English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

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