divergent thinking and problem solving

.css-s5s6ko{margin-right:42px;color:#F5F4F3;}@media (max-width: 1120px){.css-s5s6ko{margin-right:12px;}} Join us: Learn how to build a trusted AI strategy to support your company's intelligent transformation, featuring Forrester .css-1ixh9fn{display:inline-block;}@media (max-width: 480px){.css-1ixh9fn{display:block;margin-top:12px;}} .css-1uaoevr-heading-6{font-size:14px;line-height:24px;font-weight:500;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;color:#F5F4F3;}.css-1uaoevr-heading-6:hover{color:#F5F4F3;} .css-ora5nu-heading-6{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:flex-start;justify-content:flex-start;color:#0D0E10;-webkit-transition:all 0.3s;transition:all 0.3s;position:relative;font-size:16px;line-height:28px;padding:0;font-size:14px;line-height:24px;font-weight:500;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;color:#F5F4F3;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover{border-bottom:0;color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover path{fill:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover div{border-color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover div:before{border-left-color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active{border-bottom:0;background-color:#EBE8E8;color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active path{fill:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active div{border-color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active div:before{border-left-color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover{color:#F5F4F3;} Register now .css-1k6cidy{width:11px;height:11px;margin-left:8px;}.css-1k6cidy path{fill:currentColor;}

• Leadership |
• Convergent vs. divergent thinking: Find ...

Convergent vs. divergent thinking: Finding the right balance for creative problem solving

Convergent thinking focuses on finding one well-defined solution to a problem. Divergent thinking is the opposite of convergent thinking and involves more creativity. In this piece, we’ll explain the differences between convergent and divergent thinking in the problem-solving process. We’ll also discuss the importance of using both types of thinking to improve your decision making.

Have you ever taken a personality test like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? If so, you’ve likely answered a bunch of questions for an algorithm to tell you how you interact with the world around you. One thing this test will tell you is if you make decisions more objectively (thinkers) or decisions more subjectively (feelers).

Anatomy of Work Special Report: How to spot—and overcome—the most crucial enterprise challenges

Learn how enterprises can improve processes and productivity, no matter how complex your organization is. With fewer redundancies, leaders and their teams can hit goals faster.

What is the difference between convergent and divergent thinking?

J. P. Guilford, a psychologist, created the terms convergent and divergent thinking in 1956. Convergent thinking focuses on reaching one well-defined solution to a problem. This type of thinking is best suited for tasks that involve logic as opposed to creativity, such as answering multiple-choice tests or solving a problem where you know there are no other possible solutions.  

Divergent thinking is the opposite of convergent thinking and involves more creativity. With this type of thinking, you can generate ideas and develop multiple solutions to a problem. While divergent thinking often involves brainstorming for many possible answers to a question, the goal is the same as convergent thinking—to arrive at the best solution. 

In practice, here’s what these different types of thinking might look like:

Convergent thinking: If the copy machine breaks at work, a convergent thinker would call a technician right away to fix the copy machine.

Divergent thinking: If the copy machine breaks at work, a divergent thinker would try to determine the cause of the copy machine’s malfunction and assess various ways to fix the problem. One option may be to call a technician, while other options may include looking up a DIY video on YouTube or sending a company-wide email to see if any team members have experience with fixing copy machines. They would then determine which solution is most suitable.

Convergent thinking in project management

You may use convergent thinking in project management without being aware of it. Because convergent thinking embraces structure and clear solutions, it’s natural for project managers to lean toward this approach. The benefits of convergent thinking include:

A quicker way to arrive at a solution

Leaves no room for ambiguity

Encourages organization and linear processes

There’s nothing wrong with using convergent thinking to align teams, create workflows, and plan projects. There are many instances in project management when you must reach solutions quickly. However, if you completely avoid divergent thinking, you’ll have trouble developing innovative solutions to problems.

The benefits of divergent thinking

It can be difficult as a busy project manager to slow down and think divergently. Projects have deadlines and it’s important to make decisions quickly. You may think that if you don’t come up with a solution right away, you’ll disappoint your clients or customers. 

However, working too quickly can also cause you to make decisions within your comfort zone instead of taking risks. Divergent thinking can benefit you as a project manager because you’ll adopt a learning mindset. Divergent thinking can also help you:

Identify new opportunities

Find creative ways to solve problems 

Assess ideas from multiple perspectives

Understand and learn from others

Fast results and predictability may work some of the time, but this way of thinking won’t help you stand out from competitors. You’ll need divergent thinking to impress clients or customers and set yourself apart from others.

Use convergent and divergent thinking for creative problem solving

You can use a mix of convergent and divergent thinking to solve problems in your processes or projects. Without using both types of thinking, you’ll have a harder time getting from point A to point B. 

1. Discover: Divergent thinking

The first stage of creative problem solving is discovery, and in this stage, you’ll need to use divergent thinking. When you have a problem at work, the first step is to discover the cause of the problem by considering all of the possibilities. 

For example, you may have had multiple projects run over budget. This begs the question: Why does this keep happening? If you used convergent thinking to answer this question, you might jump straight to a conclusion about why these budget overruns are happening. But when you use divergent thinking, you consider all possible causes of the problem. 

Possible causes of budget overruns may include:

Lack of communication between team members

Improper allocation of resources

Poor project planning

Projects taking longer than expected 

Now that you have all the possible causes of your problem, you can move on to the next stage of creative problem solving, which is to define your cause.  

2. Define: Convergent thinking

Use convergent thinking when narrowing down the potential causes of your problem. While it’s possible that more than one cause led to your budget overruns, convergent thinking requires a focused approach to solving your problem, so you’ll need to choose the cause you think is most problematic.

Lack of communication may have contributed to your budget overruns, but if poor project planning played a bigger role in your budget woes, then it’s the cause you should go with. When you create a solution to your project planning procedure, it can result in better budgeting. Most causes are also inter-linked. So better planning will improve workplace communication even if it wasn't the primary goal.

3. Deduce: Divergent thinking

In stage three, you’ll switch back to divergent thinking as you work to find a solution for your problem. If the cause of your budget overruns is poor project planning, then possible solutions may include:

Use a project plan template 

Better communication with stakeholders

More thorough research of project requirements

Implement cost control methods

You must consider all possible solutions to your problem before you can land on the best solution. 

4. Determine: Convergent thinking

The last stage of problem solving is when you’ll use convergent thinking once again to determine which solution will most effectively eliminate your problem. While all the solutions you came up with in stage three may solve your problem to some degree, you should begin with one action item to address. In some instances, you may focus on more than one action item, but only do so if these items are related.

For example, after discussing the possible solutions with your team, you decide that adding cost control methods to your cost management plan should prevent budget overruns and may even help you save money.

How to be a more divergent thinker

Becoming a more divergent thinker will help you exercise both sides of your brain and ensure you see problems from every angle. The following strategies can stimulate divergent thinking:

1. Think about your thinking process

Sometimes the best strategy is the simplest one. When you’re mindful about thinking divergently, it becomes easier to do. Try putting notes up in your office or adding steps in your processes that encourage divergent thinking.

Steps that encourage divergent thinking may include:

Require at least a one-hour break before sending emails regarding big decisions 

Before making a big decision, put yourself in the shoes of other team members and consider their perspectives

Don’t make big decisions without vetting your decision with at least two people

By taking active steps to think about your thinking, you may realize that divergent thinking comes more naturally. 

2. Try brainstorming and mind mapping

Brainstorming and mind mapping are two strategies that inspire divergent thinking because they help you think outside the box and generate new ideas. Mind mapping is a form of brainstorming in which you diagram tasks, words, concepts, or items that link to a central concept. This diagram helps you visualize your thoughts and generate ideas without worrying about structure. 

You can also brainstorm in other ways. Other divergent thinking brainstorming techniques include:

Starbursting: Starbursting is a visual brainstorming technique where you put an idea on the middle of a whiteboard and draw a six-point star around it. Each point will represent the questions: who, what, when, where, why, and how?

SWOT analysis: SWOT analysis can be used for strategic planning and brainstorming. You can use it to vet the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of an idea.

Lightning decision jam: Known as LDJ for short, this brainstorming technique begins with writing down positives about a topic or what’s working regarding the topic, then writing down negatives and identifying what needs to be addressed most urgently.

Try group brainstorming sessions to get fresh ideas and solutions. If you perform these sessions regularly, you may find them enjoyable and crucial for creative problem solving.

3. Free yourself from time constraints

Everyone has deadlines they must meet. But if you’re making an important decision or trying to solve a crucial problem, try to get rid of those strict time constraints so you don’t feel pressured to skip straight to a convergent thinking approach. 

Some techniques you can use to relieve pressure caused by deadlines include:

Request a meeting agenda in advance so you have time to prepare.

Use timeboxing to come up with multiple ideas in 5-10 minute intervals.

Set personal deadlines before official deadlines to give yourself some wiggle room.

It’s understandable to feel rushed to find the correct answer in a high-pressure work environment, but you won’t know that your answer is the correct one without taking the time to consider all possible solutions.

4. Use work management software

Work management is an approach to organizing projects, processes, and routine tasks in order to provide clarity to your team so they can hit their goals faster. Work management software, like Asana, can benefit both types of thinking. 

If you’re having trouble with divergent thinking in particular, there are certain features of the software you may find most useful. Work management software can stimulate divergent thinking by allowing you to:

Collaborate with others on projects

Share ideas and feedback quickly

Make changes at the click of a button

Keeping your projects online is also important because your team can work together regardless of whether they work remotely or in the office. 

5. Get curious and take risks

Sometimes team members settle into convergent thinking habits because they’re afraid of taking risks. While it’s important to prevent project risks when possible, you shouldn’t be afraid to steer away from traditional processes and think outside of the box.

The best project managers can switch between convergent and divergent thinking depending on whether a situation requires a quick and structured solution or an open mind. Not every situation requires subjectivity, but you’ll often need to use a mix of convergent and divergent thinking to be a successful leader.

Develop creative ideas with convergent and divergent thinking

We all have a natural cognitive approach to creative problem solving, and there’s nothing wrong with sticking to your guns. But if you want to inspire idea generation and solve problems in the best way possible, then you must use both convergent and divergent thinking. 

Related resources

100+ teamwork quotes to motivate and inspire collaboration

Beat thrash for good: 4 organizational planning challenges and solutions

Work schedule types: How to find the right approach for your team

When to use collaboration vs. coordination

• Group Brainstorming Strategies
• Group Creativity
• How to Make Virtual Brainstorming Fun and Effective
• Ideation Techniques
• Improving Brainstorming
• Marketing Brainstorming
• Rapid Brainstorming
• Reverse Brainstorming Challenges
• Reverse vs. Traditional Brainstorming
• What Comes After Brainstorming
• Spider Diagram Guide
• 5 Whys Template
• Assumption Grid Template
• Brainstorming Templates
• Brainwriting Template
• Innovation Techniques
• 50 Business Diagrams
• Business Model Canvas
• Change Control Process
• Change Management Process
• NOISE Analysis
• Profit & Loss Templates
• Scenario Planning
• Winning Brand Strategy
• Work Management Systems
• Developing Action Plans
• How to Write a Memo
• Improve Productivity & Efficiency
• Mastering Task Batching
• Monthly Budget Templates
• Top Down Vs. Bottom Up
• Weekly Schedule Templates
• Kaizen Principles
• Opportunity Mapping
• Strategic-Goals
• Strategy Mapping
• T Chart Guide
• Business Continuity Plan
• Developing Your MVP
• Incident Management
• Needs Assessment Process
• Product Development From Ideation to Launch
• Visualizing Competitive Landscape
• Communication Plan
• Graphic Organizer Creator
• Fault Tree Software
• Bowman's Strategy Clock Template
• Decision Matrix Template
• Communities of Practice
• Goal Setting for 2024
• Meeting Templates
• Meetings Participation
• Microsoft Teams Brainstorming
• Retrospective Guide
• Skip Level Meetings
• Visual Documentation Guide
• Weekly Meetings
• Affinity Diagrams
• Business Plan Presentation
• Post-Mortem Meetings
• Team Building Activities
• WBS Templates
• Online Whiteboard Tool
• Communications Plan Template
• Idea Board Online
• Meeting Minutes Template
• Genograms in Social Work Practice
• How to Conduct a Genogram Interview
• How to Make a Genogram
• Genogram Questions
• Genograms in Client Counseling
• Understanding Ecomaps
• Visual Research Data Analysis Methods
• House of Quality Template
• Customer Problem Statement Template
• Competitive Analysis Template
• Creating Operations Manual
• Knowledge Base
• Folder Structure Diagram
• Online Checklist Maker
• Lean Canvas Template
• Instructional Design Examples
• Genogram Maker
• Work From Home Guide
• Strategic Planning
• Employee Engagement Action Plan
• Huddle Board
• One-on-One Meeting Template
• Story Map Graphic Organizers
• Introduction to Your Workspace
• Managing Workspaces and Folders
• Adding Text
• Collaborative Content Management
• Creating and Editing Tables
• Adding Notes
• Introduction to Diagramming
• Using Shapes
• Using Freehand Tool
• Adding Images to the Canvas
• Accessing the Contextual Toolbar
• Using Connectors
• Working with Tables
• Working with Templates
• Working with Frames
• Using Notes
• Access Controls
• Exporting a Workspace
• Real-Time Collaboration
• Notifications
• Meet Creately VIZ
• Unleashing the Power of Collaborative Brainstorming
• Uncovering the potential of Retros for all teams
• Collaborative Apps in Microsoft Teams
• Hiring a Great Fit for Your Team
• Project Management Made Easy
• Cross-Corporate Information Radiators
• Creately 4.0 - Product Walkthrough
• What's New

Divergent vs Convergent Thinking: What's the Difference?

Divergent and convergent thinking are key components of problem-solving and decision-making, often used across different fields. They represent two different ways of approaching challenges: one focuses on generating many ideas, while the other narrows them down to find the best solution.

In this article, we’ll break down divergent vs convergent thinking styles, explore their practical applications, and show how they can help make better decisions and solve complex problems effectively.

Divergence vs Convergence: Definitions

How to apply divergent and convergent thinking, the pros and cons of convergent vs. divergent thinking, tips to get the most out of divergent & convergent thinking, when to use divergent vs convergent thinking, convergent vs. divergent thinking in project management, why you need both types of thinking.

Divergence and convergence are two opposing cognitive processes that play distinct roles in problem-solving and decision-making.

Divergent thinking is a creative process that helps generate a wide range of ideas or possibilities. It involves thinking broadly, exploring different angles, and coming up with multiple solutions to a problem. The main goal of divergent thinking is to promote creativity by allowing a free flow of thoughts without judgment or evaluation. In short, it’s about “thinking outside the box” and considering unconventional options.

Convergence

Convergent thinking, on the other hand, is a focused and analytical process aimed at selecting the best solution or idea from a set of options. It involves carefully evaluating, comparing, and narrowing down choices to identify the most effective and practical solution to a problem. Convergent thinking is about making decisions and finding the most suitable answer based on specific criteria, often guided by logic, data, and established principles.

This comparison chart gives a quick overview of the differences between divergent and convergent thinking.

Remember that divergent and convergent thinking aren’t separate stages, but often work together iteratively. You may need to switch between these thinking styles multiple times to fine-tune and improve your ideas. Additionally, involving a mix of people with different skills and thinking styles and expertise can also help increase the quality of both your divergent and convergent thinking processes.

Applying Divergent Thinking

Define the problem : Start by clearly outlining the problem or challenge you’re facing. Understand its scope and boundaries.

Brainstorm freely : Hold a brainstorming session where you and your team generate as many ideas as possible. During this phase:

• Do not criticize or judge ideas.
• Welcome unconventional and even seemingly impractical ideas.
• Build upon the ideas of others to spark creativity.

Mind mapping : Use mind maps or visual diagrams to explore connections between ideas and concepts. This can help you see the bigger picture and identify potential solutions.

• Ready to use
• Fully customizable template
• Get Started in seconds

• Role play and scenario building : Imagine yourself in different scenarios related to the problem. Role-playing and scenario building can help you consider various perspectives and possibilities.

Analogies and metaphors : Draw analogies or use metaphors to relate the problem to unrelated concepts. This can help generate fresh insights and creative solutions.

Idea capture : Document all generated ideas systematically, either on paper or digitally. Organize them for easy reference during the convergent thinking phase. Use the following brainstorming board to quickly record and organize ideas.

Applying Convergent Thinking

Evaluate ideas : Review the list of generated ideas from the divergent thinking phase. Consider factors like feasibility, practicality, and alignment with your goals and constraints.

Set criteria : Define specific criteria or parameters for evaluating ideas. This could include cost-effectiveness, time constraints, and the potential for implementation.

Rank and prioritize : Rank the ideas based on their alignment with the established criteria. Prioritize the top ideas that best meet your objectives.

Select the best option : Choose the single best solution or idea from the prioritized list. This decision should be well-reasoned and backed by data and analysis.

Plan implementation : Develop a detailed action plan for implementing the chosen solution. Outline the steps, resources, and timeline required for execution.

Test and iterate : Implement the chosen solution and monitor its progress. If necessary, be open to making adjustments and iterations based on feedback and results.

Reflect and learn : After implementing the solution, reflect on the process. What worked well? What could be improved? Use these insights for future problem-solving.

Convergent Thinking Pros and Cons

Divergent thinking pros and cons.

To maximize the effectiveness of divergent and convergent thinking, consider the following tips:

Clear problem definition : Start with a well-defined problem or challenge. Having a clear understanding of what you’re trying to solve or achieve is essential for effective thinking.

Time management : Set time limits for each phase of thinking. Divergent thinking sessions should encourage rapid idea generation, while convergent thinking should focus on efficient decision-making.

Diverse teams : Encourage diversity within your team. A variety of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives can lead to more comprehensive and innovative solutions.

Document everything : Keep detailed records of all ideas and decisions made during the process. This documentation can serve as a valuable reference and help maintain continuity.

Flexibility : Be willing to adapt and adjust your thinking approach as needed. Sometimes, the process may require going back and forth between divergent and convergent thinking to refine ideas and decisions.

Visual collaboration : Use visual aids, such as whiteboards, mind maps, and diagrams, to carry out idea generation and decision-making. Visual tools can boost communication and understanding within the team. With a visual collaboration platform like Creately , you can effortlessly conduct brainstorming sessions using readily-made templates for mind maps, concept maps, idea boards and more. You can also use its infinite canvas and integrated notes capabilities to capture and organize information in one place.

Iterative approach : Know that problem-solving often involves iterating between divergent and convergent thinking. It’s a dynamic process, and fine tuning ideas is needed for success.

Knowing when to use divergent thinking vs convergent thinking is key to effective problem-solving and decision-making.

Divergent Thinking

Convergent Thinking

In real projects, you often switch between these two thinking styles. Divergent thinking starts things off with idea generation and exploration during planning. As the project moves forward, convergent thinking takes over to make precise decisions and execute efficiently. A good balance between these thinking styles helps project managers guide their projects effectively while allowing room for innovation when needed.

Project managers use convergent thinking to analyze data, evaluate options, and select the most suitable solutions for the project. It’s particularly helpful when you have clearly defined problems or need to allocate resources efficiently. Convergent thinking makes sure that your project stays on course and meets its objectives with precision.

Divergent thinking, on the other hand, is the thinking style you turn to when you’re dealing with complex, open-ended challenges or seeking fresh, imaginative ideas. Project managers use divergent thinking for brainstorming and idea generation without constraints. This approach is useful in exploring various possibilities, finding unique solutions, and injecting creativity into the project.

It’s important to have both divergent and convergent thinking because they play different but complementary roles in problem-solving, decision-making, and creativity. Divergent thinking, for example, helps generate a wide array of ideas and solutions as it helps break away from conventional thinking allowing you to think outside of the box.

On the other hand, convergent thinking comes into play when you need to evaluate, select, and refine ideas or solutions. It helps you make informed decisions based on defined criteria, making sure that the most promising options are chosen for further development.

Having both thinking styles in your toolkit helps comprehensive problem-solving. Divergent thinking deepens your understanding of complex problems by taking into account multiple perspectives and angles, and convergent thinking helps you narrow down options to actionable choices.

In essence, divergent and convergent thinking represent two complementary approaches to problem-solving, with divergent thinking fostering creativity and idea generation, and convergent thinking facilitating decision-making and solution selection. Both thinking styles have their unique strengths and are valuable in various contexts.

Join over thousands of organizations that use Creately to brainstorm, plan, analyze, and execute their projects successfully.

More Related Articles

Amanda Athuraliya is the communication specialist/content writer at Creately, online diagramming and collaboration tool. She is an avid reader, a budding writer and a passionate researcher who loves to write about all kinds of topics.

Divergent Thinking: What It Is, How It Works

“Bring Your Weird,” is one of the values at Panzura , a cloud-management software company based in San Jose, California. “We believe that different thinking is what makes us awesome, and we encourage everyone to be their authentic self at all times,” said Ed Peters, chief innovation officer. 

What Is Divergent Thinking?

This “different thinking,” also known as divergent thinking, has resulted in many effective decisions for Panzura, including moving the company’s entire product-development and quality-assurance efforts to its Mexican nearshore unit, rather than nearshoring only parts of the process. 

More on Leadership Skills 11 Essential Leadership Qualities for the Future of Work

In the 1950s, psychologist J.P. Guildford came up with the concept of convergent and divergent thinking . Convergent thinking is organized and linear, following certain steps to reach a single solution to a problem. Divergent thinking is more free-flowing and spontaneous, and it produces lots of ideas. Guilford considered divergent thinking more creative because of its ability to yield many solutions to problems. 

“Divergent thinking is the ability to generate alternatives,” said Spencer Harrison, associate professor of organizational behavior at management school Insead. Divergent thinkers question the status quo. They reject “we’ve always done it this way” as a reason, he said. 

Divergent thinking can and should involve convergent thinking, said Peters of Panzura. The two ways of thinking “are a yin and yang that can become a virtuous cycle and a source of great pride for the team members that create ideas, products and moments.”

Characteristics of Divergent Thinking 

“All true thinking is divergent,” said Chris Nicholson, team lead at San Francisco-based Clipboard Health, which matches nurses with open shifts at healthcare facilities. “Everything else is imitation and doesn’t require thinking at all.” 

Divergent thinking encompasses creativity, collaboration, open mindedness, attention to detail and other qualities. 

Divergent thinking is creative , but it’s not creative thinking, which requires a complicated set of skills, Harrison said. Designers need to be empathetic to create suitable, organic solutions. That empathetic aspect of thinking is, in a way, divergent thinking because it leads to ideas, but it is not the sum and substance of divergent thinking, Harrison said. 

“Engaging in divergent thinking while problem solving tends to result in more creative solutions.”

