A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List.

Gough, Harrison G.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1398

Cited by 747 publications

(586 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

542

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous studies relate an individual's personality traits such as self-confidence and broad interests to creativity (e.g. Barron & Harrington, 1981;Feist, 1999;Gough, 1979). People that are self-confident and have broad interests may be inclined to look for new experiences that give them novel ideas.…”

Section: Creative Personalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Egan (2005) warns that using Gough's (1979) Creative Personality Scale for selection purposes may not be effective because applicants may intentionally give skewed answers. Instead he suggests that HR practices should focus on managerial behavior and workplace environments.…”

Section: Implications For Managerial Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…While an individual's domain relevant knowledge and cognitive style can be developed, personality traits are considered more stable. Gough (1979) defines the concept of 'creative personality' as the accumulation of separate personality traits that 6 are related to creativity. Research on the relationship between personality and creativity predominantly focuses on artists, scientists or other professionals with creative abilities.…”

Section: Creative Personalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Creative Personality Scale (CPS) based on Gough's Adjective Check List (ACL) (Gough, 1979) was used as our creative personality measure. The original list contains 18 adjectives positively related to creativity and 12 negatively related to creativity.…”

Section: Independent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Knowledge workers' creativity and the role of the physical work environment

Dul

Ceylan

Jaspers

2011

Human Resource Management

259

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examines the effect of the physical work environment on the creativity of knowledge workers, compared with the effects of creative personality and the social-organizational work environment. Based on data from 274 knowledge workers in 27 SMEs, we conclude that creative personality, the social-organizational work environment, and the physical work environment independently affect creative performance. The relative contribution of the physical work environment is smaller than that of the social-organizational work environment, and both contributions are smaller than that of creative personality. The results give support for HR practices that focus on the individual, on the social-organizational work environment, and on the physical work environment in order to enhance knowledge worker creativity.

show abstract

Section: Creative Personalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Managerial Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Creative Personalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Independent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Knowledge workers' creativity and the role of the physical work environment

Dul

Ceylan

Jaspers

2011

Human Resource Management

259

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early empirical investigations of creativity were based on the premise that individuals vary with regard to their potential to be creative (see Barron & Harrington, 1981;Feist, 1999 for reviews). Based on the theory that creativity was primarily determined by stable traits, researchers developed and validated scales to assess creativityrelevant personality traits, often by designing lists of adjectives common to exceptionally creative individuals (e.g., Creative Personality Scale, Gough, 1979). Examples of these adjectives include clever, confident, individualistic, insightful, inventive, original, and unconventional.…”

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis.

Hammond¹,

Neff²,

Farr³

et al. 2011

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

600

625

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous narrative reviews related to innovation in work organizations have been published, yet very few quantitative reviews have been conducted. The present meta-analysis investigates the relationships between four predictor types (individual differences, motivation, job characteristics, and contextual influences) and individual-level workplace innovation. Results indicated that individual factors, characteristics of the job, and factors of the environment were moderately associated with phases of the innovation process. Implications for future research opportunities are discussed. Keywords:Innovation, meta-analysis, personality, climate, motivation, leadership Meta-Analysis of Individual Innovation 4Predictors of Individual-Level Innovation at Work: A Meta-AnalysisThe importance of innovation for organizational success has been increasingly noted in the conceptual and empirical literature of the organizational sciences (e.g., Agars, Kaufman, & Locke, 2008; Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004;West, 2002). In response to the emergence of innovation as a critical factor in creating and maintaining organizational competitiveness, a wide array of individual, job, and environmental factors have been examined in relation to employee innovation. Although numerous narrative reviews of work-related innovation have been published (e.g., Egan, 2005;Mumford, 2003;Patterson, 2002;Shalley & Gilson, 2004;Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004;Zhou & Shalley, 2003), little attention has been given to quantitative reviews. Baas, DeDreu, and Nijstad (2008) conducted a meta-analysis on mood and creativity; however, the majority of the included studies were laboratory experiments with student participants. With the exception of one meta-analysis of organizational level innovation (Damanpour, 1991), a second examining personality and creativity for artists and scientists

show abstract