Personality and Social Psychology Review Copyright © 1998 by

1998, Vol. 2, No. 4, 290-309 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity

Gregory J. Feist
Departmentof Psychology
College of William & Mary

Theory and research in both personality psychology andcreativity share an essential

commonality: emphasis on the uniqueness of the individual. Both disciplines also
share an emphasis on temporal consistency and have a 50-year history, and yet no
quantitative review of the literature on the creative personality has been conducted.
The 3 major goals ofthis article are to present the results ofthefirst meta-analytic re-
viewofthe literature on personality and creative achievement, to present a conceptual
integration of underlying potential psychological mechanisms that personality and
creativity have in common, and to show how the topicofcreativity has been important
to personality psychologists and can be to social psychologists. A common system of
personality description was obtained byclassifying trait terms or scales onto one of
the Five-Factor Model (or Big Five) dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, open-
ness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Effect size was measured using Cohen’s
d (Cohen, 1988). Comparisons on personality traits were made on 3 sets of samples:
scientists versus nonscientists, more creative versus less creative scientists, and artists
versus nonartists. In general, creative people are more open to new experiences, less
conventional and less conscientious, more self-confident, self-accepting, driven, am-
bitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive. Out ofthese, the largest effect sizes were on
openness, conscientiousness, self-acceptance, hostility, and impulsivity. Further,
there appears to be temporalstability of these distinguishing personality dimensions
ofcreative people. Dispositions importantto creative behaviorare parsedinto social,
cognitive, motivational, and affective dimensions. Creativity, like most complex be-
haviors requires an intra- as well as interdisciplinary view and thereby mitigates the
historicallydisciplinocentricattitudes ofpersonality and social psychologists.

The disciplines of personality psychology and cre- Guilford, 1950; MacKinnon, 1960; Maslow, 1959;
ativity share an essential commonality: They both Rogers, 1959; Taylor & Barron, 1963). In this sense,
emphasize the uniqueness of the individual. The es- one might argue that consistent creative behavior
sence of a creative person is the uniqueness of his or could serve as a prototype for the study of personal-
her ideas and behavior, whereas personality psychol- ity. As pointed out by Woodman (1981), creativity
ogyis the study of what makes a person unique from has been a topic of thought for just about every major
others (i.e., individual differences). Both disciplines personality theorist in the 20th century: Freud, Jung,
also focus on the consistency and stability—or lack Rank, Fromm, Maslow, Rogers, May, Kelly, Cattell,
thereof—of such uniqueness. It is not surprising, Eysenck, and even Skinner wrote about creativity.
therefore, that from early on in the history of the dis- Novices to the study of creativity are often sur-
cipline, personality psychologists have turned their prised whentold that for the last 30 years or more,
attention to a group of individuals whose mostsalient creativity researchers have been nearly unanimous in
characteristic is their individuality and uniqueness, their definition of the concept (e.g., Amabile, 1996;
namely, creative people (Barron, 1955; Cattell & Feist, 1993; Guilford, 1950; MacKinnon, 1970;
Drevdahl, 1955; Gough & Woodworth, 1960; Rothenberg & Hausman, 1976; Simonton, 1988;
Sternberg, 1988): Creative thought or behavior must
Preparation ofthis article was supportedin part by a grant from the be both novel-original and useful—adaptive. It is easy
Committee on Faculty Research at the College of William & Mary. to see why originality per se is not sufficient—there
I am grateful to John Nezlek and Erika Rosenberg for their com- would be no way to distinguish eccentric or schizo-
ments on an earlier draft of this article.
phrenic thought from creative thought. To be classi-
Requests for reprints should be sent to Gregory J. Feist, Depart-
ment of Psychology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, fied as creative, thought or behavior must also be
VA 23187-8795. E-mail: gjfeis @facstaff.wm.edu. socially useful or adaptive. Usefulness, however, is
 PERSONALITY AND CREATIVITY

not meant in merely a pragmatic sense, for behavior tional support for relatively noncreative art.
or thought can be judged as useful on purely intellec- Noncreative att does not survive. Therefore, in addi-
tual or aesthetic criteria. tion to the between-groups comparison of scientists
Having briefly defined personality and creativity, to nonscientists, I will also add the within-groups per-
the question still remains which group or groups of spective by comparing the personality traits of cre-
people offer the most insight into the creative pro- ative scientists with their less creative peers.
cess. Although creativity can and does apply to any In summary, the primary purposeofthisarticle is
domain in life, it is especially important in the arts to review the research on personality and creativity
and sciences. Whereas someactivities wouldstill ex- and to demonstrate that creativity research dovetails
ist if they were not infused with creativity, the arts closely with major issues in the field of personality
and sciences would not—creativity is their sine qua and therefore can be a showcasefor the usefulness of
non. The essence of each enterprise is solving prob- a personality perspective. More specifically, the three
lems in novel and adaptive ways. It is because of this major goals of this article are to first present the re-
that artists and scientists have been the most com- sults of a meta-analytic review of the entire literature,
monly studied populations (along with children) in to present possible theoretical and conceptual con-
the literature on creativity. nections between personality and creative behavior,
Moreover, if one is to make any inference about and lastly to show how personality theory can be
the unique personality characteristics of creative art- used to integrate empirical research on personality
ists and scientists, one must have relevant compari- and creativity.
son groups, which are most often group norms. One
way to explain the logic behind this investigation is
to use statistical and methodological terms. The ques- Previous Literature Reviews
tion of what role personality plays in artistic and
scientific creativity requires a between-groups pet- This review of the literature on personality and cre-
spective—comparing the personalities of artists and ativity was preceded by two categories of review: trend
scientists to nonartists and scientists. If there were no analyses and qualitative reviews. Analyses of the
systematic differences in personality between artists trends in the creativity literature have been conducted
and scientists and their nonartists and nonscientists in the United States (Feist & Runco, 1993; Wehner,
peers, then it is clear that personality would not be Csikszentmihalyi, & Magyari-Beck, 1991), Japan
able to explain any of the observed differences in cre- (Onda, 1986), and in the former Soviet Union (Ansari
ativity between the groups. Demonstrating that differ- & Raina, 1980; Matyuskin, 1984; Ponomarev, 1986).
ences between the groups do exist, therefore, is a There also have been traditional qualitative reviews of
necessaryfirst step in establishing a personality—cre- the creativity literature (Barron & Harrington, 1981;
ativity relation. A major purpose ofthis article is to Dellas & Gaier, 1970; Freeman, Butcher, & Christie,
review the empirical evidence on this be- 1971; Gilchrist, 1972; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988;
tween-groups question—more specifically by means Stein, 1968). For example, Barron and Harrington
of quantifying effect sizes from all empirical studies (1981) concluded their section on personality with the
published on the topic. following:
However, it is equally clear that a within-groups
perspective is also needed, for the simple reason that The empirical work of the past 15 years on the person-
not all work in science and art is equally creative. ality characteristics of creative people brought few
There is much variability from person to person surprises. In general, a fairly stable set of core charac-
within these professions. Moreover, I believe teristics (e.g., high valuation of esthetic qualities in ex-
perience, broad interests, attraction to complexity,
within-group variability is more pronounced in sci-
high energy, independence of judgment, autonomy,
ence than in art. Scientific investigations can range
intuition, self-confidence, ability to resolve
from the very routine, rote, and prescribed to the rev-
antinomies or to accommodate apparently opposite or
olutionary and highly creative breakthrough. In fact, conflicting traits in one’s self-concept, and finally a
as Kuhn (1970) argued, muchof science is the rela- firm senseofself as “creative”) continued to emerge as
tively mundane “normal” kind, and only rarely does correlates of creative achievement and activity in
some individual produce truly “revolutionary sci- many domains. (p. 453)
ence.” Granted, some art can be rather derivative and
somewhat technical, yet anyone who makes a living Although such trend analyses and qualitative re-
at art has to be more than one step above a techni- views of the creativity literature are useful, they are
cian. Scientists, on the other hand, can makea living limited because they are not quantitative and there-
being little more than technicians. In other words, fore givelittle information about the magnitudeof ef-
there is institutional support (albeit not much)forrel- fects, and because they generally gloss over domain
atively noncreative science, but there is no institu- differences and discuss creativity in art, science, and

291
 FEIST

everyday life as if it were the same and subject to the mensionsof personality? Fortunately, the field of per-
same psychological processes. This article, however, sonality has recently witnesseda relatively well agreed
attempts to overcome both of these shortcomings by upon standardization of the basic dimensions ofper-
focusing on a quantitative review of the empirical sonality, and these have been labeled the Five—Factor
work on personality and creativity in science and in Model (FFM)or the Big Five. The FFM is basedonfac-
art separately. To my knowledge, this is the first tor-analytic studies of personality structure that consis-
meta-analysis of the creativity literature in general tently extract five major factors of personality (Costa &
and creativity and personality in specific. Only by McCrae, 1995; Digman, 1990; Goldberg & Rosolack,
summarizing the literature quantitatively and thereby 1994; John, 1990; McCrae & John, 1992). Thefive fac-
determining the size of the effects can the field begin tors have various labels, depending on the specific re-
to make cumulative progress. Indeed, it is a sign of searcher, but one of the more common labeling sys-
the strength and health of the field of personality and tems, and the one adapted here, is the following:
creativity that it has progressed to the point at which Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), Conscientious-
a meta-analysis can be conducted. ness (C), Neuroticism (N), and Openness (O; Costa &
The primary research questions to be addressed by McCrae, 1995).
the meta-analysis stem from individual difference Forthis article, I used empirical findings from the
and temporal stability perspectives: First, do person- literature to classify a trait term or scale onto one of
ality traits consistently distinguish artists from the FFM dimensions.! Based on reported correla-
nonartists and scientists from scientists? If so, whatis tions, I used the strongest effect sizes to classify per-
the magnitude of these effects? In addition, because sonality items or scales into one and only one of the
scientists may vary more than artists in terms of their five factors. For example, if an item or scale corre-
creativity, it is also important to ask whether person- lated .20 with E but .40 with O,it was classified as an
ality traits distinguish the most from the least creative O dimension. Furthermore, the minimum correlation
scientists. Together, these questions tap into the indi- coefficient required to place an item or scale on a
vidual difference component of personality. Second, five-factor dimension was .25. If an item or scale cor-
do the traits that distinguish creative from less cre- related less than .25 with any dimension it was not
ative people when they are young continue to do so categorized. Finally, each factor was further divided
when they are older? This question taps into the tem- into its positive and negative dimension, so there
poral consistency component of personality. were 10 categories in which each item or scale could
be placed (see Table 1). In short, the FFM provides a
useful heuristic for standardizing the scales of various
Methods personality inventories, a necessary condition for
conducting a meta-analysis.
The FFM, however, is not without its limitations
Meta-Analysis and drawbacks (Block, 1995; McAdams, 1992). For
instance, the technical procedures applied in factor
Many psychometricians have argued that the cu- analyses may be ambiguous and the lexical founda-
mulative progress of a field is better served by gar- tions on which the FFM rests may be questionable
nering quantitative effect sizes from multiple studies (Block, 1995). Furthermore, because the FFM is so
than by reviewing qualitatively the results of single broad in scope, it may gloss over smaller yet distinct
or even multiple studies (and their overreliance on important dimensions of personality, and therefore
- Statistical significance; Cohen, 1988; Cooper & some factors may need to be divided into smaller
Hedges, 1994; Loftus, 1991; Lykken, 1968; Meehl, components. For instance, the most obvious factor for
1967; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Schmidt 1996). which a further division is useful is E. More specifi-
Indeed, some have goneso far as to argue that statis-
tical significance tests should be banned and stopped
altogether (Schmidt, 1996). This is neither the time ‘Tam grateful to Robert McCrae for his recommendations and as-
nor the place to debate the pros and consof signifi- sistance in gathering the empirical literature on the FFM correlates
for classification oftraits and scales. The studies used for these em-
cance testing, but suffice it to say that this article is
pirically based classifications were: Gerbing and Tuley (1991);
an attempt to demonstrate the value of quantitative Gough and Bradley (1995); McCrae (1991); McCrae and Costa
research synthesis. (1985); McCrae, Costa, and Busch (1986); McCrae, Costa, and
Piedmont (1993); Piedmont, McCrae, and Costa (1991). The person-
ality inventories used in the classification were the Adjective Check
List, Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, California Psycho-
Common personality metric. One problem im-
logical Inventory, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Eysenck Per-
mediately arises when attempting to summarize on the sonality Inventory, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,
same metric myriad personality findings using differ- NEOPersonality Inventory, and the Edwards Personal Preference In-
ent scales and items: How doesone standardize the di- ventory.

