Chapter 1. Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality - Sage

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 3
1
Creativity, Intelligence, and
Personality
Frank Barron and David M. Harrington1
Introduction
ivergent thinking; creativity in women; hemispheric specialization

opposing right brain to left as the source of intuition, metaphor, and
imagery; the contribution of altered states of consciousness to creative
thinking; an organismic interpretation of the relationship of creativity to
personality and intelligence; new methods of analysis of biographical material
and a new emphasis on psychohistory; the relationship of thought disorder to
originality; the inheritance of intellectual and personal traits important to
creativity; the enhancement of creativity by training; these have been the main
themes emerging in research on creativity since the last major reviews of the
field (Stein 1968; Dellas & Gaier 1970; Freeman, Butcher & Christie 1971;
Gilchrist 1972).
Much indeed has happened in the field of creativity research since 1950,
when J. P. Guilford in his parting address as president of the American
Psychological Association pointed out that up to that time only 186 out of 121,000
entries in Psychological Abstracts dealt with creative imagination. By 1956, when
the first national research conference on creativity was organized by C. W. Taylor
at the University of Utah (under the sponsorship of the National Science
Foundation), this number had doubled. By 1962, when Scientific Creativity
(compiled by C. W. Taylor and F. Barron) went to press with a summary of the
Source: Annual Review of Psychology, 32 (1981): 439476.
4 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation
first three biennial Utah-NSF conferences, approximately 400 references post1940, mostly of an empirical research character, were found for citation. In 1965,
the comprehensive bibliography of the Creative Education Foundation (Razik
1965), which includes articles and books outside the professional field of
psychology, contained 4176 references, nearly 3000 of them dated later than
1950. This almost exponential increase has leveled off to a stream of
approximately 250 new dissertations, articles, or books every year since 1970.
New journals attest to the vigor of this still growing field of study. The Journal
of Creative Behavior, under the editorship of Angelo Biondi, has proved to be
much more than a house organ of the Foundation for Creative Education, with
whose sponsorship it was founded. Its listing of creativity-related dissertations
and theses is an invaluable scholarly resource. The Gifted Child Quarterly, both in
its publication of research on the relationship of the various forms of giftedness
to creativity in general and in its attentive book reviews, has kept a professional
readership up to date on new developments in a socially important movement in
education. Other new journals of general importance to the field are: Intelligence,
Journal of Mental Imagery, The Psychocultural Review, and The Journal of Altered
States of Consciousness. Several important publications emerged from conferences
and symposia involving creativity during this period (Steiner 1965; Roslansky
1970; Taylor 1972; Stanley, Keating & Fox 1974; Keating 1976; Stanley, George
& Solano 1977) along with a collection of pieces by investigators invited to take
stock of the field 25 years after Guilfords 1950 APA address (Taylor & Getzels
1975).
Scholarship was also facilitated by the publication of two major reference
works by Rothenberg & Greenberg Creative Men and Women (1974) and The
Index of Scientific Writings on Creativity: General, 1566-1974 (1976). Torrances
impressively lengthy cumulative bibliography on the Torrance Tests of Creativity
and Thinking (1979) and an unpublished cumulative bibliography of research at
the University of Californias Institute of Personality Assessment and Research
(IPAR) containing more than 600 references (and available from the Institute)
are valuable guides to significant lines of research during the past 15 years.
In addition to the comprehensive reviews cited above and the many more
specialized reviews noted later in this chapter, particularly useful surveys and
analyses of the field include those by Chambers (1969), Bloomberg (1973),
Taylor (1975), and Rothenberg & Hausman (1976).
The Varieties of Creativity

The term creativity stands in need of precise distinctions among the referents it
has acquired. Commonly used definitions of creativity vary in several ways. First
of all, some definitions require socially valuable products if the act or person is to
be called creative, while others see creativity itself as being intrinsically valuable,
so that nothing of demonstrable social value need be produced; dreams thus

may be creative, or unexpressed thoughts or simply the imaginative expressiveness
or curiosity of a child. Definitions may vary also in terms of the level of
accomplishment recognized as creative: difficulty of the problem seen or solved,
e.g., or elegance or beauty of the product or the nature of the impact. A third
kind of distinction is between creativity as achievement, creativity as ability, and
creativity as disposition or attitude.
By way of illustration, let us take the two main categories of definition of a
criterion of creativity actually used in large bodies of research: 1. creativity as
socially recognized achievement in which there are novel products to which one
can point as evidence, such as inventions, theories, buildings, published writings,
paintings and sculptures and films; laws; institutions; medical and surgical
treatments, and so on; and 2. creativity as an ability manifested by performance
in critical trials, such as tests, contests, etc, in which one individual can be
compared with another on a precisely defined scale.
The first category may lead to a definition of a field of activity and its products
as intrinsically creative: all inventors, e.g., or all artists or all poets. This has led
to a certain amount of research in which practitioners of a creative activity are
compared with people in general, leading to a portrait of the creative person
in terms of intellectual and personality differences between the criterion group
and the generality. But these intrinsically creative products may differ among
themselves in qualities such as originality, elegance, impact, and far-reachingness,
Studies of individual differences as to creativity among members of such groups
(architects, artists, mathematicians, and writers in the IPAR studies, for example)
give a different picture of the components of creativity than do field vs the
generality studies. A good example is measured intelligence. Creative architects
do not score higher than comparison groups in architecture on standardized
intelligence tests, but all architects studied scored an average of about two
standard deviations higher than the general population (MacKinnon & Hall 1971).
What does one then conclude about the relationship of creativity to intelligence?
Many such examples could be given, not just in relationship to intelligence
but to personality, interests, values, life history. The point is that results will
appear confusing and contradictory unless the implications of the adopted
definition of creativity and the assumptions of the methods are kept clearly in
mind.
Creativity as an ability manifested by performance on tests is dogged by
even more formidable difficulties. What kind of test is it? What abilities is it
tapping? What effect do different methods of scoring it (and different, usually
anonymous, scorers) have upon its correlates? How does timing affect the test?
How do the instructions themselves affect performance in defining the implicit
work schedule? The literature since 1970 reflects increasing sophistication about
these difficulties as will be seen below.
Let us take divergent thinking (DT) tests as a prime example. There is a

certain uncriticalness of analysis embedded in DT tests and their scoring methods.
High scores on the Consequences test, e.g., are considered evidence of divergent
thinking, although in fact the criterion of high quality is remoteness, perhaps
combined with cleverness and aptness. Remoteness implies a process of going a
distance from the obvious, but does it rule out the process of thought by which
one converges, sometimes by occasional divergence, on an idea or result? Divergent
thinking in fact goes hand in glove with convergent thinking in every thought
process that results in a new idea. The aha! comes when the process reaches a
conclusion. But process is precisely what is invisible in the usual DT test used in
creativity research. A problem is set, and a written answer is obtained. What
happens in between is anybodys guess, except the respondents, who hasnt
been asked.
Short, closely timed tests in which a problem is set and a brief response is
required are ideal for use in a battery of tests destined for factor analysis. Has
this requirement, which deliberately excludes scrutiny and analysis of process,
been more of a bane than a blessing to research on creativity? Has the distinction
between convergent and divergent, though real enough in the life of thought,
been a mischievous one? We have for this review surveyed hundreds of reports
on DT tests and are left wondering.
The actual sampling of persons, using either criterion of creativity, may also
confound the search for commonalities of the creative person. Creative women
may be quite different from creative men, e.g., and different too in each field of
endeavor. Age and level of training must also enter the picture. While this review
cites many studies which individually respect the distinctions noted here (ability
vs achievement, sex of person, etc), we believe the field needs a comprehensive
catalog of empirical studies and a set of conceptual categories and dimensions
with which a meta-analysis of results in the entire domain of creativity could be
conducted. Though such an analysis was beyond the scope of this review, we
urge its undertaking and refer colleagues to exemplary meta-analytic efforts in
other domains (e.g. Block 1976, Smith & Glass 1977, Cooper 1979).
Before turning to our review of 15 years work, a few comments regarding
our space-and self-imposed restrictions are in order. In general we have
emphasized empirical rather than theoretical work and studies employing
achievement-rather than ability-based criteria. For some important topics we
have only been able to recommend other reviews to the interested reader.
Regarding creativity enhancement, e.g., we refer the reader to Steins (1974)
definitive two-volume work, Stimulating Creativity. Prentkys (1979) lengthy
review and theoretical analysis of some of the psychobiological questions,
Creativity and Psychopathology: a neurocognitive approach, gives a full picture
of relevant work in the neurosciences, including cerebral lateralization and cortical
arousal. For the latter topic, see the very interesting work of Martindate (19771978) and Martindate & Hasenfus (1978). An excellent analytical treatment of
laterality has appeared recently (Corballis 1980).
Creativity and Intelligence

Intelligence itself is a term with many meanings and referents. While an analysis
of this construct is beyond the scope of this chapter (see Resnick 1976 and
numerous articles in the new journal Intelligence for some current perspectives),
we would like to note that creativity investigators have used the term intelligence
variously to refer to (a) that which IQ tests measure; (b) the entire multifactorial
domain of human cognitive abilities (including such creativity-related components
as DT abilities, problem-finding abilities, special talents such as musical and
artistic abilities, and the ability to access primary process modes of thought by
regressing in the service of the ego); and (c) that which qualified observers
(peers, teachers, etc) describe as intelligence on the basis of repeated
observations of behavior in many situations. Our brief review of research of the
past 15 years regarding creativity and intelligence will deal briefly with each of
these perspectives.
Models of Intellect, Old and New

Though Guilfords Structure-of-Intellect (SI) model has continued to dominate
discussions of the relationship between intelligence and creativity, the SI model
has been increasingly criticized on technical and conceptual grounds. (See Butcher
1973, Horn 1977, and Vernon 1979 for summaries and evaluations of such
criticism). Critics object to the alleged subjectivity of the underlying rotational
procedures, to Guilfords insistence upon orthogonal rather than oblique factors,
to some possible narrowness in the 120 (!) SI abilities, to the alleged psychological
superficiality of the SIs product category, and to the tendency of the model to
suggest that the operations (cognition, memory, evaluation, convergent
production, and divergent production) are mutually exclusive and isolatable.
Despite these criticisms, the SI model has spurred the development of interesting
new tests [e.g. Lang & Rybas (1976) SI-inspired tests of auditory abilities which
nicely discriminated musicians, artists, and controls] and provided a conceptual
framework for many investigators.
During this same period, Cattell continued to develop his alternative model
of fluid and crystallized intelligence. In its radically elaborated 1971 form, this
appeared to involve about 500 sub-abilities (Cattell 1971, Butcher 1973). A
study by Rossman & Horn (1972) found modest positive rs between indices of
creative achievement or reputation and a broad fluency factor, but insignificant
and very small rs with fluid and crystallized intelligence factors. While Cattells
model of intellect will surely receive much deserved attention, and while the
thirteenth chapter (Genius and the processes of creative thought) of Cattells
1971 book is must reading for serious students of creativity, the links between
Cattells model of intellect and achievement-based creativity are primarily
speculative at this point.
The emergence of what one might term differential cognitive psychology

in recent years also holds enormous potential for future research involving the
cognitive underpinnings of creativity. This approach, which involves the
simultaneous attempt to understand test performances and intellectual abilities
in terms of underlying cognitive processes and the reciprocal effort to view
cognitive processes in terms of potentially measurable subskills and component
abilities, may lead to a much needed blending of the process sand ability
approaches to the study of creativity. Recent efforts by Carroll (1976), for example,
to identify and characterize DT abilities in terms of underlying informationprocessing components have obvious implications for creativity research. (See
also the review by Stankov 1980, the effrort by Mendelsohn 1976 to understand
Remote Association Test (RAT) performance in terms of attentional abilities, and
the attempt by Sternberg 1977 to analyze analogical thinking skills into
component abilities). In our view, differential cognitive psychology has the
potential to deepen our understanding of creative processes and abilities quite
substantially. For further introductions to this perspective, the reader is referred
to Resnick (1976), to a series of articles appearing in the second volume of
Intelligence (1978), to Carroll & Maxwell (1979), to Pellegrino & Glaser (1979),
to Sternberg (1979), and to Royce (1980).
Creativity and Traditional Measures of Intelligence

Findings in the last 15 years have tended to confirm the picture which earlier
research had suggested. Studies of creative adult artists, scientists,
mathematicians, and writers find them scoring very high on tests of general
intelligence (e.g. Barron 1969; Bachtold & Werner 1970; Helson & Crutchfield
1970b; Cattell 1971; Helson 1971; Bachtold & Werner 1973; Gough 1976a),
though rs between tested intelligence and creative achievement in these samples
range from insignificantly negative (r = -.05, Gough 1976a) to mildly and
significantly positive (r = +.31, Helson 1971). In other studies, often involving
nonprofessional samples, measures of tested intelligence and indices of creative
achievement or reputation are often insignificantly or only very weakly positive
(e.g. Helson & Crutchfield 1970b; Rotter, Langland & Berger 1971; Davis &
Belcher 1971; Rossman & Horn 1972; R. M. Milgram, Yitzhak & N. A. Milgram
1977; Frederiksen & Ward 1978; and Hocevar 1980) and sometimes modestly
positive (e.g. McDermid 1965; Helson 1971; Vernon 1972b; Torrance 1972b;
Schmidt 1973; Kogan & Pankove 1974; Gough 1976a; and Hocevar 1980).
Though a curvilinear relationship between intelligence and creativity has often
been suggested (with intelligence presumably becoming less and less influential
as one moves into higher and higher levels of intelligence), the only formal test
(with negative results) of this hypothesis we are aware of was conducted by
Simonton (1976a) in a reanalysis of Coxs historical geniuses a sample quite
probably too rarified to be a particularly good test of the curvilinear hypothesis.
Creativity and Rated or Perceived Intelligence

