Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Creativity and Domain
- Part II Creativity in the Traditional Arts
- Part III Creativity in the Sciences
- Part IV Creativity in Business
- Part V Newer Domains for Creativity Research
- Part VI Creativity in Everyday Life
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Part III - Creativity in the Sciences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Creativity and Domain
- Part II Creativity in the Traditional Arts
- Part III Creativity in the Sciences
- Part IV Creativity in Business
- Part V Newer Domains for Creativity Research
- Part VI Creativity in Everyday Life
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Abstract
It is not uncommon for people to gloss over the high degree of creativity involved in science. The physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy) would not be where they are today without extremely creative insights and solutions to both experimental and theoretical problems. In this chapter I review the vast and growing psychological literature on creativity in the physical sciences. I do so by organizing the studies by their overarching methodology, namely psychometric, experimental, biographical, historiometric, and biometric. I begin, however, by first defining creativity and how it is measured in the physical sciences. I end by pointing out some of the important gaps in our understanding of creativity in the physical sciences, such as the biological, genetic, epigenetic, and neuroscientific foundations of creative talent in the physical sciences, why still so few women are entering the profession, and whether personality traits distinguish those who are interested in and have talent for the physical sciences compared to the social and biological sciences.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains , pp. 197 - 322Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
References
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Stott, C., Bolton, P., & Goodyer, I. (1997). Is there a link between engineering and autism? Autism, 1, 101–109.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Bolton, P., Wheelwright, S., Short, L., Mead, G., Smith, A., & Scahill, V. (1998). Autism occurs more often in families of physicists, engineers, and mathematicians, Autism, 2, 296–301.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-Functioning Autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians, Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 31, 5–17.Google Scholar
Bayer, A. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1977). Career age and research–professional activities of academic scientists: Tests of alternative non-linear models and some implications for higher education faculty policies. Journal of Higher Education, 48, 259–282.Google Scholar
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029−1031.Google Scholar
Berger, J. (1994). The young scientists: America’s future and the winning of the Westinghouse. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Billington, J., Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2007). Cognitive style predicts entry into physical sciences and humanities: Questionnaire and performance tests of empathy and systemizing. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 260–268.Google Scholar
Brink, T. L. (1980). Idiot savant with unusual mechanical ability: An organic explanation. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(2), 250–251.Google Scholar
Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (2005). Talent search research: What have we learned? High Ability Studies, 16, 97–111.Google Scholar
Bunge, S. A., Wendelken, C., Badre, D., & Wagner, A. D. (2005). Analogical reasoning and prefrontal cortex: Evidence for separable retrieval and integration mechanisms. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 239–249.Google Scholar
Byrne, R. W. (2001). Social and technical forms of primate intelligence. In deWaal, F. B. M. (Ed.), Tree of origin: What primate behavior can tell us about human social evolution (pp. 145–172). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.Google Scholar
Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain specific knowledge and conceptual change. In Hirschfeld, L. A and Gelman, S. A. (Eds.). Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture, (pp. 169–200). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P., Stich, S., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (2002). The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1963). The personality and motivation of the researcher from measurements of contemporaries and from biography. In Taylor, C. W. & Barron, F. X. (Eds.). Scientific creativity (pp. 119–131). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. (Eds.). (2007). Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. (2010). The mathematics of sex: How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 29–38. DOI:10.3758/BF03195939Google Scholar
Chung, K. H., & Cox, R. A. K. (1990). Patterns of productivity in the finance literature: A study of the bibliometric distributions. Journal of Finance, 45, 301–309. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1990.tb05095.xGoogle Scholar
Clement, J. (1991). Experts and science students: The use of analogies, extreme cases, and physical intuition. In Voss, J. E, Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J. W. (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 345–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 291–294.Google Scholar
Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood, and research performance in science. Scientific American, 256, 119–125.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958–977.Google Scholar
Cox, C. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Volume II – The early mental traits of 300 geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Csikszentihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1997). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35, 13–21.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Thorpe, G., Wilson, V., Starr, J.M., & Whalley, L. J. (2003). Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: The Scottish mental survey 1932. Intelligence, 31, 533–542. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00053-9.Google Scholar
Dennis, W. (1966). Creative productivity between the ages of 20 and 80 years. Journal of Gerontology, 21, 1–8.Google Scholar
Diamond, A. M. (1986). The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and scientist. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 520–525.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo⁄in vitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 5, 334–339.Google Scholar
Edge, The Third Culture (2005) The science of gender and science: Pinker vs. Spelke, a debate, May 16. Retrieved on September 24, 2015, from http://edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html.Google Scholar
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychological Review, 85, 395–416.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Word association, origence and psychoticism. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 209–216.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Börner, K., Contractor, N., Fiore, S. M., Hall, K. L., Keyton, J., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Advancing the science of team science. Clinical and Translational Science, 3, 263–266.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science, 4, 366–371.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1997). Quantity, quality, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important? Creativity Research Journal, 10, 325–335. DOI:10.1207/s15326934crj1004_4Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2, 290–309.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2001). Three perspectives on evolution, creativity, and aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 2, 3.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2006a). How development and personality influence scientific thought, interest, and achievement. Review of General Psychology, 10, 163–182.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2006b). The development of scientific talent in Westinghouse finalists and members of the National Academy of Sciences. Journal of Adult Development, 13, 23–35. DOI: 10.1007/s10804-006-9002-3.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2006c). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2011). Psychology of science as a new subdiscipline in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 330–334. DOI: 10.1177/0963721411418471Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2012). Predicting interest in and attitudes toward science from personality and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 771–775. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.005Google Scholar
Fonlupt, P. (2003). Perception and judgment of physical causality involve different brain structures. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 248–254.Google Scholar
Francis, B., Skelton, C., & Read, B. (2012). The identities and practices of high achieving pupils: Negotiating achievement and peer cultures. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Gallagher, A. M., & DeLisi, R. (1994). Gender differences in Scholastic Aptitude Test – Mathematics problem solving among high ability students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 204–211.Google Scholar
Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Geary, D. C., & Huffman, K. J. (2002). Brain and cognitive evolution: Forms of modularity and functions of mind. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 667–698.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Jeriorski, M. (1989). Historical shifts in the use of analogy in science. In Gholson, B., Shadish, W. R., Neimeyer, R. A., & Houts, A. C. (Eds.), Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 296–325). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J., & Light, P. (1967). Intelligence among university scientists. Nature, 213(5075), 441–443. DOI:10.1038/213441a0Google Scholar
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.Google Scholar
Gleick, J. (1992). Genius: The life and science of Richard Feynman. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Goodchild, P. (1980). J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of worlds. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. New York: William Morrow and Co.Google Scholar
Gorman, M. E. (1992). Simulating science: Heuristics, mental models, and technoscientific thinking. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gorman, M. E. (2013). The psychology of technological invention. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 383–396). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory: Administrators guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Green, A. E., Kraemer, D. J. M., Fugelsang, J. A., Gray, J. R., & Dunbar, K. N. (2010). Connecting long distance: Semantic distance in analogical reasoning modulates frontopolar cortex activity. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 70–76. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhp081.Google Scholar
Gorman, M. E., Stafford, A., & Gorman, M. E. (1987). Disconfirmation and dual hypotheses on a more difficult version of Wason’s 2–4–6 task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 39, 1–28.Google Scholar
Grosul, M., & Feist, G. J. (2014). The creative person in science. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 30–43. DOI:10.1037/a0034828.Google Scholar
Gupta, D. K. (1987). Lotka’s law and productivity patterns of entomological research in Nigeria for the period, 1900–1973. Scientometrics, 12, 33–46. DOI:10.1007/BF02016688Google Scholar
Harmon, L. R. (1961). The High School background of science doctorates: A survey reveals the influence of class size, region of origin, as well as ability, in PhD production. Science, 133, 679–688.Google Scholar
Hecht, D. K. (2015). Storytelling and science: Rewriting Oppenheimer in the Nuclear Age. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269, 41−45.Google Scholar
Helson, R., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1970). Mathematicians: The creative researcher and the average PhD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 250–257.Google Scholar
