Boundless Creativity: Evidence for the Domain Generality of Individual Differences in Creativity

CHUANSHENG CHEN,ELLEN GREENBERGER,JULIA DMITRIEVA,JOSEPH KASOF,AMY HIMSEL

doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01272.x

CHUANSHENG CHEN, ELLEN GREENBERGER + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01272.x

Copy DOI

Abstract

AbstractThis study investigated correlates of domain‐general and domain‐specific components of creativity. 158 college students completed a questionnaire that assessed their motivational and personality traits (i.e., intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, creative personality, and originality in word association) as well as intellectual abilities (SAT verbal and quantitative scores). Under two different instruction conditions (standard instruction or explicit “be creative” instruction), students also took a battery of multi‐item, product‐based tests of creativity in three domains (artistic, verbal, and mathematical creativity). Factor analyses showed evidence of domain‐generality of creativity. Furthermore, results from structural equation models showed that motivational and personality traits and intellectual abilities were associated with the domain‐general component of creativity. Only one variable (SAT quantitative score) was found to be associated with the domain‐specific component of mathematical creativity under the explicit “be creative” instruction condition. These results affirm the domain‐generality of creativity and challenge researchers to identify correlates of domain‐specific components of creativity.

Highlights

The debate on the domain-generality vs. domain-specificity of creativity has intensified over the past two decades and is reaching a new height with the publication of a volume mainly devoted to this issue (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Singer, 2004)
In several different domains creative behavior has been associated with stable individual differences in intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in schoolwork and employment (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994; Kaufman, 2002) and with need for cognition, which Cacioppo and Petty (1982) define as trait intrinsic motivation to engage in effortful cognitive processing (Dollinger, 2003; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999)
The scores from the eight tests of creativity were submitted to a principal component analysis

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The debate on the domain-generality vs. domain-specificity of creativity has intensified over the past two decades and is reaching a new height with the publication of a volume mainly devoted to this issue (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Singer, 2004). The key evidence for domain-specificity derives from the low correlations among ratings of creative performance in different domains (e.g., poetry, mathematics, and drawings) (Baer, 1991, 1994a; Conti, Coon, & Amabile, 1996; Kaufman & Baer, 2004; Han, 2003; Han & Marvin, 2002; Runco, 1989; Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile, 1998) or even within the domain of verbal creativity (e.g., poetry vs story, Baer, 1994a; painting vs drawing, Conti et al, 1996); low correlations between creativity in specific domains and creativity assessed with measures such as TTCT (Diakidoy & Spanoudis, 2002) and Wallace-Kogan Creative Thinking Test (Han, 2003; Han & Marvin, 2002); a lack of transfer of learning of creativity skills across domains (Baer, 1994b, 1996); and the small number of geniuses who excel in multiple domains (Baer, 2004; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995) The evidence for both sides of the debate, has serious weaknesses. This is perhaps due to the fact that the explicit “be creative” instruction helps to direct research participants’ attention to the creativity dimension of the criteria that will be used in performance evaluation

Procedures

RESULTS

DISCUSSION