It should be noted that creative people are often perceived and rated as more
intelligent than less creative people even in samples where no corresponding
correlations between tested intelligence and creativity obtain. Despite an r of .08 between Termans Concept Mastery Test and professionally rated creativity
among the top 40 IPAR architects (MacKinnon 1962a), e.g., staff ratings of the
single adjective intelligent correlated +.39 with the index of creativity
(MacKinnon 1966).
While such an r may reflect some spurious halo effects, it may also tell us
something about the true overlap in meaning of these terms in the natural
language. Popular criteria for intelligence are much broader than those tested
by standard intelligence tests. It is also possible that such rs partially reflect the
presence of a set of personality characteristics and processes which influence the
degree to which raw talent or aptitude of almost any form is translated into
effective and socially impressive behavior. It is conceivable, for example, that
factors making for success (such as forcefulness of character, self-confidence,
etc) facilitate effective behavior of many forms (including behavior having an
intelligent and a creative look about it) and thereby produce a degree of
correlation between effective creativity and effective intelligence which is
higher than the correlation between raw creative ability and raw intelligence.
After all, creativity is a social outcome, and so is intelligent action. We believe
that this distinction between raw (or best-measured) intelligence and effective
intelligence and between raw creative ability and effective creativity is
certainly one worth making.
Creativity and Divergent Thinking Abilities

Binet began the development of open-ended, multiple-solution measures (e.g.
Sentence Invention and Ink Blots) of the type we now call divergent thinking
(DT) tests (Binet & Henri 1896). Upon such tests, much of modern research on
creativity depends and is focused. Though DT tests were essentially excluded
from Binets subsequent batteries (see Guilford 1967, chapter 1, for an interesting
discussion of this point), the open-ended, multiple-solution format assumed by
Binet to facilitate the measurement of imaginative abilities was quickly adopted
by early creativity investigators. Indeed, the proliferation of studies involving
such tests was so great that by 1915 Whipple was able to devote an entire chapter
in the second edition of his Manual of Mental and Physical Tests (1915) to Tests
of Imagination and Invention in which he cities the work of at least 19
investigators actively exploring this domain.
The development and use of DT tests continued quite steadily up to 1950, at
which time Guilfords (1950) presidential address to the American Psychological
Association introduced many psychologists to his own research groups new efforts
in a research tradition already half a century old. The impact of Guilfords address
upon the field of creativity was, of course, catalytic and long term.
Wallach and Kogans influential book, Modes of Thinking in Young Children,
which contained a battery of highly intercorrelated DT tests influenced by
Guilfords earlier work, was published in 1965. these tests [and Wards (1968)
modification of them for use with much younger children], together with the
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Torrance 1966) and a few of the
early measures produced by Guilfords group (Alternate Uses, Consequences,
Plot Titles), have dominated the DT test scene for the past 15 years.
THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY Despite the 80-year history of such measures of
productive imagination, the vitally important question of whether divergent
thinking tests measure abilities actually involved in creative thinking is not at all
easy to answer in satisfying detail. Nevertheless, an imprecisely qualified answer
does seem justified by the evidence gathered thus far; some divergent thinking
tests, administered under some conditions and scored by some sets of criteria,
do measure abilities related to creative achievement and behavior in some
domains. Our own extensive review of the literature reveals more than 70 studies
in which positive and statistically significant relationships have apparently been
observed between various divergent thinking test scores and reasonably
acceptable nontest indices of creative behavior or achievement. In addition to
the more than 50 studies cited elsewhere and earlier (Harrington 1972, pp. 3032), validating evidence for DT tests has been reported at the elementary school
level (Rotter, Langland & Berger 1971; Schaefer 1971a; Torrance 1974; Walbrown
& Huelsman 1975; Wallbrown, Wallbrown & Wherry 1975); at the junior high
school level (Vernon 1971, 1972b); and at the high school level (Lynch 1970;
Anastasi & Schaefer 1971; Kogan & Pankove 1972, 1974; Milgram & Milgram
1976). At the undergraduate and graduate levels, significant positive relationships
have been reported by Khatena 1971b; Harrington 1972; Rossman & Horn 1972;
Domino 1974; Torrance 1974; Lang & Ryba 1976; Holloway & Torrance 1977;
Forisha 1978a; Frederiksen & Ward 1978; Hocevar 1980. Significant results with
nonstudent adults have also been reported by Tan-Willman 1974; Getzels &
Csikszentmihalyi 1976; Gough 1976a.
Two comments are immediately in order. It should first be noted that DT
test scores have often failed to correlate significantly positively with plausible
indices of creative achievement and behavior. While there are probably many
reasons for this, one factor undoubtedly involves the field-specific relevance of
many DT abilities and the primitive state of knowledge regarding the abilities
underlying creative behavior in any given field. Because the DT abilities
presumably underlying creative achievements probably vary from field to field,
there is little reason to expect any randomly selected DT test to correlate with
creative achievement in any randomly selected domain. Until greater attention
is paid to the matching of DT tests of relevant domains, attempts to validate DT
tests will proceed in an essentially shotgun fashion. It is therefore particularly
encouraging to note that several investigators have demonstrated substantial

sensitivity to this issue in recent years. Efforts by Cunnington & Torrance (1965)
and Lang & Ryba (1976) to develop measures involving auditory stimuli for
studies in the domain of musical creativity (Torrance 1969, Khatena 1971b,
Holloway & Torrance 1977) and by Gough (1975, 1976a) and Frederiksen &
Ward (1978) to develop DT tests particularly relevant to scientific creativity
clearly reflect a heightened awareness of this issue. Similar efforts by Hall (1972)
and Lunneborg & Lunneborg (1969) to study architectural creativity using tests
involving visual stimuli also reflect a growing desire to match ability measures
to creative process and product.
The second point involves the possible role of general intelligence in the DT
validity coefficients reported above. Though most of the studies cited did not
report the data necessary to determine whether DT tests are measuring creativityrelated variance beyond that measured by intelligence tests, a few did. On the
basis of those few studies one can say that some DT tests, administered to some
samples, under some conditions and scored according to some criteria, measure
factors relevant to creativity criteria beyond those measured by indices of general
intelligence (see Harrington 1972, pp. 39-40). As investigators begin including
measures of general intelligence in DT validation studies routinely and begin to
approach their data using the most appropriate analytic techniques (such as the
multiple regression methods used by Cronbach 1968 and Hocevar 1980), evidence
relevant to this critical issue should accumulate much more rapidly than it has to
date.
The questions of scoring, instructions, and test administration. A great deal
of attention has been devoted in the last several years to the question of optimal
DT test instructions and test conditions (see Hattie 1977, 1980 for recent review).
Most of this work has focused on conditions needed to generate DT scores which
are as weakly correlated with general intelligence measures as possible or on
conditions which maximize raw fluency or uniqueness scores. Though less
attention has been directed to the development of test instructions and scoring
procedures which, when coordinated, maximize the construct-validity of DT
tests, at least two studies (Datta 1963 and Harrington 1975) found that when
DT instructions to be creative were coordinated with scoring procedures sensitive
to creative quality, correlations with indices of creativity were significantly
improved. A recent report by Katz & Poag (1979) replicating some aspects of
these studies for men but not for women calls attention to the need for much
more extensive work in this generally neglected area.
Because the question of optimal scoring methods for DT tests deserves
lengthier treatment than we can give it, the reader is referred to useful discussions
and illustrations of various scoring methods by Vernon (1971), Harrington (1972,
1975), and Frederiksen & Ward (1978).
DIVERGENT THINKING ABILITIES AND TRADITIONAL MEASURES OF
INTELLIGENCE. For those who believe that DT abilities are the key to (and
perhaps even an appropriate operational definition of) creative thinking ability,

the relationship between DT abilities and traditional measures of intelligence
has been a topic of great interest and the subject of much investigation. (See
Butcher 1973, Horn 1976, and Vernon, Adamson & Vernon 1977 for some useful
reviews). In general it seems best to summarize these studies by saying that DT
X intelligence rs vary widely (from zero upward) depending upon the DT tests,
the heterogeneity of the sample, and the testing conditions. In a much-cited
review, Torrance (1967) summarized 388 rs involving intelligence measures and
the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) and reported a median r of +.06
for his figural DT tests and +.21 for his verbal DT tests. Guilford (1967) reported
average rs of +.22 for his figural DT tests, +.40 for symbolic DT tests, and +.37
for semantic DT tests in a sample of 204 ninth graders but a range of DT IQ rs
from .04 to +.70. Such wide variations in DT X IQ rs are not uncommon;
Bennett (1972, as reported by Butcher 1973) obtained aggregate DT IQ rs in
the +.5 to +.6 range in a sample of approximately 1000 United Kingdom
youngsters, whereas Magnusson & Backteman (1978) reported aggregate DT X
IQ rs in the range of +.2 to +.3 in a sample of approximately 1000 Swedish
teenagers. (The Magnusson and Backteman study was also noteworthy for having
demonstrated substantial temporal stability over 2-years period for these DT
tests which were largely independent of traditional intelligence measures.)
While the average figure of approximately +.3 sometimes referred to in
reviews (e.g. Horn 1976 and Richards 1976) is a reasonable estimate of central
tendency, it must be recalled that the actual DT IQ rs vary widely depending
upon the nature of the DT tests, the heterogeneity of the sample, and apparently
the nature of the testing situation. (For reviews of research dealing with this
latter point, see Hattie 1977, 1980).
The possibility that IQ may be a prerequisite to DT performance was proposed
by Guilford (1967) and studied by examining relevant scatterplots for triangularity
(Guilford 1967, Guilford & Christensen 1973, Schubert 1973, Richards (1976).
While this line of investigation is far from conclusive, some DT and IQ scatterplots
do seem to form a quasi-triangle compatible with Guilfords hypothesis.
Creativity and Other Special Abilities

ASSOCIATIONAL ABILITIES. The idea that creativity involves the ability or
tendency to form numerous and unusual associations is, of course, a very old
and sturdy one in the history of psychology. It is therefore not surprising that
considerable effort was devoted to examining relationships between creativity
and associative abilities and tendencies during the past 15 years. Much of this
work centered on the Mednicks Remote Associates Test (Mednick & Mednick
1967). Rather than attempt a superficial review of the substantial work using
this measure, we refer the reader to test reviews by Baird (1972), Bennett (1972),
Vernon (1972a), and Backman & Tuckman (1978), to Worthen & Clark (1971)
for a critique of the RAT and a possibly improved measures of remote associational
ability, to Mendelsohn (1976) for a good review of his studies of attentional
processes presumably underlying RAT performance, to Noppe & Gallagher (1977)
for a cognitive-style approach to the RAT, and to Sobel (1978) for a very recent
review of 18 studies examining the remote associates theory of creativity.
Interesting new work in the associationistic tradition was also reported by
Rothenberg (1973a, b), who found evidence supporting his Janusian thinking
theory of creativity (Rothenberg 1979) in the fact that opposite-responding on
word association tests was significantly and positively related to indices of
creativity, and by MacKinnon (1962a) and Gough (1976a), who found that
moderately unusual associations were positively correlated with rated creativity
in their samples of architects, research scientists, and engineering students.
ACCESS TO MORE PRIMITIVE MODES OF THOUGHT. The idea that creativity
is facilitated by access to relatively primitive modes of cognition is a fundamental
aspect of the psychoanalytic theory of creativity, and as such has been a focus of
considerable research for many years. The past 15 years have seen a steady
stream of research by Child (1965), Wild (1965), Dudek (1968), Taft (1971),
Schaefer (1971b, 1972a), Holland & Baird (1968), Rogolsky (1968), Gray (1969),
Raychaudhuri (1971, 1972), Aronow (1972), Barron (1972), Schmidt (1973),
Eiduson (1974), Dudek (1975), Del Gaudio (1976), Domino (1976), Loshak &
Reznikoff (1976), Schaefer, Diggens & Millman (1976), and Frank (1979).
Recently this topic has been reviewed comprehensively by Suler (1980).
This line of research has also produced several new measures of relevance
to creativity: Singers Regression in the Service of the Ego (RISE) scale (as reported
in Child 1965); Fitzgeralds Experience Inquiry (1966) (which also attempts to
measure RISE, among other interesting characteristics); a Preconscious Activity
Scale by Holland & Baird (1968); an Ego-Permissiveness scale by Taft (1971);
and Coans Experience Inventory (as described in Schaefer et al 1976).
ANALOGICAL AND METAPHORICAL ABILITIES During the past 15 years
investigators have actively examined the possible role of analogical and
metaphorical thinking in creativity (e.g. Gordon 1966, Dreistadt 1968, 1974;
Arieti 1976; Khatena 1975; Harrington 1979, 1981). This interest had earlier
led to the development of Barrons Symbol Equivalents Test (1969), in use since
1951 at IPAR, and Schaefers Similes Test (1971a), both of which measure abilities
involved in the production of analogical and metaphorical images. Other tests in
this domain include Khatenas Onomatopoeia and Images Test (Khatena 1969,
Khatena & Torrance 1976), and Kogans Metaphoric Triads Task (Kogan et al
1980). Winner & Gardner (1977) developed a metaphoric competence measure
with which to study laterality effects in the thinking of brain-damaged patients.
It seems very likely that the 1980s will see a vigorous exploration of the role
played in creative thinking by analogical and metaphorical processes and abilities.
IMAGERY ABILITIES Spurred by developments in cognitive psychology which

re-legitimized the topic and partly spurred by a new journal (Journal of Mental
Imagery), several creativity investigators have also returned to a topic of longstanding interest in this field: imagery. We refer the reader to recent overviews
by Lindauer (1977), Forisha (1978a, b), Khatena (1978), and a very interesting
piece of earlier work by Juhasz (1972) which has not received the attention we
think it deserves.
PROBLEM FINDING ABILITIES One of the most interesting developments of
the past 15 years was the emergence of problem finding as an important topic of
investigation. Significant contributions included Mack-worths paper on problemfinding in science (1965), Csikszentmihalyi and Getzels interest in problem
finding in art (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi 1976) and life (Csikszentmihalyi &
Beattie 1979) and Arlins attempts to develop and explore problem finding within
a neo-Piagetian developmental perspective (1975, 1977). Recent studies by
Kasperson (1978) and Glover (1979) of relationships between creativity and
question asking and information obtaining behaviors represent further extensions
of this new interest in what is clearly a crucial aspect of creative behavior and
one which will almost surely be studied very seriously in the 1980s.
Creativity and Personality

