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-5cf477f64f-xc2pj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-04T05:34:45.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The Amusement Park Theoretical Model of Creativity

An Attempt to Bridge the Domain-Specificity/Generality Gap

from Part I - Creativity and Domain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2017

By
John Baer  and
James C. Kaufman
Edited by
James C. Kaufman ,
Vlad P. Glăveanu  and
John Baer
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Vlad P. Glăveanu
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
John Baer
Affiliation:
Rider University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

Abstract

The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of Creativity weaves together both domain-general and domain-specific factors supporting creative performance with a hierarchical structure. There are four levels of the model – Initial Requirements, General Thematic Areas, Domains, and Microdomains – that describe increasing levels of domain specificity. The APT Model reminds creativity researchers and theorists of the need to consider and to identify the differing degrees of domain generality and domain specificity in the constructs they are investigating. The APT Model also provides a useful and flexible framework for such discussions.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains , pp. 8 - 17
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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.)

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “The social psychology of creativity.” Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 183–187.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 25–31.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1998a). Gender differences in the effects of extrinsic motivation on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 18–37.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1998b). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (2009). Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century? Invited Address, presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA., August 2009.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321–341). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (2011a) Domains of creativity. In Runco, M.A., and Pritzker, S.R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd edn., pp. 404–408), Vol. 1. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (2011b). Four (more) arguments against the Torrance Tests. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 5, 316–317.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (2011c). How divergent thinking tests mislead us: Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 309–313.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (2016). Domain specificity of creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163.Google Scholar
Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37–50.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: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: A case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 121–130.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 57–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.Google Scholar
Hennessey, B. A. (2010). Intrinsic motivation and creativity in the classroom: Have we come full circle? In Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 329–361). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hennessey, B. A. (2015). If I were Secretary of Education: A focus on intrinsic motivation and creativity in the classroom. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 187–192.Google Scholar
Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T. M., & Martinage, M. (1989). Immunizing children against the negative effects of reward. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 212–227.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. A., & Gelman, S. A. (1994). Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270.Google Scholar
Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life-space. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 152–165.Google Scholar
Jung, R. E. (2014). Evolution, creativity, intelligence, and madness: “Here Be Dragons.” Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 784.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by gender and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1065–1082.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman-Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 298–308.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004a). The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of creativity. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 14, 15–25.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004b). Sure, I’m creative – but not in mathematics!: Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 143–155.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005). The Amusement Park Theory of Creativity. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Creativity across domains (pp. 321–328). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2006). Intelligent testing with Torrance. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 99–102.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: A structural model for self-reported creativity ratings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 119–134.Google Scholar
Kim, K. H. (2006). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57–66.Google Scholar
Kim, K. H. (2009). Are the Torrance tests still relevant in the 21st century?. Invited Address, presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA., August 2009.Google Scholar
Kim, K. H. (2011a). Proven reliability and validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 314–315.Google Scholar
Kim, K. H. (2011b). The APA 2009 Division 10 debate: Are the Torrance tests still relevant in the 21st century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 302–308.Google Scholar
McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1–10.Google Scholar
McKay, A. S., Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (in press). Measuring the muses: Validating the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for the content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179–182.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1963). Education and the creative potential. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Treffert, D. A. (2014). Savant syndrome: Realities, myths and misconceptions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 564–571.Google Scholar
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.Google 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
×