One of the most interesting researched topics in the field of psychology and other related fields, is creativity. Despite the fact that several scientists and researchers were able to provide us comparable definitions of creativity, determining its influence in human cognition and productivity is still as complex as when we began being intrigued by the relationship between creativity and personality. As Simonton (1999) noted, defining creativity was a very complicated task, especially because the term can be used in a variety of approaches in different fields. Creativity, according to Stein (1974), achieves products that have originality (novelty, uniqueness) and quality (merit, significance). Prhabu et al (2008) provided a list of how creativity is defined based on field specializations: cognitive psychologists prefer to define creativity in terms of a mental process (Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995); creativity according to psychologists in experimental aesthetics is a product (Martindale, 1990; Simonton, 1989); personality psychologists identify creativity as a trait (F.X. Barron, 1969; Eysenck, 1993); and creativity as an outcome (Amabile, 1983) such as a novel idea (Amabile, 1988; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Moreover, Prahbu et al. (2008) defined creativity as “the generation of novel, original, and unique ideas concerning procedures and processes that can be used at work and are appropriate and significant to the problem or opportunity presented” (Amabile, 1988, 1997; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1991).
In this literature review, I will focus on the relationship of personality and gender to creativity. When it comes to understanding the relation between personality and creativity, regardless if creative personality mirrors traits that are common to those of psychoticism or psychopathy, how creativity is utilized as a trait (originality) and achievement (productivity) relies greatly on the interaction of all variables — cognitive, environmental, personality — collaboratively. Of course, I will not dismiss the neural and genetic factors, without even further convincing, I find their roles in personality development relevant, and extending such impression to creativity. However, verifying the relation between creativity and gender can be complex and confusing compared to determining the relationship between creativity and personality. More than just looking at the differences in personality traits among males and females, other factors such as evolutionary gap and social experiences between sexes are considered as well.
Through this literature review, I am hoping to provide a better understanding on the influence of personality and gender differences in creativity in the fields of arts and sciences. Furthermore, this literature review may be able to give us, most especially those who are interested in this research topic, new ideas, methods, techniques in investigating the relationship between personality and gender to creativity.
Personality and Creativity
“The discipline of personality psychology and creativity share an essential commonality: They both emphasize the uniqueness of the individual. The essence or a creative person is uniqueness of his or her ideas and behavior, whereas personality psychology is the study of what makes a person unique from others. Both disciplines also focus on the consistency and stability — or lack thereof — of such uniqueness (Feist, 1998, p. 290).
It is without a doubt that the relationship between personality and creativity has already been established, and with the emergence of recent studies exploring the relationship between personality and creativity, more factors have been identified beyond the behavioral, cognitive and social context of defining creativity. Other researchers have given emphasis on genetic, biological, neuropsychological, and neurochemical factors contributing to a person’s creativity.
First of all, let us begin to understand the relation of personality to creativity by looking at personality traits and domains that have significant influence to creativity. The study of Feist (1998) provided empirical data and evidence on the relation of personality with creativity. He accorded with the notion that for a person to be categorized as creative, one’s thought or behavior must be both novel—original and useful—adaptive (Feist, 1998). With this, Feist gave significance to the social aspect of creativity.
Feist answered both “between-groups” (artists and scientists; non-artists and scientists; artists and non-artists; scientists and non-scientists) and “within-groups” (creative and less creative) questions in his paper using empirical evidences collected through the use of personality inventories as well related studies and research. In comparing personality with scientific and artistic creativity among individuals, Feist utilized the Five-factor Model (FFM), the 16 Personality Factors Test (16PF), the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). Furthermore, his research tried to answer the following questions regarding the consistency of personality traits across a person’s life-span: if personality traits consistently distinguish artists from non-artists and scientists from non-scientists, and if said personality traits distinguish the most creative from the least creative.
Results from all the personality inventories and scales used — FMM, 16PF, CPI, and EPQ, were consistent with the results in terms of the common traits among creative people. In summary, creative people are more autonomous, introverted, open to new experiences, norm-doubting, self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive. The largest effect sizes are openness, conscientious, self-acceptance, hostility, and impulsivity. However, according to said results, creative people in art and science may share some unique personality profiles but not 100% similar from each other. According to Feist, artists are distinguished by their emotional instability, coldness and their rejecting of group norms, while scientists are tolerant, outgoing, and prefers structure but also likes freedom and individual initiative (Feist, 1998). The FFM dimension with the most empirical support in relation to creativity is openness to experience and that the five factors are more consistently related to artistic and scientific creativity than to everyday creativity (Feist, 1998). However, Feist suggests that future research must be conducted before relying completely in this conclusion.
Feist described the conceptual integration of personality and creativity based on social disposition, cognitive disposition, motivation, and affective disposition of a creative person. He associated asocial or antisocial and hostility behavior among creative people to their strong need for solitude and non-conformity. When it comes to the cognitive dispositions of creative people, Feist suggests that openness and flexibility are related to imagination (the cognitive factors in creative people’s personality traits) through divergent thinking or “thinking outside the box”. Moreover, as Feist suggested in the first parts of his paper that creativity is inherently social, for creative acts and ideas to be both socially novel and useful, one must have the drive and motivation to express his/her creativity acts and ideas in a manner that is understood by others and is socially acceptable. Finally, based on affective dispositions, affective disorders seem to be common among artistic professions (music, poetry, writing, painting, etc.) because of the emotional and internal affective states that is required of a creative artist in producing creative works. Also, the results from all the personality scales combined suggest that creative artists posses a relatively high levels of anxiety and emotional sensitivity.
In summary, Feist did not only gather valuable data regarding the shared and differing personality traits among creative and non-creative individuals in both the arts and sciences, but he also took into account the significant role of a creative person’s disposition in expressing creative behaviors and ideas, and his/her ability to express his/her creativity in a social setting through social interaction.
Another research exploring the relationship between creativity and personality gave emphasis on the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among creative individuals. Prabhu, Sutton, and Sauser (2008), tested eight hypotheses in their research: (i) The trait of self-efficacy will relate significantly and positively to creativity; (ii) perseverance will be positively and significantly related to creativity; (iii) Intrinsic motivation will mediate the relationship between openness to experience and creativity; (iv) Intrinsic motivation will mediate the relationship between self-efficacy and creativity; (v) Intrinsic motivation meditates the relationship between perseverance and creativity; (vi) Extrinsic motivation will moderate the relationship between openness to experience and creativity; (vii) Extrinsic motivation will moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and creativity; and (viii) Extrinsic motivation will moderate the relationship between perseverance and creativity.
Prabhu, Sutton, and Sauser (2008) gathered 124 undergraduate students who were enrolled in one of the four sections of an introductory management course at a large southeastern university,58% of which are men and all participants have a mean age of 21.7 years. All participants (students) are majoring in a variety field. To measure creativity, the researchers used the What Kind of Person Are you? (WKOPAY) Inventory.. To measure openness to experiences, the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) was used by the researchers. The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale was used by the researchers to measure self-efficacy. The four sub-scales of the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001) was used to measure perseverance. Finally, to measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, The Work Preference Inventory was used in this study.
Prabhu, Sutton, and Sauser (2008) discussed the results in a manner to which said results supported the hypotheses they presented . Creativity was significantly and positively related to self-efficacy — supporting their 1st hypothesis. Intrinsic motivation was found to be significantly and positively related with perseverance, however, perseverance turned out to show no relevance to creativity — rejecting their 2nd hypothesis. Intrinsic motivation and openness to experience were both significantly and positively correlated to creativity — supporting their 3rd hypothesis. Intrinsic motivation was also significantly related to all three personality trait (openness to experience, self-efficacy, motivation) — supporting their 3rd, 4th and 5th hypothesis. Furthermore, extrinsic motivation showed a negative correlation with creativity — rejecting their 6th, 7th and 8th hypothesis. They found support for the moderating role of extrinsic motivation in self-efficacy and perseverance but not in openness to experience. In summary, openness to experience and self-efficacy were proven to have close relation to creativity. Intrinsic motivation, according to the results provided by the authors, partially mediated the relationship between creativity and openness to experience, but completely mediated the relationship between creativity and self-efficacy. When it comes to the moderating role of extrinsic motivation, they found that it completely moderated the relationship between creativity and perseverance, and that extrinsic motivation partially moderated the relationship between self-efficacy and creativity. At low and mean levels of extrinsic motivation, perseverance has no correlation with creativity, but at high levels of extrinsic motivation, perseverance had a negative association with creativity.
Since the researchers have a very extensive background and knowledge in the field of (business, human resource, general, etc.) management, they mentioned the applicability of the study on how companies, managers, and people in management positions will be able to encourage creativity (productivity, problem-solving, etc.) among their employees based on intrinsic motivation instead of relying too much on extrinsic motivation. Prabhu, Sutton, and Sauser (2008) suggested that since enhancing self-efficacy also improves intrinsic motivation, which in turn increases creativity, companies must provide training and a work environment that transforms employee’s self-concept and improve their self-efficacy.
Creativity has been associated with intelligence as well as psychopathology by many researchers and scientists. A lot of studies conducted exploring this relationship provided important data crucial to the understanding of the rationale behind such association of creativity to psychopathology. Eysenck (1993), for instance, attempted to determine the relation of creativity with personality while exploring the association of creativity with traits found on people high on psychoticism. His paper delved into the various concepts of creativity, the validity of creativity tests, the relation of creativity to mental abnormality, development of theoretical model for creativity and the comparison of creativity with intelligence. His research provided an extensive list of findings and studies conducted by other theorists, scientists and psychologists regarding the relation of creativity to that of personality traits, originality, psychoticism, genetic factors (DNA), and intelligence (based on Intelligence Quotient and genius). Eysenck also postulated a theory with regard to the relation between insanity and genius, that genuinely creative people are high on P (psychoticicsm) factor and that the idiosyncratic responses by creative people using the word association test (WAT) is a reliable measure of psychosis, of psychoticism, and of creativity. He found out that by merely using word association test, the variance of creativity can be proven and tested. Since Eysenck is a huge advocate of factor analysis, most of the studies he cited in his research and those that he conducted himself used factor and criterion analysis — mathematical and statistical approach in correlating factors in his P—creativity theory. However, Eysenck’s research focused more on the development of a model that can be used to prove the validity of measurements he suggested (personality and intelligence inventories, and those that are specific with age such as the Junior EPQ), rather than focusing on valid and reliable methods of measurement.
Eysenck’s P—creativity theory explains (a) the observed difference between creativity as a personality trait (originality) and creativity as demonstrated by scientific or artistic achievement and (b) the difference between creativity and intelligence (Eysenck, 1993). Creativity, based on Spearman (1923, 1927), whose definition is supported by Eysenck (1983), is a personality characteristic rather than a cognitive characteristic. A close term for creativity being a personality characteristic is “originality”. His P—creativity model helped determine the difference between creativity as a trait — measurable through psychometric tests, and creativity identified by exceptional achievement — defined through products of scientific or artistic work. According to Eysenck and the Price-Lotka Law, originality (creativity as a trait) is assumed to be necessary but not enough of a condition for creative achievement. Originality is a trait of creativity and not synonymous to creativity and that originality by itself is not enough to be considered creativity. His paper also suggests that creative achievement is possible if cognitive variables (intelligence, knowledge, technical skills, special talents), environmental variables (political—religious, cultural, socio-economic, education factors), and personality variables (internal motivation, confidence, non-conformity, originality) interact multiplicatively with originality (creativity as a trait) and produce the J-shaped curve of productivity (Price-Lotka Law). Furthermore, according to Spearman’s (1923, 1927) the definition of intelligence is “creating something new” — also a definition of creativity. Eysenck argued that even though intelligence is a necessary trait in the production of creative works, it is not by itself a determinant and sufficient.
