The DOI matches its Crossref record; 160 of the 160 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward a Meta-Theory of Creativity Forms: How Novelty and Usefulness Shape Creativity
Open accessAbstract
Creativity has long been defined in terms of novelty and usefulness. Surprisingly, however, there is relatively little agreement about the precise meaning of either dimension, the relationship between them, or the process through which they are produced. In this paper, we explore how novelty and usefulness have been used explicitly and implicitly in the creativity literature to reveal three ways to understand the definitional constructs. We propose that these three understandings give rise to distinct but interrelated forms of creativity: creativity as maximization, creativity as balance, and creativity as integration. Each form provides a different way of answering the question: what is creativity? We further theorize that the forms are shaped by the distal relations between novelty and usefulness, context, and process. Fundamentally, our theory suggests that developing a creative outcome for a distant alternative reality is a different form of creativity than developing an idea grounded in the present, so that as creators move through space and time, they also move through different forms of creativity. Our meta-theory furthers our understanding of creativity by revealing the centrality of usefulness in defining creativity; opening up the dynamics of the creative process; and highlighting interdependencies between ideas and context.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The most widely accepted framework evaluates innovation across two primary dimensions: novelty and usefulness (Amabile, 1982; Doshi and Hauser, 2024; Harvey and Berry, 2022).”
From AI-assisted design synthesis and human creativity in engineering education (2026) · cites this paper as Harvey and Berry, 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Creativity is typically assessed across two dimensions: novelty and usefulness (11, 12).”
From Generative artificial intelligence enhances creativity but reduces the diversity of novel content (2023) · cites this paper as [12]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 46,726
Research in Organizational Behavior.
Grimes, A. J., Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392975 · Cited by 11,303
THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS
McGuire, J. E. (1963) · Philosophical Books · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0149.1963.tb00813.x · Cited by 8,547
Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0018963 · Cited by 6,618
ASSESSING THE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR CREATIVITY.
AMABILE, T. M., CONTI, R., COON, H., LAZENBY, J., & HERRON, M. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256995 · Cited by 6,029
Structural Holes and Good Ideas
Burt, R. S. (2004) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/421787 · Cited by 5,642
Collins, R. (2004) · doi:10.1515/9781400851744 · Cited by 4,726
Toward a theory of organizational creativity
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258761 · Cited by 4,399
Orne, M. T. (1962) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0043424 · Cited by 4,041
The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.
Amabile, T. M. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357 · Cited by 4,034
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- 10.5465/256995 · DOI · Paper page
- Burt G., 1994, The art of film music
- Csikszentmihalyi M., 1996, Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
- Csikszentmihalyi M., 1999, Handbook of creativity, 313
- Hogarth R., 1980, Judgement and choice.
- Koestler A., 1964, The act of creation.
- 10.5465/amr.35.4.zok558 · DOI
- Mumford M. D., 2002, Inquiry: Critical thinking across the disciplines, 22, 21
- 10.5465/256657 · DOI · Paper page
- Pointcare H., 1913, The foundations of science
- Shapiro R. J., 1968, Psychologia Africana Monograph Supplement, 4, 180
- Wallas G., 1926, The art of thought.
- Wallis S., 2010, Integral Review,, 6
- 10.5465/amr.1993.3997517 · DOI · Paper page
- Wright E. V., 1939, Gadsby
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative artificial intelligence enhances creativity but reduces the diversity of novel content
Doshi, A., & Hauser, O. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4535536 · Cited by 1,350
“Creativity is typically assessed across two dimensions: novelty and usefulness ( 11 , 12 ).”
Humans as Creativity Gatekeepers: Are We Biased Against AI Creativity?
Magni, F., Park, J., & Chao, M. M. (2024) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-023-09910-x · Cited by 201
Ideation with Generative AI—in Consumer Research and Beyond
Freitas, J. D., Nave, G., & Puntoni, S. (2025) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucaf012 · Cited by 75
“Ideas are also assessed in terms of appropriateness (or feasibility), which refers to whether the idea is practical in solving the problem (Amabile 1982; Harvey and Berry 2023).”
Miron‐Spektor, E., Emich, K. J., Argote, L., & Smith, W. K. (2022) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104153 · Cited by 53
More knowledge, better innovation? Role of knowledge breadth and depth
Wang, W., Yin, X., Coles, R. S., & Chen, J. (2024) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-06-2023-0910 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Harvey, S., & Berry, J. W.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2023-07
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 504-529
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3807
- OpenAlex
- W4221038577
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 154
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 10
- FWCI
- 18.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- discovery.ucl.ac.uk
- Locations
- Academy of Management Review (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Keywords
- creativity, novelty, usefulness, creativity theory, creative process, idea generation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
