María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 

Theories – Research – Applications Vol. 9, Issue 2, 2022

Octahedral Creativity Framework

María Corcuera Atienza

Industrial Design Engineer Universitat Jaume I. MA Fine Arts Universidad de Málaga.
PhD in Educational Sciences Universidad del País Vasco, Spain

abstract certain factors and their interaction with other close ele-
ments. The gain in knowledge also suggests pragmatic
Currently, Rhodes’ 4p framework of creativity is the most
consequences in the lines of evaluating and teaching
widely accepted framework to understand creativity. In
creativity not only to enhance economic development
spite of this, there are many new theories focused on
but to enhance our personal well-being.
some facets of creativity that shape a fragmented puzzle
with pieces that overlap and intertwine in a very complex
way. The absence of an integrating framework adapted to
keywords:
the incursion of new theories prevents us from achieving
creativity theory, octahedral framework, creativity
that global vision of a finished puzzle, where each theory motivation, creativity means, 4p Rhodes’ framework,
fits perfectly. The Octahedral Creativity Framework (OCF) creativity model
fills this gap. It is built on Hermagoras´ framework of sev-
en circumstances (who, in what way, what, where, when,
why, and by what means) and 26 current frameworks
and theories of creativity, including Rhodes’ 4P creativ-
ity framework (Person-who, Process-How, Product-what
and Press-where/when). It is shaped as an octahedron,
where the six main dimensions are placed on their ver-
tices: Person, Product, Process, Environment, Motive,
and Means. Factors derived from dimension interaction
are located on its corresponding edges and faces. This
research shows graphically how 26 of the main creativ-
ity frameworks and theories integrate their dimensions
and factors in the OCF. The OCF provides a better under-
standing of the construct of creativity. This global inte-
grative framework opens new research paths based on

Article history: Corresponding author at:

Received: January 22, 2022 María Corcuera Atienza

Received in revised form: May 17, 2022 e-mail: corcueramaria@gmail.com
Accepted: September 8, 2022
ISSN 2354-0036
DOI: 10.2478/ctra-2022-0009
 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

Creativity definition

Currently, scholars do not agree on a unanimous definition of creativity (Batey & Furnham, 2006).
According to Rodrigo (2000), creativity is an elusive term that even psychologists agree is much
harder to define than to detect. Nonetheless, there is a broad consensus, with most researchers
agreeing, that creativity requires both originality and effectiveness (Helfand et al., 2017). This con-
ceptualisation is seven decades old. It is a Western perspective that focuses on Product dimension
in contrast to the Eastern view as a Process of understanding and enlightenment (Batey & Furnham,
2006). It is born in the height of capitalism with productivity and economic value playing a decisive
role.

Problem

Creativity is a problematic construct in which numerous variables are intermingled. It has applica-
tions in many domains and manifests itself in very different ways. For this reason, many specialists
from diverse fields have approached this differential variable, trying to analyze and influence it
with their own perspectives from their respective fields. On the other hand, many other research-
ers, seeking to increase the understanding of it, focus on one or several dimensions of creativity,
unraveling them and deepening their internal functioning. Hence, a multitude of valuable theories
of creativity appear. These theories shape a fragmented puzzle with pieces that overlap and inter-
twine in a very complex way. The absence of an integrating framework adapted to the incursion of
new theories, prevents us from achieving that global vision of a finished puzzle, where each theory
fits perfectly. As a consequence, the conception of creativity is structured by a partly ordered, part-
ly chaotic universe in which it is difficult to integrate all these contributions, as well as to interrelate
and weigh them. It would be necessary to have a global framework within, in which all the great
contributions of the different theories would fit in. Rhodes (1961) suggests that a well-organized
field would make the subjectivity of creativity disappear.

4P Creativity framework by Rhodes

Rhodes’ multidimensional framework prevails as one of the main references in the research of crea-
tivity (Garcês & Pocinho, 2016; Keller-Mathers, 2011; Jordanous, 2015; Gruszka & Tang, 2007). Around
1956, Rhodes (1961) conducted research to find a definition of creativity. He collected forty defini-
tions of the term.
Then he discovered that these definitions were not mutually exclusive and soon he realised
that they formed four strands that operated functionally: person, mental processes, press, and ide-
 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 

as. Ideas finally turned into product, which was understood as tangible ideas. That way, he came
up with his 4Ps framework.

