Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-04T04:21:50.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Creativity Research in German-Speaking Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Siegfried Preiser
Edited by
James C. Kaufman  and
Robert J. Sternberg
Siegfried Preiser
Affiliation:
Institut für Pädagogische Psychologie
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
California State University, San Bernardino
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Get access

Summary

Who or what is creative? Is it a person with especially brilliant ideas? An inventor, scientist, or artist? Is it a certain way of thinking? Is it imagination, inspiration, intuition, or systematic problem solving? Is it the environment, in which problems are worked on? Is it the perceived problem itself, the starting point, which enables creative problem solving? Or is it the result, as a product of problem-solving processes? All of these have been used in defining creativity.

Person, process, press, problem, and product are integrated in basic models of creativity (see Mooney, 1958; Preiser & Buchholz, 2004; Urban, 2003a) in the United States as well as in German-speaking countries. The models' focus lies on creative cognitive processes, which are initiated by a problem. These can be subdivided into different phases. In the end they should lead to a creative product. The creative processes are influenced by general and specific knowledge; by expertise, abilities, cognitive styles, and strategies; and by creativity-relevant personality traits, motives, interests, and task commitments (cf. the componential model of creativity by Urban, 2003a). Supporting or hindering environmental conditions and creativity techniques are also important. Only the result shows if an idea can be seen as successful and creative, explaining why the definitions of creativity revolve around the final result. The central criteria, which have been adopted from the United States, are novelty, suitability or usefulness, and social acceptance. What is accepted as useful or original depends on the historical situation as well as the social context.

Type
Chapter
Information
The International Handbook of Creativity , pp. 167 - 201
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Apel, H., Dernbach, D., Ködelpeter, Th., & Weinbrenner, P. (Eds.). (1998). Wege zur Zukunftsfähigkeit – ein Methodenhandbuch [Ways to future prospects – a methodological manual]. Bonn: Stiftung MITARBEITGoogle Scholar
Ash, M. G. (1998), Gestalt psychology in German culture, 1890–1967: Holism and the quest for objectivity. Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Böger-Huang, X. (1996). Von Konfuzius zu Picasso: Kreativitätserziehung in der Grundschule in China [From Konfutse to Picasso: Creativity education in elementary school in China]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Frankfurt/MGoogle Scholar
Bugdahl, V. (1995). Kreatives problemlösen im unterricht [Creative problem solving in class]. Frankfurt/M: Cornelsen ScriptorGoogle Scholar
Chassell, L. M. (1916). Test for originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7, 317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropley, A. J. (1991). Unterricht ohne Schablone: Wege zur Kreativität [Class without a template: A means to creativity] (2nd ed.). München: EhrenwirtGoogle Scholar
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Kreativität und kreativitätsförderung [Creativity and creativity promotion]. In Rost, D. H. (Ed.), Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (2nd rev. ed., pp. 366–373). Weinheim: BeltzGoogle Scholar
Csikszenmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollinsGoogle Scholar
DABEI-Deutsche Aktionsgemeinschaft Bildung – Erfindung – Innovation (Ed.). (1987). DABEI-handbuch für erfinder und unternehmer [Manual for inventors and entrepreneurs]. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag
Dörner, D., Kreuzig, H. W., Reither, F. & Stäudel, T. (Eds.). (1983). Lohhausen: Vom umgang mit unbestimmtheit und komplexität [Lohhausen: Problem solving in uncertain and complex problems]. Bern: HuberGoogle Scholar
