COVID-19 has been a powerful reminder of the role that our bodies and physical context play in our lives. The pandemic revealed that human embodiment and many ways creative cognition is affected by the physical world and environmental constraints remain among the least understood aspects in the psychology of creativity, where creativity tends to be presented as an individual’s mental ability. In this autoethnographic article, I reflect on how restrictions and methodological constraints that I, as a researcher, experienced during the pandemic have informed five insights about the domain of my scientific inquiry. Through these five takeaways from the pandemic, I sketch a new picture of the creative process—a process that is situated, embodied, tool-mediated, and collaborative. I emphasize the importance of acting on opportunities amid a crisis and outline promising research directions for future creativity scholars across disciplinary borders.
AhnM.BrohanA.BrownN.ChebotarY.CortesO.DavidB.FinnC.FuC.GopalakrishnanK.HausmanK.HerzogA.HoD.HsuJ.IbarzJ.IchterB.IrpanA.JangE.RuanoR. J.JeffreyK.… ZengA. (2022). Do as I can, not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.01691
2.
Alves-OliveiraP. (2020). Boosting children’s creativity through creative interactions with social robots [Doctoral dissertation]. University Institute of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
3.
AlzuetaE.PerrinP.BakerF. C.CaffarraS.Ramos-UsugaD.YukselD.Arango-LasprillaJ. C. (2021). How the COVID-19 pandemic has changed our lives: A study of psychological correlates across 59 countries. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77(3), 556–570.
4.
AndersonM. L. (2014). After phrenology: Neural reuse and the interactive brain. MIT Press.
5.
AntunesA.JamoneL.SaponaroG.BernardinoA.VenturaR. (2016, May16–21). From human instructions to robot actions: Formulation of goals, affordances and probabilistic planning [Conference session]. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Stockholm, Sweden (pp. 5449–5454). IEEE.
6.
AugelloA.CipollaE.InfantinoI.ManfréA.PilatoG.VellaF. (2018). Social signs processing in a cognitive architecture for an humanoid robot. Procedia Computer Science, 123, 63–68.
7.
AugelloA.InfantinoI.ManfrèA.PilatoG.VellaF.ChellaA. (2016). Creation and cognition for humanoid live dancing. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 86, 128–137.
8.
AugelloA.InfantinoI.PilatoG.RizzoR.VellaF. (2015). Creativity evaluation in a cognitive architecture. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, 11, 29–37.
9.
BailensonJ. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technology Mind and Behavior, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030
10.
BarsalouL. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(5/6), 513–562.
11.
BarsalouL. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645.
12.
BeghettoR. A. (2023). A new horizon for possibility thinking: A conceptual case study of human × AI collaboration. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(3), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231160136
13.
BliksteinP. (2013, April8–13). Multimodal learning analytics: A research agenda [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 3rd International Learning Analytics Knowledge Conference (LAK 2013), Leuven, Belgium (pp. 252–254). Association for Computing Machinery.
14.
BliksteinP.WorsleyM. (2016). Multimodal learning analytics and education data mining: Using computational technologies to measure complex learning tasks. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 220–238.
15.
BossemaM.AllouchS.B.PlaatA.SaundersR. (2023,August). Human-Robot Co-creativity: A Scoping Review: Informing a Research Agenda for Human-Robot Co-Creativity with Older Adults. In 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 988–995). IEEE.
16.
BretanM.WeinbergG. (2016). A survey of robotic musicianship. Communications of the ACM, 59(5), 100–109.
17.
BroadbentE. (2017). Interactions with robots: The truths we reveal about ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 627–652.
18.
BrucksM. S.LevavJ. (2022). Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation. Nature, 605(7908), 108–112.
19.
CehS.PutzeF.BenedekM. (2023). D-I-WHAT? Identifying creative domains in do-it-yourself videos on YouTube. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000606
20.
ChemeroA. (2023). LLMs differ from human cognition because they are not embodied. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 1828–1829.
21.
CiaunicaA.McEllinL.KiversteinJ.GalleseV.HohwyJ.WoźniakM. (2022). Zoomed out: Digital media use and depersonalization experiences during the COVID-19 lockdown. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 3888.
