RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 1

Creativity in Psychology: A Brief History

With a Focus on the Sub-disciplines of Gestalt and Humanistic Theories

R. L. George

Northcentral University

January 2017
RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 2

Abstract

The history of creativity research in the context of psychology is explored. Included in

the discussion is the phenomenon as studied through the sub-disciplines of developmental,

cognitive, and positive psychologies as well as psychotherapy and behaviorism. Two sub-

disciplines are then singled out, those of gestalt and humanistic psychologies. It is noted that all

but behaviorism are holistically oriented theories, and concluded that the most effective approach

to studying creativity in the context of psychology is with a holistic method.

RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 3

Creativity in Psychology: A Brief History

With a Focus on the Sub-disciplines of Gestalt and Humanistic Theories

Serious research of creativity in psychology began at the turn of the twentieth century,

but the deeper ideas did not gain popularity until the mid-1900s (Kaufman, 2016). During the

early decades, when sub-disciplines such as behaviorism and psychoanalysis were being

developed, behaviorist B.F. Skinner wrote a fiction novel, and psychotherapists Freud and Jung

also weighed in on the topic of creativity (Kaufman, 2016). Gestalt theory began to take shape,

as well, and ideas about the psychology of creativity were expanded within that theory (e.g.

Amendt-Lyon, 2001).

At the time the idea of studying creativity became more generally acceptable in the

psychology profession—from the 1950s to the present—a number of additional sub-disciplines

also developed, such as developmental, cognitive, positive, and humanistic psychologies (e.g.

Kaufman, 2016; Rowan, 2004). All of the approaches listed here have explored creativity in

their own context, as illustrated in Figure 1:

Those who have shown an interest in studying creativity are among the most respected

thinkers in their fields, and as will be discussed below, the diversity of ideas is an indication of

the importance of viewing creativity in a global context. Figure 2 is a representation of the sub-
RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 4

disciplines as illustrated in Figure 1, and the order remains the same, but here the image is based

on at least one of their founders or sources of influence:

The general interest in creativity as an area of study among psychologists and

psychological sub-disciplines will be discussed here, and the focus will then shift to gestalt and

humanistic psychologies. The latter two theories view psychology in a global context in order to

better understand the mind and behaviors of human beings (e.g. King, Wertheimer, Keller, &

Crochetière, 1994; Rowan, 2004). This perspective is perhaps the most intriguing connection

between humanistic and gestalt psychologies, and the study of creativity: the holistic element of

understanding human beings has been at the root of the two psychological theories, and the

overall study of creativity would benefit from the same style of holistic approach.

Creativity: The Early Years

Before the importance of studying human creativity became highlighted, and even before

psychology became its own dedicated field of study, it was philosophy that explored ideas of

creative thinking and the resulting products (e.g. Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009; Kaufman, 2016).

For example, the ancient Chinese Yijing, dated at c.1200 BCE, has been noted as discussing the

source of creativity (Chung-Ying, 2008), and in western mythology and religions, inspiration
RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 5

was credited to God, gods, and/or the muses (e.g. Kaufman, 2014; Niu & Sternberg, 2006).

Later western philosophers began associating creativity with individuals—possibility in reaction

to Darwin's theory of natural evolution (e.g. Simonton, 2001)—and the discipline of psychology

eventually began to study the phenomenon (Niu & Sternberg, 2006).

Creativity and Psychology: Early in the Twentieth Century

Some lesser known researchers began studying creativity around the turn of the twentieth

century, such as L.M. Chassell, P.A. Witty and H.C. Lehman, but the relevance of their works

has faded or has been discredited (Kaufman, 2016). However, as mentioned above, Charles

Darwin had an impact on studying creativity in human beings in the 1800s, and Freud and Jung

also contributed to various theories at the start of the century.

Charles Darwin was not a psychologist, and he is not necessarily attributed with founding

the general theory of developmental psychology, but his ideas about creativity did impact that

sub-discipline (Gruber & Wallace, 2001). In Origin of the Species, Darwin (1859) suggested the

possibility of attraction—which enables an organism to continue evolving—can be increased

through finding creative solutions to surviving, reproducing, and growing stronger in challenging

environments (Simonton, 2001). Darwin is also credited with providing the first scientific

explanation of creativity by exploring it in a natural context (e.g. Simonton, 2001).

