This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 04 November 2014, At: 11:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

A Study of Some of the FactorsLeading to Achievementand Creativity, with SpecialReference to ReligiousSkepticism and BeliefWalter Houston Clark aa Hartford Seminary FoundationPublished online: 30 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Walter Houston Clark (1955) A Study of Some of the FactorsLeading to Achievement and Creativity, with Special Reference to ReligiousSkepticism and Belief, The Journal of Social Psychology, 41:1, 57-69, DOI:10.1080/00224545.1955.9714252

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1955.9714252

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, 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 theContent.

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 isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal o f Social Psychology, 1955, 41, 57-69.

A STUDY OF SOiME OF THE FACTORS L E A D I N G TO A C H I E V E M E N T A N D CREATIVITY, WITH SPECIAL

REFERENCE TO RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM A N D BELIEF*

Hartford Seminary Foundation

WALTER HOUSTON CLARK’

A. BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS The biographies of many creative persons show a background of religious

upbringing and belief. About a generation ago Visher in a large scale in- vestigation (6) found that persons listed in Who’s Who in America came from the homes of ministers about twice as often as they did from the homes of professional men in general. More recently Visher has shown that scien- tists starred in American M e n o f Science have a high proportion of ministers among fathers and grandfathers (6, pp. 95-101). In more restricted studies carried forward at Yale and Harvard at about the same time as Visher’s earlier work Huntington and Whitney largely confirmed Visher (3, pp. 220-239) and also found missionaries and missionaries’ sons to be considered by classmates the ablest individuals in their classes. I t seems strange that among psychologists there has been so little follow up of these important findings.

Similar conclusions are suggested when one considers the backgrounds of other famous creative persons where religious homes and religious influ- ences have obviously played a large part as factors in the matter and motiva- tion of creativity. Perhaps the most available testimony to this lies in the productions of literature, where autobiographical urges have made at least parts of the creative process particularly visible. Here we find religion a prominent factor, though more characteristically and somewhat paradoxi- cally, along with the contrary tendency of skepticism. Such productions as the Book of Job, the Confessions of St. Augustine, Milton’s writings, Car- lyle’s Sartor Resnrtus, Tennyson’s I n Memoriam, Tolstoi’s writings, and -

*Received in the Editorial Office on January 11, 1953. 1The author acknowledges with thanks advice from Prof. Pitiritn Sorokin, Direc-

tor of the Research Center for Altruistic Creativity at Harvard University, which financed the study; also to Dr. S. Rains Wallace of the Life Insurance Agency Man- agement Associates of Hartford, Conn., for help with statistical matters; and to the A. N. Marquis Co., publishers of Who’s W h o i n America, for cooperation in mailing out and collecting many of the questionnaires.

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

58 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Emerson's Essays are only a few illustrative examples. I n all these cases it is obvious to the casual reader that the process of creativity has been stimulated in no small degree both by religious urges and by skepticism and probably also by the tension between the two. This has led the writer to develop a theory of creativity and achievement involving the two factors of belief and skepticism. This is that religious belief with its sweeping and comprehensive explanation of cosmic mysteries tends to constitute a par- ticularly durable and intense form of motivation. Along with this motiva- tion there tends to be found the highly desirable attitudes of social responsi- bility, ethical obligation, and that sense of the reality of non-material value which historically has played such as important r6le in creativity. Never- theless under the influence of orthodoxy and the tendency to allow a mere verbalization of belief to replace real conviction the energy of the psyche is often turned inward or into a defensive and emotional effort to protect the verbalized belief as part of the ego. This may build up tension of a kind, but it is not available for creative fruits useful to society. Hence, we have the narrow-minded, unfertile, bigoted, and repressive type of religious person who does so much to discredit religion with many thinking persons. T h e function of skepticism in such a situation is to raise horizons and direct the energy of the psyche away from the narrow, inward, defensive concerns or the restricted area of some orthodoxy outward to matters of broader im- portance. Such might be art, music, literature, social service, or even politi- cal and business enterprise.

