Copernican Revolution . org
Transforming Our Lives through Self Reflection and Psychology
A psychology professor's collection of lessons fostering self-discovery through online activities, hands-on classroom experiences, engaging lectures, and effective discussion prompts.
Online Activity by Katie Hope Grobman
Operationalizing the Imagination: Is a Science of Creativity Even Possible?
Everybody's unique and if any aspect of humanity feels impossible to quantify, it's creativity. Let's try four distinct ways Psychology approaches creativity. | Psychology Key Concepts: Creativity; Eminent Creativity; Creative Personality; Divergent Thinking; Creative Activities
Can we really do a science of the Psychology of Creativity? Everybody's unique and if there's any aspect of humanity that feels impossible to quantify, it's creativity. Here you'll get to measure your creativity in four distinct ways Psychology has approached this seemingly impossible task. It's completely okay if you see yourself as not at all creative. Maybe your results will surprise you? And even if you're especially creative, maybe some ways of measuring it won't let that creativity shine through? Regardless, it's a chance to consider how Psychology creates operational definitions to measure and understand among the most special aspects of being human.
🕰️ Estimating Time
🤸♀️ Activity (new tab): 20 to 30 minutes
📓 After-Activity Reading (below): 8 to 19 minutes
🕰️ Estimating Time
🤸♀️ Activity (new tab): 20 to 30 minutes
📓 After-Activity Reading (below): 8 to 19 minutes
Thinking Outside the Box?
“
The creative genius may be at once naïve and knowledgeable, being at home equally to primitive symbolism and to rigorous logic … both more primitive and more cultured, more destructive and more constructive, occasionally crazier and yet adamantly saner, than the average person.
Psychology of Creativity
When you think of creativity, what pops into your head? For a lot of us, it’s a lone artist staring at a blank canvas, waiting for a magical lightning bolt of inspiration. It feels mysterious, intuitive, and totally unmeasurable. To study something as wild as imagination, or something commonplace, we have to use what scientists call an operational definition. Just a fancy way of saying, before we can measure a big, abstract concept, we have to pick a specific, precise way to define it. Think of it like measuring "health." Do we track a person's resting heart rate? Their diet? Their exercise? Their strength? Each is a valid way to look at health. They're correlated with each other, meaning those each score predicts the other (e.g., people with healthier diets have greater strength; people who exercise more have a lower resting heart rate). Even so, they each tell a somewhat different story.
That is exactly what just happened with your activity scores. You didn't just take one creativity test; you took four different definitions of creativity. All four are correlated. But they each tell a different story about what creativity is. And it isn't surprising if you score higher by some operational definitions, and lower with others. Let's look at what psychology says about your creativity in your daily life: creativity in your personality, everyday habits, how you think, and what you have accomplished.
That is exactly what just happened with your activity scores. You didn't just take one creativity test; you took four different definitions of creativity. All four are correlated. But they each tell a different story about what creativity is. And it isn't surprising if you score higher by some operational definitions, and lower with others. Let's look at what psychology says about your creativity in your daily life: creativity in your personality, everyday habits, how you think, and what you have accomplished.
Table 1: Creative or Not Adjective Checklist
1. Your Personality Profile: Who You Are
There's a particular kind of courage that shows up on this scale (table 1) — the same inner permission that lets you speak up when everyone else in the room is nodding along. People who score high here tend to be more comfortable with social risk-taking, including the quietly brave act of disagreeing with someone who holds power over them, and less drawn to rigid hierarchies or black-and-white thinking about who deserves respect (Tyagi et al., 2018). A creative personality shows up in social risk-taking. And it shows up in how you love, too — this same open, unconventional streak has been linked to feeling more passion in romantic relationships (Carswell et al., 2019), maybe because a mind that resists the expected path also resists letting love go stale. Underneath it all sits Openness to Experience, the personality trait that shows up again and again as creativity's closest companion (Feist, 1998) — that hunger for novelty, nuance, and the road less traveled. But there’s a catch. That exact same boundary-pushing nature means highly creative personalities are much more likely to bend or break rules in daily life. Interestingly, this openness to bending rules and improvising doesn't always stay confined to harmless territory; researchers have found modest links between everyday creative behavior and a greater willingness to bend the rules in other contexts, like small acts of dishonesty (Gino & Ariely, 2012). Why? Because a deeply creative mind is incredibly good at rationalizing and rewriting the rules to fit its narrative. And if you're someone who scores high in intelligence and creativity, know that research suggests these two gifts matter most independently of each other once you're past a certain point — creativity stops being about how smart you are and starts being about who you are (Jauk et al., 2013).
