Pushmi-pullyu and little c: a search for the structure of personal creativity in a general population

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content
i

PUSHMI-PULLYU AND LITTLE C: A SEARCH FOR THE STRUCTURE OF PERSONAL
CREATIVITY IN A GENERAL POPULATION

by

William M. Breland III

______________________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PSYCHOLOGY)

May 2009

Copyright 2009
William M. Breland III

ii

Dedication

To John L. Horn
Vital and spontaneous, jazz master
incisive and clear, with legatostaccato-like improvs
blown like a polyrhythmic psychologist’s complex of altered structures
across surprisingly modulated bent-blues notes (and more more more notes)
twisting what had thought into what could be thought
and now… playing
these swinging new patterns…even before they fully form

Thanks John, I miss your Socratic improvisations.

iii

Acknowledgements
The journey to find out what we can know is a journey of support and challenge. I have been
honored to be touched by the heart of each – sometimes finding both within the same person. The first
acknowledgment is that each of you who have touched me has been the opportunity from which this
dissertation has sprung. I appreciate, beyond words, your having taken the time to share your
encouragement, opposition, agreements, arguments, and …all that cognitive energy cutting a path through
the universe…it has been a blessing of unfathomable dimensions.
The second acknowledgement is directed toward those who have allowed me the privilege of
studying with you. I am forever humbled to have attended your lectures and/or to have worked with you,
under your supervision and tutelage: John Horn, David Walsh, Jack McArdle, JoAnn Farver, Penelope
Trickett, Rand Wilcox, Margaret Gatz, William Smith, Frank Manis, Don Butler, Stephen Madigan, Laura
Baker, and Irving Biederman.
The third acknowledgement is for the technical help that I received while working on this present
research. I thank each of you who contributed. Michael Montalbo programmed the Internet measurement
instrument that was utilized to collect data. Elyse Hammond and Lauren Marlotte were judges/raters who
assessed the qualitative responses in the data. Thank you for your professionalism and conscientiousness.
The fourth acknowledgment is to my personal community of creative colleagues: musicians,
psychologists, dancers, artists, real estate specialists, mathematicians, salespersons, photographers, golfers,
computer linguists, statisticians, and landscape designers. Each conversation was a blessing. Thank you for
your creative flow and ideas about what creativity means to you and how it operates within you.
My last acknowledgment I extend to the support of my family – to my daughters, Elyse and
Gaedin, who have always been the cornerstone of wisdom stabilizing my life, I send my love, affection,
and appreciation always; to my sons by marriage and, more truly, by the connections of personal intention
that must come if men are to honor one another, Michael, Paul, and Josh, I extend my love, respect, and
thanks for the special energies that each of you bring to me and those that I love; and to my helpmate
throughout these past few years, Kate, the diva of my heart and watchdog of my health, I offer my love and
appreciation always.

iv

Table of Contents
Dedication
Acknowledgments
List of Tables
List of Figures
Abstract
Introduction
Chapter 1: The Nature of Creativity
Creativity as extraordinary products
Can creativity be measured?
Examining the dimensions of creativity
The four P’s of creativity
The first P: Product
The second P: Person
Personality
Abnormality and creativity
Psychodynamic and humanist contrasts
Intelligence
Neurobiological correlates
Arousal, learning, and need
The third P: Process
Knowledge and skill acquisition
Ideational strategies
Anomaly and change expectations
Pre-inventive events
Concept formation strategies
Standards of assessment loci
Productivity resolve and satisfaction
The fourth P: Press
A systems view of creativity
Summarizing the nature of creativity

Chapter 2: Defining Creativity
Conceptualizing a definition
Operationalizing a definition

Chapter 3: The Bi-Path Theory of Creativity

Chapter 4: Overview of the research
Summary of specific aims
Significance
Hypotheses

ii
iii
vi
vii
viii
1
2
3
5
9
10
10
12
12
13
14
16
19
20
22
22
23
24
25
25
26
26
27
28
28

31
31
33

34

41
42
42
45

v

Chapter 5: Methods
Participants
Instruments
Assessment of the BCSI-1
Description of the BCSI-2
Procedures
General data collection
Reflecting the scores
Discriminability and reliability
Qual-quant measures
Structure equation model techniques
A reparative-nurtural dimension
The processes of personal creativity
Life-satisfaction and its relationship to creativity

Chapter 6: Results
Analysis of participant compliance
Hard-copy compliance
Internet compliance
Analysis of qualitative responses
Scoring from raters
Equilibrating/transforming fluency and flexibility scores
Deriving scores for interest depth-of-interest
Identifying the parameters of the creative surface
Reparative-nurtural dimension
First-order factors of the creativity processes
Knowledge and skill acquisition
Ideation strategies
Anomaly and change
Pre-inventive events
Concept formation
Loci of assessment standards
Productivity resolve and satisfaction
Second-order factor structure of the creativity processes
Life-satisfaction factor structure
Relationship of creative processes to life satisfaction

Chapter 7: Discussion
Limitations and future research directions

References

Appendix 1: Constructs embedded in the Bi-path Creativity System Inventory (BCSI)

Appendix 2: Distributed version of the BCSI-2 (hard-copy)

Appendix 3: Rater Guidelines for Rating the Qual-Quant Section of the BCSI-2

Appendix 4: Group means and standard deviations for the analyzed constructs

Appendix 5: Multiple-group covariance matrices used in MG-SEM analyses
45
45
45
46
46
48
48
49
50
50
52
54
55
56

56
57
57
57
59
59
60
66
66
71

82
84
85
87
91
93
94
96

98
103

105

108
113

116

126

145

180

188

197

vi

List of Tables
Table 1. Confidence intervals for the differences between the deciles (using the Harrell-Davis
estimator of the decile) for the hard-copy versus Internet groups’ original fluency
scores.

Table 2. Confidence intervals for the differences between the deciles (using the Harrell-Davis
estimator of the decile) for the hard-copy versus Internet groups’ equilibrated fluency
scores.

Table 3. Confidence intervals for the differences between the deciles (using the Harrell-Davis
estimator of the decile) for the hard-copy versus Internet groups’ original flexibility
scores.

Table 4. Confidence intervals for the differences between the deciles (using the Harrell-Davis
estimator of the decile) for the hard-copy versus Internet groups’ equilibrated
flexibility scores.

Table 5. Factor loadings for the distachment and lonerism constructs

Table 6. Comparison of structural model fits for need-to- create regressions (code v. 1)

Table 7. Comparison of structural model fits for need-to- create regressions (code v. 2)

Table 8. Factor loadings for the knowledge and skill acquisition constructs

Table 9. Factor loadings for the convergent/homospatial and divergent/janusian constructs

Table 10. Factor loadings for the anomalytic sensitivity, expectation of change, and abductive
reasoning constructs

Table 11. Factor loadings for the pre-inventive immersion and spontaneous emergence constructs

Table 12. Factor loadings for bottom-up and top-down concept formation strategies constructs

Table 13. Factor loadings for the loci of assessment standards constructs

Table 14. Factor loadings for the productivity resolve and satisfaction constructs

Table 15. Factor loadings for the second-order creative process constructs

Table 16. Factor loadings for the life-satisfaction constructs

Table 17. Comparison of structural model fits of life satisfaction regressed on creative processes

62

63

65

67

74

77

80

86

88

90

92

95

97

99

101

104

106

vii

List of Figures
Figure 1. A broad heuristic underlying the development of the bi-path theory of creativity

Figure 2. Theoretical dimensional interrelationships in the reparative-nurtural hypothesis

Figure 3. A three-dimensional graphic conceptualization of a creative surface (code 1)

Figure 4. A three-dimensional graphic conceptualization of a creative surface (code 2)

Figure 5. A Cartesian plane (chisq x df) depiction of the MG-SEM regression model
comparisons, with need-to- create (code 1) regressed on distachment, lonerism,
their squares, and their interaction

Figure 6. A Cartesian plane (chisq x df) depiction of the MG-SEM regression model
comparisons, with need-to- create (code 2) regressed on distachment, lonerism,
their squares, and their interaction

Figure 7. A graphic representation of the curvilinear relationship between bi-path theory’s
reparative nurtural dimension of creativity and the need-to- create

Figure 8. A Cartesian plane (chisq x df) depiction of the MG-SEM regression model
comparisons, life satisfaction regressed on creative processes.

36

39

68

69

78

81

83

107

viii

Abstract
In reviewing the elusive nature of creativity and the evidence and theories that comprise our
understanding of how creativity operates in a system of internal and external influences, the author remarks
that there are life-enhancing and life-challenging (a.k.a. pushmi-pullyu) facets to creativity that warrant a
closer examination. A bi-path theory of creativity is introduced that synthesizes psychodynamic and
humanist perspectives on creativity to formulate a general rubric for describing and examining a pushmi-
pullyu dynamic in creativity.
The research examines a general population via a questionnaire constructed for the investigation,
the Bi-path Creativity System Inventory – version 2 (BCSI-2). Data was collected in two distinct BCSI-2
modalities: hard copy surveys and Internet surveys. The difference between the modalities produced a
difference in the distributions of the modality-grouped data that was equilibrated to establish equivalence.
Multiple-group structure equation model methods were used to analyze the data. One of the
principal objectives was to identify a factorial invariant structure for explicitly recognizable processes that
individuals use in pursuing their personal creative interests and the relationships among those processes and
life satisfaction. Another of the principal objectives was to confirm the measurability of bi-path theory’s
hypothesized dimension of personality and its curvilinear relationship to creative activity – this is presented
in bi-path theory as the reparative-nurtural hypothesis. Finding support for these two objectives confirms
fundamental predictions of bi-path theory.
The results suggest that individuals explicitly recognize using several distinct processes:
knowledge acquisition, skill acquisition, inquisitiveness about knowledge and skill, convergent ideation
processes, divergent ideation processes, sensitivity to anomaly, expectation of need for change, abductive
reasoning, pre-inventive immersions (dream-like cognitive drifts), spontaneous emergences (a ha! events),
top-down and bottom-up concept formations, internal and external loci of assessment standards, and
productivity resolve and satisfaction. Furthermore, these processes were found to be complexly related to
life satisfaction. Additionally, the reparative-nurtural hypothesis was supported to a large degree. The
expected curvilinear relationship was identified but the reparative-nurtural dimension of personality was
not found to include all of its predicted characteristics.

1

Pushmi-pullyu and little c: A search for the structure of personal creativity in a general population.
I have been chasing an elusive playmate throughout my life. As a child I toddled after curiosities
that led me to laugh or develop in new ways; as a young teen, I leapt over others’ boundaries to shape
the margins of my own identity; and as an adult, I have searched through a progression of new ideas and
expressions, seeking to somehow make something differently better in this world. I found a measure of
confidence in the notion that before me, for the past 200,000 years or more, and beside me in time, to
varying degrees both large and small, we humans have been engaged in this chase together – we chase
creativity, our common elusive friend and foe. We benefit from its presence during flights of fancy and
while negotiating social interactions, solving complex problems, and conceiving new products and ideas.
But we also struggle under its displeasure in the way that things go awry, social interactions disintegrate,
problems resist solution, and new ideas are dismissed as inconsequential. Much like a pushmi-pullyu, the
two-headed creature from The Story of Doctor Doolittle (Lofting, 1920) who looks in two directions at
once, we find that it is difficult to make up our minds about creativity. We see both sides of its nature and
yet are still somewhat eluded by it. Creativity seems to have the capacity to alternately enhance then
challenge our sense of life-satisfaction. The work presented in this article has been guided by a fundamental
interest in the way that such pushmi-pullyu characteristics are associated with creativity. Our present goal
is to capture a better understanding of how creativity operates as a set of commonly identifiable cognitive
processes and how such processes relate to a sense of life-satisfaction.
We will begin our investigation by considering creativity’s elusive character. This elusivity has
been documented across a broad spectrum of ideas regarding “just what?” constitutes the nature of
creativity and bears a brief review. Following that, I will argue for and specify a definition for creativity
that can be substantiated in a general population and examined to describe creativity’s structural
relationship to life-satisfaction. Then, I will introduce a theory – the bi-path theory of creativity – that
synthesizes psychoanalytic and humanist perspectives on creativity to formulate a general rubric for
describing the pushmi-pullyu dynamic in creativity. Lastly, we will examine some phenomenological data
and look for answers to questions we have posed along the way.

2

2
Chapter 1: The Nature of Creativity
Creativity has often been characterized as divine inspiration (e.g. Plato, 380 B.C./1952). The
exquisite wonder of generating a new idea from out of nowhere to produce something uniquely
special has been professed to feel, at times, like being lit-up by a spark from God. It is not surprising that
our earliest recorded conceptualization of creativity describes such an event, the deus ex machina of divine
madness. By nominating heavenly intervention as the source of creativity, we can account for the
spontaneous emergence of sudden clarity where before there was only confusion. We offer a rationale for
the strangely disorienting out-of-mind behaviors that sometimes accompany creative efforts if we attribute
them to supernatural causes. And by giving credit to God, we can explain how individuals of presumed
lesser abilities are able to equal or surpass those of greater abilities in achieving creative results. Socrates
espoused this very perspective from within the influence of a 400 B.C. multi-god culture; but he did not
simply reduce creative excellence to some breathed-in gift from a deity (Plato, 380 B.C./1952). His
extended thesis infers that having a strong interest in and knowledge about a specific area of expertise is
essential for creativity to be inspired and actualized.
Following the Renaissance, the advent of self-determinism and empiricism, and the Industrial
Revolution, a more human-centered, scientific orientation was culturally established and ready to examine
the character of creativity (see Albert & Runco, 1999). Sir Francis Galton redirected questions about the
nature of creativity away from divine inspiration toward the natural abilities of man with his publication,
Hereditary Genius (Galton, 1869/2005). This study is well recognized for its pioneering work in
correlational analyses and historiometric methodologies. His investigation was not directed at identifying
specific abilities that might constitute creativity; rather, Galton wanted to know whether a general mental
capacity to produce extraordinary works might be heritable. Essentially, Galton made a list of eminent men
in British society and then examined their families’ histories for repeated instances of eminence among
fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, nephews, uncles, etc. By comparing this list-group’s
accomplishments to what would be statistically expectable in a general population, Galton found a
strikingly strong positive covariation of eminence within his list-group. His analysis suggested that eminent
individuals might be 300 times more likely than non-eminent individuals to be closely related to eminent

3

2
individuals. He concluded that this greater likelihood of intra-familial eminence was due primarily to a
heritable, natural ability advantage. His conclusions were arguable largely because he failed to take into
account the degree to which these eminent men had shared an advantaged environment; nonetheless,
this treatise has been very influential. Galton’s methods signaled the plausibility of measuring human
abilities outside experimental manipulations and his theory suggested that such abilities might not be
wholly the result of one’s upbringing; they might be at least partly inherent to one’s nature. Galton made no
attempt to separate and quantify the constituent elements of what he called natural ability. However, his
discourse indicated that natural ability (a.k.a. creativity) might be defined by several components, including
but not limited to intellectual capacity, passion for interests, limitless energy, and perseverance.
Creativity as extraordinary products
In one important way, we find that Galton’s thinking is a duplication of Socrates’. Their thoughts
converge on the idea that creativity is a special capacity to produce extraordinary work-products (i.e. ideas,
objects, scientific revelations, etc). This emphasis on extraordinary products corresponds to what D.K.
Simonton labels Big C creativity (in Kersting, 2003). Simonton distinguishes two levels of creativity, Big C
and little c, noting that Big C results in the type of creative product that exerts a major influence on others
while little c is relevant to creativity’s function on a personal level, facilitating individual problem solving
and adaptability skills. This distinction clarifies a line that needs to be drawn in our thinking about
creativity. On one side of the line, Big C creativity regards an outcome that extends beyond the generation
of a new product; it is achieved through others’ perceptions and judgments about whether a created product
is extraordinary or not. On the other side of the line, little c creativity simply regards that which transpires
within individuals as they engage in the processes and activities that eventually produce new products.
Csikszentmihalyi (1996) voices strong support for using extraordinary products to identify
creativity and proposes a particularly discriminating approach to defining creativity. To Csikszentmihalyi,
creativity is not an attribute of an individual; it is an interaction between a person, an area of expertise, and
judgments by respected contributors in that field. His perspective is that if we define creativity as a
subjective experience that transpires within a person, then we subtract from the true meaning of what
creativity should represent. Csikszentmihalyi suggests that creativity should be identified in terms of

4

2
extraordinary work-products that add to or change a culture. This is at the highest level of creative
achievement; it is almost as big as Big C can get. But even at this lofty level, we notice that the subjective
phenomenon experienced within a person is not ignored by Csikszentmihalyi’s model. His is an
interactive-systems model of creativity. In the model, two extrinsic components – (a) the needs of a specific
area of expertise and (b) experts’ assessments about how well those needs are satisfied – are promoted to a
level as equally important as that of the creative individual. These three components interact; mutually
affecting each other, to deliver what the culture perceives as notable advances or changes to the status quo.
This is a compelling theoretical, tripartite model that suggests how extraordinary ideas are produced and
recognized in an overarching culture. On the other hand, if one embraces an interest in intra-individual
creativity, the model seems to lose hold of the primary target. As a Socratic counter-question to the opinion
that any meaningful definition of creativity must be directed at Big C, one might ask: “Is it not more
subtractive from the true meaning of creativity if we define it in terms of an objective experience, extrinsic
to the individual, than if we remain centered on what transpires within the individual?” The answer, it
would seem, lies in one’s point of focus – product or individual.
Gruber (1988) prescribes an evolving systems approach to understanding creativity. His
conceptualization is similar to Csikszentmihalyi’s model with two major exceptions. First, the emphasis of
the model is placed squarely on the development of novel ideas within the creative individual. Secondly,
there is no specified tripartite context in which creative activity ensues; instead, the numbers of different
types of influences are unrestricted. The model proposes that exceptional creativity develops within an
individual in a multidimensional context that is unique to each Big C event. Gruber’s evolving systems
model is somewhat more abstract than Csikszentmihalyi’s due to this intentional unspecified
multidimensionality. The model does recognize that an individual evolves within an extrinsic milieu, thus
creativity is not simply an intrinsic evolution. But the intrinsic and extrinsic influences are expected to vary
in number, manner, and weight of impact with each extraordinary product.
Despite their differences, Gruber and Csikszentmihalyi, as well as Socrates and Galton, all
nominate the same indicator of creativity – extraordinary products. The field of creativity research is

5

2
largely unified behind this core conceptualization (e.g. MacKinnon, 1978; Runco, 1989; Renzulli, 2002).
And among laypersons as well, creativity is synonymous with extraordinary novelty (Sternberg, 1985).
It is difficult to think about examining creativity without a created product to evaluate. One
of the crucial characteristics of creativity is that something new gets produced. For this reason,
investigators in the field examine individuals with the expectation that the results of the study will provide
information that can be linked to the production of extraordinary products. Despite the fact that the creative
process does not always yield a readily available and assessable product (Gruber, 1985; Policastro &
Gardner, 1999), the field’s general orientation remains an effort to explain how extraordinary products
come into existence. Whether measuring cognitive processes like ideational fluency, flexibility, originality,
and elaboration (e.g. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking; Torrance, 1975), divergent thinking (e.g.
Remote Associates Test; Mednick, S., 1967; Mednick, M., 1963), or creative thinking (e.g. Structure-of-
Intellect Learning Abilities; Meeker, Meeker, & Roid, 1985), or personality characteristics (e.g. Pufal-
Struzik, 1992; Russ, 1993), or emotional flexibility (e.g. Ivcevic, Brackett, & Mayer, 2007), or
combinations of different cognitive, motivation, and temperament traits (e.g. Rossman & Horn, 1972), or
innovation in the workplace (e.g. Work Environment Inventory, Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989), or
experimentally manipulated contexts (e.g. Hyman, 1964; Runco, 1986; Baker-Sennett & Ceci, 1996), the
path to validate any instrument as a measure of creativity inevitably leads back to the field’s established
criterion variable, extraordinary products. It is a criterion that is difficult to ignore. How else are we to
know that creativity has been accessed and measured? The “how else” in this question is really a question
of “how little” little c can be and still be a detectable, meaningful representation of creativity.
Can creativity be measured?
Debate does exist as to whether it is possible to effectively measure creativity (see Hocevar, 1981;
Gardner, 1993a; Amabile, 1996; Gruber & Wallace, 1999). Part of the argument regards the lack of success
that various measurement instruments have shown in predicting creative excellence. Hocevar (1981)
provided a taxonomic review of different creativity methodologies: divergent thinking, attitude/interest
inventories, personality inventories, biographical inventories, teacher nominations, peer nominations,
supervisor ratings, product ratings, eminence, and self-reports of creative activities/achievements. After a