A Proliferation of Studies in Many Fields
The search for personality characteristics associated with creative achievement
and activity has been carried on in many domains and at many age levels by
investigators using a variety of procedures and approaching the task from both
the intra and inter-field perspectives described above. Let us first look at the
scope of the studies by field before seeking a common core in the diverse findings.
ART Studies of personality characteristics associated with artistic activity and
creative achievement involved preschool children (Harrington, Block & Block
1974, Trowbridge & Charles 1966); elementary school children (Trowbridge &
Charles 1966, Ellison et al 1976, Milgram et al 1977); high school students
(Trowbridge & Charles 1966, Schaefer & Anastasi 1968, Holland & Baird 1968,
Anastasi & Schaefer 1969, Schaefer 1969a, b, Walberg 1969a, Ellison et al 1976);
undergraduates and students in art schools (Cross, Cattell & Butcher 1967, Barron
1972, Rossman & Horn 1972, Gotz & Gotz 1973, Csikszentmihalyi & Getzels
1973, Schaefer 1973, Zeldow 1973, Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi & Getzels 1973,
Schaefer 1973, Zeldow 1973, Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi 1976, Rossman 1976,
Korb & Frankiewicz 1979, Shelton & Harris 1979); professional artists (Cross et
al 1967, Bachtold & Werner 1973, Amos 1978, Gotz & Gotz 1979a, b). Personality
correlates of architectural creativity were studied using students of architecture
(Karlins, Schuerhoff & Kaplan 1969, Schmidt 1973) and professional architects
(Hall & MacKinnon 1969, Gough 1979). The personality characteristics of
undergraduate cinematographers were also examined (Domino 1974).
LITERATURE Investigators studied personality characteristics associated with
creative writing among elementary school children (Milgram et al 1977); high
school students (Schaefer & Anastasi 1968, Holland & Baird 1968, Anastasi &
Schaefer 1969, Schaefer 1969a, b); college students (Korb & Frankiewicz 1979);
and professional writers (Helson 1970, 1973a, b, Bachtold & Werner 1973, Helson
1977, 1977-1978).
MUSIC Personality characteristics of creative musicians in India were studied
(Raychaudhuri 1966, 1967) as were characteristics associated with musical
composition grades in a sample of music students (Khatena 1971b).
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Personality correlates of scientific achievement
and creativity were studied in elementary school children (Milgram et al 1977);
high school students (Schaefer & Anastasi 1968, parloff et al 1968, Anastasi &
Schaefer 1969, Schaefer 1969a, b, Walberg 1969a); undergraduates, young
adults, and graduate students (Rossman & Horn 1972, Schaefer 1973, Gough
1979, Korb & Frankiewicz 1979); psychologists (Chambers 1964, Wispe 1965,
Bachtold & Werner 1970); inventors (Bergum 1975, Albaum 1976, Albaum &
Baker 1977); mathematicians (Helson 1967b, 1968a, Parloff et al 1968; Helson
& Crutchfield 1970a, b; Helson 1971; Gough 1979); chemists (Chambers 1964);
and assorted engineers and research scientists (McDermid 1965, Owens 1969,
Bachtold & Werner 1972, Bergum 1973, Eiduson 1974, Gough 1979).
MULTIPLE DOMAINS Personality correlates of global or multiple field indices
of creative achievement, activity, and reputation were studied using elementary
school children (Sussman & Justman 1975); undergraduates and young adults
(Helson 1967a, Domino 1970, Taft & Gilchrist 1970, Elton & Rose 1974); college
professors (Chambers 1973, Bergum 1974); and adults living in Calcutta
(Raychaudhuri 1971).
The Emergence of Core Characteristics

The empirical work of the past 15 years on the personality characteristics of
creative people brought few surprises. In general, a fairly stable set of core
characteristics (e.g. high valuation of esthetic qualities in experience, broad
interests, attraction to complexity, high energy, independence of judgment,
autonomy, intuition, self-confidence, ability to resolve antinomies or to
accommodate apparently opposite or conflicting traits in ones self-concept, and,
finally, a firm sense of self as creative) continued to emerge as correlates of
creative achievement and activity in many domains.
One manifestation of this apparent emergence of core characteristics was

the development of several empirically keyed creative personality scales for
Goughs Adjective Check List (Smith & Schaefer 1969; Domino 1970; Yarnell
1971a, b; Harrington 1972, 1975; Gough 1979). Reasonably encouraging
evidence of the construct validity of these scales has subsequently emerged
(Domino 1974, Welsh 1975, Albaum & Baker 1977, Domino 1977, Ironson &
Davis 1979). A 5-year follow-up (Schaefer 1972c) has demonstrated the temporal
stability of one of these scales, and studies (Harrington 1972; unpublished
manuscript, 1979) have revealed very high interscale correlations. The magnitude
of these correlations (typically in the .70s and .80s after statistical removal of
general adjective-endorsing tendencies) establishes the existence of a set of core
characteristics associated with creative achievement and activity in a fairly wide
range of domains. The adjectives in the Composite Creative Personality scale
(Harrington 1972, 1975) Provide a good sense of these scales: active, alert,
ambitious, argumentative, artistic, assertive, capable, clear thinking, clever,
complicated, confident, curious, cynical, demanding, egotistical, energetic,
enthusiastic, hurried, idealistic, imaginative, impulsive, independent,
individualistic, ingenious, insightful, intelligent, interests wide, inventive, original,
practical, quick, rebellious, reflective, resourceful, self-confident, sensitive, sharpwited, spontaneous, unconventional, versatile and not conventional and not
inhibited.
Because the scales are embedded in a set of 300 extremely diverse adjectives,
they are not transparent (and thus unduly face valid) in their naturally
administered form. Recent evidence regarding their vulnerability to conscious
attempts to fake creative (Ironson & Davis 1979), however, suggests that
application of the ACL to subjects sensitive to the issue of creativity should be
avoided when these scales are used. For example, they would probably be very
poor measures to use in evaluating the effectiveness of creativity workshops or
training programs.
The apparent emergence of core characteristics also prompted several
investigators to survey the pattern of consistent correlates and to construct their
own creative personality scales and inventories on a rational, aposteriori basis.
Creative personality scales were thus developed for use with elementary school
children by Schaefer (see Schaefer & Bridges 1970; Schaefer 1971c; and reviews
by Vernon 1978 and Yamamoto 1978); Rookey 1971, 1974; Rimm 1976; Rimm
& Davis 1976; Davis & Rimm 1977) and for use with adolescents and adults by
Torrance and Khatena (Torrance 1970; Khatena 1971a; Khatena & Torrance
1976) and by Davis (1975). Evidence regarding the construct validity of several
of these instruments was presented by Rekdal (1977) and is routinely updated
in Gifted Child Quarterly.
The consistent emergence of certain correlates of creative achievement and
activity also led to the development of an empirically based creativity equation
by Cattell for his widely used 16 PF (Cattell, Eber & Tatsuoka 1970, pp. 129,
241-42). In a partial validation of this equation, Csikszentmihalyi & Getzels (1973)

applied Cattells equation to a sample of student artists and found those students
average creativity scores to be at the eighty-ninth percentile using college norms.
Though the 16 PF equation was offered as an index of the global creative
personality, hope was held out that further research would provide evidence by
which different equation weights could be developed for specific types of creativity
and situations. Similar indices or composites were developed by the IPAR group
for several widely used inventories (Hall & Mackinnon 1969). Which of these
core personality characteristics facilitate effective social behavior of almost
any form? Which specifically facilitate creative behavior? Which are by products
of social achievement and recognition of almost any form? Which are specifically
by-products of creative achievement and recognition? Which are merely
noncausally related correlates of creative achievement? These are questions that
deserve careful attention from investigators of the 1980s. We suspect that
longitudinal studies and systematic cross-field comparisons may be particularly
helpful in illuminating these unresolved issues.
Increased Attention to Age- and Field-Related Differences

While evidence of a set of core characteristics associated with creative achievement
and activity in many domains grew stronger, several investigators became
increasingly sensitive to the possibility that the picture of the creative person
might very as a function of age, sex, and field of creative activity.
AGE The proliferation of studies of creativity involving adolescents and young
adults made possible an expanded search for age-related changes in the picture
of the creative person. In an analysis of personality correlates associated with
creativity in adolescent and adult men. Parloff et al (1968), for example, identified
a factor they called Disciplined Effectiveness which correlated positively with
indices of creative achievement in their adolescent males and negatively with
indices of creative achievement in their adult males. This reversal was discussed
at some length in terms of the relative importance of impulse control at certain
stages of personal and professional development. Somewhat similar evidence of
possible age-related correlational reversal involving the CPI Responsibility scale
(slightly positively correlated with creativity among undergraduate cinematographers and significantly negatively correlated with creativity among professional
architects) appeared in evidence reported by Domino (1974), who also
commented upon apparent age-related correlational differences involving
confidence in interpersonal interactions. In a similar vein, change in the apparent
role of self-regulatory capacities creative artistic achievement was also noted
in a longitudinal study of preschool children (Harrington et al 1974) where
indices of self-regulation were positively correlated with creative artistic achievement at 3-1/2 and negatively correlated at 5-1/2. This is an important point; the
search for taxonomic simplicity has all too often ignored the phenomenon of
developmental ebb and flow in many traits.
FIELD OF CREATIVITY As the number of studies in any given area has increased,
it has become easier to detect and view with confidence the apparent field
specificity of certain characteristics associated with creativity. It has become
increasingly clear, for example, that creative scientists tend to be more emotionally
stable, venturesome, and self-assured than the average individual, whereas
creative artists and writers tend to be less stable, less venturesome, and more
guilt prone (Cattell 1971, p. 411). As the studies of Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi
(1976) make clear, it may also be necessary to draw distinctions within domains
(e.g. fine artists vs applied artists) lest intradomain differences cancel one another
out and badly obscure overall findings. Important studies in which the role of
domain has been explicitly considered have also been reported by Parloff et al
(1968); Anastasi & Schaefer 1969; Schaefer 1969a, b, c and 1972b, c, 1973;
Schaefer & Anastasi 1968; Helson1968a; Rossman & Horn 1972; Korb &
Frankewicz 1979. It should be noted in this context that Schaefers studies of
biographical inventory correlates of creativity led him to develop filed-specific
creativity scales (Schaefer 1970a) for his inventory.
The search for field-specific correlates and characteristics is in no way
incompatible with the search for a set of core characteristics associated with
creativity in fairly diverse domains. The 1980s will surely see a tendency to
develop increasingly field-specific pictures of the creative person.
Creativity in Men and Women:

A New Focus on Sex-Related Differences
Led by the pioneering efforts of Ravenna Helson (1966a, b, 1967a, b, 1968a,
b, 1970, 1971, 1973a, b, 1974, 1977, 1977-1978, 1978a, b), many creativity
investigators turned their attention to the psychology of creativity in women,
to the possibility that different stories must be told about creative men and
creative women, and to the possible roles played by such constructed as
psychological masculinity, matriarchal consciousness, and psychological
androgyny.
STUDIES OF CREATIVE WOMEN Studies and reviews of creative women
focused on women engaged in art (Nochlin 1971, 1979; Greer, 1979); writing
(Olsen 1970, 1978; Spacks 1972; Showalter 1971; Helson 1973b); art and
literature (Anastasi & Schaefer 1969; Schaefer 1969a,b, 1970b, 1971b,
1972b,c, 1973; Bachtold & Werner 1973); science (Walberg 1969b; Bachtold
& Werner 1972); mathematics (helson 1971); psychology (Bachtold & Werner
1970); elementary school teaching (Torrance, Tan & Allman 1970); college
teaching (Groth 1975); and other assorted activities (Helson 1966a,b, 1967a,
1968b; Torrance 1972a; Suter & Domino 1975; Yu 1977; Blaubergs 1978;
Morse & Bruch 1978; Lemkau 1969). It is clear that those wishing to examine
the psychology of creative women have for more empirical evidence to look
at today than they did 15 years ago. Very helpful reviews of this work can be
found in Blaubergs (1978), Helson (1978b), and Lemkau (1979).
Two Types of Sex Differences