Hemlin, S., & Olsson, L. (2013). The psychology of research groups: Creativity and performance. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 397–418). New York: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell-curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 102, 16569–16572. DOI:10.1073/pnas.0507655102Google Scholar
Horner, K. L., Rushton, J. P., & Vernon, P. A. (1986). Relation between aging and research productivity of academic psychologists. Psychology and Aging, 4, 319–324.Google Scholar
Huang, S. H., & Yang, JM. (2012). A study on the productivity review for management of performance using bibliometric methodology. Eleventh Wuhan International Conference on e-Business. Paper 4. Abstract retrieved on October 20, 2015, from http://aisel.aisnet.org/whiceb2011/4Google Scholar
Jones, R. A. (1997). The Boffin: A stereotype of scientists in post-war British films (1945–1970). Public Understanding of Science, 6, 31–48.Google Scholar
Kadosh, R. C., Soski, S., Iuculano, T., Kanai, R., & Walsh, V. (2010). Modulating neuronal activity produces specific and long-lasting changes in numerical competence. Current Biology, 20, 2016–2020. Doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.10.007Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Hawking’s haiku, Madonna’s math: Why it is hard to be creative in every room of the house. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar
Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klahr, D., & Simon, H. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 524–543.Google Scholar
Kokosh, J. (1969). MMPI personality characteristics of physical and social science students. Psychological Reports, 24, 883–893.Google Scholar
Koyama, R., & Ikegaya, Y. (2015). Microglia in the pathogenesis of autism spectrum disorders. Neuroscience Research. Retrieved on October 23, 2015, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2015.06.005Google Scholar
Kumar, N. (Ed.). (2012). Gender and science: Studies across cultures. Delhi, India: Foundation Books.Google Scholar
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(4450), 1335–1342. DOI:10.1126/science.208.4450.1335zGoogle Scholar
Lawson, J., Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). Empathizing and systemizing in adults with and without Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 301–310.Google Scholar
Le, H., Robbins, S. B., & Westrick, P. (2014). Predicting student enrollment and persistence in college STEM fields using an expanded PE fit framework: A large-scale multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 915–947.Google Scholar
Lehman, H. C. (1960). The age decrement in outstanding scientific creativity. American Psychologist, 15, 128–134.Google Scholar
Lehman, H. C. (1966). The psychologist’s most creative years. American Psychologist, 21, 363–369.Google Scholar
Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 81, 114–132.Google Scholar
Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 996–1009.Google Scholar
Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–324.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, J. W., Foster, N., Patel, H., Carmody, P., Gibson, L. W., & Stairs, D. R. (2012). An investigation of the personality traits of scientists versus nonscientists and their relationship with career satisfaction. R&D Management, 42(1), 47–59.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D. W. (1970). Creativity: A multi-faceted phenomenon. In Roslanksy, J. (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 19–32). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. J., & Kimper, T. P. (1976). From ethics to logic: A survey of scientists. In Mahoney, M. J. (Ed.), Science as subject: The psychological imperative (pp. 187–193). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Mayo, R., Alfasi, D., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Distrust and the positive test heuristic: Dispositional and situated social distrust improves performance on the Wason Rule Discovery Task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 985–990. DOI:10.1037/a0035127Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. (1996). Insights of genius: Imagery and creativity in science and art. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Mithen, S. (1996). The prehistory of the mind: The cognitive origins of art and science. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher-order dimensions of the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58, 447–478.Google Scholar
Murray, C. (2003). Human accomplishment: The pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences, 800 B. C. to 1950. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Committee on the Science of Team Science. Cooke, N. J. & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2015). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2015. Special Report NSF 15–311. Arlington, VA. Retrieved on September 25, 2015 at www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: Constructing meaning in scientific theories. Dordrecht, Holland: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (1986). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In Giere, R. N. (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3–44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (2009). How do engineering scientists think? Model‐based simulation in biomedical engineering research laboratories. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 730–757. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01032.xGoogle Scholar
Nettle, D. (2006). Schizotypy and mental health amongst poets, visual artists, and mathematicians. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 876–890.Google Scholar
Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 14, 510–520.Google Scholar
Over, R. (1982). Is age a good predictor of research productivity? Australian Psychologist, 17, 129–139.Google Scholar
Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). A social-cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 73–95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01029.xGoogle Scholar
Parker, S. T., and McKinney, M. L. (1999). Origins of intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Proctor, E. J., & Capaldi, R. W. (Eds.), (2012). Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit processes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259–287.Google Scholar
Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York, NY: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
Rasoal, C., Danielsson, H., & Jungert, T. (2012). Empathy among students in engineering programmes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(5), 427–435.Google Scholar
Rawlings, D., & Locarnini, A. (2008). Dimensional schizotypy, autism, and unusual word associations in artists and scientists. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 465–471.Google Scholar
Rivera, S. M., Reiss, A. L., Eckert, M. A., & Menon, V. (2005). Developmental changes in mental arithemetic: Evidence for increased functional specialization in the left inferior parietal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1779–1790. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhi055Google Scholar
Robertson, K. F., Smeets, S., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2010). Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among the gifted and top math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational interests and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, performance and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 346–351. DOI: 10.1177/0963721410391442.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. E. (2008). Look me in the eye: My life with Asperger’s. New York: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
Roe, A. (1953). A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 67, 1–55.Google Scholar
Roser, M. E., Fugelsang, J. A., Dunbar, K. N., Corballis, P. M., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2005). Dissociating processes supporting causal perception and causal inference in the brain. Neuropsychology, 19, 591–602. DOI: 10.1037/0894-4105.19.5.591.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, G. (2005). The big five among male and female students of different faculties. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1495–1503.Google Scholar
Runco, M. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 21–30). Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar
Runyan, W. M. (2006). Psychobiography and the psychology of science: Understanding the relations between the live and work of individual psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 10, 147–162.Google Scholar
Runyan, W. M. (2013). Psychobiography and the psychology of science: Encounters with psychology, philosophy, and statistics. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E., (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 353–379). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Science of Science and Innovation Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved on September 25, 2015 from www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=501084.Google Scholar
Schuldberg, D. (2000). Six subclinical spectrum traits in normal creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(1), 5–16.Google Scholar
Schulze, A. D., & Seuffert, V. (2013). Conflicts, cooperation, and competition in the field of science and technology. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 303–330). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Schunn, C. D., & Trafton, J. G. (2013). The psychology of uncertainty in scientific data analysis. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E., (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 461–483). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1979). Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1603–1616.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1986). Multiple discovery: Some Monte Carlo simulations and Gedanken experiments. Scientometrics, 9, 269–280.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1988a). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104, 251–267.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1988b). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1991). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119–130.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals. Psychological Methods, 4, 425–451.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term disciplinary impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4(1), 13–24.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Scientific talent, training, and performance: Intellect, personality, and genetic endowment. Review of General Psychology, 12, 28–46. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.12.1.28.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of domain-specific disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 441–452.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2010). Creative thought as blind-variation and selective-retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews, 7, 156–179. DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.002Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2012). Foresight, insight, oversight, and hindsight in scientific discovery: How sighted were Galileo’s telescopic sightings? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(3), 243–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027058.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2013). Creative thoughts as acts of free will: A two-stage formal integration. Review of General Psychology, 17(4), 374.Google Scholar
Soler, J. M. (2007). A rational indicator of scientific creativity. Journal of Infometrics, 1, 123–130. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2006.10.004Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950−958.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 125–147). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strand, S., Deary, I. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Sex differences in cognitive abilities test scores: A UK national picture. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 463−480.Google Scholar
