This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]

On: 05 September 2013, At: 02:14

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

The Creative Personality: A Synthesis and Development

of the Creative Person Profile
a
Øyvind L. Martinsen
a
Department for Leadership and Organizational Management, Norwegian School of
Management, Norway
Published online: 05 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Øyvind L. Martinsen (2011) The Creative Personality: A Synthesis and Development of the Creative Person
Profile, Creativity Research Journal, 23:3, 185-202, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2011.595656

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.595656

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 23(3), 185–202, 2011
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2011.595656

The Creative Personality: A Synthesis and Development

of the Creative Person Profile
Øyvind L. Martinsen
Department for Leadership and Organizational Management, Norwegian School of
Management, Norway
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

Several constructs from the research literature on the creative personality were reoper-
ationalized to gain further understanding of the structure of the creative personality and
to develop a broad measure of relevant traits (CPP—the Creative Person Profile). From
an initial pool of 38 creativity relevant personality constructs, 7 factors were identified
and labeled (emotional instability, ambition, associative orientation, motivation, need
for originality, agreeableness, and flexibility) in a sample of 481 participants with a
mean age of 31.6 years. In a subsample, there were theoretically meaningful correlations
between the 5-factor model of personality and 5 of the CPP factors. Moreover, most of
the 7 components correlated with at least 1 ability test or self-report criterion of crea-
tivity (creative problem solving, remote associates test, ideational fluency, items from
a creative activities checklist). Finally, in a discriminant validity study, scores on the
7 factors clearly differentiated between a group of professional artists (n ¼ 69) and
the remainder of the sample, and between a group of marketing students (n ¼ 40)
and the remainder of the sample.

Creativity is important in daily life and in work settings, to forget that it is still the individual that is the creator
as it describes a core aspect of human adaptability (Runco, 2003; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Numerous
(Runco, 2007). The construct is usually defined as a reviews in the field have consequently shown that the
capacity to develop novel and useful ideas, behaviors, creative individual is characterized by a number of spe-
or products, and tends to be seen as a complex capacity cific attributes. Creativity is, indeed, not a sole trait,
bearing on a mix of individual, situational, and cultural ability, disposition, nor preference (Hocevar, 1981)
variables (Runco, 2004). Theories in the field have pro- and is facilitated by a set of personality, motivational,
posed that creativity is multifaceted (e.g., Rhodes, stylistic, and intellective variables—in particular, diver-
1961=1987), but also that it should be studied based on gent thinking, but also, to some extent, intelligence
a systems perspective (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, (e.g., Barron & Harrington, 1981; Csikszentmihalyi &
2004; Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). It is also argued that crea- Getzels, 1973; Dellas & Gaier, 1970; Lubart, 1994;
tivity is a result of both individual and situational compo- Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Yet, although much
nents (Amabile, 1996), that its expression is culturally seems to be known about creativity relevant abilities,
dependent (Rudowitch, 2003), and that it is a result of the structure of the relevant trait, motive and stylistic
a complex combination of individual resources (Lubart, variables in this area remains unknown.
1994; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). To assess creativity relevant abilities such as diver-
Since several trends in this field put an emphasis on gent thinking (e.g., Runco, 2004), there exists various
the influence of the social environment, it can be easy validated measures such as the Torrance Test of Cre-
ative Thinking (TTCT) (Torrance, 1972), but we also
have good measures of other constructs in the intellec-
Correspondence should be sent to Øyvind L. Martinsen, Ph.D., tive domain (Mumford, Supinski, Baughman, Costanza,
Department for Leadership and Organizational Management, & Threlfall, 1997; Mumford, Supinski, Threlfall, &
Norwegian School of Mangement, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo,
Norway. E-mail: oyvind.martinsen@bi.no
Baughman, 1996; Runco, Plucker, & Lim, 2001). On
 186 MARTINSEN

the other hand, within the domain of personality the high empathy and capacity for status, low sociability,
conceptual picture seems more fragmented as there are communality, and a desire to make a good impression
a number of potentially relevant constructs that must to the list. In still another, and more recent, review focus-
be measured by numerous tests, inventories, and ques- ing on affective processes (Russ, 1993), several traits were
tionnaires to obtain the full picture. A succinct and com- seen as important for creativity, but openness to experi-
prehensive measure of the facets and domains of the ence, tolerance for ambiguity, independence of judgment,
creative personality does not seem to exist (cf. Cropley, unconventional values, preference for challenge, prefer-
2000; Hocevar, 1981; Plucker & Renzulli, 1999), ence for complexity, self-confidence, and risk taking were
although general and comprehensive measures of per- emphasized along with motivational processes.
sonality do exist. Yet, many of the otherwise excellent Lubart (1994) argued that cognitive or intellectual
omnibus tests of personality generally do not include styles, personality, and motives were all important for
several of the creativity-specific constructs that are creative production. As regards stylistic constructs,
referred to in the literature (Lubart, 1994). Indeed, over innovative, intuitive, and global styles were included.
many years, a large number of creativity tests have been When discussing motives, Lubart posited that both
created (cf. Cropley, 2000; Treffinger, 1986), but they extrinsic, intrinsic, and achievement motives could be
tend not to include a sufficient number of creativity rel- associated with creativity. The same was the argument
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

evant constructs, although many have not been suffi- for traits such as tolerance for ambiguity, perseverance,
ciently validated (Fleenor & Taylor, 2004; Hocevar, openness to new experiences, the desire to grow beyond
1981, 1989). one’s current position, willingness to take risks, courage
Based on these observations, there is an obvious need of one’s convictions, belief in oneself, independence of
for a new test to measure the creative personality. A new judgment, and self-esteem. Along with Sternberg
test can be important to advance research in the field, to (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995), Lubart posited that these
facilitate counseling in creativity, and to promote fair- traits, styles, and dispositions would predict creativity
ness and valid decisions in selection settings. The pur- in combination with other factors such as abilities
pose of this study was to identify research-based and knowledge in a complex way but which could be
descriptors of the creative person and to integrate these modeled. Finally, Helson (1999) reviewed several lines
into a novel and comprehensive measure of the creative of previous research on the creative personality and
person. After a comprehensive review of the literature, found that originality and openness should be seen as
where relevant research is summarized, and where con- cardinal traits. More important, however, she concluded
structs to be included in the study are identified, the that ‘‘the field is still beset with contradictions and
new inventory’s validity is investigated, including its anomalies’’ (p. 371). It is, indeed, tempting to conclude
relationship to criteria of creativity and other, relevant that this field has not had a commonly agreed upon
personality variables. set of terms or definitions.
The reviews mentioned earlier have nevertheless been
important and have given researchers valuable infor-
Creativity-Relevant Personality Variables Identified
mation on which paths in creativity research that have
in Previous Research
been successful, but implicitly also which paths that
In one of the earlier reviews of creativity, it was con- have not been fruitful in previous research. Still, it is a
cluded that the more important personality constructs problem that such reviews do not inform researchers
for creativity were independence, dominance, introver- how many studies that the inclusion or exclusion of
sion, openness to stimuli, wide interests, self-acceptance, the selected constructs have been based on. Addition-
intuitiveness, flexibility, asocial attitude, unconcern for ally, qualitative reviews do not inform researchers about
social norms, and neuroticism tempered by ego-strength the overall picture of empirical associations between
(Dellas & Gaier, 1970). As regards motivational charac- predictors and criteria.
teristics, they emphasized risk taking based on the need Such problems can be attempted solved using the
to achieve, the need to find order, and the need to create. five-factor model of personality as a framework for
In a subsequent review, Barron and Harrington (1981) organizing concepts and to conduct a meta-analysis.
emphasized high valuation of aesthetic qualities in This was done in an important study of the relationship
experience along with broad interests, attraction to com- between personality and creativity (Feist, 1998, 1999).
plexity, high energy, independence of judgment, auto- Feist used data that could be classified according to
nomy, intuition, self-confidence, ability to resolve the five-factor model of personality, or where the 16PF
antinomies, and having a sense of self as creative. Even (Cattell, 1949; Cattell & Cattell, 1995), the EPQ
later, Mumford and Gustafson (1988) generally referred (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991), and the CPI (Gough,
to Barron and Harrington’s review as regards core char- 1996) had been used and compared artists and scientists
acteristics characterizing creative persons, but added with other samples. Feist’s general conclusion was that
 THE CREATIVE PERSONALITY 187

