Personality and Individual Differences

Transcription

1 Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity Adrian Furnham *, Velicia Bachtiar University College London, Department of Psychology, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAP, United Kingdom article info abstract Article history: Received 19 March 2008 Received in revised form 18 June 2008 Accepted 24 June 2008 Available online 8 August 2008 Keywords: Personality Intelligence Creativity Participants completed the Big Five NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) as a personality measure, the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 1992) as an intelligence measure, and four measures of creativity: Guilford s (1967) unusual uses divergent thinking test; the Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviours; a self-rated measure of creativity; and the Barron Welsh Art Scale to measure creative judgement. Extraversion was significantly related to all four measures of creativity. Intelligence failed to add any incremental variance in predicting the creativity scores. Multiple regression indicated that up to 47% of the variance in divergent thinking scores can be accounted for by the Big Five personality traits. Personality correlates to creativity vary as a function of the creativity measure. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Despite its practical importance, the multidimensional nature of creativity makes it particularly difficult to define and measure (Amabile, 1996; George & Zhou, 2001; Runco, 2004; Taylor, 1988). There are more than 60 definitions of creativity with no single authoritative and agreed upon definition, or operational measure. Nevertheless, the production of an idea or product that is both novel and useful is commonly accepted as a central characteristic of creativity (Barron, 1955; Mumford, 2003a, 2003b). Increasing consensus amongst creativity researchers suggests that creativity in the individual will be reliant upon multiple components (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Guilford, 1950; Runco, 2004). Suggestions for these components include cognitive ability, personality factors (Feist, 1998), cognitive style (Wallace, 1961) and motivation (Maslow, 1971). However, there is growing agreement on the individual differences correlates of creativity (Batey, 2007). It is argued that a basic level of intelligence is a necessary requirement for creativity in the generation and analysis of novel ideas (Silva, 2008; Sternberg, 1997). However, intelligence only accounts for a small percentage of the variance, directing investigations towards personality correlates of creativity (Batey & Furnham, 2006). Equally it is suggested that the curiosity associated with Openness and the positiveness associated with Extraversion means trait variables are related to creativity. Assessing creativity has mainly used divergent thinking (DT) measures and/or ratings of creativity as the main methods. However, Carroll (1993) suggested that creativity includes both fluency (numerate production of ideas) and originality (novel and unusual * Corresponding author. address: a.furnham@ucl.ac.uk (A. Furnham). responses). Carrol concluded that intelligence factors such as verbal, visualisation and reasoning ability were found to be independent of creativity and that creativity is not the same as intelligence, but does require general mental abilities, such as the ability to think quickly. This suggests that a mixture of measures should be employed in order to appreciate the multidimensional nature of creativity (Sternberg & O Hara, 2000) Creativity and intelligence The conception of creativity is often associated with intelligence. However, early investigations into the relationship between creativity and intelligence (Andrews, 1930; Getzels & Jackson, 1962; McCloy & Meier, 1931) have found only modest correlations (r =.07,.22,.26, respectively). Kaufmann (2003) argues that creativity assessments are often conducted in examination-like conditions similar to the conditions in which IQ tests are administered, which may have led to the poor convergent and discriminant validity of the creativity tests. The testing environment may influence mood, which in turn may influence the whole creativity process. Silva (2008) has recently demonstrated that while measures of creativity (divergent thinking) are very modestly related to lower order cognitive ability scores (i.e. verbal fluency) the relationship is reasonably strong once a higher order intelligence factor is computed and even who confounding variables like Openness are controlled for Creativity and personality In a meta-analysis, Feist (1998) investigated creative personality in the Arts and Sciences using data from 83 studies. Extraversion and Openness to Experience were found to be the traits that /$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi: /j.paid

2 614 A. Furnham, V. Bachtiar / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) most strongly distinguished the creative from non-creative scientists. It was also found that artists were roughly half a standard deviation lower on Conscientiousness and half a standard deviation higher on Openness to Experience. Furthermore, in a 45 year longitudinal study of 163 males, Soldz and Vaillant (1999) confirmed that Openness to Experience was positively related to the ratings of creativity (r = 0.27). King, Walker, and Broyles (1996) found that verbal creativity (as measured by DT) was significantly correlated with Extraversion (r = 0.26) and Openness to Experience (r = 0.38). Other studies have used different creativity measures and have replicated the findings that these two traits are significantly implicated in creativity. Furnham, Batey, Anand, and Manfield (2008) found that Extraversion was a significant correlate of self-rated