Filetype PDF | Posted on 20 Sep 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
156x Filetype PDF File size 0.83 MB Source: www.larspenke.eu
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
The Nature of Creativity: The Roles of Genetic Factors,
Personality Traits, Cognitive Abilities, and Environmental
Sources
Christian Kandler, Rainer Riemann, Alois Angleitner, Frank M. Spinath, Peter Borkenau, and Lars
Penke
Online First Publication, January 21, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000087
CITATION
Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., Spinath, F. M., Borkenau, P., & Penke, L. (2016, January
21). The Nature of Creativity: The Roles of Genetic Factors, Personality Traits, Cognitive
Abilities, and Environmental Sources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000087
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ©2016 American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 110, No. 2, 000 0022-3514/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000087
The Nature of Creativity: The Roles of Genetic Factors, Personality Traits,
Cognitive Abilities, and Environmental Sources
Christian Kandler, Rainer Riemann, Frank M. Spinath
and Alois Angleitner Saarland University
Bielefeld University
Peter Borkenau Lars Penke
Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg Georg August University Göttingen
broadly. This multitrait multimethod twin study examined the structure and sources of individual differences in
publishers. creativity. According to different theoretical and metrological perspectives, as well as suggestions based
on previous research, we expected 2 aspects of individual differences, which can be described as
allied perceived creativity and creative test performance. We hypothesized that perceived creativity, reflecting
its disseminated typical creative thinking and behavior, should be linked to specific personality traits, whereas test
of be creativity, reflecting maximum task-related creative performance, should show specific associations with
to cognitive abilities. Moreover, we tested whether genetic variance in intelligence and personality traits
one not account for the genetic component of creativity. Multiple-rater and multimethod data (self- and peer
or is reports, observer ratings, and test scores) from 2 German twin studies—the Bielefeld Longitudinal Study
and of Adult Twins and the German Observational Study of Adult Twins—were analyzed. Confirmatory
factor analyses yielded the expected 2 correlated aspects of creativity. Perceived creativity showed links
user to openness to experience and extraversion, whereas tested figural creativity was associated with
Association intelligence and also with openness. Multivariate behavioral genetic analyses indicated that the herita-
bility of tested figural creativity could be accounted for by the genetic component of intelligence and
individual openness, whereas a substantial genetic component in perceived creativity could not be explained. A
the primary source of individual differences in creativity was due to environmental influences, even after
Psychologicalof controlling for random error and method variance. The findings are discussed in terms of the multifaceted
nature and construct validity of creativity as an individual characteristic.
use
Keywords: perceived creativity, tested figural creativity, personality, intelligence, multitrait multimethod
American twin study
the personal
by the
for
Creativity is a crucial driving force spurring progress and civi- result of diversity in definitions of creativity, theories, and meth-
solely lization. Most of our prosperity and wealth is attributable to ods of measurement.
copyrighted creative persons’ inventive and beneficial ideas at some point in Here, we investigated creativity from different perspectives and
is humanhistory(Runco,2004).Thus,therehasalwaysbeenastrong added a behavioral genetic approach to gain new insight into the
intended interest in psychological research on creativity (e.g., Eysenck, structure and sources of creativity. We first highlighted creativity
is 1995; Guilford, 1950; Simonton, 2003b). This research varies as a fromdifferent theoretical and empirical points of view. Second, we
document
Thisarticle
This
Planck Research Prize awarded to Alois Angleiter. In addition, many other
Christian Kandler, Rainer Riemann, and Alois Angleitner, Department investigators contributed to both studies. We thank the whole GOSAT and
of Psychology, Bielefeld University; Frank M. Spinath, Department of BiLSAT research teams as well as the twins for spending part of their
Psychology, Saarland University; Peter Borkenau, Department of Psychol- lifetime with both study projects. We are also indebted to the many
ogy, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Lars Penke, Institute of experimenters for collecting the data, in particular to Simone Penke and
Psychology, Georg August University Göttingen. Anna-Karen Stürmer for their help in rating the T-88 creativity test data.