creative people are more open to experience, less con- are relatively strong correlations between measures of
ventional, less conscientious, more self-confident, self- several style constructs and measures of personality
accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and traits (e.g., Furnham, 1992, Gelade, 2002; Martinsen &
impulsive. Although the field hitherto has seemed to Diseth, 2009; Swanberg & Martinsen, 2010). Thus, since
be relatively insensitive to the need for empirical, inte- the main purpose of this study is to summarize and inte-
grative efforts and a lack of a common set of terms, grate, constructs from trait, style, and motivational
Feist’s meta-analysis represented a milestone in crea- research have been included.
tivity research because of its empirical approach and Based on these ideas, the information in the afore-
because of its focus on several well-accepted models mentioned reviews, a search in the PsychInfo database,
for personality. However, stylistic and motivational and further theoretical considerations, a list of 42 crea-
variables seemed not to have been included in his tivity relevant constructs were initially identified. Each
study because such constructs are often not included of these constructs was then operationally defined and
in the five-factor model of personality or in other, 12 items were written for each construct. Subsequent
established trait theories, although these factors may to this, two pilot studies, with around 100 participants
have motivational implications. Among the noninclu- in each study, were conducted. The participants in these
ded variables were tolerance for ambiguity, preference studies were students, artists, and a mix of people from
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

for complexity, and perseverance. several professions. In each of these pilot studies, item
Based on these observations, this study seeks, based distributions, variances, scale reliabilities, and correla-
on a broadly defined perspective, to investigate the tions between constructs were investigated. The number
structure of creative personality constructs based prim- of items was then reduced to eight for each construct,
arily on constructs that have been proposed in previous based on item-total correlations and distributional char-
creativity research. In this regard, it is clear that a num- acteristics. After this, and based on further correlation
ber of core variables, repeatedly, have been suggested to analyses and theoretical considerations, the list of con-
be of special importance when describing the creative structs was reduced to avoid redundancy. Excluded con-
person. structs at this stage were fear of failure, high energy,
experience seeking, and impulsivity.
The remaining list of constructs, now 38, are listed in
Literature Search and Test Development
Table 1, along with operational definitions, sample
This study sought to adopt a broad perspective, to items, and sample references to previous research on
include different classes of constructs, and to investigate the constructs. These constructs were included in this
the structure and the predictive power of a large number study, factor analyzed, and further reduced to obtain a
of creativity relevant constructs. The focus has been simplified representation of creativity relevant person-
placed on constructs that can be measured by self-report ality constructs. Several of these analyses are reported
scales and motives, styles, and traits have been included, in the results section of this article. A new measure of
although they often are treated as distinct classes of con- self-knowledge was included in the inventory as a val-
structs (e.g., Cooper, 2002). To illustrate this point, it is idity check (Funder, 2003), but was not included in the
well known that the big-five trait openness to experience factor analyses. The final factor solution was further
has both structural and motivational connotations validated based on group differences, correlations with
(McCrae & Costa, 1997), and the same can be argued the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), correlations
for other factors in the big five taxonomy. Moreover, with self-reported creative activities, three measures of
motives are often based on needs and previous attempts creative abilities, and a measure of fluid intelligence.
to compare need-based inventories with the NEO PI-R Clearly, this study is exploratory, but it is, at the same
have revealed several correlations that could be inter- time, grounded on previous research in creativity.
preted based on the five-factor model (Costa & McCrae,
1988). Adding to this, there seems to be facet-like corre-
lations between, for example, the achievement motives,
METHOD
which are considered learned motives (McClelland,
Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953) and factors and facets
Subjects
in the big five taxonomy (Diseth & Martinsen, 2009).
Additionally, styles have been defined as accumulated Four hundred and eighty-one subjects participated.
personality influences on cognition (e.g., Messick, There were 225 women and 209 men (in addition, there
1987), and there seems to be a large general factor in were 47 missing responses on gender). Their mean age
several motivational and stylistic constructs, indicating was 31.6 years, and the standard deviation on this vari-
strong overlap also between these classes of cons- able was 11.04 years. Among the subjects were 69 per-
tructs (Martinsen & Kaufmann, 2000). Finally, there forming artists, 76 managers, 23 clerical workers, 23
 Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

TABLE 1
Constructs From the Creative Person Profile (CPP) With Operational Definitions, Examples of References to Previous Studies, and Example Items

Operational Definitions
Constructs and Example References to Relevant Studies Sample Items From the CPP

Curiosity Exploratory behaviors aimed at increasing arousal (Day & Langevin, 1969; I feel an irresistible urge to investigate further when I experience something
Joesting & Joesting, 1969) new.
Need for recognition A need to receive recognition for own efforts and accomplishments Achieving something that brings me broad recognition is not very important
(Sternberg, 1988) for me (reversed).
Autonomy A need to make choices on the basis of awareness of own needs and feelings I have a greater need than most people to make decisions on the basis of my
(Deci & Ryan, 1987; Sheldon, 1995b) own independent thinking.
Need for status A need to be in a social position that is associated with high value in a My job has to be a high-status one so that people look up to me.
hierarchical social value system (Joesting, 1977)
Willingness to take risks A willingness to act in situations where there is uncertainty about the outcome ‘‘Risk-taker’’ is an inaccurate description of me (reversed).
of such actions (Davis & Subkoviak, 1975)
Motivation to create A relatively enduring need to be engaged in creative activities (Golann, 1962) Creating something new and original is one of the things I live for.
Achievement motive Anticipation of positive affect in achievement settings (Fodor & Carver, 2000; When I have to solve a particularly difficult problem, I look forward to
Kumar, 1978) starting.
Goal orientation A tendency to strive to achieve own goals (Adler & Weiss, 1988; Cangemi, I work hard to achieve my goals.
1976)
Persistence=perseverance A willingness to continue problem solving efforts to achieve high standard When solving problems, I most often do not give in until I’ve found the best
solutions (Helson, Roberts, & Agronick, 1995; Lim & Plucker, 2001) solution, even if I’ve already found a solution that may be satisfactory.
Mood swings A tendency to vary between very positive and very negative affective states Those close to me are sometimes exasperated by the variation in my moods.
(Richards & Kinney, 1990)
Neuroticism A tendency to worry, feel nervous, and anxious (Booker, Fearn, & Francis, I often worry.

188
2001)
Impersonal orientation A tendency to experience a sense of incompetence to deal with challenges I doubt my adequacy if asked to do a job.
(Deci & Ryan, 1987)
Playfulness A tendency to play and experiment with ideas (Glynn & Webster, 1992; I like to change words and expressions just for fun.
Tegano, 1990)
Assertiveness A tendency to be forceful and dominant on behalf of own ideas (Helso, 1968; I can be very aggressive in order to get what I want.
Sharma, 1986)
Boundaries A tendency to experience permeable borders between conceptual systems I can feel happy and sad at the same time.
(Hartmann, 1991; Levin, Galin, & Zywiak, 1991)
Dominance A tendency toward influencing others (Garwood, 1964; Joesting, 1977) I have a need to be in an influential position.
Absorption A tendency to have a complete experience of events so that the sense of self is I can lose myself in a picture and completely forget my surroundings.
reduced by the experience (Bowers, 1978; Merckelbach, Horselenberg, &
Muris, 2001)
Need for attention= Initiation of actions governed by a need to receive attention from others At social events, I don’t mind shocking other people a bit.
exhibitionism (Fitzgerald, 1999)
Authoritarianism (Rigidity) Conservative, intolerant, and unflexible attitudes in religious, political, and What young people today really need is more discipline.
social domains (Faschingbauer & Eglevsky, 1977; Ford, 1996; Rogers, 1954;
Rubinstein, 2003)
Openness for the unusual A tendency to believe in supernatural forces (Lack, Kumar, & Arevalo, 2003; I believe it’s possible to dream things before they happen.
Thalbourne, Bartemucci, Delin, Fox, & Nofi, 1997)
Friendliness=(Low) hostility A tendency to feel warm and affectionate toward others (Eisenman & Platt, I most often show sympathy for people.
1970)

(Continued )
 Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

TABLE 1
(Continued)

Operational Definitions
Constructs and Example References to Relevant Studies Sample Items From the CPP

Self-confidence A belief in own efficacy to master life events (Bledsoe & Khatena, 1974; Davis I can manage most anything in the world.
& Subkoviak, 1975; Hetrick, Lilly, & Merrifield, 1968)
Fantasy An ability to make up stories of events, plots, and ideas that are beyond It’s easy for me to make up stories without a lot of preparation.
reality (Costa & McCrae, 1992)
Self-knowledge Accessible knowledge of own characteristics, behaviors, and preferences It is hard to give a clear answer when someone asks me about myself
(Funder, 2003) (reversed).
Extraversion (sociability) A preference for social activity and interaction (Borod, Grossman, & I love being with other people.
Eisenman, 1971; King, McKee Walker, & Broyles, 1996; Mackinnon, 1961)
Rule orientation The preference for rules, regulations, and norms as guidelines for own I like to follow a clear approach.
behavior (Martinsen & Kaufmann, 2000)
Tolerance for ambiguity The capacity to hold alternative or competing solutions open for some time I may be uncertain about something for quite a long time without feeling that
before decisions are made (Maw & Magoon, 1971; Sheldon, 1995a; Tegano, I have to make up my mind.
1990)
Preference for complexity A preference for complex stimuli (Cropley, 2000; Lang & Ryba, 1976; If asked to choose between pictures with either a realistic landscape or an
Rawlings, Twomey, Burns, & Morris, 1998) abstract design, I would prefer the landscape (reversed).
Novelty seeking A tendency to seek out novel ideas, activities, and stimuli (Martinsen & I prefer to find new ways of solving problems.
Kaufmann, 2000)
Orientation toward A tendency to think that ideas and activities should be practical and I concentrate on the inherent value of the work and don’t think about whether
usefulness purpose-oriented it is useful or not (reversed).
Opposition against To actively resist doing things in ways dictated by rules (Cashdan & Welsh, I greatly dislike being told how to do things.

