The Role of Intuition in the Generation and Evaluation Stages of Creativity Assignment | Online Assignment
The Role of Intuition in the
Generation and Evaluation Stages
of Creativity
Judit Pétervári1*, Magda Osman1 and Joydeep Bhattacharya2
1 Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London,
London, UK, 2 Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK
Both intuition and creativity are associated with knowledge creation, yet a clear link
between them has not been adequately established. First, the available empirical
evidence for an underlying relationship between intuition and creativity is sparse in
nature. Further, this evidence is arguable as the concepts are diversely operationalized
and the measures adopted are often not validated sufficiently. Combined, these issues
make the findings from various studies examining the link between intuition and creativity
difficult to replicate. Nevertheless, the role of intuition in creativity should not be
neglected as it is often reported to be a core component of the idea generation process,
which in conjunction with idea evaluation are crucial phases of creative cognition. We
review the prior research findings in respect of idea generation and idea evaluation
from the view that intuition can be construed as the gradual accumulation of cues to
coherence. Thus, we summarize the literature on what role intuitive processes play
in the main stages of the creative problem-solving process and outline a conceptual
framework of the interaction between intuition and creativity. Finally, we discuss the
main challenges of measuring intuition as well as possible directions for future research.
Keywords: idea generation, evaluation, creativity, intuitive judgment, intuition
INTRODUCTION
Celebrated mathematicians, scientists, painters alike often credit the role of intuition as part of the
creative process that constitutes their discoveries (e.g., Hadamard, 1954; Gardner and Nemirovsky,
1991; Miller, 2000). For example, intuition was described as being at the core of creative visions
of Steve Jobs, one of the foremost creative professionals in recent history (Isaacson, 2011). Yet
despite this seemingly obvious connection between intuition and creativity, Dane and Pratt (2007),
in their influential article, noted that “with the exception of a few studies (e.g., Raidl and Lubart,
2001), little empirical research has connected intuition to creativity” (p. 48–49), and this has been
echoed by other researchers as well (Sinclair, 2010; Dörfler and Ackermann, 2012). In this article,
we propose that though we cannot make a strong conclusion yet, there is, however, good conceptual
grounds for proposing a link between the two, and promising evidence to suggest, that intuition
and creativity are linked, at least on a minimal level.
The principal aim of the present review is to explore the potential link between intuition and
creativity in a process-centric framework, in order to consider how intuition would be implicated in
different phases of creative problem-solving. By intuition, we refer to its traditional characterization
(Hogarth, 2001; Sadler-Smith, 2008; Dörfler and Ackermann, 2012), which treats the process as
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 September 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1420
Pétervári etal. Intuition inCreativeProblem-Solving
one whichisrapid(alsolabeledasinstantaneous),spontaneous
(doesnotrequireextensiveeffortandcannotbevoluntarily
controlled), andalogical(doesnotnecessarilyfollowthelogical
rules).Further,theoutcomesgeneratedfromtheintuitiveprocess
are generallyholistic(alsolabeledasGestaltasitismainly
concerned withthewholesituationinsteadofitsparts),tacit
(theintuitiveprocesscannotbeverbalizedorarticulatedwith
sufficient details),andmadewithhighconfidence.Whena
problem iscomplex,multidimensionalandnopre-established
clearlydefinedrulesareavailableforsolvingit,asolution
(i.e., anovelidea)isoftenbasedontheproblemsolver’s
judgmentofwhatisanappropriatesolutionintheabsence
of anyclear,reasonedpath.Itisthecontrasttodevelopinga
solution inalinearlogicallymannerthatmakesideageneration
characteristicallyintuitiveandtheideaitselfthatisopaque
and inaccessibletotheproblemsolver.Beforeestablishinghow
intuition slotsintodifferentstagesofthecreativeprocess,wefirst
attempt toestablishourconceptualizationofcreativity.
CreativeProblem-SolvingProcess
Creativityisamultifacetedconstructandnotoriouslydifficult
to capturebyasingledefinition(Runco andJaeger, 2012). We
conceptualize creativityasaprocessthatisbroadlysimilarto
problem solving,inwhich,forboth,informationiscoordinated
toward reachingaspecificgoal(WigginsandBhattacharya,
2014), andtheinformationisorganizedinanovel,unexpected
way. Forinstance, Plucker etal. (2004) definecreativityas“the
interactionamongaptitude,process,andenvironmentbywhich
an individualorgroupproducesaperceptibleproductthatis
bothnovelandusefulasdefinedwithinasocialcontext”(p.
90). Problemswhichrequirecreativesolutionsareill-defined,
primarily becausetherearemultiplehypotheticalsolutionsthat
would satisfythegoals(Reitman, 1965). Therefore,embarking
on asolutiontoanill-definedproblemnecessitatestheproblem
solver toframeandinterpretwhatmightberelevantasapossible
goal andthentoestablishasolutionthatmeetsthatgoal(Hayes,
1989; Mumford etal., 1994).
For acreativeproblem,anoriginalsolutionisoften
unthinkableinadvance,thusassessingcreativesolutions(i.e.,
creativeideas)occursintheabsenceofobjectivecriterion/criteria
againstwhichacreativeproductcanbemeasuredupto.As
Amabile (1983, p.359)putit,“currentdefinitionsofcreativity
are conceptualratherthanoperational;theirconceptualizations
havenotbeentranslatedintoactualassessmentcriteria”yet.Due
to this“criterionproblem,”itisdifficulttoobjectivelyevaluatethe
extentinwhichaparticulargoalismet(Runco andSmith, 1992;
Runco andChand, 1995). Instead,variousindirectfeaturesare
used whichofteninclude,amongothers,thefluency,flexibility,
originality, andelaborationofthesolution(Torrance, 1966). It
is questionablewhetheraddingupthedifferentfeaturesintoa
scoreofcreativitydoes,infact,constitutecreativity,andwhether,
in fact,itshouldinsteadbethecriteriabywhichthecreative
problem solvershouldassessacreativesolution(Amabile, 1982).
Thefeaturesbywhichacreativeproductisevaluatedtypically
fallintocategoriesthatincludenovelty,feasibility,relevance,and
specificity(Deanetal., 2006). Itisherethatintuitivejudgments
havebeenimplicatedwitheachofthecategoriesrelatedto
evaluation.Acreativeproblemsolvermayintuitivelyjudgethe
creativeproductoftheproblem-solvingprocesswithregards
to hownovelthecombinationofinformationis,anintuitive
recognitionofthefeasibilityandappropriatenessofthecreative
product,andtheextenttowhichitseemslikeagoodfit.
Turning nowtotheactualcompositionofthecreative
problem-solving process,therehavebeenseveralwaysinwhich
thishasbeendescribed.Mosttheoristsassertthatthereareseveral
consecutivestages(e.g.,blindvariationandselectiveretention
model, Campbell, 1960; associativehierarchytheory, Mednick,
1962; three-processtheoryofcreativity, DavidsonandSternberg,
1986; geneploremodel, Finke etal., 1992). Thenumberofstages
differsbytheory,andthisislargelydependentonthewaysin
whichtheoristsdescribethecriticalcomponentsofthestages
(e.g., preparation,incubation,illumination,andverificationby
Wallas, 1926; whereasproblemformulation,preparation,idea
generation, ideaevaluation,andideaselectionby Amabile, 1983).
However,regardlessofthesevariations,researchersagreeon
two mainessentialoperationsofthecreativeproblemssolving
process:(1)thegenerationofideasand(2)theevaluationand
selectionof(an)appropriateoutcome(s)(e.g., Finke etal., 1992;
Lubart, 2001; Reiter-PalmonandIllies, 2004).
Given thatthesetwostagesarecommontoalltheories
of creativity,andarerelativelyuncontroversial,itisforthese
reasonsthatthisreviewfocusesonthesetwostagesascentral
to thecreativeproblem-solvingprocess.However,itisworth
noting thatthemajorityoftheavailableliteraturetendsonlyto
investigatecreativeideagenerationratherthanideaevaluation
(AmabileandMüller, 2009; Rietzscheletal., 2010). Afurther
rationale forfocusingexclusivelyonthesetwostagesisthatthey
canbeexplicitlyrelatedtohowcreativeprocessesaremeasured
empirically,andalsohelptoconceptualizemoreeasilywhere
intuition asaprocessisdirectlyassociatedwitheachofthese
stages,whichwepresentinourframeworkintheconcluding
sectionofthisreview.Hereweproposethatbothideageneration
and evaluationarecriticalforshapingthecreativeproductofthe
creativeprocess,andthatthetwostagesaretightlylinked(neither
makessensewithouttheother),andthatthecreativeprocessisa
dynamic onewhichcaninvolveseveraliterationsofgeneration
and evaluationofideasthataproblemsolvergoesthroughbefore
reachinganendstate(Runco, 2003; Lonerganetal., 2004; Kozbelt
and Durmysheva, 2007).
Regardingtheunderlyingcognitivemechanisms,two
antitheticaltypesofthinking,convergentanddivergentthinking
(Guilford, 1956, 1967) arespeculatedtounderliebothgeneration
and evaluationofideasinthecreativeproblem-solvingprocess.
