Many recent studies support the idea that creativity is partially or totally “domain-general.” Certain individuals may exhibit greater creativity than the average, whatever the domain. More precisely, certain general factors (e.g., genetic factors, creative personality) could significantly impact creativity. This systematic review aims to evaluate this latter assertion. All empirical papers using at least two creative performance tasks in two domains were selected (n = 36). Results show that some participants succeed in creative tasks in several different domains, but only in experiments where specific prior knowledge is not controlled and tasks are artificial. Furthermore, certain studies conflate the function, which is domain-general, with its functioning, which may not necessarily be domain-general. For these reasons, the results appear less robust (no control for confounding factors) and less representative (creative tasks are not academically, socially, or professionally realistic). Therefore, it seems premature to recommend the integration of general creative skills into school or training programs, as well as the selection of students or employees with a presumed “creative profile.”

最近的许多研究都支持这样的观点：创造力部分或完全是“领域通用的”。无论在哪个领域，某些人都可能表现出比平均水平更高的创造力。更准确地说，某些一般因素（例如遗传因素、创造性人格）可能会显着影响创造力。本系统综述旨在评估后一种说法。选择所有在两个领域至少使用两项创造性绩效任务的实证论文（ n = 36）。结果表明，一些参与者在几个不同领域的创造性任务中取得了成功，但仅限于特定先验知识不受控制且任务是人为的实验。此外，某些研究将领域通用的功能与其不一定是领域通用的功能混为一谈。由于这些原因，结果显得不太稳健（无法控制混杂因素）且代表性较差（创造性任务在学术、社会或专业上不现实）。因此，建议将一般创造性技能纳入学校或培训计划以及选择具有假定“创造性特征”的学生或员工似乎还为时过早。