22.
ClarkA.ChalmersD. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.
23.
ColeM.EngeströmY. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge University Press.
24.
DarlingK. (2021). The new breed: What our history with animals reveals about our future with robots. Henry Holt and Company.
25.
DenzinN. K. (2013). Interpretive autoethnography. Sage.
26.
ElisondoR. (2022). Everyday creativity in pandemic: A systematic review. Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications, 9(2), 55–93.
27.
FauvilleG.LuoM.QueirozA. C. M.LeeA.BailensonJ. N.HancockJ. (2023). Video-conferencing usage dynamics and nonverbal mechanisms exacerbate Zoom Fatigue, particularly for women. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 10, 100271.
28.
FoutchE. E. (2017). Bringing students into the picture: Teaching with tableaux vivants. Art History Pedagogy & Practice, 2(2), 3.
29.
GaverW.BoucherA.BrownD.ChattingD.MatsudaN.OvalleL.SheenA.VanisM. (2022, April29–May5). Yo–Yo Machines: Self-build devices that support social connections during the pandemic [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, LA (pp. 1–17). Association for Computing Machinery.
30.
GlǎveanuV.P. (2014). The psychology of creativity: A critical reading. Creativity. Theories–Research–Applications, 1(1), 10–32.
31.
GopnikA.SobelD. M. (2000). Detecting blickets: How young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. Child Development, 71(5), 1205–1222.
32.
GörlichY. (2023). Creativity and productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 14615.
33.
GubenkoA. (2023). The creative process in (between) humans and machines [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
34.
GubenkoA.HoussemandC. (2022). Alternative object use in adults and children: Embodied cognitive bases of creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 893420.
35.
GubenkoA.HoussemandC. (2023). Towards a framework for Human-Robot Co-creation. In HakliR.MäkeläP.SeibtJ. (Eds.), Social robots in social institutions: Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2022 (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 749–754). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220687
36.
GubenkoA.KirschC.SmilekJ. N.LubartT.HoussemandC. (2021). Educational robotics and robot creativity: An interdisciplinary dialogue. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 662030.
37.
GubenkoA.LubartT.HoussemandC. (2022). From social robots to creative humans and back. In HedblomM. M.KantosaloA. A.ConfalonieriR.KutzO.VealeT. (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on computational creativity (pp. 87–95). Free University of Bozen-Bolzano.
38.
GuilfordJ. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
HakliR. (2014). Social robots and social interaction. In SeibtJ.HakliR.NørskovM. (Eds.), Sociable robots and the future of social relations (pp. 105–114). IOS Press.
41.
HoffmanG.WeinbergG. (2011). Interactive improvisation with a robotic marimba player. Autonomous Robots, 31(2), 133–153.
42.
JeonM. (2017). Robotic arts: Current practices, potentials, and implications. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1(2), 5.
43.
KahnP. H.KandaT.IshiguroH.GillB. T.ShenS.RuckertJ. H.GaryH. E. (2016, March7–10). Human creativity can be facilitated through interacting with a social robot [Conference session]. 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Christchurch, New Zealand (pp. 173–180). IEEE.
44.
KaptelininV.NardiB. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT Press.
45.
KatzA. N.HusseyK. A. (2011). Psycholinguistics. In RuncoM. A.PritzkerS. R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity: Two-volume set: Online version (2nd ed., pp. 271–278). Academic Press.
46.
KirshD. (2014). The importance of chance and interactivity in creativity. Pragmatics & Cognition, 22(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.22.1.01kir
47.
KosugeK.HayashiT.HirataY.TobiyamaR. (2003, October27–31). Dance partner robot-Ms DanceR [Conference session]. Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No. 03CH37453), Las Vegas, NV (Vol. 4, pp. 3459–3464). IEEE.
48.
KoziolL. F.BuddingD. E.ChidekelD. (2012). From movement to thought: Executive function, embodied cognition, and the cerebellum. The Cerebellum, 11(2), 505–525.
49.