One might here raise the question whether religious belief is not almost wholly undesirable from a creative point of view since it so often is associ- ated with narrowness and whether skepticism is not wholly desirable since it tends to act against narrowness and to open the door to creativity. O u r results suggest some support for this point of view. However, our theory is that the common forms of religious belief are basically positive and motivate because they seem to make sense out of life and are concrete. Skepticism is amorphous and has a tendency to degenerate into cynicism or at least to confuse and dissipate the individual's zest for living. Wi th motivation un- determined creativity is diminished. Consequently the ideal situation with respect to creativity and achievement would seem to involve a balance be- tween belief and skepticism, with religious beliefs and attitudes supplying motivation and direction while skepticism directs the attention toward new forms and discovery. In addition the tension between the two forces is a source of energy, which is an important factor in the dynamics of the situa- tion. I t would seem, however, that this ideal situation of equilibrium and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

WALTER HOUSTON CLARK 59

tension is somewhat rare and unstable. Either belief is in process of being confined more and more rigorously and defensively between creedal barriers, or else skepticism is in process of dissipating the motivation built up by be- lief. From the point of view of worthwhile achievement and creativity neither extreme is desirable; the mean is.

Obviously this, like all theories of personality, is an over-simplification and merely highlights a few of the factors in creativity. But it would seem to fit to some extent the process at work in some acts of creativity in some individuals ; the writers mentioned above, for example.

This was the hypothesis central in the investigator’s mind in his empirical search for some of the factors favoring or hindering creativity and achieve- ment. T h e investigation was not confined to the factors just discussed be- cause we did not want t o be tied too closely to our preconceived ideas but preferred to survey a wider field for perspective and comparison.

B. PROCEDURE AND RESULTS A questionnaire was prepared and sent out to 2,000 biographees in Who’s

Who in America and to a group of 1,000 of similar age and sex taken from the alumni lists of Williams and Middlebury colleges. T h e idea was that the Who’s Who group would represent superior achievement and creativity, while the college group, unselected with respect to achievement, would repre- sent not indeed a very exact control group but nevertheless afford a rough means of comparison. T h e questionnaire stated that it was part of a study of achievement and creativity and asked the cooperation of the respondent. It was stated that no name was necessary but promised a summary of re- sults for those who wished to give name and address. In the latter case it was promised that personal data would be held in confidence. Information was requested on about 35 points with respect to the respondent and his parents. These were such as were thought possibly to have some bearing on achievement and creativity. T h e concern was not merely with the com- parison between the two groups but was designed partly to learn what intel- ligent people thought about factors affecting their own achievements and creative acts. Finally each person was asked what he considered his most enjoyable and/or most important creative achievement, then with respect to this he was asked to describe so far as he could motives, circumstances that led to it, how the idea may have formed, what facilitated its execution, and any other pertnent information. T h e purpose of this was to suggest clues or to disclose insights into the dynamics of the creative process.

The results of the questionnaire have been set forth in Table 1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

60 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 1 Williams and Middlebury

alumni IVho’s Who respondents GENERAL INFORMATION % %

Number of questionnaires tabulated 185 116

Median age of respondents 61 60 Number of women 21 11 7 6 Number with some progres-

sive education 22 12 16 14 Father or Father or

OCCUPATION. Self % guardian % Self ”/o guardian % Religious work (mostly

the ministry) 19 10 14 7.5 10 8.5 17 15 Teaching and education 52 27 11 6 40 35 7 6 Professional andthear ta 55 30 33 18 51 46 22 19 Business 43 23 65 35 14 11 42 37 Farming 5 Manual labor 1 Housewife 12 None stated 3

FACTORS FELT TO HAMPER ABILITIES AND CREATIVITY

Fear of investigation by legislators Fear of being thought Communist Fear of being thought fascist Fear of being thought reactionary Fear of lessening economic security Fear of losing status or “face”

Interest and satisfaction in work

Desire to aid society Desire to find and create beauty Desire to know and to understand Desire to see that others do

Desire for new experience Desire for economic security Desire to overcome handicaps Desire to fulfil one’s religious destiny Desire to please someone . Desire for social recognition

