New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Week 13 Notes

by: Briana Hughes

Week 13 Notes PSY 3100 002

Briana Hughes
GPA 3.8

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

This document outlines Readings 24 and 25 assigned for Week 13
Topics: Brain, Behavior and Cognition: Psychology of Creativity
Dr. Weisberg
Class Notes
Psychology, Creativity
25 ?




Popular in Topics: Brain, Behavior and Cognition: Psychology of Creativity

Popular in Psychlogy

This 6 page Class Notes was uploaded by Briana Hughes on Friday April 1, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSY 3100 002 at Temple University taught by Dr. Weisberg in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 17 views. For similar materials see Topics: Brain, Behavior and Cognition: Psychology of Creativity in Psychlogy at Temple University.


Reviews for Week 13 Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 04/01/16
Chapter 10: The Psychometric Perspective, Par 2 – The Search for the Creative Personality  Guildford (1950) analysis of creativity = creativity is function of 2 aspects of individual o Cognitive abilities + Relevant personality characteristics  Requires 2 sets of measurements Creative vs. Comparison or Control Groups  Two sorts of creative people o Achieved career success in creative field o “ordinary” individuals who scored high on creative-thinking capacity tests  Not always good predictor of creative accomplishments  Best to use peer nominated creative individuals and give them personality inventories o Feist (1999) reviews of studies examining personality in creative individuals  Criteria  Inclusion of control group of non- artists or noncreative scientists o Proposed all artists creative to a similar degree, even those less accomplished therefore need control group of non-artists o Scientists differ greatly in amount of creativity Creative Personality in the Arts and in the Sciences  Table 10.1 (pg. 490) o Summary of personality characteristics of artists and scientists  Artists  Rated selves as more open to experience, fantasy & imagination  Conform less to societal normal & expectations  Impulsive, not conscientious, independent  Driven, ambitious, lack sociability (tendency to be introverted) o Tendencies toward anxiety and affective illness (Ludwig, 1998)  Scientists  Flexible in thinking  Open to experience o BUT – Science students not flexible in thinking  May suggest difference between experienced vs. beginner scientists  Raises questions about cause & effect relationships between personality and creative achievement  Ambitious, driven o Different aspects of this related to different aspect of career success o Helmreich, Spence, Beane, Lucker, Mathews (1980)  Intrinsically motivated scientists are cited more frequently than competitive scientists  If quality is the same, may be because people ignore competitive scientists who are negatively impacting them  Arrogant, hostile, dominant, self-confident  Not social: autonomous, aloof, independent Questions about Method in Studies of the Creative Personality  Potential problems with methods of studies that provided info for table 10.1 o Multiple Tests and Significance Levels  Investigators didn’t take steps to deal with possibility of Type 1 errors  Results may be spurious o The Question of the Appropriate Control Group  Artists vs. non artists  Differ in 2 ways: o Eminence vs. lack of it o Artists vs. non-artists o Differences in results can be attributed to one of these 2 differences o Must compare innovative artists to non-innovative artists  Attempts to study other comparison groups  MacKinnon (1962) compared personality of eminent architects with non-creative architects o 2 control groups:  Non-creative architects  Non-creative architects who worked with eminent architects for 2+ years o Results  Eminent Architects more frequently published than both control groups  Eminent architects differ in personality from non-creative architects  Eminent architects and assistants didn’t differ much in personality characteristics o Problem with method  Eminent Architects went to weekend-long assessment and underwent tests that depended on administration by staff member  Exposure to other eminent professionals could have influenced their scores  Control groups sent assessment at home  Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) o Found that none of the personality characteristics measured in art school predicted career success  May be because all of the scores were relatively extreme A Model of the Role of Creative Personality in Creative Achievement in Science  Feist (1993) assessed personality characteristics of male scientists at different levels of creative achievement o 205 scientific researchers at first rank universities in California o Half participated o Personality questionnaires + Research assistant rated personality from interviews o 2 objective measures of creative productivity used  # publications  # citations o Findings Table 10.1 (pg. 497)  Eminence in science:  Being productive  Being intrinsically motivated  Being competitive  Setting one’s own goals o Conclusions:  Feist assumes personality characteristics causally related to creative achievement  Having certain personality characteristics = more likely to produce creative work The Question of Personality as a Cause of Creativity Correlation vs. Causation in the Study of the Creative Personality  Feist (1993) study is correlational  Does not display causation (Table 10.2 (pg.. 499) o Even if we infer causation, can’t be certain of direction of relationship o Can be a 3 variable involved Establishing Personality as a Cause of Creativity: The Logic of Cause and Effect  In order to establish causal relationship, must: o Correlation  Demonstrate that 2 variables are correlated o Temporal Precedence of Cause vs. effect  Demonstrate that the proposed cause comes before effect  Must carry out prospective/longitudinal study o Must show that traits were already there long before set out on path towards creativity  If test in college, probably already on their path  Getzels and Csiksezentmilhalyi (1976) did this and found no causation  Not met by Feist (1999) or (1993) o Science students were inflexible in thoughts but achieved creative scientists were flexible in thought  Indicates flexibility might be caused by process of developing as a mature successful scientists  Dunabar (1995) found evidence of this in Real Time In Vivo Investigations o Eliminating Other Possible Causes rd  Rule out any 3 variable  Must carry out experimental study with relatively large sample with both experimental and control conditions  Not met by Feist (1999) o Can’t carry out experimental study of personality characteristics; Extremely difficult to manipulate them Is it Futile to Search for the Creative Personality in the Arts and the Sciences?  