The Generalist’s Corner

Teaching of Psychology
39(3) 217-222
Teaching Creativity: Current Findings, ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Trends, and Controversies in the DOI: 10.1177/0098628312450444
http://top.sagepub.com
Psychology of Creativity

Dean Keith Simonton1

Abstract
In the past decade, the psychological study of creativity has accelerated greatly. To facilitate the teaching of creativity, I provide an
overview of the recent literature. The overview begins by discussing recent empirical results and research trends. This discussion
specifically treats creativity’s cognitive, differential, developmental, and social aspects. Then I outline central controversies in the
study of creativity. These debates concern the nature of creative thought (domain-specific vs. generic processes), creative devel-
opment (nature vs. nurture), and creative persons (psychopathology vs. mental health). The article closes by asking not just how
to teach creativity but also how to teach creativity creatively.

Keywords
creativity, intelligence

On the surface, creativity should inspire abundant research. After categories: cognitive, differential, developmental, and social
all, creativity concerns the psychological phenomenon where psychological.
someone comes up with an idea or product that is simultaneously
novel and useful, two positive and important attributes
Cognitive Psychology of Creativity
(Simonton, 2000a). Nonetheless, not so long ago, creativity was
a relatively neglected topic in psychology (Sternberg & Lubart, Naturally, cognitive psychologists are most interested in the
1996). That neglect is definitely not true today. Over the past mental processes or mechanisms involved in creative thought
decade, the topic has captured increased attention at an acceler- (Simonton & Damian, in press). An especially intriguing find-
ating pace (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). Besides an increase in ing is that creativity is strongly associated with ‘‘defocused
the number of journals devoted to the topic—including the attention,’’ ‘‘cognitive disinhibition,’’ or what researchers tech-
American Psychological Association’s own Psychology of nically refer to as reduced latent inhibition (Carson, Peterson,
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, which was first published & Higgins, 2003; Kéri, 2011). Highly creative people tend to
in 2006—the growth of interest is evident in the appearance of notice stimuli that they know are irrelevant, which enables
two recent annual review of psychology articles (Hennessey & them to ‘‘think outside the box’’ and to take advantage of ser-
Amabile, 2010; Runco, 2004), several comprehensive hand- endipitous events that they might otherwise ignore. A downside
books (e.g., Kaufman & Sternberg, 2006, 2009; Richards, to this cognitive propensity is that reduced latent inhibition is
Runco, & Moger, 2009), numerous introductory textbooks also associated with psychopathology (Carson, 2011; Eysenck,
(Kaufman, 2009; Runco, 2007; Sawyer, 2006; Weisberg, 1995). The psychotic mind is incessantly bombarded by stimuli
2006), and even the second edition of a 2-volume encyclopedia and associations that should be filtered out from the get go.
(Runco & Pritzker, 2011). Indeed, the breadth and depth of con- With the advent of the cognitive neurosciences, it comes as
temporary research are almost overwhelming. Because research no surprise that researchers have studied creative problem sol-
on creativity spans several of psychology’s subdisciplines, it is ving and insight using the latest techniques (Dietrich & Kanso,
not easy for any one researcher to keep up on advances in the 2010; Sawyer, 2011). Although this research has arrived at
field. Even so, I will do my best to review current findings and some potentially valuable findings, the results at present do not
trends and then turn to some contemporary controversies. I close
by discussing the teaching of creativity. 1
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis,CA, USA

Current Findings and Trends Corresponding Author:

Dean Keith Simonton, Department of Psychology, One Shields Avenue,
Recent research efforts have focused on the variables associ- University of California, Davis, California 95616, CA, USA
ated with creativity. These variables fall into four different Email: dksimonton@ucdavis.edu

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on February 1, 2015

218 Teaching of Psychology 39(3)

whereas those with lower intelligence become overwhelmed

by that sensory and associative influx. Differences in intelli-
gence make the difference between a creative insight and a
crazy fantasy.
Although I just emphasized cognitive capacity, disposition
is critical, too. We now know that creative persons have a dis-
tinctive profile of personality traits. For instance, creativity is
highly correlated with openness to experience (as defined in the
5-factor model of personality; Carson, Peterson, & Higgins,
2005; Harris, 2004; McCrae, 1987), a personality dimension
that also correlates with reduced latent inhibition (Peterson &
Carson, 2000; Peterson, Smith, & Carson, 2002). At the same
time, creative individuals active in different domains often
exhibit different personality profiles (Feist, 1998). Specifically,
creative artists do not have the same dispositional makeup as
creative scientists. For example, artistic creators are more
inclined toward psychopathology than scientific creators
(Simonton, 2009).

