Advertisement

The Sociocultural Context of Exceptional Creativity: Historiometric Methods

  • Dean Keith SimontonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture book series (PASCC)

Abstract

The social nature of creativity becomes rather conspicuous when studying creative genius. Not only do exceptional creators exert a phenomenal impact on the larger society and culture, but they are also very much the products of the sociocultural system. Yet several methodological problems confront the application of standard research methods in the case of creative genius. First, to comprehend this phenomenon fully requires that these creators be deceased, for only then can their sociocultural impact be accurately accessed (e.g., the “test of time”). That requirement immediately rules out laboratory experiments, surveys, psychometric assessments, and interviews. Second, a comprehensive understanding requires a transhistorical and cross-cultural perspective that examines the full range of social conditions responsible for the emergence (and non-emergence) of creative genius. Standard methods, in contrast, are extremely limited with respect to both time and place—to wit, contemporary creators living in Western or at least highly-Westernized societies. Hence arises a method uniquely designed to study the “psychology of genius” by applying quantitative measurement and statistics to historical and biographical data—the technique known as historiometrics or historiometry. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to outlining the key features of this method, including case sampling, unit definition, variable measurement, and statistical analysis.

Keywords

Creativity Genius History Historiometrics Methodology 

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  4. Barron, F. X. (1963). Creativity and psychological health: Origins of personal vitality and creative freedom. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  5. de Candolle, A. (1873). Histoire des sciences et des savants depuis deux siècles. Geneve, Switzerland: Georg.Google Scholar
  6. Cassandro, V. J., & Simonton, D. K. (2010). Versatility, openness to experience, and topical diversity in creative products: An exploratory historiometric analysis of scientists, philosophers, and writers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cattell, J. M. (1903). A statistical study of eminent men. Popular Science Monthly, 62, 359–377.Google Scholar
  8. Cerridwen, A., & Simonton, D. K. (2009). Sex doesn’t sell—Nor impress: Content, box office, critics, and awards in mainstream cinema. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cerulo, K. A. (1988). Analyzing cultural products: A new method of measurement. Social Science Research, 17, 317–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2015). Psychopathology, adversity, and creativity: Diversifying experiences in the development of eminent African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 623–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feist, G. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science, 4, 366–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feist, G. J. (2014). Psychometric studies of scientific talent and eminence. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 62–86). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Galton, F. (1865). Hereditary talent and character. Macmillan’s Magazine, 12, 157–166, 318–327.Google Scholar
  15. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grosul, M., & Feist, G. J. (2014). The creative person in science. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helson, R. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 210–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010, July 1). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29.  https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones, B. F., Reedy, E. J., & Weinberg, B. A. (2014). Age and scientific genius. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 422–450). Oxford, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Klingemann, H.-D., Mohler, P. P., & Weber, R. P. (1982). Cultural indicators based on content analysis: A secondary analysis of Sorokin’s data on fluctuations of systems of truth. Quality and Quantity, 16, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kozbelt, A. (2011). Age and aesthetic significance in classical music: A multi-level reanalysis of Halsey’s (1976) ratings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 29, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kozbelt, A., & Burger-Pianko, Z. (2007). Words, music, and other measures: Predicting the repertoire popularity of 597 Schubert lieder. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kroeber, A. L. (1944). Configurations of culture growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ligon, G. S., Harris, D. J., & Hunter, S. T. (2012). Quantifying leaders lives: What historiometric approaches can tell us. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1104–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindauer, M. S. (1993). The old-age style and its artists. Empirical Studies and the Arts, 11, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.Google Scholar
  27. Martindale, C. (1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic styles. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Meredith, D., & Kozbelt, A. (2014). A swan song for the swan-song phenomenon: Multi-level evidence against robust end-of-life effects for classical composers. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 32, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murray, C. (2003). Human accomplishment: The pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  30. Naroll, R., Benjamin, E. C., Fohl, F. K., Fried, M. J., Hildreth, R. E., & Schaefer, J. M. (1971). Creativity: A cross-historical pilot survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Over, R. (1982). The durability of scientific reputation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 18, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quételet, A. (1968). A treatise on man and the development of his faculties. New York: Franklin. (Reprint of 1842 Edinburgh translation of 1835 French original).Google Scholar
  33. Raskin, E. A. (1936). Comparison of scientific and literary ability: A biographical study of eminent scientists and men of letters of the nineteenth century. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 31, 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roe, A. (1953). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead.Google Scholar
  35. Schultz, W. T. (2014). The psychobiography of genius. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 20–32). Oxford, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Simonton, D. K. (1974). The social psychology of creativity: An archival data analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University.Google Scholar
