t*A L*) /f tnt'jltx r >K Dean of.-the r^-^/67531/metadc... · than the low-creative students on...
Transcript of t*A L*) /f tnt'jltx r >K Dean of.-the r^-^/67531/metadc... · than the low-creative students on...
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW CREATIVE
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS ON AM OBJECTIVE
MEASURE OF PERSONALITY
APPHOVED:
or Professor Major
£ t*A L*) / f tnt'jltx rtinor Professor
r ">K i^rs^ t Z£b
Dean of.-the School of Education
yfcfC-LrJHfl > <y^J4r^-^ Dean*-of the Graduate School
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HIGH Alfl) LOW CREATIVE
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS ON AN OBJECTIVE
MSA-SURE OP PERSONALITY
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
By
Jackson D. Williams, B« 5,
Denton, Texas
January, 1968
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page LISf OP TABLES lv
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem Hypothecs Importance of the Study Definition of Terms
II. BELATED STUDIES 10
III, METHODOLOGY 22
Subjects Instruments Procedure Statistical Analysis
IV. RESULTS 27
V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AID SUMMARY. . . . . . . . 3^
Summary
APPENDIX . . . . . . kZ
BIBLIOGRAPHY .4?
ill
LIST OP TABLES
Table Page
I. t Test for Significant Difference Between Drama and Non-drama Groups on Measure of Creativity 2?
II. Hotelling*s Test for Significant Difference Between High Creative and Low Creative Subjects on G2TS . . • 28
III. Means and Standard Deviations for High, Group II, and Low Creative, Group I, Subjects on the Eight Subscales from the GZTS 29
IV. Simultaneous Confidence Interval Test for Significant Difference Between GZTS Subscales G, A, and T for High Creative and Low Creative Groups . . . *30
V. Simultaneous Confidence Interval Test for Significant Difference Between GZTS Subscales R, S, P, P, and M for High and Low Creative Subjects . 3 1
Iv
CilAPTEH I
INTRODUCTION
The question of how the creative individual differs from
the non-creative Individual strikes to the center of psycholo-
r<j* ''
glcal and educational goals.; A variety of authors h-'ve offered
models of the creative Individual In an attempt to understand
the elusive quality ( 2, if-, 5* ?» 8, 9# 12, 13. 1*0. Guilford
(6, 7, 8) has developed a model of intellect which analyzes
the basic processes of the creative or productive thinker.
In analyzing the structure of intelligence, he states that
the category of operations is the distinguishing characteristic
between creative and non-creative individuals, Guilford pro-
poses that intellect Is made up of three major structurest
/operations, contents, and products. The operations structure
is defined as containing the najor kinds of intellectual
activities. These activities are 1. cognition or awareness
of Information, 2, memory or the retention of Information, 3.
©valuation or the m k i n ? of judgements about Information,
convergent thinking, the reaching of the conventional (best)
solution from given Information, and 5* divergent thinking,
the .veneration of new and unusual ideas from a single source.
For Guilford, this last characteristic of Intellect is the
-aajor determinant of creative or productive thinking.
The subclass divergent thinking consists of word fluency
and Ideational fluency, semantic spontaneous flexibility and
fIgural spontaneous flexibility, association®! fluency and
expresslonal fluency, flgural adaptive flexibility and symbolic
adaptive flexibility, originality, and elaboration, Now through
this sifting process, the elements of creativity, as seen by
Guilford, are brought into focus. The creative person is
fluent, flexible, and original. The Individual has the ability
to transform thoughts, reinterprete ideas, and is ^...free
from functional fixedness In the derivation of unique solutions"
(8, p. 11). Sensitivity is another important condition for
creativity. This is an evaluative ability and results in a
transformation of ideas (8),
Whereas the Guilford model of the structure of Intellect
describes the Intellectual processes associated with productive
thinking, the psychoanalytic writers (1, 4, 10, 11) attempt
to describe the developmental sequences In th© personalities
of the creative Individual that distinguish him from the non-
creative individual. Two main themes underlie the psychoana-
lytic approach to creativity. The first is exemplified by
Deutsch (3) when he states that the source of creativity is
conflict in the same node as neurotic conflict. Deutsch states
that the motive and function of the creative production is
"As the instinctual pressure rises and a neurotic solution
appears Imminent, the unconscious defenst against it leads to
the creation,... The psychic effect is the discharge of the
t»ent-up emotion until a tolerable level Is reached" (3* P* 3*0 •
The material for working out the conflicts, which becomes the
substance of the creative production. Is founded In the experi-
ences of childhood. A current event, which makes a strong
impression on an individual, stirs a memory of an earlier experi-
ence, The memory arouses a wish that finds fulfillment In a
creative work, and elements of both the recent event and the
"oeuory are discernible in the production. The ?isajor Issues In
Beutsch's approach, and in like manner Freud's (^) approach, are
that croativity has its beginnings In conflict. The function
of the creative production is tension reduction. Day-dreaming
and childhood play stive rise to related fantasies and freely
rising Ideas, and creative production Is a substitution for
and continuation of childhood play.
These early conceptions of the psychoanalytic frame of
reference, though still advocated by Deutsch and others, have
been replaced by a later Freudian conception, the preconscious
processes. Such authors as Kris (10), Kubie (11), and Alexander
(1) have dealt with the ramif1cations of the preconscious
processes in tens of creativity. Kris (10) states that ego
regression, or the regression of the ego into more primitive
states, occurs not only in a weak ego, or in sleep or fantasy
or psychoses, but =>lso during types of creative processes.
Accordingly, the preconscious thought Is entrusted for a moment
to unconscious elaboration and is not overwhelmed by these
unconscious forces. Thus the creative ego has the power or
ability to regulate its regression. Kubie (11) pl&oes the
creative process directly within the preconscious processes
and states that their contribution depends "upon their freedom
in gathering, assembling, comparing and reshuffling Ideas"
(11, p. 370). He goes on to state that flexibility of the sym-
bolic imagery is essential to the creative endeavors of man-
kind* The distinction between the oreative and the non-creative
Individual evolves into this*, creative thought derives from
the elaboration of freely rising fantasies and ideas from the
preconscious processes. The creative person accepts these
freely rising ideas and the non-creative individual suppresses
them due to predominant conscious controls.
Other authors in other areas have expounded theoretical
models of creativity and creative individuals besides the two
very formal and formidable models previously presented (9* 12,
13)• Hitt (9 ) proposes a two-factor theoretical formulation
of creativity in which he depicts the creative process as
being a balance between logical reasoning and intuitive think-
ing. Hitt states that in the early life of the creative Indi-
vidual, there was a balance between novel and conventional
behavior. He also postulates that the hone life of the creative
individual was marked by a freeing atmosphere in which the child
was allowed to make his own mistakes while being held respon-
sible for his actions at all times.
Murphy (12) postulates that creatlveness begins with
sensitivities, Impressions, wants, and energies, and the first
of these Murphy Intended to be a sensitiveness to some form
of sensory experience. But concomitant with sensitiveness is
found a delight with this sensitiveness and a ramifying of it
into all directions., The result of the Initial controlling
drive is an Inveterate habit. As satiation occurs of a specific
type of sensation or goal, a new and more complex goal of the
same type Is set by the organism. Creativity Is, In effect, a
learned phenomenon. This learning, however, is easily arrested
by frustrations and the demands of a conventional, conforming
society. In likeness to psychoanalytic teachings, Murphy
remarks that the creative individual freely relates to what he
termed the co-conscious processes. These non-conscious ideas
or products surge upon the conscious mind and flood the creative
individual's existence with a torrent of ideas and thoughts.