FACTORS PLAYING A CONSTRUCTIVE PART

for own sake

things properly

RELIGIOUS AND OTHER DATA Father

Religious faith Disoosition to cluestion beliefs IntdIectuaI curibsity

Religious faith Disposition to question beliefs Intellectual curiosity

Religious faith Disposition to question beliefs Intellectual curiosity Bodily vigor Economic aid Extent religious beliefs a creative

factor in secular achievements Extent secular achievements a cre-

Mother

Self

2.5 36 19 0 0 16 14 .5 17 9 0 0 13 11 6 3 1.5 0 0 0 0 1.5 1 4 1 1 1 1

Number rating Number rating ence Mean Mean Differ-

148 1.08 79 1.05 -.03 151 151 153 154 153

179 175 166 171

169 170 179 161 163 173 157

156 150 148

149 139 144

158 164 163 162 138

150

1.13 1.30 2.16 1.80

6.07 4.94 3.62 5.54

4.36 4.55 4.59 3.12 3.65 4.27 2.56

4.71 3.57 4.26

5.56 3.41 4.10

4.81 4.62 5.10 5.12 2.87

3.76

.. 79 78 83 82 81

105 100 88 100

91 97 98 84 89 96 90

95 88 93

95 86 90

98 99 99 88 80

95

1.05 1.08 1.35 1.82 1.70

6.32 4.97 3.81 5.66

4.02 4.92 4.75 2.60 3.03 4.45 3.00

4.78 3.72 4.45

5.45 3.13 3.86

4.23 5.38 5.40 5.00 2.76

3.31

-.02 -.o 5

.05 -*34 -,lo

.25

.03

.19

.12

-.34 .37 -16

-.52 -.62 .18 .44

.07

.15

.19

-,11 -.28 -.24

-.58 .76 .30

-.12 -.11

-.45 -

ative influence on religious beliefs 142 3.03 83 2.93 -,I0 *Total percentages will not always equal 100 since some listed two occupations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

WALTER HOUSTON CLARK 61

It will be noted that response was very low particularly in the Who’s Who category. I t was thought that to have questionnaires sent out with request for biographical data by the publishers would insure a good yield, but this method was not very fruitful. When it is considered that about 20 of the college alumni were listed in Who’s Who and so were transferred to that group it is seen that the yield from the Who’s W h o mailings was less than 5 per cent, as compared with about 20 per cent through direct solicitation. Even though the latter involved a mimeographed letter, perhaps a hand- addressed envelope with the printed name and address of the investigator seemed more personal and so explained the difference. How these yields may have affected the findings could not be determined. There were 185 in the college alumni group and only 116 from Who’s Who respondents. The median age of the two groups was high, as might be expected, and very com- parable a t 61 and 60. For some reason a higher percentage of alumni women responded than did women in Who’s Who, though in both cases these were a small proportion of the total. Since progressive educators make much of teaching methods supposed to stimulate achievement and creativity, it was thought that perhaps the Who’s Who group would more often report such training. T h e proportions were small for both groups and gave no signifi- cant2 indication of such a tendency.

However, one occupational difference between the two groups is worth noting. This is that proportionally twice as many of the Who’s Who group came from ministers’ families as did the college alumni. Our numbers here are small so that the difference fails of significance at the 5 per cent level of confidence though it is so at the 10 per cent level. Since this confirms very closely the findings of Visher, we are probably safe in assuming that this represents a real difference, so that we are entitled to speculate as to why ministers’ children should have an advantage in achieving the kind of eminence that makes for inclusion in Who’s Who. T h e investigator has often asked his friends informally for an explanation of such findings. Most often it is said that the standards of selection in Who’s Who favor ministers’ sons who, beside religious work, are apt to enter the learned professions and the arts. However, this does not explain why the children of teachers and professional men do not also share this advantage. Another suggestion is that the superiority of ministers’ wives as mothers may explain it. This appeals to us as perhaps more cogent, though it seems that no systematic study has ever been made to support the underlying assumption of such su- periority. In line with our hypothesis, however, it would seem that whether

2Statistical significance throughout is measured by chi-square.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

62 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

from the clergyman or his wife, the minister’s child absorbs a fundamentally serious view of the significance of life to a greater degree than do others. This carries with it attitudes of altruism and responsibility which constitute motivation of a superior strength which though only one factor among many, nevertheless may help to explain the advantage.