KristensenT. (2004). The physical context of creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(2), 89–96.
50.
Lopez-PersemA.BiethT.GuietS.Ovando-TellezM.VolleE. (2022). Through thick and thin: Changes in creativity during the first lockdown of the Covid-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 821550.
51.
MercierM.VinchonF.PichotN.BonettoE.BonnardelN.GirandolaF.LubartT. (2021). COVID-19: A boon or a bane for creativity?Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 601150.
52.
MichinovN.MichinovE. (2024). Can sitting postures influence the creative mind? Positive effect of contractive posture on convergent-integrative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 36(1), 58–69.
53.
MilmeisterP.RastoderM.KirschC.HoussemandC. (2020). Investigating the student’s learning satisfaction, wellbeing, and mental health in the context of imposed remote teaching during the COVID-19 crisis. Self and Society in the Corona Crisis, 1(2), 1–22.
54.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195–208.
55.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (2008). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
56.
Le GocM.ZhaoA.WangY.DietzG.SemmensR.FollmerS. (2020). Investigating active tangibles and augmented reality for creativity support in remote collaboration. In MeinelC.LeiferL. (Eds.), Design thinking research: Investigating design team performance (pp. 185–200). Springer.
57.
LeroyA.RomeroM.CassoneL. (2023). Interactivity and materiality matter in creativity: Educational robotics for the assessment of divergent thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4), 2194–2205.
58.
LetourneauS. M. (2021). Designing for agency in informal STEM learning environments. In BaH.McMillan CulpK.HoneyM. (Eds.), Design make play for equity, inclusion, and agency: The evolving landscape of creative STEM learning (pp. 13–27). Routledge.
59.
LimA.MizumotoT.OgataT.OkunoH. G. (2012). A musical robot that synchronizes with a coplayer using non-verbal cues. Advanced Robotics, 26(3–4), 363–381.
60.
MalininL. H. (2019). How radical is embodied creativity? Implications of 4E approaches for creativity research and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2372.
61.
NewenA.De BruinL.GallagherS. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford University Press.
OppezzoM.SchwartzD. L. (2014). Give your ideas some legs: The positive effect of walking on creative thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(4), 1142.
64.
PanY.KimM. G.SuzukiK. (2010, June15–18). A robot musician interacting with a human partner through initiative exchange [Conference session]. In Proceedings of the Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME ’10), NIME, Sydney, Australia (pp. 166–169).
65.
ParkH. W.Rosenberg-KimaR.RosenbergM.GordonG.BreazealC. (2017, March6–9). Growing growth mindset with a social robot peer [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Vienna, Austria (pp. 137–145). Association for Computing Machinery.
66.
PetersenK.SolisJ.TakanishiA. (2010). Musical-based interaction system for the Waseda Flutist Robot. Autonomous Robots, 28(4), 471–488.
67.
PezzuloG. (2011). Grounding procedural and declarative knowledge in sensorimotor anticipation. Mind & Language, 26(1), 78–114.
68.
PezzuloG.ParrT.CisekP.ClarkA.FristonK. (2024). Generating meaning: Active inference and the scope and limits of passive AI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.10.002
69.
PhilippsenA.NagaiY. (2022). A predictive coding account for cognition in human children and chimpanzees: A case study of drawing. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 14(4), 1306–1319.
70.
ResnickM.SilvermanB. (2005, June8–10). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Boulder, CO (pp. 117–122). Association for Computing Machinery.
71.
RodriguezI.AstigarragaA.LazkanoE.Martínez-OtzetaJ. M.MendialduaI. (2018). Robots on stage: A cognitive framework for socially interacting robots. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, 25, 17–25.
72.
RomanceR.Nielsen-RodríguezA.MendesR. S.Dobado-CastanedaJ. C.DiasG. (2023). The influence of physical activity on the creativity of 10 and 11-year-old school children. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 48, 101295.
73.
RomeroM.DeBloisL.PavelA. (2018). Créacube, comparaison de la résolution créative de problèmes, chez des enfants et des adultes, par le biais d’une tâche de robotique modulaire. MathémaTICE, 61, 1–16.