189
conventions 1966; Griffin & McDermott, 1998; Rawlings et al., 1998)
Talent To experience a natural or innate tendency toward doing certain things with Some things come naturally to me and require little practice.
ease, skill, and with little effort (Simonton, 1999)
Complexity To perceive internal and external objects as multifaceted and complex I can be overwhelmed by all of the nuances of issues, ideas, or people.
(Mackinnon, 1965; Quinn, 1980; Rawlings et al., 1998; Tuckman, 1966)
Evaluative attitude A tendency to be critical and fault-finding (Dillon, 1982; Hutchinson, 1942; I’m critical by nature.
Runco, 1994)
Transformational capacity The capacity to transform observations, ideas, and interpretations into I often use other people’s ideas, images, etc., and change them to create my
different gestalts (Feldman, Marrinan, & Hartfeldt, 1972; Guilford, 1962) own product.
Ideational productivity A tendency to produce many different ideas (Runco, Plucker, & Lim, 2001) I bubble with ideas.
Restructuring tendency The capacity to change perspective without external demands to do so Even if I’ve made up my mind about something, I can easily change it later.
Dellas and Gaier (1970)
refer to studies
describing cognitive
flexibility, but these
studies rather describe
flexibility between mature
and primitive cognitive
processes
Conscience governed A tendency to be agreeable because of introjected imperatives to do so My conscience is a powerful guide for my behavior toward others.
concern for others (Digman & Inouye, 1986)
 190 MARTINSEN

lecturers, and 274 students from different fields and dif- technical objects, and data programming). Self-report
ferent levels. Among the students, there were 48 market- activity checklists have been argued to be one of the
ing students. The artists were either members of more valid criteria of creativity (Hocevar, 1981).
professional organizations (with membership entry
requirements), they were in regular jobs as actors in a
theater, or they were playing in a nationally renowned Insight problems. As a measure of creative problem
symphony orchestra. Thus, all artists should be con- solving two insight problems were administered; the
sidered people who had achieved artistic accomplish- Two-String and the Hatrack problems (Maier, 1970).
ments at a high level. Both were administered in paper and pencil format with
a simple drawing of the problem situation for each of
the problems. Performance on these two tasks was
Instruments scored 0 for an unsatisfactory solution, 1 for partially
satisfactory solution, and 2 for a correct solution in
The creative person profile (CPP). The version of line with Maier’s (1970) description and my own pre-
the CPP that was administered had 38 facets and 304 vious work (Martinsen, 1993, 1995). As can be seen in
items. The included constructs are listed in Table 1. Table 2, the correlation between the two tasks were
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

Each construct was measured with eight items, and each .26, which was significant, and scores on these two tasks
item had a five-point response scale of the Likert type. were used as a composite score in the subsequent analy-
Approximately one-third of the items were reversed to ses based on their taxonomic classification as insight
avoid a too strong acquiescence response bias. problems of the construction type (Weisberg, 1995).

Creative activity checklist. An adapted version of Divergent thinking tasks. Two verbal (alternate uses
the Wallach and Wing (1969) creative activities checklist for a paper clip and a newspaper) and two figural (based
was used as one of the criteria of creativity. Here the on two illustrations adapted from Wallach & Kogan,
subjects are asked to respond to items describing partici- 1966) divergent thinking tasks were used as a measure
pation and accomplishments in diverse creative activities of fluency. Subjects were given 4 min on each task.
such as artistic work, the writing of poetry, etc. Each The sum score for the four items was used in the further
item has five levels (including no participation in the analyses.
activity), and responses received the values 0, 1, 2, 3,
or 4, depending on which level the students checked.
Three items were included for activities in the visual Remote associates test (RAT). The RAT
art domain (crafts, painting, and drawing), two items (Mednick, 1962) is frequently used as a criterion of crea-
for writing (poetry and short stories), one item for act- tivity. Each item contains three stimulus words that are
ing, one for playing an instrument, and three items for remotely associated with the same word in the associat-
creativity in the technical domain (inventing, creating ive system. Because of differences in word meanings, the

TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics for Sum Scores on Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness From the
NEO PI-R, and for the Criteria of Creativity (N ¼ 135)

No of Items M SD Skewness Kurtosis Alpha

Neuroticism 48 88.5 22.2
.56
.02 .92

Extraversion 48 128.1 16.5
.53
.03 .87
Openness 48 120.1 22.2
.12 .10 .92
Agreeableness 48 111.8 17.4 .44
.43 .88
Conscientiousness 48 112.8 18.0
.07
.22 .88
Insight 2 1.5 1.3 .32
.96 .26a
Fluency 4 38.8 13.1 .22
.08 .88
Remote Associations Test 20 9.4 3.5
.12
.17 .58
Fluid intelligence 20 12.1 4.1
.82 .03 .81
Visual art activities 3 1.51 2.02 1.7 2.7 .58
Writing activities 2 1.35 1.70 1.2 1.14 .63
Technical activities 3 1.89 1.88 .86 .00 .62
Acting 1 .96 1.19 .84
.43 —
Playing instrument 1 1.28 1.10 .35
.54 —

Note. aCorrelation between the two tasks.

 THE CREATIVE PERSONALITY 191

original test could not readily be translated to Norwe- normal distribution. As can be seen in Table 3, the reli-
gian. Thus, based on the original RAT, a Norwegian abilities are also generally satisfactory. A few variables
version with 20 items was developed. As can be seen have reliabilities in the lower range, but in general they
in Table 2, the reliability of this measure is in the lower are satisfactory for research purposes (Nunnally, 1967).
range (Nunnally, 1967). The average Cronbachs alpha is .76. Thus, these opera-
tionalizations seem to have acceptable reliabilities and
distribution characteristics for facets with eight items.
Fluid intelligence. A short test of verbal analogies
Descriptive statistics for NEO PI-R, insight pro-
(Mønnesland, 1985) with 20 items was used as a measure blems, RAT, fluid intelligence, fluency, and creative
of fluid intelligence. Fluid intelligence has been posited
activities are shown in Table 2.
to be almost identical with the psychometric definition
Again, distribution characteristics seem to be satis-
of the G-factor (e.g., Martinsen & Kaufmann, 2000).
factory, but two of the measures border on the limits
of the normal distribution. Reliabilities for the
The NEO PI-R. The NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, five-factor model are high, although reliabilities for the
1992) is a measure of the five-factor model of person- other measures are satisfactory based on the number
ality. It measures five factors and has six facets on each of items and the present research purpose.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