Figure 1. 4Ps Framework of creativity by Rhodes

For Rhodes (1961) Person involves: personality, intellect, temperament, physique, traits, habits, at-
titudes, self-concept, value systems, defense mechanisms, and behavior. Process refers to motiva-
tion, perception, learning, thinking, and communicating. Press is the relationship between Person
and environment. Idea involves something new including: words, paint, clay, metal, stone, fabric,
or other material. Since Rhodes’ framework, many attempts have been introduced to complete it
(Gruszka & Tang, 2007; Keller-Mathers, 2011; Uszyńska-Jarmoc & Kunat, 2019; Karwowski, 2015).

Octahedral Creativity Framework

One year ago, research on everyday creativity was run by Corcuera and Benito (2021). When trying
to conceptualise the term, it was found that most research only paid attention to scholars’ contribu-
tions, also referred to as theoretical view. Corcuera and Benito believed it could be informative to
compare this theoretical view with the views of creative people, the actual meaning of the term in
occidental culture as well as the original meaning or etymology of the word. It was discovered that
there were some factors that could fit within Rhodes strands, but there were some other factors,
like satisfaction, problem, solution, and motivation, that did not.
Trying to understand Rhodes’ framework, it turned out that his dimensions involved four ques-
tions: who (person), what (product), where and when (press), and how (process). Hermagoras of
Temnos set up a method of dividing a topic into its seven circumstances: quis – who, quid – what,
quando – when, ubi – where, cur – why, quem ad modum – in what way, and quibus adminiculis
 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

– by what means (Copeland, 1991). If one considers that “how” equals to “in what way,” then there
are two extra questions out of Rhodes’ framework: “why” and “by what means.”

Figure 2. 4Ps by Rhodes versus 7 circumstances by Hermagoras of Temnos

Aquinas (2009) asks himself which circumstances are the most important. For Aquinas, the princi-
pal of all circumstances is the one that affects the act on the part of the purpose. That is “for what.”
After this, the second most important is the one that directly affects the substance of the act. That
is, “what” he did. Aristotle’s Nicomacheam Ethics considers the most important thing to be the cir-
cumstances in which the action takes place and the purpose (Aristotle, 2004). The 5 Ws and 1H in
journalism and investigation include all the circumstances except for “by what means” (Waisbord,
2019).
Based on these conceptions, the OCF is built up on Hermagoras´ framework of seven circum-
stances and 26 current frameworks and theories of creativity. It is shaped as an octahedron, where
both creativity dimensions and factors have their own place. Six main dimensions are placed on
its vertexes. Person, Product, and Process come from Rhodes’ framework. Press is substituted by
Environment. Motive and Means are added.
 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 

Figure 3. Octahedral Creativity Framework

Factors are located on edges and faces because they derive from interactions between and among
dimensions. This location depends on which and how many dimensions influence them.

Environment

According to Rhodes’ framework, the Press dimension is the relationship between human beings
and their environment (Rhodes, 1961, p. 308). Trying to correlate Rhodes’ framework with Herma-
goras’ method of circumstances, “where” and “when” connect better with classical place and time
than with press. The term Environment applies to the place, conditions, and time in which a person
is creative as well as previous or future conditions. According to Runco (2007), press involves the
pressures (or influences) on our behavior. He also states that these influences may include the ones
emerging from places or environments, but other pressures (cultural and historical forces) are more
general and not strictly environmental. That way, it makes more sense that the Press dimension
would be substituted by Environment in the framework. Press would fit perfectly on the edge con-
necting Environment and Person. Press involves pressures coming from Environment or from the
Person themselves, which affects their motivation. These pressures might be historical influences,
social influences, contextual influences, or personal influences. Inside the Environment, we find
elements such as field, domain, team, viewer, family, public, sociocultural aspects, or antecedent
conditions.
 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

