Article

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.

0 Followers
 · 
717 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Charlton's (2009) Clever Sillies model argues that high IQ people lack common sense and advocate foolish ideas due to the personality disposition that is associated with high IQ. We argue that the “Clever Silly” model proposed by Charlton has several shortcomings and needs to be nuanced. We suggest that it is useful to distinguish between scholars who advocate clever silly ideas in a context in which they are popular (followers) and those who originate them. The originators are close to the artistic genius type while the followers are the more average academics, especially in non-science subjects. The former has highly original and controversial ideas and take considerable risk for the potential high socioeconomic status pay off involved. The latter is less inclined to take risks and thus strikes the optimum balance, in terms of conformity and non-conformity, in order to showcase their intelligence but gain the benefits of conforming.
    Intelligence 04/2015; 49. DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2014.12.008 · 2.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The psychological qualities of the creative person in general are gradually becoming more and more clear, and yet the psychological qualities of the creative scientists remain less clear. The current investigation examined the personality characteristics of the creative scientist in a sample of 145 academic physical, biological, and social scientists (33% women) from major research universities throughout the United States. Personality data were collected online through completion of the Big Five Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) and the Psychoticism subscale of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Francis, Brown, & Philipchalk, 1992). Creativity was assessed using various publication and citation-based metrics from Web of Science, Science Citation Index, and Social Science Citation Index, including the h-index and the creativity index (Soler, 2007). An overall creativity index was created by log-transforming, standardizing, and summing the multiple productivity and impact measures. Results mostly confirmed the prediction that openness to experience and psychoticism would explain variance in scientific creativity once career age, gender, and area of science were statistically controlled for in a stepwise hierarchical regression model. These patterns of results confirm and extend previous research in the psychology of science and suggest that personality traits function to lower behavioral thresholds and make creative behavior in science more likely. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)
    Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 02/2014; 8(1):30. DOI:10.1037/a0034828 · 1.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The so-called mad-genius controversy cannot be resolved without applying more sophisticated historiometric methods to the issue. It is especially important to recognize that (a) both eminence and psychopathology are quantitative rather than qualitative variables, (b) the two variables must be independently quantified, and (c) the relation between these two variables may assume either linear or curvilinear forms depending on the domain of creative achievement. These 3 points are then illustrated in a study of 204 eminent scientists, thinkers, writers, artists, and composers. Independent quantitative measures of psychopathology (Post, 1994) and eminence (Murray, 2003) were combined in a complex design that tested for multiplicative and nonlinear effects. Positive monotonic functions were found for writers and artists, whereas nonmonotonic single-peaked functions were found for scientists, composers, and thinkers. Moreover, the specific peaks for the latter 3 fields differed from each other, indicating that scientists exhibit the least psychopathology and the thinkers the most, with the composers falling approximately in the middle. Although this historiometric study makes a clear contribution to the debate, the article closes by recommending additional improvements in both measurement and analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)
    Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 02/2014; 8(1):53. DOI:10.1037/a0035367 · 1.23 Impact Factor