Content uploaded by Dietrich Dörner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dietrich Dörner on Feb 26, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966790
Perspectives on Psychological Science
1 –14
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1745691620966790
www.psychologicalscience.org/PPS
ASSOCIATION FOR
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
A bird is an instrument working according to
mathematical law . . . such an instrument
constructed by man is lacking in nothing except
the life of the bird, and this life must be supplied
from that of man.
—Leonardo da Vinci (Codex Atlanticus1 161 r. a;
da Vinci, 1939, p. 493)
Guilford (1950, 1968) described creativity as the process
of coming up with novel and useful products and ideas.
Leonardo da Vinci’s flying machines were definitely
creative. He was the first to describe such elaborate
ideas about flying (Isaacson, 2017), and his designs
paved the way for the invention of airplanes and heli-
copters 400 years later. The first goal of this article is
to describe the creative process by interpreting da
Vinci’s notes on flying machines.
Creativity has long been attributed to genius or great
talent—characteristics one is believed simply to be born
with. Although we acknowledge that people differ in
the extent of their talent, our assumption is that every
human being is capable of creativity and already using
some aspects of creative thinking one way or another
(e.g., Funke, 2008; Weisberg, 2010) and that the creative
process follows steps similar to those of ordinary
motivational and cognitive processes. Therefore, our
second goal is to attempt to describe da Vinci’s creativity
and explore how he reached his extraordinary conclu-
sions by making use of general psychological processes
common to every human being.
The Creative Process—Very Briefly
The most influential model on the creative process is
Wallas’s (1926) four-stage model, comprising prepara-
tion, incubation, illumination, and verification. The first
and fourth stages are conscious and controlled. Thus,
the function of preparation is gathering information and
learning about a domain, and verification consists of
testing and evaluating ideas.
The second and third stages, incubation and illumina-
tion, are unconscious. During incubation, one refrains
from consciously thinking about a problem by diverting
attention to something else. Then, “a series of unconscious
and involuntary (or foreconscious and forevoluntary)
mental events may take place” (Wallas, 1926, p. 86).
966790PPSXXX10.1177/1745691620966790Güss et al.Flying Machines and the Creative Process
research-article2021
Corresponding Author:
C. Dominik Güss, Department of Psychology, University of North
Florida
E-mail: dguess@unf.edu
From da Vinci’s Flying Machines
to a Theory of the Creative Process
C. Dominik Güss1, Sarah Ahmed1, and Dietrich Dörner2
1Department of Psychology, University of North Florida, and 2Trimberg Research Academy,
Otto-Friedrich Universität Bamberg
Abstract
Steps involved in the creative process have been described in previous research, yet the exact nature of the process
still remains unclear. In the current study, we take this investigation further, referring to two flying machines developed
by Leonardo da Vinci and his other notes. Nine iterative steps are described with a focus on motivation and cognition:
(a) vision and curiosity; (b) social recognition; (c) asking questions; (d) analogical thinking; (e) trial and error; (f)
abductive reasoning; (g) incubation and forgetting; (h) overinclusive thinking, latent inhibition, and illumination; and
(i) schema elaboration. The influence of da Vinci’s socio-historic context is also briefly discussed. The analyses show
how general psychological mechanisms can explain extraordinary acts of creativity. The steps discussed can be further
formalized in future research to advance the modeling of creativity.
Keywords
creativity, creative process, abductive reasoning, analogy, incubation, schema, da Vinci
2 Güss et al.
Associations made unconsciously eventually pop
into conscious awareness as a “final ‘flash’ or ‘click’”
(Wallas, 1926, p. 94)—the illumination stage—which
often produces a solution unexpectedly. The creative
person is surprised by the sudden leap of the solution
from the unconscious. How initially unrelated concepts
suddenly become connected with the problem-relevant
information can be explained through spreading activa-
tion theory, which postulates that activation travels
through neural networks (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Sio &
Rudowicz, 2007).
Wallas (1926) also included a fifth stage called inti-
mation (e.g., Kihstrom etal., 2014; Sadler-Smith, 2015),
which is said to happen before illumination. It describes
the vague feeling that a solution is developing but one
does not know yet what the solution is.
Wallas’s (1926) model has influenced many research-
ers, and different aspects of the four-stage model have
been further developed (Amabile, 1996; Runco, 2007;
Sadler-Smith, 2015; Sawyer, 2012). Despite the many
advances made in the study of creativity, Lubart (2001)
suggested the current models were limited and incom-
plete. Arguing for more detailed explanations of the
various subprocesses, he said, “Theories of the creative
process need to specify in much greater detail how the
subprocesses can be sequenced to yield creative pro-
ductions” (p. 305). More recently, Kleinmintz etal.
(2019) suggested for future research to “focus on exam-
ining the different stages of creativity” (p. 137). In this
article, we attempt to satisfy this need by providing
clarification and more detailed descriptions of the cre-
ative subprocesses. Three sets of questions will guide
the further development of a theory on creativity based
on the subprocesses:
1. Where does the motivation to discover new
domains come from?
2. According to Wallas’s model, only unconscious
processes can produce creative ideas. What kind
of conscious reasoning can produce creative
ideas or products?
3. What exactly happens during incubation and
illumination?
To describe the creative process in detail, we will
refer to two flying machines developed by Leonardo
da Vinci as examples of innovation. From there, we will
reconstruct the creative process to show how da Vinci
may have come up with these inventions. We will also
refer to da Vinci’s notes as evidence to support the
various stages discussed. da Vinci produced more than
500 drawings and 35,000 words in his notes on the topic
of flying (Isaacson, 2017, p. 181).
Two Examples of da Vinci’s Flying
Machines
Leonardo da Vinci was born on April 15, 1452, in Vinci,
Italy. He was an illegitimate child and had no real for-
mal education in the sciences (Isaacson, 2017). Yet he
became one of the most famous painters, inventors,
and scientists of all time. We could have selected so
many different works of da Vinci, but because flying
has always been a dream of humankind, we selected
two of his flying machines for this article.
The first flying machine he developed is now known
as the “ornithopter” (Fig. 1). This design, made in 1485,
was meant to mimic the flight of birds or bats. The
wingspan of the ornithopter was about 30 ft. In some
drawings, the pilot was sitting down in the middle of
the “aircraft” body/fuselage and using hands and feet
to move the wings. In other drawings, the pilot was
lying down. Some notes suggest the head could be used
for steering. Figure 12 also shows some parts of da
Vinci’s characteristic left-handed mirror writing, reading
from right to left.3
The second flying machine is often called an aerial
screw, screw air, or helicopter (Fig. 2). Aerial screw or
screw air is an object analogous to a screw, and heli-
copter refers to its likeness to modern-day helicopters,
crediting Leonardo da Vinci for this invention. The
drawing made in 1489 (designed between 1483 and
1486, according to Bartoli etal., 2009) shows a screw-
like object of iron wire covered with linen, perhaps
based on a pine or reed construction. It supposedly
Fig. 1. Flying machine “ornithopter” (da Vinci, Manuscript B,
folio 74 v.). Image from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/d/d4/Design_for_a_Flying_Machine.jpg.
