Personality Correlates of Complexity-Simplicity

Grove, Michael S.; Eisenman, Russell

doi:10.2466/pms.1970.31.2.387

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using a polygon measure of preference for complexity with college students, Eisenman and Foxman (1970) and Eisenman and Schussel (1970) found positive relations between divergent thinking and preference for complexity. Eisenman's polygon measure correlated (r -.55) with the art scale (Eisenman, 1969b), and there is evidence of construct validity (Eisenman & Boss, 1970;Grove & Eisenman, 1970;Taylor & Eisenman, 1964). Thus, though the usefulness of Eisenman's measure in discriminating eminent creatives from uncreatives is not established, there are grounds for considering studies using it.…”

Section: Research Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Creativity in the person who will never produce anything original and useful: The concept of creativity as a normally distributed trait.

Nicholls¹

1972

American Psychologist

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HE term creativity is used with something approaching gay abandon by both psychologists (Yamamoto, 1965) and people in general (Bruner, 1962;Morreale, 1969), but is most appropriately applied where there is evidence of achievements that are original and make a meaningful contribution to culture. Writers on creativity would surely agree that if the term is to be applied to people who in the strict sense are not creative, the links between these and eminent creators must be established clearly. However, these links have not been clarified adequately, and when, they are, one popular approach to creativity will rest on uncertain foundations.Creativity research can be categorized in a number of ways (e.g., Golann, 1963). This article suggests that there are two major approaches to creativity in normal populations. In one, products are rated on a continuum of creativity, and the personal and social factors associated with creative achievement are examined. In the other, the central concern of this article, it is assumed that there is a trait (or traits) of creativity-the psychological significance of the trait and its contribution to creative production are examined.The first approach has been used in the study of eminent or high-level creators (e.g., Helson & Crutchfield, 1970a;MacKinnon, 1965;Taylor & Ellison, 1967) and with less outstanding subjects (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi & Getzels, 1970;Holland, 1961). If this approach to creativity in normal populations is adopted, the continuity between eminent and everyday creativity resides in the criteria for judging the creativity of products. It is not necessary to assume a normally distributed trait 1 Requests for reprints should be sent to John G. Nicholls,

show abstract