High Ability Studies

Vol. 18, No. 2, December 2007, pp. 209234

Scientific ability and creativity

Kurt A. Heller*
University of Munich (LMU), Germany

Following an introductory definition of scientific ability and creativity, product-oriented,

personality and social psychological approaches to studying scientific ability are examined with
reference to competence and performance. Studies in the psychometric versus cognitive
psychological paradigms are dealt with in more detail. These two research strategies complement
each other in describing and explaining scientific ability and creativity in the field of science and
technology. Whereas psychometric studies seem to be essential for diagnostic and prognostic
purposes, cognitive psychological studies help to explain the development of individual
competencies and excellent performances. In the last two decades, another research paradigm
has arisen that has been characterized as giftedness as developing expertise. The so-called
expert-novice paradigm is based on a dynamic concept of giftedness in which creativity and
motivation play an indispensable role. As an example of this approach, the Munich Dynamic
Ability Achievement Model (MDAAM)an extended version of the Munich Model of Giftedness
(MMG)will be discussed in greater detail. Furthermore, empirical data from the authors studies
of scientific ability and technical creativity will be presented and their theoretical context
described. Finally, various possibilities for nurturing scientifically and creatively talented
adolescents and adults are discussed, with sex-related problems being touched upon. Generally,
the hypothetical construct scientific ability can be defined as scientific thinking potential or as a
special talent for excellence in (natural) sciences. Similar to this definition, scientific creativity or
technical creativity can be conceptualized as individual and social capacities for solving complex
scientific and technical problems in an innovative and productive way. Both descriptive and
explanatory terms are necessary for a theoretically and practically efficient definition. This further
necessitates different research strategies, which will be demonstrated with respect to several study
examples.

Introduction
Exceptional performance in the sciences and technology is used as an indicator of
special scientific ability or competence and (e.g., technical) creativity. This approach
is plausible and, of course, very practical, which is why it has long been the preferred
method in creativity research (Sternberg et al., 2004). However, it does not answer
the following questions: Is exceptional scientific achievement primarily determined
*Director, Center for the Study of Giftedness, University of Munich (LMU), Department of
Psychology, Leopoldstrasse 13, D-80802 Mu nchen, Germany. Email: heller@edupsy.
uni-muenchen.de
ISSN 1359-8139 (print)/ISSN 1469-834X (online)/07/020209-26
# 2007 European Council for High Ability
DOI: 10.1080/13598130701709541

210 K. A. Heller
by cognitive problem-solving competence or are other factorsmotivation, for
examplealso important for eminent achievement? Are there scientific underachieversthat is, individuals who do not turn their potential abilities into adequate
scientific performance? If there are, the use of performance indicators to assess
scientific abilities will be inadequate or even misleading. This approach is also
unsatisfactory from an educational point of viewfor the nurturance of scientific
talents and creativity in adolescenceand also neglects social and cultural influences
on the development of giftedness and creativity.
Are exceptional scientific and/or technical creative achievements the product of
ingenious recognitions that are due to higher inspirations or enlightenments, as
suggested in the ancient demon theory or the genius myth from the seventeenth
century? Even the surprise effect (e.g., an insight or novelty effect in productive
thinking) had its roots in older ideas about genius. These were the precursors of
current creativity concepts postulated in the first half of the last century, especially
by Gestalt psychologists. They view so-called aha experiences as sudden, more or
less irrational, jumps in recognition, whereas the psychoanalytical perspective sees
them as stemming from the unconscious. Even in the modern coincidence-based
concepts of creativity (e.g., Simonton, 1988, 1999, 2004, 2005), the idea of genius is
recognizable. This and other myths were analyzed critically by Weisberg (1986,
1993); however, he, too, was unable to provide satisfactory answers to many
fundamental questions.
What differentiates researchers and inventors proven to be exceptionally
successful like Newton, Edison, Kekule, Einstein or Oberth from less creative
scientists or technicians? Is it simply banal character of differences in interests, task
commitment, achievement motivation, perseverance and so on? Edison once said:
Invention is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration. The famous German writer,
Goethe, also observed that: Genius is work. Is it true, then, that all great
scientificand artisticachievements, including epochal inventions, are just due to
trivial, and perhaps also coincidental, human factors as Weisberg and others have
recently tried to prove? These and other questions will be discussed here in four
main topics: ability and creativity from a theoretical point of view; giftedness and
creativity characteristics as individual determinants of outstanding achievement in
the field of math, science, and technology; social and cultural factors of the
development of domain-specific competencies and achievements in math, science
and technology; and supportive surroundings and social conditions for augmenting
scientific ability and creativity.
Ability and creativity from a theoretical point of view
Our knowledge regarding giftedness and talent is supplied by different sources of
information and research paradigms. Particularly relevant to conceptualizing
giftedness or talent are the psychometric approach, the expertise-novice paradigm,
explanatory approaches from the field of cognitive science or cognitive psychology
and social psychology as well as prospective and retrospective (longitudinal) studies.

Scientific ability and creativity 211

Giftedness models developed in the 1980s and 1990s are characterized, almost
without exception, by multidimensional or typological ability constructs (e.g.,
Renzulli, 1978; Monks, 1985; Gardner, 1983, 1993; Gagne, 1985, 1993; Heller &
Hany, 1986; Heller, 1989, 1991; Sternberg, 1985, 1997, 2000; for an overview, see
Sternberg & Davidson, 2005; Heller et al., 2002, 2005; for conceptions of giftedness
from a meta-theoretical perspective, see Ziegler & Heller, 2002).
The psychometric approach
In the psychometric paradigm, an attempt is made to measure cognitive and noncognitive (e.g., motivational) personality traits that could be the basis of scientific
ability and creativity. The following characteristics, which include both intelligence and
creativity aspects, are frequently mentioned: formal-logical thought processes; abstract
thinking ability; systematic and theoretical thought processes; individual potential for
creativity-problem sensitivity, inventiveness and flow of ideas; the ability to restructure
problems (flexibility); and originality of solving methods and of products. In addition,
non-aptitude traits, such as intellectual curiosity and searching for knowledge,
exploration and the desire to question, are considered important. Other frequently
mentioned characteristics include clear interests; a need to seek information; intrinsic
achievement motivation; goal orientation and persistence at tasks; tolerance of
ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity; and non-conformity. After childhood, these
characteristics and their configuration are considered to remain relatively stable,
generating differences between individuals, and so can be used for predicting
exceptional scientific ability and creativity. The problems involved in this approach
are discussed in Hunt (1987), Benbow and Arjmand (1990), Perleth and Heller
(1994), Trost (2000) and McCann (2005), among others. Despite the justified
criticisms of psychometric paradigms, as yet we have no better alternatives by which to
predict scientific excellence, as explained below.
In their meta-analysis of 50 international studies on the ability of personality
characteristics to predict scientific and technical achievement, Funke et al. (1987)
calculated a mean (corrected) validity coefficient of 0.38 across all predictors
studied. Of all the individual types of predictor, coefficients were highest for the
biographical questionnaire, followed by subject-related ability and creativity tests.
General intelligence and creativity tests had the lowest prognostic value.
Trost and Sieglen (1992) studied early biographical indicators of exceptional
scientific and technological professional performance in West Germany in a
combined prospective-retrospective study. During 1973, more than 9,000 students
from the senior year of the Gymnasium (12th-grade students, about 18 years old)
were given a general test of studying ability. In addition, school grades, teachers
evaluations and data from questionnaires about the students study and work habits,
extracurricular interests and activities, their study and professional plans were
obtained, as well as demographic and sociographic information. In 1990, 17 years
later, 3,554 subjects from the 1973 sample were questioned retrospectively. At this
point it was possible to measure professional scientific success (the number and type