The present research used data from two German twin studies—the Finally, we thank our master’s candidate students, Katharina Buchenau,
German Observational Study of Adult Twin (GOSAT) and the Bielefeld MiriamHorneber,RebeccaKniep,KirstenMetzger,RuthNahrgang,Tiago
Longitudinal Study of Adult Twins (BiLSAT)—which were both con- Schmidt-Riese Nunes, Valeska Stephan, and Kerstin Vogler, for their
ducted at the University of Bielefeld. GOSAT was supported by a grant important contributions to the current study.
from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemein- Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christian
schaft: AN 106/13-1) to Alois Angleitner, Peter Borkenau, and Rainer Kandler, Department of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Univer-
Riemann. BiLSATwasinitiated by Alois Angleitner, Rainer Riemann, and sitätsstrasse 25, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany. E-mail: christian.kandler@uni-
Frank M. Spinath as a joint research project with funding from the Max bielefeld.de
1
2 KANDLERETAL.
examined different aspects of creativity using multiple methods of ways to solve problems. They may all reflect different aspects of
measurement(tests, observations, and questionnaires) and multiple creativity.
informants (self, peers, and observers). Third, we analyzed how
these different aspects are associated with intelligence and other (Re)Sources of Creativity
core traits, such as openness to experience and extraversion.
Fourth, we investigated the genetic and environmental sources of In their investment theory of creativity, Sternberg and Lubart
individual differences in creativity using genetically informative (1991, 1992) argued that the creation of innovative and useful
(and environmentally sensitive) twin data. And finally, we exam- products requires a confluence of six resources: intelligence,
ined to what degree genetic sources of variance in creativity knowledge, thinking styles (i.e., preferences of specific ways of
aspects could be accounted for by genetic variance in verbal and information processing), personality traits (e.g., tolerance of am-
nonverbal intelligence, openness to experience, and extraversion. biguity, willingness to grow, risk-taking boldness), intrinsic moti-
vation, and supportive environment. Although the environment
Theoretical Perspectives sets the contextual conditions (e.g., positive innovation climate,
stimulating milieu, absence of evaluation pressure) to foster cre-
broadly. ativity, the other five components can be treated as relatively stable
Creativity as Product and Process and less contextualized internal, personal, or individual character-
publishers. istics (rather than resources).
Despite common agreement that Einstein, Mozart, Darwin, Pi- The role of personality traits and intelligence has been empha-
allied casso, and Steve Jobs are prototypical creative persons, it is quite sized by many other researchers (Barron & Harrington, 1981;
itsdisseminatedhard to describe individual differences in creativity. There is no Guilford, 1950; Simonton, 2014). Individual differences in toler-
of be explicit and common definition of creativity or what it consists of. ance of ambiguity and willingness to grow, as well as cognitive
to On the one hand, individuals’ creativity can be assessed by the
onenot flexibility, fantasy, open-mindedness, and having broad interests in
or is quantity and quality of their products, which have to be original several issues (e.g., science, arts, and aesthetics), can be econom-
and (innovative, novel, or highly unusual) and useful (problem-solving, ically described in terms of openness to experience. This person-
fitting, or adaptive) for one’s own life, a group of others, or even ality trait is characterized by breadth, depth, and permeability of
user the entire society (Barron, 1955; Mumford, 2003; Stein, 1953). consciousness, and involves preference for variety, intellectual
AssociationBecause the originality and the utility of a product depend on the curiosity, and enduring need for novelty and new ideas to enlarge
zeitgeist and evaluation by the social context, creativity can be knowledge and expertise (Denissen & Penke, 2008; Goldberg,
individualassessed with ratings on observable products with high interrater 1993; McCrae & Costa, 1997). Moreover, openness is conceptu-
the consensus (Amabile, 1982). ally and empirically associated with a wide array of specific,
PsychologicalofOn the other hand, it has been emphasized that a creative intrinsically motivational characteristics, in particular, cultural-
use product may reflect an innovative and problem-solving idea that intellectual and artistic-creative interests (Barrick, Mount, &
does not have to get realized completely in observable products Gupta, 2003; Kandler, Bleidorn, Riemann, Angleitner, & Spinath,
American (Mackinnon, 1962; Prabhu, Sutton, & Sauser, 2008). Moreover, 2011; Larson, Rottinghaus, & Borgen, 2002). Not surprisingly,
thepersonalprocesses of elaborative and problem-solving thinking, as well as openness has been conceptualized as the core trait underlying
by the acting, may be creative (Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995). Thus, creativity (McCrae, 1987).
for researchers have focused not only on products to assess creativity Risk-taking behavior and an orientation to diverse external
but also on the cognitive processes leading to them, such as rather stimuli are facets of extraversion. This personality trait encom-
solely chaotic associative and attentional processes (e.g., Mendelsohn, passes the general tendency to seek stimulation, orient attention to
copyrighted1976), analytic-logical thinking based on problem-relevant exper- external stimuli, and enjoy social attention and interaction
is tise (e.g., Weisberg, 1986), or an efficient alternation between (Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002; Denissen & Penke, 2008; Ey-
intendedunsystematic or defocused and systematic or focused cognitive senck & Eysenck, 1985), which allows various impulses for cre-
is processes (e.g., Campbell, 1960; Simonton, 2011a, 2011b). ative thinking and, thus, for innovative products. In addition,
document extraverts may tend to express and share their innovative ideas
ThisarticleCreativity as an Individual Characteristic with their social context more so than introverts. Thus, they may
This also be perceived by others as more creative than introverts.
Thetermcreativity may also refer to relatively stable behavioral The creation of innovative as well as useful products also
traits and cognitive abilities that are most characteristic for creative requires a logical and systematic analysis, selection, and integra-
persons (Guilford, 1950). According to the characteristics of cre- tion of ideas that can be facilitated by the availability and the
ative products, creativity can be described as a more or less stable utilization of relevant skills and expertise (Gabora, 2011; Simon-
and more or less contextualized ability to develop novel and ton, 2010; Sternberg, 2006). The construct intelligence as general
appropriate ideas and products (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Ac- cognitive ability comprises reasoning, mental speed, as well as the
cording to the cognitive processes relevant to the production of ability to conceptualize and to gain, structure, retain, and use
innovative and problem-solving products, creativity may subsume knowledge. Thus, high intelligence should positively contribute to
diverse individual differences, such as variation in cognitive flex- generating creative products.
ibility and capacity, efficient utilization of knowledge, open- What makes a person more creative than others? The answer
mindedness, or the attentional orientation to nonassociative and may be that creative people are open to experience, somewhat
apparently problem-irrelevant external stimuli. These characteris- extraverted, and intelligent, and they have problem-relevant ex-
tics allow new associations of experiences and enable innovative pertise and a supportive environment. Whereas the personality
NATUREOFCREATIVITY 3
traits openness and extraversion as relatively stable patterns of The relationship between creativity and intelligence is still a
typical thinking, feeling, and acting can facilitate typical creative widely studied issue. Correlation studies revealed at least modest
thinking and behavior, intelligence can be seen as rather stable associations of between r .20 and r .40 (e.g., Batey,
general cognitive ability contributing to maximum creative test Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010; Batey & Furnham, 2006;
performances. In addition, the social context is very important, Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011; Preckel, Holling, & Wiese, 2006; Silvia
because it evaluates and fosters creativity. & Beaty, 2012), indicating that intelligence may be seen as a
prerequisite of creativity. Importantly, intelligence has been found
Empirical Perspectives to be a predictor of creative achievements, but not creative activ-
ities, as well as a moderator of the relationship between creative
activities and achievements. This highlights the role of intelligence
Creativity and Personality Traits as a filter of creative output, supporting its transformation into
useful products (Jauk, Benedek, & Neubauer, 2014).
