Creativity, intelligence, and psychoticism

Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2
Personality and Individual Differences (Impact Factor: 1.86). 01/1990; DOI: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90156-L

ABSTRACT Three studies find Creativity correlates with Psychoticism and Intelligence. With 52 university professors, publication and citation counts correlated 0.26 (P < 0.05) with Psychoticism assessed by a weighted composite of trait ratings made by faculty-peers and 0.40 (P < 0.01) with faculty-peer rated intelligence. Among 69 university professors, an enjoyment of research composite correlated r = 0.43 (P < 0.01) with Psychoticism assessed using a weighted composite of trait self ratings, although not with self-rated intelligence (r = 0.05). Among 194 university students, the Wallach-Kogan Test of Divergent Thinking correlated r = 0.17 (P < 0.05) with the P scale from the EPQ and r = 0.24 (P < 0.05) with an IQ test.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between malevolent creativity and personality, with a specific focus on the traits of antagonism, aggression, and sympathy. Participants (N = 265) completed a series of personality measures and two divergent thinking tasks (uses for a brick and a pencil). Responses were coded for fluency and malevolent creativity. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that gender, conscientiousness, and trait physical aggression accounted for unique variability in malevolent creativity scores. These results confirm the link between personality and malevolent creativity, corroborating the General Model of Aggression and extending understanding of malevolent creativity, a new subfield of creativity research.
    Creativity Research Journal 04/2011; 23(2):73-82. · 0.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study was designed in order to test the hypothesis that there is a link among psychoticism, cognitive traits associated with creativity (i.e Divergent Thinking), and the attentional mechanism of cognitive inhibition. A sample of 37 subjects was tested using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, the Wallach-Kogan Divergent Thinking (DT) tests and a ‘negative priming’ experimental task as a measure of cognitive inhibition. It was hypothesized that subjects who score highly on the psychoticism scale of the EPQ would perform better on the creativity tasks compared with low-P scorers. In addition, it was hypothesized that high-P scorers and also high DT scorers would both show a reduced negative priming effect i.e. reduced ability to inhibit stimulation from the environment. The correlations of P-scores with the creativity scores were positive and most of them significant, indicating that subjects who score highly on psychoticism also produce a larger number of responses and give more unique answers on the DT items. In addition, high-P scorers showed a reduced negative priming effect compared with low-P scorers, and this difference was statistically significant. Finally, subjects who scored highly on the DT test showed a smaller negative priming effect compared with low-creativity scorers, but this effect did not reach statistical significance.
    Personality and Individual Differences 07/1996; 21(1):143–153. · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prior research supports the inference that scientific disciplines can be ordered into a hierarchy ranging from the “hard” natural sciences to the “soft” social sciences. This ordering corresponds with such objective criteria as disciplinary consensus, knowledge obsolescence rate, anticipation frequency, theories-to-laws ratio, lecture disfluency, and age at recognition. It is then argued that this hierarchy can be extrapolated to encompass the humanities and arts and interpolated within specific domains to accommodate contrasts in subdomains (e.g., revolutionary versus normal science). This expanded and more finely differentiated hierarchy is then shown to have a partial psychological basis in terms of dispositional traits (e.g., psychopathology) and developmental experiences (e.g., family background). This demonstration then leads to three hypotheses about how a creator's domain-specific impact depends on his or her disposition and development: the domain-progressive, domain-typical, and domain-regressive creator hypotheses. Studies published thus far lend the most support to the domain-regressive creator hypothesis. In particular, major contributors to a domain are more likely to have dispositional traits and developmental experiences most similar to those that prevail in a domain lower in the disciplinary hierarchy. However, some complications to this generalization suggest the need for more research on the proposed hierarchical model.
    Perspectives on Psychological Science 09/2009; 4(5):441-452. · 4.89 Impact Factor