Some of Darwin's ideas have been embraced by developmental psychology, which

studies the development of individuals throughout the span of a lifetime. One element of that

theory includes creative development; just as all facets of human beings continue to advance

throughout their lives, their creativity also evolves in a systematic fashion (Gruber & Wallace,

2001). It is of note that developmental psychology, which looks at all facets of the lifetime of

each individual, is quite similar to gestalt and humanistic psychologies in its holistic approach to

studying human beings.

RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 6

In contrast, the areas of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis were more centered on

uncovering and treating specific neuroses (e.g. Grof, n.d.; Rowan, 2012). However, both Freud

and Jung did touch upon the question of creativity and its relevance to the human psyche (e.g.

Grof, n.d.). For example, Freud wrote about “Creative Writers and Day-Dreaming” (1907/1908)

and “Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood” (1910). Those works have added to

the accumulation of research about creativity, although they are seen by some as reflecting flaws

in Freud's perspective (e.g. Simonton, 2001).

C.G. Jung, on the other hand, published an entire book about the subject of arts and

psychology titled The Spirit of Man, Art, and Literature, which is comprised of essays written

between 1922 and 1941 (published as a collection in 1966). In an essay from the book titled “On

the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry” (1922), Jung remarks, “[A]rt, like any other

human activity deriving from psychic motives, is a proper subject for psychology” (p. 301). That

comment is especially insightful, but he then continues:

Only that aspect of art which consists in the process of artistic creation can be a

subject for psychological study, but not that which constitutes its essential nature.

The question of what art is in itself can never be answered by the psychologist,

but must be approached from the side of aesthetics. (Jung & Campbell, 1976, p.

302)

This observation, while thoughtful, is unfortunate in that it separates the process of

artistic creation from its essential nature; such a viewpoint is too separatist. Furthermore,

agreement upon a proper definition of creativity is an important element of studying the topic

through psychology (e.g. George, 2016a).

In few, earlier psychologists did attempt to give at least some credence to the study of

creativity, but it did not reach its turning point until the 1950s. This is not to say the

phenomenon was absent from all psychological studies before that time; as will be discussed
RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 7

below, psychologists such as Neisser, Seligman, and Skinner were thinking about creativity

before—and of course after—it was recognized as a relevant area of psychological study. The

same is true of champions of gestalt and humanistic psychologies such as Maslow, Wertheimer

and Rogers.

Creativity and Psychology: Research Begins in Earnest

1950 is considered to be the year studies of creativity in psychology began in earnest,

because that is when J.P. Guilford spoke at the American Psychological Association convention

about the importance of the topic. His context was cognitive psychology (Kaufman, 2016).

Cognitive psychology is centered on the human mind, but like gestalt and humanistic

psychologies, it sees the mind interacting as a whole (e.g. Neisser, 2003). Ulric Neisser,

considered one of the founders of the theory, believed cognition and creativity to be intricately

entwined in that creative production relies on concepts such as perception, selective attention,

and pattern recognition, and he saw those processes as continually creative (Neisser, 2003). As

will be discussed below, those processes are also key elements of gestalt theory. Further, Neisser

was specific about his rejection of behaviorism (2003), and the same was true for those who

embraced both gestalt and humanistic theories; they considered behaviorism to be far too

atomistic (e.g. Rowan, 2004).

B.F. Skinner is not the founder of behaviorism, but is one of its most recognized names.

Skinner was determined to predict and isolate behaviors, and then scientifically condition those

behaviors in order to achieve desirable results (e.g. Adams, 2012). Despite Skinner's divergence

from holistic theories, he was nevertheless a broader thinker than he may have seemed to some

(e.g. Adams, 2012). He was a creative artist, as well, the best example being his fiction piece

Walden Two (1948). The novel presents an idealistic society that is based on conditioned

behaviors, and one of those behaviors is creativity (Adams, 2012). In other words, even as a

psychologist who has been chastised by his holistic- and creativity-oriented colleagues, Skinner
RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 8

effectively contributed to those discussions by writing about an imagined society that often relied

on creativity for its stability and advancement (e.g. Adams, 2012).