of the five factors. There are 8 items measuring each of

30 facets and, thus, 240 items in the inventory. NEO Part 1: Exploratory Principal Component Analyses
PI-R has been used in many settings, and the psycho-
metric qualities are commonly reported to be adequate Principal component analyses were used to investigate
for a comprehensive measure of personality (e.g., the latent structure of the CPP constructs and all con-
Botwin, 1995). structs described in Table 3 were included in the introduc-
tory analysis. Stevens (1996) pointed out that principal
component solutions and principal factor solutions com-
Procedure monly give quite similar solutions when the number of
Subjects were either given the CPP and asked to volun- variables is high and when commonalities are not in the
teer, or it was sent to them by mail with a letter in which lower range, which was the case in the present analyses.
they were asked to volunteer and complete the inven- In the initial analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure
tory. All subjects were informed that this project was of Sampling Adequacy was .88, and Bartlett’s test of
designed to investigate research on personality and the Sphericity was highly significant. In the initial analyses,
characteristics of a recently designed inventory. Subjects there were nine components with eigenvalues above 1.
were not paid, and they were debriefed when they The scree plot (Cattell, 1966) was, however, not easy to
handed in the inventory. A subset (n ¼ 135) of subjects interpret because there were two or three screes (cf.
(business school students with a mean age of 25.5 years) Figure 1), one after five components and two smaller ones
were given the CPP, NEO PI-R, the creative activities after seven and ten components. Thus, several factor
checklist, the two insight problems, the Norwegian ver- solutions were further investigated.
sion of RAT, the measure of verbal analogies, and the When data were rotated in different ways (oblimin,
divergent thinking tasks in an auditorium setting. To equamax, and varimax solutions), a seven-factor sol-
avoid cheating, participants were seated with some space ution seemed to consistently give better fit across rota-
between each individual. In this part of the study, the tions based on the principle of simple structure. Since
insight problems, RAT, the measure of fluid intelligence, solutions with oblimin rotations gave low or no correla-
and the divergent thinking tasks were timed, and 5 min tions between the factors, varimax rotation was subse-
were allowed for each insight problem, 4 min were quently chosen for the final seven component solution.
allowed for each of the divergent thinking tasks, This solution is shown in Table 4. It should be noted
20 min were allowed for the RAT, and 5 min were that a seven-factor principal axis solution with varimax
allowed for the test of verbal analogies. Subjects volun- rotation gave essentially the same pattern of loadings as
teered and were debriefed after the session. the one reported in Table 4. The seven-factor principal
component solution explained 62.5% of the variance in
the data, while the seven-factor principal axis solution
explained 53.7% of the variance in the data.
RESULTS
The seven components=factors were labeled: associat-
ive orientation, ambition, emotional instability, motiv-
Descriptive Statistics
ation, need for originality, agreeableness, and flexibility.
When inspecting the distribution characteristics of the Further interpretation of these factors is given in the
CPP constructs, they all generally conformed to the Discussion section.
 192 MARTINSEN

TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics for the 38 Initial Facets in the Creative Person Profile (CPP; N ¼ 473)

M SD Skewness Kurtosis Alpha

1. Boundaries 3.02 .61 .36
.17 .57

2. Curiosity 3.67 .58
.59 .69 .76
3. Need for recognition 3.18 .65 .00
.29 .77
4. Low rule orientation 3.20 .65 .01
.27 .80
5. Orientation toward usefulness 3.22 .76
.46
.10 .83
6. Fantasy 3.50 .65
.42 .00 .78
7. Autonomy 3.75 .52
.04
.14 .70
8. Need for status 2.71 .66 .21 .07 .83
9. Restructuring tendency 3.46 .56
.27 .73 .74
10. Critical attitude 3.12 .60
.03 .14 .71
11. Playfulness 3.42 .76
.05
.63 .81
12. Risk taking 3.65 .52
.13 .17 .72
13. Assertiveness 3.37 .55
.08 .08 .71
14. Preference for complexity 3.56 .65
.32
.02 .76
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

15. Transformational capacity 3.37 .54
.07
.37 .66

16. Openness for the unusual 3.05 .71
.04
.44 .69
17. Impersonal orientation 2.09 .62 .36
.19 .80
18. Exhibitionism 3.35 .73
.23
.43 .81
19. Low rigidity 3.47 .71
.30 .04 .80
20. Need to create 3.12 .75
.02
.39 .84
21. Opposition against conventions 3.23 .63 .25 .04 .76
22. Need for achievement 3.66 .60
.06
.13 .83
23. Dominance 3.28 .68
.15
.37 .83
24. Tolerance for ambiguity 3.46 .47
.14 .12 .56
25. Novelty seeking 3.45 .66
.15
.03 .89
26. Absorption 3.25 .76
.10
.38 .80
27. Low self-confidence 2.30 .59 .27
.36 .72
28. Talent 3.70 .70
.50 .16 .86
29. Complexity 3.50 .47 .35
.07 .54
30. Ideational capacity 3.35 .55
.06
.04 .75
31. Self-knowledge 3.42 .63
.45 .35 .74
32. Extraversion 3.51 .69
.22
.26 .82
33. Goal orientation 3.74 .55
.28 .36 .76
34. Neuroticism 2.66 .84 .47
.30 .86
35. Persistence 3.40 .56
.21 .22 .73
36. Friendliness 3.74 .49
.50 .63 .69
37. Conscience-governed concern for others 3.94 .54
.69 .51 .70
38. Mood swings 2.92 .94 .17
.74 .90

Subsequent to these analyses, data were further solution was based on a reduced number of constructs.
analyzed to identify a factor=component solution that As regards the correlations between the factors in the
would provide even better fit to the principle of simple reduced version (Table 5) the highest factor correlations
structure. These analyses included various subsets of were between associative orientation and instability
constructs and I sought to obtain a stable solution that (.45) and between ambition and motivation (.41).
would be congruent with the initial solution identified in Descriptive statistics for the seven factors are shown in
Table 4. The final solution based on a reduced number Table 6, which shows that the constructs are reliable and
of facets is shown in Table 5. This factor solution turned normally distributed. However, two of the components
out to have correlated factors. There were now seven (flexibility and agreeableness) explain less variance com-
eigenvalues above one, which was also in clear corre- pared with the other five components and they only have
spondence with the scree plot for the selected constructs. two defining loadings each, which is not strictly satisfactory
This seven component solution explained 68.9% of the to define a factor (Stevens, 1996). Two loadings were still
variance in the data. considered sufficient for a pilot study on a new measure.
When the factor scores from the initial set of constructs
(Table 4) and the factor scores from the reduced version
Part 2: Correlations and Regression Analyses
(Table 5) were compared, the correlations ranged from
.91 to .95. This supports that the full and reduced factor The seven factors were then correlated with the
solutions were congruent, although the second-factor five-factor model of personality using a subset of data
 THE CREATIVE PERSONALITY 193

TABLE 4
Initial Principal Component Solution for the CPP With Seven
Components, Varimax Rotation and Kaiser Normalization. Loadings
Below .30 Are Omitted From the Presentation of the Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h2

Boundaries .57 .52 .65

Curiosity .67 .55
Fantasy .79 .66
Playfulness .69 .59
Willingness to take .56
.32 .38 .63
risks
Transformational .68 .59
capacity
Openness for the .45 .34 .47
unusual
Need to create .55 .36 .59
Absorption .66 .35 .60
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

Talent .39 .40 .41

Ideational capacity .73 .33 .71
Autonomy .51 .50
Need for .35 .63 .64
FIGURE 1 Scree plot based on principal component analyses of 38 achievement
constructs. (Figure is provided in color online.) Novelty seeking .69 .43 .71
Goal orientation .43 .56 .61
Persistence .69 .59
(n ¼ 135). Because of the broad qualities associated with Tolerance for .77 .66
the five-factor model, it was expected that there would be ambiguity
considerable overlap between the five-factor model and Restructuring .40 .65 .60
tendency
the present seven factors. It was even a question whether
Need for recognition .76 .68
this inventory would have discriminant validity com- Need for status .77 .72
pared with the five-factor model. To investigate this, Exhibitionism .79 .71
sum scores based on the five dimensions in the NEO Dominance .68 .34 .66
PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) were used (the number Extraversion .30 .60 .59
Assertiveness .55 .40 .62
of participants was too low to use factor scores for the
Impersonal .59
.49 .67
big five in this sample) but factor scores for the CPP were orientation
used based on the analyses in the full sample (N ¼ 481). Low self-confidence
.45 .59
.33 .68
In Table 7, it can be seen that instability was Neuroticism .85 .74
correlated with neuroticism, associative orientation was Mood swings .75 .63
Complexity .57 .56
correlated with openness, the two agreeableness factors
Critical attitude .35 .40
.47 .61
were correlated, motivation was correlated with conscien- Friendliness .81 .72
tiousness, and ambition was correlated with extraversion. Conscience governed .76 .68
Still, need for originality and flexibility had lower corre- concern for others
lations in this regard. Orientation toward
.48 .50
usefulness
Regression analysis was then used to further investi-
Low rule orientation .41 .68 .71
gate the multiple Rs of the big five factors on each of Preference for .42 .55 .63
the seven CPP factors. In these analyses (including only complexity
significant predictors), the seven CPP factors were dif- Low rigidity .77 .69
ferently explained by the big five (R2s are provided for Opposition against .40 .68 .68
conventions
each); associative orientation ¼ .56, instability ¼ .74,
motivation ¼ .39, agreeableness ¼ .66, ambition ¼ .33,
flexibility ¼ .11, and need for originality
.3. Evidently,
there is overlap between the five-factor model and my to .76 (N ¼ 74, E ¼ .49, O ¼ 76, A ¼ 67, C ¼ 58). Thus,
seven factors, in particular for instability, agreeableness, the CPP explains the five-factor model rather well, but
and associative orientation. However, there is less over- not necessarily the other way around. Taken together,
lap between the five-factor model, motivation, ambition, it seems that the CPP may have some unique variance
and, in particular, for need for originality and flexibility. when compared with the five-factor model.
When the CPP was used to predict the five NEO factors, Subsequently, the included criteria of creativity were
the amount of explained variance (R2) ranged from .49 predicted by the seven CPP factors. The correlations
 194 MARTINSEN