It hasbeenproposedthatproblemsolversuseconvergent
thinkingforselectingasingle(best)solutioninresponse
to awell-definedproblembyapplyingstandardprocedures
to existingknowledge.Bycontrast,divergentthinkingcan
be utilizedinmoreambiguoussituations,wherearangeof
alternative solutionsarepossible,thereforeresponsesmayvary
individually (Cropley, 2006). Thepopularityoftheconceptof
divergentthinkinghasmeantthatforsomeithasbeentranslated
into ameasurementtoolofcreativityitself(Zeng etal., 2011;
KaufmanandBaer, 2012); thoughthisapproachhasbeen
severelycriticized(e.g., Dietrich, 2007; Piffer, 2012). Among
FrontiersinPsychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 September 2016 | Volume7 | Article 1420
Pétervári etal. Intuition inCreativeProblem-Solving
others, Cropley (2006) resetthebalancebynotingthatboth
convergentanddivergentthinkingarenecessaryforproducing
creativeideasandthatitisnotsimplycontingentondivergent
thinkingalone.
Thus,tosumup,bothideagenerationandideaevaluation
are twoessentialstagesincreativeproblemsolving,andin
bothstages,divergentandconvergentthinkingisutilized.Yet,
no theoryhasprovidedthespecificcharacteristicsofintuition
in thesephasesdespitethespeculationthatintuitivejudgment
featuresthroughoutthecreativeprocess(DaneandPratt, 2009).
We proposeherethatintuitivejudgmentcanbecharacterizedin
bothideagenerationandideaevaluation,andwespelloutinour
framework howthisisthecase.
Intuition
Reachingacoherentperceptionofhowtoproceedtowardsolving
an ill-definedproblemisthekeygoalduringbothoftheidea
generation andtheideaevaluationphases.Nowweoutlinehow
intuition isdefinedandconceptualizedrelatedtothiskeygoal.
Bowersetal.’s(1990) classicalmodeldescribestheprocessof
intuition intwostages.Inthefirst,guidingstage,clues(such
aswords,shapes,voices,odors,etc.)areaccumulatedfroma
complex,noisyenvironmentandsynthesizedintoapatternina
gradual manner,resultinginavagueperceptionofcoherence.If
thespreadingactivationofrelevantmnemonicnetworksexceeds
a threshold,theperceptionofcoherencebecomesrobustenough
to enterawarenessandresultsinareportablehunchorjudgment.
Thisisinterpretedasthesecond,integrativestage(see Volz
and vonCramon, 2006; Zanderetal., 2015 for neuroscientific
evidenceofthismodel).
We suggestthataperceptionofcoherenceunderliesthe
finding ofnovelsolutions.Duringthecreativeprocess,separate
bits ofinformationareacquiredgradually.Whenembarking
on acreativeproblem-solvingprocess,therelevantprior
representations/memoriesgetactivatedfromtheaccumulated
prior experiences.Thesefragmentsareconvertedintoanewunit
thateventuallyreachescoherence.Thenovelorganizedwhole
(Gestalt)isassembledviaassociations,inanon-analyticandnon-
effortfulmanner.Thatis,adeliberateelaborationonhowanovel
product shouldbeconstructedwouldnotcountasintuitive.
Association-basedinformationprocessingwasfoundmore
appropriate thanapplyingexplicitalgorithmsorpre-established
rulesforsolvingcomplexproblemsbyDijksterhuisand
colleagues(Dijksterhuis, 2004; DijksterhuisandNordgren, 2006;
Dijksterhuisetal., 2006). Keepinginmindthetask-specific
goal butbeingdistractedfromit,coinedas“unconscious
thought,”wasaffiliatedwithassociation-based,bottom-up
processing,aswellaswithahighprocessingcapacityforsolving
multidimensional problems.
Withregardtocreativity,association-basedprocessingserves
asagoodfoundationforgeneratingoriginalresponses.Asnoted
by GallateandKeen (2011), usingintuitionmeansnotpursuing
“a consciouslydeductivepathandis,therefore,morelikelytobe
original becauseitdoesnotbuildonsomethingthatisalready
‘known”’ (p.686).Essentially,takingtheclaimshereasapoint
of departure,bigleapsoftenfoundinthecreativeprocessmight
be thoughttohappenifcreativeproblemsolversarenotfixed
on therulesofacurrentparadigm(e.g.,setouttooptimize
aspectsofanalreadyexistingstructure),rather,thiswillhappen
when solutionsaregeneratedindependently,keepinginmindthe
desiredendstateandmakingindividualjudgmentsonhowtoget
thereinsteadofrelyingonwhathasbeenputforwardalready.
Individually tailoredresponsesaremorediverseandmorelikely
to convergetowardauniqueoutcomethanthosebuildingupon
existingstructures.
Manytimes,individual,association-basedresponsesmustbe
formed tocompleteatask-specificgoal.Intuitiveprocessesare
evencategorizedbasedonthedomainstowhichthesegoals
are connected:(1)problem-solving,(2)creativity,and(3)moral
judgments(DaneandPratt, 2009), aswellas(4)socialjudgments
(Gore andSadler-Smith, 2011). Asanalternativetypology,
Glöckner andWitteman (2010) unpackthesub-categoriesof
intuition basedonitsunderlyingcognitivemechanisms,i.e.,they
lay outassociativeintuition,matchingintuition,accumulative
intuition andconstructiveintuitionaspartlyoverlappingbut
differently focusedintuitiveprocesses. Glöckner andWitteman’s
(2010) approachisdistinctfromthedomain-basedapproach
yet stillconsistentwithit,e.g.,matchingintuitioncanbeeasily
related toproblem-solvingintuition,orconstructiveintuition
appearstoformpartofcreativeintuition.Weconsidercreative
intuition askeytoideageneration,andproblem-solvingintuition
askeytoideaevaluation.
The LinkbetweenIntuitionandCreativity
Althoughvariousresearchershavereportedacloseconnection
between intuitionandcreativity(e.g., Perkins, 1992; Boden,
1994; Policastro, 1999), aprecisespellingoutofhowthesetwo
constructs arelinkedhasnotyetbeenadequatelyestablished.In
themainthereasonforthisislargelytheresultofthecommon
observationthatthereisonlyscarcedirectevidenceathandon
theparticularroleofintuitioninthecreativeproblem-solving
process(e.g., Agor, 1989; Policastro, 1995; ShirleyandLangan-
Fox, 1996; DaneandPratt, 2009; Eubanksetal., 2010; Sinclair,
2010; Stierand andDörfler, 2015), andduetoalackofsuch
evidence,moreempiricalworkisneeded(e.g., RaidlandLubart,
2001; Dollinger etal., 2004; DaneandPratt, 2007).
Aswehaveproposedearlier,ideagenerationandevaluation
are stagesofcreativeproblemsolving.Theyarebothfound
in unstructuredandill-definedproblemsthathavenopre-
definedobjectivecriteriontomeasureagainsttotheproduct
of thecreativeprocess.Asmentionedintheprevioussection,
thecomplicationisthatstatingexplicitrulesisunworkable
when itcomestocreatingnoveland/ororiginalsolutions,also
becauseoftentherearenoobjectiverules.Thuswepropose
thatintuitivejudgmentisanimportantfeatureinthecreative
process,forthisreasonthatpeopleoftenlackinsightintohow
theygeneratedanovelsolution,andexperiencesurprise,i.e.,
theviolationofpreviousexpectationsrelatedtothesolutionis
phenomenologicallyoftenattheheartofperceivingsomething
ascreative(cf. effectivesurprise, Bruner, 1962; Wigginsand
Bhattacharya, 2014). Becausetherearenoobjectiveruleson
how toreachasolutiontoacreativeproblem,acombinatorial
explosionofpossiblechoicesoccurs(Simon, 1989; Simonton,
2010). Relyingonintuitionisacommontoolforcopingwith
FrontiersinPsychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 September 2016 | Volume7 | Article 1420
Pétervári etal. Intuition inCreativeProblem-Solving
suchacomplexandnoisyenvironment,somaticsignalsareoften
guiding theearlystagesofthecreativeprocess(Finke etal., 1992;
Hodgkinsonetal., 2008).
During theintegrationofinformationbothwhilelookingfor
novel patterns(ideagenerationphase)andwhileassessingthem
againstpriorexperiences(ideaevaluationphase),aninternal
sensing ofwhichchoicealternativeshavethemostpotential
candirectattentionawayfromselectingpredictablesolutions.
A creatorproposingideaswhichrelyheavilyonpreviously
acquiredinformationismorelikelytogeneratesolutionsthat
are predictable,ascomparedtoacreatorrelyingonhunches
aboutunknown,newdirectionswhichwouldmorelikelylead
to surprisingsolutions(Simonton, 2012). Thesehunchescannot
be welldescribedwithwords(Sadler-SmithandShefy, 2004)
and arelargelydifferentfromhavingasuddenstrokeofinsight
(e.g., Hogarth, 2001; DaneandPratt, 2007). Asinsightisoften
considered ahallmarkofcreativeproblemsolving,andthereare
common practicesofusingthesetwowordsinaninterchangeable
fashion,wenotethatthereareconsiderabledifferencesbetween
theseconcepts.Incontrasttotheaforementionedcharacteristics
of intuition,weproposethatgaininganinsightmeansthatthe
problem solverobtainsanexplicitunderstandingofhowtoreach
thegoal(Lieberman, 2000), andiscapableofarticulatingit
too (DaneandPratt, 2007). Whileintuitionsunfoldgradually,
“Aha!”momentsareexperiencedinadiscontinuousmanner
(Zanderetal., 2015), asifalightbulbisswitchedoninthe
problem solver’shead(Jung-Beeman etal., 2004; Slepian etal.,
2010).
