The science of intelligence
Creativity and intelligence
Short answer
Creativity and intelligence are related, but only weakly. A meta-analysis of 21 studies and 45,880 people found a mean correlation of .174 between creativity test scores and IQ. A later study found IQ thresholds for creative potential, from about 85 to 120 depending on the measure, but no threshold for real creative achievement.
Want your own number? The test is 25 visual puzzles, about 12 minutes, no sign-up.
IQ tests are not creativity tests
IQ tests ask for the single best answer to a well-defined problem. Creativity tests usually reward the opposite: producing many ideas (fluency) or unusual ones (originality) for an open problem. The researchers who wrote the 1994 mainstream statement on intelligence were explicit that IQ tests do not measure creativity, character or personality, and are not intended to (Gottfredson, 1997). So the question is not whether IQ measures creativity, but whether the two tend to go together.
The meta-analysis: a small correlation
K. H. Kim pooled 447 correlations from 21 studies with 45,880 participants. The mean correlation between creativity test scores and IQ was r = .174, which the author called negligible, and the data did not support threshold theory (Kim, 2005). Squaring .174 gives about 3%: that is the share of variation the two measures have in common. The rest has to do with other things. If you want to see how correlations of this size behave, the correlation glossary entry has examples.
Try one · Spatial Reasoning
Which option is the same shape, only rotated?
Tap the option you think is right, or show the answer.
Show the answer
Option 2 is the original figure turned a quarter turn counterclockwise.
How to solve it
- Pick a landmark: the marked cell or the end of the longest arm.
- Turn the figure in your head and watch where that landmark goes, and which side the other cells end up on.
- Turning the figure a quarter turn counterclockwise gives option 2.
- Each of the other options is a mirror image: flipping it over would match, but no turn does.
That was 1 puzzle. The full test has 25.
The threshold hypothesis
A long-standing idea says intelligence matters for creativity only up to a point. The threshold hypothesis holds that above-average intelligence is a necessary condition for high-level creativity, and it is often tested by splitting samples at IQ 120 (Jauk et al., 2013). Below the threshold, the theory says, IQ and creativity should be related; above it, they should not.
In 2013, Jauk and colleagues tested 297 people and used a statistical method to find where any break actually falls, rather than assuming 120 (Jauk et al., 2013). They found:
| Measure | Intelligence threshold found |
|---|---|
| Creative potential: fluency (number of ideas) | about IQ 85 |
| Creative potential: originality, liberal criterion | about IQ 100 |
| Creative potential: originality, demanding criterion | about IQ 120 |
| Creative achievement | No threshold |
Once the intelligence threshold was met, personality factors became more predictive of creative potential. Creative achievement, by contrast, kept benefiting from higher intelligence (Jauk et al., 2013). In other words, past a fairly ordinary IQ, coming up with original ideas depended more on personality than on extra IQ points, but turning ideas into real accomplishments still went with higher intelligence.
Do the two findings conflict?
Partly. Kim's meta-analysis did not support a threshold (Kim, 2005), while Jauk's study found one for creative potential (Jauk et al., 2013). They used different methods and samples, and the threshold Jauk found depends on how creativity is scored. Both agree on the bigger picture: IQ explains only a small part of creativity.
Creativity in theories of intelligence
Some theories place creativity inside intelligence. Robert Sternberg's triarchic theory proposes analytic, creative and practical aspects of intelligence, of which only the analytic is measured to any significant extent by mainstream tests (Neisser et al., 1996); the evidence for that theory is discussed on the triarchic theory page. The 1971 Marland Report to Congress also counted creative or productive thinking as one of six areas of giftedness (Marland, 1971), as covered in what does gifted mean?
Smart is not the same as unbiased
A related finding shows how narrow IQ is. Across 7 studies, many classic thinking biases, including framing, anchoring, base-rate neglect, myside bias and the sunk-cost effect, were uncorrelated with cognitive ability (Stanovich & West, 2008). Ability did help avoid some others, such as denominator neglect and belief bias (Stanovich & West, 2008). Like creativity, good judgment is something an IQ score only partly reflects. For what IQ does capture, see what an IQ test measures and what intelligence is.
Sources
- Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13-23. doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8
- Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2-3), 57-66. doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-473
- Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 41(4), 212-221. doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003
- Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77
- Marland, S. P., Jr. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume 1: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. ERIC ED056243. eric.ed.gov/?id=ED056243
- Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 672-695. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672