identidad y creatividad

8/8/2019 identidad y creatividad

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/identidad-y-creatividad 1/26

Identity and Creativity

Stephen J. Dollinger, Stephanie M. Clancy Dollinger,and Leslie Centeno

Department of Psychology

Southern Illinois University

Emerging adulthood is a period for exploration of identity aspects including occupa-

tional identity, and creative activity may contribute to or result from this exploration.

Grounded in several conceptions of identity, particularly that of Erik Erikson, this re-

search tested the prediction that identity processes predict creativity. In 2 studies ( N =

250), university students completed measures of identity (Berzonsky’s Identity

Styles Inventory; Cheek’s Aspects of Identity Questionnaire), plus creative potential

(Creative Personality Scale), accomplishments (behavior checklist and open-endedlisting), and products (drawings, stories). In keeping with prediction, these findings

demonstrated that those who are information-seeking in style and emphasize their

personal identity have the greatest potential creativity and evidence the greatest num-

ber of creative accomplishments in their young lives, whereas those emphasizing

normative or collective identities evidenced fewer accomplishments. These identity

variables contributed over and above the effects of gender and verbal ability. Results

fit well with past findings in the creativity literature but represent a new direction for

identity research and theory.

Visual, literary, or musical artists and teachers notuncommonly view their art as an

expression of self or as inherently linked to their identity. Samuel Johnson suc-

cinctly claimed “I write therefore I am.” Artist Leo Gavel observed that “every cre-

ated thing appears with fingerprints somewhere in the finished project like a per-

sonal signature” (in J. M. Erikson, 1988, p. 137) and that “even a portrait of

someone else is also a portrait of the artist” (p. 139). Some take this notion a step

further by suggesting that the creative act also promotes the discovery or creation

of the self. In this vein, novelist Ellis Peters reportedly said about her medieval de-

IDENTITY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, 5(4), 315–339Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Correspondence or a request for a supplementary appendix giving examples of the TAT stories and



tective character Brother Cadfael “I say that I created him but he’s been busy creat-

ing me.” Similarly, the creator of Mary Poppins, Pamela Travers (1988/1997) com-

mented that in the process of making something, the creator is “reciprocallydefined, shaped and ordered … the potter, molding the receptive clay, is himself

being molded” (p. 42).

Only a few scholars have considered links between creativity and identity and

usually in qualitative terms. For example, several researchers have discussed as-

pects of the creative identity in professionals and children (Cawelti, Rappaport, &

Wood, 1992; Rostan, 1998). In addition, various linkages between identity and

creativity have been explored in psychoanalytic (Kavaler-Adler, 2000; Miliora,

2001) and marketing research (Sethi, Smith, & Park, 2001) and in a number of

qualitative dissertations (e.g., Edinger, 2002; Hartigan, 2000; Walker, 1999).These works describe the experience of beingor becoming creative but are notwell

grounded in systematic psychological approaches to identity. Thus far, little em-

pirical work has been brought to bear on this question. The purpose of our studies

is to appraise the hypothesis suggested by such comments: Are creativity and iden-

tity empirically related?

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ON IDENTITYDEVELOPMENT AND CREATIVITY

The seminal theorist in terms of identity development was Erik Erikson, best

known for his work on the eight stages and psychosocial crises of human develop-

ment, ranging from the issue of acquiring trust in infancy to achieving integrity in

the later years of life (E. H. Erikson, 1963, 1980). In particular, creativity would

seem to be involved in issues of identity (the fourth stage) and generativity (the

seventh stage). Identity researchers have yet to study creativity except insofar as

they have debated whether identity itself is discovered or created (Berzonsky,1986; Waterman, 1984).

Creativity researchers have ignored the concept of identity for the most part,

frequently citing the works of Freud and Jung but the work of Erik Erikson almost

not at all. This omission is most notable in a literature review of personality theo-

ries bearing on creativity (Woodman, 1981); it probably reflects an emphasis on

the unconscious in creativity (cf. Smith & van der Meer, 1994). One exception to

this trend can be noted. In an article addressing factors that may lead gifted youth

toward creative careers and eminence, Albert (1990) explicitly drew on Erikson’s

views. He noted that “being creative involves several aims—to be in control of one’s own identity, to see that identity more clearly, to free it from everyday limits

316 DOLLINGER, CLANCY DOLLINGER, CENTENO



special pleasure from dealing with words or numbers (e.g., literary skills, math,

and science) may be more likely to explore the development of identity in these di-

rections. This exploration could take the form of seeking further instruction in aparticular form of endeavor and a greater willingness to experiment with such an

identity, which should lead to and in turn be enhanced by greater creativity. Indi-

viduals who are more foreclosed or norm-following (i.e., taking the identity paths

suggested or assumed by friends and family) may have less inclination toward cre-

ative pursuits. Finally, the person who is quite diffuse in his or her identity and dis-

interested in exploring possibilities for the self should also evidence few creative

accomplishments. He or she might have creative potential but for various reasons

is doing little to develop that potential.

EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND

To our knowledge just a few studies are relevant to our question and only one study

offered direct evidence on the relation between identity and creative accomplish-

ments. In several high school and college samples, Waterman and colleagues

(Waterman & Archer, 1979; Waterman, Kohutis, & Pulone, 1977) found that

poetry writing—but not journal writing—correlated with identity achievement.

Moreover, the dimension of “cultural sophistication” (which included artistic in-terests) predicted later identity achievement in longitudinal studies (Waterman &

Goldman, 1976; Waterman & Waterman, 1971). Of greater relevance to research

on actual creative accomplishments, Helson and Pals’s (2000) longitudinal study

of Mills College women included identity and creativity measures. These authors

correlated California Q-sort descriptions of 105 women in their early 20s and

again early 40s with prototypes of the identity-achieved person (Mallory, 1989),

and each participant’s similarity to this prototype was the measure of identity

achievement. The authors then used this measure to predict occupational creativity

at age 52, based mainly on the creativity implied by career choices but taking intoaccount accomplishments as well (Helson, Roberts, & Agronick, 1995). Identity

achievement at age 43 indeed predicted creativity both in zero-order correlations

and multiple regression controlling for age 21 creative potential (measured by vari-

ous personality scales). However, an age 21 identity achievement measure and an

age 27 “identity consolidation” measure did not predict age 53 creativity. Helson

and Pals concluded from these and other analyses that creative achievement is as-

sociated with both intrapsychic and psychosocial personality development.

