Search

Creativity, and more recently dark creativity, have yet to be studied in relation to moral foundations, especially against the background of dark traits. This study identified moral foundations that predicted creativity, particularly malevolent creativity, after accounting for Dark Triad/Tetrad traits. Data (N = 529, Mage= 20.10 years, SD =4.55) on self‐reported creativity, personality, and moral foundations were collected. Results indicated that lower concerns for binding foundations (loyalty, authority, and purity) explained creativity, especially malevolent creativity. In contrast, higher concern for individualizing foundations (care and fairness) predicted creativity, whereas lower regard for these morals predicted malevolent creativity. Planned mediations indicated that lower concerns for all foundations explained greater malevolent creativity due to higher dark personality dispositions. Limitations and implications are discussed.

The present study examines effort in narrative creative writing (operationalized as time‐on‐task) using a new assessment approach, the storyboard task. Participants (N= 125) completed alternate forms of the storyboard task in two sessions five weeks apart. They also completed measures of divergent thinking and self‐reported ideational behavior. Time‐on‐task, story length, and rated creativity scores were obtained for the participants’ stories. The storyboard task demonstrated good alternate form reliability and convergent validity with the criterion measures. Although time‐on‐task was strongly, positively associated with creativity scores, this relationship was confounded by the contribution of story length. Relationships amongst these variables were similar when creativity was rated by novice raters using a rubric or experienced raters using the consensual assessment technique. Additionally, story length and time‐on‐task were moderately correlated with the external criterion measures of creativity. Thus, the strong associations between rated creativity, story length, and time in creative writing raise important issues and avenues for future research, and results for the storyboard task suggest that it is a valuable assessment of narrative creative writing.

Past research has demonstrated that the hierarchical value structures of creative individuals differ systematically from their less creative counterparts. However, earlier studies used a global creativity score, which is inconsistent with both creativity’s movement toward a domain‐specific viewpoint, and Lebedeva et al.’s 2019 study suggests the relationship between values and the frequency of creative behaviors differs by domain. We conducted two studies to determine if different creative domains are associated with distinct value hierarchies in creative ability, self‐perception, and achievement. Study 1 (N= 156) examined whether Schwartz’s core values demonstrated a different pattern of correlations with verbal versus visual creative performance, assessed with story and drawing tasks. Study 2 (N= 492) examined the pattern of values across a broader set of domains (i.e., artistic, everyday/self, science, performance, and scholarly), assessed using measures of creative self‐concept and self‐reported creative achievement. The value hierarchies associated with each of the domains were not consistent with each other or with the findings of past studies. The implications of these results for creative domain specificity and motivation are discussed.

In this paper, we organize past and present theories and models of creativity by using a new conceptual framework—the creativity matrix—with the aim of highlighting the dimensions of creativity we know a lot about and those we tend to either ignore or find difficult to study. This matrix is formed by bringing together a developmental model of creativity (the 4 C's) and a structural one (the 5 A's). We start by briefly describing these two conceptual frameworks, and then, we proceed to exploring the matrix itself by describing how the 5 A's are dynamically organized at each “level” of the 4 C's. Importantly, our overview of the matrix is informed by existing models and concepts that address one of more of the C's and the A's. This gives us a unique opportunity to take stock of what has been studied so far and, toward the end, consider new avenues for the development of theory and research agendas within creativity studies.

One common self‐assessment of creativity is the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K‐DOCS). This article provides support for a Turkish translation of the instrument, offering exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to determine whether the factors were consistent across cultures. The participants consisted of two groups. The first group consisted of 1,260 undergraduate students (912 females, 348 males) at a public university in Turkey and was utilized for the principal axis factoring analysis. Horn's parallel analysis, a robust statistical technique, was employed to determine the number of factors to be extracted from a scale. The second group consisted of 1,215 participants (885 females and 330 males) who were utilized for confirmatory factor analysis. Results supported a nine‐factor solution as a better fit for this sample than the five‐solution originally used by Kaufman. Of the original five factors, four factors were divided into two sub‐factors, which were distinct although moderately correlated. Finally, we determined the relationship between K‐DOCSfactors and college major. We also found good evidence for the construct, discriminant, and convergent validity of the scale. Relationships between K‐DOCSfactors and college major were largely consistent with predictions, providing additional evidence for the construct validity of the scale.

This manifesto, discussed by 20 scholars, representing diverse lines of creativity research, marks a conceptual shift within the field. Socio‐cultural approaches have made substantial contributions to the concept of creativity over recent decades and today can provide a set of propositions to guide our understanding of past research and to generate new directions of inquiry and practice. These propositions are urgently needed in response to the transition from the Information Society to the Post‐Information Society. Through the propositions outlined here, we aim to build common ground and invite the community of creativity researchers and practitioners to reflect up, study, and cultivate creativity as a socio‐cultural phenomenon.

