↓ Skip to main content

Gender and creativity: an overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature

Overview of attention for article published in Brain Imaging and Behavior, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Gender and creativity: an overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature
Published in
Brain Imaging and Behavior, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11682-015-9410-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Abraham

Abstract

The topic of gender differences in creativity is one that generates substantial scientific and public interest, but also courts considerable controversy. Owing to the heterogeneous nature of the findings associated with this line of research, the general picture often appears puzzling or obscure. This article presents a selective overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature that has a relevant bearing on the theme of gender and creativity. Topics that are explored include the definition and methods of assessing creativity, a summary of behavioral investigations on gender in relation to creativity, postulations that have been put forward to understand gender differences in creative achievement, gender-based differences in the structure and function of the brain, gender-related differences in behavioral performance on tasks of normative cognition, and neuroscientific studies of gender and creativity. The article ends with a detailed discussion of the idea that differences between men and women in creative cognition are best explained with reference to the gender-dependent adopted strategies or cognitive style when faced with generative tasks.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 90 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 22%
Unspecified 17 18%
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 21 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 28%
Unspecified 20 22%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Arts and Humanities 8 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 24 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,032,094
of 13,186,646 outputs
Outputs from Brain Imaging and Behavior
#115
of 762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,828
of 234,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Imaging and Behavior
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,186,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.