Table 2: Clusters of Everyday Creative Behaviors
2. Your Everyday Way of Being: What You Do
This is the scale that catches creativity in its most ordinary clothes (table 2): the recipe you improvised, the room you rearranged, the joke that landed just right. It doesn't care if you're a famous artist; it just looks at the small, beautiful ways you inject imagination into your daily life. Psychology calls this "little-c" creativity. And it turns out a playful, cheerful disposition and everyday creativity travel together closely (Lau et al., 2022), which tracks with something you've probably felt: the days you feel lightest are often the days your ideas flow easiest. People who score high here also tend to read emotional undercurrents more fluently (Tu et al., 2020) and to be more aware of their own thinking as it happens (Puryear, 2015). Creativity, it seems, asks you to pay attention to both your inner world and everyone else's. There's even a thread connecting this kind of everyday inventiveness to empathy in action: adults who scored higher here were more likely to imagine themselves inside someone else's hardship, and more likely to act on it by giving (Yang & Hung, 2020). Day-to-day creativity has also been shown to ripple forward. In one study, little girls who had imaginary companions did more everyday creative behaviors in adulthood (Lee & Russ, 2018). People who spend a day being creative tend to report feeling more flourishing and alive the next day (Conner, DeYoung, & Silvia, 2018). Small creative acts aren't just an expression of who you are, they help make you who you're becoming.
Table 3: Remote Associates Test
3. The Spark Guiding Your Mind
The Remote Associates Test (RAT) looks at how you actually perform creatively (table 3 ). When we see the three words our minds engage divergent thinking. We spiral off with many seemingly random disconnected ideas. Meanwhile, we're using convergent thinking to narrow down all these ideas to the hidden thread connecting the words. Because this test relies heavily on language and memory search (Smith et al., 2013), it does tend to overlap with verbal IQ and general academic achievement (Gajda et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2014). It's closely ties with your sense of humor. Afterall, humor is about making unexpected connections; a good joke is really just an unexpected remote association landing at the right moment (Brodzinsky & Rubien, 1976). Performance on this kind of task isn't fixed, either: a genuinely good mood tends to loosen your associative thinking and make those distant connections easier to spot (Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987), and so, oddly enough, does letting your mind wander for a few minutes before returning to a problem (Baird et al., 2012) — which is a lovely bit of scientific permission to take that walk before you try to solve something. It may also help those with ADHD recognize how their struggles come with benefit too because unmedicated children with ADHD tend to outperform their peers on this test (Ten et al., 2020). Some researchers have also found that cognitive flexibility on tasks like this one tends to run a bit higher among people who identify as politically independent or moderate, and among those who've moved away from a religious upbringing (Zmigrod et al., 2018, 2020) — patterns the researchers link to comfort holding ideas loosely rather than any judgment about which beliefs are "right."
Table 4: Creative Achievements Questionnaire
4. Your Real-World Impact: What You've Shared
Finally, we have "Big-C" creativity (table 4). This doesn't look at your internal thoughts or your daily hobbies; it looks at tangible, publicly recognized achievements: like publishing a book, winning a regional art prize, or inventing something. And what shows up here tends to correlate with real intellectual risk-taking and with genuine confidence in your own creative ability (Beghetto et al., 2021), which makes sense: achievement usually requires believing your idea is worth finishing before anyone else has agreed with you. It's also tied to flow — that immersive, time-disappearing state — for artists and non-artists alike (Hallaert, 2019), suggesting real creative output isn't just about talent, it's about finding work that makes you lose track of the clock. If you scored high in a particular arts-related area, openness to experience is very likely part of your story (Kaufman et al., 2014). And most people, when their results are broken down by domain, find their achievements cluster in one or two areas rather than spreading evenly across all of them (Silvia et al., 2009).