Divergent thinking and creativity are intertwined, said Taylor Sullivan, senior staff industrial-organizational psychologist at Codility , an HR tech company based in San Francisco. “Engaging in divergent thinking while problem solving tends to result in more creative solutions,” she said. “This is important because leader creativity has been shown to promote positive change and inspire followers,” she said. Creative problem-solving also enhances team performance, particularly when it involves brainstorming, Sullivan added.

“One of the key life lessons my father taught me was the importance of being willing to change your mind,” Sullivan said. Open-mindedness — the willingness to to consider new or different perspectives and ideas — is a hallmark of divergent thinking and is critical for effective leadership , she said. 

Collaborative

Idea creation at Donut involves cross-department collaboration , said Arielle Shipper, vice president of operations at the New York-based company, which makes office communication tools. “We always pull in people from across the organization, even if the problem we’re working on doesn’t touch their direct role,” Shipper said. Representatives from product and engineering especially bring a perspective that helps tie products and the solutions, she said. 

This collaboration involves getting input from everyone, even those who are reluctant to share thoughts, she said. “It’s important to me that everyone knows that their ideas are crucial for our work, even if they contradict what a more senior person is saying,” Shipper said. To spark conversation, she asks “is there anything you disagree with?” rather than “what do you think?” Asking the more tightly focused question, which Shipper calls a “simple but mindful shift in language” promotes a culture of acceptance and ideation. 

Rethink Language 

Along similar lines, Chris Nicholson and his team at Clipboard Health think divergently by escaping what he calls language traps, “when you realize that what’s happening is being obscured by the way people talk about it,” Nicholson said. 

To illustrate: Clipboard Health believes that new hires should “raise the median” on the team they’re joining. That belief, though, led to rejecting people for the wrong reasons, for example not having a Ph.D on a team filled with Ph.Ds. 

To get out of that language trap, the company settled on a multi-dimensional median for teams, meaning that candidates could excel in coding ability, humility or other skills .

Detail Oriented

“The devil is in the details,” said Leslie Ryan, managing director in cybersecurity and technology controls at JPMorgan Chase . “I have always thought outside the career and it has helped my career advance,” said Ryan, who has six direct reports and a team of 40. 

Earlier in her career, Ryan’s employer wanted to outsource functions that many people thought couldn’t be outsourced. Trade support was one such function. “It typically required a person to be in proximity to the trader and details of the trade,” Ryan explained. By dissecting a trading assistant’s job, she was able to pinpoint certain functions, such as reconciliations and reporting, that could be outsourced. 

“I tend to see the bigger picture — strategically and long term,” said Chris Noble, CEO of New York-based cloud-tech company Cirrus Nexus, who considers himself a divergent thinker. “I look at things from a perspective of not what we can’t do, but imagining what can be and where we need to go,” he said. The quality, which Noble attributes in part to his dyslexia, helps him visualize unique and forward-thinking products for Cirrus Nexus. 

More on Productivity Productive Downtime Is a Startup Leader’s Secret Weapon

Build Divergent Thinking Skills

Chris Nicholson of Clipboard Health honed his ability to think divergently when he was young; his family of six debated at the dinner table and his father enjoyed playing devil’s advocate. “That led us to see different perspectives,” he said. Nicholson thinks many people are able to think divergently, but perhaps are not in environments that foster it. Divergent thinking is “creative, reality focused, and persistent,” he said.

Ask Questions 

When faced with a problem, Nicholson asks questions: “Why do we think this is a problem? What do we achieve if we solve it? What data, experience and customer interactions do we have that backs up our hypotheses?” This “discovery stage,” he said, helps management understand a problem before it builds solutions. “Explore the mystery first and relish the discomfort of not knowing, rather than building a plan based on misguided beliefs,” he said. 

Let Thoughts Flow Freely

Free-flowing thought is a necessary step in divergent thinking, agreed Christine Andrukonis, founder and senior partner at leadership consultancy Notion Consulting, who considers divergent thinking a hallmark of leadership. “A great leader’s superpower is to be able to see into the future and anticipate what’s next, which requires divergent thinking,” she said. 

“A great leader’s superpower is to be able to see into the future and anticipate what’s next, which requires divergent thinking.” 

When presented with a problem, Andrukonis lets her thoughts flow freely and writes them down. Then she steps away to think about what she’s written down and perhaps identify patterns among the thoughts. She circles those patterns, steps away again, and then connects them to the bigger picture. 

“My step-away moments are literally that — going for a walk, spending time with my family, or doing something creative like painting,” Andrukonis said. Stepping away does not involve a meeting or work-related task, she said.

Listen Actively 

“When I face a problem, I innately begin thinking of different ways the problem can be solved,” said Daryl Hammett, general manager, global demand generation and operations at AWS , based in Seattle, Washington. 

Soon after, though, Hammett starts tapping his team for feedback. “We always start with working back from the customers’ needs, so I actively seek the advice and viewpoints of a diverse range of people, listening to their thoughts about the problems, goals, and challenges they face,” he said. 

By actively listening , he practices divergent thinking skills and builds solutions with his teams. “Problems are not linear,” he said. “They’re multi-dimensional and should be addressed from a variety of angles before the best solutions appear.”

To nurture divergent thinking, Hammett encourages his team to challenge him without fear of judgment. “I am always open to feedback and change,” he said. “Having two-way conversations helps me cut through the noise and put my people first.” 

He also considers divergent thinking a mark of effective leadership — it helped him navigate the management challenges of the pandemic and helps lead his team with flexibility. 

Both divergent and convergent thinking have their place in a leader’s skillset, said Spencer Harrison of Insead. Leaders who deal with stable and settled situations might benefit more from convergent thinking, while leaders with unstable, volatile environments might do well to think only divergently. 

“What research suggests is that divergent thinking might help you see new possibilities, but you would still need convergent thinking to realize and execute on those possibilities,” he said. “That said, because education and organizations tend to over-reward conformity, divergent thinking is probably a bit more rare and therefore likely more valuable especially in the long run over the course of a career,” Harrison said. 

Peters at Panzura has his own opinion. “Sometimes the divergent thinking path wins, much of the time it doesn’t,” he said. “We create more opportunities for divergence by repeating the saying: ‘You never lose. You win or you learn.’

Great Companies Need Great People. That's Where We Come In.

• Our Mission

5 Techniques to Promote Divergent Thinking

Encouraging students to generate many solutions to a particular problem leads to more creative thinking and better problem-solving.

Service robots. ChatGPT. Drone deliveries. In a constantly evolving world, the ability to think creatively and divergently is no longer a nice-to-have attribute but an essential skill. That’s why creativity, problem-solving, and innovation are among the top 10 most critical skills of the future, according to the World Economic Forum .

With the rise of new technologies that excel at convergent thinking, it’s becoming increasingly clear that schools must prioritize divergent thinking in students to equip them for a future of unpredictable challenges and opportunities.

Divergent and Convergent Thinking

The concept of divergent thinking was founded by psychologist J. P. Guilford in 1956. Divergent thinking is the process of generating many different ideas and possibilities in an open-ended, spontaneous, and free-flowing manner. Typically, students have been trained to find the most direct path to one “right” solution. This is called convergent thinking .

However, most problems don’t have just one solution. Divergent thinking allows students to see a problem or concept from many perspectives and helps them generate numerous viable solutions, fostering innovation and creativity. Plus, because there’s no right or wrong answer, it encourages open-mindedness, leading to better solutions.

5 Techniques That Foster Divergent Thinking

1. SCAMPER is a creative thinking strategy that generates new ideas for students by asking questions to make them think about modifying and improving existing products, projects, or ideas. SCAMPER is an acronym for substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to another use, eliminate, and rearrange .

I use the SCAMPER technique to foster divergent thinking by challenging students to develop new ideas for the work they are already doing.

For example, a few days after assigning a project, paper, or long-term assignment, I like to use this digital SCAMPER sheet to walk students through the process of SCAMPER, so that they take the time to look at what they are doing through a new lens. Students record their answers and then use the sheet to guide them to modify and improve the ideas or concepts they are working on.

2. Mind mapping uses visual diagrams to connect and organize information. It’s an effective way to promote divergent thinking and creativity in the classroom, as students have to think of how their learning connects. I use mind mapping to help students generate new ideas, explore different angles of a topic, or review how the material they are learning builds and connects.

To create a mind map, students start with a central topic and branch out with related ideas and subtopics, using different colors, shapes, and images to differentiate between them. Mind mapping uses keywords or short phrases and connects related ideas with lines or arrows.

Students can do mind mapping individually or in groups. Mind mapping fits in well as a review at the end of a lesson or the end of a unit, promoting retention and comprehension of information. I like giving students a choice when mind mapping using a digital template like this or drawing their own using colored pencils and paper.

3. Brainwriting is similar to brainstorming and is used to help at the beginning of a project or assignment. Brainwriting encourages shy or introverted students to express their thoughts by writing them down. Brainwriting also enables students to take their time to formulate ideas and build on suggestions made by others.

One popular form of brainwriting I use in class is the 6-3-3 exercise. This exercise has students get into groups of up to six participants and write down three ideas each on a piece of paper or sticky notes within three minutes . Once finished, students swap the pieces of paper and read what another participant came up with before adding three more ideas to what they read.

After students have added to the new ideas they received, the group discusses and considers all ideas and agrees upon the next steps for their project or assignment. Brainwriting is an excellent way to foster creativity in the classroom and encourage participation from all students.

4. Reverse brainstorming calls on students to brainstorm ways to make a problem worse or create more related issues. Doing this activity in class helps students identify potential obstacles and encourages critical thinking skills. I use this approach to engage students and generate new ideas in the classroom for planning a project or a paper, or before starting an assignment.

To start reverse brainstorming, I present a problem or challenge to the students and give them 5 minutes to create ways to worsen the situation. For example, I might ask students how to plan a research paper due in the coming weeks or question the wrong way to start a problem. Students then create a list of ways that would make the problem worse and explain why.

This allows students to identify potential roadblocks they may not have previously considered before starting a problem and helps them develop solutions to overcome barriers. Plus, it gets students talking about common misconceptions and errors when deciding how to tackle a problem.

5. What-if scenario planning involves having students imagine different scenarios and consider their potential outcomes. To use this technique in the classroom, I start by presenting a plan or problem to the students. Then, I ask students to imagine different what-if scenarios, such as “What if the problem were solved differently?” or “What if the situation were completely different?”

This technique allows students to consider a range of possible outcomes. It also allows them to look at content in new ways, from historical events to math problems. It’s a compelling way to promote critical thinking skills. What-if scenario planning is also an effective way to build students’ confidence in their ability to approach problems from different angles, which can be a valuable skill for future success.

By honing divergent thinking skills, students can tackle complex problems head-on and develop innovative solutions that keep pace with technological change. After all, the future belongs to those who can think differently and develop game-changing ideas.

Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking: How to Use Both to Think Smarter

by Kathleen Matyas, Senior Strategist

Nov. 17, 2022 / Frameworks & methodologies , Learning-experience design , Strategy

When you’re solving a problem, do you tend to approach it with logical reasoning? Or do you prefer to generate tons of creative ideas and see what sticks? Although most of us naturally favor one style of thinking over the other, you need both to innovate the best possible solutions.

Convergent and divergent thinking—terms coined by American psychologist J.P. Guilford in 1956—describe two complementary cognitive methods for analyzing a problem and choosing the optimal solution. For learning professionals, understanding convergent vs divergent thinking and how to use both can help you generate innovative ideas and deliver more-effective learning experiences.

Let’s take a look at convergent thinking vs divergent thinking and how to strike the right balance between the two.

Convergent vs divergent thinking: what’s the difference?

Convergent and divergent thinking are opposite forces and call for very different mindsets. While it’s impossible—and contradictory—to engage in both kinds of thinking at the same time, using both types of thinking throughout the problem-solving process will enhance the overall outcome.

The two modes of thinking work together: divergent thinking without convergent thinking isn’t actionable, and convergent thinking without divergent thinking is limiting. Let’s take a closer look at the differences between divergent thinking vs convergent thinking.

• Are You Skipping the Validation Step? Why Piloting Your Learning Matters

What is divergent thinking?

Divergent thinking calls for generating as much information and as many ideas and solutions as possible. Think quantity over quality—this kind of thinking is all about gathering information, coming up with ideas, and creativity. It’s a free-flowing form of thinking where no idea is off limits and the goal is to generate multiple paths forward.

Divergent thinking can be applied to both problem-finding and problem-solving. For example, we apply divergent thinking at the beginning of the learning-design process to accurately diagnose the learner problem and avoid assumptions—it’s part of our Learning Environment Analysis framework . We gather as much information as possible about the learner audience and context: we conduct field observations, interview learners, and review the pre-existing learning materials.

The information gathered during this divergent-research phase informs the next step in the process in which we think convergently to identify the problem and create a problem statement (we’ll talk more about that later on). Once we have our problem statement, it’s time to problem-solve. During this phase, we return once again to divergent thinking in order to brainstorm as many solutions as possible. Those ideas then inform the final stage, where we think convergently to land on the best possible solution.

Divergent thinking is a creative process, but that doesn’t mean you should forgo a structured, thoughtful session for your brainstorming. When we host brainstorms, we put plenty of thought into the prompts, divergent activities, and the structure of the session in order to brainstorm better solutions .

How to conduct a Learning Environment Analysis

In this guide, you’ll find an in-depth overview of a Learning Environment Analysis, a powerful framework for accurately understanding adult learners’ previous knowledge, current challenges, and needs so that you can design the right learning solution. Plus, get worksheets and templates for each stage of the process.

What is convergent thinking?

Divergent and convergent thinking are on opposite sides of the same coin. Where divergent thinking is about discovering, convergent thinking is about defining . You’ve gathered plenty of information and ideas, now it’s time to focus on systematically synthesizing, organizing, and categorizing it all to arrive at a well-defined solution.

The goal of convergent thinking is to take a structured approach to arrive at a clear solution. During this stage, you’ll analyze the inputs from the divergent-thinking phase to determine an outcome or actionable next step—it’s a decision-making moment defined by logical thinking, analyzing, and evaluating.

How to use both divergent and convergent thinking

By now, you’re probably starting to understand convergent vs divergent thinking and how these two methods complement one another. But what’s the best way to apply convergent vs divergent thinking?

We believe that using the Double Diamond framework —a combination of divergent and convergent thinking exercises—helps balance our focus on the content (where people tend to naturally focus) with the wants, needs, and challenges of the learners themselves.

You can delve deeper into exactly how we apply the Double Diamond framework , but what’s most important to know here is how to alternate between the two phases of thinking to help fuel better learning experiences. Since divergent and convergent thinking call for very different mindsets, it’s critical that each step remains distinct and separate.

Here’s our approach to convergent vs divergent thinking, at a glance:

Discover – Divergent We start with an exploratory research phase to better understand learners and eliminate assumptions from our work. Objective tools such as field research and learner interviews help curb pre-judging and solutioning during this phase.

Define – Convergent Next, we take the information generated during the divergent phase and analyze it to reach an actionable next step. Tools like mind mapping and decision trees help us identify patterns and common themes that we can hone to form a clear problem statement.

Develop – Divergent Shifting from problem-finding to problem-solving, we hold a strategic brainstorm to explore all possible solutions for the identified problem. Our philosophy is that quantity drives quality. We adopt a “Yes, and … “ mentality and don’t allow any judging of ideas at this stage. One of the easiest ways to snuff out innovation and creativity is to start judging information or ideas as they emerge.

Deliver – Convergent It’s decision time—we use convergent thinking to bring the entire process together. We evaluate the potential solutions we brainstormed, test and pilot our top choices, and then determine the best solution for the problem.

Strategic learning-experiences perform better

Whether you’re a creative thinker or naturally analytical, it’s important to learn how to apply both kinds of thinking throughout the learning-design process. Without using divergent and convergent thinking, you risk misdiagnosing the learner problem, overlooking possible solutions, and delivering a learning experience that falls short.

We believe that when learning is intentionally designed, amazing things can happen. With just a few simple yet strategic steps, you can easily apply convergent and divergent thinking to illuminate learners’ needs, spark innovative ideas, and converge around a solution that works best.

Brainstorming is too important to be left to chance.

Watch this on-demand webinar for strategies for brainstorming better learning solutions.

Training the next generation of crypto traders

We’re developing a first-of-its-kind learning experience that gives OKX’s new traders the confidence to succeed.

Our experiential, consumer-grade crypto learning academy is designed to deliver a comprehensive introduction to crypto trading for OKX’s 20 million users.

VetBloom A blockchain-based credentialing platform for veterinary specialties

Acist medical systems lifelike 3d product training to guide service techs on the job, best western hotels & resorts helping transform brand culture with fresh, energizing ilt.

• The Simplest Way to Avoid the Research Fail of the Yellow Walkman
• 5 Sets of Tried-and-True Resources for Instructional Designers

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

Divergent Thinking

What is divergent thinking.

Divergent thinking is an ideation mode which designers use to widen their design space as they begin to search for potential solutions. They generate as many new ideas as they can using various methods (e.g., oxymorons) to explore possibilities, and then use convergent thinking to analyze these to isolate useful ideas.

“When you’re being creative, nothing is wrong.” — John Cleese, Famous comedian and actor

Convergent and divergent thinking

• Transcript loading…

Divergent Thinking Can Open up Endless Possibilities

The formula for creativity is structure plus diversity, and divergent thinking is how you stretch to explore a diverse range of possibilities for ideas that might lead to the best solution to your design problem . As a crucial component of the design thinking process, divergent thinking is valuable when there’s no tried-and-tested solution readily available or adaptable. To find all the angles to a problem, gain the best insights and be truly innovative, you’ll need to explore your design space exhaustively. Divergent thinking is horizontal thinking, and you typically do it early in the ideation stage of a project. A “less than” sign (<) is a handy way to symbolize divergent thinking – how vast arrays of ideas fan out laterally from one focal point: Design team members freely exercise their imaginations for the widest possible view of the problem and its relevant factors, and build on each other’s ideas. Divergent thinking is characterized by:

Quantity over quality – Generate ideas without fear of judgement (critically evaluating them comes later).

Novel ideas – Use disruptive and lateral thinking to break away from linear thinking and strive for original, unique ideas.

Creating choices – The freedom to explore the design space helps you maximize your options, not only regarding potential solutions but also about how you understand the problem itself.

Divergent thinking is the first half of your ideation journey. It’s vital to complement it with convergent thinking, which is when you think vertically and analyze your findings, get a far better understanding of the problem and filter your ideas as you work your way towards the best solution.

A Method to the “Madness” – Use Divergent Thinking with a Structure

Here are some great ways to help navigate the uncharted oceans of idea possibilities:

Bad Ideas – You deliberately think up ideas that seem ridiculous, but which can show you why they’re bad and what might be good in them.

Oxymorons – You explore what happens when you negate or remove the most vital part of a product or concept to generate new ideas for that product/concept: e.g., a word processor without a cursor.

Random Metaphors – You pick something (an item, word, etc.) randomly and associate it with your project to find qualities they share, which you might then build into your design.

Brilliant Designer of Awful Things – When working to improve a problematic design, you look for the positive side effects of the problem and understand them fully. You can then ideate beyond merely fixing the design’s apparent faults.

Arbitrary Constraints – The search for design ideas can sometimes mean you get lost in the sea of what-ifs. By putting restrictions on your idea—e.g., “users must be able to use the interface while bicycling”—you push yourself to find ideas that conform to that constraint.

© Yu Siang and Interaction Design Foundation, CC BY-SA 3.0

Learn More about Divergent Thinking

Take our Creativity course to get the most from divergent thinking, complete with templates .

Read one designer’s detailed step-by-step account of divergent thinking at work.

This UX Collective article insightfully presents an alternative approach involving divergent thinking .

Literature on Divergent Thinking

Here’s the entire UX literature on Divergent Thinking by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:

Learn more about Divergent Thinking

Take a deep dive into Divergent Thinking with our course Creativity: Methods to Design Better Products and Services .

The overall goal of this course is to help you design better products, services and experiences by helping you and your team develop innovative and useful solutions. You’ll learn a human-focused, creative design process.

We’re going to show you what creativity is as well as a wealth of ideation methods ―both for generating new ideas and for developing your ideas further. You’ll learn skills and step-by-step methods you can use throughout the entire creative process. We’ll supply you with lots of templates and guides so by the end of the course you’ll have lots of hands-on methods you can use for your and your team’s ideation sessions. You’re also going to learn how to plan and time-manage a creative process effectively.

Most of us need to be creative in our work regardless of if we design user interfaces, write content for a website, work out appropriate workflows for an organization or program new algorithms for system backend. However, we all get those times when the creative step, which we so desperately need, simply does not come. That can seem scary—but trust us when we say that anyone can learn how to be creative­ on demand . This course will teach you ways to break the impasse of the empty page. We'll teach you methods which will help you find novel and useful solutions to a particular problem, be it in interaction design, graphics, code or something completely different. It’s not a magic creativity machine, but when you learn to put yourself in this creative mental state, new and exciting things will happen.

In the “Build Your Portfolio: Ideation Project” , you’ll find a series of practical exercises which together form a complete ideation project so you can get your hands dirty right away. If you want to complete these optional exercises, you will get hands-on experience with the methods you learn and in the process you’ll create a case study for your portfolio which you can show your future employer or freelance customers.

Your instructor is Alan Dix . He’s a creativity expert, professor and co-author of the most popular and impactful textbook in the field of Human-Computer Interaction. Alan has worked with creativity for the last 30+ years, and he’ll teach you his favorite techniques as well as show you how to make room for creativity in your everyday work and life.

You earn a verifiable and industry-trusted Course Certificate once you’ve completed the course. You can highlight it on your resume , your LinkedIn profile or your website .

All open-source articles on Divergent Thinking

Design thinking, essential problem solving 101- it’s more than scientific.

• 7 years ago

How to Think and Work Divergently – 4 Ideation Methods

• 3 years ago

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this page , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share the knowledge!

Share this content on:

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this page.

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• *New* Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is Creative Problem-Solving & Why Is It Important?

• 01 Feb 2022

One of the biggest hindrances to innovation is complacency—it can be more comfortable to do what you know than venture into the unknown. Business leaders can overcome this barrier by mobilizing creative team members and providing space to innovate.

There are several tools you can use to encourage creativity in the workplace. Creative problem-solving is one of them, which facilitates the development of innovative solutions to difficult problems.

Here’s an overview of creative problem-solving and why it’s important in business.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

Research is necessary when solving a problem. But there are situations where a problem’s specific cause is difficult to pinpoint. This can occur when there’s not enough time to narrow down the problem’s source or there are differing opinions about its root cause.

In such cases, you can use creative problem-solving , which allows you to explore potential solutions regardless of whether a problem has been defined.

