How constraints impact creativity: An interaction paradigm.

Abstract

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.

[Re]thinking outside the box: A meta‐analysis of constraints and creative performance

“…As such, the present effort signals a critical need for future research to explore the mechanisms behind how constraints impact creativity. Following emerging theoretical arguments (e.g., Tromp & Sternberg, 2022), the results presented in this effort suggest a need to better understand the contextual influences of creativity and to move away from a main‐effect approach to understanding the relationship between constraints and creativity. Indeed, as these results suggest little promise of a typology approach to constraints, future research must consider the situational and contextual factors that impact this relationship.…”

“…In this vein, constraints may be subject to the Goldilocks Principle, such that a sweet spot of constraints – not too few, not too many – exists. Similarly, Tromp and Sternberg (2022) have suggested that examining constraints as a main effect may be entirely inappropriate, and that an interactional lens is better suited to capture the complexity of the relationship. Although we were unable to test the curvilinear relationships largely due to research methodology (e.g., constraints present vs absent) used in the extant manuscripts, future research should consider examining the constraint‐creativity relationship through this lens.…”

“…For instance, Onarheim (2012) suggested that constraints can fall into those that are crucial (e.g., highly complex and selected as critical to the process) and tacit constraints (e.g., constraints unconsciously held by the individual). Along these lines, Tromp and Sternberg (2022) suggested that constraints may be better understood by their degree of flexibility (e.g., inflexible or flexible) and their functions (e.g., exclusionary or focusing). In contrast, both Medeiros et al (2017) and Acar et al (2019) focused their typologies on the level of constraint (e.g., project and market) and when they are introduced (e.g., input and output) respectfully.…”

“…Instead, perhaps differences across previous studies could be explained by variables extraneous to constraints themselves such as an individual's experience or ability to work with constraints, or environmental factors such as the organization's climate or a leader's support. Indeed, recent work by Tromp and Sternberg (2022) suggests that individual and situational factors play a role in the constraint‐creativity relationship. Most studies to date, however, have isolated the effects of constraints and ignored these additional factors.…”

Dynamic Creativity: A Person × Task × Situation Interaction Framework

“…The same situation can elicit varied creative responses from different individuals working on different tasks (e.g., Tromp & Sternberg, 2022). For example, under a dictatorship, some writers may succeed in working within the constraints of censorship and produce highly creative and subversive prose and poetry, while others do not (Lebuda, 2016).…”