Creativity in the Physical Sciences

Gregory J. Feist

doi:10.1017/9781316274385.012

12 - Creativity in the Physical Sciences

from Part III - Creativity in the Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2017

Edited by

Vlad P. Glăveanu and

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

It is not uncommon for people to gloss over the high degree of creativity involved in science. The physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy) would not be where they are today without extremely creative insights and solutions to both experimental and theoretical problems. In this chapter I review the vast and growing psychological literature on creativity in the physical sciences. I do so by organizing the studies by their overarching methodology, namely psychometric, experimental, biographical, historiometric, and biometric. I begin, however, by first defining creativity and how it is measured in the physical sciences. I end by pointing out some of the important gaps in our understanding of creativity in the physical sciences, such as the biological, genetic, epigenetic, and neuroscientific foundations of creative talent in the physical sciences, why still so few women are entering the profession, and whether personality traits distinguish those who are interested in and have talent for the physical sciences compared to the social and biological sciences.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains , pp. 199 - 225

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.012 [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

Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Stott, C., Bolton, P., & Goodyer, I. (1997). Is there a link between engineering and autism? Autism, 1, 101–109.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S., Bolton, P., Wheelwright, S., Short, L., Mead, G., Smith, A., & Scahill, V. (1998). Autism occurs more often in families of physicists, engineers, and mathematicians, Autism, 2, 296–301.Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-Functioning Autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians, Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 31, 5–17.Google Scholar

Bayer, A. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1977). Career age and research–professional activities of academic scientists: Tests of alternative non-linear models and some implications for higher education faculty policies. Journal of Higher Education, 48, 259–282.Google Scholar

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029−1031.Google Scholar

Berger, J. (1994). The young scientists: America’s future and the winning of the Westinghouse. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Billington, J., Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2007). Cognitive style predicts entry into physical sciences and humanities: Questionnaire and performance tests of empathy and systemizing. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 260–268.Google Scholar

Brink, T. L. (1980). Idiot savant with unusual mechanical ability: An organic explanation. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(2), 250–251.Google Scholar

Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (2005). Talent search research: What have we learned? High Ability Studies, 16, 97–111.Google Scholar

Bunge, S. A., Wendelken, C., Badre, D., & Wagner, A. D. (2005). Analogical reasoning and prefrontal cortex: Evidence for separable retrieval and integration mechanisms. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 239–249.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. W. (2001). Social and technical forms of primate intelligence. In deWaal, F. B. M. (Ed.), Tree of origin: What primate behavior can tell us about human social evolution (pp. 145–172). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.Google Scholar

Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain specific knowledge and conceptual change. In Hirschfeld, L. A and Gelman, S. A. (Eds.). Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture, (pp. 169–200). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carruthers, P., Stich, S., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (2002). The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.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. X. (Eds.). Scientific creativity (pp. 119–131). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. (Eds.). (2007). Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.Google Scholar

Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. (2010). The mathematics of sex: How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 29–38. DOI:10.3758/BF03195939Google Scholar

Chung, K. H., & Cox, R. A. K. (1990). Patterns of productivity in the finance literature: A study of the bibliometric distributions. Journal of Finance, 45, 301–309. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1990.tb05095.xGoogle Scholar

Clement, J. (1991). Experts and science students: The use of analogies, extreme cases, and physical intuition. In Voss, J. E, Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J. W. (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 345–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 291–294.Google Scholar

Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood, and research performance in science. Scientific American, 256, 119–125.Google Scholar

Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958–977.Google Scholar

Cox, C. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Volume II – The early mental traits of 300 geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Csikszentihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1997). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, K. (1999). Carl Sagan: A life. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35, 13–21.Google Scholar

Deary, I. J., Thorpe, G., Wilson, V., Starr, J.M., & Whalley, L. J. (2003). Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: The Scottish mental survey 1932. Intelligence, 31, 533–542. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00053-9.Google Scholar