Dörner, D., & Wearing, A. J. (1995). Complex problem solving: Toward a theory. In Frensch, P. A. & Fink, A. (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 65–99). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Duncker, K. (1963). Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens [Psychology on productive thinking]. Berlin: Springer. (Original work published 1935)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Facaoaru, C. (1985). Kreativität in wissenschaft und technik: Operationalisierung von problemlösefähigkeiten und kognitiven stilen [Creativity in science and technology: Operationalization of problem-solving ability and cognitive styles]. Bern: HuberGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, P. A. & Windheuser, H. J. (1974). Modifikation Kreativen Verhaltens durch Lernen am Modell [Modification of creative behavior by modeling]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungs psychologia und Pädagogische Psychologie, 4, 262–280Google Scholar
Funke, J. (2003). Problemlösendes denken [Problem-solving thinking]. Stuttgart: KohlhammerGoogle Scholar
Gebert, D. (2002). Führung und innovation [Leadership and innovation]. Stuttgart: KohlhammerGoogle Scholar
Geschka, H., König, D., Mehlhorn, J., Schaude, G., & Schlicksupp, H. (2005). History of the German Association for Creativity. In Jöstingmeier, B. & Boeddrich, H.-J. (Eds), Cross-Cultural Innovation: Results of the 8th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation (pp. 527–536). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geschka, H., Moger, S., & Rickards, T. (Eds.). (1994). Creativity and innovation. The power of synergy. Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Creativity and Innovation. Darmstadt, Germany: GeschkaGoogle Scholar
Giese, F. (1925). Handbuch psychotechnischer Eignungsprüfungen [Manual of psychotechnological aptitude tests]. Halle, Germany: MarholdGoogle Scholar
Giesler, M. (2003). Kreativität und organisationales klima: Entwicklung und validierung eines fragebogens zur erfassung von kreativitäts-und innovationsklima in betrieben [Creativity and organizational climate: Development and validation of a questionnaire for the assessment of creativity and innovation climate in organizations]. Münster: WaxmannGoogle Scholar
Greiffenhagen, M. (1982). Anders als andere? Zur sozialisation von pfarrerskindern [Different from others? Socialization of ministers' children]. In Greiffenhagen, M. (Ed.), Pfarrerskinder: Autobiographisches zu einem protestantischen thema (pp. 14–34). Stuttgart: Kreuz VerlagGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
Guntern, G. (Ed.). (1993). Irritation und kreativität: Hemmende und fördernde faktoren im kreativen prozess [Irritation and creativity: Hindering and promoting factors of creative processes]. Zürich: ScaloGoogle Scholar
Guntern, G. (1994). Sieben goldene regeln der kreativitätsförderung [Seven golden rules of creativity promotion]. Zürich: ScaloGoogle Scholar
Hany, E. A. (2001). Förderung der kreativität [Promotion of creativity]. In Klauer, K. J. (Ed.), Handbuch kognitives training (2nd ed., pp. 262–291). Göttingen, Germany: HogrefeGoogle Scholar
Heinelt, G. (1974). Kreative lehrer – kreative schüler [Creative teachers – Creative students]. Freiburg: HerderGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, W. (1989). Einführung in das lösen komplexer probleme im konstruktionsprozess [Introduction to the solving of complex problems in constructive processes]. Maschinenbautechnik, 38, 100–227Google Scholar
Heister, M. W. M. (Ed.). (1991). Techno-ökonomische kreativität: Möglichkeiten und massnahmen ihrer besonderen förderung [Technological-economical creativity: Chances and treatments of their special promotion]. Bonn: Köllen (DABEI)Google Scholar
Heller, K. A. (Ed.). (2001). Hochbegabung im kindes- und jugendalter [Giftedness in childhood and adolescence] (2nd ed.). Göttingen, Germany: HogrefeGoogle Scholar
Heller, K. A., & Perleth, Ch. (Eds.). (1999). Münchner Hochbegabungs-Testsystem (MHBT) [Munich Gifted Test system]. Göttingen, Germany: HogrefeGoogle Scholar
Huhn, G. (1990). Kreativität und schule: Risiken derzeitiger lehrpläne für die freie entfaltung der kinder. Verfassungswidrigkeit staatlicher regelungen von bildungszielen und unterrichtsinhalten vor dem hindergrund neuerer erkenntnisse der gehirnforschung [Creativity and school: Risks of contemporary curricula for the personal development of students]. Berlin: VWB/Synchron VerlagGoogle Scholar
Jäger, A. O. (1967). Dimensionen der Intelligenz [Dimensions of intelligence]. Göttingen, Germany: HogrefeGoogle Scholar
Jäger, A. O. (1984). Intelligenz-strukturforschung: Konkurrierende modelle, neue entwicklungen, perspektiven [Structural research on intelligence. Divergent models, new developments, perspectives]. Psychologische Rundschau, 35, 21–35Google Scholar