T h e occupation of both the respondent and his father or guardian was asked for. I n the Who’s Who group there was a higher percentage of those in education and the professions and a lower percentage in business. Be- cause of the character of Who’s Who this might have been expected, and it might be argued that this difference would tend considerably to reduce the comparability of the two groups. Yet an inspection of some of the items which might be expected to be most sharply affected by such differences indi- cates little influence. T h e Who’s Who group rates itself only slightly and not significantly higher on the desire to know and to understand, while on the desire for economic security the same group feels that the desire for economic security was actually a more important factor in achievement than did the college graduate group with a much higher percentage of business men. There was much more uniformity with respect to the fathers’ occu- pations so that we can assume a rather high degree of uniformity in back- ground of the two groups. It would seem then that we have more factors controlled than might be expected from our rather crude method of selection, and while we must be very tentative in our conclusons yet the foregoing considerations would seem to strengthen our feeling that the chief differentia- tion between the groups is the higher average level of achievement of the Who’s Who respondents.

After the inquiries about occupation there was a section in which the re- spondent was asked about factors felt to hamper his creativity and abilities. For these and most of the subsequent items he was asked to rate their im- portance on a seven-point scale with seven representing an extremely high degree, one a negligible degree, and four an average degree of the factor in question. T h e form encouraged the respondent to add interpretative com- ments if he wished and left space for the noting of other factors not listed, Wi th a view to stimulating response the list started with items thought to have current popular appeal rather than those most central to the investi- gator’s interest. Here it is heartening to note, despite contemporary witch- hunting, that few seemed to feel hampered by fears of political persecution or the acquiring of undesirable idealogical labels. There was a slight tend- ency for both groups to show more concern over the label “reactionary” than “Communist” or “Fascist.” But even the fear of lessening economic security

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

WALTER HOUSTON CLARK 63

and losing status received ratings rather surprisingly low. Enough one ratings were received in these categories to suggest that the average person is much less conscious of being blocked or hampered or of undesirable ele- ments in his personality than he is of more constructive factors. I t will be noted that all the ratings in this group are below the lowest single rating in the next more positive section. Perhaps this is merely an illustration of the familiar Freudian tendency to repress the unpleasant. I t should be noted that there were many individual exceptions, for example several government employees who gave higher ratings to the fear of legislative investigation. Also there were a number who added items of special significance to them- selves such as race prejudice, lack of time, the necessity of giving attention to administrative detail, and deprecation by superiors. None of the differ- ences between the two groups were statistically significant, though perhaps it is worth noting that with one exception, the fear of being thought reac- tionary, the college alumni ratings were consistently somewhat higher than those of the Who’s Who group. This suggests that perhaps fears loom less large with people who are more able, a finding that, if confirmed, would not be surprising.

When we turn to the factors considered to have played a constructive part in creativity we note that both groups rate interest and satisfaction in work for its own sake as most important. When one considers that 7.00 would be the top rating possible both the mean of 6.07 for the alumni group and especially the 6.32 for the Who’s Who group are impressive figures. This factor was given a high rating often by people in lines of work not usually thought of as particularly creative, and even under unfavorable conditions, as for example, by the executive unwillingly forced to go into the family business. This would seem to lend support to G. W. Allport’s theory of the functional autonomy of motives (1, Chap. V I I ) and indicates that intelligent people recognize in the pursuit of a task a drive unrelated to any concrete conscious motive except the pleasure taken in the task itself as a condition of high importance in creative achievement. It would seem to need no special study to support this truth, but at least it is reassuring to secure empirical confirmation. This has obvious implications for parents, educators, and all those who are practically as well as theoretically inter- ested in an answer to the question of what produces creativity.