Another sub-discipline that is noted for its rejection of behaviorism is positive

psychology (e.g. Adams, 2012). Martin Seligman wrote about the inadequacies of conditioning

(1971/2016), and later distinguished himself as a founder of positive psychology (e.g. Srinivasan,

2015). Along with other positive psychologist researchers, particularly Mihaly

Csikszentmihalyi, Seligman stressed the importance of including the study of creativity in

psychology (e.g. Jarden, 2012; Sawyer, 2012). As is true with humanistic psychology, positive

psychology is interested in the holistic view of human beings, and ultimately, the ingredient of

creativity in the whole person is too important to ignore (e.g. Jarden, 2012). Yet strangely,

positive psychologists are at odds with humanistic psychologists, despite their many similarities

(e.g. Waterman, 2013; George, 2016b).

Humanistic theory is an excellent representative of studying creativity in the context of

psychology, and gestalt theory is another. Below, the connections of creativity studies in gestalt

and humanistic psychologies will be discussed, specifically the gestalt research of Max

Wertheimer and his colleagues, as well as Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and their colleagues

who studied humanistic psychology.

The Study of Creativity in Holistic Psychologies

Gestalt and Creativity

Along with Wolfgang Köhler and Kurt Koffka, Max Wertheimer rebelled against the

atomistic approach of his era's psychology with gestalt theory (e.g. King et al., 1994; Simonton,

2001). Gestalt recommended a global view of studying the human mind, meaning that the parts

should not be separated from the whole, and in fact are secondary to the whole (e.g. Wertheimer,

2014). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that even before Wertheimer began exploring
RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 9

his specific theory, creativity was included in his research despite its negligible popularity (e.g.

Simonton, 2001); creativity is an element of the whole of humanity (Sawyer, 2012).

In 1910, Wertheimer presented a paper that explored the structures of music, and when he

wrote about the phi-phenomenon in 1912—launching his gestalt theory—it was specific to

perception and its creative components (Wertheimer, 2014). Later, after he immigrated to the

United States, Wertheimer taught an art class at the New School for Social Research, further

supporting the concept of connecting arts and gestalt theory (King et al., 1994).

The driving force behind gestalt is that of a global view. A definite interaction exists

between a whole and its parts, and a dynamic interaction is necessary between each of the parts

themselves (Behrens, 1998). The phi-phenomenon was Wertheimer's first example, which came

to him in 1910 while riding on a train, and a phenomenon caught his attention: stationary lights

appeared to be in motion when they flashed. This inspired him to purchase a toy zoetrope, and

one can only playfully hope that the scene included an excited thirty-year-old Wertheimer

leaping from the train in Frankfurt, hurrying into a toy store, and counter-intuitively exclaiming,

“I am a scientist, I need a toy!” In any event, the zoetrope works in the same way as a motion

picture in that still images moving quickly across the field of vision create what appears to be a

unified motion (Behrens, 1998).

Another example is that the whole effect of a woman walking across an empty room, as

shown in a film, must be comprised of several appropriate images that move in harmony.

Inserting and streaming random images together would not achieve the same effect, nor would it

work to mix the order of the images of the woman. The parts must be cohesive to achieve the

desired whole of a woman walking across an empty room.

However, one's perception is also relevant. A creative artist may choose to stream

random images one after the other, and while some might find the result to be discordant, others

could perceive a style of art. This is where the working of the human mind becomes involved:
RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 10

the process of perception is active (e.g. Amendt-Lyon, 2001). Creativity is an integral aspect of

the creator and of the individual experiencing, or perceiving, the creation. For example a panda,

designed by an artist, is easily perceived by viewers despite its incomplete structure:

The WWF panda is an example of perception, specifically the perception of closure, and

in gestalt theory, the importance of creativity was recognized through a variety of such styles of

perception (e.g. Amendt-Lyon, 2001). It then expanded to include the overall psychology of

humans in that the holistic experience of each human being is valid, and this validation can

enable individuals to not only better understand themselves, but to also learn, create, think

playfully, find solutions to problems, and more (e.g. Behrens, 1998; Amendt-Lyon, 2001;

Sawyer, 2012).