Creative problem-solving is less structured than other innovation processes and encourages exploring open-ended solutions. It also focuses on developing new perspectives and fostering creativity in the workplace . Its benefits include:

• Finding creative solutions to complex problems : User research can insufficiently illustrate a situation’s complexity. While other innovation processes rely on this information, creative problem-solving can yield solutions without it.
• Adapting to change : Business is constantly changing, and business leaders need to adapt. Creative problem-solving helps overcome unforeseen challenges and find solutions to unconventional problems.
• Fueling innovation and growth : In addition to solutions, creative problem-solving can spark innovative ideas that drive company growth. These ideas can lead to new product lines, services, or a modified operations structure that improves efficiency.

Creative problem-solving is traditionally based on the following key principles :

1. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

Creative problem-solving uses two primary tools to find solutions: divergence and convergence. Divergence generates ideas in response to a problem, while convergence narrows them down to a shortlist. It balances these two practices and turns ideas into concrete solutions.

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

By framing problems as questions, you shift from focusing on obstacles to solutions. This provides the freedom to brainstorm potential ideas.

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

When brainstorming, it can be natural to reject or accept ideas right away. Yet, immediate judgments interfere with the idea generation process. Even ideas that seem implausible can turn into outstanding innovations upon further exploration and development.

4. Focus on "Yes, And" Instead of "No, But"

Using negative words like "no" discourages creative thinking. Instead, use positive language to build and maintain an environment that fosters the development of creative and innovative ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

Whereas creative problem-solving facilitates developing innovative ideas through a less structured workflow, design thinking takes a far more organized approach.

Design thinking is a human-centered, solutions-based process that fosters the ideation and development of solutions. In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase framework to explain design thinking.

The four stages are:

• Clarify: The clarification stage allows you to empathize with the user and identify problems. Observations and insights are informed by thorough research. Findings are then reframed as problem statements or questions.
• Ideate: Ideation is the process of coming up with innovative ideas. The divergence of ideas involved with creative problem-solving is a major focus.
• Develop: In the development stage, ideas evolve into experiments and tests. Ideas converge and are explored through prototyping and open critique.
• Implement: Implementation involves continuing to test and experiment to refine the solution and encourage its adoption.

Creative problem-solving primarily operates in the ideate phase of design thinking but can be applied to others. This is because design thinking is an iterative process that moves between the stages as ideas are generated and pursued. This is normal and encouraged, as innovation requires exploring multiple ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving Tools

While there are many useful tools in the creative problem-solving process, here are three you should know:

Creating a Problem Story

One way to innovate is by creating a story about a problem to understand how it affects users and what solutions best fit their needs. Here are the steps you need to take to use this tool properly.

1. Identify a UDP

Create a problem story to identify the undesired phenomena (UDP). For example, consider a company that produces printers that overheat. In this case, the UDP is "our printers overheat."

2. Move Forward in Time

To move forward in time, ask: “Why is this a problem?” For example, minor damage could be one result of the machines overheating. In more extreme cases, printers may catch fire. Don't be afraid to create multiple problem stories if you think of more than one UDP.

3. Move Backward in Time

To move backward in time, ask: “What caused this UDP?” If you can't identify the root problem, think about what typically causes the UDP to occur. For the overheating printers, overuse could be a cause.

Following the three-step framework above helps illustrate a clear problem story:

• The printer is overused.
• The printer overheats.
• The printer breaks down.

You can extend the problem story in either direction if you think of additional cause-and-effect relationships.

4. Break the Chains

By this point, you’ll have multiple UDP storylines. Take two that are similar and focus on breaking the chains connecting them. This can be accomplished through inversion or neutralization.

• Inversion: Inversion changes the relationship between two UDPs so the cause is the same but the effect is the opposite. For example, if the UDP is "the more X happens, the more likely Y is to happen," inversion changes the equation to "the more X happens, the less likely Y is to happen." Using the printer example, inversion would consider: "What if the more a printer is used, the less likely it’s going to overheat?" Innovation requires an open mind. Just because a solution initially seems unlikely doesn't mean it can't be pursued further or spark additional ideas.
• Neutralization: Neutralization completely eliminates the cause-and-effect relationship between X and Y. This changes the above equation to "the more or less X happens has no effect on Y." In the case of the printers, neutralization would rephrase the relationship to "the more or less a printer is used has no effect on whether it overheats."

Even if creating a problem story doesn't provide a solution, it can offer useful context to users’ problems and additional ideas to be explored. Given that divergence is one of the fundamental practices of creative problem-solving, it’s a good idea to incorporate it into each tool you use.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a tool that can be highly effective when guided by the iterative qualities of the design thinking process. It involves openly discussing and debating ideas and topics in a group setting. This facilitates idea generation and exploration as different team members consider the same concept from multiple perspectives.

Hosting brainstorming sessions can result in problems, such as groupthink or social loafing. To combat this, leverage a three-step brainstorming method involving divergence and convergence :

• Have each group member come up with as many ideas as possible and write them down to ensure the brainstorming session is productive.
• Continue the divergence of ideas by collectively sharing and exploring each idea as a group. The goal is to create a setting where new ideas are inspired by open discussion.
• Begin the convergence of ideas by narrowing them down to a few explorable options. There’s no "right number of ideas." Don't be afraid to consider exploring all of them, as long as you have the resources to do so.

Alternate Worlds

The alternate worlds tool is an empathetic approach to creative problem-solving. It encourages you to consider how someone in another world would approach your situation.

For example, if you’re concerned that the printers you produce overheat and catch fire, consider how a different industry would approach the problem. How would an automotive expert solve it? How would a firefighter?

Be creative as you consider and research alternate worlds. The purpose is not to nail down a solution right away but to continue the ideation process through diverging and exploring ideas.

Continue Developing Your Skills

Whether you’re an entrepreneur, marketer, or business leader, learning the ropes of design thinking can be an effective way to build your skills and foster creativity and innovation in any setting.

If you're ready to develop your design thinking and creative problem-solving skills, explore Design Thinking and Innovation , one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you aren't sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

Try for free

Divergent Thinking

Advantages of using divergent thinking , how to implement divergent thinking , convergent vs. divergent thinking, what is the divergent thinking psychology definition, how to combine divergent and convergent thinking for optimal results , techniques to stimulate divergent thinking, .css-uphcpb{position:absolute;left:0;top:-87px;} what is divergent thinking, definition of divergent thinking.

Divergent thinking, often referred to as lateral thinking, is the process of creating multiple, unique ideas or solutions to a problem that you are trying to solve. Through spontaneous, free-flowing thinking, divergent thinking requires coming up with many different answers or routes forward.

Divergent thinking can benefit work processes in the following ways:

Best possible solutions 

Increased team morale.

By dismissing the first idea, teams are encouraged to think outside the box and exercise their creativity. This encourages teamwork as they compare ideas and collectively work towards one goal, boosting team morale.

All You Need To Know About Product Management

More flexibility 

When faced with a complex problem, divergent thinking allows management to adapt their plans and processes to find an appropriate new solution, encouraging proactive development as opposed to restrictive reactive thinking. 

Too much divergent thinking can lead to endless ideation , and no solutions.

That’s where convergent thinking comes in handy. Convergent thinking organizes and structures new ideas, separating those with worth from those which can be left behind.

Creative problem solving begins with divergent thinking — to collect free-flowing ideas — before converging them so they’re relevant to the issue at hand. 

Both stages are critical. The divergent stage pushes you to explore all possible options, while the convergent stage ensures you’ve chosen the most appropriate solutions given the context.

Convergent thinking focuses on finding a well-defined solution to a problem by embracing clear solutions and structure.

For example, if a copy machine breaks at work, someone identifying as a convergent thinker would quickly call a technician to fix the machine.

Usually, project managers embrace convergent thinking without even knowing it, so you might already be familiar with this mentality.

Benefits of convergent vs. divergent thinking:

There is no room for ambiguity.

You tend to find solutions more quickly.

Perfect for linear processes and organization.

It allows you to align teams, plan projects, and create workflows in the most efficient way possible.

It’s a straight-to-the-point kind of approach to problem-solving.

Divergent thinking refers to the creative solutions you could find for a problem. This type of thinking allows for more freedom and helps you generate more than one solution by typically using brainstorming as the cognitive method.

Although the means differ from convergent thinking, the end goal is the same — to find the best idea.

For example, a divergent thinker would try to find the cause and develop a fix for that broken copy machine from the previous example.

They might even send a company-wide email to check whether any employees have fixed copy machines before.

Benefits of divergent vs. convergent thinking:

Using creativity to find solutions to problems.

Analyze ideas from different angles.

Identify and apply new opportunities.

Helps the user adopt a learning mindset.

Stand out from competitors by implementing creative ways to solve common problems.

Helps you learn and understand other people’s perspectives when brainstorming.

Divergent thinking involves a whole range of psychological steps. Usually, divergent thinking happens in a free-flowing and spontaneous manner, so ideas appear in a random, non-linear manner.

This is how divergent thinking opens the mind to potentially limitless solutions to problems that might not be obvious through linear, convergent thinking.

Divergent thinking is an essential part of creative thinking.

The best idea is never found by luck or pure chance. The creative process involves many steps that lead to new ideas.

From plucking out varieties of possible results to applying the idea to the problem at hand, divergent thinking is bound to lead you to more unique ideas than more straightforward, convergent thinking.

Achieving the best outcome through divergent and convergent thinking might seem challenging at first, but get it right and it can pay off in exciting and valuable ways.

Start with divergent thinking. You and your team may need to break out of established ideation routines and embrace a fresh approach, which is often difficult. Try to make it easier by being open to all possibilities and assuring your product team that there are no wrong ideas at this point. 

Look at all the potential choices and ideas available to you. Consider problems from all angles, including from the perspective of target users. You know their pain points and what solutions they’re looking for. That insight can help you make the most of divergent thinking. 

Next, move on to convergent thinking. Here you want to think about what is rather than what could be . Analyze your options, and compare their pros and cons carefully. When you have a comprehensive list of your ideas' good and bad points, you’ll find it easier to pick the best ones. 

Having trouble getting your team to try divergent thinking? Here are a few ways to kick-start the process:

Ask questions 

Some members of your product team may not know where to start. Stimulate divergent thinking by asking questions about the issue at hand and their views on it. 

Try roleplay

Have one team member play the role of a customer complaining about a product or a specific feature, and another could try to help them with it. This can spark discussions that lead to solutions.

Brainstorm possibilities

As a team, come up with as many ideas as possible, no matter how unrealistic they may be. Even one good option can lead to breakthroughs.

Create a mind map

Mind mapping takes a visual approach to brainstorming. Write the core goal/issue in the center of a sheet of paper or whiteboard, and get team members to write down thoughts about it.

Defer judgment until later

Avoid praising or criticizing ideas during the ideation process. Take note of everything, then analyze them later to find out how viable ideas are. 

Support strange and unusual ideas

Even if an idea seems ridiculous, there still might be something useful there. Encourage team members to open their minds to every possibility, no matter how bizarre they might be.

General FAQ

Glossary categories.

Feedback Management

Prioritization

Product Management

Product Strategy

Roadmapping

Experience the new way of doing product management

Book a demo

How to Teach Divergent Thinking Skills in the Classroom

• December 21, 2020

To solve a problem they are struggling with, some students need only to “think outside the box.” This tactic is called divergent thinking, and it gets students to come up with several answers to a question and decide which is the best, most useful one.

Read on to take a look at divergent thinking, why it’s important, and how it differs from its opposite, convergent thinking. Then, discover a few strategies for helping students strengthen and maintain their divergent thinking skills.

What is Divergent Thinking?

Although divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity—here defined as the ability to have new ideas or make something new—the two skills are closely related.[3] Divergent thinking can lead to creativity as students come up with more unique solutions. Likewise, encouraging creativity in your students can lead them to consider divergent answers to their problems.

Studies also suggest that, as a whole, children have stronger divergent thinking skills than adults. For example, children are better at visualizing divergent ideas than adults. In fact, a person’s ability to think divergently decreases with age. It could be argued that teaching divergent thinking to students is less about teaching a new skill and more about maintaining it.

Divergent Thinking vs. Convergent Thinking

It’s important not to confuse divergent thinking with convergent thinking, a problem-solving strategy that is more often taught in schools. Convergent thinking encourages students to come up with one distinct answer to a question based on the information given to them.[6] After they have come up with this solution, they stop and do not come up with others.

Convergent thinking is not necessarily a negative thinking strategy. In some situations, there may be one answer to a question (though there likely isn’t only one way to get that answer). But in general, teaching divergent thinking over its convergent counterpart will help students solve problems more creatively and effectively.

Divergent Thinking Boosts Problem-Solving and Student Success

Divergent thinking can also help students become more open-minded, a crucial social-emotional skill.[4] As students learn to think about a topic from new angles, they’ll be able to consider ideas from beyond their own experiences. This can help them broaden their perspective and better understand people whose ideas differ from their own.

Additionally, divergent thinking strategies teach students how to problem solve.[2] Instead of stopping at the quickest, easiest, or most obvious solution, students spend time thinking of many different answers. That way, they learn to prioritize finding an effective solution over a fast one.

The younger a student is, the easier divergent thinking may come to them. For example, 90% of kindergarteners ranked at the “genius” level for divergent thinking in a study conducted by the Royal Society of Medicine.[14] If you can nurture this skill early in a student’s academic journey, you can help them maintain skills that will benefit them for their entire life.

Strategies to Encourage Divergent Thought in Schools

One simple yet effective way to help students think divergently is by asking open-ended questions.[12] Open-ended questions are defined as ones that cannot be answered by “yes” or “no.” The more open a question is, the more likely students will be able to come up with many different answers.

These open-ended question examples from the Coeur d’Alene Public School District can help you get started as you structure your lesson plans:

• What were the major effects of World War II for the United States?
• What is your favorite memory from childhood?
• What makes the leaves change color?

In class, encourage students to focus more on the learning process, and not on the answer.[16] If students worry too much about finding the “right” answer, they may hurry and choose their first answer. But if they spend a little more time on a question, they may think of a better one.

Additionally, teach your students to view failures as a positive rather than a negative experience.[10] Making mistakes provides learning experiences that can help students move toward a more successful solution. If a student is struggling with a project, praise them for working hard and encourage them to try again from another angle.

And finally, make sure to include time for creative play in your classroom. Studies show that playing pretend, for example, is linked to stronger divergent thinking skills in young students.[5] Assign students projects that allow them to use their imagination and play as they complete it. You could, for example, assign students an art project or have them perform a skit in small groups.

5 Quick Tips to Teach Students Divergent Thinking Skills

It’s crucial to encourage divergent thinking in schools in order to help students thrive. By thinking outside of the box, your students will come up with better and more thoughtful solutions.

These five quick and simple tips will help you move towards divergent thinking in the classroom.

1. Journaling is a great way to encourage self-analysis and help students think through many solutions to a question.[13] Assign students to keep a journal and ask them thought-provoking questions .

For earlier grades, journaling may involve more drawing and early attempts to write than full sentences.

2. Include free play in your curriculum, which is when students can work on projects of their own choosing.[11]

3. Ask students open-ended questions that cannot be answered with one solution.[8] You could, for example, ask what they believe makes life meaningful or how they would solve a global issue.

4. Brainstorming is a great example of a divergent thinking strategy. If a student is stuck on an assignment, encourage them to brainstorm answers or solutions—either on their own or with their classmates. Through brainstorming, students are taught to consider a variety of solutions instead of just one.[6]

5. Play this Animal Soup Activity to teach students how to come up with many outcomes to a situation.

• Runco, M.A., and Acar, S. Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential . Creativity Research Journal, 2012, 24(1), pp. 66-75.
• Vincent, A.S., Decker, B.P., and Mumford, M.D. Divergent Thinking, Intelligence, and Expertise: A Test of Alternative Models . Creativity Research Journal, 2002, 14(2), pp. 163-178.
• Runco, M. A. Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity . Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2008, 2(2), 93–96.
• Goodman, S. Fuel Creativity in the Classroom With Divergent Thinking . March 2014. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/fueling-creativity-through-divergent-thinking-classroom-stacey-goodman
• Hadani, H.S. The Creativity Issue: Why Imaginative Play in Early Childhood Could be the Key to Creativity in Adulthood . Toca Magazine. tocaboca.com/magazine/creativity-issue_imaginary-play/.
• Nelson-Danley, K. How to Teach Divergent Thinking . Teach Hub. July 2020. https://www.teachhub.com/teaching-strategies/2020/07/how-to-teach-divergent-thinking/
• Palmiero, M., Di Giacomo, D., and Passafiume, D. Divergent Thinking and Age-Related Changes . Creativity Research Journal, 2014, 26(4), pp 456-460.
• Amico, B. Crucial Creativity: The Case for Cultivating Divergent Thinking in Classrooms . Waldorf Education. February 2020. https://www.waldorfeducation.org/news-resources/essentials-in-education-blog/detail/~board/essentials-in-ed-board/post/crucial-creativity-the-case-for-cultivating-divergent-thinking-in-classrooms.
• Guido, M. How to Teach Convergent and Divergent Thinking: Definitions, Examples, Templates and More . Prodigy. July 2018. https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/blog/convergent-divergent-thinking/.
• Briggs, S. 30 Ways to Inspire Divergent Thinking . InformED. June 2014. https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/divergent-thinking/.
• Iannelli, V. The Importance of Free Play for Kids . Verywell Family. March 2020. https://www.verywellfamily.com/the-importance-of-free-play-2633113.
• Hughes, D. Activities that Inspire Divergent Thinking . https://study.com/academy/lesson/activities-that-inspire-divergent-thinking.html.
• University of Washington Staff. Strategies of Divergent Thinking . https://faculty.washington.edu/ezent/imdt.htm.
• Abbasi, K. A riot of divergent thinking . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, October 2011, 104(10), pp. 391.
• Lewis, C., and Lovatt, P.J. Breaking away from set patterns of thinking: Improvisation and divergent thinking . Thinking Skills and Creativity, August 2013, 9, pp. 46-58.
• O’Byrne, W.I. Understanding key differences between divergent & convergent thinking . November 2017. https://wiobyrne.com/divergent-convergent/.
• Cohut, M. What are the health benefits of being creative? Medical News Today. February 2018. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320947.

More education articles

Phonics vs Phonological Awareness: A Guide Informed by the Science of Reading

Among the six key skills needed for literacy development, two are commonly used interchangeably: phonics and phonological awareness. While their names sound similar, they are

Six Picture Books & Chapter Book Guides to Celebrate Black History Month with Young Students

February marks Black History Month, a dedicated observance of the achievements, heritage, and contributions of Black Americans. It can also be an opportunity to find

Children’s Books for Celebrating Women’s History Month in Class

Women’s History Month, observed each March, is a dedicated time to honor the accomplishments, resilience, and contributions of women. For elementary teachers, this month provides

Ideas to Celebrate National Library Week and Encourage a Young Writer Day 2024

MacKenzie Scott’s Yield Giving Awards Waterford.org a $10 Million Grant

End Bullying: October is National Bullying Prevention Month

• Camp Invention (K-6th)
• Camp Invention Connect (K-6th)
• Refer a Friend Rewards Program
• Club Invention (1st-6th)
• Leaders-in-Training (7th-9th)
• Leadership Intern Program (High School & College Students)
• About the Educators
• FAQs for Parents
• Parent Resource Center
• Our Programs
• Find a Program
• Professional Development
• Resources for Educators
• FAQs for Educators
• Program Team Resource Center
• Plan Your Visit
• Inductee Search
• Nominate an Inventor
• Newest Inductees
• Induction Ceremony
• Our Inductees
• Apply for the Collegiate Inventors Competition
• CIC Judging
• Meet the Finalists
• Past CIC Winners
• FAQs for Collegiate Inventors
• Collegiate Inventors Competition
• Register for 2024 Camp
• Learning Resources
• Sponsor and Donate

Why Creative Problem Solving Requires Both Convergent and Divergent Thinking

When it comes to developing creative ideas, often we are given platitudes, like “turn the problem upside down” and “think outside the box,” that sound nice but aren’t exactly helpful. Fortunately, by using the proven method of Creative Problem Solving (CPS), anyone can innovate.

What is Creative Problem Solving?

According to influential CPS educator Ruth Noller, CPS is best understood as a combination of its three parts :

Creative — specifies elements of newness, innovation and novelty

Problem — refers to any situation that presents a challenge, offers an opportunity or represents a troubling concern

Solving —  means devising ways to answer, to meet or to satisfy a situation by changing self or situation While there exist many different methods of implementing CPS, a majority promote two distinct methods of thought: convergent and divergent thinking. While you might have come across these terms before, read below for a refresher!

Convergent and Divergent Thinking

Convergent thinking embraces logic to identify and analyze the best solution from an existing list of answers. It’s important to note that this method leaves no room for uncertainty — answers are either right or wrong. Because of this, the more knowledge someone has of a subject, the more accurately they are able to answer clearly defined questions. In contrast, divergent thinking involves solving a problem using methods that deviate from commonly used or existing strategies. In this case, an individual creates many different answers using the information available to them. Often, solutions produced by this type of thinking are unique and surprising.

The Best of Both Worlds

When it comes to solving the types of problems that regularly arise in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields, it is sometimes assumed that convergent thinking should be avoided. On the surface, this makes sense, as complex problems often require novel solutions. Is there anything wrong with solely embracing divergent thinking strategies? Simply put, the answer is yes. Using divergent thinking on its own might produce unique solutions, but in extreme cases, these might not be grounded in reality. For example, let’s say you want to create a vehicle that runs using clean energy. Without using convergent thinking to first understand the problem, a great deal of time could be wasted trying solutions that have no chance of working. Powering a vehicle using cotton candy or mustard will do nothing, beyond making a mess. Instead, using convergent thinking to first identify a promising area to explore (biodiesel, hydrogen, electricity, etc.), will prevent a lot of frustration and loss of time. While this is of course an extreme example, it shows the importance of combining both divergent and convergent methods of thinking to solve complicated problems. See if you can encourage the children in your own life to embrace both modes of thinking, to help them invent the future!

Visit Our Blog

In all our education programs , we embrace the importance of CPS and view it as a key component of the Innovation Mindset   — a growth mindset infused with lessons from world-changing inventors. To stay up to date with the latest trends in STEM education, we invite you to check out our blog !

Related Articles

Did you know stem can pave the way to a career in education, 3 stem ideas to brighten up a rainy day, the proven benefits of career and technical training.

Convergent vs Divergent Thinking: The Creative Path

You’re more creative than you realise.

If art or creative writing weren’t your favorite at school, but you loved math, there’s a good chance you’re creative. Surprised? Let’s take a closer look at creativity to help you stimulate your convergent and divergent thinking and tap into your creative potential so you can enjoy all its benefits – and there are many!

Understanding Creativity

Before delving into the concept of convergent vs divergent thinking , it’s crucial to establish a clear understanding of creativity.

What is Creativity?

Creativity, in its essence, is the capability to generate ideas, solutions, or products that are both novel and valuable.

It transcends traditional ways of thinking or acting and paves the way for innovation and originality. Creativity is not confined to artistic and musical expression —it is an integral part of scientific discovery, business innovation, and technological advancement.