The Helson and Pals (2000) study is impressive for its study of real-world cre-

ativity in a longitudinal sample followed well into the participants’ adult lives.However, the different results for the two measures of identity achievement are




ported. In particular, it would be interesting to know whether those in moratorium

status in their early 20s—and thus actively exploring their identities —became cre-

ative in the process. Nevertheless, the study’s strengths do indicate that our re-search question deserves further study.

The identity status paradigm is not without its critics (Côté & Levine, 1988; van

Hoof, 1999), and proponents have responded with stronger theory, newer data, and

a greater focus on identity process than identity status (Adams & Marshall, 1996;

Berzonsky & Adams, 1999). As recommended by Berzonsky and Adams, we fo-

cused more specifically on identity processing style; thus, our research sought to

provide a new test of the hypothesis that identity exploration will correlate with

creativity in adolescents and young adults, the group for whom identity issues

should be most salient.According to Berzonsky (1989, 1992, 1994), identity development can be

thought to involve three different social-cognitive styles of decision making about

the self. Self-explorers use an information orientation, which is to say they ac-

tively seek out and process information before making identity-relevant decisions.

We would expect such individuals to internalize new and interesting possibilities

for who they might become and thus enhance their creativity. The status group of

foreclosure would be reflected in a normative orientation, consisting of a concern

with standards and prescriptions held by family and friends. Finally, uncommitted

or diffuse individuals can be said to operate with a diffuse orientation involvingavoidance and procrastination, in effect letting circumstances dictate their life

paths. We would expect the latter two orientations to yield lesser levels of creativ-

ity than the more active informational style. Berzonsky also included an identity

commitment scale to the styles inventory, thus allowing an uncoupling of the com-

mitment and exploration components that were confounded in objective measures

of identity status. Research has shown these dimensions to have theoretically

meaningful relations with identity status groupings, coping styles, need for cogni-

tion, and openness to experience (Berzonsky, 1989, 1992, 1994; Berzonsky &

Sullivan, 1992).One previous study found indirect support for our thesis by relating identity sta-

tuses and styles with a creativity-relevant task. Dollinger and Clancy Dollinger

(1997) invited university students to devise photo essays to the question “Who are

you?” and judges rated these on a dimension of richness or individuality (i.e., more

creative, aesthetically oriented, complex, self-reflective, multidimensional,

“one-of-a-kind” vs. repetitive, conventional, dull, and unimaginative). Those who

had been or were still engaging in identity exploration (i.e., the achieved and mora-

torium statuses) were judged to have richer photo essays than those not doing so

(foreclosed and diffuse). In a second study, those who scored highest onBerzonsky’s informational style had the richest photo essays followed by the dif-

IDENTITY AND CREATIVITY 319



PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

We conducted two studies bearing on the identity-creativity connection. Both in-cluded Berzonsky’s measure of identity style. The second study expanded on the

first by adding Jonathan Cheek’s (1989) measure, which construes identity into in-

ner or personal and outer or social domains. The second study also included sev-

eral methodological refinements. In sum, we hypothesized that the informational

orientation would predict creative potential, past creative accomplishments, and

present creative products over and above variance explained by gender or (in Study

2) verbal intelligence; we expected the normative and diffuse-avoidant orienta-

tions to relate negatively to creativity. Note that, unlike Helson and Pals (2000), our

prediction is that the identity style of information-seeking rather than the achieve-ment of an identity is critical for the kinds of creativity that adolescents or young

adults might exhibit. We would not expect identity commitment to predict creativ-

ity because, for this age group, a high level of commitment-making might be

viewed as “premature closure” and thus something that creative students would

avoid. Study 1 provided a first test of these predictions. Study 2 expanded on the

question with a larger sample, more measures of creativity, and the additional iden-

tity measure.

STUDY 1

Method

Participants

Ninety-four Midwestern university undergraduates, averaging20.8 years of age

(SD = 3.8), participated for extra credit in one of several courses. The sample pri-

marily consisted of individuals who were single-never married (97%); 64% were

women.

Measures

The revised Identity Styles Inventory (ISI, version 3; Berzonsky, 1992) is a

40-item scale that yields scores on three styles of identity development—informa-

tion seeking, normative, and diffuse-avoidant—and an identity commitment scale.

Responses are recorded on a 5-point Likert format and scales include a mix of pos-

itively and negatively worded items. A sample information-seeking item is “I’ve

spent a great deal of time thinking seriously about what I should do with my life.”A sample normative item is “I’ve more-or-less always operated according to the




ment item is “I know what I want to do with my future.” The inventory has 2-month

retest reliabilities in the .70s (Berzonsky, 1992). Coefficient α reliabilities in the

sample were information-seeking .64, normative .61, diffuse-avoidant .71, andcommitment .82.

Creative Personality Scale (CPS). Gough (1979) developed an empiri-

cally keyed 30-item CPS from his Adjective Check List, using 11 different (mostly

nonstudent) samples and a variety of creativity measures. The measure includes 18

positively worded items (e.g., inventive) and 12 negatively worded items (e.g., in-

terests narrow). We used a 1 (strongly disagree) t o 5 (strongly agree) Likert format

in both studies to yield greater variation and reliability in the scale than in some

past samples. Coefficient α in the sample was .65. Following Helson and Pals(2000), we consider this scale to be a measure of creative potential.

Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI). Among the many approaches to cre-

ativity assessment, self-reported past accomplishments remains one of the most

accepted approaches for general populations (e.g., Hocevar, 1981; Hocevar &

Bachelor, 1989; Plucker, 1999). In a previous study, we used Hocevar’s (1979)

90-item CBI, and supplementary analyses from that sample were the basis for deri-

vation of a 28-item short form (Dollinger, 2003). The inventory asks participants to

indicate their involvement in various creative activities (e.g., made a sculpture,wrote a short story) on 4-point scales ranging from 0 (never did this) to 3 (did this

more than five times) with course-related projects usually excluded. Items in the

short form represent accomplishments in the visual, literary and performing arts,

and crafts. This measure yielded coefficient α values of .89 and .90 in previous

samples; the short and long forms correlated .90 in a previous sample of 150 partic-

ipants. In an unpublished sample of college students ( N = 210), the short and long

forms of this measure were found to have near-zero correlations with Paulhus’s

(1991) measures of impression management and self-deceptive enhancement

(ranging from –.00 to +.05). In this sample, coefficientα was .89. We refer to thisscale as a measure of accomplishments.