Stroebe, W. (2010). The graying of academia: Will it reduce scientific productivity? American Psychologist, 65, 660–673. DOI: 10.1037/a0021086Google Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., & Steiner, C. L. (1994). Adult manifestations of adolescent talent in science: A longitudinal study of 1983 Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. In Subotnik, R. & Arnold, K. D. (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. Creativity research (pp. 52–76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., Duschl, R. A., & Selmon, E. H. (1993). Retention and attrition of science talent: A longitudinal study of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 61–72.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F. (1995). Born to Rebel: Birth order, family dynamics and creative lives. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Tang, G., Gudsnuk, K., Kuo, S-H., Cotrina, M. L., Rosoklija, G. Sosunov, A., & Sulzer, D. (2014). Loss of mTOR-dependent macroautophagy causes autistic-like synaptic pruning deficits. Neuron, 83, 1131–1143. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.07.040.Google Scholar
Terman, L. M. (1954). Scientists and nonscientists in a group of 800 gifted men. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 68(7), 1–44. DOI:10.1037/h0093672.Google Scholar
Thomson, N. D., Wurtzburg, S. J., & Centifanti, L. C. M. (2015). Empathy or science? Empathy explains physical science enrollment for men and women. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 115–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.04.003Google Scholar
Treffert, D. A. (2006). Extraordinary people: Understanding savant syndrome (updated version). Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.Google Scholar
Tweney, R. D. (1989). A framework for the cognitive psychology of science. In Gholson, B., Shadish, W. R. Jr., Neimeyer, R. A., & Houts, A. C. (Eds.), Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 342–366). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tweney, R. D. (1991). Faraday’s notebooks: The active organization of creative science. Physics Education, 26, 301–306.Google Scholar
Tweney, R. D. (1998). Toward a cognitive psychology of science: Recent research and its implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 150–154.Google Scholar
Tweney, R. D. (2013). Cognitive-historical approaches to the understanding of science. In Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 71–93). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
Tweney, R. D. & Hoffner, C. E. (1987). Understanding the microstructure of science: An example. In Program of the ninth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 677–681). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., & Mynatt, C. R. (Eds.), (1981). On scientific thinking. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Vartanian, O., Bristol, A. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), (2013). Neuroscience of creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to Age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484–492.Google Scholar
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835.Google Scholar
Wai, J., Cacchio, M., Putallaz, M., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30-year examination. Intelligence, 38, 412–423. DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.006Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In Foss, B. (Ed.), New horizons in psychology: I. (pp. 135–151). Baltimore, MD: Penguin.Google Scholar
Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 785–794.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. D., & Jackson, C. (1994). The personality of physicists. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 187–189.Google Scholar
References
Alberts, B., Kirschner, M. W., Tilghman, S., & Varmus, H. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(16), 5773–5777.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
Bachtold, L. M., & Werner, E. E. (1972). Personality characteristics of women scientists. Psychological Reports, 31, 391–396.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Bolton, P., Wheelwright, S., Scahill, V., Short, L., Mead, G., & Smith, A. (1998). Autism occurs more often in families of physicists, engineers, and mathematicians. Autism, 2(3), 296–301.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
Bass, T. A. (1994). Reinventing the future: Conversations with the world’s leading scientists. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Baunach, D. M., & Burgess, E. O. (2013). HIV/AIDS prejudice in the American deep south. Sociological Spectrum, 33(2), 175–195.Google Scholar
Bittner, J. V., & Heidemeier, H. (2013). Competitive mindsets, creativity, and the role of regulatory focus. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 59–68.Google Scholar
Boon, M. (1996). Naming the enemy: AIDS research, contagion, and the discovery of HIV. 4. Retrieved on from http://cultronix.eserver.org/boon/Google Scholar
Busse, T. V., & Mansfield, R. S. (1984). Selected personality traits and achievement in male scientists. The Journal of Psychology, 116, 117–131.Google Scholar
Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 210–219.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Drevdahl, J. E. (1955). A comparison of the personality profile (16PF) of eminent researchers with that of eminent teachers and administrators, and of the general population. British Journal of Psychology, 46, 248–261.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the 16 Personality Factor Questionaire (16PF) in Clinical Educational Industrial and Research Psychology. Savoy, IL: Institute for Personality, Ability Testing.Google Scholar
Celi, L. A., Ippolito, A., Montgomery, R. A., Moses, C., & Stone, D. J. (2014). Crowdsourcing knowledge discovery and innovations in medicine. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(9), e216.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78(7, whole no. 584).Google Scholar
Collier, R. (2014). A blueprint for medical research stardom. Canadian Medical Association. Journal, 186(11), 821.Google Scholar
Collins, F. S. (2011). Reengineering translational science: The time is right. Science Translational Medicine, 3(90), 90cm17–90cm17.Google Scholar
Comte, A. (1855). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte (Trans. Martineau, H.). New York: Blanchard.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2014). Catalytic Creativity: The case of Linus Pauling The systems model of creativity (pp. 185–194): Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Drolet, B. C., & Lorenzi, N. M. (2011). Translational research: Understanding the continuum from bench to bedside. Translational Research, 157(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
Erat, S., & Gneezy, U. (2016). Incentives for creativity. Experimental Economics, 19(2), 269–280. DOI:10.1007/s10683-015-9440-5Google Scholar
Fan, H. Y., Conner, R. F., & Villarreal, L. P. (2007). AIDS: Science and society. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar
Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2015). Competitive science: Is competition ruining science? Infection and Immunity, 83(4), 1229–1233. DOI:10.1128/iai.02939-14Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science, 4, 366–371.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2, 290–309.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2006). How development and personality influence scientific thought, interest, and achievement. Review of General Psychology, 10(2), 163.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2), 62–88.Google Scholar
Fishbein, D. H., Ridenour, T. A., Stahl, M., & Sussman, S. (2016). The full translational spectrum of prevention science: facilitating the transfer of knowledge to practices and policies that prevent behavioral health problems. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 6(1), 5–16.Google Scholar
Fudge, N., Sadler, E., Fisher, H. R., Maher, J., Wolfe, C. D., & McKevitt, C. (2016). Optimising translational research opportunities: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of basic and clinician scientists’ perspectives of factors which enable or hinder translational research. Plos One, 11(8), e0160475.Google Scholar
Gallo, R. C., & Montagnier, L. (2003). The discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS. New England Journal of Medicine, 349(24), 2283–2285.Google Scholar
Garcia, J., Colson, P. W., Parker, C., & Hirsch, J. S. (2015). Passing the baton: Community-based ethnography to design a randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among black men who have sex with men. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 45, 244–251.Google Scholar
Garwood, D. S. (1964). Personality factors related to creativity in young scientists. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(413–419).Google Scholar
Gitschier, J. (2012). It was heaven: An interview with Evelyn Witkin. PLOS Genetics, 8(10), 1–6.Google Scholar
Goldsworthy, P., & McFarlane, A. C. (2002). Howard Florey, Alexander Fleming and the fairy tale of penicillin. Medical Journal of Australia, 176(4), 178–180.Google Scholar
Gough, H. G. (1961). A personality sketch of the creative research scientist. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference on Personnel and Industrial Relations Research, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: the case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 820.Google Scholar
Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., Beane, W. E., Lucker, G. W., & Matthews, K. A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 896–908.Google Scholar
Helms, C. B., Turan, J. M., Atkins, G., Kempf, M.-C., Clay, O. J., Raper, J. L., & Turan, B. (2016). Interpersonal mechanisms contributing to the association between hiv-related internalized stigma and medication adherence. AIDS and Behavior, 1–10.Google Scholar
Helson, R. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 210–220.Google Scholar
Helson, R., & Crutchfield, R. (1970). Mathematicians: The creative researcher and the average PhD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 250–257.Google Scholar
Heyward, W. L., & Curran, J. W. (1988). The epidemiology of AIDS in the U.S. Scientific American, 72–81.Google Scholar
Holland, J. L. (1992). Making vocational choices, 2nd ed. Odessa, FL: Psychologica Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, J. R. (2002). Research organizations and major discoveries in twentieth-century science: A case study of excellence in biomedical research. WZB.Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, J. R., & Hollingsworth, E. J. (2000). Major discoveries and biomedical research organizations: perspectives on interdisciplinarity, nurturing leadership, and integrated structure and cultures. Practising Interdisciplinarity, 215–244.Google Scholar
Hsu, J. (2010). History: ‘Lost’ letters reveal twists in discovery of double helix. livescience.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. (2015). Is it possible to recognize a major scientific discovery? JAMA, 314(11), 1135–1137.Google Scholar
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323–362.Google Scholar
Kippax, S. C., Holt, M., & Friedman, S. R. (2011). Bridging the social and the biomedical: engaging the social and political sciences in HIV research. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 14(Supp. 2), S1.Google Scholar
Kramer, L. (2003). 1,112 and counting. In Bull, C. (Ed.), While the world sleeps: Writings from the first twenty years of the global AIDS plague (pp. 7–20). New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press.Google Scholar
Ludwig, A. M. (1992). Creative achievement and psychopathology: Comparison across professions. American Journal of Psychopathology, 46(330–356).Google Scholar
Ludwig, A. M. (1995). The price of greatness: Resolving the creativity and madness controversy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Ludwig, A. M. (1998). Method and madness in the arts and sciences. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 93–101.Google Scholar
MacQueen, K. (2011). Framing the social in biomedical HIV prevention trials: A 20-year retrospective. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 14 (Supp. 2), S3.Google Scholar