292
 PERSONALITY AND CREATIVITY

Table 1. Five Factor Model Trait Terms and Their Empirical Personality Inventory Scale and Item Correlates

Factor label Abbreviation Empirical Correlates (Scales and Items)”

Neuroticism N+ Anxious, defensive, depressed, emotional, excitable, guilt-prone,

hypochondria, insecure,labile, neurotic, psychasthenia, schizophrenia,
shrewd, succorant, tense, worrying
Achievement via conformance, adjusted, calm, ego-strength, good
impression, guilt-free, happy, intellectual efficiency, personal
adjustment, personal soundness, psychologically minded, stable,
well-being
Extraversion” E+ Achieving, active, adventurous (parmia), ambitious, assertive,
autonomous, capacity for status, confident, cyclothymic, dominant,
energetic, enthusiastic, exhibitionistic, expressive, extraverted,
gregarious, hypomanic, impulsive, independent, initiative, leader(ship),
need for recognition, power (oriented), positive emotion, self-accepting,
self-assured, self-confident, self-esteem, self-sufficient, sensation
seeking, sociable, social presence, surgent
Abasement, deferent, dependent, depressed, internality, introverted,
radical, reflective, reserved, social introversion, submissive,
unambitious, unsociable, unadventurous
Openness O+ Aesthetic, achievement via independence, change,creative, curious,
flexible, humorous, imaginative, intelligent, open, open-minded,
original, sensitive, sophisticated, wide interests
Conventional, inflexible, rigid, socialized
Agreeableness A+ Affiliative, agreeable, communality, cooperative, easy-going, empathic,
feminine,friendly, generous, intraceptive, nurturing, nurturing parent,
peaceful, supportive, warm
Aggressive, argumentative, cynical, egotistical, exploitative, headstrong,
hostile, masculine, psychoticism, suspicious
Conscientiousness Careful, cautious, conscientious, controlled, endurance, fastidious, orderly,
persevering, reliable, responsible, self-controlled
Direct expression of needs, psychopathic deviant
"See Footnote 1 for studies on which the classifications were based. “Extraversion can be divided further into two subfactors,
confidence—dominance and sociability.

cally, when examining the content of the E dimen- loads on A, C, and O and therefore would not be in-
sion, it was clear that two somewhat distinct cluded in the FFM meta-analysis. Because this was
subdimensions appeared, namely confidence—domi- the case, meta-analytic results are presented not only
nance—achieving (underlined in Table 1) and socia- in terms of the FFM, but also in terms of the three
bility (bold in Table 1). These two dimensions are no personality inventories most often used in investiga-
doubt related to one another: Being sociable and out- tions of the creative personality: the California Psy-
going often is accompanied by confidence and lead- chological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987), the 16PF,
ership qualities. However, the achievement drive and and the EPQ.
sociability components are not synonymous. One can
be quite ambitious and confident without being socia- Measureofeffect size. Effect size was mea-
ble and vice-versa. When studying highly creative sured using Cohen’s d, the difference between two
people (who are often very ambitious—confident but meansdivided by the average standard deviation (Co-
not necessarily sociable), it is necessary that these hen, 1988), because of its ease of calculation and its
two components be separated. Therefore, for pur- intuitive interpretability (standard deviation units).
poses of this meta-analysis, the E dimension was bro- Furthermore, Cohen has also provided convenient
ken down into sociability and confidence heuristics for interpreting the magnitude of d in the
subdimensions. context of social science effect sizes: .20 is consid-
A final limitation of the FFM is that scales and ered a small effect, 50 medium, and .80 large. All
items from particular personality inventories do not one needs to calculate d are descriptive statistics of
always map cleanly onto the FFM, and therefore, the target and comparison groups, and if those are not
those scales are lost or ignored in an FFM analysis. available, d can be calculated quite readily from test
For instance, the Sixteen Personality Factor Ques- Statistics such as f or r, as well as from significance
tionnaire (16PF; Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970) levels (Rosenthal, 1994). Because the distributions of
Factor A (warmth) loads on A and on E, and the d were not always normal, the median will be the pri-
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; H. J. mary reported measure of central tendency. For these
Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) psychoticism (P) scale analyses, effect sizes were calculated so that positive

293
 FEIST

values always denoted higher scores for the more cre- many reasons whythesecitation totals were immedi-
ative groups and negative values denote higher scores ately narrowed: (a) only empirical citations could be
for the comparison groups. included, (b) empirical studies had to publish either
descriptive or inferential statistics or p values for ef-
fect sizes to be calculated, and (c) citations that were
duplications of other published sources could not be
Procedures for meta-analysis. First, the tar- included. For instance, if a reference by the same au-
geted samples (scientists and artists) included in the thor appeared two or more times (in an article and in
meta-analysis had to be defined. Scientists were de- a book chapter, for example) using the samedataset,
fined as any sample from junior high school on then it could only be included once. For number of
through adulthood that showed special talent in sci- studies and total sample sizes see Table 2.
ence, majored in science, or that worked profession-
ally in academic or commercial science. Science was
not limited to the natural and biological sciences, but
Results
included the social sciences (i.e., anthropology, psy-
chology, sociology), invention, engineering, and
mathematics. Artists were defined as students major-
ing in or studying art, or anyone earning an incomein Personality and Scientific Creativity
any of the following domains: writing, painting, pho-
tography, cinematography, dance, music, or poetry.
Recall, that to make between- and within-group com- Scientists and nonscientists: FFM. The descrip-
parisons on personality traits, three sets of analyses tive statistics of the 26 studies comparing personali-
were made:scientists versus nonscientists, more cre- ties of scientists to nonscientists are presented in Ta-
ative versus less creative scientists, and artists versus ble 3. The two strongest effect sizes (medium in
nonartists. To demonstrate that personality meaning- magnitude) were for the positive and negative poles
fully covaries with artistic creativity, I included stud- of C. From Table 1, it can be seen that C+ consists of
ies in the review only if they compared the personal- scales and items such as careful, cautious, conscien-
ity characteristics of artists to nonartists. tious, fastidious, and self-controlled, whereas C— con-
In addition, I focused on published studies rather sists only of two scales and items: direct expression
than dissertations or unpublished data (although un- of needs and psychopathic deviate. Although the C—
published data were used in a few instances), and dimension comprised only five comparisons, it is
therefore, this meta-analysis is not exhaustive. The clear that relative to nonscientists, scientists are
primary initial source of studies was PsycINFO roughly a half a standard deviation higher on consci-
(American Psychological Association, 1967—present) entiousness and controlling of impulses. In addition,
dating back to 1967; books, chapters, and journal ar- O— had a median d of .30, whereas E— had a median
ticles were searched. In addition to this data- effect size of .26. O— consists of terms such as con-
base, articles on personality and creativity were ventional, rigid, and socialized, whereas E— included
cross-referenced from the reference sections of rele- terms such as deferent, reserved, introverted, and de-
vant chapters, books, and articles. There was no ex- pendent. Finally, examining the effect sizes of the
plicit year restriction, although in practice the two subcomponents of E (confidence and sociability),
publication years ranged from 1950 to 1995. Finally, the confidence componenthad a small positive effect,
for the citation search, general and broad keywords and the sociability component a near zero negative
were chosen. For example, the chain creativity sci- effect. In short, the FFM dimensions of openness,
ence personality resulted in 59 citations between confidence-dominance (E), and conscientiousness
1967 and 1996, whereas creativity scientists person- appear to be the clearest factors differentiating scien-
ality resulted in 51 citations (many of which over- tists from nonscientists.
lapped with the first chain). Similarly, creativity art It is also important to determine whether these ef-
personality resulted in 128 citations, whereas creativ- fect sizes are related to or moderated by publication
ity artists personality resulted in 90. There were date or the gender and age of the participants. Calcu-

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Studies and Samples*

Numberof Numberof Numberof Numberof Number of
Comparison Studies Samples Females Males Mixed Gender TotaiN

Scientists Versus Non-Scientists 26 26 1,069 2,457 1,326 4,852

Creative Versus Less Creative Scientists 28 30 135 3,546 237 3,918
Artists Versus Non-Artists 29 39 1,329 1,884 1,184 4,397

“Samples were defined as unique independent groups and each study could therefore report results of more than one sample.