Perry (13) has sifted through the maze of written work
on creativity and synthesized several component parts of the
creative or productive Individual. Four major criterion cate-
gories are involved to nake the recognizlble creative individual.
These four are intuitive thinking, tolerance of ambiguity,
originality and freedom from anxiety. He states that all intact,
normally functioning individuals are born with the potential
for creative productivity. Early experiences with a freeing
environment are, according to Perry's formulation, the catalyst
that makes the individual creative.
The theoretical orientations presented above all make a
singular point} that point being that the highly creative
individual differs from the low-creative individual due to
factors referred to as personality variables. The question
remains, however, whether or not on objective personality
inventories the highly creative individual will answer differ-
ently from the low-creative individual.
Statement of The Problem
This study was conducted.to determine if high-creative
college students differ from low-creative college students on
an objective measure of personality. An additional purpose
was to determine if university drama majors are more creative
than non-drama majors. In order to find solutions to the
problems and based on the theoretical models of the creative
individual previously mentionedt the following specific hypo-
theses are offered for investigation.
Hypotheses
I. Junior and senior dra?na majors will score significantly
higher—be more creative—on the Brick Uses Test and the
Ooftriltlve-Wldth Test than will a croup of randomly selected
university juniors and seniors from areas excluding art and
nusi c.
II. The high-creative student, as measured by the Brick
Uses Test and the Cognitive-Width Test, regardless of his
•Major field of endeavor, will score significantly higher
than the low-creative students on these Guilford-Zlmmerraan
Temperament Survey scales: G (general activity), A
(ascendance), T (reflectiveness).
JIT. The high-creative student, as measured by the .Brick
Uses Test and the Cognitive-Width Test. regardless of his
uajor field of endeavor, will score significantly lower than
the low-creative student on these Gullford-Zimmerman Tempera-
ment Survey scales s R (restraint), S {sociability), P
(friendliness), P (cooperatlveness), M (masculinity).
Importance of The Study
The results of these hypotheses will afford the counselor
another aid when faced with the difficult task of assessing
creative potential. In addition results could indicate a
starting point in re-evaluating a student who is consistently
at odds with his teachers. This would bring more sharply into
focus the possibility that a troublesome student may be a
highly creative but bored student. Results could aid the
psychologist in making alternative judgements to the "sick-
no r-nal" continuum when analysing personality data. This study
would also indicate a starting -lace for better understanding
the stereotype of the drama, student as something, of an oddity
in the university population. These possibilities inake this
statement from Barron (2) more poignantly clear, "...our
capacity for creative thought nay literally make all the dif-
ference in the world. Human creativity may prove to be the
8
key to success or failure In mankind*s quest for knowledge
and...in his exploration of the unknown" (2, p. 8).
Definition of Terms
High creative: a total score on the Brick Usea Test and
the Positive-Width Test of ?6 or more*
Low creative? a total score on the Briefc Uses Test and
the Cog;nltlve»t«fl&th Test of 75 or less.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alexander, Franz, "Neurosis and Creativity,** American Journal of Psychoanalysis. XXIV, 1964, 115-131.
2. Barron, Prank, Croatlvlty and Psychological Health, Princeton, D, Van Mostratid Company, Inc., 1963.
3. Deutsch, P., "*ind, Body and Art," Daedalus. LXXXIX; i 9 6 0 , 29-37.
4. Freud, S., "The Interpretation of Dreams,n The Basic Writings of Slgmund Freud. edited by A. A. Brill, New'' York," Random House, Inc., 193®.
5. Getzels, J. W. and P. V», Jackson, Creativity and Intelli-gence , New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.
6. Guilford, J.P., "Creative Abilities in the Arts," Psychological Review, LXIV, 1957, 110-118.
7. _ t Personality. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959*
8. Guilford, J. P., and P. R. Merrlfield, The Structure-of-Intellect Modelt Its U^es and Implications, University of Southern California, Number 2U-, I 9 6 0 .
9. Hltt, W. D., "Toward A Two-Factor Theory of Creativity," The Psychological Record. XV, 1 9 6 5 , 127-132.
10. Kris, Ernst, "On Preconscious Mental Processes," Psycho-analytic Quarterly. XIX, 1950, 539-555.
11. Kubiet L. S., Neurotic Distortion of the Creativej Lawrence," University of Kansas Press, 1958. "
12. Murphy, G., Personality: A Blosoclal Approach to Origins and Structure. New York, Basic Books, Inc,, 19C"
13. Perry, fl. T., Education Department, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, personal interview.
14. Torrance, E, P., Guiding; Creative Talent, Englewoods Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-hall, Inc., 1962.
CHAPTER 11
BELATED STUDIES
Various researchers (1, 10, 11, 6) have Investigated the
relationship of creativity and personality variables in an
attempt to better understand the creative individual.
MacKinnon (6) evaluated three groups of architects of high,
medium, and low creativity as measured by university professor
ratings and direct, objective ueasureiaant. The personality
ratings done on these groups utilized the Minnesota Multi-
phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the California Per-
sonality Inventory (CPI). The did not show significant
differences on any scale except the masculinity-femininity
scale or Mf. On the CFI, however, the two extreme groups—
high and low creative architects—did differ significantly
(p=.05) on some important variables. The profiles of the
low-creative group or group III were more favorable or well
adjusted profiles. The high-creative group—group I —was
significantly deviate on scales Sy (sociability), So (social-
ization) , Sc (self-control), Gi (good Impression), Sa (self-
acceptance) and Pe (femininity). The group I architects were
viewed as more confident, more able to express themselves,
more spontaneous, more outspoken, free from conventional res-
traint and inhibitions and not interested in making .. good
impression on others. The group III architects were .escribed
11
as toeing more like the American population In general than Ilk©
the creative architects.
Elduson (3) Investigated the possibility that Individuals
In the arts are different from Individuals not in the arts on
characteristics of thinking, perception* personality make-up,
and motivational structure. His study Involved three groups
of subjects. The first group—group I—was a group of univer-
sity students from the arts who came to the counseling service
at the school for psychological help. The second group—group
II—was a fairly well matched group to the first but these
subjects did not come to the counseling service for help. The
third group—group III—was a group of students from the areas
of general business, accounting, sales, and management.
Elduson used the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception
Test (TAT) to determine the personality dynamics of the subjects,
To summarize the findings of his study, Elduson derived com-
posite paragraphs to describe the art students and the non-
art students. The art student was/described asJimaginative
and curious about the world around him. He was eager to find
unique ways of communicating his feelings and experiences to
others. He felt that his work not only offered him a chance
to express himself but also to bring him the recognition and
admiration that he sought. He tried to rid himself of those
Influences which he felt were outtjoded or not representative
of his own thoughts. He was unthreatened by unusual, original
or ambiguous ideas. The non-art student was described by
12
Eiduson as "being practical and down to earth. He tried to
find realistic solutions to all problems he encountered, He
felt that those things which have been tried and proved true
are the most reliable* He felt that there was not much advan-
tage In looking for solutions which were not directly realis-
able or which might not be effective in altering the daily
conditions of life. He was disturbed by indecision and did
not hesitate to rely on the knowledge and attitudes of others
to provide a stable and secure environment. He wanted his
own personal psychological role to be well defined.