Weighing the Scales: The Pros and Cons
There is no perfect assessment, and every method has blind spots. As you look at your results, keep scientific trade-offs in mind:
The Personality Checklist: It's amazing for capturing our inner drive and mindset and it's refreshingly free of the "prove it" pressure other measures carry. But because it's about self-image, somebody who sees themselves as unconventional might check creativity boxes without actually doing anything creative in the lives.
The Everyday Behaviors Scale (CECBI): It's highly relatable and shows how creativity lives in the real world. It doesn't require talent, recognition, or a portfolio. Just a life of creativity as a daily practice. But it only counts how often you create, not how original or skilled the final products actually are.
The Brain Puzzle (RAT): It's not self-report and avoids those biases (e.g., modesty). It's a real expression of creativity! But any tasks requires we use many skill, like vocabulary. And any task is a a slice of life and factors unrelated to creativity could influence you too, like mood, sleep, and anxiety about being observed.
The Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ): It measures tangible outcomes emerging over a lifetime. It's not as swayed by self-perception or momentary feelings. But it penalizes anyone who hasn't had the financial or professional resources to publicly showcase their talents yet.
Take a moment to self-reflect. Did you score more creative with some measures but less so with others? What insight might that reveal about the way creativity is part of who you are?
The Personality Checklist: It's amazing for capturing our inner drive and mindset and it's refreshingly free of the "prove it" pressure other measures carry. But because it's about self-image, somebody who sees themselves as unconventional might check creativity boxes without actually doing anything creative in the lives.
The Everyday Behaviors Scale (CECBI): It's highly relatable and shows how creativity lives in the real world. It doesn't require talent, recognition, or a portfolio. Just a life of creativity as a daily practice. But it only counts how often you create, not how original or skilled the final products actually are.
The Brain Puzzle (RAT): It's not self-report and avoids those biases (e.g., modesty). It's a real expression of creativity! But any tasks requires we use many skill, like vocabulary. And any task is a a slice of life and factors unrelated to creativity could influence you too, like mood, sleep, and anxiety about being observed.
The Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ): It measures tangible outcomes emerging over a lifetime. It's not as swayed by self-perception or momentary feelings. But it penalizes anyone who hasn't had the financial or professional resources to publicly showcase their talents yet.
Take a moment to self-reflect. Did you score more creative with some measures but less so with others? What insight might that reveal about the way creativity is part of who you are?
A Personal Reflection, as a Psychology Professor Studying Creativity
I love creativity! I literally always have. As a little child I had many imaginary companions in elaborate imaginary worlds. Through mid-childhood and adolescence, I had pieces in art showcases. And as a grownup, I'm obsessed with designing creative ways to help each and every one of us develop deeper self knowledge, and a wider understanding of others. Scientists are people. We're not perfectly objective even when we try, and each of us brings our own deeply rooted worldview into the lab. How we personally see society quietly shapes how we build assessments and design research. You can see this beautifully if we look at the contrast between my own research choices and the creators of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ), which was authored by a graduate student while in Jordan Peterson's lab at Harvard1, while he was a psychology professor and before he became a prominent polarizing conservative activist.
When we step back, we might infer the CAQ is built on a worldview aligned with conservatism. It places a lot of trust in societal milestones. Its design implicitly assumes that if you have high creative ability, it naturally blossoms into visible, measurable accomplishments, like prizes, patents, or published books. And if you fail to create, a major factor is lacking creativity. To this mindset, public achievement is the ultimate, concrete proof of creativity. And of course, real-world accomplishments do require a lot of creative spark!
Thinking about the CAQ pushes me to reflect upon how my personal worldviews might shape my science. To my mind, I dislike overarching ideologies because they feel, to me, like we inevitably become stuck trying to make reality fit into our model. Even if not partisan, I do have inclinations that probably spark my own creativity and lead me to the psychology of creativity. Empathy pervades my thinking and I'm often drawn to considering people on the margins - people who often struggle and find creativity as part of their solutions. When I look at systems like academia and business, I'm skeptical. Publishing hundreds of papers or constantly selling products, to me, often has less to do with raw innovation, and more to do with mastering the game, following the rules, and repeating a safe, predictable formula because it’s what reviewers or markets like to see. Sometimes, massive public success can actually mean someone is playing it a little safe. The out-of-the-box misfit, the quirky thinker, and the person who just doesn't fit conventional boxes might have a mind bursting with incredible, innovative ideas, but they might score zero on a lifetime achievement test because they haven't mastered fitting others' expectations. Or simply because they don't want to play the game.
