Domain-Specificity of Creativity: A Study on the Relationship Between Visual Creativity and Visual Mental Imagery

Abstract

Creativity refers to the capability to catch original and valuable ideas and solutions. It involves different processes. In this study the extent to which visual creativity is related to cognitive processes underlying visual mental imagery was investigated. Fifty college students (25 women) carried out: the Creative Synthesis Task, which measures the ability to produce creative objects belonging to a given category (originality, synthesis and transformation scores of pre-inventive forms, and originality and practicality scores of inventions were computed); an adaptation of Clark’s Drawing Ability Test, which measures the ability to produce actual creative artworks (graphic ability, esthetic, and creativity scores of drawings were assessed) and three mental imagery tasks that investigate the three main cognitive processes involved in visual mental imagery: generation, inspection and transformation. Vividness of imagery and verbalizer–visualizer cognitive style were also measured using questionnaires. Correlation analysis revealed that all measures of the creativity tasks positively correlated with the image transformation imagery ability; practicality of inventions negatively correlated with vividness of imagery; originality of inventions positively correlated with the visualization cognitive style. However, regression analysis confirmed the predictive role of the transformation imagery ability only for the originality score of inventions and for the graphic ability and esthetic scores of artistic drawings; on the other hand, the visualization cognitive style predicted the originality of inventions, whereas the vividness of imagery predicted practicality of inventions. These results are consistent with the notion that visual creativity is domain- and task-specific.

Spatial Intelligence and Students’ Achievement to Support Creativity on Visuospatial-Based Learning

“…Creativity could also depend more on the domain-specific cognitive skills, such as visuospatial abilities, or verbal skills (Palmiero et al, 2010). Palmiero et al (2015) stated that the linkage between the spatial ability components of visualization has a role in promoting creativity. Imagining the spatial shape by transforming it into 2D and 3D form before matching to other spatial forms enable one to develop creative ideas.…”

Functional neuroimaging of visual creativity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Control tasks involving similar or overlapping processes to visual creative tasks facilitate examination of the brain regions and cognitive processes that may be engaged to a relatively greater degree in tasks drawing on visual creativity (Abraham, ). Visual creativity is thought to differ from nonvisual creativity (e.g., generation of verbal or musical creative outputs), and visual noncreative tasks (e.g., generation of mental imagery from memory) in which visual image generation, manipulation, and evaluation are engaged to a greater extent (Finke, ; Gansler et al., ; Kozhevnikov et al., ; Palmiero, Nori, Aloisi, Ferrara, & Piccardi, ). Based on previous neuroimaging studies of visual imagery, visual creativity may engage regions linked to these functions, including early visual cortex, fusiform, V5/MT, posterior parietal cortex, and bilateral inferior frontal cortex (Kosslyn & Thompson, ; Mazard, Tzourio‐Mazoyer, Crivello, Mazoyer, & Mellet, ; see Tomasino & Gremese, , for meta‐analysis).…”

“…Cognitive contributions to visual creativity are likely to differ according to the specific task focus (Nusbaum & Silvia, ; Palmiero et al., , ). Instructions to generate functional, original, or esthetic ideas may elicit greater evaluation compared to tasks that do not specify the desired nature of generated solutions (Nusbaum & Silvia, ).…”

Methodological Issues in Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Chen et al, 2006;Hocevar, 1976;Kaufman & Baer, 2004;Plucker, 1999b), while other studies supported the domain-specificity view (e.g. Baer, 1991Baer, , 1994aBaer, , 1994bBaer, , 1996Han, 2003;Han & Marvin, 2002;Palmiero, Nori, Aloisi, Ferrara, & Piccardi, 2015;Reiter-Palmon, Robinson-Morral, Kaufman, & Santo, 2012).…”

“…Generally, product-based studies tend to show evidence of domain-specificity (e.g. Baer, 1991Baer, , 1994aBaer, , 1994bBaer, , 1996Palmiero et al, 2015), while person-based studies tend to show evidence of domain-generality (e.g. Kaufman & Baer, 2004;Plucker, 1999b).…”