A more specific study was the one reported by Little John
(4) which used the Nelch Figure Preference Test to dichotomize
a group of subjects into high creative® and low creatlves.
Female-Male scale from the same Instrument was used to
indicate the direction of masculine-feminine interests. The
results indicated significant (.05 level) sex identification
reversals for the group designated highly creative*
Marks, Michael, and Kaiser (7) tried to ascertain what
psychological dimensions of creativity and temperament exist
for "ferine officers. The results showed that eight of the
subscales from the Gullford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey
could be subsumed under three trait categories which the
authors devised. The three were afflllatlveness, aggressive-
ness, and inhibitory control. These three trait categories
differentiated the "more productive Marine officer" from the
"less productive Marine officer" (?» p . 6 3 6 ) .
13
Lundln and Lathrop (5) conducted a study using three
groups of male subjects from the junior and senior classes of
a university population. The first group was made up of
biology-chemistry majors, the second was composed of history
majors, and the third was English literature majors. The
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was used
as a criterion measure of personality. Using a Kruakal-Wallls
one-way analysis of variance* the authors found no significant
differences among their three groups on any of the clinical
scales from the MMPI. Smaller groups were then derived from
the larger sample. These groups were made up of the students
who were intending to pursue graduate study in their major
field. The same statistical analysis was applied to these
new groups and two scales yielded significant differences
among the three groups. The scales were Pt (psychasthenla)
and So (schizophrenia)* A Mann-Whitney U Test was applied to
the entire sample on these two scales. It was found that the
history majors differed signifioantly from the English liter-
ature majors on both of these scales*
In a study proposed to determine whether or not high-
creative art students differed from low-creative art students,
Allred (1) used the Cattell 16 Personality Factor Questlonalre
to measure personality variables and art instructor ratings
to determine creativity. Three groups of subjects were used
for this studyj high creative art majors were designated as
the first group, low creative art majors were designated as
14
the second group, and non-art majors composed the third group,
A panel of art instructors rated the art na jor subjects Into
the high-low dichotomy. Significant differences among the
three groups were found on only a few of the sixteen factors
from the questionalre. The high-creative group was found to
fee less cyclothymic (warm, sociable) than either of the other
two groups. The high-creative group was also found to be more
bohemlan-introverted (absent-minded) than either of the other
two groups. Two other factors supported the hypotheses. These
were factor E (dominant, aggressive) and Q2 (self-sufficient,
resourceful). Allred concluded; *Thls suggests that what the
personality factors were actually measuring...was a difference
between artists and non-artists, and not differences between
high and low degrees of creativity"* (1, p. 65).
A study by Rees and Goldman (10), however, indicated sig-
nificantly different results. Their study was conducted with
art and science majors from a university population forming the
experimental samples. The subjects were given a questlonaire
form to fill out Indicating experiences and Interests. Also
they were asked to relate in the questlonaire those contests
they had ever entered* whether won or not. The subjects were
divided into three groups of high, medium, and low creativity.
These groupings were made by two raters on the basis of the
responses to the original questlonaire. The Gullford-Zlmraerman
Temperament Survey (GZTS) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Person-
ality Inventory (iMPI) were used as Indices of personality. The
15
analyses were mode among tne high creative group and each of
the two lower creative grM.rps. An analysis was also made of
profile scores from the art major subjects and science major
subjects.
The analysis among the three creativity classifications
indicated no significant differences on either the GZTS or the
M P I. An analysis 'between the highest creativity group and the
lowest creativity group, however, revealed significant differ-
ences on the dy (hysteria) scale from the M14PI and on three
scales from the GZTSt restraint, ascendence and friendliness.
The highly creative group had the higher scores on the Hy
scale from the MMPI and GZTS factor ascendence. The lower "i
creative group had higher scores on the GZTS factors of res-
traint and friendliness,
The analysis of tue profile scores for art major subjects
and science major subjects revealed significantly higher scores
for the art subjects on the MPI scales of D (depression),
Pd (psychopathic-deviafce), and Mf (masculinity-femininity).
In their analysis of the results of the investigation,
the authors concluded that the highly creative individual is
less serious and deliberate, more prone to impulsiveness,
and displays less restraint in his behavior. The highly
creative individual was also depicted as being tore dominant
and aggressive than the less creative individual. The signi-
ficance of the lower depression scores for the highly creative
16
Individual Kas interpreted to indicate a better mlf concept
•<?nd feelings of worthiness for tr»e highly creative group#
Pine (9) reported an investigation in *hlch he attempted
to explore one of the psychoanalytic Interpretation* of the
creative process o.nd individual. The study specifically
soup-Jit to emuine ch« modes of expression of I rive content
in coapleted productions rrad to study the relation of such
expression to the quality of the production. Pine »t»t«d
that creative individuals were characterized by expression
rather than suppression of drives. Drive content appearing
in a creative production Is not—per se—a. manifestation of
the primary processes. In suoh productions, drive tjateriwl Is
ordinarily subordinated to the require-sent a of aesthetic value
or scientific sense. In a pric ry process however, drive
expressions tend to dominate the cognitive activity. In a
creative production, drives appear as a secondary process,
i.e. n logical, ??oftl-directed way. their expression in crea-
tive production implies that the individual maintains control
ever drives. This ego control differentiates the socially
valued creative production fro-it drive-laden psyohotic t. reduc-
tions.
The subjeots for Pine's study were university students.
Fhey *ere all wlven the • 1, TAT, ffa.g Mlimce Test. The Humor
l2$t, ?hf Cnng#auanceg Tgst, Th« ftrloK Hica Test. &r;-l The
4nlaml Prattling Test, fine states that the quality scores of
the I'AI stories were .ilreotil.y and si^nlficantly ip .Oi} relntftd-
17
-.2 5 and -.08 respectively—to quality scores on the TAT. Non-
appropriate use of drive was defined as drive content totally
unrelated to the stimulus story and incidental use of drive
was defined as drive content that mas part of the story "but
extraneous to the main theme.
Pins deduces that the creative parson in either science
or literature may be described as one with heightened recept-
ivity to thought contents which can be molded into creative
©reduction, His results showed that the better quality TAT
stories were produced by those subjects that had more use of
drive material, and that the poorer quality TAT stories were
produced by those subjects who used inappropriate drive
material*
Even the area of vocational choice and personality vari-
ables contributes to the fund of knowledge about the creative
individual. Cooley (2) and Melton (8) In separate studies
found significant results to indicate that those university
students in various major fields of study related to a specific
vocational choice have characteristics which distinguish among
the vocational choices*
Cooley (2) found that research-oriented science students
differed from non-research-oriented science students in their
ability to perceive the abstract and to express themselves and
their ideas. The research-or3anted science student w-*s more
seclusive and suspicious of other people and did not actively
seek interpersonal relationships.
18
A significant research effort is reported by T«ft (11).
In his study in which two groups were used, one -'roup was
•Bade up of professional actors and the other group was an
unselecfced college population excluiin.sc the performing arts
fields. Taft listed those characteristics of the acting pro-
fession which he felt were responsible for a particular person-
ality type choosing that field of endeavor* The characteristics
were these: it affords an opportunity for self-exhibition,
it affords the actor the opportunity to imitate and Identify
with various characters, the actor can partake of institution-
alized pretense, the actor is given social sanction for uncon-
ventional behavior, and the actor gets social support from a
close-!<nit ln-.<rroup.
