Taking a prospective look at creativity domains

Molly Holinger

University of Connecticut

Vlad Glăveanu

Aalborg University

James C. Kaufman

University of Connecticut

John Baer

Rider University
 Page 2

Abstract
 Page 3

Taking a prospective look at creativity domains

The study of creativity is inseparable from that of domains and disciplines. This

statement may seem surprising given that most papers make claims about general creativity. Yet

it is possible to argue that there is no creativity outside of specific contexts and situated

activities. Even laboratory studies using domain-general measures of divergent thinking still

collect data about a form of creative expression. For divergent thinking, the form is creative

ideation, which is much more important for particular domains – in this case artistic (by

emphasizing originality) and educational (by gathering data in a test manner, one that is likely to

favor participants who benefited from schooling and, more generally, Western education).

There is, of course, the reverse argument. Creativity fascinates us precisely because it

seems to transcend or, rather, conjoin together a variety of experiences. In this sense, being

creative in the sphere of the sciences, arts, business, or everyday life can be characterized in

similar ways by creators (such as, for instance, the notion of flow; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and

perceived as such by outside observers. Although (for example) scientists, artists, and cooks use

different tools and utilize different types of knowledge in their work, they might nonetheless

engage in similar processes (e.g., experimentation, conceptual combination, analogical thinking).

Whereas these two facets of creativity – its domain generality and specificity – have often been

understood as opposite, the present volume seeks new ways to conceptualize their relationship.

In line with the basic assumptions of Amusement Park Theory (see Baer & Kaufman, 2005, this

volume; Kaufman & Baer, 2004), each chapter is not only sensitive to the issue of generality and
 Page 4

specificity but, most of all, to how these different facets may relate to each other and co-evolve

over time.

In this concluding chapter we take another look at the complex relationship between

generality and specificity with the double aim of: a) highlighting some of the main lines of

argument developed across this Handbook, and b) looking towards the future, in a prospective

manner, to consider the transformation of creative domains, as well as its impact on the

generality – specificity debate. It is to be noted from the start that, although the variety of

creativity domains included here is extensive, this volume did not ever intend to cover every

potential discipline or practice associated with creativity. As noted in the Introduction, there are

many emerging forms of creative expression that can and will, in time, add to the existing

domains or constitute new ones (think, for instance, about creativity and the use of new

technologies or social media). However, a guiding principle in putting together the list of

chapters has been to include both “traditional” creativity domains, which have been intensively

studied (e.g., visual art, music, play, dance, engineering, teaching, architecture, psychology)

alongside less "traditional” domains of creativity (e.g., sports, craft, emotions, photography,

animal creativity). Towards the end of this chapter, new questions will be raised concerning both

the future of domains and creativity in the “domains of the future.”

The creativity mosaic

The image of creativity emerging out of the contributions included in this Handbook is

best described as dynamic and heterogeneous. Creating in each domain included here reflects its

own mosaic of traits, processes, outcomes, and contexts, thereby contributing, in turn, to the big
 Page 5

mosaic of creativity across domains. The metaphor of the mosaic is not accidental. It aims to

capture both the plurality of themes reflected within each chapter as well as the multiple overlaps

between these themes across chapters.

First, the discussion of domain general and domain-specific aspects of creativity presents

us with multiple positions, mostly aimed at striking a balance between these two poles. For

instance, Beghetto (this volume), approaches teaching creativity in the context of specific

domains or ‘subjects areas’ while, at the same time, emphasizing the importance of working with

a view of what is beyond them. The chapter on engineering (Cropley, Cropley and Sandwith, this

volume), explicitly mentions in relation to the generality – specificity debate that, for “as

important as it is to articulate a unique perspective on creativity in engineering, it is also

important to recognize how much is not different” (p. #). The way in which creativity is defined

in each chapter reflects well the importance of operating with more or less “classic” definitions

(see Kaufman, 2016; Plucker, Beghetto & Dow, 2004), while nuancing the criteria of novelty

and value, adding to them and, at times, challenging our conception of creativity from the

perspective of particular domains. For example, Serafin and Dollinger (this volume) specify that

what is ‘useful’ in photography relates, first and foremost, to eliciting emotional responses in

viewers and impacting their understanding of life and art. Defining creativity becomes much

more difficult in the case of animals (see Kaufman & O’Hearn, this volume), adding an extra

layer of complexity to the debate, with the lack of common terminology being one of the main

obstacles in this area of research. In other cases, such as architecture (Vartanian, this volume),

the definition of creativity is closely associated with other concepts, for example aesthetics;

whereas in the case of law (Mandel, this volume), institutional constraints and norms take center

stage, such as what is inscribed in copyright or patent law. In the end, Damian and Tou (this
 Page 6

volume) point to the fact that different cultures might emphasize different aspects of creativity,

such as originality (in the West) and tradition and usefulness (in the East). The cultural level

complexifies our understanding of domains since they are both embedded within a shared culture

as well as carry their own, distinctive cultural characteristics. And it is not only national but also

organizational culture that we should take into account (Mitchell & Reiter-Palmon, this volume).