Drawing product. Urban and Jellen (Urban, 1991; Urban & Jellen, 1986,

1996) devised the Test for Creative Thinking—Drawing Production (TCT–DP) to

be a brief, culturally fair, creativity test; it is used in Europe and throughout the

world. It consists of a large square frame within which are five “figural fragments”

(i.e., a semicircle, a point, a large right angle, a curved line, and a dashed line). Out-

side the frame is a small square open on its fourth side (see Urban, 1991, for the fig-

ure). Participants are invited to imagine that an artist was interrupted while begin-ning a drawing and that they are asked to complete the drawing in any way they




ative than women, β = –.25, t = –2.47, p < .05. (Supplementary analyses indicated

that this was only the case for the creative personality scale.) More relevant to our

hypothesis, Step 2 of the hierarchical regression was also significant, F (4, 88) =4.12, p < .01, and the information seeking style was the only significant effect at

this step, β = .22, t = 2.03, p < .05.

As a supplementary analysis, we also used Berzonsky’s approach of assigning

participants to groups for a comparison on the overall creativity composite

(Berzonsky, 1994; Berzonsky & Sullivan, 1992). We standardized the style scales

and used the highest scale to assign participants to information-seeking, norma-

tive, or diffuse-avoidant groups. One contrast tested the hypothesis that informa-

tion-seekers would surpass the other two groups. This difference supported expec-

tations, F (1,91) = 13.2, p < .001, d = .78. A second orthogonal contrast representedresidual variance and compared normatives and diffuse-avoidants; this difference

was minimal, F (1,91) = 0.7, not significant (ns).

In sum, this study showed that those who take an open information-oriented ap-

proach to their identity development—in effect those who explore their iden-

tity—are more likely to be creative, whereas those who take a normative (akin to

the foreclosed status) or diffuse-avoidant approach are less creative. Thus, the

findings supported the main hypothesis. The results are limited by the relatively

small number of measures obtained in a single session, and verbal intelligence was

not controlled in the study. In addition, the strongest results emerged for measures(identity and creative potential) that required self-reports about one’s attitudes and

personality, thus sharing method variance. Although using self-report, the accom-

plishments measure referred to specific behavioral acts; only the drawing product

involved judged creativity by raters. Despite these limitations, it is noteworthy that

all three creativity measures related to at least one identity style scale in the pre-

dicted direction.

Finally, this study has a methodological shortcoming in the scoring of the draw-

ing product. Technically, by showing prototypes to judges to anchor their rat-

ings—that is, viewing of drawings from a previous study rated as very low, low,high, very high—we may have unduly influenced their creative judgments and

changed their consensual assessments into a criterion-referenced scoring. Al-

though judges were discouraged from comparing drawings to prototypes, some

may have done so. To consider this influence, the creative drawings in Study 2

were rated by judges who all had artistic expertise and who all used the consensual

assessment technique without prior study of the prototypes.

STUDY 2




ner and social or outer orientations to identity articulated by Sampson (1978) and

Cheek (1989; Cheek & Briggs, 1982). Although Erikson theorized about the “in-

ner world” (Hoare, 2002), this approach is conceptually grounded in such theoristsas Jung (1957) and Maslow (1961) concerning authenticity and the “inner self,”

and William James’s (1892/1961) distinction between the spiritual and social

selves. According to this view, people differ in the extent to which they orient to-

ward personal versus social aspects when they consider who they are. For some,

the inner world of personal identity is most self-defining (e.g., defined by one’s

dreams or imagination). For others, their reputation or the impressions they make

on others—their social identities—are central.

Building on an initial listing of items from Sampson (1978), Cheek devised and

subsequently revised the Aspects of Identity Questionnaire (AIQ) to measure theseorientations plus the additional orientation of collective identity (Cheek, Tropp,

Chen, & Underwood, 1994). High scorers on personal identity have been shown to

havegreater private self-consciousness, prefertomake independent judgments, and

seek jobs that afford opportunities for creativity and self-fulfillment (e.g., Cheek &

Briggs, 1982; Hogan & Cheek, 1983; Leary, Wheeler, & Jenkins, 1986; Lutwak,

Ferrari,&Cheek,1998).Incontrast,thosehighonsocialidentity(comparedtolows)

evidencemore public self-consciousness, andareconcerned about behavingappro-

priately (i.e.,highself-monitors); they also choose jobs that allowforgood relation-

ships and prestige. Most important, the two conceptions of identity are empiricallylinked (Berzonsky, 1994; Berzonsky & Sullivan, 1992; Lutwak et al., 1998). Those

who most endorse an informational style in Berzonsky’s system typically orient to-

wardtheirpersonalidentityintheCheekframework.Thus,althoughtheyseekinfor-

mation (thus focusing outward to the environment), they apparently stay attuned to

the relevance of such information for their “inner” identity. Those who endorse the

normativestyleusuallyalsothinkoftheircollectiveidentitiesasmoreself-defining.

In a previous creativity-relevant study, the AIQ related predictably to the indi-

viduality and social connectedness of university students’photo essays (Dollinger,

Preston, O’Brien, & DiLalla, 1996). That is, the most creative and individualisticphoto essays were devised by those who scored higher on personal identity and by

those who scored lower on social and collective identity. Dollinger et al. (1996)

also devised another “outer” identity scale combining special purpose and social

identity items that involved “the superficial self that other’s see,” namely gender,

age, and possessions plus attractiveness and appearance. Those who rejected su-

perficial aspects as self-defining also devised richly creative photo essays.

Given the conceptual and empirical linkage between Identity Styles and As-

pects of Identity, it is reasonable to expect that the greatest creativity will be evi-

denced by those who endorse an information-seeking style and a personal identityorientation. The normative style and social-collective orientations should relate




Finally, in Study 2 we included methodological improvements on both creative

products and accomplishments: (a) we obtained identity and creativity measures in

separate sessions one month apart; (b) we used two creative product measures (onevisual and one verbal) and artist judges for drawings; (c) we also incorporated the

full length measure of creative accomplishments; and (d) we added an open-ended

verbal description (termed the “dossier”) of creative accomplishments, which re-

quired judges’ratings, thus not sharing method variance. Because the Creative Be-

havior Checklist was devised in 1979, the dossier also allowed for creative accom-

plishments using newer technologies.

Method

Participants and Raters

Participants were 156 midwestern university students, averaging 21.6 years (SD

= 3.6), who received course credit in a Personality Psychology course for taking

part in the study. Most (97%) were single-never married; 63% were women. In

terms of ethnicity, 76% were White, 18% African American, 5% Hispanic, and 1%

other. Four Art & Design MFA-graduate students served as judges of the drawing

product. Four psychologists (2 MA, 2 PhD) served as judges for the creativity dos-

sier (see later). Three psychologists (2 MA, 1 PhD) and one creative writing in-structor served as raters for the TAT stories.