Various theories explain the mechanism and sources of creativity, such as the explicit–implicit interaction (EII) theory , conceptual blending , and honing theory .

These theories delve into the cognitive processes behind creative thinking:

• exploring concepts such as the interaction between explicit and implicit cognitive processes
• the blending of multiple inputs to produce novel ideas
• the refining and reshaping of thoughts to optimize creative output

For more insights into these theories, you can explore our articles on what is the the explicit–implicit interaction (EII) theory , conceptual blending , and honing theory .

The Importance of Creativity in Professional Growth

In the professional realm, creativity is no longer a luxury—it’s a necessity.

In an increasingly complex and competitive global market, the ability to come up with innovative solutions that differentiate products, services, and strategies from the competition is invaluable.

Besides other benefits, creativity:

• fosters problem-solving
• drives innovation
• encourages a dynamic approach to challenges
• aids in identifying unique opportunities
• offers fresh perspectives that can propel a business ahead of its competitors
• it nurtures professional development by promoting adaptability, enhancing decision-making skills, and fostering an open-minded approach to new ideas

Creativity is not an isolated phenomenon . It’s closely related to other cognitive and personality traits, including intelligence and openness to experience. To delve deeper into these connections, you can refer to our articles, is creativity a personality trait and is creativity related to intelligence .

The Two Paths of Thinking

Unraveling the threads of creativity leads us to two main paths of thinking: convergent thinking and divergent thinking . Both of these thinking styles play crucial roles in the creative process and are fundamental in solving problems, generating ideas, and driving innovation.

Defining Convergent Thinking

Convergent thinking is a problem-solving strategy that aims at finding the single best solution to a problem. This type of thinking is:

• Focused : Convergent thinking narrows down multiple possibilities into a single solution.
• Logical : It involves step-by-step reasoning, following a logical sequence.
• Analytical : It requires breaking down complex problems into manageable parts.
• Objective : Decisions are based on facts and data rather than subjective feelings or intuition.
• Sequential : It follows a linear process, moving from one stage to the next in an orderly manner.

It involves identifying patterns, applying existing knowledge, and using a step-by-step approach to reach a solution.

In the context of convergent vs divergent thinking , convergent thinking is more focused and goal-oriented. It’s commonly used in situations where a clear-cut solution exists and requires the thinker to converge on the correct answer.

Understanding and applying convergent thinking can enhance one’s problem-solving abilities in their professional life, particularly in situations that demand quick and accurate solutions.

Defining Divergent Thinking

On the other end of the spectrum lies divergent thinking.

Key characteristics of divergent thinking include:

• Originality: Divergent thinkers often come up with unique and innovative solutions. They are not afraid to think outside the box and challenge conventional wisdom.
• Flexibility: Divergent thinkers are adaptable and open to change. They can shift their perspective and approach problems from different angles.
• Fluency: Divergent thinkers can generate a large number of ideas in a short period of time. They are often excellent brainstormers.
• Elaboration: Divergent thinkers can take a simple idea and expand on it, adding details and complexity.

It involves generating multiple solutions to a single problem and encourages thinking ‘outside the box’ .

Divergent thinking is closely tied to creativity, as it allows for the exploration of many different ideas and possibilities. In contrast to convergent thinking, divergent thinking doesn’t seek a single correct answer. Instead, it thrives on ambiguity and openness , valuing the quantity and variety of ideas over their immediate applicability.

Cultivating divergent thinking can foster creativity and innovation , making it a valuable skill in any professional setting where adaptability and originality are prized.

In the journey of professional growth, understanding the differences and applications of these two forms of thinking can significantly enhance one’s creative abilities. Further exploration of these thinking styles can be found in articles discussing theories such as creativity’s big c and little c , the explicit–implicit interaction (EII) theory , and conceptual blending .

Convergent Thinking: The Focused Path

It’s crucial to delve into the characteristics and advantages of both convergent and divergent thinking, as well as the situations where they are most effectively applied.

Convergent thinking is characterized by its logical and analytical approach. This type of thinking is goal-oriented and seeks one correct answer or solution to a given problem. It involves evaluating existing knowledge and experiences to arrive at conclusions.

Advantages of Convergent Thinking

While convergent thinking might not be as ‘creative’ as divergent thinking in the traditional sense, it has its own set of advantages. These include:

• Efficiency : Convergent thinking is fast and efficient, especially when dealing with well-defined problems.
• Accuracy : Since it relies on facts and logic, solutions arrived at through convergent thinking are often accurate.
• Reliability : It provides consistent and reliable results.
• Ease of communication : Results from convergent thinking are easier to communicate and explain to others as they follow a clear, logical progression.

Situations Best Suited for Convergent Thinking

Convergent thinking is best suited to situations where a single, correct answer or solution is needed. This might include:

• Problem-solving scenarios : Such as mathematical problems or technical difficulties where there is a clear, correct solution.
• Decision-making scenarios : Where weighing up pros and cons can lead to the best course of action.
• Test-taking scenarios : Where one correct answer is required.

In the professional realm, convergent thinking can be valuable in roles that require problem-solving and decision-making based on data and facts. However, for more complex problems that require novel solutions, a blend of convergent and divergent thinking might be more beneficial. This concept is further discussed in the section on balancing convergent and divergent thinking .

Divergent Thinking: The Creative Path

On the other side of the convergent vs divergent thinking spectrum lies divergent thinking. This is often associated with creativity, innovation, and the generation of novel ideas.

Divergent thinking is characterized by the ability to generate multiple, unique solutions to a problem. Unlike convergent thinking, which focuses on finding the single correct answer, divergent thinking encourages ideation and creativity.

Advantages of Divergent Thinking

The primary advantage of divergent thinking is its potential for innovation. By encouraging the generation of numerous ideas, divergent thinking fosters creativity and out-of-the-box thinking. This can lead to groundbreaking discoveries and advancements in various fields.

Other benefits include:

• Increased creativity: Divergent thinking can stimulate creativity and lead to the development of novel ideas and solutions.
• Problem-solving skills: Divergent thinking can help in solving complex problems by generating a wide range of potential solutions.
• Adaptability: Divergent thinkers tend to be more adaptable and flexible, which is increasingly important in today’s rapidly-changing world.
• Improved collaboration: Divergent thinking encourages the exchange of ideas, which can foster collaboration and teamwork.

Situations Best Suited for Divergent Thinking

Divergent thinking is particularly useful in situations that require creative problem-solving or the generation of new ideas. This could include:

• brainstorming sessions
• product development
• marketing strategies
• any scenario where innovation and creativity are valued

In the professional sphere, divergent thinking is often celebrated in roles and industries that value innovation and creativity, such as marketing, design, entrepreneurship, and research. However, it’s important to note that divergent thinking is valuable in any field or role, as it fosters adaptability , problem-solving, and the ability to devise innovative solutions .

The application of divergent thinking is not limited to professional settings. In fact, embracing divergent thinking can also enhance personal growth and development , by encouraging curiosity, open-mindedness, and a willingness to explore new ideas and perspectives.

To further understand the importance of divergent thinking and how it interacts with creativity, you may want to explore our articles on creativity’s big c and little c and what is the the explicit–implicit interaction (eii) theory .

Balancing Convergent and Divergent Thinking

When discussing convergent vs divergent thinking , it’s essential to recognize that both thinking styles hold value and play crucial roles in fostering creativity and problem-solving skills. The key lies in finding a balance and knowing when to employ each style for optimal results.

Understanding the Balance

Convergent thinking and divergent thinking can be seen as two sides of the same coin.

While convergent thinking aims for a single, correct solution, divergent thinking encourages an exploration of numerous possible solutions. Balancing these two thinking styles allows for a more comprehensive, creative, and effective approach to problem-solving. This balance is not about equal usage of both styles, but rather about using each one appropriately depending on the situation.

Techniques for Cultivating Both Thinking Styles

Several techniques can help cultivate both convergent and divergent thinking skills.

For divergent thinking , techniques can encourage the generation of novel ideas, such as:

• brainstorming
• free writing
• mind mapping .

Practicing these techniques can help foster creativity and open-mindedness , key elements of divergent thinking.

On the other hand, convergent thinking can be strengthened through activities that involve analytical thinking, such as:

• solving puzzles
• participating in debates
• analyzing case studies

These activities encourage critical thinking and decision-making skills , which are central to convergent thinking.

Editor’s Note : You know yourself better than anyone. If you’re naturally drawn to puzzles with a single solution, try brainstorming for a change. Exploring the path least traveled in your brain will unlock new potential – and grow your creative problem solving!

Blend Convergent and Divergent Thinking for Success!

In professional settings, the balance between convergent and divergent thinking can prove to be a valuable asset.

For instance, during a team meeting , divergent thinking can be used during the brainstorming phase to generate a wide array of ideas. Once all ideas have been put forth, convergent thinking can then be utilized to analyze, evaluate, and select the most viable option.

Moreover, in project management , divergent thinking can be useful in the initial project planning stage when multiple potential strategies need to be considered. Convergent thinking, meanwhile, becomes essential during the execution phase, where the focus is on following a predefined plan and troubleshooting any issues that may arise.

Overall, understanding and balancing convergent and divergent thinking can significantly enhance problem-solving capabilities, creativity, and productivity.

Are you ready to brainstorm or solve a puzzle? Challenge yourself and notice your creative problem solving reach new heights!

For further insights into the world of creativity, explore our articles on creativity’s big c and little c , honing theory , and conceptual blending .

Brooks Manley

Creative Primer  is a resource on all things journaling, creativity, and productivity. We’ll help you produce better ideas, get more done, and live a more effective life.

My name is Brooks. I do a ton of journaling, like to think I’m a creative (jury’s out), and spend a lot of time thinking about productivity. I hope these resources and product recommendations serve you well. Reach out if you ever want to chat or let me know about a journal I need to check out!

Here’s my favorite journal for 2024: 

Gratitude Journal Prompts Mindfulness Journal Prompts Journal Prompts for Anxiety Reflective Journal Prompts Healing Journal Prompts Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Journal Prompts Mental Health Journal Prompts ASMR Journal Prompts Manifestation Journal Prompts Self-Care Journal Prompts Morning Journal Prompts Evening Journal Prompts Self-Improvement Journal Prompts Creative Writing Journal Prompts Dream Journal Prompts Relationship Journal Prompts "What If" Journal Prompts New Year Journal Prompts Shadow Work Journal Prompts Journal Prompts for Overcoming Fear Journal Prompts for Dealing with Loss Journal Prompts for Discerning and Decision Making Travel Journal Prompts Fun Journal Prompts

The Road to Creative Brilliance: Embracing the Explicit-Implicit Interaction (EII) Theory

You may also like, the 7 best journals and notebooks for writing in 2024.

How to Start and Keep a Bullet Journal: A Beginner’s Guide

A guide to manifestation journaling + 50 prompts, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Productivity
• Favorite Journals

• CPS Training
• CPS Facilitation

Site Sponsor

Site author.

Paul Reali, MS, MBA OmniSkills Founder & Principal 336.926.8833 * E-mail Paul

PLEASE READ: Permissions to Use Site Content

We encourage you to use the content you find on this site, in accordance with the Creative Commons license specified here, and on each page:

Click the image above for a description of these terms. For additional permissions (e.g., to license the work for commercial use), e-mail us .

DIVERGENT THINKING IN CPS

About divergent & convergent thinking: why both.

One key - perhaps the key - to the Creative Problem Solving process is the use of both divergent and convergent thinking.

Divergent thinking is wide and free. When you diverge, you generate many options. Divergent thinking is followed by convergent thinking , in which you assess, judge, and strengthen those options, and then decide what to keep and how to proceed.

CPS requires both divergent and convergent thinking, but not at the same time. Trying to do both at once is a mess. If you've ever been in a meeting where people are generating ideas, and shooting them down at the same time, you understand why we need to keep these two thinking modes separate.

DIVERGENT THINKING GUIDELINES

Whenever you think divergently, follow these guidelines for best results:

• Defer judgment
• Strive for quantity
• Seek wild and unusual
• Build on other ideas

A trained CPS facilitator can help you and your group to use these guidelines, and the divergent thinking tools, to their best advantage.

DIVERGENT THINKING TOOLS

There are many divergent thinking tools in the universe, including, perhaps, some you have created yourself. CPS is tools agnostic, so any tool you like for divergent thinking is likely to work just fine. Below are very brief descriptions of some of the tools we use for divergent thinking.

Brainstorming The classic idea-generating tool, often misused. Method: working from one statement or challenge, think, following the divergent thinking guidelines; every idea is said out loud and then written down, usually on a flip chart pad. When the ideas come fast, as they often do, it can be difficult for the recorder to keep up. Can be used individually or in groups.

Brainstorming with Post-its A twist on brainstorming that makes the recording process easier. Method: each person has a Post-it note pad; every idea is written on a Post-it, then said out loud. The facilitator collects the ideas as they are generated, and sticks them up on a flip chart pad. Having each idea on a separate sheet makes converging easier.

Brainwriting Like brainstorming, but done quietly. On a standard piece of paper, draw three rows of three boxes. Each person starts with one sheet, and a few extras are placed in a central pile. Each person writes an idea in each box of the first row (that is, three ideas), then puts the paper into the center pile, then takes another sheet from the pile. If that sheet has ideas on it, the person reads the ideas, then writes three more in the next row, either building on the existing ideas or adding new ones. Continue until all the boxes are full.

SCAMPER Questions that help to stretch the thinking in specific ways. SCAMPER is named as a mnemonic to remember these words: substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to other uses, eliminate, rearrange. Method: for each word, ask questions to spur thinking. For example: What can you substitute for it? What can be combined with it? What can you subtract? What can you add?

Visual Connections Spur thinking by making connections from an unrelated image to the current problem. Method: facilitator shows an image (usually a photograph), and asks participants to write down 3-5 words suggested by the image. Several other images are shown, and words written down. Then, participants are asked to make a direct connection from the words they have written to the problem at hand.

Forced Connections A way to force novel thinking. Can be used on its own, or as part of a brainstorming or brainwriting session. Method: facilitator holds up or points to an object unrelated to the problem, and asks: "When you look at this (object), what ideas do you get for solving this problem?"

Excursions Mental or actual voyages that take people outside the problem to look for inspiration elsewhere. There are many variations. One method: participants close their eyes while the facilitator talks them through a journey to a specific place, or one of their own imagining. When they open their eyes, they record ideas that were inspired by the excursion.

Word Dance Often used when Finding the Question , to think of the problem statement in new ways. Method: in the current problem statement (which begins with "How might...", "How to...", "In what ways might...", or "What might be all the..."), circle the verb, then generate other verbs that might replace it. Then, circle the object or outcome words, and generate possible substitutes. (In both cases, unusual and off-course are OK.) Mix and match the responses. Choose the statement that best expresses the problem.

Idea Box A mix-and-match method for generating ideas. Method: beginning with the problem statement, select the essential characteristics of the problem, and list those on paper as column headings. For each column, list a variety of options. Then, mix and match, choosing one from each column. What ideas does that combination give you? Repeat with different combinations.

Why? What's Stopping You? A deceptively simple approach to identifying the root of the problem; similar to the more commonly-known "five whys" approach. Method: begin with a goal, wish or challenge, and ask: "why do you want this?" To the response, ask again. When you feel you have arrived at the root of the problem, ask, "What's stopping you?" Repeating this process to its logical end can lead to the creation of a new and more accurate goal/wish/challenge or a concise problem statement.

Here are some choices:

• Learn about the other side of the "dynamic balance" of CPS, convergent thinking .
• Return to the CPS overview .

CONTACT US WHEN YOU ARE READY

When you're ready to talk to us about teaching you this process or facilitating a problem-solving session, just holler .

Get started

• Project management
• CRM and Sales
• Work management
• Product development life cycle
• Comparisons
• Construction management
• monday.com updates

Solving complex problems with divergent thinking

Anyone that’s ever worked on or managed a project knows full well the challenges involved. Many of those obstacles are operational — keeping team members focused, managing deliverables, remedying scheduling conflicts, and so on. But most projects come up against problems where the solution isn’t linear or even obvious. These challenges require a little more creativity to overcome. Put another way, they require divergent thinking.

Down below, we’ll take a deep dive into the concept of divergent thinking and show you how to use it to tackle challenging problems. We’ll see a few examples of divergent thinking and show you how you can systemize it on monday.com to give your team a boost in creative problem-solving.

What is divergent thinking?

In the broadest sense and simplest terms, divergent thinking describes a way of looking at problems and solutions unconventionally. It’s about coming up with a novel way to solve a problem when the usual answers don’t work. And in many cases, it’s about seeing a solution to a problem that no one knew existed.

In project management and product development, thinking divergently is a necessary component of brainstorming, collaboration, and any form of creativity. But while this all captures the essence of divergent thinking, let’s see what thinking divergently produces by way of example.

Examples of divergent thinking 

There’s a good chance you’re reading this on the most successful example of divergent thinking in history.

The first smartphones were little more than miniaturized computers — small screens, physical keyboards, and operating systems not unlike the ones on a desktop or laptop. And given their success, almost no one saw a problem with the linear manner of shrinking a computer into a handheld device. That is until Steve Jobs of Apple unveiled the iPhone.

While modern smartphones are the latest and greatest result of divergent thinking, you can look throughout recorded history for endless examples. Cultural shifts and changes in entire societies are the results of divergent thinkers.

But divergent thinking isn’t reserved for famous inventors or revolutionaries. If you’ve ever turned a screw using a coin, made a paper airplane, or otherwise used something in a way it wasn’t intended, you were thinking divergently. With that in mind, let’s explore ways you can use divergent thinking to become a better and more creative problem solver.

How to use divergent thinking to become a better problem solver

Whether you’re finding a solution to a problem with no clear cause or you’re searching for an innovative way of doing something, divergent thinking techniques can lead you to new and surprising solutions. And like any other skill or way of thinking, you can improve creative thinking by practicing divergent thinking.

Here are a few ways you can think more divergently when faced with a complex or challenging problem:

• Let ideas fly:  The key to thinking divergently is to let your ideas flow freely. Don’t judge them as they come — instead, let them fly out freely and worry about quality control later.
• Switch sides:  In other words, empathize. Empathy requires the ability to disconnect from yourself and look at a problem from another person’s perspective.
• Mind map:  Mind mapping is an excellent organizational tool for discovering new connections between disparate ideas. You can use a mind map for subject mapping, making it a powerful canvas for innovation.
• Pose the problem as a question:  For challenging problems, try reframing the challenge as a question. Instead of, “users aren’t engaging with the new feature,” ask your team, “how might we make the new feature more engaging?”

Now that you know how to start boosting your creative problem solving, let’s explore how your new skills fit into project management.

Divergent thinking in project management

Most projects have some degree of divergent thinking already built in. Brainstorming sessions, for example, are divergent thinking in action. But just about every project could do with a few more creative ideas. In addition to the obvious benefits you’ve no doubt surmised, divergent thinking also  boosts morale and team collaboration .

That said, it’s important to consider both sides of the coin when it comes to managing projects. While we’ve only discussed divergent thinking so far, it’s important to consider its counterpart, convergent thinking. Divergent thinking and convergent thinking are two sides to the same coin. Where divergent thinking is free-flowing ideation, convergent thinking is about selecting the right ideas and making them happen. As such, it’s not enough to know how  to think divergently — it’s equally as important to know when  to.

When to use the divergent thinking method

Successful projects are governed by concrete metrics. Scope, schedules, deadlines, deliverables, budgets — these are the constraints that all projects operate under. Viewed from this perspective, the very idea of divergent thinking can seem counterintuitive. But by embracing and planning for divergent thinking in specific circumstances, projects can benefit from a range of perspectives that were otherwise unobtainable.

Divergent thinking is especially valuable during the ideation stage of a project. When team members are encouraged to let their imaginations run wild, not every idea will be a gold nugget, but it might be an idea that leads to a veritable treasure chest.

Unexpected challenges are also great opportunities to leverage divergent thinking. If you’re facing a complex problem with no apparent solution, why not invent your own? These are the moments that spark true innovation. In short, every project should have systems in place that allow for moments of divergent thinking and free-flowing creativity.

Systemize divergent thinking on monday.com

As a fully-featured WorkOS, monday.com enables you to systemize divergent thinking and integrate the creativity that’s necessary for real innovation.

With one of our newest tools,  Canvas , you can kick off new projects with a fully-collaborative, real-time online whiteboard. Intuitive tools let you and your team create diagrams, add sticky notes, and express thoughts, ideas, and information that lead to novel solutions.

Then you can converge those solutions in Workdocs  — a collaborative free writing document editor that lets every team member write their ideas simultaneously, adding comments, rearranging thoughts, and creating tasks — all in real-time. And since you can embed monday.com dashboards, images, and videos, you can turn a creativity session into an actionable document.

monday.com also has dozens of  integrations  for all your freeform, creative, and planning needs. From Adobe Creative Cloud and Google Docs to Slack and Zoom, collaboration on any tool is front and center.

Finally, any sort of creative endeavor requires fuel in the form of feedback and data. With  WorkForms , you can provide your divergent thinkers with all the fuel they need by creating forms you can embed just about anywhere, including websites and emails. Or just send them as a link.

From end to end, monday.com is the place where creative thinking and project efficiency converge.

Frequently asked questions

If the concept of divergent thinking has piqued your curiosity, here are a few answers to some common questions regarding the topic.

What is divergent?

Divergent describes something that develops in a different direction relative to another thing, often unexpectedly. You can use it to describe paths, journeys, ideas, products, and even people.

What is a divergent thinker?

Divergent thinkers are creative problem solvers. They use methods or thought processes to explore different paths that can lead to novel solutions. These processes occur in a spontaneous, free-flowing, emergent cognitive fashion. As such, a divergent thinker can often look at a problem from many angles and perspectives and imagine several possible solutions.

What does divergent thinking mean?

In essence, divergent thinking means imagining other possibilities without rational or reasonable constraints. When unique ideas are generated divergently, they’re neither good nor bad — they’re simply ideas. Creative thinking, examining a problem from different perspectives, and reframing a problem are all forms of divergent thinking.

What is the difference between a convergent thinker and a divergent thinker?

A convergent thinker is typically more organized and structured in their thought. They use reason and logic to deduce the best solution to a problem or the best idea to pursue. A divergent thinker is one who thinks creatively and without judgment. They use their imagination to come up with many possible solutions to a problem. Taken together, you could say the difference between the two is that a divergent thinker is an idea generator while a convergent thinker is an idea selector.

Turn problems into opportunities with divergent thinking

Much of the responsibility of a project manager involves structuring, planning, and organizing. Business is still business, after all — we’re all working under a deadline and within a budget. But that doesn’t necessitate tossing novel thinking and creativity out the proverbial window. There’s a reason creative industries have  faster job growth and slower job loss .