Mean differences Because investigators increasingly included sex as a variable
in their analysis, studies comparing males and females on creativity-related
indices are simply too numerous to cite. For integrations of these studies the
reader is referred to useful reviews by Kogan (1974), Forisha (1978b), and
Helson (1978b).
Correlational differences Investigators have also become increasingly sensitive
to the possibility of sex differences involving correlational patterns or
interactions involving sex. For example, investigators have reported and
commented upon different patterns of results for males and females related
to creative working styles (Helson 1967b, 1968a) and products (Helson 1977),
relationship of DT test performances to indices of psychological androgyny
(Jones, Chernovetz & Hansson 1978); personality characteristics associated
with barrier resourcefulness in preschool children (Block, Block & Harrington
1975); personality correlates of artistic achievement and status (Schaefer
1969b, Barron 1972, Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi 1976); cognitive-perceptual
correlates of artistic achievement (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi 1976);
correlations among creative activity-achievement checklist scores (Hocevar
1976); correlations between imagery and creativity indices (Forisha 1978b);
correlates of RAT scores (Gall & Mendelsohn 1967, Mendelsohn & Covington
1972, Mendelsohn 1976); validities of divergent thinking test scores (Vernon
1972b); behavioral correlates of DT test scores among kindergarteners (Singer
& Rummo 1973); correlations between defensiveness and DT scores in
children (Wallach & Kogan 1965, Kogan & Morgan 1969); reliabilities of DT
test scores (Kogan & Pankove 1972, Torrance & Alliotti 1969); correlations
between biographical inventory scales of creativity and indices of openness
to experience and sensation seeking (Schaefer et al 1976); and effects of
explicit instructions to be creative on divergent thinking tests (Katz & Poag
1979).
In some of these studies correlational differences were tested for statistical
significance and in many they were not. As differences between correlational
and regression patterns become of greater interest, investigators will
presumably grow more sophisticated in their analysis.
PSYCHOLOGICAL FEMININITY, MASCULINITY, AND ANDROGYNY Studies
of the relationship between various indices of creativity (sometimes defined
as achievement and sometimes as ability) and indices of psychological

masculinity (patriarchal consciousness), psychological femininity
(matriarchal consciousness), and psychological androgyny were reported
by Helson 1966a, 1967b, 1968a, 1970, 1971, 1973b; Littlejohn 1967; Stringer
1967; Hall & MacKinnon 1969; Urbina et al 1970; Domino 1974; Barron
1972; Suter & Domino 1975; Welsh 1975; Kanner 1976; Milgram et al 1977;
Jones et al 1978; Harrington & Anderson 1979 and unpublished manuscript,
1980). The results of these studies cannot be summarized briefly. Suffice to
say that indices of psychological femininity, masculinity, and androgyny were
sometimes positively, ability, or self-concept. This area of research is simply
too new for a clear picture to have emerged.
In addition to focusing attention upon creative women as such and thereby
enormously broadening our picture of creative people, the study of creativity
in women called the fields attention to the critical role which social context,
expectation, and pressure play in determining whether creative talent is
fostered and, if so, how it is directed. We suspect the benefits of this redirection
of attention will be felt increasingly as the 1980s progress.
Development of New Measures of Personality

In addition to the creative personality scales described above, a number of
interesting new personality measures relevant to creativity research were
introduced. Based on the early work by Gough & Woodworth (1960) with
research scientists, by MacKinnon & Hall (MacKinnon 1963) with architects,
and by Barron & Egan (1968) with business managers, Helson (1967b,
1973a,b) developed a Mathematicians Q-set and a Writers Q-set by which
individuals in these fields could describe their own work styles, relationships
to their work, and other factors rarely tapped by standard personality
assessment devices. By including formally similar items in field-specific Qsets, Helson is obviously creating the possibility for very interesting studies
across fields. Evidence reported thus far suggests that self-description
generated with these Q-sets are very useful in drawing connections between
personality and process.
Kirtons Adaptation-Innovation Inventory (Kirton 1976, 1977a,b) was
designed to measure an individuals tendency to direct creativity either toward
innovation or toward creative adaptation. Though validity information is
meager at this point, the idea of measuring such a creativity style seems
quite intriguing.
Pursuing his five-level definition of creativity, I. A. Taylor (Taylor, Sutton
& Haworth 1974) developed the Creative Behavior Disposition Scale to assess
dispositions toward expressive, technical, inventive, innovative, and
emergentive creativity. Again, though validity data are meager, the concept
underlying this instrument is promising.
New personality inventories containing scales of potential relevance to

creativity investigators included Jacksons Personality Research Form
(particularly his scales for autonomy, change, cognitive structure, sentience,
and understanding) (Jackson 1967) and the Jackson Personality Inventory
(Jackson 1976, 1978) (especially the scales for breadth of interest, complexity,
conformity, energy level, and innovation).
A fine review of recent progress in the assessment of curiosity has also
appeared (Maw & Maw 1978). Reviews of recent methodological and
theoretical progress with respect to such potentially relevant dimensions as
achievement striving, field dependence, locus of control, and sensation seeking
have also appeared recently in an edited collection by London & Exner (1978).
New Efforts to Link Personality to Process and Product

Extremely interesting attempts have been made in the last few years to link
personality characteristics to facets of the creative process and to characteristics of creative products.
In her studies of writers of childrens fiction, Helson (1973a,b) has made
some progress in relating the placement of her Writers Q-set items to
consensually rated characteristics of the childrens books themselves. More
recently Helson (1977-78) has begun to link personality characteristics of
the writers to characteristics of their products via the writers recollected
experiences during the writing process. Dudek & Halls (1978-79) effort to
relate personal style in architecture to personality characteristics of the
architect via qualitative analysis of Rorschach responses is another example
of this interesting new line of inquiry. Fraught with the difficulties of
pioneering efforts as they are, these initial studies seem very promising.
In an intriguingly similar enterprise, Atwood & Tomkins (1976) and
Stolorow & Atwood (1979) have attempted to draw clear connections between
personality characteristics of personality theorists and the character of their
personality theories. The formal similarity to Helsons work is obvious and
interesting.
Krantz & Wiggins (1973) have also undertaken a study linking personality
characteristics of highly creative psychologists (Hull, Skinner, Spence, and
Tolman) to their impact on the field by examining their direct relationships
with their students. Implications of this work for a sociology of knowledge
have been discussed by Campbell (1979).
These efforts to connect personality, process, and product strike us as
extraordinarily exciting and deserving of encouragement and emulation.
Thought Disorder and Creativity

Disorders of thinking may occur in clinical syndromes such as schizophrenia,
manic depressive psychosis, and brain damage. Reasoning and realistic
observation may also be diminished in certain readily reversible altered states
of consciousness, such as extreme emotion, mystical states, reveries, temporary
alcoholic or drug induced derangements, dreams, and domination by
unconscious motives in more or less ordinary individuals.
Meehl (1962) in his APA presidential address saw thought disorder as
one of four hypothesized components in schizophrenia (the other three being
anhedonia, ambivalence, and personal aversiveness). He proposed that it is
necessary to distinguish among schizotaxia, schizotypia, and schizophrenia.
Schizotaxia is an inherited specific etiology, an aberration in some parameter
of a single-cell function, and is essentially a neural integrative defect; the
schizotype is a form of personality organization arising from schizotaxia but
conditioned by social learning and including as dispositional tendencies the
four components of schizophrenia; schizophrenia is the clinical manifestation
of a process of decompensation in a subset of schizotypic personalities.
This seems to us an important clarification of the difference between an
inherited disposition and a social outcome. By analogy, divergent thinking at
the neurological (single cell or not) level is originotaxic; the originotype is a
form of personality organization in which the disposition toward originality,
itself having several discernible components (Barron 1955), are present and
capable of expression depending upon the presence of other factors, both in
the environment and in the personality, creativity is a social outcome, certainly
not a decompensation but quite possibly an overcompensation, if one employs
those terms.
Let us back up a bit and look at the problem of the relationship of divergent
thinking (originality) and thought disorder once again.
Studies of normal relatives of persons diagnosed as schizophrenic have
shown a markedly higher incidence of thought disorder than one finds in the
general population. At the same time, among the relatives of such patients
there is a higher proportion of individuals who have achieved eminence
through creative activities (see KarIsson 1978 for a summary of the evidence
from his own and others researches).
Dobzhansky (1964) has argued that schizophrenia is strongly hereditary
and may be inherited according to a simple Mendelian model but that
incomplete penetrance of the gene is common, so that there may be as many
as ten undetected carriers to one who develops a florid psychosis. Furthermore,
the percentage of carriers may range from 10 to 20% of the general population.
The implication is that an unusual cognitive condition, with a single-gene,
single-cell base and sometimes clinically evident as thought disorder, is
relatively common. In the presence of certain crucially ameliorative factors
or moderator variables (high intelligence, e.g., or high ego strength) could

this condition manifest itself as originality of thought, or creativity? Jarvik &
Chadwick (1973) point out that a condition so detrimental to survival as
schizophrenia, with a highly probable genetic component, should have
declined by natural selection unless it had positive, adaptive aspects.
In a study by Al-issa (1972), 50 schizophrenics were administered ten of
the Guilford tests, including Impossibilities, Consequences scored for
remoteness, and Alternative Uses. All tests proved to have a high positive
correlation with vocabulary. However, Remote Consequence and Alternative
Uses were significantly negatively related to a measure of overinclusion,
traditionally a sign of thought disorder. (Overinclusion may be a misleading
term, a name given by the test interpreter to the respondents tendency to
use, or at least attend to, more and seemingly irrelevant information than is
necessary for the solution of the problem at hand. But sometimes that is a
very useful habit for the creative problem solver to have; overinclusion today
may yield tomorrows fresh insight). The (complex) W score on the Rorschach,
which reflects the respondents effort to include many aspects of the blot in a
single synthesizing image, has been shown by Barron (1955, 1957) to be
highly positively correlated with a composite score for originality, including
many DT tests; moreover, a substantial correlation of W with originality
survives the partialling out of measured intelligence.
Several studies support this line of reasoning. McConaghy & Clancy
(1968) showed that allusive thinking on object-sorting tasks is common
though not so pronounced in the normal population as in schizophrenics,
and they showed familial transmission in schizophrenics and nonschizophrenics. Dykes & McGhie (1976) showed that highly creative normal subjects score as high on the Loviband object sorting test as do schizophrenics,
Woody & Claridge (1977), using Guilford DT tests and the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) with a group of 100 university students, found
psychoticism strongly related to divergent thinking. Farmer (1974) (cited
by Woody & Claridge 1977) showed that EPI Psychoticism was very highly
correlated with Originality on the Consequences test.
In an analysis of the Schizophrenia scale of the MMPI to discover how
hospitalized schizophrenics differed from at-large artists matched for Sc
score, age, sex, and education, it was discovered that the two groups clearly
earned their identical Sc elevations in very different ways; the analysis yielded
a subset of 18 items significantly differentiating the groups (Barron 1972).
The item content for the 18-item subscale seems to express mostly a positive
hedonic tone in the artists as contrasted with anhedonia in the patients;
items on which schizophrenics and artists were similar are reports of odd
sensory and perceptual experiences, a preference for solitude, rejection of
common social values, and feelings of restlessness leading at times to impulsive
outbursts. Claridge (1972) showed that divergent thinking tests were
significantly related to an index of psychoticism based on a principal

components analysis of a wide range of psychophysiological parameters
known to discriminate psychotics from normal controls.
For an incisive analysis of these questions and a selected brief but excellent
review of the literature, see Hasenfus & Magaro (1976), Creativity and
schizophrenia: An equality of empirical constructs. As they show, the research
evidence supports the thesis that ideational fluency and overinclusion are
facets of the same cognitive propensity, and that a tendency to introduce
complexity in perception goes both with creativity and with schizophrenia.
Yet the core characteristics of the creative person as summarized above are
certainly not those of someone in the throes of a bout with schizophrenia,
nor even of the schizotypic personality. Here we are badly in need of thoughtful
research. The question itself may contain an important key to the psychological
and genetic connections between psychological health and psychological
disease.
The use of alcohol and its function in creative thinking has been discussed
by Karlsson (1978) and others. Alcohol of course produces diminished
observation and loss of memory, including at times the loss of whole classes
of information necessary for adaptive functioning. However, it also loosens
inhibitions, increases inappropriate associations, and leads to cosmic
thoughts and utterances, all of which can be instrumental in certain types of
creative activity. But of course alcohol can also be use for its damping effects
when the cortical fires are burning too brightly. Research on creativity and
the use of alcohol might profitably employ Pavlovs theories concerning
cortical inhibition and excitation and their relationship to personality types.
Psychedelic or hallucinogenic (take your pick of the terms) drugs produce
altered states of consciousness that clearly are the result of biochemical
interventions affecting neural systems. These states result in temporary
abrogation of certain perceptual constancies and thereby in novel experience,
whether in a passive waking state or accompanied by active behavior that in
turn leads to novel situations. Description of the effects of such drugs and
their chemical nature, as well as speculation about the way they work, can
be found in a summary by Barron, Jarvik & Bunnell (1964). Their effect
specifically on creativity has been reviewed by Krippner (1977). In general,
it appears that creativity as ability or achievement is little affected one way
or another over the long term by such agents, though at the level of momentary
direct experience they produce novelty and divergent thinking; their effect
on creativity as attitude is difficult to assess, though important.
Perhaps these substances and their effects are best understood in relation
to trance states and suggestibility. If someone in a good position to do so
should suggest to you that you can do better at something, you probably will
about 10 to 20% better.
Testimony from recognized geniuses (see Ghiselin 1952, e.g.) show that
intense motivation and experience in unusual states of consciousness are
instrumental in what is later recognized by society as high creativity. The

self-managed introduction of consciousness-altering substances may be a wellthought-out strategy on the part of some creative people; or it may simply be
a compulsive method for achieving temporary regression in the service of
the ego.
If the disposition to schizophrenia is inherited, is the component called
thought disorder inherited too? Is the ability or tendency to think divergently
inherited? Twin studies with normal subjects suggests in the whole that twin
resemblances in verbal DT abilities do not show zygosity effects (Barron 1972;
Pezzullo, Thorsen & Madaus 1972; Barron & Parisi 1977). However those
studies as well as the results obtained by Domino et al 1976, support the
well-known distinction between verbal and figural abilities (which do seem
to be inherited) in creativity. A refincement of design that would include
sampling of co-twins of schizophrenic index cases as well as other family
members seems in order.
Psychobiography, Psychohistory, and the