Maulsby, C., Millett, G., Lindsey, K., Kelley, R., Johnson, K., Montoya, D., & Holtgrave, D. (2013). HIV among black men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States: A review of the literature. AIDS and Behavior, 18(1), 10–25.Google Scholar
Mayer, K. H., Wang, L., Koblin, B., Mannheimer, S., Magnus, M., Del Rio, C., & Watson, C. C. (2014). Concomitant socioeconomic, behavioral, and biological factors associated with the disproportionate HIV infection burden among Black men who have sex with men in 6 US cities. PloS One, 9(1), e87298.Google Scholar
McAllister, L. (1996). CPI interpretation, 3rd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.Google Scholar
McDowell, G. S., Gunsalus, K. T., MacKellar, D. C., Mazzilli, S. A., Pai, V. P., Goodwin, P. R., & Kraemer, J. (2014). Shaping the Future of Research: a perspective from junior scientists. F1000Research, 3.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. N., Longhurst, C. A., & Singh, H. (2016). Crowdsourcing diagnosis for patients with undiagnosed illnesses: an evaluation of CrowdMed. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(1).Google Scholar
Millett, G. A., Flores, S. A., Peterson, J. L., & Bakeman, R. (2007). Explaining disparities in HIV infection among black and white men who have sex with men: A meta-analysis of HIV risk behaviors. AIDS, 21(15), 2083–2091.Google Scholar
Morgan, M., Barry, C. A., Donovan, J. L., Sandall, J., Wolfe, C. D., & Boaz, A. (2011). Implementing ‘translational’ biomedical research: Convergence and divergence among clinical and basic scientists. Social Science & Medicine, 73(7), 945–952.Google Scholar
Morton, C. C. (2014). Innovating openly: Researchers and patients turn to crowdsourcing to collaborate on clinical trials, drug discovery, and more. IEEE Pulse, 63–67.Google Scholar
NIH. (2011). NIH announces 79 awards to encourage creative ideas in science. Retrieved on from https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-announces-79-awards-encourage-creative-ideas-scienceGoogle Scholar
Nobel Media AB. (2014). The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet – Nobel Prize awarder for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Retrieved on from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/prize_awarder/Google Scholar
Park, A. (2014). The man who co-discovered HIV 30 years ago on why there won’t be a cure for AIDS. Time.Google Scholar
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and in the sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18, 948–952.Google Scholar
Philipson, L. (2005). Medical research activities, funding, and creativity in Europe. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294(11), 1394–1398.Google Scholar
Piffer, D. (2012). Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion of creativity and general directions for future research. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 258–264.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, C. (2015). THe lasker awards at 70. JAMA, 314(11), 1117–1118. DOI:10.1001/jama.2015.10116.Google Scholar
Post, F. (1994). Creativity and psychopathology: A stud of 291 world famous men. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 22–34.Google Scholar
Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interest and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259–287.Google Scholar
Raskin, E. A. (1936). Comparison of scientific and literary ability: A biographical study of eminent scientists and men of letters of the nineteenth century. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 168, 20–35.Google Scholar
Reif, S. S., Whetten, K., Wilson, E. R., McAllaster, C., Pence, B. W., Legrand, S., & Gong, W. (2014). HIV/AIDS in the Southern USA: A disproportionate epidemic. AIDS Care, 26(3), 351–359.Google Scholar
Segal, S. M., Busse, T. V., & Mansfield, R. S. (1980). The relationship of scientific creativity in the biological sciences to predoctoral accomplishments and experiences. American Educational Research Association, 17(4), 491–502.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into psychology’s history. Washington, D. C.: APA Books.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 475–494. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.475.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: a hierarchical model of domain-specific disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 441–452.Google Scholar
Tsai, A. C. (2015). Socioeconomic gradients in internalized stigma among 4,314 persons with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS and Behavior, 19(2), 270–282. DOI:10.1007/s10461-014-0993-7.Google Scholar
Turan, B., Smith, W., Cohen, M. H., Wilson, T. E., & Adimora, A. A. (2016). Depression and social isolation mediate effect of hiv stigma on women’s art adherence. Age (years), 49, 8.59.Google Scholar
van Griensven, F., & Stall, R. D. (2014). Racial disparity in HIV incidence in MSM in the United States: How can it be reduced? AIDS, 28(1), 129–130.Google Scholar
van Zelst, R. H., & Kerr, W. A. (1954). Personality self-assessment of scientific and technical personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 145–147.Google Scholar
Varmus, H. (2009). The art and politics of science. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Villarosa, L. (2017). America’s hidden H.I.V. epidemic. The New York Times Magazine, 38–49.Google Scholar
Wainwright, S. P., Williams, C., Michael, M., Farsides, B., & Cribb, A. (2006). From bench to bedside? Biomedical scientists’ expectations of stem cell science as a future therapy for diabetes. Social Science & Medicine, 63(8), 2052–2064.Google Scholar
Witkin, E. M. (1976). Ultraviolet mutagenesis and inducible DNA repair in Escherischia coli. Bacteriological Reviews, 40(4), 869–907.Google Scholar
Woolf, S. H. (2008). The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA, 299(2), 211–213.Google Scholar
Zerhouni, E. A. (2005). US biomedical research: basic, translational, and clinical sciences. JAMA, 294(11), 1352–1358.Google Scholar
References
Annin, E. L., Boring, E. G., & Watson, R. I. (1968). Important psychologists, 1600–1967. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 4, 303–315.Google Scholar
Bachtold, L. M., & Werner, E. E. (1970). Personality profiles of gifted women: Psychologists. American Psychologist, 25, 234–243.Google Scholar
Boring, M. D., & Boring, E. G. (1948). Masters and pupils among the American psychologists. American Journal of Psychology, 61, 527–534.Google Scholar
Bridgwater, C. A., Walsh, J. A., & Walkenbach, J. (1982). Pretenure and posttenure productivity trends of academic psychologists. American Psychologist, 37, 236–238.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. P. (1965). The vocational interests of American Psychological Association presidents. American Psychologist, 20, 636–644.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1963). The personality and motivation of the researcher from measurements of contemporaries and from biography. In Taylor, C. W. & Barron, F. (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 119–131). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Drevdahl, J. E. (1955). A comparison of the personality profile (16 P. F.) of eminent researchers with that of eminent teachers and administrators, and of the general population. British Journal of Psychology, 46, 248–261.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78 (7, whole no. 584).Google Scholar
Christensen, H., & Jacomb, P. A. (1992). The lifetime productivity of eminent Australian academics. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 7, 681–686.Google Scholar
Clark, K. E. (1954). The APA study of psychologists. American Psychologist, 9, 117–120.Google Scholar
Coan, R. W. (1968). Dimensions of psychological theory. American Psychologist, 23, 715–722.Google Scholar
Coan, R. W. (1973). Toward a psychological interpretation of psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 9, 313–327.Google Scholar
Coan, R. W. (1979). Psychologists: Personal and theoretical pathways. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Coan, R. W., & Zagona, S. V. (1962). Contemporary ratings of psychological theorists. Psychological Record, 12, 315–322.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958–977.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89, 111–139.Google Scholar
Conway, J. B. (1988). Differences among clinical psychologists: Scientists, practitioners, and scientist-practitioners. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 642–655.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.Google Scholar
Davis, S. F., Thomas, R. L., & Weaver, M. S. (1982). Psychology’s contemporary and all-time notables: Student, faculty, and chairperson viewpoints. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20, 3–6.Google Scholar
Dennis, W. (1954). Productivity among American psychologists. American Psychologist, 9, 191–194.Google Scholar
Dennis, W., & Girden, E. (1954). Current scientific activities of psychologists as a function of age. Journal of Gerontology, 9, 175–178.Google Scholar
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Park, J. (2014). An incomplete list of eminent psychologists of the modern era. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 2, 20–32.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE 5(4): e10068. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8(6): e66938. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0066938Google Scholar
Grosul, M., & Feist, G. J. (2014). The creative person in science. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 30–43.Google Scholar
Guyter, L., & Fidell, L. (1973). Publications of men and women psychologists. American Psychologist, 28, 157–160.Google Scholar
Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K., Yarbrough, G. L., Russell, T. M., & Monte, E. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th Century. Review of General Psychology, 6, 139–152.Google Scholar
Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., Beane, W. E., Lucker, G. W., & Matthews, K. A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 896–908.Google Scholar
Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Pred, R. S. (1988). Making it without losing it: Type A, achievement motivation, and scientific attainment revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 495–504.Google Scholar
Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Thorbecke, W. L. (1981). On the stability of productivity and recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 516–522.Google Scholar
Heyduk, R. G., & Fenigstein, A. (1984). Influential works and authors in psychology: A survey of eminent psychologists. American Psychologist, 39, 556–559.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572.Google Scholar
Horner, K. L., Rushton, J. P., & Vernon, P. A. (1986). Relation between aging and research productivity of academic psychologists. Psychology and Aging, 1, 319–324.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. A., Germer, C. K., Efran, J. S., & Overton, W. F. (1988). Personality as the basis for theoretical predilections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 824–835.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–13.Google Scholar
Kinnier, R. T., Metha, A. T., Buki, L. P., & Rawa, P. M. (1994). Manifest value of eminent psychologists: A content analysis of their obituaries. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 13, 88–94.Google Scholar
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86, 148–161.Google Scholar
Lee, J. D., Vicente, K. J., Cassano, A., & Shearer, A. (2003). Can scientific impact be judged prospectively? A bibliometric test of Simonton’s model of creative productivity. Scientometrics, 56, 223–232.Google Scholar
Lehman, H. C. (1966). The psychologist’s most creative years. American Psychologist, 21, 363–369.Google Scholar
Ludwig, A. M. (1998). Method and madness in the arts and sciences. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 93–101.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Chronological age, professional age, and eminence in psychology. American Psychologist, 23, 371–374.Google Scholar
Matthews, K. A., Helmreich, R. L., Beane, W. E., & Lucker, G. W. (1980). Pattern A, achievement striving, and scientific merit: Does Pattern A help or hinder? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 962–967.Google Scholar
