Mathematicians: The creative researcher and the average PhD.

Helson, Ravenna; Crutchfield, Richard S.

doi:10.1037/h0029003

Cited by 116 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous individual-difference variables appear to separate those who merely master domain-specific skills and knowledge from those who actually make creative contributions (Feist, 1998;Simonton, 1999a;Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). For example, many personality studies have indicated that those who are considered notable creators in a domain have identifiably different character traits than do domain experts (i.e., persons who are otherwise comparable in training, experience, and professional standing; see, e.g., Barron, 1969;Helson & Crutchfield, 1970;MacKinnon, 1978;Rostan, 1994). Among the distinguishing attributes are the creator's greater inclination toward nonconformity, unconventionality, independence, openness to experience, ego strength, aggressiveness, risk taking, introversion, and even psychopathology.…”

Section: Empirical Problems With the Creative-expertise Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Creative Development as Acquired Expertise: Theoretical Issues and an Empirical Test

Simonton

2000

Developmental Review

156

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although outstanding creativity has been viewed as an acquired expertise, creative development might operate differently than occurs in sports, games, and music performance. To test the creative-expertise hypothesis, the careers of 59 classical composers were examined according to the differential aesthetic success of their 911 operas. The potential predictors were seven measures of domain-relevant experience: cumulative years (since first operas, first compositions, and first lessons) and cumulative products (genre-specific operas, all operas, all vocal compositions, and all compositions). The nonmonotonic longitudinal trends and the relative explanatory power of the expertise-acquisition measures indicate that complex specialization (''overtraining'') and versatility (''cross-training'') effects may determine creative development across the life span. The broader implications of the findings are then discussed.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Problems With the Creative-expertise Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Creative Development as Acquired Expertise: Theoretical Issues and an Empirical Test

Simonton

2000

Developmental Review

156

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps the best illustration of this tradition is the research conducted at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) 2 at the University of California, Berkeley. Eminent architects, scientists, and creative writers were invited to IPAR (along with control groups of less illustrious colleagues), where they were subjected to a rich array of assessment techniques, including interviews and psychological tests (e.g., Barren, 1969;Dudek & Hall, 1984;Helson & Crutchfield, 1970).…”

Section: Four Research Traditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals.

Simonton

1999

Psychological Methods

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.Empirical journal articles in psychology almost invariably commence their methods section with a subsection in which the researchers define the "subjects" or "participants" of the study (American Psychological Association, 1994). This sample specification comes first because all subsequent procedures and analytical strategies are usually contingent on that choice. An experimental manipulation or psychometric instrument that is indubitably appropriate for one sample might be manifestly inappropriate for another (e.g., whether to use an intelligence test designed for children or adults). In psychology, this sample description is especially critical. Few sciences feature the same diversity of entities that might serve as subjects in psychological research: human beings of every age, gender, ethnicity, occupation, and capacity; animals ranging from mammals, birds, and fish to insects, mollusks, and worms. Yet as diverse as these various subject pools may be, they all seem to have one thing in common: The individuals that compose This article is based on a paper read at the Internationa!

show abstract

“…Barron (1963) and Bergum (1975) have made similar observations. Helson and Crutchfield (1970) administered the California Psychological Inventory to 105 mathematicians who had been rated for creativity by other mathematicians. The more creative mathematicians scored significantly higher on the flexibility scale than did the less creative mathematicians.…”

Section: The Drive For Originalitymentioning

confidence: 99%