Measures

We retained three measures from the first study. In Study 2, the Identity Style

scales (Berzonsky, 1992) attained coefficient α reliabilities of .71 (information),

.66 (normative), .68 (diffuse), and .74 (commitment). The Gough CPS had a coef-

ficient α of .77. The four MFA judges used the consensual assessment technique,

and their detail (α = .78) and gestalt ratings (α = .86) correlated .87 so they wereaveraged into a single score.2


2Although the main analysesused the ratings by these artist judges, we alsohad four judgeswho first

reviewed the prototypes make ratings as in Study 1. The judges included two psychologists (1 MA, 1

PhD),anarteducation graduate,and anartmajor. Threeanalysessuggest that theprototype-informed rat-

ingswerequitecomparable to true consensual assessmentsbyartistjudges.First,the correlationbetween

thecompositeof “prototype” andconsensual assessment judgeswas.85(.79 fordetailsalone and.83for

gestalt alone). Second, a principal components analysis applied to the eight judges’ ratings (averaging

across details and gestalt) yielded a single component, with eigenvalue = 5.4, accounting for 67% of

the variance; the next largest eigenvalue was less than .58. Third, correlations between the proto-type-informed andconsensual assessments judgments(pooledacrossdetailsandgestalt)ontheone hand

and the identity measures and other creativity variables on the other were nearly identical. For example,



New measures in Study 2 included a second identity measure; the original CBI,

which includes six subscales; rated creativity of a TAT story as well as an

open-ended list of creative accomplishments (the creativity dossier); and, as a con-trol variable, a measure of vocabulary knowledge.

AIQ. Cheek (1989) described the initial development and validation of the

AIQ to measure personal, social, and collective orientations. In this study, we used

the expanded third revision (AIQ-IIIx; Cheek et al., 1994). This 35-item measure

asks to what extent different aspects apply to the participant, with responses rang-

ing from 1 (not important to my sense of who I am) t o 5 (extremely important to my

sense of who I am). Ten items reflect aspects of personal identity (e.g., my thoughts

and ideas; my dreams and imagination). Seven items refer to social identity (e.g.,my popularity with other people; my social behavior such as the way I act when

meeting people). Eight items refer to collective identity (e.g., my race or ethnic

background, my religion). Ten other items are special purpose items. Dollinger et

al. (1996) used three of these to form the basis of a superficial identity scale: my

sex, being male or female; my age, belonging to my age group or being part of my

generation; and the things I own; to these were added two social identity items: my

physical appearance: my height, my weight and the shape of my body; and my at-

tractiveness to other people. Coefficient α reliabilities in this study were personal

.84, social .80, collective .73, and superficial .65.

CBI. In Study 2, we used Hocevar’s (1979) 90-item CBI. Like the short form

in Study 1, it asks participants to indicate their involvement in various creative ac-

tivities on 4-point scales ranging (for the first 82 items) from 0 (never did this) to 3

(did this more than five times). For music and workshop items later in the list, the

high end has slightly different anchors. Overall internal consistency was excellent

in this study (Cronbach’s α = .90). Hocevar also grouped the items into six catego-

ries: visual arts (8 items, e.g., painted an original picture;α = .75 in this study), lit-

erary accomplishments (14 items, e.g., wrote poems; α = .76), performance arts(12 items, e.g., received an award for performance in popular dance; α = .76),

crafts (19 items, e.g., made jewelry; α = .82), music (12 items, e.g., wrote music

for several instruments; α = .78), and math and science (10 items, e.g., entered a

project or paper in a science contest;α = .58). In addition, there are 15 nonscalable

items that are included in the total score but not subscores (e.g., designed a game,

made up a magic trick).

Creativity dossiers. Hocevar (1979) initially devised the CBI by requesting

open-ended descriptions of creative activity. Given the time since that test was de-vised and that the CBI excludes activities done for classes—which participants




to imagine that they had been nominated for an undergraduate creativity award.

For this fictive nomination, they were to list up to five actual creative accomplish-

ments (cf. King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996). After typing, four judges rated theselists on a scale of 1 (not creative compared to others in sample) to 7 (very creative

compared to others) with 3 anchored as typical. As with the drawings and stories,

judges independently read all dossiers once and gave a rating, then had the oppor-

tunity to modify the rating on a second reading of all dossiers. The composite of all

four judges was quite reliable, coefficient α = .85. In general, the low-rated dos-

siers mentioned noncreative albeit socially useful activities or accomplishments

(e.g., “spent summer as a life guard;” “ran an anti-drug retreat”), whereas highly

rated dossiers mentioned truly creative activities (e.g., “choreographed a dance for

my dance company;” “made logos for a restaurant;” “designed Web pages for a lo-cal band.”)

Stories. Storytelling or narrative measures of creativity have been profitably

used in a number of previous studies (e.g., Hennessey & Amabile, 1988; Wake-

field, 1986). Using a stimulus picture from David McClelland’s research version

of the TAT (e.g., McClelland & Steele, 1972; couple sitting in cabaret watching

guitarist), participants wrote stories that were then typed prior to consensual as-

sessments made on a 1 (very impoverished ) to 7 (very creative) scale with 3 an-

chored as typical. As with drawings and dossiers, judges independently read allstories once and assigned a rating; they could modify that rating on the second

reading. The four judges’ ratings correlated highly, yielding a coefficientα of .88.

In general, the low-rated stories had very conventional interpretations of the pic-

ture (e.g., stories of marriage proposals or anniversaries), whereas the highly rated

stories were quite novel (e.g., woman as flirting with guitarist; story unrelated to

the picture ends as protagonist looks in through window being bored with the ac-

tivity in the cabaret).3

Vocabulary. We used a 25-item vocabulary scale from the Short Form Test of Mental Maturity (Sullivan, Clark, & Tiegs, 1970). In this sample, the measure

yielded M = 18.6, SD = 3.9, coefficient α = .86.

Procedure

Data were derived from a two-part extra-credit opportunity in a undergraduate

course. Students had several options for extra credit in the course, most of which


3

We also recorded story length (number of words) and this correlated highly with the creativity rat-ing, r = .70, p < .001. However, we believe that story length itself reflects verbal fluency, which is often

taken as an aspect of creativity. Indeed, story length also correlated .28, p < .01, with rated creativity of



related to lectures later in the semester. Occurring early in the semester, in “Re-

search Day One,” participants completed a large questionnaire packet including

the identity measures, vocabulary scale, and demographic data. Occurring 1 monthlater, “Research Day Two” included the CBI, CPS, creativity dossier, and creative

products.

Results

Preliminary Results for Identity Measures

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all measures.

