How do the Huge Two meta-traits of personality relate to creative self-concept and performance on creativity tasks requiring (a) convergent cognitive abilities and (b) divergent cognitive abilities?

For your assignment, you will write a full research report that addresses the following research question:
How do the Huge Two meta-traits of personality relate to creative self-concept and performance on creativity tasks requiring (a) convergent cognitive abilities and (b) divergent cognitive abilities?
Before you start working on your research report, please visit Assignment 2: Methodology to familiarise yourself with the study.
Structure
The assignment will be presented in the form of a lab report containing the following sections:
• Abstract (120–150 words, 5% of your overall mark)
o The Abstract should summarise your Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion clearly and succinctly.
• Introduction (approximately 1000 words, 30% of your overall mark)
• Your introduction should:
• introduce the topic
• review the literature on the associations between personality and creativity
• review the literature on the relationship between the Huge Two meta-traits of personality and:
o creative self-concept
o performance on creativity tasks (divergent and convergent thinking tasks)
o You must include at least two hypotheses:
• At least one hypothesis must address relationships between the Huge Two meta-traits of personality and creative self-concept.
• At least one hypothesis must address relationships between the Huge Two meta-traits and performance on creativity tasks requiring (a) convergent cognitive abilities and (b) divergent cognitive abilities.
• Method (approximately 400 words, 5% of your overall mark)
o You can base this section on the Method information described in Assignment 2: Methodology. Important: Do not just copy and paste the 'Method' information provided on the page.
• Participants
o Participants were third-year psychology students at Swinburne University. Basic demographic data for the sample is available in the data set.
• Measures
o Personality
• The IPIP-NEO 120 (Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014) was selected to assess the personality meta-traits of Stability and Plasticity. It is a validated measure of the Big Five. The scale consists of 120 phrases, and participants are asked to rate how accurately each statement reflects how they are on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Scores on each of the Openness to experience and Extraversion items were summed to create the total Plasticity score, and scores on the (reversed) Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness scales were summed to create the total Stability score.
o Creative self-concept
• The Short Scale of Creative Self (Karwowski, Lebuda, & Wisniewska, 2018) was used to measure creative self-concept. The scale consists of 11 statements which participants rate according to how accurately they reflect their self-concept. Responses are given on a 5-point likert-type scale. Scores on individual items are averaged to create a creative self-concept score ranging from 1-5.
o Creativity tasks
• One divergent thinking task and one convergent thinking task were used to assess creative behaviour.
• The divergent thinking task, Guilford’s Alternate Uses Task (Guilford, 1967), required participants to come up with as many uses as possible for the following common items in 3 minutes: “a brick”, “a newspaper”, and “a shoe”. Responses were scored using the subjective multiple-rater method outlined by Silvia et al. (2008), based on how uncommon, remote and clever the responses were. Each response received a rating from 1 (not at all creative) to 5 (highly creative). For the creativity index, participants’ scores were summed then divided by the number of responses. Overall scores range from 1-5.
• The convergent thinking task, the Remote Associates Test (Mednick, 1962), required participants to look at three remotely associated words (e.g., paint/doll/cat) and come up with a fourth word that is related to all three (e.g. house). Thirty questions were presented in 3 minutes with one mark given for each correct response. Scores are expressed as the proportion of total responses answered correctly.
o Procedure
• Participants first completed the creativity tasks in a counterbalanced order in class at their usual tutorial time. The tasks were undertaken in the Inquisit program and took approximately 15 minutes to complete. The self-report questionnaire containing the measures of personality and creative self-concept was completed online via Qualtrics outside class at a time and location convenient to participants within 1 week maximum of their tutorial. Scores on the creativity tasks and self-report measures were linked via a unique code number randomly allocated to each participant at the start of the creativity tasks in Inquisit. The code number also permitted anonymous participation in the study.
• Before beginning the study in class, participants were informed via a consent statement of their rights as volunteers not to participate in the study if they so choose and that they could withdraw their participation at any time prior to submitting their results. A debriefing statement was provided at the end of the survey detailing the aims of the study.
• The independent variables for the study were age, sex, and the personality variables of Plasticity and Stability. The dependent variables were self-reported creative self-concept and performance on the divergent thinking and convergent thinking tasks.
• Results (approximately 400 words, 20% of your overall mark)
o Include descriptive statistics (M, SD) for the variables used in your analyses and the results of hypothesis testing.
o Correlation and Regression
o Present results according to APA 6th standards.
• Discussion (approximately 1000 words, 30% of your overall mark)
o Were the hypotheses supported? Why/why not?
o How do the results of this study compare with previous studies?
o What are the implications of the findings for theory and practice in personality psychology?
o What are the methodological limitations of the study, and how could they have affected the findings or future directions?
o Present a coherent conclusion.
• Reference list (10% of your overall mark)
o Along with the quality of grammar/expression in the report, adherence to APA 6th referencing style contributes 10% to your overall mark.
o Important: The reference list is not included in your final word count.
Starting References
Batey, M., & Hughes, D.J. (2017). Individual difference correlates of self-perceptions of creativity. In M. Karwowski & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.). The Creative Self: Effect of Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, Mindset, and Identity (pp. 185-218). London, UK: Academic Press. eBook available through the library; Chapter 11 only
Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391-404. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13
Guilford, J.P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 1, 3-14.
Karwowski, M. (2016). The dynamics of creative self-concept: Changes and reciprocal relations between creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Creativity Research Journal, 28, 99-104. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1125254
Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2016). The Big Five, the Huge Two, and creative self-beliefs: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 214-232. doi:10.1037/aca0000035
Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., & Wisniewska, E. (2018). Measuring creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 28(1), 45-57.
Maples, J.L., Guan, L., Carter, N.T., & Miller, J.D. (2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the revised NEO personality inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the Five-Factor model. Psychological Assessment, 26, 1070-1084. doi:10.1037/pas0000004
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232.
Silvia, P.J., Nusbaum, E.C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A. (2009). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1087-1090. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015
Silvia, P.J., Winterstein, B.P., Willse, J.T., Barona, C.M., Cram, J.T., Hess, K.I., . . . Richard, C.A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 68-85. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>