Myers, C. R. (1970). Journal citations and scientific eminence in contemporary psychology. American Psychologist, 25, 1041–1048.Google Scholar
Overskeid, G., Grønnerød, C., & Simonton, D. K. (2012). The personality of a nonperson: Gauging the inner Skinner. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 187–197.Google Scholar
Over, R. (1981). Affiliations of psychologists elected to the National Academy of Sciences. American Psychologist, 36, 744–752.Google Scholar
Over, R. (1982a). The durability of scientific reputation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 18, 53–61.Google Scholar
Over, R. (1982b). Research productivity and impact of male and female psychologists. American Psychologist, 37, 24–31.Google Scholar
Platz, A. (1965). Psychology of the scientist: XI. Lotka’s law and research visibility. Psychological Reports, 16, 566–568.Google Scholar
Platz, A., & Blakelock, E. (1960). Productivity of American psychologists: Quantity versus quality. American Psychologist, 15, 310–312.Google Scholar
Rodgers, R. C., & Maranto, C. L. (1989). Causal models of publishing productivity in psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 636–649.Google Scholar
Ruscio, J., Seaman, F., D’Oriano, C., Stremlo, E., & Mahalchik, K. (2012). Measuring scholarly impact using modern citation-based indices. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 10, 123–146.Google Scholar
Rushton, J. P. (1984). Evaluating research eminence in psychology: The construct validity of citation counts. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 37, 33–36.Google Scholar
Rushton, J. P. (1990). Creativity, intelligence, and psychoticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1291–1298.Google Scholar
Shadish, W. R. Jr. (1989). The perception and evaluation of quality in science. In Gholson, B., Shadish, W. R. Jr., Neimeyer, R. A., & Houts, A. C. (Eds.), The psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 383–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1954). Productivity among American psychologists: An explanation. American Psychologist, 9, 804–805.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1992). Leaders of American psychology, 1879–1967: Career development, creative output, and professional achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 5–17.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term disciplinary impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4, 13–24.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into psychology’s history. Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Psychology’s status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology, 8, 59–67.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2005). Creativity in psychology: On becoming and being a great psychologist. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Faces of the muse: How people think, work, and act creatively in diverse domains (pp. 139–151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Gender differences in birth order and family size among 186 eminent psychologists. Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology, 1, 15–22.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 441–452.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2013). What is a creative idea? Little-c versus Big-C creativity. In Chan, J. & Thomas, K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity (pp. 69–83). Cheltenham Glos, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2014a). Hierarchies of creative domains: Disciplinary constraints on blind-variation and selective-retention. In Paul, E. S. & Kaufman, S. B. (Eds.), The philosophy of creativity: New essays (pp. 247–261). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2014b). More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 53–61.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2015). Psychology as a science within Comte’s hypothesized hierarchy: Empirical investigations and conceptual implications. Review of General Psychology, 9, 334–344.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2017). Eminent female psychologists in family context: Historical trends for 80 women born 1847–1950. Journal of Genius and Eminence, 1(2), 15–25.Google Scholar
Song, A. V., & Simonton, D. K. (2007). Personality assessment at a distance: Quantitative methods. In Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., & Krueger, R. F. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 308–321). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, G., & Gardner, S. (1985). Psychology of the scientist: LIV. Permission to excel: A preliminary report of influences on eminent women psychologists. Psychological Reports, 57, 1023–1026.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1985). APA presidential addresses: The relation of integrative complexity to historical, professional, and personal factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 848–852.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C., & Gist, M. E. (1984). Type A behavior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 402–418.Google Scholar
Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Sherman, J. W. (2009). The practice of psychological science: Searching for Cronbach’s two streams in social-personality psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1206–1225.Google Scholar
Terry, W. S. (1989). Birth order and prominence in the history of psychology. Psychological Record, 39, 333–337.Google Scholar
Vance, F. L., & MacPhail, S. L. (1964). APA membership trends and fields of specialization of psychologists earning doctoral degrees between 1959 and 1962. American Psychologist, 9, 654–658.Google Scholar
White, K. G., & White, M. J. (1978). On the relation between productivity and impact. Australian Psychologist, 13, 369–374.Google Scholar
Wispé, L. G. (1963, September 27). Traits of eminent American psychologists. Science, 141, 1256–1261.Google Scholar
Wispé, L. G. (1965). Some social and psychological correlates of eminence in psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 7, 88–98.Google Scholar
Wispé, L. G., & Parloff, M. B. (1965). Impact of psychotherapy on the productivity of psychologists. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 70, 188–193.Google Scholar
Wispé, L. G., & Ritter, J. H. (1964). Where America’s recognized psychologists received their doctorates. American Psychologist, 19, 634–644.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. (2010). Rethinking the size of scientific specialties: Correcting Price’s estimate. Scientometrics, 83, 471–476.Google Scholar
Zachar, P., & Leong, F. T. L. (1992). A problem of personality: Scientist and practitioner differences in psychology. Journal of Personality, 60, 665–677.Google Scholar
Zusne, L. (1976). Age and achievement in psychology: The harmonic mean as a model. American Psychologist, 31, 805–807.Google Scholar
Zusne, L. (1985). Contributions to the history of psychology: XXXVIII. The hyperbolic structure of eminence. Psychological Reports, 57, 1213–1214.Google Scholar
Zusne, L. (1987). Contributions to the history of psychology: XLIV. Coverage of contributors in histories of psychology. Psychological Reports, 61, 343–350.Google Scholar
Zusne, L., & Dailey, D. P. (1982). History of psychology texts as measuring instruments of eminence in psychology. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 3, 7–42.Google Scholar
References
Agogué, M., Le Masson, P., Dalmasso, C., Houdé, O., & Cassotti, M. (2015). Resisting classical solutions: The creative mind of industrial designers and engineers. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(3), 313–318.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., & Tighe, E. (1993). Questions of creativity. In Brockman, J. (Ed.), Creativity. The Reality Club (Vol. 4, pp. 7–27). New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Badran, I. (2007). Enhancing creativity and innovation in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 573–585.Google Scholar
Baer, J. M. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321–341). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berger, K., Surovek, A., Jensen, D., & Cropley, D. (2014). Individual creativity and team engineering design: A taxonomy for team composition. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by developing a judging instrument. In Isaksen, S. G. (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 367–389). Buffalo: Brady.Google Scholar
Blanchard, B. S., & Fabrycky, W. J. (2006). Systems engineering and analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, H. J. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R. J., & Merrill, J. A. (2008). CEDA: A research instrument for creative engineering design assessment. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 147–154.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665.Google Scholar
Cropley, A. J. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet? In Moran, S., Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), The ethics of creativity (pp. 152–169). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H. (2015). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 207–219.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of functional creativity. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Faces of the muse: How people think, work and act creatively in diverse domains (pp. 169–185). Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Measuring functional creativity: Non-expert raters and the creative solution diagnosis scale. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(2), 119–137.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2011). Measuring creativity for innovation management. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 6(3), 13–30.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325–339). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2012). Engineering design (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving (Dashiell, J. F., Ed., Vol. 58). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association Inc.Google Scholar
Goclowska, M. A., Baas, M., Crisp, R. J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Whether social schema violations help or hurt creativity depends on need for structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(8), 959–971.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solmon, S. (1999). Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: A channeled ideation approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 200–210.Google Scholar
Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (1999). The case study method and evolving systems approach for understanding unique creative people at work. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 93–115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haught, C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2003). Creativity and constraints: The production of novel sentences. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Heinelt, G. (1974). Kreative Lehrer/kreative Schüler [Creative Teachers/Creative Students]. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
Horenstein, M. N. (2002). Design concepts for engineers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Ihsen, S., & Brandt, D. (1998). Editorial: Creativity: How to educate and train innovative engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 3–4.Google Scholar
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20–47). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of creativity. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. (1992). Scientific creativity: A comparative study of Henri Poincare and Albert Einstein. Creativity Research Journal, 5(4), 385–414.Google Scholar
Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2013). A NEW approach to defining and measuring creativity: Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century. TechTrends, 57(5), 10–13.Google Scholar
Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moreau, P., & Dahl, D. W. (2005). The impact of constraints on consumers’ creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 13–22.Google Scholar