In determining the factors behind originality or the trait of creativity, Eysenck asserts that the fundamental role in creativity is played by a trait of personality and psychoticism. In the case of creativity, psychoticism is characterized by a “wide associative horizons” or “overinclusiveness” which resembles the traits of psychotic patients, specifically schizophrenics. His P—creativity model aims to prove and test the following: persons genetically related to psychotics are unusually creative; P is related to tested creativity (originality); P is related to creative achievement; creative persons often suffer psychopathology; and that the identical cognitive styles are characteristics of psychotics, high P scores and creative achiever. While Eysenck tried to avoid the earlier and known association of creativity to psychotic tendencies, he went on and discussed the role of DNA or genetic heredity to cognitive features or neurochemical processes linked with trait creativity. According to Eysenck, the behavior as well as the cognitive behavior of normal people who scores high in P (psychoticism) factor resembles the behavior and cognitive behavior of psychotic patients in many ways and that both groups of people are characterized by overinclusiveness that was and can be measured through tests like WAT. However, Eysenck suggests that the degree of psychoticism and its relation to the traits of people with high P (psychoticism) scores is not universal. Therefore, the P factor’s relationship with creativity may vary based on gender, age, eminence (found in season of birth field), degrees of (cognitive and behavioral) arousal, and worldly success (creative achievement). One of the studies he cited provided a particular finding regarding the degree of wide associative horizons that normal offsprings of psychotic or schizophrenic biological parents possess. Normal people scoring high on P factor may share the same traits and characteristics similar to people suffering from psychoses and/or schizophrenia, however genius, intelligence, and most especially creativity is not directly related to psychosis. Why? Because psychosis includes traits and other aspects that are not helpful to creative achievement and that psychosis lacks necessary aspects to bring about creative achievement. When it comes to traits in creativity, the high P factors possessed by successful creative people involve strong personality characteristics that enables such individuals to be productive amidst the challenges faced by said creative people, such as social pressure for conformity and uniformity. This is to say that creativity in relation to personality high in P factor , should not be considered as higher tendency for psychopathology, rather a determinant of shared traits and characteristics that empowers genuinely creative individual to attain productivity in producing valuable scientific or artistic works.
Furthermore, Reuter’s (2005) research tested (i) if Eysenck’s theory that P (psychoticism) should be related to creativity, (ii) whether T (testosterone), due to its association with P claimed in the literature, can be identified as a biological marker of creativity, and (iii) whether the SEEK dimension of the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales (ANPS) was also related to creativity and testosterone due to its relationship to Sensation Seeking.
The sample used in the test is composed of N=48 students (18 males and 30 females, with the (M) mean age of 23.47, SD =4.40). All students who volunteered to participate were undergraduate students and not familiar with the achievement tests used. The ratio between males and females was not intended but because of the imbalance the gender ration among psychology students at the university. The researchers used the EPQ-R (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) and Pankepp’s ANPS (Davis et al., 2003) to assess psychoticism and the SEEK dimension. To measure creativity, the Berlin Intelligence Structure Test (BIS, Jager, 1997) was utilized and used the test artery “inventiveness” since BIS defines creativity as a subcomponent of intelligence. Two tests for each component were administered: ZF and ZK for figural creativity, MA and AM for verbal creativity, TN and ZR for numeric creativity. To measure intelligence, the researchers used Cattell’s CFT3-3 (Catell & Weiss,1971) and the knowledge test of the Structure-of-Intelligence Test (Intelligenz-Struktur Test, IST 200 R; Amthauer, Brocke, Liepmann & Beauducel, 2001). In determining testosterone levels in the subjects, full saliva samples were collected prior to the psychologic tests analyzed through the LABOTEC analyser. Finally, the influence of of personality on creativity was tested by ANOVA designs with the median dichotomized personality scored P and SEEK respectively as independent factors (Reuter, et al., 2005).
According to the results of Reuter’s (2005) study, testosterone levels were not related to creativity regardless of gender. Testosterone was also not related to psychoticism but an endocrinological marker of SEEK. Subjects with big testosterone level had significantly higher SEEK scores regardless of gender. The data suggests that the influence of testosterone on creativity is questionable but the similar effect of creativity (cognitive marker) and testosterone (biological marker) on SEEK should be considered for its high reliability in terms of measurement.
Another study conducted by Chavez-Eakle, Lara, and Cruz-Fuentes (2006), also explored the possible and significant relationship between creativity and psychopathology. The purpose of their research, as stated, was to evaluate the relation among creativity, temperament and character and psychopathological distress. In their research, they divided the participants, all from Mexico City, into three groups: (i) Group I — 30 people with high creative achievement who where dedicated to full-time scientific or artistic creation, who had won national prizes in art or science, and who were members of the National System of Researchers and National System of Creators in Mexico; (ii) Group II — the control group composed of 30 people who were administrative staff and graduate students from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, employees of the National Institute of Psychiatry “Ramon de la Fuente”, and members of parents association — none of these people displayed signs and symptoms of psychiatric disorders according to clinical interviews based on the DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, APA citation, 2000); and (iii) Group III — composed of 30 psychiatric outpatients of the National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente, none of whom were receiving psychopharmacological treatment at the time of evaluation. The included diagnoses of the psychiatric patients were mainly major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder (panic attacks, general anxiety), and others included social phobia, obsessive- compulsive disorder and bipolar disorder. Dementia and acute psychosis patients were excluded (Chavez-Eakle et al., 2006). Torrence Tests for Creative Thinking (TTCT), Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and Symptom Check List—90 were administered to all participants.
The results of the statistical analyses of their research suggests that Group 1 (high creative achievement in art or science) exhibited the highest scores on both Figural and Verbal TTCT tests while Group II (control) showed a normal distribution of the CI (creativity index). Few people belonging to Group II (control group) and Group III (psychiatric patients) presented high CI (Creativity Index). There were no significant differences in age or sex among groups, although significant difference for education were found. Exploratory excitability, a sub-scale of NS (novelty seeking) showed significant differences among groups. Group I presented the highest NS1 scores and no observed difference were encountered for the other NS sub-scales (impulsivity, extravagance, or disorderliness) or for the total NS trait score. HA (Harm Avoidance) was significantly lower in Group I, whereas Group III displayed highest scores on HA. SDi (Self-directedness) was significantly high on Group I and Group III scored the lowest. Group I also scored high on C (cooperativeness) and persistence (differences were not significant) . Both Groups I and III scored high on self-transcendence, while Group II scored lowest. However, no significant differences were observed for this dimension. In terms of psychopathology, high scores were exhibited by Group III as expected, and both Groups I and III score low on the psychopathology dimension expect for Group I scoring high on anxiety.
Chavez-Eakle, Lara, and Cruz-Fuentes (2006) concluded that in terms of temperament and character profile associated with high CI, the only novelty-seeking sub-scale that they found that is associated with creativity was exploratory excitability (NS1) while the rest of the subs-scales (impulsivity, extravagance, and disorderliness) has no relation to creativity. Other temperament traits that highly creative people possess based on high CI were persistence, self-directedness (responsibility, goal direction, resourcefulness, self-acceptance, congruency), and high cooperativeness (empathy, tolerance, integrated consciousness). Also, both highly creative people (maturity) and psychiatric patients (schizotypal traits) showed the highest scores on self-transcendence compared to healthy control subjects. Finally, when it comes to the correlation between psychopathology and creativity, the results of their research suggest that when psychopathology is high, people performs the lowest under the creativity dimensions (flexibility, abstraction, premature closure resistance, emotional expressiveness, vivid imagination, colorful imagination, unusual visualization, humor and fantasy). With this, Chavez-Eakle, Lara, and Cruz-Fuentes (2006) suggested that when it comes to treating psychopathology among highly creative patients, mental health practitioners should encourage said individuals to enhance and utilize their creative potentials and turn them into creative achievements.
As Eysenck (1993) have discussed the role of DNA or genetic heredity on cognitive features or neurochemical processes linked to creativity, other researchers distinctly emphasized on said factors such as genetic heredity, DNA, neuropsychology, and neurochemistry. Carson’s (2011) research discussed about the relations between creativity and mental illness through the vulnerability factors and protective factors. Furthermore, mental illnesses previously and currently associated with creativity was also discussed, such as mood disorders (especially bipolar spectrum disorders), schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD), and alcoholism (substance abuse disorders). With all the gathered studies relating creativity with mood disorders, Carson summarized all the findings as: (i) creative people may possess a greater risk for BD than the general population; (iii) creative outputs benefit more in mild forms of bipolar pathology or genetic risk for BD than severe forms of illness; (iii) several studies suggest that creativity run in families; and (iv) creativity is moderated by shifts in mental states associated with mood (Carson, 2011). When relating creativity with SSD, Carson summarized the evidences provided by SSD studies as: (i) divergent thinkers and creative people are more prone to schizotypy and psychosis; (ii) proneness to schizotypy and psychosis seems to run in families; and (iii) similar to BD, severe forms of SSD impair creativity while milder symptoms are more conducive to creativity (Carson, 2011). Finally, studies relating creativity to substance abuse disorders suggest that, even though alcoholism is believed to inspire creativity in creative people, just like BD and SSD, in excess, is damaging to creative efforts.
Under the shared genetic vulnerability model that Carson had presented, she provided three vulnerability factors: reduced latent inhibition (LI), neural hyper connectivity, and novelty seeking. With reduced LI, Carson and other researchers suggest that high-functioning people who established high scores on measures of creativity and openness to experience exhibits reduced latent inhibition (LI). Second, novelty seeking can post both positive influence on creativity as well as risk factor for psychopathology. This is due to the close association of novelty seeking with substance abuse, and with bipolar states of hypomania and mania — as people with BD and substance abuse disorders scored high on measure of novelty seeking. Third, hyperconnectivity, as speculated by Ramachandran and Hubbard (2001), may form the basis of human metaphorical thinking which is shared between creative people and those experiencing hypomania, psychotic episodes and drug intoxication.
Under the protective factors, Carson presented three factors such as high IQ, enhanced working memory, and cognitive flexibility. With high IQ as a protective factor, Carson et al. hypothesized that if reduced LI increases the stimuli available to conscious awareness, then high IQ may allow a person to process and manipulate the additional stimuli rather than becoming confused or overwhelmed by it. Second, people with enhanced working memory are more capable of processing additional stimuli coming from altered states of consciousness. Third, people with flexible cognitive ability are more capable of moving in and out of altered states of consciousness and interpret bizarre phenomenons in a healthy manner.
Carson also discussed about the molecular genetic studies conducted to correlate creativity and mental illness (BD, SSD, alcoholism). In said studies, 5-HT or serotonin and DA or dopamine transmissions were the primary focus. It is suggested that, since genetic variations and their possible significance to creative ideation is still theoretical, further studies involving genes and their polymorphisms is recommended.
To conclude, Carson provided an important applicability of the data and knowledge gathered from her research. She believes that people who are suffering from BD, SSD and addiction disorders will very much benefit from predisposing them to creative modes of thought. Since people who are suffering from said pathologies share similar genetic and cognitive factors as highly-functioning creative people, intervention and redirection of psychopathic / psychotic behaviors into creative fields may help said individuals relieve their symptoms and access their innate creativity.
In determining the relation between creativity and psychosis, Keri focused his research on the gene neuregulin 1. According to Harrison and Law (2006), neuregulin 1 affect neuronal (neurone — a specialized cell transmitting nerve impulses ) development, synaptic plasticity, glutamatergic neurotransmission and glial functioning (Keri, 2009).
200 healthy participants with high intellectual and academic performance were invited to participate in Keri’s research to answer the question regarding the relation between the neuregulin 1 promoter polymorphism and creativity. All participants were proved to not be suffering or suffered from any (DSM) psychiatric or neurological disorders based on a clinical interview conducted among participants . Keri assessed the participants’ IQ (Wechsler, 1981), socioeconomic status (Hollingshead Four-Factor Index; Cirino et al., 2002), and schizotypal traits (Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire; Raine, 1991). Creative Achievement Questionnaire (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005), and the “Just Suppose” subtest of the Torrence Test of Creative Thinking (Torrence, 1974; Table 1) were also administered. Genomic DNA was extracted from venous blood samples and genotyping was performed using TaqMan Bioassay (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). The correlation between genotypes and creativity scores was determined with ANOVA (analysis of variance) and hierarchal regression analyses.
Keri’s research found that biologically relevant promoter polymorphism of the neuregulin 1 gene has a significant impact on creativity. The T/T genotype, which is previously been proved to be related to psychosis risk and altered brain structure and function (Hall et al., 2002; Keri, Kiss, & Kelemen, 2009; McIntosh et al., 2008), was associated with the highest creativity scores when lifetime achievement or laboratory scores of creative thinking were taken into consideration” (Keri, 2009). The results of the research also showed a homogeneity of creativity among individuals who have high intellectual and academic performance, based on IQ scores, years of education and socioeconomic status.
