Creativity is a critical part of thedesign process. It takes creativity on the part of the designer to address theproblems in new ways to develop novel solutions. It is the creative elementthat is the less common, less taught, less understood, yet more desired and influentialaspect of design.
Novel ideas or concepts generated by one’s mental processes is oftenreferred to as creativity. Thus, creativity may be described in relationto the thoughts of novelty and utility (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004;Mumford, 2003). This alsoincludes associating existing ideas and concepts. To the everyday person,creativity appears to be a simple concept to grasp as it pertains largely tooriginality. However, the significance of creativity is one that has been aquandary for the field of science and as such, it is difficult to measure anddefine it (Kaufman and Sternberg, 2010). Despite there being over hundreds ofdefinitions for creativity that pervades various different disciplines (Torranceet al., 1989), there has yet to be a definitive explanation for it, and thismakes it a unique concept of scientific phenomenon. The big push of interest in the subject of creativity began in1950 when J.
P. Guilford of the University of Southern California was Presidentof the American Psychological Association. Guilford said in his presidential address that he found an appalling lack ofresearch on creativity. He said he had searched Psychological Abstracts for aquarter of a century and found that only 186 out of 121,000 entries dealt in anyway with creativity, imagination, or any topic closely related. In the yearssince 1950 more than a dozen books have appeared on the subject. The researchundertaken since Guilford gave his speech has yielded results of basicsignificance to the field of education and to the archives of knowledge. Creativity in theHealthcare Field The healthcare field is oftenknown for its rigidity due in part to being a science based field that prizesfacts and curricular knowledge. However, allowing students to engage in thevarious disconnected subject and learning experiences within the curriculum, aswell as the ambiguity and uncertainty of medical practice, they will haveopportunities to broaden their perspectives, gain new insights into bothmedical practice and themselves, and explore different ways of making meaning.
Potential learning barriers can be transformed into opportunities fordiscovery, self-reflection, and personal growth (Liou et al., 2016). Ness (2011) points out that innovation is afactor of propagation for scientific progress, and as such the author andfounder of Innovative Thinking, a creativity training pilot program at theUniversity of Texas, states implementation and evaluation of new methods toenhance the innovative thinking of science students by academic health centresto be a necessity in order for the United States to retain their status as aworldwide leader in scientific discovery. The field of nursing benefitsfrom this too, as a more holistic view of clients can be fostered alongsidecreativity in students by integrating nursing and fine arts (Pavill, 2011).PersonalityPersonality comprisesof everyday feelings, thoughts and behaviour of an individual.
Some research explainedpersonality in two components which are temperament, acts as the biologicalaspect, and character, which is acquired by interactions with the environmentand social, (Cloninger, 2002). Because of this, personality formation isconsidered as a developmental process and to fully comprehend it we need to assessthe individual critically by observing their developmental process and itsimpact in personality construction. Due to the different interactions betweenthese two components, which components of personality are biological and whichone is social cannot be differentiated. Big Five PersonalityEveryone differsin term of many characteristics such as types of personality.
The developmentof the Big Five model has significant implications for the field of psychology.It demonstrates that personality comprises of five independent dimensions whichprovide a profound foundation for studying individual differences. Researchershave found that openness to experience relates with creativity in a wide span ofdomains (Feist, 1998; Feist & Gorman, 1998; Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin,& O’Connor, 2009). The other four dimensions predict creativity lessconsistently (Silvia, Nusbaum, et al., 2009). It has beenwidely agreed that the first dimension originates from Eysencks Extraversionand Introversion hypothesis.
Today, this dimension has been called Extraversion(Botwin & Buss, 1989; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Hakel, 1974;Hogan, 1983; Howarth, 1976; John, 1989; Krug & Johns, 1986; McCrae &Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967). The trait oftenassociated with being sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, and active(Barrick & Mount, 1991). The seconddimension is also generally agreed by many researchers. This dimension iscalled Neuroticism. However, it was previous called Emotional Stability,Stability, Emotionality (Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Hakel, 1974; John, 1989;Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987;Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967). Some traits associated with this dimension includesbeing anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed and emotional.
The thirddimension has been widely interpreted as Agreeableness (Borgatta, 1964; Conley,1985; Goldberg, 1981; Hakel, 1974; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; McCrae & Costa,1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967; Tupes & Christal,1961). Other researcher may have labelled it Friendliness (Guilford &Zimmerman, 1949), Compliance versus Hostile Non-Compliance (Digman &Takemoto-Chock, 1981), Social Conformity (Fiske, 1949) or Love (Peabody &Goldberg, 1989).
Traitsassociated with this dimension include being courteous, flexible, trusting,good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted, and tolerant.Fourth dimension has been calledConscientiousness or Conscience (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Hakel, 1974;John, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963;), andit has also been called Conformity or Dependability (Fiske, 1949; Hogan, 1983).
