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-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:15:30.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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
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

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
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

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. (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
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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×