  37. Simonton, D. K. (1975). Sociocultural context of individual creativity: A transhistorical time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1119–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simonton, D. K. (1976a). Biographical determinants of achieved eminence: A multivariate approach to the cox data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simonton, D. K. (1976b). The sociopolitical context of philosophical beliefs: A transhistorical causal analysis. Social Forces, 54, 513–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simonton, D. K. (1977). Eminence, creativity, and geographic marginality: A recursive structural equation model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simonton, D. K. (1980). Thematic fame, melodic originality, and musical zeitgeist: A biographical and transhistorical content analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 972–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simonton, D. K. (1983). Intergenerational transfer of individual differences in hereditary monarchs: Genetic, role-modeling, cohort, or sociocultural effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simonton, D. K. (1984a). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simonton, D. K. (1984b). Leaders as eponyms: Individual and situational determinants of monarchal eminence. Journal of Personality, 52, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Galtonian genius, Kroeberian configurations, and emulation: A generational time-series analysis of Chinese civilization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 230–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simonton, D. K. (1989a). Shakespeare’s sonnets: A case of and for single-case historiometry. Journal of Personality, 57, 695–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simonton, D. K. (1989b). The swan-song phenomenon: Last-works effects for 172 classical composers. Psychology and Aging, 4, 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simonton, D. K. (1990). Psychology, science, and history: An introduction to historiometry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simonton, D. K. (1991a). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simonton, D. K. (1991b). Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of 120 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 829–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simonton, D. K. (1992). Leaders of American psychology, 1879–1967: Career development, creative output, and professional achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simonton, D. K. (1996). Individual genius and cultural configurations: The case of Japanese civilization. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 354–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simonton, D. K. (1997a). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Simonton, D. K. (1997b). Foreign influence and national achievement: The impact of open milieus on Japanese civilization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals. Psychological Methods, 4, 425–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simonton, D. K. (2000a). Creativity: Cognitive, developmental, personal, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simonton, D. K. (2000b). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term disciplinary impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simonton, D. K. (2000c). The music or the words? Or, how important is the libretto for an opera’s aesthetic success? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Francis Galton’s hereditary genius: Its place in the history and psychology of science. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The anatomy of impact: What has made the great works of psychology great (pp. 3–18). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Simonton, D. K. (2009a). Genius, creativity, and leadership. In T. Rickards, M. Runco, & S. Moger (Eds.), Routledge companion to creativity (pp. 247–255). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  61. Simonton, D. K. (2009b). The “other IQ”: Historiometric assessments of intelligence and related constructs. Review of General Psychology, 13, 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Presidential leadership: Performance criteria and their predictors. In M. G. Rumsey (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership (pp. 327–342). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Simonton, D. K. (2013). What is a creative idea? Little-c versus big-C creativity. In J. Chan & K. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity (pp. 69–83). Cheltenham Glos, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  64. Simonton, D. K. (2014a). Historiometric studies of genius. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 87–106). Oxford, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  65. Simonton, D. K. (2014b). More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simonton, D. K. (2014c). Significant samples—Not significance tests! The often overlooked solution to the replication problem. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 11–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Simonton, D. K. (2017, April 6). Intellectual genius in the Islamic Golden Age: Cross-civilization replications, extensions, and modifications. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Simonton, D. K., & Song, A. V. (2009). Eminence, IQ, physical and mental health, and achievement domain: Cox’s 282 geniuses revisited. Psychological Science, 20, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Simonton, D. K., & Ting, S.-S. (2010). Creativity in eastern and western civilizations: The lessons of historiometry. Management and Organization Review, 6, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sorokin, P. A. (1937–1941). Social and cultural dynamics (Vols. 1–4). New York: American Book.Google Scholar
  71. Terman, L. M. (1917). The intelligence quotient of Francis Galton in childhood. American Journal of Psychology, 28, 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Terman, L. M. (1925–1959). Genetic studies of genius (5 vols.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Thorndike, E. L. (1936). The relation between intellect and morality in rulers. American Journal of Sociology, 42, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thorndike, E. L. (1950). Traits of personality and their intercorrelations as shown in biographies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 41, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weisberg, R. W. (2015). On the usefulness of “value” in the definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Woods, F. A. (1906). Mental and moral heredity in royalty. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  77. Woods, F. A. (1909, November 19). A new name for a new science. Science, 30, 703–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Woods, F. A. (1911, April 14). Historiometry as an exact science. Science, 33, 568–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Woods, F. A. (1913). The influence of monarchs: Steps in a new science of history. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  80. Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations