Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:29:27.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Creativity in Psychology

Finding Its Niche in the Sciences

from Part III - Creativity in the Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2017

By
Dean Keith Simonton
Edited by
James C. Kaufman ,
Vlad P. Glăveanu  and
John Baer
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Vlad P. Glăveanu
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
John Baer
Affiliation:
Rider University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Although creativity in psychology involves the same processes and procedures discussed in the earlier chapter on domain-general creativity, sufficient differences arise in their application that it becomes important to distinguish psychology’s various subdisciplines as well as discern the discipline’s overall placement in the hierarchy of the sciences, a placement that determines the amount of field consensus regarding the most creative contributors to the domain. Discussion then turns to the four major ways of assessing creativity in the domain, namely, peer evaluations, research citations, professional recognition, and historical eminence. This then sets the stage for reviewing key creativity studies regarding individual differences (including both general personality characteristics and specific theoretical and methodological orientation) and longitudinal changes (viz. early development and career trajectories). The chapter closes with recommendations regarding future research on creativity in the domain of psychology.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains , pp. 247 - 260
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

Annin, E. L., Boring, E. G., & Watson, R. I. (1968). Important psychologists, 1600–1967. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 4, 303–315.Google Scholar
Bachtold, L. M., & Werner, E. E. (1970). Personality profiles of gifted women: Psychologists. American Psychologist, 25, 234–243.Google Scholar
Boring, M. D., & Boring, E. G. (1948). Masters and pupils among the American psychologists. American Journal of Psychology, 61, 527–534.Google Scholar
Bridgwater, C. A., Walsh, J. A., & Walkenbach, J. (1982). Pretenure and posttenure productivity trends of academic psychologists. American Psychologist, 37, 236–238.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. P. (1965). The vocational interests of American Psychological Association presidents. American Psychologist, 20, 636–644.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1963). The personality and motivation of the researcher from measurements of contemporaries and from biography. In Taylor, C. W. & Barron, F. (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 119–131). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Drevdahl, J. E. (1955). A comparison of the personality profile (16 P. F.) of eminent researchers with that of eminent teachers and administrators, and of the general population. British Journal of Psychology, 46, 248–261.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78 (7, whole no. 584).Google Scholar
Christensen, H., & Jacomb, P. A. (1992). The lifetime productivity of eminent Australian academics. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 7, 681–686.Google Scholar
Clark, K. E. (1954). The APA study of psychologists. American Psychologist, 9, 117–120.Google Scholar
Coan, R. W. (1968). Dimensions of psychological theory. American Psychologist, 23, 715–722.Google Scholar
Coan, R. W. (1973). Toward a psychological interpretation of psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 9, 313–327.Google Scholar
Coan, R. W. (1979). Psychologists: Personal and theoretical pathways. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Coan, R. W., & Zagona, S. V. (1962). Contemporary ratings of psychological theorists. Psychological Record, 12, 315–322.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958–977.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89, 111–139.Google Scholar
Conway, J. B. (1988). Differences among clinical psychologists: Scientists, practitioners, and scientist-practitioners. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 642–655.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.Google Scholar
Davis, S. F., Thomas, R. L., & Weaver, M. S. (1982). Psychology’s contemporary and all-time notables: Student, faculty, and chairperson viewpoints. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20, 3–6.Google Scholar
Dennis, W. (1954). Productivity among American psychologists. American Psychologist, 9, 191–194.Google Scholar
Dennis, W., & Girden, E. (1954). Current scientific activities of psychologists as a function of age. Journal of Gerontology, 9, 175–178.Google Scholar
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Park, J. (2014). An incomplete list of eminent psychologists of the modern era. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 2, 20–32.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE 5(4): e10068. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8(6): e66938. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0066938Google Scholar