creativity (r = 0.35) and DT (r = 0.26). These findings are consistent with previous studies (Aguilar-Alonso, 1996; Sen & Hagtvet, 1993; Wuthrich & Bates, 2001). A possible explanation of this is that DT tests are often administered in group settings, which are advantageous for extraverts as they tend to seek stimulation (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). This may reduce the output of introverts and through masking the relationship with IQ, reduce the validity of the creativity tests. Other studies have also pointed to Openness as the most important factor in creativity (Furnham, 1999; Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004) Measuring creativity It is evident that the multifaceted nature of creativity makes it necessary to adopt a multi-method approach, addressing different criteria of creativity to capture its many aspects and make findings more robust. Critics (Amabile, 1996; Hudson, 1966; Lubart, 2003) suggest that experiments using DT tests as a measure of creativity (e.g. Cropley, 1968; Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Wallach & Kogan, 1965) may measure aspects of creative intelligence, but it cannot be a stand-alone measure of creativity. The present study aims to examine the incremental validity of intelligence and the big five personality factors in predicting different measures of creativity. A battery of four creativity tests, used in previous studies will be combined to assess different aspects of creativity. This will be used alongside the NEO Five-Factor Inventory of Costa and McCrae (1992) as a measure of personality, and the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 1992) as a measure of intelligence. Three hypotheses were tested. First (H1), it is hypothesised that intelligence will predict all four measures of creativity. Second (H2), Extraversion and Openness to Experience will significantly predict creativity scores for DT, creative achievements on the Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviours, self-rated creativity, and creative judgement on the Barron Welsh Art Scale. 2. Method 2.1. Participants There were 176 participants of which 98 were male and 78 were female. Age ranged from 13 to 69 years; with a mean of 18.6 (S.D. = 7.26 years). Of all participants 95 were from a British private school (age: 13 15; mean 14.31) and the remaining 81 participants (age: 18 69; mean 24.41) were gathered from an opportunistic sample. English was a first language for 65.3% of participants and the remaining 34.7% had first languages other than English, however all were completely fluent and confident in English. Informed consent was obtained from each subject and the study was approved by the local ethics committee. Many were involved in art lessons which may have influenced their results on the art measure Measures 1. Intelligence: Intelligence was measured through the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) (Wonderlic, 1992). This 50-item test measures general intelligence, and was administered in 12 min. Studies have reported good validity and reliability for this measure, and correlates very highly (r = 0.92) with the WAIS-R (Dodrill, 1983; Dodrill & Warner, 1988). 2. Personality: Personality traits were assessed through the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (FFI) of Costa and McCrae (1992). The 60-item scale is a self-report version of the NEO-PI-R. t is currently one of the most widely used measures of personality. 3. Creativity: Four different creativity measures were used: i) Divergent Thinking (DT): Three, 3-min tests of Guilford (1967) unusual uses were administered under strict timed conditions. Participants were asked to list as many unusual uses as they can for 3 inanimate objects (Paperclip, Blanket, and Pencil Case were used in this study). DT was scored by counting the number of responses for unusual uses. ii) Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviours (BICB): An assessment of everyday creativity and creative achievement. Participants were asked to indicate from a list of 34 activities, those in which they had been actively involved in over the past 12 months. The BICB has demonstrated adequate reliability (a = 0.74) (Batey, 2007). iii) Self-Rating of Creativity (SR):. Participants were asked in comparison to other people, on a scale of 1 10 (with 10 being the most), how creative do you consider yourself? It has been shown that creative people possess insight or awareness of their own creativity. Self-rated creativity has been found to significantly and positively correlate to several measures of creative potential (Batey, 2007). iv) Barron Welsh Art Scale (BWAS): An 86-item test which asks participants to indicate whether they like or dislike the black and white figures. This is mostly simple abstract drawing of cylinders, irregular triangles, blocks, etc. High scorers indicate a greater ability for symbolizations and substitution, named primary processes. The BWAS has been used for over 50 years and converges significantly with other methods to identify creative talent (Eysenck & Furnham, 1993; Rosen, 1955; Welsh, 1987). 4. Demographic Information: Participants were asked to indicate their age, gender and first language Procedure The paper and pencil tests were completed individually in a group administration session (around people at a time) conditions, lasting approximately 45 min. The timed tests (WPT and DT) were administered first, and participants were subsequently allowed to complete the remainder of the tests at their own pace. Any further questions were attended to during the session. 3. Results 3.1. Data analysis Table 1 shows test intercorrelations and that the DT tests were strongly and significantly intercorrelated with each other (r =.73.77) suggesting that a valid composite DT score could be generated. The scale reliability (Cronbach s a) was also acceptably high (a > 0.70) indicating internal validity of the measure (Bland & Altman, 1997). Table 2 shows the composite DT score, BICB, SR and BWAS were significantly intercorrelated (r =.18.44). However, only DT and

