Abstract
Introduction
The properties of creative products–novelty and usefulness–are generally agreed upon by researchers. Yet, consensus is lacking on which personal and environmental factors contribute to an individual’s creative potential, or to what extent. substantial research work has been conducted in this area, leading to the publication of many systematic reviews and meta-analyses collating the available evidence. However, many of these reviews have differing methodological and theoretical characteristics, and often report conflicting results. To summarize the current review literature on factors associated with creativity and better understand the similarities and discrepancies among reviews on the same topic, we plan to conduct an umbrella review of reviews.
Methods
This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H78YS). We will search MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed reviews exploring factors associated with creativity. The quality of the included reviews will be assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), and the degree of study overlap across reviews assessed through calculation of the corrected covered area (CCA). Descriptive analyses will be performed to synthesize the results of the included reviews. We plan to use the results to create a holistic framework of the factors associated with creativity, which could be used to cross-validate existing creativity theories, or create new ones.
Ethics and dissemination
The results of this umbrella review will be published in a relevant psychology-focused journal and presented at local, national and international conferences. As all data is peer-reviewed and presented in aggregate, we will not require ethics approval.
Introduction
While Van Gogh’s The Starry Night or da Vinci’s Mona Lisa are undeniably creative, the factors which facilitate these creative products are much more contested. The importance of identifying factors contributing to creative potential is not a trivial matter: the measurement, cultivation, and broader study of creativity is dependent on a theoretical framework that is accurate, comprehensive, and valid.
Extensive research on factors associated with creativity (e.g., intelligence, intrinsic motivation, personality factors, environmental features) has been conducted by the scientific community [1–5]. This multifactorial conceptualization of creativity is reflected in the most recent theories of creativity, such as the Investment Theory of Creativity [6], Componential Theory of Creativity [7], and Systems Theory of Creativity [8]. The volume of literature in this area has led to the publication of many systematic reviews and meta-analyses looking to collate the existing evidence [9–16]. Yet, there is still a lack of consensus and understanding on which factors are associated with creativity. For instance, intelligence was found to have a negligible correlation with creativity test scores in an early meta-analysis [9], yet subsequent meta-analyses have found that various aspects of intelligence correlate with creativity [17, 18]. To date, there is still debate about if, or to what extent, intelligence is a requisite of creativity [2, 18–21]. Similarly, differing levels of correlation with creativity have been reported in meta-analyses exploring personality factors, motivation, and environment [11, 14–16, 22].
The existence of a large body of systematic review and meta-analyses permits the conduct of an umbrella review, or ‘overview of reviews’. This has yet to be performed; we found only one review of meta-analyses, which was limited to only 7 studies and synonymized creativity and innovation [23]. Thus, we propose a comprehensive umbrella review to integrate the current review literature on factors associated with creativity, identify similarities and discrepancies in results across reviews, and explore the possible reasons for such discrepancies. Discrepancies among reviews is not likely to be solely due to the availability of new primary research over time: the introduction of more robust creativity measures and testing practices, use of outdated intelligence tests, and narrow definition of creativity informing study inclusion criteria are just some methodological and theoretical factors that may explain the differing conclusions across reviews [24–26]. This umbrella review will not only contribute to consensus generation on factors associated with creativity but improve the understanding of the effects of various methodological and theoretical factors on creativity research findings.
Methodology
This protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H78YS) and designed in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for the conduct of umbrella reviews [27]. While there is no specific guideline for the reporting of umbrella review protocols, this protocol was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement (S1 File) [28].
Objectives
Our primary objective is to explore the existing systematic review literature on the relationship between creativity and the following factors: sex; sociocultural background; intelligence; personality; motivation; mood; psychopathology; environment.
Theoretical assumptions
Underlying the rationale for this umbrella review is the assumption that individual creativity is multifactorial in nature, requiring aspects including but not limited to intelligence, knowledge, cognition, personality, motivation, and affect, and is influenced by the environmental context [29]. This conceptualization is in alignment with the definition of creativity as the “interaction between aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context”, which we plan to use as a theoretical basis for determining study eligibility and interpreting the results [30]. However, definitions of creativity are highly variable [31], and assessment methods equally so [32, 33]. We will thus include reviews exploring creativity as defined by definitions other than the one we have presented here.