Flying Machines and the Creative Process 3
would rise in the air if it were propelled. Leonardo da
Vinci describes it in his notes as shown in Figure 2.
It is unclear whether da Vinci indeed tested his flying
machines. If he did, his attempts were probably unsuc-
cessful. Otherwise, they would likely be known. The
ornithopter and aerial screw never really flew, simply
because human muscle force would not be able to
provide the necessary power to make them fly (Capra,
2007, p. 186). But with the detailed notes and drawings,
they were the foundation for building airplanes and
helicopters about 400 years later.
How did Leonardo da Vinci come up with these two
ideas of flying machines? Figure 3 summarizes the nine
steps of the creative process according to our proposed
interpretation of da Vinci’s creative process. The steps
in Figure 3 correspond to the sections in the article.
Although we discuss these steps in a particular order,
that order should not be construed to be meaningful
or necessary. These steps are nonlinear. There are fre-
quent iterations between stages.
The Dream of Flying: Curiosity as a
Motivation to Discover
All great inventions have been preceded by great vision
or even a consideration of achieving the impossible.
Where does this curiosity come from? Curiosity can be
defined as “a desire to know, to see, or to experience
that motivates exploratory behaviour directed towards
the acquisition of new information” (Litman, 2005,
p.793). Why was da Vinci so driven to discover and
learn about so many different domains and interests, even
about phenomena that seemed distant from his immedi-
ate interests? For example, da Vinci’s to-do list included
understanding how the tongue of a woodpecker works
(Isaacson, 2017, p. 525). He was interested in understand-
ing simply for the sake of understanding. That is probably
why he has been characterized as “the most relentlessly
curious man in history” (Clark, 1969, p. 135).
Curiosity and the desire to think about “unthinkable”
phenomena are essentially motivational processes. Psi
theory is a psychological theory that attempts to formal-
ize the processes of motivation, emotion, and cognition.
Psi theory—named after the Greek letter Ψ, which is
often used as an abbreviation for psychology—maintains
(Dörner, 2003; Dörner & Güss, 2013) that there are five
groups of basic human needs: existential needs such
as thirst, hunger, sleep, and pain avoidance; the sexual-
ity need; the social need for affiliation; the need for
certainty; and the need for competence.
Curiosity could be described as the simultaneous
activation of the needs for certainty and competence.
The need for certainty (Berlyne, 1960) becomes active
when a situation is novel or unexpected and one wants
to understand it and accurately predict what will hap-
pen (How can humans fly?). As da Vinci stated, “The
natural desire of good men is knowledge” (Codex
Atlanticus 119 v. a; da Vinci, 1939, p. 88). The need for
competence becomes active when a problem arises that
cannot be solved in the moment. One wants to come
up with a solution that allows effective interaction with
the environment (taking to the air in a flying machine).
Da Vinci described a promising attempt that could
satisfy the need for certainty:
You will make an anatomy of the wings of a bird
together with the muscles of the breast which are
the movers of these wings. And you will do the
same for a man, in order to show the possibility
that there is in man who desires to sustain himself
amid the air by the beating of wings. (da Vinci,
Codex Atlanticus 45 r. a; da Vinci, 1939, p. 421)
The needs can be understood through a tank meta-
phor (see Fig. 4 showing five tanks for the five groups
of needs). If a need arises (e.g., the problem “How can
humans fly?” increases the need for certainty), liquid
drops out of the tank, and the liquid level deviates from
the ideal set point. The satisfaction of a need results in
pleasure, whereas its lack of fulfillment results in dis-
comfort. Pleasure occurs as the tank is filled, and reduc-
tion in pleasure occurs when the tank level drops below
the set point (see Dörner, 2003).
The set point is shown at the right side of each tank
with the upper horizontal arrow. The set points and the
Fig. 2. Screw air (da Vinci, Manuscript B, folio 83 v.). “Let the outer
extremity of the screw be of steel wire as thick as a cord, and from
the circumference to the centre let it be eight braccia [48 ft]. I find
that if this instrument made with a screw be well made—that is to say,
made of linen of which the pores are stopped up with starch—and
be turned swiftly, the said screw will make its spiral in the air and it
will rise high” (da Vinci, Manuscript B 83 v.; da Vinci, 1939 p. 500).
Image from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/
Szkic_%C5%9Bmig%C5%82owca.jpg.
4 Güss et al.
speed at which liquid drops in and out of the tank can
differ among individuals. The set-point deviation is the
discrepancy between the liquid level in the tank and
the set point. The higher the set-point deviation, the
stronger the need. Following the homeostasis principle,
an organism would try to restore a balance and reach
the set point again, for example, by gathering informa-
tion. If a need is satisfied (e.g., by studying birds, wings,
feathers, and air and learning about how birds can fly),
then liquid drops into the tank, and the liquid level
rises again until it reaches the set point.
Leonardo da Vinci’s certainty tank could be described
as a tank that lost liquid more quickly than most.
Compared with da Vinci, most people lose liquid very
slowly. It takes longer for the certainty need to become
active and therefore longer for them to engage in infor-
mation-seeking behaviors. As soon as da Vinci was
confronted with a phenomenon, he became interested
in understanding it and took immediate action to do
so. Thus, curiosity can be described as a quick and
strong set-point deviation in the certainty need tank. A
high need for certainty drives people to find answers
to their questions.
The strong discomfort generated by an unsatisfied
need for certainty can be explained by its close con-
nection to the need for competence. An increasing need
Bird
Why?
How?
Speed
What?
Bones of Wing
Sociocultural
Context
Analogy
Schema
Elaboration
Abductive
Reasoning
Abductive
Reasoning
Analogy
Curiosity
Asking
Questions
Certainty
Competence
Overinclusive
Thinking
1
3
5
4
7
8
9
6
Trial and
Error
Wind
4
6
Start
Ruler
Screw
Ornithopter Aerial Screw
Social
Recognition
2
Affiliation
Incubation and
Forgetting
Invent Flying Object
Fig. 3. The step-by-step creative process of inventing two flying machines. It includes images, questions, motivation,
and cognitive operations in blue. The numbers in the figure correspond to the order of the sections in which they are
discussed in the article. Bird image from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_
Codice_volo_uccelli_6r.jpg (da Vinci, about 1506, Codice volo uccelli 6 r.). Archimedes screw image from https://upload.
wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Facsimile-of-codex-atlanticus-screws-and-water-wheels-laminate.jpg (da Vinci,
Codex Atlanticus, folio 386 r.).
Flying Machines and the Creative Process 5
for certainty indirectly increases the need for compe-
tence. Not understanding what is happening (uncer-
tainty) also affects how one can deal effectively with a
situation (competence). Satisfying the need for certainty
by receiving clarity about a situation also indirectly
satisfies the need for competence.