6

2
consideration of the extant research into various instruments within and across these categories, he
summarily suggested, “the most condemning problem associated with the measurement of creativity is the
lack of convergent validity among different methods” (p. 457). In other words, individuals ranked as
highly creative by one method might be ranked notably different by another. One would expect these
methods to converge if they were accessing a single unidimensional attribute; however, if one assumes that
creativity is of broad multidimensional character, then it is not surprising that the methods do not converge.
Hocevar points out that one should not over-reach when interpreting what each measure indicates, that
different instruments are useful in different ways and investigators should choose instruments that match
the purposes of their investigation. Plucker and Renzulli (1999) advise creativity researchers to refrain from
accepting or rejecting specific methodologies, but rather to “understand the merits and limitations of the
available methods and the type of information that each method is best suited to provide about creativity”
(p. 49). These cautions speak to the multidimensional nature of creativity.
Another disputed point in the creativity measurement debate is whether there is a distinct gap, a
qualitative leap, between Big C and little c – or instead – there exists continuity that can be measured along
a continuum of varying levels of creative ability and success. Gruber and others (Gruber, 1985; Gardner,
1988; Gruber & Wallace, 1999) have hypothesized that an immeasurable qualitative difference exists
between exceptional and normative creativity; that is, Big C is not just indicative of a superior amount of
creative ability that produces a more successful outcome from the same processes that are at work in little
c. Their position is that Big C creativity is unique in every instance and that quantitative methods are not
likely to ever specify an accurate model of how Big C emerges, at least not beyond the most superficial and
general types of predictors. They argue that there is a unique confluence of intrinsic and extrinsic elements
that interact in a reciprocally deterministic fashion to produce a specific extraordinary product. Each
confluence is therefore singular, one of a kind. For that reason, it is virtually impossible to know in advance
when, where, or what should be measured to quantify a Big C event. And even if by sheer luck such an a
priori research design could be specified and executed, the resulting analysis would provide little
information for predicting the next creative breakthrough. Proponents of the qualitative-leap argument
suggest that traditional quantitative methods can at best provide some superficial information about little c;

7

2
in comparison, qualitative, post hoc case studies of the lives and work-streams of eminent creatives offer a
much more appropriate method for understanding the true nature of Big C creativity (see Gruber &
Wallace, 1999). They assert that expert researchers’ circumspections of different cases of exceptional
creativity lead to the discovery of important commonalities among those cases. They maintain that through
such discoveries a more valid description of exceptional creativity can be obtained. Their position is clear:
if you’re interested in Big C, then you should investigate Big C; don’t investigate little c.
Opponents of the qualitative-leap argument do not object to the idea that exceptional componential
interactions occur in extraordinary creativity. They simply argue that regardless of whether your interest is
in Big C or little c, the constituent elements comprising any creative event are normative to the system of
human development (Amabile, 1996). They assert that the structure of creativity exhibits a measurable
continuity over a high-to-low-score continuum of differences among individuals. And yes, it may be
difficult to know or predict the unique interactions that produce any specific instance of exceptional
creativity, but there is a calculable commonality to the way that humans produce both trivial and non-trivial
novelty. Furthermore, advocates of measurement continuity argue that if we hope to truly understand how
extraordinary products are generated then we need to understand something about the fundamental
commonality shared by both exceptional products and their less extraordinary counterparts. These
investigators maintain that quantitative techniques best serve our attempt to understand that commonality.
Quantitative methodologies require that we discover ways to precisely measure differences among
the observed constructs that we are investigating (see McDonald, 1999). Then, in order to interpret the
differences, we must be able to see clear, coherent patterns formed in them. This yin and yang of variation
and covariation is a necessary part of determining when things are different and when they are the same.
From the beginning of man’s interest (certainly as early as Socrates’ description), creativity has
been conjectured to consist of multiple dimensions. We are able to identify these separate dimensions by
testing whether items that are intended to measure the same (or different) creativity components, obtain
responses that do (or do not) covary with each other. By examining the inter-relationships among the
responses we can identify the number of distinct interpretable measurement patterns that are necessary to
adequately describe the similarities and differences among the item-responses. Different measurement

8

2
patterns define different dimensions in the data. For example, multiple questions about one’s activity level
in an area of creative-interest should manifest a pattern of similar responses if those responses are to be
understood to converge on a true score of one’s affiliation to that interest area (see Jones &
Nesselroade, 1990). And that pattern should be distinct from any response pattern found for other types of
questions, such as whether one uses their own internal standards for evaluating work-products. Separate
patterns will be found in the data if there are indeed separate dimensions of creativity represented by these
different types of questions. This is the essence of convergent versus discriminant validity; by applying
statistical procedures to evaluate measurement patterns, we can verify independent dimensions in
creativity. Quantitative methods offer a precise algebraic procedure, a factor analysis, for accurately
extracting similar from dissimilar response patterns and for determining the likelihood that the extraction
can be trusted. Maximizing this accuracy is an important objective of quantitative methods.
We should note that the principle is the same whether one is investigating creativity from a
quantitative or a qualitative perspective. In any investigation, we look for patterns to give us a sense of
what the available information is trying to tell us. In quantitative work, certain patterns are expectable even
before an investigation begins due to the a priori nature of the hypotheses that underlie the data being
collected. Qualitative work is less restricted by a priori expectations regarding what data will be collected
or be useful, or what patterns are likely to emerge in the data (see review by Madill and Gough, 2008);
however, along with this freedom from some restrictions comes a greater susceptibility to being influenced
by spurious, chance observations. Those who favor quantitative methods often express this admonition to
qualitative researchers.
There has been a recent movement towards integrating both methodologies within the same
research design. This is evidenced by a significant increase in mixed-method articles listed with the
American Psychological Association database, PsychINFO; the last twenty years (1989 to 2008) has seen a
virtual monotonic increase in articles expressing simultaneous qualitative and quantitative emphases
(minimum = 119; maximum = 1207; r = .96; p < .001). From our brief summary of the creativity leap-
versus-continuity measurement debate, it is clear that both research methodologies are important to
understanding the nature of creativity. One should be careful though, recalling the words of Hocevar (1981)

9

2
and Plucker & Renzulli (1999), to choose a research method or method-mix that best suits his/her inquiry
into the nature of creativity.
Examining the dimensions of creativity
Guilford suggested in a 1950 president’s address to the American Psychological Association that
there was a gap in the field’s knowledge about how and why the dimensions of creativity produce such a
wide value-range of new and useable ideas (Guilford, 1950). He stated that little had been done either to
verify that there are different dimensions of creativity (i.e. factors) or to understand how these factors
combine to generate such a variety of trivial and non-trivial outcomes. He recommended the use of factor
analytic techniques to confirm that the hypothesized dimensions of creativity differ from each other. He
encouraged researchers not only to identify the separate factors but also to assess each factor’s contribution
to creative outcomes. Guilford believed that creativity was a multifaceted human behavioral system
comprised of cognitive as well as personality and environmental variables. In order to adequately study
any such multivariate system, a research design must simultaneously evaluate as many of the system’s
facets as possible. Guilford saw factor analysis as the best approach to investigate this problem in the study
of creativity.
Since Guilford’s challenge to researchers, structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques have
advanced in capability and availability to the general research community. SEM techniques are now widely
recognized as an analytic procedure that can address not only concerns such as Guilford’s, but also a
complex array of simultaneous questions regarding multiple measurement relationships. As one example of
such complexity, consider this question: Is it possible that males and females, or members from different
cultures, think of creativity in different ways (e.g. Baer, 2008; Zhang, Straub, & Kusyk, 2007; Hoff, 2005)?
In other words, does creativity emerge in the same way or does it even mean the same thing to these
different groups of people? With SEM techniques, it is possible to address such research questions with a
multiple-group factor invariance analysis (Horn & McArdle, 1992). Essentially, a multiple-group factor
invariance analysis tests whether the same measurement patterns exist across different groups of people.
This is not trivial. Without such a test, we cannot know that we are measuring the same dimensions in the
same way in these different groups. But with this analysis, in an examination of separate groups where each

10

2
group is comprised of different-type individuals (e.g. male group vs. female group), when we find evidence
of factorial invariance we become more confident that we are validly measuring that which we claim to be
measuring. We have evidence to confirm, rather than simply assume, that we are measuring identical
dimensions in an equivalent way among all the groups.
The four P’s of creativity
Guilford’s address, like a prism, clearly illuminated three separate orientations to creativity
research. Alongside the field’s established criterion variable, these points of reference broadened research
attention to circumscribe what is now commonly labeled the four P’s of creativity (Rhodes, 1961): (a)
Product – the criterion by which we notice that creative activity has occurred; (b) Person – intrinsic
attributes of the individual, such as personality, self-concepts, moods, etceteras associated with creative
activity; (c) Process – cognitions, styles and approaches to knowledge acquisition and problem solving,
modes of evaluation, etceteras comprising the actions of creative activity; and (d) Press – external,
environmental factors such as financial, security, or social incentives that encourage or press one toward
creative activity. Each of these categories can be differentiated into its own subset of dimensions.
The first P: Product
A created product evokes a response from its creator and from all who happen to examine the
product’s properties. As noted above, Csikszentmihalyi (1996) suggested that the only true measure of
creativity is the degree to which experts respond to a product. But how does an expert determine
differences among extraordinary products? Are these products simply extraordinary or not, with no other
variations? If there are variations manifested across different examples of exceptional creativity, then what
are the dimensions by which such variations can be judged? And at what level of expertise does one’s
judgment become a credible endorsement of a product’s level of creativity? It is clear that Csikszentmihalyi
defines experts as those who have contributed something important to the target area in which the product
is being judged. His implication is that experts in a specific area of expertise may be best at identifying the
dimensions on which a product should be evaluated. This perspective suggests that each separate domain of
human endeavor will lean toward its own set of criteria when judging creativity (e.g. Lubart, 1999;
Amabile, 1996). However, a counterpoint to this position is that laypersons experience a variety of different

11

2
types of creativity from across a much more broad and open context than that solely provided by expert
endorsements. So on some personal level between Big C and little c, creativity has an affect and is judged
by even those who are not experts. En pointe with the issue of personal judgments, Jackson and
Messick (1965) proposed a universal response set by which individuals recognize creativity in products;
this response set includes the dimensions of surprise, satisfaction, stimulation, and appreciation. Surprise
occurs due to the unexpected nature of a product, those aspects that reflect originality or novelty.
Satisfaction is a term that Jackson and Messick used to indicate the level at which a created product solves
a problem or fills a need. Stimulation regards the dimension of a product that promotes other ideas or
interpretations or provokes new directions. And appreciation is that dimension of a product that addresses
some aesthetic such as beauty or the elegance of a solution.
Amabile (1996) has created the consensual assessment technique (CAT) for the explicit purpose
of judging created products in research. She uses this technique to evaluate the creativity level of products
that are produced in response to brief experimental assignments such as writing a poem or making a
collage. An underlying assumption in this work is that creativity is a normative ability that exhibits
measurable continuity. The basic premise of the CAT is that individuals with a reasonable degree of
knowledge about a domain (not field recognized experts) can provide credible judgments that combine as
reliable consensus ratings of creativity when supplied a list of to-be-rated characteristics. Amabile’s
research supports her premise. Furthermore, factor analyses of the CAT instrument’s ratings suggest a
similarity to the creativity response set offered by Jackson and Messick. Rated characteristics like novelty
and spontaneity (Jackson & Messick’s surprise) were found to join with movement and complexity
(stimulation) to identify a dimension that Amabile has described as a creativity cluster; characteristics like
appropriateness, organization, planning, and technical goodness (satisfaction) appear on a dimension
termed a technical cluster; and characteristics like pleasantness and aesthetic appeal (appreciation) form an
aesthetic judgments cluster. When examining products for creativity, human evaluations seem to gravitate
toward characteristics that are surprising and stimulating, that exhibit some degree of technical correctness,
and that are pleasing in some way. By her terminology, Amabile suggests that characteristics seen as
surprising and/or stimulating are more closely related to what one might identify as creative; but

12

2
correctness in satisfying an objective and aesthetic appreciation are also important dimensions that
individuals use to evaluate the creative level of products. One important implication of Amabile’s work
with the CAT is that even without training, individuals can make reliable judgments about differences
in levels of creative success. This may not rise to the level of judgment that Csikszentmihalyi proposes as
appropriate to evaluate and influence Big C, but it certainly suggests that an individual is able to monitor
and evaluate his or her own levels of little c successes.
The second P: Person
Our interest in extraordinary products leads immediately to a curiosity about the individuals that
produce them. What kind of person produces that? Perhaps an inspired person, a knowledgeable person, a
passionate person, a dedicated person, an unusual person, or it may be that someone with inborn natural
abilities is the kind of person who does that. Or perhaps it takes a genius to do that. These are the types of
beliefs that emerge from the implicit theories of laypersons when asked to describe the personal attributes
that are likely to be found in creative individuals (Sternberg, 1985). Researchers have explored these
different notions in an effort to gather evidence about the intrinsic nature of creatives (i.e. creative
individuals). Several important dimensions have been identified through this line of research. A high-order
sorting of these dimensions would separate personality, crystallized and fluid intelligences, biopsychology,
and intrinsic motivations as major constructs related to creativity within a person.
Personality. We think of personality as a consistent pattern of behavioral tendencies exhibited by
an individual. We observe this consistency both as a general disposition that is stable across time and as a
specific disposition that emerges in consistent ways across particular contexts or situations. For example,
we might say someone has a creative personality if we observe him or her contribute something original
across a variety of dissimilar circumstances; and we might say the same for someone who consistently
demonstrates this quality in only one (or a few) specific type(s) of situation(s). The defining element of
personality is the notion of consistency in a person’s behavior.
As one would expect, investigations of creative personality have sought to link normative
dimensions of personality to the field’s established criterion, extraordinary products. Different studies have
approached the criterion problem in different ways (see review in Feist, 1999). Sometimes, creatives are

13

2
selected to participate in a study because of their professional association to a particular area of human
endeavor – visual arts, music, dance, literature, and etceteras. Other times, peers, teachers, or professional
associates nominate individuals whom they believe exemplify the characteristics of a creative person
and these nominated individuals are then selected for inclusion in a study. And still other times, individuals
are selected on the basis of their ability scores from measures that have been validated by other studies to
represent relevant creative cognitive-abilities. In whatever manner they are selected, once selected, the
subjects are asked to complete a personality survey such as Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Questionnaire
(16PF, Cattell & Cattell, 1995), the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ, Schuldberg, 2005), or
McCrae and Costa’s Big Five Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness questionnaire (NEO, Furnham &
Bachtiar, 2008); the patterns of their responses are then contrasted with those found in a general population
or a comparison group of “non-creatives.” Several dimensions of personality reliably surface from such
studies as being more pronounced in creatives than non-creatives regardless of whether one examines
general, artistic, or scientific populations (Feist, 1999). These dimensions include openness to experience,
unconventionality, drive and ambition, independence, and a lonerism factor often interpreted as aloofness,
lack of warmth, non-conformity, autonomy, and/or introversion. Such dimensions have shown evidence of
being independent of intelligence and motivation factors (Rossman & Horn, 1972).
Abnormality and creativity. The belief that there is some type of consistent connection between
creativity and abnormal personality/behavior has a long recorded history, as far back as Socrates’ reference
to divine madness. This hypothesized relationship continues to be investigated and debated.
Various personality studies have suggested that there is a relationship between creativity and
neuroticism and psychoticism. For example, Ludwig (1995) examined over 1,000 eminent representatives
from a variety of professions and found a strong link between eminence and psychopathologies (e.g.
tendencies to self-medicate, anxiety proneness, affective disorders, etc.). To account for this phenomenon,
Eysenck (1993) has proposed that psychoticism, marked by a vulnerability to losing contact with reality
and by an over-inclusive disorganized style of thinking, is a genetically based personality trait closely
related to creativity.

14

2
Schuldberg (2005) administered Eysenck’s EPQ along with several creativity measures such as
Davis’ How Do You Think scale (HDYT) and Mednick’s Remote Associates Test (RAT). The HDYT is
designed to obtain subjects’ biographical information regarding their creativity. The RAT is a
measure of divergent thinking; it scores responses to a series of remotely associated word-pairs where a
single-word, fill-in-the-blank response is required to clarify the relationship between each word-pair. In his
study, Schuldberg found a moderate association between the EPQ’s psychoticism scale and the HDYT, but
no significant correlation between psychoticism and the RAT.
Eysenck and Furnham (1993) found a moderate positive relationship between psychoticism and
dislike for simplistic drawings on the Barron-Welsh Art Scale (BW-AS). The BW-AS measures a
predisposition expected in creatives, that they are more likely than non-creatives to dislike simplistic
drawings and to like complex drawings. Eysenck and Furnham did not find a significant correlation
between psychoticism and liking complex drawings even though they did find an association with disliking
simplistic ones.
The contrasting results within and across these two studies could be interpreted in terms of the
multidimensionality of creativity, suggesting that each separate dimension of creativity is not necessarily
related to psychoticism even if creativity as a broad multidimensional construct is complexly related to
psychoticism. Other studies (e.g. Abraham, Windmann, Daum, and Gunturkun, 2005; Reuter, Panksepp,
Schnabel, Kellerhoff, Kempel, & Hennig, 2005) provide additional contrasting examples of support and
lack of support for the link between psychoticism and various aspects of creativity. Some studies have
looked at hypothesized biological correlates of psychopathology (e.g. testosterone in Reuter et al, 2005)
and creativity with no finding of support for that association.
Psychodynamic and humanist contrasts. Two developmental theories of personality,
psychodynamic theory versus humanist theory, present contrasting views of the relationship between
creativity and personality. In one view, creativity serves to repair a distressed self-identity; in the second
view, creativity serves to self-actualize a contented self-identity.
Essentially, the psychodynamic view suggests that creativity emerges from narcissistic
disturbance. In this theory, a narcissistic personality develops in an environment where the nurturing agents

15

2
(e.g. the mother-father dyad) use the child to satisfy their own needs rather than meet the needs of the child.
In such an environment, the child develops neediness for recognition, respect, approval, and a sense of
belongingness. The developing adult becomes self-absorbed as a means of obtaining what should
have been readily available in childhood. Alper (1992) suggests this leads to a constant need for approval
from idealized objects (an audience, a loved one or muse, the unknown gods of creativity, the cult of
genius, etc.); psychodynamic theory identifies this as a significant force underlying creative activity.
Kaplan (1984) and later, Mollod (2008) cited narcissistic injury (e.g. insult, rejection, disregard) as a
contributing factor in creative production. They proposed that creatives use unresolved injury-experiences
to energize the creative act and sometimes integrate the experiences into the creative work itself. Fine
(1980) suggested that creativity acts to build healthy narcissism, that creativity represents an ability to work
through and resolve disruption or injury and that depression represents an inability to do that.
Humanist theory suggests that only self-concept health optimizes creative activity (Yau, 1991).
This view argues that creative activity requires a sustained effort that is more likely found in individuals
who are emotionally unconflicted and self-actualizing. The essence of creativity entails an aspiration for
contributing something new to oneself or others; this seems less likely in narcissistic repair, which implies
corrective reaction, than in goal-directed proaction. Individuals with a greater sense of self-efficacy are
more likely to access a reservoir of positive energy and sustain their creative efforts. Taking a position that
supports the humanist perspective, Fredrickson (1998; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005) proposed a Broaden
and Build model of creativity that specifies the contribution of positive affect in creative activity. The
model suggests that positive emotions broaden one’s cognitive capacities, allowing one to attend to,
process, and flexibly manipulate more pieces of information.
Having a self-efficacious, self-actualizing personality versus a narcissistic-challenged personality
is not respectively the same as experiencing positive versus negative affect. But the implications of the two
theories are that self-actualization should increase positive affect and narcissistic injury should increase
negative affect. There is an extensive line of research regarding the effect of mood on creativity. Isen,
Daubman, and Nowicki (1987) induced positive moods across multiple experiments and concluded
“…good feelings increase the tendency to combine material in new ways and to see relatedness between

16

2
divergent stimuli.” (p. 1130). However, in a meta-analysis of 25 years of research on experimental
manipulations of mood and its affect on creativity, Baas, De Dreu, and Nijstad (2008) noted that the
relationship between mood and creativity is more complex than simply stating that better moods equal
better creativity. Not all positive states uniformly enhance creativity; for example, happiness and elation
induce greater activation of cognitive flexibility and global processing but serenity and relaxation do not.
And not all negative states equally reduce creativity. Sadness and depression do not seem to be related to
creativity; that is to say, one may or may not be creative when depressed. And studies have shown that
while anxiety may be related to less cognitive flexibility, it is not related to fluency or originality in one’s
thinking. Thus, we begin to consider, as observed in this complex relationship between positive and
negative affect and creativity, that a synthesis of humanist and psychodynamic theories may complexly
describe how creativity develops, is activated, and becomes integral to personality. We may find a structure
for examining the pushmi-pullyu characteristics of creativity’s relationship to life-satisfaction in a synthesis
of psychodynamic and humanist perspectives.
Intelligence. Another dimension of the creative person is his or her level of intelligence. Early
definitions identified intelligence as an innate ability to comprehend relationships among variables in the
environment (e.g. Spearman, 1904). Research into intelligence has followed the precedent of Galton and
his emphasis on inherent abilities. Investigations into the link between creativity and intelligence have
sometimes proposed that creativity is simply a part of intelligence; and conversely, at other times suggested
that intelligence assists the aims of creativity. The two are inextricably intertwined. Gardner (1993a) has
even framed his definition of intelligence in such a way as to merge the two, stating that intelligence is the
“…ability to solve problems or create products…” (p. x.).
In research where a wide range of high to low intelligences is examined, the correlation between
intelligence and different measures of creativity is fairly strong (Barron, 1963). But the correlation is
largely an artifact of the low number of exceptional creatives who exhibit low intelligence scores on
intelligence tests. The size of the relationship begins to fade at an IQ threshold of approximately 100-120
points (average to moderately above average). This is to say that there is not a significant relationship
between creativity and intelligence after a certain threshold of intelligence is obtained.