It all comes down to balance. By systemizing creativity into your project workflow with a WorkOS like monday.com, you can create opportunities for collaborative, convergent thinking that just might lead to the next big innovation.

Send this article to someone who’d like it.

Advertisement

Executive functioning and divergent thinking predict creative problem-solving in young adults and elderlies

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 02 April 2022
• Volume 87 , pages 388–396, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Alice Cancer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3545-8540 1 ,
• Paola Iannello 1 ,
• Carola Salvi 2 &
• Alessandro Antonietti 1  

4568 Accesses

10 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The role of executive functioning in creative thinking is under debate. Some authors suggested that increased inhibitory control, a component of executive functioning, is detrimental to creative solutions, whereas others argued that executive functions are central to creative problem-solving, thus questioning Guilford’s classical distinction between divergent and convergent thinking. Executive functions decline with age. In this study, we investigated the contributions of executive functioning and its age-related decline and divergent thinking to creative problem-solving. To this aim, we divided our sample of sixty healthy adults into two age groups of young adults (20–26 years) and elderly (60–70 years) and we assessed their creative problem-solving abilities (using the compound remote associate problems) as well as other potential cognitive predictors of creative problem-solving (i.e., impulsivity, divergent thinking, verbal working memory, and decision-making style). A linear regression model revealed that the ability to solve problems creatively is negatively predicted by older age and impulsivity, while positively predicted by divergent thinking and verbal working memory. These findings reveal a combined contribution of executive functions and divergent thinking to creative problem-solving, suggesting that both convergent and divergent processes should be considered in interventions to contrast age-related decline.

Similar content being viewed by others

Systemic racism: individuals and interactions, institutions and society

Mahzarin R. Banaji, Susan T. Fiske & Douglas S. Massey

The positive aspects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a qualitative investigation of successful adults with ADHD

Jane Ann Sedgwick, Andrew Merwood & Philip Asherson

Decision Making: a Theoretical Review

Matteo Morelli, Maria Casagrande & Giuseppe Forte

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Creativity is a multifaceted construct, defined as the ability to generate novel ideas that are not only original and unusual, but also relevant, appropriate, and useful (Runco & Jaeger, 2012 ). Such a combination of originality and effectiveness provides both individual and societal benefits (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010 ) and supports advancements in various disciplines. Understanding the neuropsychological basis of the creative process is particularly relevant to facilitate the identification and development of creative thinkers and problem-solvers.

The literature presents mixed results about the role of executive functioning in the creative process (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010 ). Some researchers suggested that “superior executive functioning, such as increased attentional control, may be detrimental to reaching creative solutions” (e.g., Jarosz et al., 2012 ), thus implying that relatively less executive engagement would overall enhance creativity (Wiley & Jarosz, 2012 ). Problems can be solved creatively or via step-by-step analysis. Creative problem-solving is based on solution processes that are divergent, associational, and discontinuous (Runco, 2014 ) and it is obstructed by inhibition (Radel et al., 2015 ). Problem-solving via analysis instead requires the use of algorithms and step-by-step above awareness procedures that are facilitated by inhibition, shifting, and working memory (WM) capacity (Kane et al., 2004 ; Viterbori et al., 2017 ; Zelazo et al., 1997 ).

Creative problem-solving, which involves connecting weakly related and remote concepts, is facilitated by producing many alternative responses, re-organizing the problem space by de-contextualizing its elements, and connecting the ideas through unusual combinations (Antonietti & Colombo, 2013 ). According to the hypothesis of a detrimental role of executive functioning in creative problem-solving, increased attentional control would negatively interfere with such processes. A state of diffused attention facilitates internal focus, as well as the retrieval of weakly activated and irrelevant concepts, and provides original solutions to problems (Ansburg & Hill, 2003 ; Carson et al., 2003 ; Dykes & McGhie, 1976 ; Salvi & Bowden, 2016 ; Salvi et al., 2015 ). Several works based on neurophysiological markers are showing that creative problem-solving is associated with a state of disengagement from the external inputs (Jung-Beeman et al., 2004 ; Kounios et al., 2006 , 2008 ; Salvi et al., 2015 , 2020 ). When people are engaged in thinking creatively, they tend to gather distracting information by closing their eyes or by looking toward an empty space or a blank wall. This “looking at nothing” behavior is commonly understood to be a way to avoid distracting information so that one can concentrate on inner thoughts (Salvi & Bowden, 2016 ). Results from Jarosz et al.’s study ( 2012 ) supported this negative association, showing a positive effect of alcohol intoxication on RAT accuracy and speed, through lower attentional control and lower working memory (WM). Findings from clinical studies on creativity pointed to similar conclusions (Abraham, 2019 ). Patients with focal damage to the frontal cortex, a brain area that is typically involved in executive functions (Duncan, 2001 ), were shown to outperform healthy control in an insight problem-solving task (i.e., the matchstick arithmetic task, Knoblich et al., 1999 ) (Reverberi et al., 2005 ). Furthermore, high levels of creativity have been reported in Tourette’s patients, which were explained as the result of altered connectivity patterns between the frontal and prefrontal cortex (Colautti et al., 2021 ).

There is, however, a growing body of research showing that executive functions are central to creative thinking (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011 ). According to Nusbaum and Silvia ( 2011 ), divergent and convergent thinking are more closely related than the classical Guilford’s ( 1967 ) distinction presumed—namely, the expansive generation of novel ideas in contrast with the selection of a unique response from several possible alternatives (Guilford, 1967 ). Using latent variable modeling, Nusbaum and Silvia ( 2011 ) found that executive shifting predicted a successful performance in a divergent thinking task, namely, the alternative uses task (AUT) where respondents are asked to list as many ways of employing a common object as possible (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011 ; Silvia et al., 2009 ). Sharma and Babu ( 2017 ) reported a significant relationship between measures of creativity (i.e., Torrance Test of Creative Thinking—TTCT; Torrance, 1990 ) and inhibitory control, as measured by the Stroop test. However, no association was found between creativity and WM. Similar results were obtained by Edl et al. ( 2014 ) in a sample of design students, who showed a significantly lower Stroop interference effect as compared to a control group and a strong correlation between inhibitory control and creative thinking, as measured by TTCT (Torrance, 1990 ). According to the authors, these findings showed that inhibition is required to suppress dominant but irrelevant response tendencies during a creative task. Clinical evidence on dementia (Fusi, Crepaldi, et al., 2021 ; Fusi, Lavolpe, et al., 2021 ) showed that although patients with frontotemporal dementia could produce a great number of ideas, they were not able to flexibly combine the information to produce original ideas, due to damages in the prefrontal cortex. In addition, other findings highlighted that metacognitive control during the performance of a creative task, in the form of predictions/retrospections tasks, facilitates the broadening of the mental field (Antonietti et al., 2021 ), thus suggesting a combined contribution of convergent and divergent processes. Neuroscientific evidence supports the involvement of executive functions in creative thinking, showing a cooperative interaction of the default network (associated with mind-wandering and self-generated thought) and the executive control network (associated with working memory, relational integration, and task-set switching) during creative cognition (Beaty et al., 2016 , 2019 ).

Executive functioning is particularly susceptible to advancing age (Craik & Grady, 2002 ; MacPherson et al., 2002 ). Cross-sectional (Rhodes, 2004 ) and longitudinal studies (Sapkota et al., 2017 ) established a negative association between aging and executive functioning in healthy adults. Extensive literature highlights that the combination of limited resources, reduced efficiency, and increased interference between tasks may often lead to deterioration of cognitive performance with aging (Lacour et al., 2008 ; Wollesen et al., 2016 ). The distinction between crystallized and fluid intelligence is often used to frame this cognitive decline over the lifespan. Fluid abilities (e.g., executive functions, processing speed, WM, response inhibition) tend to gradually decline over the lifespan (Salthouse, 2012 ) when compared with crystallized abilities (e.g., vocabulary, general knowledge), which tend to remain stable or even improve through the last decades of life (Salthouse, 2012 ).

Processing speed, which refers both to the speed of cognitive task performance and the speed of motor responses, continues to deteriorate starting from the third decade of life on (Salthouse et al., 1995 ), thus resulting in a slowed processing that can negatively affect performance across a variety of cognitive domains. Slowed processing speed, as well as reduced capacity to ignore irrelevant information and poor use of strategies, is partly related to age-related decline in WM (Luszcz & Bryan, 1999 ). Aging is also negatively associated with response inhibition, which is the ability to inhibit an automatic response in favor of producing a novel one (Wecker et al., 2000 ). Impulsivity has been found to increase together with age-related cognitive decline (Sakurai et al., 2020 ), thus highlighting a high level of impatience and impulsivity among elderly people (Read & Read, 2004 ).

Besides executive functions and age-related cognitive changes, another component of creativity, namely, divergent thinking, can be hypothesized to have a predicting role in creative problem-solving. Divergent thinking, through the generation of numerous (i.e., fluency) and unconventional (i.e., originality) ideas that are shifted into various content categories (i.e., flexibility) (Guilford, 1956 ), elicits creative solutions to problems (Barbot et al., 2019 ). The generation of divergent options increases the chance to find among them the correct solution to the problem, ultimately facilitating its identification.

This study aims to further the understanding of the complex relationships between executive functioning, divergent thinking, and creative problem-solving in adults and older adults. More precisely, we aimed to measure the role of inhibition, divergent thinking skills, WM, and age-related cognitive decline as predictors of creative problem-solving. We hypothesized that if executive functions have a role in creative problem-solving and divergent thinking, we would find a correspondent decline in elderly people compared to young adults.

Materials and methods

Participants.

Sixty healthy participants volunteered to be involved in the study. The sample included two age groups: a subgroup of elderlies, aged 60–70 ( N  = 30) and a subgroup of young adults, aged 20–26 ( N  = 30).

Older participants were recruited among members of an association for the social promotion of elderlies in Milan, Italy. Younger participants were recruited among students attending non-humanistic University courses (i.e., architecture, engineering, law, economics, agriculture, and dentistry) in several institutions in Milan, Italy. For both subgroups, a voluntary response sampling method was used: the study was advertised on campus and at the elderly association.

Normal cognitive functioning, as measured through the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (Folstein et al., 1975 ) (corrected total score ≥ 24), was defined as the inclusion criterion for the elderly participants. Exclusion criteria for the whole sample were (a) medication with either tricyclic antidepressant or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs); (b) dementia or neurological disorders; (c) non-native Italian language—due to the verbal nature of the primary outcome measure, namely, a verbal problem-solving task.

Participants’ written informed consent was obtained prior to recruitment. The study was conducted following the ethical principles laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2001 ).

Assessment measures

Creative problem-solving.

The Italian adaptation of the Compound Remote Associate (CRA) problems by Salvi et al. ( 2016 ), originally developed by Bowden and Jung-Beeman ( 2003 ), was used to measure creative problem-solving abilities. The task, inspired by the Remote Associate Test by Mednick ( 1968 ), includes 80 problems in the form of triplets of words. Participants are asked to find a solution word that forms either a compound word or a common two-word phrase with each of the three problem words (e.g., the solution to the triplet CRAB PINE SAUCE, is apple —which forms the compounds crab apple , pineapple , and apple sauce ). A computerized version of the CRA problems was used. Participants had 15 s to complete each problem; if no answer was given before the time-out, an omission error was recorded. A CRA performance criterion ( C ) index was computed by subtracting the number of commission errors (i.e., incorrect responses) from the number of correct responses and dividing by the number of total CRA problems ( n  = 80). If C  = 0, the subject’s criterion was ‘neutral’, showing no inclination towards the generation of either correct or incorrect responses. If C  > 0, the subject generated a higher number of correct responses, whereas if C  < 0, the subject generated a higher number of incorrect responses. We used the remote associates as a matter of consistency with the literature that drove our hypothesis and since they are a classic measure of creative problem-solving (e.g., Mednick, 1968 ; Shen et al., 2016 , 2018 ).

Impulsivity

Self-reported impulsivity was measured through the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) (Italian version: Fossati et al., 2001 ; Patton et al., 1995 ). The scale, that measures the personality/behavioral construct of impulsiveness, includes 30 items describing common impulsive (e.g., ‘I change hobbies’) or non-impulsive (e.g., ‘I plan trips well ahead of time’) behaviors, to be evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = ‘Rarely/Never’ to 4 = ‘Almost Always/Always’). The scale’s total score was considered.

Furthermore, the Go/No-go paradigm, namely, a computerized motor response control task, was used to measure inhibitory control together with focused and sustained attention. Participants were required to respond to the presence of a target letter, during a sequential presentation of letters, by pressing the space bar on a computer keyboard. The task included 396 trials, in which each letter (either W or M) was individually presented on a computer screen for the duration of 150 ms, with an inter-stimulus interval of 750 ms. In the first condition (198 trials, W-Go) participants were asked to press the space bar in response to the target letter W and withhold their response to the non-target letter M. In the second reversed condition (198 trials, M-Go), they were asked to press the space bar in response to the target letter M and withhold their response to the non-target letter W. The ratio of targets to non-targets was 70:30 in both conditions. A composite measure of attention and inhibitory control was computed as the proportion of accurate responses, including the correct responses to the target letter (hits) and the correct rejections to the non-target letter.

Divergent thinking

Divergent thinking was assessed using AUT (Guilford, 1967 ). Participants were asked to list as many possible uses for common items, such as a brick, a newspaper, or a spoon. A total of six items were individually presented, for which participants had 3 min to generate as many responses as possible. A fluency score was computed as the average number of alternative uses generated by the participant for each item. Furthermore, two independent judges rated the originality of each response (i.e., the extent to which the provided use is deemed divergent from the intended uses of that object) on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very). An originality score was computed by averaging the ratings by the two judges. The average originality score of the first generated response for each item was considered as a measure of immediate divergent thinking. We adopted a subjective scoring system, using raters blind to order of the responses (Hass & Beaty, 2018 ; Hass et al., 2018 ).

Verbal working memory

Verbal WM was assessed through the Digit Span subtest from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) (Italian version: Orsini & Pezzuti, 2013 ; Wechsler, 2008 ). The subtest includes three tasks, in which participants are asked to repeat a series of digits forward (i.e., Digit Span Forward), backward (i.e., Digit Span Backward), and in ascending order (i.e., Digit Span Sequencing). A Digit Span scaled score was computed based on Italian normative data.

Decision-making style

To measure individuals’ habitual preference for intuition—a thinking style that can be related to cognitive divergence (Iannello et al., 2020 )—versus deliberation—a thinking style which, because of the reliance on analytical processing, can be related to convergent thinking—when making a decision, the Preference for Intuition and Deliberation (PID) scale (Betsch, 2004 ; Pachur & Spaar, 2015 ; Italian adaptation: Raffaldi et al., 2012 ) was used. The questionnaire includes 18 items (e.g., ‘I like situations in which I have to rely on my intuition’) to be answered on a 5-point scale (1 = ‘I don’t agree’ to 5 = ‘I completely agree’). Two separate scores representing the tendency to ponder decisions intuitively (i.e., Intuition subscale) or deliberately (i.e., Deliberation subscale) are computed.

Participants underwent two 90-min lab testing sessions. Tasks’ order was counterbalanced. Before completing the experimental procedure, the MMSE (Folstein et al., 1975 ) was administered to older participants to screen for any severe cognitive impairment.

Statistical methods

First, descriptive statistics of participants’ socio-demographic characteristics were computed. Second, age group (young adults vs. elderlies) differences were tested on years of education, decision-making style, and CRA performance parameters (i.e., response time, correct responses, commission errors, omissions, criterion). Given that group variances were unequal (Levene’s Test p  < 0.001) for most measures, Welch’s t test was used. The p value was adjusted to correct for multiple testing within measures of the same construct (i.e., CRA parameters, Alpha = 0.05/4 = 0.012).

Finally, a linear regression model was tested to measure the contributions of all predictors (i.e., impulsivity, creativity, verbal WM, decision-making style) to the CRA criterion index, which was assumed as the most relevant score of creative problem-solving performance. A sample size of 60 was calculated to be enough to detect a medium effect size ( η 2  = 0.2) in a linear multiple regression model with six predictors, with a power of 0.80 and alpha set at 0.05. The assumption of no multicollinearity was confirmed in all multiple regression models (all VIF values ranged between 1.02 and 1.57). Predictors were entered into the model using the forward method and they were selected by comparing the models’ goodness of fit ( F tests) and considering AIC values. Effect sizes have been reported as Cohen’s d .

Participants’ characteristics

The sample was composed of a subgroup of elderlies, aged 60–70 ( N  = 30, M age  = 64.9, SD 4.28) and a subgroup of young adults, aged 20–26 ( N  = 30, M age  = 23.8, SD 2.11). Gender was equally distributed between age groups (young adults: 60% female, elderlies: 66.7% females, χ 2  = 0.29, p  = 0.59).

In our elderly sub-sample, 43.3% of participants were retired and 56.7% were employed. They underwent formal education for 6–21 years ( M  = 13.2; SD 4.65) and they were employed for 0–50 years ( M  = 32.2; SD 13.2). The years of formal education of the younger participants ranged from 13 to 20 ( M  = 17.2; SD 1.83).

Age differences in decision-making style and CRA parameters

Table 1 reports differences between age groups (young adults vs. elderly). The two groups differ in years of education, with younger participants being significantly more educated ( t  = 4.46, p  < 0.001, d  = 1.15). Given that the education variance was vastly explained by the age group ( β  = − 1.00, CI [− 1.45, − 0.55], p  < 0.001), this measure could not be included in the subsequent regression model among the other predictors.

Decision-making style, as measured by the two subscales of the PID questionnaire, was comparable between groups (preference for deliberation: t  = − 1.24, p  = 0.22; preference for intuition: t  = 0.63, p  = 0.53).

As for the CRA problems, we compared each parameter (i.e., response time, correct responses, commission errors, omissions, criterion) between age groups to explore the specific performance profile of young adults and elderlies. CRA response times were overall rather long, with high variability ( M ms  = 7082; SD = 3059). Furthermore, short response times were found to be strongly associated with a higher commission error rate ( r  = − 0.58; p  < 0.001). The comparison between age groups showed that the elderlies tended to respond significantly faster than the younger participants ( t  = 6.49, p  < 0.001, d  = 1.68). The omission rate ( t  = 2.23, p  = 0.03) and the number of correct responses did not differ between groups ( t  = 1.08, p  = 0.28). However, the elderlies produced significantly more commission errors ( t  = 3.43, p  < 0.001, d  = 0.89). A high commission error rate points to difficulties in managing impulsivity. Furthermore, the CRA criterion index showed a significantly poorer performance of elderlies, as compared to young adults ( t  = 2.85, p  = 0.006, d  = 0.74).

Predictors of CRA performance

CRA performance, measured as the CRA criterion index (adj R 2  = 0.46, F 1,49  = 7.50, p  < 0.01), was negatively predicted by age ( β  = − 0.41, CI [− 1.63, − 0.11], ns), impulsivity (self-report scale: β  = − 0.15, CI [− 0.01, 0.001], ns; Go/No-go task accuracy: β  = 0.38, CI [0.13, 0.61], p  < 0.01), with inhibitory control uniquely contributing to the prediction. Furthermore, CRA performance was positively predicted by divergent thinking (fluency: β  = 0.14, CI [− 0.01, 0.03], ns; originality: β  = 0.09, CI [− 0.05, 0.10], ns) and verbal WM ( β  = 0.29, CI [0.005, 0.03], p  < 0.01), with the last one uniquely contributing to the prediction (Table 2 ).

The results of our study provide further evidence on the debated role of executive functions in creative problem-solving. Because executive functions decrease with aging, we compared the problem-solving performance, as well as WM, impulsivity, and divergent thinking of a group of older adults to a one of younger adults. Results showed that problem-solving is negatively predicted by aging and impulsivity, and positively predicted by divergent thinking and verbal WM.

The novel approach which was implemented in our study consisted in testing divergent thinking, using the classical AUT, as a predictor of creative problem-solving. Such a decision was based on the assumption that divergent thinking is a predictor of creative responses (Runco & Acar, 2012 ) rather than a measure of creative thinking. Based on these premises, a two-componential structure of the creative process leading to generate a unique solution to a problem, such as in the CRA tasks, was hypothesized. We suggest that the process leading to creative problem-solving comprises two sequential steps: (a) a divergent phase and (b) a convergent phase. In the first phase, a great number of disparate options are rapidly generated, regardless of their appropriateness. In the second phase, the generated options is narrowed down by inhibition control, through the suppression of dominant but irrelevant responses, to find the unique appropriate solution to the problem. These steps mirror the two main features of creative productions, namely, originality and effectiveness (Runco & Jaeger, 2012 ). While a decreased executive functioning would be beneficial in the first step of the creative process, the second convergent phase requires the involvement of WM and inhibition control. The results of our study confirmed this assumption, showing that both divergent thinking and executive functioning predict a better performance in creative problem-solving. Such a hypothesis is consistent with the dual pathway model postulated by Nijstad et al. ( 2010 ). The model assumes that there are two pathways to creative performance: (a) the flexibility pathway, which assumes a flexible switch between broad cognitive categories, as well as the use of remote associations; (b) the persistence pathway, which requires the systematic and focused exploration of possibilities, and the in-depth exploration of limited task-directed perspectives. According to the authors of the dual pathway model (Nijstad et al., 2010 ), during creative problem-solving, individuals switch from more flexible to more systematic processing modalities, thus highlighting the combined contribution of both pathways. Further Beaty et al. ( 2019 ), based on the interaction of functional connectivity between different networks during the creative performance, identified three processes that would predict an individual’s creative ability and which are in support of our results: (a) goal-directed memory retrieval, namely, the ability to strategically search episodic and semantic memory for task-relevant information; (b) prepotent-response inhibition, namely, the ability to suppress interference from salient and/or dominant responses; and (c) internally-focused attention, namely, the shielding of internal processes from external interference.

In regards to age-related cognitive decline, a recent systematic review by Fusi et al. ( Fusi, Crepaldi, et al., 2021 ; Fusi, Lavolpe, et al., 2021 ) highlighted the nonlinear and multidimensional nature of the relationship between aging processes and divergent thinking performances. Mixed results can be found in the literature depending on figural vs. verbal divergent thinking tasks, and when specific indexes are considered (i.e., originality, fluency, and flexibility). The authors of the review also underlined the role of WM and processing speed, which explained the discrepancies between younger and older adults. Overall, creative performances of the elderlies, particularly in the verbal domain, are comparable to those of younger individuals when no time constraints are set during the task and the workload is not too high (Fusi, Crepaldi, et al., 2021 ; Fusi, Lavolpe, et al., 2021 ). In our study, CRA problems imposed a time constraint to complete each problem (i.e., 15 s). To manage the limited time available to generate a response, the older participants in our sample responded faster than the younger participants. We interpreted this result as a strategy to compensate for the age-related decreased processing speed, by rapidly generating a greater number of incorrect responses in a shorter time. However, based on the available data, we cannot predict what would have happened if no time constraint was imposed in the CRA task.