The cMPX was used for a measure of personality dynamics.
The author found significant differences between his groups
on five clinical scales. The professional actor group had
higher scores on scales D (depression), Pd (psychopathic-
deviate), Pt (psychasthenia), So (schizophrenia), and Ma
(hypotnania). The actor group also had hi?her scores on the
newer scales: Anxiety, Neuroticlsm, Female-Tiasochlsm, and
Control. The college student group had higher scores on the
following scaless Social responsibility, Ego strength. Hole
playing, Schizophrenic screening, and Leadership potential,
Iaft interprets the actor profile? as indicating a per-
sonality that Is comparatively under-controlled and disorga-
nized. The actor is flexible and responds bo his environment
19
In unconventional ways. He is distrustful of close inter-
personal relationships.
Summary
The research reported in this study has indicated that
the high-creative person's personality profile, as determined
by various personality assessment techniques including the
inventory and the projective techniques, was not viewed as
being as well adjusted as the low-creative person*s profile
(6), The high-creative person has been found to be suspicious
of others and domineering (2), The high-creative males have
been found to h^ve more feminine interests than do low-creative
males (6, 4). However, the research indicated that the high-
creative individual had a better self concept than the low-
creative individual (10). The high-creative person has been
shown to be able to tolerate ambiguity better than the low~
creative person (3)»
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Allred, H. C., "Differences in Personality Characteristics Among Two Groups of Art Majors Varying In Creativity and a Control Group," unpublished Master's thesis, School of Education, North Texas State University, Benton, Texas, 1963*
2• Cooleyf W. w., "Predicting Choice of a Career in Scien-tific Research," Personnel and Guidance Journal, xi,ii, 1963, 21-29.
3. Elduson, B* T., "Artist and Non-Artist: A Comparative Study," The Journal of Personality. XXVI, 1958, 13-29.
4. Littlejohn, M. T., "A Comparison of the fiesponses of Ilnth-graders to Measures of Creativity and Masculinity-Femininity," Dissertation Abstracts. XXVII, 1967. 2399.
5* LundIn, R. ¥. and W. Lathrop, "Relationship Between Field of Major Concentration and Personality Adjustment in College Males,*1 The Journal of Genetic Psychology. LXIX, 1963, 193-195.
6. MacKinnon, D. w., "The Personality Correlates of Creativity! A Study of American Architects,** Personality Research Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Applied Psychology,, edited by Gerhard S. Nielsen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1962.
7. Marks, A., W. B. Michael, and H. P. Kaiser, "Dimensions of Creativity and Temperament In Officer Evaluations," Psychological Reports. IX, 1961, 635-638.
8. Helton, W. H., "An Investigation of the Relationship Between Personality and Vocational Interests," Journal of Educational Psychology, XLVII, 1956* 163-174.
9. Pine, P., "Thematic Drive Content and Creativity," Journal of Personality. XXVII, 1959, 136-151.
1.0. (lees, M.S. and M. Goldman, w8ome Relationships Between Creativity and Personality," The Journal of Genetic Psychology. LXV, 1961, 1U5-16I.
20
21
11. Taft, H. t "A. Psychological Assessment of Professional Actors and Related Professions," Genetic Psychology Monographs, LXIV, 1961, 309-383*
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
The subjects for this study were twenty-eight junior and
senior students from the Department of Speech avrcJ Drama, at
North Texas State University and thirlty junior and senior
students from Morth Texas State University from various depart-
ments excluding art, dram, and Tousle. Drama students were
chosen for one group because drana, as well as the other per-
forming arts—music and art—requires and Individual to be crea-
tive in order to be successful in the field* To determine
whether or not drama students were more creative than non-drama
students, students from the areas of music, art, and drama
were excluded from the non-drama group. In this manner, the
two groups differed on only the one major characteristics that
of be in* either a drama major or a non-draua major. All sub-
jects were volunteers. The drama prroup included sixteen male
and twelve female subjects. The non-drama group consisted of
fourteen males and sixteen females. Only junior and senior
students were included in an attempt to 11 -it the study to
those students who were committed to a najor field of study.
Guilford and 2ii}aer®an (3) In designing and scaling the
Gul 1 ford-Zlaraer-aan fe apera-gent Survey constructed scales to
allow for comparisons across sex differences whenever sex
23
differences were found. No statistically significant differ-
ences were reported between sexes for either the Brick Uses
Test or the Cognitive-Width Test« Therefore, the subjects
were not dichotomized, for the testing of the proposed hypo-
theses, according to sex. The mean age for the drama group
was 22,0 years and the mean age for the non-drama group was
21,4- years.
Instruments
The Gullford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey was used as a
measure of personality traits. The standard instructions
printed on the front of the test booklet were read before the
subjects proceeded to the questions (3)* The combined score
of Guilford*s (1} Brick Uses Test and Pettlgrew*s (6) Cognitive-
Width Test was used as a measure of creativity for each sub-
ject . A combined score of 76 or more was designated as high
creative and a combined score of 75 or less was designated as
low creative. The Brisk Uses Test. Appendix A, is a measure
of ideational fluency and originality (1, c. 382). The sub-
ject Is told that he has ten minutes in which to list as many
uses as he can for the com-son brick. The score reported Is
merely the total of reasonable uses listed. Guilford and
Christensen (2) offered coefficients from .35 to .^5 between
college student scores and teacher ratings. The test-retest
reliability coefficients were from .60 to .70.
The Cognitive-Width Test, Appendix B, yields a measure of
the Mopen—aindedness—narrow-rnlndednessH (6, p. 357) dichotomy
zk
or what Guilford, referred to as flexibility {I, o. 38)-. The
Instrument is a questionnaire form in which the subject is
aslred bo ojrcle an answer that is his estimate of the dimen-
sions of a particular question based on a stated factual
material. Score values are assigned to the different choices
of the Questionnaire and the reoorted score is based on the
total sum of the points assigned to each estimate. Pettigrew
(6) Fives a coefficient of .65 between college students and
teacher ratings. The test-retest reliability coefficient
reported was .72. The combination of these two tests yields
an accurate measure of the najor aspects of creativity proposed
by Guilford (1) and Perry (5). These aspects are fluency,
•flexibility, and originality,
Procedure
All the SUD j'-cts were given the same informational data
and instructions, They were Informed that the data would form
•part of a master*s thesis, and that the objective was to relate
Interests to creativity. The subjects were not required to
put '"/heir names on the answer sheets. Only an ^ for uale or
an • for female was required. Care v-->s taken to assure the
subjects that no one would see the results except the researcher,
lumbers one through fifty were used to designate the arama
T.ajor rroup or group I and numbers fifty-one through one hun-
<ire'?• were used to esiccnate the non-drama group or «:roup Tl.
Group I was tested in two testing sessions on consecutive
Saturdays in November. It was difficult to obtain the sample
25
of volunteers for group II and a total of five testing sessions
were required* The maximum tlrae for any testing session for
either group w s one and one-half hours.