294
 PERSONALITY AND CREATIVITY

Table3. Descriptive Statisticsfor Effect Sizes (d) Comparing Personality Dimensions ofScientists to Nonscientists and Creative
Scientists to Less Creative Scientists and Artists to Nonartists

Scientists Versus Nonscientists (26 Creative Versus Less Creative

Studies) Scientists (28 Studies) Artists Versus Nonartists (29 Studies)

FFM Numberof Numberof Numberof

Dimension Comparisons Mediand Meand Comparisons Mediand Meand Comparisons Mediand Meand

N+ 57 -.07 -11 30 12 11 85 Al 05
N- 61 AS .20 36 gor AT 43 24 -31
E+ 125 A4? 13 116 39° 36 142" 15 AS
Co 62 AT .20 42 AO 39 42 21 AT
So 51 —.067 -.02 23 .00 1S 35 02 02
E- 41 26 28 19 gre 15 6 -01 ~19
O+ 57 Al 12 44 31 40 69 AT 44
o- 8 30 .30 8 ~16° -.15 24° -A3 -40
At 43 .16 .06 40 ~.04 ~.01 45° —13 -.19
A- 15 ~.08 -.06 24 9 15 18° 21 23
C+ $1 51” 44 44 14 17 50 ~.49 -.60
Cc 5 —.48 —.A9 4 30 15 2 75 15
Note: N = neuroticism; E = extraversion, Co = confidence-dominance; So = sociability; O = openness; A = agreeableness; C =
conscientiousness.
*Moderated by study date (+ = positive relation; — = negativerelation). *Moderated by gender (c= males were higher; 2 females were higher).
°Moderated by age group (+ = positive relation; — = negative relation).

lating moderating influencesis one of the advantages samples: the CPI, the 16PF, and EPQ.’ Presented as
that quantitative reviewsof literature have over quali- median effect sizes in Figure 1, the CPI scales that
tative reviews. In many cases, effect sizes from stud- most clearly differentiated scientists from
ies could be calculated on the male and female nonscientists were Achievement via Independence
participants separately. However, there were somein- (Ai; d= .71), Achievement via Conformance(Ac; d =
stances whenthe authors listed the gender breakdown 58), Psychological Mindedness (Py; d = .51), and
of the sample but only gave descriptive or inferential Sociability (Sy; d= .49). Quoting from Gough’s CPI:
statistics on the whole sample. Therefore, gender was Administrator’s Guide (1987), a person who scores
coded as the percentage of participants who were high on Aihas a “strong drive to do well; [and] likes
male, with values ranging from 0.00 in all female to work in settings that encourage freedom and indi-
samples to 1.00 in all male samples. Furthermore, age vidual initiative” (p. 7). The same drive is character-
groups were coded on a 4-point continuum: 0 = ju- istic of a person who scores high on Ac, but he or she
nior high; 1 = high school; 2 = college; 3 = adult. “likes to work in settings where tasks and expecta-
Correlating effect sizes for the scien- tions are clearly defined” (p. 7). From this it can be
tist-nonscientist comparisons with publication date, inferred that scientists prefer settings that are struc-
gender, and age revealed only two moderating influ- tured and yet allow for individual initiative, an ap-
ences on the FFM: effect sizes on C+ were positively pealing characteristic of most scientific occupations.
related to publication date, 7(43) = .58, p < .001,
whereas E+ was negatively related to age group, Scientists versus nonscientists: 16PF. The mag-
r(103) = -.43, p < .001. In other words, the scien- nitude of effect sizes were relatively small when
tist-nonscientist difference in conscientiousness was comparing scientists to nonscientists using the 16PF,
greater for the more recent studies. Also, E distin- with none greater than .42 in magnitude (see Figure
guished scientists from nonscientists more for youn- 2). In fact, only five scales had median effect sizes in
ger participants than for older ones. Furthermore, the small to medium range (between .20 and .50):
both subcomponents of E, confidence—-dominance Factor O (Insecurity; d = —.42), Factor M (Imagina-
and sociability, are negatively related to age group, tion; d = -.40), Factor E (Dominance; d = .38), Factor
1(63) -.63, p < .001 and r(53) ~.38, p < .01, respec- L_ (Suspiciousness; d = .30), and Factor Q;
tively. (Self-Discipline; d = .26). This pattern, however, is
similar to the one given by the FFM and the CPI.
Scientists versus nonscientists: CPI. As men-
tioned earlier, because the FFM glosses over some
*Scales were only included onthe figuresif they had a minimum
important yet more specific personality dimensions, I
of five comparisons between target and comparison group. Because
also included meta-analytic results on the most com- there were fewer than five studies using the 16PF and EPQ compar-
monly administered personality inventories on the ing creative and less creative scientists, no meaningful generaliza-
target (scientists) and comparison (nonscientists) tions could be drawn from their effect sizes.

295
 FEIST

1
Legend
, | | Sci v Nonsci
0.5 ; | 7! ] Crvte Sei
| | | | Bi Atv Nonart
i| | i |
v 4
a -0.5
=
g= |
-1

1.5

a
Do Cs Sy Sp SaWbRe So Sc To GiCmAc Aj le Py Fx Fe
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) Scale

Figure 1. Personality comparisons of scientists versus nonscientists, creative versus less creative scientists, and artists versus nonartists:
Median effect sizes (d) on the California Psychological Inventory. Do = Dominance; Cs = Capacity for Status; Sy = Sociability; Sp = Social
Presence; Sa =Self-Acceptance; Wb = Well being; Re = Responsibility; So = Socialization; Sc = Self-Control; To = Tolerance; Gi = Good
Impression; Cm = Communality; Ac= Achievement via Conformity; Ai= Achievementvia Independence;Ie = IntellectualEfficiency; Py
= Psychological Mindedness; Fx = Flexibility; Fe = Femininity.

Relative to nonscientists, scientists are confident, se- Creative scientists versus less creative scientists:
cure, conventional, dominant, skeptical and disci- FFM. Asseen in Table 3, the traits that most
plined. strongly distinguish creative from less creative scien-
tists were E+ (median d = .39), and O+ (median d =
.31; see Table 3). Moreover, all of the effect of E+
Scientists versus nonscientists: EPQ. Finally, as came from the confidence component, and there was
seen in Figure 3, scientists are moderately more extra- no effect for the sociability component. Scales
verted (d = .33) and moderately more prone to and items from E+ (confidence) were achieving,
psychoticism (d = .45) than nonscientists. Again, the ambitious, confident, dominant, seif-accepting, and
finding on extraversionis surprising only if one fails to self-esteem, whereas scales and items of O+ were
distinguish the confident~dominant dimension from aesthetic, creative, curious, flexible, imaginative, in-
the sociability dimension. Indeed, according to H. J. telligent, and open. Although only based on four
Eysenck (1990), Factor E is comprised of characteris- comparisons, the C— dimension also had a modestef-
tics such as assertive, dominant, surgent, active, and
fect size differentiating creative from less creative
sensation seeking in addition to those of sociable,
scientists (d = .30). Creative scientists were approxi-
lively, carefree, and venturesome. Interestingly, scien-
tists were also almost a half a standard deviation higher mately a third of a standard deviation higher than less
than nonscientists on P, which is formedby thetraits of creative scientists on direct expression of needs and
aggressive, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, psychopathic deviance. In short, creative scientists
antisocial, unempathic, creative, and tough-minded are more aesthetically oriented, ambitious, confident,
(H.J. Eysenck, 1990). deviant, dominant, expressive, flexible, intelligent,

296
 0.6
Legend
4 Sci v Nonsci
0.4
S
i i ArtvNonart
Median d

o
{
S
NS

04 4

-0.6 -
T 1 1 | 1 +'T 1 FT YT TT TT
ABCEFGHIL MN OQ1Q2030Q4
16PF Scales

Figure 2. Personality comparisons ofscientists versus nonscientists, creative versus less creative scientists, and artists versus nonartists:
Median effect sizes (@) on the Sixteen Personality Factor. A = Warmth; B = Intelligence; C = Emotional Stability; E = Dominance; F =
Impulsivity; G = Conformity; H = Boldness; I = Sensitivity; L = Suspiciousness; M = Imagination; N = Shrewdness; O = Insecurity; Q, =
Radicalism; Q, = Seif-Sufficiency; Q; = Self-Discipline; Q, = Tension.

0.8
Legend
Sci v Nonsci
i AntvNonart
Median d

0.2 : T T
E N P
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) Scale

Figure 3. Personality comparisons ofscientists versus nonscientists, creative versus less creative scientists, and artists versus nonartists:
Medianeffect sizes (d) on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. E = Extraversion; N = Neuroticism; P = Psychoticism.

297
 FEIST

and open to new experiences than their less creative less open and radical. There were no moderating ef-
peers. fects for gender.
Again, effect sizes were moderated by someof the
study variables. For instance, effect sizes for male
participants were larger on N-, r(34) = .36, p < .05, Artists versus nonartists: CPI. As seen in Fig-
and smaller on E--, 7(19) = —.59, p < .01, and younger ure 1, the comparisonsof artists to nonartists yielded
scientists tended to be more conventional, O-, r(8) = a striking pattern of results on the CPI. Nine of the 18
—.86, p < .01, more emotionally stable, N-, r(34) = scales resulted in at least medium effect sizes (d =
—.34, p < .05, andless introverted, E-, r(19) = .56, p .50), and all but one of these were negative in direc-
< .01. Finally, studies published earlier tended to re- tion: Responsibility (Re, d = —1.54), Socialization
port greater effects on E+, r(19) = —21, p < .01. In (So; d = —1.05), Achievement via Conformance (Ac;
other words, the ability of extraversion to distinguish d= -.97), Good Impression (Gi; d = —.96), Flexibility
creative from less scientists diminished across time. (Fx; d = .92), Self-control (Sc; d = —.73), Well-being
(Wb; d = -.67), Tolerance, (To; d = -.64), and
Communality (Cm; d = -.56). The moststriking thing
about this pattern of results is how low artists are on
Creative scientists versus less creative scientists:
the socialization—control scales of Re, So, Sc, To, Gi,
CPI. Eight of the 18 CPI scales yielded median ef-
Wb,and Cm. Sucha strong pattern of results suggest
fect sizes greater than or equal to .50 (see Figure 1):
personalities that are conflicted, impulsive, noncon-
Tolerance (To; d = .77), Self-acceptance (Sa; d =
formist, rule-doubting, skeptical, fiercely independ-
.69), Sociability (Sy; d = .60), Flexibility (Fx; d =
ent, and not concerned with obligations or duties. The
.55), Dominance (Do; d = .53), Intellectual Efficiency
only CPI scales on which artists were higher than
(Ie; d = .52), Achievement via Independence (Ai, d =
norms were Fx and Sa, suggesting that although they
.50), and Psychological Mindedness (Py, d = .50).
are conflicted and rebellious, artists seek change,
This pattern of scores on the CPI suggests a personal-
were easily bored, and yet see themselves as talented
ity structure that is tolerant and open-minded,
and worthy people.
self-accepting, outgoing, confident, ambitious, persis-
tent, and is a good judge of character.