17

2
Rossman and Horn (1972) examined cognitive abilities and temperament indicators of creativity
in university art and engineering students and extracted 8 factors from the data. They concluded that certain
dimensions of intelligence (e.g. crystallized intelligence) were separate from components of creativity
(e.g. an intuition vs. rule orientation factor) and both were distinct from motivational characteristics (e.g.
self-sufficiency and risk-taking). The study suggests that intelligence and creativity are likely distinct and
intersecting influences in human behavior. Renzulli (2002) endorses that position; his three-ring conception
of giftedness is reminiscent both of Rossman and Horn’s conclusions and of Galton’s discourse regarding
the likely elements that constitute eminent natural ability. According to Renzulli, giftedness occurs at an
overlapping of three distinct influences: above average intelligence, task commitment, and creativity.
Galton (1869/2005) did not suggest that “natural ability” was a unidimensional construct; but
Spearman (1904), as an associate of Galton, advocated quantitative assessment to determine whether or not
a single innate dimension of intelligence could explain the breadth of human cognitive abilities. He
proposed that if there was one dimension for a general intelligence (g), then all cognitive abilities should
form a single convergent factor with respect to the scales measuring those abilities. The existence of a
single dimension for intelligence has not been incontrovertibly supported.
Spearman’s student, J. Raven (1941), constructed a test to assess an individual’s ability to make
sense of complex stimuli. The test, Raven’s Progressive Matrices, presents a series of matrices. Each
matrix in the series consists of a set of geometric-shape clues from which a testee must detect a rule that
explains the relationships among the shapes. The testee is expected to select the correct response for each
matrix-problem from among several geometric-shape alternatives; for each matrix, the correct
answer/alternative is the shape that conforms to the detected rule that explains the other shapes’
relatedness. The rule is different for each matrix. Though Raven’s matrices clearly represent a task that
requires one to comprehend relationships among stimuli without the support of verbal skills, the single
modality of the task seems to fall short of the breadth of cognitive skills required of humans in day-to-day
life. In light of the fact that Raven was a student of Spearman, perhaps he constructed the test to match the
initial intent of his mentor’s quest, but the task seems to miss the broad implication of Spearman’s research

18

2
challenge. Regardless, the test is an elegantly designed instrument for assessing one’s ability to extract
relationships from complex visual stimuli.
In evaluating a broad spectrum of cognitive tasks (e.g. tasks assessing working memory,
concentration, processing speed, verbal abilities, spatial abilities, computational abilities, etc.), Cattell
(1941, 1950), and then Horn and Cattell (1966) suggested that a single conceptualization or factor of
intelligence was not likely to be found. They proposed that at least two broad dimensions consistently
emerge from the data: fluid intelligence (G
f
) and crystallized intelligence (G
c
). This is known as G
f
– G
c

theory. Essentially, these dimensions suggest that humans do have the capacity to comprehend relationships
in their environment but also; in addition to that, an accumulation of information about the environment
facilitates their comprehensions. Horn and Cattell used the term crystallized to refer to the part of
intelligence that is accumulated information. G
c
is an intelligence of acculturated knowledge built on
personality factors and environmental opportunities. Horn and Cattell used the term fluid to designate the
part of intelligence that relies on an individual’s inherent physiological capabilities (e.g. cognitive speed,
attentional capacity, etc.). G
f
has little to do with any accumulation of knowledge; it is the capacity to
employ what we know when we’re not sure what we know. The existence of these dimensions has been
confirmed by evidence of age related developmental differences. G
f
increases to young adulthood and then
steadily diminishes across time; G
c
increases most rapidly into young adulthood and then continues to rise
or remain stable until near the end of life (Horn & Cattell, 1967). Associations to distinct brain structures
have also confirmed the presence of these two dimensions. For example, G
f
is more likely to activate the
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex while G
c
is more likely to activate the
hippocampal region (Geary, 2005).
Creativity utilizes both G
f
and G
c
dimensions of intelligence. The importance of G
c
is underscored
by the often-referenced ten-year rule (Hayes, 1989). Hayes examined the preparation time that creatives
typically require before achieving notable productivity. In general, exceptional products do not surface until
after approximately ten years of knowledge and skill acquisition. Regarding G
f
, processing speed and
working memory capacity have been proposed to account for one’s facility to adaptively solve problems
and for encoding new information (Horn & Cattell, 1966; Salthouse, 1996; Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle,

19

2
2002). These components are especially relevant to creativity due to its requirements for attending to,
selecting, manipulating, associating, and separating different types of ideas during the creative process.
Neurobiological correlates. Within a person there are other biological substrates that have
been linked to creative behavior in addition to the brain structures mentioned above. Camfield (2005)
provided a substantial review of investigations into the neurobiological correlates of creativity. In general,
it can be said that the subjects of the reviewed investigations were recruited into creative vs. non-creative
groups either on the basis of expert ratings of their work products or on the basis of subjects’ scores on
creativity tests such as Mednick’s RAT. Camfield’s review reflects a range of neurobiological research
emphases, from EEG frequency to EEG coherence and from hemispheric asymmetry to brain
specialization. In short, it can be said that there are complex differences in the neuro-activity observed
among creative versus non-creative individuals and among creative versus non-creative cognitive-events.
In 1978, Moldofsky and Lue (as reported in Camfield, 2005) recorded electroencephalogram (EEG) power
spectral patterns in normal individuals who had been presented a creativity closure task known to evoke
sudden cognitive resolutions (Guilford’s classification tests) and compared their patterns to those recorded
in hallucinating schizophrenic patients. The comparison suggested that immediately prior to both the
normative creative events and the schizophrenic hallucinating events, low frequency delta and theta waves
were observed to increase in power; simultaneously, high frequency beta waves were seen to decrease in
power. Camfield cited Whitton’s 1978 interpretation of this brain-wave pattern as representing a cognitive
state where subjects are directing their attention inward.
Camfield’s review also considered the relationship of coherent EEG patterns to creativity. A
coherent EEG pattern is defined as a synchronous same-frequency brain wave measurement at different,
distant sites in the brain. Creative tasks that require a fluent production of ideas have been found to exhibit
a significant correlation with bilateral, coherent alpha-wave patterns. Such patterns are similar to those that
are present in deep meditation. Bilateral coherence during creative tasks (reported by Orme-Johnson and
Haynes in 1981) offers an enlightening contrast to the generally accepted notion of creativity and
hemispheric asymmetry. The hemispheric asymmetry position suggests that creative, intuitive thinking is a
function of right-brain activity and that algorithmic, literal thinking is a function of left-brain activity.

20

2
Bilateral activation during creative tasks can be interpreted as indicating whole-brain cooperation rather
than right-brain asymmetry. On the other hand, there is no evidence of non-random bilateral coherence
when creatives are at rest. In reviewing a Jausovec and Jausovec brain-wave-coherence study
published in 2000, Camfield noted that creatives, at rest, actually exhibit less alpha-wave coherence than
non-creatives. If alpha-wave activity is to be interpreted as indicating a relaxed state, then these results
suggest that creatives may be more at rest during creative activity than during those moments they are
believed to be “at rest.”
Camfield presented some EEG studies that support hemispheric asymmetry with greater general
activation of the right hemisphere during creative tasks. However, the overall picture of asymmetry is more
complex. There is evidence that less-creative individuals are more reliant on left-hemispheric activity while
more-creative individuals exhibit greater bilateral activation. Both left and right frontal regions of the brain
are generally involved in creative tasks with the right hemisphere increasing in activation as the creative
task becomes more difficult.
The underlying implication of this line of research is that differences in brain activity during
creative versus non-creative events are likely due to genetic differences. There is a wealth of evidence
supporting a genetic contribution to human cognitions in general and creativity in particular (Runco, 2007).
However, it is difficult to parse out differences in brain activity for exceptional versus normative creativity
in a way that distinguishes the degree to which those differences are inherent or developed over time.
Arousal, learning, and need. Arousal level is a biological substrate that has long been
hypothesized to relate to creative activity within a person. This hypothesis receives support from evidence
that shows that creative individuals score higher than non-creatives on measures of sensation-seeking
(Pufal-Struzik, 1996; Schroth & Lund, 1994; Okamoto & Takaki, 1992; Farley, 1985; Zuckerman; 1985).
Sensation-seeking is characterized by an indifference to risks, impulsivity, adventurousness, etc. Raine
(2002), Zuckerman (1985), and Dawson, Schell, & Catania (1977) have reported that individual differences
in sensation-seeking are indicated by a variety of biological correlates – EEG, skin conductance, heart-rate
variability, respiratory rate, relative presence of neurotransmitters (e.g. monoamine oxidase and
norepinephrine), and the relative presence of endorphins. Such measures, although lowly intercorrelated,

21

2
assess biological arousal. The findings indicate that low levels of arousal are associated with high levels of
sensation-seeking. According to the theories of Zuckerman and of Raine, low levels of biological activity
induce individuals to seek stimuli that are biologically arousing. In other words, if you are bored, you
will seek some form of stimulation. Creative activity is proposed to be one manifestation of sensation-
seeking behavior. A genetic or environmentally induced susceptibility to low-arousal intrinsically
motivates a person to seek sensations. When low-arousal interacts with certain personality characteristics
and personal expectations, creative activity results. This explanation of creative behavior within a person
originates in the Hans Eysenck’s (1955) Arousal Theory: individuals will seek a level of arousal at which
they feel a sense of optimal functionality.
Another aspect of a person’s intrinsic motivation to engage in creative activity is identified in the
learning theory of Hull (1943) and later McClelland (1987; 1985). While it may be true that an individual’s
relative level of low arousal serves to stimulate activity, one must learn which activity is likely to produce
the type of stimulation he or she is seeking. McClelland’s explanation of the learning model addresses the
cognitive aspects of human behavior by specifying that the likelihood of any behavior is a function of the
following: (1) one’s motivation, (2) an expectation that the behavior will obtain desirable results, and (3)
identifiable incentives to obtain the expected results. McClelland points out that motivations to exhibit
specific behaviors include a range of components such as physiological/psychological need and the value
that is placed on the behaviors. He summarized his perspective on need- versus value-based motives by
suggesting that value motives are explicit and more likely to be expressed when responding to questions
about behaviors but that need motives are implicit and more likely to produce target behaviors.
Joy (2000) devised a scale to examine the motivation to be different, that is, innovation
motivation. He referred to this motivation as a “need to be different” (Joy & Hicks, 2004, p. 331). He
suggested that the more that one is motivated by this need, the more that they will seek out opportunities to
engage in novel or novelty-making behaviors. “This need, when strong, may be the source of the oft-noted
tendency of creativity…and eccentricity…to occur together”(Joy & Hicks, 2004, p. 331).
Joy’s scale to measure one’s need-to-be-different does not seek to extract separate dimensions for
need (implicit) versus value (explicit) as suggested by the work of McClelland. He simply states that both

22

2
aspects are likely intertwined, confounded within his measure of intrinsic motivation to be innovative.
Nonetheless, high scores on his need-to-be-different scale have been shown to predict greater creativity (as
judged by experts) in both verbal and visual modalities. 
The third P: Process
After acknowledging a product’s attributes and the characteristics of the person who produced the
product, our curiosity turns to the level of cognitive determination and the kinds of cognitive processes that
have been utilized to create the product. The field has identified several types of processes that are relevant
to creative activity. These process dimensions include such broad constructs as forming a reasonable level
of expertise, pre-inventive events and leaps of intuition, divergent and convergent ideation strategies, top-
down versus bottom-up concept formation strategies, loci of assessment standards, cognitive assessments
of productivity, and a variety of types of cognitions contained in each of these.
Knowledge and skill acquisition. The acquisition of knowledge in one’s field of creative activity is
the sine qua non of developing a level of expertise that produces innovation. There is evidence of this both
in child prodigies (Feldman, with Goldsmith, 1991) and renowned geniuses (Gardner, 1993b); it is certainly
true of normative creatives as well. Though there are mixed opinions regarding the benefits of formal
schooling, no one has challenged the notion that preparation is essential to creative activity. Wallas (1926)
proposed that preparation is an important fist step in creative problem solving. Preparation includes not
only the acquisition of knowledge, but also the acquisition and maintenance of appropriate skills. As an
analogy, we borrow from the visual perception theory of J.J. Gibson (1979) and propose that one’s amassed
knowledge in their field of creative interest serves as a perceptual creative surface for his or her forays into
innovation. From Gibson’s thinking, the more structure a surface contains, the more one can perceive not
only the surface itself, but also the relationships among atypical events on that surface. As regards
creativity, we suggest that the more knowledge a person acquires about his or her creative surface, the more
likely he or she is to notice, attend to, assimilate, accommodate, and generate unusual events in his or her
area of interest, thereby consistently reorganizing the creative surface. The ten-year rule (Hayes, 1989)
mentioned above with respect to G
c
further enriches our concept of a personal creative surface.

23

2
There is a sense of tension between knowledge and creativity (Weisberg, 1999). The tension
derives from the notion that, as important as knowledge is for innovation to occur, too much knowledge can
sometimes constrain innovation. This has been noted as an inverted U-shaped relationship between
education and creativity (Simonton, 1984). With little education, there is little innovation; and at the other
extreme, with a large amount of education, there is little innovation again; but between those extremes one
finds a greater likelihood of innovation. As Luchins and Luchins (1959) explained, early successes at
problem solving can lead to repetitive approaches in later problem solving strategies. The problem is that as
we acquire more expertise, we may become more rigid in the strategies that we employ to encode and
manipulate ideas. However, as reported by Weisberg (1999), major innovations are often the result of only
minor modifications in problem solving strategies; a modicum of rigidity may not be disadvantageous in
and of itself.
Part of the link that connects knowledge acquisition and creativity is a sense of intention to
contribute something new to an area of interest. May (1975) and Rank (1923) espoused the belief that there
is an intentional decision by creatives to participate in creative activity. Creatives summon the will, the
courage, to pursue creative endeavors. They self nominate themselves to be a creative. According to Rank
(1932), this self-appointment is the first act of creativity. In this perspective, knowledge and skill begin to
serve the creative process at the point that an individual’s will to create is activated. The implication in
Rank’s writing is that once an individual activates the will to create, he or she is creative from then on. But
as Weisberg’s (1999) reminder about the tension between knowledge and creativity suggests, we
understand that the will to create is a moment-to-moment event.
Ideational strategies. The construction of new ideas is crucial to the generation of creative
products. The associative theory of Mednick (1962) and the bisociative theory of Koestler (1964) both
embrace this notion. Psycholinguistic studies (e.g. Wisniewski, 1996; Hampton, 1987) have shown that
unusual properties are more likely to emerge in combinations of ideas that are distantly related than when
the ideas are closely related. Hampton (1987) has suggested that characteristics necessary for one
component and impossible for the other provoke cognitive conflicts that must be resolved with information
beyond the categories of the components. These various positions suggest that the construction of a new

24

2
concept requires a cognitive search to identify an appropriate set of constituent elements that comprise
relevant or seemingly distant concept(s), and then, another search through those separate elements to
determine which can be recombined into new concepts. Regarding these cognitions, Rothenberg
(1976, 1971) has named two types of events, janusian vs. homospatial events. Janusian cognitive events are
those occasions where multiple interpretations are simultaneously disentangled from a single idea.
Homospatial cognitive events are those instances where multiple elements combine simultaneously into a
single cognition. Homospatial and janusian events are analogous to the more often referenced concepts,
convergent and divergent thinking (Torrance, 1962; 1966; 1984; Guilford, 1983); the difference lies in the
simultaneity of the Rothenberg perspective.
Anomaly and change expectations. The concept of a creative surface was introduced above with
regard to the acquisition of knowledge and skill. Our notion of a creative surface has been adapted from
Gibson’s (1979) ideas regarding the surface-ground in visual perception. Gibson’s view is that a perceptual
surface is not static: “Invariants of structure do not exist except in relation to variants” (p. 87). This view
recognizes that one’s perception of a surface changes in relation to the angles of stimuli impingement that
are experienced; this acknowledges that one’s movement across a surface affects one’s perception of the
surface; and it suggests that not only does anomaly become conspicuous in contrast to conformed
orderliness, but also, conversely, that the perception of order requires anomalytic contrast.
We incorporate the notion of surface variants in our creative surface metaphor. Creative activity is
expected to exhibit sensitivity for anomalous events and a flexibility to adapt to such events. Creativity
anticipates that established concepts might need modification at some point. Furthermore, when anomalytic
events emerge, the creativity system responds by implementing a backward reconstruction of the sequence
of events that preceded the anomaly – abductive reasoning – to formulate a hypothesis regarding the cause
of the anomaly. This process is activated across an individual’s creative surface and bears some similarity
to Kuhn’s (1962) assertion that anomalous events in science lead to paradigm shifts. As a creative process
we suggest that sensitivity and expectation for anomaly are important elements of creative behavior.
Anomalies produce a cognitive demand for coherence resolution that is beneficial to creative
endeavors. Thagard (1997) suggested that an intersection of dissimilar (anomalous) ideas generates a

25

2
cognitive dissonance that initiates an intrinsic search for an interpretation that conforms to the expected
constraints of each of the dissimilar ideas while still accommodating the manner in which they might be
conjoined. Such modifications to intersecting ideas are the essential ingredients of generating a new
concept.
Pre-inventive events. Wallas (1926) noted that there is an incubation period in problem solving.
The incubation period is a temporal space between the awareness of an anomaly (or problem) and the
implementation of a strategy to achieve its resolution. A variety of experiences, both normative and
anomalytic, can lead to dream-like states wherein no particular problem-solving strategy is conceived or
followed but from which intuitions emerge to generate promising new strategies or ideas. These states can
be characterized as trance-like cognitive drifts during which pre-inventive forms surface (Finke, Ward, &
Smith, 1992). Within this current research, any such dream-like state is referred to as a pre-inventive
immersion.
Because, in pre-inventive immersion, no strategy is consciously employed to solve a problem, any
solution that does emerge seems to materialize out of nowhere, providing the “a-ha!” experience of sudden
discovery. Such events are perceived as spontaneously emerging from cognitive ambiguity to clearly
indicate a solution to a problem or a new direction for exploration. Spontaneous emergences are not only
the result of pre-inventive immersions, but in a more general sense, they represent the surprise of
facilitative, unanticipated perceptual leaps (Baker-Sennet & Ceci, 1996) across a continuum of unfocused
to focused levels of attention.
Concept formation strategies. It has been suggested that creativity requires more than the
generation of unusual combinations of elements; it benefits from an ability to think critically (Lundsteen,
1968). In general, two distinct critical-thinking strategies can be employed when forming novel concepts.
One approach utilizes top-down evaluations of conceptual combinations where a pre-identified goal, or set
of goals, guides the critical evaluations of the success of a combination. The question becomes – which
elements fit the goal(s)? The objective of the top-down process is to select elements that can be combined
to satisfy the pre-conceived goal(s). A second approach utilizes bottom-up evaluations where there are no
pre-identified goals guiding the evaluations; rather, the emerging intermediate elements are evaluated

26

2
according to ‘in-process’ considerations. The more interesting intermediate elements gain critical mass,
leading to the identification of a goal. The question becomes – is there a goal that satisfies the way that
these elements can be combined? The objective of the bottom-up approach is to identify a goal that
satisfies the manner in which interesting elements have been combined.
The evidence suggests there are no concept formations possible that are exclusively either top-
down driven or bottom-up constructed (Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999). The Geneplore model of Finke,
Ward, and Smith proposes that both approaches are utilized to create new concepts. In their model, ideas
are sometimes generated (in a bottom-up fashion) that may have no initial purpose, but which may find a
function when aligned with other explorative concepts. Also in their model, the constraints of purpose and
usefulness can sometimes drive both the direction and type of ideas that are generated (in a top-down
fashion) as well as the manner by which such ideas are combined as concepts.
Standards-of-assessment loci. It is an accepted principle that individuals self-evaluate the success
of their behaviors. Creative individuals have exhibited a propensity to be independent thinkers (Feist, 1999,
Rossman & Horn, 1972). They will often question and purposefully test norms. This suggests an inclination
to use an internal locus-of-control when assessing the success of creative behaviors. The standards that are
applied in assessing creative activity might include internal standards that are unique personal expectations
regarding specific outcomes and they might include external standards that represent acceptable levels of
relative excellence as compared to the creative activity of others. Csikszentmihalyi’s (1996) tripartite
model of exceptional creativity implies that these different loci of assessment standards represent a
significant dynamic that is responsible for producing extraordinary results. In the model, Csikszentmihalyi
does not dwell on how external standards are activated within the creative individual. Still, it is clear that
external standards must operate within the individual to some significant degree if those standards are to
influence an individual’s work-stream and produce that which satisfies the demands of the field.
Productivity resolve and satisfaction. To a significant extent, creative productivity relies on
persistence. Whether one considers this characteristic to be a cognitive style, an intrinsic motivation, or a
type of intermittent perseverative attention, the importance of creative resolve has been noted across
numerous investigations and theories. Examples include the case-study approach of Gruber (Gruber &

