 20. Creativity and Genius  429
Darwinism, Pasteurization, and Freudian 
slips. Furthermore, as in the psychometric 
definition, historiometric assessment can be 
designed to gauge the relative magnitude of 
genius (Simonton, 1990). The greater the de -
gree of impact, the more prominent the in -
dividual’s reputation, and hence the higher 
the caliber of genius (e.g., Damian & Simon -
ton, 2015b; Murray, 2003; Whipple, 2004). 
Thus, according to their comparative im -
pression on the classical repertoire, Mozart 
can be said to have displayed more genius 
than Salieri, just as Salieri can be styled a 
greater genius than Türk. Assertions such as 
this can be based on two distinct kinds of 
measurements, eminence and productivity.
1. Eminence measures  gauge the total 
global impact an individual has made on a 
given domain (Simonton, 1990). This im -
pression may be defined according to the 
ratings of peers or experts (e.g., Helson & 
Crutchfield, 1970; Roe, 1953); the receipt of 
special honors or awards, such as the Nobel 
Prize (e.g., Rothenberg, 2015; Simonton, 
1992); the frequency of performance, dis -
cussion, or citation (e.g., Feist, 1993; Gro -
sul & Feist, 2014; Simonton, 1991b); or the 
amount of space assigned the individuals 
in encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, 
history texts, anthologies, and other refer -
ence works (e.g., Simonton & Song, 2009; 
Walberg, Rasher, & Hase, 1978).
2. Productivity measures  assess the num -
ber of concrete contributions an individual 
has made to a given domain (Albert, 1975). 
These most commonly include counts of 
books, articles, poems, paintings, inven -
tions, compositions, and the like (e.g., Gro -
sul & Feist, 2014; Kozbelt, 2014; Matthews, 
Helmreich, Beane, & Lucker, 1980), al -
though occasionally more refined units may 
be used, such as the number of melodies cre -
ated by composers (e.g., Simonton, 1991b). 
These tabulations may include all works 
generated, regardless of impact, or they may 
include only those works that were influen -
tial, such as those determined by citation or 
performance frequencies (Simonton, 1977, 
1991a).
Fortunately, because productivity consti -
tutes the single most prominent predictor of differential eminence, these two alternative 
definitions, for all practical purposes, are 
equivalent (Albert, 1975; Simonton, 1997). 
Beyond this convergence, historiometric 
definitions have other measurement virtues. 
First, historiometric measures have clear 
“face validity”; that is, they seem to corre -
spond closely with what most people would 
consider indicative of creative achievement. 
If Beethoven, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, 
or Descartes cannot count as creative ge -
nius, it is doubtful that the word could have 
any meaning whatsoever. Second, research 
indicates that such measures have highly 
respectable reliabilities, multiple indicators 
of eminence or productivity, usually dis -
playing coefficient alphas in the upper .80s 
and .90s (Murray, 2003; Simonton, 1990). 
Third, research has also shown that such 
measures display a high degree of cross- 
cultural invariance (e.g., Simonton, 1991c). 
For example, the most eminent figures ac -
cording to the African American minority 
culture are also the most eminent figures 
according to the European American major -
ity culture of the United States (Simonton, 
1998a). Fourth, historiometric assessments 
enjoy a high degree of transhistorical stabil -
ity (Simonton, 1991c). Despite the existence 
of occasional exceptions (e.g., Johann Sebas -
tian Bach and Gregor Mendel), those who 
are most famous in their own time also tend 
to be the most eminent today (Ginsburgh 
& Weyers, 2014). This result suggests that 
whenever psychologists study distinguished 
contemporaries, it is highly likely that those 
luminaries will continue to have exceptional 
posthumous reputations (Simonton, 1998b).
One last feature of the historiometric defi -
nition is worth noting. The word genius  was 
first used as a label for those who made out -
standing creative contributions. However, 
it eventfully became applicable to all forms 
of exceptional achievement. As a result, it is 
now acceptable to talk of political, military, 
religions, and entrepreneurial genius. Thus, 
the historiometric definition can apply to 
accomplishment in leadership domains, as 
well as that in creativity domains (Simonton, 
2014b). To be sure, the leader’s products are 
not the same as the creator’s, so the produc -
tivity definition cannot be used. Nonethe -
less, it is often possible to gauge both cre -
ators and leaders on a comparable scale of 