Gregory J. Feist

Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential, and personality

Abstract In 1950 (at age 27) a sample of 80 male graduate students was assessed on potential, intelligence–intellect, personality and creativity, and then personality and career outcome data were collected again at age 72. Intelligence (primary mental abilities, spatial, and number), intellect, potential, and personality (e.g., self-confidence, tolerance, openness, psychological mindedness, and introversion) at age 27 were expected to covary with creativity at age 27 and predict lifetime creativity at age 72. Yet, due to the non-intellective nature of personality, we predicted that personality would explain unique variance in creativity over and above that already explained by intellect and potential. Results supported each of these expectations. For instance, observer-rated potential and intellect at age 27 predicted lifetime creativity at age 72, and yet personality variables (such as tolerance and psychological mindedness) explained up to 20% of the variance over and above potential and intellect. Rank-order consistency coefficients revealed consistency over 44 years in some traits (e.g., psychological mindedness) and inconsistency in other traits (e.g, dominance). If traits function to lower behavioral thresholds in given situations, then the traits of self-confidence, openness, tolerance, and psychological mindedness (among others) may serve as a relatively direct link to creative behavior.

The psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline.

Disciplines that study science are relatively well established in philosophy, history, and sociology. Psychology of science, by comparison, is a late bloomer but has recently shown signs of codification. The authors further this codification by integrating and reviewing the growing literature in the developmental, cognitive, personality, and social psychology of science. Only by integrating the findings from each of these perspectives can the basic questions in the study of scientific behavior be answered: Who becomes a scientist and what role do biology, family, school, and gender play? Are productivity, scientific reasoning, and theory acceptance influenced by age? What thought processes and heuristics lead to successful discovery? What personality characteristics distinguish scientists from nonscientists and eminent from less eminent scientists? Finally, how do intergroup relations and social forces influence scientific behavior? A model that integrates the consensual empirical findings from the psychology of science is proposed.

A Structural Model of Scientific Eminence

In order to determine the psychological influences contributing to scientific eminence, data from interviews, self-reports, peer ratings, observer ratings, and objective productivity measures were obtained on 99 full professors of physics, chemistry, and biology at major research universities in California. A structural model in which psychological factors were predicted to have a direct influence on both productivity and eminence and an indirect influence on eminence yielded a very good fit to the data. These findings support previous research on scientific creativity and eminence, and extend it by providing the first integrated structural model of scientific eminence.

Openness to Experience, Non-Conformity, and the Preference for Abstract Art:

Recent evolutionary theory has argued that what people find “beautiful” is not arbitrary, but rather has evolved over millions of years of hominid sensory, perceptual, and cognitive evolution. Sensations that have adaptive value (i.e., that enhance safety, survival, and reproduction) often become aesthetically preferred. One purpose of the current study was to present a personality and social attitude template for persons who prefer a relatively recent and generally unappreciated form of art, namely abstract art. One hundred and four college participants (68 female) completed personality (openness and experience seeking) and social attitude questionnaires and recorded their preference for 15 realistic, 15 ambiguous, and 15 abstract works of art. Results showed that open participants preferred every form of art presented, but that this difference increased as the art became more abstract. In addition, those with attitudes more tolerant of political liberalism and drug use preferred abstract art the most.

Trends in the creativity literature: An analysis of research in the journal of creative behavior (1967–1989)

Abstract Many have noted a renewed interest in creativity. However, even with a 40‐year history, little effort has been directed at the study of changes in the field, and no effort has been made to develop a historical perspective of the work being conducted. Which topics have consistently been examined? Which have gone out of favor, and which have shown surges of interest? The present investigation addressed these questions by examining 311 articles, representing a 23‐year span (1967–1989). This span began in 1967 with the founding of the Journal of Creative Behavior. Predictions were based on previous literature reviews and similar studies conducted in other areas of the social sciences. One prediction was that there would be increases in the number of authors per article (women authors in particular) and in the total number of references. Furthermore, empirical articles were expected to be on the rise, as were articles focusing on social and educational issues. The number of articles concerned with per...

