Bridging generality and specificity:The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity (original) (raw)

The question of whether creativity is general or domain-specific is a frequently debated and d iscussed issue. No theory or model in creativity has attempted to bridge the gap between these differing views of creativity; most theories either implicitly or explicitly take a generalist perspective. The APT model uses the metaphor of an amusement park to explore creativity. There are four stages: Initial requirements, general thematic areas, domains, and micro-domains. This model attempts to integrate both general and domain-specific views of creativity. The first level (initial requirements) is very general, and each subsequent level gets more and more domain-specific. By the final level (micro-domains), the theory is very domain-specific. We also will discuss errors and variations within the model. What does it mean to be called creative? Picture a chemist who creates a new compound, a poet who writes beautiful sonnets, and a computer scientist who invents a new programming language. Are these people as different as they seem? This question, in its essence, is whether creativity is one thing or many things-is creativity a general ability? Or is it domain-specific? When we speculate about the nature of general or domain specific creativity, we are in essence asking if is there something (or some things) that people may possess in varying degrees that will lead them to exhibiting higher levels of creativity in everything they do-higher than they would have if they lacked these abilities. These abilities may extend to include cognitive skills, personality traits, motivational patterns, thinking styles, or even certain kinds of knowledge. Conversely, are there certain abilities or traits that may be uniquely suited toward a specific type of creative endeavor? This issue is an important one in creativity research that has yet to be resolved. In the only Point-Counterpoint pair of articles in its history, the Creativity Research Journal asked two leading proponents of these competing positions to debate and argue the case for domain specificity versus generality (Baer, 1998; Plucker, 1998). Differences of opinion remain, and evidence continues to be gathered and debated. Yet certainly a middle ground is attainable. Even those who argue for the existence of domain-general creative-thinking skills recognize that domain-specific thinking skills