Because of my own worldview, my favorite place to measure creativity is through performance. I like bringing you into a room and seeing what you do in a moment uncluttered by how well you navigate social conventions, networking, or workplace politics. Neither approach is the "one true way" to study creativity. In actual practice, I use many measures of creativity in my research, including the CAQ. Different scientists look through different windows, trying to understand the same beautiful human mystery.
When you look at your own results today, you aren't just looking at cold data. You’re catching a glimpse of the different philosophies that built these assessments. Which definition of creativity feels most true to you?
The Takeaway: Your Unique Creative Blueprint
Your creativity doesn't live in just one place, and now you have the data about yourself to consider. Remember the health analogy we began with? Resting heart rate, diet, strength, each telling a different piece of the same story? If your flexibility scores are mediocre but your resting heart rate looks great, you couldn't conclude you weren't actually healthy; you would conclude you're strong in one dimension and could grow in another. Your creativity scores work the same way. If you lit up the Creative Personality Scale but felt stuck on the Remote Associates Test, that doesn't mean one score is the "real" you and the other a fluke. It means you're more naturally inclined toward the bold, unconventional, rule-bending disposition of creativity than the in-the-moment, verbal quick-thinking performance of it. And both are genuinely, scientifically creative. Neither one gets to claim the whole word.
This is worth sitting with, because the four scales you just took don't simple measure creativity. They quietly make an argument about what creativity even is. A trait you carry, a habit you practice, a skill you can apply on demand, a legacy you leave behind: each is true, and each is incomplete without the others. So as you look back over your results, ask yourself less "am I creative?" and more "where does my creativity tend to live?"
This is worth sitting with, because the four scales you just took don't simple measure creativity. They quietly make an argument about what creativity even is. A trait you carry, a habit you practice, a skill you can apply on demand, a legacy you leave behind: each is true, and each is incomplete without the others. So as you look back over your results, ask yourself less "am I creative?" and more "where does my creativity tend to live?"
Additional Information
Uneasy Feelings about Your Results?
Please remember your results with any activity are not who you are. Your results are a 'snapshot' of a moment when you did an activity. It's just one measure, a single thread, of the many strands of who you are. Any result is a guess with statistical error. And it's possible the measure is flawed in a way so it doesn't work for you. Please do not think of your results as definitive dogma. Instead they're a starting point for our self reflection. Please keep in mind too, self-reflection can feel uncomfortable. "Bad" feelings are not actually bad. They're information. So, even if your activity result is inaccurate and flawed, you might ask yourself what your feeling is trying to tell you? Trusted teachers, friends, and therapists can be helpful. I wrote an essay elaborating with concrete examples how we can appreciate uneasy feelings about our activity results.
Scholarly Information?
You're welcome to use Copernican Revolution activities and essays for your thesis and studies. Having information about scholarly aspects like psychometric data, activity design details, and norm calculations may help. The primary focus of my essays is connecting educated laypersons with psychology. To help people like you, with advanced academic interests, I add an appendix with each activity.
Please remember your results with any activity are not who you are. Your results are a 'snapshot' of a moment when you did an activity. It's just one measure, a single thread, of the many strands of who you are. Any result is a guess with statistical error. And it's possible the measure is flawed in a way so it doesn't work for you. Please do not think of your results as definitive dogma. Instead they're a starting point for our self reflection. Please keep in mind too, self-reflection can feel uncomfortable. "Bad" feelings are not actually bad. They're information. So, even if your activity result is inaccurate and flawed, you might ask yourself what your feeling is trying to tell you? Trusted teachers, friends, and therapists can be helpful. I wrote an essay elaborating with concrete examples how we can appreciate uneasy feelings about our activity results.
Scholarly Information?