How Development and Personality Influence Scientific Thought, Interest, and Achievement

In the present article, I review and summarize two subdisciplines of the psychology of science, namely development and personality. In the first section concerning developmental psychology of science, I review three major developmental topics: 1) the literature on the developmental and familial influences behind scientific interest and scientific talent (e.g., birth-order and theory acceptance, immigrant status and scientific talent); 2) gender and scientific interest and talent; and lastly, 3) age and scientific interest and productivity. In the second section concerning personality psychology of science, I organize the review around four major topics: 1) which traits make scientific interest in general more likely; 2) which traits make interest in specific domains of science more likely (especially social and physical science); 3) which traits make different theoretical orientations more likely; and finally, 4) which traits make scientific achievement and creativity more likely. From the empirical evidence reviewed, it is quite clear that developmental and personality factors impact directly and indirectly scientific thought, interest, and achievement.

Synthetic and analytic thought: Similarities and differences among art and science students

Abstract: Evidence is presented suggesting that differences as well as similarities exist between the thought processes of art and science students during the insight phase of problem solving. The nature of these thought processes was investigated at different time periods throughout the creative process with 122 students in art and science. Half of the subjects solved tasks corresponding to their orientation, and the other half solved problems not of their orientation. This allowed an evaluation of the variance attributable to task, as opposed to orientation. After solving the task, subjects completed the Feelings and Thoughts Questionnaire (FTQ) and a battery of personality inventories, including the NEO Personality Inventory, the Adjective Check List, and the Experience Inquiry. The FTQ is a self‐report inventory in which subjects rate lists of adjectives describing the thoughts and emotions that occurred before, during, and after the insight. Internal consistency and convergent validity were establish...

The affective consequences of artistic and scientific problem solving

Abstract Although the influence of affect on creativity has received some theoretical and empirical attention, the role of affect as a consequence of creative problem solving has been neglected. This study is the one of the first to examine empirically the affect that results from creative problem solving. In a 2 (group) × 3 (time period) × 2 (task) factorial design, 122 art and science students were randomly assigned to complete an art or science task and to report on the kind and intensity of affect before, during, and after creative problem solving. It was predicted that art and science students would report different levels of affect only after the insight, not before or during, and that the effects of task, not just group, would contribute to affective variability between art and science students. Science students reported similar levels of (positive) affective intensity before and during creative insight as art students. It was only after the insight that art students reported more intense affective...

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Science A Dialectic of Scientific Fame

In this article, I argue that scientific fame and impact exists on a continuum from the mundane to the transformative/revolutionary. Ideally, one achieves fame and impact in science by synthesizing two extreme career prototypes: intrinsic and extrinsic research. The former is guided by interest, curiosity, passion, gut, and intuition for important untapped topics. The latter is guided by money, grants, and/or what is being published in top-tier journals. Assessment of fame and impact in science ultimately rests on productivity (publication) and some variation of its impact (citations). In addition to those traditional measures of impact, there are some relatively new metrics (e.g., the h index and altmetrics). If psychology is to achieve consensual cumulative progress and better rates of replication, I propose that upcoming psychologists would do well to understand that success is not equal to fame and that individual career success is not necessarily the same as disciplinary success. Finally, if one is to have a successful and perhaps even famous career in psychological science, a good strategy would be to synthesize intrinsic and extrinsic motives for one’s research.

Psychology of Science as a New Subdiscipline in Psychology

Scientific behavior, interest, talent, and achievement can be and have been investigated from each of the fundamental subdisciplines in psychology. Simply put, there is a psychology behind science. I review and summarize the major empirical findings from different subdisciplines—namely, cognitive, developmental, personality, social, and clinical. For the last 10 years, the discipline of the psychology of science has shown some real promise in becoming a new psychological subdiscipline in its own right. I review some of the evidence for such a claim.