Developmental Psychology of Creativity

Developmental psychologists seek to know how creativity
changes across the life span. This quest has two parts. The first
part is to discover the early environmental factors that contrib-
ute to the development of creative potential. Assuming that
some of creativity’s cognitive and dispositional correlates have
environmental causes, what are those causes? Although early
Figure 1. Dean Keith Simonton work tended to concentrate on family background and educa-
tional experiences (Simonton, 1987), the search now encom-
passes broader influences as well. Especially fascinating is
form a consistent package that one can easily summarize. The
new evidence indicating that prior multicultural exposure is
empirical inconsistencies probably indicate that creative pro-
conducive to creativity (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu,
cesses are more complex and diversified than the more basic
2008). Living abroad probably contributes to increased open-
cognitive mechanisms most often studied in magnetic reso-
ness and cognitive flexibility. This developmental effect may
nance imaging (MRI) machines (Simonton & Damian, in
also relate to the empirical finding that functional bilingualism
press). To offer a basic example, creative problem solving
is also correlated with creativity (Simonton, 2008a). A person
sometimes requires visual imagery, whereas other times verbal
who easily encodes any given thought or image in two distinct
thinking may prove more effective.
languages will likely display more cognitive flexibility.
The second part of developmental inquiry concerns the
overt manifestation of creativity during maturity and aging
Differential Psychology of Creativity (Simonton, 2012). These studies have focused largely on crea-
Differential psychologists are fascinated with how people dif- tive productivity in the arts and sciences. Besides investigating
fer from each other. Those differences can be (a) cognitive, how creative output changes across the course of an artistic or
such as general intelligence and special mental abilities or (b) scientific career, researchers have studied the longitudinal
dispositional, such as personality, motivation, and values. appearance of key landmarks (Simonton, 1997). At what age
Although cognitive psychologists often discount the impact will artists or scientists produce their first and last creative
of individual differences variables, it has become increasingly works? When during their life cycles will people create their
clear that these variables are essential to understanding creativ- best work? Now that large numbers of baby boomers are push-
ity (Simonton, 2003b). Consider reduced latent inhibition, ing retirement, this research has policy implications, particu-
which, as noted earlier, can lead to either creativity or psycho- larly in countries that still impose mandatory retirement.
pathology, depending on the presence of certain moderating Recent findings suggest that the age decrement in creativity
variables, such as general intelligence (Carson, 2011; Carson observed in earlier research has substantially diminished, at
et al., 2003; Eysenck, 1995). A person with exceptional intelli- least in the sciences (Stroebe, 2010). This reduced decline
gence has sufficient metacognitive skills and abilities to take may partly reflect the increasing impact of collaborative
advantage of the relatively unfiltered inflow of information, creativity.

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on February 1, 2015

Simonton 219

Social Psychology of Creativity in conceiving an artistic product. An illustration of this idea is