Statistical Analysis
A Fisher*s t was run between the means of group I and
group II for the combined scores from the Brisk Uses Test and
the Cognitive-Width Test. A Botelllng*s T (4) technique was
used to test for significant differences between the Gullford-
Zlmmerman Temperament Survey profiles of the high-creative,
scroup A, and low-creative, group fl» groups. These data were
analyzed on an IBM 1910 computer at the North Texas State
University computer center. A Simultaneous Confidence Interval
(*»•) technique was used to test for significant differences
between group A and group B on the subscale score means which
were pertinent to the stated hypotheses of the study. The
.05 level of confidence was established as the criterion for
rejection of the null hypotheses. For statistical purposes,
all hypotheses were converted into the null form.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Guilford, J* P., Personality. McGraw-Hill 3ook Company, Inc., New York* New York, 1959*
2. Guilford, J. P, and P. B. Chrlstensen, MFactor-Analytic Study of Verbal Fluency," Laboratory Reports, Uni-versity of Southern Cal1fornia Press, 195&.
3. Guilford, J. P. and Wayne S. Zimmerman, 'The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. Sheridan Supply Company, Beverly Hills, California, 19^9.
4. Morrison, D. F., Multivariate Statistical Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 196/.
5. Perry, H. T,, Education Department, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, personal interview,
6. Pettigrew, T, P., "The Measurement and Correlates of Category Width As a Cognitive Variable,1* The Cognitive Processes Headings. edited by R. J, C, Harper, C, C, Anderson, C. M* Christensen, EnglewooA Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964,
26
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
To test the first hypothesis—that drama majors would toe
more creative on the Brick Uses Test and. the Cognitive-Width
Test than would a group of randomly selected students outside
the areas of art, drama, and music—a Fisher*s t was run "between
the means of the two groups on the total scores from the two
instruments mentioned above. The data are presented in tabular
form In Table I.
TABLE I
t TEST FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DBAMA AND NON-DRAMA GROUPS OS
MEASURE OF CREATIVITY
Drama m u 0 cs Non-Drama Majors
£ P
f s.d. X s.d. £ P
86,678 4,982 76.867 3.980 8.108 .05
The drama group was significantly more creative than the non-
draaia group beyond the .05 level of confidence. Therefore,
the null hypothesis was rejected.
All of the subjects were combined in order to re-dichoto-
mize them into high- and low-creative subjects. The high-creative
27
28
group consisted of twenty-two drama majors and ten non-drama
majors. The low creative group consisted of six drama majors
2
and twenty non-drama majors, A Hotelling's T technique was
used to test for significant differences "between the Guilford-
Zimmerman Temperament Survey.profiles of the high and low
creative subjects. The results of this test are presented in
Table II.
TABLE II
HQTELLIMG'S T2 TEST FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIGH CREATIVE AND LOW CREATIVE SUBJECTS ON G2TS
« i' '(
&r2 t 4 }
rJ TSQR F j P
i' io ;
i
1 * i 161,282 9.036 | .05
Significant differences were found between high and low crea-
tive subjects beyond the .05 level of confidencej therefore,
the second and third hypotheses were tested using the Simul-
taneous Confidence Interval technique. Table III presents the
means and standard deviations from the Gullford-Zimmerman
Temperament Survey for both low and high creative groups.
From this data, the Simultaneous Confidence Interval values
were obtained and the second and third hypotheses were tested.
Subscales E and 0 were excluded from Table III because they
were not pertinent to the hypotheses of this study.
29
TABLE 111
WEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR HIGH. GROUP II, AND LOW CREATIVE, GROUP I, SUBJECTS 01 THE BIGHT
SUBSCAI/KS PROM THE GZTS
Low Creative High Creative
Sutoscale ?.
I Group I X Group I s.d, Group II X Group II s.d,
G
3.
A
S
P
T
P
M
18.154
17.231
11.15^
19.923
18.115
lk.769
19.731
20.731
4.016
3.876
3.201
4.811
2.5^7
2.792
3.095
*K355
17.625
16.531
18.188
19.281
12.687
20.906
15.281
17.125
4.986
4.776
2.455
4.771
2.788
1.738
2.842
3.237
The second hypothesis stated that high creative subjects
would score significantly higher than low creative subjects on
the following Gullford-ZlaiB®rman Temperament Survey subscales:
G (general activity), A (ascendance), and T (reflectiveness).
On two of the subscales—A and T—the high creative subjects
did score significantly higher than the low creative subjects
beyond the .05 level of confidence. This would indicate that
the high creative subject is more outspoken and critical than
is the low creative subject. Non-significant results were
obtained for subscale G. In originally designing the present
3o
study the G factor was thought of as a measure of anxiety.
However, the factor w>>s weighted towards a general, activity
level rather than anxiety or Internal tension. The non-
significant results were not unusual when the G factor was
considered from this aspect. Neither the researched litera-
ture nor the theoretical models presented predict a difference
In activity level for high- and low-creative subjects. Table
IV presents the results of the testing of the second hypothesis.
TABLE IV
SIMULTANEOUS CONFIDENCE INTERVAL TEST FOB SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GZTS SUBSCALBS G, A, AMD T FOR HIGH-CREATIVE
AND LOW-CREATIVE GROUPS
Variable
High-Creative Low-Creative
SCI*' value P Variable
X s.d, s. d.
SCI*' value P
G 17.625 4.986 18.154 4.016 -6.387 N.S.
A 18.188 2.455 11.154 3.201 2.162 .05
T 20.906 1.738 14.769 2.792 2,208 .05 i , ...
^Simultaneous Confidence Interval
The third hypothesis stated that high-creative students
would score significantly lower than low-creptive students on
the following Gullford-Zlmmerman Temperament Survey subscales!
R (restraint), S (sociability), F (friendliness), P (coopera-
tiveness), and M (masculinity). A tabular presentation of
this material Is presented in Cable V.
31
TABLE V
.SIMULTANEOUS CONFIDENCE INTERVAL TEST FOB SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GZTS SUBSCALES H, 3, F, ?» AMD
M FOB HIGH AND LOW CREATIVE SUBJEdS
Jj
"Variable
| High Creativej Low Creative 1
I SCI* value P
Jj
"Variable
X s. d. X 8 »d«
1
I SCI* value P
a 16.531 4.776 17.231 3.876 ; -5»904 N.S.
s 19.281 4.771 19.923 : 4.811 •»6»644 N»S»
F i 112.687 2 * 7 8 8 18.115 2 . 5 4 7 1.786 • 05
P 1 2 0 . 9 0 6 i
1 * 7 3 8 14.769 3.792 : O . 6 6 7
- 2 , 0 3 3 1
; -°5
] N.S. 4
M 1 1 7 , 1 2 5 3 * 2 3 7 | 20.731 ! i 1
4.355
O . 6 6 7
- 2 , 0 3 3 1
; -°5
] N.S. 4
Simultaneous Confidence Interval
Factors F and P significantly differentiated between high and
low creative subjects beyond the *05 level of confidence*
These two factors combine to indicate that the high creative
subject is intolerant of weaknesses in himself and others and
is suspicious of close interpersonal relationships. The non-
significant results obtained on subscales R and S indicate
that the high creative group Is not more impulsive or socially
shy than the low creative group. These factors conflict with
some of the published material (1, 2) in the area of creativity.
