A Quandary in Creativity Studies: Conflicting Theoretical Views from In Vivo versus In Vitro Research

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
R. Weisberg
{"title":"A Quandary in Creativity Studies: Conflicting Theoretical Views from In Vivo versus In Vitro Research","authors":"R. Weisberg","doi":"10.1080/10400419.2023.2168890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Much modern laboratory research on creative thinking, or in vitro research, is based on the “remote-associates” perspective, which assumes that creative advances arise through bringing together ideas which were previously “remotely associated,” that is, not directly linked. That view has provided the foundation for modern theorizing across a broad range of areas, including the role of associative processes in creativity, divergent thinking in creativity, attention in creativity, genius and madness, and the neuroscience of creativity. However, contrary to the remote-associates view, analyses of real-life – in vivo – creative thinking indicate that new ideas arose as variations on or extensions of old ideas, rather than through bringing together unrelated ideas in a far-ranging creative leap. This conflict between the in vitro and in vivo perspectives has resulted in a theoretical quandary for creativity studies – a “creativity quandary.” This article examines that quandary. The first section demonstrates the wide reach of the remote-associates view in laboratory research on creativity. The second section examines in vivo creative advances that raise questions for the remote-associates view. The third section presents an alternative conception of creative thinking, based on executive functioning, as a potential resolution of the creativity quandary. Similarities and differences between the present proposal and other recent theoretical analyses of creative thinking are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48144,"journal":{"name":"Creativity Research Journal","volume":"35 1","pages":"324 - 353"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Creativity Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2168890","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Much modern laboratory research on creative thinking, or in vitro research, is based on the “remote-associates” perspective, which assumes that creative advances arise through bringing together ideas which were previously “remotely associated,” that is, not directly linked. That view has provided the foundation for modern theorizing across a broad range of areas, including the role of associative processes in creativity, divergent thinking in creativity, attention in creativity, genius and madness, and the neuroscience of creativity. However, contrary to the remote-associates view, analyses of real-life – in vivo – creative thinking indicate that new ideas arose as variations on or extensions of old ideas, rather than through bringing together unrelated ideas in a far-ranging creative leap. This conflict between the in vitro and in vivo perspectives has resulted in a theoretical quandary for creativity studies – a “creativity quandary.” This article examines that quandary. The first section demonstrates the wide reach of the remote-associates view in laboratory research on creativity. The second section examines in vivo creative advances that raise questions for the remote-associates view. The third section presents an alternative conception of creative thinking, based on executive functioning, as a potential resolution of the creativity quandary. Similarities and differences between the present proposal and other recent theoretical analyses of creative thinking are discussed.
创造力研究的困境:体内与体外研究的理论观点冲突
摘要许多关于创造性思维的现代实验室研究,或体外研究,都是基于“远程伙伴”的观点,该观点认为,创造性进步是通过将以前“远程关联”的想法(即没有直接联系的想法)结合在一起而产生的。这一观点为广泛领域的现代理论奠定了基础,包括联想过程在创造力中的作用、发散思维在创造力中、注意力在创造力、天才和疯狂以及创造力的神经科学。然而,与远程同事的观点相反,对现实生活中——在体内——创造性思维的分析表明,新想法是作为旧想法的变体或扩展而产生的,而不是通过将不相关的想法放在一起进行广泛的创造性飞跃。这种体外和体内视角之间的冲突导致了创造力研究的理论困境——“创造力困境”。本文探讨了这种困境。第一部分展示了远程同事观在创造力实验室研究中的广泛应用。第二部分考察了对远程同事观点提出问题的体内创造性进展。第三部分提出了一个基于执行功能的创造性思维的替代概念,作为解决创造性困境的潜在方法。讨论了本建议与其他最近关于创造性思维的理论分析之间的异同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Creativity Research Journal publishes high-quality, scholarly research capturing the full range of approaches to the study of creativity--behavioral, clinical, cognitive, crosscultural, developmental, educational, genetic, organizational, psychoanalytic, psychometrics, and social. Interdisciplinary research is also published, as is research within specific domains (e.g., art, science) and research on critical issues (e.g., aesthetics, genius, imagery, imagination, incubation, insight, intuition, metaphor, play, problem finding and solving). Integrative literature reviews and theoretical pieces that appreciate empirical work are extremely welcome, but purely speculative articles are not published. Readers are encouraged to send commentaries, comments, and evaluative book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信