Wallas’s (1926) classic theory that creativity can be broken
Social psychologists want to understand creativity in its social
down into the stages of preparation, incubation, illumination,
context. This focus serves as an important corrective to cogni-
and verification. Yet some contemporary researchers oppose
tive, differential, and development research that treats creativ-
this view (Baer, 2011; Kaufman & Baer, 2002). Each major
ity as a purely individual phenomenon. Earlier social
domain of creativity has its own distinctive methods or
psychologists tended to focus on three levels: (a) the interper-
techniques that provide the basis for generating creative ideas.
sonal, such as the impact of social evaluation and reward
For instance, creativity in the sciences requires the so-called
(Amabile, 1996); (b) the group, such as brainstorming (Stroebe,
scientific method, a method that would have no utility whatso-
Nijstad, & Rietzschel, 2010); and (c) the sociocultural, such as
ever in writing a novel or choreographing a ballet. If domain
the larger political ‘‘zeitgeist’’ (Simonton, 2003a). Although
specificity were true, then it would be difficult to comprehend
these topics are still active, the group level has received consid-
why creativity happens to be associated with certain individual
erable attention in recent work on collaborative creativity (Pau-
differences variables, regardless of the creative domain. Pre-
lus & Nijstad, 2003). This research is especially worthwhile
sumably, the latter correlations reflect the fact that the creative
given how much creativity only takes place in groups (Sawyer,
process depends on the creative person. Creative persons have
2007). A particularly obvious example is filmmaking: A fea-
what it takes to produce creative ideas.
ture film requires the collaboration of dozens, even hundreds,
This controversy may have arisen because the domain-
of creators, experts, and talents (Simonton, 2011b). One find-
specific advocates are not looking at the phenomenon of crea-
ing having practical implications is that group creativity
tivity at a sufficient level of abstraction (Simonton, 2007). No
increases when group membership is highly diverse (Nemeth
doubt, much of what an artistic creator does contrasts greatly
& Nemeth-Brown, 2003; see also Page, 2007). Membership
with what a scientific creator does. Yet if investigators back
diversity can entail gender, ethnicity, training, age, and a host
away far enough to see the forest and not just the trees, the gen-
of other demographic and occupational factors. This positive
eric features of creative thought may emerge. A candidate for
result echoes the positive impact of multicultural influences
this ‘‘big picture’’ view is Campbell’s (1960) theory that crea-
at the level of individual development.
tivity requires blind variation and selective retention (BVSR).
Probably the most striking modern development has been
In simple terms, BVSR maintains that creativity requires a
the emergence of creativity as a subject in social cognition.
creator to generate ideas without knowing which ideas will
This work grew out of earlier research on the relation between
eventually prove useful. Creativity is thus inherently risky and
positive affect and creativity (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008)
wasteful. Although now over a half century old, recent research
but has since expanded to include regulatory focus (promotion
indicates that BVSR has the best prospects for describing the
vs. prevention; Friedman & Förster, 2001), social power
generic process underlying all forms of creativity (Simonton,
(Galinsky, Gruenfeld, Magee, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008),
2011a). Creators merely tailor BVSR to the distinct needs of
and unconscious thought (Dijksterhuis & Meurs, 2006). Per-
their discipline. The accommodation is therefore domain
haps the most provocative result so far is the demonstration that
specific.
moods and drives have far more complex relations with crea-
tivity than researchers originally believed (Simonton &
Damian, in press). It is not always true that ‘‘good effects’’ Creative Development: Nature Versus Nurture?
(creativity) have ‘‘good causes’’ (positive emotion or intrinsic
Although the nature–nurture issue now constitutes a general
motivation). In fact, depressive mood can even promote artistic
controversy in developmental psychology, it is important to
creativity (Akinola & Mendes, 2008).
remember that the debate first centered on understanding crea-
tivity (Galton, 1874). Furthermore, the question has frequently
appeared in discussions of creative genius—whether such high
Controversies in Creativity Research achievers are ‘‘born or made.’’ Because psychology in the
Like in any other field of scientific inquiry, creativity research- United States has had a long history emphasizing environmen-
ers have their fair share of debates—perhaps even more than tal factors—an emphasis most conspicuous in the behaviorism
their fair share! The main controversies concern creative of John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner—researchers have often
thought, creative development, and creative persons. stressed nurture over nature. This position changed after the
‘‘revolution’’ that replaced behaviorism with cognitive science.
Now rather than focusing on learning and conditioning, cogni-
Creative Thought: Domain-Specific Versus Generic
tive psychologists speak of the need to acquire domain-specific
Processes? expertise by means of deliberate practice (Ericsson, 1996). This
It seems all too natural to speak of the creative process, as if concept led to the famous ‘‘10-year rule’’ that asserts that
there was some generic, one-size-fits-all procedure or mechan- nobody, no matter how talented, can expect to make a high-
ism that could apply to any domain of creativity. For example, impact contribution to any domain without first devoting a full
this assertion would imply that the mental operations involved decade to acquiring the requisite knowledge and skills (Hayes,
in conducting scientific research are the same as those engaged 1989). Moreover, anyone willing to put in this effort, no matter