Unlikely that single set of personality characteristics or even 2 overlapping sets are relevant in all environments in which creativity is expressed o Architect having to work under restrictions of government o Artist allowed to work in isolation  Ludwig (1998) suggested psychopathology differs within subdomains in sciences and art o Can infer it would be same with non-pathological personality characteristics  Sass (2000-2001) proposed “artistic personality” will change as dominant artistic style changes –different types of people being drawn to area of creativity  Becker (2000-20001) renaissance job description for artist different from modern description – two periods attract different types of personalities  Gruber (1981) unique personality for each creative person; no single personality configuration for creative personality o Probably not unique for each person o BUT they are numerous Creativity and the Need to Be Original: A Reexamination of Divergent Thinking and Creativity rd  Divergent-thinking and creative productivity may be linked through 3 variable o Joy (2004) proposes the more person rewarded for novel behavior, the more they will display that behavior  Table 10.2 (pg. 507) o Joy (2004) examined correlates of the need to be different  People who rated themselves high on need to be different were more frequently chosen by peers as “nonconforming”  People who scored low on need to be different were more frequently chosen to be conforming  Need to be different positively correlated with openness to experience o Joy (2004) examined several divergent-thinking measures  Divergent-thinking scores and creativity ratings all correlated with ratings on need-to-be different scale o Conclusion: Perhaps the 3 variable = Need to be different Personality, Cognition, and Creativity Reconsidered: The Question of Openness to Experience and Creativity  Studies have found positive connections between openness to experience and numbers and ratings of creative achievements as well as between openness and scores on divergent-thinking tests  Costa and McCrae (1985) made distinctions among several different kinds of openness depending on type of experience o Fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, values  Mednick (1962) & Martindale (1989) spread of activation in memory makes it more likely for unrelated ideas to come into contact  remote associations  Martindale (1989, 1995) proposes individuals can spread attention more widely when dealing with external stimuli  sensitive to wider range of stimuli o Latent Inhibition Table 10.4 (pg. 511)  When stimulus previously ignored in one situation becomes relevant in a new situation  Learning to respond to that stimulus takes longer than learning to respond to stimulus that hasn’t been previously ignored o Processing previously ignored stimulus inhibited/latent  Suggests focusing attention on one object instead of another is an active process (selective attention)  Creative individuals less likely to carry out active inhibition of irrelevant stimuli when attending to relevant stimuli o Learn to respond to previously irrelevant stimuli more quickly than non-creatives  Maybe even as quickly as a new one that hasn’t been previously ignored  (Peterson et al., 2002) Research confirms this notion Eysenck’s Theory: Psychoticism and Creativity  Eysenck (1993, 1995) proposed creative individuals more likely to possess certain cluster of personality characteristics: aggressive, emotionally cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial, lacking empathy o Basis = trait of psychoticism o Wide horizon of responding to situations - Mednick’s (1962) flat associative hierarchies  Eysenck believed this is foundation for creative ideas  Assumes breaking away from usual responses is critical to production of creative ideas  Attentional deficits, lack of latent inhibition, over inclusive/ “allusive” thinking related to both psychopathology and creativity o Much research supports theory including research on genius and madness Openness to Experience and Creativity: Summary and Critique  Research built on Remote-Association view of creativity  Martindale (1989) links creativity to cognitive and personality traits related to primary-process thinking as well as to attentional and inhibitory processes o BUT Studying openness to experience may not help understanding of creativity  King and colleagues (1996) attempt to show openness isn’t just a synonym of creativity  Conclusion: 2 terms not identical because their relationship is not uniform o Creative achievement seen in people high in openness only when also high in creative-thinking potential (divergent-thinking tests) o BUT case studies on Guernica, DNA double helix, Airplane, electric light don’t show any evidence of being derived from remote associative connections  Use top-down processing  Possible that data used in case study don’t provide adequate evidence of creative process o Free-associative or primary-process components may have already happened before data produced i.e. Picasso’s sketches


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.