Do Virtual Environments Unleash Everyone’s Creative Potential?

  • S. Bourgeois-BougrineEmail author
  • P. Richard
  • T. Lubart
  • J. M. Burkhardt
  • B. Frantz
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


The aim of this study was to explore (a) whether Multi-User Virtual Environments improve everyone’s creativity whatever their creative potential profile, (b) the combination of internal creative resources that favours fluency and originality in a brainstorming task in virtual and real environments (VE and RE respectively). For this purpose, our study involved brainstorming sessions in two conditions: a real meeting room (RE) and a similar meeting room in virtual environment (VE). Creative potential of 60 participants was assessed via the creative profiler. The results showed that at team level, fluency and originality were significantly improved in VE compared to RE. However, at individual level, the results suggested that VE did not favour everyone. Participants in VE with high risk-taking propensity were significantly more creative (fluency and originality) than the other participants (e.g., those with similar profile in RE as well as participants with low scores in risk taking in VE). Similar profile was observed for divergent thinking and mental flexibility but at a lesser extent. The results are discussed with regards to social and motivational causes, latent inhibition and attentional mechanisms involved in creative behaviour.


  1. Agnoli S, Franchin L, Rubaltelli E, Corazza GE (2015) An eye-tracking analysis of irrelevance processing as moderator of openness and creative performance. Creativity Res J 27(2):125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batey M, Furnham A (2006) Creativity, intelligence, and personality: a critical review of the scattered literature. Genet Soc General Psychol Monogr 132:355–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaty RE, Silvia PJ (2012) Why do ideas get more creative across time? An executive interpretation of the serial order effect in divergent thinking tasks. Psychol Aesthetics Creativity Arts 6:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beghetto R, Kaufman J (2007) Toward a broader conception of creativity: a case for mini-c creativity. Psychol Aesthetics Creativity Arts 1:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhagwatwar A, Massey A, Dennis AR (2013) Creative virtual environments: effect of supraliminal priming on team brainstorming. In: 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 215–224. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  6. Buur J, Matthews B (2008) Participatory innovation. Int J Innov Manage 12:255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cahour B (2002) Décalages socio-cognitifs en réunions de conception participative. Le Travail Humain, 65:315–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carson SH, Peterson JB, Higgins DM (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. J Pers Soc Psychol 85:499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diehl M, Stroebe W (1987) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J Person Soc Psychol 53(3):497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guegan J, Buisine S, Mantelet F, Maranzana N, Segonds F (2016) Avatar-mediated creativity: when embodying inventors makes engineers more creative. Comput Hum Behav 61:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaufman CB (2013) Opening up openness to experience: a four-factor model and relations to creative achievement in the arts and sciences. J Creative Behav 47:233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kristensson P, Magnusson PR (2010) Tuning users’ innovativeness during ideation. Creativity Innov Manage 19(2):147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kristensson P, Magnusson PR, Matthing J (2002) Users as a hidden resource for creativity: findings from an experimental study on user involvement. Creativity Innov Manage 11(1):55–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kujala S (2003) User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav Inf Technol 22(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lubart T, Zenasni F, Barbot B (2013) Creative potential and its measurement. Int J Talent Dev Creativity 1(2):41–51Google Scholar
  16. Lubart TI (1999) Componential models of creativity. In: Runco MA, Pritzer S (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity, pp 295–300. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Lubart TI, Sternberg RJ (1995) An investment approach to creativity: theory and data. In: Smith SM, Ward TB, Finke RA (eds) The creative cognition approach, pp 269–302. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Lubart T, Mouchiroud C, Tordjman S, Zenasni F (2003) Psychologie de la créativité. Armand Coli, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. Minas RK, Dennis AR, Massey AP (2016) Opening the mind: designing 3D virtual environments to enhance team creativity. In: 2016 49th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), pp 247–256. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  20. Prabhu VP (2011) Risk-taking. In: Runco MA, Pritzker SR, (eds.) Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd edn), vol 2, pp 319–323. Elsevier, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Runco MA, Acar S (2012) Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Res J 24(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Runco MA (2015) Meta-creativity: being creative a bout creativity. Creativity Res J 27:295–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steele LM, McIntosh T, Higgs C (2016) Intrinsic motivation and creativity: opening up a black box. In: Mumford MD, Hemlin S Handbook of research on creativity and leadership (eds), University of Oklahoma, NormanGoogle Scholar
  24. Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI (1995) Defying the crowd: cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Sternberg RJ (1997) Successful intelligence: how practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. Plume Books, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Thornhill-Miller B, Dupont J-M (2016) Virtual reality and the enhancement of creativity and innovation: under recognized potential among converging technologies? J Cogn Educ Psychol 15(1):102–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tyagi V, Hanoch Y, Hall SD, Runco M and Denham SL (2017) The risky side of creativity: domain specific risk taking in creative individuals. Front Psychol 8:145Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Bourgeois-Bougrine
    • 1
    Email author
  • P. Richard
    • 2
  • T. Lubart
    • 1
  • J. M. Burkhardt
    • 2
  • B. Frantz
    • 1
  1. 1.Université Paris Descartes, LATIBoulogne-BillancourtFrance
  2. 2.IFSTTAR, Laboratoire Psychologie des Comportements et des MobilitésVersaillesFrance

Personalised recommendations