Artists versus nonartists: 16PF. As shown in

Figure 2, the Factor scores that most strongly distin-
Personality and Artistic Creativity guish artists from nonartists were Factor A (Warmth;
d= -.60), Factor Q2 (Self-Sufficiency; d = .60), Fac-
tor M (Imagination; d = .50), Factor I (Sensitivity; d
Artists versus nonartists: FFM. Examining = .45), and Q; (Radicalism; d = .45). Other medium
the personality characteristics that distinguish artists effect sizes included Factors B (Intelligence; d = .30),
from nonartists (see Table 3), it can be seen that the F (impulsivity; d = —.30), and G (Conformity; d =
dimensions of C+ (d = —.49), O+ (d= .47), and O- (d —.29). Again, the picture painted by the 16PF is con-
~.43) have the highest median effect sizes (exclud- sistent with that of the FFM and the CPI: Artists,
ing C— for too few comparisons). Put into more spe- compared to nonartists, are hostile, independent, open
cific trait or scale language, artists, compared to to experience, sensitive, radical, intelligent, and
nonartists, were less cautious, conscientious, con- nonconforming. The only real surprise is the low
trolled, orderly, and reliable; they were more aes- impulsivity score of artists on Factor F. However,
thetic, creative, curious, imaginative, open to experi- this may be explained as a matter of semantics.
ence, sensitive, and original; and finally, they were Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1970) labeied Factor F
less conventional, rigid, and socialized. Artists were impulsivity, but the low dimension is anchored by
roughly a half a standard deviation higher on open- terms such as prudent, sober, serious, so it may be
ness and a half a standard lower on conscientiousness more accurate to say that artists are more sober and
than nonartists. serious than nonartists rather than less impulsive.
Effect sizes comparing artists to nonartists were Furthermore, the high pole of the factor is anchored
moderated by publication date and age. Specifically, by terms such as happy-go-lucky and heedless, char-
more recent studies tended to report smaller effects acteristics that are generally not associated with art-
on A-, r(18) = —.65, p < .01, and E+, 7(142) =-.24, p ists.
< .01, and a larger effect on A+, 7(45) = .30, p < .05.
Moreover, older samples of artists tended to have
stronger effects on E+, r(142) = .19, p < .05, and O-, Artists versus nonartists: EPQ. A similar por-
1(24) = .49, p < .05. This last finding suggests that as trait of the artist is painted by the EPQ (see Figure 3).
artists get older they become more conventional and The only EPQ scale that distinguished artists from

298
 PERSONALITY AND CREATIVITY

nonartists was the P scale (d =.66), which suggests studiesthat find distinguishing traits appear only after
that artists are more aggressive, cold, egocentric, im- creative achievement, but not before or during? The
pulsive, antisocial, creative, and tough-minded than answerappears to be no. Every longitudinal study has
most people. found that the same traits that distinguish creative
people later in life also distinguish them earlierin life
(Albert, 1994; Camp, 1994; Dudek & Hall, 1991;
Longitudinal Investigations Feist, 1995a; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976;
Into Temporal Precedenceof Helson, 1987; Helson, Roberts, & Agronick, 1995;
Personality and Creativity Perleth & Heller, 1994; Schaefer, 1973; Stohs, 1990;
Terman, 1954). For instance, the stability of person-
Granted the usefulness of cross-sectional ality traits that distinguish creative people was re-
correlational data, the importantissue that longitudinal ported by Dudek and Hall (1991). Studying three
studies can address that cross-sectional ones cannotis groups of architects, they concluded that: “Tt is evi-
whether the distinguishing traits of creative people dent that Group III [the less creative architects] re-
measured at an earlier time in life continue to distin- tained its social conformity and GroupI [the creative
guish them frorn their peers later in life. Showing that architects] its spontaneity and independence over the
traits such as independence, self-confidence, openness, 25 years” (p. 218). In addition, Helson et al. (1995)
impulsivity, hostility, and dominance distinguish found that creative women at age 52 were consis-
highly creative people from less creative people early tently rated by observers at age 21 and age 43 as be-
in life may not necessarily mean these traits precede ing aesthetically oriented, interesting, driven,
creativity, but such a demonstration is consistent with rebellious, independent; and as not being conven-
temporal precedence. tional, conservative, or submissive. Moreover,
Indeed, Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991) argued that Schaefer (1973) conducted a 5-year follow-up inves-
there are three criteria for establishing causality: tigation of creative young adults who wereoriginally
covariation, temporal precedence, and ruling out ex- tested in adolescence. The adolescent sample con-
traneous variable explanations. A truism taught to ev- sisted of 100 participants in each of the following
ery introductory psychology student is “correlation four criterion groups: creative art/writing boys, cre-
does not imply causation.” However, if correlation ative science boys, creative art girls, and creative
does not imply causation,it is equally true that corre- writing girls. There were also 100 participants in four
lation is a prerequisite for causation (Rosenthal & matched control groups. Roughly half of each sample
Rosnow, 1991). Correlative evidenceis not irrelevant participated in a replication 5 years later. Three scales
for establishing a causal connection between two distinguished the creative sample from the compari-
variables; it is simply not sufficient evidence. The son sample at both ages, namely, autonomy,
second criterion—temporal precedence—is that X self-control, and nurturance. Taken in total, longitudi-
must precede in time, if it is ever to be a causeofY. nal studies of the creative personality over time sug-
Thethird and final criterion for causality is that extra- gest that the personality structure of highly creative
neous variable explanations must be ruled out. One people tends to remain relatively stable. This is true
does this in an experimental design by holding all but especially for the dispositions toward independence
the independent variable constant. Such constancy of and autonomy. If any change occurs, it tends to be a
extraneous variables is precisely what is missing in decrease in personality differences with age.
correlational designs, and it is for this reason that
they are not sufficient for causation and have been
criticized accordingly by experimentalists. However, Discussion
if experimental designs best address the third crite-
rion (ruling out extraneous variable explanations), The most striking outcome of the meta-analysis
then one could argue that correlational designs ad- was that regardless of which measure or taxonomy
dress the first criterion (covariation) and longitudinal was used to assess personality or creativity, a consis-
designs the second criterion (temporal precedence). tent and clear portrait of the creative personality in
To return to the issue at hand, personality and cre- science and art has emerged: Creative people are
ativity, if certain traits do not distinguish younger more autonomous, introverted, open to new experi-
creative people from their less creative peers, but do ences, norm-doubting, self-confident, self-accepting,
so later, then they clearly cannot precede creativity. driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive.
In short, we can rule out (falsify) the hypothesis that Outof these, the largest effect sizes are on openness,
they are temporally prior to creative achievement if conscientiousness, self-acceptance, hostility, and
we can demonstrate that they only distinguish cre- impulsivity. Yet, creative people in art and science do
ative groups later but not earlier in life. Can we fal- not completely share the same unique personality
sify the hypothesis? Are there any longitudinal profiles: Artists are distinguished more by their emo-

299
 FEIST

tional instability, coldness, and their rejecting group separate and unique from others. Indeed, anyone who
norms than are scientists. For example, a number of thwarts or questions these goals may be aggressed
large effect sizes (d 2 .80; see Cohen, 1988) distin- against. In this sense, the observed levels of hostility
guished artists from nonartists on the CPI socializa- in creative people may be a defense of their creations
tion scales of Responsibility, Socialization, Good against others who either inadvertently detract from
Impression, and Achievement via Conformance. Cre- time spent creating or who criticize or misinterpret
ative scientists exhibited very small effects on these their heretofore novel solution or product. Recall that
socialization scales. Finally, less creative scientists, originality is a necessary (but not sufficient) ingredi-
compared with the effect sizes of their more creative ent in the definition of creativity. To be original is to
peers in science and in art, are more conscientious, be unique and different from others—whether con-
conventional, and closed-minded, with effect sizes sciously and willfully or not. It is much easier to be
being in the medium range (ds between .30 and .40). different and develop one’s own individual perspec-
tive when alone. Desiring to spend time alone and
away from social influence could also be related to
Conceptual Integration of developing confidence and faith in one’s beliefs and
Personality and Creativity attitudes. Finally, independence in creative people
goes along with sticking to one’s beliefs in the face
Another wayto think about these findingsis to in- of doubt and skepticism by others. Submissiveness
tegrate them by parsing dispositions into various psy- and expressed creativity make unlikely bed partners.
chological categories, namely, social, cognitive, Although not exclusively cognitive, openness,
motivational, and affective (see Table 4). By so do- flexibility, and imagination can be categorized as
ing, dispositions are organized into related clusters. cognitive dispositions because they each involve la-
Whethera trait is social or not is determined by the tent response tendencies toward processing informa-
extent to which it concerns one’s attitudes or interac- tion (see Table 4). The disposition of openness
tions towards others. For instance, the tendency to involves first and foremost a response style of ap-
question social norms andto berelatively independ- proach or avoidance to novel ideas, people, or situa-
ent of group influence are social dispositions that are tions. As others, such as McCrae (1987), have
commonly found in creative people. Also, having a argued, openness is closely related to having a flexi-
greater than normal desire to remove oneself from so- ble cognitive style when approaching problems, that
cial interaction and being overstimulated by novel so- is, being able to “think outside the box” and not being
cial situations (introversion) is frequently observed in tied to any one perspective (functional fixedness).
highly creative people, especially in the arts and sci- Opennessandflexibility in turn are related to having
ences. Indeed, I have argued elsewhere that one over- the imagination to think of how things could be, not
arching principle of creative thought and behavior is just how they are. By being receptive to different per-
its relatively asocial or even antisocial orientation spectives, ideas, people, and situations, open people
(Feist, in press-b). To be creative, one must be able to are able to have at their disposal a wide range of
spend time alone and away from others. The process thoughts, feelings, and problem-solving strategies,
of creating usually requires solitude (Storr, 1988). the combination of which may lead to novel and use-
One cannot write a novel, compose a symphony, or ful solutions or ideas.
paint a painting when socializing. Of course, social The third dispositional dimension is motivation.
interaction may be an impetus for a novel, symphony, Creative people in general also tend to be motivated
or painting, but its execution is almost alwaysa soli- by ambition and a need to work and do well (see Ta-
tary event. ble 4). It is one thing to have to social and cognitive
Creative people have a stronger than usual need to dispositions that make creative behavior morelikely,
focus their attention and energies inward and to be but onestill has to have the perseverance, drive, and

Table 4. Summary ofDispostional Dimensions That Distinguish Artists and Scientists

Artists’ Traits Scientists’ Traits

Social Cognitive Motivational Affective Social Cognitive Motivational

Norm-Doubting Open Driven Anxious Dominant Open Driven

Nonconforming Imaginative Ambitious Emotionally Arrogant Flexible Ambitious
Independent Impulsive Sensitive Hostile
Hostile Self-confident
Aloof Autonomous
Cold Introverted
Introverted