Dennis, W. (1956). Age and productivity among scientists. Science, 123, 724–725.Google Scholar

Dennis, W. (1966). Creative productivity between the ages of 20 and 80 years. Journal of Gerontology, 21, 1–8.Google Scholar

Diamond, A. M. (1986). The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and scientist. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 520–525.Google Scholar

Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo⁄in vitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 5, 334–339.Google Scholar

Edge, The Third Culture (2005) The science of gender and science: Pinker vs. Spelke, a debate, May 16. Retrieved on September 24, 2015, from http://edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html.Google Scholar

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychological Review, 85, 395–416.Google Scholar

Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Word association, origence and psychoticism. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 209–216.Google Scholar

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

Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Börner, K., Contractor, N., Fiore, S. M., Hall, K. L., Keyton, J., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Advancing the science of team science. Clinical and Translational Science, 3, 263–266.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science, 4, 366–371.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (1997). Quantity, quality, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important? Creativity Research Journal, 10, 325–335. DOI:10.1207/s15326934crj1004_4Google 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. (2001). Three perspectives on evolution, creativity, and aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 2, 3.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (2006a). How development and personality influence scientific thought, interest, and achievement. Review of General Psychology, 10, 163–182.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (2006b). The development of scientific talent in Westinghouse finalists and members of the National Academy of Sciences. Journal of Adult Development, 13, 23–35. DOI: 10.1007/s10804-006-9002-3.Google Scholar

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

Feist, G. J. (2011). Psychology of science as a new subdiscipline in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 330–334. DOI: 10.1177/0963721411418471Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (2012). Predicting interest in and attitudes toward science from personality and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 771–775. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.005Google Scholar

Fonlupt, P. (2003). Perception and judgment of physical causality involve different brain structures. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 248–254.Google Scholar

Francis, B., Skelton, C., & Read, B. (2012). The identities and practices of high achieving pupils: Negotiating achievement and peer cultures. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar

Gallagher, A. M., & DeLisi, R. (1994). Gender differences in Scholastic Aptitude Test – Mathematics problem solving among high ability students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 204–211.Google Scholar

Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

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

Geary, D. C., & Huffman, K. J. (2002). Brain and cognitive evolution: Forms of modularity and functions of mind. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 667–698.Google Scholar

Gentner, D., & Jeriorski, M. (1989). Historical shifts in the use of analogy in science. In Gholson, B., Shadish, W. R., Neimeyer, R. A., & Houts, A. C. (Eds.), Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 296–325). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gibson, J., & Light, P. (1967). Intelligence among university scientists. Nature, 213(5075), 441–443. DOI:10.1038/213441a0Google Scholar

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.Google Scholar

Gleick, J. (1992). Genius: The life and science of Richard Feynman. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar

Gleick, J. (2003). Isaac Newton. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar

Goodchild, P. (1980). J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of worlds. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. New York: William Morrow and Co.Google Scholar

Gorman, M. E. (1992). Simulating science: Heuristics, mental models, and technoscientific thinking. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Gorman, M. E. (2013). The psychology of technological invention. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 383–396). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory: Administrators guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar

Green, A. E., Kraemer, D. J. M., Fugelsang, J. A., Gray, J. R., & Dunbar, K. N. (2010). Connecting long distance: Semantic distance in analogical reasoning modulates frontopolar cortex activity. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 70–76. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhp081.Google Scholar

Gorman, M. E., Stafford, A., & Gorman, M. E. (1987). Disconfirmation and dual hypotheses on a more difficult version of Wason’s 2–4–6 task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 39, 1–28.Google Scholar

Grosul, M., & Feist, G. J. (2014). The creative person in science. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 30–43. DOI:10.1037/a0034828.Google Scholar

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

Gupta, D. K. (1987). Lotka’s law and productivity patterns of entomological research in Nigeria for the period, 1900–1973. Scientometrics, 12, 33–46. DOI:10.1007/BF02016688Google Scholar