These data are comparable to statistics in the literature. Intercorrelations among

the Identity Styles were also similar to those commonly found with the commit-

ment scale correlating with both normative style and diffuse-avoidant style and for

the information-seeking and diffuse styles to correlate slightly. Intercorrelations

among the original Aspects of Identity scales were all significant and comparable

to those reported by Cheek and others.

Correlations between the Identity Styles and Aspects of Identity scales are also

shown in Table 1. Seven of the 12 correlations between the original scales were

significant and comparable to values found by others (Berzonsky & Sullivan,

1992; Lutwak, et al., 1998). Notably, the two scales expected to have a positive re-

lation with creativity—personal identity and information seeking—correlated r =

.39, p < .001. Two of the scales expected to have a negative correlation with cre-

ativity—normative style and collective identity—were also substantially related, r

= .39, p < .001.

Preliminary Results for Creativity Measures

Intercorrelations amongthecreativitymeasuressupportedthevalidityof thecre-

ativity dossier as a measure of accomplishments (i.e., the CBI and dossier ratings

yielded r = .41, p < .001)and, as in our past research, the two creativeproducts were

correlated, r = .32, p < .001. In this sample, the CPS mainly correlated with the Be-

havior Inventory (r = .41, p < .001). Excluding its relation to drawing creativity, the

TAT story had relatively poor internal validity as a measure of creativity.

Finally, as shown in Table 1, a number of the measures in Study 2 correlated sig-

nificantly with vocabulary, notably the creativity dossier, but also normative and

diffuse-avoidant styles, personal and collective orientations, creative personality,

and the CBI. Given that vocabulary correlated with these measures, we included it

with gender in the first step of hierarchical regressions.

Main Results




3 2 9

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations for S

Correlations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Info

2. Norm .01

3. Diff –.16* –.05

4. Comm .15 .44** –.37**

5. Pers Id .39** .05 –.11 .24*

6. Soc Id .00 .12 .23* .03 .17*

7. Coll Id .22* .39** .19* .24* .25* .41**8. Supr Id –.09 .14 .24* .06 .20* .73** .50**

9. Vocab .15 –.20* –.22* .04 .26* –.05 –.25* –.09

10. CPS .28** –.05 –.12 .17* .32** –.09 –.02 –.09 .1

11. CBI .36** –.08 –.20* .06 .25* –.16* –.18* –.29** .2

12. Dossier .06 –.25* –.09 –.03 .16 –.13 –.32** –.28** .3

13. Drawing –.03 –.17* –.02 –.13 .04 –.12 –.13 –.20* .0

14. Story .04 –.17* .18* –.22* –.06 –.05 –.15 –.02 .1

Mean 37.89 27.42 23.71 37.80 40.51 22.89 23.78 15.71 18.6

SD 6.00 5.51 5.71 6.24 5.72 4.55 5.54 3.44 3.9

Note. Info = informational style; Norm = normative style; Diff = diffuse/avoidant style; Comm = idensocial identity; Coll Id = collective identity; Supr Id = superficial identity; Vocab = vocabulary; CPS = Cre

ventory; Draw = average rating of drawing by 4 judges; Story = average rating by 4 judges.

* p < .05. ** p < .001.



score across the five creativity measures. In both regressions, this criterion variable

was predicted from gender and vocabulary in Step 1 and then the scales of the ISI

or AIQ in Step 2. This analysis was used to justify further similar analyses at thelevel of the individual creativity measures. As shown in Table 2, creativity was pre-

dicted somewhat by the verbal intelligence measure but, in both cases, identity

variables added over and above the control variables in Step 1.

When this analytic approach was used with the five individual measures, the

analyses of creative accomplishments (CBI and dossier) and creative potential

(CPS) yielded results in line with the omnibus analyses. As shown in Table 3, in-

formational style and personal identity were both predictors of accomplishments

noted on the CBI and potential as judged from the CPS. However, normative and

collective identity were negative predictors of accomplishments listed on the dos-sier, an interesting difference. Finally, in what is an anomalous finding, diffuse

identity predicted more creative TAT stories.

Supplementary Results

Do informational style and personal identity contribute independently?

To address this question, we regressed the creativity composite on all seven ISI and

AIQ variables. Gender and vocabulary scores were entered in Step 1 and the seven

ISI and AIQ variables in Step 2. The first step accounted for 11% of the variance increativity ( p < .001); the second step accounted for another 18% of the variance ( p

< .001). Informational style, personal identity, and collective identity each yielded

significant effects ( p < .05), respective β values of .20, .22, and –.23. Thus, infor-


TABLE 2

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Creativity Composite: Study 2

R R2 R2Chg F Chg β t

Step 1 .33 .11 .11 8.99**Gender –.05 –0.63

Vocabulary .35 4.19**

Step 2

Step 2 Using Identity Styles Inventory .45 .20 .10 4.31*

Information .21 2.70*

Normative –.23 –2.85*

Diffuse –.03 –0.34

Commitment –.01 –0.09

Step 2 Using Aspects of Identity Questionnaire .48 .23 .13 7.85**

Personal .30 3.67**

Social –.16 –1.98*Collective –.24 –2.73*



mational style and personal identity (as well as collective identity) made independ-

ent contributions to these creative outcomes.

The role of superficial identity. We did not include this measure in the main

analyses because of its overlap with the social identity scale, but it was a moder-

ately useful predictor of creativity. Partial correlations between AIQ superficial

identity and the creativity measures, controlling for vocabulary, showed that those

who endorsed the most superficial identity aspects as self-defining had relatively

few creative accomplishments on both the behavior inventory and dossier ratings,

partial r s = –.28 and –.27, both p < .001, and their drawings were rated as less cre-

ative, partial r = –.20, p < .05. Superficial identity did not predict creative personal-

ity or story ratings, partial r s = –.06 and –.04, respectively. Thus, creative studentsseem to disavow identity based on qualities that are immediately visible to others.

CBI subscales. We used zero-order correlations to expand on the main find-

ingsfor the CBI interms of the six creativitysubscales.The results showedthe infor-

mation-oriented identity style related positively to all creativity subscales, the larg-

est correlation being with literary accomplishments, r = .29, p < .001. Superficial

identity related negatively to all but the math-science subscale, the largest correla-

tionbeingwithvisualarts, r =–.29, p < .001. Diffuse identity style,personalidentity,

andcollectiveidentityeachpredictedtwoofthesixscales.Amongthesubscales,thevisual and literary arts had the greatest number of identity correlates.4


TABLE 3

Significant β Values for Identity Variables in Step 2

for All Five Creativity Criteria

Criterion Variables

CBI Dossier CPS Story Drawing

Part I: Identity Styles as Predictors

Information .34** .03 .24* .05 –.05

Normative –.05 –.29** –.10 –.09 –.14

Diffuse –.12 –.04 –.02 .20* –.09

Commitment –.03 .04 .17 –.11 –.10

Part II: Aspects of Identity as Predictors

Personal .29** .21* .35** –.08 .10Social –.13 –.03 –.16 –.01 –.11

Collective –.14 –.31** –.01 –.13 –.12

Note. Step 1 removed the effects of gender and vocabulary in hierarchical regressions. CBI = Cre-

ative Behavior Inventory; CPS = Creative Personality Scale.