In contrasttothedefinitivenessofaninsight,intuitions
are moreindefinite.E.g.,creativeintuitionisdescribedas“a
vagueanticipatoryperceptionthatorientscreativeworkina
promising direction”(Policastro, 1995, p.99).What’smore,it
hasbeenconceptualizedas“atacitformofknowledgethat
broadly constrainsthecreativesearchbysettingitspreliminary
scope”(p.100)aswellasaguidefordiscoveringnewideasand
assessingwhethertheideaisappropriateforaproblem(Dollinger
et al., 2004). However,creativeintuitionutilizedattheearly
stagesofthecreativeprocessseemstobeonlyonesideofthe
coin (Policastro, 1995; RaidlandLubart, 2001; DaneandPratt,
2009).
We suggestthatnotonlycreativeintuitionbutothertypes
of intuitiontooarerelevantforcreativity.Namely,wepropose
thatproblem-solvingintuition(DaneandPratt, 2009; Gore
and Sadler-Smith, 2011) isemployedduringthelaterstages
of thecreativeprocess.Thistypeofintuitionisdefined
asa“domain-specific,expertise-basedresponsetoatightly-
structured problembasedonthenon-consciousprocessing
of information,activatedautomatically,elicitingmatchingof
complexpatternsofmultiplecuesagainstpreviouslyacquired
prototypesandscriptsheldinlong-termmemory”(Gore and
Sadler-Smith, 2011, p.307).
If wecomparethetwofunctionsonwhichour
conceptualization ofintuitionemerges,theycanbeseemingly
contradictory. Thecontrastbeingthatcreativeintuition
employed duringtheideagenerationphaserelieschieflyon
synthesis,whileproblem-solvingintuitionoperatingduringthe
evaluationphaseisfrequentlytiedtoanalysis.Thatis,intheidea
generation phase,creativeintuitioncanworkasanassociative
processlinkingtogetherdistinctpiecesofstoredinformationand
restructure/combinethemintoacoherent,task-relevantunit.
Akin toconstructiveintuition(Glöckner andWitteman, 2010),
mentalrepresentationsareconstructedbasedonbothcurrent
information andtracesactivatedfromlong-termmemory.
In theideaevaluationphase,expertiserelatedtothe
recognitionofnovelcontributionsandjudgmentregarding
whethertheproductwouldbeperceivedasappropriateinagiven
social contextmustbedrawnupon.Usually,thisoperationis
performedbymatchingstimulitoalreadyacquiredprototypes,
however,creativesolutionsmaybespecialinthattheyarelikely
to alterfrompreviousprototypes.Inextremecases,asurprising
creationmightnotfitanyexistingprototypes,whichcanalso
make itdifficulttoassessitssignificanceinthecontextinwhich
it wasgenerated.Ifanideaisunlikethejudge’searlierexperience,
cluestoitscoherencemustbeevaluated.
Reviewing theEvidenceontheLink
between IntuitionandCreativity
Beforewegoontolayoutourproposedframework,wenow
consider oftheextantempiricalfindingsregardingexplorations
of thelinkbetweenintuitionandcreativity.Theempirical
findingsarepresentedaccordingtothetypeofresearch
(qualitative/quantitative)andphaseofthecreativeproblem-
solving process(ideageneration/evaluation)theyexplore.What
follows afterthereviewisasummaryofthemaindifficulties
of measurementandassessmentoftheassociationbetween
intuition andcreativity,andarecommendationofawayforward
basedonournewconceptualframework,andpossiblefuture
researchdirectionsthatlogicallyfollowfromit.
METHODS
LiteratureSearch
We firstperformedanextensivesearchofrelevantdatabases,
namely usedtheWebofScience,PubMed,PsycINFO,Google
Scholar,andScopus.Thesearchwasconductedusingthe
following keywords:creative,creativity,creativeevaluation,
insight,innovation,divergentthinkingwiththeBooleanoperator
AND linkingintuition,intuitiveproblemsolving,anddecision-
making tothem.Throughtheuseofthesebroaderterms,
we,therefore,incorporatestudiesfocusedonmorespecific
ideaswithintheseterms,suchastheideagenerationandidea
evaluationexpressions.Thoughwehavenotspecificallyusedidea
evaluation,inwiderliterature,thistermisusedinterchangeably
withoneofourselectedkeywords,creativeevaluation.
For selectingkeywords,westartedatbaselineterms:creativity
and intuition.Afterconductingaliteraturesearchwiththese,we
chosetoincludeadditionaltermswhichwerebothcommonand
could possiblyincorporatefurtherrelevantstudiesinoursearch.
Additionally, thesesanddissertationswereretrievedfromthe
BritishLibraryEThOSandfromtheOpenAccessThesesand
Dissertationsdatabases.Thecitationsofstudieswereexamined
in ordertoobtainfurtherrelevantempiricalworkregardingthe
link ofintuitionandcreativity.
FrontiersinPsychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 September 2016 | Volume7 | Article 1420
Pétervári etal. Intuition inCreativeProblem-Solving
Inclusion Criteria
Two criteriawereappliedforinclusionofstudies:theresearch
must be(1)empiricalworkand(2)takingbothintuition
and creativityintoaccount.Thusresearchinvestigatingonly
intuition or only creativitywasnotincludedinthisreview.
Resultswerefilteredfromsolephenomenologicaldescriptions
and workdiarieslackinganyqualitativeorquantitativeanalysis,
aswellasfromparapsychologicalinvestigationssincethey
did notfitthescopeofthearticle.Individualtestimonies,
historicalstudies,andbiographies(e.g., Policastro, 1995) were
also notincludedhere.Further,creativeperformancemusthave
been demonstratedeitherbyprofessionaltrackrecordorby
completing creativeproblem-solvingtests,studiesrelyingsolely
on self-reportquestionnairestodeterminecreativepotentialwere
not consideredhere.Theseproceduresyieldedapoolof70
potential studiesfromwhich11fulfilledalloftheaforementioned
criteria. Table1 includesthelistofpapersorganizedbythe
timeline ofthecreativeprocess.
FINDINGS
Studiesfoundwithinourliteraturereviewwillbepresentedbelow
accordingtotheirrelationthemainstagesofcreativity,i.e.,idea
generation orideaevaluation.
Studies onIntuitionandCreativeIdea
Generation
Expertsofdifferentdomainshavebeeninterviewedinorderto
gaininsightintotheroleofintuitionintheirideageneration
process. DörflerandEden (2014) reported thecommonpatterns
emergingfromface-to-faceinterviewswith17Nobellaureates
and twoEckert–Mauchlyprizewinners. Martonetal. (1994)
analyzed answerstoshort,prearrangedinterviewquestions
acrossalargersamplefromfootageofatelevisionprogram
“ScienceandMan”across14years,totaling93NobelLaureates
from physics,chemistry,andmedicine. Martonetal. (1994)
grouped thereportedexperiencesaccordingto(1)whenintuition
wasdefinedasanoutcome,(2)asanactorevent,or(3)asa
capability.Seventy-twoofthe93respondentsexpressedabelief
thatscientificintuitiondoesexist,andfromthose28sawitas
a capability,20asanactorevent,andeightasanoutcome,
and eventheselastrespondentssuggestedthatitformedpartof
thestartingstageofthecreativeprocess.Apartfromdescribing
thefrequenciesoftheresponsesgivenbytheNobellaureates,
Martonetal.’s(1994) study onlyreflectedthescientists’naïve
understandingoftheissueandwasinconclusiveaboutthe
interpretationoftheresultswithregardstoapreciselinkbetween
intuition andcreativity.
In contrast, DörflerandEden (2014) analyzed thetranscripts
of lengthyinterviewsconductedwithasmallersample(n D 19).
Theyidentifiedthreecommonthemes:(1)theroleofa“bigleap”
and howintuitioncontributestobigscientificdiscoveries,(2)the
significanceofhavingadual-view,i.e.,processinginformation
bothgloballyandalocally(Dijkstra etal., 2012; Förster, 2012)
and (3)whatisacommonstructureofsuccessfulresearchteams.
All oftherespondentsconfirmedtheyutilizetheirintuition
during thescientificinquiry,eveniftheyavoidedusingthe
exacttermduetoitspejorativeconnotation.Instead, Dörflerand
Eden (2014) treatedreferencestobigleapsassituationsshowing
evidenceofintuition,“whereastepinthinkingismadethatdoes
not logicallyfollowfromaprocessofanalysis;rathertheprocess
of analysisfollowsthebigleapandisusedtojustifythe‘big
leap”’(p.5).
Therehasbeensomeworkexaminingprofessionsconnected
to artisticcreativity,namelythecreationofhautecuisineserved
by finediningrestaurants,andfilmmaking.Whiletheaimof
Stierand andDörfler’s(2015) study wastofindoutmoreabout
thecreativeprocessofturningrawingredientsintodelicious
dishes,thethemeofintuitionemergedfromtheirinterviews.