Interestingly, the number of omission errors did not differ between the younger and older subsamples. Older participants showed a significantly lower overall performance in the creative problem-solving task and an increased number of commission errors. The higher commission error rate in the elderlies revealed an impulsive tendency, typical of age-related cognitive decline (e.g., Morales-Vives & Vigil-Colet, 2012 ), that was detrimental for the performance in the creative problem-solving task used in our investigation. This result is also confirmed by the significant and independent negative contribution of inhibition control (i.e., Go/No-Go task). We hypothesized that impulsivity, both as a personality/behavioral trait (as measured by BIS-11) and a neuropsychological ability (as measured by Go/No-Go task), would facilitate the production of disparate ideas in the first divergent phase of the creative problem-solving process, but that it would interfere during the second convergent phase, in which WM and inhibition control help discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate solutions.

As for the association between WM and creative thinking, the insignificant role of WM found by Sharma and Babu ( 2017 ) was consistent with Jarosz et al.’s ( 2012 ) results on intoxicated participants. Nonetheless, the task used for measuring creative thinking by the former, namely, figural TTCT, does not require heavy demands on WM capacity (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2008 ). On the contrary, our results evidenced a positive association between verbal WM and creative problem-solving. The role of WM is twofold: (a) To maintain the novel information activated, and thus easily accessible during the resolution of a task; (b) To discriminate between task-related relevant and irrelevant information (Unsworth & Engle, 2007 ). We argue that both processes are crucial for solving CRA problems, especially in the last convergent phase of problem-solving. Such a result is consistent with the study by Colombo et al. ( 2018 ) on the relationship between creativity and cognitive reserve, who found a positive correlation between the digit span and the creativity performance in healthy adults.

One of the limitations of the study is having adopted verbal tasks to measure divergent thinking, WM, and creative problem-solving. Given the prevalence of verbal tasks, we controlled for participants’ decision-making style to exclude any possible effect of individuals’ preference for a verbal code on the task performance—analytical people tend to prefer processing information that is primarily verbal (Betsch & Iannello, 2009 ; Epstein et al., 1996 ; Raffaldi et al., 2012 ). Nonetheless, as a future direction, the predictions we found should be re-tested using nonverbal measures, to exclude a domain-related effect of executive functioning on creative problem-solving.

Furthermore, the discrepancy in the two investigated subsamples (i.e., younger, and older adults) made it impossible to control for educational level in our model. Nonetheless, previous research excluded that education plays a significant role in divergent and creative thinking (Palmiero, 2015 ).

Conclusions

Our study furthered the understanding of the contribution of executive functions and divergent thinking to creative problem-solving. According to the classical definition of creativity, creative products are both original and appropriate (Runco & Jaeger, 2012 ). The results of our study highlight a combined role of divergent thinking and executive functions in the solution of creative problems.

Specifically, divergent thinking would support the generation of numerous original ideas and unusual associations, crucial in the first divergent step of the creative process, whereas inhibition control and WM would support the appropriateness assessment of the generated options to ultimately identify the unique appropriate solution.

In conclusion, to facilitate creative problem-solving processes, not only divergent thinking but also executive processes should be trained and improved by interventions. Such an approach would be especially functional to target the detrimental role of age-related cognitive decline in problem-solving.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abraham, A. (2019). The neuropsychology of creativity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27 , 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.09.011

Article   Google Scholar  

Ansburg, P. I., & Hill, K. (2003). Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 34 (7), 1141–1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00104-6

Antonietti, A., Cancer, A., Colombo, B., & Iannello, P. (2021). Metacognitive experience across the creative process. In D. Moraitou & P. Metallidou (Eds.), Trends and prospects in metacognition research across the life span: a tribute to Anastasia Efklides (pp. 59–79). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51673-4_4

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Antonietti, A., & Colombo, B. (2013). Three creative mental operations. In A. Tan (Ed.), Creativity, talent and excellence (pp. 13–26). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4021-93-7_2

Barbot, B., Hass, R. W., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2019). Creativity assessment in psychological research: (Re)setting the standards. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13 (2), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000233

Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P. J., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20 (2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Beaty, R. E., Seli, P., & Schacter, D. L. (2019). Network neuroscience of creative cognition: Mapping cognitive mechanisms and individual differences in the creative brain. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27 , 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.08.013

Betsch, C. (2004). Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation (PID)[Preference for Intuition and Deliberation (PID): An Inventory for Assessing Affect-and Cognition-Based Decision-Making]. Zeitschrift Für Differentielle Und Diagnostische Psychologie, 25 (4), 179–197.

Betsch, C., & Iannello, P. (2009). Measuring individual differences in intuitive and deliberate decision-making styles: A comparison of different measures. Foundations for tracing intuition (pp. 259–279). Psychology Press.

Google Scholar  

Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35 (4), 634–639. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195543

Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (3), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.499

Colautti, L., Magenes, S., Rago, S., Zanaboni Dina, C., Cancer, A., & Antonietti, A. (2021). Creative thinking in Tourette’s Syndrome: An uncharted topic. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.649814

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Colombo, B., Antonietti, A., & Daneau, B. (2018). The relationships between cognitive reserve and creativity. A Study on American Aging Population. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 764. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00764

Craik, F. I. M., & Grady, C. L. (2002). Aging, memory, and frontal lobe functioning. In D. T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 528–540). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195134971.003.0031

Duncan, J. (2001). An adaptive coding model of neural function in prefrontal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2 (11), 820–829. https://doi.org/10.1038/35097575

Dykes, M., & McGhie, A. (1976). A comparative study of attentional strategies of schizophrenic and highly creative normal subjects. British Journal of Psychiatry, 128 (1), 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.128.1.50

Edl, S., Benedek, M., Papousek, I., Weiss, E. M., & Fink, A. (2014). Creativity and the Stroop interference effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 69 , 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.009

Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 390.

Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). «Mini-mental state». A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12 (3), 189–198.

Fossati, A., Ceglie, A. D., Acquarini, E., & Barratt, E. S. (2001). Psychometric properties of an Italian version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11) in nonclinical subjects. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57 (6), 815–828. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1051

Fusi, G., Crepaldi, M., Colautti, L., Palmiero, M., Antonietti, A., Rozzini, L., & Rusconi, M. L. (2021). Divergent thinking abilities in frontotemporal dementia: A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 652543. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652543

Fusi, G., Lavolpe, S., Crepaldi, M., & Rusconi, M. L. (2021). The controversial effect of age on divergent thinking abilities: A systematic review. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55 (2), 374–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.461

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53 (4), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040755

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence . McGraw-Hill.

Hass, R. W., & Beaty, R. E. (2018). Use or consequences: Probing the cognitive difference between two measures of divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2327. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02327

Hass, R. W., Rivera, M., & Silvia, P. J. (2018). On the dependability and feasibility of layperson ratings of divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 1343. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01343

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61 (1), 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416

Iannello, P., Colombo, B., Germagnoli, S., & Antonietti, A. (2020). Enhancing intuition in problem solving through problem finding . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Jarosz, A. F., Colflesh, G. J. H., & Wiley, J. (2012). Uncorking the muse: Alcohol intoxication facilitates creative problem solving. Consciousness and Cognition, 21 (1), 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.01.002

Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P. J., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2 (4), e97. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097

Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133 (2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189

Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25 (6), 1534–1555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1534

Kounios, J., Fleck, J. I., Green, D. L., Payne, L., Stevenson, J. L., Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2008). The origins of insight in resting-state brain activity. Neuropsychologia, 46 (1), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.013

Kounios, J., Frymiare, J. L., Bowden, E. M., Fleck, J. I., Subramaniam, K., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2006). The prepared mind: Neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psychological Science, 17 (10), 882–890. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01798.x

Lacour, M., Bernard-Demanze, L., & Dumitrescu, M. (2008). Posture control, aging, and attention resources: Models and posture-analysis methods. Neurophysiologie Clinique/clinical Neurophysiology, 38 (6), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucli.2008.09.005

Luszcz, M. A., & Bryan, J. (1999). Toward understanding age-related memory loss in late adulthood. Gerontology, 45 (1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000022048

MacPherson, S. E., Phillips, L. H., & Della Sala, S. (2002). Age, executive function and social decision making: A dorsolateral prefrontal theory of cognitive aging. Psychology and Aging, 17 (4), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.4.598

Mednick, S. A. (1968). The remote associates test. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2 (3), 213–214.

Morales-Vives, F., & Vigil-Colet, A. (2012). Are old people so gentle? Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity in the elderly. International Psychogeriatrics, 24 (3), 465–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021100161X

Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21 (1), 34–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463281003765323

Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39 (1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.002

Orsini, A., & Pezzuti, L. (2013). Italian validation of the Wechsler adult intelligence scale. (WAIS IV) . Giunti OS.

Pachur, T., & Spaar, M. (2015). Domain-specific preferences for intuition and deliberation in decision making. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4 (3), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.07.006

Palmiero, M. (2015). The effects of age on divergent thinking and creative objects production: A cross-sectional study. High Ability Studies , 26 (1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1029117

Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51 (6), 768–774. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6%3c768::AID-JCLP2270510607%3e3.0.CO;2-1

Radel, R., Davranche, K., Fournier, M., & Dietrich, A. (2015). The role of (dis)inhibition in creativity: Decreased inhibition improves idea generation. Cognition, 134 , 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.001

Raffaldi, S., Iannello, P., Vittani, L., & Antonietti, A. (2012). Decision-making styles in the workplace: Relationships between self-report questionnaires and a contextualized measure of the analytical-systematic versus global-intuitive approach. SAGE Open, 2 (2), 2158244012448082. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012448082

Read, D., & Read, N. L. (2004). Time discounting over the lifespan. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94 (1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.01.002

Reverberi, C., Toraldo, A., D’Agostini, S., & Skrap, M. (2005). Better without (lateral) frontal cortex? Insight problems solved by frontal patients. Brain, 128 (12), 2882–2890. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh577

Rhodes, M. G. (2004). Age-related differences in performance on the Wisconsin card sorting test: A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Aging, 19 (3), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.3.482

Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., Black, S. R., & Mccown, S. M. (2008). Age-related changes in creative thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42 (1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01079.x

Runco, M. A. (2014). Cognition and creativity. Creativity (pp. 1–38). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410512-6.00001-1

Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

Sakurai, K., Li, H., Inamura, N., Masuoka, N., & Hisatsune, T. (2020). Relationship between elevated impulsivity and cognitive declines in elderly community-dwelling individuals. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 21032. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78124-5

Salthouse, T. (2012). Consequences of age-related cognitive declines. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 (1), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100328

Salthouse, T., Fristoe, N. M., Lineweaver, T. T., & Coon, V. E. (1995). Aging of attention: Does the ability to divide decline? Memory & Cognition, 23 (1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210557

Salvi, C., & Bowden, E. M. (2016). Looking for creativity: Where do we look when we look for new ideas? Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00161

Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Franconeri, S. L., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2015). Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visual inputs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22 (6), 1814–1819. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0845-0

Salvi, C., Costantini, G., Bricolo, E., Perugini, M., & Beeman, M. (2016). Validation of Italian rebus puzzles and compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, 48 (2), 664–685. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0597-9

Salvi, C., Simoncini, C., Grafman, J., & Beeman, M. (2020). Oculometric signature of switch into awareness? Pupil size predicts sudden insight whereas microsaccades predict problem-solving via analysis. NeuroImage, 217 , 116933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116933

Sapkota, S., Bäckman, L., & Dixon, R. A. (2017). Executive function performance and change in aging is predicted by apolipoprotein E, intensified by catechol-O-methyltransferase and brain-derived neurotrophic factor, and moderated by age and lifestyle. Neurobiology of Aging, 52 , 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.12.022

Sharma, S., & Babu, N. (2017). Interplay between creativity, executive function and working memory in middle-aged and older adults. Creativity Research Journal, 29 (1), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1263512

Shen, W., Hommel, B., Yuan, Y., Chang, L., & Zhang, W. (2018). Risk-taking and creativity: Convergent, but not divergent thinking is better in low-risk takers. Creativity Research Journal, 30 (2), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1446852

Shen, W., Yuan, Y., Liu, C., Yi, B., & Dou, K. (2016). The development and validity of a Chinese version of the compound remote associates test. The American Journal of Psychology, 129 (3), 245. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.3.0245

Silvia, P. J., Martin, C., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2009). A snapshot of creativity: Evaluating a quick and simple method for assessing divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4 (2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.06.005

Torrance, E. P. (1990). Torrance Tests of creative thinking. Figural forms A and B: directions manual . Scholastic Testing Service.

Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114 (1), 104–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104

Viterbori, P., Traverso, L., & Usai, M. C. (2017). The role of executive function in arithmetic problem-solving processes: A study of third graders. Journal of Cognition and Development, 18 (5), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2017.1392307

Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV). San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson, 22 (498), 1.

Wecker, N. S., Kramer, J. H., Wisniewski, A., Delis, D. C., & Kaplan, E. (2000). Age effects on executive ability. Neuropsychology, 14 (3), 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.14.3.409

Wiley, J., & Jarosz, A. F. (2012). Working Memory Capacity, Attentional Focus, and Problem Solving. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21 (4), 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412447622

Wollesen, B., Voelcker-Rehage, C., Regenbrecht, T., & Mattes, K. (2016). Influence of a visual–verbal Stroop test on standing and walking performance of older adults. Neuroscience, 318 , 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.01.031

World Medical Association. (2001). World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79 (4), 373–374.

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J. S., & Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive function: A problem-solving framework. Review of General Psychology, 1 (2), 198–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.198

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Costanza Pezzi Guarnati and Sabrina Rago for their important contribution to the data collection and dataset completion phases of this study.

Open access funding provided by Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy

Alice Cancer, Paola Iannello & Alessandro Antonietti

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Carola Salvi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Cancer .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Area Vasta Emilia-Nord and all participants provided written informed consent prior to testing.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cancer, A., Iannello, P., Salvi, C. et al. Executive functioning and divergent thinking predict creative problem-solving in young adults and elderlies. Psychological Research 87 , 388–396 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01678-8

Download citation

Received : 22 September 2021

Accepted : 14 March 2022

Published : 02 April 2022

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01678-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Mind wandering in creative problem-solving: Relationships with divergent thinking and mental health

Akina yamaoka.

1 Department of Human Welfare Counseling, Okinawa International University, Ginowan, Okinawa, Japan

Shintaro Yukawa

2 Faculty of Education, Hakuoh University, Oyama, Tochigi, Japan

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the Supporting Information files.

Previous research has shown that mind wandering has both positive and negative effects. Mind wandering may improve creative problem solving; however, it could also lead to negative moods and poor mental health. It has also been shown that some forms of mental illness are positively related to creativity. However, the three factors of mind wandering, divergent thinking, and mental health have not been examined simultaneously, so it is possible that these relationships are manifested by spurious correlations. Therefore, we examined the relations among the three factors while controlling for each of their confounding effects. We asked 865 participants (458 men, 390 women, 17 unknown; M age = 18.99 years, SD = 1.16) to complete a questionnaire measuring mind wandering traits, divergent thinking, and mental health measures including depressive symptoms and schizotypal personality. Multiple regression analysis showed that people who reported more depressive symptoms, schizotypal personality, and divergent thinking, were more likely to engage in mind-wandering. Our results indicated that frequency of mind wandering was linked to a risk of poorer mental health as well as to higher divergent thinking ability. In future research, we will examine the features of mind wandering related to divergent thinking and mental health by considering the contents of wandering thoughts and whether they are ruminative or not. We also need to examine whether the same results will be found when studying professionals in creative occupations, and when using different scoring methods in divergent thinking tests.

Introduction

It is sometimes difficult for people to concentrate and stay in the here and now. Our minds tend to wander and generate thoughts that are unrelated to the current situation or task. This familiar mental phenomenon has been given various names such as daydreaming, thought intrusions, task irrelevant thought, spontaneous thought, stimulus independent thought, respondent thought, fantasy, task unrelated thought, task unrelated images, internally generated thought, self-generated thought, absentmindedness, zoning out, offline thought, undirected thought, unconsciousness thought, and “mind wandering” [ 1 , 2 ]. After Smallwood and Schooler [ 3 ] suggested integrating these various lines of research into a conceptual body under the term mind wandering, the amount of research investigating this phenomenon increased. Most studies focused on the negative effects of mind wandering (e.g., [ 1 , 4 ]). For example, it has been shown that mind wandering prevents sustained attention to response tasks, which include major recognition tasks (e.g., [ 5 , 6 ]), reading tasks [ 1 , 7 ], and lectures [ 8 ]. It has also been shown that mind wandering is associated with negative mood (e.g., [ 9 – 13 ]) and depression [ 14 ]. On the other hand, a few studies have focused on the positive aspects of mind wandering, such as its relationship with creativity [ 14 – 19 ] or planning for the future [ 4 , 20 , 21 ]. In particular, it is worth noting that past research on creativity tasks has shown that mind wandering that occurred during an incubation period improved scores on divergent thinking tests [ 16 , 18 ] and insight problem-solving [ 17 ]. Accordingly, we examined both the positive and negative effects of mind wandering, including its associations with mental illness and divergent thinking.

Previous research has shown that mind wandering is positively related to some mental illnesses. Huba, Aneshensel, and Singer [ 22 ] distinguished between a) positive constructive daydreaming/mind-wandering; b) guilty-dysphoric daydreaming/mind-wandering, and c) poor attentional control, suggesting the influence of mind wandering is different depending on its type. For example, it has been shown that when mind wandering takes the form of rumination, it is associated with increased health risks and worsening of mood [ 23 ], and only mind wandering without awareness was positively associated with depression [ 24 ]. In addition, some research suggests that wandering thoughts that were past- and other-related were associated with subsequent negative mood even if the thought content that followed was positive. On the other hand, future- and self-related wandering thoughts preceded improvements in mood, even when the subsequent thought content was negative [ 25 ]. Franklin et al. [ 26 ] noted that wandering thoughts that were rated as interesting were associated with an increase in positive mood. Although these studies suggest that the relationship between mind wandering and mood may be dependent on the content and form of mind wandering, many studies have found that the overall frequency of mind wandering is associated with worsening of mood [ 9 , 11 – 13 , 25 ]. Moreover, the relationship appears to be reciprocal: when a negative mood was induced, people’s minds also tended to wander more [ 10 – 13 ]. Based on this evidence, Ottaviani et al. [ 23 ] suggested that the relationship between mind wandering and depression is bi-directional. In fact, depressed patients showed a higher frequency of mind wandering than did healthy people [ 15 ]. Therefore, mind wandering is expected to be positively associated with proneness to depression.

Some studies have indicated that mind wandering is related to other mental health conditions such as schizophrenia [ 27 ]. For example, both mind wandering and schizophrenia are said to include a sense of being decoupled from the real world [ 27 – 30 ]. Cognitive disinhibition, which is a common trait of schizophrenia, is a condition similar to mind wandering [ 19 ]. In cognitive disinhibition, the cognitive filter—often called “latent inhibition”—becomes weak and the brain is flooded with often irrelevant information [ 31 ], which is much like mind wandering. In both cases, the influx of information seems to promote creativity. A study has also shown a significant relationship between creative achievement and reduced latent inhibition for people with high IQ [ 31 ]. Others have found a link between frequent mind wandering and higher creativity, which included results from divergent thinking tests [ 14 , 19 ] and the Creative Achievement Questionnaire [ 15 ].

Moreover, recent neuroscience research has shown that, on a brain structural level, higher creativity is consistently associated with higher gray matter density in the default mode network regions [ 32 – 34 ], which has been observed to become active during mind wandering [ 35 – 37 ]. These neurophysiological findings indicate that the association between creativity and mind wandering might even manifest at a trait level [ 38 ].

These studies showed that mind wandering is linked to both mental illness and creativity, and also showed the possibility of a positive relationship between mental illness and creativity. In fact, previous studies have often suggested a positive relationship between creativity and manifestations of mental illness, such as schizotypy, which is a tendency to have aberrant experiences that resemble milder versions of schizophrenia symptoms [ 39 – 41 ], especially positive schizotypy (odd perceptions and magical thinking) [ 42 – 45 ], bipolar disorder [ 41 , 46 ], and insomnia [ 47 , 48 ]. Although some articles reported that there were no significant relationships between creativity and mental illnesses such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, social anxiety, negative affect, and depression [ 49 , 50 ], recently, Baas et al. [ 46 ] integrated these findings that positive schizotypy and bipolar disorder were positively related to creativity, whereas negative schizotypy (physical and social anhedonia), depressed mood, and anxiety were negatively related to it.

This, if creativity and mental illness are directly related, it is possible that the relationships between mind wandering and creativity, and between mind wandering and mental illness, are merely spurious correlations. Therefore, we conducted a survey of general college students and examined whether both mental health and creativity predict mind wandering while controlling for confounding effects of each of the other variables using multiple regression analysis. In our study, we used divergent thinking as an indicator of creativity. Divergent thinking is often used as an indicator of creativity, although some researchers have criticized it, arguing that it does not guarantee actual creativity [ 51 ]. We defined divergent thinking as involving a high potential for creative ideation and activation of associational networks to generate multiple unique solutions in a limited time period [ 52 , 53 ]. Additionally, we used depression tendency, which is commonly examined for its relationship to mind wandering and schizotypal personality, which has shown relationships with both mind wandering and creativity, as indicators of mental health.

Participants and missing data procedure

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Faculty of Human Sciences’ Research Ethics Committee in University of Tsukuba.

We collected 890 participants’ questionnaires; however, we excluded data from 22 participants. This is because these participants answered on less than three scales, and the answers were dropped from the analysis; we also eliminated data from three participants because they responded using the same number across all scales, indicating that they may have answered carelessly. Therefore, we analyzed data from 865 respondents (458 men, 390 women, 17 unknown; M age = 18.99 years, SD = 1.16) using SPSS Version 24.0 for Microsoft Windows (IBM company). We employed a single imputation method using the Expectation-Maximization Method and estimated the few missing data points. A power analysis showed that a sample size ≥ 92 is required to detect a medium-sized effect ( f 2 = 0.15; α = 0.05; 1- β = 0.8). Thus, the sample size in this study was confirmed to be was sufficient for the effect size.

Procedure and ethical considerations

We conducted a survey by recruiting participants from 13 classes at the University of Tsukuba. A questionnaire was distributed to the students after the class and we announced that the purpose of this survey was to examine the relationships between creativity, mental health, and attention, and explained the following ethical considerations: (a) this questionnaire is not related to your grade evaluation, (b) even if you do not participate in this survey or withdraw participation, you will never be at a disadvantage, (c) since the survey is done anonymously, your privacy will be strictly maintained and the results of the survey will be used only for research, and (d) with your answer, it is assumed that you agree to cooperate with the survey. This information was also printed on the face sheet of the questionnaire. We also told them not to open the questionnaire until they received our instruction.

