Domain-Generality Versus Domain-Specificity of Creativity

2009 ◽  
pp. 25-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Sternberg
Keyword(s):  
Domain Specificity ◽  
Domain Generality ◽  
Versus Domain

scholarly journals Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow

2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen ◽  
Adriana Biedroń ◽  
Peter Skehan
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Theory Development ◽  
Aptitude Tests ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Domain Generality ◽  
Versus Domain ◽  
Foreign Language Aptitude ◽  
Memory Perspective

Foreign language (FL) aptitude generally refers to a specific talent for learning a foreign or second language (L2). After experiencing a long period of marginalized interest, FL aptitude research in recent years has witnessed renewed enthusiasm across the disciplines of educational psychology, second language acquisition (SLA) and cognitive neuroscience. This paper sets out to offer a historical and an updated account of this recent progress in FL aptitude theory development and research. As its subtitle indicates, the paper centres on three major issues: following the introduction and clarification of basic concepts, Section 1 traces the early conceptions of FL aptitude dominated by John Carroll's pioneering work. Section 2 summarizes and examines more recent theoretical perspectives and FL aptitude models proposed by researchers from multiple disciplines that have significantly broadened the conventional research traditions associated with Carroll's original conception. Based on the research synthesis of current FL aptitude models, Section 3 suggests the directions FL aptitude theory and research might take in coming years. We conclude that a working memory perspective on FL aptitude presents one promising avenue for advance, as does the development of new aptitude tests to predict speed of automatization, implicit learning and greater control over an emerging language system. In addition, it is argued that issues of domain-specificity versus domain-generality for aptitude tests may lead to aptitude theory and research becoming more central in applied linguistics.

Task Rule-Congruency and Simon-Like Effects in Switching between Spatial Tasks

2005 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1023-1041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nachshon Meiran
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Spatial Task ◽  
Domain Specificity ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Task Rule ◽  
Switching Rule ◽  
Control Processes ◽  
Versus Domain ◽  
Spatial Tasks ◽  
Study Participants

In task switching, a response indicated as correct by both task rules is executed more quickly than one for which the rules disagree. This rule-congruency, so far demonstrated unequivocally only in nonspatial tasks, shows that the currently irrelevant task set is kept active. However, in spatial task-switching, rule-congruency could potentially reflect a preexperimental tendency that contributes to a Simon-like effect. In the present study, participants switched between RIGHT–LEFT and UP–DOWN tasks with either a standard key arrangement (e.g., upper key = UP) or a mapping-reversed arrangement (e.g., up = DOWN), which reverses the direction of the potential Simon-like effect but leaves potential rule-congruency effects unchanged. Mapping-reversal did not modulate any other effect, including rule-congruency, and therefore indicated rule-congruency unequivocally. Finally, implications concerning generality versus domain specificity of control processes in task switching are discussed.

The Relative State Model: Integrating Need-Based and Ability-Based Pathways to Risk-Taking

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandeep Mishra ◽  
Pat Barclay ◽  
Adam Sparks
Keyword(s):  
Risk Taking ◽  
State Model ◽  
Risk Sensitivity ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Decision Making Under Risk ◽  
Relative State ◽  
Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Domain Generality ◽  
Competitive Disadvantage ◽  
Versus Domain

Who takes risks, and why? Does risk-taking in one context predict risk-taking in other contexts? We seek to address these questions by considering two non-independent pathways to risk: need-based and ability-based. The need-based pathway suggests that risk-taking is a product of competitive disadvantage consistent with risk-sensitivity theory. The ability-based pathway suggests that people engage in risk-taking when they possess abilities or traits that increase the probability of successful risk-taking, the expected value of the risky behavior itself, and/or have signaling value. We provide a conceptual model of decision-making under risk—the relative state model—that integrates both pathways and explicates how situational and embodied factors influence the estimated costs and benefits of risk-taking in different contexts. This model may help to reconcile long-standing disagreements and issues regarding the etiology of risk-taking, such as the domain-generality versus domain-specificity of risk or differential engagement in antisocial and non-antisocial risk-taking.

Testing the Limits of Domain Specificity

1996 ◽  
Vol 41 (8) ◽  
pp. 828-829
Author(s):  
Amanda L. Woodward
Keyword(s):  
Domain Specificity
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document