Second highest in this list, it will be noted, is the desire to know and to understand, synonymous with intellectual curiosity. W e would expect this to be important in the learned professions, but despite a higher propor- tion from this area in the Who’s Who group there was little difference in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

64 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

the ratings in the two categories, and there were many business men and housewives who rated this item high. Of course in all these ratings we must not take the absolute values too seriously in view of the common human tendency to over-estimate what one considers a desirable tendency in one- self, yet nearly all the motives listed as constructive are desirable, so that the relative strength of each item can be expected to have some significance. A t any rate it should be the source of some satisfaction to college professors to learn that alumni in diverse vocations so highly regard their desire for knowledge as a constructive factor in their achievements.

One would expect this socially approved motive to be personally as desirable as interest in work for its own sake. T h e difference between the ratings on these two items of more than one rating category for both groups is significant, and the fact they are both desirable factors suggests that the primacy of the latter repre- sents a real psychological difference and not just one due to wishful intro- spection. Again there is little difference between the mean ratings of the two groups which is small and insignificant. Fourth in importance comes the desire for new experience, of which perhaps we can think of the desire to know and to understand as a special case and so there was probably some overlapping between these two items. A t any rate it can be easily under- stood that both of these motives would play an important part in creativity. T h e desire for new experience, listed by W. I. Thomas as one of his famous “four wishes,” (4) which he found so essential a drive among immigrants adjusting to a new culture, is the enemy of routine, which in its turn is the enemy of creativity in its most essential sense.

Third from the lowest on the list came the desire to fulfill one’s religious destiny. Furthermore, though the difference between the two groups was not significant the mean of the Who’s W h o group was .62, or over half a cate- gory under that of the college alumni. This contradicts our hypothesis that religious motivation would be an important source of creativity and that the more able group would be more strongly motivated by it. However, as was also true of the desire to find and create beauty, there were great individual differences and a tendency to use the extreme categories. Wi th the exception of the desire to overcome handicaps, which was not a strictly comparable item, there was a greater tendency to use either the one or the sewen rating on religion than on any other item. Close to this was the desire to create beauty. As pointed out by the author elsewhere (2) studies have shown that aesthetic and religious values seem to be more durable and are more reliably measured than others. This may be due partly to a kind of all-or-

Third on the list comes the desire to aid society.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

WALTER HOUSTON CLARK 65

nothing quality that they possess to a greater degree than other sources of motivation. At any rate it was clear that some respondents regarded the desire to fulfill their religious destiny as their most important source of creativity. It is possible that the minority who are so motivated may have a social significance out of all proportion to their numbers and that for the secret of this type of creativity we should turn our eyes away from the: many and averages to the individual. Certainly the history of religion with its pre-eminence of the teacher and the prophet with their influence over millions suggests that our method may be at fault and that our hypothesis while faulty as a generalization may nevertheless be a cogent explanation of some of the most productive individual achievements of human creativity. Also it is possible that, with the notorious difficulty of defining religion, the more eminent group was more aware of the unorthodoxy of their type of religion and so with more of the essential spirit of religion they may have been more hesitant to define their motives as religious. After all it was the Publican in the Bible story who proved to be more religious than the Pharisee who vaunted his piety on the streets. Nevertheless there still re- mains the nagging thought that unless our hypothesis is to some extent faulty the more eminent group would not have lagged behind the others quite so far, and there is a better than four out of five chance that the differ- ence is a real one. I t is unlikely that more cases would show a contrary significance.

The other items in this section will be left to speak for themselves with- out further comment. However, with respect to the group as a whole i t might be noted that just as there was a general tendency of the alumnil group to rate fears somewhat higher, so there was the reverse tendency on the constructive list for the Who’s Who respondents to rate the positive items higher. This was so in eight of the 11 items, and on three of these, interest in work for its own sake, the desire for new experience, and the desire for recognition, the difference was rather marked, though in no single case in either direction was the difference between groups near statistical significance, Of the three cases where the Who’s Who group lagged behind the college alumni one was the religious item which has already been dis- cussed, while the other two were not strictly comparable items. T h e de- sire to see that others do things properly was designed to test the tendency to dominate others which is more likely than not to spring from non-creative tendencies, while the desire to overcome handicaps is built upon the existence of handicaps to overcome. Horatio Alger success philosophy to the contrary notwithstanding, it is not illogical to suppose that a handicap, as its defini-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

66 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

tion suggests, is more apt to be a hindrance to creativity than a help. W e might note then the tentative conclusion that constructive motives are some- what stronger in the more eminent than the less, certainly not a very ven- turesome statement in the light of common sense.

The last section was more particularly designed to procure data related to religion and the hypothesis on which we are particularly focusing. I t will be noticed that mothers are rated quite definitely as more religious than fathers. This confirms many studies that indicate that women as a group are more religious than are men (see 2). Also the mothers were rated as somewhat less disposed to question beliefs and less disposed to intellectual curiosity. There was no statistical significance to the rather minor absolute differences between the two groups in these areas.

When we come to the questions concerning the self, where the question- naire took special notice of attitudes toward religion, we find the chief statis- tically significant finding of the study. This was that the more eminent group rates its disposition to question beliefs .76 higher than the less emi- nent. While religion was not mentioned in the question itself, it directly followed the question about religious faith. In full the item read “disposi- tion to question received beliefs.” This was in order to get at the disposi- tion of skeptical inquiry not only with respect to religion but in other areas as well. In the heading to this general section the questionee was requested to consider religious faith as “any lively sense of a Power, Spirit, or Intelli- gence behind the universe.” I t will be noted that the mean of 5.38 means that the Who’s Who biographees consider their skepticism considerably above average, and the difference in their favor over the college alumni is signifi- cant at better than the one per cent level of confidence. This supports our hypothesis in part in that it suggests that able men and women tend to be more questioning in their attitudes toward beliefs they have received, than the less able. Though the difference is not statistically significant the Who’s Who respondents rate themselves less religious by .58 than the college alumni. As has before been intimated, this gives no support to our speculation that religion would more powerfully motivate the more able. However, the Who’s Who group does consider itself religious to an average degree, and it is possible that tension between belief and skepticism may have been a factor in accomplishment. I t may be noted that the spread between belief and skepticism for the college group is only .19 while for the Who’s Who group it is 1.15. However, i t would be hazardous to draw any definite conclusion here. Though the lesser religiousness of the more eminent group is not statistically significant it should be noted that it is supported by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

WALTER HOUSTON CLARK 67

rating on the tendency to fulfill one’s religious destiny in the previous section and also by the next to last item regarding the effect of religion on secular achievements. Also the greater disposition of this group to question beliefs would confirm this finding to the extent that skepticism was thought to be the antithesis of religiousness. Also not only is skepticism greater but the same is consistently true of characteristics that might be thought to have some close relation with it, such as intellectual curiosity, the desire for new experience, and the desire to know and to understand.

One last feature of the data has interesting theoretical considerations. There is a saying common in some evangelical religious circles that “you can make a scholar of a Christian, but you can’t make a Christian of a scholar.” Though a social scientist would be rash to stake his reputation by subscribing to such a generalization, nevertheless i t strikes us as having some basis in reality. A t any rate the basic assumption is somewhat similar to our own hypothesis that religious motivation will carry over to other fields. Moreover, the idea is that religious conviction is a more basic motivation so that it will affect non-religious activities to a greater degree than the non- religious activities affect it. The theoretical importance of this consideration involves the place and importance of religious belief in the personality struc- ture. It has practical importance too, for that religion is a fundamental and effective source of motivation is a popular assumption that explains in large part the high place held by religion in public regard and justifies many advantages for religious institutions.

It will be noted from Table 1 that both groups rated the extent that re- ligious beliefs had been a creative factor in their secular achievements as greater than the secular achievements an influence on religious beliefs. T o analyze the responses further, there were 107 indicating that religious be- liefs had greater influence while 32 said their secular achievements were more influential; 67 indicated that the influence was the same, while 57 rated both “1,” which means practically that there was no influence either way. USU- ally but by no means always the latter were people who had rated their religious beliefs “1” also. There is practically no chance that these figures would have occurred by chance. Therefore we can state with confidence for this population that the main flow of creative motivational influence is felt by the respondents to be from religious belief to secular achievement rather than vice versa. However, the influence is felt to operate in both directions by most though there were nearly a fifth of our total group who felt that there had been no influence in either direction, as we have already noted.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