We instructed them that, “If you do not agree, do not answer the questionnaire and if you agree to cooperate with the survey, please open the face sheet of the questionnaire.” First, we conducted the divergent thinking test at the same time because the divergent thinking test has a time limit for answering of three minutes for each question. After the divergent thinking test, we told them to move on and complete the next questionnaire at their own pace. Our survey took about 15 minutes and participants did not receive any reward.

Questionnaires

We used the Unusual Uses Test (UUT) [ 54 ] as an indicator of divergent thinking. In this test, participants are required to list as many unusual uses for common things as they can within a time limit. First, we conducted the test using the object “brick” with a time limit of 30 seconds as practice. After that, “can” and “socks” were used with a time limit of three minutes each. Answers were scored according to three aspects of divergent thinking: fluency, flexibility, and originality. Fluency indicates the ability to generate a significant number of answers, so the number of answers was scored as fluency [ 54 ]. Flexibility is the ability to propose various perspectives, so the number of categories that could be assigned to answers was scored as flexibility [ 54 ]. For example, if a participant answered, “dust box” and “jewelry box,” as unusual uses of a can, “box” became a category. Each category was worth one point. Lastly, originality is the ability to produce unique ideas. Thus, each answer was compared to the answers from other respondents. If an answer was provided by less than 5% of respondents, one point was given and if less than 1%, two points were given. In accordance with these instructions and the example, the first author calculated fluency and originality, and an evaluator who belongs to the faculty of psychology scored flexibility.

We then measured participants’ depressive symptom levels using the Japanese version of The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) [ 55 , 56 ], which is a 20-item list using a four-point Likert scale for each item (“A: rarely or none of the time” “B: some or a little of the time,” “C: occasionally or a moderate amount of time,” and “D: most or all of the time”). We modified the instructions of the scale to measure students’ daily tendencies toward depression, as opposed to those in the past week (“We will ask about your daily mental and physical condition”). We calculated total scores of the CES-D by coding A = 0, B = 1, C = 2, and D = 3 (items 4, 8, 12, and 16 were reversed), so the possible score range was from 0 to 60 points. Cronbach’s α was .88 in our sample.

We measured schizotypal personality using the Japanese version of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire Brief [ 57 , 58 ], which consists of 22 items. Participants are asked to select “Yes” (one point) or “No” (zero points). We calculated the total schizotypal personality score and the possible score range was 0 to 22. Cronbach’s α was .75 in our sample.

Finally, we measured participants’ tendency toward mind wandering using the Japanese version of the Mind-Wandering Questionnaire [ 59 , 60 ]. The test includes five items and a six-point Likert scale (from “1: almost never” to “6: almost always”). We calculated the average score of the mind wandering trait. Although Cronbach’s α was lower than the usually accepted threshold (α = .69 in our sample), this seemed to be so because a ceiling effect occurred in the fifth item. However, considering content validity, we used all items for analysis.

Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of each variable and Table 2 shows Pearson’s correlation coefficients among all variables. Significant positive relationships between mind wandering and each subscale of divergent thinking (fluency: r = .14, p < .001; flexibility: r = .16, p < .001; originality: r = .12, p < .001) were found, along with positive relationships between mind wandering and mental health (schizotypal personality: r = .23, p < .001; depressive symptoms: r = .33, p < .001). In addition, although the correlation coefficients were small, there were significant positive relationships between subscales of divergent thinking and schizotypal personality (fluency: r = .17, p < .001; flexibility: r = .17, p < .001; originality: r = .17, p < .001), and depressive symptoms (fluency: r = .07, p < .05; flexibility: r = .07, p < .05). Except for the correlation between divergent thinking and depressive symptoms, p -values were lower than the alpha level adjusted by Bonferroni correction (0.05/21 = 0.002).

Means of schizotypal personality and depressive symptoms are total scores of each scale. Possible score ranges are as follows: schizotypal personality– 0 to 22 points and depressive symptoms– 0 to 60 points.

*** p < .001,

** p < .01,

* p < .05

Next, we conducted multiple regression analysis ( Table 3 ). To avoid multicollinearity, we used the variable “divergent thinking,” which comprised total scores of standardized fluency, standardized flexibility, and standardized originality. In the multiple regression analysis, we used mind wandering as a dependent variable and divergent thinking, schizotypal personality, and depressive symptoms as independent variables. We also controlled for age and sex. Expect for control variables, all independent variables positively predicted mind wandering ( βs = .08–.28).

* p < .05,

*** p < .001

In this study, we examined whether mental health and divergent thinking each predict mind wandering while controlling for confounding effects of each of the other variables. The multiple regression analysis results showed that people who have higher levels of depressive symptoms and schizotypal personality tended to report a higher frequency of mind wandering. The results, which showed a relationship between depression and mind wandering, were consistent with those of previous studies that demonstrated that frequency of mind wandering is related to negative mood (e.g., [ 9 , 25 , 26 ]) and depression [ 14 ]. According to previous research [ 23 ], a two-way causal relationship can be considered in which people with high depression tend to experience mind-wandering with negative content or ruminative mind-wandering, and their depression tends to increase.

Schizotypal personality was positively correlated with depression tendency, but schizotypal personality also predicted mind wandering independently, even after controlling for the effects of depression tendency. This supports previous research [ 27 ], and is likely attributable to the fact that mind wandering and schizotypal personality share some similar aspects in that participants are said to have a sense of being decoupled from the real world [ 27 – 30 ] and there is a great influx of information in both mind wandering and cognitive disinhibition, which is a common factor with schizophrenia [ 19 ]. Thus, our study measured depression and schizotypal personality as indicators of mental health, but these variables independently predicted mind wandering and their associations have different causes.

The regression coefficient between mind wandering and divergent thinking was also statistically significant, which is consistent with previous research (e.g., [ 15 ]). An association between creativity and mind wandering has been found, and this included studies examining the relation with the default mode network and conducted on the brain structure level [ 32 – 34 , 38 ]. Our findings supported these previous studies. Furthermore, although our research does not show a causal relation, this positive relation could have occurred because people who engage in mind wandering in everyday life have an abundance of information in their minds, which promotes divergent thinking, as with people high in cognitive disinhibition [ 31 , 61 ]. In fact, previous research [ 16 – 18 ] has showed that when mind wandering occurred during an incubation period, creative problem solving was enhanced.

Therefore, in further research, we should examine whether, when mind wandering has occurred, creativity would be improved and negative affect would also be generated. Our results indicated the possibility that, although state level mind wandering can improve creativity, it may also lead to poor mental health.

Limitations

Overall, our results seem to indicate the possibility that more mind wandering is accompanied by greater divergent thinking and decreased mental health. However, our study has several limitations. First, according to previous research, although the overall trait of mind wandering is positively related to depression, it is possible that only past- and other-related thoughts [ 25 ], ruminating thoughts [ 22 ], or mind wandering without awareness [ 24 ] are positively related to depression. Moreover, Agnoli et al. [ 15 ] showed that deliberate mind wandering is positively related to creativity while spontaneous mind wandering is negatively related to it. Although they used the Creative Achievement Questionnaire [ 52 ] as an indicator of creativity, not as an indicator of divergent thinking, there is a possibility that the association with divergent thinking differs depending on the intentionality behind the mind wandering. Second, the size of the regression coefficient between mind wandering and divergent thinking was small. A third variable such as intelligence or working memory capacity may affect the relationship between them [ 19 ]. In fact, previous research on cognitive disinhibition has shown that people low in latent inhibition showed high creative achievement when they also had high intelligence [ 31 ]. They hypothesized that high intelligence enables a person to process and manipulate unfiltered stimuli that result from low latent inhibition, thereby increasing the odds of original recombinant ideation. Thus, we need to account for other variables in future research. Third, we need to examine whether the same positive relationship between mind wandering and divergent thinking is found when using other types of creativity tests. Although the UUT is a common test of divergent thinking and is sometimes used as a creativity test, we should examine other types of creativity tests such as insight tests that require mainly convergent thinking. Previous research has shown that mindfulness is positively associated with insight problem-solving [ 62 ]. Thus, it is possible that mind wandering is positively related to performance on divergent thinking tests and negatively related to performance on convergent thinking tests such as insight problem-solving tests. Moreover, we need to examine whether different methods of scoring divergent thinking would lead to different results because previous research showed that relationships between psychopathology measures and divergent thinking depend on how divergent thinking tests are scored [ 63 ]. In addition, professional artists, musicians, writers, or other professionals in creative occupations need to be surveyed to determine whether they showed results similar to those of the students in our study.

Although there are several limitations to our study and more detailed surveys are needed, we showed fundamental and overall relationships between mind wandering, divergent thinking, and mental health, while controlling for the possibility of spurious correlations. In the future, we will examine these relationships more elaborately, considering the creativity test type, participants’ attributes, and the specific nature of mind wandering.

Supporting information

Funding statement.

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

Creativity and the Brain

Creativity involves many parts of the brain..

Posted March 30, 2024 | Reviewed by Ray Parker

• The book The Creative Art argues that creativity is a skill we can all use daily.
• Creativity is complex and involves multiple brain regions.
• School experience can influence creativity.

I recently finished reading an interesting book by Rick Rubin, The Creative Art: A Way of Being . (I was not paid and never met the author.) One of the clear messages of this book is that creativity belongs to everyone, not only to artists, and that we can be creative many times in our everyday lives. I agree. For example, right now, I am “creating” a new post.

This book inspired me to find out what is going on in the human brain that results in creativity. As I started reading research papers, it turned out to be a very complex and complicated subject. That is mainly because it is difficult to define creativity clearly. It is a rather subjective and multidimensional field. Also, many research papers study different kinds of creative processes, such as visual art, music, creative thinking , etc.

It is impossible to cover such a complex subject in one post. Coming from the field of cognitive processes, I decided to concentrate on research related to brain activity involved in creative thought processes. Most of the time, cognitive creativity involves testing the person’s divergent thinking (generating possible solutions to the problem) or convergent thinking (finding a single, correct solution to the problem). Brain activity is usually measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which looks at the function of the brain.

In a Canadian study (Sunavsky, A. and Poppenk, J. 2022), 69 participants ages 22-35 were administered visual and verbal tests of divergent thinking, creative achievement, and behavior inventories. The participants also had a whole-body MRI scan and FMRI. The results indicated that the cerebellum (this is an interesting finding because the cerebellum mainly coordinates body movements) and parahippocampal gyrus (involved in memory encoding and retrieval) are involved in creative processes. Also, the executive control network (in simple terms, it involves planning, organizing, problem-solving, and decision-making ) and the default mode network (areas of the brain that are activated when we are letting our minds wander at rest) interactions facilitate creative processes.

In a French study (Ovando-Tellez, M. et al. 2022), the researchers investigated the neural and cognitive basis of creative behavior in real life. The 94 participants, ages 22-37, completed fMRI while performing semantic relatedness judgment tasks. They judged the relatedness between all possible pairs of 35 words (595 ratings). The subjects also completed an inventory of creative activities and achievements.

One of the findings of this elaborate study indicated that efficient and denser functional connectivity between the default, control, salience (this network is involved in the awareness of the feelings associated with rewards), and visual network predicted a more integrated semantic memory structure and more creative behaviors. Generally speaking, creative thinking and creative abilities are related to the organization of associations in semantic memory. Simply, it includes memories of general knowledge, i.e., how to use a phone, facts, names, and concepts. Creative people easily link distant concepts.

A study (Beaty, R.E. et al. 2018) was completed at the University of North Carolina (UNCG). The 163 participants (mean age 22.5) were engaged in a creativity task (divergent thinking task, imagining a new and unusual use of the common object) and control task while the fMRI was completed. The results indicated that high creativity is related to functional brain connectivity within the default, silence, and executive brain systems.

The above research data brings us to the question of whether the creative thinking process can be taught. A study from Switzerland (Duval, Ph. E. et al. 2023) tried to answer that question. The researchers assessed creative thinking in 75 children (4-18 years old) enrolled either in Montessori (it promotes independence and holistic development) or traditional schools. The children performed a creativity task (convergent thinking task, integrating objects to make a drawing) and a six-minute resting state MRI scan. The research indicates that school experience does play a role in creativity development. Montessori-schooled children consistently scored higher on a creativity task. The study also unveiled the important role of the salience network (SN) in the creative thinking processes across development.

In summary, creative thinking (convergent and divergent thinking) requires the coordination of multiple brain regions, mainly the executive control network (it involves planning, organizing, problem-solving, and decision-making), default mode network (areas of the brain that are activated when we are letting our minds wander at rest) and salience network (involved in the awareness of the feelings associated with rewards) but obviously other parts of the brain are also involved and this depends on the specific goal or outcome that we want to achieve.

How to be more creative? Well, this is a subject for another post.

Rick Rubin “The Creative Act: A Way of Being”. Penguin Press, NY 2023.

Sunavsky, A & Poppenk,J. “Neuroimaging predictors of creativity in healthy adults” Neuroimage, Vol. 206, Feb. 2022

Ovando-Tellez, M.et al. “Brain connectivity-based predictors of real life creativity is mediated by semantic memory structure.” Science Advances, Vol 8. Issue 5, 2022.

Beaty, R.E. at al. “Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity.” PNAS, January, 2018.

Duval, Ph. E. et al. “Creative thinking and brain network development in schoolchildren” Developmental Science, March 2023.

Barbara Koltuska-Haskin, Ph.D., is a neuropsychologist in Albuquerque, New Mexico and the author of How My Brain Works.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Support Group
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Open access
• Published: 29 March 2024

Insomnia and creativity in Chinese adolescents: mediation through need for cognition

• Xiaoyang Ren 1 ,
• Min Shi 1 &

BMC Psychology volume  12 , Article number:  180 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Creativity is an essential cognitive ability that plays a crucial role in advanced thinking. While previous research has demonstrated the impact of insomnia on cognitive function, its effects on creativity in Chinese adolescents remain unclear. This study explored the relationship between insomnia (specifically, daytime and nighttime disturbances) and creativity in adolescents. Additionally, it examined the potential mediating effect of the need for cognition on this relationship.

Questionnaires were administered to 302 adolescents to measure their creativity, need for cognition, and insomnia levels using the Williams Creative Tendencies Scale, Need for Cognition Scale, and Bergen Insomnia Scale, respectively. Regression analysis was conducted to examine the direct impact of insomnia on creativity. Furthermore, a mediation model was constructed to investigate the role of the need for cognition in mediating the relationship between insomnia and creativity.

The findings of the present study indicated that insomnia had a direct impact on the creativity of adolescents, demonstrating a time-of-day effect. Daytime disturbances were found to have a positive correlation with overall creativity and imagination, whereas no significant direct effect was found between nighttime disturbances and creativity. Further analysis revealed that insomnia, specifically daytime disturbances, might influence creativity by affecting the individual’s need for cognition. However, no similar indirect effects were observed for the relationship between nighttime disturbances and creativity.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that adolescents might experience improved creativity as a result of daytime disruptions, and the level of need for cognition could play a crucial role in understanding the link between insomnia and creativity in adolescents.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Insomnia is a condition characterized by an individual’s self-reported difficulties in sleeping [ 1 , 2 ]. It is characterized by symptoms such as taking a long time to fall asleep, waking up frequently during the night, experiencing prolonged periods of wakefulness during sleep, and frequent brief awakenings [ 3 ]. In recent years, issues like staying up late, not getting enough sleep, and struggling to fall asleep have become increasingly prevalent among adolescents [ 4 ]. The White Paper 2023 China Youth and Children’s Sleep Index, released by the China Sleep Research Association, reveals concerning statistics about the sleep patterns of junior high school students in China. According to the report, only 18.9% of these students manage to sleep for more than 8 h, while a staggering 59.4% sleep for less than 7 h. On average, these students only get 6.82 h of sleep, indicating that the majority of them do not meet the recommended amount of sleep. A study conducted in the Shandong Province of China explored the prevalence of sleep problems among adolescents. The findings revealed that 37.44% of adolescents suffered from insufficient sleep, while 26.89% reported experiencing poor sleep quality [ 5 ]. Another meta-analysis, which included 63 studies and a total of 430,422 Chinese adolescents, discovered that 104,802 adolescents experienced sleep disturbances. The overall prevalence of sleep problems was found to be 26%, with junior high school students having a detection rate of 20% [ 6 ]. As widely known, adolescents go through a crucial stage of psychological transformation. Issues such as sleep deprivation and sleep disorders appear to have a significant influence on their mental well-being, especially in terms of cognition and personality development [ 7 , 8 ].

Can tired minds generate creative ideas? Some researchers have found that the cognitive processes utilized before sleep by individuals with insomnia, such as rehearsing, planning, and problem-solving, are similar to the stages involved in creative thinking, such as preparation and incubation [ 9 , 10 ]. As a result, a hypothesis has emerged suggesting that individuals with disrupted sleep might exhibit greater creativity. In addition, it should be noted that disrupted sleep and the widely recognized consequences of sleep deprivation are symptoms of depression and anxiety [ 11 , 12 ], while depression and anxiety have also been associated with creativity [ 13 ]. This suggests that sleep issues could have been prevalent among individuals who are highly creative. However, it is important to consider that sleep problems have been shown to negatively affect cognitive function as well. For example, a study using fMRI have demonstrated that lack of sleep reduced the communication between various brain regions such as the amygdala, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate gyrus, and right inferior frontal gyrus. This weakened functional connectivity could result in a negative bias when it comes to encoding memories [ 14 ]. Additionally, research has found that sleep deprivation could also impact the activity of brain regions involved in fearful learning, namely the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and amygdala [ 15 ]. Since the activity of the aforementioned brain regions is crucial for individual creativity, some researchers have also suggested that problems such as sleep deprivation and sleep disorders may produce impairments in cognition, memory, etc., which in turn interfere with creativity [ 16 ].

It is noteworthy that only two studies have delved into the connection between insomnia and creativity until now. Firstly, researchers discovered a positive correlation between insomnia and creativity by comparing the prevalence of sleep disturbances in 30 creative children versus 30 control children. Notably, the highly creative children exhibited a higher incidence of sleep disturbances than the control group [ 17 ]. Subsequently, a recent study indicated a minor direct impact of a global insomnia factor on divergent thinking, implying time-of-day effects where nighttime sleep disturbances positively predicted divergent thinking more strongly than daytime disturbances [ 18 ]. These findings suggest that sleep disturbances may possess some beneficial predictive effects on creativity among children and adolescents. However, there could be disparities in the impact of sleep disturbances during the day and night. Despite this, the majority of existing studies have focused on the influence of insomnia on creative thinking, leaving a gap in research evidence regarding its effects on creative personality. It is established that insomnia is linked to personality traits [ 19 ]. Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between adolescents’ creativity (specifically creative personality) and insomnia. Building on the outcomes of previous studies, we hypothesized that insomnia would significantly and positively predict adolescents’ creativity (creative personality).

Although a tenuous link has been established between insomnia and creativity, it is postulated that additional variables might influence this relationship. Taking these observations into account, a crucial question arises: How does insomnia impact creativity? Since coming up with original and useful ideas requires several cognitively demanding processes [ 20 , 21 ], the need for cognition may also play an important role in creativity. The need for cognition refers to an individual’s tendency to engage in and derive pleasure from tasks that require cognitive effort [ 22 ]. Individuals with a strong need for cognition are more prone to innovate and have a deeper interest in addressing challenging problems. For instance, research suggested that those with a high cognitive need were more likely to generate ideas for ambiguous scenarios [ 23 ]. Furthermore, individuals with a strong need for cognition exhibited heightened creativity in problem-solving and possessed more pronounced creative personalities [ 24 , 25 ]. Therefore, the need for cognition might serve as a significant and positive predictor of creative personality [ 26 ]. In considering the role of insomnia in creativity, it is plausible that the need for cognition could act as a mediator, influencing the association between the two variables.

However, there was evidence that insomnia could impact individuals’ willingness to invest more time and effort when faced with complex tasks. The microanalytic model of insomnia highlighted hyperarousal as a key regulatory feature, which could distort perceptions of time and exacerbate the challenges associated with falling asleep and experiencing distress. As a result, the consequences of insomnia on the following day could include fatigue, mood disturbances such as irritability, cognitive impairments, and a reduced ability to engage in or enjoy mentally demanding tasks [ 27 ]. Furthermore, the maintained cognitive model of insomnia suggested that insomniacs tend to worry excessively about sleep and its consequences. This negative cognition leaded to emotional distress, and the resulting anxiety prompted individuals to hyperfocus on internal and external cues related to sleep-related threats. Consequently, this state of anxiety could lead to a lack of interest and motivation in solving complex problems, as well as crowding out the time needed for engaging in mentally challenging tasks [ 28 ]. Supported by neuroimaging and neurobiochemistry evidence, researchers have found that individuals with insomnia often exhibit impairments in various cognitive functions, including episodic memory, working memory, and certain aspects of executive functioning [ 7 ]. Given these findings, it is likely that insomnia can reduce an individual’s cognitive engagement and motivation to seek new knowledge, thereby suppressing the anticipated effect of insomnia on creativity. Therefore, the second objective of our study was to further investigate the psychological mechanisms that underlie the impact of insomnia on creativity. Drawing from the aforementioned theoretical and empirical evidence, we hypothesized that the need for cognition played a mediating role in the relationship between insomnia and creativity.

Taking into account that previous research primarily focused on young adults or children, who exhibited distinct sleep patterns compared to adolescents, the relationship between insomnia and the creativity of adolescents, particularly their creative personality, remained enigmatic. The objective of this study was to explore the impact of insomnia on adolescents’ creativity, specifically their creative personality, and to unravel the underlying mechanisms. Drawing from existing theoretical and empirical research, we postulated that: (1) insomnia, encompassing both daytime and nighttime disturbances, was associated with creativity in adolescents, and there might exist time-of-day effects (H1); and (2) the need for cognition might serve as a mediator between insomnia and creativity (H2).

Materials and methods

After a thorough literature review and consideration of previous research, the research questions and hypotheses were formulated in January 2023. Utilizing a cross-sectional research design, questionnaires were administered to a cohort of middle school students in Jinan, Shandong Province, in April of the same year. These questionnaires aimed to capture data on all the relevant research variables, including creativity, insomnia, and the need for cognition at the same time. Subsequently, the collected data was entered into a database and subjected to rigorous checking and analysis.

Participants and procedure

To ensure the validity and relevance of our study, we collaborated closely with a local school in the recruitment process. Initially, we liaised with the school’s head to disseminate recruitment details. Leveraging the assistance of class teachers, we carefully selected participants based on the following criteria: all participants were required to be native Chinese speakers with normal or corrected vision, exhibit no signs of mental or physical health issues, possess normal intellectual development, not encounter any reading difficulties, and not consume psychotropic drugs. Only students who expressed a willingness to participate and fulfilled the study’s criteria were ultimately chosen to participate in the testing process. This meticulous approach ensured that our sample population was representative and well-suited for the objectives of our research.

