The Blind-Variation and Selective-Retention Theory of Creativity: Recent Developments and Current Status of BVSR

References

• Allen, R., & Heaton, P. (2018). Can shared mechanisms of cultural evolution illuminate the process of creativity within the arts and the sciences. Progress in Brain Research, 237, 61–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.
   Google Scholar
• Bain, A. 1855. The senses and the intellect. London: Parker & Son.
   Google Scholar
• Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2007). Darwinian creativity in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 19(4), 375–379. doi:10.1080/10400410701753333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths & mechanisms (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associates problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(4), 634–639. doi:10.3758/BF03195543
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bowers, K. S., Regehr, G., Balthazard, C., & Parker, K. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 72–110. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(90)90004-N
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradie, M. (1995). Epistemology from an evolutionary point of view. In E. Sober (Ed.), Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology (2nd ed., pp. 454–475). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, A. (2021). Defining creativity: A view from the arts. Creativity Research Journal, 33(2), 81–95. doi:10.1080/10400419.2020.1855905
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briskman, L. (2009). Creative product and creative process in science and art. In M. Krausz, D. Dutton, & K. Bardsley (Eds.), The idea of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 17–41). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Original work published 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Bynum, W. F., & Porter, R. (Eds.). (2006). The Oxford dictionary of scientific quotations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380–400. doi:10.1037/h0040373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T. (1965). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In H. R. Barringer, G. I. Blanksten, & R. W. Mack (Eds.), Social change in developing areas (pp. 19–49). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24(4), 409–442. doi:10.1037/h0027982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T. (1974a). Evolutionary epistemology. In P. A. Schlipp (Ed.), The philosophy of Karl Popper (pp. 413–463). La Salle, IL: Open Court.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T. (1974b). Unjustified variation and selective retention in scientific discovery. In F. Ayala & T. Dobszhansky (Eds.), Studies in the philosophy of biology: Reduction and related problems (pp. 139–161). London, UK: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Carruthers, P. (2020). Mechanisms for constrained stochasticity. Synthese, 197(10), 4455–4473. doi:10.1007/s11229-018-01933-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, S. H. (2014). Cognitive disinhibition, creativity, and psychopathology. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 198–221). Oxford, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Chirico, A., Glăveanu, V. P., Cipresso, P., Riva, G., & Gaggioli, A. (2018). Awe enhances creative thinking: An experimental study. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 123–131. doi:10.1080/10400419.2018.1446491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copeland, S. (2019). On serendipity in science: Discovery at the intersection of chance and wisdom. Synthese, 196(6), 2385–2406. doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1544-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 242–266. doi:10.1037/a0021840
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12(11), 671–684. doi:10.1037/h0043943
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cziko, G. A. (1998). From blind to creative: In defense of Donald Campbell’s selectionist theory of human creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(3), 192–208. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00815.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cziko, G. A. (2001). Universal selection theory and the complementarity of different types of blind variation and selective retention. In C. Heyes & D. L. Hull (Eds.), Selection theory and social construction: The evolutionary naturalistic epistemology of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 15–34). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2011). From past to future art: The creative impact of Picasso’s 1935 Minotauromachy on his 1937 Guernica. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), 360–369. doi:10.1037/a0023017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2014). Diversifying experiences in the development of genius and their impact on creative cognition. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 375–393). Oxford, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Dasgupta, S. (2004). Is creativity a Darwinian process? Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 403–413. doi:10.1080/10400410409534551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dasgupta, S. (2010). On the blind-mindedness of creative thought. Physics of Life Reviews, 7(2), 188–189. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.05.002
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dasgupta, S. (2011). Contesting (Simonton’s) blind variation, selective retention theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 166–182. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.571190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York, UK: Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Park, J. (2014). An incomplete list of eminent psychologists of the modern era. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 2(1), 20–32. doi:10.1037/arc0000006
   Google Scholar
• Dietrich, A. (2019). Types of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(1), 1–12. doi:10.3758/s13423-018-1517-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietrich, A., & Haider, H. (2015). Human creativity, evolutionary algorithms, and predictive representations: The mechanics of thought trials. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 897–915. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0743-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle, C. (2008). Exploring the creation of Picasso’s Guernica: Composition studies, chance, metaphors, and expertise. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 445–450. doi:10.1080/10400410802391918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgin, M., & Sober, E. (2017). Popper’s shifting appraisal of evolutionary theory. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 7, 31–55. 2152–5188/2017/0701-0001.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, R. (1990). Generativity theory and creativity. In M. Runco & R. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 116–140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, R. (1991). Skinner, creativity, and the problem of spontaneous behavior. Psychological Science, 2(6), 362–370. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00168.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, R. (2015). Of course animals are creative: Insights from Generativity Theory. In A. B. Kaufman & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Animal creativity and innovation (pp. 375–390). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A. (1999). Creative expertise as superior reproducible performance: Innovative and flexible aspects of expert performance. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 329–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66938. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066938
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. London, UK: New Left Books.