68 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Individual descriptions of the creative process were most interesting in the case of a number of individuals, though it was obvious that to describe the roots and process of a creative act is a difficult assignment. While some felt the attempt to be rather futile, others felt that the exercise had been a most valuable and informative piece of introspection as a means of self- assessment. Quite a number made special mention of the appreciation of others, acclaim, or frequently, the influence of one particular person, which suggests the importance of social factors in creativity. Such comments were perhaps more prominent among the more eminent group. On the other hand the less eminent group were apt to mention more homely achievements as the source of their greatest satisfactions at the same time apologizing for calling them creative. Otherwise the descriptions given by the two groups seemed quite comparable. A general impression that emerged from reading the descriptions as a whole was that generalizations about creativity are valid only up to a certain point beyond which each creative act and the condi- tions for it are extremely individual. If this is so, it means that quantitative methods of study if trusted too blindly may be misleading, and it suggests that these methods should be supplemented by more individualized ap- proaches. W e should remember that a creative act, almost by definition, must have some element that discriminates it from all other creative acts. Consequently there is need of new methods for studies in this area. This study like others should be considered only as a hesitant beginning step in studying a most important and complex problem.

C. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Questionnaires were obtained from 116 biographees in Who’s Who

in America and 186 alumni of Williams and Middlebury colleges to gather data on what these persons tell about personal achievements they considered creative.

2. Special attention was paid to the hypothesis that creativity often results from a combination of faith and skepticism as sources of motivation together with the resulting ’tensions, so that more able people might be ex- pected to be both more religious and more skeptical than the less able.

3. T h e chief significant finding of the study was that the Who’s Who group rated themselves as more skeptical than the college alumni. How- ever, they were definitely not more religious and if anything less so, though they did rate themselves as average in religious faith. Hence these findings gave only partial support to the hypothesis.

Most of the respondents reported a creative interaction between re-

1.

The two groups served partly as a means of comparison.

4.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

WALTER HOUSTON CLARK 69

ligious belief and secular achievement, though with a significantly greater influence of belief on achievement than achievement on belief. This sug- gests that religious motivation carries over into the secular field and may have a basic position in the personality structure as a source of drive. This finding would appear to support the hypothesis.

5. Twice as many of the more eminent group came from ministers’ families. Though not statistically significant this finding supports other studies and lends some support to the hypothesis.

There was no support for the idea that the more eminent might have been educated more often by progressive methods.

Respondents were much less aware of factors hampering their cre- ativity than constructive factors; but Who’s Who biographees tended to rate constructive factors higher, and hampering factors lower than the com- parison group.

8. T h e highest rated constructive factors leading to creativity were considered to be first interest and satisfaction in work for its own sake, sec- ond the desire ;o know and to understand, third the desire to aid society, and fourth the desire for new experience. Religious motivation was rela- tively low on the list, but it was noted that individuals tended to rate it either very high or very low to a greater extent than other factors. Con- sequently averages may be misleading in this area.

T h e study of accounts by individuals of their creative experiences suggests that generalizations about them are valid only up to a certain point beyond which quantitative methods are inapplicable. Hence new, more individualized methods of study to supplement the quantitative are needed in this area.

REFERENCES

6.

7.

9.

1. ALLPORT, G. W. Personality. New York: Holt, 1937. 2. CLARK, W. H. The psychology of religious values. In Personality. New York:

3 . HUNTINGTON, E., & WHfTNEY, L. F. The Builders of America. New York:

4. THOMAS, W. I., & ZNANfEKI, F. The Polish Peasant. New York: Knopf, 1927. 5. VISHER, S. S. Scientists Starred 1903-1947 in American Men of Science. Balti-

more: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1947. 6. - . A study of the type of the place of birth and the occupation of sub-

jects of sketches in Who’s Who in dmerica. Amer. J . Sociol., 1925, SO, 551-557.

549 Palisado Avenue Windsor , Connecticut

Grune & Stratton, 1950.

Morrow, 1927. Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

24 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014