212 K. A. Heller
of publications, patents, gross income over DM 180 000 (c. J90 000) per annum,
direct responsibility for more than 50 employees, etc.). In order to determine the
predictive function of various indicators, Trost and Sieglen (1992) determined d
scores (for interval scale a values) and v scores (for nominal and rank order data) for
the effect size of differences between the subgroup with higher professional
performance and the representative comparison group (Table 1). According to
Cohen (1977), d scores below 0.5 and v scores between 0.1 and 0.2 indicate weak
effects, d scores above 0.5 and v scores above 0.3 intermediate effects, and d scores
over 0.8 and v scores above 0.5 strong effects. The most powerful long-range
predictors of professional success in science and technology are apparently domainspecific problem-solving abilities, motivation including search for knowledge and so
on, and social leadership competencies. Also remarkable is the d value of the
predictor Early home upbringing directed towards active and independent
coordination of ones life. These results correspond well with those from other
studies (e.g., Benbow & Stanley, 1983; Stanley & Benbow, 1986; Rahn, 1986;
Swiatek & Benbow, 1991; Facaoaru, 1992; Subotnik & Steiner, 1994).
Rahn (1986) studied all of the 1,123 German winners of the annual competition
Jugend forscht (youth researches) at the state and national level from 1966 to 1984.
Table 1. Values for the effect size for various predictive characteristics of differences between a
group with high professional achievements in science and technology and a group with average
such achievements, according to Trost and Sieglen (1992, p. 102)
Predictive characteristic

Effect size
d value

Motivation and ability to solve problems

Desire to influence, initiative and leadership success
Search for knowledge
Concentration ability and persistence
Self-evaluation of school performance during the last three years
at school
Results of quantitative section of the test for study abilities
Average grade
Total score in test of study abilities
Early home upbringing directed towards active and independent
coordination of ones life
Nurturance by teachers
Mothers educational level
Fathers educational level
Value placed on education within the family
Parental support of the development of abilities and talents
Number of extracurricular activities named
Average time spent on extracurricular interests
Number of subject-related interests named
Number of prizes won in school competitions
Notes: *p,0.05; **p,0.01.

v value

0.71**
0.62**
0.43**
0.18*
0.35**
0.31**
0.29**
0.22**
0.42**
0.31**
0.26**
0.21*
0.21*
0.20*
0.26**
0.23**
0.11**
0.08**

Scientific ability and creativity 213

The total number of participants was approx. 24,000 (82% boys and 18% girls).
Rahn studied the course of winners school, university, professional and general
lives, and came to the conclusion that interests and individual goals, as well as
achievement motivation and action competencies, are more important than
intelligence factors; cognitive abilities were, however, not tested in Rahns study.
Subotnik and Steiner (1994) analyzed adult manifestations of adolescent talent in
science in the United States. In their longitudinal study of approximately 2,000
winners in the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, Subotnik and Steiner (1994)
(see also Subotnik et al., 1993) got results quite similar to those described above (see
also Zuckerman (1987, 1992), who stressed the mentor-apprentice relationship as
well as sex-specific differences in science).
The frequently encountered yet nave notion that giftedness, ability, intelligence,
creativity or related terms simply exist is, from a scientific viewpoint, untenable.
Through the observation of individual differences in achievement behavior and
through the solving of especially challenging tasks, we can conjecture that what we
collectively call giftedness comes about from differences in individual competences.
While such an explanatory hypothesis is quite plausible, it is still a matter of debate
whether giftedness is determined more by cognitive and/or motivational or
sociocultural factors. A main difficulty in so-called hypothetical constructs like
giftedness or motivation, intelligence or creativity is addressed by this. It is therefore
occasionally suggested that the use of the dispositional concept giftedness be
completely renounced, and that a behavioral concept such high performance,
excellence or something similar be employed instead; or rather to equate giftedness
on the whole with performance criteria. However, this target certainly has not done
justice to important functions of identifying gifted and talented in the sense of
individual potentials.
Hence it is necessary to view giftedness or talent, as well as ability versus
creativity, differentially, whereby a distinction should be made between descriptive
and explanatory concepts. Using descriptive concepts, the phenomenon of giftedness
or talent is defined as mathematical, scientific, technical, linguistic, social or musical
talents, for instance. This corresponds to the cognitive or knowledge-psychological
paradigm of the differentiation between universal basic thought processes and
domain-specific skills or knowledge. In the Terman tradition, the accepted notion
was that giftedness is largely identical to general high intelligence (g-factor). Today,
however, the predominant view is one of differential or multidimensional concepts of
giftedness (for an overview, see Heller et al., 2000; Sternberg & Davidson, 2005).
Thus, the Munich Study of Giftedness (Heller & Hany, 1986; Heller, 1992;
Perleth & Heller, 1994; Perleth et al., 1993)one of the most enlarged European
studies in the last two decadesis based on a psychometric classification approach
with several types of giftedness or talent factors. This multidimensional model
consists of seven relatively independent ability factor groups that serve as predictors of
various performance domains serving as criterion variables as well as personality (e.g.,
motivation, interest, self-concept) and social environmental factors (e.g., family and
school climate, quality of instruction) that serve as moderators. The moderators are

214 K. A. Heller
important for the transition of individual potentials into excellent performances in
various domains (Heller, 2001; see Figure 1). According to this nationally and
internationally validated model (for greater detail, see Heller et al., 2005), giftedness
is conceptualized as a multi-factorized ability construct within a network of noncognitive (motivation, control expectations, self-concept, etc.) and social moderators
as well as performance-related variables. For diagnostic purposes, the differentiation
between predictors, criterion and moderator variables is of particular interest.
The expert-novice paradigm
Explanatory concepts regarding giftedness are hardly less problematic. These concepts
differ from one another in the significance they attach to personality and/or socialcultural determinants in the structure of giftedness versus their manifestations in
exceptional aptitude. Research on the expertise paradigm from a life span
perspective has proven that the development of expertise (i.e., performance at high
or the highest levels) is a function of an individuals developmental stage. Whereas
motivation and interest in a subject or domain seem to be the determining factors at
early stages, instructional methods and teaching quality becomes more and more
important as the difficulty level increases (Ericsson et al., 1990). Partly contrary to
these findings, psychometric results confirmed that differences between individuals

Figure 1. The Munich Model of Giftedness (MMG) as an example of a multidimensional concept

of talent (according to Heller, 1992, Heller et al., 2005)

Scientific ability and creativity 215

in scientific problem-solving competence depend at the novice level more on
cognitive abilities, but at the expert level they depend more on learning experiences
and domain-specific knowledge (Heller, 1993, p. 143).
While the psychometric paradigm of research on individual ability potential
(predictors) under specific motivational and social conditions (moderators) focuses
prospectively on expected performance excellence (criteria) in scholastic, university or
career matters, expertise research tries another approach. In the so-called expertnovice paradigm (i.e., the comparison of experts, such as physics teachers or
university professors, and beginners, such as students in an introductory physics
course), the central conditions surrounding knowledge and expertise acquisition are
recorded respectively, providing an important contribution to the prospective
approach of the psychometric research. It is only recently that theoretical and
empirical attempts have been made to combine both research paradigms in order to
optimize the amount of insight to be obtained from research (cf. Schneider, 1993,
2000; Heller, 1999; Sternberg, 2000; Perleth, 2001).
Synthetic approaches
In recent years, synthetic approaches have been favored in the field of giftedness research.
Thus, in the attempt to forge a bridge between the psychometrically based research into
giftedness and the more process-oriented field of expertise research, Perleth and Ziegler
extended the original Munich Giftedness Model in Figure 1 to the Munich Dynamic
Ability Achievement Model (MDAAM) depicted in Figure 2. According to this, it
becomes clear that with an increasing degree of expertise, active learning processes
influence expansions of knowledge and the acquisition of domain-specific competencies. This implies that non-cognitive personality characteristics such as interest in
math or physics and task commitment (according to Renzulli) or achievement
motivation are to be accorded increased significance regarding talent potential.
The triangle in Figure 2 symbolizes the formation of expert knowledge and
routines in the course of a long (ten years rule of the expert-novice paradigm) and
highly qualified learning process (deliberate-practice postulated by Ericsson et al.,
1993b; Ericsson, 1996, 1998, 2005). Referring to Ackerman (1988), cognitive,
perceptual, motor and knowledge variables play an important role as prerequisites for
exceptional achievement, together with more or less global ability and creativity
predictors in the sense of the original MMG. With an increasing degree of expertise,
active learning processes influence expansions of knowledge and the acquisition of
domain-specific competences in mathematics, science, technology and so on.
Furthermore, the MDAAM distinguishes between three or four stages of expertise
development and achievement, respectively. They are related to the main phases of
school and vocational training: preschool, school, university or vocational training.
These stages can be roughly characterized by Plomins (1994) classification, which
distinguished passive (preschool age), reactive (primary-school age) and active
(adolescence and older) genotype-environment relations (for greater detail see
Heller et al., 2005, pp. 152154).