Wertheimer's colleagues Koffka and Köhler also weighed in on the importance of

creativity in gestalt: Koffka wrote about “good gestalt,” which involves a beautiful symmetry

(e.g. Koffka, 1922); and Köhler famously studied the creative solutions to problems that were

presented to chimpanzees (e.g. Simonton, 2001). Gestalt has been described as a creative theory

in and of itself (Sabar, 2013), and its impact on psychological schools of thought continues to the

present day—including providing an influence on humanistic psychology (e.g. Litt, 2000).

Humanistic Psychology and Creativity

The legitimacy of humanistic psychology is the subject of debate among various

RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 11

psychological factions, including positive psychologists (e.g. Waterman, 2013). There is some

irony in that both positive and humanistic psychologies are centered on the individual, and both

therapeutic approaches are holistic (e.g. Rowan, 2004). Also, like positive psychology,

humanistic psychology has its many proponents who are impressed by Maslow's concept of self-

actualization, or by Rogers's client-centered therapy (e.g. Rowan, 2004)—and both Maslow and

Rogers were involved in studying creativity (e.g. Sawyer, 2012).

In the case of Maslow, he is famous for his theories of self-actualization and the

Hierarchy of Needs (1943), but it may not be as well known that he believed creativeness to be a

specific component of self-actualization (Krueger, 2013). In other words, the pinnacle of the

self-actualization pyramid—which symbolizes the pinnacle of human growth—includes

creativity as a factor:

It is interesting to note that there seems to be some repetition in the list of self-

actualization qualities—spontaneity and problem solving are elements of creativity (e.g. Sawyer,

2012)—and this may be another indication of the holistic value of the phenomenon. In any case,

Maslow saw creativity as a distinct representation of emotional health (e.g. Sawyer, 2012).

Carl Rogers, another founder of humanistic psychology, tended to agree with Maslow in

that creativity is a motivation toward actualizing oneself (e.g. Sawyer, 2012). Rogers wrote

about the “The Concept of the Fully Functioning Person” (1963), and stressed that he was
RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 12

describing a person who is specifically creative. Living and producing in a creative manner is

constructive, and enables individuals to not only satisfy themselves, but to also live well with

others (Rogers, 1963). This is clearly aligned with the humanistic idea of including the very

important role of creativity in the concept of overall human life.

Conclusion

Creativity's Slow Start in Psychology

Historically, it has been difficult for some to view creativity through a scientific lens—

Darwin's contribution aside—and because psychology is a science, the study of creativity barely

started before it stalled in the early part of the twentieth century. As noted by Kaufman (2016),

the pre-1950s attitude about studying creativity in psychology was even considered, by some, to

be useless. Nevertheless, some researchers did attempt to study the topic, such as a study by

L.M. Chassell that was published in the Journal of Educational Psychology (Chassell, 1916).

Despite the atomistic zeitgeist of the early 1900s psychology, Chassell's “Test for

Originality” was a holistic survey; it covered a number of creative facets, such as picture writing,

puzzles, and novel situations (Chassell, 1916). The last was comprised of a list of rather

creatively composed questions, one of which asked, “If the prophecies that the earth is going to

cool down should come true, what could man do to keep from becoming extinct for a time at

least?” (Chassell, 1916, p. 323). This type of question is especially intriguing in light of 1) the

insightful concerns in the substance of the question that exist these hundred years later, and 2)

the combining of a specifically scientific question with an original scientific study. This

combination of developing original questions that seek original responses about scientific issues

reflects a recent definition of creativity as being not only scientific, but also adaptive and original

(Simonton, 2001).

Creativity's Greater Recognition in Psychology

RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 13

The sub-disciplines of psychology discussed here have been psychotherapy, behaviorism,

cognitive, developmental, positive, gestalt, and humanistic. The reason greater focus has been

given to the last two is because of their decidedly holistic quality, and their interest in creativity,

but this is not to say studies of creativity have been neglected by the other sub-disciplines.