In conclusion, Keri’s hypothesis asserts that polymorphism leading to creativity may be linked to reduced latent (cognitive) inhibition (Braunstein-Bercovitz & Lubow, 1998) and increased creativity in people with high intelligence (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2003). The studies conducted by Hall et al. (2006) and Stefanis et al. (2007), shows that the promoter polymorphism of the neuregulin 1 gene affects the functioning of the prefrontal cortex — important in cognitive inhibition and creativity. Decrease in prefrontal functions may lead to creative peaks in highly functioning people regardless if they are in the presymptomatic stage of severe neurodegenerative (degeneration of the nervous system esp. the neurons in the brain) illness (Seeley et al., 2008). Finally, with the findings of Keri’s research as well as the results of his tests, he suggests that the hypothesis of his research must be extended and reviewed.
Finally, the research of Chavez-Eakle, Eakle, & Cruz-Fuentes (2012) reviewed the multiple relations between creativity and personality, and the instruments used to measure to identify the relation between creativity and personality. They explored the following four major relations between creativity and personality: (i) personality traits present in highly creative individuals, (ii) effects of personality trait on the realization of the creative potential, (iii) effects of creative potential in personality development, and (iv) critical developmental events that shape personality and impact creativity maturation (Chavez-Eakle, et al., 2012).
Chavez-Eakle, Eakle, & Cruz-Fuentes (2012) discussed the different personality assessment tools commonly used to find the relation between creativity and personality specific among individuals in different developmental stages — children, adolescents, young adult and adult and applicable to different multicultural settings. Chavez-Eakle et al. (2006) found strong negative correlations between creativity and psychopathology using the Symptom Checklist 90 on all sub-scales: somatization, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid, ideation, psychoticism. While flexibility, abstraction, premature closure resistance, emotional expressiveness, imagination, humor and fantasy are the most affected by psychopathology (Chavez-Eakle et al., 2006). The authors also discussed the biological foundations of the creative personality, which involves the studies linking molecular genetics to creativity (Martindale, 2007) — association between the serotonin transporter gene 5’SLC6A4 and the temperament traits harm avoidance and novelty seeking in highly creative individuals (Chavez et al., 2003), and the association between dopamine receptor DRD4 gene and the creativity index (Chavez, 2004; Chavez-Eakle, 2007). The relation between cerebral blood flow (CBF) and creative performance was also discussed in their research.
When Chavez-Eakle, Eakle, & Cruz-Fuentes (2012) discussed about the developmental perspective of creative and personality, they gave emphasis on the early experiences of individuals and how said experiences are crucial to a person’s psychological growth, giving way to healthy personality and development of creative potential. They discussed about the importance of “play” in encouraging creativity among school-age children. Furthermore, the authors suggest that the role of caregivers and how they relate / interact with children is also crucial to the holistic well-being of all children and incorporated the importance of free play and learning activities necessary for the development of creative potential in children. They ended their paper with suggestions regarding changes ( and improvement) in education strategies and policies, and quality of childcare that will help shape the personality of children and encourage the fulfillment of creative potential among children and adolescents.
Gender and Creativity
Describing the relationship between gender and creativity is one, if not the most debatable topic concerning creativity. Currently, no distinguishable and clear association has been made between gender differences in creative ability and creative achievement. This particular discussion has been filled with different speculations as well as observations by many scientists and researchers. According to Greer (1979), “there is then no female Leonardo, no female Titian, no female Poussin, but the reason does not lie in the fact that women have wombs, that they can have babies, that their brains are smaller, that they lack vigor, that they are not sensual. The reason is simply that you cannot make great artists out of egos that have been damaged, with will that are defective, with libidos that have been driven out of reach and energy diverted into neurotic channels” (p. 327). Heintz (1977) asserts that females are usually taught to be passive, affiliative, receptive, and supportive, males to manipulate the environment actively (Abra & Valentine-French, 1991). On the other hand, Riley (1973) argues that the question of sex in terms of creative ability in art is entirely irrelevant, since art is “hermaphroditic”, both masculine and feminine.
The paper of Abra and Valentine-French (1991) provided several factors and compelling arguments on how creative ability and creative achievement differ among sexes. They included the possible factors and explanations on the gender differences when it comes to creative ability and creative achievement: (1) Physical difference, (2) Inadequate education and training, (3) Modeling, (4) Confidence, (5) Insecurity, (6) Procreation, (7) Aspiration / Perfectionism, (8) Persistence / Stubbornness, (9) Task Value, (10) Psychopathology, (11) Mediocrity of women, (12) Naiveté, (13) Selfishness, (12) Need for others’ approval, (13) Independence / Nonconformity, (14) Competitiveness, (15) Alienation, (16) Biased cultural standards, and (17) Different fields of excellence. With each possible factors, Abra and Valentine-French provided conceivable explanations through the different findings and statements of other psychologists, scientists and researchers.
In physical difference, Abra and Valentine-French laid out possible differences between males and females based on the nervous system (Hebb, 1949); talent and “giftedness as being inborn and evident as early as during infancy (Greenacre, 1971a); activities in the endocrine system and variations in hormonal concentrations (Ronald, 1985; Juschka, 1987); left/right brain hemispheres and their organizations (Ornstein, 1972; Bogen & Bogen, 1976; Wallas, 1970; Goleman, 1980); and androgyny (McGee, 1979; Kimura, 1987).
For inadequate education and training, Abra and Valentine-French laid out possible differences between males and females based on childhood experiences (Bloom, 1985; Feldman, 1980); reshuffling of experience or subjecting one’s self in trying out more responses / trial-and-error (Koestler, 1970; Mednick, 1962; Poin-cart, 1952); denial of access to preparation, training, education, and apprenticeship in particular fields such as arts and sciences among women (Abra & Valentine-French, 1991; Greet, 1979); difference in reinforcement of creative behaviors between girls and boys (Torrance, 1963); and female paucity in the field of hard sciences as well as other traditionally acceptable areas such as language and education (Oden, 1968; Terman, 1926).
When it comes to modeling, Abra and Valentine-French presented an explanation regarding the creative propensities among men and women based on Bandura’s modeling principles (1977, 1978; Bandura & Walters, 1963), that women acquire creative behaviors and abilities by observing their mothers, female teachers, any female role model etc., whereas men observe their fathers, male teachers, and most likely the greater male population of prominent individuals who have made huge contributions in the fields of arts (music, painting, etc.) and sciences (physics, astronomy, chemistry ,engineering, etc.).
In confidence, Abra and Valentine-French laid out possible differences between males and females based on self assertiveness, arrogance, dominance, strong ego and weakness in self-criticism (May, 1975); autonomy, chance- and risk-taking (Cropley, 1970; Rotter, 1954; Strickland, 1989 ); capacity for sublimation, which Freud (1947) believes predicts creative talent and work; “masculinity" as a necessary trait to levels of self-esteem / self-confidence (Freud, 1961; Helson, 1967; Whitley, 1983; Lips, 1988; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Schaefer, 1969, Barron); social competence, competition and dominance (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Lips, 1988); gender self-concept (Nash, 1979; Signorella & Jaminson, 1979); and psychological androgyny (Bern, 1985; Spence & Helmreich, 1978; MacKinnon, 1962).
When it comes to insecurity, Ferris (personal communication, March, 1980) suggested that “for most women, becoming wife and mother have provided unquestioned ultimate purpose for life and bestowed consistent qualities to their self-concept — thus protected from existential anxiety, they may have found creative work superfluous”. He continued that, “modern women now face the same doubts and ambiguities as men because of the rise of feminism and the questioning, even ridiculing, or traditional priorities”. With this being said, the question still remains as why there are less recognized and acknowledged artistic and scientific works done by women.
In procreation, Carey’s (1990) research presented information on how having children affects a person’s creative endeavors. In his paper, several female artists with children argued that having children did decrease their resources but also helped increase intellectual and emotional flexibility and broadened their personal experience (Abra & Valentine-French, 1991).
When it comes to age, Abra and Valentine-French discussed the arguments presented by Lehman (1953), Dennis (1958, 1966), and Gedo (1983). According to Lehman (1953), a person’s best and most work might occur during one’s late 20’s and through one’s 30’s, both quantity and quality declining steadily thereafter. On the other hand, Gedo (1983) argued that most women seem to spend most of their productive years raising families and that Lehman’s conclusions placed women in a disadvantaged position.
I did not present all the factors listed by Abra and Valentine-French, nevertheless, their paper provided valuable explanations regarding the gender gap in creative ability and creative achievements. They incorporated concepts and principles from personality psychologists, scientists, and findings of other researchers in understanding the influence of nature and nature to the gender differences in creativity. To conclude, their explanations suggest that women have been disadvantaged all throughout history in terms of developing and expressing creativity due to biological (hormones, brain organization, etc.), psychological (personality traits and domains) as well as social (stereotype, environment conducive to creativity, access to resources education, and training) factors. It is also worth considering the achievements and works that our society highly value, whose contributors are mostly males, placing any creative works and achievements of women inferior compared to men’s.
“… social roles have not been structured so that many women would ever become high achievers. It is hard to feel a sense of mystery about why there are more eminent men than women (p. 46) … Differences between men and women in biology and early socialization experience are ‘exaggerated' by culture” (Helson, 1990, p. 47).
Another study investigating the evidence of gender differences in creativity was conducted by Baer and Kaufman (2006). In their paper, they proposed a new theoretical framework (the APT model of creativity) in understanding the known gender differences in creativity. First, they discussed about gender differences in scores on creativity. Divergent thinking tests have dominated creativity testing, and various Torrance Tests (Torrance, 1966a, 1966b, 1966c, 1970, 1981, 1988, 1990a, 1990b; Torrance, Khatena, & Cunnington, 1973) have dominated the field of divergent thinking testing — most popular are the Torrance Tests for Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1966c, 1970, 1974, 1990a, 1990b). According to Baer and Kaufman, longitudinal validation studies of the Torrance Tests for Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1966c, 1974) have suggested that divergent thinking tests are more predictive of creative behavior in males than females (Arnold & Subotnik, 1994; Cramond, 1994; Howeison, 1981). However, these validity studies were also criticized for lacking validity (Anastasi, 1982; Baer, 1993; Crockenberg, 1972; Kogan, 1983). Many studies have tried to find evidence in gender differences through scores on tests for divergent thinking and creativity. Some found that women and girls scored higher on creativity tests than men and boys, while some reported the opposite. This is to say that test scores predicting creativity were not able to provide consistent results to fully explain gender differences in creativity.
The second area that Baer and Kaufman explored is the gender differences in subjective assessments (self-report assessments of creativity). They listed several studies conducted exploring this particular topic. During Goldsmith and Matherly’s (1988) experiment, they found that there are no gender differences in self-report measures for creativity among 118 college students who also completed three self-report measures of self-esteem. Moreover, they found a positive correlation between the self-report measures of creativity and the self-report measures of self-esteem, but the relationship was both stronger and more consistent for women than for men. Baer and Kaufman then compared these results to Forisha’s (1978) study, which found that creative production in women was associated with sex-role masculinity (a construct that includes the personality traits of competence and self-reliance). Runco’s (1986a) study found significant gender differences only for a self-report of quantity performance (e.g., “never”, “once or twice”, “three to five times”, “six or more times”) in music performance. Chan (2005) asked 212 gifted Chinese students to self-assess their creativity, family hardiness, and emotional intelligence, and found no significant gender differences for all constructs. Henderson (2003) found no gender differences in self-reported creative achievement of 247 inventors working in multinational firms, however, women in this study reported more publications and conference presentations than men. Gough’s assessment (1992) found that the Creative Personality scale (Gough, 1979) was the only one of 37 Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) scales that was significantly correlated with creativity for both women (.26) and men (.17). He also compared correlations of women’s and men’s creativity ratings with their scores in California Personality Inventory scales. Overall, the patterns showed only minor differences. A new scale, Creative Temperament (CT), was developed using the same sample of 1,028 psychology graduate students (623 men, 405 women) at the University of California at Berkley and their professors’ ratings of their creativity. In this sample, CT scale was correlated with the creativity rating of both women (.33) and men (.25).
