A Systematic Review of Creativity-Related Studies Applying the Remote Associates Test From 2000 to 2019

Ching Lin Wu*, Shih Yuan Huang, Pei Zhen Chen, Hsueh Chih Chen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

29 Citations (Scopus)


The study examines how the remote associates test (RAT) has been used to examine theories of creativity through a review of recent studies on creativity. Creativity-related studies published between 2000 and 2019 were retrieved from the SCOPUS database. A total of 172 papers were chosen for further analysis. Content analysis shows that research on creativity using RAT mainly concerns remote association, insight problem-solving, general creative process, test development, individual difference, effect of treatment, clinical case, social interaction effect, and predictor or criterion. The study constructs a theoretical framework based on the 4P (Product–Person–Process–Place) model and demonstrates how empirical studies using the RAT explore the individual differences, internal processes, and external influences of creative thinking. In addition, the most commonly used version of the RAT is the Compound Remote Associates Problems (Bowden and Jung-Beeman, 2003a). Current research shows a trend whereby the creative thinking process has been receiving greater attention. In particular, a growing number of studies in this field have been carried out using cognitive neuroscience technologies. These findings suggest that the RAT provides researchers with a way to deepen their understanding of different levels of creativity.

Original languageEnglish
Article number573432
JournalFrontiers in Psychology
Publication statusPublished - 2020 Oct 23


  • creativity
  • remote associates test
  • remote association
  • review
  • trend

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Psychology


Dive into the research topics of 'A Systematic Review of Creativity-Related Studies Applying the Remote Associates Test From 2000 to 2019'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this