deviation amplification and divergent thinking. These two processes differ in part in their intentionality and perhaps in the cognitive pathways. Divergent thinking may be characterized as a kind of spreading activation and exploration across varied directions while deviation amplification may instead find one variation and then explore that direction via amplification. Brandt is certainly correct that his case study (and perhaps the cases quoted herein) offer intriguing illustrations of externalized cognition. Future research to clarify how deviation amplification fits with divergent thinking is recommended.

This second-order meta-analysis examined 52 first-order creativity meta-analyses (164 effect sizes) which met inclusion and exclusion criteria. These meta-analyses provided data from 2609 studies (1,248,416 research participants) and 16,153 primary effect sizes. The original meta-analyses all examined creativity, but each had a specific focus. Even with that large range of foci, certain questions could be addressed with a second-order meta-analysis. More specifically, a comprehensive statistical analysis provided an effect size for all previous meta-analyses (a) where creativity had been used as a predictor and (b) where creativity was the outcome. This moderator was statistically significant, F(1, 16.3) = 9.43, p = .007. The average second-order effect size was .12 when creativity was the criterion and .29 when it was a predictor. Four categories were created for the type of creativity variable used in first-order meta-analyses: creative outcomes, creative process, divergent thinking, and overall creativity. In the first model, where creative process and divergent thinking were analyzed separately, creative process had an effect size of .27, while divergent thinking had an effect size of .14. Different correlates of creativity were also analyzed. Of these, interventions and educational programs yielded the largest effect size (r = .20). Implications and limitations are discussed.

Organizations are increasingly looking beyond conventional tools to navigate complexity, cultural change, and the limits of data-driven decision-making. Artistic engagement has shown the capacity to reshape how people see, interpret, and relate to the realities they inhabit – yet how it actually operates has remained poorly understood. This article develops a typology of four meaning-making orientations – expressive, interpretive, symbolic, and radical – arguing that artistic engagement does not work in one direction only. It may deepen individual experience, open collective interpretation, stabilize shared meanings, or unsettle assumptions that had long gone unquestioned. The typology offers a foundation for more

Creativity requires both originality and effectiveness. Originality without effectiveness indicates pseudo-creativity, often due to deficits in idea evaluation. Research on the processes underlying pseudo-creativity and authentic creativity is limited. This study operationally identified individuals with pseudo-creative tendencies and compared them with authentically creative individuals using associative thinking tasks related to idea generation, focusing on memory search and semantic memory representations. In Experiment 1, moderation analysis classified participants into three groups based on multiple creativity measurements: authentic creativity, pseudocreativity, and low creativity (control). These groups completed a goal-directed association task involving animal concept searching. Results showed that pseudo-creativity was associated with reduced clustering and cluster switching, along with more frequent hard switching. Experiment 2 constructed semantic networks for the three groups using free association, revealing that pseudocreativity group exhibited a de-structured and hyperconnective semantic network. These findings provide the first characterization of the cognitive processes underlying pseudo-creativity. They reveal that pseudo-creativity exhibits looser conceptual boundaries and demonstrates differences from authentic creativity as early as the idea-generation phase. This offers a direct investigation for the theory that creativity requires a balance between the flexibility and rigidity of lexicon structure.

The advent of AI is likely to make it difficult to support the creativity of students. This article points to the specific problem whereby the pseudo-creativity of AI is misinterpreted as authentic creativity, which could in turn mislead educators. The result would be a failure to optimally support the authentic creativity of students. There are suggestions that AI can be creative, but also compelling reasons to reject that claim. These include the need for a self in creativity and the role of the self in the creative process. Self-expression, for instance, requires a self, as part of the process. Then, there is the intrinsic motivation that characterizes the human creative experience and may be involved in the problem finding that is critical for the creative process. Each of these positions is reviewed in this article. The curious thing is that, even with compelling reasons to distinguish the authentic creativity of students from the artificial creativity of AI, definitions of creativity seem to be changing. The unique feature of the present effort is its examination of the reasons why definitions seem to be changing, even when, according to creativity research and theory, they should not. This article describes, (a) the surprising and incorrect position that AI can be creative, and, (b) problems that would occur if this position is applied in the classroom. It then (c) attempts to explain why that position is in fact taking hold, as is suggested by the changes in how creativity is defined. This explanation requires looking beyond creativity theory to broad social contexts, which are economic, political, scientific, and technological. This article concludes with (d) recommendations for supporting the authentic creativity of students. The recommendations exclude ideas suggested by the misleading definition of creativity, described in (a) and were instead selected based on their relationships specifically with authentic creativity.