Jäger, A. O., Süss, H. M., & Beauducel, A. (1997). Berliner Intelligenzstruktur-Test (BIS-Test). Form 4 [Berlin Intelligence Structure Test – Version 4]. Göttingen, Germany: HogrefeGoogle Scholar
Jungk, R., & Müllert, N. R. (1995). Zukunftswerkstätten: Mit fantasie gegen routine und resignation [Future workshops: With imagination against routine and resignation] (5th ed.). München: HeyneGoogle Scholar
Klebert, K., Schrader, E., & Straub, W. G. (1991). Moderations methode: Gestaltung der meinungs- und willensbildung in gruppen, die miteinander lernen und leben, arbeiten und spielen [Moderation methods: Formation of opinions and volition in groups, who live, learn, work and play together] (5th ed.). Hamburg: WindmühleGoogle Scholar
Köhler, W. (1917). Intelligenzprüfung an menschenaffen [Intelligence tests on anthropoid apes]. Berlin: Preussische Akademie der WissenschaftGoogle Scholar
Krampen, G., unter Mitarbeit von Freilinger, J., & Wilmes, L. (1996). KVS-P: Kreativitätstest für vorschul- und schulkinder – Version für die psychologische anwendungspraxis [Creativity test for preschool and school-age children – Educational psychology form]. Göttingen, Germany: HogrefeGoogle Scholar
Krapp, A., & Weidenmann, B. (Eds.). (2001). Pädagogische psychologie: Ein lehrbuch [Educational psychology: A textbook] (4th, rev. ed.). Weinheim: BeltzGoogle Scholar
Krause, D. E. (2004). Macht und vertrauen in innovationsprozessen: Ein empirischer beitrag zu einer theorie der führung [Power and trust in innovative processes: An empirical contribution to a theory on leadership]. Wiesbaden: GablerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, E. (1969). Psychologie der kreativität [Psychology of creativity]. München: ReinhardtGoogle Scholar
Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft Kreativitätspädagogik NRW e.V. (Ed.). (1989). 20 jahre kreativitätspädagogik [20 years of creativity pedagogics]. Köln: Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft Kreativitätspädagogik
Lange-Eichbaum, W. (1927). Genie, irrsinn und ruhm [Genius, insanity and fame]. München: ReinhardtGoogle Scholar
Lange-Eichbaum, W., & Kurth, W. (2000). Genie, irrsinn und ruhm [Genius, insanity and fame]. (7th, rev. ed). Frechen: KometGoogle Scholar
Luchins, A. (1942). Mechanisation in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54, No. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, A. M. (1995). The price of greatness: Resolving the creativity and madness controversy. New York: GuilfordGoogle Scholar
Luther, M. (1530). Eine Predigt, dass man kinder zur schule halten solle [A preach on having children attend school]. Wittenberg, Germany: Nickel SchirlentzGoogle Scholar
Maier, N. R. F. (1930). Reasoning in humans: I. On direction. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 10, 115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainberger, U. (1977). Test zum divergenten denken (kreativität) TDK 4–6 [Creativity test for 4th to 6th graders – divergent thinking]. Weinheim: BeltzGoogle Scholar
Mehlhorn, H.-G., & Mehlhorn, G. (1976). Ideenschule: Übungen zum schöpferischen denken [School of ideas: Exercises on inventive thinking]. Leipzig: UraniaGoogle Scholar
Mehlhorn, H.-G., & Mehlhorn, G. (1977). Zur kritik der bürgerlichen kreativitätsforschung [Criticism of bourgeois creativity research]. Berlin: Verlag der WissenschaftenGoogle Scholar
Mehlhorn, H.-G., & Mehlhorn, G. (1986). Intuitive komponenten im schöpferischen prozess [Intuitive components in inventive processes]. Maschinenbautechnik, 35, 259–263Google Scholar
Meissner, W. (1989). Innovation und organisation. Die initiierung von innovationsprozessen in organisationen [Innovation and organization. The introduction of innovative processes in organizations]. Stuttgart: Verlag für Angewandte PsychologieGoogle Scholar
Merkelbach, V. (Ed.), (1993). Kreatives schreiben [Creative writing]. Braunschweig: WestermannGoogle Scholar
Metzger, W. (1962). Schöpferische freiheit [Inventive freedom] (2nd rev. ed.). Frankfurt/M: KramerGoogle Scholar
Metzger, W. (1979). Gestalttheoretische ansätze zur frage der kreativität [Gestalt-oriented approaches concerning creativity]. Reprinted in W. Metzger (1986), Gestaltpsychologie: Ausgewählte werke aus den jahren 1950 bis 1982. Frankfurt/M: KramerGoogle Scholar
Mooney, R. L. (1958). A conceptual model for integrating four approaches to the identification of creative talent. In Taylor, C. W. (Ed.), The second (1957) University of Utah research conference on the identification of creative scientific talent (pp. 170–180). Salt Lake City: University of Utah PressGoogle Scholar