Figure 4. Environment and Press in OCF

Motive – why

We discovered that the factors that did not fit Rhodes’ framework perfectly (satisfaction, problem,
solution, or motivation) answer the question “why” or “for what.” “Why” asks for a reason, some-
thing that already exists. “For what” asks for a purpose, something that might exist in the future.
According to Del Valle (2016), reasons satisfy your mind and purposes fulfil your heart. Some rea-
sons might at the same time be purposes, and the other way round. Talking about satisfaction, we
do things, because we like doing them or we feel satisfied, but we also do things in order to feel
future satisfaction. The term motive involves both reasons and purposes. The word comes from
the Latin motivus, formed with the root of the verb movere (to move) and the suffix -ivo (active
or passive relationship). That means “related to movement,” and it refers to the cause or reason of
a movement. So, motive can be a cause or reason, and also something that moves you to achieve.
As Woolfolk (1999) states, motivation initiates, directs, and maintains behavior.
Rhodes wrote his thesis titled The dynamics of creativity for Ph.D. degree in philosophy. Rhodes
(1956) included four main approaches (1) ideas and product, (2) person, (3) process and (4) moti-
vation) to the study of creativity. Nonetheless, five years later, when his 4Ps framework appears,
Person and Process stay in, Product assimilates ideas, Press is introduced as a main strand, and
Motivation is finally included as a factor inside the Process strand. My hypothesis is that Motive
operates functionally and has unique academic identity at the same level as the other four strands
or dimensions, as in Rhodes first thoughts.
The first argument is that, it is one of the Hermagoras´ seven circumstances (why) which de-
scribe a topic. Aquinas (2009), Aristotle (2004) and 5Ws and 1H in journalism and investigation agree
on this consideration. Besides, purpose is the main circumstance for Aquinas. Purpose and place
are the main circumstances for Aristotle. The second argument is that the main recent trends in
creativity research are focusing on such motivating factors as The element by Robinson (2009), Flow
theory by Csikszentmilhalyi (1990), The componential model by Amabile (1983), or Everyday creativ-
 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 

ity model by Richards (2007). If researchers are paying so much attention to this factor, it might be
because it is not just a factor but may be a real dimension at the same level as the others.
The third argument is about metrics. According to Hocevar (1981), there are ten categories of
tests to evaluate or predict creativity. These tools can be distributed into four creativity dimensions:
tests of divergent thinking, personality inventories (Person), biographical inventories, judgments of
products, achievements, eminence and self-reported creative activities (Product); teacher nomina-
tions, peer nominations, supervisor ratings (Environment); attitude and interest inventories (Mo-
tive). Divergent thinking tests, which measure cognitive abilities, are likely the most widely used
measure of creative potential (Runco et al., 2016), but Torrance (1974) states that a high degree of
skill in his divergent thinking tests does not guarantee that a person will behave creatively. People
need motivation, skill, and capacity. Consequently, if motive is so important for metrics it might be
a functional strand.
The fourth argument is about the core of creativity. When trying to identify it in our research,
we got three concepts: capacity, attitude, and act or process (Corcuera & Benito, 2021). Capacity is
linked up with Person, Act is connected with Process, and Attitude would be associated with Mo-
tive. A core of creativity might not be just a factor, but a functional dimension.
The fifth argument is about the relevance of motivation in any kind of performance. Renzulli’s
(2016) three ring model of giftedness is built upon the basis of three elements: Intelligence, creativ-
ity, and task commitment. Task commitment in Spanish has been translated as motivation.
The sixth and more meaningful argument is about factors fitting in the framework. Intrin-
sic motivation and self-actualization are factors that link Motive and Person. Intrinsic motivation
is motivation coming from within the Person themselves. Self-actualization is on top of Maslow’s
(1968) hierarchy, which is a theory that addresses individual motivation. Extrinsic motivation, prob-
lem, and opportunities are factors that link Motive and Environment. Extrinsic motivation is mo-
tivation coming from the environment. Problems and opportunities arise from Environment and
are causes or reasons (Motive) of creative behavior. Flow is a factor that links Motive with Process.
According to Csikszentmilhalyi (1990), flow is an enjoyable experience with an almost automatic
state of consciousness; effortless, but concentrated. So this pleasant state called flow is part of the
process when combined with high motivation. Solution and objectives are factors that link Mo-
tive and Product. Looking for a solution is a purpose of creativity, which occurs when approaching
the Product. Objectives are the purposes, which a Product should accomplish. Satisfaction, inter-
est, and personality are factors that link Motive, Person, and Environment. These three factors ap-
pear on the Person dimension, influenced by the Environment and Motive. Satisfaction is a feeling,
while interest and personality are characteristics of Person with different degrees of permanence.
Risk is a factor that links Motive, Environment and Product. Any new Product involves risks, which
depend on its acceptance by the field or its reliability inside the domain. The degree of risk exerts
influence on whether/how we modify our purposes. Effort is a factor that links Motive, Process and
Product. Effort as motivation maintains conduct, which is needed during the Process to achieve
a final Product. Emotion is a factor that links Motive, Process and Person. Emotion appears on the
 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