* p < .05. ** p < .001.



GENERAL DISCUSSION

Prompted by the self-views of several literary and visual artists, we addressed thequestion of whether identity constructs, broadly defined, predict creative potential,

accomplishments, and products. We operationalized identity by measures of iden-

tity styles (Berzonsky, 1989) and identity orientations (Cheek, 1989), creative po-

tential with Gough’s (1979) empirically keyed Adjective Check List measure, and

accomplishments with short and long forms of a creative behaviors checklist

(Hocevar, 1979), plus open-ended descriptions of salient accomplishments, con-

sensually assessed. Finally, creative products consisted of consensually assessed

drawings and stories devised by participants for this research. Results of two stud-

ies showed that university students who have begun to actualize their potential—asevidenced by their accomplishments—are active explorers of identity in terms of

their informational style and personal or inner identity. Those who produced more

creative drawings for this study rejected superficial characteristics in their identifi-

cations and tended to reject the influence of normative groups in their identity.

Before discussing implications, we should note that these studies had several

strengths and limitations. Although appropriate for a study of identity, university

students obviously limit creative accomplishments to ones that are far from the

real-world eminence that the field aspires to understand. On the other hand, we

cannot truly speak of identity development because our methods werecross-sectional, even in Study 2 in which data collection spanned a 1-month inter-

val between the identity predictors and creativity criterion measures. Nevertheless,

the methods used afford larger samples and a wider variety of creativity measures

than might otherwise be possible. Most critically, the methods included identity

constructs from several different theories and creativitymeasures that extended be-

yond simple self-reported personal qualities. Moreover, the raters included accom-

plished artists and a creative writer as well as other judges; as such the judgments

should be quite valid.

Implications for Identity Theory and Research

The field of identity research has directed very little attention to creativity, despite

the fact that Erik Erikson was himself an artist in his moratorium years and held the

self-attributed identity of “born to be a painter” (Hoare, 2002, p. 115). Instead, a

considerable number of studies focus on personality correlates such as

self-esteem, anxiety, locus of control, ego development, rigidity, and self-control,

findings that some have argued do not bear on construct validity (Côté & Levine,

1988; van Hoof, 1999; see also Berzonsky & Adams, 1999). The notion that iden-tity should be important in creativity has been expressed by those who followed




identity status/style research line grounded in Erikson’s theory and the per-

sonal-social (inner-outer) tradition in James, Jung, and Maslow.

In an influential theoretical statement, Adams and Marshall (1996) offered a de-velopmental social psychology of identity. They noted five documented functions

of identity: (a) providing a structure for understanding who one is; (b) providing

meaning and direction through commitments, values, and goals; ( c) providing a

sense of personal control; (d) striving for coherence between values, beliefs, and

commitments, and (e) enabling the recognition of potential. Although creators

seem to emphasize the first function (as noted in the introduction) and we have em-

phasized the fifth, it would seem that all of these functions could relate to creative

activity. The results support the claim of Berzonsky and Adams (1999) that the

identity paradigm is still useful after 35 years. Specifically, our findings correct forone limitation of much identity research—its reliance on self-reported traits and

attitudes as criterion variables. Although our creative potential measure shares this

weakness, the accomplishments and products measures clearly involve past and

present behaviors.

One important issue to consider in further research is the directionality of influ-

ence. Do identity processes shape the development of creative activity and lead to

greater accomplishments as Helson and Pals (2000) argued and we have claimed?

Or does early creative activity lead to changes in identity status as indicated in

Waterman and colleagues’s (Waterman & Archer, 1979; Waterman & Goldman,1976; Waterman, et al., 1977; Waterman & Waterman, 1971) studies? Clearly, fu-

ture studies are needed in which identity and creativity (as well as control vari-

ables) are comprehensively measured on multiple occasions to assess these possi-

bilities as well as the potential for bidirectional influences.

These studies thus provide a solid basis for further research linking two previ-

ously separate literatures. For example, Erikson (1982) explicitly mentioned

generativity as relevant to creativity and Joan Erikson (1988) discussed how the

epigenetic principle of each stage revisiting past resolutions could apply to creativ-

ity. Thus, one direction for further study is the relevance of all of the life stages tocreativity. Another direction is to consider whether creativity is enhanced at differ-

ent points of moratorium-achievement-moratorium-achievement cycles (Marcia,

2002). Similarly, for whom do creative blocks initiate or correlate with identity cri-

ses or exploration? When creativity-relevant abilities diminish with aging (e.g.,

Lindauer, 1993) does this prompt a reconsideration of identity? Third, because

foreclosure status or normative style is dependent on having role models for identi-

fication (Adams & Marshall, 1996), what are the effects of having creative parents

on the adolescents’ identity development? Compared to other parents, do creative

parents flexibly provide opportunities for self-exploration or place greater value ontheir offspring following a creative career path? Fourth, based on these results and




cross-lagged designs measuring both constructs at different points in time, re-

searchers could investigate whether identity exploration/consolidation or develop-

ments in creativity seem to exert the greater direction of influence. Finally, studiesof different experiences (e.g., the dissociative-like way that some fiction writers

experience their characters “taking over”) might have heuristic value for the debate

on discovery versus created identity.

Supplementary results in Study 2 suggest that certain kinds of creative work

may be more identity-relevant than others. Specifically, the data suggest that visual

and literary arts may be more identity-relevant than math-science or perhaps mu-

sic, performance, and crafts. Although the sample must be considered here, it

would seem that visual and literary arts place a greater premium on new creations

rather than the use or enactment of scripts, designs, or performances written orchoreographed by others. Future research might profitably target as participants

those young people with literary and visual arts interests.

Implications for Creativity

These findings demonstrated that those who emphasize their inner personal iden-

tity and who are information seeking in style seem to have the greatest potential for

creativity but also evidence more creative accomplishments in their young lives.

Persons focused more on their friends, family, and collective groups, although in-terpersonally secure, provided less evidence of creativity in their dossiers. These

findings are not truly original for creativity researchers but instead underscore the

lessons of past scholarship. For example, one of the most consistent correlates of

creativity is openness to experience (Feist, 1998; King, et al., 1996; McCrae, 1987;

see also Dollinger et al., 2004). The inner-directedness or independence of judg-

ment that is similar to both personal identity and information-seeking style has

been evident in creative persons for some time (Barron, 1957; Helson, 1996;

MacKinnon, 1962). In addition, the capacity (or inclination) to work in solitude

implied by personal identity and contradicted somewhat by normative style andsocial and collective orientations has been emphasized by creativity theorists and

researchers (Barron, 1997; MacKinnon, 1962; Storr, 1988). Of course, our find-

ings should not be taken to imply that collectivist cultures do not support creativity

because the study only involved students in a midwestern university. Nevertheless,

it would be of interest to replicate the study in samples in which the collective iden-

tity orientation would be more or less pronounced.

Did anything predict creative products? Although the hierarchical regres-

sions did not show much support for the influence of identity on creative products,it is noteworthy that the zero-order correlations in both studies showed that those




judged as low in creativity. Although none of these findings were strong, they do

suggest that individuals who explicitly disavow group or superficial identifications

may produce more creative products. Interestingly the diffuse-avoidant partici-pants devised more creative stories in Study 2. Perhaps they included elements of

negative emotionality or alienation that made their stories unconventional. How-

ever, this finding should be interpreted cautiously until replicated because it could

be attributable to the content of the TAT stimulus used. (In contrast, the drawing

stimulus is rather abstract and content free.)

Convergence among creativity measures. The findings are also of inter-

est to creativity researchers because they suggest some divergences in relations be-

tween creative potential, accomplishments, and products. In Study 1, the singlemeasures of these three were significantly correlated; in Study 2, only potential

(Creative Personality) and accomplishments were significantly correlated.5 Never-

theless, the visual and verbal creative products were significantly correlated in

Study 2, as they have been in other research we have done. For such brief assess-

ments this cross-modal similarity is encouraging. However, the drawing product

was inconsistent in correlating with potential and accomplishments from Study 1

to Study 2. Given the different correlates of accomplishments versus products, it is

plausible that different identity processes will apply to different stages of creativ-

ity. Specifically, low normative style may be conducive to the production of the oc-casional novel product but actual accomplishments may require a more proactive

stance grounded in personal identity and information seeking. This hypothesis de-

serves research attention.

In addition, further study should attempt to clarify differences between accom-

plishments on the CBI and dossier. In particular, informational style and personal

identity better predicted CBI accomplishments, whereas the normative and collec-

tive constructs better predicted low dossier scores. Although both focusing on ac-

complishments, the two measures differ in what is required—recalling and writing

about past accomplishments versus simple recognition of items on an inventory.Empirically, what the measures shared was a positive relation with vocabulary and

negative relation with superficial identity. Future research should clarify the mean-

ing of these two measures and, in the process, vary the order of presentation that

was not done in this study.

Measurement of products. These results also suggest that modifications of

Amabile’s consensual assessment technique are quite reasonable. When a particu-

lar product such as the TCT-DP stimulus is used in a series of studies with the same


5It should be noted that the CBI visual arts scale correlated .28, p < .001 with the artists’ ratings of



population, after brief exposure to prototype drawings, nonartist judges can

achieve results that are reliable and valid and comparable to those of artist judges.

We have used similar methods in training new judges for studies of autophoto-graphy. Of course, it is important to note that the participants were a general sam-

ple without much artistic training. It is an empirical question whether the drawings

by accomplished artists could be validly judged by those with less training than the

creators.

CONCLUSION

Finally, these results extend our past work with the creativity-relevant method of

autophotographic essays about the self (Dollinger & Clancy Dollinger, 1997;

Dollinger et al., 1996). Those studies showed that Cheek’s identity orientations

and Berzonsky’s identity styles predicted the richness and uniqueness of self-por-

trayal in essays that used photos and words to define the self. Autophotographic es-

says could be taken as another kind of creative product—albeit one done in vivo

rather than in a laboratory or classroom and a creative product focused directly on

one’s identity. As noted earlier, a number of dissertations and studies of creative

identity suggest that identity and creativity can be linked qualitatively. These find-

ings bolster confidence in the conclusion that indeed these domains are empiri-

cally linked and their common ground is deserving of further study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Fiona Jappy, Baggs McKelvey, Dimitra Palaskonis, Jodi

Pearson, Ruth Pringle, Nicole Robinson, Bridget Siegner, Lidija Slavkovic,

Alberta Skaggs, and Linda Vogenthaler for their assistance with data reduction.

REFERENCES

Adams, G. R., & Marshall, S. K. (1996). A developmental social psychology of identity: Understand-

ing the person in context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 429–442.

Albert, R. S. (1990). Identity, experiences, and career choice among the exceptionally gifted and emi-

nent. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 13–34). Newbury Park, CA.:

Sage.Amabile,T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.




Barron, F. (1997). Introduction. In F. Barron, A. Montuori, & A. Barron (Eds.), Creators on creating

(pp. 1–21). New York: Tarcher/Putnam.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1986). Discovery versusconstructivist interpretationsof identity formation: Consid-

eration of additional implications. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 111–117.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 4, 268–282.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 60, 771–788.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1994). Self-identity: The relationship between process and content. Journal of Re-

search in Personality, 28, 453–360.

Berzonsky, M. D., & Adams, G. R. (1999). Reevaluating the identity status paradigm: Still useful after

35 years. Developmental Review, 19, 557–590.

Berzonsky, M. D., & Sullivan, C. (1992). Social-cognitive aspects of identity style: Need for cognition,

experiential openness, and introspection. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 140–155.

Cawelti, S., Rappaport, A., & Wood, B. (1992). Modeling artistic creativity: An empirical study. Jour-nal of Creative Behavior, 26, 83–94.

Cheek, J. M. (1989). Identity orientations and self-interpretation. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.),

Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 275–285). New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Cheek, J. M., & Briggs, S. R. (1982). Self-consciousness and aspectsof identity. Journal of Research in

Personality, 16, 401–408.

Cheek, J. M., Tropp, L. R., Chen, L. C., & Underwood, M. K. (1994, August). Identity orientations:

Personal, social, and collective aspects of identity. Paper presented at the 102nd Annual Convention

of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.

Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. (1988). A critical examination of the identity status paradigm. Developmental

Review, 8, 1–38.Dollinger, S. J. (2003). Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and creativity. Journal of Creative Be-

havior, 37, 99–116.

Dollinger, S. J., & Clancy Dollinger, S. M. (1997). Individuality and identity exploration: An

autophotographic study. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 337–354.