Moreno, J. L. (1946/1959/1969). Psychodrama Vols. I–III. New York: Beacon HouseCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mühle, G., & Schell, Ch. (1970). Kreativität und schule [Creativity and school]. München: PiperGoogle Scholar
Petzold, H. (Hrsg.). (1973). Kreativität und konflikte [Creativity and conflicts]. Paderborn: JunfermannGoogle Scholar
Petzold, H., & Orth, I. (Eds.). (1991). Die neuen kreativitätstheorien [New creativity theories] Vol. I. Paderborn: JunfermannGoogle Scholar
Preiser, S. (1986). Kreativitätsforschung [Creativity research] (2nd ed.). Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Original work published 1976)Google Scholar
Preiser, S. (Ed.). (1982). Kognitive und emotionale aspekte politischen engagements [Cognitive and emotional aspects of political engagement]. Weinheim: BeltzGoogle Scholar
Preiser, S. (2003a). Poster und szenische präsentationen statt referate – eine kooperative, interaktive und kreative präsentationsform [Posters and scenic presentations instead of oral presentations: A cooperative, interactive, and creative form of presentation]. In Krampen, G. & Zayer, H. (Eds.), Psychologiedidaktik und evaluation IV (pp. 269–275). Bonn: Deutscher Psychologen VerlagGoogle Scholar
Preiser, (2003b). Pädagogische psychologie: Psychologische grundlagen von erziehung und unterricht [Educational psychology: Psychological basis of education and instruction]. Weinheim: JuventaGoogle Scholar
Preiser, S. (in press-a). Kreativitätsförderung: Lernklima und erziehungsbedingungen in der grundschule [Creativity stimulation: Learning atmosphere and educational conditions at elementary schools]. In Schweer, M. K. (Ed.), Das kindesalter. Frankfurt/M: Lang
Preiser, S. (in press-b). Creativity in the German education system. In Yumino, K. (Ed.), Creativity education in the world. Kyoto, Japan: Nakanishiya
Preiser, S. & Buchholz, N. (2004). Kreativität. Ein trainingsprogramm in 7 stufen für alltag und beruf [Creativity: A training program in 7 steps for everyday life and work] (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: AsangerGoogle Scholar
Rohrbach, B. (1969). Kreativ nach regeln – Methode 635, eine neue technik zum lösen von problemen [Creativity following rules – Method 635, a new technique on problem solving]. Absatzwirtschaft, 12, 73–76Google Scholar
Rorschach, H. (1921). Rorschach-test. Bern: HuberGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (1997). Creativity research handbook, Vol. I. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton PressGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, J. (1985). Die geschichte des genie-Gedankens in der deutschen literatur, philosophie und politik 1750–1945 [The history of the idea of ingenuity in German literature, philosophy, and politics 1750–1945]. Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche BuchgesellschaftGoogle Scholar
Schoppe, K.-J. (1975). Verbaler kreativitätstest [Verbal creativity test]. Göttingen, Germany: HogrefeGoogle Scholar
Serve, J. (1996). Förderung der kreativitätsentfaltung als implizite bildungsaufgabe der schule [Promotion of creativity development as an implicit educational goal in schools] (3rd ed.). München: PimSGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocker, Th. (1988). Die kreativität und das schöpferische: Leitbegriffe zweier pädagogischer reformperioden [Creativity and inventiveness: Concepts of two pedagogic reform periods]. Frankfurt/M: Brandes & AspelGoogle Scholar
Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: On productivity losses in idea-generating groups. In Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (vol. 5, pp. 271–303). London: WileyGoogle Scholar
Stroebe, W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). Warum brainstorming in gruppen kreativität vermindert: Eine kognitive theorie der leistungsverluste beim brainstorming [Why brainstorming in groups impairs creativity: A cognitive theory of productivity losses in brainstorming groups]. Psychologische Rundschau, 55, 2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Süllwold, F. (1954). Experimentelle untersuchungen über die rolle des einfalls im denkprozess [An experimental investigation concerning the part played by sudden insight in thinking]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 2, 175–207Google Scholar
