In this reply, I concentrate on two broad issues raised by the four commentaries in this issue: the hierarchical model of domains and individual differences in creativity. In the first case, I cite additional research to address the contrast between “hard” and “soft” domains and the application of this contrast to children, adolescents, and noneminent adults. In the second case, I introduce two recent studies to confirm the model's predictions regarding personal creative achievement. I hope that the original article, the commentaries, and this reply will inspire future inquiries into creativity in all its disciplinary varieties.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bliss, H.E. (1935). The system of the sciences and the organization of knowledge. Philosophy of Science, 2, 86–103.
2.
Feist, G.J. (2009). The psychology of Simonton's science: Commentary on Simonton (2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 460–461.
3.
Gnoli, C. (2008). Categories and facets in integrative levels. Axiomathes, 18, 177–192.
4.
Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary imaginations. Baltimore: Penguin.
5.
Kaufman, J.C. and J. Baer (2009). Is one dimension enough? A response to Simonton's “Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity.”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 453–454.
6.
Ko, Y. and J. Kim (2008). Scientific geniuses' psychopathology as a moderator in the relation between creative contribution types and eminence. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 251–261.
7.
Prpić, K. (2008, July). Scientists' perceptions of scientific objectivity. Paper presented at the International Society for the Psychology of Science and Technology, Berlin.
8.
Root-Bernstein, R., L. Allen, L. Beach, R. Bhadula, J. Fast and C. Hosey et al., (2008). Arts foster scientific success: Avocations of Nobel, National Academy, Royal Society, and Sigma Xi members. Journal of the Psychology of Science and Technology, 1, 51–63.
9.
Runco, M.A. (2009). Simplifying theories of creativity and revisiting the criterion problem: A comment on Simonton's hierarchical model of domain-specific disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 462–465.
10.
Schaefer, C.E. and A. Anastasi (1968). A biographical inventory for identifying creativity in adolescent boys. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 42–48.
11.
Smithers, A.G. and D. Child (1974). Convergers and divergers: Different forms of neuroticism?British Journal of Educational Psychology, 44, 304–306.
12.
Sulloway, F.J. (2009). Sources of scientific innovation: A meta-analytic approach (commentary on Simonton, 2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 455–459.