Dollinger, S. J., Preston, L. A., O’Brien, S. P., & DiLalla, D. L. (1996). Individuality and relatedness of

theself: An autophotographic study. Journalof PersonalityandSocial Psychology, 71,1268–1278.

Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K.,& James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and openness: Further validation of two

creative product measures. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 35–48.

Domino, G., Schmuck, J., & Schneider, M. (2002). An empirical assessment of the GAM theory of cre-

ativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 331–339.

Edinger, M. (2002). An investigation of creativity: A look at two-dimensional artists. Dissertation Ab-

stracts International, 63 (1-A), July, 81.

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed: A review. New York: Norton.

Erikson, J. M. (1988). Wisdom and the senses: The way of creativity. New York: Norton.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 290–309.

Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.

Hartigan, B. F. (2000). “When I’m ready to perform, my mother is always there”:Private school lives of adolescent females. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(5-A), 2072.

Helson, R. (1996). In search of the creative personality. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 295–306.




Helson,R.,Roberts, B. W., & Agronick,G. (1995). Enduringnessandchangein creativepersonality and

thepredictionofoccupationalidentity. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,69,1173–1183.

Hennessey, B. A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the relationship be-

tween ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 193–208.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). Story-telling: A method for assessing children’s creativity.

Journal of Creative Behavior, 22, 235–246.

Hoare, C. H. (2002). Erikson on development in adulthood: New insights from the unpublished papers.

New York: Oxford.

Hocevar, D. (1979, April). The development of the Creative Behavior Inventory. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED 170 350)

Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assess-

ment, 45, 450–464.

Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of cre-ativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53–75).

New York: Plenum.

Hogan, R., & Cheek, J. M. (1983). Identity, authenticity, and maturity. In T. R. Sarbin & K. E. Scheibe

(Eds.), Studies in social identity (pp. 339–357). New York: Praeger.

James, W. (1961). The self. In W. James, Psychology: The briefer course (pp. 43–83). New York:

Harper & Row. (Original work published 1892)

Jung, C. G. (1957). The undiscovered self. New York: New American Library.

Kavaler-Adler, S. (2000). The divine, the deviant and the diabolical: A journal through an artist’s paint-

ings during her participation in a creative process group. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 9,

97–111.

King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of Re-search in Personality, 30, 189–203.

Koestner, R., Walker, M., & Fichman, L. (1999). Childhood parenting experiences and adult creativity.

Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 92–107.

Leary, M. R., Wheeler, D. S., & Jenkins, T. B. (1986). Aspects of identity and behavioral preference:

Studies of occupational and recreational choice. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 11–18.

Lindauer, M. S. (1993). The span of creativity among long-lived historical artists. Creativity Research

Journal, 6, 221–239.

Lutwak, N., Ferrari, J. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1998). Shame, guilt, and identity in men and women: The

role of identity orientation and processing style in moral affects. Personality and Individual Differ-

ences, 25, 1027–1036.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17,

484–495.

Mallory, M. E. (1989). Q-sort definition of ego identity status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18,

399–412.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and So-

cial Psychology, 3, 551–558.

Marcia, J. E. (1994). The empirical study of ego identity. In H. A. Bosma & L. G. Tobi (Eds.), Identity

and development: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 67–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marcia, J. E. (2002). Identity and psychosocial development in adulthood. Identity: An International

Journal of Theory and Research, 2, 7–28.

Maslow, A. H. (1961). Peak experiences as acute identity-experiences. American Journal of Psycho-

analysis, 21, 254–260.

McClelland, D. C., & Steele, R. S. (1972). Motivation workshops. Morristown, NJ: General Learning




McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265.

Miliora, M. T. (2001). Creativity, “twinning,” and self-destruction in the life and work of Tennessee

Williams. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 3, 127–148.

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R., Shaver, & L.

Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social-psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San

Diego, CA: Academic.

Plucker, J. A. (1999). Reanalyses of student responses to creativity checklists: Evidence of content gen-

erality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 126–137.

Rostan, S. M. (1998). A study of the development of young artists: The emergence of an artisticand cre-

ative identity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 278–301.

Sampson, E. E. (1978). Personality and the location of identity. Journal of Personality, 46, 552–568.

Sethi, R., Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (2001). Cross-functional product development teams, creativity,

and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 73–85.Smith, G. J. W., & van der Meer, G. (1994). Generativesources of creative functioning. In M. P. Snow&

M. A. Runco (Eds.), Creativity and affect (pp. 147–166). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Storr, A. (1988). Solitude: A return to the self. New York: Ballantine.

Sullivan, E. T., Clark, W. W., & Tiegs, E. W. (1970). Short form test of academic aptitutde. Monterey,

CA: CTB/McGraw Hill.

Travers, P. (1997). The interviewer. In F. Barron, A. Montuori, & A. Barron (Eds.), Creators on creat-

ing (pp. 36–43). New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam. (Originally published 1988)

Urban, K. K. (1991). On the development of creativity in children. Creativity Research Journal, 4,

177–191.

Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1986). Assessing creative potential via drawing production: The Test for

Creative Thinking—Drawing Production (TCT-DP). In A. J. Cropley, K. K. Urban, H. Wagner, & W.Wieczerkowski (Eds.), Giftedness: A continuing worldwide challenge (pp. 163–169). New York:

Trillium.

Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP) man-

ual. Frankfurt, Germany: Swets Test Services.

van Hoof, A. (1999). The identity status field re-reviewed: An update of unresolved and neglected is-

sues with a view on some alternative approaches. Developmental Review, 19, 497–556.

Wakefield, J. F. (1986). Creativity and the TAT blank card. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 20, 127–133.

Walker, A. (1999). Paula Modersohn-Becker: An exploratory psychobiographic study of creativity,

identity, and individuation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(5-B), 2374.

Waterman, A. S. (1984). Identity formation: Discovery or creation? Journal of Early Adolescence, 4,

329–341.Waterman, A. S., & Archer, S. (1979). Ego identity status and expressive writing among high school

and college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 327–341.

Waterman, A. S., & Goldman, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal study of ego identity development at a lib-

eral arts college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 5, 361–369.

Waterman, A. S., Kohutis, E., & Pulone, J. (1977). The role of expressive writing in ego identity forma-

tion. Developmental Psychology, 13, 286–287.

Waterman, A. S., & Waterman, C. K. (1971). A longitudinal study of changes in ego identity status dur-

ing the freshman year at college. Developmental Psychology, 5, 167–173.

Woodman, R. W. (1981). Creativity as a construct in personality theory. Journal of Creative Behavior,

15, 43–66.


identidad y creatividad

Documents

Transcript of identidad y creatividad