Onarheim, B. (2012). Creativity from constraints in engineering design: Lessons learned at Coloplast. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 323–336.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sagiv, L., Arieli, S., Goldenberg, J., & Goldschmidt, A. (2010). Structure and freedom in creativity: The interplay between externally imposed structure and personal cognitive style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1086–1110.Google Scholar
Sandwith, B. L. (2015). The influence of structure and personality on creativity in a military context. University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
Stokes, P. D. (2008). Creativity from constraints: What can we learn from Motherwell? From Modrian? From Klee? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(4), 223–236.Google Scholar
Taylor, I. A. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In Taylor, I. A. & Getzels, J. W. (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 297–325). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical norms manual. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press.Google Scholar
Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking – Drawing Production (TCT-DP). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
References
Aiken, L. R. (1973). Ability and creativity in mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 43(4), 405–432.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.Google Scholar
Bal-Sezerel, B., & Sak, U. (2013). The Selective Problem Solving Model (SPS) and its social validity in solving mathematical problems. International Journal of Problem Solving and Creativity, 23(1), 71–86.Google Scholar
Balka, D. S. (1974). The development of an instrument to measure creative ability in mathematics. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Edith University of Missouri, USA.Google Scholar
Bewersdorff, J. (2006). Galois theory for beginners: A historical perspective. Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Carlton, L. V. (1959). An analysis of the educational concepts of fourteen outstanding mathematicians, 1790–1940, in the areas of mental growth and development, creative thinking and symbolism and meaning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). IL: Northwestern University, USA.Google Scholar
Casakin, H., & Kreitler, S. (2006). Self-assessment of creativity: Implications for design education. In DS 38: Proceedings of E&DPE 2006, The 8th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (pp. 1–6). Salzburg, Austria.Google Scholar
Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. M. (2005). Model-eliciting activities as tool to develop and identify creativity gifted mathematicians. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 37–47.Google Scholar
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education, 12(2), 68–82.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. (2002). The discovery of forcing. Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, 32(4), 1071–1100.Google Scholar
Davis, P. J., Hersh, R., & Marchisotto, E. A. (1995). The mathematical experience: Study edition. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Devlin, K. (2000). The math gene: How mathematical thinking evolved and why numbers are like gossip. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Dowker, A. (2005). Individual differences in arithmetic: Implications for psychology, neuroscience and education. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1983). Verbal protocol analysis. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ernest, P. (2002). The philosophy of mathematics education. Briston, PA: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Evans, E. W. (1964).Measuring the ability of students to respond in creative mathematical situations at the late elementary and early junior high school level. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
Fetterly, J. M. (2010). An exploratory study of the use of a problem-posing approach on pre-service elementary education teachers’ mathematical creativity, beliefs, and anxiety. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, USA.Google Scholar
Gauss, C. F. (1966). Disquisitiones arithmeticae (Vol. 157). US: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1961). Family environment and cognitive style: A study of the sources of highly intelligent and of highly creative adolescents. American Sociological Review, 26(3), 351–359.Google Scholar
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. American Journal of Sociology, 68(2), 278–279.Google Scholar
Gindikin, S. (2007). Tales of mathematicians and physicists. NY: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Han, K. S., & Marvin, C. (2002). Multiple creativities? Investigating domain specificity of creativity in young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 98–109.Google Scholar
Handal, B. (2009). Philosophies and pedagogies of mathematics. Elementary Education Online, 8(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
Haylock, D. W. (1984). Aspects of mathematical creativity in children aged 11–12. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chelsea Collage, University of London, England.Google Scholar
Haylock, D. W. (1985). Conflicts in the assessment and encouragement of mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 16(4), 547–553.Google Scholar
Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in school children. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18,1, 59–74.Google Scholar
Kantowski, M. G. (1977). Processes involved in mathematical problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8(3), 163–180.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101 (2nd edn.). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1976). Manual for Khatena-Torrance creative perception inventory. Chicago: Stoelting Company.Google Scholar
Kilic, S. (2012). Scientific art/artistic science. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 5(1), 193–203.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, J., & Wirszup, I. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kim, H., Cho, S., & Ahn, C. (2003). Development of mathematical creative problem solving ability test for identification of the gifted in math. Gifted Education International, 18(2), 164–174.Google Scholar
Koichu, B., & Berman, A. (2005). When do gifted high school students use geometry to solve geometry problems? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(4), 168–179.Google Scholar
Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leikin, R. (2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In Leikin, R., Berman, A., & Koichu, B. (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 129–145). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Leikin, R., & Stanger, O. (2011). Teachers’ images of gifted students and the roles assigned to them in heterogeneous mathematics classes. In Sriraman, B. & Lee, K. E. (Eds.), The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp. 1–4). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Leikin, R., & Lev, M. (2013). Mathematical creativity in generally gifted and mathematically excelling adolescents: What makes the difference? ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(2), 183–197.Google Scholar
Leu, Y. C., & Chiu, M. S. (2015). Creative behaviours in mathematics: Relationships with abilities, demographics, affects and gifted behaviours. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 40–50.Google Scholar
Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2012). The role of multiple solution tasks in developing knowledge and creativity in geometry. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 73–90.Google Scholar
Levenson, E. (2011). Exploring collective mathematical creativity in elementary school. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(3), 215–234.Google Scholar
Liljedahl, P. (2008). Mathematical creativity: In the words of the creators. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Creativity in Mathematics and the Education of Gifted Students, Israel, 24–28 February 2008 (pp. 153–159).Google Scholar
Livne, N. L., & Milgram, R. M. (2000). Assessing four levels of creative mathematical ability in Israeli adolescents utilizing out‐of‐school activities: A circular three‐stage technique. Roeper Review, 22(2), 111–116.Google Scholar
Lopez-Real, F. (2006). A new look at a Polya problem. Mathematics Teaching, 196, 12–16.Google Scholar
Mamona-Downs, J. (1993). On analyzing problem posing. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Tsukuba, Japan, 18–23 July 1993 (Vol. 3, pp. 41–47).Google Scholar
Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260.Google Scholar
Mann, E. L. (2009). The search for mathematical creativity: Identifying creative potential in middle school students. Creativity Research Journal, 21(4), 338–348.Google Scholar
Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2007). Designing and using mathematical tasks. London: Tarquin Pubns.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2013). Implications of cognitive psychology for instruction in mathematical problem solving. In Silver, E. A. (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 123–138). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCallum, R. S., & Bracken, B. (2005). The universal nonverbal intelligence test: A multidimensional measure of intelligence. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, test, and assessment (pp. 425–440). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. W. (1969). The identification and encouragement of mathematical creativity in first grade students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Münz, M. (2013). The elements of mathematical creativity and the function of the attachment style in early childhood. In Online proceedings of the POEM conference, (pp. 1–11).Google Scholar
Nadjafikhah, M., Yaftian, N., & Bakhshalizadeh, S. (2012). Mathematical creativity: Some definitions and characteristics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 285–291.Google Scholar
Pelczer, I., & Rodriguez, F. G. (2011). Creativity assessment in school settings through problem posing tasks. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 8, 383–398.Google Scholar
Peng, S. L., Cherng, B. L., & Chen, H. C. (2013). The effects of classroom goal structures on the creativity of junior high school students. Educational Psychology, 33(5), 540–560.Google Scholar
Pittalis, M., Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2004). A structural model for problem posing. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 49–56). Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
Polya, D. (1954a). Induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Polya, D. (1954b). Patterns of plausible inference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Poincare, H. (1951). Bilim ve metot [Science and method]. (Atademir, H. R. & Ölçen, S., Trans.). İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.Google Scholar
Prabhu, V., & Czarnocha, B. (2013). Democratizing mathematical creativity through Koestler’s Bisociation Theory. Mathematıcs Teachıng-Research Journal Online, 6(2), 33–46.Google Scholar
Preckel, F., Goez, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics gender differences in gifted and average-ability students: Comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 146–159.Google Scholar
Prouse, H. L. (1967). Creativity in school mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 60, 876–879.Google Scholar
Rothman, T. (1982). Genius and biographers: The fictionalization of Evariste Galois. American Mathematical Monthly, 89(2), 84–106.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions for Child Development, 72, 3–30Google Scholar
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.Google Scholar
Sak, U. (2005). M³: The three-mathematical minds model for the identification of mathematically gifted students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, USA.Google Scholar
Sak, U. (2009). Test of the three-mathematical minds (M3) for the identification of mathematically gifted students. Roeper Review, 31, 53–67.Google Scholar
Sak, U. (2011). Selective Problem Solving (SPS): A model for teaching creative problem solving. Gifted Education International, 27(3), 349–357.Google Scholar
Schaefer, C. E., & Bridges, C. I. (1970). Development of a creativity attitude survey for children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 31(3), 861–862.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). What do we know about mathematics curricula? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 55–80.Google Scholar
