{"title":"某些人是否普遍比其他人更有创造力?五十年研究的系统回顾","authors":"Sébastien Miravete, André Tricot","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many recent studies support the idea that creativity is partially or totally “domain-general.” Certain individuals may exhibit greater creativity than the average, whatever the domain. More precisely, certain general factors (e.g., genetic factors, creative personality) could significantly impact creativity. This systematic review aims to evaluate this latter assertion. All empirical papers using at least two creative performance tasks in two domains were selected (<i>n</i> = 36). Results show that some participants succeed in creative tasks in several different domains, but only in experiments where specific prior knowledge is not controlled and tasks are artificial. Furthermore, certain studies conflate the function, which is domain-general, with its functioning, which may not necessarily be domain-general. For these reasons, the results appear less robust (no control for confounding factors) and less representative (creative tasks are not academically, socially, or professionally realistic). Therefore, it seems premature to recommend the integration of general creative skills into school or training programs, as well as the selection of students or employees with a presumed “creative profile.”</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"146 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Some People Generally More Creative Than Others? A Systematic Review of Fifty Years’ Research\",\"authors\":\"Sébastien Miravete, André Tricot\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Many recent studies support the idea that creativity is partially or totally “domain-general.” Certain individuals may exhibit greater creativity than the average, whatever the domain. More precisely, certain general factors (e.g., genetic factors, creative personality) could significantly impact creativity. This systematic review aims to evaluate this latter assertion. All empirical papers using at least two creative performance tasks in two domains were selected (<i>n</i> = 36). Results show that some participants succeed in creative tasks in several different domains, but only in experiments where specific prior knowledge is not controlled and tasks are artificial. Furthermore, certain studies conflate the function, which is domain-general, with its functioning, which may not necessarily be domain-general. For these reasons, the results appear less robust (no control for confounding factors) and less representative (creative tasks are not academically, socially, or professionally realistic). Therefore, it seems premature to recommend the integration of general creative skills into school or training programs, as well as the selection of students or employees with a presumed “creative profile.”</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"146 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Are Some People Generally More Creative Than Others? A Systematic Review of Fifty Years’ Research
Many recent studies support the idea that creativity is partially or totally “domain-general.” Certain individuals may exhibit greater creativity than the average, whatever the domain. More precisely, certain general factors (e.g., genetic factors, creative personality) could significantly impact creativity. This systematic review aims to evaluate this latter assertion. All empirical papers using at least two creative performance tasks in two domains were selected (n = 36). Results show that some participants succeed in creative tasks in several different domains, but only in experiments where specific prior knowledge is not controlled and tasks are artificial. Furthermore, certain studies conflate the function, which is domain-general, with its functioning, which may not necessarily be domain-general. For these reasons, the results appear less robust (no control for confounding factors) and less representative (creative tasks are not academically, socially, or professionally realistic). Therefore, it seems premature to recommend the integration of general creative skills into school or training programs, as well as the selection of students or employees with a presumed “creative profile.”
期刊介绍:
Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.