The metaphor of the mosaic applies also when considering the issue of assessment. In

psychology, often, creativity assessment makes use of psychometric measures, expert judges,

self-reported beliefs, or professional accomplishments, , depending on the level of creativity

under study (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). At the same time, there is increasing criticism of

domain-general measures, most of which are based on divergent thinking (e.g., Thomson, this

volume; Cropley, Cropley, and Sandwith, this volume). Such critiques are often matched by

increased support for the use of expert or domain-specific ratings (e.g., Kaufman & Baer, 2012;

Serafin & Dollinger, this volume; Vartanian, this volume). A focus on different domains reveals

interesting, domain-tailored ways of evaluating creativity. In the case of photography,

assessment can be based on the judgment of curators and juries (Serafin & Dollinger, this

volume), whereas in psychology, it would need to take into account the process of peer-review

(Simonton, this volume-a). An important question that emerges is whether it is easier to assess

creativity in some domains compared to others. For example, in marketing, creativity can be

more or less easily evaluated in terms of traditional criteria for performance (Taillard & Voyer,

this volume).

Another important issue relates to the call for improved domain-specific assessment of

creativity (see, for instance, the chapters on emotions, Ivcevic, Ebert, Hoffmann & Brackett, this

volume; teaching, Beghetto, this volume. and sports, Memmert, this volume). In this case, play
 Page 7

might be a relatively rare example of a domain already benefiting from specific and nuanced

forms of assessment (see Russ & Wallace, this volume). Finally, some domains might not lend

themselves to traditional assessments of creativity that highlight product novelty, but rather on

measures of the work process itself. Such domains may stimulate novel methods for assessing

creativity such as multiple feedback (such as in the domain of craft, see Glăveanu, this volume)

or new ways of eliciting creativity (motor creativity in dance, see Thomson, this volume). Who

should judge – and how -- the creativity of different outcomes remains an open question and,

more and more, we find calls for involving audiences, beneficiaries, or users in this process

(Taillard & Voyer, this volume).

In terms of personality and, more generally, the characteristics of the creative person,

there is evidence of differences in personality traits both within and across domains. Szen-

Ziemiańska, Lebuda, and Karwowski (this volume) review existing studies and note many

nuances. They point to the fact that, for example, neuroticism and extraversion seem to be

associated with creativity, yet this association depends on creativity domain, whereas

extraversion appears to be related to creativity in a limited number of areas, particularly in

everyday and entrepreneurial creativity. In addition, four of the Big Five personality traits –

emotional stability, extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness – seem to correlate positively

with leadership (Mitchell & Reiter-Palmon, this volume). Even more interestingly, there is

evidence suggesting that traits conducive for creativity in one domain might hinder creative

expression in others (e.g., conscientiousness in sciences versus arts; Feist, 1998). The relation

between creativity and mental health is also, to a great extent, domain-specific. For instance,

mental illness seems to have a greater prevalence among artistic professions with writers being

diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder twice as often as non-writers (Oatley & Djikic,
 Page 8

this volume; see also different positions in Kaufman, 2014). The attributes of creative people are

not only to be thought of as personal but as also being shaped by interactions with others. These

interactions can model creative behaviors such as risk-taking and openness to new ideas

(Beghetto, this volume).

A particular theme in the discussion about creative individuals is that of motivation.

Motivation, particularly intrinsic motivation, is often considered to influence creativity

regardless of domain (Amabile, 1996; Russ & Wallace, this volume). People’s motives are never

uniformly intrinsic, of course, and one’s motivation to be creative may easily shift from domain

to domain (Kaufman & Baer, 2002). Finally, the possible interactions with both age and gender

emerged in several chapters, such as Feist’s (this volume) discussion of the disproportionately

low number of women in the physical sciences.