216 K. A. Heller

Figure 2. The Munich Dynamic Ability Achievement Model (MDAAM), according to Ziegler
and Perleth (1997), Perleth (2001), Heller and Perleth (2004, p. 89)

One can question whether in actuality it is the time spent in active learning that
is responsible for achievement excellence in a specific domain, as implied by
Ericssons construct of deliberate practice. In any case, convincing proof has yet to
be forthcoming from Ericsson and his colleagues (e.g., Ericsson et al., 1993a;
Ericsson, 1996, 1998) that adolescents or young adults are capable of reaching the
same degree of expertise as the gifted in randomly chosen domainsindependent
of individual talent prerequisites (see also Gardner, 1995). The formulation of
threshold hypotheses (e.g., Schneider, 1993, 2000) was an attempt to rescue
research findings accumulated with the expertise paradigm, without having to
relinquish any of the significance of the cognitive learning and achievement
potential for the development of expertise with a high standard (excellence)
confirmed in psychometric giftedness research. This concern is actually more
important than the insights gained from expertise research not due to the
realization of achievement excellence to be expected, but also with regard to the
information gained on how individual resources can be used for personal
development.
Giftedness and creativity characteristics as individual determinants of
outstanding achievement in the field of math, science and technology
Scientific ability, as a hypothetical construct, can generally be defined as the ability
to scientifically solve problems. If we examine it more closely, this means special

Scientific ability and creativity 217

talents for excellent abilities in a (natural) science field or subject (such as physics);
in other words, competencies that are subsumed under so-called convergent
thinking. Today, however, the concept of creativity is mainly associated with
functions of so-called divergent thinking. This differentiation goes back to a
suggestion made by Guilford (1950). Frequently, contradictory opposites are
postulated with the usual concept differentiation. This is despite Guilfords intention
of more contrasting (i.e., not mutually exclusive, but complementary) intellectual
cognitive processes. Classic intelligence test items are characteristic of convergent
thinking since they call for single-track (inductive, conclusive) reasoning. In openended problems with relatively unstructured goalsas employed in creativity tests
divergent thinking tends to be provoked. Therefore, problem structure can be more
or less restrictive (i.e., including closed or open types of problems).
As Facaoaru (1985) was able to demonstrate, these are not the only two
prototypes available. In the field of science and technology, mixed types are typically
associated with difficult and complex problems (see Table 2). The systematics of
various types of problems shown here implies the assumption of qualitative
differences in the corresponding thought processes. These qualitatively different
facets of problem solving represent complementary thought and action strategies.
Thus, at the beginning of a complex problem-solving process, primarily divergent
(creative) abilities (e.g., generating hypotheses) are necessary. Later in the process,
increasingly divergent-convergent or convergent-divergent and convergent thought
competencies are necessary for making hypothesis decisions. In order to build a
model of more complex and challenging problem solutions, multidimensional ability
and creativity concepts are necessary. One-dimensional ability concepts hardly play
a role in newer intelligence and creativity theories, and they are not adequate to
describe the rich facets of most problems in the field of science and technology.
Numerous empirical studies in the psychometric paradigm are addressed to
scientific ability and creativity. In recent years, cognitive psychological (experimental
and semi-experimental) studies also have been carried out. In addition to the studies
mentioned above, the most important results will be presented here. The frequently
referred to aptitude-traits are formal-logical (convergent) cognitive abilities, ability to
think abstractly, systematic and theoretical thinking and so on, but also richness and
fluency of ideas, ability to restructure the problem (flexibility), and originality of
solution methods and products (in the sense of more divergent thought production).
Table 2. Basic types of problem situations, arranged according to the degree of structure from
beginning and final condition of a solution (according to Facaoaru, 1985, p. 60)
Structuredness of problem
situation
Open: few restrictions
Closed: many restrictions

Structuredness of final condition

Open: several solutions
Closed: one solution
Field A: divergent tasks (tests
for divergent thinking)
Field C: constructions tasks
(convergent-divergent items)

Field B: discovery tasks

(divergent-convergent tasks)
Field D: convergent tasks
(usual intelligence tests)

218 K. A. Heller
On top of these come non-aptitude-traits such as intellectual curiosity or thirst for
knowledge, exploratory drive, desire to raise intellectual questions, intrinsic
achievement motivation, task commitment, goal orientation and persistence, as well
as tolerance for ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity, nonconformity and so on.
In addition to the general, more or less domain-overlapping and situationindependent personality determinants of achievement eminence postulated in the
field of science and technology, recent experimental studies in psychology
supplement the general findings with important domain-specific process characteristics. Van der Meer (1985) carried out process-oriented analyses of mathematical
scientific achievements in the Klix Paradigm experimental diagnosis of giftedness.
These were supposed to provide information about individual differences in
mathematical-scientific problem solving. The main purpose was to isolate the
psychological mechanisms in the cognitive process that were responsible for such
achievements. Substantial characteristics of giftedness according to Klix (1983) are,
on the one hand, the individual ability to reduce problem complexity and, on the other
hand, cognitive expenditure of energy in solving the problem. In this, the task-oriented
motivation is felt to play a key role: The role of this task-oriented motivation consists
mainly of creating and maintaining an activity level necessary for an effective search,
assimilation and processing of relevant information up to and including finding a
solution (Van der Meer, 1985, p. 231; authors translation). In a manner similar to
Sternbergs component analysis, Van der Meer uses tasks where inductive or rather
analogous thought is necessary. Analogous conclusion processes are to be found in
the recognition and transfer of relations between topics from one area to another.
The medium for the analogies are chessboard-like patterns of varying complexity.
The most important result was the proof that gifted secondary school students
(those specially nurtured in mathematics classes at the Humboldt University of
Berlin) were significantly better at solving such analogy test items than a control
group of average students. Further characteristics for mathematically-scientifically
gifted, according to Van der Meers results, were a significantly higher informationprocessing speed in regard to basic cognitive processes, as well as a lower or more
economical solution effort. This indicates the use of more effective solution
strategies containing minimal interim memory of partial results (in the working
memory), which make up the higher quality of thought processes in the gifted. Van
der Meer considers the superior style of connecting basal operations, as well as the
increased simplicity and effectivity of finding solutions, to be significant characteristics of scientific ability.
In order to generate hypothesesaccording to Einstein, the most important step in
the problem-solving processthe hypothetical concept science discovery was
postulated by Langley et al. (1987), who presented many results in their treatise.
Similar to the concept of wisdom from the life span approach to exceptionality (see
Pasupathi & Staudinger, 2000; Sternberg, 2003a, 2003b), the concept of
cleverness suggested by Hassenstein (1988) is a synthetic approach for the
giftedness phenomena being discussed here. It suggests a combination of knowledge,
a perceptual exactness in observation, good memory and logical-abstract reasoning,