Süllwold, F. (1999). Die prospektive phantasie als persönlichkeitsvariable und diagnostische kategorie [Prospective fantasy as a personality variable and diagnostic category]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 20, 133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1966a). Thinking creatively with pictures. Lexington, MA: Personell PressGoogle Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1966b). Thinking creatively with words. Princeton, NJ: Personell PressGoogle Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing ServiceGoogle Scholar
Ulmann, G. (1968). Kreativität: Neue amerikanische ansätze zur erweiterung des intelligenzkonzeptes [Creativity: New American attempts to extend the concept of intelligence]. Weinheim: BeltzGoogle Scholar
Ulmann, G. (Ed.). (1973). Kreativitätsforschung [Creativity research]. Köln: Kiepenheuer und WitschGoogle Scholar
Urban, K. K. (2003a). Towards a componential model of creativity. In Ambrose, D., Cohen, L. M., & Tannenbaum, A. J. (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration (pp. 81–112). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton PressGoogle Scholar
Urban, K. K. (2003b). Hochbegabung: Eine bibliographie deutschsprachiger literatur [Giftedness: A bibliography of German literature] (3rd ed.). Rodenberg: Klausur-VerlagGoogle Scholar
Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1995). TSD-Z: Test zum schöpferischen denken–zeichnerisch [Test for creative thinking–drawing production (TCT-DP)]. Frankfurt/M: SwetsGoogle Scholar
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity–intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & WinstonGoogle Scholar
Wallner, M. (1989). Angewandte kreativitätsforschung in den USA: Entwicklung und ergebnisse [Applied creativity research in the USA: Developments and results]. Der Neuerer, 38, 162–166Google Scholar
Wallner, M. (1990). Kreativitätsforschung in den USA. Eine erkenntnistheoretische studie zu entwicklung und ergebnissen wissenschaftlicher untersuchungen der kreativität [Creativity research in the USA: An epistemic study on developments and results of scientific research on creativity]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation B, Karl-Marx-Universität LeipzigGoogle Scholar
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (Eds.). (1997). Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological AssociationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wartegg, E. (1957). Wartegg-Zeichentest (WZT) [The Wartegg Drawing Test]. Göttingen, Germany: HogrefeGoogle Scholar
Weinert, F. E. (Ed.). (1997). Psychologie des unterrichts und der schule [Psychology in class and school]. Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Pädagogische Psychologie, Vol. 3.Göttingen, Germany: HogrefeGoogle Scholar
Wermke, J. (1989). “Hab a talent, sei a genie!”: Kreativität als paradoxe aufgabe [“Have a Talent, Be a Genius!”: Creativity as a paradox problem]. (vol. 1/2). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien VerlagGoogle Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1925). Drei abhandlungen zur Gestalttheorie [Three dissertations on Gestalt theory]. Erlangen: EnkeGoogle Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper. (Published in Germany 1957 as Produktives denken. Frankfurt/M: Kramer)Google Scholar
Westmeyer, H. (1998). The social construction and psychological assessment of creativity. High Ability Studies, 9, 11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witthaus, U., & Wittwer, W. (Eds.). (2000). Open Space: Eine methode zur selbst-steuerung von lernprozessen in grossgruppen [Open space. A method for the self-regulation of learning processes in large groups]. Bielefeld: BertelsmannGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, R. B. (1995). Schreibspiele, Kreatives Schreiben [Writing games, creative writing] (Vol. 1/2). Bad Zwischenahn: Wohlgemuth MediaGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, R. B. (1998). Schreibspiele, Kreatives Schreiben, Vol. 2 [Writing games, creative writing]. Bad Zwischenahn: Wohlgemuth MediaGoogle Scholar
Wollschläger, G. (1972). Kreativität und gesellschaft [Creativity and society]. Frankfurt/M: FischerGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, F. (1957). Morphological astronomy. Berlin: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, F. (1989). Entdecken, erfinden, forschen im morphologischen weltbild [Discovery, invention, research in the morphological view of the world] (2nd ed.). Glarus, Switzerland: BaeschlinGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×