Thein-depthreportsfromrenownedEuropeanchefsrevealed
thattheyrelyonintuitionbothduringthegenerationandthe
screeningofideas.Theself-reportedexperienceswereclassified
aseither(1)intuitiveinsightor(2)intuitivejudgment(Dörfler
and Ackermann, 2012). Intuitiveinsightwasconceptualizedas
a resourceduringwhichchefs’mentallycombinedingredients
and developedagutfeelingaboutwhichcombinationshouldbe
tested.Theresearchersidentifiedtheroleofintuitionasarapid
TABLE1|Matrixoftheanalyzedwork.
ResearchSourceTypeofresearchConceptusedforintuition
On intuitionandcreativeideageneration Marton etal. (1994) Qualitative studyScientificintuition
Garfield etal. (2001) Experimental studyIntuitivecognitivestyle
Raidl andLubart (2001) CorrelationalstudyIntuition(capturedbymultiplemeasures)
Eubanks etal. (2010) Experimental studyIntuition(correct,rapid,self-reliant)
Sinclair (2012) Qualitative interviewIntuitiveexpertise,intuitivecreation
Dörfler andEden (2014) Qualitative interviewIntuition,bigleap
Stierand andDörfler (2015) Qualitative interviewIntuitiveinsight
On intuitionandcreativeideaevaluation Sinclair (2012) Qualitative interviewIntuitiveforesight
Magnusson etal. (2014) Experimental studyIntuitiveassessment
Eling etal. (2015) Experimental studyIntuitiveanalysis/decision-making
Stierand andDörfler (2015) Qualitative interviewIntuitivejudgment
On intuitionandcreativity(nodifferentiationbetweenthestages) Dollinger etal. (2004) CorrelationalstudyIntuition
SundgrenandStyhre (2004) Qualitative interviewIntuition(Bergson’sdefinition)
FrontiersinPsychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 September 2016 | Volume7 | Article 1420
Pétervári etal. Intuition inCreativeProblem-Solving
coupling betweentheideagenerationandtheideaevaluation
phasesprovidingfeedbackloopsfortheiterativecreationprocess.
In regardtofilmproduction, Sinclair (2012) interviewed47
filmmakersbetweentheageof26and71andwith8–42years
of domain-relatedexperienceclassifiedtheirjobasprimarily
creative(11directors,threearchitects,threescreenwriters,six
directorsofphotography),primarilytechnical/operational(12
production managers)orprimarilystrategic(nineexecutive
producers,twostudiodirectors).Theresponsesrecordedin
theinterviewswereclusteredintothreemaincategories:(1)
intuitive expertise,(2)intuitivecreation,and(3)intuitive
foresight.Theextentinwhichfilmmakingprofessionalsutilized
intuition differedaccordingtojobspecialization.Intuitive
creationwasdemonstratedonlybycreativefilmprofessionals
when theyapproachedthestoryorvisualizedtheset,conceived
characters/shots,created(visual)storylines,orgaveinstructions
to actors.Takentogether,qualitativestudiesrevealedpersonal
insightsregardingtheexperiencesofintuitioninthecreative
processamongstprofessionalsacrossavarietyofsectors.In
themain,thecommoninsightsappeartobeinterviewees
spontaneouslyreportthatintuitionisanessentialpartofthe
creativeprocess.Moreover,theyrelyontheirintuitivecapacityto
find newdirectionsofinquiryleadingtodiscoveriestheywould
not haveotherwisehavemade,aswellasjudgingthesuccessof
theircreativesolutions.
Compared tothelimitationsofusingqualitativemethods,
quantitativestudydesignscancapturealarger,butnon-expert,
sample.Inpractice,themostcommonapproachhasbeento
use psychometricassessmentstocaptureindividualdifferences
in theintuitiveprocessingincreativitythroughquestionnaires.
Intuition andcreativityareheterogeneousconcepts,and
particular componentsofthemarelikelytobecorrelatedin
variousways; RaidlandLubart’s(2001) study involvedseveral
measures.Asameasureofcreativity,theyusedTorrance’s
Unusual UsesTest(Torrance, 1966). Thisinvolvedparticipants
generating asmanyandrareusesaspossibleforacardboard
box. Amabile’s(1982) Consensual AssessmentTechniquewas
used toassesstwofurthercreativeproductiontaskswhich
involved participantsproducingadrawingfromasetofgraphical
elements, andcreatingashortstoryfromjustatitle.
On theotherhand,intuitionwasassessedusingthe
Rational-ExperientialInventory(REI, Epstein etal., 1996), in
whichpreferencesforrationalversusexperientialinformation
processingwerescoredbasedonLikert-scale,andtheIntuitive
BehaviorQuestionnaire(IBQ)inwhichparticipantsfaceda
problem andselectedasolutionthatcouldbeeitheranintuitive
or ananalyticone.Inaddition,twobehavioralmeasuresof
intuition werealsopresented.Inoneofthem,participantshad
to group8abstractimagesinmultipleways,givingatitleto
eachgrouping.Theresponseswereanalyzedbyjudgeswho
classifiedthegroupingseitherasintuitiveoranalytical.The
otherinvolvedpresentingparticipantswith10itemsweretaken
from theMetaphoricTriadsTask(Koganetal., 1980), each
item correspondingtothreewordsorthreeimageswhichcould
be associatedeitherviaametaphoricalorafunctionallink.
Preferenceforthemetaphoricalandnotthephysicallinkwas
counted asanintuitiveresponse.
Theresultsfromthisbatteryoftestspresentedto76
undergraduatepsychologystudentsrevealedthatIBQscores
correlated withdrawingproduction,andwiththefluency
and meanoriginalityscoresontheUnusualUsesTest.The
highintuitiongroup,assessedbytheIBQ,scoredhigheron
thecreativitymeasuresthanthelowIBQgroup.REItest
performancecorrelatedpositivelywiththedrawingproduction
taskperformance,themetaphorpreferencetestperformance,and
themeanoriginalityscoreontheUnusualUsesTest.
In afurtherstudyby Garfieldetal. (2001), intuitionwas
measuredbythemostcommonlyusedmeasureofintuition,
theMyers–BriggsTypeIndicator(MBTI).MBTImakesuseof
binary distinctionsofpersonalitytypesbasedonthescores
of itsextraversion–introversion,sensing–intuition,thinking–
feeling,andjudging–perceivingsubscales(MyersandMcCaulley,
1985). TheMBTItakesJung’sideathatpersonalitytypesare
connectedtoconsciousandunconsciousworkingmethodsof
themind(1921/1971),andhasadaptedittoassessdimensions
of personality,ofwhichthe“intuitivetype”isone. Myersand
McCaulley (1985) conceptualized intuitivetypesasthosethat
form perceptionswhichareorientedtothefutureandconcerned
withseeingpreviouslyundetectedpatterns.
Garfieldetal. (2001) used theMBTIwithparticipantswho
were trainedeitherananalyticaloranintuitiveproblem-solving
technique(VanGundy, 1988; Couger, 1995). Creativitywas
measuredbytheKirtonscore(CarneandKirton, 1982), which
categorizesproblemsolversaseitheradaptorsorinnovatorsand
expectsthemtocomeupwitheitherparadigm-modifyingor
paradigm-preservingideasaccordingly,andwasmanipulatedby
presentingtheparticipating219undergraduatebusinessstudents
withnovelornotnovelideas“fromothers.”Thegroupwhich
used theintuitiveproblem-solvingtechniquecameupwithmore
novel andparadigm-modifyingideasascontrastedtothose
who usedtheanalyticaltechnique.Also,participantsexposed
to novelandparadigm-modifyingideasfrom“others”generated
more novelandparadigm-modifyingideasthemselves,andvice
versa.
Theinfluenceofintuitiononideagenerationprocesswas
also examinedby Eubanksetal. (2010). Thisresearchaimedto
showdirectevidenceforthelinkbetweenintuitionandcreative
problem-solving bymanipulatingaffectandleveloftraining,
bothtreatedasfacilitatorsforusingintuition.Participants’affect
wasmanipulatedatthebeginningoftheexperimentbyplaying
music thatwasdesignedtoinducepositiveaffectinonegroup,
and aneutralexperienceintheothergroup.Allparticipants,
exceptthecontrolgroup,werethentrainedthroughinstructional
exercisestousetheirintuitiontosolveaseriesofcreative
problems Participantswereclassifiedasbeingintuitiveifthey
were abovethegroupaverageinprovidingcorrectanswers,below
theaverageinsolutiontimeandbelowtheaverageinutilizing
optional additionalinformationfortheproblems.Training
made astrongpositivecontributiontocreativeproblem-solving
performance(measuredaccordingtothequality,originality,
and eleganceofsolutionstotheproblems)ingeneral.When
a neutralaffectwasinduced,intuitionscoreswerestrongly
associatedwithenhancedcreativeproblem-solvingperformance.
When positiveaffectwasinduced,theassociationbetween
FrontiersinPsychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 September 2016 | Volume7 | Article 1420
Pétervári etal. Intuition inCreativeProblem-Solving
intuition andproblem-solvingperformancewasundermined,
and italonedidnotleadtoanycreativeperformanceadvantage
alone andinthecontrolgroupwhichreceivednoinstructional
training.
Thesestudieshavebeengroupedonthebasisthatthey
employed questionnairestoquantifytheintuitiveandcreative
abilitiesofstudents.Alldemonstratedapositiveassociation
between generatingnewideasandrelyingonintuitiveresources,
including theproductionofmorenovel,higherquality,andmore
diverseideas.