Scientific ability and creativity 219

richness of ideas, fluency in associations and fantasy, as well as flexibility and inner
drive with regard to motivation. Cropley (1992) calls this true giftedness in order to
indicate that creativity is an essential part of giftedness.
The value of expertise research is that it has identified the role of knowledge
acquisition in the development of domain-specific competencies. For the initial phase
of expertise acquisition, the precedence of motivation (Hayes, 1989) and subjectinterest (Ericsson et al., 1990) over cognitive abilities was emphasized. Yet one
should not overlook the fact that motivation and cognition represent essential
individual learning determinants in the development of expertise, such as
performance at a very high level (Schiefele & Csikszentmihalyi, 1995).
Researchers on expertise often underestimate the importance of cognitive abilities
(e.g., Ericsson et al., 1993a). Finally, there is the flexible use of subject-related
expertise, without which it would seem impossible to have innovative solution
processes and creative products in science and technology. The phases of such
innovative process are presented in Table 3, with respect to the relationships
between self-knowledge and system-insight. In talent searches for gifted programs in
the area of technology, the following prerequisites for individual performance should
be observed:

N
N
N
N

Creative abilities, such as problem sensitivity, curiosity, flexibility, imagination,

ability to analyze and synthesize, etc.
Repertoire of general and domain-specific knowledge, including problem solving
strategies and constructing patterns, etc.
Task commitment, perseverance, concentration, etc.
Behaviors and attitudes beneficial to creativity, such as high expectations of ones
performance, tolerance of frustration, independence, etc.

For greater detail and the relationships between self-knowledge and system insight
during an invention process (according to Heller & Facaoaru, 1987), refer to
Table 3.
Concerning technical creativity, Hany (1994) conceptualized the hypothetical
model depicted in Figure 3. This model served as a basis of the German-Chinese
Study on Technical Creativity (Hany & Heller, 1996; Heller & Hany, 1997). The
main hypotheses derived from the causal model could be proven by the empirical
data in the mentioned study (for greater detail, see Shi et al., 1998). Whereas the
previously cited studies focused on individual determinants of outstanding
achievement in science and technology, more recent synthetic approaches consider
social-cultural determinants (e.g., Gardner, 1988; Haensly & Reynolds, 1989;
Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Sternberg, 2003a, 2003b; Sternberg et al., 2004).
In addition to the importance of situational variables or even coincidental factors
(cf. Simonton, 1994, 2004; Heller & Hany, 1986; Heller, 1991, 1993, 1999, 2003b;
Heller & Viek, 2000; Heller & Lengfelder, 2000, 2006), the role of so-called creative
learning environments and of social influences on the development of scientific ability
and creativity are emphasized in recent studies from the field of social psychology.
Favorable and unfavorable developmental socialization influences on giftedness have

220 K. A. Heller
Table 3. Relationships between self-knowledge and system insight during an invention process
(source: Heller & Facaoaru, 1987)

been studied primarily in the social settings of the family, school, leisure time
resources and the professional areas (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Tannenbaum, 1983;
Gruber & Davis, 1988; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Csikszentmihalyi &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1993; Csikszentmihalyi & Wolfe, 2000; Ambrose et al., 2003).
In this respect, the importance of stimulating social-learning environments,
experimental possibilities, available information and community resources is
outweighed by the importance of using experts as creative models for the
development of scientific ability and creativity.

Scientific ability and creativity 221

Figure 3. Hypothetical model of causal factors of technical creativity by Hany (1994, p. 143)

Linn (1986) emphasized the necessity of new science curricula specially tailored to
the needs of gifted adolescents. The didactic concept discovery in science learning
(for an overview, see, e.g., Neber, 2001; Neber & Schommer-Aikins, 2002) has been
regarded as perhaps the most important postulate by gifted educators. This means
that individual problem-solving competencies together with domain-specific knowledge should be mediated or supported by autonomous learning (for recent research
projects and gifted programs in the field of science and technology, refer to
Colangelo et al., 1993; Pyryt et al., 1993; Subotnik & Steiner, 1994; Campbell et al.,
2000; Cropley & Urban, 2000; Grigorenko, 2000; Pyryt, 2000; Wieczerkowski et al.,
2000; Shore & Irving, 2005, among others).
Regarding science and technology as fields of leisure time activities in adolescence,
we found significant differences in the Munich longitudinal study of giftedness
(Heller, 1991, 2001, 2002; Perleth & Heller, 1994) between highly intelligent and
highly creative students in the domain of technology, but not in science (Figure 4).
This corresponds to another result from the same study where the intellectually
gifted students received the best grades in math and physics, while the intellectually
and creative gifted were the best students in the other subjects, especially German
(mother tongue).
Social and cultural factors of the development of domain-specific competencies and achievements in math, science and technology
The following results from a cross-national study on technical creativity (Hany,
1994) may be of interest for identifying cultural influences. Figure 5 shows the
performance average of subjects from three countries in the point scales of the

222 K. A. Heller

Figure 4. Differences between students of high and average creativity as well as high intelligence
with regard to extracurricular activities (according to Perleth & Sierwald, 2001, p. 247)

Unfolding Test (convergent thinking) and the Construction Test (divergent

thinking). We see that the subjects from the Oriental culture are superior in
convergent thinking, but are below average in divergent thinking (interaction scalenationality: F526.7; p,0.001). The performance profile of the Germans is a mirror
image of this although less distinct. The American engineering students were poorer
on both scales. Similar findings stem from Moritz (1992, 1993), as well as Tan
(1992, 1993) who was studying peoples conceptions of technical creativity across
culture in her doctoral dissertation.
Particularly enlightening is the positive combination of convergent and divergent
thinking processes in the sample of Japanese engineering students, who in Figure 6
are most strongly represented in Cluster 1. What could not be seen in the preceding

Figure 5. Performance differences in Japanese, American and German engineering students. The
scales for convergent and divergent thinking were standardized in order to make comparisons
possible (according to Hany & Heller, 1993, p. 108)

Scientific ability and creativity 223

Figure 6. Graphic presentation of the four cluster solution for the frequency distribution in the
dimensions convergent and divergent thinking. The vertical and/or horizontal diameter of the
ovals surrounding the cluster averages correspond to two standard deviations of the cluster group
(according to Hany & Heller, 1993, p. 110)

Figure 5 (since the Japanese subjects also make up the largest part in Cluster 4),
becomes clear here in Figure 6, and may be an explanation for the astonishing
technological successes of the Japanese worldwide. Japanese engineers seem to be
able optimally to combine convergent and divergent thought competencies when
solving technological problems. The relationship between the clusters (using the
method from Ward) and culture was found to be highly significant.
Figure 7 shows the relative distribution of three culture-specific samples in the
four clusters. The clusters are arranged according to their means on the scale for
divergent thinking. The superiority of those engineering students who are able to
combine convergent and divergent thinking processes in an optimal way has been
already mentioned above. Now we can see that the Japanese engineering sample
outperforms clearly the other (German and American) samples.
Supportive surroundings and social conditions for augmenting scientific
ability and creativity
The development of scientific ability first depends on individual determinants such
as intellectual and creativity potentials, intrinsic achievement motivation, cognitive
curiosity and (domain-specific) interests. With increasing activities in the field of
science and technologymore or less domain-specificdeclarative and procedural
knowledge is acquired that can lead to various levels of expertise or achievement
eminence. In order for such a development to be possible, frequently so-called
creative learning environments are necessary. This is understood to be stimulating the