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on February 1, 2015

220 Teaching of Psychology 39(3)

how untalented, will still be able to achieve at the highest lev- more prominent in Big-C Creativity and less conspicuous in
els. In short, inherited abilities or dispositions are irrelevant little-c creativity (Simonton, 2010). The two opposing sides
(Howe, 1999). Creators are just experts. of the debate are both right. One side is just talking about the
Although research indicates that psychologists often have a elephant’s head, while the other side is talking about the
higher citation impact if they adopt such extreme positions elephant’s tail. Finally, the two opposing sides agree on one
(Simonton, 2000b), there is no evidence that such extremism critical point: Even Big-C creators do not produce genius-
contributes to the advancement of psychological science. level work when they are outright insane. Instead, the psycho-
Research in behavioral genetics has provided strong empirical pathology observed stays at subclinical levels. For instance,
and theoretical reasons for believing that nature does indeed highly creative novelists score between the mentally ill and the
play a role in the emergence of creative talent (Simonton, normal on the clinical scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic
2008b). This is not to say that researchers have identified a sin- Personality Inventory (Barron, 1963; cf. Nettle, 2006).
gle gene for creativity. On the contrary, creativity depends on One final note, behavior genetics can help resolve both the
the participation of numerous cognitive and dispositional vari- nature–nurture and creativity–psychopathology controversies.
ables that also feature sizable heritability coefficients—variables Researchers have long known that highly creative people are
such as general intelligence and openness to experience. In addi- more likely to come from families that suffer higher than aver-
tion, the genetic influences operate in complex (multiplicative) age psychopathology (e.g., Karlsson, 1970). In fact, a recent
ways that unfold slowly over the course of childhood and adoles- study identified a unique gene that is found in both the highly
cence (Simonton, 1999). Finally, genetic factors do not render creative and the mentally ill (Kéri, 2009). As noted above, the
irrelevant the acquisition of domain-specific expertise through gene simply has to be inherited along with other traits that turn
deliberate practice. Instead, talent and training operate in tandem a potential cognitive liability into a decided cognitive asset.
(Simonton, 2008b). Innate talent speeds up expertise acquisition
(becoming better faster) and allows superior performance for a
given level of expertise acquisition (more bang for the buck).
Teaching Creativity
In brief, nature enhances nurture.
In some respects, teaching creativity is no different than teach-
ing any other subject in psychology. Hence, to a certain extent,
Creative Persons: Psychopathology Versus Mental
I teach creativity the same way I teach other undergraduate
Health? courses, such as my history of psychology course. Thus, in all
The ancient question of whether genius is ‘‘born or made’’ is of my classes, I use various devices to keep my students
complemented by the even older question of the ‘‘mad gen- interested even when I must engage in the traditional one-
ius’’—an issue that goes back to Plato and Aristotle. Stated way communication of information. For example, I always
in more inclusive terms, is creativity associated with psycho- wear a T-shirt with some picture or quotation that illustrates
pathology in such a way that the higher the magnitude of crea- a point somewhere in the lecture. But students cannot anticipate
tivity, the greater the frequency and intensity of adverse when the T-shirt will prove relevant, or even why. They have to
mental, emotional, or behavioral symptoms? The polarization pay attention!
on this controversy is every bit as fierce as the nature–nurture Nevertheless, one might think that a course, lecture, or sec-
issue. On one hand, a long tradition going back to early psy- tion on creativity would require something more. In other
chiatry and psychoanalysis has defended a positive connection words, one should not just teach creativity but also teach crea-
between psychopathology and creativity. On the other hand, a tivity creatively! That implies that instructional techniques
more recent tradition, starting with humanistic psychology and should be both novel and useful—a far more difficult goal to
continuing with the positive psychology movement, argues that achieve. Even after teaching a creativity class for more than
creativity is a sure sign of self-actualization and subjective two decades, I remain far from reaching that goal. Still, I have
well-being. found one method that seems to work very well—a ‘‘lecture’’
The resolution to this debate depends on addressing two fun- on creativity tests. Research on creativity tests has not reached
damental questions. First, in what domain is the creativity a consensus on the single best test for assessing creativity. For
going to take place? As noted earlier, psychopathology is more instance, some tests gauge requisite cognitive skills, such as
common in the arts than in the sciences. Even with a particular divergent thinking or remote association (Guilford, 1967; Med-
art or science, the rate and intensity of psychopathological nick, 1962); other instruments assess whether a person has a
symptoms can vary. Thus, mental illness is higher in poetry creative personality (Gough, 1979). Rather than describe each
than in any other artistic domain (Ludwig, 1992). Second, what measure in detail and review the psychometric literature on
degree of creativity are we talking about? Creativity research- each test’s reliability and validity, I project items from repre-
ers frequently make the distinction between ‘‘Big-C Creativ- sentative tests on a screen, and everybody, including me, takes
ity’’ and ‘‘little-c creativity’’ (Simonton, 2000a). The former the test together. Doing so requires us, for example, to come up
appellation applies to creative genius, whereas the latter ascrip- with unusual uses for a brick or paper clip (Guilford, 1967). I
tion applies to everyday creativity witnessed at home and in the then introduce the measurement issues in the context of a direct
workplace. This contrast is crucial because psychopathology is experience that we all shared.