Developmental psychologists responded to Darwin's ideas on creativity by noting its

impact over the course of an individual's lifetime (e.g. Simonton, 2001). Darwin also embedded

the importance of creativity in a scientific theory, and this gave credence to the phenomenon for

other psychological schools of thought to pursue the subject (e.g. Simonton, 2001).

Psychotherapists Freud and Jung, particularly the latter, also touched on creativity in their

works (e.g. Jung & Campbell, 1976). Today, psychotherapy has evolved from the idea of only

“curing neuroses;” it is now also used by those who seek personal understanding and growth

(e.g. Litt, 2000), and the element of creativity has not been neglected. These are advancements

past the idea of seeking select behaviors, and conditioning them into or out of a personality, as is

the theoretical base of behaviorism (e.g. Adams, 2012).

Although behaviorists such as B.F. Skinner seemed too focused on isolated elements of

the human personality, rather than on the individual as a whole, creativity was still used as a

vehicle for Skinner's presentation of his theory. His book Walden Two (1948) fictionalized a

world that included using creativity as a facet that helped idealize a functional society (Adams,

2012). The movement away from behaviorist psychology continued as it was recognized that

separating out parts from the whole of human beings was too narrow a concept (e.g. Rowan,

2004).

Cognitive psychology spread out to a holistic view when the whole of thinking was

explored, and because the very idea of creativity lies within the human mind, it has been a key

component of cognitive studies (Neisser, 2003). Some cognitive psychologists went so far as to
RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 14

say the development of the mind relied on at least some measure of creative ability (Neisser,

2003).

Positive psychology took it a pace further as it rejected the atomistic bent of behaviorism,

and also stepped back from the negativity of neurosis-seeking psychotherapy (e.g. Adams, 2012).

Instead, thinkers such as Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi stressed the importance of not only a

holistic view of individuals, but also the positive impact of creativity in personal and social

development (e.g. Jarden, 2012). Positive psychology is marginally different from humanistic

psychology, but the similarities are stronger, especially with regard to views about holism and

creativity (e.g. Waterman, 2013; George, 2016b). In one example, Maslow's theory of overall

self-actualization was inspiring to both positive and humanistic psychologies—and gestalt

therapy in particular is an approach used by both of those psychologies to explore the overall

individual (e.g. Waterman, 2013).

Creativity's Greatest Strength in Humanistic and Gestalt Psychologies

Creativity is an excellent example of the importance of a holistic view, because it can

manifest in areas such as sculpture, dance, literature, architecture, and so forth (e.g. King et al.,

1994). The combination of creativity and holistic thinking are embedded in humanistic and

gestalt psychologies; gestalt theory set the stage for including the importance of creativity in the

whole human, and humanists look at the whole person in a gestalt manner (e.g. King et al.,

1994).

The many ways in which creativity can manifest, as mentioned above, is notable, and yet

it has also impacted the whole of humanity; without it, concepts such as invention, as well as the

beautiful and cathartic nature of the arts, could not exist (e.g. Sawyer, 2012). Fortunately, a

number of psychology's sub-disciplines have not neglected the study of creativity, albeit in the

context of their own theories, and even more fortunate is that the strongest proponents of

studying the phenomenon have done so through a holistic lens.

RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 15

As has been noted by others who have written about the history of studying creativity in

the context of psychology, there are too many facets and complexities to include all details in a

single essay (e.g. Simonton, 2001). Yet this can be seen as a helpful issue, because it not only

indicates the broad reach of the topic, but it also hints at how a global view of creativity is crucial

to understanding the psychology of humanity.

RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 16

References

Adams, N. (2012). Skinner's Walden Two: An anticipation of positive psychology?. Review Of

General Psychology, 16(1), 1-9. doi:10.1037/a0026439

Amendt-Lyon, N. (2001). Art and creativity in Gestalt therapy. Gestalt Review, 5(4), 225-248

Behrens, Roy R. (1998). Art, Design and Gestalt Theory. Leonardo, 31(4), 299

Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas. (2009). Creative Process. Encyclopedia of Giftedness, Creativity,

and Talent. Barbara Kerr (Ed.), doi:

http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.4135/9781412971959.n89

Chassell, L. M. (1916). Tests for originality. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 7(6), 317-328.

doi:10.1037/h0070310

Chung-Ying, C. (2008). The Yijing (《易經》) As Creative Inception Of Chinese Philosophy.

