The tripartite conceptualization (Thrash and Elliot, 2003) specifies the three core characteristics of the state of inspiration: evocation, transcendence, and approach motivation. In this section, we review these domain-general conceptualizations and then show how they may be applied specifically to the case of inspiration to create. These efforts have yielded three complementary frameworks for conceptualizing inspiration that focus on different aspects of construct definition: core characteristics, component processes, and the transmission model. Recognizing the need for a unified, integrated definition of the inspiration construct, Thrash and Elliot ( 2003, 2004) undertook the task of developing a domain-general conceptualization that drew upon the core commonalities across diverse literatures. Further complicating matters, inspiration historically has been studied in a domain-specific manner, with little communication between researchers across domains. Often the term is not defined, is used interchangeably with other constructs, or is referenced only to be critiqued as mythical, unimportant, or unscientific. The term “inspiration” has been used in a variety disciplines (e.g., literary criticism, theology, psychology) and literatures within psychology (e.g., social comparison, humanism, creative process for a review, see Thrash and Elliot, 2003). We address the first challenge, ambiguity of definition, in the next section. The overarching goal of this article is to address each of these challenges and to point to opportunities for expanding upon the emerging scientific literature on inspiration. Among these challenges have been (a) a lack of clarity about the meaning of inspiration (b) difficulty of operationalization (c) ambiguity about whether inspiration is distinct from related constructs (d) preconceptions that inspiration is unimportant relative to “perspiration,” and (e) a variety of barriers to neuroscientific investigation. Perhaps it is not surprising that inspiration has received little attention within the scientific community, given the numerous challenges that the inspiration concept has presented. Despite this, until recently, scientists have given little attention to inspiration. Like Mozart, writers, artists, and other creators commonly emphasize the importance of inspiration in the creative process (Harding, 1948). Mozart’s depiction of inspiration possesses all of the core elements of the modern scientific inspiration construct-appreciation of new or better possibilities (“ideas that please me”), passive evocation (“it…occurs to me”), and motivation to bring the new possibilities into fruition (turning a morsel into a dish “fires my soul”). If I continue in this way,” he writes, “it soon occurs to me how I may turn this or that morsel to account so as to make a good dish of it… All this fires my soul” (Harding, 1948). A better understanding of the biological basis of inspiration will illuminate the process through which creative ideas “fire the soul,” such that individuals are compelled to transform ideas into products and solutions that may benefit society.ĭescribing his creative process, Mozart observed, “Those ideas that please me I retain in memory, and am accustomed, as I have been told, to hum them to myself. We discuss potential challenges to and opportunities for the neuroscientific study of inspiration. Finally, with many challenges overcome, we argue that the foundation is now set for a new generation of research focused on neural underpinnings. Next, we discuss the preconception that inspiration is less important than “perspiration” (effort), and we review empirical evidence that inspiration and effort both play important-but different-roles in the creative process. Third, we address ambiguity regarding how inspiration differs from related concepts (creativity, insight, positive affect) by discussing discriminant validity. This challenge has been overcome by the development and validation of the Inspiration Scale (IS), which may be used to assess trait or state inspiration.
#INSPIRATION HOW TO#
Second, we discuss the challenge of how to operationalize inspiration. First, we discuss the problem of definitional ambiguity, which has been addressed through an integrative process of construct conceptualization. In this article, we review challenges to the study of creative inspiration, as well as solutions to these challenges afforded by theoretical and empirical work on inspiration over the past decade. Creators have long argued that inspiration is important to the creative process, but until recently, scientists have not investigated this claim. Inspiration is a motivational state that compels individuals to bring ideas into fruition.
0 kommentar(er)
