Despite their negative connotation, and the pervasiveness of blue-sky, outside-the-box thinking metaphors, constraints are at the heart of creativity. Using a multidisciplinary approach, as part of the Integrated Constraints in Creativity (IConIC) model, I propose that creative outcomes emerge from the successful leveraging of different types of constraints. I introduce a new, constraint-based definition of creativity, grounded in categorization theory, and parsimonious taxonomies of constraints based on which I outline testable predictions and corroborating evidence. I argue that constraints differ in terms of their flexibility (fixed, faux-fixed, or flexible) and functions (exclusionary or focusing), and in terms of whether they apply to the problem search time or the problem search space. Within the search space, constraints can refer to specific concepts or categories. I also advance a distinction between creativity maximizers and satisficers as a function of creativity goals, semantic networks, expertise, and the new constructs of constraint leveraging power and constraint leveraging mindset, that help to explain differences in successful integration of constraints for creativity and creative achievement.

Extending the recent Integrated Constraints in Creativity (IConIC) model (Tromp, 2022), we propose a paradigm for how constraints interact with creativity. After reviewing the IConIC model and its taxonomy of constraints, we highlight the interactive nature of constraints and we develop the key argument that constraints themselves are not a main effect. We outline the sources of constraints: the person, the task, and the situation, and we illustrate how they interact. We then propose a set of processing steps that underlie individual responses to constraints: identification, appraisal or analysis, and action. We end by discussing practical applications and the implications of the proposed paradigm for creativity research.

Using the frameworks of creativity as problem solving and Integrated Constraints in Creativity (IConIC), this article develops the proposal that creativity is best understood in terms of a cycle of constraint exploration and exploitation. This general thesis, which applies to varied domains and levels of creativity, is supported by three specific proposals about the role of constraints in creativity, each of which is developed and illustrated with examples. First, constraints provide the criteria for the evaluation of creative outcomes, which can vary as a function of the emphasis on novel usefulness or useful novelty. Second, constraints are critical in each step of the creative process: problem finding, problem construction, and problem solving. Third, constraints play a key role in both open-ended and closed-ended creative problems. These arguments are supported by specific predictions, concerning: (a) task differences in whether novelty or usefulness are emphasized more; (b) individual differences in the processing of constraints (some may favor flexible constraint exploration, while others may favor persistent constraint exploitation), which I hypothesize also correlate with (c) engagement in different types of creative problem-solving (more open-ended, of the sort encountered in art, vs. more closed-ended, of the sort encountered in science, business, and engineering).

Existing theories and frameworks generally have regarded creativity as inhering in a person, a task, a situation, or a combination of 2 of these 3 elements. After reviewing these approaches, and frameworks that are based on the interaction of more than 2 components, we propose a Person × Task × Situation synergistic paradigm, according to which creativity is dynamic and can be fully understood only as an interaction of all 3 of the elements. Building on the strengths of existing frameworks, our P × T × S proposal highlights: (a) the need to include the other 2 elements as moderators, regardless of which element is the central or starting point of the analysis, (b) the idea that the extent to which each element influences the others and the degree of overlap among elements can vary, and (c) the dynamic aspect of creativity, associated with changes in different persons across the lifespan, for different creative tasks, and for different situations. In addition to contributing an integrative theoretical account, this framework has significant, pragmatic implications for both the assessment and the development of creativity. We end with a call for both researchers and practitioners who test for or teach for creativity to specify the range of persons, tasks, and situations to which their assessments or training generalize.

No abstract