Creativity and Domain

Part I - Creativity and Domain

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2017

Edited by

James C. Kaufman ,

Vlad P. Glăveanu and

John Baer

Show author details

James C. Kaufman: Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Vlad P. Glăveanu: Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
John Baer: Affiliation:
Rider University, New Jersey

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract

Domain-generality and domain-specificity have long been debate fodder for the creativity field. As the two positions have begun to converge, the need emerges for a new reference work that both explores the general topic and offers in-depth coverage of creativity for particular domains. Our goal for this edited handbook is to offer a reference for existing research, provoke ideas for collaborations and interactions, and propel the field forward as we consider the domains that may be covered in future editions.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains , pp. 1 - 60

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (2011). Why grand theories of creativity distort, distract, and disappoint. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 21(1), 73–100.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (2013). Domain specificity and the limits of creativity theory. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 16–29.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (2016). Domain specificity of creativity. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J.C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163.Google Scholar

Courtois, C., Mechant, P., & De Marez, L. (2012). Communicating creativity on YouTube: What and for whom?. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 129–134.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1998, 290–309.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of human creativity (pp. 273–296). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fink, A., & Woschnjak, S. (2011). Creativity and personality in professional dancers. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 754–758.Google Scholar

Gangadharbatla, H. (2010). Technology component: a modified systems approach to creative thought. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 219–227.Google Scholar

Hass, R. W. (2015). Feasibility of online divergent thinking assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 85–93.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. (2001a). Genius, lunatics, and poets: Mental illness in prize-winning authors. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 20, 305–314.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. (2001b). The Sylvia Plath effect: Mental illness in eminent creative writers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 37–50.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. (Ed.) (2014). Creativity and mental illness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2002). I bask in dreams of suicide: Mental illness, poetry, and women. Review of General Psychology, 6, 271–286.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 14, 15–25.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2006). Intelligent testing with Torrance. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 99–102.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (Eds.). (2005a). Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005b). The amusement park theory of creativity. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 321–328). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Baer, J. (2010). Finding young Paul Robesons: The search for creative polymaths. In Preiss, D. D. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 141–162). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., Baer, J., & Ivcevic, Z. (2010). Creativity polymathy: What Benjamin Franklin can teach your kindergartener. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 380–387.Google Scholar

Kucirkova, N., & Sakr, M. (2015). Child–father creative text-making at home with crayons, iPad collage & PC. Thinking Skills And Creativity, 17, 59–73.Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for the content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179–182.Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153–167). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Reisman, F. K. (2017). Please teacher, don’t kill my kid’s creativity: Creativity embedded into K-12 teacher preparation and beyond. In Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (2nd edn.) (pp. 162–189). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sawyer, K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Shute, V. J., & Ventura, M. (2013). Measuring and supporting learning in games: Stealth assessment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2014). More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 53–61.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (2004). Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Tagg, C. (2013). Scraping the barrel with a shower of social misfits: Everyday creativity in text messaging. Applied Linguistics, 34, 480–500.Google Scholar

Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story writing, and hobbies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 297–310.Google Scholar

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “The social psychology of creativity.” Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 183–187.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 25–31.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (1998a). Gender differences in the effects of extrinsic motivation on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 18–37.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (1998b). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (2009). Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century? Invited Address, presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA., August 2009.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321–341). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (2011a) Domains of creativity. In Runco, M.A., and Pritzker, S.R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd edn., pp. 404–408), Vol. 1. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (2011b). Four (more) arguments against the Torrance Tests. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 5, 316–317.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (2011c). How divergent thinking tests mislead us: Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 309–313.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (2016). Domain specificity of creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.Google Scholar

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163.Google Scholar

Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37–50.Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: A case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 121–130.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 57–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.Google Scholar

Hennessey, B. A. (2010). Intrinsic motivation and creativity in the classroom: Have we come full circle? In Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 329–361). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hennessey, B. A. (2015). If I were Secretary of Education: A focus on intrinsic motivation and creativity in the classroom. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 187–192.Google Scholar

Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T. M., & Martinage, M. (1989). Immunizing children against the negative effects of reward. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 212–227.Google Scholar

Hirschfeld, L. A., & Gelman, S. A. (1994). Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270.Google Scholar

Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life-space. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 152–165.Google Scholar

Jung, R. E. (2014). Evolution, creativity, intelligence, and madness: “Here Be Dragons.” Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 784.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by gender and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1065–1082.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman-Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 298–308.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004a). The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of creativity. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 14, 15–25.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004b). Sure, I’m creative – but not in mathematics!: Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 143–155.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005). The Amusement Park Theory of Creativity. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Creativity across domains (pp. 321–328). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2006). Intelligent testing with Torrance. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 99–102.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: A structural model for self-reported creativity ratings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 119–134.Google Scholar

Kim, K. H. (2006). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57–66.Google Scholar

Kim, K. H. (2009). Are the Torrance tests still relevant in the 21st century?. Invited Address, presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA., August 2009.Google Scholar

Kim, K. H. (2011a). Proven reliability and validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 314–315.Google Scholar

Kim, K. H. (2011b). The APA 2009 Division 10 debate: Are the Torrance tests still relevant in the 21st century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 302–308.Google Scholar

McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1–10.Google Scholar

McKay, A. S., Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (in press). Measuring the muses: Validating the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for the content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179–182.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Torrance, E. P. (1963). Education and the creative potential. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Treffert, D. A. (2014). Savant syndrome: Realities, myths and misconceptions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 564–571.Google Scholar

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.Google Scholar

References

Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2012). Psychoticism and creativity: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 341–350.Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Oxford: Westview Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Angelou, M. (1982). Creativity: It’s the thought that counts (Mary Ardito, Interviewer). Bell Telephone Magazine, 1, 32.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 183–187.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.Google Scholar

Baer, J. (2015). The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Review, 37, 165–178.Google Scholar

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163.Google Scholar

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75–105.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar

Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2015). Creative potential in educational settings: Its nature, measure, and nurture. Education 3–13, 43, 371–381.Google Scholar

Barbot, B., & Lubart, T. (2012). Creative thinking in music: Its nature and assessment through musical exploratory behaviors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 231–242.Google Scholar

Barbot, B., Randi, J., Tan, M., Levenson, C., Friedlaender, L., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2013). From perception to creative writing: A multi-method pilot study of a visual literacy instructional approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 167–176.Google Scholar

Barbot, B., Tan, M., Randi, J., Santa-Donato, G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Essential skills for creative writing: Integrating multiple domain-specific perspectives. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 209–223.Google Scholar

Barbot, B., & Tinio, P. P. L. (2015). Where is the “g” in creativity? A specialization-differentiation hypothesis. Frontiers of Human Neuroscience, 8, 1041.Google Scholar

Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 447–457.Google Scholar

Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creative learning: A fresh look. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15, 6–23.Google Scholar

Benedek, M., Borovnjak, B., Neubauer, A. C., & Kruse-Weber, S. (2014). Creativity and personality in classical, jazz and folk musicians. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 117–121.Google Scholar

Berkowitz, A. L. (2010). The improvising mind: Cognition and creativity in the musical moment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Boccia, M., Piccardi, L., Palermo, L., Nori, R., & Palmiero, M. (2015). Where do bright ideas occur in our brain? Meta-analytic evidence from neuroimaging studies of domain-specific creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01195Google Scholar

Caroff, X., & Lubart, T. I. (2012). Multidimensional approach to detecting creative potential in managers. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 13–20.Google Scholar

Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37–50.Google Scholar

Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Hallowell, K., Huesman, R., & Gaeth, J. (1992). The Iowa Inventiveness Inventory: Toward a measure of mechanical inventiveness. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 157–163.Google Scholar

Csikszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper/Collins.Google Scholar

Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91.Google Scholar

Davis, C. D., Kaufman, J. C., & McClure, F. H. (2011). Non-cognitive constructs and self-reported creativity by domain. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 188–202.Google Scholar

Detterman, D., & Ruthsatz, J. (1999). Toward a more comprehensive theory of exceptional abilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 148–158.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G. (2014). Openness/intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In Cooper, M. L. & Larsen, R. J. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Personality processes and individual differences (pp. 369–399), Vol. 4. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and openness: Further validation of two creative product measures. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 35–47.Google Scholar

Dowds, B. N. (1998). Helping students make connections across disciplines. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 55–60.Google Scholar

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. B. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The road to expert performance: empirical evidence from the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A., Roring, R. W., & Nandagopal, K. (2007). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert performance framework. High Ability Studies, 18, 3–56.Google Scholar

Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147–178.Google Scholar

Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Eysenck, H. J., & Furnham, A. (1993). Personality and the Barron-Welsh Art Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 837–838.Google Scholar

Feinstein, J. S. (2006). The nature of creative development. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2, 290–309.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (2010). The function of personality in creativity: The nature and nurture of the creative personality. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 113–130). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 62–88.Google Scholar

Feldman, D. H. (1989). Creativity: Proof that development occurs. In Damon, W. (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow (pp. 240–260). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Fink, A., & Woschnjak, S. (2011). Creativity and personality in professional dancers. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 754–758.Google Scholar

Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. Journal of Creative Behavior, 49, 165–180.Google Scholar

Glăveanu, V. P., & Tanggaard, L. (2014). Creativity, identity, and representation: Towards a socio-cultural theory of creative identity. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 12–21.Google Scholar

Gluck, J., Ernst, R., & Unger, F. (2002). How creative define creativity: Definitions reflect different types of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 55–67.Google Scholar

Gray, C. E. (1966). A measurement of creativity in western civilization. American Antropologist, 68, 1384–1417.Google Scholar

Gute, G., Gute, D. S., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihályi, M. (2008). The early lives of highly creative persons: The influence of the complex family. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 343–357.Google Scholar

Hambrick, D. Z., Oswald, F. L., Altmann, E. M., Meinz, E. J., Gobet, F., & Campitelli, G. (2014). Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert? Intelligence, 45, 34–45.Google Scholar

Jauk, E., Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). The road to creative achievement: A latent variable model of ability and personality predictors. European Journal of Personality, 28, 95–105.Google Scholar

Jaussi, K. S., Randel, A. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2007). I am, I think I can, and I do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and cross-application of experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 2–3, 247–258.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn’t hurt to ask … But sometimes it hurts to believe: Polish students’ creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 154–164.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Relationship between trait curiosity, creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8, 547–558.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindset: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 62–70.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M. (2015a). Notes on creative potential and its measurement. Creativity: Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 4–17.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M. (2015b). Peers effect on students’ creative self-concept. Journal of Creative Behavior, 49, 211–225.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M. (2016). Dynamic of the creative self-concept: Changes and reciprocal relations between creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Creativity Research Journal, 28, 99–104.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M. (2017). Subordinated and rebellious creativity at school. In Beghetto, R. A. & Sriraman, B. (Eds.), Creative Contradictions in Education (pp. 89–114). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M., & Barbot, B. (2016). Creative self-beliefs: Their nature, development, and correlates. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Cambridge companion to reason and development (pp. 302–326). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M., Gralewski, J., & Szumski, G. (2015). Teachers’ effect on students’ creative self-concept is moderated by students’ gender. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 1–8.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M., & Jankowska, D. M. (2016). Four faces of creativity at school. In Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 357–354). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2016). The big five, the huge two and creative self-beliefs: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 214–232.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2017). Creative self-concept: A surface characteristic of creative personality. In Feist, G., Reiter-Palmon, R. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Handbook of creativity and personality (pp. 84–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Big Five personality factors as the predictors of creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity: Does gender matter? Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 215–232.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 298–308.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I’m creative – but not in math! Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 143–155.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). In praise of Clark Kent: Creative metacognition and the importance of teaching kids when (not) to be creative. Roeper Review, 35, 155–165.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., Baer, J., & Ivcevic, Z. (2010). Creative polymathy: What Benjamin Franklin can teach your kindergartener. Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 380–387.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: Structural model for self-reported creativity ratings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 119–134.Google Scholar

Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Opening up openness to experience: A four-factor model and relations to creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 233–255.Google Scholar

Kaufman, S. B., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Ten years to expertise, many more to greatness: An investigation of modern writers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 114–124.Google Scholar

Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84, 248–258.Google Scholar

Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 106–130.Google Scholar

King, L. A., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189–203.Google Scholar

Kwasnik, M., & Karwowski, M. (under review). The order matters: Asking about creative activity calibrates creative self-concept.Google Scholar

Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Meta-analyses of Big Six interests and Big Five personality factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 217–239.Google Scholar

Lebuda, I. (2014). Big-C research – the big challenge? Reflections from research into eminent creativity in the light of the investment theory of creativity. Creativity: Theories-Research-Application, 1, 33–45.Google Scholar

Lebuda, I., & Csikszentmihályi, M. C. (2017). Me, myself, I, and creativity: Self-concepts of eminent creators. In Karwowski, M. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity, (pp. 137–152). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Lebuda, I., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Tell me your name and I’ll tell you how creative your work is: Author’s name and gender as factors influencing assessment of product originality in four different domains. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 137–142.Google Scholar

Lim, H. S., & Choi, J. N. (2009). Testing an alternative relationship between individual and contextual predictors of creative performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 117–136.Google Scholar

Lubart, T. I., Zenasni, F., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 1, 41–51.Google Scholar

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 137–150.Google Scholar

Martindale, C., & Dailey, A. (1996). Creativity, primary process cognition, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 409–414.Google Scholar

McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265.Google Scholar

Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1994). Creative thinking and creative performance in Adolescents as predictors of creative attainments in adults. In Subotnik, R. F. & Arnold, K. D. (Eds.), Beyond Terman. Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 212–228). New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar

Mourgues, C., Barbot, B., Tan, M., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). The interaction between culture and the development of creativity. In Jensen, L. A. (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of human development and culture: An interdisciplinary perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Onarheim, B., & Friis-Olivarius, M. (2013). Applying the neuroscience of creativity to creativity training. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 76, 56.Google Scholar

Perleth, C., & Heller, K. A. (1994). The Munich longitudinal study of giftedness. In Subotnik, R. F. & Arnold, K. D. (Eds.), Beyond Terman. Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 77–114). New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof really in the pudding? Reanalysis of Torrance’s longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103–114.Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A., & Zabelina, D. (2009). Creativity and interdisciplinarity: One creativity or many creativities? ZDM, The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 5–11.Google Scholar

Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 53–66.Google Scholar

Richards, R. (1990). Everyday creativity, eminent creativity, and health: ‘Afterview’ for CRJ issues on creativity and health. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 300–326.Google Scholar

Richards, R. (2010). Everyday creativity: Process and way of life—Four key issues. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 189–215). Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Robertson, K. F., Smeets, S., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2010). Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among gifted and top math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational interests, and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, performance, and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 346–351.Google Scholar

Root-Bernstein, R. S., Bernstein, M., & Garnier, H. (1995). Correlations between avocations, scientific style, work habits, and professional impact of scientists. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 115–137.Google Scholar

Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 127–151). Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Rostan, S. M. (2005). Educational intervention and the development of young art students’ talent and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 237–261.Google Scholar

Runco, M. A. (1990). Implicit theories and ideational creativity. In Runco, M. A. & Albert, R. S. (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 234–252). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 318–324.Google Scholar

Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 66–75.Google Scholar

Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance tests of creative thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 361–368.Google Scholar

Runco, M. A., Noble, E. P., Reiter-Palmon, R., Acar, S., Ritchie, T., & Yurkovich, J. M. (2011). The genetic basis of creativity and ideational fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 376–380.Google Scholar

Russ, S. (2014). Pretend play in childhood: Foundation of adult creativity. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Ruthsatz, J., Detterman, D. K., Griscom, W. S., & Cirullo, B. A. (2008). Becoming an expert in the musical domain: It takes more than just practice. Intelligence, 36, 330–338.Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd edn.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Silvia, P. J., Beaty, R. E., Nusbaum, E. C., Eddington, K. M., Levin-Aspenson, H., & Kwapil, T. R. (2014). Everyday creativity in daily life: An experience-sampling study of “little c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 183–188.Google Scholar

Silvia, P. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2009b). Is creativity domain-specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments and creative self-descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 139–148.Google Scholar

Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A. (2009a). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, higher-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1087–1090.Google Scholar

Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 19–34.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (1991). Creative productivity through the adult years. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging, 15, 13–16.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (1998). Career paths and creative lives: A theoretical perspective on late life potential. In Adams-Price, C. (Ed.), Creativity and successful aging: Theoretical and empirical approaches (pp. 3–18). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into psychology’s history. Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of domain-specific disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 441–452.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2013). Creative performance, expertise acquisition, individual differences, and developmental antecedents: An integrative research agenda. Intelligence, 45, 66–73.Google Scholar

Snow, C. P. (1964). The two cultures. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Spear, L. P. (2013). Adolescent neurodevelopment. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 7–13.Google Scholar

Stavridou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). The relationship between psychoticism, trait creativity and the attentional mechanism of cognitive inhibition. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 143–153.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Creativity as a decision. American Psychologist, 57, 376.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1992). Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 1–5.Google Scholar

Szen-Ziemiańska, J. (2015). Uwarunkowania osiągnięć twórczych na wczesnych etapach kariery naukowej. [Conditions of creative achievement in the early periods of scientific career]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland.Google Scholar

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148.Google Scholar

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 277–293.Google Scholar

Urban, K. (2005). Assessing creativity: The test for Creative Thinking – Drawing production (TCT-DP). International Education Journal, 6, 272–280.Google Scholar

Urban, K. K. (1991). On the development of creativity in children. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 177–191.Google Scholar

von Stumm, S., Chung, A., & Furnham, A. (2011). Creative ability, creative ideation and latent classes of creative achievement: What is the role of personality? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 107–114.Google Scholar

Weiner, E. (2016). The geography of genius. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In Sternberg, R. J. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Welch, G., Papageorgi, I., Haddon, E., Creech, A., Morton, F., & de Bézanac, C. (2008). Musical genre and gender as factors in higher education learning in music. Research Papers in Education, 23, 203–217.Google Scholar

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.Google Scholar

Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story writing, and hobbies. European Journal of Personality, 4, 297–310.Google Scholar

Woody, E., & Claridge, G. (1977). Psychoticism and thinking. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 241–248.Google Scholar

References

Bain, A. (1977). The senses and the intellect. Robinson, D. N., Ed. Washington, DC: University Publications of America. (Original work published 1855).Google Scholar

Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths & mechanisms (2nd edn.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bowers, K. S., Regehr, G., Balthazard, C., & Parker, K. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 72–110.Google Scholar

Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400.Google Scholar

Carson, S. H. (2014). Cognitive disinhibition, creativity, and psychopathology. In Simonton, D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 198–221). Oxford, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar

Cope, D. (2014). Virtual genius. In Simonton, D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 166–182). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Cziko, G. A. (2001). Universal selection theory and the complementarity of different types of blind variation and selective retention. In Heyes, C., & Hull, D. L. (Eds.), Selection theory and social construction: The evolutionary naturalistic epistemology of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 15–34). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Dailey, A., Martindale, C., & Borkum, J. (1997). Creativity, synesthesia, and physiognomic perception. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 1–8.Google Scholar

Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2011). From past to future art: The creative impact of Picasso’s 1935 Minotauromachy on his 1937 Guernica. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 360–369.Google Scholar

Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 822–848.Google Scholar

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). GRIT: Perseverence and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101.Google Scholar

Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics: The growth of ideas from early concepts to relativity and quanta. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Hélie, S., & Sun, R. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: A unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 117, 994–1024.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, D. (2002). Staring Emmy straight in the eye – and doing my best not to flinch. In Dartnall, T. (Ed.), Creativity, cognition, and knowledge: An interaction (pp. 67–104). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar

Kantorovich, A., & Ne’eman, Y. (1989). Serendipity as a source of evolutionary progress in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 20, 505–529.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–13.Google Scholar

Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Koza, J. R. (1992). Genetic programming: On the programming of computers by means of natural selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd edn.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans: II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 12, 181–194.Google Scholar

Maier, N. R. F. (1940). The behavioral mechanisms concerned with problem solving. Psychological Review, 47, 43–58.Google Scholar

Mandler, G. (1995). Origins and consequences of novelty. In Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 9–25). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 249–268). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.Google Scholar

Miller, A. I. (2001). Einstein, Picasso: Space, time and the beauty that causes havoc. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Ness, R. B. (2013). Genius unmasked. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Nickles, T. (2003). Evolutionary models of innovation and the Meno problem. In Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 54–78). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.Google Scholar

Poincaré, H. (1921). The foundations of science: Science and hypothesis, the value of science, science and method (Halstead, G. B., Trans.). New York: Science Press.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Roe, A. (1953). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead.Google Scholar

Rostan, S. M. (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and cognitive controls: An empirical investigation of critically acclaimed productivity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 97–110.Google Scholar

Rothenberg, A. (2015). Flight from wonder: An investigation of scientific creativity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 92–96.Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Creativity, innovation, and nonobviousness. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 12, 461–487.Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 137–154.Google Scholar

Seifert, C. M., Meyer, D. E., Davidson, N., Patalano, A. L., & Yaniv, I. (1995). Demystification of cognitive insight: Opportunistic assimilation and the prepared-mind perspective. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 65–124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, process, and person perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2010). Creativity as blind-variation and selective-retention: Constrained combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews, 7, 156–179.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2011a). Creativity and discovery as blind variation and selective retention: Multiple-variant definitions and blind-sighted integration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 222–228.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2011b). Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell’s (1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark. Review of General Psychology, 15, 158–174.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2012a). Combinatorial creativity and sightedness: Monte Carlo simulations using three-criterion definitions. International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 22(2), 5–17.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2012b). Creativity, problem solving, and solution set sightedness: Radically reformulating BVSR. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 48–65.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2012c). Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97–106.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2013a). Creative problem solving as sequential BVSR: Exploration (total ignorance) versus elimination (informed guess). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 1–10.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2013b). Creative thought as blind variation and selective retention: Why sightedness is inversely related to creativity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33, 253–266.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2013c). What is a creative idea? Little-c versus Big-C creativity. In Chan, J. & Thomas, K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity (pp. 69–83). Cheltenham Glos, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2014). More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 53–61.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2015a). Numerical odds and evens in Beethoven’s nine symphonies: Can a computer really tell the difference? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 33, 18–35.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2015b). Thomas Alva Edison’s creative career: The multilayered trajectory of trials, errors, failures, and triumphs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 2–14.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K., & Damian, R. I. (2013). Creativity. In Reisberg, D. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 795–807). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sober, E. (1992). Models of cultural evolution. In Griffiths, P. (Ed.), Trees of life: Essays in philosophy of biology (pp. 17–39). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Skinner, B. F. (1981, July 31). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 5015–504.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in human creativity: Is variation blind or sighted? Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 159–176.Google Scholar

Thagard, P. (2012). Creative combination of representations: Scientific discovery and technological invention. In Proctor, R. & Capaldi, E. J. (Eds.), Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit processes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Thagard, P., & Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 35, 1–33.Google Scholar

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar

Weisberg, R. W. (2004). On structure in the creative process: A quantitative case-study of the creation of Picasso’s Guernica. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 23–54.Google Scholar

Weisberg, R. W. (2014). Case studies of genius: Ordinary thinking, extraordinary outcomes. In Simonton, D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 139–165). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wolport, L. (1994). The unnatural nature of science: Why science does not make (common) sense. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Book contents

Part I - Creativity and Domain

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive