varieties of (scientific) creativity fitting together the puzzle pieces of disposition and...

Varieties of (Scientific) Varieties of (Scientific) CreativityCreativity

Fitting Together the Puzzle Fitting Together the Puzzle Pieces of Disposition and Pieces of Disposition and

DevelopmentDevelopment

Three Consecutive IssuesThree Consecutive Issues

First, can scientific disciplines be First, can scientific disciplines be objectively arrayed in a Comte-like objectively arrayed in a Comte-like hierarchy using empirical criteria?hierarchy using empirical criteria?


Second, does a scientist’s Second, does a scientist’s disciplinary affiliation correspond to disciplinary affiliation correspond to his/her placement along dispositional his/her placement along dispositional and developmental dimensions that and developmental dimensions that closely parallel the disciplinary closely parallel the disciplinary hierarchy?hierarchy?


Third, what determines a scientist’s Third, what determines a scientist’s differential impact within a differential impact within a discipline? discipline?

In particular, does the success of a In particular, does the success of a given scientist depend on whether given scientist depend on whether his/her disposition and development his/her disposition and development are representative of the science for are representative of the science for which they are most typical? which they are most typical?

Hierarchy of the SciencesHierarchy of the Sciences

Classic concept: Auguste ComteClassic concept: Auguste Comte• astronomyastronomy• physicsphysics• chemistrychemistry• biologybiology• sociology sociology


Contemporary concepts:Contemporary concepts:• physical, biological, and social sciencesphysical, biological, and social sciences• ““exact” versus “non-exact” sciencesexact” versus “non-exact” sciences• ““hard” versus “soft” scienceshard” versus “soft” sciences• ““paradigmatic” versus “pre-paradigmatic” versus “pre-

paradigmatic” sciencesparadigmatic” sciences• ““natural” versus “human” sciencesnatural” versus “human” sciences• sciences, humanities, and the artssciences, humanities, and the arts


Empirical ResearchEmpirical Research• Stephen Cole (1983) in Stephen Cole (1983) in AJSAJS • D. K. Simonton (2002) in D. K. Simonton (2002) in Great Great

PsychologistsPsychologists• D. K. Simonton (2004). Psychology’s D. K. Simonton (2004). Psychology’s

status as a scientific discipline: Its status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. hierarchy of the sciences. Review of Review of General PsychologyGeneral Psychology, , 88, 59-67, 59-67..

Simonton (2004)Simonton (2004)

Two classes of measures:Two classes of measures:• Primary: Primary:

strong logical or empirical connection with strong logical or empirical connection with the scientific status of a disciplinethe scientific status of a discipline

available for physics, chemistry, psychology, available for physics, chemistry, psychology, and sociology at the minimumand sociology at the minimum

• Secondary: Secondary: also connection with scientific status, butalso connection with scientific status, but not available for one or more of the four not available for one or more of the four

core disciplines for the comparisoncore disciplines for the comparison

Primary MeasuresPrimary Measures

Positive indicators: Positive indicators: • Citation concentration (Cole, 1983)Citation concentration (Cole, 1983)• Early impact rate (Cole, 1983)Early impact rate (Cole, 1983)• Obsolescence rate (McDowell, 1982)Obsolescence rate (McDowell, 1982)• Peer evaluation consensus (Cole, 1983)Peer evaluation consensus (Cole, 1983)• Graph prominence (Cleveland, 1984) Graph prominence (Cleveland, 1984)

Negative indicators:Negative indicators:• Consultation rate (Suls & Fletcher, 1983)Consultation rate (Suls & Fletcher, 1983)• Theories-to-laws ratio (Roeckelein, 1997)Theories-to-laws ratio (Roeckelein, 1997)

Secondary MeasuresSecondary Measures

Positive indicators:Positive indicators:• Citation immediacy (Cole, 1983)Citation immediacy (Cole, 1983)• Anticipation frequency (Hagstrom, 1974)Anticipation frequency (Hagstrom, 1974)• Rated disciplinary hardness (Smith et al., 2000) Rated disciplinary hardness (Smith et al., 2000)

Negative indicators:Negative indicators:• Age at receipt of Nobel prize (Stephan & Leven, Age at receipt of Nobel prize (Stephan & Leven,

1993; see also Manniche & Falk, 1957)1993; see also Manniche & Falk, 1957)• Lecture disfluency (Schachter, Christenfeld, Lecture disfluency (Schachter, Christenfeld,

Ravina, & Bilous, 1991) Ravina, & Bilous, 1991)

Data AnalysesData Analyses

Principal components analysis: Principal components analysis: disciplinary scores on the seven disciplinary scores on the seven primary measures can be explained primary measures can be explained in terms of a single latent variablein terms of a single latent variable

Correlation analysis: the forgoing Correlation analysis: the forgoing principal component correlates principal component correlates highly with each of the five highly with each of the five secondary measuressecondary measures

Data AnalysesData Analyses

Hence, it’s possible to provide an Hence, it’s possible to provide an objective hierarchical arrangement of objective hierarchical arrangement of five principal scientific disciplines five principal scientific disciplines along a Comte-like scale, namely …along a Comte-like scale, namely …

Two ElaborationsTwo Elaborations

One: This hierarchy can be One: This hierarchy can be extrapolatedextrapolated beyond scientific beyond scientific disciplines:disciplines:• Scientific versus artistic creativityScientific versus artistic creativity• Formal versus expressive artistic Formal versus expressive artistic

creativity (Apollonian versus Dionysian; creativity (Apollonian versus Dionysian; Classical versus Romantic; linear versus Classical versus Romantic; linear versus painterly; etc.)painterly; etc.)


Illustrations using criteria used in Illustrations using criteria used in constructing scientific hierarchy:constructing scientific hierarchy:• Obsolescence rate: Obsolescence rate:

psychology/sociology > history > psychology/sociology > history > EnglishEnglish

• Lecture disfluency: psychology/sociology Lecture disfluency: psychology/sociology < political science < art history < < political science < art history < English (cf. philosophy)English (cf. philosophy)


Two: This hierarchy can be Two: This hierarchy can be interpolatedinterpolated within scientific within scientific disciplines:disciplines:• Paradigmatic disciplines in “normal” Paradigmatic disciplines in “normal”

versus “crisis” stages (e.g., classical versus “crisis” stages (e.g., classical physics in middle 19physics in middle 19thth versus early 20 versus early 20thth century)century)

• Non-paradigmatic disciplines with Non-paradigmatic disciplines with contrasting theoretical/methodological contrasting theoretical/methodological orientations (e.g., the two psychologies) orientations (e.g., the two psychologies)

Coan (1979) / Simonton (2000)Coan (1979) / Simonton (2000)

Objectivistic versus SubjectivisticObjectivistic versus Subjectivistic Quantitative versus QualitativeQuantitative versus Qualitative Elementaristic versus HolisticElementaristic versus Holistic Impersonal versus PersonalImpersonal versus Personal Static versus DynamicStatic versus Dynamic Exogenist versus EndogenistExogenist versus Endogenist

Coan (1979) / Simonton (2000)Coan (1979) / Simonton (2000)

Factor analysis reveals that the six bipolar Factor analysis reveals that the six bipolar dimensions can be consolidated into a dimensions can be consolidated into a single bipolar dimensionsingle bipolar dimension• ““Hard,” “tough-minded,” “natural-science” Hard,” “tough-minded,” “natural-science”

psychology versuspsychology versus• ““Soft,” “tender-minded,” “human-science” Soft,” “tender-minded,” “human-science”

psychologypsychology Moreover, evidence that two psychologies Moreover, evidence that two psychologies

are distinct (see also Kimble, 1984):are distinct (see also Kimble, 1984):

Second IssueSecond Issue

Could scientists working in different Could scientists working in different disciplines display dispositional disciplines display dispositional characteristics and developmental characteristics and developmental experiences that correspond to the experiences that correspond to the chosen discipline’s placement in the chosen discipline’s placement in the hierarchy?hierarchy?

That is, to what extent does the That is, to what extent does the hierarchy have a psychological hierarchy have a psychological basis? basis?

What Determines Preferences What Determines Preferences RegardingRegarding

Objectivity versus SubjectivityObjectivity versus Subjectivity Consensus versus IndividualityConsensus versus Individuality Exactness versus VaguenessExactness versus Vagueness Constraint versus FreedomConstraint versus Freedom Logic versus IntuitionLogic versus Intuition Strong problem-solving methods Strong problem-solving methods

(e.g., algorithms) versus Weak (e.g., algorithms) versus Weak problem-solving methods (e.g., problem-solving methods (e.g., heuristics)?heuristics)?

Potential AnswersPotential Answers

Dispositional CharacteristicsDispositional Characteristics Developmental ExperiencesDevelopmental Experiences

Sample Puzzle Pieces: Sample Puzzle Pieces: Disposition – Science to ArtDisposition – Science to Art

Psychopathology/emotional instability Psychopathology/emotional instability (Ludwig, 1998; cf. Jamison, 1989; Ludwig, (Ludwig, 1998; cf. Jamison, 1989; Ludwig, 1992, 1995; Post, 1994; Raskin, 1936): 1992, 1995; Post, 1994; Raskin, 1936):

N.B.: Psychoticism and reduced latent inhibitionN.B.: Psychoticism and reduced latent inhibition

Sample Puzzle Pieces: Sample Puzzle Pieces: Disposition – Science to ScienceDisposition – Science to Science

16 PF (Chambers, 1964; see also 16 PF (Chambers, 1964; see also Cattell & Drevdahl, 1955)Cattell & Drevdahl, 1955)• Chemists < Psychologists on Factor M: Chemists < Psychologists on Factor M:

bohemian, introverted, unconventional, bohemian, introverted, unconventional, imaginative, and creative in thought and imaginative, and creative in thought and behaviorbehavior

Sample Puzzle Pieces: Sample Puzzle Pieces: Disposition – Science to ScienceDisposition – Science to Science

TAT (Roe, 1953):TAT (Roe, 1953):• Physical scientists (chemists + Physical scientists (chemists +

physicists) less emotional, more factual, physicists) less emotional, more factual, less rebellious, less verbal than Social less rebellious, less verbal than Social scientists (psychologists + scientists (psychologists + anthropologists)anthropologists)

Sample Puzzle Pieces: Sample Puzzle Pieces: Disposition – Within a ScienceDisposition – Within a Science

Mechanistic versus Organismic behavioral Mechanistic versus Organismic behavioral scientists (Johnson, Germer, Efran, & scientists (Johnson, Germer, Efran, & Overton, 1988)Overton, 1988)• former are orderly, stable, conventional, former are orderly, stable, conventional,

conforming, objective, realistic, interpersonally conforming, objective, realistic, interpersonally passive, dependent, and reactivepassive, dependent, and reactive

• the latter are fluid, changing, creative, the latter are fluid, changing, creative, nonconforming, participative, imaginative, nonconforming, participative, imaginative, active, purposive, autonomous, individualistic, active, purposive, autonomous, individualistic, and environmentally integrated and environmentally integrated

Sample Puzzle Pieces: Sample Puzzle Pieces: Disposition – Within a ScienceDisposition – Within a Science

Integrative complexity of APA Integrative complexity of APA presidential addresses (Suedfeld, presidential addresses (Suedfeld, 1985) : Natural-science oriented < 1985) : Natural-science oriented < human-science oriented human-science oriented

Sample Puzzle Pieces: Sample Puzzle Pieces: Development – Science to ArtDevelopment – Science to Art

Family background of Nobel laureates Family background of Nobel laureates (Berry, 1981; omitting peace and (Berry, 1981; omitting peace and physiology or medicine): physiology or medicine): • Father academic professional: physics 28%, Father academic professional: physics 28%,

chemistry 17%, literature 6% chemistry 17%, literature 6% • Father lost by age 16: physics 2%, chemistry Father lost by age 16: physics 2%, chemistry

11%, literature 17% 11%, literature 17% • 30% of latter “lost at least one parent through 30% of latter “lost at least one parent through

death or desertion or experienced the father’s death or desertion or experienced the father’s bankruptcy or impoverishment” whereas “the bankruptcy or impoverishment” whereas “the physicists, in particular, seem to have physicists, in particular, seem to have remarkably uneventful lives” (p. 387; cf. remarkably uneventful lives” (p. 387; cf. Raskin, 1936)Raskin, 1936)


For 300+ 20For 300+ 20thth century eminent (Simonton, century eminent (Simonton, 1986): 1986): • fiction and nonfiction authors tend to come fiction and nonfiction authors tend to come

from unhappy home environments, whereas from unhappy home environments, whereas better home conditions produce scientists and better home conditions produce scientists and philosophersphilosophers

• scientists have the most formal education, scientists have the most formal education, artist and performers the least, with poets artist and performers the least, with poets least likely to have any special school least likely to have any special school experiencesexperiences


Scientifically versus Artistically Scientifically versus Artistically Creative Adolescents (Schaefer & Creative Adolescents (Schaefer & Anastasi, 1968): family backgroundsAnastasi, 1968): family backgrounds• CrS < CrA diversity (foreign, mobility, CrS < CrA diversity (foreign, mobility,

travels)travels)• CrS > CrA conventionality (parental CrS > CrA conventionality (parental

hobbies, interests)hobbies, interests)


Formal education Formal education • Eminent scientists > eminent writers Eminent scientists > eminent writers

(Raskin, 1936)(Raskin, 1936) MentorsMentors

• Eminent scientists < eminent artists Eminent scientists < eminent artists (Simonton, 1984, 1992); with eminent (Simonton, 1984, 1992); with eminent psychologists between but closer to psychologists between but closer to scientists in generalscientists in general

Sample Puzzle Pieces: Sample Puzzle Pieces: Development – Science to ScienceDevelopment – Science to Science

Rebelliousness toward parents: Rebelliousness toward parents: chemists < psychologists (Chambers, chemists < psychologists (Chambers, 1964; see also Roe, 1953)1964; see also Roe, 1953)

Early interests (Roe, 1953):Early interests (Roe, 1953):• physical scientists: mechanical/electrical physical scientists: mechanical/electrical

gadgetsgadgets• social scientists: literature/classics (early social scientists: literature/classics (early

desire to become creative writers)desire to become creative writers)

Sample Puzzle Pieces: Sample Puzzle Pieces: Development – Science to ScienceDevelopment – Science to Science

Side note: Side note: • Although 83% of married eminent Although 83% of married eminent

scientists enjoyed stable marriages scientists enjoyed stable marriages (Post, 1994), (Post, 1994),

• Roe (1953) found that 41% of the social Roe (1953) found that 41% of the social scientists experienced divorce, in scientists experienced divorce, in comparison to 15% of the biologists and comparison to 15% of the biologists and 5% of the physical scientists5% of the physical scientists

Sample Puzzle Pieces: Sample Puzzle Pieces: Development – Within a ScienceDevelopment – Within a Science

Birth orderBirth order• Although firstborns are more likely to become Although firstborns are more likely to become

eminent scientists (Galton, 1874; Roe, 1953; eminent scientists (Galton, 1874; Roe, 1953; Simonton, 2008; Terry, 1989), Simonton, 2008; Terry, 1989),

• Sulloway (1996) has offered evidence that Sulloway (1996) has offered evidence that revolutionary scientists are more likely to be revolutionary scientists are more likely to be laterborns, wherelaterborns, where

• the latter is a consequence of the positive the latter is a consequence of the positive correlation between openness and ordinal correlation between openness and ordinal positionposition


N.B.: According to Sulloway (1996), the N.B.: According to Sulloway (1996), the forgoing birth-order effect is moderated by forgoing birth-order effect is moderated by other factors, such asother factors, such as• pronounced parent-offspring conflictpronounced parent-offspring conflict• age spacingage spacing• early parental loss and surrogate parentingearly parental loss and surrogate parenting• gender and racegender and race• shynessshyness

Hence an extremely complex and finely Hence an extremely complex and finely differentiated modeldifferentiated model


Those psychologists whose mothers Those psychologists whose mothers where extremely religious are more where extremely religious are more likely to subscribe to scientifically likely to subscribe to scientifically oriented beliefs, such as oriented beliefs, such as behaviorism, quantification, and behaviorism, quantification, and elementarism (Coan, 1979) elementarism (Coan, 1979)

But What Determines Differential But What Determines Differential Impact Within a Science?Impact Within a Science?

Some dispositional traits and Some dispositional traits and dispositional experiences are dispositional experiences are orthogonal to placement along the orthogonal to placement along the hierarchy and yet predict differential hierarchy and yet predict differential success within any chosen domain success within any chosen domain within that hierarchywithin that hierarchy

To offer just a few examples …To offer just a few examples …


CPI personality factors: Sci v NonSci CPI personality factors: Sci v NonSci correlates ≠ Cr v Lc Sci (Feist, 1998; correlates ≠ Cr v Lc Sci (Feist, 1998; also see Simonton, 2008b)also see Simonton, 2008b)

Motivation, drive, determination, Motivation, drive, determination, persistence, perseverance (Cox, persistence, perseverance (Cox, 1926; Duckworth et al., 2007 1926; Duckworth et al., 2007 Matthews et al., 1980)Matthews et al., 1980)


However, other traits/experiences However, other traits/experiences that determine an individual’s that determine an individual’s disciplinary preference may also disciplinary preference may also determine his or her disciplinary determine his or her disciplinary impactimpact

There are three main possibilities:There are three main possibilities:


First, the most successful scientists First, the most successful scientists may be those whose dispositional may be those whose dispositional traits and developmental traits and developmental experiences put them closest to the experiences put them closest to the disciplinary centroiddisciplinary centroid• I.e., “domain-typical” scientist I.e., “domain-typical” scientist • E.g., disciplinary stasis or stagnationE.g., disciplinary stasis or stagnation

The lower-impact scientists will be The lower-impact scientists will be peripheral relative to this centroidperipheral relative to this centroid


Second, the most successful Second, the most successful scientists may be those whose scientists may be those whose dispositional traits and dispositional traits and developmental experiences put developmental experiences put them closer to the centroid for them closer to the centroid for disciplines more advanced in the disciplines more advanced in the hierarchyhierarchy

• I.e., “domain-progressive” scientistI.e., “domain-progressive” scientist• Cf., behavior geneticists, cognitive Cf., behavior geneticists, cognitive

neuroscientists, evolutionary biologistsneuroscientists, evolutionary biologists


Third, the most successful scientists Third, the most successful scientists are those whose dispositional traits are those whose dispositional traits and developmental experiences put and developmental experiences put them closer to the centroid for a them closer to the centroid for a discipline lower down in the discipline lower down in the hierarchyhierarchy

• I.e., “domain-regressive” scientistI.e., “domain-regressive” scientist• E.g., scientific creativity as contingent E.g., scientific creativity as contingent

on “regression” toward artistic on “regression” toward artistic creativity creativity


Empirical data indicate that the third Empirical data indicate that the third option may apply to the most option may apply to the most dispositional and developmental dispositional and developmental predictorspredictors

That is, the major figures in a given That is, the major figures in a given domain are more similar to creators domain are more similar to creators lower down in the disciplinary lower down in the disciplinary hierarchyhierarchy

Dispositional PredictorsDispositional Predictors

Self-description: Highly productive Self-description: Highly productive scientists more original, less conventional, scientists more original, less conventional, more impulsive, less inhibited, less formal, more impulsive, less inhibited, less formal, more subjective (Van Zelst & Kerr, 1954) more subjective (Van Zelst & Kerr, 1954)

Ludwig (1995): psychological “unease”Ludwig (1995): psychological “unease” EPQ Psychoticism scores :EPQ Psychoticism scores :

• scientific productivity and impact (Rushton, scientific productivity and impact (Rushton, 1990)1990)

• artistic creativity and eminence (Götz & Götz, artistic creativity and eminence (Götz & Götz, 1979a, 1979b)1979a, 1979b)

Developmental PredictorsDevelopmental Predictors

Domain-typical creator unlikely given Domain-typical creator unlikely given Simonton’s (1986) Simonton’s (1986) NN = 314 study of = 314 study of biographical typicality and eminencebiographical typicality and eminence

What about the other two options?What about the other two options?• Some indirect support for domain-Some indirect support for domain-

regressive creator if we can assume that regressive creator if we can assume that revolutionary scientists more creative revolutionary scientists more creative than normal scientiststhan normal scientists

• But also some inconsistent results (e.g., But also some inconsistent results (e.g., birth order)birth order)

ConclusionConclusion

Three argumentsThree arguments• Hierarchical arrangement of domains Hierarchical arrangement of domains

(both within and beyond the sciences)(both within and beyond the sciences)• Psychological foundation for hierarchy Psychological foundation for hierarchy

according to disposition and according to disposition and development of its practitionersdevelopment of its practitioners

• Achieved eminence within domain partly Achieved eminence within domain partly depends on the same dispositional and depends on the same dispositional and developmental variables (viz. domain-developmental variables (viz. domain-regressive creators)regressive creators)

Max Planck: Creative scientists “must have a vivid

intuitive imagination, for new ideas are not generated by deduction, but by an

artistically creative imagination.”

Albert Einstein: “to these elementary laws there leads no logical path, but only intuition, supported

by being sympathetically in touch with experience.”

varieties of (scientific) creativity fitting together the puzzle pieces of disposition and...

Documents

human sciences sciences

development slide

comparison slide

arts slide

ajsstephen cole

disciplinary hierarchy

citation immediacy cole

citation concentration