3 A. Furnham, V. Bachtiar / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) Table 1 Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations for the three divergent thinking test M (SD) DT (3.85).74 **.73 ** 2. DT (4.57).77 ** 3. DT (4.52) DT 1 = paperclip; DT 2 = blanket; DT 3 = pencil case. Cronbach s a = BICB intercorrelated at the r > 0.30 level. The scale reliability (a = 0.50) for the four creativity measures was also technically not high enough that is, 0.70 according to traditional psychometric criteria (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) though it was examined as an overall measure. Intelligence (as measured by the WPT) was not correlated with any of the creativity measures but was correlated with Openness to Experience (r = 0.26, p < 0.01) and negatively correlated with Extraversion (r = 0.20, p < 0.01). As predicted, Extraversion was significantly correlated to the four creativity measures, DT (r = 0.69, p < 0.01), BICB (r = 0.41, p < 0.01), SR (r = 0.17, p < 0.05) and BWAS (r = 0.20, p < 0.01). Openness to Experience was significantly correlated to DT (r = 0.15, p < 0.05). However, the correlation between Openness to Experience and the BICB, SR and BWAS was not significant. DT was also significantly correlated with Neuroticism (r = 0.36, p < 0.01), and Agreeableness (r = 0.22, p < 0.01). A series of multiple regressions were then performed, regressing the four creativity tests (used as dependent variables) onto the Big Five personality traits, intelligence, age, gender and whether the participant s first language was English or not. Standardised b coefficients and t values for all the predictors in the regressions are presented in Table 3. The first regression showed that the Big Five accounted for 47% of the variance in DT scores [F (5,154) = 29.31; p <.001; Adj. R 2 = 0.47]. Extraversion (b =.65, t = 10.15, p <.001) and Openness to Experience (b =.17, t = 2.84, p <.01) were the two significant predictors in the model. When intelligence, age, gender and language were added to the model, 51% of the variance in DT scores were accounted for [F (5,150) = 19.06; p <.001; Adj. R 2 = 0.51]. Participants first language was the significant predictor in this model (negatively, b =.19, t = 3.04, p <.01). In a second regression the Big Five accounted for 16% of the variance in the BICB [F (5,154) = 20; p <.001; Adj. R 2 = 0.16]. Extraversion (b =.43, t = 5.38, p <.001) was the only significant predictor in the model. When intelligence, age, gender and language were added to the model, 26% of the variance in the BICB was accounted for [F (5,150) = 31; p <.001; Adj. R 2 = 0.26]. Age (negatively, b =.24, t = 3.05, p <.01) and gender (negatively, b =.16, t = 2.17, p <.05) were the significant predictors in this model. The third regression indicated that only 4.1% of the variance in the SR scale of creativity was accounted for by the Big Five [F (5,154) =.34; p <.05; Adj. R 2 = 0.04]. Extraversion (b =.23, t = 2.61, p <.05) was the only significant predictor in the model. Gender was a modest significant predictor in this model (negatively, b =.17, t = 1.97, p <.05) but added no more overall variance. The fourth regression failed to reach significance, with only 3.2% of the variance in the BWAS accounted for by the Big Five [F (5,154) = 2.07; p =.07; Adj. R 2 = 0.03]. Again, Extraversion (b =.23, t = 2.68, p <.001) was the only significant predictor in the model. Participants first language was a modest significant predictor in the model (negatively, b =.19, t = 2.24, p <.05) and added only 1% more variance. The four creativity measures then combined to create an overall creativity score. This regression showed that the Big Five accounted for 31% of the variance in the composite creativity score [F (5,154) = 14.68; p <.001; Adj. R 2 = 0.31]. Extraversion (b =.58, t = 7.86, p <.001) and Openness to Experience (b =.20, t = 2.96, p <.01) were the two significant predictors in the model. When intelligence, age, gender and language were added to the model, 35% of the variance in creativity scores were accounted for [F (5,150) = 0.14; p <.001; Adj. R 2 = 0.35]. Participants first language was the significant predictor in this model (negatively, b =.20, t = 2.67, p <.01). Gender narrowly missed significance (negatively, b =.14, t = 1.94, p =.055). Furthermore, correlational analysis of the composite creativity score indicates that creativity strongly correlates with Extraversion (r =.53, p <.01), Openness to Experience (r =.17, p <.05), and negatively with Neuroticism (r =.15, p <.05). Intelligence did not show any significant relationship or incremental variance to the composite creativity score. All four regressions were then repeated this time reversing the three blocks such that demography was the first block and personality the last. The results were essentially the same as to the amount of variance accounted for. Because of the possibility that first language may have adversely influenced these results all given regressions were repeated with the blocks reversed so that age, gender and language were in the first block. This meant the regressions could examine the effects of personality once intelligence, sex, age and mother tongue had been controlled for. The results were essentially the same as in Table 3 with the same factors being significant. 4. Discussion Contrary to prediction intelligence in both the correlational and regression analyses was not related to any of the creativity measures. Previous studies into the relationship between creativity Table 2 Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations between personality (NEO-FFI), intelligence (WPT), and four measures of creativity (DT, BICB, SR and BWAS) M (SD) DT (12.7).44 **.18 *.22 ** **.69 **.15 *.22 ** BICB (5.87).22 **.26 ** ** SR (10.38).20 * * BWAS (11.64) ** WPT (7.38) **.26 ** Neuro (8.47).41 ** **.39 ** 7. Extrav (6.65) **.19 * 8. Open (6.41).16 * Agree (6.06).22 ** 10. Cons (6.88) DT = Divergent Thinking; BICB = Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviours; SR = Self-ratings of Creativity; BWAS = Barron Welsh art scale; WPT = Wonderlic Personnel Test; Neuro = Neuroticism; Extrav = Extraversion; Open = Openness to Experience; Agree = Agreeableness; Cons = Conscientiousness. * p < 0.05.