Eligibility criteria
Articles eligible for inclusion in this umbrella review will have met all of the following criteria:
Systematic review (with or without meta-analysis);
Empirically investigated the relationship between creativity and one or more personal and/or environmental factors;
Included primary research studies conducted in humans; and
Published in a peer-reviewed journal
We will exclude dissertations, pre-prints, and conference abstracts. Studies published in non-English languages will be translated with Google Translate.
Information sources and search strategy
We plan to systematically search MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases from inception to 1 September 2024. Additionally, we will search Google Scholar for eligible reviews, and use an ascendancy approach to identify additional articles. As an example, we developed the search strategy (S2 File) for PsycINFO using a combination of keywords and subject headings, combined with Boolean operators (AND; OR). For each of the remaining databases, a search strategy will be developed tailored to the index structure of each database.
Study screening
We plan to upload the results of our searches to Covidence, which removes duplicates and provides a platform for screening, full-text review, and data extraction. Title and abstract screening, and subsequently full-text review, will be performed independently and in duplicate by a pair of reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by discussion to achieve consensus. If necessary, a third reviewer will act as adjudicator. The results of our study screening procedure will be presented using a PRISMA flow chart.
Data extraction
Using the Covidence platform, a standardized template will be developed to extract data from eligible studies. A pair of reviewers will independently extract the data, with any discrepancies resolved by discussion to achieve consensus, or adjudication by a third reviewer. The following review-level data will be extracted: first author; year of publication; journal name; country of conduct; number of primary studies included; total sample size of participants across primary studies; personal and/or environmental factors explored (e.g., personality, intrinsic motivation); the pooled effect size metric (e.g., Pearsons r) with the 95% confidence interval [95% CI] and associated heterogeneity statistics (e.g., Cochran’s Q test, I2) for each factor; and whether meta-analysis method was conducted using fixed effects or random effects models. For each primary study within each review, the following data will be extracted: first author; year of publication; sample size; population description; factor(s) explored; tool used to assess creativity; tools used to measure factor(s); and effect estimate with the associated 95% CI. In the event of missing data, efforts will be made to contact the first author to acquire the data.
Risk of bias assessment
We will use the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) to assess the quality of included systematic reviews [34]. The ROBIS tool assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews from 4 different domains: study eligibility criteria; identification and selection of studies, data collection and study appraisal; and synthesis of findings. The results of the risk of bias assessment will be reported narratively and tabulated in accordance with the recommendations of Whiting et. al. [34].
Data synthesis and statistical analysis
We plan to conduct descriptive analyses to synthesize the findings across reviews. To begin, review characteristics, including the various methodological and theoretical features of each review, will be described, and the results from each individual review reported and tabulated, indicating the strength and direction of the relationship. Then, we will narratively synthesize the data across all reviews, organized by factor, comparing the results across reviews, changes in results over time, and differences in methodological and theoretical approaches between reviews. The degree of study overlap in review on the same topic will be assessed by calculating the corrected covered area (CCA); CCA values between 0 and 5 will be considered slight overlap, 6–10 considered moderate overlap, 11–15 considered high overlap, and >15 considered very high overlap [35].
To summarize the findings of the umbrella review and provide a cohesive model to explain the results across reviews, we will create a conceptual framework to illustrate the magnitude and direction of association between the explored factors and creativity.
Timeline
The planned start date for this study, beginning with the literature search, is scheduled for November 2024. A first draft is planned for May 2025, with a final draft ready for submission to a journal by July 2025.
Study limitations
Anticipated limitations include variable study quality and differing methodological and theoretical characteristics of the included reviews. To address these limitations we plan to assess the study quality of the included reviews using the ROBIS tool [34], and will compare the results between studies with differing methodological and theoretical characteristics. We also expect there to be significant overlap in included studies across reviews of the same topic. We plan to calculate the degree of study overlap using the CCA metric.
Ethics and dissemination
Ethical considerations
As this review includes published studies and presents aggregated data, no ethics approval is required for this study.
Knowledge translation
The results of this umbrella review will be published in a creativity-specific peer-reviewed journal. Efforts will be made to disseminate the results of the study to relevant stakeholders, including creativity researchers and psychometricians. Following the publication of the review, the lead author plans to present the results of this study at local, national, and international psychology conferences.
Conclusion
A large body of systematic review and meta-analysis literature exists on the personal and environmental factors associated with creativity. A synthesis of this body of evidence, in the form of an umbrella review, will holistically assess the factors associated with individual creativity, as well as explore the similarities and differences in results across reviews on the same topics. The results of this umbrella review will also contribute an important conceptual framework which could be used to validate existing theories and measurement tools of creativity, create new ones.