Life-Span Perspective
Pursuing a recognition in the early 1960s that biographical information
provided good bases for predicting creative achievement, many investigators
have developed and employed biographical inventories and a life-span
approach in creativity research during the last 15 years. The heightened
interest in the study of lives received an important impetus from the Henry
A. Murray festschrift (The Study of Lives by White, 1963) and was evident in
perspective-providing developmental reviews and theoretical work by Arasteh
(1968), Arasteh & Arasteh (1968, 1976), Wallach (1970), Gowan (1972,
1974), Kogan (1973), Landau & Maoz (1978), Shapiro (1975), Arilin (1976),
Alpaugh, Renner & Birren (1976), and Runyan (1978); by methodological
pioneering in the field by Simonton (e.g. 1975, 1976b, 1977, 1978); and by
empirical studies cast in developmental terms (e.g. Dennis 1966; Roe 1965,
1972; Waterman, Kohutiz & Pulone 1977, Schultz, Hoyer & Kaye 1980).
Studies of creativity and DT abilities in increasingly younger children (Dudek
1974, Strarkweather 1976, Ward 1974, and many others) also indicated
growing interest in the life-span perspective. So, too, did numerous studies
of parental and home influences on the development of creative individuals
(Nichols 1964, MacKinnon 1966, Datta 1967, Datta & Parloff 1967, Helson
1968b, Schaefer & Anastasi 1968, Anastasi & Schaefer 1969, Domino 1969,
Heilbrun 1971, Baroon 1972, Dewing 1973, Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi 1976,
Grant & Domino 1976, Goertzel, Goertzel & Goertzel 1978, Domino 1979).
The notoriously awesome problems of conducting longitudinal studies were
taken on by several investigators (Helson 1967a, Owens 1969; Cropley 1972;
Kogan & Pankove 1972, 1974; Schaefer 1972b,c, 1973; Torrance 1972b;
Eiduson 1974; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi 1976; Gough 1976b, 1979;
Magnusson & Backteman 1978), who obviously realized that many
fundamental questions regarding the psychology of creativity can only be
approached from a developmental and longitudinal perspective.
At least two biographical inventories with empirically keyed creativity
scales have been marketed the Alpha Biographical Inventory, developed by
C. W. Taylor and R. Ellison at the Institute for Behavioral Research in Creativity
in 1966 (reviewed by Hemphill 1972 and Ward 1972) and the Biographical
Inventory (Schaefer 1970a). These and similar inventories have been used in
studies of artistic, scientific, and entrepreneurial creative achievement. Groups
have included elementary school children (Ellison et al 1976); high school
students (Schaefer & Anastasi 1968; Anastasi & Schaefer 1969; Schaefer
1969a; Walberg 1969a; Schaefer 1972b; Torrance, Bruch & Morse 1973; James
et al 1974; Payne & Halpin 1974; Ellison et al 1976); professionals in
engineering and scientific creativity (Buel 1965; McDermid 1965; Buel,
Albright & Glennon 1966; Taylor & Ellison 1967; Tucker, Cline & Schmitt
1967; Owens 1969; Ellison, James & Carron 1970; Albaum 1976); and
business managers (Barron 1969). Cross-validated correlations have typically
ranged from the .30s to the high .50s with empirically keyed creativity scales
developed from these inventories. Such creativity scales have also been used
as creativity criteria against which other indices of interest have been
correlated (e.g. Davis & Belcher 1971, Lacey & Erickson 1974, Suter & Domino
1975, Patel 1976, and Schaefer et al 1976).
The very factorial complexity (e.g. Morrison et al 1962; Payne & Halpin
1974) which gives these biographical scales their predictive power also creates
serious interpretive difficulties if one attempts to derive theoretically pertinent
meaning from them. While the inclusion of information about such factors
as availability of cultural materials in the home, parental education, childhood
hobbies, quality of education, perceived parental pressures and encouragements, previous creative activities, achievements and awards, current
motivations, and current self-rated abilities certainly increases the predictive
power of these scales, correlations between aggregations of such items and
indices of creative achievement do not lend themselves to incisive
interpretation. Such scales are factorially complex correlates of creative
achievement, and as such should not be substituted for creative achievement
indices. We believe that the maximum scientific value of such inventories
will come from examining and reflecting upon the content of item-level
correlates of creative achievement in particular settings and samples. By
providing a wide range of information (particularly regarding situation and
life-history factors often neglected in creativity research) biographical
inventories have broadened our perspective in important ways. It would
therefore be particularly disappointing in the inherent potentials of such
inventories are lost in the tunnel-vision pursuit of large but theoretically

unilluminating validity coefficients.
This line of work needs more attention, mostly because the items in a
biographical inventory usually relate to life circumstance and can fill in some
of the gaps in knowledge about press and about situational factors in general.
Early foot in many professions, e.g., is based on money in the bank, and
creativity is less a card of entry than an ability that might not otherwise find
expression. The biographical inventory is especially important to t he study
of lifes outcomes, and to the intersection of historical or socioeconomic
conditions with stage of professional and personal development. Studies of
cross-cultural and cross-generational effects on creativity are needed, such
as the Barron & Young (1970) study of the descendants of immigrants from
southern Italy to Rome and Boston respectively. Simonton (1975) has provided
innovative systematic methods of generational analysis, with interesting
results, for research on changes in creativity over long time spans. Goertzel,
Goertzel & Goertzel (1978) have been less systematic methodologically but
have given the field a major book, beguiling in its detailed consideration of
creative lives. A rash of psychologically sensitive biographies (psychobiographies) are evidence of new interest in a psychological, personological
approach to the understanding of creative lives in their historical context.
The study of such lives and careers does itself animate history and makes it
more comprehensible. This is an area of study hardly begun. What is needed
is a way of encoding observations from psychologically impressionistic and
complex psychobiographies to yield data susceptible of analysis relevant to
the life course and to historical process. The archives of research centers that
have accumulated observations over the years are gold mines of data that
can be used for such analyses given a reliable and standardized source of
information about later significant events, outcomes if you will, in the lives
of creative women and men. A good example of the pooling of such data
from many sources is provided by the Murray Research Center for the Study
of Lives, founded at Radcliffe College in 1979. Given the unusual difficulties
and efforts involved in gathering rich psychological data on creative
individuals, we hope that secondary analyses of such data, undertaken with
increasingly sophisticated data-analytic techniques and from diverse
conceptual perspectives, will become widespread in the 1980s. Such analyses
could be greatly facilitated by the Murray Research Center and many other
centers which have accumulated archives of unparalleled potential value for
the study of creative people. Imaginative cooperation involving such centers
and individual investigators who have accumulated valuable longitudinal
data could provide very cost-effective bases of time-series data for secondary
and meta-analyses. Social support for such centers in the form of money and
endorsement from foundations is needed. The basic goal should be to
understand integrity, excellence and creativity developmentally, especially
in the later years. A new national center for such studies, not merely archival
but newly initiated on the basis of our growing wisdom in these matters, is
essential.
Note
1
The authors wish to acknowledge the very substantial contributions of UCSC psychology
graduate student Teresa Zembower to this review, especially in the culling of important findings
from dissertation abstracts and from articles in the Journal of Creative Behavior. She also
undertook the onerous task of preparing the bibliography and reconciling it with the text. We
are also grateful to Wallace B. Hall for many helpful comments and corrections. Financial
costs were met by a faculty research grant from the Santa Cruz campus.
Literature Cited
Albaum, G. 1976. Selecting specialized creators: The independent inventor. Psychol, Rep.
39:17579.
Albaum, G., Baker, K. 1977. Cross validation of a creativity scale for the Adjective Check List.
Educ. Psychol. Meas. 37:105761.
Al-issa, I. 1972. Stimulus generalization and overinclusion in normal and schizophrenic subjects.
J. Clin. Psychol. 39:18286.
Alpaugh, P. K., Renner, V. J. Birren, J. E. 1976. Age and creativity. Implications for education
and teachers Educ. Gerontol. 1:1740.
Amos, S. P. 1978. Personality differences between established and less-established male and
female creative artists J. Pers. Assess. 42:37477.
Anastasi, A., Schaefer, C. E. 1969. Biographical correlates of artistic and literary creativity in
adolescent girls. J. Appl. Psychol. 53:26773.
Anastasi, A., Schaefer, C. E. 1971. The Franck drawing completion test as a measure of creativity.
J. Genet. Psychol. 119:312.
Arasteh, A. R. Arasteh, J. D. 1968. Creativity in the Life Cycle: II. An Interpretive Account of
Creativity in Childhood, Adolescence and Adulthood. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Arasteh, A. R., Arasteh, J. D. 1976. Creativity and Human Development: An Interpretative and
Annotated Bibliography. New York: Schenkman.
Arasteh, J. D. 1968. Creativity and related processes in the young child. A review of the
literature. J. Genet Psychol. 112:77108.
Arieti, S. 1976. Creativity. The Magic Synthesis. New York: Basic Books.
Arlin, P. K. 1975. Cognitive development in adulthood: A fifth stage? Dev. Psychol. 11:602-6.
Arlin, P. K. 1976. Toward a metatheoretical model of cognitive development. Int. J. Aging
Hum. Dev. 7:24753.
Arlin. P. K. 1977. Piagetian operations in problem finding. Dev. Psychol. 13:29798.
Aronow, E, 1972. Comment on Raychaudhuris Relation of creativity and sex to Rorschach M
Responses. J. Pars. Assess. 36:3034.
Atwood, G. E., Tomkins, S. S. 1976. On the subjectivity of personality theory. J. Hist. Behav.
Sci. 12:16677.
Bachtold, L. M., Werner, E. E. 1970. Personality profiles of gifted women: Psychologists. Am.
Psychol, 25:23443.
Bachtold, L. M., Werner, E. E. 1972. Personality characteristics of women scientists. Psychol.
Rep. 32:39196.
Bachtold, L. M., Werner, E. E. 1973. Personality characteristics of creative women. Percept.

Mot. Skills 36:31119.
Backman, M. E., Tuckman, B. W. 1978. Review of the Remote Associates Test. In The Eighth
Mental Measurement Yearbook, ed. O. K. Buros, pp. 36970. Highland Park, NM: Gryphon.
Baird, L. L. 1972. Review of the Remote Associates Test. In The Seventh Mental Measurement
Yearbook, ed. O. K. Buros, pp. 82529. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon.
Barron, F. 1955. The disposition toward originality. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51:47885.
Barron, F. 1957. Originality in relation to personality and intellect. J. Pers. 25:73042.
Barron, F. 1969. Creative Person and Creative Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Barron. F. 1972. Artists in the Making. New York Seminar.
Barron, F., Egan, D. 1968. Leaders in innovators in Irish management J. Manage, Stud. 5:41
60.
Barron, F., Jarvik, M. E. Bunnell, S. 1964. The hallucinogenic drugs. Sci. Am. April 311.
Barron, F., Parisi, P. 1977. Twin resemblances in expressive behavior. Acto Genet, Med. Gemellal,
Spring.
Barron, F., Young H. B. 1970. Rome and Boston: A take of two cities and their differing impact
on the creativity and personal philosophy of southern Italian immigrants. J. Cross-Cult,
Psychol. 1:91114.
Bennett, G. K. 1972. Review of the Remote Associates Test. See Baird 1972, p. 829.
Bergum, B. O. 1973, Selection of specialized creators. Psychol. Rep. 33:63539.
Bergum, B. O. 1974. Self-perceptions of a graduate faculty whose publication rates are high
or low. Psychol. Rep. 35:85758.
Bergum, B. O. 1975. Self-perceptions of creativity among academic inventors and noninventors. Percept. Mot. Skills 40:78.
Binet, A., Henri, V. 1896. La psychologie individuuelle. Annoe Psychol. 2:41165.
Blaubergs, M. 1978. Personal studies of gifted females: An overview and commentary. Gifted
Child Q. 22:53947.
Block, J. H. 1976. Issues, problems and Pitfalls in assessing sex-differences: A critical review
of The Psychology of Sex Differences (by E. E. Maccoby & C. N. Jacklin). Merrill-Palmer Q.
22:283308.
Block, J. H., Block, J., Harrington, D. 1975. Sex-role typing and instrumental behavior. Presented
at Soc. Res. Child Dev. Meet., Denver.
Bloomberg, M. 1973. Introduction: Approaches to creativity. In Creativity, ed. M. Bloomberg,
pp. 125. New Haven: College & Univ. Press.
Buel, W. D. 1965. Biographical data and the identification of creative research personnel. J.
Appl. Psychol. 49:31831.
Buel, W. D. Albright, L. E. Glennon, J. R. 1966. A note on the generality and cross-validity of
personal history for identifying creative research scientists. J. Appl. Psychol. 50:21719.
Butcher, H. J. 1973. Intelligence and creativity. In New Approaches in Psychological Measurement,
ed. P. Kline New York: Wiley.
Campbell, D. T. 1979. A tribal model of the social system vehicle carrying scientific knowledge.
Knowledge 1:181201.
Carroll, J. B. 1976. Psychometric tests as cognitive tasks: A new structure of intellect See
Resnick 1976, pp. 2756.
Carroll, J. B., Maxwell, S. E. 1979. Individual differences in cognitive abilities. Ann. Rev.
Psychol. 30:60340.
Cattell, R. B. 1971. Abilities: Their Structure, Growth, and Action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W. Tatsuoka, M. M. 1970. Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (16 PF), Champaign, Ill:Inst, Pers. Ability Test.
Chamber, J. A. 1964. Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity.
Psychol. Monogr. 78.
Chambers, J. A. 1969. Beginning a multidimensional theory of creativity. Psychol. Rep. 25:779
99.
Chambers, J. A. 1973. College teachers. Their effect on creativity of students. J. Educ. Psychol.
65:32634.
Child, I. L. 1965. Personality correlates of esthetic judgment in college students. J. Pers.
33:476511.
Claridge, G. 1972. The Schizophrenias as nervous types. Br. J. Psychiatry 121:117.
Cooper, H. M. 1979. Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex
differences in conformity research. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37:13146.
Corballis, M. C. 1980. Laterality and myth, Am, Psychol. 35:28495.
Cronbach, L. J. 1968. Intelligence? Creativity? A parsimonious reinterpretation of the WallachKogan data. Am. J. Educ. Res. 5:491511.
Cropley, A. J. 1972. A five-year longitudinal study of the validity of creativity tests. Dev.
Psychol. 6:11924.
Cross, P. G. Cattell, R. B., Butcher, H. J. 1967. The personality pattern of creative artists. Br. J.
Educ. Psychol. 37:29299.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Bealtie, O. V. 1979. Life themes. A theoretical and empirical exploration
of their origins and effects, J. Hum. Psychol. 19:4563.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Getzels, J. W. 1973. The personality of young artists: An empirical and
theoretical exploration. Br. J. Psychol. 64:91104.
Cunnington, B. F., Torrance, E. P. 1965. Sounds and Images. Boston: Ginn.
Datta, L. E. 1963. Test instructions and identification of creative scientific talent. Psychol. Rep.
13:495500.
Datta, L. E. 1967. Family religious background and early scientific creativity. Am. Social. Rev.
32:62635.
Datta, L. E., Parloff, M. B. 1967. On the relevance of autonomy: Parent-child relationships
and early scientific creativity. Proc. 75th Ann. Conv. Am. Psychol. Assoc., pp. 14950.
Davis, G. A. 1975. In frumious pursuit of the creative person. J. Creat Behav. 9:7587.
Davis, G. A., Belcher, T. L. 1971. How shall creativity be measured? Torrance tests, RAT, Alpha
Biographical, and IQ. J. Creat. Behav. 5:15361.
Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. 1977. Characteristics of creatively gifted children. Gifted Child Q.
21:54651.
Del Gaudio, A. C. 1976. Psychological differentiation and mobility as related to creativity.
Percept. Mot. Skills 43:83141.
Dellas, M., Gaier, E. L. 1970. Identification of creativity: The individual. Psychol. Bull. 73:55
73.
Dennis, W. 1966. Creative productivity between the ages of 20 and 80 years. J. Gerontol.
21:18.
Dewing, K. 1973. Some characteristics of the parents of creative twelve-year-olds. J. Pers.
41:7185.
Dobzhansky, T. 1964. Mankind Evolving. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Domino, G. 1969. Maternal personality correlates of sons creativity. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.
33:18083.
Domino, G. 1970. Identification of potentially creative persons from the Adjective Check List.
J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 35:4851.
Domino, G. 1974. Assessment of cinematographic creativity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 30:15054.
Domino, G. 1976. Primary process thinking in dream reports as related to creative achievement.
J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 44:92932.
Domino, G. 1977. Homesexuality and creativity, J. Homosex, 2:26167.
Domino, G. 1979, Creativity and the home environment. Gifted Child Q. 23:81828.
Domino, G. Walsh, J., Reznikoff, M. 1976. A factor analysis of creativity in fraternal and
identical twins. J. Gen. Psychol. 97:21121.
Drestadt, R. 1968. An analysis of the use of analogies and metaphors in science. J. Psychol.
68:97116.
Drestadt. R. 1974. The psychology of creativity: How Einstein discovered the theory of relativity.
Psychology 11:1525.
Dudek, S. Z. 1968. Regression and creativity. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 147:53546.