4 616 A. Furnham, V. Bachtiar / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) Table 3 Standardised b coefficient and t values for the predictors of the multiple regressions DT BICB SR BWAS b t b t b t b t 1 N E *** *** * ** O ** A C F (5, 154) *** 7.20 *** 2.34 * 2.07 Adj R WPT F (6, 153) *** 6.29 *** Adj R Age ** Gender * * Language ** * F (9, 150) *** 7.31 *** Adj R N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness to Experience; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness. * p < *** p < and intelligence have found modest correlations in the order of r = (Andrews, 1930; Getzels & Jackson, 1962; McCloy & Meier, 1931). Although the WPT was a short measure of general intelligence, it is not clear if a specific measure of crystallised or fluid intelligence or a big well established battery (i.e. WAIS) would correlate better with the different measures of creativity. In the first regression, the Big Five accounted for 47% of the variance in DT. Extraversion was the most significant correlate followed by Openness to Experience. This was predicted by the second hypothesis and is consistent with previous findings (Aguilar-Alonso, 1996; Sen & Hagtvet, 1993; Wuthrich & Bates, 2001). The present study was conducted in a group setting, which may be more advantageous for extraverts as they tend to seek stimulation (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Batey and Furnham (2006) suggest that the neurobiology of the extravert predisposes them to actively participate in the DT test process. It could be the combination of Openness to Experience and Extraversion that allows these individuals to be more curious, experiential and interested in quirkiness, which may in turn increase their ability to generate new and novel ideas. Evidently, when a variable multiplying Openness to Experience with Extraversion was computed, correlational analyses indicated strong significant relationships with DT, BICB, SR, BWAS, and the composite creativity score. In addition, there was a significant effect of the participants first language in the first regression, accounting for a further 4 percent of the variance in DT. This is to be expected as those whose first language was not English may have had more trouble expressing themselves as the test required responses that were not in their native tongue. In combination with the time pressure, the extra cognitive processing needed when working in a second language could explain this added variance in DT. However, when the analyses were repeated removing all non mother-tongue speakers the results remained essentially the same. Second, the correlational analyses for creative achievement, as measured by the BICB indicate that the Big Five accounted for 16% of the variance. Extraversion was again the strongest predictor, as predicted with the second hypothesis. However, Openness to Experience failed to reach significance. Intelligence accounted for another 1%, and age, gender and language accounted for an additional 9%. Age was the strongest predictor in the last model. These results indicate that the number of creative products or activities done by the participant may vary as a function of age. Over half of all participants were still in secondary education (age = 13 15), and participate in Art lessons at school. This may have led to more creative behaviours than the other participants who would not have had the opportunity to partake in the creative activities indicated on the BICB. Third, the Big Five personality factors only accounted for 4% of the variance in self-rated creativity. Again, extraversion was the strongest and only significant predictor in the model. These findings are inconsistent with previous studies where Openness to Experience predicted self-rated creativity (Furnham, 1999). Selfrated measures of creativity are open to greater bias than the scores produced by an individual on a DT test. The self-rated creativity scale used in this study asked participants to compare themselves to other people. Fourth, the regression for creative judgement indicated that only 3% of the variance in the BWAS was accounted for by the Big Five. Extraversion was again the strongest predictor. This is consistent with the findings of Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic (2004) who found that art judgement was significantly related to Extraversion. However, the Graves Maitland Design Test (Graves, 1948) was used in that study as the measure of art judgement which is similar to the BWAS in format. Thus, personality correlates in artistic perception as measured by the BWAS may vary according to the type of sample. In the final regression, intelligence, age, gender and participants first language accounted for an additional 1%. These results indicate that as only 4% of the variance was accounted for in the model, factors other than personality and intelligence account for the variance in BWAS scores. When a composite creativity score was computed, findings indicate that open extraverts that are low in neuroticism were the most creative. Carroll (1993) suggests that correlations between different measures of creativity may indicate the presence of a general creativity factor, what he called factor c. Although the findings supported the hypothesis that Extraversion will be a significant predictor of creativity, Openness to Experience was only a significant predictor in DT. Previous studies have found that Openness to Experience was significantly related to art experience (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004), and that artists were roughly half a standard deviation higher on Openness to Experience (Feist, 1998). Creativity research remains something