Harmon, L. R. (1961). The High School background of science doctorates: A survey reveals the influence of class size, region of origin, as well as ability, in PhD production. Science, 133, 679–688.Google Scholar

Hecht, D. K. (2015). Storytelling and science: Rewriting Oppenheimer in the Nuclear Age. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar

Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269, 41−45.Google Scholar

Helson, R., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1970). Mathematicians: The creative researcher and the average PhD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 250–257.Google Scholar

Hemlin, S., & Olsson, L. (2013). The psychology of research groups: Creativity and performance. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 397–418). New York: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell-curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 102, 16569–16572. DOI:10.1073/pnas.0507655102Google Scholar

Horner, K. L., Rushton, J. P., & Vernon, P. A. (1986). Relation between aging and research productivity of academic psychologists. Psychology and Aging, 4, 319–324.Google Scholar

Huang, S. H., & Yang, JM. (2012). A study on the productivity review for management of performance using bibliometric methodology. Eleventh Wuhan International Conference on e-Business. Paper 4. Abstract retrieved on October 20, 2015, from http://aisel.aisnet.org/whiceb2011/4 Google Scholar

Isaacson, W. (2008). Einstein: His life and universe. New York: Simon & Shuster.Google Scholar

Isaacson, W. (2014). Einstein: The life of a genius. London: Carlton Publishing.Google Scholar

Jones, R. A. (1997). The Boffin: A stereotype of scientists in post-war British films (1945–1970). Public Understanding of Science, 6, 31–48.Google Scholar

Kadosh, R. C., Soski, S., Iuculano, T., Kanai, R., & Walsh, V. (2010). Modulating neuronal activity produces specific and long-lasting changes in numerical competence. Current Biology, 20, 2016–2020. Doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.10.007Google Scholar

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Hawking’s haiku, Madonna’s math: Why it is hard to be creative in every room of the house. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar

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

Klahr, D., & Simon, H. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 524–543.Google Scholar

Kokosh, J. (1969). MMPI personality characteristics of physical and social science students. Psychological Reports, 24, 883–893.Google Scholar

Koyama, R., & Ikegaya, Y. (2015). Microglia in the pathogenesis of autism spectrum disorders. Neuroscience Research. Retrieved on October 23, 2015, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2015.06.005 Google Scholar

Kumar, N. (Ed.). (2012). Gender and science: Studies across cultures. Delhi, India: Foundation Books.Google Scholar

Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(4450), 1335–1342. DOI:10.1126/science.208.4450.1335zGoogle Scholar

Lawson, J., Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). Empathizing and systemizing in adults with and without Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 301–310.Google Scholar

Le, H., Robbins, S. B., & Westrick, P. (2014). Predicting student enrollment and persistence in college STEM fields using an expanded PE fit framework: A large-scale multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 915–947.Google Scholar

Lehman, H. C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lehman, H. C. (1960). The age decrement in outstanding scientific creativity. American Psychologist, 15, 128–134.Google Scholar

Lehman, H. C. (1966). The psychologist’s most creative years. American Psychologist, 21, 363–369.Google Scholar

Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 81, 114–132.Google Scholar

Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 996–1009.Google Scholar

Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–324.Google Scholar

Lounsbury, J. W., Foster, N., Patel, H., Carmody, P., Gibson, L. W., & Stairs, D. R. (2012). An investigation of the personality traits of scientists versus nonscientists and their relationship with career satisfaction. R&D Management, 42(1), 47–59.Google Scholar

MacKinnon, D. W. (1970). Creativity: A multi-faceted phenomenon. In Roslanksy, J. (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 19–32). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar

Mahoney, M. J., & Kimper, T. P. (1976). From ethics to logic: A survey of scientists. In Mahoney, M. J. (Ed.), Science as subject: The psychological imperative (pp. 187–193). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar

Mayo, R., Alfasi, D., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Distrust and the positive test heuristic: Dispositional and situated social distrust improves performance on the Wason Rule Discovery Task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 985–990. DOI:10.1037/a0035127Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Miller, A. I. (1996). Insights of genius: Imagery and creativity in science and art. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Mithen, S. (1996). The prehistory of the mind: The cognitive origins of art and science. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher-order dimensions of the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58, 447–478.Google Scholar

Murray, C. (2003). Human accomplishment: The pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences, 800 B. C. to 1950. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Committee on the Science of Team Science. Cooke, N. J. & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2015). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2015. Special Report NSF 15–311. Arlington, VA. Retrieved on September 25, 2015 at www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.Google Scholar

Neffe, J., & Frische, S. (2007). Einstein: A biography. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: Constructing meaning in scientific theories. Dordrecht, Holland: Nijhoff.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (1986). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In Giere, R. N. (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3–44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (2009). How do engineering scientists think? Model‐based simulation in biomedical engineering research laboratories. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 730–757. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01032.xGoogle Scholar

Nettle, D. (2006). Schizotypy and mental health amongst poets, visual artists, and mathematicians. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 876–890.Google Scholar

Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 14, 510–520.Google Scholar

Over, R. (1982). Is age a good predictor of research productivity? Australian Psychologist, 17, 129–139.Google Scholar

Over, R. (1989). Age and scholarly impact. Psychology and Aging, 4, 222–225.Google Scholar

Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). A social-cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 73–95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01029.xGoogle Scholar

Parker, S. T., and McKinney, M. L. (1999). Origins of intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Proctor, E. J., & Capaldi, R. W. (Eds.), (2012). Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit processes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259–287.Google Scholar

Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York, NY: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar

Rasoal, C., Danielsson, H., & Jungert, T. (2012). Empathy among students in engineering programmes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(5), 427–435.Google Scholar

Rawlings, D., & Locarnini, A. (2008). Dimensional schizotypy, autism, and unusual word associations in artists and scientists. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 465–471.Google Scholar

Rivera, S. M., Reiss, A. L., Eckert, M. A., & Menon, V. (2005). Developmental changes in mental arithemetic: Evidence for increased functional specialization in the left inferior parietal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1779–1790. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhi055Google Scholar

Robertson, K. F., Smeets, S., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2010). Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among the 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. DOI: 10.1177/0963721410391442.Google Scholar

Robinson, J. E. (2008). Look me in the eye: My life with Asperger’s. New York: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar

Roe, A. (1952). The making of a scientist. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar

Roe, A. (1953). A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 67, 1–55.Google Scholar

Roe, A. (1965). Changes in scientific activities with age. Science, 150, 313–318.Google Scholar

Roser, M. E., Fugelsang, J. A., Dunbar, K. N., Corballis, P. M., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2005). Dissociating processes supporting causal perception and causal inference in the brain. Neuropsychology, 19, 591–602. DOI: 10.1037/0894-4105.19.5.591.Google Scholar

Rubinstein, G. (2005). The big five among male and female students of different faculties. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1495–1503.Google Scholar

Runco, M. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 21–30). Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar

Runyan, W. M. (2006). Psychobiography and the psychology of science: Understanding the relations between the live and work of individual psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 10, 147–162.Google Scholar

Runyan, W. M. (2013). Psychobiography and the psychology of science: Encounters with psychology, philosophy, and statistics. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E., (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 353–379). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Science of Science and Innovation Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved on September 25, 2015 from www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=501084.Google Scholar

Schuldberg, D. (2000). Six subclinical spectrum traits in normal creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(1), 5–16.Google Scholar

Schulze, A. D., & Seuffert, V. (2013). Conflicts, cooperation, and competition in the field of science and technology. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 303–330). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Schunn, C. D., & Trafton, J. G. (2013). The psychology of uncertainty in scientific data analysis. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E., (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 461–483). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (1979). Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1603–1616.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (1986). Multiple discovery: Some Monte Carlo simulations and Gedanken experiments. Scientometrics, 9, 269–280.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (1988a). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104, 251–267.Google Scholar