The use of subjects exclusively from a state university—as
was done in the present study—rather than from a university-pro-
fessional group—as Taft (2) did—raised the possibility that
32
the population of the present study was a more homogeneous
•population than the one used by Taft. This Is a probable
explanation for the conflicting results obtained. In the present
study*
CHAFFBfi BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Pine, F., "Thematic Drive Content and Creativity*" The Journal of Personality, XXVII, 1959, 136-151.
2* Taft, B„t "A Psychological Assessment of Professional Actors and Belated ProfessionsGenetic Psychological Ponographs. LXTV, 1961, 309-383.
33
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
The results of this study showed that only one of the
three hypotheses was completely confirmed. The drama group
was more creative, as measured by the Brick Uses Test and the
Cognitive-Width Test, than the non-drama group. This supports
the -najor findings of Guilford (3) and Perry (?) and adds
further support to Guilford's (4) theoretical model of crea-
tivity.
The tsajor substance of the study, however, was an attempt
to discover those personality traits that would correlate with
creativity. In the first hypothesis, two of the three Guilford'
Zimmerman Temperament Survey subseale variables did differen-
tiate significantly between the high and low creative subjects*
The two subscales were A (ascendance) and T (reflectiveness).
Prom the list of traits given below that form subscales A and
T, the high creative subjects were characterized as being bold
and outspoken and philosophically inclined, Subseale A covers
five dichotOTTjous categories and two singular categories.
These seven are
High score Low score
Self-defense vs Submisslveness
Leadership habits vs Habits of following
Speaking with others vs Hesitation to speak
35
vs Hesitation to speak
Avoiding conspicuousness
Low score
Interested in overt action
Speaking in public
Persuading others
Being conspicuous vs
Bluffing
Subsc&le T covers six general areas:
High score
Reflectiveness
Observing of behavior in others
Interested in thinking vs
Philosophically inclined
Observing of self
Mental poise vs Mental Dlsconcertedness
These two subscale categories fit in with other researchers*
(1» 6, 8) work In the area of creativity. The factor G was
originally thought of as being a measure of anxiety. However*
the seal© is focused on general activity and is not a measure
of innate anxiety. There is no basis for an expected difference
between high and low creative subjects on this subscale because
the G factor is reflecting high energy or mobility rather than
Inward tension, Research in the -area of creativity has not
indicated a difference between high and low creative subjects
on an activity level measure.
The third hypothesis, which consisted of predicted scores
for five Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey eubscales, was
supported toy only two of these subscales. These two were F
(friendliness) and P (cooperatlveness). Low scores on these
36
two subscales characterize the high-creative subject as being
highly resistant to domination, rather contemptuous of others,
and given to finding fault in others. Subecale P included
five categories, which were
High score Low score
Toleration of hostile action vs Belligerence
Hostility, resentment
Desire to dominate
vs Heslstance to domination
vs Contempt for others
Acceptance of domination
Hespect for others
Subscale V included four categories, which were
iilgh score
Tolerance of people vs
Faith In social institutions vs
Low score
Fault finding habits
Critlcalness of Institutions
Suspiciousness of others
Self pity
The three subscales which did not confirm the hypothesis were
R (restraint), S {sociability), and M {masculinity). A factor
that conflicts with some of the research reports quoted in
this study (5, 8) is the fact that the groups did not differ
on the factor R (impulsiveness-restraint) and S (shyness-
sociability) . The subjects used in the quoted research studies
(5# 8) were diverse groups of professional oeople and college
students, and there should have been a greater expectancy of
finding significant differences between groups such as these
37
because of their diversity. However, the fact that the sub-
jects used in the present study were all upper-level univer-
sity students suggests that they were a more homogeneous group
than the samples used in the above stated studies. This is a
probable explanation for the conflicting results obtained in
the present study.
Factor H (masculinity-femininity), which has been demon-
strated (5) to differentiate high creative from low creative
subjects, failed to yield significant differences in the pres-
ent study. Several factors could have accounted for the lack
of significant results on this subscale. The high percentage-
's—of females In the sample could have confounded the results.
The fact that females were Included at all in this study could
have confounded the results on factor M. To secure an adequate
sample size, however, both wales and females were included#
The most acceptable explanation is the faet that the male and
female scores show a reversal of category interpretations which
caused the combined scores for m l e and female subjects to
distort and be invalid. It is reconr/iended that further research
be done In this area holding male and female scores separate.
This would control for the above-mentioned confounding.
The creative subject, from this study, may be described
as an individual who is critical of himself and others as
Indicated by his scores on the Gullford-Zl^merman Temperament
Survey subscales A and P, He is Intolerant of weaknesses in
38
others, as seen from his score on subsc- le P, and he is suspi-
cious of interpersonal relations and predisposed to thought-
fulness rather than overt action, as judged from his subscale
scores on scales T and P. This characteristic view of the
creative person is quite similar to the description given "by
Taft {9) and Eiduson (2). -
The present study emphasizes that personality questionnaires
can be used! for purposes other than clinical diagnosis. The
results of this study would indicate to the counselor in both
the secondary school and the college counseling service that
the personal ity questionnaire can be an Invaluable aid. in deter-
•tfininfT potential beyond academic achievement. These results
also indicate that the classic stereotype of the drama student
as an off-beat, non-conforming, Individualistic person, has
some basis in fact. The high-creative prroup—>predominatly
draTa rna jor:.H—were characterized by outspokenness, critlcalness
of social institutions, and intolerance of others.
It is recommended that further research In this area be
conducted on a secondary school population. This type of
research could better eliminate the selective factor that is
in evidence in a university population. In addition, by using
secondary school subjects, the results wotil-i become more mean-
ingful for the high school counselor.
Surrieiary
The present study was conducted to determine whether or
not high-creative junior and senior university students would
39
differ from low creative Junior and senior university students
on an objective measure of nersonallty. Fifty-eight students
were selected from North Texas State University. Thirty sub-
jects were from areas of study excluding «irt» drama, and musicj
twenty-eight of the subjects were obtained front the Speech and
Drama Department of North Texas State University. To dicho-
tomize the sample into high and low creative subjects, a com-
bined score from the Brick Uses Test and the Cognltlve-Vildth
Test was used. The Gull ford -Z imae rsaan Temperament Survey was
used to Identify personality traits. Three hypotheses were
advanced for inspection*
I. Junior and senior drama majors will score signifi-
cantly higher, be more creative, on the Brick Uses Test and
the Cognitive-Width Test than will a group of randomly selected
university Juniors and seniors from areas excluding art, drama,
and music.
II. The high creative subject, as measured by the Brick
Uses Test and the Cognitive-^Idth Test, regardless of his major
field of interest, will score higher than the low creative
subject on these Gullford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey scales:
G, A, and T.
III. The high creative subject, as measured by the Brick
Uses Test and the Cognitive-Width Test, regardless of his major
field of interest, will score lower than the low creative sub-
ject on these Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey scales t
R, S, F, P, and M.
1*0
The results showed that only the first hypothesis was
completely confirmed. Of the other two hypotheses, factors
A, r, F. and P showed significant differences In the predicted
direction beyond the .0.5 level of confidence. Factors H« 3,
M, and G failed to ueet this level of confidence. The high-
creative subject was described by the results of this study-
as an individual that was self-critical and critical of others
and intolerant of weaknesses in others, he was described as
being suspicious of others and philosophically inclined.