74.
RomeroM.DuflotM.ViévilleT. (2019). Le jeu du robot: analyse d’une activité d’informatique débranchée sous la perspective de la cognition incarnée. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 13(1).
75.
RowlandsM. (2010). The new science of the mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology. MIT Press.
76.
RuncoM. A. (2011). Implicit theories. In RuncoM. A.PritzkerS. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 644–646). Academic Press.
77.
SaigotM.GleasureR.ConstantiouI.BlicherA. (2023, August10–12). In or out of sync? A psychophysiological approach to understanding creative collaboration in online and in-person teams [Conference session]. 29th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Panama, Panama City (p. 9). Association for Information Systems. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL).
78.
SargentM.LePageA.KenettY. N.MathesonH. E. (2023). The effects of environmental scene and body posture on embodied strategies in creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 35(4), 614–628.
79.
SatamaS. (2020). Researching through experiencing aesthetic moments: ‘Sensory slowness’ as my methodological strength”. In PullenA.HelinJ.HardingN. (Eds.), Writing differently (Dialogues in Critical Management Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 209–230). Emerald Publishing Limited.
80.
SchroerS. E.YuC. (2023). Looking is not enough: Multimodal attention supports the real-time learning of new words. Developmental Science, 26(2), e13290.
81.
SierpinaM.ColeT. R. (2004). Stimulating creativity in all elders: A continuum of interventions. Care Management Journals, 5(3), 175–182.
82.
ShenY.GuoD.LongF.MateosL. A.DingH.XiuZ.HellmanR. B.KingA.ChenS.ZhangC.TanH. (2020). Robots under COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Access, 9, 1590–1615.
SmithL. B.GasserM. (2005). The development of embodied cognition: Six lessons from babies. Artificial Life, 11(1–2), 13–30.
85.
StanciuM. M. (2015). Embodied creativity: A critical analysis of an underdeveloped subject. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 187, 312–317.
86.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607–627.
87.
TocciN.ScibinettiP.MazzoliE.MavilidiM. F.MasciI.SchmidtM.PesceC. (2022). Giving ideas some legs or legs some ideas? Children’s motor creativity is enhanced by physical activity enrichment: Direct and mediated paths. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 806065.
88.
TurkleS. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. Simon & Schuster.
Vanden BergheA.FathiF. Z.NouzriS. (2023). Art installation “Mirror, Mirror” featuring Deepfake and Neural Style Transfer Technologies. In HakliR.MākelāP.SeibtJ. (Eds.), Social robots in social institutions (pp. 767–772). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220690
91.
Von MohrM.KirschL. P.FotopoulouA. (2021). Social touch deprivation during COVID-19: Effects on psychological wellbeing and craving interpersonal touch. Royal Society Open Science, 8(9), 210287.
92.
WilsonM. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.
93.
WithagenR.van der KampJ. (2018). An ecological approach to creativity in making. New Ideas in Psychology, 49, 1–6.
94.
XiaG.TayJ.DannenbergR.VelosoM. (2012). Autonomous robot dancing driven by beats and emotions of music. In Conitzer, Winikoff, Padgham, and van der Hoek (eds.). Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems-Volume 1 (pp. 205–212).
95.
XiongJ.LipsitzO.NasriF.LuiL. M.GillH.PhanL.Chen-LiD.IacobucciM.HoR.MajeedA.McIntyreR. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277, 55–64.
96.
YangG. Z.NelsonB. J.MurphyR. R.ChosetH.ChristensenH.CollinsS. H.DarioP.GoldbergK.IkutaK.JacobsteinN.KragicD.TaylorR. H.McNuttM. (2020). Combating COVID-19—The role of robotics in managing public health and infectious diseases. Science Robotics, 5(40), eabb5589.
97.
ZebrowskiR. (2023). Dual aspect presence: Intercorporeality for thee but not for me. In HakliR.MäkeläP.SeibtJ. (Eds.), Social robots in social institutions: Proceedings of robophilosophy 2022 (Vol. 366, pp. 518–527). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220653