224 K. A. Heller

Figure 7. Relative distribution of the three samples in the four clusters for convergent versus
divergent thinking (according to Hany & Heller, 1993, p. 110)

cognition and supportive social-emotional relationshipsfor instance, family, school

or professional socialization conditions, stimulating peer group interactions or the
chance to use material resources as they are adapted to the individuals learning and
knowledge requirements. Factors such as attitudes, expectations and value systems
in the social settings play an important role in the development and nurturance of
gifted and talented youth (Gallagher, 1991; for information about various gifted
programs, see Cropley, 1991, 1992; Walberg & Herbig, 1997; Cropley & Urban,
2000; Csikszentmihalyi & Wolfe, 2000, among others; for special attention to the
fields of math, science and technology, see Pyryt et al., 1993; Pyryt, 2000;
Wieczerkowski et al., 2000; curriculum problems are dealt with by Davis, 1991;
ONeil et al., 1991; Gallagher & Van Tassel-Baska, 1992; Van Tassel-Baska et al.,
1992; Van Tassel-Baska, 1993, 2000). Finally, one should not overlook the fact that
social events and chance or coincidental factors can play a decisive role in the
scholastic and professional careers within the field of science and technology. There
have been both theoretical models of creativity and giftedness as well as numerous
empirical research results, especially from biographical analyses of brilliant
researchers and inventors (for greater detail, see Simonton, 2000, 2004, 2005).
In conclusion, I would like to focus on a few surrounding conditions that seem to
be important for the development of competencies and performances in science and
technology. Creativity can be considered within the more comprehensive concept of
cognitive competence. This concerns the complex achievement forms of problem
perception, information processing through learning transfer and divergentconvergent thought processes in various situations. Creativity is generally expressed,
for example, in technical areas through original processes, new methods, useful
inventions and valuable products. Analogously, scientific eminence manifests itself
in creative questions and the development of solution-relevant hypotheses regarding
scientifically unsolved problems, the development of new theories and methods, and
original problem solutions. A primary task of formal (school and university)

Scientific ability and creativity 225

education, therefore, is to mediate necessary subject knowledge in science and
technology, and to demonstrate how this can be flexibly employedthat is, in
unconventional ways and individually challenging manners. As experiences and
results have shown from the research with the gifted and from results on expertise,
creative models have an important function in such processes of scientific or
technical competency acquisition.
If one compares university institutions or research laboratories proven to be
stimulating and successful with those lacking such an effect, the following
characteristics become apparent: a high degree of task orientation and demanding
levels combined with openness to new ideas; preparedness for critically constructive
discussion; and a balanced group dynamic between solidarity and competition
among the team members. Only when a basic consensus exists among the team
members about the research ideology can interdisciplinary or intradisciplinary
heterogenous research teams offer the most favorable conditions for creative
achievements in science and technology. In addition to increasing subject and
methodological expertise, the increased ability to change perspectives is a favorable
condition for scientific productions and technical inventions. Above and beyond
this, an open form of partnership cooperation between younger and older scientists
provides the opportunity for mutual stimulation, fruitful interchanges and desirable
compensation effects in terms of various experiences and knowledge. The ideal
situation would lead us to expect an accumulation of individual expertise. The
finding that a combination of task commitment, joint responsibility and relaxed
working atmosphere substantially contribute to creativity and research productivity
is well founded.
Before moving on, I would like briefly to discuss the question of age dependence
in exceptional achievements within science and technology. Lehmanns results from
the year 1953 specifying that the most important research contributions of creatively
outstanding scientists were mostly made before the age of 40, could not be
overturned in successive studies (e.g., Zuckerman, 1967, 1987, 1992) despite a
number of methodological problems (also see Shavinina, 2003). Even the
explanation attempts, specifically in the middle age range where the competitive
responsibilities in areas such as management and representation increase while
research productivity decreases, do not hide the fact that originality, in particular,
fades. It may then be true that varying influences of career motivation, agedependent increases in workload, aging of subject knowledge previously acquired
and so on cause age-correlated losses in creativity. However, Simonton (1991, 1993,
1994, 1999, 2004, 2005) and other researchers emphasize the great individual
variation within creativity; this should not be overlooked in the discussion.
A more satisfactoryat least among the older peopleinterpretation of the
suspected change in abilities mentioned is offered by Mumford and Gustafson
(1988). Supposedly, young adults, more than older adults, tend to solve difficult
tasks by integration and reorganization of separated cognitive structuresa thought
style that is favorable in many sciences for the finding of new results. Individuals in
middle and higher age groups lean more toward pragmatic solutions (cf. Weinert,

226 K. A. Heller
1991) based on field-dependent experiences and domain specific knowledge. Such
an explanation on the basis of qualitative differences in problem-solving strategy
would again emphasize indirectly that both main componentsscientific ability and
creativityare essential personality determinants that have to be interrelated with
creative environments in favorable situations.
Conclusions
An excellent knowledge base is a necessary, but often not sufficient, condition for the
development of expertise related to the creative solution of challenging complex
problems. Some retrospective studies were able to reconfirm creative learning and
working environments as highly effective conditions for excellence in achievement.
The claims that are often raised in current discussions on the worth of so-called key
qualifications for excellence in achievement are not really sufficient if attention
should be given to domain-specific knowledge bases and abilities in the sense of
available subroutines. This observation may be applied cum grano salis to the role of
intelligence and creativity, or general versus domain-specific cognitive and practical
competence as well. A nurturing strategy for the highly gifted oriented towards the
individual capabilities and needs should not lose sight of social responsibility: This is
equally true of social responsibility for everyone, including the highly gifted students.
However, extraordinary giftedness implies a special individual responsibility for
society as a whole (Heller, 1994).
In the opinion of many prominent researchers in the field, an important link
between individual ability potentials and the motivational prerequisites for excellent
achievement is the individual self-concept (of ability). This can be seen more often
among highly gifted girls and young women than in highly gifted boys and young
men, which appears as weaker self-confidence and reduced tenacity of purpose. This
happens to such an extent that Subotnik and Arnold (1994) regard gender as an
universally important variable with respect to individual career patterns (see also
Eccles et al., 1990; Heller & Ziegler, 1996, 1997, 2001; Ziegler & Heller, 2000a).
More recent studies on the gender-specific development of the highly gifted almost
invariably detect a trend toward superiority in achievement (e.g., better marks) for
girls and young women up to the end of secondary education. However, this balance
changes with the shift to tertiary education with the result that fewer gifted women
than gifted men make use of the right to education, or (in spite of available scientific
ability) much more rarely choose study subjects or careers in the field of
mathematical, scientific or technical fields (Milgram, 1988; Milgram & Hong,
1994). In attempting to remedy such tendencies, it has been suggested that
motivational and self-concept related attributes (such as the development of
functional and the exorcising of disfunctional cognitions), combined with mentoring, play a particularly important role. Thus, Rudnitski (1994) found that the
strongest nurturing effects on the scientific careers of participants in a graduate
program were related to the mentor relationship, as well as to the awareness of
possibly getting selected as a future leader or grant recipient (also see Campbell

Scientific ability and creativity 227

et al., 2000, 2004b; Heller & Lengfelder, 2000, 2006; Heller & Viek, 2000;
Lengfelder & Heller, 2002). It seems that the key to success in the nurturing of the
highly gifted and talented youth in mathematics, the natural sciences and technology
lies primarily in the motivational and self-concept prerequisites (Heller, 1998,
2003a; Ziegler & Heller, 2000b, 2000c; Campbell et al., 2004a).
The recent international school performance studies (e.g., TIMSS, PISA, etc.)
impressively demonstrated that gifted education in China (for an overview, see Shi &
Zha, 2000) is on the road with amazing results. Congratulations! I am sure that
China will enter into the new century very successful. This confidence is based on
Chinas glorious history and large culture as well as on the remarkable activities in
the field of talent research and gifted education in the last two decades. Hence they
are able to cope with the global challenges in science and technology in the future.
For this purpose, let me express my best wishes. Good luck!
Acknowledgements
This article is the text of an invited speech given at the Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Center of Human Development and Education, Institute of Psychology,
Beijing, on 28 September 2005.
References
Ackerman, P. L. (1988) Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive
abilities and information processing, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117,
288318.
Amabile, T. M. (1983) The social psychology of creativity (New York, Springer).
Amabile, T. M. (1996) Creativity in context (Boulder, CO, Westview Press).
Ambrose, D. C., Cohen, L. & Tannenbaum, A. J. (Eds) (2003) Creative intelligence: Toward
theoretic integration (New York, Hampton Press).
Benbow, C. P. & Arjmand, O. (1990) Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics
and science by mathematically talented students: a longitudinal study, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 430441.
Benbow, C. P. & Stanley, J. C. (1983) Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More
facts, Science, 222, 10291031.
Campbell, J. R., Heller, K. A. & Feng, A. X. (2004) Restructuring attribution research with crosscultural data, in: J. R. Campbell, K. Tirri, P. Ruohotie & H. Walberg (Eds) Cross-cultural
research: Basic issues, dilemmas and strategies (Hameenlinna, Research Centre for Vocational
Education/University of Tampere), 6179.
Campbell, J. R., Wagner, H. & Walberg, H. J. (2000) Academic competitions and programs
designed to challenge the exceptionally talented, in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg
& R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd edn) (Oxford,
Pergamon Press), 523535.
Campbell, J. R., Tirri, K., Ruohotie, P. & Walberg, H. (Eds) (2004) Cross-cultural research: Basic
issues, dilemmas and strategies (Hameenlinna, Research Centre for Vocational Education/
University of Tampere).
Cohen, J. (1977) Statistical power analyses for the behavioural sciences (New York, Academic Press).
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Kerr, B., Huesman, R. & Johnson, D. (1993) Mechanical
inventiveness: A three-phase study, in: G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds) The origins and
development of high ability (Chichester, Wiley), 160174.

228 K. A. Heller
Cropley, A. J. (1991) Improving intelligence: Fostering creativity in everyday settings, in:
H. A. H. Rowe (Ed.) Intelligence: Reconceptualization and measurement (Hillsdale, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 267280.
Cropley, A. J. (1992) More ways than one: Fostering creativity (Norwood, NJ, Ablex).
Cropley, A. J. & Urban, K. K. (2000) Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity, in:
K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook of
giftedness and talent (2nd edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 485498.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988) Society, culture and person: A systems view of creativity, in:
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) The nature of creativity (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press),
325339.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1993) Family influences on the development of
giftedness, in: G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds) The origins and development of high ability
(Chichester, Wiley), 187206.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Wolfe, R. (2000) New conceptions and research approaches to creativity:
Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in education, in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks,
R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd
edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 8193.
Davis, G. A. (1991) Teaching creative thinking, in: N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds) Handbook of
gifted education (Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon), 236244.
Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E. & Harold, R. D. (1990) Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects and
parents socialization of gender differences, Journal of Social Issues, 46, 186201.
Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.) (1996) The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts
and sciences, sports and games (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Ericsson, K. A. (1998) The scientific study of expert levels of performance: General implications
for optimal learning and creativity, High Ability Studies, 9, 75100.
Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.) (2005) Handbook of expertise and expert performance (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates).
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th. & Heizmann, S. (1993a) Can we create gifted people?, in:
G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds) The origins and development of high ability (Chichester, Wiley),
222249.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T. & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993b) The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance, Psychological Review, 100, 363406.
Ericsson, K. A., Tesch-Romer, C. & Krampe, R. (1990) The role of practice and motivation in the
acquisition of expert-level performance in real life: An empirical evaluation of a theoretical
framework, in: M. J. A. Howe (Ed.) Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents
(Leicester, British Psychological Society), 109130.
Facaoaru, C. (1985) Kreativitat in Wissenschaft und Technik (Bern, Huber).
Facaoaru, C. (1992) Report on the Technical Creativity Project to the Federal Ministry of Education and
Science in Bonn. Unpublished report, University of Munich, Dept of Psychology.
Funke, K., Krauss, J., Schuler, H. & Stapf K, H. (1987) Zur Prognostizierbarkeit wissenschaftlichtechnischer Leistungen mittels Personvariablen: Eine Metaanalyse der Validitat diagnostischer Verfahren im Bereich Forschung und Entwicklung, Gruppendynamik, 18, 407428.
Gagne, F. (1985) Giftedness and talent: Re-examining a re-examination of the definitions, Gifted
Child Quarterly, 19, 103112.
Gagne, F. (1993) Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities, in:
K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks & A. H. Passow (Eds) International handbook of research and
development of giftedness and talent (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 6987.
Gallagher, J. J. (1991) Educational reform, values and gifted students, Gifted Child Quarterly, 35,
1219.
Gallagher, S. & VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992) Science curriculum for high ability learners, in:
F. J. Monks & W. A. M. Peters (Eds) Talent for the future (Assen/Maastricht, Van Gorcum),
117122.

Scientific ability and creativity 229

Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (New York, Basic Books).
Gardner, H. (1988) Creative lives and creative works: A synthetic scientific approach, in:
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) The nature of creativity (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press),
298321.
Gardner, H. (1993) The relationship between early giftedness and later achievement, in:
G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds) The origins and development of high ability: Ciba Foundation
symposium 178 (Chichester, Wiley), 175186.
Gardner, H. (1995) Comment: Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition, American
Psychologist, 50, 802803.
Grigorenko, E. L. (2000) Russian gifted education in technical disciplines: Tradition and
transformation, in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds)
International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 735742.
Gruber, H. E. & Davis, S. N. (1988) Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving-systems
approach to creative thinking, in: R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) The nature of creativity (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press), 243270.
Guilford, J. P. (1950) Creativity, American Psychologist, 5, 444454.
Haensly, P. A. & Reynolds, C. R. (1989) Creativity and intelligence, in: J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning
& C. R. Reynolds (Eds) Handbook of creativity (New York, Plenum Press), 111134.
Hany, E. A. (1994) The development of basic cognitive components of technical creativity: A
longitudinal comparison of children and youth with high and average intelligence, in:
R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds) Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of
giftedness and talent (Norwood, NJ, Ablex), 115154.
Hany, E. A. & Heller, K. A. (1993) Entwicklung kreativen Denkens im kulturellen Kontext., in:
H. Mandl, M. Dreher & H. J. Kornadt (Eds) Entwicklung und Denken im kulturellen Kontext
(Gottingen, Hogrefe), 99115.
Hany, E. A. & Heller, K. A. (1996) The development of problem-solving capacities in the domain
of technics: Results from a cross-cultural longitudinal study, Gifted and Talented
International, 11, 5664.
Hassenstein, M. (1988) Bausteine zu einer Naturgeschichte der Intelligenz (Stuttgart, Deutsche
Verlags-Anstalt).
Hayes, J. R. (1989) Cognitive processes in creativity, in: J. A. Gloover, R. R. Ronning
& C. R. Reynolds (Eds) Handbook of creativity (New York, Plenum Press), 135145.
Heller, K. A. (1989) Perspectives on the diagnosis of giftedness, German Journal of Psychology, 13,
140159.
Heller, K. A. (1991) The nature and development of giftedness: A longitudinal study, European
Journal for High Ability, 2, 174188, (reprinted in: A. J. Cropley & D. Dehn (Eds)
Fostering the growth of high ability: European perspectives (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1996), 41
56).
Heller, K. A. (Ed.) (1992) Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (2nd edn, 2001) (Gottingen,
Hogrefe).
Heller, K. A. (1993) Scientific ability, in: G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds) The origins and development
of high ability: Ciba Foundation symposium 178 (Chichester, Wiley), 139159.
Heller, K. A. (1994) Responsibility in research on high ability, in: K. A. Heller & E. A. Hany (Eds)
Competence and responsibility, Vol. 2 (Seattle, WA, Hogrefe & Huber), 712.
Heller, K. A. (1998) Gender differences in performance and attributional styles among the
gifted, in: R. Zorman & N. Kronfeld (Eds) Nurturing gifted girls in the natural sciences
(Jerusalem, Henrietta Szold Institute/National Institute for Research in the Behavioral
Sciences), 937.
Heller, K. A. (1999) Individual (learning and motivational) needs versus instructional conditions
of gifted education, High Ability Studies, 9, 921.
Heller, K. A. (2001) Gifted education at the beginning of the third millennium, Australasian
Journal of Gifted Education, 10, 4861.