Other frequently mentioned topics, highly visible in the mosaic of creativity across

domains, included expertise, education, well-being, and the relationship to society. Although

receiving training in the domain and accumulating domain-specific (procedural and declarative)

knowledge is certainly important, some domains (such as the sciences) are more likely to require

more formal training than others (such as the arts, particularly crafts). In fact, crafts are almost

never taught formally but learned through informal interactions and apprenticeships (Glăveanu,

this volume). Another difference between domains is visibility. Chapters in this book cover a

wide scope, from the headlines that come with new scientific discoveries and technological

advances to the everyday creativity found in the domain of emotions (Ivcevic, Ebert, Hoffmann

& Brackett, this volume). And yet it is precisely domains like emotions that help relate creativity

with important topics such as psychological health and well-being. In fact, the theme of well-

being was referred to in different chapters, particularly Forgeard and Elstein (this volume). There
 Page 9

is some evidence suggesting that engaging in creative activity has a positive effect, even if not at

all levels of creativity (see, for example, the case of everyday and professional writers in Oatley

& Djikic, this volume). When it comes to the role of audiences, there are domains in which

collaboration is the norm and creativity is performative (such as acting, Goldstein & Levy, this

volume; and dance, Thomson, this volume). However, relations to various audiences are present

in any domain of creativity (Glăveanu, 2013). At times, as in marketing, they reverse roles and

turn users into creators in their own right (Taillard & Voyer, this volume).

Beyond the generality / specificity debate

The debate between creativity as a domain-general versus domain-specific process is

placed in the background of all the chapters included in this handbook. And yet contributors

began from not an either/or position, but rather a dynamic, relational view of similarities and

differences both within and across domains; referred to above as the creativity mosaic. Different

chapters approached the mosaic differently. Simonton (this volume-b), for example, makes a

strong argument for generality by claiming that all creativity is combinatorial. In practice as well,

domain generality might be assumed when dealing with creative work; intellectual property law,

for example, takes a domain-general approach and does not have separate rules for different

domains (Mandel, this volume). However, among creativity researchers, there tends to be a

general consensus concerning the importance of domains for creative expression.

To take a few examples, creativity in education is bound to the context of academic

subject matter and its constraints (Beghetto, this volume). Moreover, by adopting domain-

specific lenses in teaching practices, creativity becomes more concrete, teachable, and easier to
 Page 10

achieve. In marketing, an increasing use of technology gives the creative process a specific

dynamic, simultaneously revealing untapped opportunities for creativity (Taillard & Voyer, this

volume); the same holds, certainly, for educational technologies (Peppler, this volume). Most

differences between creativity domains can be found, nonetheless, at the level of processes.

Bonnardel and Bouchard (this volume), distinguish between macro and micro-processes within

design, a useful classification that can be considered more widely. As noted within their chapter,

design thinking is perhaps one of the most specific models of the creative process coming out of

this field, yet one that can and has been generalized effectively. Indeed, what may start off as

domain-specific findings or models can end up inspiring research and practice in other, possibly

distant, fields. The reverse also holds: domain-general models can be applied differently by

researchers or practitioners within specific domains, or else only a small part of a model might

be used (see, for example, the focus on illumination within the study of creative photography;

see Serafin & Dollinger, this volume).

In the end, one could think of the generality / specificity debate in creativity research as

bringing together two tendencies: one towards generalizing, from one or two domains to many

others, and one towards specifying or, in other words, making the general more concrete and

nuanced, at the level of the domain and even of micro-domains (see Baer & Kaufman, 2005; this

volume). By discussing generalizing and specifying movements within creativity research we

achieve a number of goals. First, we are likely to overcome the either/or logic that often makes

the debate unproductive. Second, it allows us to consider less how creativity “is” and more how

it “becomes” when we move our analytical focus up and down different levels of generality. It is

thus not a question of whether a certain creative activity is the same or different from others but

of how it appears to us when considering it in a narrower or wider context. Third, we can

 Page 11

consider along these dynamic, temporal lines, what exactly it is that we can generalize and what

should remain specific. For instance, findings about the creative process in particular domains

might be difficult to generalize, whereas research methods may be “transferred” more easily to

other forms of creative work.

Last but not least, an emphasis on generalizing and specifying can make us sensitive to

what is placed at the intersection between domains and what exactly brings multiple domains

together. For example, creators tend to interact with a variety of other people before, during, and

after they create their work. This observation can be found in the arts (e.g., music, Kozbelt, this

volume; visual arts, Pelowski, Leder & Tinio, this volume), business (e.g., advertising, Kilgour,

this volume; entrepreneurship, Carayannis & Harvard, this volume),and the sciences (e.g.,

biomedicine, Tan & Grigorenko, this volume; computer science, Barnett & Romeike, this

volume; mathematics, Sak, Ayvaz, Bal-Sezerel & Özdemir; this volume;), as well as in social

and everyday life domains (e.g., the culinary domain, Horng & Lin, this volume; therapy,

Forgeard & Elstein, this volume; violence and terrorism; Ligon, Sporer & Derrick, this volume).