5 A. Furnham, V. Bachtiar / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) of a backwater for differential psychologists because of problems associated with operationalising the variable. This study demonstrated that individual differences predictor variables differed in their power to measure different creativity measures. Further it did not test any big theory of creativity such as that of Sternberg and O Hara (2000) that outlined other individual difference variables like knowledge, thinking style and motivation not considered in this modest study. On the whole, the prediction that personality traits will account for most of the variance in creativity is only true when creativity is measured by DT and the BICB. Future investigations may want to use different tests of intelligence, making the distinction between fluid and crystallised intelligence and how each of these correlate with which aspects of creativity. Furthermore, it may be beneficial to rate the DT tests for originality, potentially using the Amabile (1982) Consensual Assessment Technique. This method is a reliable subjective assessment technique in which different judges independently rate the originality of each of the unusual uses produced in the DT test until an agreement is made. References Aguilar-Alonso, A. (1996). Personality and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. New York: Westview. Andrews, E. G. (1930). The development of imagination in the preschool child. Iowa City: The University. Barron, F. X. (1955). The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 51, Batey, M. D. (2007). A psychometric investigation of everyday creativity. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of London. Batey, M. D., & Furnham, A. F. (2006). Creativity, intelligence and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social and General Psychology, 132, Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Cronbach s alpha. British Medical Journal, 314, 572. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytical studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Cropley, A. J. (1968). A note on the Wallach Kogan test of creativity. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 38, Dodrill, C. B. (1983). Long-term reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, Dodrill, C. B., & Warner, M. H. (1988). Further studies of the Wonderlic personnel test as a brief measure of intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum. Eysenck, H. J., & Furnham, A. F. (1993). Personality and the Barron Welsh art scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2, Furnham, A. F. (1999). Personality and creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, Furnham, A. F., Batey, M. D., Anand, D., & Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, Furnham, A. F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality, intelligence, and art. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behaviour: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. Oxford, England: Wiley. Graves, M. (1948). Design Judgement Test. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary Imaginations. London: Methuen. Kaufmann, G. (2003). Expanding the Mood Creativity equation. Creativity Research Journal, 15, King, L., Walker, L., & Broyles, S. (1996). Creativity and the five factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, Lubart, T. I. (2003). In search of creative intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Lautrey (Eds.), Models of intelligence: International perspectives. Washington, USA: American Psychological Association. Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Penguin Books. McCloy, W., & Meier, N. C. (1931). Re-creative imagination. Psychological Monographs, 51, Mumford, M. D. (2003a). Taking stock in taking stock. Creativity Research Journal, 15, Mumford, M. D. (2003b). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, Rosen, J. C. (1955). The Barron Welsh art scale as a predictor of originality and level of ability among artists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, Sen, A. K., & Hagtvet, K. A. (1993). Correlations among creativity, intelligence, personality, and academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, Silva, P. (2008). Another look at creativity and intelligence: Exploring higher-order models and probable confounds. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The big five personality traits and the life course: A 45 year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful Intelligence. New York: Plume. Sternberg, R. J., & O Hara, L. A. (2000). Intelligence and Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp ). New York: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press. Wallace, H. R. (1961). Creative thinking: A factor in sales productivity. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 9, Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Welsh, G. S. (1987). Manual for the Barron Welsh Art Scale. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Wonderlic, E. (1992). Wonderlic Personnel Test. IL: Libertyville. Wuthrich, V., & Bates, T. C. (2001). Schizotypy and latent inhibition: non-linear linkage between psychometric and cognitive markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,