TABLE 5
Principal Component Solution with 7 Components and Varimax Rotation for a Subset of the Creative Person Profile Facets

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h2

Boundaries .681 .422 .679

Fantasy .867 .740
Playfulness .702 .627
Absorption .738 .642
Need for recognition .682 .462 .653
Exhibitionism .934 .774
Dominance .375 .582 .696
Extraversion .770 .667
Low rule orientation .745 .746
Preference for complexity .479 .596
Low rigidity
.385 .867 .726
Opposition against conventions .833 .717
Autonomy .410 .527
Need for achievement .720 .658
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

Novelty seeking .456 .495 .661

Goal orientation .722 .652
Persistence .875
.382 .657
Impersonal orientation
.512 .502 .694
Low self-confidence
.370 .535 .728
Neuroticism .888 .771
Mood swings .812 .675
Restructuring tendency .731 .668
Tolerance for ambiguity .829 .723
Friendliness .860 .785
Conscience governed concern for others .849 .763
Rotation sums of squared loadings 4.09 4.09 3.5 3.2 3.4 1.8 2.08

Note. Extraction method was principal component analysis with Promax rotation with Kaiser Normalization. Loadings below .30 are omitted
from the presentation of the results. The seven factors explained 69.9% of the variance: associative orientation, motivation, ambition, instability,
need for originality, agreeableness, and flexibility.

between the seven CPP factors and the several criteria to indicate that the relationships between the CPP
are shown in Table 8. factors and criteria of creativity may be complex and
In Table 8, it is interesting to note that fluency was beyond simple, bivariate associations.
correlated with associative orientation and that insight
was correlated with agreeableness (negatively) and flexi-
Part 3: Group Differences
bility. It is also relevant that associative orientation was
correlated with participation in visual arts, writing, and As a third step in validating the CPP, group differences
technical activities. Agreeableness was negatively corre- were analyzed. In this regard, a group of professional
lated, not only with insight, but also with technical artists (n ¼ 69; M age ¼ .43.1 years) served as the pri-
activities, and positively with acting and playing an mary group to be compared with the remainder of the
instrument. Beyond these correlations, it was unexpec-
ted that the four affective motivational factors of insta- TABLE 6
bility, motivation, ambition, and need for originality Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for the Seven CPP factors
hardly correlated with any of the selected criteria. (N ¼ 489)
Because of this, hierarchical, multiple-regression analy- Std. No. of
sis was used to explore possible interactions involving Mean Dev. items Skewness Kurtosis Alpha
these variables. These interaction analyses are summed
up in Table 9. Instability 2.42 .60 32 .23
.46 .92
Ambition 3.37 .51 32
.16
.22 .90
Table 9 reports several significant interactions
Associative 3.18 .59 32 .01
.32 .89
between the CPP factors on several criteria, which, of orientation
course, increased the explanatory power of the factors. Motivation 3.56 .43 40 .01
.10 .90
Yet, the interactions were admittedly not theoretically Need for 3.29 .47 32 .04
.23 .89
predicted, may have occurred because of chance, and originality
Flexibility 3.3 .45 16
.07 .29 .76
need to be cross-validated in future research before they
Agreeableness 3.85 .46 16
.69 .81 .80
can be interpreted further. For the time being, they serve
 THE CREATIVE PERSONALITY 195

TABLE 7
Correlations Between the Five NEO PI-R Domain Scores and the Seven CPP Factors (Factor Scores)

Associative orientation Motivation Ambition Instability Need for Originality Agreeableness Flexibility

N .05
.29
.08 .81
.04 .00 .02

E .23 .23 .49
.27 .09 .25
.03
O .65 .23 .17 .05 .24 .06 .26
A
.24
.14
.27
.01
.03 .76 .20
C
.27 .57 .07
.21
.25 .24
.14

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

TABLE 8
Pearson Correlations Between the Seven CPP Factors and Criteria of Creativity

Asso. Orient. Ambition Instability Motivation Need for Originality Agreeableness Flexibility
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

Insight .04
.01
.10 .01
.18
.22 .22

Fluency .28
.00
.08
.01
.07
.12 .12
Fluid intelligence .03
.02
.05 .04
.06
.05 .02
RAT .09
.05
.08 .12
.06 .03 .20
Visual arts activities .36 .11 .09 .03
.11
.05 .18
Writing activities .19 .09 .02 .01 .07 .01 .11
Technical activities .39
.02
.08 .10
.16
.33 .06
Acting .03 .18 .03
.15 .09 .22
.08
Play instrument .08 .04 .03 .05
.02 .18
.06

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

TABLE 9
Prediction of Creativity Criteria From the Seven Creative Person Profile Factors

Dependent Variables in Joint Effects Beyond Mean

Variable Full Model Full Model R2 F Square df p R2change Fchange Dfchange Pchange

Insight Motivation, 1) Motivation  Instability .184 4.70 6.5 6.125 .000 1) .038 1) 5.72 1) 1.126 1) .018
instability, 2) Instability  Agreeableness 2) .026 2) 3.99 2) 1.125 2) .048
agreeableness,
flexibility
Fluid Associative Associative .084 3.89 62.25 3.128 .011 .08 11.21 1.128 .001
intelligence orientation, orientation  Instability
instability
Writing Associative 1) Associative .158 3.89 9.90 6.124 .001 1) .058 1) 8.16 1) 1.125 1) .005
orientation, orientation  Agreeableness 2) 043 2) 6.27 2) 1.124 2) .014
ambition, 2) Ambition  Flexibility
agreeableness,
flexibility
Acting Ambition, — .097 6.94 8.66 2.129 .001
agreeableness
Play Agreeableness — .031 4.11 4.82 1.130 .045
instrument
Fluency Associative — .076 10.65 1688.97 1.130 .001
orientation
RAT Flexibility — .041 5.58 67.03 1.129 .02
Technical Associative — .23 19.32 53.84 2.129 .000
activities orientation,
agreeableness (neg)
Visual arts Associative — .159 12.10 40.46 2.128 .000
orientation,
flexibility
 196 MARTINSEN

sample, which is termed the baseline sample in the follow- Evidently, the marketing students had a quite similar
ing analysis. An additional creative group, a group of profile of means compared with the artists. Although the
marketing students (n ¼ 48; M age ¼ 23.9 years), in which marketing students seemed to have higher scores on
design, illustration, and composition were main contents associative orientation and flexibility, and the group of
of their study, was included and compared with both the artists seemed to have lower scores on agreeableness
group of artists and the baseline sample. Based on Feist’s and higher scores on need for originality, only the scores
(1998) work, it was expected that artists and other on flexibility significantly differentiated between the two
artistically creative people would have higher scores on groups of participants when the Scheffe test was applied
associative orientation (openness), and instability (neur- (Mdifference ¼
.45, SE ¼ .18, p ¼ .052, CIlower ¼
.90,
oticism), and lower scores on ambition (extraversion), CIupper ¼ .00).
motivation (conscientiousness), and agreeableness. As Beyond this, the group differences in Table 11 explain
regards the two new factors in the CPP, need for orig- a meaningful amount of variance in most of the CPP
inality and flexibility, it was relevant to expect artists to factors, and more so, on the factors associative orien-
have higher scores on both. It was also expected that tation, instability, and need for originality. The partial
the marketing students would have a similar profile of eta squared ranged from .159 based on Pillai’s trace,
mean scores as the artists, given that the creative person- to .287 based on Roy’s largest root using SPSS’s general
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

ality is generalizable across creative groups. Factor scores linear model program.
for the seven factors were used in the analyses.
The first of these analyses compared the group of
artists against the baseline sample using MANOVA. DISCUSSION
In this analysis, Box’s test of inequality of covariance
matrixes was not significant, Box’s M ¼ 39.65, F(28, Based on the initial factor analyses, including all the 38
50831,2) ¼ 1.36, p ¼ .10, all the multivariate tests were creativity variables, seven factors were identified. This
highly significant, and the univariate tests of group dif- factor solution was subsequently refined by excluding
ferences were significant for all the CPP factors except constructs to obtain a more stable and parsimonious
for motivation and flexibility. solution. In the final analyses, in this respect, the scree
In Table 10, it is clear that the group of artists had sig- plot and the eigenvalues greater than one criterion were
nificantly higher scores on associative orientation, insta- in correspondence and clearly supported the decision to
bility, and need for originality, and that they had extract seven factors. Large correlations between the
significantly lower scores on ambition and agreeableness. factor scores from the initial and reduced factor solu-
To further investigate group differences, the market- tions provided evidence that the parsimonious solution
ing students were included in the analyses and a second was empirically representative for the solution based
MANOVA was done. Again, Box’s test was not signifi- on the full set of constructs. In the reduced solution,
cant, Box’s M ¼ 68,92, F(56, 58329,7) ¼ 1,17, p ¼ .175, the pattern of loadings was in fair correspondence with
and all the multivariate tests were highly significant. In the principle of simple structure (Gorsuch, 1983). The
Table 11, other results from this analysis can be seen. seven factors were labeled instability, motivation,

