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

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.