In the present study, 258 doctoral students working in the health, biological, and social sciences were asked to solve a series of field-relevant problems calling for creative thought. Proposed solutions to these problems were scored with respect to critical creative thinking skills such as problem definition, conceptual combination, and idea generation. Results indicated that health, biological, and social scientists differed with respect to their skill in executing various operations, or processes, involved in creative thought. Interestingly, no differences were observed as a function of the students' level of experience. The implications of these findings for understanding cross-field, and cross-experience level, differences in creative thought are discussed. Keywords creativity; creative processes; field; experience Students of creativity have long been interested in potential cross-field differences with regard to creative achievement and the characteristics held to influence creative thought (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999;MacKinnon, 1962). For example, Lehman (1953;1966) examined cross-field differences in the timing of eminent achievement finding that peak periods for productivity occurred later in applied than theoretical fields (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Other work, by Feist (1999), compared the personality characteristics of creative scientists to creative artists. His findings indicated that characteristics such as emotional viability, nonconformity, and rebelliousness distinguished creative artists from creative scientists. However, other characteristics such as openness, drive, and autonomy were found to be shared by creative people working in the arts and sciences. Findings of this sort led Csikszentmihalyi (1999) to call for research examining cross-field differences in the nature of creative work.Clearly, many variables including personality (e.g., Feist, 1999), motivation (e.g., Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001;Mumford, Decker, Connelly, Osburn, & Scott, 2002), climate (e.g., Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996;West, 2002), and work conditions (e.g., Amabile & Mueller, 2008;Tierney & Farmer, 2004) might contribute to cross-field differences in creativity and creative achievement. Creativity, although influenced by multiple attributes, ultimately requires the generation of new ideas and the translation of these ideas into viable products (Ghiselin, 1963). Recognition of the importance of creative thought has led to a steady stream of studies examining the influence of knowledge (e.g., Weisberg, 2006), divergent thinking (e.g., Runco & Okuda, 1988), creative thinking processes (e.g., Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999), and strategies for effective execution of these processes (e.g., Scott, Lonergan, & Mumford, 2005).Correspondence should be addressed to Michael D. Mumford, Department of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 or mmumford@ou.edu..
NIH Public Access
Author ManuscriptCreat Res J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 February 1.
Published in final edited fo...