Journal Of Chinese Philosophy, 35(2), 201-218. Doi:10.1111/J.1540-6253.2008.00473

George, R. (2016a). Defining Creativity for Psychological Research. Unpublished essay, North

Central University. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14662.06722

George, R. (2016b). Humanistic and Positive Psychology: Influences, Similarities, and

Differences. Unpublished essay, North Central University.

Grof, Stanislov. (n.d.) A Brief History of Transpersonal Psychology. Stanislavgrof.com.

Retrieved from: http://www.stanislavgrof.com/wp-content

Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (2001). Creative work: The case of Charles Darwin. American

Psychologist, 56(4), 346-349. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.346

Jung, C. G., & Campbell, J. (1976). The portable Jung. New York: Penguin Books.

Kaufman, J.C. (2016) Theories of creativity. The psych 101 series: Creativity 101. New York,

NY: Springer Publishing Company. Retrieved from:

http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/spc/theories_of_creativity/0
RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 17

Kaufman, S.B. (2014). The Philosophy of Creativity. Scientific American. Retrieved from:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com

King, D. B., Wertheimer, M., Keller, H., & Crochetière, K. (1994). The Legacy of Max

Wertheimer and Gestalt Psychology. Social Research, 61(4), 907-935

Koffka, Kurt. (1922). Perception: An introduction to the Gestalt-theorie. Etext Conversion

Project – Nalanda digital library. Retrieved from http://library.manipaldubai.com

Krueger, Joachim. (2013). Maslow on Creativity: Wisdom of Wishy Wash? Psychology Today.

Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com

Litt, Sheldon. (2000). Gestalt Therapy And Humanistic Psychology. Holistic Psychotherapy, 53.

Retrieved from: http://www.positivehealth.com/article/holistic-psychotherapy

Neisser, U. (2003). Adventures in cognition: From Cognitive Psychology to The Rising Curve.

In R. J. Sternberg, R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Psychologists defying the crowd: Stories of

those who battled the establishment and won (pp. 159-172).

Niu, W., and Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The philosophical roots of Western and Eastern

conceptions of creativity. Journal Of Theoretical And Philosophical Psychology, 26(1-2),

18-38. doi:10.1037/h0091265

Rogers, C. R. (1963). The concept of the fully functioning person. Psychotherapy: Theory,

Research & Practice, 1(1), 17-26. doi:10.1037/h0088567

Rowan, J. (2004). Some history of humanistic psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 32(3),

221-238. doi:10.1080/08873267.2004.9961753

Sabar, Stephanie. (2013) What's a Gestalt? Gestalt Review 17(1), 6-34. Retrieved from:

http://www.gisc.org/gestaltreview/documents/whatsagestalt.pdf

Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining Creativity. [electronic resource]:The Science Of Human

Innovation. New York : Oxford University Press, c2012.

RL George/History of Creativity in Psychology 18

Simonton, Keith. (2001). The Psychology of Creativity: A Historical Perspective. Presented at

Green College Lecture Series on The Nature of Creativity: History Biology, and Socio-

Cultural Dimensions. University of British Columbia. Retrieved from:

http://simonton.faculty.ucdavis.edu

Srinivasan, T.S. (2015). The 5 Founding Fathers and A History of Positive Psychology. Positive

Psychology Program, February 12, 2015. Retrieved from:

https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/founding-fathers/

Waterman, A. S. (2013). The humanistic psychology–positive psychology divide: Contrasts in

Philosophical Foundations. American Psychologist, 68(3), 124-133.

doi:10.1037/a0032168

Wertheimer, M. (2014). Music, thinking, perceived motion: The emergence of Gestalt theory.

History Of Psychology, 17(2), 131-133. doi:10.1037/a0035765