Person dimension during the Process and is influenced by high levels of motivation. With this new
perspective, some factors that appear in creativity definitions, which were not set in Rhodes’ frame-
work, now have their own place and everything starts to fit in properly.

Figure 5. Renzulli’s three ring model

Figure 6. Motive factors in OCF

As an anecdote goes, when we are children we constantly ask ourselves the why of things. When we
grow up, we lose this natural questioning at the same time as we start to lose our natural tendency
towards creativity. As adults, we may focus more on objective facts (Person, Process, Product, and
Environment) rather than on important subjective whys (Motive). This fact might be an explanation
of our estrangement from creative practice and understanding. Therefore, Motive would be a new
dimension added to Rhodes’ framework to conform the OCF.
 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 

Means – by what means

Following Hermagoras’ method, Means would be the other dimension added to Rhodes’ frame-
work. Means are the elements that are available to make creativity. There are material and immate-
rial means. Glăveanu (2010) considers affordances as one of the five main dimensions in his Social
Cultural Paradigm, better known as the Five As framework.
Cognitive capacity, like imagination is a factor that links Means and Person. Styles of thinking
and all cognitive abilities that only depend on the Person would be placed on this edge. Time and
all the data, techniques, and teams finally used in a creative process are factors that link Means and
Process. The materials used in the end to make the product real, is a factor that links Means and
Product. All the materials, data, techniques, and teams available in those circumstances and place,
are factors that link Means and Environment. Knowledge and expertise used in that process of
creative behavior are factors that link Means, Person and Process. Error and success are factors that
link Means, Process and Product. Failures and successes are part of the Process to achieve a Product
depending on the Means chosen. Utility is a factor that links Means, Product and Environment.
We talk about utility when a Product is made with appropriate Means and Environment accepts it
as useful. One’s own knowledge and own expertise, are factors that link Means, Environment and
Person. Knowledge and expertise are gained by the person from the environment in a theoretical
or practical way.

Figure 7. Means factors in OCF

Factors connecting Rhodes’ dimensions in Octahedral

Creativity Framework

In the same way, we can list factors connecting Rhodes’ four dimensions. Communication and per-
suasion in one direction and press in the opposite direction are factors that link Person and Envi-
ronment. Creative Persons communicate with their environment and try to persuade them. Press
towards Person includes historical influences, social influences, contextual influences, or personal
10 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

influences. Recognition and innovation are factors that link Environment and Product. Recognition
requires that the field accept the new Product. Innovation deals with the novelty and originality
of the Product, which generates a degree of transformation on the domain inside the Environ-
ment. The explorative processes are factors that link Product and Process. They include elaboration
and verification. Elaboration and verification involve processes closer to the real product. Personal
cognitive processes associated with ideation, such as preparation, incubation, and illumination are
factors that link Process and Person. Perception is close to preparation and association is close to
illumination.

