Legal research on creativity centers on intellectual property law, a field of law that regulates rights in creations of the mind. Recent studies in this area explore how creativity is evaluated for purposes of awarding intellectual property rights, how the prospect of legal rights affects creativity, whether creativity impacts the valuation of subject works, and how the public conceptualizes creativity in relation to intellectual property rights. This body of research speaks to creativity studies in many domains and to the ability of intellectual property law to function as designed.

The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of Creativity weaves together both domain-general and domain-specific factors supporting creative performance with a hierarchical structure. There are four levels of the model – Initial Requirements, General Thematic Areas, Domains, and Microdomains – that describe increasing levels of domain specificity. The APT Model reminds creativity researchers and theorists of the need to consider and to identify the differing degrees of domain generality and domain specificity in the constructs they are investigating. The APT Model also provides a useful and flexible framework for such discussions.

The role of emotions in the creative process is well documented. In this chapter, we distinguish emotional processes in creativity from creativity in the domain of emotions. Creativity in the domain of emotions exists when people are creative with emotions – emotions are the object of the creative process. We describe three kinds of creativity in the domain of emotions – emotional creativity (experience of unique emotions), creative communication of emotions, and creative emotion regulation. Furthermore, we present a model in which we argue that creativity in the domain of emotions is less likely to have the same impact on society and culture as creativity in other domains that are more defined by education and formal gate keepers (e.g., art or science), but that it is crucial for psychological health and well-being.

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.

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.

In this concluding chapter we take another look at the complex relationship between generality and specificity with the double aim of: (a) highlighting some of the main lines of argument developed across this Handbook, and (b) looking towards the future, in a prospective manner, to consider the transformation of creative domains, as well as its impact on the generality–specificity debate.

In this concluding chapter we take another look at the complex relationship between generality and specificity with the double aim of: (a) highlighting some of the main lines of argument developed across this Handbook, and (b) looking towards the future, in a prospective manner, to consider the transformation of creative domains, as well as its impact on the generality–specificity debate.

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.

Creativity is the heart of advertising. The advertising industry provides a unique research setting with a range of highly specialized roles. These roles range from undertaking creative ideation processes through to idea refinement and expression, evaluation, and relationship management roles. Like all creative ideas, great creativity in advertising requires ideas that are both original and appropriate, but also well presented. Numerous constraints exist to achieving great creative advertising including time, medium, and evaluation pressures. Evaluative pressures result from the difficulty in accurately assessing the effects of an advertising campaign prior to vast expenditures being made. This increases the potential for conflict and the need for structures and processes to be established to manage relationships. For the privileged few who have been fortunate to research in this industry, their insights have assisted our understanding of a range of complex interactions and constraints that influence the full range of creative processes and outcomes. While this research has provided many practical findings, there is still much to learn from this dynamic field.