TABLE 10
Means, Standard Errors, and Confidence Intervals for the Artist Group Versus the Baseline Sample

95% CI

Dependent Variable M SD SE Lower Bound Upper Bound F df p Eta Squared

Associative orientation Baseline .13 .94 .05 .04 .22 9.27 1.473 .002 .02
Artists .50 .84 .11 .28 .72
Instability Baseline .07 .99 .05
.03 .17 28.07 1.473 .000 .06
Artists .76 1.06 .12 .53 1.0
Motivation Baseline .08 .94 .05
.02 .17 2.65 1.473 .104 .01
Artists .28 .99 .11 .05 .50
Ambition Baseline
.03 1.02 .05
.13 .08 7.23 1.473 .007 .02
Artists
.40 1.28 .13
.65
.15
Need for originality Baseline
.01 1.04 .05
.11 .09 27.82 1.473 .000 .06
Artists .70 1.06 .13 .46 .95
Flexibility Baseline .16 .99 .05 .06 .25 .13 1.473 .721 .00
Artists .20 1.04 .12
.03 .44
Agreeableness Baseline .02 .97 .05
.07 .12 7.60 1.473 .006 .02
Artists
.33 1.10 .12
.57
.10
 THE CREATIVE PERSONALITY 197

TABLE 11
Mean Differences Between Artists, Marketing Students, and Baseline Sample

95% CI

Dependent Variable M SD SE Lower Bound Upper Bound F df p Eta Squared

Associative orientation Baseline .04 .93 .05
.05 .13 20.16 2.472 .000 .079
Artists .50 .84 .11 .29 .71
Market. Stud. .81 .77 .13 .55 1.06
Instability Baseline
.03 .94 .05
.13 .07 31.29 2.472 .000 .117
Artists .76 1.06 .12 .53 .99
Market. Stud. .82 1.03 .14 .55 1.10
Motivation Baseline .05 .93 .05
.05 .15 2.30 2.472 .10 .015
Artists .28 .99 .11 .05 .50
Market. Stud. .25 .99 .14
.01 .52
Ambition Baseline
.03 1.03 .06
.14 .08 3.64 2.472 .027 .027
Artists
.40 1.28 .13
.65
.15
Market. Stud.
.00 .95 .15
.30 .30
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

Need for originality Baseline
.08 1.03 .05
.18 .03 19.74 2.472 .000 .077
Artists .70 1.06 .12 .46 .95
Market. Stud. .45 .99 .15 .16 .74
Flexibility Baseline .09 .96 .05
.01 .19 7.02 2.472 .001 .029
Artists .20 1.04 .12
.03 .43
Market. Stud. .65 1.03 .14 .37 .93
Agreeableness Baseline .06 .97 .05
.05 .16 5.81 2.472 .003 .024
Artists
.33 1.10 .12
.57
.10
Market. Stud.
.24 .98 .14
.53 .04

ambition, associative orientation, agreeableness, flexi- where they may receive social recognition for their work,
bility, and need for originality. Several of these factors and to seek a socially stimulating environment. People
correlated meaningfully with factors in the five-factor with low scores may be more introverted and make less
model of personality (e.g., Digman, 1990), and the out of themselves in social settings. This factor may
interpretation of the seven factors can be as described describe an extrinsically oriented motivational tendency
in the following. Associative orientation and flexibility (cf. Deci & Ryan, 1985), and correlated positively with
may be considered cognitively oriented traits; instability, extraversion and negatively with agreeableness in the
motivation, ambition, need for originality, and agree- big five taxonomy, which indicates that those with high
ableness may be considered affective-motivational. scores on ambition tend to be less friendly and more
The first factor, associative orientation, the largest in dominant than those with low scores.
terms of number of loadings in the initial factor analy- Factor three, emotional instability, describes people
ses, was associated with high versus low levels of fan- who are not so self-confident, who tend to be nervous,
tasy, ideational productivity, playfulness, absorption, anxious, and who suffer from mood swings and a feeling
high versus low focus on the usefulness of ideas, and of not having any impact on life events. People at the
more. Thus, people may vary on a dimension that other end of this continuum tend to be more capable
describes high versus low dispositions to associate freely of handling stress, are likely to be emotionally more
and to produce a high versus low number of ideas. stable, and they are more self-confident. This factor
People with low scores on this dimension may be more correlated strongly with neuroticism in the big five
oriented toward the practical value of life circumstances taxonomy.
and the usefulness of ideas, and tend to have more dif- Factor four, motivation, included need for achieve-
ficulty in fantasizing. People with high scores should ment, autonomy, persistence, goal orientation, and
be playful, should easily become absorbed, like to novelty seeking. People with high scores seek out novel
experiment, but also avoid the practicalities of daily life. tasks, set goals for themselves, thrive in achievement set-
This factor correlated quite strongly with openness to tings, like to make decisions based on independent
experience in the five-factor model of personality. thinking, and are persistent in defining high standards
Factor two, ambition, describes high versus low for their efforts. People with low scores tend to not be
needs for attention, recognition, influence, and a dispo- strongly goal oriented, and they are probably not
sition toward being outgoing. People with high scores attracted to novel tasks or activities. Moreover, they
tend to be dominant, attention seekers, assertive, strive tend to accept solutions that reach minimum standards,
to seek a position where they can influence others and they are less concerned about making independent
 198 MARTINSEN

judgments, and they do not have a strong need to with fluency and self reported achievements in visual
achieve. To some extent, they also tend to experience arts, writing, and technical activities. additionally, flexi-
a-motivation (cf. Deci & Ryan, 1985). This factor corre- bility was correlated with performance on both insight
lated meaningfully with conscientiousness in the big five problems and the RAT. Ambition correlated meaning-
taxonomy. fully with performance in acting, which is a type of
Factor five, need for originality, describes rigidity, a activity where the actor gets attention and eventually
need for rules and regulations, preference for com- immediate recognition, which are components in this
plexity, and opposition against conventions. People with factor. Moreover, agreeableness correlated negatively
high scores on this factor tend to actively oppose regula- with insight and performance in technical activities,
tions; they dislike rules, are liberal, and have a prefer- and positively with performance in acting and playing
ence for complexity. People with low scores may be instruments. The first two correlations suggest that
more conservative and rigid in their outlook, they seem insight and performance in technical activities may be
to like or even need rules and regulations, and they facilitated with a critical, skeptical frame of mind, and
prefer stimuli that are simple and straightforward. This the latter two correlations may indicate that there is a
factor correlated weakly with openness and conscien- motive to please others involved in those activities.
tiousness, and seems not well represented in the big five There were fewer significant correlations between need
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

taxonomy. for originality, motivation, and instability, and the cog-

Factor six, agreeableness, correlated strongly with nitive criteria. However, there were joint effects involv-
agreeableness in the big five taxonomy, and describes ing motivation and instability in the exploratory
friendliness and a conscience governed concern for interaction analyses. If these effects can be replicated
others. People with high scores seem to be friendly in future studies the validity of these factors are sup-
and to have good intentions towards other people. They ported. Regression analyses indicated that between 3%
have a strong conscience about rights and wrongs and 18% in the several criteria of creativity were
against other people, and, as the initial seven factor sol- explained by the CPP factors. Taken together, the corre-
ution indicated, they tend to be less critical and fault lations with the measures of creative abilities support the
finding than people with low scores. On the other hand, instrument’s validity, although correlations with the
people with low scores on this factor may be less gov- self-reported creative activities may be taken as
erned by conscience, they may be less friendly and less additional validity support given the value that has been
concerned with the well being of others, and they tend put on activity measures as indicators of creativity
to be critical and fault finding in their outlook. The lat- (Hocevar, 1981).
ter finding suggests that low agreeableness may by con- The correlations with NEO PI-R shed light on the
ducive to problem finding or identification (Jay & CPP’s convergent and discriminant validity with a well
Perkins, 1997) in the process of creativity. validated measure of personality. The group differences
Factor seven, flexibility, correlated weakly with were theoretically meaningful and were much in line
agreeableness and openness in the big five taxonomy, with previous meta-analytic findings by Feist (1998).
and seems not well represented in this model. It In this regard, the results may also indicate that the dis-
describes a tendency to restructure the understanding position to be problem-oriented (adopting a critical,
of situations and events and also to be tolerant towards fault finding attitude) is a facet of agreeableness and this
ambiguous stimuli and situations. People with high may suggest that the typically low scores on agreeable-
scores may readily change their understanding, and be ness for some creative people, beyond the disagreeable
flexible in their outlook without external demands to influence, actually has an important function in creativ-
do so. They also have a capacity to tolerate diverging ity. Another interesting issue may be the low correla-
points of view and situations that have less clear cut defi- tions between the five-factor model and the two CPP
nitions or solutions. People with low scores may be more factors originality and flexibility. Future research should
oriented towards adopting quick or fixed solutions or investigate further the construct validity of these two
decisions and to stick to such solutions once they have factors. These findings suggest that originality may have
decided to do so. Creative problem-solving tasks typi- a motivating influence on the individual, and that it
cally demand restructuring of the problem understand- represents a need to stand out and to engage in activities
ing (Martinsen, 1993), and this factor should that reflect uniqueness and individuality. Flexibility may
theoretically be related to performance on creative prob- be associated with adaptation in a changing world and
lem solving tasks. where novel circumstances demand that we change our
Beyond the factor analytic findings and interpreta- understanding and perspectives on life events. Based
tions, the results also showed that the seven factors cor- on the seven factors, it should be possible to identify dif-
related with criteria of creativity. Of particular interest, ferent motivational-affective, as well as cognitive pro-
it was found that associative orientation was correlated files, in different groups of creative people. It may well
 THE CREATIVE PERSONALITY 199

be that motivational orientations may have a strong solution, which seems to represent another two compared
influence on the choice of different types of creative with the five-factor model, does not leave much promise
activities. for additional factors, and the domain of creativity rel-
As regards the group differences, artists had a profile evant constructs is probably well represented by the
of scores that could be expected based on previous present solution.
research, except from the scores on flexibility. Based Another challenge for the CPP is that all the variables
on these findings, artists, as a group, seem to be have been operationalized for this context, leaving it to
emotionally less stable, to have a strong associative future research to validate whether they have similar
orientation, to have a strong need for originality, to be validity as previous operationalizations. Moreover, stu-
intermediately motivated, and to be less ambitious and dies investigating self–other agreement, long-term stab-
flexible than other groups, yet they also seem less agree- ility, and more, are necessary in the future in addition
able than the baseline sample. As noted, the group of to studies of predictions in applied settings. To the
marketing students had a quite similar profile as the extent that these challenges can be met by empirical evi-
group artists, which may serve as an indication of dence, this inventory may assist further research efforts
cross-group validity. Taken together, this profile for in creativity through its integration of several previously
artists seems to be in correspondence with the conclu- unintegrated personality constructs.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

sions from comprehensive reviews of the characteristics

associated with the creative personality (e.g., Feist, 1999;
Helson, 1999). This may further support the validity of
the CPP and the cross-cultural stability of research on REFERENCES
creative persons.
Finally, these results add to the findings of Mathiesen, Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). The artistic person-
ality: A systems perspective. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko,
Martinsen, and Einarssen (2008), who found that the & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization
CPP had implications for innovation at the team level. (pp. 31–42). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Based on a preliminary and shortened six-factor version Adler, S., & Weiss, H. M. (1988). Criterion aggregation in personality
of the CPP (without agreeableness), they found that the research: A demonstration looking at self-esteem and goal setting.
teams’ mean levels of associative orientation, ambition, Human Performance, 1, 99–109.
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to ‘‘The social psy-
and motivation had a particular impact on team inno- chology of creativity.’’ Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
vation as assessed by independent ratings. These findings Barron, F., & Harrington, D. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and per-
add to these findings at the individual level and further sonality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.
support the validity of the CPP. Bledsoe, J. C., & Khatena, J. (1974). Factor analytic study of the test, What
Kind of Person Are You? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 143–146.
Booker, B. B., Fearn, M., & Francis, L. J. (2001). The personality pro-
file of artists. Irish Journal of Psychology, 22, 277–281.
LIMITATIONS Borod, J., Grossman, J. C., & Eisenman, R. (1971). Extraversion,
anxiety, creativity, and grades. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
Taken together, these analyses have indicated that all 33(3, Pt. 2).
the seven CPP factors either explain group differences Botwin, M. (1995). Review of the NEO PI-R. In J. Conoley & J.
Impara (Eds.), Mental measurement yearbook (12th ed.) (pp. 862–
between more and less creative people or they correlate 863). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
with typical criteria of creativity. Although these find- Bowers, P. (1978). Hypnotizability, creativity, and the role of effortless
ings seem promising as regards the validity of CPP, it experiencing. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
should be underlined that this study represents the start Hypnosis, 26, 184–202.
Cangemi, J. P. (1976). Characteristics of self-actualizing individuals.
of a validation process. In future studies with other sam-
Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 13, 48–49.
ples, it is important to investigate further whether the Cashdan, S., & Welsh, G. S. (1966). Personality correlates of creative
present factor structure can be replicated. It is also potential in talented high school students. Journal of Personality, 34,
important to investigate the relationship between the 445–455.
CPP factors and other measures of the creative person. Cattell, R. B. (1949). Description and measurement of creativity.
In particular, the factor flexibility was defined by only Oxford, England: World Book.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The meaning and strategic use of factor analysis.
two loadings, which is not sufficient in a strict sense to In R. B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of experimental multivariate psy-
define a factor (e.g., Gorsuch, 1983). It should also be chology (pp. 174–244). Chicago: Rand McNally.
noted that this version of the inventory does not include Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, H. E. P. (1993). Personality structure and the
absolutely all creativity relevant creativity constructs. new fifth edition of the 16PF. Educational and Psychological
Some constructs, like locus of control (Pannells & Measurement, 55, 926–937.
Cooper, C. (2002). Individual differences (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Claxton, 2008; Rotter, 1966), were not included from Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification:
the start, although others were omitted through the initial Murray’s needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and
validation efforts. Yet the existence of a seven-factor Social Psychology, 55, 259–265.
 200 MARTINSEN