In this study, 318 junior high school students participated, of whom 302 were included in the primary analysis due to having complete datasets, yielding an effective participation rate of 94.97%. Participants’ ages ranged from 12 to 14, with an average of 12.97 years ( SD  = 0.49). Specifically, 41 were 12 years old, 229 were 13, and 32 were 14. 147 were females (48.7%) and 155 were males (51.3%). Regarding the parents’ educational backgrounds, the survey revealed that 31 fathers (10.3%) and 34 mothers (11.3%) held university degrees or higher qualifications. Notably, most parents had completed their education at the middle or high school level (70.2%). When it came to parental occupations, the survey found that the fathers’ top three professions were doctors (25.5%), self-employed individuals (11.6%), and drivers (8.3%). Meanwhile, for mothers, the most common occupations were self-employed (19.2%), salespeople (11.6%), and laborers (8.9%).

The Institutional Review Board of Shandong Normal University has granted approval for this study, ensuring that all measurements adhere strictly to the pertinent guidelines and regulations for psychological research. The group tests were conducted within the classroom setting, led by a psychology-major researcher as the primary tester. Initially, we secured the authorization and support of the school’s teaching department. Subsequently, we utilized the students’ self-study period to clarify the purpose of the research and underscore the principles of voluntariness, anonymity, and honesty. Ultimately, the participants were required to complete a psychological test within approximately 30 min, assessing various aspects such as creativity, need for cognition, insomnia, along with personal family information.

An adapted version of the Williams Creative Tendencies Scale (WCTS) was utilized to assess the creativity of the participants [ 29 ]. This scale was widely employed in numerous prior creativity studies and exhibited strong reliability [ 30 , 31 ]. The adapted version included 11 items to measure adventurousness, 14 items to measure curiosity, 13 items to measure imagination, and 12 items to measure challenge. Each item was rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). By compiling the total scores, we can effectively evaluate the creativity of the students. Notably, all the items demonstrated good reliability, with a Cronbach’s α value of 0.86.

• Need for cognition

The Need for Cognition Scale (NCS) [ 22 ] was employed in its shortened version to assess participants’ need for cognition. The 18-item Chinese version of the NCS was initially introduced [ 32 ] and subsequently validated as suitable for both adolescents and young adults in subsequent studies [ 33 ]. Participants were instructed to answer the questions based on their actual circumstances. Each item was rated using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly opposed) to 5 (strongly agreed). The total score was calculated by summing up the responses to all 18 items, with higher scores indicating a stronger need for cognition. This measurement demonstrated good reliability in the current study, with a Cronbach’s α value of 0.76.

We utilized the Bergen Insomnia Scale (BIS) to assess insomnia among the participants [ 34 ]. The scale comprises six items, all aligned with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for clinical insomnia. The validity of these items has been confirmed through subjective reports and polysomnographic data, encompassing sleep-stage progression, limb movement, and physiological measurements of respiration during controlled laboratory sleep. Three items focus on nighttime disturbances, such as “How many days a week did it take you over 30 minutes to fall asleep after switching off the lights in the past month?”; the other three items target daytime disturbances, like “How many days a week did you feel rested upon waking up in the past month?”. Participants were asked to rate their symptoms on a weekly basis using an eight-point scale ranging from 0 to 7. The total score for the first three items represents nighttime disturbances, while the last three items reflect daytime disturbances. This measurement demonstrated strong reliability for daytime disturbances (Cronbach’s α = 0.86), nighttime disturbances (Cronbach’s α = 0.62), and the overall insomnia score (Cronbach’s α = 0.80) in the Chinese population. According to previous literature, this scale demonstrated good reliability among the Chinese population [ 35 ].

Socioeconomic status (SES)

Recognizing the challenges in precisely measuring income, domestic researchers often turn to an alternative method: assessing a family’s socioeconomic status (SES) through a detailed analysis of their parents’ occupation and education level [ 36 ]. In the present study, we utilized the SES questionnaire to gather participants’ reports on their parents’ occupational and educational backgrounds [ 37 ]. These reports were then coded and graded, following established occupational classification standards, to ensure consistency and comparability across respondents. The occupational classification system employed in this study encompassed five distinct levels: (1) those engaged in temporary, unskilled, agricultural, or non-technical work; (2) self-employed individuals, manual laborers, and technicians; (3) general management and professional technical personnel, including clerks and employees in the commercial service industry; (4) middle-level professionals, managers, and technical personnel, as well as auxiliary professionals specializing in various fields of science, technology, and enterprise work; and (5) senior professional technicians, executives, and leading cadres exercising administrative functions in government, institutions, and social organizations, as well as high- and middle-level managers in large and medium-sized enterprises and private business owners. By utilizing this graded classification system, we aimed to capture a comprehensive representation of participants’ SES backgrounds, ensuring the validity and reliability of our findings.

Furthermore, the educational attainment of parents was categorized into distinct levels:“no schooling or primary education”, “junior middle school”, “high school or technical secondary school”, “junior college”, “university (undergraduate)”, and “graduate”. Participants were required to select the most appropriate category based on their parents’ educational qualifications, and each choice was assigned a numerical score ranging from 1 to 6 during the coding process.

Ultimately, the cumulative score served as an indicator of the family’s socioeconomic status, with a potential range spanning from 4 to 22. Notably, in this research endeavor, the SES scores for both mothers and fathers were computed separately, allowing for a nuanced understanding of each parent’s contribution to the overall socioeconomic profile of the family.

Data analysis

First, we employed the Pearson correlation to assess the relationships between the research variables in the present study. To explore the direct impact of insomnia (independent variables) on creativity (dependent variables), we resorted to multiple linear regression analysis. Specifically, gender, age, socioeconomic status of both parents, and insomnia total score (or daytime and nighttime disturbances) were simultaneously entered into the regression equation. Additionally, we utilized the mediation model to delve into the intricate relationships between insomnia, need for cognition, and creativity. To validate the mediation effects, we relied on the bootstrapping method. From the data, 5000 bootstrap samples were drawn, and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (CI) were computed. For these statistical analyses, we employed SPSS 17.0 process SPSS macro PROCESS (model 4) ( http://www.afhayes.com ) [ 38 ]. This macro has been extensively used and developed for testing complex models incorporating mediating variables [ 39 ].

Common method deviation test

While the self-report method is a popular choice for data collection, it can potentially lead to common method variance (CMV) issues. To mitigate these concerns, we implemented various control measures to safeguard participants’ anonymity. Among these measures, we ensured that the collected data was strictly limited to scientific research purposes and employed reverse expressions for certain items [ 40 ]. Additionally, to enhance the study’s precision, we utilized the Harman single factor test to process the data. Specifically, we conducted a non-rotating principal component factor analysis on the aforementioned items. The results indicated that the first factor explained only 13.66% of the variation (falling below the 40% threshold). Consequently, this study did not exhibit significant common method variance issues in the collected data.

Descriptive statistics of study variables

Table  1 presents the means, standard deviations, bivariate correlations and gender differences among study variables. The independent samples t-test results revealed that females significantly scored higher than males on measures of insomnia, daytime disturbances, and imagination. Our findings further indicated a positive correlation between insomnia and daytime disturbances with imagination, whereas a negative correlation was observed with the need for cognition. Moreover, the need for cognition demonstrated positive associations with the creativity total score, adventure, curiosity, imagination, and challenge. Mother’s socioeconomic status (SES) exhibited a positive association with imagination. The data for all variables had no outliers and were within three standard deviations. The distributions of all variables approached normality, with skewness and kurtosis ranging from − 1 to 1.

Direct effect tests

The collinearity diagnosis revealed that the tolerance values for the variables of insomnia, daytime and nighttime disturbances, and need for cognition were greater than 0.2, ranging from 0.78 to 0.98, indicating the absence of significant collinearity issues.

The regression analysis results demonstrated that insomnia ( β  = 0.19, p  < 0.01) and daytime disturbances ( β  = 0.24, p  < 0.01) positively predicted imagination when controlling for gender, age, father’s SES, and mother’s SES. However, no significant direct effect of nighttime disturbances was observed on the creativity total score, adversity, curiosity, imagination, and challenge (Tables  2 and 3 ). Therefore, H1 was supported. Based on previous research, effect sizes of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 are considered small, medium, and large, respectively [ 18 , 41 ]. Consequently, insomnia ( β  = 0.19) and daytime disturbances ( β  = 0.24) exhibited small-to-medium positive effects on creativity, particularly in terms of imagination.

Indirect effect tests

The indirect effect of need for cognition between insomnia and creativity.

Firstly, the total effect of insomnia on creativity was tested, and it was demonstrated that the path coefficient was not significant. Subsequently, the mediating variable of cognition was added to the model to obtain the path type shown in Fig.  1 . The results showed that insomnia had a direct effect on creativity, and the need for cognition played an indirect role between insomnia and creativity (Table  4 ). The bootstrap test was utilized, and 5000 repeated samples were taken to test the mediating effect and estimate the confidence interval. The absence of 0 in the 95% confidence interval suggested that the indirect effect was significant (see Table  5 ). Therefore, H2 was supported. Similar results were found for imagination, while only indirect effects were found for adventure, curiosity, and challenge. According to the recently proposed mediation effect test method [ 42 ], the indirect effect of need for cognition on the relationship between insomnia and creativity was established, which manifested suppression effects. In other words, the inclusion of the need for cognition enhanced the relationship between insomnia and creativity.

Mediation analysis model testing relationships among insomnia, need for cognition (NC) and creativity

The indirect effect of need for cognition between daytime disturbances and creativity

Similar analysis processes were also conducted to investigate the relationship between daytime disturbances and creativity. Testing the total effect of daytime disturbances on creativity revealed that the path coefficient was not significant. The mediating variable, need for cognition, was then added to the model to obtain the path type shown in Fig.  2 . The results showed that daytime disturbances had a direct effect on creativity, and the need for cognition played an indirect role in the relationship between daytime disturbances and creativity (Table  6 ). Finally, the bootstrap test was employed, and 5000 replicated samples were taken to test the mediating effect and establish the confidence interval. The exclusion of 0 from the 95% confidence interval indicated a statistically significant indirect effect (see Table  7 ). Similar results were found for imagination, while for adventure, curiosity, and challenge, only indirect effects were found. Also, the inclusion of the need for cognition enhanced the relationship between daytime disturbances and creativity.

The indirect effect of need for cognition between nighttime disturbances and creativity

Although s imilar analysis processes were also conducted to examine the relationship between nighttime disturbances and creativity, no significant direct of nighttime disturbances or indirect effects of the need for cognition were found (see Supplementary Table S1 , Table S2 ).

Mediation analysis model testing relationships among daytime disturbances (DD), need for cognition (NC) and creativity

Insomnia and creativity in Chinese adolescents

The current study firstly examined the direct effect of insomnia (daytime disturbances, nighttime disturbances) on adolescents’ creativity. Based on our preliminary findings, insomnia was found to have a beneficial impact on the overall creativity score and imagination, aligning with prior research (H1 was supported). Further analysis showed that there indeed existed time-of-day effects: disturbances during the day had a significant effect on imagination, whereas the effect of disturbances during the night was not significant.

It’s worth nothing that the direct impact of insomnia on creativity was limited to imagination. Imagination is the ability to imagine things that have not yet happened and speculate intuitively, transcending the boundaries of the senses and reality [ 43 ]. It is the basis of all creative activities and a crucial part of culture life [ 44 ]. In a state of insomnia, individuals’ minds may be active, which may enhance individuals’ ability to visualize and increase their openness to new ideas and perspectives.

Moreover, our findings revealed a significant direct impact of daytime disturbances solely on imagination, with no comparable effect observed for nighttime disturbances. This seemed to contrast previous research conducted on young adults, indicating that ‘evening types’ - individuals who typically prefer staying up late and waking up late - tend to perform slightly better on certain measures of creativity [ 45 ]. However, it’s crucial to note that the sleep patterns of adolescents differ from those of young adults. Even if they stay up late, adolescents have less chance of waking up late. Consequently, nighttime disturbances may not be advantageous for them. Conversely, daytime disturbances resulting in fatigue and mood swings might lead to less stringent cognitive control, fostering opportunities for unconventional thinking. Hence, it becomes evident that the investigation of insomnia’s influence on creativity should take into account the time-of-day effects. Daytime disturbances appeared to positively predict creativity more strongly than nighttime disturbances in adolescents.

Mediation of need for cognition

Although the direct impact of insomnia on creativity was notable, the majority of the observed effects were of small-to-medium magnitude. Researchers postulated the existence of a third variable that could potentially mediate the relationship between sleep and creativity [ 46 ]. To delve deeper into the influence of insomnia on creativity, we investigated the intermediary role of the need for cognition. Our findings generally indicated that insomnia might exert its influence on creativity by modulating the need for cognition (H2 was supported). The introduction of need for cognition as a variable strengthened the predictive power of insomnia-related factors (such as daytime disturbances) on creative outcomes (like imagination). These observations suggests the emergence of a suppression effect, which refers to a scenario where a third variable attenuates the relationship between an independent variable (X) and a dependent variable (Y), even when the null hypothesis is true. In psychological research, the absence of a direct relationship between X and Y often poses a challenge. The suppression effect offered a valuable framework for addressing such scenarios and elucidating why significant relationships might not be immediately apparent [ 47 ]. Similarly, our results revealed that need for cognition acted as a suppressor, mitigating the effects of insomnia on creativity.

Despite the absence of a significant direct effect of insomnia, the need for cognition was supported as an indirect influence on adventure, curiosity, and challenge. Adventurousness, curiosity, and challenge-seeking all involve cognitive endeavors such as facing failure or criticism, inquiring into the root cause of problems, engaging in confusing situations, and making order out of chaos [ 43 ]. These creative personalities are strongly influenced by their need for cognition, and insomnia may influence them indirectly by altering their need for cognition.

Limitations

Although these findings offer valuable insights, it’s important to acknowledge several limitations. Firstly, the study employed a cross-sectional design, which assessed variables simultaneously, thus lacking evidence of a temporal link between insomnia and creativity. Longitudinal studies are needed to establish a definitive cause-and-effect relationship between these variables. Secondly, the current study primarily focused on creative personality, overlooking the impact of creative cognition. Given that insomnia is a small-to-medium predictor of divergent thinking [ 18 ], it’s crucial to investigate whether the need for cognition mediates this relationship, enhancing our understanding of the factors that truly influence insomnia’s predictive power over creativity. Finally, the findings of this study have not been replicated in other samples, limiting their generalizability. Future research should aim to replicate these results in diverse enrollment groups, particularly those experiencing severe insomnia, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.

Despite the limitations described, the present study has two strengths. The primary strength is to first reveal the time-of-day effect associated with insomnia and adolescents’ creativity. These preliminary findings offer profound insights into the impact of sleep disturbances on adolescents’ creativity, thereby aiding in the development of accurate sleep concepts and promoting mental well-being. Secondly, insomnia was found to be more likely to influence creativity through affecting need for cognition. These revelations contribute to establishing scientific frameworks for understanding adolescents’ sleep patterns and suggest that the need for cognition is a crucial aspect in examining the link between insomnia and creativity. Notably, the suppression effect of the need for cognition offers an explanation for the tenuous association between insomnia and creativity, providing a theoretical foundation for fostering the emergence and development of creativity among adolescents with insomnia.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript.

Abbreviations

Williams Creative Tendencies Scale

Need for Cognition Scale

Bergen Insomnia Scale

Socioeconomic Status

Common Method Variance

Father Socioeconomic Status

Mother Socioeconomic Status

Daytime Disturbances

Nighttime Disturbances

Need for Cognition

Standard Error

Savard MH, Savard J, Simard S, Ivers H. Empirical validation of the insomnia severity index in cancer patients. Psychol Oncol. 2005;14(6):429–41.

Article   Google Scholar  

Liu S, Zhang B. Interpretation of Chinese guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of insomnia. Chin J Mod Neurol. 2017;17(9):633–8.

Google Scholar  

Sateia MJ, Doghramji K, Hauri PJ, Morin CM. Evaluation of chronic insomnia. An American Academy of Sleep Medicine review. Sleep. 2000;23:243–308.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Li L, Sun H. Review of research on bedtime procrastination. China J Health Psychol. 2020;28(2):316–20.

Pei Y, Wang X, Kong L, Ran X, Wei M, Gao J. The correlation between sleep and mental health of primary and secondary school students in Shandong Province. Chin School Health. 2023;44(11):1674–8.

Meng J, Ling G, Jing H, Gou l. Prevalence of sleep disturbances in Chinese adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2021; 6(3), e0247333.

Fortier-Brochu É, Beaulieu-Bonneau S, Ivers H, Morin CM. Insomnia and daytime cognitive performance: a meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2012;16(1):83–94.

Kronholm E, Puusniekka R, Jokela J, et al. Trends in self-reported sleep problems, tiredness and related school performance among Finnish adolescents from 1984 to 2011. J Sleep Res. 2015;24:3–10.

Runco MA. Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1994.

Wallas G. The art of thought. London: J. Cape; 1926.

Johnson EO, Roth T, Breslau N. The association of insomnia with anxiety disorders and depression: exploration of the direction of risk. J Psychiatr Res. 2006;40(8):700–8.

Neckelmann D, Mykletun A, Dahl AA. Chronic insomnia as a risk factor for developing anxiety and depression. Sleep. 2007;30(7):873–80.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Carson SH. Creativity and psychopathology: a shared vulnerability model. Can J Psychiatry. 2011;56(3):144–53.

Shao Y, Lei Y, Wang L et al. Altered resting-state amygdala functional connectivity after 36 hours of total sleep deprivation. PLoS ONE 2014; 9(11), e112222.

Zhang J, Zhang H, Li H, Lei Y. The effect of sleep on fear learning and its cognitive neural mechanism. Adv Psychol Sci. 2023;31(4):631–40.

Dirk DC, Renato P. Sleepy but creative? How affective commitment, knowledge sharing and organizational forgiveness mitigate the dysfunctional effect of insomnia on creative behaviors. Personnel Rev. 2020;50(1):108–28.

Healey D, Runco MA. Could creativity be associated with insomnia? Creativity Res J. 2006;18(1):39–43.

Beaty RE, Silvia PJ, Nusbaum EC, Vartanian O. Tired minds, tired ideas? Exploring insomnia and creativity. Think Skills Creativity. 2013;9:69–75.

Ma G, Cui F. Research progress on the relationship between personality traits and insomnia. Chin J Health Med. 2017;19(1):87–9.

Amabile TM. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Staw BM, Cummings LL, editors. Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich. 1988, 123–167.

Mumford MD, Mobley MI, Reiter-Palmon R, et al. Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Res J. 1991;4:91–122.

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. The need for cognition. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1982;42:116–31.

Dollinger SJ. Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and creativity. J Creative Behav. 2003;37:99–116.

Du Z, Zhang L, Wang Y. Relationship between college students cognitive need, specialty commitment and innovative personality. Chin J School Health. 2011;32(4):454–6.

Hahn MH, Lee KC. Exploring the role of self-confidence, need-for-cognition, and the degree of IT support on individual creativity: multilevel analysis approach. Curr Psychol. 2017;36:565–76.

Du Z, Zhang L, Wang Y. The relationship between college students’ cognitive needs, professional commitment and innovative personality. Chin School Health. 2011;32(4):454–6.

Morin CM. Insomnia: psychological assessment and management. Guilford Press. 1993; 56–60.

Harvey AG. A cognitive model of insomnia. Behav Res Ther. 2002;40(8):869–93.

Lin X, Wang M. Williams creative thinking activity manual. Taiwan: Psychology publishing house; 1997.

Li WF, Li XT, Huang LJ, et al. Brain structure links trait creativity to openness to experience. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci. 2015;10(2):191–8.

Tang G, Zou H, Hou K, et al. The characteristics of family innovation environment and their effects on everyday creative behavior: the mediating role of personality. J Psychol Sci. 2014;37(5):1125–31.

Gao Q. Conceptualization and measurement of need for cognition. Chin J Psychol. 1994;36(1):1–20.

Yang L, Zhang Q. An experimental study on Relationship between intrinsic-extrinsic motivation and Creativity of 1-Grade Junior High School Students. J Southwest China Normal Univ (Natural Science). 2004;29(1):123–6.

Pallesen S, Bjorvatn B, Nordhus IH, et al. A new scale for measuring insomnia: the Bergen Insomnia Scale. Percept Mot Skills. 2008;107(3):691–706.

Wei S, Chen B, Zhao Q, Bai Y. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Bergen Shift Sleep Questionnaire. Chin J Mod Nurs. 2018;24(29):3508–12.

Qiao N, Zhang J, Liu G, Lin C. Effects of family socioeconomic status and parental involvement on junior students’ academic achievements: the moderating role of students’ perception of teachers’ support. Psychol Dev Educ. 2013;29:507–14.

Shi B, Shen J. The relationship between family socioeconomic status, intelligence, internal motivation and creativity. Psychol Dev Educ. 2007;23:30–4.

Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2013.

Carciofo R. Morningness–eveningness and affect: the mediating roles of sleep quality and metacognitive beliefs. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2020;18(1):17–26.

Zhou H, Long L. Statistical remedies for common method biases. Adv Psychol Sci. 2004;12:942–50.

Cohen J. Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.

Wen Z, Ye B. Mediation effects analysis: methodology and model development. Adv Psychol Sci. 2014;22(5):731–45.

Liu C, Zhang H, Zhang L, et al. The influence of parental rearing style on students’ creativity tendency and self-efficacy. China J Health Psychol. 2013;21(4):589–91.

Vygotsky LS. Imagination and creativity in childhood. J Russian East Eur Psychol. 2004;42(1):7–97.

Giampietro M, Cavallera GM. Morning and evening types and creative thinking. Pers Indiv Differ. 2006;42:453–63.

Liu N, Yuan Y. Relationship between creativity and insomnia in children and adolescents. China J Health Psychol. 2022;30(5):790–4.

Liu Z, Liu T, Mu S. Statistical analysis framework of suppression effect and its application. Psychology: Techniques Appl. 2021;9(10):610–8.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This research did not receive any specifc grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-proft sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, No.88 East Wenhua Road, 250014, Jinan, China

Xiaoyang Ren, Min Shi & Si Si

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Xiaoyang Ren and Si Si wrote the main manuscript text and Min Shi prepared figures and tables. All authors reviewed the manuscript.Author Contributions Statement.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Si Si .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent.

Ethical approval for the study was provided by the Institutional Review Board of Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China. Informed consent from their legal guardian for study participation was obtained. All measurements were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations of psychological study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Conflict of interest

The author declared that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Consent for publication

Additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ren, X., Shi, M. & Si, S. Insomnia and creativity in Chinese adolescents: mediation through need for cognition. BMC Psychol 12 , 180 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01663-3

Download citation

Received : 03 January 2024

Accepted : 15 March 2024

Published : 29 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01663-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Time-of-day effect
• Indirect effect

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]