Going in the direction of domain generality, we might think about what categories of interaction

are important across domains (such as mentors, colleagues, gatekeepers, or the general public)

and what kind of relations are established with them (such as collaborative or competitive). A

focus on specificity takes us in the opposite direction of trying to understand unique audiences

and relationships (ranging from people who enjoy the products of culinary creativity to the

beneficiaries of new medical solutions in biomedicine). Being able to consider both these facets

opens up the possibility of considering creators and their audiences as they participate in more

than one domain and sometimes exchange roles in the process (think, for instance, about the

roles of teachers and students when considered from the perspective of instruction versus using
 Page 12

new technologies). In the end, these relational ways of understanding domains are a marker of

todays’ hyper-connected societies and invite us to reflect on how they might evolve in the future.

Creativity and the future of domains

Just like our theories and models of creativity, domains are in a constant process of

change. There is a reason why we wonder today, looking back in history, whether the term

“Renaissance person” reflects a certain bygone reality (Kaufman, Baer, Beghetto, & Ivcevic,

2010). It is not only that we have, particularly in the last few decades, produced, accumulated,

and shared more knowledge than an individual living in the age of Da Vinci could have

imagined; the notion of domains of creativity is, itself, questioned. In a world dominated by

digital technologies and unprecedented mobility, self-contained and well defined domains are

increasingly becoming a thing of the past. In exchange, multi-domain expertise becomes

necessary (Szen-Ziemiańska, Lebuda & Karwowski, this volume), as well as the diversifying

experiences of working in various fields and acrossvarious cultures (Damian & Tou, this

volume). It is not only our activity that changes but our understanding of domains and what it

means to contribute to one or more. Domains are not disappearing. They are transforming and

this transformation bears the mark of creativity.

There is ample evidence of this process within the pages of the present volume, which

offers an overview of both traditional (such as those in the arts and sciences) and non-traditional

domains of creativity (such as law, culinary, terrorism, and animal creativity). Further, the

inclusion of chapters on such topics as emotions, crafts and play challenges a common view of

domains as institutionalized, bounded fields. To take the example of emotions (see Ivcevic,
 Page 13

Ebert, Hoffmann & Brackett, this volume), their studies go beyond professional areas and enter

the sphere of everyday life and of psychological experience. Similarly, researching the area of

crafts and creativity (see Glăveanu, this volume) reveals processes that go beyond a narrow

definition of artisans and folk art. Indeed, there is craftsmanship in creative work beyond what is

commonly recognized as craft. This discrepancy raises the issue of how we align our conceptions

of domains with the multiple and fluid practices that constitute today’s creative practices. Within

“classic” domains, as well, our expectations can be violated, as when John Cage recorded silence

as a song (see Kozbelt, this volume). Is this music? Is it creativity? And, if so, what does it say

about the domain of music and its contemporary expression?

Creativity in the domains of the future

If the future of domains is open to transformation, so too is creative expression. In fact,

the ways in which we express our creativity today are bound to change in the not so distant

future. Consider the advances in technology, the internet, and social media and their impact on

everything from interpersonal relations to the way we envision economy and society. It is often

said that educators today need to realize that they are training children for areas of work that are

probably not invented yet and preparing them to face problems that can’t even be anticipated

today. Creativity, as a 21st century skill (Trilling & Fadel, 2009), is called upon to respond to

such challenges and these responses will change domains, often in radical ways. A concrete

example is multiculturalism. Considered to boost creativity (see Damian & Tou, this volume),

multiculturalism is itself developing into a societal domain of creativity – which can present both

challenges and opportunities. From building highly creative and culturally diverse workgroups to
 Page 14

rethinking national and cultural boundaries and identities, creativity in the area of

multiculturalism can be expected to increase in visibility over the next decades.

Readers are invited thus to consider, in a prospective manner and based on the

contributions included here, what creativity and creative domains could look like in the future.

Similarly, will the generality / specificity debate continue to organize our discussion? One

hypothesis is that this dichotomy will transform, leaving room to the more pragmatic question of

how and when we can generalize findings and tools from one domain of activity to others or how

domain general knowledge or approaches can help us intervene in applied domains. Another one

is that domains of creativity will be studied developmentally. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) wrote of

creativity in the domain of the future. This idea has never been timelier. The future as a domain

of creative thinking and action is a transversal concern, mobilizing creative people and teams

across the numerous domains and disciplines included within these pages. In studying each of

them, the future-oriented directions needed for creative action must be considered and cultivated.