Social support has been found to facilitate creativity. However, the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Guided by the broadened-and-build theory, this correlational study addressed the question of how perceived social support (PSS) influences self-rated creativity through the mediating role of hope. Study 1 included a community sample of 1204 individuals aged 18 to 64 from Australia, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore. Correlation analysis showed the three variables were positively correlated with each other across five countries. Moreover, mediation analysis indicated that PSS had an indirect relationship with creativity through hope when creative self-efficacy and age were controlled. Study 2 replicated these findings in a sample of 210 working adults in Malaysia. The consistency supports the robustness of the results across different age and cultural contexts. These findings confirm that social support and hope should be considered in creativity studies. Although further research would be useful, it appears that creativity could be improved with social support and hope. Altogether, policy, program development, and interventions aimed at fostering supportive communities may be able to enhance creativity by leveraging both social support and hope.

Students may not express their creativity uniformly, across all settings and under all conditions. Creativity is sensitive to expected evaluations, for example, and likely to vary when the individual is alone, in a small group, or in a large group. Quite a bit of research has demonstrated that certain conditions can be created to support creative thinking by students. The present study focused on two key factors that may impact divergent thinking (DT) performance: classroom setting and time of the day. DT is the capacity to generate ideas along diverse cognitive pathways. It can be contrasted with convergent thinking, where cognitive processes lead to one correct or conventional solution. Divergent thinking, in contrast, often leads to original and unconventional ideas. The sample consisted of 160 female students from Saudi Arabia (80 gifted and 80 nongifted) in grades 10 to 12. Two DT tests were administered: the Alternative Uses Test (AUT) and the Figural Divergent Thinking Test. A repeated measures ANOVA indicated that verbal and figural fluency performance was higher in the art room than in the regular classroom. Moreover, the difference in verbal flexibility performance between the two settings was larger for nongifted students than gifted students. The differences between the settings in figural and verbal originality were not statistically significant, although gifted and nongifted students both performed better in the art room. Another repeated measure ANOVA was performed to test whether or not there was a difference in DT performance related to the time of the school day (first vs. second half). The results showed no differences between DT performance due to the time of the day except for verbal originality in the regular classroom during the second half of the school day. Limitations and future research of the current study are discussed.

Problem finding (PF) is a very important part of the creative process. This suggests that careful measurement is necessary. Paper and pencil Problem Generation (PG) tests were developed nearly 40 years ago in an attempt to assess the potential for PF. The reliability and validity of these instruments have yet to be statistically examined with meta-analytic methods. This meta-analysis examined 19 previous empirical investigations of PG tests to examine internal reliability (k = 43, N = 2029), convergent validity (k = 125, N = 2573), and discriminant validity (k = 26, N = 2145). Analyses indicated that the overall random-effects weighted mean reliability was α = 0.816, t(42) = 26.419, p < .001 (95 % CI: 0.786, 0.842), indicating good internal consistency. A second analysis produced a random-effects weighted mean validity coefficient, which indicated moderate agreement between PG tests and other creativity measures, such as divergent thinking and creative achievement (r = 0.463, t(124) = 13.994, p < .001 (95 % CI: 0.406, 0.518). The mean correlation among the scores produced by PG tests (i.e., fluency, flexibility, and originality) was 0.590, t(25) = 4.714, p < .001 (95 % CI: 0.364, 0.750), which indicates a moderate level of discriminant validity of the indices. Data were heterogeneous in all three analyses, but moderator analyses did not explain significant amounts of variation. This is the first study to examine the reliability and validity of the PG tests using meta-analytic methods. These showed that the test is, in several ways, a valid and reliable tool for assessing PF ability.

