Dean Keith Simonton

Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects.

Although many psychologists have expressed an interest in the phenomenon of creativity, psychological research on this topic did not rapidly expand until after J. P. Guilford claimed, in his 1950 APA presidential address, that this topic deserved far more attention than it was then receiving. This article reviews the progress psychologists have made in understanding creativity since Guilfords call to arms. Research progress has taken place on 4 fronts: the cognitive processes involved in the creative act, the distinctive characteristics of the creative person, the development and manifestation of creativity across the individual life span, and the social environments most strongly associated with creative activity. Although some important questions remain unanswered, psychologists now know more than ever before about how individuals achieve this special and significant form of optimal human functioning.

Scientific Creativity as Constrained Stochastic Behavior: The Integration of Product, Person, and Process Perspectives

Psychologists have primarily investigated scientific creativity from 2 contrasting in vitro perspectives: correlational studies of the creative person and experimental studies of the creative process. Here the same phenomenon is scrutinized using a 3rd, in vivo perspective, namely, the actual creative products that emerge from individual scientific careers and communities of creative scientists. This behavioral analysis supports the inference that scientific creativity constitutes a form of constrained stochastic behavior. That is, it can be accurately modeled as a quasi-random combinatorial process. Key findings from both correlational and experimental research traditions corroborate this conclusion. The author closes the article by arguing that all 3 perspectives--regarding the product, person, and process--must be integrated into a unified view of scientific creativity.

Age and Outstanding Achievement: What Do We Know After a Century of Research?

This article examines, in four sections, the substantial literature on the longitudinal connection between personal age and outstanding achievement in domains of creativity and leadership. First, the key empirical findings are surveyed, with special focus on the typical age curve and its variations across disciplines, the association between precocity, longevity, and production rate, and the linkage between quantity and quality of output over the course of a career. Second, the central methodological issues are outlined, such as the compositional fallacy and differential competition, in order to appraise the relative presence of fact and artifact in the reported results. Third, the more important theoretical interpretations of the longitudinal data are presented and then evaluated for explanatory and predictive power. Fourth and last, central empirical, methodological, and theoretical considerations lead to a set of critical questions on which future research should likely concentrate. For centuries, thinkers have speculated about the association between a persons age and exceptional accomplishment: Is there an optimal age for a person to make a lasting contribution to human culture or society? When during the life span can we expect an individual to be most prolific or influential? It comes as no surprise, then, that one of the oldest topics in life span developmental psychology is the relation between age and achievement. Perhaps the earliest investigation into this matter may be found in Beards (1874)

Sociocultural context of individual creativity: a transhistorical time-series analysis.

Hypotheses were stated which specify individual creativity as a function of developmental and productive period variables. It was then argued that these hypotheses could be better tested by examining generational fluctuations in creativity. Information from cultural and political archival sources was thus aggregated to form time series spanning 127 generations of European history. Data quality checks, control variables, data transformations, time-lagged comparisons, and trend analyses were used to improve the validity of the causal inferences. While the results varied according to the type of creativity (discursive or presentational) and the degree of achieved eminence, creative development was found to be affected by the following: (a) role model availability, (b) political fragmentation, (c) imperial instability, and (d) political instability.

Career Landmarks in Science: Individual Differences and Interdisciplinary Contrasts.

A conceptual framework is introduced for interpreting individual differences in the developmental location of the first, best, and last contributions of a creative career. Eight hypotheses are offered that specify how the placement of the 3 landmarks over the life span should vary according to both individual differences (in age at career onset, lifetime productivity, and eminence) and interdisciplinary contrasts (resulting from the inherent cognitive requirements of each field).

Cross-sectional time-series experiments: Some suggested statistical analyses.

In the past, statistical analyses for time-series experiments have usually operated with a single-case model, thereby limiting the general applicability of the designs. In this article, alternative analytical procedures are developed for cross-sectional time-series in which the sample size is large

Significant Samples: The Psychological Study of Eminent Individuals.

Psychologists occasionally study eminent individuals, such as Nobel laureates, U.S. presidents, Olympic athletes, chess grandmasters, movie stars, and even distinguished psychologists. Studies using such significant samples may be differentiated along 7 distinct dimensions: qualitative versus quantitative, single versus multiple case, nomothetic versus idiographic, confirmatory versus exploratory, crosssectional versus longitudinal, micro versus macro analytical units, and direct versus indirect assessments. However, the vast majority of psychological inquiries may be clustered into just 4 types: historiometric, psychometric, psychobiographical, and comparative. After presenting the intrinsic and extrinsic justifications for studying famous persons, the main methodological issues concerning sampling, measurement, and analysis are discussed. The future prospects of significant samples in psychological research are then briefly examined.

The Social Context of Career Success and Course for 2,026 Scientists and Inventors

The career success and course of 2,026 eminent scientists and inventors were examined relative to the social networks in which their work took place. Career success was gauged by eminence and lifetime contributions; career course was assessed by the age at first, best, and last contributions and the career duration. Once the social relationships were grouped into 15 categories, such as mentors, collaborators, and successors, the relationships were assessed according to their number; eminence, and age gap. Controlling for potential artifacts, analysis revealed how career achievements are associated with the presence of specific proximal and distal interactions and influences across and within generations. Isaac Newton is shown to typify the overall pattern of results.

Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity A Hierarchical Model of Domain-Specific Disposition, Development, and Achievement

Prior research supports the inference that scientific disciplines can be ordered into a hierarchy ranging from the “hard” natural sciences to the “soft” social sciences. This ordering corresponds with such objective criteria as disciplinary consensus, knowledge obsolescence rate, anticipation frequency, theories-to-laws ratio, lecture disfluency, and age at recognition. It is then argued that this hierarchy can be extrapolated to encompass the humanities and arts and interpolated within specific domains to accommodate contrasts in subdomains (e.g., revolutionary versus normal science). This expanded and more finely differentiated hierarchy is then shown to have a partial psychological basis in terms of dispositional traits (e.g., psychopathology) and developmental experiences (e.g., family background). This demonstration then leads to three hypotheses about how a creators domain-specific impact depends on his or her disposition and development: the domain-progressive, domain-typical, and domain-regressive creator hypotheses. Studies published thus far lend the most support to the domain-regressive creator hypothesis. In particular, major contributors to a domain are more likely to have dispositional traits and developmental experiences most similar to those that prevail in a domain lower in the disciplinary hierarchy. However, some complications to this generalization suggest the need for more research on the proposed hierarchical model.

Taking the U.S. Patent Office Criteria Seriously: A Quantitative Three-Criterion Creativity Definition and Its Implications

Although creativity has recently attracted considerable theoretical and empirical research, researchers have yet to reach a consensus on how best to define the phenomenon. To help establish a consensus, a definition is proposed that is based on the three criteria used by the United States Patent Office to evaluate applications for patent protection. The modified version uses the criteria of novelty, utility, and surprise. Moreover, creativity assessments based on these three criteria are quantitative and multiplicative rather than qualitative or additive. This three-criterion definition then leads to four implications regarding (a) the limitations to domain-specific expertise, (b) the varieties of comparable creativities, (c) the contrast between subjective and objective evaluations, and (d) the place of blind variation and selective retention in the creative process. These implications prove that adding the third criterion has critical consequences for understanding the phenomenon. Creativity is not only treated with superior sophistication, but also paradoxes that appear using the most common two-criterion definition readily disappear when the third criterion is included in the analysis. Hence, the conceptual differences between two- and three-criterion definitions are not trivial.