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

Simonton, D. K. (1991). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119–130.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals. Psychological Methods, 4, 425–451.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(1), 13–24.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2008). Scientific talent, training, and performance: Intellect, personality, and genetic endowment. Review of General Psychology, 12, 28–46. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.12.1.28.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. (2010). Creative thought as blind-variation and selective-retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews, 7, 156–179. DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.002Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2012). Foresight, insight, oversight, and hindsight in scientific discovery: How sighted were Galileo’s telescopic sightings? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(3), 243–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027058.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2013). Creative thoughts as acts of free will: A two-stage formal integration. Review of General Psychology, 17(4), 374.Google Scholar

Soler, J. M. (2007). A rational indicator of scientific creativity. Journal of Infometrics, 1, 123–130. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2006.10.004Google Scholar

Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950−958.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 125–147). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Strand, S., Deary, I. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Sex differences in cognitive abilities test scores: A UK national picture. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 463−480.Google Scholar

Stroebe, W. (2010). The graying of academia: Will it reduce scientific productivity? American Psychologist, 65, 660–673. DOI: 10.1037/a0021086Google Scholar

Subotnik, R. F., & Steiner, C. L. (1994). Adult manifestations of adolescent talent in science: A longitudinal study of 1983 Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. In Subotnik, R. & Arnold, K. D. (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. Creativity research (pp. 52–76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.Google Scholar

Subotnik, R. F., Duschl, R. A., & Selmon, E. H. (1993). Retention and attrition of science talent: A longitudinal study of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 61–72.Google Scholar

Sulloway, F. (1995). Born to Rebel: Birth order, family dynamics and creative lives. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

Tang, G., Gudsnuk, K., Kuo, S-H., Cotrina, M. L., Rosoklija, G. Sosunov, A., & Sulzer, D. (2014). Loss of mTOR-dependent macroautophagy causes autistic-like synaptic pruning deficits. Neuron, 83, 1131–1143. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.07.040.Google Scholar

Terman, L. M. (1954). Scientists and nonscientists in a group of 800 gifted men. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 68(7), 1–44. DOI:10.1037/h0093672.Google Scholar

Thomson, N. D., Wurtzburg, S. J., & Centifanti, L. C. M. (2015). Empathy or science? Empathy explains physical science enrollment for men and women. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 115–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.04.003 Google Scholar

Treffert, D. A. (2006). Extraordinary people: Understanding savant syndrome (updated version). Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.Google Scholar

Tweney, R. D. (1989). A framework for the cognitive psychology of science. In Gholson, B., Shadish, W. R. Jr., Neimeyer, R. A., & Houts, A. C. (Eds.), Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 342–366). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tweney, R. D. (1991). Faraday’s notebooks: The active organization of creative science. Physics Education, 26, 301–306.Google Scholar

Tweney, R. D. (1998). Toward a cognitive psychology of science: Recent research and its implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 150–154.Google Scholar

Tweney, R. D. (2013). Cognitive-historical approaches to the understanding of science. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 71–93). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar

Tweney, R. D. & Hoffner, C. E. (1987). Understanding the microstructure of science: An example. In Program of the ninth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 677–681). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., & Mynatt, C. R. (Eds.), (1981). On scientific thinking. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Vartanian, O., Bristol, A. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), (2013). Neuroscience of creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to Age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484–492.Google Scholar

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835.Google Scholar

Wai, J., Cacchio, M., Putallaz, M., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30-year examination. Intelligence, 38, 412–423. DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.006Google Scholar

Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In Foss, B. (Ed.), New horizons in psychology: I. (pp. 135–151). Baltimore, MD: Penguin.Google Scholar

Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 785–794.Google Scholar

Wilson, G. D., & Jackson, C. (1994). The personality of physicists. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 187–189.Google Scholar

Zuckerman, H. (1996). Scientific elite (2nd edn.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Book contents

12 - Creativity in the Physical Sciences

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive