某些人是否普遍比其他人更有创造力?五十年研究的系统回顾

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Sébastien Miravete, André Tricot
{"title":"某些人是否普遍比其他人更有创造力?五十年研究的系统回顾","authors":"Sébastien Miravete, André Tricot","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many recent studies support the idea that creativity is partially or totally “domain-general.” Certain individuals may exhibit greater creativity than the average, whatever the domain. More precisely, certain general factors (e.g., genetic factors, creative personality) could significantly impact creativity. This systematic review aims to evaluate this latter assertion. All empirical papers using at least two creative performance tasks in two domains were selected (<i>n</i> = 36). Results show that some participants succeed in creative tasks in several different domains, but only in experiments where specific prior knowledge is not controlled and tasks are artificial. Furthermore, certain studies conflate the function, which is domain-general, with its functioning, which may not necessarily be domain-general. For these reasons, the results appear less robust (no control for confounding factors) and less representative (creative tasks are not academically, socially, or professionally realistic). Therefore, it seems premature to recommend the integration of general creative skills into school or training programs, as well as the selection of students or employees with a presumed “creative profile.”</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Some People Generally More Creative Than Others? A Systematic Review of Fifty Years’ Research\",\"authors\":\"Sébastien Miravete, André Tricot\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Many recent studies support the idea that creativity is partially or totally “domain-general.” Certain individuals may exhibit greater creativity than the average, whatever the domain. More precisely, certain general factors (e.g., genetic factors, creative personality) could significantly impact creativity. This systematic review aims to evaluate this latter assertion. All empirical papers using at least two creative performance tasks in two domains were selected (<i>n</i> = 36). Results show that some participants succeed in creative tasks in several different domains, but only in experiments where specific prior knowledge is not controlled and tasks are artificial. Furthermore, certain studies conflate the function, which is domain-general, with its functioning, which may not necessarily be domain-general. For these reasons, the results appear less robust (no control for confounding factors) and less representative (creative tasks are not academically, socially, or professionally realistic). Therefore, it seems premature to recommend the integration of general creative skills into school or training programs, as well as the selection of students or employees with a presumed “creative profile.”</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的许多研究都支持这样一种观点,即创造力部分或完全具有 "领域通用性"。无论在哪个领域,某些人都可能表现出比一般人更强的创造力。更确切地说,某些一般因素(如遗传因素、创造性人格)可能会对创造力产生重大影响。本系统综述旨在评估后一种说法。我们选取了在两个领域中使用至少两种创造性表现任务的所有经验性论文(n = 36)。结果表明,一些参与者在多个不同领域的创造性任务中取得了成功,但仅限于在没有控制特定先验知识和人为任务的实验中。此外,某些研究将具有领域通用性的功能与其作用混为一谈,而后者不一定具有领域通用性。由于这些原因,研究结果似乎不那么可靠(没有对混杂因素进行控制),也不那么具有代表性(创造性任务在学术、社会或职业方面都不现实)。因此,建议将一般创造性技能纳入学校或培训计划,以及选择具有假定的 "创造性特征 "的学生或员工,似乎还为时过早。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Are Some People Generally More Creative Than Others? A Systematic Review of Fifty Years’ Research

Are Some People Generally More Creative Than Others? A Systematic Review of Fifty Years’ Research

Many recent studies support the idea that creativity is partially or totally “domain-general.” Certain individuals may exhibit greater creativity than the average, whatever the domain. More precisely, certain general factors (e.g., genetic factors, creative personality) could significantly impact creativity. This systematic review aims to evaluate this latter assertion. All empirical papers using at least two creative performance tasks in two domains were selected (n = 36). Results show that some participants succeed in creative tasks in several different domains, but only in experiments where specific prior knowledge is not controlled and tasks are artificial. Furthermore, certain studies conflate the function, which is domain-general, with its functioning, which may not necessarily be domain-general. For these reasons, the results appear less robust (no control for confounding factors) and less representative (creative tasks are not academically, socially, or professionally realistic). Therefore, it seems premature to recommend the integration of general creative skills into school or training programs, as well as the selection of students or employees with a presumed “creative profile.”

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信