Studies onIntuitionandCreativeIdea
Evaluation
Ideaevaluationisamorescarcelyusedtermwithintheliterature,
withafewstudiescombiningthisconceptwithideageneration,
and evenfewerassessingthisconceptinisolation.Wehave
introduced twostudies(Sinclair, 2012; Stierand andDörfler,
2015) intheprevioussectionwhichpredominantlydiscussthe
concept ofideagenerationbutalsoincludeshortpassagesonidea
evaluation.Bothstudiesintroducenewterminologytodescribe
similar conceptswithfunctionaldifferences.Wecoordinatethese
withourframework.
Stierand andDörfler (2015) introduced intuitiveinsight
and intuitivejudgmentasmechanismsunderlyingcreative
discoveries.Fromthese,intuitivejudgmentmaybeappliedinthe
creativeevaluationstage,e.g.,decidingthearrayofdishesona
menu. Anadditionaltermintroducedby Sinclair (2012), intuitive
foresight,canalsobeconnectedtoideaevaluation.Accordingto
her data,bothintuitiveexpertiseandintuitiveforesightwereused
by allfilmmakingprofessionals.Intuitiveexpertisefunctionedas
a waytocreateunityamongstcrewmemberswhereasintuitive
foresightwascrucialformakingdecisionsregardingtheselection
projects,topics/script,andforhelpingspottalentormarket
trends.
Two studiesweexaminedfocusedexclusivelyontheidea
evaluationstage.Inthefirstone(Magnussonetal., 2014), expert
judgescarriedouttheevaluationsofproducts.Intuitiveidea
evaluationwascomparedwithanalyticalideaevaluationagainst
predefinedcriteriainthecontextofdevelopingnewproducts.
Clients ofabigtelecommunicationsoperatorwereaskedto
submit theirideasondevelopingfuturemobileservices.Eighty-
threeseparateideaswereevaluatedbyfourexperts—oneof
whom alsoprovidedqualitativedataaspartofathinking-out-
loud protocolbutduetothelimitedsamplesizethisdatais
not reportedhere.Allfourjudgesevaluatedeachideafirstina
holistic manner(intuitively),andthen2weekslateraccording
to formalcriteria(analytically).Intuitiveevaluationsweremade
while keepingfirstaradicalandthenanincrementalmarketin
mind,whileanalyticalevaluationsweremadeaccordingtothree
formal criteria,namelyoriginality,uservalue,andproducibility.
A linkbetweenthetwotechniqueswasshownwithlinear
regression.Theanalysisshowedthatthescoresonthethree
formal criteriapredictedapproximately50%ofthevarianceinthe
holistic evaluations.Furthermore,twoinnovationindexes(based
on Magnusson, 2009) werecalculated,withwhichthebestideas
from boththeincrementalandradicalperspectiveswereselected.
In asimilarvein, Eling etal. (2015) also investigatedthe
role ofintuitiveandanalyticalevaluationprocessesduringearly
ideascreeningbyutilizing Dijksterhuis’ (2004) researchdesign.
Fifty professionalsthatwerequalifiedinproductdevelopment
were presentedwithfournewproductideas,eachconsisting
of 12attributes.Afterbrieflyreadingoneofnewproduct
ideasparticipantscouldeitherperformarationalanalysis(i.e.,
deliberately assesstheideainalogicalmanner)orcompletea
distractortaskfortheequivalentlengthoftime(i.e.,3min)
afterwhichtheywererequiredtorelyontheir“intuitionand
gut feeling”aboutthenewproductidea.Anothergroupwas
exposedtoboth,intheorderofrationalanalysisthenintuition
(via thedistractortask),andafinalgroupwasexposedto
theintuitivethenrationalanalysis.Thecombinedapproachof
intuition andrationalanalysisincreasedthespeedandquality
of theevaluationofthenewproductideasratherthanrational
analysis orintuitionalone,thelatterofwhichwouldhavebeen
predicted by Dijksterhuis (2004).
In conclusion,largercreativeoutcomescanonlybeexamined
by breakingthemdownintosmallerbuildingblocksandtracking
how theyinfluencethefinalproduct.Thesestudiesfollowedreal-
life examplesofcreativeachievementfrombeginningtoend,
interpreting evaluationthroughtheattritionoflowerquality
ideaswithineachbuildingblock.Inaddition,itwasshown
thatthereismoretointuitiveevaluationthanarapiduseof
criteria sinceananalyticalevaluationcouldexplainonlyhalf
of thevarianceshownintheintuitiveassessment.Combining
intuitive andanalyticalapproachesledtohigherqualityand
fasterideaevaluationthanrelyingononeoftheapproaches
only. Consideringthelownumberofstudiesconductedonidea
evaluation,furtherresearcheffortswouldbenecessarytoexplore
theexactroleofintuitionwithinthisstage.
Studies onIntuitionandCreativity(with
no DifferentiationbetweentheStages)
Two ofthefoundstudiesdidnotdecomposethecreative
processintomultiplestages,butmadegeneralclaimsand
focused onthedetailsofintuitiveprocesses. Sundgrenand
Styhre (2004) focused theirworkonscientificresearchand
narrowed theirscopetoacasestudyofpharmaceuticalresearch.
Particularly,theorganizationofpre-clinicaldrugdevelopment,
employee’sunderstandingoftheconceptofintuition,intuition’s
role inthediscoveryofnewdrugs,aswellasmoderating
organizationalfactorswererecorded.Thenarrativeanalysisof
theinterviewsresultedinalistofcharacteristicexperiences,
however,thecontentswerenotquantifiednorfitintoalarger
context.Nevertheless,thekeyquotesservedasvaluablesources
for enhancinginsiderunderstandingandinspiringfurther
research.
Dollinger etal. (2004) used theMBTIalongwithseveralother
creativeperformancemeasurementstoexplorethelinkbetween
intuition andcreativity.Intheirstudy,94collegestudents
completed ashortenedversionoftheCreativeBehaviorInventory
(Hocevar, 1979; Dollinger, 2003), theCreativePersonalityScale
(Gough, 1979) andproducedadrawingaspartoftheTestfor
CreativeThinking–DrawingProduction(Urban, 1991; Urban
FrontiersinPsychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 September 2016 | Volume7 | Article 1420
Pétervári etal. Intuition inCreativeProblem-Solving
and Jellen, 1996). Consistentlywithpastresearch(Myers, 1998),
participants whowereclassifiedasbothintuitiveandfeelingtypes
scoredthehighestonthecreativitytests,whilethelowestscores
were associatedwiththoseidentifiedontheMBTIasSensor-
Feeler types.Thoughthesestudiesreinforcedgeneralnotions
aboutintuitioncontributingtodiscoveries/creativeproductions,
theywereunabletooutlinenewdirectionsforfurtherexpansion.
DISCUSSION
Theaimofthepresentreviewwastoexaminethelink
between creativityandintuitionwithaspecialemphasisonhow
intuition fitsintothespecificstagesofcreativeprocesses.We
decomposedcreativityintoideagenerationandideaevaluation
phasesandconsideredtwotypesofintuition,creativeintuition,
and problem-solvingintuition.Creativeintuitionwaslinkedto
theideagenerationphase,whereasproblem-solvingintuition
waslinkedtotheideaevaluationphase.Itwashypothesized
thatagradualaccumulationofcluestocoherenceunderlies
thegenerationandrecognitionofcreativeideas,asreachinga
coherent perceptionofhowtoproceedisthekeygoalduring
bothoftheideagenerationandtheideaevaluationphasesinthe
absenceofconsensuallyacceptedrules.
We categorizedavailableresearchliteratureintothreesections
basedontheproposedconceptualframework.Themajority
of ourfindingswereconcernedwithideageneration,which
could reflectthecommonbeliefthatcreativityarisesfrom
ideageneration.Qualitativestudiessuggestedthatintuitionwas
relevantforcreativitybutthiswasbasedonintrospectionand
anecdotalevidence,albeitgivenbyprofessionalsintheirown
respectivefields.Whatwecouldinferhereisthatthesetwo
constructs arelikelytobeconnectedbutitisnotknownhow
theyareconnected.Correlationalstudiesshowedareasonable
correlation betweenintuitionandcreativity,buttheremaywell
be conflationgiventhatthecreativityandintuitionmeasuring
instruments mayincludesimilaritems.Finally,empiricalstudies
showedthatintuitionmayguideideagenerationandevaluation,
and optimalperformancewasachievedwhenanalyticaland
intuitive judgmentswerecombined.
Takingthesefindingsintoconsideration,wecanconclude
thattheexactwaysthroughwhichintuitionisconnectedto
thedifferentstagesofthecreativeprocessstillneedtobe
empiricallydemonstrated.However,theydosuggestthatfor
ill-definedproblemscenarioswherethenumberofpossible
solutions increasestonear-infinity,creativethoughtstartswith
intuition andintuitionisinherentlypartoftheprocess.Inorder
to examinethisconnection,thereneedtobeaclearsetof
hypothesestotestregardingtheprecisenatureoftherelationship.
We proposeaframeworkthatmakesthispossiblewhichisalso
informed bythecurrentevidencereviewed,Wedrawattention
to thefactthatthusfar,noexistingtheoriesofcreativityhave
included intuitionasacomponentpriortoourframework.Our
aim istolayoutaframeworkwhichestablishesthetiming
and magnitudeofthecontributingintuitiveprocessmaketo
thecreativeprocess.But,beforewepresenttheframework,we
discussafewlimitations.
Limitations
To begin,thereviewrepresentsspecificliteraturethatmaybe
construed asbiasedinthefollowingways.Weonlyconsidered
theperiodafterthefirstlandmarkreviewofthepsychological
evidenceconnectingcreativityandintuition(Policastro, 1995).
Further,ourselectioncriteriawerestrictwhichinturnmean
thatthisonlygeneratedahandfulofstudiesthatcouldbe
included inthereview.Furthermore,thisreviewdoesnot
representtheentirespectrumofstudiesrelevanttothemain
topic,becauseofthestringentexclusioncriteriawhichdidnot
include mainstreamsofresearch(e.g.,excludingthestudies
featuringself-reportsonly).Wewantedtokeepasharpfocus
on themostdirectlyrelevantevidenceavailableonthetopicof
theconnectionbetweenintuitionandcreativity,withtheviewto
only includinghigh-qualityliteraturethatprovidedinsightsthat
directlyconcernedtheconnectionbetweenthetwophenomena
of interest.Thuswhilewehaveindeedusedself-imposedfilters
in thisreviewbutthesefilterswepresentedaclearjustification
for themearlierintheSection“Methods”ofthisarticle.Thegoal
wastogainadeeperunderstandingoftheconnectionbetween
thetwoconceptsandtobeabletostartmovingforwardwiththe
experimentalworkfromthere.
One concernregardingusingthereviewedliteratureto
potentially informourframeworkisthedifficultlyinsynthesizing
it. Questionscanberaisedaboutwhatwecantakeaway
from thefindingsdiscussedfromtheliteraturegiventhe
different conceptualizationsandoperationalizationsaboutthe
core phenomenabeinginvestigated.Inaddition,afurtherrelated
problem concernsthemisalignedassumptionssurroundingboth
intuition andcreativityandthewayinwhichtheyaremeasured.
Anotherissueconcernsthetopicofexaminingtheconnection
between intuitionandcreativityitself,whichconfrontstheedges
of ourcurrentdiscipline’sunderstandingoftheoperationsof
knowledgeintegrationatacognitiveandneurallevel(Parkand
Friston, 2013).
Thus,fornowourreview,whilebroadlyinformedbythe
empiricalliterature,doesnothaveadedicatedsetofstudiesto
support it.However,theaimhereistofindcommonground
in theoreticalandempiricalwork,inordertoprovidetestable
hypothesesaboutthelinkageoftheprocessescouchedina
detailedconceptualframework.
Conceptual FrameworkoftheLink
between IntuitionandCreativity
Our aimhereistopresentaframeworkthatisabletoconsolidate
theessentialfeaturesofthecreativeproblem-solvingprocess,
and intuition(morespecificallyintuitivejudgment),andtolay
out howthetwoareconnected.Moreover,theaimistoshow
sensitivity totheinsightsfromtheoreticalandempiricalwork
thathasspeculatedalinkbetweenintuitionandcreativity.In
order tofollowourproposals, Figure1 presentsaschematicof
our conceptualframework,andtheelaborationoftheframework
thatfollowsdiscussesthecomponentsfromlefttorightasthey
appearin Figure1.
Ill-definedproblemsarethestartingpointofthecreative
problem-solving process,andonceacreatorfacessucha
FrontiersinPsychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 September 2016 | Volume7 | Article 1420
Pétervári etal. Intuition inCreativeProblem-Solving
FIGURE 1|Conceptualframeworkoftheplaceofintuitioninthecreativeproblem-solvingprocess. The redasteriskdenotesstagesatwhichintuitionis
necessary toproceedtothenextphase,whereastheorangeasteriskhighlightsastageatwhichintuitionmightbeappliedtoproceedtothenextphase.Notethat
most problemscanbesolvedviabothpathways.
problem, theycanbegintacklingitinoneoftwopossibleways:
(1) theymayrefertoexistingprescribedparadigms(thesemay
be institutionaldependingonthecontextinwhichtheproblem
arises)todefinetheproblemspaceandthepossiblestrategiesthat
could betaken,or(2)theymayuseone’sindividualjudgment
basedonpriorexperiencestodefinetheproblem’scharacteristics.
Path 1
Selectinganestablishedworkframetotackleaproblem
may seeminitiallyefficient,butmayalsobeunsuitablefor
reachingthegoal,thusultimatelyleadtoaninsufficientsolution
or nosolutionatall.However,theadvantage,alongwith
efficiency,isthatlaterdowntheprocessofcreativeproblem
solving,solutions/innovationsmaybeachievedbycommitting
to establishedparadigmsandinsertingnewelementsintothe
framework orfindingabeneficialvariationofexistingelements
basedonaccumulatedcuestosolveaproblem.Theunderlying
assumptionisthattheexistingframeworkissufficientfor
reachingthegoal(inmanycasesitistheoptimizationofthe
processbywhichthegoalwasachievedalready),thusitisused
asastartingtemplatetobuildupon.
Withinanalreadyestablishedframework,itisrelativelyeasier
to assessthepotentialandactualvalueofnewpropositions.
Thesenewlyproposedalternativesarecomparablewiththeprior
lesselegant/optimalsolutionsandoftenthereisageneralset
of criteriaforjudgingtheirvalue.Duringthisfirstpathway,
intuition maybeemployedtorecognizenewelementsor
variationofelementsbyrecognizingtheirvaluebasedongut
feeling. However,rationalanalysismayyieldthesameresults
throughalesselegant,moretime-consumingprocedure.Itisthus
Path2inwhichintuitionismoreobviouslyfeaturedinbothidea
generation andevaluation.
Path 2
In contrast,bigleapsinknowledgeoccurifproblemsolverscreate
a novelparadigmtosolveaproblemandthiscanserveasthe
basisforsolvingfuture,relatedproblems.Themotivationfor
doing soisthattheexistingframeworkprovedtobeunproductive
for reachingaspecificgoal,suchastheremaybeempirical
evidenceathandwhichdoesnotfitthetheoreticalassumptions,
or aproblemmustbesolvedwhichcannotbeasked/answered
under theexistingframe.Itisalsopossiblethatacreatoris
not knowledgeableofexistingproceduresthusestablishestheir
own. Deliberateanalysisisruledoutherebecauseathorough
evaluationofavastamountofrandomlygeneratedpossibilities
would notbefeasibleduetoalackofresources(time,funding,
etc.).Thesameappliestorelyingonchanceandselectingideas
completely randomly.Ratherwhathappensisthatacreatorgains
a startinghypothesisrelyingonagutfeeling.He/shecombines
separate chunksofgraduallyacquiredinformationaboutwhat
could beworkingandboilsthemdowntoformanewcoherent
construct viaassociations.Intuitiondoesnotsolvetheentire
problem butgrantsanideawhichispurposefullyselected.In
thispath,intuitioncannotbereplacedwithanalysisandit
sometimesevenprecedesanalysis(DörflerandEden, 2014). It
is tightlylinkedtoestablishingnewparadigms,notonlyinthe
ideagenerationphasebutintheevaluationphasetoo.Initialideas
need refinementandmustbemonitoredbasedonhowcloseis
thecurrentstatetothedesiredendstate.Expertsofaparticular
domain mustrelyontheirperceptionofcoherencetojudgethe
explanatorypotentialofanewframework(whetheritissuitable
for addressingthequestionandwhatfurtherproblemsmayget
answered withit).
DirectionsforFutureResearch
Furtherexperimentalstudiesarenecessarytoinvestigate
theproposalhere.Inparticular,basedonthepredictions
made,futureinvestigationsshouldexplorewhetherwell-defined
problems involveintuitivesolutions.Inaddition,itwould
be usefultotestwhetheratrulycreativeparadigm,which
incorporatesthreeessentialcriteria,i.e.,originality,utility,and
surprise (e.g., Simonton, 2012), canbegeneratedbyrelyingsolely
on analyticalmethods.Furthermore,toanswerthequestion
whetherintuitionisindispensableforcreativeachievements,
scenariosinwhichonlyintuitiveprocessingoftheproblem,
only analyticalprocessingoftheproblemandbothintuitiveand
analyticalprocessingoftheproblemiscarriedoutshouldbe
contrasted(cf. Eling etal., 2015). Studiesusuallycontrastintuitive
judgmenttoanalyticaljudgment,soitcouldbeworthwhile
to lookspecificallyatassociation-versusrule-basedjudgments
during creativeproblem-solving.Experimentstargetingboththe
FrontiersinPsychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 September 2016 | Volume7 | Article 1420
Pétervári etal. Intuition inCreativeProblem-Solving
ideagenerationandtheevaluationphasescouldmanipulatethe
number ofexplicitrulesparticipantsareprovidedwithand/orthe
extentinwhichmakingassociationsisnecessarytocompletethe
task.Finally,ecologicallyvalidenvironmentscouldbesimulated
by providingparticipantswithavastamountofinformationand
observinghowintuitionisusedtofindtherelevantcluestothe
solution.