Figure 8. Factors connecting Rhodes’ dimensions in OCF

 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 11

Figure 9. Octahedral creativity framework

Integration of Creativity frameworks and theories

in Octahedral Creativity Framework

Constructing and arguing a new framework based on a researcher’s beliefs and selective ap-
proaches may be more common, but trying to fit it in the universe of knowledge within the current
field brings other difficulties. Below, I present 25 relevant creativity frameworks and theories. Their
12 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

dimensions and factors they focus on are listed. Afterwards, their factors and dimensions are prop-
erly placed in the OCF.

Wallas (1926) Four-stage model of creative process

Process: Preparation, incubation, illumination, verification.

Figure 10. Wallas’ model in OCF

Osborn (1953) Creative problem solving

Objective finding, data finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding, acceptance finding
(implementation).

Figure 11. Osborn’s model in OCF

 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 13

Rogers (1954) Humanistic theory

Self-actualization.

Figure 12. Rogers’ theory in OCF

Schachtel (1959) Perceptual theory

Perceptual openness, intense interest.

Figure 13. Schachtel’s theory in OCF

14 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

Mednick (1962) Associacionist theory

Association: serendipity, similarity, mediation of a third party.

Figure 14. Mednick’s theory in OCF

Amabile (1983) Componential theory of creativity

Motivation, expertise, creative thinking skills.

Figure 15. Amabile’s theory in OCF

 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 15

Mansfield and Busse (1984) Creative process theory

Problem selection, effort into solving a problem, problem restrictions, restrictions change, verifica-
tion, and elaboration.

Figure 16. Mansfield and Busse’s theory in OCF

Csikszentmilhalyi (1990) Systems of creativity

Field, domain, person. Flow.

Figure 17. Csikszentmilhalyi’s model in OCF

16 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1990) An Interactionist Model

of Creative Behavior

Personality, cognitive, and social psychology.

Individual creativity (antecedent conditions, cognitive factors, personality, knowledge, intrin-
sic motivation, contextual influences, and social influences) leads to Creative behavior (Woodman
et al., 1993).

Figure 18. Woodman and Schoenfeldt’s model in OCF

Treffinger, Feldhusen, Isaksen (1990) Productive thinking model

Process: Undertaking the challenge (constructing opportunities, exploring data, framing problems),
generating ideas, preparing for action (developing solutions, building acceptance stage), planning
your approach (appraising tasks, designing process).

Figure 19. Treffinger, Feldhusen and Isaksen’s productive thinking model in OCF
 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 17

Simonton (1990)

Person-field: persuasion.

Figure 20. Simonton’s theory in OCF

Sternberg and Lubart (1991) Investment Theory of Creativity

Abilities, knowledge, styles of thinking, personality attributes, motivation, environment.

Figure 21. Sternberg and Lubart’s theory in OCF

18 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

Finke, Ward and Smith (1992) Geneplore model

Cognitive Process: Generative phase, explorative phase.

Figure 22. Finke, Ward and Smith’s Geneplore model in OCF

Urban (1995) 4P-E Structure

Problem, personality, process, product, and environment.

Figure 23. Urban’s model in OCF

 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 19

Gardner (1995) Levels of analysis of creativity

Subpersonal – genetics, personal – cognitive processes, personality – motivational, impersonal

– field, multipersonal – environment.

Figure 24. Gardner’s theory in OCF

Feldman (1998) Cognitive development theory

Cognitive processes, social-emotional processes, family aspects, education, domain, and field char-
acteristics, social-cultural contextual aspects, historical influences.

Figure 25. Feldman’s theory in OCF

20 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

Sternberg (1999) Propulsion model

Product-field (innovation): Existing direction: Conceptual replication, redefinition, forward incre-

mentation, and advance forward incrementation.
New direction: Redirection, regressive redirection, reinitiation, synthesis.

Figure 26. Sternberg’s propulsion model in OCF

Runco (2007) Hierarchical Framework

Creative potential: Process, person, press.

Creative performance: Product, persuasion.

Figure 27. Runco’s framework in OCF

 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 21

Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) The four c model of Creativity

Product-environment: Big-C, Pro-C, little-c, mini-c.

Figure 28. Kaufman and Beghetto’s model in OCF

Pink (2009) Motivation theory

Mastery, purpose, autonomy (time, technique, team).