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on February 1, 2015

Simonton 221

Conclusion Dijksterhuis, A., & Meurs, T. (2006). Where creativity resides: The
generative power of unconscious thought. Consciousness and
I have provided an overview of what researchers know about Cognition, 15, 135-146.
creativity, with a focus on the most recent results, research Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An
trends, and ongoing debates. To a more limited extent, I also introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The
offered some tips on how to teach creativity, including how road to expert performance: Empirical evidence from the arts and
to teach creativity creatively. It is my hope that this article sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
inspires some instructors, at whatever level, to connect their Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity.
students to this significant topic. Creativity is not only an Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
intellectually interesting subject, but also a phenomenon of Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic
immense practical importance. I personally believe that no creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290-309.
student should receive a college degree without knowing some- Friedman, R., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and
thing about creativity or without learning how to be creative. prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
When teaching about creativity, teachers must try to accom- Psychology, 81, 1001-1013.
plish both of these tasks. Galinsky, A., Gruenfeld, D., Magee, J., Whitson, J., & Liljenquist, K.
(2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for
Declaration of Conflicting Interests creativity, conformity and dissonance. Journal of Personality and
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to Social Psychology, 95, 1450-1466.
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture.
London: Macmillan.
Funding Gough, H. G. (1979). A Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
and/or publication of this article. 1398-1405.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York:
References McGraw-Hill.
Akinola, M., & Mendes, W. (2008). The dark side of creativity: Harris, J. A. (2004). Measured intelligence, achievement, openness to
Biological vulnerability and negative emotions lead to greater experience, and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences,
artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 913-929.
34, 1677-1686. Hayes, J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social NJ: Erlbaum.
psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis Review of Psychology, 61, 569-598.
of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or Howe, M. J. A. (1999). Genius explained. Cambridge, England:
regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779-806. Cambridge University Press.
Baer, J. (2011). Why grand theories of creativity distort, distract, and Karlsson, J. I. (1970). Genetic association of giftedness and creativity
disappoint. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem with schizophrenia. Hereditas, 66, 177-182.
Solving, 21, 73-100. Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York, NY: Springer.
Barron, F. X. (1963). Creativity and psychological health: Origins of Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2002). Could Steven Spielberg manage the
personal vitality and creative freedom. Princeton, NJ: Van Yankees? Creative thinking in different domains. Korean Journal
Nostrand. of Thinking & Problem Solving, 12, 5-14.
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2006). International hand-
creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological book of creativity research. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Review, 67, 380-400. Press.
Carson, S. H. (2011). Creativity and psychopathology: A shared Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2009). Cambridge hand-
vulnerability model. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56, book of creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
144-153. Kéri, S. (2009). Genes for psychosis and creativity: A promoter
Carson, S., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased latent polymorphism of the neuregulin 1 gene is related to creativity in
inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in people with high intellectual achievement. Psychological Science,
high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social 20, 1070-1073.
Psychology, 85, 499-506. Kéri, S. (2011). Solitary minds and social capital: Latent inhibition,
Carson, S., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, valid- general intellectual functions and social network size predict crea-
ity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Question- tive achievements. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
naire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37-50. Arts, 5, 215-221. doi:10.1037/a0022000
Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroi- Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. (2008).
maging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how.
136, 822-848. American Psychologist, 63, 169-181.