300
 PERSONALITY AND CREATIVITY

discipline to actually carry out the work.If an idea or function to lower a particular behavioral threshold.
piece of workis to fill a societal void and be useful, This line of reasoning suggests that the reported pat-
the secondcriterion of creativity, one must go beyond tern of personality traits may well function to make
the first stage of creativity, idea generation, and into creative behavior more likely. More specifically,
the second stage, expression. As Reichenbach (1938) withdrawing from others, being open to ideas and ex-
long ago argued, there is the stage of discovery (idea perience, being confident in one’s abilities, and
generation) and the stage of justification (carrying out having a greater than normal desire to achieve recog-
the idea). Ideas without the drive and discipline to be nition, may each be lowering the threshold for find-
crafted and expressed in a socially useful manner are ing and solving problems novelly and adaptively. Of
void of their potential impact and power. Therefore, course, the direction of causality may also go the
the mostcreative people, by definition, are those who other direction: Having a disposition to solve prob-
have had the drive and motivation to express their lems creatively might lower the thresholds for with-
ideas in a socially acceptable medium, even if they drawing from social contact, being open to
may have been generations ahead of their time. By uncommon ideas, and to being confident in one’s
this argument, there are no doubt untold thousands of ideas. Or more likely, that the path of causality may
people who may have had very original and novel be a more complex nonrecursive (bi-directional) one.
ideas, but who lacked the disciplined motivation to Until more systematic longitudinal research has been
fully carry out the insight, and these people are for- done,the direction of influence will remain unknown.
gotten to history. In some sense, there may appear to To combine the dispositional dimensions and the
be an irony or paradox here: The most creative peo- function of traits arguments, I present in Figure 4 a
ple are those who often prefer to be away from other tentative model for the paths from specific biological
people, but who master expressing their ideas in me- processes and mechanisms to psychological disposi-
dia that others can understand and appreciate. This is tions to creative thought and behavior (cf. Feist,
precisely what makes the creative act inherently so- 1993; Feist & Gorman, 1998; Helmreich, Spence,
cial—it must be expressed in a social context and ul- Beane, Lucker, & Matthews, 1980). Although grow-
timately be understood by othersif it is to be creative ing literatures do exist on creativity and its relation to
by the definition given earlier, namely, be both novel the first two components (genetics and temperament;
and useful. H. J. Eysenck, 1995; Karlson, 1991; Katzko &
The final category of disposition that systemati- Monks, 1995; Nichols, 1978; Reznikoff, Domino,
cally covaries with creative behavior, at least in the Bridges, & Honeyman, 1973; Saklofske & Zeidner,
arts, is that of affective dispositions (see Table 4). 1995; Vernon, 1989), any in-depth discussion of
More specifically, relatively high levels of anxiety them is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to
and emotional sensitivity appear to be common say that current evidence suggests genetic and tem-
among creative artists. The essence of much artistic peramental factors explain small to moderate
creativity, whether visual, verbal, or musical, is the amounts of direct variance in creative behavior, as
expression of deep emotion, of experiences that move well as indirect variance via social, cognitive, moti-
and touch. Being sensitive to these internal affective vational, and affective dispositions. As seen in Figure
states appears to almost be a prerequisite for being 4 and elaborated in Table 4, the general line of rea-
creative in these domains. Indeed, a vast literature soning is as follows: Having relatively low thresholds
now exists on the connection betweenartistic creativ- for arousal both at the central and peripheral nervous
ity and being sensitive to one’s affective states (1.e., systems (see Eysenck’s model in the following), in-
bipolar disorder in particular; see Andreasen, 1987; troverted people are likely to withdraw from overly
Andreasen & Glick, 1988; Bowden, 1994; Feist, in arousing social stimulation. In so doing, their thresh-
press-a; Jamison, 1993; Ludwig, 1995; Richards, old for doubting social norms and beingrelatively lit-
Kinney, Lunde, Benet, & Merzel, 1988; Shaw & tle influenced by groups is lowered as is their
Runco, 1994). Given the elevated levels of affective tendency towards having an intrinsic orientation and
disordersin the artistic professions, as Ludwig (1995) being motivated by intrinsic interests. Furthermore,
concluded, there does appear to be a “price of great- lack of concern for social niceties may lower a per-
ness.” son’s thresholds for being arrogant and hostile to-
The primary function of traits is to lower thresh- wards others, just as having faith in one’s own
olds for trait congruent behavior (Brody & perceptions and attitudes may lower a person’s
Ehrlichman, 1998; Ekman, 1984; M. W. Eysenck, threshold for being self-confident. Coincident with
Mogg, May, Richards, & Mathews, 1991; Rosenberg, these social dispositions are cognitive dispositions to-
in press). For instance, being high in trait hostility wards openness, flexibility, and fluency of ideas.
functionally lowers one’s threshold for anger or ag- Creative people are able to approach solutions in
gressive behavicr. Furthermore, to the extent that two novel and original ways and are not as likely to be
or more dispositions consistently covary, they could functionally fixated as less creative people.

301
 Dispositionai
Dimensions

Social

Genetic Creative
jp Temperament |————>|_ Cognitive ——_—_—_—— Behavior
influences

Motivational!
Affective

Figure 4. Modelof the plausible mechanisms underlying the influence of personality on creative behavior.

Three important qualifications are necessary con- model, although speculative in parts, is that it is test-
cerning this line of reasoning. First, it is tentative and able. What is of particular interest in Eysenck’s
speculative. Although based on current empirical model are the relations between genetic and
findings, the paths of influence from genetic disposi- neurochemical processes andtrait creativity (i.e., per-
tion and temperament to personality dispositions to sonality), which is the direct precursor to creative
creative behavior are long, precarious, and in need of achievement. For instance, a key component impli-
much more prospective, longitudinal, and, wherever cated in Eysenck’s biologically based model is corti-
possible, experimental research. Second, this line of cal arousal. High arousal is associated with a
argument is not intended to fit each of the different narrowing of attention, whereas low arousalis associ-
varieties of creative behavior equally well; it is a gen- ated with a widening of attention. What makes such a
eralization and therefore necessarily is more applica- link plausible is the research of Eysenck as well as
ble to some formsof creativity than others. Finally, others who have found that creativity depends on a
the temporal flow is not as linear as the model may wide attentional focus and an expansion of cognitive
suggest. Granted, genetic and temperamental mecha- searching to the point of overinclusion, a defining
nisms are logically prior to personality and creative characteristic of psychoticism (H. J. Eysenck, i995;
behavior, but any temporal sequence between dispo- Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987; Jamison, 1993;
sitions and creative behavior may be as bi-directional Mendelsohn, 1976). From these speculations it may
as it is linear. follow that creative thinking is related to low cortical
arousal. Colin Martindale and his colleagues have es-
Extant Models of the Creative tablished a research program that has tested this idea
Personality systematically and has consistently found support for
it (Martindale, 1981; Martindale & Armstrong, 1974;
Other researchers have recently proposed their Martindale & Greenough, 1973; Martindale &
own models concerning personality and creative be- Hasenfus, 1978; Martindale, Hines, Mitchell, &
havior, and therefore a quick review of some of the Covello, 1984). For example, as measured bystress,
major ones may be in order. Perhaps the most ambi- high arousal reduces creative solutions to problems
tious and inclusive theory of personality and creativ- (Martindale & Greenough, 1973), and as measured
ity is the one recently offered by H. J. Eysenck (1993, by an electroencephalograph (percentage time spent
1995). Eysenck argued for a causal theory of in alpha states) low arousal was related to more cre-
creativity that begins with genetic determinants, ative problem soiving (Martindale & Armstrong,
hippocampal formation (dopamine and serotonin), 1974). However, low cortical arousal is evident only
cognitive inhibition, and psychoticism, which in turn during the inspiration stage and not throughout cre-
leads to trait creativity and ultimately creative ative insight or during baseline measures. In fact, cre-
achievement. The most appealing aspect of this ative individuals tend to have higher resting arousal

302
 PERSONALITY AND CREATIVITY

levels (Martindale & Armstrong, 1974), which is finding. Being sensitive, open, and flexible in thought
consistent with the high cortical arousal of introver- in turn are important personality dispositions related
sion and its relation to creativity (H. J. Eysenck, to creativity. In short, both Eysenck and Russ have
1990, 1995). developed theoretical models based on empirical
There is evidence, however, that it is not merely findings that suggest psychological mechanisms un-
psychoticism that is most strongly associated with derlying the connection between affective states, af-
creativity, but psychoticism tempered by high fective traits, cognitive dispositions, and creative
ego-strength or ego-control. Paradoxically, creative ability and achievement.
people appear to be simultaneously very labile and Yet another integrative model of personality and
unstable and yet can be rather controlled and stable creativity comes from Mansfield and Busse (1981; cf.
(Barron, 1963; H. J. Eysenck, 1995; Feist, in press-a; Helmreich et al., 1980). Not only did their model in-
Fodor, 1995; Richards et al., 1988; Russ, 1993). As clude paths between personality and creativity, but it
Barron (1963) argued over 30 years ago: also included developmental antecedents as precur-
sors of personality. Based on empirical findings, they
Thus the creative genius may be at once naive and suggested that particular developmental antecedents
knowledgeable, being at home equally to primitive precede personality characteristics, which in turn pre-
symbolism and to rigorous logic. He is both more cede the creative process. The developmental ante-
primitive and more cultured, more destructive and cedents associated with creative people are low
more constructive, occasionally crazier and yet ada- emotional intensity of parent-child relationship, pa-
mantly saner, than the average person.” (p. 224)
rental fostering of autonomy, parental intellectual
stimulation, and apprenticeship. These, in turn, are
Moreover, recent evidence suggests that various antecedent to the personality traits of autonomy, flexi-
forms of mental illness are more common among cre-
bility and openness, need to be original, commitment
ative artists than creative scientists (Ludwig, 1995). to work, need for professional recognition, and fi-
To the extent that psychoticism and creative
nally aesthetic sensitivity. Lastly, Mansfield and
achievementare related, there may be other common Busse proposed that these traits facilitate the crucial
pathways that make their association likely. For in- stages involved in creative achievement: selection of
stance, Woody and Claridge (1977) wrote “that both the problem, extended effort working on the problem,
{psychoticism and creativity] may tap a common fac- setting constraints, changing constraints, and finally
tor associated with the willingness to be unconven- verification and elaboration. One interesting, yet dif-
tional or engage in mildly antisocial behavior” (p. ficult to support, assumption of their model is that
247). As mentioned earlier, radical, unconventional, personality precedes the development of creativity.
asocial, or even antisocial behaviors are probably Finally, as mentioned previously, the field ofperson-
more common amongartists than scientists, but these ality psychology has recently witnessed the widespread
traits are nonetheless elevated in creative scientists adoption of the FFM (Digman, 1990; McCrae & John,
relative to norms (Bachtold, 1976; Barton & Cattell, 1992). Although few researchers have directly exam-
1972; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Helson, ined the relation betweencreativity and all ofthe dimen-
1971; Rushton, 1990; Rushton, Murray, & Paunonen, sions of the FFM (Dollinger & Clancy, 1993; McCrae,
1983; Wilson & Jackson, 1994). Whether unconven- 1987, Mumford, Costanza, Threlfall, Baughman, &
tionality is antecedent to or consequentof creativity Reiter-Palmon, 1993), enough work has accumulated
is in need of further empirical scrutiny. on separate FFM dimensionsandcreativity that we can
From a different theoretical tradition, Russ (1993) summarize the consistent trends. The FFM dimension
proposed a model that conceptually integrates much with the most empirical support in relation to creativity
of the known empirical findings concerning the rela- is openness to experience. Are there theoretical expla-
tion between creativity and affective dispositions. For nations that accountfor the association? McCrae (1987)
instance, she hypothesized that access to affect-laden suggested there were three possible reasonsfor the link.
thoughts (primary process thought andaffective fan- First, open people may be more fascinated with the
tasy) and opennessto affective states leads to the di- open-ended,creative, problem-solving tasks, and they
vergent thinking abilities of free association, breadth may simply score higher on such tasks. Second, open
of attention, and fluidity of thought, as well as to the people may have developed cognitive skills associated
transformation abilities of shifting sets and cognitive with creative, divergent thinking, namely, flexibility
flexibility. These paths are essentially the same as and fluidity of thought. Third, open people have an in-
Eysenck (1995) proposed connecting affective states, terest in sensation seeking and more varied experiences,
overinclusive thinking, and creativity. Furthermore, andthis experiential base may serve as the foundation
Russ suggested that taking affective pleasure in chal- for flexibility and fluency of thinking. Again, more re-
lenge and being intrinsically motivated often results search is needed to determine the validity of these con-
in an increased sensitivity to problems and problem jectures.