Sheffield, L. J. (2000). Creating and developing promising young mathematicians. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(6), 416–419.Google Scholar
Sheffield, L. J. (2009). Developing mathematical creativity – questions may be the answer. In Leikin, R., Berman, A., & Koichu, B. (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 87–100). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Sheffield, L. J. (2013). Creativity and school mathematics: Some modest observations. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(2), 325–332.Google Scholar
Shriki, A. (2010). Working like real mathematicians: Developing prospective teachers’ awareness of mathematical creativity through generating new concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 159–179.Google Scholar
Siegle, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 21–29.Google Scholar
Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem solving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75–80.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 251–267.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1991). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 119–130.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, F. M., Pelczer, I., & Voica, C. (2011). Problem posing and modification as a criterion of mathematical creativity. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 7) (pp. 1133–1142). Rzeszow, Poland.Google Scholar
Sriraman, B. (2004). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14, 19–24.Google Scholar
Sriraman, B., & Lee, K. E. (2011). What are the elements of giftedness and creativity in mathematics? In Sriraman, B. & Lee, K. E. (Eds.), The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp. 1–4). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2005). Fallibilism and concessive knowledge attributions. Analysis, 65(2), 126–131.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2008). Applied intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Constrains on creativity: Obvious and not so obvious. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 467–482). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stoyanova, E. N. (1997). Extending and exploring students’ problem solving via problem posing: A study of years 8 and 9 students involved in Mathematics Challenge and Enrichment Stages of Euler Enrichment Program for Young Australians. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Edith Cowan University, Australia.Google Scholar
Suydam, M. N., & Weaver, J. F. (1971). Research on mathematics education (K-12) reported in 1970. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2(4), pp. 257–298.Google Scholar
Tjoe, H. H. (2011). Which approaches do students prefer? Analyzing the mathematical problem solving behavior of mathematically gifted students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, USA.Google Scholar
Urban, K. K. (1991). Recent trends in creativity research and theory in Western Europe. European Journal of High Ability, 1(1), 99–113.Google Scholar
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Middleton, J. A., & Streefland, L. (1995). Student-generated problems: Easy and difficult problems on percentage. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(3), 21–27.Google Scholar
Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vivona, R. F. (1998). Toward a theory of mathematical creativity. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Union Institute, USA.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiles, A. (1995). Modular eliptic curves and Fermat’s last theorem. Annals of Mathematics, 142, 443–551.Google Scholar
References
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. (2015). Technology device ownership: 2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved on August 14, 2016, from www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/Google Scholar
Bauer, W. F., Juncosa, M. L., & Perlis, A. J. (1959). ACM publication policies and plans. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 6(2), 121–122.Google Scholar
Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Creative mortification: An initial exploration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 266.Google Scholar
Blackwell, A., & Collins, N. (2005). The programing language as a musical instrument. In Romero, P., Good, J., Chaparro, E. Acosta, & Bryant, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG), 17, pp. 120–130.Google Scholar
Blue, V. (2016, October 28). That time your smart toaster broke the internet [Blog post]. Engadget. Retrieved on October 29, 2016, from www.engadget.com/2016/10/28/that-time-your-smart-toaster-broke-the-internet/Google Scholar
Bond, G. W. (2005). Software as art. Communications of the ACM, 48(8), 118–125. DOI:10.1145/1076211.1076215.Google Scholar
Bowcott, O. (2012, October 16). Gary McKinnon: How unknown hacker sparked political and diplomatic storm. The Guardian. Retrieved on September 21, 2016, from www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/16/gary-mckinnon-hacker-sparked-stormGoogle Scholar
Brockwell, H. (2016, April 3). Forgotten genius: The man who made a working VR machine in 1957. TechRadar. Retrieved on September 21, 2016, from www.techradar.com/news/wearables/forgotten-genius-the-man-who-made-a-working-vr-machine-in-1957–1318253Google Scholar
Bromley, A. G. (1982). Charles Babbage’s analytical engine, 1838. Annals of the History of Computing, 4(3), 196–217.Google Scholar
Broukhis, L., Cooper, S., and Noll, L. (n.d.). The international obfuscated C code contest. Retrieved on September 21, 2016 from http://www.ioccc.org/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Brusilovsky, P., Calabrese, E., Hvorecky, J., Kouchnirenko, A., & Miller, P. (1997). Mini-languages: A way to learn programming principles. Education and Information Technologies, 2(1), 65–83.Google Scholar
BusinessDictionary.com. (n.d.). Computer science Retrieved October 21, 2016, from www.businessdictionary.com/definition/computer-science.htmlGoogle Scholar
Carmody, T. (2013, January 24). Amazon acquires Kindle Fire text-to-speech provider, but this isn’t about Siri. The Verge. Retrieved on October 21, 2016 from www.theverge.com/2013/1/24/3911056/amazon-acquires-kindle-fire-text-to-speech-provider-but-this-isntGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, K., Douglas, S. A., Vernon, M., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Reimer, Y., & McGrath, M. (2011). Promoting creativity in the computer science design studio. Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 649–654.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. (1999a). Colouring without seeing: A problem in machine creativity. AISB Quarterly, 102, 26–35.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. (1999b). A self-defining game for one player. Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Creativity & Cognition, 14. DOI: 10.1145/317561.317564Google Scholar
Comer, D. E., Gries, D., Mulder, M. C., Tucker, A., Turner, A. J., Young, P. R., & Denning, P. J. (1989). Computing as a discipline. Communications of the ACM, 32(1), 9–23.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2008). Malevolent creativity: A functional model of creativity in terrorism and crime. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 105–115.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., White, A. E., & Chiera, B. A. (2014). Layperson perceptions of malevolent creativity: The good, the bad, and the ambiguous. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(4), 400.Google Scholar
Denning, P. J. (2005). Is computer science science? Communications of the ACM, 48(4), 27–31. DOI:10.1145/1053291.1053309Google Scholar
Denning, P. J. (2010). The great principles of computing: Computing may be the fourth great domain of science along with the physical, life and social sciences. American Scientist, 98(5), 369.Google Scholar
Dexter, S., & Kozbelt, A. (2013). Free and open source software (FOSS) as a model domain for answering big questions about creativity. Mind & Society, 12(1), 113–123.Google Scholar
Dictionary.com Unabridged. (n.d.). Computer science. Retrieved on August 7, 2016, from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/computer-scienceGoogle Scholar
Ducklin, P. (2015, September 28). Why Word “macro malware” is back, and what you can do about it … [Blog post] Naked Security by Sophos. Retrieved September 22, 2016 from https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/09/28/why-word-macro-malware-is-back-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/Google Scholar
Edwards, L. (2016, June 16). What is Magic Leap and why might it kill all screens? Pocket-lint. Retrieved on October 30, 2016, from http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/135688-what-is-magic-leap-and-why-might-it-kill-all-screensGoogle Scholar
Fein, L. (1959). The role of the university in computers, data processing, and related fields. Communications of the ACM, 2(9), 7–14. DOI:10.1145/368424.368427Google Scholar
Fellows, M., & Parberry, I. (1993). SIGACT trying to get children excited about CS. Computing Research News, 5(1), 7.Google Scholar
Fieldman, T. (2015, May 13). Moore’s law turns 50. The New York Times. Retrieved on August 6, 2016 from http://nyti.ms/1IAnBxPGoogle Scholar
Fingas, J. (2016, August 7). IBM’s Watson AI saved a woman from leukemia. Engadget. Retrieved on September 21, 2016, from www.engadget.com/2016/08/07/ibms-watson-ai-saved-a-woman-from-leukemia/Google Scholar
Garrie, D. B. (2012). Effective keyword selection requires a mastery of storage technology and the law. Pace Law Review, 32(2), pp. 400–406.Google Scholar
Germ, E. (2013, January 15). 6 Awesome Easter eggs hidden in programs you use every day. Cracked. Retrieved on October 21, 2016, from www.cracked.com/article_20174_6-awesome-easter-eggs-hidden-in-programs-you-use-every-day.htmlGoogle Scholar
Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. New York: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Graham, P. (2004). Hackers & painters: Big ideas from the computer age. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
Graziotin, D., Wang, X., & Abrahamsson, P. (2014). Software developers, moods, emotions, and performance. IEEE Software, 31(4), 24–27.Google Scholar
GReAT. (2016, August 9). The Project Sauron APT. Global Research and Analysis Team Kaspersky Lab. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from https://kas.pr/a9snGoogle Scholar
Green, G., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2015). Video games and creativity. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gu, M., & Tong, X. (2004). Towards hypotheses on creativity in software development. International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement, 47–61.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. DOI:10.1037/h0063487Google Scholar
Hasselström, K., & Åslund, J. (2001, August 21). The Shakespeare programming language. Retrieved on August 16, 2016, from http://shakespearelang.sourceforge.net/report/shakespeare/Google Scholar
Hewitt, A. (2013, July 3). Discover the coded message hidden in campus floor tiles. UCLA Newsroom. Retrieved on October 17, 2016, from http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/a-coded-message-hidden-in-floor-247232Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D. R. (1996). Fluid concepts & creative analogies: Computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hong, L. (2013, May 30). The 5 most creative ‘developer job ads.’ [Blog post]Smart Recruiters. Retrieved on October 23, 2016, from https://www.smartrecruiters.com/blog/the-5-most-creative-developer-job-ads/Google Scholar
Hopkins, S. (1995). Listen. In The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, 2012, 396–397.Google Scholar
Virtual Reality Society (n.d.). How did virtual reality begin? Retrieved on September 21, 2016. from www.vrs.org.uk/virtual-reality/beginning.htmlGoogle Scholar
Howard, E. V., Bulach, T. M., Carver, L. A., Creekbaum, C. R., Parker, R. J., & Shockley, L. G. (2009). Perceptions of using creativity in an IT ethics course–A case study of students and instructor. Proceedings of the Information Systems Education Conference, 26.Google Scholar
