Talent Development & Creativity
Summary articles + book (Kaufman)
Creative performance, expertise acquisition, individual differences, and developmental
antecedents: An integrative research agenda – Simonton (2014)
Simonton argues that extreme advocacy of 1 side is often found in research, especially in the relation
between expertise acquisition and domain-specific performance. Some researchers propose that
exceptional achievement can be solely attributed to deliberate practice, a polarizing view. Simonton
proposes a research agenda that is integrative (rather than polarizing) and that the phenomenon of
exceptional achievement is much too complicated to permit simplistic, one-sided explanations.
A full understanding of exceptional achievement requires (1) the identification of all individual-
difference variables that correlate with acquisition and performance and (2) the determination of the
developmental antecedents (both genetic and environmental) of these identified correlates.
Simonton discusses acquisition and performance in relation to expertise acquisition framework: his
suggestions build upon the expertise acquisition framework. Many of the domains that initially
inspired the expertise-acquisition framework featured well-defined goals and explicit means to attain
those goals. Many of the domains on which the expertise acquisition framework research has
focused also rely heavily on exactly replicable behaviors, a characteristic not only of instrumental
performance but also of almost all sports. Yet not all domains of exceptional achievement fit these
expectations.
Domain-specific expertise and creative performance
The definition of creative expertise is multi-faceted. In a precisely defined domain, expertise can be
acquired through sufficient training and practice. When domain-specific expertise is hard to define,
this may change. Consider the following 2 points:
− Sometimes expertise does not exist until it is first created (e.g., Galileo’s creation of
telescoping astronomy). It contradicted the scientific motif of the time. Many experts of his
time rejected his findings as optical illusions. Another example is Antonie Leeuwenhoek, a
textile worker who created a superior microscopic lens while wanting to examine thread
quality. His creation was rejected by scientific experts of his time because he was a textile
worker, not a scientist
− Even when a domain-specific expertise is pretty much defined in advance, that expertise can
be conceived multiple ways, making it difficult to determine precisely what optimal subset of
that generalized expertise is most relevant to a particular performance criterion (e.g., opera
composition). It involves writing music for voice and orchestra, and doing so in multiple
forms, and often in multiple genres. An orchestral composer requires expertise in many
different areas. This can be referred to as cross-training (training in related domains). The
same can be observed in scientific creativity. Researchers often engage in “networks of
enterprise”, pursuing a number of largely related goals. Cross training/networks of enterprise
can reduce overtraining. The most creative acquire a breath of interests that enables them to
“think outside the box” defined by any existing domain-specific expertise
Many of the domains that initially inspired the expertise-acquisition framework featured well-
defined goals and explicit means to attain those goals. In creative domains, the goals and means may
be constantly changing, and behavioral replication is antithetical to success. Replication is
contradictory to creativity, so what constitutes a creative idea?
1
,Creative performance must satisfy 3 quantitative criteria:
1. The idea must be highly original in the sense of a low probability of initial generation.
Repeating an idea violates this
2. The idea must be useful in the broad sense of satisfying some utility standards, whether
scientific or aesthetic. These standards change as a direct result of past acts of creativity. The
bar is always being raised by past acts of creativity
3. The idea must be surprising
Variation and correlation in acquisition and creative performance
On any attribute, people vary substantially around a central tendency. In a study of 120 classical
composers, the acquisition of expertise ranged from under 1 decade up to 3 decades. This wide
range indicates that individuals vary in time to acquire expertise. Even at the level of expertise,
individuals vary in their depth of expertise.
Creative “experts” vary greatly in speed of expertise acquisition and in the magnitude of their
performance based on that acquired expertise. Speed of acquisition and magnitude of performance
have scantily been studied together. What little research there is suggests that expert performers
tend to (on average) take less time acquiring expertise. They get better faster and accomplish more:
they exhibit more “bang for your buck”.
Individual-difference correlates
Persons differ in much more than speed of expertise acquisition and magnitude of performance: they
also vary in a large number of other individual-difference variables, such as cognitive abilities and
dispositional traits. These are developmental antecedents to expertise acquisition and creative
performance.
− Cognitive abilities: includes both general intelligence and the various special factors (specific
intelligence), such as verbal, spatial, and mathematical, and their numerous component
abilities, such as vocabulary, mental rotation, and arithmetic
− Dispositional traits: includes personality, interests, or values
Do differences in the variables correlate with acquisition or performance in creative domains? Each
domain of achievement will feature a distinctive profile of abilities and traits that will optimize either
acquisition or performance or both. Future research must articulate how these individual differences
contribute to both acquisition and performance.
Genetic and environmental antecedents
Both cognitive abilities and dispositional traits can be affected by genes and the environment. The
genetic and environmental basis harks back to Galton.
