438 Iv. COGNITI vE AND M OTIvATIONAL P ROCESSES
ism, this is not tantamount to the claim that 
creativity and genius are located entirely in 
the individual. On the contrary, there ex -
ists ample empirical evidence that the cre -
ative person is open to all sorts of external 
influences that directly affect the amount 
and type of creativity displayed (Simonton, 
2019c; Simonton & Ting, 2010). Further -
more, to some extent, creativity operates as 
a state rather than trait variable, changing 
from moment to moment according to the 
circumstances, social and otherwise (Ama -
bile, 1996; Paulus & Nijstad, 2019). Indeed, 
this openness to extrinsic influences is what 
inspires many researchers to search for envi -
ronmental stimuli that are most conductive 
to the manifestation of creative behavior. Es -
pecially crucial are various disciplinary net -
works, such as collaborative and competitive 
relationships with colleagues in the same 
field (Simonton, 2004). In fact, it is this so -
cial exchange that may be partly responsible 
for the clustering of creative genius into cul -
tural configurations.
What these data suggest is that creativity 
is not just a cognitive, developmental, and 
personological phenomenon, but a social 
psychological phenomenon besides (Damian 
& Simonton, 2015a). Creative behavior is 
affected by a host of factors that reside out -
side the individual creator.
Future Prospects
It should be apparent from the foregoing dis -
cussion that research on creativity and ge -
nius has already produced an extremely rich, 
complex, and controversy-  laden literature. It 
is certainly not a topic for those researchers 
who wish to investigate a subject in which 
questions are easily posed and more easily 
answered. Indeed, it is possible that many 
psychologists are scared away from the field 
simply owing to the several methodological 
and theoretical difficulties it presents. None -
theless, creativity and genius are human re -
alities too practically important for psychol -
ogists to ignore. Whether we are speaking 
of everyday creativity at home and work or 
the highly acclaimed accomplishments of 
creative genius, this is a phenomenon that 
has affected the lives of everyone, and will 
probably continue to do so for the duration of human civilization. Therefore, it is hardly 
a topic that eventually is going to languish 
into oblivion. This does not mean that re -
search activity will not wax and wane as 
the field progresses. Such oscillations have 
happened in the past, and they will probably 
continue to do so in the future. Neverthe -
less, inquiries into creativity will be continu -
ally revived as new developments take place 
in other fields of psychological study.
I believe that this resurgence will be spe -
cifically the case with respect to research 
on the creative personality. Studies into 
the dispositional attributes of creators and 
geniuses have slackened considerably since 
their heyday in the 1970s and early 1980s 
(Feist & Runco, 1993). Nonetheless, much 
of this decline may merely reflect a more 
pervasive slump in personality research as a 
whole. Now that personality has recovered 
its vitality and mission as a substantial sub -
discipline of psychology, I foresee increased 
attention to those personal qualities that en -
able individuals to exhibit creativity—  even 
creativity that assumes the form of genius. 
I would also hope that this growing atten -
tion would be coupled with increased effort 
toward developing a comprehensive and 
precise theory that effectively integrates the 
process, person, and product perspectives 
(Simonton, 2003). At present personality re -
search is heavily dominated by the Big Five 
model, a model that may not suffice to cap -
ture the complexities of the creative person -
ality (Fürst & Lubart, 2017). Most tellingly, 
this model fails to explicitly incorporate per -
sonality constructs, such as psychoticism or 
schizotypy, that have proven so crucial for 
understanding creativity, particularly when 
displayed as artistic genius (Eysenck, 1995; 
Feist, 1998; Nettle, 2006; cf. Acar & Runco, 
2012; Acar & Sen, 2013). Once all operative 
personality dimensions are fully integrated 
into a complete theory, subsequent empirical 
research should have more theoretical guid -
ance than it currently exhibits.3
NOTES
1. Curiously, the perseverance and determina -
tion shown by creative genius may not be equiva -
lent with grit, which concerns a passionate com -
mitment to long-term goals (Duckworth, Peterson, 
Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). The difference seems 