Although the relationship between creativity and ADHDis uncertain, recent studies examining how dimensionally assessed characteristics of ADHDrelate to creativity and divergent thinking in adults suggest an occasional positive, linear relationship between the constructs. However, the executive functions proposed to underlie characteristics of ADHDhave not been examined in relation to creativity. This study was conducted to determine how different characteristics of ADHDrelated to executive functioning (as assessed by the Brown ADDScales) predict different components of figural divergent thinking, intellectual risk‐taking, and creative self‐efficacy. Undergraduate engineering students (N =60) completed the Brown ADDScales, a figural divergent thinking task, and self‐report measures of intellectual risk‐taking and creative self‐efficacy. A series of multivariate regression models demonstrated that several components of divergent thinking (i.e., fluency, originality, and resistance to closure) were predicted by different characteristics of ADHD. Although fluency was predicted by affect only and originality was predicted by activation only, resistance to closure was predicted by activation, effort, and attention. Additionally, intellectual risk‐taking was predicted by memory, effort, and activation, whereas creative self‐efficacy was predicted by effort. The implications of these results relating to the relationship between ADHDand creativity, as well as for engineering undergraduate education are discussed.

The Amusement Park Theory of Creativity, which represents both domain‐specific and domain‐general perspectives of creativity, calls for more research on how individual difference constructs are related to creativity at all ends of the domain‐specificity and general spectrum. Toward this goal, this study examined emotional intelligence (using the Emotional Intelligence Scale) in relationship with both a domain‐general measure (the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults) and a domain‐specific measure (Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale) in a sample of 281 Chinese undergraduates. Although emotional intelligence demonstrated no relationship with divergent thinking, it did positively predict all five domains of creativity on the self‐report measure (ranging from .52 to .77). These findings add to the nuanced relationship between emotional intelligence and creativity and serve as a call for more work of this nature.

Empirical studies on the relationship between affect and creativity often produce conflicting results. This inconsistency has led us to believe that the relationship between affect and creativity may be better understood by looking at potential moderators. Our study looked specifically at trait affect and self‐perceived creativity. Using the Affect Infusion Model (AIM) theory with problem clarity as the potential moderator, we hypothesized that when individuals are faced with problems that lack clarity, trait affect has greater sway over their self‐perceived creativity. Our results provided evidence that problem clarity moderated the relationship between positive trait affect and self‐perceived creativity; the positive relationship between positive trait affect and self‐perceived creativity is stronger when problem clarity is low and weaker when problem clarity is high. No moderating effect was found in the relationship between negative trait affect and self‐perceived creativity.

What are the personal characteristics that distinguish the creative scientist from the less creative scientist? This study used the concept of implicit theory in a four‐part study of scientists and graduate students in science. In the first part, we collected 1382 adjective words that describe the personal characteristics of the creative scientist from 354 scientists. In the second part of the study, 542 additional scientists assessed these adjectives. We determined that the personal characteristics of the creative scientist fit into four factors: personality, thinking ability, research ability, and uniqueness. In the third part of the study, we found that the concepts of thinking ability and uniqueness would positively predict 221 graduate students' self‐perceived creativity, and research ability would positively predict their creative motivation. The last part of the study involved having 283 creative scientists and 264 less creative scientists from 30 research institutions rated by three colleagues on the above four factors. A logistic regression found that thinking ability was best able to identify creative scientists while personality best predicted less creative scientists.

College admissions decisions have traditionally focused on high school academic performance and standardized test scores. An ongoing debate is the validity of these measures for predicting success in college; part of this debate includes how success is defined. One potential way of defining college success is a student's creative accomplishments. We tested the hypothesis that traditional admissions criteria fail to capture adequately the creativity of applicants by asking 610 college applicants to complete several creativity tasks. These included divergent thinking, caption‐writing, an essay, and self‐report measures of creativity in numerous domains. Creativity scores were compared to data from the college application, including high school rank, standardized test scores, and admissions interview scores. Results showed that traditional admissions criteria were only weakly related to creativity. Indeed, students who report the highest creative self‐efficacy can be perceived as weaker applicants according to traditional criteria. Findings are discussed in light of the goals of higher education to increase diversity of the student body and the abilities of its students.

Creativity is sexy, but are all creative behaviors equally sexy? We attempted to clarify the role of creativity in mate selection among an ethnically diverse sample of 815 undergraduates. First we assessed the sexual attractiveness of different forms of creativity: ornamental/aesthetic, applied/technological, and everyday/domestic creativity. Both males and females preferred ornamental/aesthetic forms of creativity in a prospective sexual partner than applied/technological and everyday/domestic forms of creativity. Secondly, we assessed the simultaneous prediction of general cognitive ability, personality, divergent thinking, self‐perceptions of creativity, and creative achievement on preferences for different forms of creativity in a prospective sexual partner. The results were generally consistent with assortative mating. The most robust predictors of a preference for applied/technological forms of creativity in a potential sexual partner were intellectual interests and creative achievement in applied/technological domains. In contrast, the most robust predictor of a preference for ornamental/aesthetic forms of creativity was openness to experience. The results suggest that openness to experience and its associated aesthetic, perceptual, and affective aspects are the primary characteristics influencing the sexual attractiveness of a creative display. Further, the results demonstrate the importance of also taking into account individual differences in personality, interests, and creative achievement when considering the sexual attractiveness of different manifestations of creativity.