Supporting information
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
References
- 1.Auger P. and Woodman R.W., Creativity and Intrinsic Motivation: Exploring a Complex Relationship. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2016. 52(3): p. 342–366. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Jauk E., Benedek M., Dunst B., and Neubauer A.C., The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 2013. 41(4): p. 212–221. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Runco M.A. and Acar S., Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 2012. 24(1): p. 66–75. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Silvia P.J., et al., Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 2009. 43(6): p. 1087–1090. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Dul J. and Ceylan C., Work environments for employee creativity. Ergonomics, 2011. 54(1): p. 12–20. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2010.542833 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Sternberg R.J. and Lubart T.I., An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human development, 1991. 34(1): p. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Amabile T., Componential theory of creativity. 2011: Harvard Business School Boston, MA. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Csikszentmihalyi M., The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2015: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kim K.H., Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 2005. 16(2–3): p. 57–66. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hunter S.T., Bedell K.E., and Mumford M.D., Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity research journal, 2007. 19(1): p. 69–90. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kim K.H., Meta‐analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2008. 42(2): p. 106–130. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gerver C.R., Griffin J.W., Dennis N.A., and Beaty R.E., Memory and creativity: A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between memory systems and creative cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2023. 30(6): p. 2116–2154. doi: 10.3758/s13423-023-02303-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.De Jesus S.N., Rus C.L., Lens W., and Imaginário S., Intrinsic motivation and creativity related to product: A meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990–2010. Creativity Research Journal, 2013. 25(1): p. 80–84. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Liu D., et al., Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 2016. 137: p. 236–263. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Feist G.J., A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and social psychology review, 1998. 2(4): p. 290–309. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ma H.-H., The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 2009. 21(1): p. 30–42. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Serban A., Kepes S., Wang W., and Baldwin R., Cognitive ability and creativity: Typology contributions and a meta-analytic review. Intelligence, 2023. 98: p. 101757. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Karwowski M., et al., Is creativity without intelligence possible? A Necessary Condition Analysis. Intelligence, 2016. 57: p. 105–117. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Benedek M., et al., Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: The common and differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity. Intelligence, 2014. 46: p. 73–83. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Çetinkaya Ç., The Relationship Between Intelligence and Creativity Within the Threshold Theory Among Gifted and Bright Secondary School Students in Turkey. Sage Open, 2023. 13(4): p. 21582440231206612. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Breit M., et al., *Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence: A Multimethod Investigation of Alternative Theoretical Assumptions in Two Samples of Secondary School Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 2022. 67(2): p. 95–109. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Puryear J.S., Kettler T., and Rinn A.N., Relationships of personality to differential conceptions of creativity: A systematic review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2017. 11(1): p. 59. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Da Costa S., et al., Personal factors of creativity: A second order meta-analysis. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 2015. 31(3): p. 165–173. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Karwowski M., Czerwonka M., Wiśniewska E., and Forthmann B., How Is Intelligence Test Performance Associated with Creative Achievement? A Meta-Analysis. J Intell, 2021. 9(2). doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Plucker J.A. and Esping A., Intelligence and creativity: a complex but important relationship. Asia Pacific Education Review, 2015. 16: p. 153–159. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gerwig A., et al., The Relationship between Intelligence and Divergent Thinking-A Meta-Analytic Update. J Intell, 2021. 9(2). doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Aromataris E., et al., Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. JBI Evidence Implementation, 2015. 13(3): p. 132–140. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Moher D., et al., Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 2015. 4(1): p. 1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lubart T., Zenasni F., and Barbot B., Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 2013. 1(2): p. 41–51. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Plucker J.A., Beghetto R.A., and Dow G.T., Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 2004. 39(2): p. 83–96. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kampylis P.G. and Valtanen J., Redefining creativity—analyzing definitions, collocations, and consequences. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2010. 44(3): p. 191–214. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Diedrich J., et al., Assessment of real-life creativity: The Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (ICAA). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2018. 12(3): p. 304. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Said-Metwaly S., Van den Noortgate W., and Kyndt E., Approaches to measuring creativity: A systematic literature review. Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications, 2017. 4(2): p. 238–275. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Whiting P., et al., ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2016. 69: p. 225–234. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Pieper D., et al., Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2014. 67(4): p. 368–375. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]