Dudek, S. Z. 1974. Creativity in young childrenattitude or ability? J. Creat. Behav. 8:282-92.
Dudek, S. Z. 1975. Regression in the service of the ego in young children. J. Pers. Assess.
39:36976.
Dudek, S. Z. Hall. W. B. 1978-79. Design philosophy and personal style in architecture, J.
Altered States Consciousness 4:8392.
Dykes, M., McGhie, A. 1976. A comparative study of attentional strategies of schizophrenics
and highly creative normal subjects. Br. J. Psychiary 128:5056.
Eiduson, B. T. 1974. 10-year longitudinal Rorschachs on research scientists. J. Pers. Assess.
38:40510.
Ellison, R. L., Abe, C., Fox, D. G., Coray, K. E., Taylor, C. W. 1976. Using Biographical information
in identifying artistic talent. Gifted Child Q. 20:40213.
Ellison, R. L., James, L. R., Carron, T. 1970. Prediction of R&D performance criteria with
biographical information. J. Ind. Psychol. 5:3757.
Elton, C. F., Rose, H. A. 1974. Prediction of productivity from personality test scores, J. Educ.
Psychol. 66:42431.
Farmer, E. W. 1974. Psychoticism and person-orientation as general personality characteristics.
BSc thesis. Univ. Glasgow, Scotland.
Fitzgerald, E. T. 1966. Measurement of openness to experience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 4:655
63.
Forisha, B. L. 1978a. Mental imagery and creativity: Review and speculations. J. Ment. Imagery
2:20938.
Forisha, B. L. 1978b. Creativity and imagery in men and women. Percept. Mot. Skills 47:1255
64.
Frank, G. 1979. On the validity of hypotheses derived from the Rorschach: VI. M and the
intrapsychic life of individuals. Percept. Mot. Skills 48:126777.
Frederiksen, N., Ward, W. C. 1978. Measures for the study of creativity in scientific for the
study of creativity in scientific problem-solving. Appl. Psychol. Meas, 2:124.
Freeman, J., Butcher, H. J., Christic, T. 1971. Creativity: A Selective Review of Research. London:
Soc. Res. Higher Educ. 2nd ed.
Gall, M., Mendelsohn, G. A. 1967. Effects of facilitating techniques and subject experimenter
interaction on creative problem solving. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 5:21116.
Getzels, J. W., Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1976. The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem
Finding in Art. New York Wiley.
Ghiselin, B. 1952. The Creative Process. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press.
Gilchrist, M. 1972. The Psychology of Creativity. Melbourne Univ. Press.
Glover, J. A. 1979. Levels of questions asked in interview reading sessions by creative and
relatively noncreative college students. J. Genet. Psychol. 135:1038.
Goertzel, M. G., Goertzel, V., Goertzel, T. G. 1978. 300 Eminent Personalities. San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass.
Gordon, W., J. J. 1966. The Metaphorical Way of Learning and Knowing. Cambridge, Mass:
Porpoise Books.
Gotz, K. O., Gotz, K. 1973. Introversion extraversion and neuroticism in gifted and ungifted
art students. Percept. Mot. Skills 36:67578.
Gotz, K. O., Gotz, K. 1979a. Personality characteristics of professional artists. Percept. Mot.
Skills 49:32734.
Gotz, K. O., Gotz, K. 1979b. Personality characteristics of successful artists. Percept. Mot. Skills
49:91924.
Gough, H. G. 1975. A new scientific uses test and its relationship to creativity in research. J.
Creat. Behav. 9:24552.
Gough, H. G. 1976a. Studying creativity by means of word association tests. J. Appl. Psychol.
61:34853.
Gough, H. G. 1976b. What happens to creative medical students? J. Med. Educ. 61:34851.
Gough, H. G. 1979. A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 37:13981405.
Gough, H. G., Woodworth, D. G. 1960. Stylistic variations among professional research
scientists. J. Psychol. 49:8798.
Gowan, J. C. 1972. Development of the Creative Individual. San Diego: Knapp.
Gowan. J. C. 1974. Development of the Psychedelic Individual. Buffalo: creative Educ. Found.
Grant, T. N., Domino. G. 1976. Masculinity-femininity in fathers of creative male adolescents.
J. Genet. Psychol. 129:1927.
Gray, J. J. 1969. The effect of productivity on primary process and creativity. J. Proj. Tech.
33:21318.
Greer, G. 1979. The Obstacle Race: The fortunes of Women Painters and Their Work. New York:
Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Groth, N. J. 1975. Success and creativity in male and female professors. Gifted Child Q.
19:32835.
Guilford, J. P. 1950. Creativity. Am. Psychol. 14:46979.
Guilford, J. P. 1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R. 1973. The one-way relation between creative potential and
IQ. J. Creat. Behav. 7:24752.
Hall, W. B. 1972. A technique for assessing aesthetic predispositions: Mosaic construction
test. J. Creat. Behav. 6:22535.
Hall, W. B., MacKinnon, D. W. 1969. Personality inventory correlates of creativity among
architects. J. Appl. Psychol. 53:32226.
Harrington, D. M. 1972. Effects of instructions to Be creative on three tests of divergent thinking
abilities. PhD thesis, Univ. Calif. Berkeley.
Harrington, D. M. 1975. Effects of explicit instructions to be creative on the psychological
meaning of divergent thinking test scores. J. Pers. 43:43454.
Harrington, D. M. 1979. Creativity, analogical thinking and muscular metaphors. Presented at
Am. Psychol. Assoc. Meet., New York.
Harrington, D. M. 1981. Creativity, Analogical thinking and muscular metaphors. J. Ment.
Imagery. In Press.
Harrington, D. M., Anderson, S. M. 1979. Creative-self-concept, masculinity, feminimity and
three modes of androgyny. Presented at Am. Psychol. Assoc. Meet., New York.
Harrington, D. M. Block, J. H. Block, J. 1974. Measuring facets of creativity and intolerance of
ambiguity in pre-school children with the Lowenfeld mosaic test. Presented at West Psychol.
Assoc. Meet., San Francisco.
Hasenfus, N., Magaro, P. 1976. Creativity and schizophrenia: An equality of empirical constructs.
Br. J. Psychiatry 129:34649.
Hattie, J. A. 1977. Conditions for administering creativity tests. Psychol. Bull. 84:124960.
Hattie, J. A. 1980 Should creativity tests be administered under test-like conditions? An
empirical study of three alternative conditions. J. Educ. Psychol. 72:8798.
Heilbrun, A. B. 1971. Maternal child rearing and creativity in sons. J. Genet. Psychol. 119:175
79.
Helson, R. 1966a. Personality of women with imaginative and artistic interests: The role of
masculinity, originality, and other characteristics in their creativity. J. Pers. 34:125.
Helson, R. 1966b. Narrowness in creative women. Psychol. Rep. 19:618.
Helson, R. 1967a. Personality characteristics and developmental history of creative college
women. Genet. Psychol. Monogr. 75:20556.
Helson, R. 1967b. Sex differences in creative style. J. Pers. 35:21433.
Helson, R. 1968a. Generality of sex differences in creative style. J. Pers. 38:3348.
Helson, R. 1968b. Effects of sibling characteristics and parental values on creative interest
and achievement. J. Pers. 36:589607.
Helson, R. 1970. Sex-specific patterns in creative literary fantasy. J. Pers. 38:34463.
Helson, R. 1971. Women mathematicians and the creative personality. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.
36:21020.
Helosn, R. 1973a. The heroic, the comic, and the tender. Patterns of literacy fantasy and their
authors, J. Pers. 41:16384.
Helson, R. 1973b. Heroic and tender modes in women authors of fantasy. J. Pers. 41:493
512.
Helson, R. 1974. The inner reality of women. Arts Soc. 11:2536.
Helson, R 1977. The creative spectrum of authors of fantasy. J. Pers. 45:31026.
Helson, R. 1977-78. Experiences of authors in writing Fantasy: Two relationships between
creative process and product. J. Altered States Consclousness 3:23548.
Helson, R. 1978a. The imaginative process in childrens literature: A quantitative approach.
Poetics 7:13553.
Helson, R. 1978b. Creativity in women. In The Psychology of Women: Future Directions in
Research, ed. J. Sherman, F. Denmark, pp. 553604. New York: Psychol. Dimensions.
Helson, R., Crutchfield, R. S. 1970a. Creative types in mathematics. J. Pers. 38:17797.
Helson, R., Crutchfield, R. S. 1970b, Mathematicians: the creative researcher and the average
PhD. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 34:25057.
Hemphill, J. K. 1972. Review of the Alpha Biographical Inventory. See Baird 1972. p. 1371.
Hocevar, D. 1976. Dimensions of creativity Psychol. Rep. 39:86970.
Hocevar, D. 1980. Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence 4:2540.
Holland, J. L., Baird, L. L. 1968. The preconscious activity scale: The development and
validation of an originality measure. J. Creat. Behav. 2:21725.
Holloway, S., Torrance, E. P. 1977. The sounds and images test as a predictor of musical
talent. J. Creat. Behav. 11:148.
Horn, J. L. 1976. Human abilities: A review of research and theory in the early 1970s. Ann.
Rev. Psychol. 27:43785.
Horn, J. L. 1977. Personality and ability theory. In Handbook of Modern Personality Theory, ed.
R. B. Cattell, R. M. Dreger, Washington: Hemisphere.
Instutute for Behavioral Research in Creativity, 1966. Alpha Biographical Inventory. Greensboro,
N. C.: Inst. Behav. Res. Creativity.
Ironson, G. H. Davis, G. A. 1979. Faking high or low creativity scores on the Adjective Check
List. J. Creat. Behav. 13:13945.
Jackson, D. N. 1967. Personal Research Form Manual. Goshen. NY: Res. Psychol. Press.
Jackson, D. N. 1976. Jackson Personality Inventory Manual. Port Huron, Mich. Res. Psychol.
Press.
Jackson, D. N. 1978. Interpreters guide to the Jackson Personality Inventory. In Advances in
Psychological Assessment, Vol. 4, ed. P. McReynolds. San Francisco Jossey-Bass.
James, L. R., Ellison, R. L., Fox, D. G., Taylor, C. W. 1974. Prediction of artistic performance
from biographical data. J. Appl. Psychol. 59:8486.
Jarvik, L. F., Chadwick, S. B. 1973. Schizophrenia and survival. In Psychopathology:
Contributions from the Social, Behavioral Sciences, ed. M. Hammer, K. Salzinger, S. Sutton.
New York: Wiley.
Jones, W. H., Chernovetz, E., Hansson, R. O. 1978. The enigma of androgyny: Differential
implications for males and females? J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 46:298313.
Juhasz, J. B. 1972. An experimental study of imagining. J. Pers. 40:588600.
Kanner, A. D. 1976. Femininity and masculinity: Their relationships to creativity inmale
architects and their independence from each other. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 44:8025.
Karlins, M., Schuerhoff, C., Kaplan, M. 1969. Some factors related to architectural creativity
in graduating architecture students. J. Gen. Psychol. 81:20315.
Karlsson, J. L. 1978. Inheritance of Creative Intelligence: A Study of Genetics in Relation to
Giftedness and its Implications for Future Generations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Kasperson, C. J. 1978. Psychology of the scientist: XXXVH. Scientific creativity: A relationship
with information channels Psychol. Rep. 42:69194.
Katz, A. N., Poag, J. R. 1979. Sex differences in instructions to be creative on divergent and
nondivergent test scores. J. Pers. 47:51830.
Keating, D. P., ed. 1976. Intellectual Talent: Research and Development. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins
Univ. Press.
Khatena, J. 1969. Onomatopoeia and images preliminary validity study of a test of originality.
Khatena, J. 1971a. Something about myself: A brief screening device for identifying creatively
gifted children and adults. Gifted Child Q. 15:26266.
Khatena, J. 1971b. Evaluation and the creative potential in music. Gifted Child Q. 15:1922.
Khatena, J. 1975. Creative imagination, imagery and analogy. Gifted Child Q. 19:14960.
Khatena, J. 1978. Frontiers of creative imagination imagery. J. Ment. Imagery 2:3346.
Khatena, J., Torrance, E. P. 1976. Manual for Khatena-Tarrance Creative Perception Inventory.
Chicago: Stoelting.
Kirton, M. J. 1976. Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. J. Appl. Psychol.
61:62229.
Kirton, M. J. 1977a. Adaptors and innovators and superior-subordinate identification. Psychol.
Rep. 41:28990.
Kirton, M. J. 1977b. Manual of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. London: Natl. Fed.
Educ. Res.
Kogan, N. 1973. Creativity and cognitive style. A life-span perspective. In Life-Span
Developmental Psychology: Personality and Socialization, ed. P. B. Baltes, K. W. Schaie. New
York: Academic.
Kogan, N. 1974. Creativity and sex differences. J. Creat. Behav. 8:114.
Kogan, N. Connor, K., Gross, A., Fava, D. 1980. Understanding visual metaphor: Developmental
and individual differences. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 45 (1, Serial No. 183).
Kogan, N., Morgna, F. T. 1969. Task and motivational influences on the assessment of creative
and intellective ability in children. Genet, Psychol. Monogr 80:91127.
Kogan, N., Pankove, E. 1972. Creative ability over a five-year span. Child Dev. 43:42742.
Kogan, N., Pankove, E. 1974. Long-term predictive validity of divergent-thinking tests. Some
negative evidence. J. Educ. Psychol. 66:80210.
Korb, R., Frankiewicz, R. G. 1979. Aptitudes, intellective styles, and personality characteristics
as facilitators and differentiators of creativity. Presented at Ann. Meet. Am. Psychol. Assoc.,
New York.
Krantz, D. L., Wiggins, L. 1973. Personal and impersonal channels of recruitment in the
growth of theory. Hum. Dev. 16:13356.
Krippner, S. 1977. Research in creativity and psychedelic drugs. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn. 25:274
308.
Lacey, L. A., Erickson, C. E. 1974. Psychology of the Scientist: XXXI: Discriminability of a
creativity scale for the Adjective Check List among scientists and engineers. Psychol. Rep.
34:75558.
Landau, E. Maoz, B. 1978. Creativity and self-actualization in the aging personality. Am. J.
Psychother. 32:11729.
Lang, R. J., Ryba. K. A. 1976. The identification of some creative thinking parameters common
to the artistic and musical personality. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 46:26779.
Lemkau, J. P. 1979. Personality and background characteristic of women in male-dominated
occupations: A review. Psychol. Women Q. 4:22140.
Lindauer, M. S. 1977. Imagery from the point of view of psychological aesthetics, the arts and
creativity. J. Ment Imagery 2:34362.
Littlejohn, M. T. 1967. Creativity and masculinity-femininity in ninth graders. Percept. Mot.
Skills 25:73743.
London, H., Exner, J. E. Jr., ed. 1978. Dimensions of Personality. New York: Wiley.
Loshak, L. J. Reznikoff, M. 1976. Creativity and body image boundaries. J. Pers. Assess. 40:81
90.
Lunneborg, C. E. Lunneborg, P. W. 1969. Architecture school performance predicted from

ASAT, intellective, and nonintellective measures, J. Appl. Psychol. 53:20913.
Lynch, P. M. 1970. Creativity in Irish children. J. Creat. Behav. 4:5361.
MacKinnon, D. W. 1962a. The nature and nurture of creative talent. Am. Psychol. 17:48495.
MacKinnon, D. W. 1962b. The personality correlates of creativity: a Study of American
architects. In Proc. 14th Int. Congr. Appl. Psychol, Copenhagen 1961, ed. G. S. Nielsen, Vol.
2. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
KacKinnon, D. W. 1963. Creativity and images of the self. In The Study of Lives, ed. R. W.
White, pp. 25078. New York: Atherton.
MacKinnon, D. W. 1965. Personality and the realization of creative potential. Am. Psychol.
20:27381.
MacKinnon, D. W. 1966. Illustrative material for some reflections on the current status of
personality assessment with special references to the assessment of creative persons. Presented
to graduate students, Dep. Psychol., Univ. Utah, Salt Lake City.
MacKinnon, D. W., Hall, W. B. 1971. Intelligence and creativity. In The Measurement of Creativity,
pp. 118388. Int. Congr. Appl. Psychol., 17th Liege, Belgium, H. W. Peter, symp. Chm.
Brussels: EDITEST.
Mackworth, N. H. 1965. Originality, Am. Psychol. 20:5166.
Magnusson, D., Backteman, G. 1978. Longitudinal stability of person characteristics:
Intelligence and creativity. Appl. Psychol Meas. 2:48190.
Martindale, C. 1977-78. Creativity, consciousness and cortical arousal. J. Altered States
Consciousness 3:6987.
Martindale, C., Hasenfus, N. 1978. EEG differences as a function of creativity, stage of the
creative process and effort to be original. Biol, Psychol. 6:15767.
Maw, W. H. Maw, E. W. 1978. Nature and assessment of human curiosity. See Jackson 1978,
pp. 52671.
McConaghy, N., Clancy, M. 1968. Familial relationships of allusive thinking in university
students and their parents. Br. J. Educ. Psychiatry 114:107987.
McDermid, C. D. 1965. Some correlates of creativity in engineering personnel. J. Appl. Psychol.
49:1419.
Mednick, S. A., Mednick, M. T. 1967, Examiners Manual: Remote Associates Test. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Meehl, P. E. 1962. Schizotaxia, schizotypy, schizophrenia. Am. Psychol. 17:82738.
Mendelsohn, G. A. 1976. Associative and attentional processes in creative performance. J.
Pers. 44:34169.
Mendelsohn, G. A., Covington, M. V. 1972. Internal processes and perceptual factors in verbal
problem solving: A study of sex and individual differences in cognition. J. Pers. 40:451
71.
Milgram, R. M., Milgram, N. A. 1976. Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli
students. J. Educ. Psychol. 68:25559.
Milgram, R. M., Yitzhak, V., Milgram N. A. 1977. Creative activity and sex-role identity in
elementary school children. Percept. Mot. Skills 45:37176.
Morrison, R. F., Owens, W. A., Glennon, J. R., Albright, L. E. 1962. Factored life history
antecedents of industrial research performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 46:28184.
Morse, J. A., Bruch, C. B. 1978. A comparison of sex roles of creative productive versus nonproductive women. Gifted Child Q. 22:52025.
Nichols, R. C. 1964. Parental attitudes of mothers of intelligent adolescents and creativity of
their children. Child Dev. 35:104149.
Nochin, L. 1971. Why are there no great women artists? In Women in Sexist Society, ed. V.
Gornick, B. K. Moran. Pp. 480510. Mentor Book, New Am. Libr.
Nochlin, L. 1979. Review of G. Greers, The Obstacle Race. NY Times Book Rev. 3 (Oct. 28):46
47.
Noppe, L. D., Gallagher, J. M. 1977. A cognitive style approach to creative thought J. Pers.
Assess. 41:8590.
Olsen, T. 1970, Silences: When writers dont write. Women: A Journal of Liberation.
Olsen, T. 1978. Silences. New York: Delacorate.
Owens, W. A. 1969. Cognitive, noncognitive and environmental correlates of mechanical
ingenuity. J. Appl. Psychol. 53:199208.
Parloff. M. B., Datta, L., Kleman, M., Handlon, J. H. 1968. Personality characteristics which
differentiate creative male adolescents and adults. J. Pers. 36:52852.
Patel, K. 1976. Profiles of creative personality. Psychologia 19:17383.
Payne, D. A. Halpin, W. G. 1974. Use of a factored biographical inventory to identify
differentially gifted adolescents. Psychol. Rep. 35:11951204.
Pellegrino, J. W., Glaser, R. 1979. Cognitive correlates and components in the analysis of
individual differences. Intelligence 3:187214.
Pezzullo, T. R., Thorsen, E. E., Madaus, G. F. 1972. The heritability of Jensens level I and level
II and divergent thinking. Am. Educ. Res. J. 4:53946.
Prentky, R. A. 1979. Creativity and psychopathology: A neurocognitive perspective. Prog.
Exp. Pers. Res. 9:133.
Raychaudhuri, M. 1966. Perceptual preference pattern and creativity. Ind. J. Appl. Psychol.
3:6770.
Raychaudhuri, M. 1967. Studies in Artistic Creativity. Calcutta: Rabindra Bharati.
Raychaudhuri, M. 1971. Relation of creativity and sex to Rorschach M responses. J. Pers.
Assess. 35:2731.
Raychaudhuri, M. 1972. Some thorny issues in cross-cultural research on creativity: A rejoinder
to Aronows comment. J. Pres. Assess. 36:3056.
Razik, T. A. 1965. Creativity Studies and Related Areas. Univ. Buffalo Found., NY.
Rekdal. C. K. 1977. In search of the wild duck. Gifted Child Q. 21:50115.
Resnick, L. B. 1976. The Nature of Intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Richards, R. L. 1976. A comparison of selected Guilford and Wallach-Kogan creative thinking
tests in conjunction with measures of intelligence. J. Creat. Behav. 10:15164.
Rimm. S. 1976. GIFT An Instrument for the Identification and Measurement of Creativity. PhD
thesis. Univ. Wis. Madison.
Rimm, S., Davis, G. A. 1976. GIFT: An instrument for the identification of creativity. J. Creat.
Behav. 10:17882.
Roe, A. 1965. Changes in scientific activities with age. Science 150:31318.
Roe, A. 1972. Patterns in the productivity of scientists. Science 176:94041.
Rogolsky, M. M. 1968. Artistic creativity and adaptive regression in third grade children. J.
Proj. Tech. Pers. Assesss. 32:5362.
Rookey, T. J. 1971. The Pennsylvania Assessment of Creative Tendency: Norms-Technical Manual.
Penn. Dep. Educ.
Rookey, T. J. 1974. Validation of a creativity test: The 100 students study. J. Creat. Behav.
8:21113.
Roslansky, J. D., ed. 1970. Creativity: A Discussion at the Nobel Conference organized by Gustavus
Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesata, 1970. Amsterdam/London: North-Holland.
Rossman, B. B. 1976. Art, creativity and the elephant: Some clues to artistic creativity among
the gifted. Gifted Child Q. 20:392401.
Rossman, B. B., Horn, J. L. 1972. Cognitive, motivational and temperamental indicants of
creativity and intelligence, J. Educ. Meas. 9:26586.
Rothenberg, A. 1973a. Word association and creativity. Psychol Rep. 33:312.
Rothenberg, A. 1973b. Opposite-responding as a measure of creativity. Psychol. Rep. 33:
1518.
Rothenberg, A. 1979. The Emerging Goddess: The Creative Process in Art. Science and other
Fields. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
Rothenberg, A., Greenberg, B. 1974. The index of Scientific Writings on Creativity. Creative
Men and Women. Hamden. Conn. Anchor Books.
Rothenberg, A., Greenberg, B. 1976. The Index of Scientific Writings on Creativity. General:
1566-1974. Hamden, Conn: Anchor Books.
Rothenberg, A., Hausman, C. R. 1976. Introduction: The creativity question. In The Creativity
Question, ed. A. Rothenberg, C. R. Hausman, pp. 326. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.
Rotter, D. M., Langland, L., Berger, D. 1971. The validity of tests of creative thinking in sevenyear-old children. Gifted Child Q. 15:27378.
Royce, J. R. 1980. Factor analysis is alive and well. Am. Psychol. 35:39092.
Runyan, W. M. 1978. The life course as a theoretical orientation. Sequences of person-situation
interaction. J. Pers. 46:56993.
Schaefer, C. E. 1969a. The prediction of creative achievement from a biographical inventory.
Educ. Psychol. Meas. 29:43137.
Schaefer, C. E. 1969b. The self-concept of creative adolescents. J. Psychol. 72:23342.
Schaefer, C. E., 1969c. Imaginary companions and creative adolescents. Dev. Psychol. 1:747
49.
Schaefer, C. E. 1970a. Biographical Inventory Creativity. San Diego: Educ. Ind. Test.
Schaefer, C. E. 1970b. A psychological study of 10 exceptionally creative adolescent girls.
Except. Child. 36:43141.
Schaefer, C. E. 1971a. Similes Test Manual. Goshen, NY. Res. Psychol. Press.
Schaefer, C. E. 1971b. Primary-process thinking in thematic fantasies of creative adolescents.
Personality 2:21925.
Schaefer, C. E. 1971c. Creativity Attitude Survey. Psycholog. Educ.
Schaefer, C. E. 1972a. Primary process elements with Draw-a-Person protocols of creative
young women. Percept. Mot. Skills 35:24546.
Schaefer, C. E. 1972b. Predictive validity of the Biographical Inventory Creativity: a five-year
follow-up. Psychol. Rep. 30:47176.
Schaefer, C. E. 1972c. Follow-up study of a creativity scale for the Adjective Check List.
Psychol. Rep. 30:662.
Schaefer, C. E. 1973. A five-year follow-up of the self-concept of creative adolescents. J.
Genet, Psychol. 123:16370.
Schaefer, C. E. Anastasi, A. 1968. A biographical inventory for identifying creativity in
adolescent boys. J. Appl. Psychol. 52:4248.
Schaefer, C. E., Bridges, C. I. 1970. Development of a creativity attitude survey for children.
Schaefer, C. E. Diggens, D. R. Millman, H. L. 1976. Intercorrelations among measures of
creativity, openness to experience and sensation seeking in a college sample. Coll. Stud. J.
10(4):33239.
Schmidt, H. E. 1973. The identification of high and low creativity in architecture students.
Psychol. Afr. 15:1540.
Schubert, D. S. P. 1973. Intelligence as necessary but not sufficient for creativity. J. Genet.
Psychol. 122:4547.
Schultz, N. R. Jr., Hoyer, W. J. Kaye, D. B. 1980. Trait anxiety, spontaneous flexibility, and
intelligence in young and elderly adults. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 48:28991.
Shapiro, E. 1975. Toward a developmental perspective on the creative process. J. Aesthet.
Educ. 9:6980.
Shelton, J., Harris, T. L. 1979. Personality characteristics of art students. Psychol. Rep. 44:949
50.
Showalter, E., 1971. Women writers and the double standard. In Women in Sexist Society, ed.
V. Gornick, B. K. Moran. New York: Basic Books.
Simonton, D. K. 1975. Age and literary creativity: A cross-culturla and transhistorical survey.
J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 6:25977.
Simonton, D. K. 1976a. Biographical determinants of achieved eminence: A multivariate
approach to the Cox data. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35:21826.
Simonton, D. K. 1976b. Philosophical eminence, beliefs, and zeitgeist. An individualgenerational analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 34:63040.
Simonton, D. K. 1977. Creative productivity age, and stress: A biographical time-series analysis
of 10 classical composers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35:791804.
Simonton, D. K. 1978. The eminent genius in history: The critical role of creative development.
Gifted Child Q. 22:18795.
Singer, D. L., Rummo, J. 1973. Ideational creativity and behavioral style in kindergarten-age
children. Dev. Psychol. 8:15461.
Smith, J. M., Schaefer, C. E., 1969. Development of a creativity scale for the Adjective Check
List. Psychol Rep. 25:8792.
Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V. 1977. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. Am. Psychol.
32:75260.
Sobel, R. S. 1978. Remote associates theory of creativity: Fifteen years later. J. Suppl. Abstr.
Serv. MS 1735.
Spacks, P. M. 1972. The Female Imagination. New York: Avon.
Stankov, L. 1980. Psychometric factors as cognitive tasks: A note on Carrolls new structure
of intellect. Intelligence 4:6571.
Stanley, J. C., George, W. C., Solano, C. H., eds. 1977. The Gifted and the Creative. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press.
Stanley, J. C. Keating, D. P., Fox, L. H., eds. 1974. Mathematical Talent: Discovery, Description
and Development. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins Press.
Starkweather, E. K. 1976. Creativity research instruments designed for use with preschool
children. In Assessing Creative Growth: The Tests Book One. ed. A. M. Biondi, S. J. Parnes.
Great Neck, NY: Creative Synergetics Assoc.
Stein, M. I. 1968. Creativity in Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, ed. E. F. Borgatta,
W. W. Lambert. Chicago. Rand McNally.
Stein, M. I. 1974. Stimulating Creativity. New York: Academic, 2 vols.
Steiner, G. A., ed 1965. The Creative Organization. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
Sternberg, R. J. 1977. Intelligence. Information Processing and Analogical Reasoning: The
Componential Analysis of Human Abilities. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Sternberg, R. J. 1979. The nature of mental abilities. Am. Psychol. 34:21430.
Stolorow, R. D., Atwood, G. E. 1979. Faces in a Cloud: Subjectivity in Personality Theory. New
York: Aronson.
Stringer, P. 1967. Masculinity-femininity as a possible factor underlying the personality
responses of male and female art students. Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 6:18694.
Suler, J. R. 1980. Primary process thinking and creativity. Psychol, Bull. 88:14465.
Sussman, G., Justman, J. 1975. Characteristics of preadolescent boys judged creative by their
teachers. Gifted Child Q. 19:31016.
Suter, B., Domino, G. 1975. Masculinity-femininity in creative college women. J. Pers. Assess.
39:41420.
Taft, R. 1971. Creatiity: Hot and cold. J. Pers. 39:34561.
Taft, R., Gilchrist, M. B. 1970. Creative attitudes and creative productivity: A comparison of
two aspects of creativity among students. J. Educ. Psychol. 61:13643.
Tan-Willman, C. 1974. Assessment and prediction of creativity in teaching. Psychol. Rep. 35:393
94.
Taylor, C. W. ed. 1972. Climate for Creativity. New York: Pergamon.
Taylor, C. W., Barron, F. eds. 1963. Scientific Creativity. New York Wiley.
Taylor, C. W., Ellison, R. L. 1967. Predictors of scientific performance. Science 155:107579.
Taylor, I. A. 1975. A retrospective view of creativity investigation. See Taylor & Getzels 1975,
pp. 136.
Taylor, I. A., Getzels, J. W., eds. 1975. Perspectives in Creativity. Chicago: Aldine.
Taylor, I. A., Sutton, D., Haworth, S. 1974. The measurement of creative transactualization:
A scale to measure behavioral dispositions to creativity. J. Creat. Behav. 8:11415.
Torrance, E. P. 1966. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Lexington, Mass: Personnel Press.
Res. ed.
Torrance, E. P. 1967. The Minnesota studies of creative behavior: National and international
extensions. J. Creat: Behav. 1:13754.
Torrance, E. P. 1969. Originality of imagery in identifying creative talent in music. Gifted
Child Q. 13:38.
Torrance, E. P. 1970. What kind of person are you? Gifted Child Q. 14:7175.
Torrance, E. P. 1972a. Creative young women in todays world. Except. Child. 38:597603.
Torrance, E. P. 1972b. Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. J. Creat.
Behav. 6:23652.
Torrance, E. P. 1974. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms-Technical Manual. Lexington,
Mass: Ginn.
Torrance, E. P. 1979. Cumulative Bibliography on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Athens,
Ga: Dep. Educ. Psychol.
Torrance, E. P., Alliotti, N. C. 1969. Sex differences in levels of performance and test-retest
reliability of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. J. Creat. Behav. 3:5257.
Torrance, E. P., Bruch, C. B., Morse, J. A. 1973. Improving predictions of the adult creative
achievement of gifted girls by using autobiographical information. Gifted Child Q. 17:91
95.
Torrance, E. P., Tan, C. A., Allman, T. 1970. Verbal originality and teacher behavior: A predictive
validity study. J. Teach. Educ. 21:33541.
Trowbridge, N., Charles, D. C. 1966. Creativity in art students. J. Genet. Psychol. 109:28189.
Tucker, M. F., Cline, V. B., Schmitt, J. R. 1967. Prediction of creativity and other performance
measures from biological information among pharmaceutical scientists. J. Appl. Psychol.
51:13138.
Urbina, S., Harrison, J., Schaefer, C., Anastasi, A. 1970. Masculinity-femininity and creativity
as measured by the Franck Drawing completion test. Psychol. Rep. 26:799804.
Vernon, P. E. 1971. Effects of administration and scoring on divergent thinking tests. Br. J.
Educ. Psychol. 41:24557.
Vernon, P. F. 1972a. Review of the Remote Associates test. See Baird 1972. pp. 82930.
Vernon. P. E. 1972b. The validity of divergent thinking tests. Alberia J. Educ. Res. 18:24958.
Vernon, P. E. 1978. Review of Creativity Attitude Survey See Bachman & Tuckman 1978,
pp. 36162.
Vernon, P. E. 1979. Intelligence: Heredity and Environment. San Francisco: Freeman.
Vernon, P. E., Adamson, G., Vernon, D. F., 1977. The Psychology and Education of Gifted Children.
London Methuen.
Walberg, H. J. 1969a. A portrait of the artist and scientist as young men. Except. Child. 36:5
11.
Walberg, H. J. 1969b. Physics, femininity and creativity. Dev. Psychol. 1:4754.
Wallach, M. A. 1970. Creativity in Carmichaels Manual of Child Psychology, ed. P. H. Mussen.
1:121172. New York Wiley.
Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N. 1965. Modes of Thinking in Young Children. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Wallbrown, F. H., Huelsman, C. B. Jr. 1975. The validity of the Wallach Kogan creativity
operations for inner-city children in two areas of visual art. J. Pers. 43:10926.
Wallbrown, F. H. Wallbrown, J. D., Wherry, R. J. Sr. 1975. The construct validity of the WallachKogan creativity test for inner-city children. J. Gen. Psychol. 92:8396.
Ward, W. C. 1968. Creativity in young children. Child Dev. 39:73654.
Ward, W. C. 1972. Review of the Alpha Biographical Inventory. See Baird 1972, pp. 137173.
Ward, W. C. 1974. Creativity (?) in young children. J. Creat. Behav. 8:1016.
Waterman, A. S., Kohutiz, E., Putone. J. 1977. The role of expressive writing in ego identity
formation. Dev. Psychol. 13:28687.
Welsh, G. S. 1975. Creativity and Intelligence: A Personality Approach. Chapel Hill, NC: Inst.
Res. Soc. Sci.
Whipple, G. T. 1915. Manual of Mental and Physical Tests Part II: Complex Processes. Baltimore:
Warwick & York.
While, R. W., ed. 1963. The Study of Lives. Reading, Mass, Addison Wesley.
Wild, C. 1965. Creativity and adaptive regression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2:16169.
Winner, E., Gardner, H. 1977. The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients.
Brain 100:71729.
Wispe, L. G. 1965. Some social and psychological correlates of eminence in psychology. J.
Hist. Behav. Sci. 1:8898.
Woody, C., Claridge, G. S. 1977. Psychottcism and thinking. Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 16:241
48.
Worthen, B. R., Clark, P. M. 1971. Toward an improved measure of remote associational
ability. J. Educ. Meas. 8:11323.
Yamamoto, K. 1978. Review of Creativity Attitude Survey See Backman & Tuckman, pp.
36263.
Yarnell, T. D. 1971a. A common item creativity scale for the Adjective Check List. Psychol.
Rep. 29:466.
Yarnell, T. D. 1971b. Percentile norms for the Adjective Check List (ACL) creativity scale.
Psychol. Rep. 29:67578.
Yu, M. 1977. Personality profile and Life Situation of Creative Female Professionals. Presented
at Meet. Can. Psychol. Assoc., Vancouver, B. C.
Zeldow, P. B. 1973. Replication and extension of the personality profile of Artists in the
Making. Psychol Rep. 33:54142.