This investigation used a new method to measure the role of discretion in the creative process. In this context, discretion refers to a particular kind of awareness, and more specifically to an individual's intentional engagement in the creative process. In this investigation, discretion was operationalized as decisions about whether or not to express creative ideas in different social contexts. Discretion may lead an individual to express many creative ideas in one setting but fewer or no creative ideas in a different setting. Two sets of divergent thinking and idea preference measures were adapted from previous research and used to assess creative potential, along with self-reports of ideation, Big Five personality traits, and creative attitudes and values. The divergent thinking tasks were presented with instructions that suggested different social contexts. One context was relaxed and playful conditions, which previous research has shown to support originality. The other instructions described a work environment where there was pressure to succeed and an emphasis on correct ideas. Statistical analyses confirmed differences between the two conditions, suggesting that individuals exercised discretion when they generated ideas. Correlational and hierarchical regression analyses indicated that openness to experience, education, and creative potential were significantly related to discretion. Practical implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the influence of social context and morality on malevolent creativity. The sample consisted of 217 (176 female, 41 male) undergraduate and graduate students in a Southeastern public research university in the U.S. Six different open-ended socially oriented problems (three Divergent Thinking (DT) Social Games and three DT Realistic Presented Problems tasks) were used to explore the way malevolent creativity differs in two sets of problem tasks. Realistic Presented Problems are constructed differently from Social Games tasks in such a way that they include unfair, disturbing, and threatening contextual factors, while Social Games problems have more neutral and everyday problem scenarios. Participants also completed the Self-Report of Creative Traits and morality measures. The findings of the study indicated that fluency and originality were related significantly to malevolent creativity. Further, social contexts in DT tasks led to a significant difference in malevolent creativity. Participants generated significantly more malevolent creative responses in Realistic Presented Problems than in Social Games tasks. The results also revealed that morality was significantly correlated with creative personality, but the results provided no evidence that morality moderates the relation between creativity indices and malevolent creativity.

This article examines theories which suggest that authentic learning requires creativity. The connection between creativity and learning has been recognized for quite some time. Several of the theories examined herein are decades old. The older theories include Piaget's and Dewey's, and less obviously the humanistic theory of self-actualization. It is quite useful to take these perspectives, though older, into account. The idea of authentic learning has evolved, however, as is evidenced by newer theories. One of these is the theory of personal creativity. This theory is interpreted in the context of the previous perspectives on learning and creativity. Newer evidence from the neurosciences is also cited because it confirms that learning is more than memory and that the brain uses special operations when original ideas are constructed. Implications of the idea that creativity and learning are related are explored. These include suggestions for educators and the classroom. Several surprising implications for our understanding of AI are also explored. Most important is probably the conclusion that an appreciation of what exactly makes up authentic learning goes a long way towards distinguishing the artificial creativity of AI from the creativity of humans. It is the latter which should guide educational decisions.

Divergent thinking (DT) tests are often used to estimate creative potential. They have sound theoretical bases, good reliability, and moderate predictive validity. One previous study that sampled gifted and nongifted children tested the interactions among DT indices (fluency, originality, and flexibility) in the predictive equation and reported a respectable validity coefficient of 0.59. Two meta-analyses have also supported the use of DT tests as estimates of creative potential, but neither of these examined interactions among the DT indices. The present correlational, group-comparison ( N = 312) investigation (a) replicated the 1986 study and examined interactions among the three DT indices and (b) extended that research by using two newer criterion measures. One was the Creative Activity and Accomplishment Checklist (CAAC) which had been updated such that it included scales for Technological, Athletic, and Everyday creativity, in addition to scales for Art, Science & Math, Writing, and Music. The updated CAAC also used a new method for assessing the quality of creative accomplishment (in addition to the quantity of creative activity). A final novel feature of the present investigation was the use of a second criterion, one that was developed specifically for research on DT. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that the fluency X originality and flexibility X originality interactions were significantly related to the Quantity of creativity activity score. Giftedness, fluency, and the fluency X originality interaction were significantly related to the Quality score. Canonical correlation analyses indicated a predictive validity of 0.73 ( p < 0.001) for the total sample. One clear conclusion is therefore that predictions from DT tests should take interactions into account. These findings are discussed in the context of theories which recognize creativity as an important part of giftedness and theories which suggest that several facets of DT need to be taken into account when assessing creative cognition.