− Genetic: Galton suggested genius encompassed not only extraordinary leadership and
creativity, but also scholastic and athletic achievement. Modern behavioral genetics has
determined that individual-difference variables feature substantial heritability coefficients,
for both cognitive abilities and dispositional traits. These genetically influenced variables
include predictors of both acquisition and performance in creative domains. We can estimate
that somewhere between a quarter and a third of the variance in acquisition or performance
can be attributed to genetic factors
− Environmental: Galton tried to identify childhood and adolescent experiences at home and
school that contributed to development. Sociocultural, political, and economic factors that
have been shown to affect creativity in both development and manifestation
2
,Consolidation
The agenda outlined in the preceding sections can be consolidated by suggesting that creativity
researchers begin with a corresponding set of basic recursive structural equation models. The
following diagram is intended to represent a whole class of structural models that contain all direct
and indirect effects on either acquisition or performance.
CP (creative performance): creative performance criteria such as
productivity, impact, peer recognition, major awards, and
historiometric eminence. The specific criteria will depend on the
domain. These variables can be taken together as indicators of an
underlying latent variable assessing creative achievement
DP (deliberate practice): specific practices will vary according to
the creativity or performance domain
CA (cognitive abilities): both general and specific, that have direct
effects on variables contained in CP, DP, or both. To ensure that
these variables are truly antecedent to those in CP and DP, they
should be either highly stable across time or else assessed prior
to the onset of deliberate practice and creative performance
DT (dispositional traits): includes personality, interests, and values that have direct effects on
variables contained in CP, DP, or both. DT usually accounts for variance in creativity that cannot be
measured by ability alone. To ensure that these variables are truly antecedent to those in CP and DP,
they should be either highly stable across time or else assessed prior to the onset of deliberate
practice and creative performance.
GF (genetic factors): factors that provide a partial genetic basis for variable sets in CA and DT (CA and
DT that have substantial heritability coefficients).
EF (environmental factors): factors that provide a partial environmental basis for variable sets in CA
and DT. It is assumed that EF is independent of GF.
Using this basic system, we can then define what it means to have a “talent” for creativity in a
particular domain, where talent is taken to reflect genetic or environmental influences. GF and EF do
not directly influence CP. They directly influence variable sets of CA and DT, thus indirectly
influencing CP.
The impact of genetically based talent is ruled out if both of the following conditions hold:
− Individual differences in deliberate practice must be totally uninfluenced by individual
differences in any cognitive ability or dispositional trait that has non-zero heritability
− Individual differences in creative performance must be totally uninfluenced by individual
differences in any cognitive ability or dispositional trait that has non-zero heritability
The removal of environmental influences determines that there is a genetic heritability to
exceptional creativity, and the removal of genetic influences determines that exceptional creativity is
nurtured by abilities and traits obtained from the environment.
3
, A dynamic network model to explain the development of excellent human performance – Den
Hartigh, Van Dijk, Steenbeek & Van Geert (2016)
The key to excellence does not reside in specific underlying components, but rather in the ongoing
interactions among the components. We propose that excellence emerges out of dynamic networks
consisting of idiosyncratic mixtures of interacting components such as genetic endowment,
motivation, practice, and coaching.
Excellence can be conceptualized as domain-specific superior performance, and within the
population there are very few individuals reaching exceptional achievements (e.g., Mozart).
Excellence development is not “component driven”, but emerges out of idiosyncratic dynamic
networks of components.
Previous and current attempts to capture excellence
Galton (1875): nature
De Candolle (1873): nurture → based his conclusion on his observation that excellent scientists were
raised under beneficial environmental circumstances. He therefore concluded that a stimulating
environment is the key to excellence. There are 3 points of view:
1. In line with the early ideas of Galton, several researchers hold the view that excellent
performance primarily develops out of a specific property in the person, in the sense of some
innate talent or a gift. Gift is often identified as domain-specific genetic endowment:
individuals who have a domain-specific gift have the potential to reach excellent
performance
2. In accordance with the early view of De Candolle, researchers have postulated that the
environment plays a major role. That is, an individual's development of excellent
performance can be supported (or limited) by the home environment or e.g. the support of a
teacher or coach
3. Great amount of effort (hard work and practice) is required to become an excellent
performer: many hours of deliberate and high-quality practice are the primary explanation
for excellent performance (rather than genetic endowment or the environment)
In general, researchers seem to have reached consensus that excellence is multidimensional. Thus, a
formal model of excellent human performance should consider that multiple components may play a
role, but also that multiplicative interactions may take place between the components.
Developmental properties of excellence across domains
Development of excellence spans a time beginning when a domain-specific ability starts to grow up
to the point that superior performance is (repeatedly) demonstrated.
The growth of abilities ultimately leading to excellence is characterized by a number of qualitative
properties:
1. Early indicators of ultimate exceptional abilities are rare to inexistent, and if there are any,
they are not particularly reliable
2. In different individuals a similar ability level may emerge at different ages
3. The underlying constituents of a particular ability can change during the person's life span
4. The level of domain-specific ability is not necessarily monotonically rising or stable: it can
change or even disappear during a person's life span
In accordance with the latter 3 properties, research suggests that individuals may have diverse ways
to achieve similar performance levels, thereby emphasizing the idiosyncratic nature of the pathways
to excellence. However, the authors recently argued that the developmental patterns of the athletes
involved in the research project were quite idiosyncratic: each athlete seemed to have his/her own
unique pathway.
4