Figure 29. Pink’s theory in OCF

22 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

Robinson (2009) The element

Interest, expertise.

Figure 30. Robinson’s theory in OCF

Glăveanu (2010) Social cultural Paradigm (five As frame)

Actor, action, artifact, audience, affordances.

Figure 31. Glăveanu’s framework in OCF

 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 23

Doyle (2011) Dimensions of the Creative Episode

Magnitude of product recognition, degree to which a structure has been transformed, degree of
organization within an episode’s domain, variety of domains in the network of enterprises, con-
tribution of domain episode to identity, degree to which the episode is intrinsically motivated,
structure in initial project representation, length of the creative episode, number of sub-projects,
integrative complexity, length of the initial preparation period, number of cycles of reflection and
flow, number of co-creators, distribution of responsibility in co-creation.

Figure 32. Doyle’s theory in OCF

Rosen (2014) 5p

4p+ Participant-viewer.

Figure 33. Rosen’s 5p model in OCF

24 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

Sternberg and Karami (2021) 8P Theoretical Framework

Purpose, press, person, problem, process, product, propulsion, public.

Figure 34. Sternberg and Karamis’s 8p theoretical framework in OCF

In the first stage, Wallas (1926), Osborn (1953), and Mednick (1962) focused on the Process dimen-
sion. In this stage, Rogers (1954) and Schachtel (1959) introduced their interest in some factors re-
lated to the Person dimension. In the second stage, Mansfield and Busse (1984), Treffinger et al.
(1990), and Finke et al. (1992) still focused on Process dimension but Amabile (1983), Csikszentmil-
halyi (1990), Wooodman and Schoenfeldt (1990), Simonton (1990), as well as Sternberg and Lubart
(1991) introduced Motive or Environment as dimensions added to the Person dimension. In the
third stage, authors mixed different previous dimensions, but Urban (1995), Runco (2007), as well as
Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) added the Product dimension. In this stage, Pink (2009) and Robin-
son (2009) deepened the path opened by Amabile, focusing their works on the Motive dimension.
In the last stage, Glăveanu (2010), Doyle (2011), Rosen (2014), as well as Sternberg and Karami (2021)
built integrating theories that comprise five of the six OCF dimensions, yet they do not include all
the accumulated factors. At the same time, Glăveanu (2010) introduced the Means dimension, yet
he calls it affordances.

Concluding thoughts

After the analysis of 26 main frameworks and theories of creativity, we can determine that there are
two types of creativity theories: those that focus on one dimension and those that integrate several
different dimensions. The evolution of creativity theories has occurred with gradual incorporation
 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 25

of the different dimensions of the OCF in the following order: Process, Person, Motive and Environ-
ment, Product, and finally Means. The present work also suggests that over time, there has been
a main focus on the study of certain dimensions, such as Process, Person, and Environment. On the
other hand, dimensions such as Product and Means have not been studied in such depth. Other-
wise, although Motive has indeed aroused researchers’ interest, it is a construct of such complexity
that much research is still required.
Although some recent integrative theories have arisen, none of the theories analyzed include
all the dimensions and factors of the previous and subsequent ones. We conclude that none of the
analyzed frameworks or theories accommodates all others. The OCF provides a better understand-
ing of the creativity construct in the absence of a previous integrating framework adapted to the
incursion of old and new theories. The OCF is the integrative creativity framework we lacked. This
study makes it possible to show a global vision of the complex construct of creativity, which has un-
til now been a scattered puzzle. Twenty-six main creativity frameworks and theories analyzed can
be properly set in the OCF. The OCF achieves that global vision of a more finished puzzle, where
each theory fits perfectly.
Motive should be considered as a creativity dimension for seven reasons. Firstly, initially Rhodes
(1956) considered it a dimension. Secondly, it answers the question “why,” which is one of Herma-
goras’ seven circumstances for dividing a topic. Thirdly, trends in creativity research are focusing on
this topic. Fourth, metrics suggest that motivational factors could help to complete the evaluation
of creativity. Fifth, it is a core when defining creativity in previous research. Sixth, importantly, Mo-
tivation is relevant in any kind of performance, as Renzulli (2016) shows in his three-ring model of
giftedness. Seventh, it allows creativity factors to find their proper place in the OCF.
Means should be considered a creativity dimension for three reasons. Firstly, it answers the
question “by what means,” which is one of Hermagoras’ seven circumstances for dividing a topic.
Secondly, it was proposed by Glăveanu (2010) as a dimension in his integrative model. Thirdly, even
though not much attention has been paid to Means so far, it allows creativity factors to find their
proper place in the OCF.
Press dimension should be replaced by Environment, which applies to the specific place, time,
as well as previous, actual, or future conditions in which a person is creative. The main reason is
because it answers the questions “where” and “when,” which are two of the Hermagoras’ seven
circumstances for dividing a topic. As Press applies to the pressures coming from the environment
that affects the person themselves, it finds a better place as a factor that connects Environment
and Person.
New research paths can be set on certain dimensions and factors, paying attention to what
other researchers have discovered before and why they have now been placed in context. This
new map can inspire researchers to work with their own factors and their interactions with other
neighboring factors they might have not considered yet. All this is because OCF also involves new
ways of looking at creativity dimensions and factors as well as the way they overlap and intertwine
in a complete and unified framework.
26 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