It was suggested that this dimension reflects dependability; that is, beingcareful, thorough, responsible, organized, and planful (Botwin & Buss,1989; Fiske, 1949; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; Noller et al., 1987).Finally, thelast dimension has been most difficult to recognize. McCrae and Goldberg (1989)called it as Openness to Experience.
Traits commonly associated with thisdimension include being imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad-minded,intelligent, and artistically sensitive. Literature Review The development of the Big Five model has notableimplications for the field of psychology. It demonstrates that personalitycomprises of five independent dimensions which provide a profound foundationfor studying individual differences. Researchers have found that openness toexperience relates with creativity in a wide span of domains (Silvia, Nusbaum,Berg, Martin & O’Connor, 2009; Feist, 1998; Feist & Gorman, 1998). Theother four dimensions,Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism, predictcreativity less consistently (Silvia et al., 2009). Althoughcreativity has the strongest relationship with openness to experience, researchhas connected all of the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Five-FactorInventory (NEO-FFI) dimensions to creativity: Neuroticism, conscientiousness,introversion, as well as agreeableness.
Despite the existence of evidenceshowing the relationship between personality and creativity, some authors whoattempted to connect the NEO-FFI dimensions to creativity found no relationship(Dollinger & Clancy, 1993). Helson (1996) concluded that there is “nosingle homogeneous set of personality characteristics that is typical of allcreative individuals and differentiates them as a group from less creative people”.As an example, Cropley (1990) found that although creative artists were likelyto encounter strange and peculiar ideas, these were likely to stimulate excitementin creatives. One phenomenonthat some researchers have noted among creative individuals is the aggregationof conflicting attributes in the same person. This was referred to by McMullan (1978)as involving a “paradox.” According to him, “the creative personality is characterizedby seven polarities:• Openness versus drive to completeincomplete gestalts• High level of fantasy versusstrong sense of reality• Destructive versus constructiveattitudes• Cool neutrality versus passionateengagement• Self-centeredness versus altruism• Self-doubt versus self-confidence• Tension versus relaxedness”Thus, thespecial quality of creative people as a group may not be a distinctive profileof personality, but “greater “complexity” in personality: The creativeindividual may be able to fluctuate between apparently contradictory poles suchas selfishness versus altruism or acceptance of fantasy versus rigid realism”(Courvoisier, 2013). Csikszentmihalyi (1996) argued that the complexity ispresent within all of us, but that people often develop a strong preference. Consequently,most people tend consistently toward one end of each personality preference,according to the preferences of the environment in which they live.
Sticking toa specific set of traits that are highly approved in one’s social setting notonly wins the approval of most other people but also makes the surroundingworld more easily understandable and predictable, that is, it makes gettingalong easy, although the price is conformity. Creativity and Opennessto Experience Opennessis the fundamental feature of personality surrounding characteristics such as originality(McCrae & Sutin, 2009). In Tilburg, Sedikides & Wildschut’s (2015) experimentson the subject of nostalgia’s capability of fostering creativity throughopenness to experience, found that nostalgia increased the levels of opennesswhich indirectly contribute to creativity. The experiment is uniform withprevious research stating that “nostalgic evocation begets openness”. Inspiration,illustrated by openness (Hart, 1998) was increased by nostalgia (Stephan etal., 2015) in addition to correlating with openness (Thrash & Elliot, 2003).Furthermore, nostalgia assists the transition from avoidance-type motivation toapproach-type motivation.
To demonstrate, Stephan et al. (2014) stated that “behaviouralinhibition is associated with nostalgia, which in turn leads to activation ofthe behavioural approach system”. Also, it hasbeen demonstrated that divergent thinking in creativity to be related to Openness(positively). Batey, Furnham & Safiullina (2010), “self-rated creativitydemonstrated positive and significant relationships to Openness. Additionally,self-rated creativity has been shown to be predicted by Openness to Experience(Furnham et al., 2008).
To further discuss, Openness to Experience have been reportedto be positively related to creativity when measured using inventories ofcreative achievement (Carson et al., 2005; Furnham et al., 2008; Furnham, &Bachtiar, 2008). These discoveries are consistent with previous research conductedby Aguilar-Alonso (1996), Sen & Hagtvet (1993) and Wuthrich & Bates in2001. Creativity andConscientiousness Accordingto King, Walker & Broyles (1996), the relation between conscientiousnessand creativity present a question. In general idea, conscientiousness appearsto have little relevance to creative ability. Furthermore, conscientious workhabits may allow less talented individuals to produce creatively.
However, Kinget al. (1996) stated “for those highest in creative ability, conscientiousnessshared a negative relation with accomplishments”. As predicted by King et al.(1996), although agreeableness was unrelated to creative ability, it was negativelycorrelated with creative accomplishments. Toh and Miller (2015) reported thatAgreeableness and Conscientiousness traits are “positively related to novelconcept selection” which is supported by previous study.