CONCLUSION
Our reviewshowedthatintuitionisassociatedwithboththe
ideagenerationandtheideaevaluationphasesofthecreative
problem-solving process.Datawaspooledtogethertoobtain
a morefine-grainedpictureaboutwhereandhowintuitive
processesarelinkedwithspecificstagesofcreativeproblem
solving. Itwasfoundthatpreviousstudiesconnectedintuition
chieflytotheideagenerationphase.Twopossiblepathwayswere
sketchedoutexplainingtheuseofintuitioninresponsetoill-
definedproblems.Finally,intuition,despitebeingincreasingly
investigatedinpsychologicalresearch,isstillinterpretedina
broad,vaguemanner,andwesuggestfutureempiricalresearch
shouldbedirectedtotestspecifichypothesessuchasthoseoffered
here orby Sadler-Smith (2015) in ordertorevealitsunderlying
working mechanismsincreativeproblemsolving.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
JP performedtheliteraturereviewandwrotethemanuscript.MO
and JBsupervisedtheprojectandeditedthemanuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ThisresearchwassupportedbytheQueenMaryUniversityof
London. JBwaspartiallysupportedbytheEuropeanCommission
(Grant AgreementNo.612022).Thispublicationreflectsthe
views onlyoftheauthors,andthefunderscannotbeheld
responsibleforanyusethatmaybemadeoftheinformation
containedtherein.
REFERENCES
Agor,W.H.(1989).“Theintuitiveabilityofexecutives,”in Intuitionin
organizations:LeadingandManagingProductively, ed.W.H.Agor(Thousand
Oaks, CA:Sage),145–170.
Amabile,T.M.(1982).Socialpsychologyofcreativity:aconsensualassessment
technique. J. Pers.Soc.Psychol. 43, 997–1013.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
Amabile,T.M.(1983). TheSocialPsychologyofCreativity. NewYork,NY:Springer.
Amabile,T.M.,andMüller,J.S.(2009).“Studyingcreativity,itsprocesses,and
its antecedents:anexplorationofthecomponentialtheoryofcreativity,”in
HandbookofOrganizationalCreativity, ed.C.E.S.JingZhou(NewYork,NY:
PsychologyPress),33–64.
Boden, M.(1994).“Whatiscreativity?,”in DimensionsofCreativity ed. M.A.Boden
(Cambridge:MITPress),75–117.
Bowers,K.S.,Regehr,G.,Balthazard,C.,andParker,K.(1990).Intuition
in thecontextofdiscovery. Cogn. Psychol. 22, 72–110.doi:10.1016/0010-
0285(90)90004-N
Bruner,J.S.(1962).“Theconditionsofcreativity,”in ContemporaryApproachesto
CreativeThinking, edsH.Gruber,G.Terrell,andM.Wertheimer(NewYork,
NY:Atherton),1–30.
Campbell,D.T.(1960).Blindvariationandselectiveretentionincreativethought
asinotherknowledgeprocesses. Psychol.Rev. 67, 380–400.doi:10.1037/
h0040373
Carne,G.C.,andKirton,M.J.(1982).Stylesofcreativity:test-scorecorrelations
between kirtonadaption-innovationinventoryandmyers-briggstypeindicator.
Psychol.Rep. 50, 31–36.doi:10.2466/pr0.1982.50.1.31
Couger,J.D.(1995). CreativeProblemSolvingandOpportunityFinding. Danvers,
MA: Boyd&FraserPublishingCompany.
Cropley, A.(2006).Inpraiseofconvergentthinking. Creat.Res.J. 18, 391–404.doi:
10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13
Dane,E.,andPratt,M.G.(2007).Exploringintuitionanditsrolein
managerialdecisionmaking. Acad.Manag.Rev. 32, 33–54.doi:10.5465/
AMR.2007.23463682
Dane,E.,andPratt,M.G.(2009).Conceptualizingandmeasuringintuition:a
reviewofrecenttrends. Int. Rev.Ind.Organ.Psychol. 24, 1–40.
Davidson,J.E.,andSternberg,R.J.(1986).Whatisinsight? Educ. Horiz. 64,
177–179.
Dean,D.L.,Hender,J.M.,Rodgers,T.L.,andSantanen,E.(2006).Identifyinggood
ideas:constructsandscalesforideaevaluation. J. Assoc.Inf.Syst. 7, 646–699.
Dietrich,A.(2007).Who’safraidofacognitiveneuroscienceofcreativity? Methods
42, 22–27.doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.009
Dijksterhuis,A.(2004).Thinkdifferent:themeritsofunconsciousthoughtin
preferencedevelopmentanddecisionmaking. J. Pers.Soc.Psychol. 87, 586.doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.586
Dijksterhuis,A.,Bos,M.W.,Nordgren,L.F.,andVanBaaren,R.B.(2006).On
making therightchoice:thedeliberation-without-attentioneffect. Science 311,
1005–1007. doi:10.1126/science.1121629
Dijksterhuis,A.,andNordgren,L.F.(2006).Atheoryofunconsciousthought. Pers.
Psychol.Sci. 1, 95–109.doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00007.x
Dijkstra, K.A.,vanderPligt,J.,vanKleef,G.A.,andKerstholt,J.H.(2012).
Deliberation versusintuition:globalversuslocalprocessinginjudgment
and choice. J. Exp.Soc.Psychol. 48, 1156–1161.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.
05.001
Dollinger,S.J.(2003).Needforuniqueness,needforcognitionandcreativity.
J. Creat.Behav. 37, 99–116.doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2003.tb00828.x
Dollinger,S.J.,Palaskonis,D.G.,andPearson,J.L.(2004).Creativityandintuition
revisited. J. Creat.Behav. 38, 244–259.doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb
01243.x
Dörfler,V.,andAckermann,F.(2012).Understandingintuition:thecasefor
two formsofintuition. Manag.Learn. 43, 545–564.doi:10.1177/13505076114
34686
Dörfler,V.,andEden,C.(2014).Understanding‘expert’scientists:implications
for managementandorganizationresearch. Paperpresentedattheannual
meetingoftheAcademyofManagement, Philadelphia,PA.doi:10.5465/
AMBPP.2014.10732abstract
Eling,K.,Langerak,F.,andGriffin,A.(2015).ThePerformanceeffectsof
combining rationalityandintuitioninmakingearlynewproductidea
evaluationdecisions. Creat.Innov.Manag. 24, 464–477.doi:10.1111/
caim.12128
Epstein, S.,Pacini,R.,Denes-Raj,V.,andHeier,H.(1996).Individualdifferences
in intuitive–experientialandanalytical–rationalthinkingstyles. J. Pers.Soc.
Psychol. 71, 390–405.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390
Eubanks,D.L.,Murphy,S.T.,andMumford,M.D.(2010).Intuitionas
an influenceoncreativeproblem-solving:theeffectsofintuition,positive
affect,andtraining. Creat.Res.J. 22, 170–184.doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.
481513
Finke,R.A.,Ward,T.B.,andSmith,S.M.(1992). CreativeCognition:Theory,
Research,andApplications. Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Förster,J.(2012).GLOMOsysTheHowandWhyofGlobalandLocalProcessing.
Curr. Dir.Psychol.Sci. 21, 15–19.doi:10.1177/0963721411429454
Gallate,J.,andKeen,S.(2011).“Intuition,”in EncyclopediaofCreativity, edsS.R.
PritzkerandM.A.Runco(SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress/Elsevier),683–688.
FrontiersinPsychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 September 2016 | Volume7 | Article 1420
Pétervári etal. Intuition inCreativeProblem-Solving
Gardner,H.,andNemirovsky,R.(1991).Fromprivateintuitionstopublicsymbol
systems: anexaminationofthecreativeprocessinGeorgCantorandSigmund
Freud. Creat.Res.J. 4, 1–21.doi:10.1080/10400419109534370
Garfield,M.J.,Taylor,N.J.,Dennis,A.R.,andSatzinger,J.W.(2001).Research
report: modifyingparadigms—individualdifferences,creativitytechniques,and
exposuretoideasingroupideageneration. Inf. Syst.Res. 12, 322–333.doi:
10.1287/isre.12.3.322.9710
Glöckner,A.,andWitteman,C.(2010).Beyonddual-processmodels:a
categorisationofprocessesunderlyingintuitivejudgementanddecision
making. Think.Reason. 16, 1–25.doi:10.1080/13546780903395748
Gore,J.,andSadler-Smith,E.(2011).Unpackingintuition:aprocessand
outcomeframework. Rev.Gen.Psychol. 15, 304–316.doi:10.1037/a00
25069
Gough,H.G.(1979).Acreativepersonalityscalefortheadjectivechecklist. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 37, 1398–1405.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1398
Guilford,J.P.(1956).Thestructureofintellect. Psychol.Bull. 53, 267–293.doi:
10.1037/h0040755
Guilford,J.P.(1967). TheNatureofHumanIntelligence. NewYork,NY:McGraw-
Hill.
Hadamard,J.(1954). ThePsychologyofInventionintheMathematicalField.
New York,NY:Dover.
Hayes,J.R.(1989).“Cognitiveprocessesincreativity,”in HandbookofCreativity:
PerspectivesonIndividualDifferences, edsG.Glover,R.Ronning,and
C. Reynolds(NewYork,NY:Plenum),53–75.
Hocevar,D.(1979).TheDevelopmentoftheCreativeBehaviorInventory(CBI).
PaperPresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheRockyMountainPsychological
Association(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.Ed.170350).
LasVegas,NV.