For a curious person to “dive into” and explore a
new problem domain, a high certainty need has to be
paired with a weak competence need. If competence
and certainty needs are both strong, then a person
would engage in safeguarding behaviors, confirmatory
perception, or flight (see Dörner & Güss, 2013)—in
short, they would engage in anything that could restore
competence quickly rather than in explorations of a
new domain. This interplay of a high increase in the
need for certainty but a low decrease in competence
has been described in other terms, such as frustration
tolerance (e.g., Rosenzweig, 1938, p. 153) and the abil-
ity to endure difficult situations (see also creative frus-
tration, as discussed by Sapp, 1992).
We assume that da Vinci’s competence need was not
strong when his certainty need was. Although he
worked on a new domain, such as flying, da Vinci could
rely on his vast knowledge and skills. He had success-
fully created numerous inventions, drawings, and paint-
ings and could rely on his successful strategy to divide
a big problem into tiny problems that could be mas-
tered (as we will show below). He had not only epis-
temic competence (i.e., enormous knowledge and
skills) but also heuristic competence (i.e., trust and
confidence in his own ability to master new situations
and problems successfully; e.g., Dörner, 2003).
It has been acknowledged that many of da Vinci’s
attempts failed. For example, if he could not complete a
painting as he wanted it to be (e.g., the Battle of Anghiari
or the Adoration of the Magi; see Isaacson, 2017, p. 522),
he abandoned it. However, the following quote shows
that da Vinci’s need for competence did not become
easily activated because he could trust his knowledge
and skills to master unknown situations and domains—
even though he had no formal education: “Though I may
not, like them, be able to quote other authors, I shall rely
on that which is much greater and more worthy:—on
experience” (da Vinci, Codex Atlanticus 115a; 357a,
around 1490; da Vinci, 1888/1970a, p. 15).
It was most likely curiosity or the high need for
certainty, paired with a stable level of competence from
preexisting stores of knowledge and the anticipation
of enormous success as an imagined source of compe-
tence, that allowed da Vinci to continue pursuing the
study of flight and of flying machines over a period of
several years.
Social Recognition as Motivation
Leonardo da Vinci was aware that no flying machines
existed and that if he succeeded in developing such
machines, he would achieve fame and glory. He wanted
to test his flying machines on the hillsides of Mount
Cecero, which was north of Florence, near Fiesole. “The
great bird will take its first flight;—on the back of his
great swan [magnio cecero]—filling the universe with
wonders; filling all writings with his fame and bringing
eternal glory to his birthplace” (da Vinci, Codex on the
Flight of Birds, folio 18 v.; da Vinci, 1888/1970b, p. 430).
Receiving “fame and glory” for developing a func-
tioning flying device refers to social recognition. Social
recognition—and related to it, financial gain for an artist
during the Renaissance period—can, of course, also be
motivations to pursue discovery. Furthermore, the basic
human need for affiliation (i.e., the social need to
belong) may also be satisfied, such as from a smile or
from a clap on the shoulder, because these signals show
that one is accepted by a group (“signals of legitimacy”;
Boulding, 1978, p. 173). Past researchers have not only
stressed the importance of intrinsic motivation in
Existential
Needs
Sexuality AffiliationCertainty Competence
Set Point
Fig. 4. Tanks showing the five needs.
6 Güss et al.
creative achievements but also have discussed the
important role of the social context (e.g., Amabile,
1996; Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Csikszentmihalyi,
2014). In addition, newer research has shown that it is
not an either/or concept but rather that sometimes
intrinsic and extrinsic social motivation together can
foster creativity (e.g., Fischer etal., 2019; Malik etal.,
2019; Xue etal., 2018).
In da Vinci’s case, however, striving for social rec-
ognition might have played a less important role simply
because he was already at the top. De Beatis referred
to Leonardo as “the most eminent painter of our time”
(cited in Isaacson, 2017, p. 502). Although Leonardo
had to live from commissions for his work, he worked
for highly influential families, such as the Borgias, the
Sforzas, and the Medici, and later even received regular
stipends from the Vatican under Pope Leo X and the
French kings Louis XII and Francis I. Wealth and mate-
rial possessions were not of great interest to him, and
he “lacked that instinct to cater to patrons when paint-
ing” (Isaacson, 2017, p. 83).
Asking Questions
Curiosity—asking questions, such as “How can humans
fly?”—triggers an important part of the creative thought
process. Questions show what information is not yet
known. They point to “knowledge holes” and provide
direction for further thought. A “why” question demands
an explanation. Why would building a flying machine
be important in the first place?
A “what” question asks about an object (a bird), the
specific details of an object (wings), or even more spe-
cific parts of the details (feathers). This information is
organized in hierarchical schemas or partial schemas.
A schema is a framework or organized setting influ-
enced by previous experiences, within which novel
information can be interpreted (Bartlett, 1932). “What
else can fly?” requires the consideration of different
objects (e.g., bats).
A “how” question requires a description of a specific
way something can happen. How can a bird fly? What
processes must work together to make it happen? Leon-
ardo da Vinci describes the interplay of the birds’ shoul-
ders and wings to compress air and sustain motion:
When the bird by the beating of its wing wishes to
rise, it raises the shoulders and it beats the points
of the wings towards itself, and so condenses the
air which lies between the points of the wings and
the breasts. The tension (of the condensed air) lifts
up the bird. (da Vinci, Sul Volo degli Uccelli, folio
13 (12) r.; da Vinci, 1963, p. 178)
In the course of his research, da Vinci used a variety
of thinking tools, which will be described in the fol-
lowing steps.
Analogical Thinking
Leonardo da Vinci used birds as an analogy for his
machines. So, the search for an answer to the ques-
tion of what else can fly was guided by this analogy:
If birds can fly, then a human being imitating a bird
can fly as well. Leonardo regarded nature as an
important source of inspiration for his inventions.
“There is no result in nature without cause; under-
stand the cause and you will have no need for an
experiment” (da Vinci, Codex Atlanticus 147 v. a; da
Vinci, 1939, p. 64).
The bird analogy referred both to the structure of
the components and the process of flying (Chen, 2002,
called it structural similarity and procedural similarity).
The ornithopter reflects both the structure of birds, such
as their body and wings, and the process of flying (i.e.,
the movement of wings). Even da Vinci’s further analy-
sis of why birds can fly was guided by an analogy (i.e.,
comparing wind with water). “To arrive at knowledge
of the motions of birds in the air, it is necessary to
acquire knowledge of the winds, which we will prove
by the motions of the water” (da Vinci, Paris Ms E, 54
r., cited in Isaacson, 2017, p. 178).
The analogy to birds seems relatively obvious for the
development of the ornithopter, but how did da Vinci
come up with the idea of the aerial screw? A screw is
not something one would normally associate with fly-
ing. There are several possible explanations.
The first is that da Vinci used analogical thinking to
associate a screw with flying, perhaps from his work
with screws in some of his other engineering projects.
We will elaborate on this possibility in the section on
incubation. The second explanation is that da Vinci may
have seen some of the “whirligigs” children used as
toys. A child would pull a spindle that then would turn
the toy’s rotation blades (Gibbs-Smith, 1962, p. 229).