Grosul, M., & Feist, G. J. (2014). The creative person in science. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 30–43.Google Scholar
Guyter, L., & Fidell, L. (1973). Publications of men and women psychologists. American Psychologist, 28, 157–160.Google Scholar
Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K., Yarbrough, G. L., Russell, T. M., & Monte, E. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th Century. Review of General Psychology, 6, 139–152.Google Scholar
Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., Beane, W. E., Lucker, G. W., & Matthews, K. A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 896–908.Google Scholar
Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Pred, R. S. (1988). Making it without losing it: Type A, achievement motivation, and scientific attainment revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 495–504.Google Scholar
Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Thorbecke, W. L. (1981). On the stability of productivity and recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 516–522.Google Scholar
Heyduk, R. G., & Fenigstein, A. (1984). Influential works and authors in psychology: A survey of eminent psychologists. American Psychologist, 39, 556–559.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572.Google Scholar
Horner, K. L., Rushton, J. P., & Vernon, P. A. (1986). Relation between aging and research productivity of academic psychologists. Psychology and Aging, 1, 319–324.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. A., Germer, C. K., Efran, J. S., & Overton, W. F. (1988). Personality as the basis for theoretical predilections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 824–835.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
Kimble, G. A. (1984). Psychology’s two cultures. American Psychologist, 39, 833–839.Google Scholar
Kinnier, R. T., Metha, A. T., Buki, L. P., & Rawa, P. M. (1994). Manifest value of eminent psychologists: A content analysis of their obituaries. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 13, 88–94.Google Scholar
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86, 148–161.Google Scholar
Lee, J. D., Vicente, K. J., Cassano, A., & Shearer, A. (2003). Can scientific impact be judged prospectively? A bibliometric test of Simonton’s model of creative productivity. Scientometrics, 56, 223–232.Google Scholar
Lehman, H. C. (1966). The psychologist’s most creative years. American Psychologist, 21, 363–369.Google Scholar
Ludwig, A. M. (1998). Method and madness in the arts and sciences. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 93–101.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Chronological age, professional age, and eminence in psychology. American Psychologist, 23, 371–374.Google Scholar
Matthews, K. A., Helmreich, R. L., Beane, W. E., & Lucker, G. W. (1980). Pattern A, achievement striving, and scientific merit: Does Pattern A help or hinder? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 962–967.Google Scholar
Myers, C. R. (1970). Journal citations and scientific eminence in contemporary psychology. American Psychologist, 25, 1041–1048.Google Scholar
Overskeid, G., Grønnerød, C., & Simonton, D. K. (2012). The personality of a nonperson: Gauging the inner Skinner. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 187–197.Google Scholar
Over, R. (1981). Affiliations of psychologists elected to the National Academy of Sciences. American Psychologist, 36, 744–752.Google Scholar
Over, R. (1982a). The durability of scientific reputation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 18, 53–61.Google Scholar
Over, R. (1982b). Research productivity and impact of male and female psychologists. American Psychologist, 37, 24–31.Google Scholar
Platz, A. (1965). Psychology of the scientist: XI. Lotka’s law and research visibility. Psychological Reports, 16, 566–568.Google Scholar
Platz, A., & Blakelock, E. (1960). Productivity of American psychologists: Quantity versus quality. American Psychologist, 15, 310–312.Google Scholar
Roe, A. (1953). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead.Google Scholar
Rodgers, R. C., & Maranto, C. L. (1989). Causal models of publishing productivity in psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 636–649.Google Scholar
Ruscio, J., Seaman, F., D’Oriano, C., Stremlo, E., & Mahalchik, K. (2012). Measuring scholarly impact using modern citation-based indices. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 10, 123–146.Google Scholar
Rushton, J. P. (1984). Evaluating research eminence in psychology: The construct validity of citation counts. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 37, 33–36.Google Scholar
Rushton, J. P. (1990). Creativity, intelligence, and psychoticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1291–1298.Google Scholar
