Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Lifespan Development of Creativity
- The Cambridge Handbook of Lifespan Development of Creativity
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Core Concepts of Lifespan Creativity Development
- Part II The Development of Creativity
- Part III Modes of Enhancement
- 12 Domain-Specific Talent Development
- 13 Enhancement of Creativity across the Lifespan in Mainland China
- 14 Beyond Flights of Fancy?
- 15 Creating Imaginary Worlds across the Lifespan
- 16 Imaginative Creativity in the Writing and Reading of Stories
- 17 The Effects of Video Games on Creativity
- Part IV Environments and Contexts
- Part V Special Populations
- Index
- References
12 - Domain-Specific Talent Development
from Part III - Modes of Enhancement
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2021
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Lifespan Development of Creativity
- The Cambridge Handbook of Lifespan Development of Creativity
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Core Concepts of Lifespan Creativity Development
- Part II The Development of Creativity
- Part III Modes of Enhancement
- 12 Domain-Specific Talent Development
- 13 Enhancement of Creativity across the Lifespan in Mainland China
- 14 Beyond Flights of Fancy?
- 15 Creating Imaginary Worlds across the Lifespan
- 16 Imaginative Creativity in the Writing and Reading of Stories
- 17 The Effects of Video Games on Creativity
- Part IV Environments and Contexts
- Part V Special Populations
- Index
- References
Summary
The development of creativity is simultaneously possible and impossible. It is impossible because creativity is very domain specific, which means there is no general, all-purpose creative-thinking skill or set of skills that is applicable across domains. Just as there is no such thing as domain-general expertise – one can be an expert in one or many domains, but one cannot be an all-purpose expert in all domains – there is no domain-general creativity. There being no such domain-general skills, there are no domain-general creativity-relevant skills to be nurtured. On the other hand, the nurturance of creativity domain by domain is quite possible. This chapter explores the issue of how domain specificity affects the development of creativity.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Lifespan Development of Creativity , pp. 265 - 277Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1994a). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (1994b). Generality of creativity across performance domains: A replication. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1217–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (1994c). Performance assessments of creativity: Do they have long-term stability? Roeper Review, 7(1), 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (2015). The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Review, 37(3), 165–178.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (2016a). Creativity doesn’t develop in a vacuum. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 151, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (2016b). Domain specificity of creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Beaty, R. E., Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2014). Does insight problem solving predict real-world creativity? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 287.Google Scholar
Beghetto, R., Kaufman, J., & Baer, J. (2015). Teaching for creativity in the Common Core classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind’s eye in chess. In Chase, W. G (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215–281). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (1978). Knowledge structure and memory development. In Siegler, R. S. (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops? Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clapham, M. M. (2004). The convergent validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and Creativity Interest Inventories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 828–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005). A report on the 40-year follow-up of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Day, E. (2013, April 20). Online brain-training: Does it really work? The Guardian. Retrieved (June 9, 2019) from www.theguardian.com/science/2013/apr/21/brain-training-online-neuroscience-elizabeth-dayGoogle Scholar
Dow, G. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 389–398.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ivcevic, Z. (2007). Artistic and everyday creativity: An act-frequency approach. Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 271–290.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Why creativity isn’t in IQ tests, why it matters, and why it won’t change anytime soon probably. Journal of Intelligence, 3(3), 59–72.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York: Wiley.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.CrossRefGoogle 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
Kim, K. H. (2011c). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 285–295.Google Scholar
Kim, K. H. (2017). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking–Figural or Verbal: Which one should we use? Creativity. Theories–Research–Applications, 4(2), 302–321.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Problem solving: Teaching and assessing. In De Corte, E. & Weinert, F. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 555–558). Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2002). The promise of educational psychology, Volume II: Teaching for meaningful learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., … Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., Stenton, R., Dajani, S., Burns, A. S., … Ballard, C. G. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465(7299), 775–778.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for the content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pretz, J. E., & McCollum, V. A. (2014). Self-perceptions of creativity do not always reflect actual creative performance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 227.Google Scholar
Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., … Engle, R. W. (2013). No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 359.Google Scholar
Ripple, R. E. (1999). Teaching creativity. In Runco, M. A. & Pritzker, S. R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (vol. 2, pp. 629–638). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177–190.Google Scholar
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388.Google Scholar
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Another look at creativity and intelligence: Exploring higher-order models and probable confounds. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1012–1021.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1992). Gender and genius in Japan: Feminine eminence in masculine culture. Sex Roles, 27, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd. Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ulger, K. (2015) The structure of creative thinking: Visual and verbal areas. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 102–106.Google Scholar
Weinstein, E. C., Clark, Z., DiBartlomomeo, D. J., and Davis, K. (2014). A decline in creativity? It depends on the domain. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 174–184.Google Scholar