Psychologists and educators frequently debate whether creativity and problem solving are domain-general—applicable to all disciplines and tasks—or domain-specific—tailored to specific disciplines and tasks. In this paper, we briefly review the major arguments for both positions, identify conceptual and empirical weaknesses of both perspectives, and describe two relatively new hybrid models that attempt to address ways in which creativity and innovation are both domain-general and domain-specific.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Interestingly, lists of polymaths rarely include women, although many lists are quite multicultural. However, the lists tend to focus within dominant cultures at specific points in time. For example, the lists are heavily populated by Renaissance Italians, Revolutionary-era Americans, Ninth Century Arabs, and Eleventh Century Chinese. When perusing these lists, it appears important to keep in mind that the victors write history.
Ceiling effects, in this context, represent the fact that bright students tend to score at the top end of the scale on many cognitive assessments, whereas their scores show greater variance when the “ceiling” is higher on specific intellectual tests. By placing an arbitrarily low ceiling on test scores, the appearing lack of variance can lead to questionable conclusions about test performance.
Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). Multipotentiality among the intellectually gifted: It was never there and already it’s vanishing. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 65–76.
Achter, J. A., Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1997). Rethinking multipotentiality among the intellectually gifted: A critical review and recommendations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 5–15.
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Baer, J. (1994). Why you shouldn’t trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 51, 80–83.
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.
Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Talent development in an age of situated approaches to learning and thinking. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 209–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domains of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190–214). London: Sage.
Dollinger, S. J., & Shafran, M. (2005). Note on consensual assessment technique in creativity research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 592–598.
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to expert performance: Empirical evidence from the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1988). Creative lives and creative works: A synthetic scientific approach. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 298–324). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Helson, R. (2008). One surprise after another. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 205–214.
Hocevar, D. (1976). Dimensionality of creativity. Psychological Reports, 39, 869–870.
Holland, J. L., & Nichols, R. C. (1964). Prediction of academic and extracurricular achievement in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 55–65.
Holland, J. L., & Richards, J. M., Jr. (1965). Academic and nonacademic accomplishment: Correlated or uncorrelated? Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 165–174.
Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 389–403.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Hawking’s haiku, Madonna’s math: Why it is hard to be creative in every room of the house. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 3–19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005). The amusement park theory of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 321–328). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cole, J. C., & Sexton, J. D. (2008). A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters using the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Research Journal (in press).
Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press.
Kerr, B. (1991). A handbook for counseling the gifted and talented. Alexandria: American Association for Counseling and Development.
Kogan, N. (1994). Diverging from divergent thinking (Review of the book Divergent thinking and creativity: A task specific approach). Contemporary Psychology, 39, 291–292.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.
Legree, P. J., Pifer, M. E., & Grafton, F. C. (1996). Correlations among cognitive abilities are lower for high ability groups. Intelligence, 23, 54–57.
Lim, W., & Plucker, J. (2001). Creativity through a lens of social responsibility: Implicit theories of creativity with Korean samples. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 115–130.
Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P., & Shen, J. (2003). The influence of CASE on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33, 143–162.
Lubinski, D. & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 137–150.
Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Ryan, J. (1995). Stability of vocational interests among the intellectually gifted from adolescence to adulthood: A 15-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 90–94.
Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1999). Multipotential abilities and vocational interests in gifted adolescents: Fact or fiction? International Journal of Psychology, 34, 81–93.
Milgram, R. M., & Livne, N. L. (2005). Creativity as a general and a domain-specific ability: The domain of mathematics as an exemplar. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 187–204). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2008). The role of the family in talent development. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 53–70). New York: Springer.
Pask-McCartney, C., & Salomone, P. R. (1988). Difficult cases in career counseling: III. The multipotentialed client. Career Development Quarterly, 36, 231–240.
Piirto, J. (2005). The creative process in poets. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 1–22). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179–182.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Reanalyses of student responses to creativity checklists: Evidence of content generality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 126–137.
Plucker, J. A. (2005). The (relatively) generalist view of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 307–312). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Plucker, J., & Barab, S. A. (2005). The importance of contexts in theories of giftedness: Learning to embrace the messy joys of subjectivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. A. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 201–216). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Plucker, J., & Beghetto, R. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Plucker, J., & Stocking, V. (2001). Looking outside and inside: Self-concept development of gifted adolescents. Exceptional Children, 67, 535–548.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologists, 39, 83–96.
Plucker, J. A., Kaufman, J. C., Temple, J. S., & Qian, M. (2008). Do experts and novices evaluate movies the same way? Psychology & Marketing (in press).
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
Renzulli, J. S. (1988). Technical report of research studies related to the Revolving Door Identification Model (2nd ed., Vol. II). Storrs, CT: Bureau of Educational Research and Service. The University of Connecticut.
Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center: Creative Learning Press.
Robinson, N. M. (1997). The role of universities and colleges in educating gifted undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 217–236.
Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and everyday creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 93–98.
Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. (1990). Evaluating the creativity of children’s ideas. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 439–452.
Runco, M. A., Johnson, D. J., & Bear, P. K. (1993). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s creativity. Child Study Journal, 23, 91–113.
Runco, M. A., McCarthy, K. A., & Svenson, E. (1994). Judgments of the creativity of artwork from students and professional artists. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 23–31.
Rysiew, K. J., Shore, B. M., & Leeb, R. T. (1999). Multipotentiality, giftedness, and career choice: A review. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 423–430.
Simonton, D. K. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into psychology’s history. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Simonton, D. K. (2005). Creativity in psychology: On becoming and being a great psychologist. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 139–151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The domain generality versus specificity debate: How should it beposed? In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 299–306). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (1995). The nature of insight. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tardif, T. Z., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). What do we know about creativity? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 429–440). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Lexington: Ginn.
Weisberg, R. Q. (1993). Creativity beyond the myth of genius. New York: Freeman.
About this article
Cite this article
Plucker, J., Zabelina, D. Creativity and interdisciplinarity: one creativity or many creativities?. ZDM Mathematics Education 41, 5–11 (2009) doi:10.1007/s11858-008-0155-3
- Problem solving