The Amusement Park Theoretical Model of Creativity

doi:10.1017/9781316274385.002

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

John Baer and

Edited by

Vlad P. Glăveanu and

James C. Kaufman: Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Vlad P. Glăveanu: Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
John Baer: Affiliation:
Rider University, New Jersey

Book contents

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.002 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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