You're welcome to use Copernican Revolution activities and essays for your thesis and studies. Having information about scholarly aspects like psychometric data, activity design details, and norm calculations may help. The primary focus of my essays is connecting educated laypersons with psychology. To help people like you, with advanced academic interests, I add an appendix with each activity.
Footnotes & References
Footnote
Beghetto, R. A., Karwowski, M., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2021). Intellectual risk-taking and creative confidence as predictors of creative achievement. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(4), 621–632.
Boot, N., Baas, M., van Gaal, S., Cools, R., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2020). Creative achievement, ADHD symptoms, and the role of cognitive flexibility. Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 890–902.
Brodzinsky, D. M., & Rubien, J. (1976). Humor production in relation to verbal intelligence, creativity, and lateralization of brain function. Journal of Personality, 44(3), 486–500.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37–50.
Carswell, K. L., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2019). The passionate spark: Creative personality traits predict greater passion in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 563–581.
Dollinger, S. J. (2007). Creativity and conservatism: A further look at the Creative Behavior Inventory and Openness to Experience. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 211–217.
Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and personality: MBTI type and Creative Personality Scale correlations. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(1), 37–51.
Domino, G., & Giuliano, A. (1997). Assessment of creativity with the Adjective Check List: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(2), 93–103.
Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 269–299.
Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 445–459.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398–1405.
Hallaert, M. (2019). The experience of flow in creative production among arts and non-arts majors. Psychology of Music, 47(5), 711–724.
Hocevar, D. (1979). The development of the Creative Behavior Inventory [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Las Vegas, NV, United States.
Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creative performance. Intelligence, 4(1), 25–40.
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298–308.
Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G. (2014). Openness to Experience and Intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 248–258.
Lau, C., Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2022). The cheerful mind and everyday creativity: Exploring the relationships between cheerfulness, humor production, and the K-DOCS. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 889201.
Lee, A., & Russ, S. W. (2018). Pretend play in childhood as a predictor of creative behavior and self-identity in young adulthood: A seven-year longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 154–165.
Lee, C. S., Huggins, A. C., & Therriault, D. J. (2014). A measure of creative potential or verbal intelligence? Examining the Remote Associates Test. Creativity Research Journal, 26(3), 281–290.
Puryear, J. S. (2015). Metacognitive awareness, ideational behavior, and creative accomplishments: A structural equation modeling approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 17, 44–53.
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (2013). The creative cognition approach. MIT Press.
Ten, A., van den Boogaard, M., & de Jong, M. (2020). Cognitive flexibility and insight problem solving in unmedicated children with ADHD. Child Neuropsychology, 26(5), 633–648.
Treadwell, Y. (1970). Humor and creativity: An exploratory study. Psychological Reports, 26(1), 55–58.
Tu, C., Liu, M., & Wang, Y. (2020). Emotional intelligence as a predictor of creative domain specificities among young adults. Social Behavior and Personality, 48(8), 1–11.
Tyagi, V., Hanoch, Y., Hall, S. D., Runco, M., & Denham, S. L. (2018). The creative personality: High creative individuals are more willing to take social risks, show less right-wing authoritarianism, and have lower social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 66–72.
Yang, Y., & Hung, C. (2020). Little-c creativity and prosocial behavior: How daily creative activities predict empathy and intentions to aid victims of trafficking. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 60(4), 512–531.
Zabelina, D. L., Friedman, N. P., & Andrews-Hanna, J. (2021). Unified or distinct? Creative achievement, intelligence, and executive functions in the International Cognitive Ability Research sample. Intelligence, 86, Article 101539.
Zhang, X., Wang, F., & Miller, J. A. (2021). Validating measures of creative character: The relationship between the CBI and Gough's Creative Personality Scale. Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(2), 341–352.
Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2018). The cognitive flexibility of the non-religious: Disengaging from dogmatic belief systems predicts higher performance on the Remote Associates Test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(11), 1689–1704.
Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., Zmigrod, S., & Robbins, T. W. (2020). The ideological brain: Ideological partisanship and its cognitive underpinnings. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1797), Article 20190620.
- The Creativity Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) was first authored by Shelley Carson, then a graduate student, along with her advisor at the time. She has since become a lecturer at Harvard, a creativity researcher, and published a popular book about becoming more creative.