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on February 1, 2015

222 Teaching of Psychology 39(3)

Ludwig, A. M. (1992). Creative achievement and psychopathology: Simonton, D. K. (2000b). Methodological and theoretical orientation
Comparison among professions. American Journal of Psychother- and the long-term disciplinary impact of 54 eminent psychologists.
apy, 46, 330-356. Review of General Psychology, 4, 13-24.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to Simonton, D. K. (2003a). Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations:
experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, Strategies and results. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.),
1258-1265. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. 304-328). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Psychological Review, 69, 220-232. Simonton, D. K. (2003b). Scientific creativity as constrained stochas-
Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? tic behavior: The integration of product, process, and person
The potential benefits of dissent and diversity. In P. B. Paulus & B. perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475-494.
A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collabora- Simonton, D. K. (2007). Creativity: Specialized expertise or general
tion (pp. 63-84). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. cognitive processes? In M. J. Roberts (Ed.), Integrating the mind:
Nettle, D. (2006). Schizotypy and mental health amongst poets, visual Domain general versus domain specific processes in higher cogni-
artists, and mathematicians. Journal of Research in Personality, tion (pp. 351-367). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
40, 876-890. Simonton, D. K. (2008a). Bilingualism and creativity. In J. Altarriba
Page, S. E. (2007). Difference: How the power of diversity creates bet- & R. R. Heredia (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles
ter groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton and processes (pp. 147-166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2008b). Scientific talent, training, and performance:
Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity: Inno- Intellect, personality, and genetic endowment. Review of General
vation through collaboration. New York, NY: Oxford University Psychology, 12, 28-46.
Press. Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hier-
Peterson, J. B., & Carson, S. (2000). Latent inhibition and openness to archical model of disposition, development, and achievement. Per-
experience in a high-achieving student population. Personality and spectives on Psychological Science, 4, 441-452.
Individual Differences, 28, 323-332. Simonton, D. K. (2010). So you want to become a creative genius?
Peterson, J. B., Smith, K. W., & Carson, S. (2002). Openness and You must be crazy! In D. Cropley, J. Kaufman, A. Cropley, &
extraversion are associated with reduced latent inhibition: Replica- M. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 218-234). New
tion and commentary. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
1137-1147. Simonton, D. K. (2011a). Creativity and discovery as blind variation:
Richards, T., Runco, M., & Moger, S. (Eds.). (2009). Routledge com- Campbell’s (1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark.
panion to creativity. London, England: Taylor & Francis. Review of General Psychology, 15, 158-174.
Runco, M. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, Simonton, D. K. (2011b). Great flicks: Scientific studies of cinematic
657-687. creativity and aesthetics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Runco, M. (2007). Creativity, theories, and themes: Research, devel- Simonton, D. K. (2012). Creative productivity and aging: An age
opment, and practice. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. decrement - or not? In S. K. Whitbourne & M. Sliwinski (Eds.),
Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. (Eds.). (2011). Encyclopedia of creativity The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of adult development and aging
(2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Elsevier. (pp. 477-496). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human Simonton, D. K., & Damian, R. I. (in press). Creativity. In D. Reisberg
innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology. New York, NY:
Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collabora- Oxford University Press.
tion. New York, NY: Basic Books. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity.
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical American Psychologist, 51, 677-688.
review. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 137-154. Stroebe, W. (2010). The graying of academia: Will it reduce scientific
Simonton, D. K. (1987). Developmental antecedents of achieved productivity? American Psychologist, 65, 660-673.
eminence. Annals of Child Development, 5, 131-169. Stroebe, W., Nijstad, B. A., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2010). Beyond pro-
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and ductivity loss in brainstorming groups: The evolution of a question.
explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psycholo- Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 157-203.
gical Review, 104, 66-89. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt,
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic Brace.
and epigenetic model. Psychological Review, 106, 435-457. Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in
Simonton, D. K. (2000a). Creativity: Cognitive, developmental, problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ:
personal, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55, 151-158. Wiley.

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on February 1, 2015