CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 261Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceDesign Education and PracticeCognitive Science and Education Research

Creative thought as blind-variation and selective-retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity

Simonton, Dean Keith·2010·Physics of Life Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Campbell (1960) proposed that creative thought should be conceived as a blind-variation and selective-retention process (BVSR). This article reviews the developments that have taken place in the half century that has elapsed since his proposal, with special focus on the use of combinatorial models as formal representations of the general theory. After defining the key concepts of blind variants, creative thought, and disciplinary context, the combinatorial models are specified in terms of individual domain samples, variable field size, ideational combination, and disciplinary communication. Empirical implications are then derived with respect to individual, domain, and field systems. These abstract combinatorial models are next provided substantive reinforcement with respect to findings concerning the cognitive processes, personality traits, developmental factors, and social contexts that contribute to creativity. The review concludes with some suggestions regarding future efforts to explicate creativity according to BVSR theory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.002

Cites

202 of 202 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The increase in quantity of ideas generated did not result in a commensurate increase in diversity as might be expected if diversity is a linear function of quantity.

    “suggesting that the increase in quantity of ideas generated did not result in a commensurate increase in diversity as might be expected if diversity is a linear function of quantity [80].”

    From Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation (2024) · cites this paper as [80]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Simonton, D. K.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Simonton, Dean Keith
ORCID
Simonton, Dean Keith
Venue
Physics of Life Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-06
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
156-179
ISSN
1571-0645 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.002
OpenAlex
W1990277796
Cited by
261
References
202
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 12
FWCI
15.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Physics of Life Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
creative thinking, combinatorial models, disciplinary context, disciplinary communication, creativity development, social context of creativity
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Cognition, Creativity, Humans, Memory, Models, Neurological, Thinking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review