Potentially, these toys served as an analogy and/or a
starting point for his aerial screw.
Trial and Error
Trial and error is often the first approach employed
when developing a new creative idea or product. One
takes the first idea that comes to mind and tests it to
see whether it works (Thorndike, 1901). If it does not,
one moves on to try the next action or idea in a random
or a more deliberate fashion. It involves chance varia-
tion in behaviors to reach a goal.
Flying Machines and the Creative Process 7
One might think that a strategy as simple as trial and
error would be used most frequently by novices, but
research has shown that experts often use it, too (e.g.,
Simon & Simon, 1962). The trial-and-error approach
can be also seen in da Vinci’s changing assumptions
about the role of wind in flying. Although da Vinci
wrote many pages on the subject of birds and wind
(e.g., folios 5–10 in the Codex of Flight), the following
quote from the Codex of Flight suggests that initially,
da Vinci did not fully understand the dynamics of wind
and wings:
When the bird by the beating of its wing wishes
to rise, it raises the shoulders and it beats the
points of the wings towards itself, and so
condenses the air which lies between the points
of the wings and the breasts. The tension (of the
condensed air) lifts up the bird. (da Vinci, Codex
Atlanticus, folio 5 v.; da Vinci, 1963, p. 178)
In reality, the cause of flying is not the wing move-
ment compressing the air beneath it. The wing splits
the incoming wind and guides both air streams down-
ward because the wing is bent. Air moves faster over
the curved wing than it does under. When air moves
faster, its pressure decreases. Therefore, the pressure
is lower above the wing and higher under the wing,
creating a force that pulls the wing and attached body
upward. However, the next note suggests da Vinci was
beginning to understand the dynamics of flight:
When a bird with a wide wingspan and a short
tail wants to take off, it will lift its wings with force
and turn them to receive the wind beneath them.
The wind, forming a wedge, will quickly propel
it up high. (da Vinci, 1505, Codex on the Flight of
Birds, folio 17 v.)
Because most of the Codex Atlanticus was written
before the year 1500, it is very likely the second quote
was written much later than the first quote, illustrating
that da Vinci gained a deeper understanding of the
topic through his intensive studies—most likely through
mental trial and error. He was aware that many of his
approaches to solve problems involved trial and error,
and some failed (Isaacson, 2017).
Abductive Thinking
How do people use logic to come up with something
novel and useful? The two most widely discussed forms
of reasoning are deductive and inductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning starts with a general theory, state-
ment, or premise and makes specific predictions or
hypotheses. Inductive reasoning starts by observing
specific instances and moves to a generalized conclu-
sion. Yet both deductive and inductive reasoning stay
within a domain, are self-contained, and do not lead
to new findings in the conclusion.
Peirce (1878, 1883) discussed a third form of reason-
ing, abductive reasoning. Abductive thinking relies on
observations of phenomena and reflections about the
possible explanations for these phenomena (Peirce,
1878, 1883). These explanations are then tested. If they
do not make sense, they are rejected. The “best” hypoth-
esis should be economical, simple, and plausible given
the constraints of uncertainty. Unlike deduction and
induction, abduction introduces new knowledge as an
explanation for a phenomenon. This explanation is not
part of the original premises, and it could be right or
wrong (Kolko, 2009).
Leonardo da Vinci described abductive reasoning in
his own words as a process that shows why something
works in a specific way:
First I shall do some experiments before I proceed
farther, because my intention is to cite experience
first and then with reasoning show why such
experience is bound to operate in such a way.
And this is the true rule by which those who
speculate about the effects of nature must proceed.
(da Vinci, 1513, Manuscript E, folio 55 r.; Capra,
2007, p. IX)
The following example of da Vinci’s notes clearly
show the interplay of observation, explanation, and
abductive thought:
Those feathers which are farthest away from their
points of attachment will be most flexible. The
tips of the feathers of the wings therefore will
always be higher than their roots, wherefore we
may with reason say that the bones of the wings
will always be lower when the wing is lowered
than any part of the wing. . . . Because the heavier
part will always be the guide of the movement.
(da Vinci, Sul Volo 4 v.; da Vinci, 1939, p. 403)
As da Vinci reflects on the design of wings, we can see
his abductive thought process. He observes wings going
up and down but also observes that the wing consists of
different parts that do not all follow the movement at the
same time. Why? The explanation he gives for certain
parts of the wing being higher than other parts during
flight is related to weight and gravity (i.e., that heavier
parts of the wings guide movement and the heaviest parts
of the wings are the bones). This is a tentative and new
explanation worthy of further investigation.
8 Güss et al.
In Peirce’s (1903) words, the abstract form of the
logic of abductive thought can be described as
The surprising fact C is observed,
But if A were true, C would be a matter of course;
Hence there is reason to suspect that A is true.
To apply Peirce’s formal rule to the example of da Vinci,
Not all parts of the wing move at the same time/
speed,
Weight and gravity make the heavier parts of the
wing lower first, which is why not all parts of the
wing move at the same time/speed.
Hence, there is reason to suspect that the law of
weight/gravity is true.
After a possible explanation is inferred, it can be
tested. Leonardo da Vinci could have experimented and
tested his assumptions by measuring the weight of wing
bones, wing muscles, and feathers.
What are the psychological tools humans use to rea-
son abductively? We start with semiotic theory—how
meaning is constructed, according to Peirce (1998):
I define a Sign as anything which is so determined
by something else, called its Object, and so
determines an effect upon a person, which effect
I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby
mediately determined by the former. (p. 478)
Thus, a sign has three interrelated parts: a represen-
tation, an object, and an interpretant. The word dove,
for example, is a representation that points to an object.
The object can be the actual bird or a visual schema of
an imagined dove. This dove as an interpretant has
different meanings for different people. A devout Chris-
tian might regard the dove as a symbol of the Holy
Spirit. For a hunter, a dove might trigger thoughts about
the hunting season. An artist might see the dove as part
of an evening scene of pastures and hills in the Tuscany
region. Given this semiotic triangle of representation,
object, and interpretant, the tools for abductive thinking
are schemas of words and images and related experi-
ences. We come back to the semiotic triangle in the
section on schema elaboration.
Incubation, Forgetting, and Creating
Abstract Schema
Previously we have discussed two analogies, a screw
or a whirligig toy, that could have been used for the
development of the aerial screw. The third explanation
is related to the psychological process of incubation.
da Vinci could have observed seeds flying and turning
in the wind and gotten the idea of his aerial screw from
these observations. Maple seeds or ash tree seeds, for
example, turn like a helicopter propeller when they fall
from trees. Other seeds, such as dandelion or oleander
seeds, glide through the air. da Vinci wrote about seeds
several times; for example,
Take a vase, fill it full of pure earth and set it up
on a roof. You will see how immediately the green
herbs will begin to shoot up, and how these,
when fully grown, will cast their various seeds.
(da Vinci, Codex Atlanticus 265 r. a.)
Later, when working more deliberately on flying
machines, these earlier observations about seeds that
were set aside might have triggered the first ideas about
the aerial screw.
This psychological process has been called incuba-
tion. During incubation, one refrains from consciously
thinking about a problem by putting the problem aside
and working on something else. Being interrupted and
working on an unrelated task helps to find a solution
for the problem one has been working on before—as
a review of numerous studies showed (Ellwood etal.,
2009). Often, the solutions that pop up are unpredict-
able and surprising.
Incubation helps in coming up with a solution by
allowing the mind to rest and to forget about unsuc-
cessful attempts to solve problems, paving the way for
new solutions (Smith & Dodds, 1999). Without the abil-
ity to forget, our minds would rely heavily on prefab-
ricated (or ready-made) answers (for an empirical study
showing that forgetting enhances creativity, see Storm
& Patel, 2014). While working on other topics, the con-
crete details of a bird-flying schema with wings and
feathers might have become blurred so that at one
point, an abstract, fuzzy schema was created. Forgetting
may also have allowed da Vinci to relax his focus and
become less fixated on using one or several specific
ideas to solve the flying problem (see also forgetting
fixation hypothesis, Smith & Blankenship, 1989).
Other evidence for the importance of incubation can
be seen in da Vinci’s studies on birds, winds, and flying
objects over a period of many years. As mentioned
previously, he produced more than 35,000 words on
birds and drew 500 sketches depicting birds, air, wings,
and flying machines (Jakab, 2013). This work may have
inspired the modifications he made to his design and
conceptualization of flying machines. For example, the
drawing of water-lifting devices (1480–1482) from the
Codex Atlanticus (541 v.) shows he worked on the
Flying Machines and the Creative Process 9
Archimedes screw shown in Figure 3. Leonardo likely
used the screw as an analogy for his flying machine,
the aerial screw, which was drawn in 1487 or 1498,
several years after his work with hydraulics.
Overinclusive Thinking, Latent
Inhibition, and Illumination/Insight
The analogy of a screw as a flying object mimics the
movement of a screw being turned into wood. So both
the form and function of the screw would be similar to
the abstract flying object schema. The aha moment,
insight, or illumination of seeing the screw as a poten-
tial flying object (Wallas, 1926) came when the screw
schema matched the abstract flying-object schema,
leading to the realization that a giant screw with large
threads could fly. This realization required mental imag-
ery (Kosslyn etal., 2003)—that of a gigantic screw
finding its way through the air.
An alternative explanation for the screw analogy
could be the ruler analogy. For example, while da Vinci
was working, he may have seen a ruler fall from a table
and rotate while falling to the ground. Using overinclu-
sive thinking and seeing the analogy of a rotating flying
device, da Vinci could have elaborated on this idea to
come up with the aerial screw: “Take the example of a
wide and thin ruler whirled very rapidly in the air, you
will see that your arm will be guided by the line of the
edge of the said flat surface” (da Vinci, Manuscript B
83 v.; da Vinci, 1939, p. 500).
Overinclusive thinking means that seemingly unre-
lated material cannot be inhibited; conceptual boundar-
ies are not preserved. The capacity to block irrelevant
stimuli from conscious awareness is also called latent
inhibition. Research has shown that highly creative
achievers showed lower latent inhibition than less cre-
ative achievers (Carson etal., 2003; Kéri, 2011). da Vinci
could have learned to notice similarities between two
seemingly unrelated objects. Instead of blocking out
information, as many people would, da Vinci—having
low latent inhibition—allowed himself to widen his
perception and to follow his thoughts as they wandered
in different directions. This might explain his interest
and success in so many different domains, such as biol-
ogy, anatomy, painting, geology, hydraulics, art, astron-
omy, medicine, and mathematics.
Overinclusive thinking and latent inhibition are
important to break the limitations related to expertise.
It can take years for someone to become an expert in
a domain: more than 10 years or over 10,000 hours of
deliberate practice, according to researchers on exper-
tise (Ericsson etal., 1993). Yet expertise is a double-
edged sword in relation to creativity. On the one hand,
expertise provides the necessary wealth of background
knowledge and skills that could be applied to solve
problems in a novel way. On the other hand, expertise
can hinder creativity because expertise consists of well-
learned thoughts and behaviors. One is in danger of
repeating patterns of behavior that have proved suc-
cessful in the past, whereas a new situation with dif-
ferent characteristics often demands the implementation
of new ideas.
Leonardo da Vinci overcame these pitfalls of exper-
tise. He was able to recognize his own failed attempts.
For example, he studied the earth’s water flows for
about a decade and revised his thoughts many times.
Then again, these failures were also part of his success.
As Isaacson (2017) put it, “One mark of a great mind
is the willingness to change it” (p. 435). Eventually, da
Vinci even gave up on his work on flying machines,
realizing that human muscle would never produce the
necessary energy to propel a flying machine through
the air (Isaacson, 2017; see also comment of Palmer,
2011).
Testing and Working Out Details:
Schema Elaboration
The screw as a flying object was just a first thought. It
took da Vinci years to further develop this idea. “How
could a giant aerial screw fly?” “What process must
happen so the screw could be propelled in the air?”
Here, da Vinci followed abductive reasoning again (i.e.,
finding the best answers to the question). The screw
must be created with light materials, such as linen,
through which air cannot pass. The screw must have
enormous bent threads to direct the air flow. The screw
must have enormous speed. In da Vinci’s own words,
The external edge of the aerial screw is a thick
wire with a maximum radius of about four meters
(13 feet). To make this instrument correctly, you
would need to use starched linen cloth, so the air
does not pass through. If it is rotated quickly, this
machine will spin as though it were a screw that
penetrates the air, and it will rise. (da Vinci, 1489,
Manuscript B, folio 83 v.)
The mechanical details of the ornithopter also had
to be worked out in detail. The large, overarching
schema of the flying machine with its body and wings
had to be divided into many small schemas of the con-
nected parts: the fuselage/body of the ornithopter, the
wings, and the connection of the wings to the body.
These parts had then to be divided into even smaller
schemas, such as the area of a person in the fuselage/
body and the terminal parts of the wings. da Vinci
elaborated on the part–whole relationship: “Whence
10 Güss et al.
we may evidently say that the image of each object
exists, as a whole and in every part, in each part and
in the whole interchangeably in every existing body”
(da Vinci, Codex Atlanticus 176b; 531b; da Vinci,
1888/1970a, p. 42).
These schemas of the fuselage/body of the ornithop-
ter and of the wings can be called sensory schemas (i.e.,
schemas of objects). The act of the pilot paddling inside
the ornithopter or moving the hands and arms to acti-
vate the wings are motor schema, or schemas for move-
ments. Combinations of sensory and motor schemas
are called sensory-motor schemas (Dörner, 2003).
Creative thinking would involve elaboration of sche-
mas along two dimensions: abstract–specific and for-
ward–backward (Dörner etal., 2002; Dörner & Güss,
2013). On the one hand, schemas can be elaborated on
from abstract to specific, which represents the hierar-
chical organization of schemas we mentioned earlier;
for example, from the abstract schema of the ornithop-
ter to the specific schema of a wing to the more specific
schema of a wing ending. On the other hand, schemas
can be elaborated on from the specific to the abstract,
for example, going back from the specific wing-ending
schema to the whole wing schema.
An example of the part–whole analysis is the screw
jack that da Vinci came up with to lift heavy objects
(da Vinci, Codex Madrid 1, 26 r.). On the right side is
the whole object (see Fig. 5). Toward the left is the part
showing the ball bearings intended to minimize friction.
Again, to the left are the parts of the parts, the balls
and bolts.
To a certain extent, da Vinci’s drawings also served
as thought experiments (Isaacson, 2017, p. 196) in
which he thought through the mechanisms of his
machines and all the details he could imagine and
visualize whether they actually would work. His elabo-
rate and skillful drawings can be regarded as a test bed
for his thoughts. For more details on the interplay
between asking questions and schema elaboration, see
the General Recursive Analytico-Synthetic Constellation
Amplification (GRASCAM) process (Dörner, 2013).
The second dimension, forward–backward, refers to
space and time. For example, a forward schema of an
ornithopter would lead to another schema in which a
person in the ornithopter moves hands and legs, which
trigger the movements of the wings. The next schemas
would contain the wings moving upward and then mov-
ing downward.
To be more specific, the sequence just described is
a chain of sensory-motor schemas: the sensory schema
of the person sitting in the ornithopter, the motor sche-
mas of the person moving hands and legs, the sensory
schema of wings moving upward, the motor schema of
the person moving hands and legs, and the sensory
schema of the wings moving downward.
Several qualities allowed da Vinci to come up with
elaborate schemas (see also, Isaacson, 2017, pp. 519–
521): his detailed observation of phenomena; his imagi-
nation, curiosity, and expertise in many domains; his
fantasy and tendency to ask questions; and his talent
for drawing and thinking visually.
Sociocultural Context: The Renaissance
Up to this point, we have discussed the characteristics
of an individual inventor and two of his creations. An
individual, however, always lives in a certain historic
time, place, and sociocultural context, which heavily
influences that person (Csikszentmihályi, 1996).
Leonardo da Vinci lived during the Renaissance, an
age marked by innovation. The Renaissance began
around the 14th century, as the European feudal system
broke down and a developing economy led to advances
in art, literature, architecture, music, and technology. A
complex web of factors allowed the Renaissance to
become the start of modern times (see Roeck, 2017).
Florence, Italy, was the center of the Renaissance
because of its wealth from banking. Rich, powerful
families such as the Medici, Strozzi, and Perucci were
willing to pay artists for paintings, sculptures, and
buildings/architecture, so producing art became a well-
paid profession. The most creative works of the early
Renaissance period in Florence were either commis-
sioned by wealthy families or guild unions. For exam-
ple, the Merchants’ Guild covered the living expenses
Fig. 5. Screw jack (da Vinci, Codex Madrid 1, 26 r.). Image from
https://vitruvio.imss.fi.it/foto/4645_1611_0572/4645_1611_0572-
025rs.jpg.
Flying Machines and the Creative Process 11
and costs of materials for six artists for one year as
they competed to make doors for the Florence Baptis-
tery. After 23-year-old Lorenzo Ghiberti was selected
for the task, the guild funded him for the next 50 years
as he completed a series of bronze reliefs of scenes
from the Old and New Testaments (for more details,
see Csikszentmihalyi, 2014, p. 57).
It was relatively easy to discover artistic talents dur-
ing the Renaissance because the style of artwork was
very realistic and could easily be judged as authentic
and talented. Abstract painting, in vogue during the
1960s at the height of abstract expressionism, cannot
be judged by such criteria but perhaps by emotionality
and spontaneity (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). Thus, it was
easy to recognize da Vinci’s exceptional skills. As men-
tioned previously, the incredible quality of da Vinci’s
work was already noticed by his contemporaries; only
a few were invited to work for the pope and for the
French king.
da Vinci was born on April 15, 1452, near Vinci and
Florence. As an illegitimate child, his professional tra-
jectory in life would have been impeded during differ-
ent historic times. However, during the Renaissance,
illegitimate children were not uncommon and were
generally accepted. General acceptance of his status
gave him the freedom to pursue his interests. In contrast,
had he been born as the legitimate son of Ser Piero
Antonio da Vinci, he would have had no choice but to
follow his father’s legal career and become a notary. As
an illegitimate child, da Vinci was at the margins of
society, a factor that freed him from some societal con-
ventions. However, da Vinci was not excluded (Isaacson,
2017).
Discussion
This article had two goals: first, to develop a theory of
the creative process involving subprocesses, further
elaborating on Wallas’s (1926) model, and second, to
attempt to describe the extraordinary creativity of da
Vinci using general psychological terms.
In retrospect, it is “easy” to analyze and describe
parts of the creative process da Vinci experienced when
he developed his flying machines. However, nothing
was known about these flying machines at the time.
Since the days of the early Greeks and the myth of
Daedalus and Icarus, it has always been humankind’s
dream to fly. But the levels of detail and of the quantity
related to da Vinci’s notes on birds, flight, and flying
machines were unprecedented.
Our main goal was to elaborate on a theory of the
creative process. We asked three questions, the first of
which refers to the motivation behind creativity—curi-
osity. We attempted to explain curiosity to discover by
referring to human certainty and competence needs. A
high certainty need and a low competence need can
explain a person’s specific exploration (Berlyne, 1960)
of a new area or domain.
The second question asked for an explanation of
how new and useful ideas and products are developed
through conscious thought—the deliberate aspect of
creativity (Dietrich, 2004). Wallas’s (1926) model, in
explaining creativity, refers primarily to unconscious
processes. What kind of conscious reasoning can pro-
duce creative ideas or products? We referred here to
Peirce’s (1878, 1883) concept of abductive reasoning.
It involves observing a phenomenon and reflecting on
the possible causes and explanations. These possible
causes and explanations are then tested, and the most
plausible one is retained (see also Kolko, 2009). The
tools for abductive reasoning are words, meanings, and
images, as described in the semiotic triangle (Peirce,
1998), and schema elaborations following primarily the
abstract–concrete and forward–backward dimensions
(e.g., Dörner, 2003; Dörner & Güss, 2013).
The third question addressed the specific processes
happening during incubation and illumination, the
stages that Wallas (1926) described. What happens
unconsciously when one lets a problem rest and sud-
denly has an aha insight on how things could work?
We have discussed forgetting schema details and unsuc-
cessful attempts to find solutions as possible processes
(see also George & Wiley, 2018; Storm & Patel, 2014).
Seeing the screw as a flying object could also be
explained by analogical and overinclusive thinking.