Chapter 1. Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality - Sage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1. Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality - Sage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1. Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality - Sage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 3

ivergent thinking; creativity in women; hemispheric specialization

4 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

The Varieties of Creativity

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 5

so that nothing of demonstrable social value need be produced; dreams thus

6 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

Let us take divergent thinking (DT) tests as a prime example. There is a

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 7

Creativity and Intelligence

Models of Intellect, Old and New

8 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

The emergence of what one might term differential cognitive psychology

Creativity and Traditional Measures of Intelligence

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 9

Creativity and Rated or Perceived Intelligence

Creativity and Divergent Thinking Abilities

10 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 11

encouraging to note that several investigators have demonstrated substantial

12 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

perhaps even an appropriate operational definition of) creative thinking ability,

Creativity and Other Special Abilities

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 13

14 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

IMAGERY ABILITIES Spurred by developments in cognitive psychology which

Creativity and Personality

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 15

The Emergence of Core Characteristics

16 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

One manifestation of this apparent emergence of core characteristics was

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 17

241-42). In a partial validation of this equation, Csikszentmihalyi & Getzels (1973)

Increased Attention to Age- and Field-Related Differences

18 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

Creativity in Men and Women:

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 19

Two Types of Sex Differences

20 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

as achievement and sometimes as ability) and indices of psychological

Development of New Measures of Personality

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 21

New personality inventories containing scales of potential relevance to

New Efforts to Link Personality to Process and Product

22 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

Thought Disorder and Creativity

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 23

or moderator variables (high intelligence, e.g., or high ego strength) could

24 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

significantly related to an index of psychoticism based on a principal

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 25

instrumental in what is later recognized by society as high creativity. The

Psychobiography, Psychohistory, and the

26 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 27

inventories are lost in the tunnel-vision pursuit of large but theoretically

28 Personal Indicators of Individual Creativity and Innovation

Barron and Harrington Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality 29