Journal of Psychology and Cognition

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +441518081136

Perspective - Journal of Psychology and Cognition (2025) Volume 10, Issue 4

Intelligence and Creativity: Intersections and Divergences in Cognitive Functioning

Nora Ahmed*

Department of Neurophysiology, University of Jordan, Jordan.

*Corresponding Author:
Nora Ahmed
Department of Neurophysiology
University of Jordan, Jordan.
E-mail: n.ahmed@jordan.edu

Received: 03-Oct-2025, Manuscript No. AAJPC-25-169453; Editor assigned: 04-Oct-2025, PreQC No. AAJPC-25-1694535(PQ); Reviewed: 18-Oct-2025, QC No AAJPC-25-1694535; Revised: 21-Oct-2025, Manuscript No. AAJPC-25-1694535(R); Published: 28-Oct-2025, DOI:10.35841/aajpc -10.4.306

Citation: Ahmed N. Intelligence and creativity: Intersections and divergences in cognitive functioning. J Psychol Cognition. 2025;10(4):306.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Psychology and Cognition

Introduction

Intelligence and creativity are often viewed as distinct cognitive traits, yet they share significant overlap in both function and structure. Intelligence generally refers to the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, reason logically, and solve problems, while creativity involves the ability to produce novel and valuable ideas. Theories such as the threshold hypothesis suggest that a certain level of intelligence is necessary for creative output, but beyond this threshold, the correlation between the two weakens. This indicates that while intelligence may be a prerequisite for creativity, it is not its sole determinant. The interplay between convergent thinking, associated with intelligence, and divergent thinking, central to creativity, offers a deeper understanding of how these faculties coexist within cognitive processes [1].

Psychometric research has long attempted to quantify intelligence and creativity through tests such as IQ assessments and divergent thinking tasks. However, traditional intelligence tests may fail to capture the complexity of creative cognition, which is more fluid and context-dependent. Creative individuals often exhibit traits such as cognitive flexibility, associative thinking, and openness to experience—traits not typically measured by standard intelligence tests. Furthermore, studies show that high creativity can exist independently of high IQ, particularly in artistic or unconventional domains. This has led to a broader understanding of intelligence that encompasses multiple forms, such as Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, which includes linguistic, musical, spatial, and interpersonal intelligences [2].

Neuroscientific findings provide further insights into the neural bases of intelligence and creativity. Both functions engage distributed brain networks, including the default mode network (DMN), the executive control network (ECN), and the salience network. While the ECN supports analytical problem-solving and working memory—key components of intelligence—the DMN is implicated in spontaneous thought, imagination, and ideation, which are hallmarks of creativity. Interestingly, creativity appears to require flexible switching between these networks, suggesting that creative thought involves both spontaneous generation and deliberate evaluation of ideas. This dual-process model underscores that creative cognition is not purely intuitive or logical but a dynamic integration of both systems [3].

The educational and occupational implications of intelligence and creativity are profound. Traditional education systems often prioritize convergent thinking and standardized assessment, which may undervalue students with creative potential who do not excel in structured environments. Conversely, fostering creativity in education—through project-based learning, interdisciplinary studies, and encouragement of exploration—can enhance problem-solving abilities and intrinsic motivation. In the workplace, organizations that support creative thinking and tolerate risk-taking are more likely to innovate and adapt to change. This highlights the need for environments that not only identify cognitive strengths but also cultivate them through appropriate challenges and support systems [4].

Despite their distinctions, intelligence and creativity are not mutually exclusive and can reinforce each other under the right conditions. Individuals with high intelligence may use their analytical skills to refine creative ideas, while creative thinkers may leverage novel perspectives to solve complex problems. However, barriers such as fear of failure, rigid social norms, and overemphasis on correctness can stifle both capacities. Promoting cognitive diversity, encouraging play and experimentation, and reducing performance pressure can help unlock the full potential of both intelligence and creativity. Ultimately, recognizing their interdependence enables a more holistic approach to understanding human cognition [5].

Conclusion

Intelligence and creativity represent two fundamental yet interconnected dimensions of human cognition. While intelligence provides the foundation for logical reasoning and knowledge acquisition, creativity drives innovation and the generation of new ideas. Appreciating the nuances of their relationship allows for more inclusive and effective educational, psychological, and professional practices. Emphasizing both capacities ensures a richer, more adaptable, and forward-thinking society.

References

  1. Cui K, Wang Y, Zhu Y, et al. Neurodevelopmental impairment induced by prenatal valproic acid exposure shown with the human cortical organoid-on-a-chip model. Microsyst Nanoeng. 2020;6(1):49.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Eichmüller OL, Corsini NS, Vértesy Á, et al. Amplification of human interneuron progenitors promotes brain tumors and neurological defects. Sci. 2022;375(6579):5546.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Li M, Santpere G, Imamura Kawasawa Y, et al. Integrative functional genomic analysis of human brain development and neuropsychiatric risks. Sci. 2018;362(6420):7615.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Trevino AE, Sinnott-Armstrong N, Andersen J, et al. Chromatin accessibility dynamics in a model of human forebrain development. Sci. 2020;367(6476):1645.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Vogel Ciernia A, Laufer BI, Hwang H, et al. Epigenomic convergence of neural-immune risk factors in neurodevelopmental disorder cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2020;30(2):640-55.

    6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App