Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Creativity and Domain
- 1 Creativity Across Different Domains
- 2 The Amusement Park Theoretical Model of Creativity
- 3 Mix and Match
- 4 Domain-General Creativity
- Part II Creativity in the Traditional Arts
- Part III Creativity in the Sciences
- Part IV Creativity in Business
- Part V Newer Domains for Creativity Research
- Part VI Creativity in Everyday Life
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
1 - Creativity Across Different Domains
An Expansive Approach
from Part I - Creativity and Domain
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Creativity and Domain
- 1 Creativity Across Different Domains
- 2 The Amusement Park Theoretical Model of Creativity
- 3 Mix and Match
- 4 Domain-General Creativity
- Part II Creativity in the Traditional Arts
- Part III Creativity in the Sciences
- Part IV Creativity in Business
- Part V Newer Domains for Creativity Research
- Part VI Creativity in Everyday Life
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
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
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
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., & 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
- 4
- Cited by