As an example supportingToh and Miller, Bell (2007) showed that “teams with high conscientiousness andagreeableness levels are more motivated to achieve goals” and in turn leads theteam to be more creative (Woodman et al. 1993). The outcome of Toh and Miller’s study offerempirical confirmation that team-level personality characteristics affect theteam’s views and tendency for the “novelty dimension of creativity”. Inaddition to that, their study discovered that “high levels of agreeableness andconscientiousness resulted in the selection of more novel ideas”, contradictingto Baer et al.’s (2007) study on the “role of team personality and creativity”,where they found that with high levels of extraversion and openness and lowlevels of conscientiousness in teams, it results in the production ofextremely innovating ideas.Besides, resultsfrom other studies that explore these personality traits at the individuallevel show that agreeableness personality trait is negatively related tocreativity (Feist 1998), indicating that team-level personalitytraits may differ from individual-level personality traits at a fundamentallevel. Creativity andExtraversion Moreover, it has been demonstrated thatdivergent thinking in creativity to be related to Extraversion (positively) Batey, Furnham & Safiullina (2010) reported that”self-rated creativity demonstrated positive and significant relationships toExtraversion”.
Additionally, self-rated creativity has been shown to bepredicted by Extraversion (Furnham, & Bachtiar, 2008). Similar to Opennessto Experience, Extraversion have been shown to be positively related tocreativity when measured using inventories of creative achievement (Carson etal., 2005; Furnham et al., 2008; Furnham, & Bachtiar, 2008). These findingsare consistent with previous research (Aguilar-Alonso, 1996; Sen & Hagtvet,1993; Wuthrich & Bates, 2001).
A possible explanation of this from Eysenck and Eysenck(1985) is that divergent thinking tests for creativity are commonlyadministered in group settings, “which are advantageous for extraverts as theytend to seek stimulation”. Another possible justification is the combination ofExtraversion and Openness to Experience that allows these individuals to bemore curious and experiential which may in turn increase their ability togenerate new novel ideas (Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008). Furthermore,Arshad and Rafique (2016) conducted a study on personality and creativity aspredictors of students’ psychological well-being and their findingsshowed that with high level of extraversion and conscientiousness andlow level of neuroticism, student’s psychological well-being can be predicted whencontrolling the student’s demographic data. Similarly, the outcomes of the study are alike to Grant et al.’s (2009) resultwhich investigates whether the Big Five traits are factors of subjective andpsychological well-being of an individual. They have found a significant relationshipbetween extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness and theirfindings revealed that “the association between personality factors andpsychological wellbeing was stronger than the relationship between personalityfactors and subjective well-being”.
Highlevel of extraversion and conscientiousness among college students isan indicator of sociability and possibility of higher social support fromfamily and friends. Students who are more extraverts tend to form friendshipsand if they are conscientious, they are more likely to maintain thesefriendships (Grant et al., 2009). Having friends denotes that they have largersocial networks and social support. Social support characterizespredispositions for well-being among college students (Dollete, Steese,Phillips, & Matthews, 2004). Social support helps the college students tolessen depression, anxiety, and stress and also reduce other psychologicalconcerns and thus, improve psychological well-being (Elliot & Gramling,1990). Creativity andAgreeableness Also, it has been demonstrated that divergent thinking increativity to be related to Agreeableness (negatively) (Furnham et al., 2008;Furnham, & Bachtiar, 2008; Batey et al.
, 2009; Chamorro-Premuzic, , 2008). Feist (1998) reported that Agreeableness negativelycorrelate with creativity Creativity andNeuroticism The association between neuroticism and creativity alsopresents a dilemma (King et al., 1996). The widespread stereotype of thecreative person suggests that creative individuals are likely to be neurotic (Dowd,1989).
However, it is not clear as to how much truth is to be found in thisstereotype (Berenbaum & Fujita, 1994). In addition to that, King et al.(1996) reported that Neuroticism was unrelated to creative ability as well as accomplishments. Based on a study by Batey, Furnham & Safiullina(2010), “self-rated creativity demonstrated negative relationships toNeuroticism”.
Extensiveevidence shows that there is no connection between high neuroticism andintellectual creativity, creative problem solving, high intelligence, or genius(Pickering, Smillie & DeYoung, 2016). By contrast, the (unrelated)personality trait of openness/ intellect has been reliably linked with variousmeasures of creativity. The only empirically supported link between creativityand neuroticism is a weak association between artistic creativity and risk formood or psychotic disorders.
Importantly, this is specific to artistic ratherthan intellectual creativity and appears to apply only to mental disorders andnot to the general personality trait of neuroticism. Purpose of research Thepurpose of this research is to explore the association between personality andcreativity.
