Why Creativity Is Domain General, Why It Looks Domain Specific, and Why the Distinction Does Not Matter.

By Jonathan Plucker, R. Beghetto. 2004

360 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Mechanical Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6d672e46d68f719de4906cc76102e9217739b735

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Mechanical Engineering

Citations in the corpus

Are Giftedness and Creativity Synonyms in Mathematics? (2005, background): “Most recently, Plucker and Beghetto (2004) offered an empirical definition of creativity based on a survey and synthesis of numerous empirical studies in the field.”
The generality-specificity of creativity: Exploring the structure of creative potential with EPoC (2016, methodology): “…nature of creativity, hybrid models and multivariate approaches have suggested that creativity resultspartly from a generalized ability, partly from a set of domain-specific abilities, and partly from a set of task-specific abilities (e.g., Lubart & Guignard, 2004; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004).”
Creativity and domain specificity: The effect of task type on multiple indexes of creative problem-solving (2009, positive): “As responses to divergent-thinking tests and creative problem-solving are related to ability (Mumford et al., 1998; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004), a measure of ability was used as a covariate.”
Building creative thinking in the classroom: From research to practice (2013, background): “A middle ground would suggest that creativity has multiple components, some derived from content knowledge and others more general (e.g., Plucker & Beghetto, 2004).”
Answering the Unexpected Questions: Exploring the Relationship Between Students' Creative Self-Efficacy and Teacher Ratings of Creativity (2011, background): “The “domain question” is a live issue in creativity studies—which in recent years has moved from more clearly distinct positions (cf. Baer, 1998; Plucker, 1998) to more hybrid stances (e.g., Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004).”
In Praise of Clark Kent: Creative Metacognition and the Importance of Teaching Kids When (Not) to Be Creative (2013, neutral): “Finally, our definition reflects both domain-specific and domain-general perspectives on creativity (Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004).”
Personal and environmental factors affecting teachers’ creativity-fostering practices in Hong Kong (2014, background): “Literature Review While there has been no consensus on an exact definition of creativity in the literature, most definitions have usually included the two elements of ‘novelty’ and ‘appropriateness’ (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004).”
Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity (2005, background): “Plucker (1998, 2005; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004), for example, has argued for a hybrid position and written that, in terms of its educational implications, "the distinction between general and specific approaches does not matter" (Plucker & Beghetto, 2004, p. 162).”
Creative Thinking Ability: Domain Generality and Specificity (2010, background): “In his article on divergent thinking, creativity, and giftedness, Runco (1993) stated that creativity is very difficult to define and measure, and that divergent-thinking tests are often used to estimate potential creative thinking.”
An Exploratory Study of Relationships between Students’ Creativity and Mathematical Problem-Posing Abilities (2011, background): “However, Plucker and Beghetto (2004), in their literature review on creativity, argued that there are two key elements of creativity, specifically novelty (i.e., original, unique, new, fresh, different creations) and usefulness (i.e., specified, valuable, meaningful, relevant, appropriate,…”