Showing papers by "Dean Keith Simonton published in 2008"
TL;DR: Despite over a century of research, psychologists have still not established scientific talent as an empirically demonstrable phenomenon as discussed by the authors, and to help solve this problem, a talent definition was first defined in the early nineties.
Abstract: Despite over a century of research, psychologists have still not established scientific talent as an empirically demonstrable phenomenon. To help solve this problem, a talent definition was first p...
97 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors frame the question of predicting the four major major awards (picture, director, actor in a leading role and leading role) as a discrete choice problem and show that it is possible to predict the winners with a reasonable degree of success.
Abstract: Summary. Every year since 1928, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has recognized outstanding achievement in film with their prestigious Academy Award, or Oscar. Before the winners in various categories are announced, there is intense media and public interest in predicting who will come away from the awards ceremony with an Oscar statuette. There are no end of theories about which nominees are most likely to win, yet despite this there continue to be major surprises when the winners are announced. The paper frames the question of predicting the four major awards—picture, director, actor in a leading role and actress in a leading role—as a discrete choice problem. It is then possible to predict the winners in these four categories with a reasonable degree of success. The analysis also reveals which past results might be considered truly surprising—nominees with low estimated probability of winning who have overcome nominees who were strongly favoured to win.
48 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors randomly assigned 115 college students to use the conceptual creative method, the experimental creative method or their own creative method (i.e., how they would solve a creative problem without instruction) while completing two types of convergent and divergent thinking tasks.
Abstract: David Galenson’s research on creativity has identified two unique creative methods: conceptual and experimental. These methods have different processes, goals, and purposes. To determine whether (a) college students use one method more than the other, and (b) if one method is superior to the other, the authors randomly assigned 115 college students to use the conceptual creative method, the experimental creative method, or their own creative method (i.e., how they would solve a creative problem without instruction) while completing two types of convergent and divergent thinking tasks. Participants using the experimental creative method performed better than the other groups on both types of convergent thinking tasks, with most participants using the experimental creative method unaware of this increase in performance.
35 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the Cox's (1926) findings regarding 301 geniuses were replicated on a sample of 291 eminent African Americans, with an effect size comparable to that found in the Cox study.
Abstract: Although the association between giftedness and genius has been the subject of several retrospective, longitudinal, and historiometric studies, this research concentrated on majority-culture samples. In the current study, Cox's (1926) findings regarding 301 geniuses were replicated on a sample of 291 eminent African Americans. Relative genius was measured by two archival eminence measures (majority White and minority Black culture) and by scores on the Creative Achievement Scale (Ludwig, 1992). Giftedness was assessed by raters blind to the identity of the individuals being evaluated. Control variables were defined for gender, year of birth, status as a living contemporary, and 18 domains of achievement. Multiple regression analyses indicated that adulthood eminence and creative achievement are positively correlated with early giftedness, with an effect size comparable to that found in the Cox study. Furthermore, this association was not moderated by gender, birth year, or most of the remaining variables
31 citations
15 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: In the field of psychology, this paper studied the socio-cultural context of the psychology of science and found that the cultural, political, military, and economic milieu of some times and places are more creative than others.
Abstract: NAJP: What are you currently working on, writing, or researching? DKS: I typically work on several different projects all at once. They vary in their stages of completion, the degree of ambition they represent, and, of course, the specific subject matter. A partial list would have to include empirical studies of famous film composers, distinguished women psychologists, eminent African Americans, and illustrious military leaders. In addition, I have several book projects in various stages of research, organization, and writing. These range from an overview of cinematic creativity and aesthetics to a broad integration of what we know about the psychology of civilization. NAJP: How did you first get started or involved in this field? DKS: It actually started when I was in elementary school. I'm not joking! My family bought a set of the World Book Encyclopedia because they were assured by the salesperson--my school teacher--that they would be essential as I moved through K-12. The volumes are full of photographs of strange people with odd costumes and funny hair styles. I also noticed that no member of my family had a photo in any of the volumes. So as a little kid I wondered what was required to have one's picture so honored. I eventually came to realize that most of the portraits were of individuals who made a name for themselves by some exceptional achievement. Most often they were either outstanding creators or famous (or infamous) leaders. But not until I became a psychology major did I realize that researchers actually studied the factors underlying creativity and leadership. And it was not until graduate school that I figured out a scientific approach--historiometry--to comprehend the geniuses of history. NAJP: What do you mean exactly by the term "historiometric inquiry"? DKS: Historiometry was a term first invented at the beginning of the twentieth century to refer to the application of scientific methods to historical and biographical data to test hypotheses about the nature of genius. In a sense, it's like psychometrics, only the methods are applied to historic figures rather than contemporary research participants. The typical historiometric study collects a large sample of eminent achievers in a particular domain, assesses those individuals on quantifiable variables--intelligence, personality, motivation, developmental experiences, personal development, social context, etc.--and then subjects those measures to statistical analyses. Interestingly, historiometry is the earliest scientific approach to the study of genius--earlier than experiments, surveys, interviews, and psychometric tests. The first historiometric inquiry was published in 1835 by the same scientist who gave us the normal distribution. In 1869 Francis Galton published the first well-known historiometric investigation, Hereditary Genius. NAJP: Why study the socio-cultural context of the psychology of science? DKS: I'm sure you meant to ask "Why study the socio-cultural context in the psychology of science?" If so, you must remember that I was originally trained in social psychology. That's the subject in which I got my doctoral degree. My dissertation had the title of the "social psychology of creativity." Creativity is not just an individual phenomenon. It occurs in a specific social context--the cultural, political, military, and economic milieu. Without taking these circumstances into account, it would be impossible to explain why some times and places are more creative than others. Why the Golden Age of Greece and the Dark Ages of Western Europe? Did everybody in Western Civilization become genetically inferior? Or were there conditions in ancient Greece that favored creative activity whereas different conditions in Medieval Europe discouraged creative activity? NAJP: Personality and Individual Differences. Why is it important that we look at these factors when studying scientific genius? …