:t is substantiated in this study that the personality
questionnaire has merit as an aid in the identification, of
creativity In university populations. It Is recommended that
further research be done on secondary school populations to
enable the 'high school counselor to make the results reported
here more meaningful.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1* Allred, 8 . C.. "Differences in Personality Characteristics Among two Groups of Art Majors Varying In Creativity and a Control Group,M unpublished Master*s thesis, School of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 19&3«
2* Eiduson, B, T*, "Artist and Hon Artist: A Comparative Study," The Journal of Personality, XXVI, 1958, 13-29*
3. Guilford, J. P., "Creative Abilities in the Arts," Psychological Review. LXIV, 1957, 110-118.
4. Guilford, J, P. and P. R. Merrifleld, The Structure-Of-Intellect Modelt• Its Uses and Implications, University of Southern California, Number 2b, i960,
5. Littlejohn, 1. T., "A Comparison of The Responses of Ninth-graders To Measures of Creativity and Waseul-inity-Femininlty,* Dissertation Abstracts. XXVII, 196? , 2399.
6. MacKinnon, D. , "The Personality Correlates of Creativity« A Study of American Architects,® Personality Research Proceedings of The XIV International Congress of Applied Psychology, edited by Gerhard S. Nielsen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1962.
7, Ferry, H. T., Education Department, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, personal Interview.
8, Rees, M. E. and M. Goldman, "Some Relationships Between Creativity and Personality," The J ournal, of Genetic Psychology. LXV, 1961, 145-161.
9, Taft, R., "A Psychological Assessment of Professional Actors and Related Profession*,* Genetic Psychology Ponographs. LXIV, 1961, 309-383.
kt
APPENDIX A kZ
^11 L V."e '.0 - , ^ 5 :-o ~ "V _ : ho use." .-, :•• ,'ne ••;.o-;> ".v;
v *
APPENDIX B 4-3
a A ';ion QUI:'
fniico.ce the corr^-L. snsxeK o": the f<">3 1 :>' :cl.in?" the /rumbar of the selected answer.
" "I iJ L'j Li U.(-- i - t- _ v - il ir
^ jy ? V-' - J ' — *
nc '.' . *
J- * *
^ ! L j ? w
r r i . , x -\ i 1 * < * * #
k- r-, J. - L ~ ^ L ' * / .
•' "0 C , w . V " "• ^0 '/ . 1 « L?i ill: * . *
- „ . ^ "l . 1«i~ ^ - - ^ r> _ I.. • ^ "> O lA ' • - 11 _j *' » y *
1 "« . ">. h . ; /~." • • p * i'i *
> - • , » - u , . • "1
• i- « * - - * O " r • r'' • - «
o -ni» ~ - ... .,, ^ - 7 - • ' J * '-J ' 1 > r ' > -
o c c a o r. ^ i* Ti? x-;/ * • \ /"•N j \ ^ t ^ :>o bvj ; w,o ,-; # |-
yoit x*fi\ n"k o
* - ' : : '
J. * . / o U m * S u ^ o / j * ^ v a J ' ^ *
*,j <& 3
- / ^;n'/':h yi" 1 » V • J X IS * " v , - ' *
3 • 53 -r' u • / , , - »
k-. Gh r / ^ ^ ; ^ " . - " : '1 . *.
>.re 1 ;'-ht of n OJ 0 I J I * „„ J ^ Ci t
t,0 / r' ' * * , ' • V CoiT'T.iG s 'L O :i 1„ r. 1 9^ COTiO , 1 L -» f i ' J / - '• A. « .
• Jl # t;V;o ../h G COI'
A' '*>*V' '^ , :~* \ Y Ti s^' on. . .
0 ' :
.» r* ' ® i ;
9
000 tor;a t & ' r\
- - . y J * j f nn0 con;. * , * r.,
» / ' 7 ' J
i j j j »
. . v - ; i . . ' ' J , o • J
r- /•-. Ij * • '
n n n
" i •
, o ,i - u
C 7 9 i / r ^
» -•
' i
D c T ' y c o r
J. : ; .
" * j
1 - - r *•
' " f i
J { i •
, )
•V
v r ' ; 0
rr,;
^ o v - , ,
, ; G ( ; *C o V " ' •* ' i '
s h c i v e a p p e r i r e - ' 1 '
- *
-v^
45
b ^ l n p t o o * a 1953--- ' " 009 ,, \ s . -»• ,-7, n "> r\;\, > * .. > ,
.. • • 1 x 1 o . (i ,• •,'..I, b, _ \ b • j « yo> :H 1 j'iu Zofj *-i- * f! ' II\a " y
b. ihe fcir.o of ;,ha -?•-.:•>too:; iva' u f 1< >~t \'6v; Yo.-:t Cl!.,y to l'b.ohia-ao-,, 2. c. in 10 53... :
1 . ??6 ninacoo . 202 oirnbaab 3. °^8 fj'yraue.-u ".by rlnutoo
'12. TV'e .'.•.vorH;;c *-;U.Voe r of births ' r. the- por -•; * C}55 bo.3 been ooaoaten to he 27 , - bp . -Jr.^ ;; o you than"!':
a. oap 'oho 1 :?.Ty}< auiriber of births ? n who "o:l ~1 in any one r».a~j -In*rInp; 1955. • . 1. 26,501 2. 2 8,207 3. -99, B76 4. 30,023
"0. vn:; the 3rial."I es t auaber of births in the ^orl rl a oa, vne 'luring 1 9 5 5 - - -
Oo 0, 0 O °L 007 • 1 J • - • '• -r ! • • /
2. 1 '! , 3 3 0 h. 1 "i nr. b 13. bhen :h2 of tho i-rorl 0 • : '-an t*:•-••-• V —* a.O,,:. ^ •• . ' "! j a.ya' ." ts us ,n:ao the avora^o aaa>'a -a" a-nna o ;• b 'rUR 1 be sonev;hp,rn .oao'-nci 2. 5 >.900 * ^ io ,yo. .h" " •
a. b tho la r-. er: I noaba r <" -b •; ; t. 21,000 2. * H.-vo 3. 59,000 b. ]b"^i
b. Is the oaohboot oumben b •••..- „aa. a- . ,,-.y , • . 7. -1. 1,000 2. 3. 5,^00 b. • (
lb. The avoraae -.a-aa/be to tao l a : a ,r>' • a" ' , t'a~ " Sheph r. o;-~s 1g bn, 9 las. "-"a'" b '1o yo--
a. in the " on-;th of the " or:p:e0': th, - , -1 . , • •• ,<0 !» * o i' '; y *
# -y « • ... j. « - . 'v ! . ! ' ! « 3* 1 i rj. j. ;' > • : *n. b. is tho "•.erir;th n>f the ahcrterit 2 o5 • ;
oa'aiale. . „ 1. '3^.9 in. 0 1 : n • 3. 19.7 in. b. "fi . r' 1 r{
5. The average popib." .'TO Of 00-. ' h f r wO * Ccb '
79 t e 1 y 2 . 6 n i 1': i 0 a p c 0 p ",e each • 'J ha-, t r1 ') _;/ 0 U L h; O
v : a.. is the pop a II a tiers of n 0 " O; • •/ 5 Oj,b. . O ,
Aaorlca.„. 1. 11.2 abb. 1 ic/. n J 9 O ^ "1 3. 93.6 alii ion A O C) 1 . * 1 "
••-J • tb1 U I j V-i J J O 0 L"i j_ <. j. 4- V, --S the- ^ - f-OO TiUl •:. t a-: 3n . A ne.P ".C:9,. .
m " . 7,200 O /, O 5 r • 1 ! > -> ' / * < # " f b _
on i -
ho;: 0
/
0 . A 3ta;' "or9 2..1vdr:.; ity h-oa 95 C ororin ho;: rt ' nve ra^e ,Vrpcri.c-; ' ,aoaa"b- aro uab < rr - a - a r-
. * < * *.-> c: 'Ut
'' r.C-'. 1 do yor tv'"ab: -"i # . i.a ^ j.1 v i „ t e-atia. - " , r- \ r > *i.y -' .
