Defining Creativity: Don't We Also Need to Define What Is Not Creative?

By Dean Keith Simonton. 2018

129 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/63347ffbb4809345ffcc3fa427d3c883a38bbab2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. R. Reiter‐Palmon
2. Boris Forthmann
3. Baptiste Barbot
4. Mark A. Runco
5. Selcuk Acar

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Baptiste Barbot
2. R. Reiter‐Palmon
3. Boris Forthmann
4. Mark A. Runco
5. Paul J Silvia
6. Maciej Karwowski
7. R. Beghetto
8. James C. Kaufman

Citations in the corpus

• Mapping the Themes, Impact, and Cohesion of Creativity Research over the Last 25 Years (2016, background): “Simonton (2016) also took this tack when he asked, “Don’t we also need to define what is not creative?””
• Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. (2019, background): “A recent alternative definition provided by Simonton (2018) includes a surprise component, which is tied to the prior knowledge of the person.”