Shadish, W. R. Jr. (1989). The perception and evaluation of quality in science. In Gholson, B., Shadish, W. R. Jr., Neimeyer, R. A., & Houts, A. C. (Eds.), The psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 383–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1954). Productivity among American psychologists: An explanation. American Psychologist, 9, 804–805.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1992). Leaders of American psychology, 1879–1967: Career development, creative output, and professional achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 5–17.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term disciplinary impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4, 13–24.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into psychology’s history. Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Psychology’s status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology, 8, 59–67.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2005). Creativity in psychology: On becoming and being a great psychologist. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Faces of the muse: How people think, work, and act creatively in diverse domains (pp. 139–151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Gender differences in birth order and family size among 186 eminent psychologists. Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology, 1, 15–22.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 441–452.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2013). 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. (2014a). Hierarchies of creative domains: Disciplinary constraints on blind-variation and selective-retention. In Paul, E. S. & Kaufman, S. B. (Eds.), The philosophy of creativity: New essays (pp. 247–261). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2014b). 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. (2015). Psychology as a science within Comte’s hypothesized hierarchy: Empirical investigations and conceptual implications. Review of General Psychology, 9, 334–344.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2017). Eminent female psychologists in family context: Historical trends for 80 women born 1847–1950. Journal of Genius and Eminence, 1(2), 15–25.Google Scholar
Song, A. V., & Simonton, D. K. (2007). Personality assessment at a distance: Quantitative methods. In Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., & Krueger, R. F. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 308–321). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, G., & Gardner, S. (1985). Psychology of the scientist: LIV. Permission to excel: A preliminary report of influences on eminent women psychologists. Psychological Reports, 57, 1023–1026.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1985). APA presidential addresses: The relation of integrative complexity to historical, professional, and personal factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 848–852.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C., & Gist, M. E. (1984). Type A behavior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 402–418.Google Scholar
Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Sherman, J. W. (2009). The practice of psychological science: Searching for Cronbach’s two streams in social-personality psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1206–1225.Google Scholar
Terry, W. S. (1989). Birth order and prominence in the history of psychology. Psychological Record, 39, 333–337.Google Scholar
Vance, F. L., & MacPhail, S. L. (1964). APA membership trends and fields of specialization of psychologists earning doctoral degrees between 1959 and 1962. American Psychologist, 9, 654–658.Google Scholar
White, K. G., & White, M. J. (1978). On the relation between productivity and impact. Australian Psychologist, 13, 369–374.Google Scholar
Wispé, L. G. (1963, September 27). Traits of eminent American psychologists. Science, 141, 1256–1261.Google Scholar
Wispé, L. G. (1965). Some social and psychological correlates of eminence in psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 7, 88–98.Google Scholar
Wispé, L. G., & Parloff, M. B. (1965). Impact of psychotherapy on the productivity of psychologists. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 70, 188–193.Google Scholar
Wispé, L. G., & Ritter, J. H. (1964). Where America’s recognized psychologists received their doctorates. American Psychologist, 19, 634–644.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. (2010). Rethinking the size of scientific specialties: Correcting Price’s estimate. Scientometrics, 83, 471–476.Google Scholar
Zachar, P., & Leong, F. T. L. (1992). A problem of personality: Scientist and practitioner differences in psychology. Journal of Personality, 60, 665–677.Google Scholar
Zusne, L. (1976). Age and achievement in psychology: The harmonic mean as a model. American Psychologist, 31, 805–807.Google Scholar
Zusne, L. (1985). Contributions to the history of psychology: XXXVIII. The hyperbolic structure of eminence. Psychological Reports, 57, 1213–1214.Google Scholar
Zusne, L. (1987). Contributions to the history of psychology: XLIV. Coverage of contributors in histories of psychology. Psychological Reports, 61, 343–350.Google Scholar
Zusne, L., & Dailey, D. P. (1982). History of psychology texts as measuring instruments of eminence in psychology. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 3, 7–42.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×