There is no well-defined connection between creativity and mental illness

"Mental illness is neither necessary nor sufficient for creativity."

In the wake of the actor's Robin Williams death, one has to be careful when discussing the possible link between creativity and mental illness. Along with his genius as a performance artist, Robin Williams was known to have fought cocaine and alcohol addictions along with depression.

There were many tributes to Mr. Williams, and most mentioned his battles with his personal demons. However, some were misleading with titles like "Robin Williams' Death Underscores Connection Between Creativity, Depression And Addiction." In that article, the author begins with the following sentence:

"It’s no secret that creativity and mental illness are intimately connected – the death of Robin Williams yesterday was, perhaps, a sad testament to that fact."

Creativity and mental illness are not "intimately connected", and this connection is certainly not a fact.

The psychologist Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman has a more nuanced take on the subject, and I reproduce some passages here from his article "The Real Link Between Creativity and Mental Illness."

First Dr. Kaufman cites an important study in which there was no significant correlation between psychiatric disorders and people who are artists or scientists:

"In a recent report based on a 40-year study of roughly 1.2 million Swedish people, Simon Kyaga and colleagues found that with the exception of bi-polar disorder, those in scientific and artistic occupations were not more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders. So full-blown mental illness did not increase the probability of entering a creative profession (even the exception, bi-polar disorder, showed only a small effect of 8%).

What was striking, however, was that the siblings of patients with autism and the first-degree relatives of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and anorexia nervosa were significantly overrepresented in creative professions. Could it be that the relatives inherited a watered-down version of the mental illness conducive to creativity while avoiding the aspects that are debilitating?"

Thus from this study, there is no direct tie between artists and mental illness, but there may be an indirect genetic link manifested in the fact that those related (i.e. siblings) to artists and scientists show a higher preponderance of certain psychological disorders.

In another study that explores a possible underlying mechanism, Kaufman describes research from Shelley Carson that hints at a possible link between creativity and schizophrenia via a cognitive process called latent inhibition. Creative achievers tend to have reduced latent inhibition, and there has also been shown to be a link between reduced latent inhibition and schizophrenia. However importantly, this link is not causal because there are protective factors such as enhanced fluid reasoning that can ameliorate symptoms of schizophrenia:

"It seems that the key to creative cognition is opening up the flood gates and letting in as much information as possible. Because you never know: sometimes the most bizarre associations can turn into the most productively creative ideas. Indeed, Shelley Carson and her colleagues found that the most eminent creative achievers among a sample of Harvard undergrads were seven times more likely to have reduced latent inhibition. In other research, they found that students with reduced latent inhibition scored higher in openness to experience, and in my own research I’ve found that reduced latent inhibition is associated with a faith in intuition.

What is latent inhibition? Latent inhibition is a filtering mechanism that we share with other animals, and it is tied to the neurotransmitter dopamine. A reduced latent inhibition allows us to treat something as novel, no matter how may times we’ve seen it before and tagged it as irrelevant. Prior research shows a link between reduced latent inhibition and schizophrenia. But as Shelley Carson points out in her “Shared Vulnerability Model,” vulnerable mental processes such as reduced latent inhibition, preference for novelty, hyperconnectivity, and perseveration can interact with protective factors, such as enhanced fluid reasoning, working memory, cognitive inhibition, and cognitive flexibility, to “enlarge the range and depth of stimuli available in conscious awareness to be manipulated and combined to form novel and original ideas.”

Dr. Kaufman draws an important distinction between "Creativity" with a "Big-C" which professional artists possess and "creativity" with a "little-c" that resides in all of us. Indeed, he makes the good point that exercising our own personal creativity is quite therapeutic and contributes to a sense of well-being and growth:

"What’s more, only a few of us ever reach eminence. Thankfully for the rest of us, there are different levels of creativity. James C. Kaufman and Ronald Beghetto argue that we can display creativity in many different ways, from the creativity inherent in the learning process (“mini-c”), to everyday forms of creativity (“little-c”) to professional-level expertise in any creative endeavor (“Pro-c”), to eminent creativity (“Big-C”).

Engagement in everyday forms of creativity– expressions of originality and meaningfulness in daily life– certainly do not require suffering. Quite the contrary, my colleague and friend Zorana Ivcevic Pringle found that people who engaged in everyday forms of creativity– such as making a collage, taking photographs, or publishing in a literary magazine– tended to be more open-minded, curious, persistent, positive, energetic, and intrinsically motivated by their activity. Those scoring high in everyday creativity also reported feeling a greater sense of well-being and personal growth compared to their classmates who engaged less in everyday creative behaviors. Creating can also be therapeutic for those who are already suffering. For instance, research shows that expressive writing increases immune system functioning, and the emerging field of posttraumatic growth is showing how people can turn adversity into creative growth."

In summary, there are suggestions that mental illness may be indirectly connected to creativity, but there is no strong direct relationship. Put simply, as mentioned in Dr. Kaufman's article, mental illness is neither necessary nor sufficient for creativity. Many of the greatest artists (Figure 1) have managed to keep in balance their various creative impulses, and these compensatory mechanisms reside in all of us to help bring order and balance to sometimes disorderly mental thought processes.

Let's be clear, there is no stigma attached to mental illness, as there is no stigma attached to a physical disorder like cancer. However, the idea that mental illness is a prerequisite to creativity is false and dangerous. Like a physical disorder, mental illness should be treated by medical professionals if it presents a danger to the well-being of a patient.

Figure 1. The Weeping Woman by Pablo Picasso, who did not suffer from any mental illness despite being one of the greatest artists ever.