Week 13 Notes
Week 13 Notes PSY 3100 002
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.
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