27

2
Wallace, 1999), the historiometric work of Simonton (1999), Rank’s theory regarding the will to create
(1932), and Sternberg and Lubart’s (1991) investment theory of creativity. Deci and Ryan (2008) have
proposed that the autonomous behavior that is exhibited in creative activity can be characterized as a
recognition of personal volition and choice to actively engage specific problems and aspirations.
Persistence is a salient part of the creative process and creative productivity.
As noted above, products elicit a reaction from both the creator and others. According to the
investment theory of creativity (Sternberg and Lubart, 1991), individuals pursue creative activity where
they believe they have the best chance to succeed; the decision to engage in creative activity is a calculation
about whether there is a reasonable probability that success can be obtained and whether the creative task
promises benefits that outweigh the risks. From this perspective, intrinsic satisfaction with one’s progress
in creative endeavors becomes a necessary component of creative productivity.
The fourth P: Press
Social development theorists such as Bowlby (1969) and Ainsworth (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton,
1974) as well as social learning theorists such as Bandura (1977) and Bronfrenbrenner (1979) have
suggested that any behavior is related to the social system within which the behavior is expressed. This
environmental influence can be classified with respect to layers of social interactions that extend from
micro, proximal interactions (such as those that take place with one’s most intimate companions) to macro,
more abstract conceptualizations of social interactions (such as one’s perceptions of the degree to which
creative behavior is encouraged/accepted by society at large).
Environmental factors have been shown to affect creative behavior in a variety of studies.
Hennessey (1989) examined children’s computer work under conditions where there were either human or
computer evaluations vs. no evaluation and found both forms of evaluation to negatively affect creativity as
compared to the condition where there is no evaluation. Amabile, Goldfarb, and Brackfield (1990)
compared individuals working alone on either haiku poetry or collage, individuals working alone but
expecting an imminent coworker, and individuals working alone but expecting imminent professional
evaluation; the results suggest that creativity (but not technical quality) is inhibited by the expectation of
external influence. Somewhat in contrast to such evidence regarding creative quality, rewards have been

28

2
shown to increase the quantity of novel behavior in animals (dolphins in Pryor, Haag, & O’Reilly, 1969;
pigeons in Epstein, Kirshnit, Lanza, & Rubin, 1984) as well as in humans. The experiments regarding
rewards for human subjects have manipulated not only operant reinforcement, but also other variables
such as instructions and amount of practice (e.g. Glover & Gary, 1976); in general, the results suggest that
reinforcement leads to an increase in creative behavior. Additionally, the reinforcement-induced increase in
creative behavior has been suggested to be generalizable and stable across time (Goetz & Baer, 1973). The
theories and findings of such studies underscore the belief that the degree of support an individual
perceives across his or her social hierarchy is important – from intimate helpmate to proximal family
members and from friends to work structures and overarching cultures – such support is an essential
domain to include in specifying a structural model of a holistic creativity system.
A systems view of creativity
The reciprocally deterministic behavioral influences depicted in Bandura’s (1977) social learning
model with internal influences, external influences, and behavior mutually affecting each other is mirrored
somewhat in Csikszentmihalyi’s systems perspective on creativity (1999). As discussed above,
Csikszentmihalyi proposed that the needs of an area of expertise, experts in that area of expertise, and
creatively active individuals are each mutually influencing dimensions, the confluence of which results in
creative products. Other confluence theories of creativity have been offered by such as Gruber (1988),
Sternberg and Lubart (1991), and Amabile (1996), but the essential nature of each model is that multiple
influences conjoin to enhance or diminish creative activity. These models generally depict several distinct
domains of influence: the creative activity; internal, within-the-person influences; and environment
influences.
Summarizing the nature of creativity.
In brief summary of the above discussion, we recapitulate the following major ideas. Creativity
interests us because we each engage in creative activity throughout our lives. What we currently understand
about creativity is based largely on an inquiry into how extraordinary products are conceived and produced.
The field has broadly differentiated between two types of creative efforts: Big C creativity, which
produces extraordinary products that affect a small to large population, and little c creativity, which

29

2
transpires within a person and may or may not result in any immediate product. Some argue that creativity
is normative and measurable and that Big C creativity is simply a superior result of the same elements and
processes that are found in little c; others suggest that these are two distinct types of creativity and
that exceptional creativity cannot be described through any attempts at quantitative measurement.
When we think about creativity, we do so from four clear perspectives – the four P’s: (a) the
created product, (b) the intrinsic nature of the person creating the product, (c) the types of processes that are
utilized by the person as he or she is creating the product, and (d) the environmental influences and
pressures that affect the person and the product’s production. We understand that there are several
dimensions to each of these perspectives and that the relevance of these dimensions has been verified
through various statistical techniques.
As regards products, we know we evaluate them somewhat differently in different domains. But as
a generality, we judge the level of creativity in any product on at least four dimensions: (a) does its novelty
surprise us, (b) does it stimulate us in some way, (c) does it satisfy some need or requirement or point to
something new that needs to be satisfied, and (d) does it possess some quality that we appreciate or find
aesthetically pleasing? Individuals are capable of monitoring these dimensions without expertise in a
specific area of endeavor.
As regards the nature of creative persons, we know that their personalities tend to exhibit openness
to experience, unconventionality, drive, independence, and lonerism dispositions. There has been
speculation about whether creatives exhibit greater degrees of psychopathologies than that observed in non-
creatives. As yet, there is no direct support for an underlying causal relationship between a specific third
variable and both psychopathology and creativity. In our discussion, we emphasized the different
perspectives that distinguish psychodynamic and humanist theories of personality. Psychodynamic theory
suggests that creativity emerges from a narcissistic disturbance and/or injury that place an individual in
psychic distress; this promotes creative activity as a compensatory defense mechanism. Humanist theory
suggests that creativity’s sustained energy and broadened cognitive capacities are more likely to be found
in self-efficacious individuals than in emotionally challenged ones. We noted that both these theories might
be applied simultaneously to describe the manner in which creativity is integrated into one’s personality;

30

2
we suggested that a psychodynamic-humanist synthesis provides a perspective on the pushmi-pullyu
characteristics of creativity’s relationship to life-satisfaction.
Intelligence and creativity are related, separate multiple-dimensional constructs that intersect
to complexly affect each other. The field largely supports the position that creativity is unrelated to
intelligence after a certain threshold of intelligence has been reached. Below that threshold, intelligence and
creativity are positively correlated. One way to conceptualize the intersection of intelligence and creativity
is to note that creativity relies on knowledge (crystallized intelligence) and manipulates that knowledge in
some way (fluid intelligence) to conceptualize and produce novel combinations.
Within a person, neurobiological structure and functionality clearly affect creativity. We
understand that creativity is complexly related to whole brain activity, that creative tasks tend to activate
frontal areas of the brain with increasing right frontal lobe activation as tasks become more difficult, and
that there are left (analytic) versus right (intuitive) hemispheric processes, brain-wave coherent activity
across hemispheres during creative activity, and brain-wave incoherent activity during rest.
Lastly, within a person, there are intrinsic motivations that may be genetically based in low basal
levels of arousal. But low-arousal levels predict a wide range of destructive to beneficial behaviors.
Creative activity is likely, therefore, to be a learned response that is complexly related to both the
physiological/psychological need to engage in creative activity and the value that one places on being
creative.
As regards the creative processes, we noted several constituent elements that have been theorized
and investigated. Knowledge and skill acquisition form the foundation of creative endeavors. Convergent
versus divergent ideation strategies serve to respectively join different ideas together into one interpretation
versus break a single idea into several possible components/interpretations. Creative cognitions include
sensitivity to anomaly, the expectation that one’s knowledge and problem solving strategies may need to
change, and the implementation of abductive reasoning to make sense of uncommon, anomalous events.
Pre-inventive cognitive events such as dream-like cognitive drifts (pre-inventive immersions) and
spontaneous emergences are typical creative cognitions. We noted that concept formations are achieved
through top-down approaches that adhere to pre-conceived goals and through bottom-up approaches that

31

2
form goals as the creative process unfolds. We understand that the assessment standards by which
individuals evaluate their creative progress are recruited from two loci – internal standards, where personal-
goal achievement is evaluated, and external standards, where evaluations are educed through
comparisons to the work of others. And finally, we identified two aspects of productivity that are clearly
important to the creative process: productive resolve and satisfaction with productive progress.
As regards the influence of the environment (the press) on creativity, we noted that there are
occasions where different types of support and challenge affect creative activity in varying ways. We
specifically nominated several sources of influence in creative behavior: intimate helpmates, proximal
family members, work associates and demands, and the overarching culture.
The systems view of creativity identifies a set of influences that attempts to join all the
components of creativity into one structural explanation of the relationships. The system is thought to
include at least three distinct domains – the creative activity, the intrinsic characteristics of the creative
individual, and the external influences of the environment.
Chapter 2: Defining Creativity
Conceptualizing a definition
Defining creativity is not difficult in an intuitive, layperson’s sense. Most adults would likely
suggest that creativity entails making something new or interesting. The most concise definitions offered by
researchers (e.g. Mednick, 1962; Barron, 1972; Arieti, 1976; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999) can be summarized
by stating that creativity is the capacity to produce something that is both unusual and useful. This simple,
elegant definition captures our acculturated notion of creativity while still differentiating between the
process and the result. Its problem, as applicable to this research, is that it directs our attention towards the
product even as it makes clear that creativity is not a product; creativity is the capacity to generate a
product that is both novel and satisfies a need. There should be little controversy in noting that such a
capacity may be more or less active, operating more or less efficiently, important to an individual in
varying degrees, and still lack an observable product.
Our search for the life-enhancing/life-challenging, pushmi-pullyu characteristics of creativity
clearly encourages us to explore that which transpires within persons; it draws our attention towards little c

32

creativity. Throughout this treatise we have made several references to the difference between Big C and
little c creativity. By so doing, we have intentionally maintained a focus shared throughout creativity
research: creativity obtains extraordinary products. The implication in using this terminology is that in
Big C you find extraordinary products, in little c you don’t, and therefore the first is better than the second.
It is a rationale that argues for the high premium placed on the benefits of extraordinary products in our
overarching culture. However, as we reflect on what transpires within a person during their creative
activities, we begin to question whether the external product is the true objective of creative activity or
whether it is simply a tangible artifact that distracts us from the true purpose actualized within a person.
From the beginning of this discussion, we have expressed our interest in how the processes of creativity
operate within a person. But if we examine only what transpires within a person, then we face a criterion
problem – with no product, how do we know that creativity has occurred? Nonetheless we ask, within a
person, is the product really the point?
At some normative level all individuals engage in creative behavior; and they proceed with their
creative activity without regard for others’ judgments about products or lack of products. As Galton posited
in Hereditary Genius (1869/2005), even eminent creatives “…do not work for the sake of eminence, but to
satisfy a natural craving for brain work…” (p. 80). So, we focus our attention here on creativity’s “brain
work,” that is, the processes that take place within a person. The only true outcome for a person who
engages in creative activity may simply be an enhanced, though externally intangible, sense of life
satisfaction.
By this focus, we move away from the external-product orientation that underlies both Big C and
little c terminology and move toward the internal-orientation of personal creativity ( creativity): creativity
is a self-recognized capacity to engage in processes that generate new and useful ideas within a person’s
self-nominated area of interest. The emphasis here is not foreign to previous conceptualizations, but the
definition does serve to specifically address creativity as a set of cognitive processes that transpire within
a person for personal reasons and assessments – it is not big or little, it is personal.

33

Operationalizing creativity
In order to investigate creativity, an operational method must be identified that measures its
salient features. Hocevar (1981) suggested that if we want to measure how creative an individual is,
that we “simply ask the subject” (p. 459). They generally know more about their intrinsic capacities than
external observers. The strength of this approach is that it is practical and accurately targets the conceptual
definition of creativity; it directly measures the phenomenological experience of creative activity.
However, the weakness is that individuals will sometimes reject the idea that they are creative in any way.
And at the same time that they deny their creativity, they will present a product that refutes their denial,
such as a meal they have spontaneously conceived and prepared. We know that individual ideas about what
constitutes creativity vary across populations; they vary even among known creatives (Gluck, Ernst, &
Unger, 2002). Thus, in operationalizing creativity we will refrain from specifically using the word
“creativity” in any of the question-items.
We assert that an examination of creativity has nothing to do with experts’ endorsements of an
individual’s ability to successfully use creative processes. In our discussion we have offered a consensus
view acknowledging that the field has been studying the processes of normative creativity. Recall that both
sides of the qualitative-leap versus quantitative-continuity argument agree on this point. They may disagree
on whether normative creativity leads to exceptional creativity, but certainly they would agree that a
number of the processes of normative creativity have been identified and examined. Our present
investigation of creativity is centered on whether such processes are discoverable within individuals by
simply asking whether they explicitly recognize using the processes in pursuit of their personal interests,
and whether those processes form an identifiable structure of covarying relationships. To operationalize
creativity, we propose that the operation include question-items to assess the levels at which individuals
report using different types of creative processes in their self-nominated areas of special interest.
Furthermore, these questions should examine known creative processes such as knowledge and skill
acquisition, ideational strategies (convergent vs. divergent thinking), sensitivity to anomaly (also
expectation of need for change and abduction reasoning), pre-inventive events (pre-inventive immersion

34

and spontaneous emergence), concept formation strategies (top-down vs. bottom-up evaluative processes),
standards-of-assessment loci (internal vs. external), and personal sense of productivity (resolve and
satisfaction). To reiterate, this investigation of creativity is not concerned with whether individuals
are able to perform well on tasks that test these processes but whether individuals recognize that they
employ such processes in their own personal areas of interest. Additionally, if it is the case that individuals
recognize the personal relevance of these processes, can a structural interpretation of the processes’
interrelationships be found among individuals in a general population? We argue that to identify this
structure is to identify creativity.
Chapter 3: The Bi-path Theory of Creativity
The bi-path theory of creativity is a theory of creativity hypothesized to describe personal
creativity, creativity, as an intra-individual description of the production of products and creativity’s
relationship to life-satisfaction. Though products are believed to be important components in the model, the
criterion in the theory is not the products per se but life-satisfaction. The principal ideas of the theory are:
(1) creativity is identified by a set of cognitive processes that individuals employ and can explicitly
recognize as being employed in pursuit of their creative activities; (2) these processes are actualized
within a dynamic system of influences; (3) this system has an identifiable structure that includes
endoadaptive factors (internal influences), exoadaptive factors (external influences), process factors (the set
of processes that comprise creativity activity), and life-satisfaction factors; (4) the structure of the
creativity system can be identified in between-person analyses; (5) the structure of the creativity system
is moderated by a specific dimension of personality – herein referred to as the reparative-nurtural
hypothesis; and (6) when creativity is more deeply and actively engaged, individuals experience a greater
sense of life satisfaction. We should note that not all of these ideas are tested in the current research.
However, a finding of support for the first, fifth, and sixth principal ideas, listed above, will establish a
basis for a more comprehensive examination of bi-path theory as the research moves forward.
Bi-path theory stems in part from the thinking of Csikszentmihalyi (1999), Feldman (1999),
Sternberg & Lubart (1995), Gruber (1988), and Amabile (1983). This prior work suggests that creativity

35

4
should be examined from a multivariate, social system perspective, that creativity operates in a system of
diverse elements. The elements of this system can be approximated with identifiable factors within
endoadaptive, exoadaptive, creative process, and life-satisfaction domains and the system itself can
be identified as a complex reticule of relationships among these factors. The major constructs and
interrelationships of the theory as initially conceived when formulating it are illustrated as a broad heuristic
in Figure 1 (p. 36). As is the convention in structural equation modeling (SEM) figures, the oval shapes in
the figure represent unmeasured latent concepts. Centrally represented in the figure are the factors of the
endoadaptive (Endo) influences, exoadaptive (Exo) influences, creative process (Cr.Pr) components, and
life-satisfaction (Lf.Sat). The arrows indicate the directions of influence in the structure. As can be seen in
the figure, the seminal hypotheses of bi-path theory suggest that the endoadaptive and exoadaptive
dimensions affect creative process and that creative process affects life-satisfaction. Figure 1 is offered as a
simple introduction to the general heuristic of bi-path theory’s hypothesized factor relationships. The
depicted influences are not intended to represent a specific hypothesis that excludes other possible
relationships; again, Figure 1 outlines a broad heuristic. Extending SEM convention, the concentric ovals
represent higher-order factors; the smaller intersecting ovals are introduced to depict the lack of a specific
hypothesis regarding the number of higher order factors.
In addition to the notion that creativity operates within a system of internal and external
influences and that creative activity enhances life-satisfaction, bi-path theory hypothesizes that a specific
dimension of personality moderates the interrelationships in the system. This hypothesized dimension of
personality is termed the reparative-nurtural dimension in bi-path theory. The polar extremes of the
dimension differentiate between two intrinsic motivations by which bi-path theory derives its name; this
idea is fundamental to bi-path theory and represents a synthesis of psychodynamic and humanist theories.
Essentially, bi-path theory accepts both psychodynamic and humanist theories as reasonable explanations
for the intrinsic energies that drive creative activity.
Recall that psychodynamic theory proposes that creativity is instigated by narcissistic disturbance
and/or narcissistic injury while humanist theory proposes that the sustained energy and cognitive abilities

36

4
Endo 1,2,..., j
Orient
Breadth
Per.ability
Need.Dif
Risk.T
Disinhib
Bore.Sus
Exp.Seek Slf.Med Health
Supra
Serendip
Tolerance1
Tolerance2
Pos.Affect
Neg.Affect
Exo 1. 2...., j
C.Intimate
Gen.Society
Dev.Fam
Cur.Fam
Friends
Work
Soc.Duress
Skill
Abduction
Intent.Reject
Knowledge
Caution.inv
An.Sensitivity
Diverge
Converge
Cr.Pr 1, 2,..., j
An.Immersion
Sp.Emergence
TD.Evaluate
Resolve
BD.Evaluate
Gen.Products
Rcnt.Products
Amnt.Products
Lf.Sat
LfSat.Past
LfSat.Present
LfSat.Future
Self.Compare

Figure 1. The broad heuristic underlying the development of the bi-path theory of creativity and
life-satisfaction; Endo 1, 2,…, j represents a collection of higher order common factors
extractable from the primary factors that measure an individual’s internal influences; Exo
1, 2,…, j represents a collection of higher order common factors likewise measuring an
individual’s external influences; Cr.Pr 1, 2,…, j represents a collection of higher order
common factors likewise measuring creative processes; Lf.Sat represents a higher order
common factor extractable from the commonalities of primary factors measuring life-
satisfaction.

37

4
required in maintaining creative activities are more likely to be found in self-efficacious individuals rather
than in narcissistically injured ones. This research operationalizes the reparative-nurtural dimension as an
intersection of psychodynamic and humanist theories by recruiting items that measure what
psychodynamic theorists might label “neuroticism,” a generalized estrangement from others (Horney,
1991). However, prior research has generally operationalized neuroticism as a single construct measured by
one’s general disposition to distrust relationships – manifesting somewhat distant, neurotic personal
relationships or attachments – as joined with one’s general disposition to be a loner and autonomous (see
Beck & Freeman, 1990). Bi-path theory expects that lonerism is separate from distrust/neurotic-attachment.
Bi-path theory proposes that while lonerism may exhibit a positive linear relationship to creativity,
distrust/neurotic-attachment (herein termed distachment) is expected to exhibit a U-shaped relationship to
creative activity.
Psychodynamic theory suggests that narcissistic injury leads to greater distachment tendencies;
from this theoretical perspective, creativity emerges as a compensatory (reparative) defense mechanism.
Humanist theory suggests that one’s sense of successful belongingness leads to higher levels of
trust/confident-attachment tendencies, that is, lower levels of distachment; and creativity then emerges as a
self-actualizing (nurtural) growth mechanism. Bi-path theory blends the two perspectives to suggest that,
together, they function as a single moderating source of energy that drives the creativity system; in effect,
the reparative-nurtural dimension is a pushmi-pullyu component at work in creativity. Its influence is
expected to exhibit a curvilinear relationship to creative activity. This is to say that both its reparative and
nurtural extremes predict greater creative activity than that which is predicted between its extremes, a
proposed U-shape relationship.
Bi-path theory also recruits the reputed tendency of creatives to exhibit a preference for solitude
(Simonton, 1999; Feist, 1999; Storr 1988) as a separate, but integral part of the reparative-nurtural
hypothesis. The theory expects that the more individuals report a preference for solitude, the more likely
they are to channel energies into creative activities. In other words, this influence is expected to be linear
with greater lonerism tendencies predicting greater creative activity.

