Domain-general versus Domain-specific Approach of Creativity: Arts, Science and Everyday Life

The investigation of domain-specificity by means of structural models is undoubtedly one of the most contemporary subjects in creativity research. Whilst the dominant approach conceives creativity as a relatively general mental capacity, a more recent, and relatively underexplored approach, conceives creativity as domain-specific. Three major domains of creative expression are often distinguished: arts, science and everyday life (Batey & Furnham, 2006). The hybrid approach reconciles to some extent the domain-general and domain-specific paradigm, by allowing for domain-general, domain-specific and even task specific features (Lubart & Guignard, 2004).
The present research explored this differential approach, which raises the question, in how far the cognitive and conative creative profiles, can be generalized. These were investigated in the domains of arts, science and everyday life. The artistic creative profile of architects was compared to the scientific creative profile of psychologists and the everyday creative profile of the general population. With this in mind the three test groups (architects, psychologists, general population), were subjected to a general creativity test. One population-specific creativity test was added within every sample.
The differential approach of creativity, integrating both domain-general and domain-specific features, was confirmed. This doctoral dissertation allows for different creative profiles with regard to specific domains of creative expression to be established. It became clear that architects demonstrated the expected profile for scientific creativity, whilst psychologists demonstrated the expected profile for artistic creativity. As anticipated, the everyday creative profile was presented by people of the general population. It was characterized by openness to new experiences and, to a lesser extent, by intelligence. Presently, the image of the psychologically conflicted architect, sometimes projected by the literature (Barron, 1965, 1969; MacKinnon, 1961, 1962), could not be confirmed. This image was further associated with creative psychologists. Implications and limits of these results are discussed further below.