Comparisons of creative styles and personality types between American and Taiwanese college students and the relationship between creative potential and personality types.

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare differences in creative styles (Kirton, 1976) and personality types between Americans and Taiwanese and to examine the relationships among various personality types and creative potential. Creative potential was measured by the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural, and personality types were measured by the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II. Ninety-three American and 76 Taiwanese college students specializing in teacher education participated in this study. The results indicated that Americans are more adaptively creative than Taiwanese, whereas there is no difference between the two groups in Innovative creative style. The results also indicated that there are significant relationships between Adaptive creative style and Intuition, between Creative Strengths and Intuition, and between Creative Strengths and Perceiving. It is concluded that there is a cultural difference in creative potential and personality types and that there are relationships between particular subscales of creativity and personality types.

The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking - Figural or Verbal: Which One Should We Use?

“…However, it is inconsistent with Torrance's (1990) and Cramond et al's (2005) claims that the two versions measure two different sides of one general creativity factor, because Torrance (1990) might have used a smaller number of participants than Clapham (2004) and Ulger (2015) elaboration skills (to focus, think in-depth and express complex thoughts) whereas males are best at original imagination, which respectively best predict their creative thinking skills. This is consistent with previous studies' findings, that due to their attention to detail and their persistence, females are best at inbox thinking and elaboration skills, whereas males are best at outbox imagination (e.g., Cheng, Kim, & Hull, 2010;Kim, Cramond, & Bandalos, 2006;Kim, Lee, Chae, Andersen, & Lawrence, 2011;Razumnikova, Volf, & Tarasova, 2009). This might be because traditionally females are expected to conform to rules more than males (Bender, Nibbelink, Towner-Thyrum, & Vredenburg, 2013;Charyton, Elliott, Rahman, Woodard, & DeDios, 2011;Cogérino, Bois, & Amorose, 2006;Razumnikova, 2002;Stoltzfus, Nibbelink, Vredenburg, & Thyrum, 2011).…”

Creative Problem Solving Styles and Personality Types in Macau College Students: A Canonical Correlation Analysis

“…Another similar measure is the Keirsey Temperament Sorter (KTS II; Keirsey, 1998), which is viewed as an alternative to the MBTI (Cheng, Kim, & Hull, 2010) with the advantages of quicker and easier scoring, shorter administration time (about 15 minutes), and lower cost. Several studies have confirmed the usefulness of the KTS II as a personality indicator (Russo, Mertins, & Ray, 2013;Varlami & Bayne, 2007).…”

Engineering Innovativeness

“…This belief is shared by other researchers. [19][20][21] David sees engineers as two types of people, those who break the world into manageable chunks and those who synthesize and connect the dots to innovate and create opportunities: …”