Notably, these eminent scientific creators score high in schizothymia and desurgency. Turning from artistic to scientific creativity, Cattell and Drevdahl (1955) administered the 16PF to 140 illustrious scientists in physics, biology, and psychology. That said, high scores on psychoticism are associated with such unattractive propensities as being aggressive, antisocial, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, tough minded, and unempathetic ( Eysenck, 1995). Yet, again, that is not the same thing as asserting that creative artists are psychotic.
Although artists tend to score higher in psychoticism than do nonartists ( Götz and Götz, 1979a), highly creative artists score higher still ( Götz and Götz, 1979b). This dimension concerns tendencies toward psychosis but not the actual manifestation of that disorder.
Comparable results are found for psychoticism, one of the scales of the EPQ ( Eysenck, 1995). Creative writers scored above normal on all of the MMPI clinical scales, and the most successful creative writers scored higher still, but both scored below what would signal mental disorder. Such persons are neither abnormal nor normal but at some realm between.Īn example of this result is seen in the research conducted by Barron (1963) at the Institute for Personality Assessment and Research at the University of California, Berkeley. Given those norms, it can be said that highly creative individuals appear to score higher than average on these scales, but still score below clinical levels – much in the manner of the Dryden quote given earlier. Because these measures have been standardized, they provide empirically based norms for comparison. For example, the MMPI assesses people on such syndromes as depression, hypomania, schizophrenia, paranoia, psychopathic deviation, hysteria, hypochondriasis, and psychaesthenia. These instruments either directly assess clinical disorders or else gauge dimensions that bear some relation to subclinical levels of psychopathological symptoms. In the third research method, participants are subjected to assessment on standardized psychometric instruments, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), and the Cattell’s 16 Personality Factors Test (16PF). Simonton, in Encyclopedia of Mental Health (Second Edition), 2016 Psychometric Research (Note, however, that one of the 16PF scales is actually not a self-report personality scale at all, but rather an intelligence test.) More recent research has found the 16PF scales to show considerable validity in predicting a variety of criterion variables in contexts such as school and the workplace.ĭ.K. The 16 scales of this inventory can be combined into five broader factors that assess more general personality characteristics. Although other psychologists have decided what traits to measure on the basis of factor analyses, they have usually used the rational approach when actually constructing the scales of their inventories.) Earlier versions of the 16PF were often criticized for the low internal-consistency reliabilities of their scales, but the scales have been improved in the most recent version of the 16PF ( Conn & Rieke, 1994), which contains nearly 200 items. (As such, the 16PF is perhaps the only major inventory to have been developed using the factor-analytic approach. The 16PF ( Conn & Rieke, 1994) was originally constructed in 1949 by Cattell, whose factor-analytic research suggested to him that a set of 16 traits would summarize personality characteristics. Ashton, in Individual Differences and Personality (Second Edition), 2013 The 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (16PF)
0 kommentar(er)