38

4
Furthermore, the reparative-nurtural hypothesis can be defined in inter-individual investigations
by two separate hypotheses. The first hypothesis is tested in this current research and stipulates that there is
a curvilinear (i.e. quadratic) relationship between creativity and the reparative-nurtural construct. A
finding of support for this hypothesis will provide a basis for classifying subjects into different groups, for
example: a group of reparative high-score extremes, a group of bridge centroids, and a group of nurtural
low-score extremes. Such a classification system will provide a means for testing the second hypothesis.
The second reparative-nurtural hypothesis will not be tested here but it stipulates that when subjects are
classified into high-score versus middle-score versus low-score groups, a multiple group structural analysis
of the system will identify different structural interrelationships within these groups’ creativity systems
(broadly drawn in Figure 1).
To reiterate, the first hypothesis suggests that a curvilinear relationship exists between creative
activity and a dimension derived from components measuring lonerism and distachment (i.e.
distrust/neurotic-attachment). This hypothesis can be tested with a linear regression equation that exhibits
the following quadratic form:
creativity = 
1
* DisAnx + 
2
* DisAnx
2
+ 
3
* Lonr + 
4
* Lonr
2
+ 
5
* (DisAnx X Lonr) + . [1]
In the equation, creativity represents a measure of personal creative activity; DisAnx represents
standardized scores on a construct identified by putative measures of distrust and neurotic-attachment with
high scores indicating greater distachment (i.e. distrust/neurotic-attachment) tendencies; Lonr represents
standardized scores on a construct identified by putative measures of preference-for-solitude and tendency
to self-counsel with high scores indicating greater lonerism tendencies. The squared terms represent the
curvilinear/quadratic elements in the equation. The reparative-nurtural hypothesis proposes that 
2
and 
3
is
positive for DisAnx
2
and Lonr respectively and that 
1
, 
4
, and 
5
are approximately zero. This is to say
that both DisAnx and the interaction, DisAnx X Lonr, are not linearly related to creative processing and
that Lonr is not curvilinearly related to creative processing. Thus, bi-path theory’s curvilinear/quadratic
hypothesis predicts a precise relationship among creative process, distachment, and lonerism. Figure 2, p.
39, represents a near-perfect, ideal symmetrical approximation of this hypothesis. Such a rigorous ideal is

39

4

DisAnx
2.0 1.5 1.0 .5 0.0 -.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0
LonSelf
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3

CProc
3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3
LonSelf
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3

DisAnx
2.0 1.5 1.0 .5 0.0 -.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0
CProc
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3

Figure 2. Theoretical dimensional interrelationships in the reparative/nurtural hypothesis: in A. – a
slight curvilinear relationship between Distachment and Lonerism; in B. – a linear
relationship between need-to- create and Lonerism; in C. – a clear curvilinear
relationship between Distachment and need-to- create; and in D. – a 3-dimensional
composite of the 2-dimensional relationships depicted across A, B, & C with the x-axis
representing Distachment, the y-axis representing Lonerism, and the z-axis representing
Creative Activity. The figures depicted here are based on simulated data.

A. B. C.

D.
Distach
Lon
Need to
create
Distach Distach Lon
Lon Need-to-
create
Need-to-
create

40

4
not likely to be found in the data even where there is evidence of such a relationship. However, any
evidence of curvilinear/quadratic influence among these components (e.g. a significant non-zero 
2
in
equation [1]) will provide some support for the reparative-nurtural prediction in bi-path theory. In
finding support for the curvilinear relationship, a regression equation is derived that empirically identifies
the beta weights in equation [1]. These weights provide a basis for classifying subjects into different
categories with respect to the reparative-nurtural dimension of personality as the research moves forward.
Beyond this research, bi-path theory asserts that the non-zero beta weights of equation [1] will
specify a linear composite, which determines a subject’s true score,
bp

r.n
, on bi-path theory’s reparative-
nurtural dimension (irrespective of algebraic sign). Once
bp

r.n
has been determined, a transformation to
derive the appropriate positive versus negative algebraically signed reparative-nurtural dimension scores
can be implemented. This transformation can be derived as
bp

r.n
times the sign of the original standardized
DisAnx score:
bp

S.r.n
. Thus, with
bp

S.r.n
representing the appropriately signed, positive/negative
transformation of the equation [1] regression true scores, the reparative-nurtural dimension scores become:
reparative.nurtural =
bp

S.r.n
+  . [2]
As the research moves forward from this current examination, assuming that the theory’s prediction of
expected non-zero beta weights is supported,
bp

r.n
will be derived as a simple linear combination of

2
DisAnx
2
and 
3
LonSelf. Then, the sign-transformed
bp

S.r.n
scores will offer an empirical basis for
classifying subjects into the different groups (reparative, bridge, or nurtural) by which the investigation will
be able to organize a subsequent multiple group analysis. Bi-path theory asserts that a division of the
reparative-nurtural dimension scores into three groups is appropriate for determining group assignments,
where the highest 20% of scores might designate a reparative group, the middle 60% - a bridge group, and
the lowest 20% - nurtural group; and that such group assignments will be adequate to execute a multiple-
group test of the moderating influence of the reparative-nurtural dimension across the creativity system.
Provided that support is found for the reparative-nurtural/creative-process curvilinear/quadratic relationship
as outlined above, the reparative-nurtural hypothesis of multiple group differences predicts that the
regression paths that characterize the structure of the holistic creativity system and its relationship to life-

41

4
satisfaction will manifest different interrelationships when examined and compared among the reparative,
bridge, and nurtural bi-path groups.
Chapter 4: Overview of the Research
This research is directed at better understanding the nature of personal creativity ( creativity) as a
normative set of cognitive processes. The immediate objective is to confirm that individuals are able to
self-identify, differentiate, and evaluate the extent to which they employ various types of creative
cognitions in their self-nominated areas of interest. The overarching goal is to identify the structure of those
common, phenomenologically identified cognitive activities, their inter-relationships, and to determine the
degree to which they are related to life-satisfaction. In short, the research seeks to assess the relationship
between creativity and life-satisfaction. The research also seeks to provide evidence supporting an
important characteristic of bi-path theory, the reparative-nurtural dimension’s curvilinear/quadratic
relationship to creative activity. The specific objectives of this research are:
1. A major objective is the construction of measures of the principal factors and dimensions of the
creativity system. The aim of the research is to build and validate the device for between-person
measurement. The aim is to demonstrate measurement invariance.
2. In particular, in this analysis, the objective is to identify whether a model (common factor structure) of
creative processes and life-satisfaction domains can be reliably identified. The aim of the research
will be to find out whether (i.) the factors and dimensions are reliable, independent, and invariant
across notably different classifications of people, (ii.) the factors and dimensions are interrelated in
ways that continue to indicate their independence while also indicating relationships in accordance
with the major hypotheses of the theory, and (iii.) the inter-relationships are themselves invariant
across different classifications of people.
3. A third objective is to support the bi-path theory prediction of a curvilinear relationship between its
hypothesized reparative-nurtural construct and creative activity. This will require identifying the
systematic variation in lonerism factors, systematic variation in confident vs. neurotic attachment
factors, joint occurrences of high lonerism with both neurotic attachment and confident attachment,

42

and a systematic relationship of movement toward these extremes with the dimensions defining
creative activity. Non-linear models will be examined to evaluate the hypothesized relationships.
Inter-individual invariance analysis will also establish whether the hypothesized distinctions are
stable for the classifications that are developed.
4. A fourth major objective is to provide evidence of the relationship between creative processing and
life satisfaction. The aim of the research is to show that the structure equation model exhibits a better
fit when this relationship is specified as non-zero and positive in contrast to when the relationship is
specified as zero.
Summary of specific aims
The expectation is that the results associated with each objective will conjoin with each other to
converge on a useful structural interpretation. The objectives that will be achieved within the bounds of this
research – based on inter-individual differences – are the following: (1) constructing and validating a
device to measure the creative process and life-satisfaction dimensions of the bi-path creativity system; (2)
providing evidence that reparative-nurtural dimension exhibits a curvilinear relationship with creative
activity; (3) identifying a common structure interrelating the components of the creative processing; and
(4) providing evidence that creative processing activity is positively related to life-satisfaction.
Significance
The notion that creativity is related to life-satisfaction has clear clinical implications. Researchers
have proposed that creativity is linked to a positive sense of personal growth, successful adaptation to
chronic illness, a flexibility that promotes an alleviation of distress, and the capacity to adjust to life’s
traumas. However, there is a lack of research investigating the structure and interactive influences of
personal creativity as a multivariate system of processes, especially as it includes and relates to life-
satisfaction. This research will help fill that gap in the literature.
In general, science has explored creativity with an approach that tends toward the unidimensional
(noted by Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Despite the fact that there is growing support in the field for
multidimensional examinations of creativity (Feldman, 1999), few such investigations have been

43

conducted. This study moves toward filling this gap with the construction of the Bi-path Creativity System
Inventory (BCSI-2). Its intent is to structure adult creativity as a multidimensional, holistic system and, by
empirically identifying that organization, advance an understanding of the complex relationships
among creativity’s components. The present investigation examines three of the five domains that comprise
the holistic system of creativity as proposed in bi-path theory and measured by the BCSI-2. It examines
(1) the psychodynamic-humanist-lonerism-distachment construct’s relationship to creative activity, (2) the
inter-relationships among creative processes, and (3) the relationship of creative processes to life-
satisfaction.
It is a unique perspective of this investigation of creativity that a created product is not modeled as
the criterion variable, but instead, is represented as a personally evaluated element of a multidimensional
system where life-satisfaction is specified as the criterion. Within this model, the subjects’ own evaluations
of their products are of more interest than any judgments by a field of expertise or an overarching society.
A key aspect of the research design emerges from its simplest proposition: individuals can identify
the types of cognitive processes they access during their creative endeavors and are able to evaluate the
extent to which each process is activated. This approach to measurement is supported by the general notion
that metacognitions can be self-monitored (Gioia, Isquith, Retzlaff, & Espy, 2002; Rabbitt, Maylor,
McInnes, & Bent, 1995). By pooling the ideas regarding creative cognitive behaviors that have been
identified in the field, scales have been constructed for the BCSI-2 that examine processes such as
knowledge acquisition, skill acquisition, divergent and convergent ideations, pre-inventive meditative
states, spontaneous insight, hypothesis construction, attention to novelty, expectation of change, bottom-up
vs. top-down concept formations, loci of assessment standards, and aspects of productivity. These scales
offer a means by which the different elements of creative processing can be monitored with regard to self-
reported activity level rather than degree of expert-acknowledged accomplishment. The scales are
especially relevant to this study’s interest in mapping the interrelationships among phenomenological
influences, creative activity, and life-satisfaction in adults. But they also suggest a variety of other
applications, e.g. to study the interaction of the types and threshold levels of creative cognitive activities

44

which may serve to distance juvenile delinquents and adult criminals from destructive behaviors, to
compare cross-cultural differences across types of creative processing activities, to test interventions
intended to stimulate specific creative processing activities, etc.
Lastly, though this research is focused on an examination of between-person variation, the results
will provide an evidentiary foundation upon which within-person measurement devices can be constructed
and upon which within-person variation hypotheses will be formed and tested. There are few published
studies that have examined within-person variation in creativity across time. There are some case studies
that retrospectively re-trace the path of extraordinary creative production within individuals (e.g. Gardner’s
1993b analyses of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, etc.; Zickar & Slaughter’s 1999 study of film directors). And
there are research designs which have collected data over an expanse of time by utilizing individual,
randomly cued, journal entry methodologies – a model of experiential data collection which this research’s
extended design-plan will strive to emulate in part (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi’s 1988 review of inter-individual
analyses of challenges vs. skills across multiple time points). But as yet, there are no intra-individual
analyses of on-line, naturally occurring creative functioning in a multidimensional context. This research
will establish a basis upon which to address that gap in the literature.
Inter-individual analyses are designed to explain the common, stable aspects of human behavior.
And while past and current research has largely sought this kind of explanation for creativity, there is a
growing appreciation for the view that short-term fluctuations within individuals exhibit lawful properties
that we must identify if we are to extend our understanding of the complex interactive nature of human
attributes (Horn, 1972; Cattell, 1973; Nesselroade, 1991; Jones & Nesselroade, 1990). That view has
exerted a substantial influence on the overall design proposed here. Beyond this current investigation, the
extended goal is to use the evidence established here to support the design of a mixed inter/intra-individual
examination of creativity and, by that mixed approach, to disentangle the unique and common elements of
the system, to identify the facets of the structure that demonstrate a point of attraction – i.e. a point of
equilibrium – and variation around such points, and to formulate a comprehensive understanding of the
complex, dynamic relationship between creativity and life-satisfaction.

45

Hypotheses
The chief hypotheses of the investigation are: (1) invariant measures of creative processing, life
satisfaction, and the hypothesized reparative-nurtural dimension of personality can be identified from
items in the BCSI-2; (2) a curvilinear relationship exists between the hypothesized reparative-nurtural
dimension of creativity and the degree to which individuals express a need-to- create in their areas of
special interest; and (3) the processes of creative activity are positively related to life satisfaction.
Chapter 5: Methods
Participants
Participants (N = 161) were recruited through introductory psychology courses at two universities
in Southern California, mailing lists of entertainers in Southern California, and directly contacted
individuals known to engage in creative professions, such as acting, music, writing, and photography.
Males and females were represented (males = 58; females = 103). The students were compensated with
research credits toward improving their introductory psychology course grades. The mailing list and
creative-professional invitees were compensated with a lottery entry for each fifteen minutes of
participation (lottery drawing for one thousand dollars where each lottery entry was valued at an odds-
likelihood equal to one dollar). The average age of the participants was approximately 21 years of age with
a range from 18 years to 60 years. The average amount of education was 13.93 years with a range of 6 to
20 years of formal instruction. Participants’ listed occupations ranged across categories such as actor,
administrator, agriculturalist, clerical worker, computer technician, hospitality specialist, librarian,
musician, nanny, real estate specialist, salesperson, social worker, sportscaster, student, and unemployed.
Instruments
The measurement instrument utilized in this study is referred to as the Bi-path Creativity System
Inventory, version 2 (BCSI-2). Several of the items in the BCSI-2 have been either borrowed or adapted
from scales developed in 1993 by John Horn and Jennie Noll (Horn, 2000). Horn cited work by such
investigators as Harter (self-esteem), Beck (depression), Neugarten (life-satisfaction), Milner (rigidity),
Gesser (death acceptance), Domino (generativity/intimacy), and Collins & Read (interpersonal relations) as

46

the source for several of the constructed items in the Horn/Noll Lifestyles Inventory (LSI). In a reanalysis
of LSI archival data (Breland, 2000), the scales were reflected so that the direction of low-to-high scores on
the putative creativity-relevant scales would appropriately represent the expected directions of their
hypothesized relationships with creativity; 45 factors were extracted from 406 variables and interpreted
with respect to creativity. Twenty-five of the factors were interpretable in terms of dimensions by which
creativity has previously been questioned: intelligence, sensation seeking, suprativity (the belief that
something more than science is needed to explain life), need to evaluate progress, persistence, lonerism,
etceteras. The salient items defining these 25 factors served as a basis and guide for the construction of the
BCSI-2 scales.
Assessment of the BCSI-1. The first version of the BCSI (BCSI-1) was constructed in the summer
of 2002. A focus group was solicited at that time and tested to assess the instrument. Participants consisted
of volunteers who responded to an advertisement requesting help for “a study of life-style issues, thought
processes, and life-satisfaction.” Thirty-five volunteers responded to the advertisement and all the
participants filled out the questionnaire on the same evening. There were few verbal instructions provided,
reasoning that minimal instructions would serve to expose the ambiguities and defects in the BCSI-1. In the
ensuing analysis of the 2002 focus group data, the BCSI-1 was found to inconsistently measure the factors
under investigation. The inter-item reliabilities of the latent constructs varied from a low of .03 to a high of
.89. This led to modifications and replacements of some items in the instrument as well as the addition of
new items in some cases. Furthermore, the instruction set was modified so that the instrument’s
expectations about appropriate fill-in-the-blank responses would be clear to the participants; an identify-
your-interests section was inserted to help individuals more clearly understand the types of responses that
would be were appropriate in the qualitative fill-in-the-blank section of the BCSI.
Description of the BCSI-2.The BCSI-2 is a questionnaire that can be completed by most
participants in approximately one and one half hours. The range of time varies from less than one hour to
more than two hours. The items of the BCSI-2, grouped in constructs, can be examined by the reader in
Appendix 1 (pp. 126-144). The measurement objective of the BCSI-2 is to collect data on a participant’s
phenomenological reporting of endoadaptive, exoadaptive, creative-processes, and life-satisfaction domains

47

of the creativity system. The instrument includes sections regarding: (1) general demographic information
such as age, gender, years of education, occupation, and etceteras; (2) health status across a variety of
health conditions and pain levels; (3) an identify-your-interests section where participants circle from
a list all the areas of expertise that have interested them throughout their lives to any degree – they are also
given the opportunity to write in as many other areas of interest, areas not included on the list, that have
interested them throughout their lives; (4) a qualitative-type fill-in-the-blank section requesting information
about their interest areas, for example, “Regardless of what I am doing these days, I still seem to especially
notice those things that are associated with or that I can apply to __________________,” with a rating scale
from 1 to 9 to indicate the degree to which each completed statement is true, and with as few as none and as
many as three different responses/ratings allowed for each question; (5) a single, qualitative, fill-in-the-
blank item that is intended, per the instructions provided and priming effects from the preceding section, to
identify a participant’s unique special interest area – a self-nominated area of interest that is mentally
engaging, that stimulates one to develop new ideas or new combinations of ideas, that promotes a sense of
self-expression to some degree, and that motivates one to acquire relevant knowledge, improve relevant
skills and abilities, and/or make a contribution – characteristics that have been broadly suggested by the
literature to be associated with creativity; (6) a set of items to assess explicitly recognized processes that are
utilized by each participant in his or her special interest area, with questions measuring individual levels of
knowledge and skill acquisition, convergent and divergent ideational strategies, sensitivity for anomaly,
expectation of need to change, abductive reasoning, pre-inventive events such as dream-like cognitive
immersions and spontaneous emergences, bottom-up and top-down conceptualization strategies, internal
versus external assessment standards, and productivity; (7) a set of items to assess the hypothesized
reparative-nurtural dimension with items measuring distrust, neurotic attachment, lonerism, and self-
counsel constructs; (8) a set of items to assess life-satisfaction; (9) a set of items measuring the
endoadaptive dimension with questions regarding sensation-seeking behaviors, need-to-be-different,
tendency to exercise, self-medication proclivities, supra-normal attributions, positive and negative affect,
and both proximal and distal social tolerance; and (9) a set of items measuring the exoadaptive dimension
with questions regarding external influences such as intimate others, family, friends, co-workers, and

48

general social duress. For this particular investigation’s set of analyses, the salient measures are those that
target the creative processes, life-satisfaction, and the reparative-nurtural dimension.
Procedures
General data collection. The BCSI-2 was administered in two modalities. A hard copy version
and an Internet version were available to participants. The questions were the same in each version but
certain aspects of the presentation differed. For example, in the Internet version the question order was
individually randomized for each participant within and across each section of the questionnaire. In other
words, no two Internet participants are likely to have received the same order of questions. In the hard copy
version each participant received the same order of questions. Initially, the question bank was randomized
while respecting construct-similarity. That is, questions exploring the same construct in the hard copy
version of the BCSI-2 were restricted from being presented sequentially; but outside of that constraint, the
questions were randomly ordered. As distributed, each copy of the BCSI-2 (hard copy) was identical (see
Appendix 2, pp. 145-179). The hard copy version of the BCSI-2 permitted participants to complete the
questionnaire at their leisure in a location of their own choosing. Initial verbal instructions were provided at
the time that the questionnaire was distributed. The verbal instructions encouraged participants to choose a
quiet place with minimum distractions. It was suggested that the participants should organize their time to
complete the questionnaire across several separate, comfortable-length time intervals. The anticipated time
required to complete the entire questionnaire was approximately one hour and thirty minutes to two hours.
For this reason, participants were told that they might like to complete the questionnaire over several days
in segments of twenty to thirty minutes per day. Participants were encouraged to read the instructions
carefully. No procedures were implemented to evaluate compliance other than noting the existence of the
returned, completed questionnaire with appropriate markings.
The Internet version of the BCSI-2 permitted participants to complete the questionnaire at an
Internet-linked computer of their choosing in approximate fifteen-minute intervals. There was a concern
that longer segments of time would risk diminishing the participants’ ability to concentrate on the
questionnaire’s items. There was no restriction to prevent a participant from consecutively completing two
or more fifteen-minute segments at a time if he or she chose; however, the program would ask the

49

participant to decide whether to continue or not after approximately fifteen minutes. It was possible to
complete one section at a time over several days by simply returning to the web site and re-entering a code
and password to continue the questionnaire.
One notable difference between the Internet and hard-copy versions of the BCSI-2 regarded the
identify-your-interests and the qualitative fill-in-the-blanks sections. The hard copy version asked the
participants to circle those interests on the identify-your-interests list that had interested them throughout
their lives and to write in any other unlisted interests. The participants were then instructed to write their
responses to the fill-in-the-blank qualitative questions by using their identify-your-interests choices as a
mental template for what might be appropriate as answers. In contrast, the Internet version provided a point
and click procedure for the identify-your-interests section with a type-in section for any unlisted interests
that the participants would like to identify. All these identified interests were then saved as a set of possible
choices for the fill-in-the-blank qualitative questions. Each participant’s set of identified interests was
supplied in a pull-down menu throughout the qualitative fill-in-the-blank section. The participants were
instructed to point and click on the appropriate interest as displayed in the pull-down menu when
responding to the qualitative questions.
Participant responses to the hard-copy version of the BCSI-2 were entered into the database
manually by research assistants and double-checked for errors by the principal investigator. Participant
responses to the Internet version of the BCSI-2 were downloaded into the database directly from the
Internet, thus any entry errors were participant error. Additionally, response times were recorded for most
of the responses on the Internet version of the BCSI-2. Response times were collected with the expectation
that they offer a method to check compliance/engagement in the task.
Reflecting the scores. Throughout the BCSI-2, several items were inversely scaled with respect to
the direction of the scale that would be expected for the construct that was being measured. For example,
regarding the items measuring life-satisfaction in the present, the participant rated each statement according
to the degree to which the statement was true for him or her. One inversely scaled item stated, “I am bored
with the things that I do these days.” The item was constructed to elicit a low score from someone who is
presently life-satisfied. For all such inversely scaled items, the scores were reflected so that low scores

50

would be transformed into high scores and vice versa. The raw scores were subtracted from ten (since the
scale ranged from one to nine) and then entered into the data matrix as the absolute value of the difference.
By this transformation procedure, all inversely scaled items across the BCSI-2 were reflected to depict
the intended direction of the constructs they measured; ones were transformed to nines, twos to eights, and
so on.
Discriminability and reliability. In choosing items to represent the constructs, the items’
distributions were first separated into gender groups and then hard-copy versus Internet groups to examine
the distributions. The first objective was to identify items that exhibited reasonable discriminability across
the scale. The preferred distributions with regard to discriminability were those that best approximated a
rectangular distribution across all points on the scale, thus maximum discriminability. The items were then
analyzed for inter-item reliabilities across the full sample. Different combinations of items were entered
into the analysis in an exploratory effort to maximize reliability and discriminability simultaneously.
Qual-quant measures. The measurement objectives of the mixed qualitative-quantitative (qual-
quant) section of the BCSI-2 were two-fold: (1) to assess a participant’s general need to actively engage in
various creative interests, and (2) to prime his or her thinking whereby each participant could identify a
primary area of interest that was associated with the following: a sense of focus, generative ideation,
engagement in related activities, personal expression, curiosity, development, and aspiration. A series of
fill-in-the-blank questions were presented to fulfill these objectives. For example, one such question
targeted pre-inventive ideation: “It would not be unusual if, at some point today, I were to allow my
thoughts to drift into a more or less imaginative, dream-like state regarding my hopes in the area
of________.” The participants were instructed to fill-in-the-blank whenever they easily thought of an
interest area that could complete the sentence. This was the qualitative aspect of the question. They also
weighted the degree to which each of their completed sentences was accurate on a scale of from 1 to 9
(barely true to completely true). This was the quantitative aspect of the question and measured a level of
affiliation to the response. For each fill-in-the-blank item, it was possible for the participants to provide as
many as three different responses whenever they could think of more than one response that accurately
completed a sentence. Thus each fill-in-the-blank question provided a range of no response to three

51

responses with accuracy ratings for each separate participant. The responses were scored for fluency, depth
of affiliation to a primary area of interest, depth of affiliation to adjacent areas of interest, depth of
affiliation to tertiary areas of interest, proportion of primary interest responses to total responses, total
flexibility, and primary and adjacent flexibility. These measurements were obtained to gather qualitative
information about the shape of each subject’s creative surface as well as to provide a measure of individual
need to engage in creative activity, that is, their need-to- create. Of these measures, the ones that were
important to this research regarded the following: (1) fluency was operationally determined for each
participant by counting the total of all of his or her fill-in-the-blank responses across the entire qual-quant
section of the BCSI-2; (2) depth of affiliation to a primary area of interest was operationally obtained by
averaging each participant’s self-reported accuracy scores for the fill-in-the-blank responses that were
judged by raters to match the participant’s primary area of interest across the entire qual-quant section of
the BCSI-2; (3) depth of affiliation to adjacent areas of interest was operationally derived by averaging
each participant’s accuracy scores for the fill-in-the-blank responses that were judged by raters to partially
match the participant’s primary area of interest; and (4) depth of affiliation to tertiary areas of interest was
operationally obtained by averaging each participant’s accuracy scores for the fill-in-the-blank responses
that were judged by raters to not match the participant’s primary area of interest
The qual-quant responses were counted to obtain the fluency score, but these responses were not
required to be unique to be included in the count except where multiple responses were provided to the
same question. Three raters were given the task of deciding when the responses matched the participant’s
primary interest. This rating task proceeded in reverse order from that which had generated the participant
responses. The raters started by noting the participant’s identified primary area of interest, recorded at the
end of the qual-quant section, and then proceeded to evaluate the preceding responses. They marked
responses as matching, partially matching, or not matching the primary interest area. There was no training
session for the raters in the task, but a set of written instructions were provided (see Appendix 3, pp. 180-
187). Each rater coded his or her decisions for each response (i.e. as matching, partially matching, or not
matching the self-reported primary interest) into a data matrix. This provided a means of obtaining a

52

consensus rating from among the three raters. The principle investigator served as one of the raters. The
raters worked independently.
Structure equation model techniques. A key aspect of testing the hypotheses in this
investigation was the implementation of multiple-group structure equation modeling techniques (MG-
SEM) to assess measurement invariance and the hypothesized relationships among the variables. The
procedure utilized in this investigation follows a strategy outlined by Horn and McArdle (1992).
In short review, structure equation modeling is a comprehensive algebraic technique by which
theoretical relationships among multiple variables can be tested. The technique can handle a complex
number of types of relationships from simple regression analyses to complicated combinations of
embedded factorial relationships. The current methodology follows the work of Fisher (1929), Wishart
(1930), Wright (1934), Pearson (1936), Lawley (1943), Wold (1953), and Joreskog (1970).
The analyses executed here utilize the Reticular Action Model (RAMpath) technique formulated
by McArdle and McDonald (1984). The RAMpath approach utilizes four matrices to identify measured
variables as distinct from unmeasured concepts and to test the hypothesized relationships among those
components. The idea for the reticular action model is based on Cattell’s (1978) notion of a general
systemic reticule (net-like structure) with symmetric and asymmetric actions between manifest and latent
variables. RAMpath employs two types of variables, manifest variables (defined by operations of
measurement or by assignment) and latent variables (postulated variables, not directly measured, that serve
to represent theoretical relationships among manifest variables). These variables can be related in two
ways: (1) directed relationships where one variable is proposed to predict another, depicted in RAMpath
figures as an asymmetric one-headed arrow leading from one to another (e.g. creative activity is expected
to predict life satisfaction); and (2) undirected symmetrical relationships, depicted in RAMpath figures as a
symmetrical two-headed arrow, where the variables are proposed to covary without any expectation that
one variable may predict the other (e.g. knowledge acquisition may be related to skill acquisition but does
not predict it).
The RAMpath technique executes an iterative algebraic procedure to estimate the observed
measures’ relationships as can best be calculated from the hypothesized model specified by the

53

investigation. To facilitate this iterative calculation, fit functions are available to minimize the
discrepancies between the observed data matrix and the specified model’s estimation of that matrix.
Maximum-likelihood was the fit function employed in this investigation.
The closer the fit of the estimated matrix to the observed matrix, the more convinced we become
that the hypothesized relationships are correctly specified. Several fit indices are available to evaluate the
goodness-of-fit of the hypothesized structures of the models, that is, to evaluate how well the estimated
data matrix approximates the observed data matrix. The fit indices that have been utilized here are the chi-
square/degrees-of-freedom ratio, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and its confidence
interval, and the comparison of models criteria. The maximum-likelihood coefficient represents how well
an estimated matrix approximates an observed matrix; it is distributed like chi-square and the smaller the
coefficient of estimation, the better the fit. The field generally expects an acceptable model to exhibit a chi-
square that is less than twice the degrees-of-freedom. Steiger (1990) and Brown and Cudeck (1989)
suggested that the fit function should be adjusted for the number of parameters in the model; this
adjustment is included in the calculation of the RMSEA. Brown and Cudeck have suggested that the
RMSEA coefficient should be less than .10 in order for a specified model to be regarded as a non-chance
representation of the observed data; they further suggested that a model that obtains a RMSEA that is less
than or equal to .05 may be considered to be a good fit to the observed data. Another important strategy to
evaluating the fit of a model is by comparing it to other, different models with competing hypotheses about
how the variables are interrelated. This investigation attended to each of these issues when evaluating the
fit of the models. In each instance, several models were compared. The model with reasonable fit indices
and good substantive interpretability was selected as the best fitting model. The criteria by the which the fit
indices were judged to be reasonable were three-fold: the results were examined to determine whether the
chi-square/degrees-of-freedom ratio was less than two, whether the RMSEA was less than .10,and whether
the 90% confidence interval around the RMSEA included .05. Any model that met the standards of all three
criteria was judged to exhibit a reasonable fit.
In the MG-SEM factorial invariance (measurement invariance) strategy outlined by Horn and
McArdle (1992), several different groups’ factor structures are simultaneously evaluated to determine

54

whether their relationships can be understood to be equivalent. Factorial invariance provides evidence that
we are measuring that which we claim to be measuring. Four groups were tested in this investigation: the
male hard-copy questionnaire group, the male Internet group, the female hard-copy group, and the
female Internet group. In general, to test for measurement invariance, the items’ loadings on the factors, the
factor correlations, and the factor standard deviations were estimated but constrained to be invariant among
all four groups. Certain items in each factor were fixed in the model to set the metric of the factor. In some
cases, theoretical constraints were asserted to assess a specific rotation of the factors.
A reparative-nurtural dimension. The reparative-nurtural dimension was evaluated in the
investigation as specified in bi-path theory. In the theory, distrust, neurotic attachment, lonerism, and self-
counsel are proposed to be the constituent elements of the reparative-nurtural dimension. These constructs
are measured in the BCSI-2 with multiple items (see Appendix 1, pp. 142-144). Discriminability and inter-
item reliabilities were examined to identify which items might be most appropriate to operationally define
the dimension. Multiple group structural equation model (MG-SEM) factorial invariance analyses were
then executed to determine whether the items could be seen to measure the same constructs in the same
way across the different modes of data collection (hard-copy vs. Internet questionnaires) and gender.
Bi-path theory predicts that a mixed curvilinear and linear relationship exists between the
respective distrust/neurotic-attachment and loner/self-counsel constructs and creative activity. Creative
activity was operationalized in this research as a need to engage in various types of creative activity, a
need-to- create. As noted earlier, McClelland (1987; 1985) has stated that need-motivations are manifested
in behaviors. Following the implications of McClelland’s work, the BCSI-2 requested participants to
identify, as free responses, the interest areas in which they specifically engage/experience various types of
creative processes, events, and/or aspirations. The rationale was that the more fluent the free responses to
these items (i.e. the greater the relative amount of responding to these fill-in-the-blank questions) then the
more creative activity there actually is.
With the constructs for distrust/neurotic-attachment, loner/self-counsel, and need-to- create
operationally defined and identified, it was possible to test bi-path theory’s prediction of the relationships
among them. A multiple group structural equation regression analysis was executed to test for the existence

55

of a quadratic, curvilinear U-shaped relationship between the reparative-nurtural dimension and the need-
to- create.
The processes of personal creativity. Multiple items were included in the BCSI-2 to measure
the types of creative processes that individuals explicitly recognize using while in pursuit of their special
interests (see Appendix 1, pp. 136-142). Discriminability and inter-item reliabilities were examined to
identify which items might be most appropriate to operationally define the domain. MG-SEM factorial
invariance analyses were executed to determine whether the items could be seen to measure the same
processes in the same way across the different modes of data collection (hard-copy vs. Internet
questionnaires) and gender. The items were purported to measure a range of different types of processes:
knowledge acquisition, skill acquisition, ability to identify and resolve problems, convergent/homospatial
and divergent/janusian thinking, anomalytic sensitivity, abductive reasoning, pre-inventive ideational
immersion, spontaneous emergence of ideas, bottom-up and top-down concept formations, loci of
assessment standards (internal vs. external), and productivity resolve and satisfaction.
At issue were (1) whether data collected from the BCSI-2 questionnaire items can identify these
processes as a set of linear factors comprising creativity that individuals use in the pursuit of their
individual special interest activities, and (2) whether and in what ways the processes are interrelated. These
objectives were approached in a step-wise fashion. Initially, the discriminability of each of the items and
the inter-item reliabilities were examined to determine which provided the best set of variables to
operationally define each construct. Then, first order MG-SEM factorial invariance analyses were executed
separately on the knowledge and skill acquisition items, on the convergent/homospatial and
divergent/janusian ideational strategy items, on the expectation of anomaly and change items, on the
bottom-up and top-down progressive conceptualization strategy items, on the pre-inventive cognitive
immersion and spontaneous emergence items, on the loci for standards-of-assessment items, and on the
sense of productivity items. The extracted factors from these first order analyses were then specified in a
second-order MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis to determine the structure of their inter-relationships.

56

Life-satisfaction and its relationship to creativity. Life satisfactions has been defined as a
generalized self-perception that circumscribes a balanced contentment over several subjectively chosen
life-course dimensions. These dimensions are likely to include such considerations as: (1) whether
one has contributed to society, (2) whether one is comfortable with one’s efforts to accomplish worthwhile
goals, (3) whether one has been able to establish social connectedness, (4) the degree to which one’s
professional/social intentions and expectations have been realized, (5) whether physical, emotional, and/or
economic hardships have been successfully adapted to or overcome, and (6) the degree to which one is
living a vital and rewarding lifestyle (Gatz & Zarit, 1999; Greenspoon & Saklofske, 1998; Benjamin &
Hollings, 1997; Kolanowski & Gunter, 1985). Multiple items were included in the BCSI-2 to measure
general satisfaction with life as experienced in the past, as currently experienced, and as expected in the
future (see Appendix 1, pp. 142 - 143). Discriminability and inter-item reliabilities were examined to
identify which items might be most appropriate to operationally define the domain. MG-SEM factorial
invariance analyses were executed to determine whether the items could be seen to measure life-
satisfaction in the same way across the different modes of data collection (hard-copy vs. Internet
questionnaires) and gender. MG-SEM regression analyses were executed to determine the relationship of
the creative processes to life satisfaction.
Chapter 6: Results
In general, the results indicated: (1) that there were compliance problems with approximately 10%
of the participants; (2) that the investigation’s qualitative rating procedure is reliable and supports an
interpretation of the qualitative data, but the different data-collection modalities required implementation of
an equilibration procedure to obtain comparable qualitative scores between the two modalities; (3) that the
reparative-nurtural dimension does exhibit an invariant (with respect to gender and data-collection
modality) curvilinear relationship with the need-to- create; (4) that the creativity processes are invariantly
identifiable (with respect to gender and data collection modality) in a general population; and (5) that the
creativity processes are complexly related to life-satisfaction. The means and standard deviations for all

57

items used in the analysis can be found in Appendix 4 (p. 188). Each group’s covariance structure for the
items used in each analysis can be found in Appendix 5. (p. 197).
Analysis of participant compliance
Hard-copy compliance. The hard-copy BCSI-2 questionnaires that were returned with an
observable failure to attempt even a partial completion of the questionnaire were not included in any part of
the analysis. No count was maintained for the number that was discarded but conservatively estimated to be
less than ten per cent of the total collected.
Internet compliance. Response times were recorded with the Internet-collected data in order to
assess whether the subjects were providing thoughtful responses to the items. There was a concern that
some participants might respond as quickly as possible without reading the content of the items. This type
of response strategy might be expected of someone primarily motivated to complete the questionnaire in
the shortest amount of time possible with the least amount of cognitive energy expended. There was also a
concern that some participants might provide responses while multi-tasking and give little attention to
accuracy of their responses. Either response strategy on the part of a participant inflates the error
component in the data relative to the true score. For this reason, the analysis implemented a procedure to
identify and eliminate such non-responsive responses.
As a first perspective on non-responsiveness, participants were believed to be pursuing non-
responsive strategies if they exhibited a predisposition to respond more rapidly than realistically possible
under the constraints of the task – the instructions were that one should read and consider each stimulus
item before selecting a response. The initial research expectation for subject response times was that it
would likely require at least one to two seconds for a subject to respond to an item even if a subject
possessed excellent reading abilities, expert computer-mousing skills, and good cognitive speed. This
expectation was based on test trials in which the researcher randomly selected responses without reading
the stimulus items but directly responding as rapidly as comfortable; response times on such trials ranged
from about half a second to slightly less than two seconds.
The data provided evidence to support such an expectation. In examining the 5
th
percentiles of all
the participants’ response times, it was clear that few responded more quickly than approximately one to

58

two seconds on any item. The first three items that were presented in the Internet survey obtained longer
response times, but this was likely due to the subjects’ initial lack of familiarity with the response process.
When excluding the first three items, the range of 5
th
percentile response times varied from .73 to 3.78
seconds. As derived from all items in the investigation, the average 5
th
percentile response time was 1.83
seconds (excluding the first three items).
As a second perspective on non-responsiveness, it was believed that unreasonably delayed
responses might characterize participants who were cavalier and unfocused on the Internet survey task. The
research anticipated that there would be some subjects who become occasionally distracted from the
response task. Any such subjects should tend to exhibit longer-than-necessary response times when
distracted. Those subjects who demonstrate a notable tendency for unusually delayed responding were
considered by the research to lack focus on the task of the survey. This is the type of response profile that
one might expect from someone unmotivated to concentrate and provide accurate responses. Such
responding leads one to question whether the responses can be clearly understood to reflect the
characteristics of an attentive respondent.
The initial research expectation for subject response times was that some items might stimulate
broad ruminations on the part of a participant that could extend their response time to as much as five
minutes. This expectation was based on the researcher’s arbitrary belief that five minutes might be an
extreme upper bound for responding to any of the items on the survey. The data provided some evidence to
support such an expectation. When excluding the first three items, the 95
th
percentile response times ranged
from 10 seconds to 15 minutes 13 seconds. The average 95
th
percentile response time was 5 minutes 14
seconds (excluding the first three items). The individual subjects were subjected to a 95
th
percentile
threshold test to determine whether they responded more slowly than such a threshold on each item. They
were also examined with regard to the averaged 95
th
percentile threshold, 5 minutes 13 seconds, to
determine whether they had responded more slowly than this threshold on any of the items.
To reiterate, the term “non-responsive response” does not refer to a lack of a response, but to a
produced response that is unusually rapid or delayed in terms of what is reasonably expectable for its
respective stimulus. In all, there were 301 items with response times recorded in the Internet-collected data.

59

Subjects were classified as characteristically non-responsive if they produced non-responsive responses for
at least 33% of the items. Nine of the 89 Internet subjects fit this criterion. Generally, their responses
cannot be interpreted as reflecting a compliant engagement in the assigned task. They were eliminated
from the analysis. Furthermore, wherever any of the remaining-subjects did produce a response that was
non-responsive by definition, it was stripped from the data matrix. This item-by-item stripping procedure
resulted in the removal of another 2.3% of the data from across the remaining-subjects’ data matrix.
Analysis of qualitative responses
Scoring from raters. Three raters assessed the qualitative responses. The raters categorized each
participant’s responses as (1) tertiary – not matching, (2) adjacent – partially matching, or (3) primary –
matching their identified primary interest area. Cohen’s kappa coefficients were derived to examine the
degree to which the raters’ categorizations were in agreement. Kappa coefficients are useful to describe
whether any two raters’ ratings agree beyond chance. With three judges compared in pairs (Judge A with
Judge B, Judge A with Judge C, and Judge B with Judge C), three kappa coefficients were derived for each
qualitative item in the survey. In examining the resulting kappa coefficients, each and every combination of
rater-pairs across all survey items could be seen to obtain a kappa coefficient supportive of a conclusion
that there was ubiquitous non-chance agreement among the raters (all kappa coefficients at p < .05). The
average kappa coefficient was .814 as derived across all the items.
Since the raters exhibited good agreement, a consensus procedure was implemented to obtain a
final categorization of tertiary, adjacent, or primary classifications for each qualitative response. In this
procedure, whenever any two are more raters were in agreement on any item, their common decision was
instituted as the final classification for that item’s participant response. Where none of the raters were in
agreement, the final categorization was designated as adjacent – partially-matching – since this condition
can only emerge when two of the three raters believe there is at least this level of matching in the
participant’s response. These consensus classifications were then resubmitted to the raters for their critical
analysis, discussion, and correction of coding errors. All raters agreed on the resubmitted classification list
as providing acceptable ratings to distinguish the participants’ primary, adjacent, and tertiary interest areas.

60

The total number of responses across the qualitative questions was summed to obtain participant
fluency scores. Following the raters’ task to distinguish between types of responses within each participant,
participant scores for flexibility (total number of different responses) were derived separately for each
rater. That is, each participant was assigned three flexibility scores, with each rater contributing one of
those scores. A correlation analysis was then executed to determine the inter-rater reliability of these
participant flexibility ratings. The obtained correlation coefficient among the raters was .954 (p < .05, 95%
CI = .941 to .965). The flexibility ratings of the raters were then averaged across each participant to derive
a single flexibility score for each of the participants.
Equilibrating/transforming fluency and flexibility scores. The different modes of data collection
(hard-copy vs. Internet) presented a likelihood that these mode-of-collection differences might
differentially affect the qualitative scoring of responses. It was expected that a transformation of these
scores might be required for the scores to have comparable meaning between the two modalities.
The hard-copy version of the BCSI-2 required write-in responses; the Internet version did not
require write-in responses, only a “pointing and clicking” from the participant’s pre-selected set of interest
areas. Due to this greater ease of response, the Internet group was expected to exhibit greater fluency than
the hard-copy group. This expectation was supported when comparing the two groups ( M = -11.37, t = -
6.8, df = 159, equal variances not assumed, p < .05). Other than the difference in the manner in which the
data was obtained, these two groups exhibited similar characteristics (both were populated by
approximately 35% males and 65% females with the average subject characterized as at about 20+ years of
age with 14 years of education).
A closer examination of Internet vs. hard-copy group differences in the fluency score distributions
(via a bootstrap methodology using the Harrell-Davis estimator suggested by Wilcox, 1997) provided
evidence that, except for the 9
th
decile, there were differences at every decile. The largest difference was
found at the median. It is not surprising that the 9
th
decile failed to obtain a difference since there is a
fluency score ceiling in the survey (maximum number of responses equal 51). One would assume that the
ease of submitting responses for the Internet version of the BCSI-2 would make maximum scores more
likely in that group than in the hard-copy group. Unexpectedly, while four of the hard-copy group obtained

61

a maximum score, none of the Internet participants scored higher than 48. However, as expected, the
distributions clearly exhibited a positive skew in the hard-copy group (skewness = .588, standard error =
.264) and a negative skew in the Internet group (skewness = -1.301, standard error = .272). The decile
differences of these initial fluency scores can be examined in Table 1, p. 62.
Since the mode of data collection was confirmed to affect the fluency scores, these scores were
equilibrated/transformed so that the two groups’ distributions would be equivalent. The equilibration
procedure was executed on the assumption that the difference in the groups’ fluency scores was due solely
to the mode of data collection. The goal of the transformation was to obtain comparable distributions so
that similar fluency scores (derived as equilibrated qualitative units –equ’s) could be interpreted in the
same way across the two data-collection modalities. After initial attempts to equilibrate the distributions, it
was determined that the groups’ fluency distributions required transformation in sections rather than as
wholes. The approximate quartiles of the distributions offered clear cut-points among the scores to create
sub-groups within both the hard-copy and the Internet groups. Therefore, approximate quartile sub-groups
were created separately for both groups. This resulted in sub-groups with n = 19 (1
st
quartile), n = 21 (2
nd

quartile), n = 22 (3
rd
quartile), and n = 21 (4
th
quartile) for the hard copy group and n = 20 (1
st
quartile), n =
19 (2
nd
quartile), n = 20 (3
rd
quartile), and n = 19 (4
th
quartile) for the Internet group. Scores were
standardized within each separate quartile by data-collection-mode sub-group; then the absolute value of
the standardized minimum value for each sub-group was added to each score in its sub-group. The resulting
scores were then divided by the new maximum value for their respective sub-group (effectively bounding
the distribution at 0 and 1 for each separate subgroup) and multiplied by 9, after which 1 was added to each
score to expand each sub-group’s distribution to a range of 1 to 10. Lastly, each quartile group’s scores
were adjusted to reflect its approximate place in the original distribution, i.e. first quartile scores ranged
from 11 to 20, second quartile scores ranged from 21 to 30, third quartile scores ranged from 31 to 40, and
fourth quartile scores ranged from 41 to 50. Following this equilibration procedure, an analysis of the
differences in deciles (Wilcox, 1997) of the equilibrated scores’ distributions confirmed that the
transformation had obtained equ distributions with no difference at any decile between the hard-copy
versus Internet groups (see Table 2, p. 63). As one would expect, within each sub-group, the pre- and

62

Table 1.
Confidence intervals for the differences between the deciles (using the Harrell-Davis estimator of the
decile) for the hard-copy versus Internet groups’ qualitative fluency scores.

Decile

Lower-bound

Upper-bound

Delta.hat

1
st

2
nd

3
rd

4
th

5
th

6
th

7
th

8
th

9
th

2.679334
4.997675
7.034691
10.407139
13.023043
10.655936
6.912404
3.071302
-2.947768

14.898795
20.305089
24.742588
23.277227
22.737935
22.838542
19.900827
16.476278
8.261143

8.789065
12.651382
15.888639
16.842183
17.880489
16.747239
13.406615
9.773790
2.656688

Note: 95% confidence intervals (lower and upper bound) for the Harrell-Davis estimator of the deciles
(Delta.hat). Only the 9
th
decile suggests no difference between the hard-copy and Internet groups.

63

Table 2.
Confidence intervals for the differences between the deciles (using the Harrell-Davis estimator of the
decile) for the hard-copy versus Internet groups’ equilibrated fluency scores.

Decile

Lower-bound

Upper-bound

Delta.hat

1
st

2
nd

3
rd

4
th

5
th

6
th

7
th

8
th

9
th

-3.270891
-5.823387
-8.399107
-7.252278
-5.741733
-7.312336
-7.526746
-3.572806
-4.547011

2.842688
4.633471
8.328363
6.380770
6.768193
9.660791
10.064218
8.399404
2.331128

-0.21410159
-0.59495799
-0.03537223
-0.43575424
0.51323006
1.17422715
1.26873627
2.41329861
-1.10794138

Note: 95% confidence intervals (lower and upper bound) for the Harrell-Davis estimator of the deciles
(Delta.hat). After equilibration every decile suggests no difference between the hard-copy and Internet
groups.

64

post-transformation fluency scores were perfectly correlated. Across the full sample, the pre- and post-
transformation scores were consistent, exhibiting a strong correlation at r = .84, p < .001.
The two modes of data collection were then examined to determine whether there was a
difference in rater-consensus flexibility ratings between the two modes of data collection. Whereas the hard
copy version of the BCSI-2 provided more or less free-response fill-in-the-blank prompts (though
participants were instructed to use their responses from prior interest-area stimulus items as a guide when
filling in the blanks), the Internet version provided point and click response-choice lists (comprised of
selections by each participant when responding to the prior identify-your-interests stimulus items). It was
expected that the hard-copy version with its free responding might produce higher flexibility scores than
the Internet version with its point and click approach. This expectation was supported in a t-test evaluation
of the two modes ( M = 3.39, t = 5.15, df = 154.79 equal variances not assumed, p < .05) with the hard-
copy BCSI-2 exhibiting greater average flexibility (M = 10.59) than the Internet version (M = 7.19).
A closer examination of the difference in the distribution of flexibility ratings between the two
data collection modalities was implemented, as with the fluency scores, by comparing each decile of the
respective distributions via a bootstrap methodology using the Harrell-Davis estimator (Wilcox, 1997). The
results indicated that there was a significant difference between the two modalities at each decile (p < .05);
the hard-copy version of the BCSI-2 obtained a higher flexibility score across all the decile point
comparisons. These decile differences tended to increase from the lower to the upper deciles’ flexibility
scores – a difference of approximately 2 units at the low end that increased to approximately 5 units at the
9
th
decile (see Table 3, p. 65).
Since the data-collection modalities were evidenced to have affected the flexibility scores, the
scores were transformed/equilibrated to obtain comparable distributions with flexibility scores that could be
interpreted in the same way across the two modalities. The transformation procedure for flexibility scores
was somewhat simpler to implement than that seen in the fluency scores. The scores were standardized
separately in each group, after which the absolute value of the standardized minimum value was added to
each score. That result was divided by the resulting new maximum value (effectively bounding the
distribution at 0 and 1) and then multiplied by 25 to expand the distribution back to its approximate original

65

Table 3.
Confidence intervals for the differences between the deciles (using the Harrell-Davis estimator of the
decile) for the hard-copy versus Internet groups’ original flexibility scores.

Decile

Lower-bound

Upper-bound

Delta.hat

1
st

2
nd

3
rd

4
th

5
th

6
th

7
th

8
th

9
th

-3.245545
-3.521521
-4.301834
-5.146855
-5.690710
-6.625482
-7.472700
-7.415821
-8.901039

-1.0191995
-0.3245535
-0.4022024
-1.2732935
-1.9745889
-1.9274367
-1.0831541
-0.5112405
-1.2961569

-2.132372
-1.923037
-2.352018
-3.210074
-3.832649
-4.276459
-4.277927
-3.963531
-5.098598

Note: 95% confidence intervals (lower and upper bound) for the Harrell-Davis estimator of the deciles
(Delta.hat). Every decile exhibits a difference between the hard-copy and Internet groups.

66

range of values. After the transformation, there were no significant differences at any equ decile between
the mode-groups (see Table 4, p. 67). Across the full sample, the pre- and post-transformation scores
were consistent, exhibiting a strong correlation at r = .933, p < .001.
Deriving scores for interest depth-of-affiliation. Recall that the primary, adjacent, and tertiary
classifications were assigned by inter-rater consensus to categorize participant qualitative responses but that
the participants themselves rated the accuracy of their sentence-completions. Scores for each participant’s
depth-of-affiliation to their primary, adjacent, and tertiary interest areas were derived by averaging their
accuracy scores within each of those classifications.
Identifying the parameters of the creative surface. As Mednick (1962), Koestler (1964), Hampton
(1987), Wisniewski (1996), and others have noted, creativity entails bringing concepts together in unusual
combinations. The more distant their initial relationship, the more likely it is that a synthesis of the two will
result in novelty. The scores that have been derived from responses in the qual-quant section of the BCSI-2
are useful for describing an individual’s creative surface. The creative surface represents an individual’s
motivational-knowledge space from which unusual combinations might be synthesized. The fluency score
represents the general level (in equ’s) of a participant’s need-to-engage in creative activities; the tertiary
flexibility score represents the equ number of interest areas that are distantly related to the participant’s
primary interest area; the tertiary depth-of-affiliation score signals the relative degree to which a participant
accesses those tertiary interests on average; the adjacent flexibility score represents the equ number of
interest areas that are closely related to a participant’s primary interest area; adjacent depth-of-affiliation
scores signal the relative degree to which a participant accesses those adjacent interests on average; and
lastly, the primary depth-of-affiliation score signals the relative degree to which a participant accesses his
or her primary interest area on average. Using these parameters, we are able to visualize/conceptualize the
creative surface. Figures 3 and 4, pp. 68-69, are two examples of this three-dimensional conceptualization.
In these figures, the creative surface is based on a motivation of need-to-engage in creative activity (the
magnitude of the outer radius of the surface). The number of distant unique tertiary interests is used to
obtain a radius extending outside the radii of the primary and adjacent interests; the

67

Table 4.
Confidence intervals for the differences between the deciles (using the Harrell-Davis estimator of the
decile) for the hard-copy versus Internet groups’ equilibrated flexibility scores.

Decile

Lower-bound

Upper-bound

Delta.hat

1
st

2
nd

3
rd

4
th

5
th

6
th

7
th

8
th

9
th

-1.115922
-1.153280
-1.544546
-2.144160
-2.501568
-3.293100
-3.841542
-3.319845
-3.963668

1.0488896
1.8579830
1.8657433
1.2319685
0.7915926
1.1441705
2.3438762
3.2947822
2.9424281

0.03351615
0.35235130
0.16059878
-0.45609597
-0.85498753
-1.07446493
-0.74883293
-0.01253118
-0.51061991

Note: 95% confidence intervals (lower and upper bound) for the Harrell-Davis estimator of the deciles
(Delta.hat). After equilibration every decile suggests no difference between the hard-copy and Internet
groups.

68

x1
x2

Figure 3. A three-dimensional graphic conceptualization of a creative surface - depicting a general
need to engage in creative activities (radius from center to outer edge) with the center
representing a primary interest area. The height at the center represents the level of
affiliation to that primary interest. The figure depicts the dimensions of the sample’s
average creative surface with a general need-to-engage in creative activity at 31.28 units.
This figure represents the condition where initial missing values are assumed to be equal
to zero.

69

x1
x2

Figure 4. A three-dimensional graphic conceptualization of a creative surface - depicting a general
need to engage in creative activities (radius from center to outer edge) with the center
representing a primary interest area. The height at the center represents the level of
affiliation to that primary interest. The figure depicts the dimensions of the sample’s
average creative surface with a general need-to-engage in creative activity at 31.28 units.
This figure represents the condition where initial missing values are assumed to be
unmeasured rather than equal to zero.

70

tertiary radius is associated with a level of affiliation to tertiary interests that is depicted as an elevation
rising above the general motivation surface at the tertiary radial distance from the surface center. The
number of unique adjacent interests is used to obtain a radius extending outside the radius of primary
interests; the adjacent radius is associated with a level of affiliation to adjacent interests and is depicted as
an elevation relative to the depth of affiliation found in tertiary interests. The primary interest is at the
center of the creative surface with a level of affiliation (elevation) that is relative to the adjacent interests.
One approach to summarizing the sample’s average creative surface is represented in the
following derivations (graphic depiction in Figure 3, p. 68). First of all, zeros were imputed where the
raters did not identify either a primary, adjacent, or tertiary interest in a participant’s responses; affiliations
to that class were also set at zero. By this approach, the sample’s scores suggested that the average need-to-
engage was approximately 31 equ’s (in a range of 11 to 50); average number of distant (tertiary) interests
was approximately 8.9 equ’s (in a range of 0 to 20); the average number of closely related (adjacent)
interests was approximately 1.8 equ’s (in a range of 0 to 4); the average affiliation to tertiary interests was
6.70 (in a range of 0 to 8.85); the average affiliation to adjacent interests was 5.27 (in a range of 0 to 9.00);
the average affiliation to primary interests was 7.01 (in a range of 0 to 9.00). In contrast to the expectations
of the research, average affiliation to tertiary interests exceeded average affiliation to adjacent interests. In
paired sample t-tests, the levels of tertiary and adjacent affiliations were seen to differ ( M = 1.43, SE =
.28, p < .05), but the levels of tertiary and primary affiliations were not ( M = -.31, SE = .21, p > .05).
However, the assumption underlying the coding procedure utilized in this first analysis was that the
absence of any class of interests in the measures could be interpreted as indicating that there were no such
interests. By this rationale, zeros were imputed wherever there were no identified interests. In contrast, it
could be the case that those types of interests simply weren’t measured in those participants. Thus,
‘missing’ may be a better representation of those measures.
A second approach to analyzing the creative surface removed the zero assumptions; missing
values were reinstated in this assessment. The resulting creative surface can be seen in Figure 4, p. 69. With
this coding procedure, the analysis provided somewhat different results. The fluency scores (a measure of
need-to-engage in creative activity) remained as previously reported at approximately 31 equ’s

71

(in a range of 11 to 50). There were minor shifts in the average number of tertiary interests (approx. 9.12
equ’s in a range of 4 to 25) and in the average number of adjacent interests (approx. 2 equ’s in a range of 1
to 5). However, interesting differences were observed in the average affiliation to tertiary interests
(6.87 in a range of .84 to 8.85), adjacent interests (7.51 in a range of 1.64 to 9.00), and primary interests
(7.67 in a range of 1.88 to 9.00). This trend toward step-wise increases in average affiliation scores across
tertiary to adjacent to primary interests coincided with the research’s expectations regarding these
relationships. In a paired sample t-test, the levels of tertiary and adjacent affiliations were observed to differ
( M = -.45, SE = .11, p < .05). However, the levels of primary and adjacent affiliations were not found to
be significantly different (paired sample t-test; M = .18, SE = .14, p > .05) – a one-tailed examination
might have suggested a marginal difference (one-tailed p = .101).
The differences between the two creative surfaces constructed above were a direct result of the
coding decisions embedded in the qualitative measurement and classification procedures. The coding
question is this, whenever the participants fail to exhibit a primary, adjacent, or tertiary affiliation, should
that event be coded as a zero (interpreted as no affiliation) or as ‘missing’ (interpreted as not measured)?
The answer is that the coding contrasts may provide contrasting information about the relationships under
examination. Moving forward in these analyses, wherever the depth-of-affiliation scores are integrated into
the analysis, the aforementioned two-alternative approach to the coding will continue to be utilized.
Reparative-nurtural dimension
The original research intention in testing the reparative-nurtural dimension was to implement a
multiple-group regression analysis of the structural equation: need-to- create regressed on (1) the
distachment construct and (2) its square, (3) the lonerism construct and (4) its square, and (5) the
interaction of distachment by lonerism. One difficulty in following that intention lies in choosing an
operational representation of need-to- create. It was originally thought that each participant would likely
exhibit primary, adjacent, and tertiary interests and that the appropriate need-to- create construct might
sum the general fluency score (need-to-engage in creative activities) and the affiliative levels across all
interest classifications. However, as mentioned above, not all participants provided primary, adjacent, and

72

tertiary affiliation scores. Of 161 participants, 157 provided tertiary affiliative responses in the qual-quant
section; only 113 provided adjacent affiliative responses; and 14 participants did not provide primary
affiliative responses to any of the qual-quant questions prior to the final question, which is the point in
the questionnaire at which the participant was first instructed to identify a primary interest.
The coding question regarding the depth-of-affiliation scores clearly affects the research intention
to use these scores in a test of the reparative-nurtural hypothesis. Therefore, two separate analyses were
implemented to test the reparative-nurtural hypothesis. The first analysis recruited the qualitative general-
fluency equ scores to indicate a general need to engage in creative activity. There is no coding uncertainty
in this variable (N = 161). It may fall short of the original intentions of the research but it does provide a
reasonable alternative. By this rationale, the general fluency variable was specified as the regression
criterion in the first analysis. In the second analysis, a procrustean procedure was implemented, summing
the fluency equ scores and the primary, adjacent, and tertiary affiliation scores to derive a composite, need-
to- create construct. Only those participants who manifested a broad, well-defined creative surface with all
components present – primary, adjacent, and tertiary interests – were included in this analysis (N = 100).
The research a priori construct, a linear composite of need-to- create, was used to specify the regression
criterion in this second analysis.
The items selected to represent the distachment construct and the lonerism construct were drawn
as a subset of the BCSI-2 items originally introduced to measure these constructs (see Appendix 1, pp. 142-
144). In an examination of discriminability and inter-item reliabilities across the full sample, individual
items were observed to be preferred and reasonable choices for measuring the constructs. By selecting
these items, the inter-item reliability for distachment (i.e. distrust/neurotic-attachment) was  = .77. The
inter-item reliability for lonerism (i.e. loner/self-counsel) was  = .73. The items selected to represent the
distachment construct were: “I find that it is difficult for me to trust others completely” (dstr3); “it makes
me uncomfortable when anyone tries to get too close” (dstr5); “when I open up and share my feelings for
people, I am usually afraid that they won’t feel the same way about me” (dstr9); “in relationships, I often
wonder whether my partner really cares about me” (dstr10); and, “I find that the closer I become to others,

73

the more likely I am to be hurt” (dstr14). And the items selected to represent the lonerism construct were:
“mostly, I believe I can be described as a loner” (lonr1); “I prefer spending time by myself, rather than
spending time with other people” (lonr2); “I tend to avoid situations where I have to interact with a
group of people” (lonr4); “I have never been inclined to mingle in large social gatherings” (grpw1); and,
“when I am troubled, I generally keep my own counsel, I don’t talk to anyone about it” (slfc1).
A multiple-group structural equation model (MG-SEM) invariance analysis was executed in a
manner suggested by Horn and McArdle (1992). The different groups tested in the invariance analysis were
the male-hard-copy group, the male-Internet group, the female-hard-copy group, and the female-Internet
group. The loadings for the factor relationships, the factor correlations, and the factor standard deviations
were estimated but constrained to be invariant among all four groups. In a step-wise fashion, a null model,
a one-factor model, a two-factor model, and a three-factor model were compared. The three-factor model
exhibited the best fit of the tested models. In fitting the three-factor model, some modifications were
employed. The correlations between the third factor and the other two factors were constrained to be zero
(i.e. the third factor was specified to be unrelated to factors 1 and 2) and the third factor’s standard
deviation and loadings were allowed to vary between groups. The fit of the three-factor model was
reasonable: RMSEA = .063 with a 90%CI from .031 to .104, and 
2
(143) = 171.913. Two of the factors
were invariant among the groups; these two factors represent the constructs of interest here. The third factor
was not invariant and could be seen to vary between any two of the groups. Therefore, its interpretation is
ambiguous at best other than to note that it represents a type of group error in determining the invariant true
score measurement. The loadings for these factors can be examined in Table 5, p. 74.
The first invariant factor identifies the distachment construct. High scores on this factor
characterize a sense that being in close relationships increases the likelihood that one will be hurt, that it’s
generally difficult to trust others, that one’s emotional partner may not really care for them, that self-
disclosure is difficult, and that one is uncomfortable when others try to become close.
High scores on the second invariant factor characterize a sense that one is a “loner” and tends to
avoid large social gatherings and social interactions, that one does not seek advice from others when
troubled, and that one has a preference for solitude.