When it comes to creative personality tests, several studies exploring personality traits and domains associated with creativity were presented as well. McCare et al. (2002) tested 1,947 high school students and found females scored significantly higher on Openness. Misra (2003) studied 156 Indian students and found higher Openness scores in females. Other studies found no difference in Openness to Experience, including Hakstian and Farrell (2001; 2,375 college students and non-management job applicants) and Harris (2004; 404 undergraduates). Costa, Terraciano, and McCrae (2001) analyzed gender differences in Openness to Experience based on secondary analysis of 23,031 people from 26 cultures. They analyzed different components of Openness to Experience, and found that women scored higher than men in Openness to Aesthetics, Feelings, and Actions. Men scored higher than women on Openness to Ideas and that there were no difference on Openness to Fantasy or Values between sexes.
In understanding the effects of extrinsic constraints on motivation, Baer’s (1997) research found that boys’ creative performance were not affected by neither intrinsic (subjects were told that their poems and stories would not be evaluated) and extrinsic motivations (subjects were led to expect evaluation), but girls show otherwise. The result of this research was confirmed in a follow-up study conducted by Baer (1998b). Also, Conti, Collins, Picariello (2001) found that girls were less creative in competitive situations and boys were more creative in competitive situations.
In conclusion, Baer and Kaufman’s paper presented the following important arguments associating gender differences with creativity: creativity tests are intended to measure general divergent thinking skills that are hypothesized to influence creative performance across domains; divergent thinking tests are, in general, more predictive of creative achievement in males than females (Arnold & Subotnik, 1994; Cramond, 1994; Howieson, 1981); work environments of men compared to women are more conducive to creative expression and accomplishment; societal constraints, expectations, and experiences differ among males and females; availability of opportunities and resources for creative expression and achievement are not equally distributed among sexes; and that our society value creative works and achievements that are typically produced by men than women.
One of the most recent studies conducted exploring the relationship of gender and gender role with creativity, was that of Stoltzfus et al. (2011). In their research, they used 136 undergraduate students and assessed the participants creative ability using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1998) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence & Helmreich, 1978) — a 24-item self-report scale — to assess the psychological dimensions of masculine and feminine gender role characteristics of there participants. Participants were also instructed to: 1) list as many unusual uses as possible for a tin can; 2) list as many unusual uses as possible for a cardboard box; and 3) complete a picture construction task using an oval shape centered on a blank sheet of paper.
The results of their assessment suggest that there were no significant differences between men and women in the tin can exercise for fluency, flexibility, and unusual uses. There were no significant gender differences in the cardboard box exercise for fluency and flexibility. Although, a significant difference on unusual uses for the card board box was found. When it comes to verbal creativity scores, males outperformed females on all measures, but said result was not statistically significant. On the picture construction task, males scored significantly higher than females.
In the gender role—creativity analysis, Stoltzfus et al. found that there were no significant main effects or interactions for verbal creativity measures for the tin can and cardboard exercises. However, they found a significant main effect for gender role categories on the picture construction task. The results suggest that androgynous individuals (high on both Masculine and Feminine) scored the highest on creativity, followed by masculine individuals (high on Masculine and low on Feminine), then feminine individuals (high on Feminine and low on Masculine). Furthermore, masculine females had a higher mean score than feminine females but not androgynous females. Among genders, androgynous individuals scored higher than all other categories of gender role.
In conclusion, the findings of Stoltzfus et al. suggest that the difference, though not significant, in creativity among males and females when it comes to novelty thinking or originality during the tin can and card board exercise, can be explained through the rationale that responsiveness to particular feminine social roles may have hindered creative efforts among female participants. This idea was attributed to Piirto (1991), Reis (1999), Simonton (2000), and Kogan's (1974) argument regarding the effect of social expectations and demands among women that negatively impacts women’s development of creativity and creative expression. Also, Stoltzfus et al. found that androgyny benefits creativity among women, whereas men who identifies with opposite-gender roles exhibited the highest levels of creativity among males. Both men and women who reported highly masculine gender role self-attributions exceeded the performance of undifferentiated participants and feminine females. They believe that the results of their analysis support earlier findings when it comes to the influence of gender role in creativity, such as the conclusion that the psychology of creative men is a feminine psychology, whereas the psychology of creative women is a masculine psychology (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, 1976); and creative boys are perceived to be more feminine than other boys, while creative girls exhibits more traditionally masculine characteristics compared to other girls (Torrance,1963).
Conclusion
I believe that a lot of studies exploring the relationship between creativity and personality were able to provide valuable data and knowledge in understanding such phenomena. We looked at the personality traits and facets that impact a person’s creative ability and expression. We then found out that creative people and those who suffer from psychopathy share almost identical traits and characteristics — presenting a fine line between creativity and psychopathy. In my opinion, the association of creativity to psychopathy has been very intriguing, if not the most intriguing one. How can we link such “giftedness”, talent, skill, or intelligence to mental disorder? A lot of studies have somehow proved the possible and close correlation between creativity and psychopathic personality but the point proven was not about looking at the negative impact of such traits to a person’s mental health, rather on how to develop and maneuver said traits to creative expression, achievement and productivity that are considered novel (original or enhanced version of another original work) and useful (not just to one’s self but to society as well). It is also great that the researchers presented practical applications of their research, such as in the field of education, childhood development, management, psychotherapy, intervention, and so forth. Such studies proved to us the importance of creativity in all aspects of our lives and how necessary it is for us to create an environment that is conducive to the development of creative potential among people of all ages, gender, ethnicity, culture, etc. The research studies conducted regarding creativity also proved that creativity is not limited to the concept of creativity in the form of artistic endeavors, but also in skills such as problem-solving, and divergent-thinking as well as different forms of intelligence such as in the fields of mathematics and sciences.
When it comes to the association of gender to creativity, we may find the inconsistency as well as the complexity of the findings among various studies placing one gender (females) into a disadvantaged position when it comes to creativity. Aside from the biological factors that influence the gender differences in creativity (i.e. level of testosterone that affects a person’s level of masculinity — factor that is hypothesized to contribute to the gender differences in creativity), personality factors (i.e. the difference in personality traits among men and women — men as more open to new ideas, higher levels of self-esteem, more aggressive and self-assertive than women), social factors (i.e. women’s social expectations, demands, roles, and stereotypes), the environmental factors were given emphasis by most researchers and scientists.
One of the major arguments in relating gender differences with creativity is the gender gap in creative contributions among males and females in their preferred fields, be it in the arts (music, painting, theater, choreography, etc.) or sciences (medicine, biology, psychology, mathematically-intensive fields or the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, computer science, etc.). Finding out reasons why there are very few (creative) women with contributions in musical composition, in the field of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), breakthroughs in the field of psychology or even recognized art works, are just some of the arguments that has not been clearly answered up until now when it comes to gender differences in creativity. Even though women have made a fair amount of novel and useful creative achievements and equally creative contributions in fields such as education, medicine, literature, and choreography, what most societies value as creative products and achievements, I believe, has a strong impact on the perpetuation of the gender bias in creativity. According to Ceci and Williams, currently women comprise about half of the M.D.’s, two-thirds of psychology Ph.D.’s, and three-quarters of veterinary medicine doctorates, more than seven times as high as in the 60’s (2010, p.5). Today, larger gender gaps in various fields of hard sciences that are highly occupied by men, have been the focus of research and discussion concerning the relation of gender to creativity.
The paper of Hill and Rogers (2012) discussed the gender gaps in science through the creativity factors. Several arguments regarding the gender gaps in creativity were presented such as biological sex differences ( Ceci & Williams, 2010, p. 180); social factors (Ceci & Williams, 2010, p 183); career field choices and preferences among men and women (Ceci & Williams, 2010, p 179-180; Piirto, 1991); curiosity — another factor associated with success in science (Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004, p. 295); risk-taking between males and females — “Male participants are more likely to take risks than female participants” (Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999, p 337); evolutionary specializations and advantage — “male specializations in hunting and making artifacts may have been more cognitively demanding than female specializations in gathering and child rearing” (Ceci, Williams, & Barnett, 2009,, p 237); and sociocultural experiences — “boys are frequently allowed more freedom of movement, more permission to cross streets and roam further in neighborhoods, more indulgence for climbing and jumping” (Honig, 2001, p. 115).
They also mentioned that a lot of institutions have made some really huge efforts in reducing gender gap in the field of sciences. The ADVANCE program (Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers) by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) intends “to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers”. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) provided a current grant of $1.4 million to two faculty researchers for a single three-year study entitled Assessing and Reducing Gender Bias in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics).
I believe that environments conducive to creative expression and productivity should not be limited only to members of our society that belong to a particular category based on gender, age, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and race. When it comes to creativity, our society must become more open and welcoming of other creative achievements and products that are not limited to certain fields. It has been said that a work is considered creative if it is novel and useful. Therefore, we should not limit creative products and achievements to those that we think are considered valuable and superior in our society. Yes, creativity is an ability, a gift that not all of us may completely possess or be successful at utilizing. However, I personally believe that creativity must not be constrained within the impression of difficult tasks and highly complex thinking.
I agree that personality traits can predict creative abilities. However, when we speak of gender gaps in creativity, the impact of inequality in our society then becomes a major factor. Of course, we do not want to consider bias in allocation of resources and opportunities to be the most practical reason why there is a gender gap and difference in creative achievements and products. I believe that soon we will be able to talk about creative achievements in any field of specialization — arts and/or sciences, without looking at which gender have the greatest contributions. Finally, as much as our world and every society is evolving due to globalization, technological advancements and scientific breakthroughs, we may eventually come up with a new definition of creativity and I am hoping that the future “creative” person will not be classified based solely on age, socio-economic status, educational background, race, ethnicity, and most importantly, gender. According to Piirto’s (1999) closing paragraph from her article, Why Are There So Few? (Creative Woman: Visual artists, mathematicians, musicians): “Is the new developmental research on girls going to provide another excuse given for women's lack of achievement in creative fields? Since creatively gifted boys and girls are remarkably alike in personality, except for their intensity and commitment to the field of creativity, educators should focus on encouraging commitment and intensity for both boys and girls. It is that sort of motivation that may rectify gender inequities and allow an open and unrestrained exploration of the best that each person can be”. I believe that not all of us are born to be geniuses with exceptional intelligence but we all should have the opportunity to hone our creativity in any field that interests us or valuable to us, not just the fields that our society considers important. We should also refrain from discouraging each other, instilling self-doubt and anxiety to those whom we believe are incapable of excelling in particular fields based on stereotypes and prejudices. Rather, we must encourage each other in discovering and developing our creative abilities, allowing everyone into creative productivity that will not only benefit the creators but our society as a whole.
In this literature review, I will focus on the relationship of personality and gender to creativity. When it comes to understanding the relation between personality and creativity, regardless if creative personality mirrors traits that are common to those of psychoticism or psychopathy, how creativity is utilized as a trait (originality) and achievement (productivity) relies greatly on the interaction of all variables — cognitive, environmental, personality — collaboratively. Of course, I will not dismiss the neural and genetic factors, without even further convincing, I find their roles in personality development relevant, and extending such impression to creativity. However, verifying the relation between creativity and gender can be complex and confusing compared to determining the relationship between creativity and personality. More than just looking at the differences in personality traits among males and females, other factors such as evolutionary gap and social experiences between sexes are considered as well.
Through this literature review, I am hoping to provide a better understanding on the influence of personality and gender differences in creativity in the fields of arts and sciences. Furthermore, this literature review may be able to give us, most especially those who are interested in this research topic, new ideas, methods, techniques in investigating the relationship between personality and gender to creativity.
Personality and Creativity
“The discipline of personality psychology and creativity share an essential commonality: They both emphasize the uniqueness of the individual. The essence or a creative person is uniqueness of his or her ideas and behavior, whereas personality psychology is the study of what makes a person unique from others. Both disciplines also focus on the consistency and stability — or lack thereof — of such uniqueness (Feist, 1998, p. 290).
It is without a doubt that the relationship between personality and creativity has already been established, and with the emergence of recent studies exploring the relationship between personality and creativity, more factors have been identified beyond the behavioral, cognitive and social context of defining creativity. Other researchers have given emphasis on genetic, biological, neuropsychological, and neurochemical factors contributing to a person’s creativity.