   Google Scholar
• Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forthmann, B., Szardenings, C., & Dumas, D. (2021). Testing equal odds in creativity research. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(2), 324–339. doi:10.1037/aca0000294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forthmann, B., Szardenings, C., Dumas, D., & Feist, G. J. (2021). Strict equal odds: A useful reference to study the relationship between quality and quantity. Creativity Research Journal, 33(2), 96–105. doi:10.1080/10400419.2020.1827605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gable, S. L., Hopper, E. A., & Schooler, J. W. (2019). When the muses strike: Creative ideas of physicists and writers routinely occur during mind wandering. Psychological Science, 30(3), 396–404. doi:10.1177/0956797618820626
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabora, L. (2005). Creative thought as a nonDarwinian evolutionary process. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(4), 262–283. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01261.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabora, L. (2007). COMMENTARIES: Why the Creative Process Is Not Darwinian: Comment on ”The Creative Process in Picasso’s Guernica Sketches: Monotonic Improvements versus Nonmonotonic Variants”. Creativity Research Journal, 19(4), 361–365. doi:10.1080/10400410701753317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabora, L. (2010). Why blind-variation and selective-retention is an inappropriate explanatory framework for creativity. Physics of Life Reviews, 7(2), 182–183. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.04.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabora, L. (2011). An analysis of the blind variation and selective retention theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 155–165. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.571187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabora, L. (2015). Probing the mind behind the (literal and figurative) lightbulb. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 20–24. doi:10.1037/a0038075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garner, D., & Sehgal, P. (2021, June 18). 19 lines that turn anguish into art. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/18/books/elizabeth-bishop-one-art-poem.html
   Google Scholar
• Gocłowska, M. A., Damian, R. I., & Mor, S. (2018). The diversifying experience model: Taking a broader conceptual view of the multiculturalism–creativity link. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(2), 303–322. doi:10.1177/0022022116650258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, K., Anderson, S., Chen, E. E., Kelly, J. M., Christian, M., Patrick, J., … Lewis, K. (2019). “Forward flow”: A new measure to quantify free thought and predict creativity. American Psychologist, 74(5), 539–554. doi:10.1037/amp0000391
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Güss, D. C., Ahmed, S., & Dörner, D. (2021). From da Vinci’s flying machines to a theory of the creative process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1184–1197. doi:10.1177/1745691620966790
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harrington, D. M. (2018). On the usefulness of “value” in the definition of creativity: A commentary. Creativity Research Journal, 30(1), 118–121. doi:10.1080/10400419.2018.1411432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hass, R. W., & Weisberg, R. W. (2009). Career development in two seminal American songwriters: A test of the equal odds rule. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2–3), 183–190. doi:10.1080/10400410902855275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hélie, S., & Sun, R. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: A unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 117(3), 994–1024. doi:10.1037/a0019532
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heyes, C., & Hull, D. L. (Eds.). (2001). Selection theory and social construction: The evolutionary naturalistic epistemology of Donald T. Campbell. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hills, A., & Bird, A. (2019). Against creativity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 99(3), 694–713. doi:10.1111/phpr.12511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, W. (1880, October). Great men, great thoughts, and the environment. Atlantic Monthly, 46, 441–459.
   Google Scholar
• John, O. P. (2021). History, measurement, and conceptual elaboration of the Big-Five Trait taxonomy: The paradigm matures. In O. P. John & R. W. Robins (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (4th ed., pp. 35–82). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jung, R. E., & Chohan, M. O. (2019). Three individual difference constructs, one converging concept: Adaptive problem solving in the human brain. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 163–168. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung, R. E., Mead, B. S., Carrasco, J., & Flores, R. A. (2013). The structure of creative cognition in the human brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 330. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00330
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung, R. E., Wertz, C. J., Meadows, C. A., Ryman, S. G., Vakhtin, A. A., & Flores, R. A. (2015). Quantity yields quality when it comes to creativity: A brain and behavioral test of the equal-odds rule. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 864. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00864
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kantorovich, A. (1993). Scientific discovery: Logic and tinkering. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kantorovich, A., & Ne’eman, Y. (1989). Serendipity as a source of evolutionary progress in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 20(4), 505–529. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(89)90021-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Further evidence of BVSR in areas of aesthetic judgment and personality. Physics of Life Reviews, 7(2), 180–181. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.04.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kozbelt, A. (2007). A quantitative analysis of Beethoven as self-critic: Implications for psychological theories of musical creativity. Psychology of Music, 35(1), 144–168. doi:10.1177/0305735607068892
   Google Scholar
• Kozbelt, A. (2008). Longitudinal hit ratios of classical composers: Reconciling “Darwinian” and expertise acquisition perspectives on lifespan creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(4), 221–235. doi:10.1037/a0012860
   Google Scholar
• Kronfeldner, M. E. (2010). Darwinian ‘blind’ hypothesis formation revisited. Synthese, 175(2), 193–218. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9498-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupers, E., Lehmann-Wermser, A., McPherson, G., & van Geert, P. (2019). Children’s creativity: A theoretical framework and systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 89(1), 93–124. doi:10.3102/0034654318815707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langley, P., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, G. L., & Zythow, J. M. (1987). Scientific discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. S., Huggins, A. C., & Therriault, D. J. (2014). A measure of creativity or intelligence? Examining internal and external structure validity evidence of the Remote Associates Test. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 8(4), 446–460. doi:10.1037/a0036773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mach, E. (1896, January). On the part played by accident in invention and discovery. Monist, 6(2), 161–175. doi:10.5840/monist18966215
   Google Scholar
• Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans: II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 12(2), 181–194. doi:10.1037/h0071361
   Google Scholar
• Malthouse, E., Liang, Y., Russell, S., & Hills, T. (2022). The influence of exposure to randomness on lateral thinking in divergent, convergent, and creative search. Cognition, 218, 104937. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martindale, C. (1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic styles. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 249–268). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martindale, C. (1999). Darwinian, Lamarckian, and rational creativity. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 340–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martindale, C. (2009). Evolutionary models of innovation and creativity. In T. Rickards, M. Runco, & S. Moger (Eds.), Routledge companion to creativity (pp. 109–118). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232. doi:10.1037/h0048850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mesoudi, A. (2021). Blind and incremental or directed and disruptive? On the nature of novel variation in human cultural evolution. American Philosophical Quarterly, 58(1), 7–24. doi:10.2307/48600682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moxley, R. A. (1997). Skinner: From determinism to random variation. Behavior and Philosophy, 25, 3–28.
   Google Scholar
• Mumford, M. D., & Antes, A. L. (2007). Debates about the “general” picture: Cognition and creative achievement. Creativity Research Journal, 19(4), 367–374. doi:10.1080/10400410701753325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Nickles, T. (2003). Evolutionary models of innovation and the Meno problem. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 54–78). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Nickles, T. (2010). BVSR as an abstract schema for universal selection theory. Physics of Life Review, 7(2), 186–187. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.05.001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Perkins, D. N. (1998). In the country of the blind: An appreciation of Donald Campbell’s vision of creative thought. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(3), 177–191. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00814.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picciotto, R. (2019). Donald T. Campbell’s evolutionary perspective and its implications for evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 15(33), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poincaré, H. (1921). The foundations of science: Science and hypothesis, the value of science, science and method. G. B. Halstead, Trans. New York, NY: Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rastelli, C., Greco, A., Kenett, Y. N., Finocchiaro, C., & De Pisapia, N. (2022). Simulated visual hallucinations in virtual reality enhance cognitive flexibility. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 4027. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-08047-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritter, S. M., Damian, R. I., Simonton, D. K., van Baaren, R. B., Strick, M., Derks, J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 961–964. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothenberg, A. (2015). Flight from wonder: An investigation of scientific creativity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (2010). Creative thinking may be simultaneous as well as blind. Physics of Life Reviews, 7(2), 184–185. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.04.011
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92–96. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russ, S. W. (1999). An evolutionary model for creativity: Does it fit? Psychological Inquiry, 10, 359–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, D. (1983). Anything goes. Social Studies of Science, 13(3), 437–464. doi:10.1177/030631283013003005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Cooley, E. H., & Butner, J. E. (2021). The impact of complexity on methods and findings in psychological science. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–16. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Johnston, W. A. (2019). Redefining science: The impact of complexity on theory development in social and behavioral research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 672–690. doi:10.1177/1745691619848688
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Creativity, innovation, and nonobviousness. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 12, 461–487.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, E. (1953). Coleridge, opium, and Kubla Khan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schooler, J. W., & Dougal, S. (1999). Why creativity is not like the proverbial typing monkey. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 351–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shogenji, T. (2021). Probability and proximity in Surprise. Synthese, 198(11), 10939–10957. doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02761-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. doi:10.1037/h0042769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, D. (2013). Evolutionary optimization algorithms: Biologically inspired and population-based approaches to computer intelligence. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1985). Quality, quantity, and age: The careers of 10 distinguished psychologists. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 21(4), 241–254. doi:10.2190/KB7E-A45M-X8X7-DQJ4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1988a). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 251–267. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.104.2.251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1988b). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104(1), 66–89. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1998). Donald Campbell’s model of the creative process: Creativity as blind variation and selective retention. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(3), 153–158. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00812.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1999a). The continued evolution of creative Darwinism. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 362–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1999b). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10, 309–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1999c). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2002). Errors and inaccuracies. Contemporary Psychology, 47(1), 94. doi:10.1037/005132
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2003a). Human creativity: Two Darwinian analyses. In S. M. Reader & K. N. Laland (Eds.), Animal innovation (pp. 309–325). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2003b). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, process, and person perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 475–494. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.475
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2005). Darwin as straw man: Dasgupta’s (2004) evaluation of creativity as a Darwinian process. Creativity Research Journal, 17(4), 208–299. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1704_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2007a). FEATURED ARTICLE: The creative process in Picasso’s Guernica sketches: Monotonic improvements versus nonmonotonic variants. Creativity Research Journal, 19(4), 329–344. doi:10.1080/10400410701753291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2007b). REJOINDER: Picasso’s Guernica creativity as a Darwinian process: Definitions, clarifications, misconceptions, and applications. Creativity Research Journal, 19(4), 381–384. doi:10.1080/10400410701753341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2009a). Creativity as a Darwinian phenomenon: The blind-variation and selective-retention model. In M. Krausz, D. Dutton, & K. Bardsley (Eds.), The idea of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 63–81). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2009b). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 441–452. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01152.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2010a). Creativity as blind-variation and selective-retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews, 7(2), 156–179. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2010b). Reply to comments. Physics of Life Reviews, 7(2), 190–194. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.05.004
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2011a). Creativity and discovery as blind variation and selective retention: Multiple-variant definitions and blind-sighted integration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 222–228. doi:10.1037/a0023144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2011b). Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell’s (1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark. Review of General Psychology, 15(2), 158–174. doi:10.1037/a0022912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2012a). Combinatorial creativity and sightedness: Monte Carlo simulations using three-criterion definitions. International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 22(2), 5–17.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2012b). Foresight, insight, oversight, and hindsight in scientific discovery: How sighted were Galileo’s telescopic sightings? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(3), 243–254. doi:10.1037/a0027058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2012c). Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 97–106. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.676974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2013a). Creative problem solving as sequential BVSR: Exploration (total ignorance) versus elimination (informed guess). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2013b). Creative thought as blind variation and selective retention: Why sightedness is inversely related to creativity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33(4), 253–266. doi:10.1037/a0030705
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2013c). Creative thoughts as acts of free will: A two-stage formal integration. Review of General Psychology, 17(4), 374–383. doi:10.1037/a0032803
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2014). Hierarchies of creative domains: Disciplinary constraints on blind-variation and selective-retention. In E. S. Paul & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The philosophy of creativity: New essays (pp. 247–261). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2015a). Psychology as a science within Comte’s hypothesized hierarchy: Empirical investigations and conceptual implications. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 334–344. doi:10.1037/gpr0000039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2015b). “So we meet again!” – Replies to Gabora and Weisberg. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 25–34. doi:10.1037/aca0000004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2015c). Thomas Alva Edison’s creative career: The multilayered trajectory of trials, errors, failures, and triumphs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 2–14. doi:10.1037/a0037722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2016). Creativity, automaticity, irrationality, fortuity, fantasy, and other contingencies: An eightfold response typology. Review of General Psychology, 20(2), 194–204. doi:10.1037/gpr0000075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2017). Domain-general creativity: On producing original, useful, and surprising combinations. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu, & J. Baer (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity across different domains (pp. 41–60). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2018a). Creative genius as causal agent in history: William James’s 1880 theory revisited and revitalized. Review of General Psychology, 22(4), 406–420. doi:10.1037/gpr0000165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2018b). Defining creativity: Don’t we also need to define what is not creative? Journal of Creative Behavior, 52, 80–90. doi:10.1002/jocb.137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2021, August 23). Scientific creativity: Discovery and invention as combinatorial. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 721104. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.721104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2022). Serendipity and creativity in the arts and sciences: A combinatorial analysis. In W. Ross & S. Copeland (Eds.), The art of serendipity (pp. 293–320). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-L. (2016, November). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science, 354(6312), aaf5239. doi:10.1126/science.aaf5239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, B. F. (1981, July). Selection by consequences. Science, 213(4507), 501–504. doi:10.1126/science.7244649
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souriau, P. (1881). Theorie de I’invention. Paris, France: Hachette.