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (n.d.). Internet of things global standards initiative. Retrieved on September 21, 2016. from www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/gsi/iot/Pages/default.aspxGoogle Scholar
Jordanous, A. (2014, April 10). What is computational creativity? [Blog post]. The Creativity Post. Retrieved on September 5, 2016. from www.creativitypost.com/science/what_is_computational_creativityGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self‐reported differences in creativity by ethnicity and gender. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(8), 1065–1082.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Using creativity to reduce ethnic bias in college admissions. Review of General Psychology, 14(3), 189.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I’m creative—but not in mathematics!: Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(2), 143–155.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2002). Could Steven Spielberg manage the Yankees?: Creative thinking in different domains. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 12(2), 5–14.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 83–91.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Differences in gender and ethnicity as measured by ratings of three writing tasks. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(1), 56–69.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Resource review: Creativity. Change, 39(4), 55–58.Google Scholar
Kemps, H. (2013, May 22). The funny, occasionally dirty, hidden messages in your favorite games. WIRED. Retrieved on October 21, 2016. from https://www.wired.com/2013/05/hidden-messages/Google Scholar
Khatchadourlan, R. (2015, May 18). World without end. The New Yorker. Retrieved on September 21, 2016. from www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/18/world-without-end-raffi-khatchadourianGoogle Scholar
Kiefaber, D. (2013, May 28) Flickr recruits coders with ads hidden in its website’s source code. Adweek. Retrieved on August 16, 2016. from www.adweek.com/adfreak/flickr-recruits-coders-ads-hidden-its-websites-source-code-149818Google Scholar
King, A. (2015, April 10). The key design elements of Roguelikes. Envato. Retrieved on September 21, 2016. from https://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/articles/the-key-design-elements-of-roguelikes–cms–23510Google Scholar
Knobelsdorf, M., & Romeike, R. (2008). Creativity as a pathway to computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3) 286–290.Google Scholar
Knuth, D. E. (2001). Things a computer scientist rarely talks about. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Knuth, D. E. (1974). Computer programming as an art. Communications of the ACM, 17(12), 667–673. DOI:10.1145/361604.361612Google Scholar
Kozbelt, A. (2006). Dynamic evaluation of Matisse’s 1935 large reclining nude. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24(2), 119–137.Google Scholar
Kozbelt, A. (2009). Ontogenetic heterochrony and the creative process in visual art: A précis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 35–37.Google Scholar
Kozbelt, A., Dexter, S., Dolese, M., & Seidel, A. (2012). The aesthetics of software code: A quantitative exploration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 57.Google Scholar
Lakhani, K., & Wolf, R. G. (2003). Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Social Science Research Network (SSRN) Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.443040Google Scholar
Leach, R. J., & Ayers, C. A. (2005). The psychology of invention in computer science. In Romero, P., Good, J., Chaparro, E. Acosta, & Bryant, S. (Eds), Proceedings of Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG), 17, pp. 131–144.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, G., Johnson, E., & Goldweber, M. (2005). Fostering a creative interest in computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(1), pp. 535–539.Google Scholar
Lomas, N. (2015, March 2). Google’s Pichai talks up Magic Leap’s AR but says “It’ll take some time.” Tech Crunch. Retrieved on October 29, 2016, from https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/02/pichai-magic-leap/Google Scholar
London, E. (2013, May 30). Google Glass: inspired by Terminator [Blog post] Slice of MIT. Retrieved on September 18, 2016 from https://slice.mit.edu/2013/05/30/google-glass-inspired-by-terminator/Google Scholar
Luria, S. R., O’Brien, R. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity in gifted identification: Increasing accuracy and diversity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377(1), 44–52.Google Scholar
McCormack, J., & d’Inverno, M. (2012). Computers and creativity: The road ahead. In McCormack, J. & d’Inverno, M. (Eds.), Computers and creativity (pp. 421–424) New York: Springer.Google Scholar
McKeand, K. (2015, October 10). Elite: Dangerous shows us the science and technology behind creating realistic planets [Blog post]. PCGamesN.com. Retrieved on September 21, 2016 from http://www.pcgamesn.com/elite-dangerous/elite-dangerous-shows-us-the-science-and-technology-behind-creating-realistic-planetsGoogle Scholar
Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321–1329.Google Scholar
Clay Mathematics Institute, (n.d.). Millennium Prize Problems. Retrieved on October 28, 2016 from www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/millennium-prize-problems.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1975). Progress in digital integrated electronics. International Electron Devices Meeting Tech Digest, IEEE, 11–13.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (2006). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Solid-State Circuits Newsletter, IEEE, 20(3), 33–35. (Reprinted from Electronics, 38(8), April 19, 1965, p. 114). DOI:10.1109/N-SSC.2006.4785860Google Scholar
Newell, A., Perlis, A. J., & Simon, H. A. (1967). Computer science. Science, 157(3795), 1373–1374.Google Scholar
O’Brien, T. (2015, June 20). Watson’s South American spin on a Canadian classic. Engadget. Retrieved on September 21, 2016, from www.engadget.com/2015/06/20/cooking-with-watson-peruvian-potato-poutine/Google Scholar
Palande, S. (2014, June 23). 10 Best hackers the world has ever known. Thought Catalog. Retrieved August 16, 2016, from http://tcat.tc/1sA0fm6Google Scholar
Palermo, E. (2014, February 15) Who invented the light bulb? [Blog post]. Live Science. Retrieved on September 22, 2016, from www.livescience.com/43424-who-invented-the-light-bulb.htmlGoogle Scholar
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
Park, R. (2015, November 9). Guide to zero-day exploits [Blog post] Symantec. Retrieved on October 21, 2016, from www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/guide-zero-day-exploitsGoogle Scholar
Peppler, K. and Kafai, Y. (2009): Creative coding: Programming for personal expression. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), Rhodes, Greece.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.Google Scholar
Przybylla, M., & Romeike, R. (2014) Overcoming issues with students’ perceptions of informatics in everyday life and education with physical computing. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives (ISSEP), (pp. 9–20).Google Scholar
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Robinson, E. J. (2009). Problem identification and construction: What do we know, what is the future? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 43.Google Scholar
Resnick, M. (2008). Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning & Leading with Technology, 35(4), 18–22.Google Scholar
Romeike, R. (2007). Applying creativity in CS high school education: Criteria, teaching example and evaluation. Proceedings of the Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research-Volume 88, 87–96.Google Scholar
Romeike, R. (2007). Three drivers for creativity in computer science education. Proceedings of the IFIP-Conference on “Informatics, Mathematics and ICT: a golden triangle.” Boston, USA.Google Scholar
Romeike, R. (2008). Workshop: A creative introduction to programming with scratch. In Learning to live in the knowledge society, 281 (pp. 341–344). New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-09729-9_49Google Scholar
Romeike, R. (2008). What’s my challenge? The forgotten part of problem solving in computer science education. In Informatics Education – Supporting Computational Thinking, 5090 (pp. 122–133). DOI:10.1007/978–3-540–69924-8_11Google Scholar
Rosett, M. (2015, August 24). Google has a secret interview process … and it landed me a job. [Blog post]. The Hustle. Retrieved on August 16, 2016 from http://thehustle.co/the-secret-google-interview-that-landed-me-a-jobGoogle Scholar
Saunders, D., & Thagard, P. (2005). Creativity in computer science. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 153–167). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., & Kim, Y. J. (2013). Assessment and learning of qualitative physics in newton’s playground. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(6), 423–430.Google Scholar
Shute, V., & Ventura, M. (2013). Stealth assessment: Measuring and supporting learning in video games. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of domain-specific disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 4(5), 441–452. DOI:10.1111/j.1745–6924.2009.01152.xGoogle Scholar
Sirius, R. U. (2000). Superhacker Kevin Mitnick: Menace to fear or rogue to love? Village Voice, 22Google Scholar
Skibell, R. (2002). The myth of the computer hacker. Information, Communication & Society, 5(3), 336–356.Google Scholar
Sneed, A. (2015, May 19). Moore’s law keeps going, defying expectations. Scientific America. Retrieved on August 6, 2016, from www.scientificamerican.com/article/moore-s-law-keeps-going-defying-expectations/Google Scholar
Somenkov, I. (2012a, March 7). The mstery of the Duqu framework [Blog post]. Securelist Kasperky Lab. Retrieved on October 21, 2016, from https://securelist.com/blog/research/32086/the-mystery-of-the-duqu-framework–6/Google Scholar
Somenkov, I. (2012b, March 19). The mystery of the Duqu framework solved [Blog post]. Securelist Kasperky Lab. Retrieved on October 21, 2016, from https://securelist.com/blog/research/32354/the-mystery-of-duqu-framework-solved–7/Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). The propulsion model of creative contributions applied to the arts and letters. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(2), 75–101.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2004). A propulsion model of creative leadership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(3), 145–153.Google Scholar
Tang, C., Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Implicit theories of creativity in computer science in the United States and China. Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(2), 137–156. doi:10.1002/jocb.61Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (2008). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms-Technical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing ServiceGoogle Scholar
Christie Medical Holdings, Inc (n.d.). Vein illumination. Retrieved on September 21, 2016, from www.christiemed.com/vein-illuminationGoogle Scholar
Verma, A. (2016, May 24). Japan just made computer programming a compulsory subject in its schools [Blog post]. fossBytes. Retrieved on November 4, 2016, from https://fossbytes.com/japan-computer-programming-compulsory-subject-schools/Google Scholar
Vollmer, J. (2016, July 14). The biggest hacker whodunit of the summer [Blog post]. Motherboard. Retrieved on September 22, 2016, from http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-biggest-hacker-whodunnit-of-the-summerGoogle Scholar
Wing, J. (2014, January 10). Computational thinking benefits society [Blog post]. Social Issues in Computing. Retrieved on October 29, 2016, from http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/2014/01/computational-thinking/Google Scholar
Zetter, K. (2012, May 28). Meet ‘Flame,’ the massive spy malware infiltrating Iranian computers. WIRED. Retrieved on September 21, 2016, from www.wired.com/2012/05/flame/Google Scholar
Zimmer, B. (2011, February 17). Is it time to welcome our new computer overlords? The Atlantic. Retrieved on September 21, 2016, from www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/is-it-time-to-welcome-our-new-computer-overlords/71388/Google Scholar