This study examined domain specificity among 306 high-school students using the Creative Activity and Accomplishment Checklist (CAAC). The CAAC provides both the quantity of activity and quality of accomplishment scores, allowing an empirical test of possible polymathy among students, some of whom were gifted. Polymathy occurs when an individual performs creatively in more than one domain. This investigation’s two objectives were to replicate domain specificity studies with the newest version of the CAAC, which included new domains (i.e., technological and everyday creativity) and quality and quantity scores, and to use it to test for polymathy among students. Previous work with adults suggested that polymaths are creative in multiple domains. They often invest in creative avocations that support their professional creativity. Some evidence of polymathy was uncovered; however, it was not common in this sample. Support for domain specificity was reasonably clear in the present results, yet it was not all-or-nothing but rather a matter of degree. Domains overlapped to varying amount. The amount of overlap varied with the level of talent and from domain to domain. The clearest support for polymathy came from regression analyses which revealed a significant relationship between the quantity of activity in some domains and the quality of creative accomplishment in others. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

The current study examined the relationship between creative potential, estimated with tests of divergent thinking (DT), and emotional intelligence (EI). Previous research has hinted at a relationship, but the EI–DT relationship may differ as a function of the tasks and the specific components of EI. With this in mind, the present investigation compared two DT tests (Social Games vs. Titles Games) and examined whether or not the Interpersonal and Intrapersonal subscales of EI were more associated with DT than the Adaptability and Stress Management EI subscales. The youth version of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i: YV) was used to measure EI. The measure of EI and the two DT tests were administered to 244 male and female gifted (N = 125) and nongifted (N = 119) high school students in Saudi Arabia. The first objective was to examine whether the EI–DT relationship differs based on the nature of the task of the two DT tests used in the current study (Social Games vs. Titles Games). The second objective was to test whether the Interpersonal and Intrapersonal subscales of EI are more associated with DT than the Adaptability and Stress Management EI subscales. Canonical correlation analysis showed that the relationship between the Social Games test and EI was stronger than the relationship between the Titles Games test and EI. Two path analyses were run: one for the total sample and the second for the gifted sample. The likelihood ratio test showed that the Social Games test was more associated with EQ-i subscales than the Titles Games test for both samples. As expected, the Inter- and the Intrapersonal subscales of the EQ-i were more highly related to Social Games fluency and originality scores compared with the Stress Management and Adaptability subscales. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

This empirical investigation examined the cross-cultural usefulness of a measure of creative potential, namely the short form of the Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (RIBS). The RIBS has been used in a number of investigations and existing data show it to be a reliable criterion measure, usually with a two-factor structure. Scores from the RIBS have been correlated with tests of divergent thinking but the RIBS is much easier to administer. Both divergent thinking and the RIBS do focus on ideation. Data collected from college students whose native language was Arabic (N= 383) completed the 25-item, short, version of the RIBS. We tested the factor structure with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and discriminant validity evidence with Raven Standard Progressive Matrice. We found a stronger support for the two-factor solution than a one-factor solution. Reliability evidence was also strong in the present sample. The first factor (“specific ideation”) had weak correlation with Raven Standard Progressive Matrices test whereas the second factor (“broad ideation”) was not significantly related. The results are discussed in terms of the relevant literature.