Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity

By John Baer, James C. Kaufman. 2005

401 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7a303806c0d6f775fd801559e388d1cc120f95db

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Improvisation facilitates divergent thinking and creativity: Realizing a benefit of primary school arts education (2015, background): “In their Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity, Baer and Kaufman (2005) argue that to be creative in any domain requires certain core attributes such as sufficient intelligence and motivation.”
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).”
The Construct of Creativity: Structural Model for Self‐Reported Creativity Ratings (2009, background): “One theory that focuses explicitly on creativity across domains is the Amusement Park Theoretical Model (APT Model; Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Kaufman & Baer, 2005a, 2005b, 2006).”
Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for "mini-c" creativity. (2007, background): “Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of creativity.”
The relative influences of domain knowledge and domain-general divergent thinking on scientific creativity and mathematical creativity (2017, background): “Even scientific creativity and mathematical creativity are considered as the same thematic area (Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Kaufman & Baer, 2004b), the factors that influence students' performance in these two domains of creativity may differ.”
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).”
Creative potential in educational settings: its nature, measure, and nurture (2015, background): “…needed across creative tasks within a particular domain), and a set of task-relevant abilities (resources that are uniquely associated with a given creative outlet of interest); (e.g. Baer 1998; Baer and Kaufman 2005; Barbot and Tinio, 2015; Dietrich 2007; Lubart 1999; Lubart and Guignard 2004).”
The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and creativity across subject domains (2011, methodology): “…theoretical levels of domain-specificity and creativity; apart from the general thematic fields which can be identified as the domains we used in the present study (e.g., Arts), there are also specific subdomains (e.g., music), and even micro-domains (e.g., percussions; Baer and Kaufman 2005).”
The Importance of Domain-Specific Expertise in Creativity (2015, background): “Under this model, the more narrowly one defines a domain, the more shared variance there is within that domain (Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Kaufman & Baer, 2005).”