First of all, let us begin to understand the relation of personality to creativity by looking at personality traits and domains that have significant influence to creativity. The study of Feist (1998) provided empirical data and evidence on the relation of personality with creativity. He accorded with the notion that for a person to be categorized as creative, one’s thought or behavior must be both novel—original and useful—adaptive (Feist, 1998). With this, Feist gave significance to the social aspect of creativity.
Feist answered both “between-groups” (artists and scientists; non-artists and scientists; artists and non-artists; scientists and non-scientists) and “within-groups” (creative and less creative) questions in his paper using empirical evidences collected through the use of personality inventories as well related studies and research. In comparing personality with scientific and artistic creativity among individuals, Feist utilized the Five-factor Model (FFM), the 16 Personality Factors Test (16PF), the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). Furthermore, his research tried to answer the following questions regarding the consistency of personality traits across a person’s life-span: if personality traits consistently distinguish artists from non-artists and scientists from non-scientists, and if said personality traits distinguish the most creative from the least creative.
Results from all the personality inventories and scales used — FMM, 16PF, CPI, and EPQ, were consistent with the results in terms of the common traits among creative people. In summary, creative people are more autonomous, introverted, open to new experiences, norm-doubting, self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive. The largest effect sizes are openness, conscientious, self-acceptance, hostility, and impulsivity. However, according to said results, creative people in art and science may share some unique personality profiles but not 100% similar from each other. According to Feist, artists are distinguished by their emotional instability, coldness and their rejecting of group norms, while scientists are tolerant, outgoing, and prefers structure but also likes freedom and individual initiative (Feist, 1998). The FFM dimension with the most empirical support in relation to creativity is openness to experience and that the five factors are more consistently related to artistic and scientific creativity than to everyday creativity (Feist, 1998). However, Feist suggests that future research must be conducted before relying completely in this conclusion.
Feist described the conceptual integration of personality and creativity based on social disposition, cognitive disposition, motivation, and affective disposition of a creative person. He associated asocial or antisocial and hostility behavior among creative people to their strong need for solitude and non-conformity. When it comes to the cognitive dispositions of creative people, Feist suggests that openness and flexibility are related to imagination (the cognitive factors in creative people’s personality traits) through divergent thinking or “thinking outside the box”. Moreover, as Feist suggested in the first parts of his paper that creativity is inherently social, for creative acts and ideas to be both socially novel and useful, one must have the drive and motivation to express his/her creativity acts and ideas in a manner that is understood by others and is socially acceptable. Finally, based on affective dispositions, affective disorders seem to be common among artistic professions (music, poetry, writing, painting, etc.) because of the emotional and internal affective states that is required of a creative artist in producing creative works. Also, the results from all the personality scales combined suggest that creative artists posses a relatively high levels of anxiety and emotional sensitivity.
In summary, Feist did not only gather valuable data regarding the shared and differing personality traits among creative and non-creative individuals in both the arts and sciences, but he also took into account the significant role of a creative person’s disposition in expressing creative behaviors and ideas, and his/her ability to express his/her creativity in a social setting through social interaction.
Another research exploring the relationship between creativity and personality gave emphasis on the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among creative individuals. Prabhu, Sutton, and Sauser (2008), tested eight hypotheses in their research: (i) The trait of self-efficacy will relate significantly and positively to creativity; (ii) perseverance will be positively and significantly related to creativity; (iii) Intrinsic motivation will mediate the relationship between openness to experience and creativity; (iv) Intrinsic motivation will mediate the relationship between self-efficacy and creativity; (v) Intrinsic motivation meditates the relationship between perseverance and creativity; (vi) Extrinsic motivation will moderate the relationship between openness to experience and creativity; (vii) Extrinsic motivation will moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and creativity; and (viii) Extrinsic motivation will moderate the relationship between perseverance and creativity.
Prabhu, Sutton, and Sauser (2008) gathered 124 undergraduate students who were enrolled in one of the four sections of an introductory management course at a large southeastern university,58% of which are men and all participants have a mean age of 21.7 years. All participants (students) are majoring in a variety field. To measure creativity, the researchers used the What Kind of Person Are you? (WKOPAY) Inventory.. To measure openness to experiences, the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) was used by the researchers. The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale was used by the researchers to measure self-efficacy. The four sub-scales of the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001) was used to measure perseverance. Finally, to measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, The Work Preference Inventory was used in this study.
Prabhu, Sutton, and Sauser (2008) discussed the results in a manner to which said results supported the hypotheses they presented . Creativity was significantly and positively related to self-efficacy — supporting their 1st hypothesis. Intrinsic motivation was found to be significantly and positively related with perseverance, however, perseverance turned out to show no relevance to creativity — rejecting their 2nd hypothesis. Intrinsic motivation and openness to experience were both significantly and positively correlated to creativity — supporting their 3rd hypothesis. Intrinsic motivation was also significantly related to all three personality trait (openness to experience, self-efficacy, motivation) — supporting their 3rd, 4th and 5th hypothesis. Furthermore, extrinsic motivation showed a negative correlation with creativity — rejecting their 6th, 7th and 8th hypothesis. They found support for the moderating role of extrinsic motivation in self-efficacy and perseverance but not in openness to experience. In summary, openness to experience and self-efficacy were proven to have close relation to creativity. Intrinsic motivation, according to the results provided by the authors, partially mediated the relationship between creativity and openness to experience, but completely mediated the relationship between creativity and self-efficacy. When it comes to the moderating role of extrinsic motivation, they found that it completely moderated the relationship between creativity and perseverance, and that extrinsic motivation partially moderated the relationship between self-efficacy and creativity. At low and mean levels of extrinsic motivation, perseverance has no correlation with creativity, but at high levels of extrinsic motivation, perseverance had a negative association with creativity.
Since the researchers have a very extensive background and knowledge in the field of (business, human resource, general, etc.) management, they mentioned the applicability of the study on how companies, managers, and people in management positions will be able to encourage creativity (productivity, problem-solving, etc.) among their employees based on intrinsic motivation instead of relying too much on extrinsic motivation. Prabhu, Sutton, and Sauser (2008) suggested that since enhancing self-efficacy also improves intrinsic motivation, which in turn increases creativity, companies must provide training and a work environment that transforms employee’s self-concept and improve their self-efficacy.
Creativity has been associated with intelligence as well as psychopathology by many researchers and scientists. A lot of studies conducted exploring this relationship provided important data crucial to the understanding of the rationale behind such association of creativity to psychopathology. Eysenck (1993), for instance, attempted to determine the relation of creativity with personality while exploring the association of creativity with traits found on people high on psychoticism. His paper delved into the various concepts of creativity, the validity of creativity tests, the relation of creativity to mental abnormality, development of theoretical model for creativity and the comparison of creativity with intelligence. His research provided an extensive list of findings and studies conducted by other theorists, scientists and psychologists regarding the relation of creativity to that of personality traits, originality, psychoticism, genetic factors (DNA), and intelligence (based on Intelligence Quotient and genius). Eysenck also postulated a theory with regard to the relation between insanity and genius, that genuinely creative people are high on P (psychoticicsm) factor and that the idiosyncratic responses by creative people using the word association test (WAT) is a reliable measure of psychosis, of psychoticism, and of creativity. He found out that by merely using word association test, the variance of creativity can be proven and tested. Since Eysenck is a huge advocate of factor analysis, most of the studies he cited in his research and those that he conducted himself used factor and criterion analysis — mathematical and statistical approach in correlating factors in his P—creativity theory. However, Eysenck’s research focused more on the development of a model that can be used to prove the validity of measurements he suggested (personality and intelligence inventories, and those that are specific with age such as the Junior EPQ), rather than focusing on valid and reliable methods of measurement.
Eysenck’s P—creativity theory explains (a) the observed difference between creativity as a personality trait (originality) and creativity as demonstrated by scientific or artistic achievement and (b) the difference between creativity and intelligence (Eysenck, 1993). Creativity, based on Spearman (1923, 1927), whose definition is supported by Eysenck (1983), is a personality characteristic rather than a cognitive characteristic. A close term for creativity being a personality characteristic is “originality”. His P—creativity model helped determine the difference between creativity as a trait — measurable through psychometric tests, and creativity identified by exceptional achievement — defined through products of scientific or artistic work. According to Eysenck and the Price-Lotka Law, originality (creativity as a trait) is assumed to be necessary but not enough of a condition for creative achievement. Originality is a trait of creativity and not synonymous to creativity and that originality by itself is not enough to be considered creativity. His paper also suggests that creative achievement is possible if cognitive variables (intelligence, knowledge, technical skills, special talents), environmental variables (political—religious, cultural, socio-economic, education factors), and personality variables (internal motivation, confidence, non-conformity, originality) interact multiplicatively with originality (creativity as a trait) and produce the J-shaped curve of productivity (Price-Lotka Law). Furthermore, according to Spearman’s (1923, 1927) the definition of intelligence is “creating something new” — also a definition of creativity. Eysenck argued that even though intelligence is a necessary trait in the production of creative works, it is not by itself a determinant and sufficient.
In determining the factors behind originality or the trait of creativity, Eysenck asserts that the fundamental role in creativity is played by a trait of personality and psychoticism. In the case of creativity, psychoticism is characterized by a “wide associative horizons” or “overinclusiveness” which resembles the traits of psychotic patients, specifically schizophrenics. His P—creativity model aims to prove and test the following: persons genetically related to psychotics are unusually creative; P is related to tested creativity (originality); P is related to creative achievement; creative persons often suffer psychopathology; and that the identical cognitive styles are characteristics of psychotics, high P scores and creative achiever. While Eysenck tried to avoid the earlier and known association of creativity to psychotic tendencies, he went on and discussed the role of DNA or genetic heredity to cognitive features or neurochemical processes linked with trait creativity. According to Eysenck, the behavior as well as the cognitive behavior of normal people who scores high in P (psychoticism) factor resembles the behavior and cognitive behavior of psychotic patients in many ways and that both groups of people are characterized by overinclusiveness that was and can be measured through tests like WAT. However, Eysenck suggests that the degree of psychoticism and its relation to the traits of people with high P (psychoticism) scores is not universal. Therefore, the P factor’s relationship with creativity may vary based on gender, age, eminence (found in season of birth field), degrees of (cognitive and behavioral) arousal, and worldly success (creative achievement). One of the studies he cited provided a particular finding regarding the degree of wide associative horizons that normal offsprings of psychotic or schizophrenic biological parents possess. Normal people scoring high on P factor may share the same traits and characteristics similar to people suffering from psychoses and/or schizophrenia, however genius, intelligence, and most especially creativity is not directly related to psychosis. Why? Because psychosis includes traits and other aspects that are not helpful to creative achievement and that psychosis lacks necessary aspects to bring about creative achievement. When it comes to traits in creativity, the high P factors possessed by successful creative people involve strong personality characteristics that enables such individuals to be productive amidst the challenges faced by said creative people, such as social pressure for conformity and uniformity. This is to say that creativity in relation to personality high in P factor , should not be considered as higher tendency for psychopathology, rather a determinant of shared traits and characteristics that empowers genuinely creative individual to attain productivity in producing valuable scientific or artistic works.
Furthermore, Reuter’s (2005) research tested (i) if Eysenck’s theory that P (psychoticism) should be related to creativity, (ii) whether T (testosterone), due to its association with P claimed in the literature, can be identified as a biological marker of creativity, and (iii) whether the SEEK dimension of the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales (ANPS) was also related to creativity and testosterone due to its relationship to Sensation Seeking.
The sample used in the test is composed of N=48 students (18 males and 30 females, with the (M) mean age of 23.47, SD =4.40). All students who volunteered to participate were undergraduate students and not familiar with the achievement tests used. The ratio between males and females was not intended but because of the imbalance the gender ration among psychology students at the university. The researchers used the EPQ-R (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) and Pankepp’s ANPS (Davis et al., 2003) to assess psychoticism and the SEEK dimension. To measure creativity, the Berlin Intelligence Structure Test (BIS, Jager, 1997) was utilized and used the test artery “inventiveness” since BIS defines creativity as a subcomponent of intelligence. Two tests for each component were administered: ZF and ZK for figural creativity, MA and AM for verbal creativity, TN and ZR for numeric creativity. To measure intelligence, the researchers used Cattell’s CFT3-3 (Catell & Weiss,1971) and the knowledge test of the Structure-of-Intelligence Test (Intelligenz-Struktur Test, IST 200 R; Amthauer, Brocke, Liepmann & Beauducel, 2001). In determining testosterone levels in the subjects, full saliva samples were collected prior to the psychologic tests analyzed through the LABOTEC analyser. Finally, the influence of of personality on creativity was tested by ANOVA designs with the median dichotomized personality scored P and SEEK respectively as independent factors (Reuter, et al., 2005).