230 K. A. Heller
Heller, K. A. (2002) Identifying and nurturing the gifted in math, science and technology, in,
Korean Educational Development Institute (Ed.), International Conference on Education for
the Gifted in Science (Seoul, KEDI), 4990.
Heller, K. A. (2003a) Attributional retraining as an attempt to reduce gender-specific problems in
mathematics and the sciences, Gifted and Talented, 7, 1521.
Heller, K. A. (2003b) The role of high ability and creativity in mathematics, the sciences and technology.
Keynote speech at the International Conference on Giftedness, Bangkok, 11 December.
Heller, K. A., Facaoaru, C. (1987) Selbst- und Systemerkenntnis, in, DABEI (Ed.), DABEIHandbuch fur Erfinder und Unternehmer (Dusseldorf, VDI-Verlag), 4554.
Heller, K. A. & Hany, E. A. (1986) Identification, development and achievement analysis of
talented and gifted children in West Germany, in: K. A. Heller & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds)
Identifying and nurturing the gifted (Toronto, Huber), 6782.
Heller, K. A. & Hany, E. A. (1997) German-Chinese study on technical creativity: Cross-cultural
perspectives, in: J. Chan, R. Li & J. Spinks (Eds) Maximizing potential: Lengthening and
strengthening our stride (Hong Kong, Social Sciences Research Centre, University of Hong
Kong), 237241.
Heller, K. A. & Lengfelder, A. (2000) German Olympiad studies on math, physics and chemistry.
Paper presented at the SIG Symposium on Giftedness and Talent at the AERA Annual
Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Heller, K. A. & Lengfelder, A. (2006) Evaluation study of the International Academic Olympiads:
Three decades of cross-cultural and gender findings from North American, European and
East Asian Olympians, in: H. Helfrich, M. Zillekens & E. Holter (Eds) Culture and
development in Japan and Germany (Munster, Daedalus), 155170.
Heller, K. A. & Perleth, Ch. (2004) Adapting conceptual models for cross-cultural applications,
in: J. R. Campbell, K. Tirri, P. Ruohotie & H. Walberg (Eds) Cross-cultural research: Basic
issues, dilemmas and strategies (Hameenlinna, Research Centre for Vocational Education,
University of Tampere), 81101.
Heller, K. A. & Viek, P. (2000) Support for university students: Individual and social factors, in:
C. F. M. van Lieshout & P. G. Heymans (Eds) Developing talent across the life span (Hove,
Psychology Press/Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis), 299321.
Heller, K. A. & Ziegler, A. (1996) Gender differences in mathematics and the natural sciences:
Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child
Quarterly, 40, 200210.
Heller, K. A. & Ziegler, A. (1997) Gifted females: A cross-cultural survey, in: J. Chan, R. Li
& J. Spinks (Eds) Maximizing potential: Lengthening and strengthening our stride (Hong Kong,
Social Sciences Research Centre, University of Hong Kong), 242246.
Heller, K. A. & Ziegler, A. (2001) Attributional retraining: A classroom-integrated model for
nurturing talents in mathematics and the sciences, in: N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds)
Talent development, Vol. IV (Scottsdale, AZ, Great Potential (Gifted Psychology Press),
205217.
Heller, K. A., Perleth, Ch. & Lim, T. K. (2005) The Munich Model of Giftedness designed to
identify and promote gifted students, in: R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds) Conceptions
of giftedness (2nd edn) (New York, Cambridge University Press), 147170.
Heller, K. A., Monks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J. & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds) (2000) International handbook
of giftedness and talent (2nd edn, rev. repr. 2002) (Oxford, Pergamon Press/Amsterdam:
Elsevier Science).
Hunt, E. (1987) Science, technology and intelligence, in: R. R. Ronning, et al., The influence of
cognitive psychology on testing (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 1140.
Klix, F. (1983) Begabungsforschung ein neuer Weg in der kognitiven Intelligenzdiagnostik?,
Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 191, 360386.
Krampen, G. (1993) Diagnostik der Kreativitat, in: G. Trost, K. Ingenkamp & R. S. Jager (Eds)
Tests und Trends: 10. Jahrbuch der Padagogischen Diagnostik (Weinheim, Beltz), 1139.

Scientific ability and creativity 231

Langley, P., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, H. K. & Zytkow, J. M. (1987) Scientific discovery
(Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).
Lengfelder, A. & Heller, K. A. (2002) German Olympiad studies: Findings from a retrospective
evaluation and from in-depth interviews. Where have all the gifted females gone? Journal of
Research in Education, 12, 8692.
Linn, M. C. (1986) Science, in: R. F. Dillon & R. J. Sternberg (Eds) Cognition and instruction
(Orlando, FL, Academic Press), 155204.
McCann, M. (2005) Quest for the Holy Grail of psychometric creativity: The links with visual
thinking ability and IQ, Gifted and Talented International, 20, 1929.
Milgram, R. M. (1988) Cognitive and personal-social predictors of creative performance in gifted
children and adolescents, in: K. A. Heller (Ed.) The First International Conference on Leisure
Time Activities and Non-Academic Accomplishments of Gifted Students. conference report
(Munich, LMU), 4043.
Milgram, R. M. & Hong, E. (1994) Creative thinking and creative performance in adolescents as
predictors of creative attainments in adults: A follow-up study after 18 years, in:
R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds) Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of
giftedness and talent (Norwood, NJ, Ablex), 212228.
Moritz, F. E. (1992) Culture of manufacturing: A case study, in: Y. Ito (Ed.) Advanced
manufacturing series: Human Intelligence-based manufacturing (London, Springer), 6580.
Moritz, F. E. (1993) A comparison of strategies and procedures in the product innovation in Japan and
Germany. Unpublished dissertation, Tokyo Institute of Technology.
Monks, F. J. (1985) Hoogbegaafden: een situatieschets, in: F. J. Monks & P. Span (Eds)
Hoogbegaafden in de samenleving (Nijmegen, NL, Dekker & van de Vegt), 1731.
Mumford, M. D. & Gustafson, S. B. (1988) Creativity syndrome: Integration, application and
innovation, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 2743.
Neber, H. (2001) Entdeckendes Lernen, in: D. H. Rost (Ed.) Handworterbuch Padagogische
Psychologie (2nd edn) (Weinheim, Beltz/PVU), 115121.
Neber, H. & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002) Self-regulated science learning with gifted students:
The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological and environmental variables, High
Ability Studies, 13, 5974.
ONeil, J. et al. (1991) Raising our sights: Improving US achievement in mathematics and science
(Alexandria, VA, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).
Pasupathi, M. & Staudinger, U. M. (2000) A talent for knowledge and judgement about life: The
lifespan development of wisdom, in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg
& R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd edn) (Oxford,
Pergamon Press), 253267.
Perleth, Ch. (2001) Follow-up-Untersuchungen zur Munchner Hochbegabungsstudie, in:
K. A. Heller (Ed.) Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (2nd edn) (Gottingen,
Hogrefe), 357446.
Perleth, Ch. & Heller, K. A. (1994) The Munich longitudinal study of giftedness, in:
R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds) Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of
giftedness and talent (Norwood, NJ, Ablex), 77114.
Perleth, Ch. & Sierwald, W. (2001) Entwicklungs- und Leistungsanalysen zur Hochbegabung, in:
K. A. Heller (Ed.) Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (2nd edn) (Gottingen, Hogrefe),
171355.
Perleth, Ch., Sierwald, W. & Heller, K. A. (1993) Selected results of the Munich longitudinal study
of giftedness: The multidimensional/typological giftedness model, Roeper Review, 15, 149155.
Plomin, R. (1994) Genetics and experience: The interplay between nature and nurture (Beverly Hills,
CA, Sage).
Pyryt, M. C. (2000) Talent development in science and technology, in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks,
R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd
edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press/Amsterdam: Elsevier), 427437.

