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.