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality Inven- K. D. Williams (Ed.), Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes
tory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment (pp. 115–133). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Resources. Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and learning style: A study of three
Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 429–438.
tests worth using? Roeper Review, 23, 72–79. Garwood, D. S. (1964). Personality factors related to creativity in
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for young scientists. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68,
the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of crea- 413–419.
tivity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gelade, G. A. (2002). Creative style, personality, and artistic endeavor.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1973). The personality of Social and General Psychology Monograph, 128(3), 213–234.
young artists: An empirical and theoretical exploration. British Glynn, M. A., & Webster, J. (1992). The Adult Playfulness Scale: An
Journal of Psychology, 64, 91–104. initial assessment. Psychological Reports, 71, 83–1033.
Davis, G. A., & Subkoviak, M. J. (1975). Multidimensional analysis of Golann, S. E. (1962). The creativity motive. Journal of Personality, 30,
a personality-based test of creative potential. Journal of Educational 588–600.
Measurement, 12, 37–43. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Day, H. I., & Langevin, R. (1969). Curiosity and intelligence: Two Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
necessary conditions for a high level of creativity. Journal of Special Gough, H. G. (1996). CPI Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Education, 3, 263–268. Psychologists Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and Griffin, M., & McDermott, M. R. (1998). Exploring a tripartite
self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. relationship between rebelliousness, openness to experience, and
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the creativity. Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 347–356.
control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Guilford, J. P. (1962). Potentiality for creativity. Gifted Child Quar-
53, 1024–1037. terly, 6, 87–90.
Dellas, M., & Gaier, E. L. (1970). Identification of creativity: The indi- Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries in the mind: A new psychology of per-
vidual. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 55–73. sonality. New York: Basic Books.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Helso, H. (1968). Generality of sex differences in creative style. Journal
five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440. of Personality, 36, 33–48.
Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five Helson, R. (1999). Personality and creativity. In M. Runco & S.
robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity Vol. II (pp. 785–793).
chology, 50, 116–123. New York: Academic Press.
Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Helson, R., Roberts, B., & Agronick, G. (1995). Enduringness and
Behavior, 16, 97–111. change in creative personality and prediction of occupational crea-
Diseth, Å. R., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2009). Personality traits and tivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1173–1183.
achievement motives: Theoretical and empirical relations between Hetrick, S. H., Lilly, R. S., & Merrifield, P. R. (1968). Figural creativ-
the Neo Personality Inventory–Revised and the Achievement ity, intelligence, and personality in children. Multivariate Behavioral
Motives Scale. Psychological Reports, 104(2), 579–592. Research, 3, 173–187.
Eisenman, R., & Platt, J. J. (1970). Authoritarianism, creativity, and Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique.
other correlates of the Famous Sayings test. Psychological Reports, Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 450–464.
26, 267–271. Hocevar, D. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in
Faschingbauer, T. R., & Eglevsky, D. A. (1977). Relation of dogma- the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R.
tism to creativity: Origence and intellectence. Psychological Reports, Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity. Perspectives on individual
40, 391–394. differences (pp. 53–75). New York: Plenum.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and Hutchinson, E. D. (1942). The period of elaboration in creative endea-
artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, vor. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 5,
290–309. 165–176.
Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific Jay, E. S., & Perkins, D. N. (1997). Problem finding: A search for a
creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273– mechanism. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research hand-
296). New York: Cambridge University Press. book, Vol. 1 (pp. 257–295). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Feldman, D. H., Marrinan, B. M., & Hartfeldt, S. D. (1972). Transfor- Joesting, J. (1977). Correlations among scales, What Kind of Person
mational power as a possible index of creativity. Psychological Are You and California Psychological Inventory. Psychological
Reports, 30, 335–338. Reports, 40, 146.
Fitzgerald, K. A. (1999). Adaptive and maladaptive narcissism and Joesting, J., & Joesting, R. (1969). Torrance’s creative motivation
creativity: How are they related in professional male and female inventory and its relationship to several personality variables.
actors? Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences Psychological Reports, 24, 30.
and Engineering, 60(5-B), 23–37. King, L. A., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity
Fleenor, J. W., & Taylor, J. C. (2004). The assessment of creativity. In and the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30,
J. C. Thomas (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological 189–203.
assessment, Vol. 4: Industrial and organizational assessment (pp. Kline, R. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing. Rerforming data analy-
75–84). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. sis methods in behavioural research. Washington, DC: American
Fodor, E. M., & Carver, R. A. (2000). Achievement and power Psychological Association.
motives, performance feedback, and creativity. Journal of Research Kumar, G. (1978). Creativity functioning in relation to personality,
in Personality, 34, 380–396. value-orientation, and achievement motivation. Indian Educational
Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple Review, 13, 110–115.
social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142. Lack, S. A., Kumar, V. K., & Arevalo, S. (2003). Fantasy proneness,
Funder, D. C. (2003). Toward a social psychology of person judgments: creative capacity, and styles of creativity. Perceptual and Motor
Implications for person perception accuracy and self-knowledge. In Skills, 96, 19–24.
 THE CREATIVE PERSONALITY 201

Lang, R. J., & Ryba, K. A. (1976). The identification of some creative problem-solving skills: V. Overall prediction. Creativity Research
thinking parameters common to the artistic and musical personality. Journal, 10, 73–85.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 267–279. Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Threlfall, K. V., & Baughman, W.
Levin, R., Galin, J., & Zywiak, B. (1991). Nightmares, boundaries, and A. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving
creativity. Dreaming: Journal of the Association for the Study of skills: III. Category selection. Creativity Research Journal, 9,
Dreams, 1, 63–74. 395–406.
Lim, W., & Plucker, J. A. (2001). Creativity through a lens of social Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: Academic
responsibility: Implicit theories of creativity with Korean samples. Press.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 115–130. Pannells, T. C., & Claxton, A. F. (2008). Happiness, creative ideation,
Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and and locus of control. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 67–71.
problem solving. Handbook of perception and cognition (2nd ed.) Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to
(pp. 289–332). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook
Mackinnon, D. W. (1961). Fostering creativity in students of engineer- of creativity (pp. 35–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
ing. Journal of Engineering Education, 52, 129–142. Press.
Mackinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative Quinn, E. (1980). Creativity and cognitive complexity. Social Behavior
potential. American Psychologist, 20, 273–281. and Personality, 8, 213–215.
Maier, N. R. F. (1970). Problem solving and creativity in individuals and Rawlings, D., Twomey, F., Burns, E., & Morris, S. (1998). Personality,
groups. Belmont, CA: Brooks=Cole. creativity and aesthetic preference: Comparing psychoticism, sen-
Martinsen, Ø. (1993). Insight problems revisited: The influence of cog- sation seeking, schizotypy, and openness to experience. Empirical
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013

nitive styles and experience on creative problem solving. Creativity Studies of the Arts, 16, 153–178.
Research Journal, 6, 435–449. Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.),
Martinsen, Ø. (1995a). Cognitive styles and experience in solving Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 216–222).
insight problems: Replication and extension. Creativity Research Buffalo, NY: Bearly. (Original work published in 1961)
Journal, 8, 291–298. Richards, R., & Kinney, D. K. (1990). Mood swings and creativity.
Martinsen, Ø. L. The impact of motivation on insight. Manuscript Creativity Research Journal, 3, 202–217.
submitted for publication. Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. Etc, 11, 249–260.
Martinsen, Ø. (1999). Some validation data for a Norwegian version of Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
the NEO PI-R. Unpublished manuscript. control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80(609).
Martinsen, Ø., & Kaufmann, G. (2000). The Assimilator–Explorer Rubinstein, G. (2003). Authoritarianism and its relation to creativity:
cognitive styles and their relationship to affective-motivational A comparative study among students of design, behavioural
orientations and cognitive performances. In R. Riding & S. Raynor sciences and law. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 695–
(Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences vol. 1: New 705.
developments in learning=cognitive styles (pp. 3–41). Stamford, CT: Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and culture: A two way interaction.
Ablex. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 273–290.
Mathiesen, G. E., Martinsen, Ø., & Einarsen, S. (2008). The relation- Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and crea-
ship between creative personality composition, innovative team cli- tivity. Westport, CT: Ablex.
mate, and team innovativeness: An input–process–output Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian
perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 13–31. Journal of Educational Research, 47, 318–324.
Maw, W. H., & Magoon, A. J. (1971). The curiosity dimension of Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,
fifth-grade children: A factorial discriminant analysis. Child Devel- 657–687.
opment, 42, 2023–2031. Runco, M. A. (2007). To understand is to create: An epistemological
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. perspective on human nature and personal creativity. In R.
(1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton. Richards (Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature:
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of Psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives (pp. 91–107).
openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). San Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2001). Development and
Diego, CA: Academic Press. psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativ-
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. ity Research Journal, 13, 393–400.
Psychological Review, 69, 220–232. Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in
Merckelbach, H., Horselenberg, R., & Muris, P. (2001). The Creative the creative process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ): A brief self-report measure of Shapiro, P. J., & Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and bipolar diath-
fantasy proneness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, esis: Common behavioral and cognitive components. Cognition and
987–995. Emotion, 13, 741–762.
Messick, S. (1987). Structural relationships across cognition, person- Sharma, S. C. (1986). Creativity and mental health training. Indian
ality and style. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learn- Journal of Behaviour, 10, 11–16.
ing, and instruction, Vol. 3: Conative and affective process analysis Sheldon, K. M. (1995a). Creativity and goal conflict. Creativity
(pp. 35–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Research Journal, 8, 299–306.
Mønnesland, K. (1985). Intelligensprøver for Voksne (Intelligence tests Sheldon, K. M. (1995b). Creativity and self-determination in person-
for the age above 14 years). Gruppeprøve serie 3 for alderen over ality. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 25–36.
14 år. Oslo: TANO. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: and epigenic model. Psychological Review, 106, 435–457.
Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J.
103, 27–43. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychologi-
Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P., cal perspectives. (pp. 125–147). New York: Cambridge University
& Threlfall, K. V. (1997). Process-based measures of creative Press.
 202 MARTINSEN

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). An investment perspective on Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Research on creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly,
creative insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nat- 30, 15–19.
ure of insight (pp. 535–558). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tuckman, B. W. (1966). Integrative complexity: Its measurement and
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, relation to creativity. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
(3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 26, 369–382.
Swanberg, A. B., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2010). Personality, approaches Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young chil-
to learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 30, 75–88. dren. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Tegano, D. W. (1990). Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W., Jr. (1969). The talented student: A vali-
playfulness to creativity. Psychological Reports, 66, 1047–1056. dation of the creativity–intelligence distinction. New York: Holt,
Thalbourne, M. A., Bartemucci, L., Delin, P. S., Fox, B., & Nofi, O. Rinehart, & Winston.
(1997). Transliminality: Its nature and correlates. Journal of the Weisberg, R. W. (1995). Prolegomena to theories of insight in problem
American Society for Psychical Research, 91, 305–331. solving: A taxonomy of problems. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 157–196). Cambridge,
Creative Thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 236–252. MA: MIT Press.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 02:14 05 September 2013