Overinclusive thinking (e.g., Chiu, 2015) and latent
inhibition (e.g., Carson etal., 2003) mean that seem-
ingly unrelated material is not inhibited during incuba-
tion, the scope of one’s perception is widened, and
conceptual boundaries are not preserved (e.g., Gabora,
2010). This allows people to see seemingly unrelated
objects as related.
da Vinci’s expertise in so many areas provided a
knowledge foundation that facilitated overinclusive
thinking. This knowledge base also allowed analogical
reasoning. The importance of analogies in the creative
process has also been described in other research (e.g.,
Chan & Schunn, 2015; Chen, 2002) and in case studies
on creativity.
Our analyses have limitations that can be addressed
in future studies. One limitation is our focus on the
elaboration of Wallas’s (1926) model of creativity.
Future research could discuss the creative process from
different model perspectives and compare those models
with each other. We referred to da Vinci’s notes and
drawings, but we do not have data about his actual
thought processes. It is impossible to determine whether
the aerial screw was invented through analogical
12 Güss et al.
reasoning, partial forgetting, overinclusive thinking, trial
and error, or a combination of the processes. One way
to get a concurrent thought process—still not fully con-
current, however—is the use of thinking-aloud or ver-
bal protocols (e.g., Güss, 2018). Another way to get
empirical data is through interviews with experts about
their creative work (e.g., Güss etal., 2018; Mace &
Ward, 2002). Interviews, however, show post hoc reflec-
tions about one’s creative work and do not show con-
current thought processes.
Future research could also further formalize the cre-
ative process, ultimately allowing the modeling of cre-
ativity. For example, trial and error, as the process of
taking one alternative thought or decision and testing
whether it works, could be simulated relatively easily.
Which objects could help a human to fly? A computer
could go through a randomly created list of a million
objects and examine whether the object could be attached
“meaningfully” to a human and enable that human to fly.
Of course, for us humans, this is a very cumbersome and
inefficient way to proceed, and it is most likely not the
way we usually approach such problems. However, it is
possible for computers to take this course (see e.g., the
new Master chess program AlphaZero, which has beaten
the world’s best chess program, Stockfish 8; Pete, 2019).
Our second goal was to attempt to describe the
extraordinary creativity of da Vinci using general psy-
chological terms (see also Simonton, 2018; Sternberg,
2018; Weisberg, 2010). Yes, Leonardo da Vinci was spe-
cial, a genius. He had an enormous store of knowledge
about many different domains. He was also a brilliant
artist. He studied every single part of a bird, from the
feathers at the tip of the wing to the tail, from the head
to the chest. He attempted to build a human bird, study-
ing the mathematical laws of wind and birds, applying
everything he learned about birds, so that man could
become a flying instrument “lacking in nothing except
the life of the bird, and this life must be supplied from
that of man” (da Vinci, Codex Atlanticus, 161 r. a; da
Vinci, 1939, p. 493).
None of us is Leonardo da Vinci, but all of us are a
little like him. The creative process we described is
based on general psychological mechanisms common
to all humans. This creativity is at the heart of human
intelligence, of the ability to invent, solve problems,
and adapt to new situations.
Transparency
Action Editor: Laura A. King
Editor: Laura A. King
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of
interest with respect to the authorship or the publication
of this article.
Funding
This research was supported in part by a grant from the
University of North Florida’s Delaney Presidential Profes-
sorship to C. D. Güss. The first idea to work on a theory
of creativity originated when C. D. Güss was visiting at
the University of Bamberg, Germany, as a Marie-Curie
Fellow of the European Commission and collaborating
with D. Dörner.
ORCID iD
C. Dominik Güss https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2289-1794
Notes
1. The Codex Atlanticus is the largest collection (2,238 pages)
of written notes and drawings by Leonardo da Vinci from the
1480s to 1518 (Isaacson, 2017, p. 107). The name Atlanticus
comes from the atlas-sized pages of notes.
2. All figures in this article representing da Vinci’s drawings
were searched via Google’s Advanced Image Search, select-
ing the option “free to use or share even commercially” under
usage rights.
3. It is unclear why da Vinci wrote this way. It is unlikely that
he did not want other people to understand his notes. It is more
likely that he did not want to mess up his handwriting. As a left-
handed writer, he would pass over the writing with his hand if
he had been writing from left to right. Or, perhaps because he
had no formal schooling, he learned to write by sitting across
from someone on the other side of the table and just wrote
exactly as they did, simple perfect imitation, then it is reversed.
On the other side, the person writes left to right, but seen from
da Vinci’s side, it is right to left.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the
social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the
social psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 46, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.001
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental
and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Bartoli, G., Borsani, A., Borri, C., Martelli, A., Procino, L., &
Vezzosi, A. (2009, July 19–23). Leonardo, the wind and
the flying sphere [Paper presentation]. Fifth European and
African Conference on Wind Engineering (EACWE 5),
Florence, Italy. https://flore.unifi.it/retrieve/han-
dle/2158/389489/97806/2009_EACWE_Leonardo.pdf
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity.
Mc Graw-Hill.
Boulding, K. E. (1978). Ecodynamics. SAGE.
Capra, F. (2007). The science of Leonardo. Doubleday.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003).
Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased
creative achievement in high-functioning individuals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 499–506.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.499
Chan, J., & Schunn, C. (2015). The impact of analogies on cre-
ative concept generation: Lessons from an in vivo study
Flying Machines and the Creative Process 13
in engineering design. Cognitive Science, 39, 126–155.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12127
Chen, Z. (2002). Analogical problem solving: A hierarchical
analysis of procedural similarity. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 81–98.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.28.1.81
Chiu, F. -C. (2015). Improving your creative potential with-
out awareness: Overinclusive thinking training. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 15, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.tsc.2014.11.001
Clark, K. (1969). Civilization. Harper & Row.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation
theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82,
407–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
Csikszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychol-
ogy of discovery and invention. Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The systems model of creativ-
ity. The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
Springer.
da Vinci, L. (1489). Arial screw: Manuscript B, folio 83v
(Museum Leonardo, Trans.). http://www.leonardo3.net/
en/l3-works/machines/1466-aerial-screw.html
da Vinci, L. (1505). Codice sul volo degli uccelli [Codex on the
flight of birds] (Culturando and Smithsonian National Air
and Space Museum, Trans.). https://airandspace.si.edu/
exhibitions/codex/codex.cfm#page-4-5
da Vinci, L. (1939). The notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci
(E. MacCurdy, Trans.; Vol. I). Reynal & Hitchcock.
da Vinci, L. (1963). The mechanical investigations of Leonardo
da Vinci (I. B. Hart, Trans.; 2nd Rev. ed.). University of
California Press.
da Vinci, L. (1970a). The notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci
(J. P. Richter, Trans.; Vol. I). Dover Publications. (Original
work published 1888)
da Vinci, L. (1970b). The notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci
(J. P. Richter, Trans.; Vol. II). Dover Publications. (Original
work published 1888)
Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1011–1026. https://
doi.org/10.3758/BF03196731
Dörner, D. (2003). Bauplan für eine Seele [Blueprint for a
soul]. Rowohlt.
Dörner, D. (2013). Gibt es künstliche Intelligenz? [Does artifi-
cial intelligence exist?]. Leibniz Institutes. https://leibniz-
institut.de/archiv/doerner_13_12_13.pdf
Dörner, D., Bartl, C., Detje, F., Gerdes, J., Halcour, D., Schaub,
H., & Starker, U. (2002). Die Mechanik des Seelenwagens.
Eine neuronale Theorie der Handlungsregulation [The
mechanics of the soul vehicle. A neural theory of action
regulation]. Hans Huber.
Dörner, D., & Güss, C. D. (2013). PSI: A computational archi-
tecture of cognition, motivation, and emotion. Review of
General Psychology, 17, 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0032947
Ellwood, S., Pallier, G., Snyder, A., & Gallate, J. (2009).
The incubation effect: Hatching a solution? Crea-
tivity Research Journal, 21, 6–14. https://doi.org/10
.1080/10400410802633368
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The
role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert
performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
Fischer, C., Malycha, C. P., & Schafmann, E. (2019). The
influence of intrinsic motivation and synergistic extrin-
sic motivators on creativity and innovation. Frontiers
in Psychology, 10, Article 137. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.00137
Funke, J. (2008). Zur Psychologie der Kreativität [On
the psychology of creativity]. In M. Dresler & T. G.
Baudson (Eds.), Kreativität. Beiträge aus den Natur- und
Geisteswissenschaften [Creativity: Contributions from nat-
ural sciences and humanities] (pp. 31–36). Hirzel.
Gabora, L. (2010). Revenge of the ‘neurds’: Characterizing
creative thought in terms of the structure and dynamics
of human memory. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410903579494
George, T., & Wiley, J. (2018). Fixation, flexibility, and
forgetting during alternate uses tasks. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13, 305–313. https://
doi.org/10.1037/aca0000173
Gibbs-Smith, C. H. (1962). Origins of the helicopter. New
Scientist, 285, 229–231.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5,
444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity and their edu-
cational implications. R.R. Knapp.
Güss, C. D. (2018). What is going through your mind?
Thinking aloud as a method in cross-cultural psychol-
ogy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1292. https://doi
.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01292
Güss, C. D., Tuason, M. T., Göltenboth, N., & Mironova,
A. (2018). Creativity through the eyes of profes-
sional artists in Cuba, Germany, and Russia. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 261–289. https://doi
.org/10.1177/0022022117730817
Isaacson, W. (2017). Leonardo da Vinci. Simon and Schuster.
Jakab, P. (2013). Leonardo da Vinci and flight. Smithsonian
Institution. https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/
leonardo-da-vinci-and-flight
Kéri, S. (2011). Solitary minds and social capital: Latent
inhibition, general intellectual functions and social net-
work size predict creative achievements. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 215–221. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0022000
Kihstrom, J. F., Shames, V. A., & Dorfman, J. (2014). Intimations
of memory and thought. In L. M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit
memory and metacognition (pp. 1–24). Psychology Press.
Kleinmintz, O. M., Ivancovsky, T., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G.
(2019). The two-fold model of creativity: The neural
underpinnings of the generation and evaluation of cre-
ative ideas. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27,
131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.004
Kolko, J. (2009). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The
drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28.
https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15
Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. (2003). The case
for mental imagery. Oxford University Press.
Litman, J. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning:
Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion,
19, 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000101
14 Güss et al.
Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, pres-
ent and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 295–308.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07
Mace, M.-A., & Ward, T. (2002). Modeling the creative process:
A grounded theory analysis of creativity in the domain
of art making. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 179–192.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_5
Malik, M. A. R., Choi, J. N., & Butt, A. N. (2019). Distinct
effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards on
radical and incremental creativity: The moderating role
of goal orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
40, 1013–1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2403
Palmer, B. (2011, June 27). Humans want to fly like
birds, but their bodies make it all but impossible. The
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/
national/health-science/humans-want-to-fly-like-birds-
but-their-bodies-make-it-all-but-impossible/2011/06/21/
AGt1k7nH_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.02ebb
1f8c660
Peirce, C. S. (1878). Deduction, induction, and hypothesis.
Popular Science Monthly, 13, 470–482.
Peirce, C. S. (1883). A theory of probable inference. In C. S.
Peirce (Ed.), Studies in logic by members of the Johns
Hopkins University (pp. 126–181). Little, Brown, and
Company.
Peirce, C. S. (1903). Harvard lectures on pragmatism, Collected
Papers v. 5. Pragmatism and pramaticism. Harvard
University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Peirce (Vol. 2; Peirce Edition
Project, Ed). Indiana University Press.
Pete. (2019, April 17). AlphaZero crushes Stockfish in new
1,000-game match. https://www.chess.com/news/view/
updated-alphazero-crushes-stockfish-in-new-1-000-game-
match
Roeck, B. (2017). Der Morgen der Welt. Geschichte der
Renaissance [The morning of the world. History of renais-
sance]. C. H. Beck.
Rosenzweig, S. (1938). A general outline of frustration.
Character and Personality, 7, 151–160. https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1938.tb02285.x
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Theories and themes: Research,
development and practice. Elsevier.
Sadler-Smith, E. (2015). Wallas’ four-stage model of the
creative process: More than meets the eye? Creativity
Research Journal, 27, 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10400419.2015.1087277
Sapp, D. D. (1992). The point of creative frustration and the
creative process: A new look at an old model. Journal
of Creative Behavior, 26, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/
j.2162-6057.1992.tb01153.x
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of
human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Simon, H. A., & Simon, P. A. (1962). Trial and error search
in solving difficult problems: Evidence from the game of
chess. Behavioral Science, 7, 425–429. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bs.3830070402
Simonton, D. K. (2018). The genius checklist: Nine paradoxical
tips on how you can become a creative genius! MIT Press.
Sio, U. N., & Rudowicz, E. (2007). The role of an incuba-
tion period in creative problem solving. Creativity
Research Journal, 19, 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10400410701397453
Smith, S. M., & Blankenship, S. E. (1989). Incubation effects.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 311–314. https://
doi.org/10.3758/BF03334612
Smith, S. M., & Dodds, R. A. (1999). Incubation. In M. A.
Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity
(Vol. 2, pp. 39–43). Academic Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2018). A triangular theory of creativity.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 50–
67. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000095
Storm, B. C., & Patel, T. N. (2014). Forgetting as a consequence
and enabler of creative thinking. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1594–
1609. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000006
Thorndike, E. (1901). Different ways of learning. In E.
Thorndike (Ed.), The human nature club: An introduction
to the study of mental life (pp. 29–41). Longmans, Green
and Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/11236-003
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. J. Cape.
Weisberg, R. (2010). The study of creativity: From genius to
cognitive science. International Journal of Cultural Policy,
16, 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630903111639
Xue, Y., Gu, C., Wu, J., Dai, D. Y., Mu, X., & Zhou, Z. (2018).
The effects of extrinsic motivation on scientific and artis-
tic creativity among middle school students. The Journal
of Creative Behavior, 54, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jocb.239