According to the results of Reuter’s (2005) study, testosterone levels were not related to creativity regardless of gender. Testosterone was also not related to psychoticism but an endocrinological marker of SEEK. Subjects with big testosterone level had significantly higher SEEK scores regardless of gender. The data suggests that the influence of testosterone on creativity is questionable but the similar effect of creativity (cognitive marker) and testosterone (biological marker) on SEEK should be considered for its high reliability in terms of measurement.
Another study conducted by Chavez-Eakle, Lara, and Cruz-Fuentes (2006), also explored the possible and significant relationship between creativity and psychopathology. The purpose of their research, as stated, was to evaluate the relation among creativity, temperament and character and psychopathological distress. In their research, they divided the participants, all from Mexico City, into three groups: (i) Group I — 30 people with high creative achievement who where dedicated to full-time scientific or artistic creation, who had won national prizes in art or science, and who were members of the National System of Researchers and National System of Creators in Mexico; (ii) Group II — the control group composed of 30 people who were administrative staff and graduate students from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, employees of the National Institute of Psychiatry “Ramon de la Fuente”, and members of parents association — none of these people displayed signs and symptoms of psychiatric disorders according to clinical interviews based on the DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, APA citation, 2000); and (iii) Group III — composed of 30 psychiatric outpatients of the National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente, none of whom were receiving psychopharmacological treatment at the time of evaluation. The included diagnoses of the psychiatric patients were mainly major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder (panic attacks, general anxiety), and others included social phobia, obsessive- compulsive disorder and bipolar disorder. Dementia and acute psychosis patients were excluded (Chavez-Eakle et al., 2006). Torrence Tests for Creative Thinking (TTCT), Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and Symptom Check List—90 were administered to all participants.
The results of the statistical analyses of their research suggests that Group 1 (high creative achievement in art or science) exhibited the highest scores on both Figural and Verbal TTCT tests while Group II (control) showed a normal distribution of the CI (creativity index). Few people belonging to Group II (control group) and Group III (psychiatric patients) presented high CI (Creativity Index). There were no significant differences in age or sex among groups, although significant difference for education were found. Exploratory excitability, a sub-scale of NS (novelty seeking) showed significant differences among groups. Group I presented the highest NS1 scores and no observed difference were encountered for the other NS sub-scales (impulsivity, extravagance, or disorderliness) or for the total NS trait score. HA (Harm Avoidance) was significantly lower in Group I, whereas Group III displayed highest scores on HA. SDi (Self-directedness) was significantly high on Group I and Group III scored the lowest. Group I also scored high on C (cooperativeness) and persistence (differences were not significant) . Both Groups I and III scored high on self-transcendence, while Group II scored lowest. However, no significant differences were observed for this dimension. In terms of psychopathology, high scores were exhibited by Group III as expected, and both Groups I and III score low on the psychopathology dimension expect for Group I scoring high on anxiety.
Chavez-Eakle, Lara, and Cruz-Fuentes (2006) concluded that in terms of temperament and character profile associated with high CI, the only novelty-seeking sub-scale that they found that is associated with creativity was exploratory excitability (NS1) while the rest of the subs-scales (impulsivity, extravagance, and disorderliness) has no relation to creativity. Other temperament traits that highly creative people possess based on high CI were persistence, self-directedness (responsibility, goal direction, resourcefulness, self-acceptance, congruency), and high cooperativeness (empathy, tolerance, integrated consciousness). Also, both highly creative people (maturity) and psychiatric patients (schizotypal traits) showed the highest scores on self-transcendence compared to healthy control subjects. Finally, when it comes to the correlation between psychopathology and creativity, the results of their research suggest that when psychopathology is high, people performs the lowest under the creativity dimensions (flexibility, abstraction, premature closure resistance, emotional expressiveness, vivid imagination, colorful imagination, unusual visualization, humor and fantasy). With this, Chavez-Eakle, Lara, and Cruz-Fuentes (2006) suggested that when it comes to treating psychopathology among highly creative patients, mental health practitioners should encourage said individuals to enhance and utilize their creative potentials and turn them into creative achievements.
As Eysenck (1993) have discussed the role of DNA or genetic heredity on cognitive features or neurochemical processes linked to creativity, other researchers distinctly emphasized on said factors such as genetic heredity, DNA, neuropsychology, and neurochemistry. Carson’s (2011) research discussed about the relations between creativity and mental illness through the vulnerability factors and protective factors. Furthermore, mental illnesses previously and currently associated with creativity was also discussed, such as mood disorders (especially bipolar spectrum disorders), schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD), and alcoholism (substance abuse disorders). With all the gathered studies relating creativity with mood disorders, Carson summarized all the findings as: (i) creative people may possess a greater risk for BD than the general population; (iii) creative outputs benefit more in mild forms of bipolar pathology or genetic risk for BD than severe forms of illness; (iii) several studies suggest that creativity run in families; and (iv) creativity is moderated by shifts in mental states associated with mood (Carson, 2011). When relating creativity with SSD, Carson summarized the evidences provided by SSD studies as: (i) divergent thinkers and creative people are more prone to schizotypy and psychosis; (ii) proneness to schizotypy and psychosis seems to run in families; and (iii) similar to BD, severe forms of SSD impair creativity while milder symptoms are more conducive to creativity (Carson, 2011). Finally, studies relating creativity to substance abuse disorders suggest that, even though alcoholism is believed to inspire creativity in creative people, just like BD and SSD, in excess, is damaging to creative efforts.
Under the shared genetic vulnerability model that Carson had presented, she provided three vulnerability factors: reduced latent inhibition (LI), neural hyper connectivity, and novelty seeking. With reduced LI, Carson and other researchers suggest that high-functioning people who established high scores on measures of creativity and openness to experience exhibits reduced latent inhibition (LI). Second, novelty seeking can post both positive influence on creativity as well as risk factor for psychopathology. This is due to the close association of novelty seeking with substance abuse, and with bipolar states of hypomania and mania — as people with BD and substance abuse disorders scored high on measure of novelty seeking. Third, hyperconnectivity, as speculated by Ramachandran and Hubbard (2001), may form the basis of human metaphorical thinking which is shared between creative people and those experiencing hypomania, psychotic episodes and drug intoxication.
Under the protective factors, Carson presented three factors such as high IQ, enhanced working memory, and cognitive flexibility. With high IQ as a protective factor, Carson et al. hypothesized that if reduced LI increases the stimuli available to conscious awareness, then high IQ may allow a person to process and manipulate the additional stimuli rather than becoming confused or overwhelmed by it. Second, people with enhanced working memory are more capable of processing additional stimuli coming from altered states of consciousness. Third, people with flexible cognitive ability are more capable of moving in and out of altered states of consciousness and interpret bizarre phenomenons in a healthy manner.
Carson also discussed about the molecular genetic studies conducted to correlate creativity and mental illness (BD, SSD, alcoholism). In said studies, 5-HT or serotonin and DA or dopamine transmissions were the primary focus. It is suggested that, since genetic variations and their possible significance to creative ideation is still theoretical, further studies involving genes and their polymorphisms is recommended.
To conclude, Carson provided an important applicability of the data and knowledge gathered from her research. She believes that people who are suffering from BD, SSD and addiction disorders will very much benefit from predisposing them to creative modes of thought. Since people who are suffering from said pathologies share similar genetic and cognitive factors as highly-functioning creative people, intervention and redirection of psychopathic / psychotic behaviors into creative fields may help said individuals relieve their symptoms and access their innate creativity.
In determining the relation between creativity and psychosis, Keri focused his research on the gene neuregulin 1. According to Harrison and Law (2006), neuregulin 1 affect neuronal (neurone — a specialized cell transmitting nerve impulses ) development, synaptic plasticity, glutamatergic neurotransmission and glial functioning (Keri, 2009).
200 healthy participants with high intellectual and academic performance were invited to participate in Keri’s research to answer the question regarding the relation between the neuregulin 1 promoter polymorphism and creativity. All participants were proved to not be suffering or suffered from any (DSM) psychiatric or neurological disorders based on a clinical interview conducted among participants . Keri assessed the participants’ IQ (Wechsler, 1981), socioeconomic status (Hollingshead Four-Factor Index; Cirino et al., 2002), and schizotypal traits (Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire; Raine, 1991). Creative Achievement Questionnaire (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005), and the “Just Suppose” subtest of the Torrence Test of Creative Thinking (Torrence, 1974; Table 1) were also administered. Genomic DNA was extracted from venous blood samples and genotyping was performed using TaqMan Bioassay (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). The correlation between genotypes and creativity scores was determined with ANOVA (analysis of variance) and hierarchal regression analyses.
Keri’s research found that biologically relevant promoter polymorphism of the neuregulin 1 gene has a significant impact on creativity. The T/T genotype, which is previously been proved to be related to psychosis risk and altered brain structure and function (Hall et al., 2002; Keri, Kiss, & Kelemen, 2009; McIntosh et al., 2008), was associated with the highest creativity scores when lifetime achievement or laboratory scores of creative thinking were taken into consideration” (Keri, 2009). The results of the research also showed a homogeneity of creativity among individuals who have high intellectual and academic performance, based on IQ scores, years of education and socioeconomic status.
In conclusion, Keri’s hypothesis asserts that polymorphism leading to creativity may be linked to reduced latent (cognitive) inhibition (Braunstein-Bercovitz & Lubow, 1998) and increased creativity in people with high intelligence (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2003). The studies conducted by Hall et al. (2006) and Stefanis et al. (2007), shows that the promoter polymorphism of the neuregulin 1 gene affects the functioning of the prefrontal cortex — important in cognitive inhibition and creativity. Decrease in prefrontal functions may lead to creative peaks in highly functioning people regardless if they are in the presymptomatic stage of severe neurodegenerative (degeneration of the nervous system esp. the neurons in the brain) illness (Seeley et al., 2008). Finally, with the findings of Keri’s research as well as the results of his tests, he suggests that the hypothesis of his research must be extended and reviewed.
Finally, the research of Chavez-Eakle, Eakle, & Cruz-Fuentes (2012) reviewed the multiple relations between creativity and personality, and the instruments used to measure to identify the relation between creativity and personality. They explored the following four major relations between creativity and personality: (i) personality traits present in highly creative individuals, (ii) effects of personality trait on the realization of the creative potential, (iii) effects of creative potential in personality development, and (iv) critical developmental events that shape personality and impact creativity maturation (Chavez-Eakle, et al., 2012).
Chavez-Eakle, Eakle, & Cruz-Fuentes (2012) discussed the different personality assessment tools commonly used to find the relation between creativity and personality specific among individuals in different developmental stages — children, adolescents, young adult and adult and applicable to different multicultural settings. Chavez-Eakle et al. (2006) found strong negative correlations between creativity and psychopathology using the Symptom Checklist 90 on all sub-scales: somatization, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid, ideation, psychoticism. While flexibility, abstraction, premature closure resistance, emotional expressiveness, imagination, humor and fantasy are the most affected by psychopathology (Chavez-Eakle et al., 2006). The authors also discussed the biological foundations of the creative personality, which involves the studies linking molecular genetics to creativity (Martindale, 2007) — association between the serotonin transporter gene 5’SLC6A4 and the temperament traits harm avoidance and novelty seeking in highly creative individuals (Chavez et al., 2003), and the association between dopamine receptor DRD4 gene and the creativity index (Chavez, 2004; Chavez-Eakle, 2007). The relation between cerebral blood flow (CBF) and creative performance was also discussed in their research.
When Chavez-Eakle, Eakle, & Cruz-Fuentes (2012) discussed about the developmental perspective of creative and personality, they gave emphasis on the early experiences of individuals and how said experiences are crucial to a person’s psychological growth, giving way to healthy personality and development of creative potential. They discussed about the importance of “play” in encouraging creativity among school-age children. Furthermore, the authors suggest that the role of caregivers and how they relate / interact with children is also crucial to the holistic well-being of all children and incorporated the importance of free play and learning activities necessary for the development of creative potential in children. They ended their paper with suggestions regarding changes ( and improvement) in education strategies and policies, and quality of childcare that will help shape the personality of children and encourage the fulfillment of creative potential among children and adolescents.
Gender and Creativity
Describing the relationship between gender and creativity is one, if not the most debatable topic concerning creativity. Currently, no distinguishable and clear association has been made between gender differences in creative ability and creative achievement. This particular discussion has been filled with different speculations as well as observations by many scientists and researchers. According to Greer (1979), “there is then no female Leonardo, no female Titian, no female Poussin, but the reason does not lie in the fact that women have wombs, that they can have babies, that their brains are smaller, that they lack vigor, that they are not sensual. The reason is simply that you cannot make great artists out of egos that have been damaged, with will that are defective, with libidos that have been driven out of reach and energy diverted into neurotic channels” (p. 327). Heintz (1977) asserts that females are usually taught to be passive, affiliative, receptive, and supportive, males to manipulate the environment actively (Abra & Valentine-French, 1991). On the other hand, Riley (1973) argues that the question of sex in terms of creative ability in art is entirely irrelevant, since art is “hermaphroditic”, both masculine and feminine.
The paper of Abra and Valentine-French (1991) provided several factors and compelling arguments on how creative ability and creative achievement differ among sexes. They included the possible factors and explanations on the gender differences when it comes to creative ability and creative achievement: (1) Physical difference, (2) Inadequate education and training, (3) Modeling, (4) Confidence, (5) Insecurity, (6) Procreation, (7) Aspiration / Perfectionism, (8) Persistence / Stubbornness, (9) Task Value, (10) Psychopathology, (11) Mediocrity of women, (12) Naiveté, (13) Selfishness, (12) Need for others’ approval, (13) Independence / Nonconformity, (14) Competitiveness, (15) Alienation, (16) Biased cultural standards, and (17) Different fields of excellence. With each possible factors, Abra and Valentine-French provided conceivable explanations through the different findings and statements of other psychologists, scientists and researchers.
In physical difference, Abra and Valentine-French laid out possible differences between males and females based on the nervous system (Hebb, 1949); talent and “giftedness as being inborn and evident as early as during infancy (Greenacre, 1971a); activities in the endocrine system and variations in hormonal concentrations (Ronald, 1985; Juschka, 1987); left/right brain hemispheres and their organizations (Ornstein, 1972; Bogen & Bogen, 1976; Wallas, 1970; Goleman, 1980); and androgyny (McGee, 1979; Kimura, 1987).
For inadequate education and training, Abra and Valentine-French laid out possible differences between males and females based on childhood experiences (Bloom, 1985; Feldman, 1980); reshuffling of experience or subjecting one’s self in trying out more responses / trial-and-error (Koestler, 1970; Mednick, 1962; Poin-cart, 1952); denial of access to preparation, training, education, and apprenticeship in particular fields such as arts and sciences among women (Abra & Valentine-French, 1991; Greet, 1979); difference in reinforcement of creative behaviors between girls and boys (Torrance, 1963); and female paucity in the field of hard sciences as well as other traditionally acceptable areas such as language and education (Oden, 1968; Terman, 1926).
When it comes to modeling, Abra and Valentine-French presented an explanation regarding the creative propensities among men and women based on Bandura’s modeling principles (1977, 1978; Bandura & Walters, 1963), that women acquire creative behaviors and abilities by observing their mothers, female teachers, any female role model etc., whereas men observe their fathers, male teachers, and most likely the greater male population of prominent individuals who have made huge contributions in the fields of arts (music, painting, etc.) and sciences (physics, astronomy, chemistry ,engineering, etc.).
In confidence, Abra and Valentine-French laid out possible differences between males and females based on self assertiveness, arrogance, dominance, strong ego and weakness in self-criticism (May, 1975); autonomy, chance- and risk-taking (Cropley, 1970; Rotter, 1954; Strickland, 1989 ); capacity for sublimation, which Freud (1947) believes predicts creative talent and work; “masculinity" as a necessary trait to levels of self-esteem / self-confidence (Freud, 1961; Helson, 1967; Whitley, 1983; Lips, 1988; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Schaefer, 1969, Barron); social competence, competition and dominance (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Lips, 1988); gender self-concept (Nash, 1979; Signorella & Jaminson, 1979); and psychological androgyny (Bern, 1985; Spence & Helmreich, 1978; MacKinnon, 1962).
When it comes to insecurity, Ferris (personal communication, March, 1980) suggested that “for most women, becoming wife and mother have provided unquestioned ultimate purpose for life and bestowed consistent qualities to their self-concept — thus protected from existential anxiety, they may have found creative work superfluous”. He continued that, “modern women now face the same doubts and ambiguities as men because of the rise of feminism and the questioning, even ridiculing, or traditional priorities”. With this being said, the question still remains as why there are less recognized and acknowledged artistic and scientific works done by women.
In procreation, Carey’s (1990) research presented information on how having children affects a person’s creative endeavors. In his paper, several female artists with children argued that having children did decrease their resources but also helped increase intellectual and emotional flexibility and broadened their personal experience (Abra & Valentine-French, 1991).
When it comes to age, Abra and Valentine-French discussed the arguments presented by Lehman (1953), Dennis (1958, 1966), and Gedo (1983). According to Lehman (1953), a person’s best and most work might occur during one’s late 20’s and through one’s 30’s, both quantity and quality declining steadily thereafter. On the other hand, Gedo (1983) argued that most women seem to spend most of their productive years raising families and that Lehman’s conclusions placed women in a disadvantaged position.
I did not present all the factors listed by Abra and Valentine-French, nevertheless, their paper provided valuable explanations regarding the gender gap in creative ability and creative achievements. They incorporated concepts and principles from personality psychologists, scientists, and findings of other researchers in understanding the influence of nature and nature to the gender differences in creativity. To conclude, their explanations suggest that women have been disadvantaged all throughout history in terms of developing and expressing creativity due to biological (hormones, brain organization, etc.), psychological (personality traits and domains) as well as social (stereotype, environment conducive to creativity, access to resources education, and training) factors. It is also worth considering the achievements and works that our society highly value, whose contributors are mostly males, placing any creative works and achievements of women inferior compared to men’s.
“… social roles have not been structured so that many women would ever become high achievers. It is hard to feel a sense of mystery about why there are more eminent men than women (p. 46) … Differences between men and women in biology and early socialization experience are ‘exaggerated' by culture” (Helson, 1990, p. 47).
Another study investigating the evidence of gender differences in creativity was conducted by Baer and Kaufman (2006). In their paper, they proposed a new theoretical framework (the APT model of creativity) in understanding the known gender differences in creativity. First, they discussed about gender differences in scores on creativity. Divergent thinking tests have dominated creativity testing, and various Torrance Tests (Torrance, 1966a, 1966b, 1966c, 1970, 1981, 1988, 1990a, 1990b; Torrance, Khatena, & Cunnington, 1973) have dominated the field of divergent thinking testing — most popular are the Torrance Tests for Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1966c, 1970, 1974, 1990a, 1990b). According to Baer and Kaufman, longitudinal validation studies of the Torrance Tests for Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1966c, 1974) have suggested that divergent thinking tests are more predictive of creative behavior in males than females (Arnold & Subotnik, 1994; Cramond, 1994; Howeison, 1981). However, these validity studies were also criticized for lacking validity (Anastasi, 1982; Baer, 1993; Crockenberg, 1972; Kogan, 1983). Many studies have tried to find evidence in gender differences through scores on tests for divergent thinking and creativity. Some found that women and girls scored higher on creativity tests than men and boys, while some reported the opposite. This is to say that test scores predicting creativity were not able to provide consistent results to fully explain gender differences in creativity.
The second area that Baer and Kaufman explored is the gender differences in subjective assessments (self-report assessments of creativity). They listed several studies conducted exploring this particular topic. During Goldsmith and Matherly’s (1988) experiment, they found that there are no gender differences in self-report measures for creativity among 118 college students who also completed three self-report measures of self-esteem. Moreover, they found a positive correlation between the self-report measures of creativity and the self-report measures of self-esteem, but the relationship was both stronger and more consistent for women than for men. Baer and Kaufman then compared these results to Forisha’s (1978) study, which found that creative production in women was associated with sex-role masculinity (a construct that includes the personality traits of competence and self-reliance). Runco’s (1986a) study found significant gender differences only for a self-report of quantity performance (e.g., “never”, “once or twice”, “three to five times”, “six or more times”) in music performance. Chan (2005) asked 212 gifted Chinese students to self-assess their creativity, family hardiness, and emotional intelligence, and found no significant gender differences for all constructs. Henderson (2003) found no gender differences in self-reported creative achievement of 247 inventors working in multinational firms, however, women in this study reported more publications and conference presentations than men. Gough’s assessment (1992) found that the Creative Personality scale (Gough, 1979) was the only one of 37 Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) scales that was significantly correlated with creativity for both women (.26) and men (.17). He also compared correlations of women’s and men’s creativity ratings with their scores in California Personality Inventory scales. Overall, the patterns showed only minor differences. A new scale, Creative Temperament (CT), was developed using the same sample of 1,028 psychology graduate students (623 men, 405 women) at the University of California at Berkley and their professors’ ratings of their creativity. In this sample, CT scale was correlated with the creativity rating of both women (.33) and men (.25).
When it comes to creative personality tests, several studies exploring personality traits and domains associated with creativity were presented as well. McCare et al. (2002) tested 1,947 high school students and found females scored significantly higher on Openness. Misra (2003) studied 156 Indian students and found higher Openness scores in females. Other studies found no difference in Openness to Experience, including Hakstian and Farrell (2001; 2,375 college students and non-management job applicants) and Harris (2004; 404 undergraduates). Costa, Terraciano, and McCrae (2001) analyzed gender differences in Openness to Experience based on secondary analysis of 23,031 people from 26 cultures. They analyzed different components of Openness to Experience, and found that women scored higher than men in Openness to Aesthetics, Feelings, and Actions. Men scored higher than women on Openness to Ideas and that there were no difference on Openness to Fantasy or Values between sexes.
In understanding the effects of extrinsic constraints on motivation, Baer’s (1997) research found that boys’ creative performance were not affected by neither intrinsic (subjects were told that their poems and stories would not be evaluated) and extrinsic motivations (subjects were led to expect evaluation), but girls show otherwise. The result of this research was confirmed in a follow-up study conducted by Baer (1998b). Also, Conti, Collins, Picariello (2001) found that girls were less creative in competitive situations and boys were more creative in competitive situations.
In conclusion, Baer and Kaufman’s paper presented the following important arguments associating gender differences with creativity: creativity tests are intended to measure general divergent thinking skills that are hypothesized to influence creative performance across domains; divergent thinking tests are, in general, more predictive of creative achievement in males than females (Arnold & Subotnik, 1994; Cramond, 1994; Howieson, 1981); work environments of men compared to women are more conducive to creative expression and accomplishment; societal constraints, expectations, and experiences differ among males and females; availability of opportunities and resources for creative expression and achievement are not equally distributed among sexes; and that our society value creative works and achievements that are typically produced by men than women.
One of the most recent studies conducted exploring the relationship of gender and gender role with creativity, was that of Stoltzfus et al. (2011). In their research, they used 136 undergraduate students and assessed the participants creative ability using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1998) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence & Helmreich, 1978) — a 24-item self-report scale — to assess the psychological dimensions of masculine and feminine gender role characteristics of there participants. Participants were also instructed to: 1) list as many unusual uses as possible for a tin can; 2) list as many unusual uses as possible for a cardboard box; and 3) complete a picture construction task using an oval shape centered on a blank sheet of paper.
The results of their assessment suggest that there were no significant differences between men and women in the tin can exercise for fluency, flexibility, and unusual uses. There were no significant gender differences in the cardboard box exercise for fluency and flexibility. Although, a significant difference on unusual uses for the card board box was found. When it comes to verbal creativity scores, males outperformed females on all measures, but said result was not statistically significant. On the picture construction task, males scored significantly higher than females.
In the gender role—creativity analysis, Stoltzfus et al. found that there were no significant main effects or interactions for verbal creativity measures for the tin can and cardboard exercises. However, they found a significant main effect for gender role categories on the picture construction task. The results suggest that androgynous individuals (high on both Masculine and Feminine) scored the highest on creativity, followed by masculine individuals (high on Masculine and low on Feminine), then feminine individuals (high on Feminine and low on Masculine). Furthermore, masculine females had a higher mean score than feminine females but not androgynous females. Among genders, androgynous individuals scored higher than all other categories of gender role.
In conclusion, the findings of Stoltzfus et al. suggest that the difference, though not significant, in creativity among males and females when it comes to novelty thinking or originality during the tin can and card board exercise, can be explained through the rationale that responsiveness to particular feminine social roles may have hindered creative efforts among female participants. This idea was attributed to Piirto (1991), Reis (1999), Simonton (2000), and Kogan's (1974) argument regarding the effect of social expectations and demands among women that negatively impacts women’s development of creativity and creative expression. Also, Stoltzfus et al. found that androgyny benefits creativity among women, whereas men who identifies with opposite-gender roles exhibited the highest levels of creativity among males. Both men and women who reported highly masculine gender role self-attributions exceeded the performance of undifferentiated participants and feminine females. They believe that the results of their analysis support earlier findings when it comes to the influence of gender role in creativity, such as the conclusion that the psychology of creative men is a feminine psychology, whereas the psychology of creative women is a masculine psychology (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, 1976); and creative boys are perceived to be more feminine than other boys, while creative girls exhibits more traditionally masculine characteristics compared to other girls (Torrance,1963).
Conclusion
I believe that a lot of studies exploring the relationship between creativity and personality were able to provide valuable data and knowledge in understanding such phenomena. We looked at the personality traits and facets that impact a person’s creative ability and expression. We then found out that creative people and those who suffer from psychopathy share almost identical traits and characteristics — presenting a fine line between creativity and psychopathy. In my opinion, the association of creativity to psychopathy has been very intriguing, if not the most intriguing one. How can we link such “giftedness”, talent, skill, or intelligence to mental disorder? A lot of studies have somehow proved the possible and close correlation between creativity and psychopathic personality but the point proven was not about looking at the negative impact of such traits to a person’s mental health, rather on how to develop and maneuver said traits to creative expression, achievement and productivity that are considered novel (original or enhanced version of another original work) and useful (not just to one’s self but to society as well). It is also great that the researchers presented practical applications of their research, such as in the field of education, childhood development, management, psychotherapy, intervention, and so forth. Such studies proved to us the importance of creativity in all aspects of our lives and how necessary it is for us to create an environment that is conducive to the development of creative potential among people of all ages, gender, ethnicity, culture, etc. The research studies conducted regarding creativity also proved that creativity is not limited to the concept of creativity in the form of artistic endeavors, but also in skills such as problem-solving, and divergent-thinking as well as different forms of intelligence such as in the fields of mathematics and sciences.
When it comes to the association of gender to creativity, we may find the inconsistency as well as the complexity of the findings among various studies placing one gender (females) into a disadvantaged position when it comes to creativity. Aside from the biological factors that influence the gender differences in creativity (i.e. level of testosterone that affects a person’s level of masculinity — factor that is hypothesized to contribute to the gender differences in creativity), personality factors (i.e. the difference in personality traits among men and women — men as more open to new ideas, higher levels of self-esteem, more aggressive and self-assertive than women), social factors (i.e. women’s social expectations, demands, roles, and stereotypes), the environmental factors were given emphasis by most researchers and scientists.
One of the major arguments in relating gender differences with creativity is the gender gap in creative contributions among males and females in their preferred fields, be it in the arts (music, painting, theater, choreography, etc.) or sciences (medicine, biology, psychology, mathematically-intensive fields or the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, computer science, etc.). Finding out reasons why there are very few (creative) women with contributions in musical composition, in the field of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), breakthroughs in the field of psychology or even recognized art works, are just some of the arguments that has not been clearly answered up until now when it comes to gender differences in creativity. Even though women have made a fair amount of novel and useful creative achievements and equally creative contributions in fields such as education, medicine, literature, and choreography, what most societies value as creative products and achievements, I believe, has a strong impact on the perpetuation of the gender bias in creativity. According to Ceci and Williams, currently women comprise about half of the M.D.’s, two-thirds of psychology Ph.D.’s, and three-quarters of veterinary medicine doctorates, more than seven times as high as in the 60’s (2010, p.5). Today, larger gender gaps in various fields of hard sciences that are highly occupied by men, have been the focus of research and discussion concerning the relation of gender to creativity.
The paper of Hill and Rogers (2012) discussed the gender gaps in science through the creativity factors. Several arguments regarding the gender gaps in creativity were presented such as biological sex differences ( Ceci & Williams, 2010, p. 180); social factors (Ceci & Williams, 2010, p 183); career field choices and preferences among men and women (Ceci & Williams, 2010, p 179-180; Piirto, 1991); curiosity — another factor associated with success in science (Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004, p. 295); risk-taking between males and females — “Male participants are more likely to take risks than female participants” (Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999, p 337); evolutionary specializations and advantage — “male specializations in hunting and making artifacts may have been more cognitively demanding than female specializations in gathering and child rearing” (Ceci, Williams, & Barnett, 2009,, p 237); and sociocultural experiences — “boys are frequently allowed more freedom of movement, more permission to cross streets and roam further in neighborhoods, more indulgence for climbing and jumping” (Honig, 2001, p. 115).
They also mentioned that a lot of institutions have made some really huge efforts in reducing gender gap in the field of sciences. The ADVANCE program (Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers) by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) intends “to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers”. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) provided a current grant of $1.4 million to two faculty researchers for a single three-year study entitled Assessing and Reducing Gender Bias in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics).
I believe that environments conducive to creative expression and productivity should not be limited only to members of our society that belong to a particular category based on gender, age, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and race. When it comes to creativity, our society must become more open and welcoming of other creative achievements and products that are not limited to certain fields. It has been said that a work is considered creative if it is novel and useful. Therefore, we should not limit creative products and achievements to those that we think are considered valuable and superior in our society. Yes, creativity is an ability, a gift that not all of us may completely possess or be successful at utilizing. However, I personally believe that creativity must not be constrained within the impression of difficult tasks and highly complex thinking.
I agree that personality traits can predict creative abilities. However, when we speak of gender gaps in creativity, the impact of inequality in our society then becomes a major factor. Of course, we do not want to consider bias in allocation of resources and opportunities to be the most practical reason why there is a gender gap and difference in creative achievements and products. I believe that soon we will be able to talk about creative achievements in any field of specialization — arts and/or sciences, without looking at which gender have the greatest contributions. Finally, as much as our world and every society is evolving due to globalization, technological advancements and scientific breakthroughs, we may eventually come up with a new definition of creativity and I am hoping that the future “creative” person will not be classified based solely on age, socio-economic status, educational background, race, ethnicity, and most importantly, gender. According to Piirto’s (1999) closing paragraph from her article, Why Are There So Few? (Creative Woman: Visual artists, mathematicians, musicians): “Is the new developmental research on girls going to provide another excuse given for women's lack of achievement in creative fields? Since creatively gifted boys and girls are remarkably alike in personality, except for their intensity and commitment to the field of creativity, educators should focus on encouraging commitment and intensity for both boys and girls. It is that sort of motivation that may rectify gender inequities and allow an open and unrestrained exploration of the best that each person can be”. I believe that not all of us are born to be geniuses with exceptional intelligence but we all should have the opportunity to hone our creativity in any field that interests us or valuable to us, not just the fields that our society considers important. We should also refrain from discouraging each other, instilling self-doubt and anxiety to those whom we believe are incapable of excelling in particular fields based on stereotypes and prejudices. Rather, we must encourage each other in discovering and developing our creative abilities, allowing everyone into creative productivity that will not only benefit the creators but our society as a whole.
References:
Abra, J., & Valentine-French, S. (1991). Gender Difference in Creative Achievement: A Survey of Explanations. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 117, Issue 3, p 235-284.
Baer, J. & Kaufman, J.C. (2008). Gender Differences in Creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42 (2), pp 75-105
Carson, S.H. (2011). Creativity and Psychopathology: A Shared-Vulnerability Model. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 56, No. 3, p 144–153.
Chavez-Eakle, R.A., Eakle, J.A., & Cruz-Fuentes, C. (2012). The Multiple Relations Between Creativity and Personality. Creativity Research Journal, Vol.2 Issue 1, p 76—82.
Chavez-Eakle, R.A., Lara, M.d.C., & Cruz-Fuentes, C. (2006). Personality: A Possible Bridge Between Creativity and Psychopathology. Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 27—38.
Eysenck, H.J. (1993). Creative Personality: Suggestions for a Theory. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 4, No. 3, 147-178.
Feist, G.J. (1998). A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, p 290-309.
Hill, T.P. & Rogers, E. (2012). Gender Gaps in Science: The Creativity Factor. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, Vol. 34, Number 2.
James, K. & Asmus, C. (2001). Personality, Cognitive Skills, and Creativity in Different Life Domains. Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, p.149—159.
Keri, S. (2009). Genes for Psychosis and Creativity: A Promoter Polymorphism of the Neuregulin 1 Gene is Related to Creativity in People with High Intellectual Achievement. Psychological Science, Vol. 20, No. 9, p. 1070—1073.
Piirto, J. (1991). Why Are There So Few? (Creative women: Visual artists, mathematicians, musicians). Ropper Review, 13 (3), pp. 142-147.
Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and Certain Personality Traits: Understanding the Mediating Effect of Intrinsic Motivation. Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p 53—66.
Reuter, M., et al. (2005). Personality and Biological Markers of Creativity. European Journal of Personality, Vol.19 Issue 2, p 83—95.
Stoltzfus, G., Nibbelink, B.L., Vrendenburg, D., & Thyrum, E. (2011). Gender, Gender Role, and Creativity. Social Behavior and Personality, 39 (3), pp 425-432.
Abra, J., & Valentine-French, S. (1991). Gender Difference in Creative Achievement: A Survey of Explanations. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 117, Issue 3, p 235-284.
Baer, J. & Kaufman, J.C. (2008). Gender Differences in Creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42 (2), pp 75-105
Carson, S.H. (2011). Creativity and Psychopathology: A Shared-Vulnerability Model. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 56, No. 3, p 144–153.
Chavez-Eakle, R.A., Eakle, J.A., & Cruz-Fuentes, C. (2012). The Multiple Relations Between Creativity and Personality. Creativity Research Journal, Vol.2 Issue 1, p 76—82.
Chavez-Eakle, R.A., Lara, M.d.C., & Cruz-Fuentes, C. (2006). Personality: A Possible Bridge Between Creativity and Psychopathology. Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 27—38.
Eysenck, H.J. (1993). Creative Personality: Suggestions for a Theory. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 4, No. 3, 147-178.
Feist, G.J. (1998). A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, p 290-309.
Hill, T.P. & Rogers, E. (2012). Gender Gaps in Science: The Creativity Factor. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, Vol. 34, Number 2.
James, K. & Asmus, C. (2001). Personality, Cognitive Skills, and Creativity in Different Life Domains. Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, p.149—159.
Keri, S. (2009). Genes for Psychosis and Creativity: A Promoter Polymorphism of the Neuregulin 1 Gene is Related to Creativity in People with High Intellectual Achievement. Psychological Science, Vol. 20, No. 9, p. 1070—1073.
Piirto, J. (1991). Why Are There So Few? (Creative women: Visual artists, mathematicians, musicians). Ropper Review, 13 (3), pp. 142-147.
Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and Certain Personality Traits: Understanding the Mediating Effect of Intrinsic Motivation. Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p 53—66.
Reuter, M., et al. (2005). Personality and Biological Markers of Creativity. European Journal of Personality, Vol.19 Issue 2, p 83—95.
Stoltzfus, G., Nibbelink, B.L., Vrendenburg, D., & Thyrum, E. (2011). Gender, Gender Role, and Creativity. Social Behavior and Personality, 39 (3), pp 425-432.
RSS Feed