Many studies have found correlations between specific person- Although most studies have focused on a general factor of
ality traits and creativity (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Feist, 1998). cognitive abilities or reasoning, fewer studies have focused on
The most robust link is the positive correlation between openness knowledge. The empirical evidence for a potential influence of
broadly.and creativity, which ranges between r .20 and r .50 depend- knowledge on creativity is inconsistent. Whereas some studies
publishers.ing on the operationalization of creativity and the variety in sam- reported negligible influences beyond effects from intelligence
ples (e.g., Furnham, Batey, Anand, & Manfield, 2008; King, (e.g., Batey, Furnham, & Safiullina, 2010), other studies found
allied Walker, & Broyles, 1996; McCrae, 1987; Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, effects comparable with general intelligence (e.g., Sligh, Conners,
itsdisseminatedMartin, & O’Connor, 2009). Soldz and Vaillant (1999) used a &Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005). The incremental effect of knowledge
of be longitudinal study design and found correlations between openness on creativity beyond general intelligence may depend on its utility
to and creativity of r .40 over a 45-year time span.
onenot with respect to the specific task or problem. Similarly, studies
or is The findings on the relationships between creativity and other suggest a lower effect of intelligence on creativity when the effect
and personality traits are less consistent. Beyond openness to experi- of openness is controlled (e.g., Silvia, 2008).
ence, extraversion appears to be the most robustly associated
user personality trait. Several studies have reported positive correla- Metrological Versus Substantive Aspects
Associationtions between extraversion and creativity across different measure-
ment methods (e.g., Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008; Furnham, Crump, The empirical inconsistency across studies regarding the links
individualBatey, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009; King et al., 1996). between creativity and personality traits, or between creativity and
the Based on a moderate correlation between openness and extra- cognitive abilities, may in part be due to the measurement of
Psychologicalofversion, some researchers have integrated both traits into a higher creativity. For example, Batey and colleagues (2010) found that
use order personality factor called plasticity (DeYoung, 2006; Dig- intelligence was significantly related to creativity test scores and
man,1997;Riemann&Kandler,2010).Studieshavefoundatleast observer ratings on test performance, but showed negligible asso-
American moderate correlations between plasticity and creativity (Peterson, ciations with self-rated creativity and everyday creative behavior.
thepersonalSmith, & Carson, 2002; Silvia et al., 2009). Moreover, plasticity On the other hand, openness was primarily associated with the
by the was found to be negatively associated with latent inhibition, a creativity self-concept and everyday creative behavior, but showed
for preconscious cognitive mechanism that allows a person to ignore weaker links to test performance (see also Furnham et al., 2008,
stimuli that are familiar or that have previously been categorized as and Silvia et al., 2009). Because personality traits are typically
solely irrelevant (Peterson & Carson, 2000). This is noteworthy because captured by self- and observer ratings, whereas intelligence is
copyrightedlow latent inhibition, which entails that various unfiltered stimuli typically measured with cognitive performance tests, it may not be
is enter awareness, and increases the sensitivity to seemingly unre- surprising that self-rated or observed creativity is associated with
intendedlated cues to the solution of a problem, has been discussed and personality trait ratings, whereas creativity test scores show links
is shown to be associated with a number of diverse creative accom- to intelligence test scores.
document plishments (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2003; Kéri, 2011; Mar- This metrological dualism, however, may not necessarily reflect
Thisarticletindale, 1999). Thus, openness and extraversion may contribute to an artifact. Creativity may include different substantive aspects,
This the quantity and diversity of innovative ideas and creative activi- such as typical creative behavior and everyday creative activities,
ties (e.g., composing music; painting or modeling arts; writing as well as maximum creative performance in specific tasks (e.g.,
songs, poems, or stories; designing programs for marketing or figural-creative or verbal-creative performances). Openness and
training; gardening; tailoring). extraversion may affect the quantity and diversity of everyday
creative engagement, whereas intelligence may have an influence
Creativity and Cognitive Abilities on the maximum performance in creative activities and the quality
of the creative productions. Typical engagement in creative activ-
Designing innovative and useful products also requires high ities can be rated with more accuracy by the target persons them-
cognitive capacity and efficient utilization of knowledge. Working selves and well-informed others (e.g., peers) than by less-informed
memory capacity has often been discussed and supported as a others with limited observations in specific situations. As a con-
substrate of intelligence (see Kane & Engle, 2002, for a review), sequence, if the substantive interpretation is corrected, self–peer
which has been considered as a necessary requirement for the agreement should be higher than self–stranger agreement. Simi-
analysis of novel ideas to identify the most useful idea (Simonton, larly, task-specific tests (e.g., figural and verbal) may represent the
2011a; Sternberg, 2006). best way to measure maximum creative performance in specific
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