Beghetto, R. A., Karwowski, M., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2021). Intellectual risk-taking and creative confidence as predictors of creative achievement. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(4), 621–632.
Boot, N., Baas, M., van Gaal, S., Cools, R., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2020). Creative achievement, ADHD symptoms, and the role of cognitive flexibility. Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 890–902.
Brodzinsky, D. M., & Rubien, J. (1976). Humor production in relation to verbal intelligence, creativity, and lateralization of brain function. Journal of Personality, 44(3), 486–500.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37–50.
Carswell, K. L., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2019). The passionate spark: Creative personality traits predict greater passion in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 563–581.
Dollinger, S. J. (2007). Creativity and conservatism: A further look at the Creative Behavior Inventory and Openness to Experience. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 211–217.
Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and personality: MBTI type and Creative Personality Scale correlations. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(1), 37–51.
Domino, G., & Giuliano, A. (1997). Assessment of creativity with the Adjective Check List: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(2), 93–103.
Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 269–299.
Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 445–459.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398–1405.
Hallaert, M. (2019). The experience of flow in creative production among arts and non-arts majors. Psychology of Music, 47(5), 711–724.
Hocevar, D. (1979). The development of the Creative Behavior Inventory [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Las Vegas, NV, United States.
Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creative performance. Intelligence, 4(1), 25–40.
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298–308.
Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G. (2014). Openness to Experience and Intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 248–258.
Lau, C., Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2022). The cheerful mind and everyday creativity: Exploring the relationships between cheerfulness, humor production, and the K-DOCS. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 889201.
Lee, A., & Russ, S. W. (2018). Pretend play in childhood as a predictor of creative behavior and self-identity in young adulthood: A seven-year longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 154–165.
Lee, C. S., Huggins, A. C., & Therriault, D. J. (2014). A measure of creative potential or verbal intelligence? Examining the Remote Associates Test. Creativity Research Journal, 26(3), 281–290.
Puryear, J. S. (2015). Metacognitive awareness, ideational behavior, and creative accomplishments: A structural equation modeling approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 17, 44–53.
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (2013). The creative cognition approach. MIT Press.
Ten, A., van den Boogaard, M., & de Jong, M. (2020). Cognitive flexibility and insight problem solving in unmedicated children with ADHD. Child Neuropsychology, 26(5), 633–648.
Treadwell, Y. (1970). Humor and creativity: An exploratory study. Psychological Reports, 26(1), 55–58.
Tu, C., Liu, M., & Wang, Y. (2020). Emotional intelligence as a predictor of creative domain specificities among young adults. Social Behavior and Personality, 48(8), 1–11.
Tyagi, V., Hanoch, Y., Hall, S. D., Runco, M., & Denham, S. L. (2018). The creative personality: High creative individuals are more willing to take social risks, show less right-wing authoritarianism, and have lower social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 66–72.
Yang, Y., & Hung, C. (2020). Little-c creativity and prosocial behavior: How daily creative activities predict empathy and intentions to aid victims of trafficking. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 60(4), 512–531.
Zabelina, D. L., Friedman, N. P., & Andrews-Hanna, J. (2021). Unified or distinct? Creative achievement, intelligence, and executive functions in the International Cognitive Ability Research sample. Intelligence, 86, Article 101539.
Zhang, X., Wang, F., & Miller, J. A. (2021). Validating measures of creative character: The relationship between the CBI and Gough's Creative Personality Scale. Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(2), 341–352.
Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2018). The cognitive flexibility of the non-religious: Disengaging from dogmatic belief systems predicts higher performance on the Remote Associates Test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(11), 1689–1704.
Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., Zmigrod, S., & Robbins, T. W. (2020). The ideological brain: Ideological partisanship and its cognitive underpinnings. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1797), Article 20190620.
Citation
Grobman, K. H. (2015). Operationalizing the Imagination: Is a Science of Creativity Even Possible? CopernicanRevolution.org
Citation date reflects activity creation; essays are continually written, rewritten, and improved.
Grobman, K. H. (2015). Operationalizing the Imagination: Is a Science of Creativity Even Possible? CopernicanRevolution.org
Citation date reflects activity creation; essays are continually written, rewritten, and improved.