1. ' °5 -rra;t 0 9> '-•> # 1 0 r 9 Oh>
/ru 0? 1, > 0 o r;: r
•' ,y -'' ' 1 - -% * r 'rl r"> " . < l ~ < ' - 1 - 1
" o i c> /-i on ^
7-,',r o a ' « -n "V V- 4 -„ ' h • ', y i " ~* ' O , *; *" f: 0T,/ibn "J aa T, tJrj C. Oj. .J l u i io * - -- -
9. 53,-00 a 900 V/'. v! . navjes :n tho '"or"
-.- - 17 *r r , rr, V "'
-1 O r; ,CCG 3*. a ,00c
Ivniec: la tel y 3 f t e r T\"0 rl <*. ha r J* 7 ,
^taec r> '.T.'ica by tho 1 'CCpros t cevt;/. \V?i, •" a y01; r> * *a ;
r,~r r s O 1 - "' C - 0. V"' »' '' ' -
>;. (aa> - o La" j - es o he HO vl o?...
? 2 <-> "-*, f
10. The it'wra,-vc r.u ' >">-the Unit.-id Cc/vtes.lr or&imti
a, is the "iardent -in. -e1 •'< "-• i o11 g :"1 o r.r, rn in L' a a 3 ^ -t o •* n j * - t • <
*"*% ' , ; ~, -. K S v.' i. ' m - •* ' , . ~
01:3 eno"'In'-. t'.'"ri ; . ^ 3 O **
70. Tr. yt:.ir. ' ° a chr-v..\;:'-• * '"'hi t<..
9 *
'V-x. J * " / '
bar of *T' •-•> p; ;K: ; -s W
9 # 9 ll[ •'-i 7
~r-» <•*
J VJ* j 1 O O '"i'w 11" : t? ouS ' ~o vo I . !\'h at 6 • ' -
r 0" c h: C: .re.: ' r, a ;:: 1T' ."• ~ e on in th° U. S. fw
0 r; r; 0 f ( •'K 10 ? °( r "
^ . L err;j -cherj r; r a *: * *n!
••••?•, i n i. •j.'.:. i. u - , « ^ ) 1-/ ^
!ho.ttv.T Th re-'U there v' 3- an ' ":ov %) •<
Ua.lt c ; rt t e o . r 'ha': ao ;/oa a. the ] ara6f:t ^
1 a the la o A "--J <* - - • * *
* j j--' nA ?
b. £ "ChO 9 aa" 1 r-r:t aa^h^a :*• a C C j ti J *> ^ A
,.j * - * • » » i « Oo O /• 1 _ s & - j-
>k in? ,r-;. .'.or,.-; .
O - o o i. . o '}
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Barron* P., Creativity and Psychological Health, Princeton, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1963.
Freud, S., "The Interpretation of Dreams,n The Basic Wr; of Siaaam>d Freud, edited by A. A. Brill, New Xork, Random House, Inc., 193^#
Getzels, J. W. and P. W. Jackson, Creativity And Intelligence, Hew Xork, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.» 1962.
Guilford, J. P., Personality. New York, tfoGraw-Hlll Book Company, Inc., 1959.
Guilford, J. P. and P. B. Merrifleld, The Structure-Df-Intellect Model: Its Uses and Implications. Universityof Southern California, Number Zb, i960.
Guilford, J. P* and W. 3. Zimmerman, The Gullford-Zimmerman Teamerasaent Survey. Sheridan Supply Company, Beverly Hills, California, 19^9 •
Kubie, L. S., Meurotlc Distortion of The Creative Process, Lawrence, University of Kansas Press, 1958.
Morrison, D. F., Multivariate Statistical Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New xork,New York, 1967•
Murphy, G., PersonalItyt A Blosoclal Approach To Origins, and Structure. New York, Basic Books, Inc., 19oo.
Pettigrew, T. F., "The Measurement and Correlates of Category
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1964.
Torrance, E. P., Guiding Creative Talent. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Sail, Inc., 1962.
k-7
Articles
Alexander, P., "Neurosis and Creativity," The American Journal of Psychoanalysis. XXIV, 1964, 115-131.
Cooley, w, W., "Predicting Choice of a Career in Scientific Research,* The! Personnel and Guidance Journal. XXII. 1963, 21-29*
Deutsch, F., "Mind, Body, and Art,1* Daedalus. LXXXIX, 1960, 29-37•
Eiduson, B, T., "Artist and Non Artist• A Comparative Study," 2 M Journal o£ Personality. XXVI, 1958, 13-29.
Guilford, J. P., "Creative Abilities in The Arts," Psychological Review. LXIV, 1957. 110-118. — * Yfttf h
Hitt, W. D., "Toward A Two-Pactor Theory of Creativity," The Psychological Record, XV, 1965, 127-132.
Kris, E,» "On Preconsoious Mental Processes," The Psychoanalytic Quarterly. XIX, 1950, 539-555.
Lundin, H. W. and W. Lathrop, "Relationship Between Field of Major Concentration and Personality Adjustment in College Males," The Journal of Genetic Psychology. LXIX, 1963, I93-I96,
Marks, A», W. B» Michael, and H. P. Kaiser, "Dimensions of Creativity and Temperament in Officer Evaluations," Psychological Reports. IX, 1961. 635-638.
Melton, W. a , , "An Investigation of the Relationship Between Personality and Vocational Interests," The Journal of iducatloml Psychology, XLVII, 1956, l6yZT?k.
Pine, P., "Thematic Drive Content and Creativity," Journal of Personality. XXVII, 1959. 136-151.
Hees, M. E. and M. Goldman, "Some Relationships Between Creativity and Personality," The Journal of Genetic Psychology. IXV, 19ol, 1^5-16l. 11' '
Taft, R., "A Psychological Assessment of Professional Actors fKJ1®}?!:?4 Psychology 'ionoscraphs. JL aXV# lyul # 309-3o3*
49
Pu"bli oat ions of Learned Organizations
Guilford, J. P. and P, B. Christensen, "Factor-Analytic Study of Verbal Fluency,* Laboratory Reports * University of Southern California Press, 19f>6.
MacKinnon, D. W., "The Personality Correlates of Creativity* A Study of American Architects,* Personality Research Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of"Applied Psychology, edited by Gerhard S. Nielsen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1962.
Unpublished Materials
Allred, B. C., "Differences in Personality Characteristics Among Two Groups of Art Majors Varying in Creativity and A Control Group,M unpublished faster*s thesis, School of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1963.
Littlejohn, M. T., "A Comparison of The Responses of Ninth-graders to Measures of Creativity and Masculinity-Femininity," Dissertation Abstracts. XXVII, 1967, 2399.
Personal Interview
Perry, H. T., Education Department, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, personal Interview.