303
 FEIST

Although the strongest evidence exists for the re- much to be desired. For instance, no one has begun
lation between openness and creativity, research has systematic investigation of creative potential and
also supported a connection between each of the ability in young children and followed them through
other four FFM dimensions and_ creativity: adolescence and adulthood. Such research has been
neuroticism (Andreasen & Glick, 1988; Bakker, conducted on intelligence and giftedness (see for ex-
1991; Hammond & Edelmann, 1991; Kemp, 1981; ample Terman, 1925, and Subotnik & Arnold, 1994),
MacKinnon, 1978; Marchant-Haycox & Wilson, but not creativity per se. How stable is creativity
1992); conscientiousness, or more precisely, lack of from early childhood to adulthood? Are creativity
conscientiousness (Drevdahl & Cattell, 1958; Getzels and intelligence always distinct or do they diverge
& Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Kemp, 1981; Shelton & only after a certain age? How do the dispositions
Harris, 1979; Walker, Koestner, & Hum, 1995); in- towards originality interact with the other psycho-
troversion (Bachtold & Werner, 1973; Busse & logical processes important to creative achieve-
Mansfield, 1984; Chambers, 1964; Cross, Cattell, & ment—namely, development, cognition, or social
Butcher, 1967; Helson, 1977; Helson & Crutchfield, influence? Finally, do other psychological processes
1970; MacKinnon, 1978; Pufal-Struzik, 1992; Roco, account for the correlations between personality and
1993; Rossman & Horn, 1972; Rushton, Murray, & creativity? Only once these questions are examined
Paunonen, 1987; Zeldow, 1973); and lack of agree- systematically and empirically can the theoretical
ableness (Barton & Cattell, 1972; Dudek, Bernéche, models of the creative person be evaluated, tested,
Bérubé, & Royer, 1991; H. J. Eysenck, 1995; Feist, and modified (H. J. Eysenck, 1993, 1995; Feist &
1993, 1994; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Hall Gorman, 1998; Helmreich et al., 1980; Mansfield &
& MacKinnon, 1969; Helmreich, Spence, & Pred, Busse, 1981).
1988; Helson & Crutchfield, 1970; Lacey & Empirical research over the last 45 years makes a
Erickson, 1974; McDermid, 1965). Yet, it would be rather convincing case that creative people behave
misleading to conclude that all who have explored consistently over time and situation and in ways that
the relation between the FFM and creativity have distinguish them from others. It is safe to say that in
found each personality dimension to relate to creativ- general a “creative personality” does exist and per-
ity (Dollinger & Clancy, 1993; Feist, 1989; McCrae, sonality dispositions do regularly and predictably re-
1987; Woody & Claridge, 1977). Many of these null late to creative achievement in art and science.
or negative results, however, were conducted on gen- Furthermore, to the extent that dispositional and situ-
eral population samples and not on creative artists or ational factors play an important role in creative be-
scientists. Therefore, it may be that the five factors havior, the topic of creativity can be an importanttie
are more consistently related to artistic and scientific that binds personality and social psychologists. More
creativity than to everyday creativity. Future research specifically, the results of this meta-analysis make it
must be conducted, however, before one can have clear that one’s dispositions towards social interac-
more confidence in such a conclusion. tion and ability to express one’s ideas in a social con-
text play a critical role in the expression of creative
behavior. To the extent that the dispositions one
Future Directions and the Possibility of brings to social situations do in fact lower the thresh-
Integrating Personality and old for creativity, the question of creative behavior,
Social Psychology much like aggression, conformity, and prosocial be-
havior, presents social and personality psychologists
By providing the first quantitative review of the an important challenge: to move beyondtheir histori-
personality and creativity literature, this article has cally disciplinocentric (i.e., the belief in the superior-
aimed to demonstrate the viability and vitality of the ity of one’s own discipline and the uselessness of
consistent association between the two constructs. others; Feist, 1995b) view of each other.
Furthermore, quantitative research synthesis is a first A simple listing of a few trait terms that consis-
step towards demonstrating consensus (or lack tently relate to creative behavior in andofitself is not
thereof) for any-new or established area of investiga- all that telling. Discovering the consistent and robust
tion. Yet, if this meta-analysis has begun to establish patterns in the literature on personality and creativity
covariation and its magnitude between personality has more important implications than simply a cata-
and creativity, researchersstill do not know a tremen- loging of trait correlates. It suggests something about
dous amount about the causal role personality plays the underlying organization and structure of personal-
in creativity. The field has more recently begunto in- ity, the function of traits, and where to look for the
vestigate the issue of temporal precedence, but ruling underiying physiological (genetic and temperamen-
out extraneous variable explanations is for the most tal) and psychological mechanismslinking these par-
part unanswered. Even the research investigating ticular traits to creativie behavior. One purpose of
temporal stability and temporal precedence leaves this meta-analysis was to provide the raw mate-

304
 PERSONALITY AND CREATIVITY

rial—the empirical consensus—so that future re- *Bergum, B. O. (1974). Self-perceptions of members of a graduate
faculty whose publication rates are high or low. Psychological
searchers can make educated guesses as to where to
Reports, 35, 857-858.
begin their search for the potential underlying physio- Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view to the five-factor approachto per-
logical and psychological mechanisms of highly cre- sonality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.
ative behavior. Bowden,C. L. (1994). Bipolar disorder and creativity. In M. P. Shaw
& M. A. Runco (Eds.), Creativity and affect (pp. 73-86).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brody, N., & Ehrlichman, H. (1998). Personality psychology: The
References science ofindividuality. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
*Busse, T. V., & Mansfield, R. S. (1984). Selected personality traits
*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies includedin the and achievementin male scientists. The Journal ofPsychology,
meta-analysis. 116, 117-131.
*Albaum,G. (1976). Selecting specialized creators: The independent *Butcher, H. J. (1969). The structure ofabilities, interests, and per-
inventor. Psychological Reports, 39, 175-179. sonality in 1,000 Scottish school children. British JournalofEd-
Albert, R. S. (1994). The achievement of eminence: A longitudinal ucational Psychology, 39, 154-165.
study of exceptionally gifted boys and their families. In R. F. *Buttsworth, L. M., & Smith, G. A. (1994). Personality of Australian
Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contempo- performing musicians by gender and by instrument. Personality
rary longitudinalstudies ofgiftedness and talent (pp. 283-315). and Individual Differences, 5, 595-603.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Camp, G. C. (1994). A longitudinal study ofcorrelates of creativity.
*AJbert, R. S., & Runco, M. (1987). The possible different personal- Creativity Research Journal, 7, 125-144.
ity dispositionsof scientists and non-scientists. In D. N. Jackson *Cattell, R. B., & Drevdahl, J. E. (1955). A comparisonofthe person-
& J. P. Rushton (Eds.). Scientific excellence (pp. 67-97). ality profile (16PF) of eminentresearchers with that of eminent
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. teachers and administrators, and the general population. British
*Alter, J. B. (1984). Creativity profile of university and conservatory Journal of Psychology, 46, 248-261.
dance students. Journal ofPersonalityAssessment, 4, 153-158. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). The handbook
* Alter, J.B. (1989). Creativity profile of university and conservatory for the Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF) Questionnaire.
music students. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 184-195. Champaign,IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. New York: Westview. *Chambers, J. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical fac-
tors to scientific creativity. Psychological Monographs: Gen-
American Psychological Association. (1967-present). PsycLIT
eral and Applied, 78, 1-20.
[CD-ROM]. Wellesley Hills, MA: Silver Platter Information
Services [Producer and Distributor].
*Child, D. (1969). A comparative study of personality, intelligence
andsocial class in a technological university. British Journal of
Andreasen, N. C. (1987), Creativity and mental illness: Prevalence
Educational Psychology, 39, 40-46.
rates in writers and their first-degree relatives. American Jour-
Cohen,J. (1988). Statistical power analysisfor behavioral sciences
nal ofPsychiatry, 144, 1288-1292.
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Andreasen, N. C., & Glick, 1.D. (1988). Bipolar affective disorder
*Conway, J. B. (1988). Differences among clinical psychologists:
andcreativity: Implications and clinical management. Compre-
Scientists, practitioners, and science-practitioners. Professional
hensive Psychiatry, 29, 207-216.
Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 642-655.
Ansari, S. M. R., & Raina, M. K. (1980). Creativity research in the
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of re-
USSR. In M.K. Raina (Ed.), Creativity research: International
search synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
perspectives (pp. 312~324). Sri Mirobindo Marg, New Delhi:
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetlands of
National Council of Educational Research and Training.
personality: A reply to Block. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
*Arvey, R. D., & Dewhirst, H. D. (1976). Goal-setting attributes, per-
216-220.
sonality variables and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational
*Cross, P. G., Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, H. J. (1967). The personality
Behavior, 9, 179-189.
pattern of creative artists. British Journal of Educational Psy-
*Bachtold, L. M. (1976). Personality characteristics of women ofdis-
chology, 37, 292-299. :
tinction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, I, 70-78.
*Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1973). The personality of
*Bachtold, L. M., & Werner, E. E. (1972). Personalitycharacteristics
youngartists: An empirical and theoretical exploration. British
of womenscientists. Psychological Reports, 31, 391-396.
Journal ofPsychology, 64, 91-104.
Bachtold, L. M., & Werner, E. E. (1973). Personality characteristics *Davids, A. (1968). Psychological characteristics of high school
of creative women. Perceptual and MotorSkills, 36, 311-319.
male and female potential scientists in comparison with aca-
*Bakker, F. C. (1991). Development ofpersonality in dancers: A lon- demic underachievers. Psychology in the Schools, 3, 79-87.
gitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, *Dellas, M., & Gaier, E. L. (1970). Identification of creativity: The
671-681. individual. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 55-73.
*Bamber,J. H., Bill, J. M., Boyd, F. E., & Corbett, W. D. (1983). In Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the
two minds—Arts and science differences at sixth-form level. five-factor model. Annual Review ofPsychology, 41, 417-440.
British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 53, 222-233. Dollinger, S. J., & Clancy, S. M. (1993). Identity, self, and personal-
Barron,F. (1955). The disposition towardsoriginality. Journal ofAb- ity: II. Glimpses through the autophotographic eye. Journal of
normal and Social Psychology, 51, 478-485. Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1064-1071.
Barron,F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health. New York: *Domino, G. (1974). Assessment of cinematographic creativity.
Van Nostrand. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 150-154.
*Barron, F. (1972). Artists in the making. New York: Seminar. *Domino,G. (1994). Assessmentof creativity with the ACL: Anem-
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. (1981). Creativity,intelligence, and per- pirical comparisonoffour scales. Creativity Research Journal,
sonality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476. 7, 21-33.
*Barton, K., & Cattell, H. (1972). Personality characteristics of fe- *Drevdahl, J. E., & Cattell, R. B. (1958). Personality and creativity in
male psychology, science and art majors. Psychological Re- artists and writers. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 14,
ports, 31, 807-813. 107-111.

305
 FEIST

*Dudek,S. Z., Bernéche, R., Bérubé, H., & Royer, S. (1991). Person- Fodor, E. M. (1995). Subclinical manifestations of psycho-
ality determinants of the commitmentto the profession ofart. sis-proneness, ego-strength, and creativity. Personality and In-
Creativity Research Journal, 4, 367-389. dividual Differences, 18, 635-642.
Dudek,S. Z., & Hall, W. B. (1991). Personality consistency: Eminent Freeman,J., Butcher, H. J., & Christie, T. (1971). Creativity: A selec-
architects 25 years later. Creativity Research Journal, 4, tive review of research. London, England: Social Research and
213-231. Higher Learning.
*Eiduson, B. T. (1958). Artist and non-artist: A comparative study. *Garwood, D. S. (1964). Personality factors related to creativity in
Journal of Personality, 26, 13-28. youngscientists. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology,
Ekman,P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. R. 68, 413-419.
Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.). Approaches to emotion (pp. Gerbing, D. W., & Tuley, M. R. (1991). The 16PF related to the
319-344). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Five-Factor Modelin personality: Multiple-indicator measure-
*Erickson,C. O., Gantz, B. S., & Stephenson, R. W. (1970). Logical ment versus the a priori scales. Multivariate Behavioral Re-
and constructvalidation of a short-form biographical inventory search, 26, 271-289.
predictor of scientific creativity. Proceedings, 78th Annual Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision.
Convention, American Psychological Association (pp. New York: Wiley.
151-152). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
Gilchrist, M. (1972). The psychology ofcreativity. Melboume, Aus-
tion Press.
tralia: Melbourne University Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensionsof personality. In L. A.
Goldberg, L. R., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994). The Big Fivefactor struc-
Pervin (Ed.), Handbook ofpersonality theory and research (pp.
ture as an integrative framework: An empirical comparison with
244-276). New York: Guilford.
Eysenck’s P-E-N model. In C. F. Halverson, Jr., G. A.
Eysenck,H.J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a
Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of
theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147-178.
temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp.
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity.
7-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
*Gotz, K. O., & Gétz, K. (1979). Personality characteristics of suc-
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck
cessfulartists. Perceptual and MotorSkills, 49, 919-924.
Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
*Eysenck, H. J., & Furnham, A. (1993). Personality and the *Gough,H. G. (1961, February). A personality sketch ofthe creative
Barron—Welsh Art Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, research scientist. Paper presented at Sth Annual Conference on
Personnel and Industrial Relations Research, University of Cal-
837-838.
ifornia, Los Angeles.
Eysenck, M. W., Mogg, K., May, J., Richards, A., & Mathews, A.
(1991). Bias in interpretation of ambiguous sentencesrelated to *Gough,H. G. (1976). What happens to creative medical students?
threat in anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,100, Journal of Medical Education, 51, 461-467.
144-150. *Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory: Adminis-
Feist, G. J. (1989). [Creativity in art and science students.] Unpub- trators guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
lished raw data. Gough,H. G., & Bradley, P. (1995). [ACL, CPI, and the Big Five Di-
*Feist, G. J. (1991a). The psychology ofscience: Personality, cogni- mensions]. Unpublished raw data.
tive, motivational and working styles of eminent and less emi- *Gough,H. G., Bradley, P., & McDonald, J. S. (1991). Performance
nent scientists. Unpublished dissertation, University of Califor- of residents in anesthesiology as related to measures of person-
nia, Berkeley. ality and interests. Psychological Reports, 68, 979-994.
*Feist, G. J. (1991b). Synthetic and analytic thought: Similarities and *Gough, H. G., & Woodworth, D. G. (1960). Stylistic variations
differences amongart and science students. Creativity Research amongprofessional research scientists. Journal of Psychology,
Journal, 4, 145-155. 49, 87-98.
Feist, G. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psy- *Guastello, S., & Shissler, J. (1994). A two-factor taxonomyofcre-
chological Science, 4, 366-371. ative behavior. Journal of Creative Behavior, 28, 211-221.
Feist, G. J. (1994). Personality and working style predictors of inte- Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5,
grative complexity: A study of scientists’ thinking about re- 444-454,
search and teaching. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychol-
*Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.),
ogy, 67, 474-484.
Creativity andits cultivation (pp. 142-161). New York: Harper.
Feist, G. J. (1995a, October). Do hostile and arrogantscientists be-
*Hall, W. B., & MacKinnon, D. W. (1969). Personality inventory
come eminent or are eminentscientists likely to become hostile
correlates of creativity among architects. Journal of Applied
and arrogant. Paper presented at annual conference of Society
Psychology, 53, 322-326.
for Social Studies of Science, Charlottesville, VA.
*Ham, S., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (1992). Personality and scientific
Feist, G. J. (1995b). Psychology of science and history of psychol-
promise. Psychological Reports, 70, 971-975.
ogy: Putting behavioral generalizationsto the test. Psychologi-
cal Inquiry, 6, 119-123. *Hammer,E.F. (1966). Personality patterns in young creativeartists.
Feist, G. J. (in press-a). Affective states and traits in creativity: Evi- Adolescence, 1, 327-350.
dence for non-linear relationships. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Cre- *Hammond,J., & Edelmann, R. J. (1991). The act of being: Personal-
ativity Research Handbook, Vol. 2. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. ity characteristics of professional actors, amateur actors and
Feist, G. J. (in press-b). Autonomy. In Encyclopedia ofcreativity. San non-actors. In G. Wilson (Ed.), Psychology and performing arts
Diego, CA: Academic. (pp. 123-131). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
*Feist, G. J., & Barron,F. (1996). [Longitudinal study of 1950 gradu- *Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., Beane, W. E., Lucker, G. W., &
ate students]. Unpublished raw data. Matthews, K. A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology:
Feist, G. J., & Gorman,M. E. (1998). The psychologyof science: Re- Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal
view andintegration of a nascentdiscipline. Review of General of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 896-908.
Psychology, 2, 1-45. *Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Pred, R. S. (1988). Making it
Feist, G. J., & Runco, M. A.(1993). Trendsin the creativity literature: without losing it: Type A, achievement motivation and scien-
An analysis of research in the Journal of Creative Behavior tific attainment revisited. Personality and Social Psychology
(1967-1989). Creativity Research Journal, 6, 271-286. Bulletin, 14, 495-504.

306
 PERSONALITY AND CREATIVITY

*Helson, R. (1971). Women mathematiciansandthe creative person- *Marchant-Haycox, S. E., & Wilson, G. D. (1992). Personality and
ality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, stress in performing artists. Personality and Individual Differ-
210-220. ences, 13, 1061-1068.
Helson, R. (1977). The creative spectrum of authorsof fantasy. Jour- Martindale, C. (1981). Cognition and consciousness. Homewood,
nal of Personality, 45, 310-326. IL: Dorsey.
Helson,R. (1987). Which ofthose young womenwith creative poten- Martindale, C., & Armstrong,J. (1974). The relationship ofcreativity
tial becameproductive?II. From college to midlife. In R. Hogan to cortical activation andits operant control. Journal ofGenetic
& W.H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in Personality (Vol. 2, pp. Psychology, 124, 311-320.
51-92). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Martindale, C., & Greenough, J. (1973). Thedifferential effect of in-
*Helson, R., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1970). Mathematicians: The cre- creased arousal on creative and intellectual performance. The
ative researcherand the average PhD. Journal ofConsulting and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 123, 329-335.
Clinical Psychology, 34, 250-257. Martindale, C., & Hasenfus, N. (1978). EEG differences as a function
Helson, R., Roberts, B., & Agronick, G. (1995). Enduringiness and of creativity, stage of the creative process andeffort to be origi-
change in creative personality and prediction of occupational nal. Biological Psychology, 6, 157-167.
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, Martindale, C., Hines, D., Mitchell, L., & Covello, E. (1984). EEG al-
1173-1183. pha asymmetry andcreativity. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 5, 77-86.
*Holland, J. (1960). The prediction of college grades from personal-
Maslow, A. (1959). Creativity in self-actualizing people. In H. H.
ity and aptitude variables. Journal of Educational Psychology,
Anderson (Ed.), Creativity andits cultivation (pp. 83-95). New
51, 245-254.
York: Harper.
*Ikpaahindi, L. (1987). The relationship between the needs for
Matyuskin, A. M. (1984). Main trends in research on thinking and
achievement, affiliation, power, and scientific productivity
creating. Psikologicheskii Zhurnal, 5, 9-17.
among Nigerian veterinary surgeons. The JournalofSocial Psy-
McAdams, D.P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A crit-
chology, 127, 535-537.
ical appraisal. Journal ofPersonality, 60, 329-361.
Isen, A., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness
facilitates creative problem solving. Journal ofPersonality and
to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Social Psychology, 52, 1122-1131.
52, 1258-1265.
Jamison, K. R. (1992). Touched with fire: Manic-depressive illness McCrae R. R. (1991). The Five-Factor Model and its assessment in
and the artistic temperament. New York: Free Press.
clinical settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57,
John,O. P. (1990). The “Big-Five”factor taxonomy: Dimensions of 399-414,
personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and
A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook ofpersonality theory and research psychoticism scales with measures of the Five-Factor Model of
(pp. 6-100). New York: Guilford. personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6,
Karlson, J. L. (1991). Genetics of human mentality. New York: 587-597.
Praeger. McCrae, R.R., Costa, P. T., & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating com-
Katzko, M. W., & Monks,F.J. (Eds.). (1995). Nurturingtalent: Indi- prehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q-sets
vidual needs and social ability. Assen, Netherlands: Van and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 54,
Gorcum. 430-446.
*Kemp, A. (1981). The personality structure of the musician: I. Iden- McCrae,R. R., Costa, P. T., & Piedmont, R. L. (1993). Folk concepts,
tifying a profile oftraits for the performer. Psychology ofMusic, natural language, and psychological constructs: The California
9, 3-14. Psychological Inventory and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of
*Kline, P., & Cooper, C. (1986). Psychoticism and creativity. The Personality, 61, 1-26.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147, 183-188. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the
*Kline, P., & Lapham, S. L. (1992). Personality and facuity in British Five-Factor Model andits applications. Journal ofPersonality,
universities. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 60, 175-215.
855-857. *McDermid, C. D. (1965). Somecorrelates of creativity in engineer-
Kuhn,T.S. (1970). The structure ofscientific revolutions (2nd ed.). ing personnel. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 49, 14-19.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meehl, P. (1967). Theory testing in psychology and physics: A meth-
odological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34, 103-115.
Lacey, L. A., & Erickson, C. E. (1974). Psychology ofthe scientist:
Mendelsohn, G. A. (1976). Associative and attentional processes in
XXXI_ Discriminability of a creativity scale for the Adjective
creative performance. Journal of Personality, 44, 341-369.
Check List among scientists and engineers. Psychological Re-
*Mohan, J., & Kaur, M. (1993). Adjustment, personality, intelli-
ports, 34, 755-758.
gence, values and SES of male and female university research
Loftus, G. R. (1991). On the tyranny of hypothesis testing in the so-
scholars. Social Science International, 9, 39~50.
cial sciences. Contemporary Psychology, 36, 102-105.
*Mohan,J., & Tiwana, M. (1986). Personality and alienationof cre-
Ludwig, A. M. (1995). Theprice ofgreatness. New York: Guilford.
ative writers: A brief report. Personality and Individual Differ-
Lykken, D. (1968).Statistical significance in psychological research. ences, 8, 449.
Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151-159.
*Mossholder, K. W., Dewhirst, D. H., & Arvey, R. D. (1981). Voca-
MacKinnon,D. W.(1960). The highly effective individual. Teachers tional interests and personality differences between develop-
College Record, 61, 367-378. ment and research personnel: A field study. Journal of Voca-
MacKinnon,D. W.(1970). Creativity: A multi-faceted phenomenon. tional Behavior, 19, 233-243.
In J. Roslanksy (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 19-32). Amsterdam: Mumford, M. D., Costanza, D. P., Threlfall, K. V., Baughman, W.A.,
North-Holland. & Reiter-Palmon, R. (1993). Personality variables and prob-
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness. Buf- lem-construction activities: An exploratory investigation. Cre-
falco, NY: Bearly. ativity Research Journal, 6, 365-389.
*Mansfield, R. S., & Busse, T. V. (1981). The psychology of creativ- Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome:
ity and discovery: Scientists and their work. Chicago: Nel- Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulle-
son-Hall. tin, 103, 27-43.

307
 FEIST

Nichols, R. C. (1978). Twin studies of ability, personality, and inter- Russ, S. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and piay in
ests. Homo, 29, 158-173. the creative process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Asso-
Onda, A. (1986). Trends in creativity research in Japan: History and ciates.
present status. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 134-140. Saklofske, D. H., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (1995). International hand-
*Parloff, M. B., & Datta, L. (1965). Personality characteristics of the bookofpersonality andintelligence. New York: Plenum.
potentially creative scientist. Science and Psychoanalysis, 8, *Schaefer, C. E. (1969). The self-concept of creative adolescents.
91-105. Journal ofPsychology, 72, 233-2A2.
*Parloff, M. B., Datta, L., Kleman, M., & Handlon,J. H. (1968). Per- Schaefer, C. E. (1973). A five-year follow-up study of the
sonality characteristics which differentiate creative male ado- self-concept of creative adolescents. The Journai of Genetic
lescents and adults. Journal ofPersonality, 36, 528-552. Psychology, 123, 163-170.
*Payne, D. A., Halpin, W. G., Ellett, C. D., & Dale, J. B. (1975). Gen- Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative
eral personality correlates of creative personality in academi- knowledge in psychology: Implicationsfor training of research-
cally andartistically gifted youth. Journal ofSpecial Education, ers. Psychological Methods, 1, 115-129.
9, 105-108. *Scott, N. A., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1975). Personality differentiation
*Pearce, C. (1968). Creativity in young science students. Exceptional and prediction of persistence in physical science and engineer-
Children, 35, 121-126. ing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6, 205-216.
Perleth, C., & Heller, K. A. (1994), The Munich longitudinal study of *Shapiro, R. J. (1968). Creative research scientists. Psychologia
giftedness. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Amoid (Eds.), Beyond Africana Monograph Supplement, 4(Whole No. 180).
Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and *Shaughnessy, M. F., Stockard, J., & Moore, J. (1994). Scores on the
talent (pp. 77-114). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire and success in college cal-
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adjective culus. Psychological Reports, 75, 348-350.
CheckList scales and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Per- Shaw, M. P., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (1994). Creativity and affect.
sonality and Social Psychology, 60, 630-637. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ponomarev, Y. A. (1986). The psychology of creativity: Status, *Shelton, J., & Harris, T. L. (1979). Personality characteristics of art
trends, and prospects. Soviet Journal of Psychology, 7, students. Psychological Reports, 44, 949-950.
179-191. *Siegel, C., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (1992). Personalityof college stu-
*Pufal-Struzik, I. (1992). Differences in personality and dents in calculus courses. Psychological Reports, 71,
self-knowledgeofcreative personsat different ages: A compar- 1309-1310.
ative analysis. Special Issue: Geragogics: European research in Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychologyofscience.
gerontological education. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13, 71-90. *Simonton, D. K. (1991). Personality correlates of exceptional per-
Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: Uni- sonal influence: A note on Thorndike’s (1950) creators and
versity of Chicago Press. leaders. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 67-78.
Reznikoff, M., Domino, G., Bridges, C., & Honeyman, M. (1973). *Smithers, A. G., & Batcock, A. (1970). Success and failure
Creative abilities in identical and fraternal twins. Behavior Ge- amongsocial scientists and health scientists at a technologi-
netics, 3, 365-377. cal university. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
Richards, R. L., Kinney, D. K., Lunde, I., Benet, M., & Merzel, A. 40, 144-153.
(1988). Creativity in manic-depressives, cyclothymes, their Stein, M. (1968}. Creativity. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert
normal relatives, and control subjects. Journal of Abnormal (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp.
Psychology, 97, 281-289. 900-942). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Roco, M. (1993). Creative personalities about creative personality in Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J.
science. Revue Roumaine de Psychologie, 37, 27-36. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 125-147). New
Rogers, C. (1959). Toward a theory ofcreativity. In H. H. Anderson York: Cambridge University Press.
(Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 69-82). New York: Stohs, J. M. (1990). Young adult predictors and midlife outcomes of
Harper. male fine art careers. Career Development Quarterly, 38,
Rosenberg,E. L. (in press). Levels of analysis and the organization of 213-229.
affect. Review of General Psychology. Storr, A. (1988). Solitude: A return to the self. New York: Free Press.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Coo- Subotnik, R. F., & Amold, K. D. (1994). (Eds.). Beyond Terman:
per & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbookof research synthesis Contemporarylongitudinal studies of giftedness and taleni.
(pp. 231-244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow,R. L. (1991). Essentials ofbehavioral re- *Subramanian,S., & Ganesan, V. (1982). Anxiety, time pressure and
search: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed). New York: creativity amongscientists. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychol-
McGraw-Hill. ogy, 9, 183-188.
Rossman, B. B., & Horn, J. L. (1972). Cognitive, motivational and Taylor, C. W., & Barron, F. (1963). Scientific creativity: Its recogni-
temperamental indicants of creativity and intelligence. Journal tion and development. New York: Wiley.
of Educational Measurement, 9, 265-286. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies ofgenius: Vol. 1. Mental and
Rothenberg, A., & Hausman, R. (1976). The creativity question. Dur- Physicaltraits of a thousand gifted children. Palo Alto, CA:
ham, NC: Duke University Press. Stanford University Press.
*Rushton, J. P. (1990). Creativity, intelligence, and psychoticism. Terman, L. M. (1954). Scientists and nonscientists in a group of 800
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1291-1298. men. PsychologicalMonographs, 68(7, Whole No. 378).
*Rushton, J. P., Murray, H. G., & Paunonen, S. V. (1983). Personal- *Udell, G. G, Baker, K., & Albaum, G. (1976). Creativity: Necessary,
ity, research creativity, and teaching effectiveness in university butnotsufficient. Journal of Creative Behavior, 10, 92-103.
professors. Scientometrics, 5, 93-116. *Van Zelst, R. H., & Kerr, W. A. (1954). Personality self-assessment
Rushton,J. P., Murray, H. G., & Paunonen, S. V. (1987). Personality of scientific and technical personnel. Journal of Applied Psy-
characteristics associated with high research productivity. In D. chology, 38, 145-147.
Jackson & J. P. Rushton, (Eds.), Scientific excellence, (pp. 129- Vernon, P. E. (1989). The nature—nurture problem in creativity. In 5.
148). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook

308
 PERSONALITY AND CREATIVITY

of creativity: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. *Wilson, G. D., & Jackson, C. (1994). The personality of physicists.
93-110). New York: Plenum. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 187-189.
*Walker, A. M., Koestner, R., & Hum, A. (1995). Personality corre- *Wispe, L. G. (1963). Traits of eminent American psychologists. Sci-
lates of depressive style in autobiographies of creative achiev- ence, 141, 1256-1261.
ers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29, 75-94. Woodman, R. W. (1981). Creativity as a construct in personality the-
Wehner, L., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Magyari-Beck, £. (1991). Cur- ory. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 43-66.
tent approaches used in studyingcreativity: An exploratory in- Woody, E., & Claridge, G. (1977). Psychoticism and thinking. Brit-
vestigation. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 261-271. ish Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 16, 241-248.
*Wills, G. I (1983). A personality study of musicians workingin the Zeldow, P. B. (1973). Replication and extension of the personality
popular field. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, profile of “artists in the making.” Psychological Reports, 33,
359-366. 541-542.

309
Copyright © 2002 EBSCO Publishing