The OCF allows clarification of the causes that coexist in creative performance and determines
their idiosyncrasy. Gains in knowledge also suggest pragmatic consequences. It suggests new per-
spectives on creativity evaluation and on fostering creativity. According to Hocevar (1981), we are
still far from being able to predict creativity with our current tools; they fail on their reliability and
discriminant validity. Person, Product, Environment, and Motive dimensions have their own tools to
evaluate creativity, but as Runco et al. (2016) state, divergent thinking tests are probably the most
widely used. OCF invites researchers to focus their efforts on evaluation tools related to these new
dimensions, namely Motive and Means. Another implication of the proposed framework is about
fostering creativity by generating new tools to improve teaching general creativity or its specific
facets based on both Motivation and Means elements. Hopefully this framework helps to improve
access to our own creativity, not only to enhance the economic development of our society, but
also to enhance our personal well-being.

References
Amabile, T. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–377.
Aquinas, T. (2009). The Summa Theologiae I-II,C7, a4. Novantiqua.
Aristotle. (2004). The Nicomachean Ethics. Penguin classics.
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, Intelligence and Personality: A critical review of the scattered
literatue. Genetic, social and general pyichology monographs, 132(4), 355-429.
Copeland, R. (1991). Rhetoric hermeneutics and translation in the middle ages. Cambridge: Cambridge univer-
sity press.
Corcuera, M., & Benito, M. (2021). La actitud creativa y la capacidad creativa en la creatividad cotidiana: una
satisfacción y un reto. [Doctoral dissertation]: Universidad del Pais Vasco.
Csikszentmilhalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper & Row.
Del Valle, E. (2016, 2 17). Womenalia. Retrieved 11 09, 2021, from https://www.womenalia.com/articulo/difer-
encia-entre-el-por-que-y-el-para-que
Doyle, C. (2011). Dimensions of the Creative Episode: Old Categories, New Perspectives. Creativity Research
Journal 23(1), 51–59.
Feldman, D. (1998). The development of creativity. In R. Sternberg, Handbook of Creativity (pp. 169–186).
Cambridge University Press.
Finke, R., Ward, T., & Smith, S. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research and applications. MIT Press.
Garcês, S., & Pocinho, M. (2016). The impact of the creative environment on the creative person, process, and
product. Avaliação Psicológica, 15(2), 169–176.
Gardner, H. (1995). Mentes creativas. Barcelona: Paidós.
Glăveanu, V. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology.
New Ideas in Psychology, 28(1), 79–93.
Gruszka, A., & Tang, M. (2007). The 4P’s Creativity Model and its Application in Different Fields. In T. Min, &
C. Werner (Eds.), Handbook of the management of creativity and innovation: Theory and practice. C3 (pp.
51–71). World Scientific Press.
Helfand, M., Kaufman, J., & Beghetto, R. (2017). The four model of Creativity: Culture and context. In
V. Glaveanu (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research (pp. 15–360). Palgrave.
 María Corcuera Atienza, Octahedral Creativity Framework 27

Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assesment, 45, 450–
464.
Jordanous, A. (2015). Four pppperspectives in computational creativity. Paper presented at the AISB 2015 Sym-
posium on Computational Creativity, Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom.
Karwowski, M. (2015). Notes on Creative Potential and Its Measurement. Creativity. Theories – Research – Ap-
plications, 1 (2), 4–16.
Kaufman, J., & Beghetto, R. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General
Psychology, 1–12.
Keller-Mathers, S. (2011). Building Passion and Potential for Creative Learning in Higher Education. In M.W. In
A. Wright, Collected essays on learning and teaching (vol. IV, pp. 1–6). Society for teaching and learning
in higher education.
Mansfield, R., & Busse, T. (1984). Teoría del proceso creador revisión y perspectiva. Estudios de psicología, 18,
47–57.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. Van Nostrand.
Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological review, 69, 220–232.
Osborn, A. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. Charles Scribner’s
Sons.
Pink, D. (2009). Drive. The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin books.
Renzulli, J. (2016). The three-ring conception of giftedness. In S. Reis, Reflections on Gifted Education (pp.
55–86). Prufrick Press.
Rhodes, M. (1956). The dynamics of creativity. An Interpretation of the Literature on Creativity with a Proposed
Procedure for Objective Research. [Doctoral dissertation]: The University of Arizona.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 307–310.
Richards, R. (2007). Everyday creativity and new views of human nature. Psychological, social, and spiritual per-
spectives. American Psychological Association.
Robinson, K. (2009). The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything. Penguin Paperbacks.
Rodrigo, J. (2000). La creatividad en la empresa. Euskotek. Revista de la Red de Parques Tecnológicos de Euska-
di, 16–18.
Rogers, C. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11, 249–260.
Rosen, D. (2014). Invoking the Muse: Dada’s Chaos. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, 18(3),
229–343.
Runco, M. (2007). A hierarchical framework for the study of creativity. New Horizons in Education, 55(3), 1–9.
Runco, M., Abdulla, A., Hyeon, S., & Al-Jasim, F. (2016). Which Test of Divergent Thinking Is Best? Creativity,
3(1), 4–18.
Schachtel, E. (1959). Metamorphosis. Basic Books.
Simonton, D. (1990). History, Chemistry, Psychology, and Genius: An intellectual Autobiography of Histori-
ometry. In M. Runco, & R. Albert (Eds.), Theories of Creativity (pp. 92–115). Sage.
Sternberg, R. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3,
83–100.
Sternberg, R., & Karami, S. (2021). An 8P Theoretical Framework for Understanding Creativity and Theories
of Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(1), 55–78.
Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Develop-
ment, 34(1), 1–31.
Torrance, E. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal
Tests, Forms A and B-Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Personnel Press.
28 Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 9(2) 2022

Treffinger, D., Feldhusen, J., & Isaksen, S. (1990). Organization and Structure of Productive Thinking. Creative
Learning Today, 4(2), 6–8.
Urban, K. (1995). Different Models in Describing, Exploring, Explaining and Nurturing Creativity in Society.
European Journal for High Ability, 6, 143–159.
Uszyńska-Jarmoc , J., & Kunat, B. (2019). Students and Teachers Implicit and Explicit Theories of Creativity.
Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 6(2), 223–245.
Waisbord, S. (2019). The 5Ws and 1H of Digital Journalism. Digital Journalism, 7(3), 351–358.
Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. Harcourt Brace.
Woodman, R., & Schoenfeldt, L. (1990). An interactionist model of creative behavior. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 24(1), 10–20.
Woodman, R., Sawyer, J., & Griffin, R. (1993). Toward a theory of organitational theory. Academy of manage-
ment review, 18, 293–321.
Woolfolk, A. (1999). Psicología educativa. Pearson educacion.

© Copyright by Faculty of Education, University of Bialystok,

20 Swierkowa St., 15-328 Bialystok, Poland
tel. +48 857457283
e-mail: creativity@uwb.edu.pl
http://www.creativity.uwb.edu.pl