Search

In the present study, we examined the relationship between socio‐economic status (SES) and creativity through a meta‐analysis of 885 effect sizes from 151 samples in 117 studies. Analyses of a multivariate model with a robust variance estimator showed a small positive correlation between creativity and SES (r= .120, 95% CI [0.086, 0.154]). Further analyses with four groups of moderators (i.e., creativity measure, SES indicator, sample characteristics, and study characteristics) indicated that the mean effect size is significantly higher when the creativity index is flexibility rather than fluency or when SES is measured by parental or one's own level of education and parental occupation rather than the location of residency. In addition, the relationship between creativity and SES dissipated as the students progressed from elementary school through college. The potential role of schooling in the creativity‐SES link is discussed.

Creativity and well‐being are popular subjects in psychological and organizational studies. The recent literature presented mixed perspectives about the nature of the relationship between the two. Whereas the mad‐genius hypothesis, which was often explored among eminently creative individuals, seems to imply a negative relationship between the two, trends in the field of creativity, such as everyday creativity and general psychology (i.e., positive psychology) linked them positively. The present meta‐analysis study synthesized 189 effect sizes obtained from 32 samples in 26 different studies based on a total sample of 8,189. Analyses with multilevel modeling yielded a mean effect of r= .14. The moderator analysis tested the impact of age, gender, measure of creativity, measure of well‐being, stimulus type of creativity measure, and index of creativity measure. Only the creativity measure explained the variation in the study outcomes. The relationship between creativity and well‐being was significantly higher when creativity was measured by instruments focusing on creative activity and behavior (r= .22) than the divergent thinking tasks (r= .06). Those findings are discussed in terms of theoretical and practical implications.