Hodgkinson,G.P.,Langan-Fox,J.,andSadler-Smith,E.(2008).Intuition:a
fundamentalbridgingconstructinthebehaviouralsciences. Br. J.Psychol. 99,
1–27. doi:10.1348/000712607X216666
Hogarth,R.(2001). EducatingIntuition. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Isaacson,W.(2011). TheGeniusofJobs. Availableat: http://www.nytimes.com/
2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/steve-jobss-genius.html
Jung-Beeman, M.,Bowden,E.M.,Haberman,J.,Frymiare,J.L.,Arambel-Liu,S.,
Greenblatt,R.,etal.(2004).Neuralactivitywhenpeoplesolveverbalproblems
withinsight. PLoS Biol. 2:e97. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097
Kaufman,J.C.,andBaer,J.(2012).Beyondnewandappropriate:whodecides
whatiscreative? Creat.Res.J. 24, 83–91.doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.6
49237
Kogan,N.,Connor,K.,Gross,A.,andFava,D.(1980).Understandingvisual
metaphor:developmentalandindividualdifferences. Monogr. Soc.Res.Child
Dev. 45, 1–78.doi:10.2307/1165832
Kozbelt,A.,andDurmysheva,Y.(2007).Understandingcreativityjudgmentsof
invented aliencreatures:therolesofinvariantsandotherpredictors. J. Creat.
Behav. 41, 223–248.doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2007.tb01072.x
Lieberman,M.D.(2000).Intuition:asocialcognitiveneuroscienceapproach.
Psychol.Bull. 126, 109–137.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.109
Lonergan,D.C.,Scott,G.M.,andMumford,M.D.(2004).Evaluativeaspectsof
creativethought:effectsofappraisalandrevisionstandards. Creat.Res.J. 16,
231–246. doi:10.1080/10400419.2004.9651455
Lubart,T.I.(2001).Modelsofthecreativeprocess:past,presentandfuture. Creat.
Res.J. 13, 295–308.doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07
Magnusson,P.R.(2009).Exploringthecontributionsofinvolvingordinaryusers
in ideationoftechnology-basedservices. J. Prod.Innov.Manag. 26, 578–593.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00684.x
Magnusson,P.R.,Netz,J.,andWästlund,E.(2014).Exploringholisticintuitive
ideascreeninginthelightofformalcriteria. Technovation 34, 315–326.doi:
10.1016/j.technovation.2014.03.003
Marton,F.,Fensham,P.,andChaiklin,S.(1994).ANobel’seyeviewof
scientificintuition:discussionswiththeNobelprize-winnersinphysics,
chemistryandmedicine(1970-86). Int. J.Sci.Educ. 16, 457–473.doi:10.1080/
0950069940160406
Mednick, S.(1962).Theassociativebasisofthecreativeprocess. Psychol.Rev. 69,
220–232. doi:10.1037/h0048850
Miller,A.I.(2000). InsightsofGenius:ImageryandCreativityinScienceandArt.
Boston, MA:MITPress.
Mumford,M.D.,Reiter-Palmon,R.,andRedmond,M.R.(1994).“Problem
construction andcognition:applyingproblemrepresentationsinill-defined
problems,”in Problem finding,ProblemSolving,andCreativity, ed.M.A.Runco
(Norwood,NJ:Ablex),3–39.
Myers,I.B.(1998). IntroductiontoType:AGuidetoUnderstandingyourResults
on theMyers-BriggsTypeIndicator, 6thEdn.PaloAlto,CA:Consulting
PsychologistsPress.
Myers,I.B.,andMcCaulley,M.H.(1985).Manual:AGuidetotheDevelopmentand
UseoftheMyers-BriggsTypeIndicator. PaloAlto,CA:ConsultingPsychologists
Press.
Park,H.J.,andFriston,K.(2013).Structuralandfunctionalbrainnetworks:
from connectionstocognition. Science 342:1238411. doi:10.1126/science.12
38411
Perkins, D.N.(1992).“Thetopographyofinvention,”in InventiveMinds:Creativity
in Technology, edsR.WeberandD.N.Perkins(NewYork,NY:Oxford
UniversityPress),238–250.
Piffer,D.(2012).Cancreativitybemeasured?Anattempttoclarifythenotion
of creativityandgeneraldirectionsforfutureresearch. Think.SkillsCreat. 7,
258–264.
Plucker,J.A.,Beghetto,R.A.,andDow,G.T.(2004).Whyisn’tcreativity
more importanttoeducationalpsychologists?Potentials,pitfalls,andfuture
directionsincreativityresearch. Educ. Psychol. 39, 83–96.
Policastro,E.(1995).Creativeintuition:anintegrativereview. Creat.Res.J. 8,
99–113. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0802_1
Policastro,E.(1999).“Intuition,”in EncyclopediaofCreativity, Vol.2,edsM.A.
Runco andS.Pritzer(NewYork,NY:AcademicPress),89–93.
Raidl,M.H.,andLubart,T.I.(2001).Anempiricalstudyofintuitionand
creativity. Imagin.Cogn.Pers. 20, 217–230.doi:10.2190/34QQ-EX6N-TF8V-
7U3N
Reiter-Palmon,R.,andIllies,J.J.(2004).Leadershipandcreativity:understanding
leadershipfromacreativeproblem-solvingperspective. Leadersh.Q. 15, 55–77.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.005
Reitman, W.R.(1965). CognitionandThought. NewYork,NY:Wiley.
Rietzschel,E.F.,Nijstad,B.A.,andStroebe,W.(2010).Theselection
of creativeideasafterindividualideageneration:choosingbetween
creativityandimpact. Br. J.Psychol. 101, 47–68.doi:10.1348/000712609X
414204
Runco, M.A.(2003). CriticalCreativeProcesses. Cresskill,NJ:HamptonPress.
Runco, M.A.,andChand,I.(1995).Cognitionandcreativity. Educ. Psychol.Rev.
7, 243–267.doi:10.1007/BF02213373
Runco, M.A.,andJaeger,G.J.(2012).Thestandarddefinitionofcreativity. Creat.
Res.J. 24, 92–96.doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Runco, M.A.,andSmith,W.R.(1992).Interpersonalandintrapersonal
evaluationsofcreativeideas. Pers.Individ.Dif. 13, 295–302.doi:10.1016/0191-
8869(92)90105-X
Sadler-Smith,E.(2008). InsideIntuition. London:Routledge.
Sadler-Smith,E.(2015).Theroleofintuitioninentrepreneurshipandbusiness
venturing decisions. Eur. J.WorkOrgan.Psychol. 25, 1–14.
Sadler-Smith,E.,andShefy,E.(2004).Theintuitiveexecutive:understanding
and applying‘gutfeel’indecision-making. Acad.Manag.Exec. 18, 76–91.doi:
10.5465/AME.2004.15268692
Shirley,D.A.,andLangan-Fox,J.(1996).Intuition:areviewoftheliterature.
Psychol.Rep. 79, 563–584.doi:10.2466/pr0.1996.79.2.563
Simon, H.A.(1989).“Thescientistasaproblemsolver,”in ComplexInformation
Processing, edsD.KlahrandK.Kotovsky(Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum
Associates,Inc),375–398.
Simonton, D.K.(2010).Creativethoughtasblind-variationandselective-
retention: combinatorialmodelsofexceptionalcreativity. Phys.LifeRev. 7,
156–179. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.002
Simonton, D.K.(2012).TakingtheUSPatentOfficecriteriaseriously:a
quantitativethree-criterioncreativitydefinitionanditsimplications. Creat.Res.
J. 24, 97–106.doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.676974
Sinclair,M.(2010).Misconceptionsaboutintuition. Psychol.Inq. 21, 378–386.doi:
10.1080/1047840X.2010.523874
Sinclair,M.(2012). TheRoleofIntuitioninKnowledgeManagement:AnEmerging
PerspectivefromFilmMaking. Paperpresentedattheannualmeetingofthe
InternationalConferenceonManagementandServiceScience, Shanghai.
FrontiersinPsychology |
Due Thursday-Homework Q1
An article’s abstract “contains enough essential information about the article to be able to assess its merit and relevance…and you can discern and anticipate the logic of the author’s argument before even reading through the full article” (Shon, 2015, p 34).
Write a 250- to 300-word response to the following:
- Refer to The Role of Intuition in the Generation and Evaluation Stages of Creativity article from the University Library and read the abstract.
- In your own words, what is the essential information and logic of the author’s argument?
Reference
- Shon, P. C. (2015). The quick fix guide to academic writing: How to avoid big mistakes and small errors. Sage Publication.
Please refer to the resources provided on CDS Central. They are intended to help you engage effectively on the discussion board.
Due Saturday- Homework Q2
A social science journal article’s introduction “is like a blueprint and a map: it lays out the itinerary of an article’s path of logical travel…and are organized and structured into predictable patterns” (Shon, 2015, p 41).
Write a 250- to 300-word response to the following:
- Refer to The Role of Intuition in the Generation and Evaluation Stages of Creativity article from the University Library and read the introduction.
- How do the authors organize the introduction? Do the subheadings and discussion of the article follow the ‘blueprint and map’ outlined in the introduction?
- Reflect on what you have learned about writing an introduction. What might you do differently in writing introductions as you progress through the dissertation process?
Reference:
Payne, B. K., & Gainey, R. R. (2003). Understanding and developing controversial issues in college courses. College Teaching, 51(2), 52. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/274677817?accountid=35812