232 K. A. Heller
Pyryt, M. C., Masharow, Y. P. & Feng, C. (1993) Programs and strategies for nurturing talents/
gifts in science and technology, in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks & A. H. Passow (Eds)
International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (Oxford, Pergamon
Press), 453471.
Rahn, H. (1986) Jugend forscht (Gottingen, Hogrefe).
Renzulli, J. S. (1978) What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition, Phi Delta Kappan, 60,
180184, 261.
Rudnitski, R. (1994) A generation of leaders in gifted education, in: R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold
(Eds) Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (Norwood, NJ,
Ablex), 349374.
Schiefele, U. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1995) Motivation and ability as factors in mathematics
experience and achievement, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 163181.
Schneider, W. (1993) Acquiring expertise: Determinants of exceptional performance, in:
K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks & A. H. Passow (Eds) International handbook of research and
development of giftedness and talent (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 311324.
Schneider, W. (2000) Giftedness, expertise and (exceptional) performance: A developmental
perspective, in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds)
International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 165177.
Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.) (2003) International handbook on innovation (Amsterdam, Elsevier
Science).
Shi, J. & Zha, Z. (2000) Psychological research on and education of gifted and talented children in
China, in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International
handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 757764.
Shi, J., Zha, Z., Heller, K. A. & Hany, E. A. (1998) Cross-cultural study on technical creativity of
supernormal and normal children from China and Germany: Basic hypotheses and research
method, in: Z. Zha & J. Shi (Eds) The mystery of the development of supernormal children
(Peking, Chongqing), 2540.
Shore, B. M. & Irving, J. A. (2005) Inquiry as a pedagogical link between expertise and giftedness:
The High Ability and Inquiry Research Group at McGill University, Gifted and Talented
International, 20, 3740.
Simonton, D. K. (1988) Scientific genius: A psychology of science (Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press).
Simonton, D. K. (1991) Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary
contrasts, Developmental Psychology, 27, 119130.
Simonton, D. K. (1993) Creative development from birth to death: The experience of exceptional
genius, in, International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development (ISSBD) (Ed.),
Symposium abstracts of the Twelfth Biennial Meetings of ISSBD (Recife, ISSBD), 26.
Simonton, D. K. (1994) Greatness: who makes history and why (New York, Guildford Press).
Simonton, D. K. (1999) Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity (New York, Oxford
University Press).
Simonton, D. K. (2000) Genius and giftedness: Same or different? in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks,
R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd
edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 111121.
Simonton, D. K. (2004) Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius and zeitgeist (New York,
Cambridge University Press).
Simonton, D. K. (2005) Putting the gift back into giftedness: The genetics of talent development,
Gifted and Talented International, 20, 1518.
Stanley, J. C. & Benbow, C. P. (1986) Youths who reason extremely well mathematically, in:
R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds) Conceptions of giftedness (New York, Cambridge
University Press), 361387.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985) Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence (New York, Cambridge
University Press).

Scientific ability and creativity 233

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1997) Thinking styles (New York, Cambridge University Press).
Sternberg, R. J. (2000) Giftedness as developing expertise, in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks,
R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd
edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 5566.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003a) WICS as a model of giftedness, High Ability Studies, 14, 109137.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003b) Wisdom, intelligence and creativity, synthesized (New York, Cambridge
University Press).
Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds) (2005) Conceptions of giftedness (2nd edn) (New York,
Cambridge University Press).
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. (1991) An investment theory of creativity and its development,
Human Development, 34, 131.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L. & Singer, J. L. (Eds) (2004) Creativity: From potential to
realization (Washington, DC, American Psychological Association).
Subotnik, R. F. & Arnold, K. D. (1994) Longitudinal study of giftedness and talent, in, Beyond
Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (Norwood, NJ, Ablex), 123.
Subotnik, R. F. & Steiner, C. L. (1994) Adult manifestations of adolescent talent in Science: A
longitudinal study of 1983 Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners, in: R. F. Subotnik
& K. D. Arnold (Eds) Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent
(Norwood, NJ, Ablex), 5276.
Subotnik, R. F., Duschl, R. & Selmon, E. (1993) Retention and attrition of science talent: A
longitudinal study of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners, International Journal of
Science Education, 15, 6172.
Swiatek, M. A. & Benbow, C. P. (1991) Ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability-matched
accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students, Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
528538.
Tan, A. G. (1992) Some parameters and types of technical creativity, in: E. A. Hany & K. A. Heller
(Eds) Competence and responsibility, Vol. 1 (Seattle, WA, Hogrefe & Huber), 163164.
Tan, A. G. (1993) Methodological problems in designing culture-sensitive questionnaires to
investigate implicit theories of technical creativity, Transactions of Japan Creativity Society, 1,
15.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983) Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives (New York,
MacMillan).
Trost, G. (2000) Prediction of excellence in school, higher education and work, in: K. A. Heller,
F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook of giftedness and
talent (2nd edn) (Amsterdam, Elsevier), 317327.
Trost, G. & Sieglen, J. (1992) Biographische Fruhindikatoren herausragender beruflicher
Leistungen, in: E. A. Hany & H. Nickel (Eds) Begabung und Hochbegabung (Bern,
Huber), 95104.
Van der Meer, E. (1985) Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Hochbegabung, Zeitschrift fur
Psychologie, 193, 229258.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1993) Theory and research on curriculum development for the gifted, in:
K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks & A. H. Passow (Eds) International handbook of research and
development of giftedness and talent (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 365386.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000) Theory and research on curriculum development for the gifted, in:
K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook of
giftedness and talent (2nd edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 345365.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Gallagher, S., Sher, B. & Bailey, J. (1992) Developing science curriculum for high
ability learners K-8: Final project report (Washington, DC, US Department of Education).
Walberg, H. J. & Herbig, M. P. (1997) Developing talent, creativity and eminence, in:
N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds) Handbook of gifted education (2nd edn) (Boston, MA,
Allyn & Bacon), 245255.
Weinert, F. E. (1991) Kreativitat: Fakten und Mythen, Psychologie heute, 18, 3037.

234 K. A. Heller
Weisberg, R. E. (1986) Creativity: Genius and other myths (2nd edn, 1993) (New York, Freeman).
Weisberg, R. W. (1993) Creativity. Beyond the myth of genius (New York, Guildford Press).
Wieczerkowski, W., Cropley, A. J. & Prado, T. M. (2000) Nurturing talents/gifts in mathematics,
in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook
of giftedness and talent (2nd edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 413425.
Ziegler, A. & Heller, K. A. (2000a) Approach and avoidance motivation as predictors of
achievement behavior in physics instructions among mildly and highly gifted 8th grade
students, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 343359.
Ziegler, A. & Heller, K. A. (2000b) Conditions for self-confidence among boys and girls achieving
highly in chemistry, Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 144243.
Ziegler, A. & Heller, K. A. (2000c) Effects of an attribution retraining with female students gifted
in physics, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 217243.
Ziegler, A. & Heller, K. A. (2002) Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective,
in: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook
of giftedness and talent (2nd edn, rev. repr.) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 321.
Ziegler, A. & Perleth, Ch. (1997) Schafft es Sisyphos, den Stein den Berg hinaufzurollen? Eine
kritische Bestandsaufnahme der Diagnose- und Fordermoglichkeiten in der beruflichen
Bildung vor dem Hintergrund des Munchner Begabungs-Proze-Modells, Psychologie in
Erziehung und Unterricht, 44, 152163.
Zuckerman, H. (1967) The sociology of the Nobel prizes, Scientific American, 217, 2533.
Zuckerman, H. (1987) Careers of men and women scientists: A review of current research, in:
L. S. Dix (Ed.) Women: Their under-representation and career differentials in science and
engineering (Washington, DC, National Academy Press), 2756.
Zuckerman, H. (1992) The scientific elite: Nobel laureates mutual influences, in: R. S. Albert
(Ed.) Genius and eminence (2nd edn) (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 157169.