434 Iv. COGNITI vE AND M OTIvATIONAL P ROCESSES
essary expertise in a given domain; other -
wise, they employ the same cognitive pro -
cesses as the rest of us in problem-  solving 
situations. In contrast, other researchers in 
this tradition maintain that the person is in -
deed important, because creative individuals 
are those who had superior access to cer -
tain special mental operations, such as the 
capacity for remote association, divergent 
thought, or some other process or procedure 
(Ness, 2013; Rothenberg, 2015; Simonton 
& Damian, 2013). Many psychometric in -
struments were in fact predicated on the 
assumption that individual differences in 
creativity are grounded in certain cognitive 
abilities (Plucker et al., 2019). Whatever the 
specifics, this tradition asserts that a com -
plete understanding of the creator requires 
that we understand the cognitive process be -
hind creativity. If individual differences exist 
in the capacity for creativity (besides those 
grounded in domain-  specific expertise), 
then this variation has to do with creative 
cognition (Simonton, 2012; Ward & Kolo -
myts, 2019).
The second research tradition may be said 
to have its source in personality and clini -
cal assessment. Here, researchers are fasci -
nated with the richness of the human per -
sonality, with its complex of differentiating 
interests and values, emotions and motives, 
activities and reactions. For investigations 
in this tradition, the creative genius must be 
distinguished by a highly distinctive profile 
of traits that enables a person to exhibit cre -
ativity. Some investigators have even argued 
that this defining cluster of dispositional at -
tributes may be more critical in a creative 
life than are any putative cognitive differ -
ences (e.g., Eysenck, 1995). Of course, this 
second tradition implies a whole different 
manner of constructing “creativity tests.” 
Rather than measure the intellectual capac -
ity for certain cognitive operations, the tests 
may assess preferences, attitudes, and activi -
ties associated with creative behavior. Stan -
dard personality measures may even be used 
to identify the characteristic profile of the 
highly creative person (Feist, 1998). In such 
circumstances, the assessment of creativity 
becomes a manner of scoring performance 
on a generic inventory rather than the ap -
plication of a test specifically designed to tap 
the creative personality.Although some researchers have taken 
extreme positions, advocating exclusively 
either cognitive or dispositional assessment, 
many recent investigators have argued for 
the involvement of both intellect and person -
ality in the making of a creative individual 
(e.g., Simonton, 2004; Sternberg & Lubart, 
1995). Creativity of the highest order, espe -
cially that of the creative genius, may require 
a special combination of cognitive and dis -
positional attributes. In fact, it may be the 
distinctiveness of that combination that ren -
ders exceptional creativity so rare. The vast 
majority of the population may be missing 
one or more essential components (Simon -
ton, 1999).
Scientific versus  Artistic  Creativity
Researchers often treat creativity as a single, 
relatively homogeneous phenomenon. Cre -
ativity is some generic capacity for gener -
ating original and adaptive ideas, without 
regard to the specific domain in which the 
creativity is to take place. Although this sim -
ple view may have some justification when 
discussing everyday creativity or the creativ -
ity displayed by children, it becomes clearly 
invalid when extended to extraordinary cre -
ativity, especially when it attains the level of 
creative genius. The expected cognitive and 
dispositional profiles vary conspicuously ac -
cording to the type of creative achievement. 
The disciplinary contrast that has attracted 
the most empirical documentation is that 
between scientific and artistic creativity 
(Feist, 1998). Expressed in general terms, 
creative scientists tend to exhibit traits that 
fall somewhere between those of the creative 
artist and those of the average human being 
(Simonton, 2009). For example, remote as -
sociations and divergent thinking are less 
prominent, and that which does occur is 
more restricted to concepts with the scientif -
ic specialty—  in contrast to artists who seem 
to have wild ideas about almost everything. 
The scientific genius also tends to have a 
more conventional, predictable, and stable 
personality structure than does the artistic 
genius. Especially remarkable is the less con -
spicuous inclination toward psychopathol -
ogy seen in great scientists, albeit even here 
this characteristic might still be more promi -
nent than that found in the general popula -