Paradoxically, thus, it might not be what creators do today within and across domains that

matters most but, rather, what they do thinking about tomorrow and the numerous, general and

specific ways they find to anticipate and create the future that is of the essence.

References

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park

theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163.

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). The Amusement Park Theoretical Model of Creativity: An

Attempt to Bridge the Domain Specificity/Generality Gap. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P.

 Page 15

Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Barnett, P. J., & Romeike, R. (2017). Creativity in Computer Science. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P.

Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity in Teaching. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer

(Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Bonnardel, N., & Bouchard, C. (2017). Creativity in Design. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu &

J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Carayannis, E., & Harvard, P. (2017). A Minimalist Model for Measuring Entrepreneurial

Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of

Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., & Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in Psychology: Finding Its

Niche in the Sciences. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge

Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:

Harper & Row.

Damian, R. I., & Tou, R. (2017). Culture and Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J.

Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

 Page 16

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.

Feist, G. J. (2017). Creativity in the Physical Sciences. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J.

Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Forgeard, M. J. C., & Elstein, J. G. (2017). The Benefits of Creativity in Therapy: Current

Evidence and Future Directions. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.),

Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Glăveanu, V. P. (2017). Creativity in Craft. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.),

Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Goldstein, T. R., & Levy, A. G. (2017). The Constricted Muse: Acting. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P.

Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Horng, J.-S., & Lin, L. (2017). Gastronomy and Culinary Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P.

Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ivcevic, Z., Ebert, M., Hoffman, J. D., & Brackett, M. A. (2017). Creativity in the Domain of

Emotions. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of

Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
 Page 17

Kaufman, A. B., & O’Hearn, W. J. (2017). Creativity in Non-Human Animals. In J. C. Kaufman,

V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp.

???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kaufman, J. C. (Ed.) (2014). Creativity and mental illness. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101 (2nd Ed). New York: Springer.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2002). Could Steven Spielberg manage the Yankees?:

Creative thinking in different domains. Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem

Solving, 12, 5-15.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of

creativity. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 14, 15-25.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative?

Creativity Research Journal, 24, 83-91.

Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., Baer, J., & Ivcevic, Z. (2010). Creativity polymathy:

What Benjamin Franklin can teach your kindergartener. Learning & Individual

Differences, 20, 380-387.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity.

Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.

Kaufman, J. C., Glăveanu, V. P., & Baer, J. (2017). Creativity Across Different Domains: An

Expansive Approach. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge

Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.
 Page 18

Kilgour, M. (2017). Studying Creativity across Different Domains: Advertising. In J. C.

Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across

Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kozbelt, A. (2017). Musical Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.),

Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Ligon, G. S., Sporer, K., & Derrick, D. C. (2017). Violent Innovation: Creativity in the Domain

of Terrorism. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of

Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Mandel, G. N. (2017). Intellectual Property: Does the Law Influence Creativity? In J. C.

Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across

Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Memmert, D. (2017). Tactical creativity in sport. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer

(Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Mitchell, K., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2017). Creative Leadership: How Problem Solving, Decision

Making and Organizational Context Influence Leadership Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, V.

P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp.

???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Oatley, K., & Djikic, M. (2017). The Creativity of Literary Writing. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P.

Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

 Page 19

Pelowski, M., Leder, H., & Tinio, P. (2017). Creativity in the Visual Arts. In J. C. Kaufman, V.

P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp.

???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Peppler, K. (2017). Creativity in Educational Technologies. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu &

J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Russ, S., & Wallace, C. (2017). Creativity in the Domain of Play: Product and Processes. In J. C.

Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across

Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sak, U., Ayvaz, U., Bal-Sezerel, B., & Özdemir, N. N. (2017). Creativity in the Domain of

Mathematics. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of

Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Serafin, J., & Dollinger, S. J. (2017). Photography and Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P.

Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (2017-a). Creativity in Psychology: Finding Its Niche in the Sciences. In J. C.

Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across

Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (2017-b). Domain-General Creativity: On Generating Original, Useful, and

Surprising Combinations. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge

Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.
 Page 20

Szen-Ziemiańska, J., Lebuda, I., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Mix and Match: Opportunities,

Conditions, and Limitations of Cross-Domain Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu

& J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Taillard, M., & Voyer, B. G. (2017). Marketing. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer

(Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Tan, M., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2017). Biomedicine, creativity, and the story of AIDS. In J. C.

Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across

Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Thomson, P. (2017). Dance. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge

Handbook of Creativity Across Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Vartanian, O. (2017). The Creation and Aesthetic Appreciation of Architecture. In J. C.

Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across

Domains (pp. ???). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Page 21