   Google Scholar
• Staw, B. M. (1990). An evolutionary approach to creativity and innovations. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 287–308). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Stein, E., & Lipton, P. (1989). Where guesses come from: Evolutionary epistemology and the anomaly of guided vision. Biology & Philosophy, 4(1), 33–56. doi:10.1007/BF00144038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in human creativity: Is variation blind or sighted? Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(3), 159–176. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00813.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Darwinian creativity as a conventional religious faith. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 357–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchow, J. W., Bourgin, D. D., & Griffiths, T. L. (2017). Evolution in mind: Evolutionary dynamics, cognitive processes, and Bayesian inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(7), 522–530. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suler, J. R. (1980). Primary process thinking and creativity. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 144–165. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.1.144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thagard, P. (2012). Creative combination of representations: Scientific discovery and technological invention. In R. Proctor & E. J. Capaldi (Eds.), Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 389–405). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. (1981). Evolution, adaptation, and human understanding. In M. B. Brewer & B. E. Collins (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the social sciences (pp. 18–36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Sherman, J. W. (2009). The practice of psychological science: Searching for Cronbach’s two streams in social-personality psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1206–1225. doi:10.1037/a0015173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsao, J. Y., Ting, C. L., & Johnson, C. M. (2019). Creative outcome as implausible utility. Review of General Psychology, 23(3), 279–292. doi:10.1177/1089268019857929
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vohs, K., Redden, J., & Rahinel, R. (2013). Physical order produces healthy choices, generosity, conventionality, whereas disorder produces creativity. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1860–1867. doi:10.1177/0956797613480186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
   Google Scholar
• Wasserman, E. A. (2021). As if by design: How creative behaviors really evolve. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weisberg, R. W. (2000). An edifice built on sand? [Review of Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity, D. K. Simonton]. Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 45(6), 589–593. doi:10.1037/002311
   Google Scholar
• Weisberg, R. W. (2004). On structure in the creative process: A quantitative case-study of the creation of Picasso’s Guernica. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 23–54. doi:10.2190/EH48-K59C-DFRB-LXE7
   Google Scholar
• Weisberg, R. W. (2014). Case studies of genius: Ordinary thinking, extraordinary outcomes. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 139–165). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Weisberg, R. W. (2015). Expertise, nonobvious creativity, and ordinary thinking in Edison and others: Integrating blindness and sightedness. Psychology of Aest0hetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 15–19. doi:10.1037/aca0000001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisberg, R. W. (2015a). Expertise, nonobvious creativity, and ordinary thinking in Edison and others: Integrating blindness and sightedness. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 15–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisberg, R. W. (2015b). On the usefulness of “value” in the definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 111–124. doi:10.1080/10400419.2015.1030320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisberg, R. W., & Hass, R. (2007). We are all partly right: Comment on Simonton. Creativity Research Journal, 19(4), 345–360. doi:10.1080/10400410701753309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (1997). No Free Lunch Theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 67–82. doi:10.1109/4235.585893
   Google Scholar
• Wuketits, F. M. (2001). The philosophy of Donald T. Campbell: A short review and critical appraisal. Journal Biology and Philosophy, 16(2), 171–188. doi:10.1023/A:1006721104642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar