Search

Existing research has consistently supported a relationship between creative achievement and specific personality traits (e.g. openness to experience). However, such work has largely focused on univariate associations, potentially obscuring complex interactions among multiple personality factors, rendering an incomplete picture of the creative personality. We applied a psychometric network approach to characterize the multidimensional personality structure of highly creative individuals in the arts ("artists") and sciences ("scientists"), using data from three samples (N = 4,015): college students, a representative adult sample, and the Big-C project of eminent creative professionals. Replicating past work, we found that artists showed reliably higher levels of openness to experience compared to scientists and a control group of less creative people. Psychometric network analysis revealed that artists were characterized by higher connectivity (i.e. co-occurrence) with other personality traits for openness, indicating that openness may be more heterogeneous in how it co-occurs with other personality traits in highly creative people. Across all three samples, we found that the scientists' personality network structure was more cohesive than the personality network of artists and the control group, indicating greater homogeneity in the personality characteristics of scientists. Our findings uncover a constellation of traits that give rise to creative achievement in the arts and sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies of everyday creativity suggest that some people are like creative omnivores, dabbling in a broad range of creative pursuits, but others are like picky eaters, focusing on a single creative passion. A week-long experience sampling study examined the breadth vs depth of 125 university students' everyday creative activities. Several times a day, people were asked if they were doing something creative, and if they were, to describe what they were doing. Diversity statistics quantified the variety (number of distinct domains) and balance (the relative predominance of any domain) of their creative activities. The sample varied widely in both aspects of diversity, reflecting differences in whether people's creative efforts were relatively broad or focused. Notably, people who were high in openness to experience showed significantly higher variety (they did more kinds of creative activities) yet lower balance (one or two activities predominated), suggesting that they had a broad creative diet but a few favorite foods. When people are spending time in their everyday lives working on creative activities, what are they actually doing? A small but growing literature on creativity in everyday life shows that creativity is common – many people spend much of their time on creative hobbies, passions, and pursuits – but not much is known about the kinds of things people are opting to do. In the present research, we explored the diversity and complexity of creative activities across a typical week. Using the metaphor of omnivores vs picky eaters, we suggest that some people are like creative omnivores, dabbling in a broad range of creative pursuits, and that others are like picky eaters, focusing on a single creative passion. In a week-long study of 125 adults, several times a day people were asked if they were doing something creative, and if they were, to describe what they were doing. Using diversity statistics, we found broad differences in the variety (how many different kinds of activities people did) and balance (whether one or two activities predominated) of people's creative engagement. Overall, there's no single profile for everyday creativity: some people enjoy spending time on many different kinds of creative tasks, and others focus their creative efforts on one or two areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Openness to Experience is a complex trait, the taxonomic structure of which has been widely debated. Previous research has provided greater clarity of its lower order structure by synthesizing facets across several scales related to Openness to Experience. In this study, we take a finer grained approach by investigating the item-level relations of four Openness to Experience inventories (Big Five Aspects Scale, HEXACO–100, NEO PI–3, and Woo et al.'s Openness to Experience Inventory), using a network science approach, which allowed items to form an emergent taxonomy of facets and aspects. Our results (N = 802) identified 10 distinct facets (variety-seeking, aesthetic appreciation, intellectual curiosity, diversity, openness to emotions, fantasy, imaginative, self-assessed intelligence, intellectual interests, and nontraditionalism) that largely replicate previous findings as well as three higher order aspects: two that are commonly found in the literature (intellect and experiencing; i.e., openness), and one novel aspect (open-mindedness). In addition, we demonstrate that each Openness to Experience inventory offers a unique conceptualization of the trait, and that some inventories provide broader coverage of the network space than others. Our findings establish a broader consensus of Openness to Experience at the aspect and facet level, which has important implications for researchers and the Openness to Experience inventories they use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Openness to experience—the enjoyment of novel experiences and ideas—has many connections to cognitive processes. People high in openness to experience, for example, tend to be more creative and have broader general knowledge than people low in openness to experience. In the current study, we use a network science approach to examine if the organization of semantic memory differs between high and low groups of openness to experience. A sample of 516 adults completed measures of openness to experience (from the NEO Five‐Factor Inventory‐3 and Big Five Aspect Scales) and a semantic verbal fluency task. Next, the sample was split into half to form high (n = 258) and low (n = 258) openness to experience groups. Semantic networks were then constructed on the basis of their verbal fluency responses. Our results revealed that the high openness to experience group's network was more interconnected, flexible, and had better local organization of associations than the low openness to experience group. We also found that the high openness to experience group generated more responses on average and provided more unique responses than the low openness to experience group. Taken together, our results indicate that openness to experience is related to semantic memory structure. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The psychology of art and aesthetics has a long-standing interest in how low-level features, such as symmetry, curvature, and color, affect people's aesthetic experience. Recent research in this tradition suggests that people find glossy, shiny objects and materials more attractive than flat, matte ones. The present experiment sought to replicate and extend research on the attractiveness of images printed on glossy and flat paper. To control for several possible confounding factors, glossiness was manipulated between-person and varied with methods that held constant factors like weight, color quality, and resolution. To extend past work, we explored art expertise and Openness to Experience as potential moderators. A sample of 100 adults viewed landscape photographs on either high-gloss photo paper or on identical paper in which a flat, matte spray finish had been applied. Ratings of attractiveness showed weak evidence for replication. People rated the glossy pictures as more attractive than the matte ones, but the effect size was small (d = −0.23 [−0.62, 0.16]) and not statistically significant. Attractiveness ratings were significantly moderated, however, by individual differences in the aesthetic appreciation facet of Openness to Experience. When aesthetic appreciation was high, people found the images attractive regardless of condition; when it was low, people strongly preferred the glossy images over the matte ones, thus showing the classic glossiness effect. We conclude with some methodological caveats for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) has well-known links with humor appreciation, such as enjoying jokes that target deviant groups, but less is known about RWA and creative humor production—coming up with funny ideas oneself. A sample of 186 young adults completed a measure of RWA, the HEXACO-100, and 3 humor production tasks that involved writing funny cartoon captions, creating humorous definitions for quirky concepts, and completing joke stems with punchlines. The humor responses were scored by 8 raters and analyzed with many-facet Rasch models. Latent variable models found that RWA had a large, significant effect on humor production (β = −0.47 [−0.65, −0.30], p <.001): responses created by people high in RWA were rated as much less funny. RWA's negative effect on humor was smaller but still significant (β = −0.25 [−0.49, −0.01], p =.044) after controlling for Openness to Experience (β = 0.39 [0.20, 0.59], p <.001) and Conscientiousness (β = −0.21 [−0.41, −0.02], p =.029). Taken together, the findings suggest that people high in RWA just aren't very funny. • Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) was associated with humor production. • People low in RWA created funnier jokes, based on raters' scores. • Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness did not account for this effect. • Overall, people high in RWA appear to be much less funny. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• In seven studies (n = 1133), adults rated the funniness of their attempts at humor. • People were relatively modest and self-critical about their ideas' funniness. • Extraversion and openness to experience predicted rating one's responses as funnier. • Women rated their responses as less funny. • People showed some discernment and insight into their ideas' funniness. In seven studies (n = 1133), adults tried to create funny ideas and then rated the funniness of their responses, which were also independently rated by judges. In contrast to the common "funnier than average" effect found for global self-ratings, people were relatively modest and self-critical about their specific ideas. Extraversion (r = 0.12 [0.07, 0.18], k = 7) and openness to experience (r = 0.09 [0.03, 0.15], k = 7) predicted rating one's responses as funnier; women rated their responses as less funny (d = −0.28 [−0.37, −0.19], k = 7). The within-person correlation between self and judge ratings was small but significant (r = 0.13 [0.07, 0.19], k = 7), so people had some insight into their ideas' funniness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]