74

Table 5.
Factor loadings for the distrust/neurotic-attachment and loner/self-counsel constructs. SEM fit indices:
RMSEA = .063 with a 90%CI from .031 to .104, and 
2
(143) = 171.913.
Variable IF
DA
IF
LS
G1VF3
DL
G2VF3
DL
G3VF3
DL
G4VF3
DL

dstr3
dstr5
dstr9
dstr10
dstr14
lonr1
lonr2
lonr4
gprw1
slfc1

.8500
.4901
.7742
.8500
.9500
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000

.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.9500
.4234
.7971
.8601
.5165

.0000
.9500
-.5340
.7752
.8239
.6372
-.2352
.2954
.0000
.5088

.6146
.2853
.2388
.9500
.0000
-.3510
-.3525
.4719
.3771
.0000

.2778
.9500
.0000
.5771
.5007
.2648
.0000
.0000
-.4489
.0000

.0000
.9500
.0000
-.5916
-.9277
.4802
.0000
.8774
.0000
.9626

Note. IF
DA
= invariant distrust/neurotic-attachment factor; IF
LS
= invariant loner/self-counsel factor;
G1VF3
DL
, G2VF3
DL
, G3VF3
DL
, and G1VF3
DL
= respective variant third factors for male-hard-copy-survey
group, male-Internet-survey group, female-hard-copy-survey group, and female-Internet-survey group;
dstr3 = I find that it is difficult for me to trust others completely; dstr5 = it makes me uncomfortable when
anyone tries to get too close; dstr9 = when I open up and share my feelings for people, I am usually afraid
that they won’t feel the same way about me; dstr10 = in relationships, I often wonder whether my partner
really cares about me; dstr14 = I find that the closer I become to others, the more likely I am to be hurt;
lonr1 = mostly, I believe I can be described as a loner; lonr2 = I prefer spending time by myself, rather than
spending time with other people; lonr4 = I tend to avoid situations where I have to interact with a group of
people; grpw1 = I have never been inclined to mingle in large social gatherings; slfc1 = when I am
troubled, I generally keep my own counsel, I don’t talk to anyone about it.

75

The correlation between factors 1 and 2 was estimated as invariant across the four groups at r =
.5269. This suggests oblique rather than orthogonal factors. Furthermore, the standard deviation of each
factor was estimated to be invariant across the groups in the analysis: Factor 1 SD = 1.62, Factor 2 SD
= 1.58.
Using the loadings estimated in the factorial invariance analysis, factor scores were calculated and
standardized for the distrust/neurotic-attachment (DisAnx) and the lonerism factors (Lonr). In order to test
the hypothesized curvilinear/quadratic relationship with need-to- create, the multiplicative squares of both
the distrust/neurotic-attachment (distachment, DisAnx) and the loner/self-counsel (lonerism, Lonr) factor
scores were derived, as was the interaction term for the distachment and the lonerism factors. As noted
above, two separate regression analyses were executed. The first used the transformed general fluency
scores to represent the need-to- create. The second used the sum of transformed general fluency, primary,
adjacent, and tertiary affiliation scores to represent the need-to- create. The variables’ scales were
transformed (standardized and transformed to the same scale of measurement) so as not to bias the linear
combination of the second approach in the direction of the fluency scores. In both regression analyses, a
MG-SEM model was specified to test for the significance of invariant regression coefficients, where need-
to- create was regressed on the DisAnx, Lonr, DisAnx
2
, Lonr
2
, and DisAnx X Lonr interaction predictor
variables. In both analyses, a null model with no regression relationships was specified and tested initially.
In the null model, inter-correlations among the predictor variables were specified and free to vary across
the data-collection modes but were constrained to be invariant within gender. The inter-correlations were
specified in the same way in all the models. After identifying the fit of the null model, a step-wise
approach, utilizing a difference in 
2
per difference in degrees-of-freedom test (e.g. Steiger, Shapiro, and
Browne, 1985), was instituted to identify the best fitting regression equation.
In the first MG-SEM analysis, the male-Internet group exhibited a covariance matrix invertibility
problem. This was resolved by implementing an incomplete data procedure as suggested by McArdle and
Hamagami (1992). In the analysis executed here, the Lonr
2
variable was specified as a latent variable in the

76

male-Internet group. After this modification in the specified model, the male-Internet group covariance
matrix became invertible and the analysis was executed.
Recall that the main reparative-nurtural hypothesis suggests that DisAnx
2
and Lonr are the
expected predictors of need-to- create. By following a difference in 
2
(
2
) per difference in degrees-of-
freedom ( df) comparison strategy, several regression models were compared (see Table 6, p. 77). In this
comparison strategy, if the degrees of freedom are reduced while chi-square is significantly reduced, then
the model is less parsimonious but manifests a better fit than the model to which it is being compared.
However, if the degrees of freedom are increased while chi-square is significantly increased, then the
model is more parsimonious but does not fit as well as the model to which it is being compared.
A model with all predictors entered was compared to the null model first; then the main
hypothesis was compared to the all-predictors model. The results suggest that both comparison models are
preferred to the null model. However, the model representing the main hypothesis is more parsimonious
and provides as good a fit as the all-predictors model (see Table 6. – chi-square did not significantly
increase). This evidence supports the hypothesized regression model.
A step-wise approach was then implemented to identify the predictors that could be eliminated
from the regression with respect to this sample. In general, the modifications identified DisAnx
2
as a
significant predictor of need-to- create while Lonr did not contribute to the regression. The step-wise
elimination of DisAnx, the interaction, and Lonr is recorded in Table 6. The comparisons suggested that the
most parsimonious and best fitting model included DisAnx
2
and Lonr
2
. Neither of these predictors could be
removed from the regression without adversely affecting the fit of the model (i.e. at marginal significance,
p < .10). Of the two predictors, DisAnx
2
was the better fitting single-predictor model. A Cartesian-plane
(degrees-of-freedom by chi-square) mapping of these models can be seen in Figure 5, p. 78. In the figure,
the models that are below and furthest from the total-fit line are generally considered to be the preferred
models (McArdle in Horn, 2000).

77

Table 6.
Comparison of structural model fits for need-to- create regressions (code v. 1).

Model
(predictors)


2
fit index

df

Comparison
Model


2

fit index

df

Significance
of difference

Null
d\l\D\L\x
l\D
d\l\D\L

d\l\D\x

d\l\L\x

d\D\L\x

l\D\L\x

l\D\L

l\D\x

l\L\x

D\L\x

l\D

l\L

D\L

D

L

89.96
80.31
84.51
80.78
83.13

81.85

80.85

80.36

80.80

83.36

82.04

80.85
84.51
84.33
81.23
84.55
85.04

35
30
33
31
31

31

31

31

32

32
32
32
33
33
33
34
34

Null
d\l\D\L\x
“

“
“
“
“
l\D\L\x
“

“

“

l\D\L

“

“

D\L

“

-9.65

4.20

0.74

2.82

1.54

0.54

0.05

0.44

3.00

1.68

0.00

3.71

3.53

0.43

3.33

3.81

-5

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

p < .10

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

p < .10

n.s.

n.s.

p < .10

p < .10

n.s.

p < .10

p < .10

Note: Comparisons of multiple group – structural equation model fits – need-to- create (code 1 measured
by general fluency scores) regressed on d (distachment), l (loner/self-counsel), D (distachment squared), L
(lonerism squared), and x (distachment by lonerism interaction). In the table, a backslash symbol is used to
separate the predictors entered into the model.

78

Figure 5. A Cartesian plane (chisq x df) depiction of the MG-SEM regression model comparisons,
with need-to- create (code 1) regressed on distachment, lonerism, their squares, and
their interaction. Null represents the model with no predictors. D identifies the model
with distachment squared as a lone predictor. D\L entered both distachment squared and
lonerism squared as predictors. l\D\L represents the model with three predictors:
lonerism, distachment squared, and lonerism squared. Code 1 derived need-to- create
scores as general fluency in the qual-quant section.

79

The first analysis provided evidence of a curvilinear relationship for the distachment construct and
the lonerism construct in predicting need-to- create. We reiterate that in this first analysis, need-to- create
was operationalized as the transformed general fluency score in the qual-quant section of the BCSI-2.
In the second MG-SEM regression analysis, only subjects who were identified by the raters as
manifesting affiliations to all the pertinent classifications of interests were included. This post hoc selection
procedure reduced the number of examined participants to 100. The selected subset of participants
accounted for only 62% of the original sample. The procedure recruited individuals who, in the qual-quant
section of the BCSI-2, provided free responses in such a manner as to exemplify a type of creative surface
that included all the relevant classifications of interests – primary, adjacent, and tertiary. In this second
analysis, the need-to- create was operationalized by summing the fluency scores with the average levels of
primary affiliations, adjacent affiliations, and tertiary affiliations.
A difference in 
2
( 
2
) per difference in degrees-of-freedom ( df) procedure was again
implemented (see Table 7, p. 80). As was evidenced in the first set of model comparisons discussed above,
the results suggested that the more parsimonious model representing the main hypothesis (DisAnx
2
and
Lonr predictors) fit as well as the all-predictors model and that both models were improvements over the
null model. The subsequent set of step-wise comparisons (see Table 7) suggested that a structural model
specifying DisAnx
2
as the lone predictor of need-to- create exhibited a significantly better fit than the
model with both DisAnx
2
and Lonr
2
as predictors. Eliminating DisAnx
2
from the two-predictor model
resulted in a significantly inferior fit. In contrast, eliminating Lonr
2
did not significantly alter the fit. A
Cartesian-plane (degrees-of-freedom by chi-square) mapping of these models can be seen in Figure 6, p.
81.
The second analysis confirmed the curvilinear relationship that was evidenced in the first analysis.
The Cartesian-plane graphic comparisons of models represented in Figures 5 and 6 identify the same three
models as reasonable competing regression models whether we operationalize need-to- create as derived
from the general qual-quant fluency scores (Figure 5) or as the sum of fluency scores and average levels of
primary, adjacent, and tertiary affiliations (Figure 6). However, the difference in 
2
per difference in

80

Table 7.
Comparison of structural model fits for need-to- create regressions (code v. 2).

Model
(predictors)


2
fit index

df

Comparison
Model


2

fit index

df

Significance
of difference

Null
d\l\D\L\x
l\D
d\l\D\L

d\l\D\x

d\l\L\x

d\D\L\x

l\D\L\x

l\D\L

d\D\L

d\l\L

d\l\D

D\L

d\L

d\D

D

L

121.70
110.06
113.67
110.06
113.08

112.50

112.01

110.76

110.85

112.31

113.49

113.10
112.39
117.20
113.82
114.01
117.43

40
35
38
36
36

36

36

36

37

37
37
37
38
38
38
39
39

Null
d\l\D\L\x
“

“
“
“
“
d\l\D\L
“

“

“

d\D\L

“

“

D\L

“

-11.64

3.61

0.00

3.02

2.44

1.95

0.70

0.79

1.25

3.43

3.04

0.08

4.89

1.51

1.62

5.04

-5

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

p < .05

n.s.

n.s.

p < .10

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

p < .10
.
p < .10

n.s.

p < .05

n.s.

n.s.

p < .05

Note: Comparisons of multiple group – structural equation model fits – need-to- create (code 2 measured
by general fluency scores summed to the average levels of primary, adjacent, and tertiary affiliations)
regressed on d (distachment), l (loner/self-counsel), D (distachment squared), L (lonerism squared), and x
(distachment by lonerism interaction). In the table, a backslash symbol is used to separate the predictors
entered into the model.

81

Figure 6. A Cartesian plane (chisq x df) depiction of the MG-SEM regression model comparisons,
with need-to- create (code 2) regressed on distachment, lonerism, their squares, and
their interaction. Null represents the model with no predictors. D identifies the model
with distachment squared as a lone predictor. D\L entered both distachment squared and
lonerism squared as predictors. l\D\L represents the model with three predictors:
lonerism, distachment squared, and lonerism squared. Code 2 derived need-to- create
scores as general fluency in the qual-quant section summed to the respective averages of
primary, adjacent, and tertiary depth of affiliation

82

degrees-of-freedom tests recorded in tables 6 and 7 provide evidence that the lonerism predictor can be
eliminated regardless of the approach to operationalizing need-to- create. This narrows our focus to a
consideration of two models: DisAnx
2
and Lonr
2
as dual-predictors versus DisAnx
2
as a single-
predictor of need-to- create.
We should note that the first analysis (operationalizing need-to- create as the general qual-quant
fluency scores) closely approximated a .05 significance level of model-difference misfit when dropping
DisAnx
2
from the model, but not so closely when dropping Lonr
2
. In other words, the first analysis just
missed identifying the same best-fitting predictor model as was found in the second analysis. Both
approaches suggest that there is a quadratic relationship between the distachment construct and need-to-
create. In the first analysis, the best fitting regression equation was:
need-to- create = .1971 * DisAnx
2
+ .1866 * Lonr
2
+  [3]
And in the second analysis, the best fitting regression equation was:
need-to- create = .5689 * DisAnx
2
+  [4]
An unexpected finding in the data suggests a marginal quadratic relationship may exist between need-to-
create and the lonerism factor as well. However, there is no clear confirming evidence in either analysis to
support the prediction of a linear association between the need-to- create and lonerism as had been
hypothesized in bi-path theory.
If we were to assert that equation [4] is the appropriate regression equation to derive reparative-
nurtural scores, then we could calculate the reparative-nurtural scores in the following way:
reparative.nurtural = .5689 * DisAnx
2
*  [5]
where  = 1 if DisAnx >= 0, and  = – 1 if DisAnx < 0. Calculating those scores in this investigation
provided an approximation of the curvilinear relationship between the dimension of personality and the
need-to- create that has been hypothesized in bi-path theory (see Figure 7, p. 83).
First-order factors of creativity processes
The method used to identify the processes of creativity implemented a multiple-group structural
equation model (MG-SEM) factorial invariance analysis in a manner suggested by Horn and McArdle

83

Figure 7. A graphic representation of the curvilinear relationship between bi-path theory’s
reparative-nurtural dimension of creativity and the need-to- create.

84

(1992). In each of the following invariance analyses, the groups tested for measurement invariance were the
male-hard-copy group, the male-Internet group, the female-hard-copy group, and the female-Internet group.
In general, it can be said that the loadings for the factor relationships, the factor correlations, and the
factor standard deviations were each estimated but constrained to be invariant among all four groups unless
it is stated otherwise in the description of a specific domain’s analysis. Also, each analysis proceeded in an
exploratory step-wise fashion comparing nested models where first a null model, then a one-factor model, a
two-factor model, and etceteras were examined sequentially until a reasonably fitting model with
substantive interpretability was obtained.
Knowledge and skill acquisition. The items selected to represent the knowledge and skill
acquisition domain were drawn as a subset of the BCSI-2 items originally introduced to measure this
construct (see Appendix 1, p. 136). In an examination of inter-item reliabilities across the full sample,
individual items were observed to be preferred and reasonable choices for measuring the constructs. By
selecting these items, the inter-item reliability for the knowledge and skill acquisition items was  = .68.
The items chosen to represent the knowledge and skill acquisition domain were: “in my special interest
area, I spend time learning new information that will help me generate new thoughts, new ideas or different
approaches” (know1); “in my special interest area, I take time to try to understand new directions or
changes in the field” (know2); “in my special interest area, I use energy to gather more information about
the area” (know3); “in my special interest area, I believe I am consistently increasing my knowledge”
(know4); “in my special interest area, I am frequently engaged in acquiring or developing appropriate
skills” (skil11); “in my special interest area, I take time to experiment with my skills in new ways or under
different conditions” (skil3); and, “in my special interest area, when I observe others using skills with
which I am not familiar, I try to figure out how I might use those skills” (skil4).
A MG-SEM invariance analysis was executed in a step-wise fashion; a four-factor model was
identified that provided a reasonable fit: RMSEA = .064 with a 90%CI from .000 to .133, and 
2
(59) =
73.783. Three of the factors were invariantly measured while the fourth was not. The three invariant factors
might be differentiated most simply in the following ways. The first factor (high scores) describes a
disposition to acquire knowledge to generate new thoughts, but an aversion to experiment with one’s skills.

85

The second factor (high scores) describes the intentional acquisition/maintenance of one’s skills and a
belief that one’s knowledge is increasing due to those skill-building efforts. The third factor (high scores)
describes a general intention to experiment with one’s skills and an inclination to understand new
directions; this factor seems to address a general inquisitiveness and explorative nature with regard to both
knowledge and skill. Again, the fourth factor was not invariant, thus ambiguous at best to interpret in this
context. The factors’ loadings can be examined in Table 8, p. 86. In fitting the four-factor model, some
modifications were employed. The correlation between the first and second factors was fixed at r = .33 due
to a theoretical assertion that knowledge acquisition and skill acquisition should be moderately positively
correlated. The standard deviations for the first (SD = .83), second (SD = .77), and third (SD = .66) factors
were constrained to be invariant among the groups. The fourth factor’s standard deviation was free to vary
among the groups. The third and fourth factors’ inter-correlations with the first and second factors, and
between each other, were fixed at zero. Thus, factors one through three were identified as invariant
measures of the knowledge/skill acquisition domain. Of those three invariantly measured factors,
knowledge acquisition and skill acquisition represented mutually oblique factors while inquisitiveness was
orthogonal to the first two factors.
Ideation strategies. The items selected to represent the convergent/homospatial and
divergent/janusian ideation strategies domain were drawn as a subset of the BCSI-2 items originally
introduced to measure this domain (see Appendix 1, p. 137). In an examination of inter-item reliabilities
across the full sample, it was difficult to select individual items that might be preferred to measure the
constructs. Seven items were selected as offering the best, though less than satisfactory, reliability among
the available items. The inter-item reliability among the four convergent/homospatial items was  = .59.
The inter-item reliability among the three divergent/janusian items was  = .55. The items chosen to
represent the convergent/homospatial versus divergent/janusian scales were: “in my special interest area, I
search for unusual connections among ideas that I haven’t put together before – to evaluate whether they
connect well” (conv1); “in my special interest area, I sometimes bring together two very different ideas to
see if the unusual combination is useful in any way” (conv2); “in my special interest area, I sometimes try
to unite contradictory ideas, because in resolving the contradiction, the outcome is more mentally

86

Table 8.
Factor loadings for the knowledge and skill acquisition constructs. SEM fit indices: RMSEA = .064 with a
90%CI from .000 to .133, and 
2
(59) = 73.783.
Variable IF
KA
IF
SA
IF
KSI
G1VF4
KS
G2VF4
KS
G3VF4
KS
G4VF4
KS

know1
know2
know3
know4
skill1
skill3
skill4

.9500
.5149
.9500
.2492
.0000
-.3166
.0000

.0000
.0000
.0000
.7288
.9500
.8500
.9500

.0000
.9500
.9500
.3425
.0000
.9500
.0000

.9500
-.9500
.9500
-.9500
-.3846
.0000
-.1913

.9500
.9500
.0000
.5969
.5279
.4921
.0000

.1574
.3634
.1924
.2720
.0000
.9500
.0000

.2229
.9500
.3168
.5066
.0000
.0000
.0838

Note. IF
KA
= invariant knowledge acquisition factor; IF
SA
= invariant skill acquisition/maintenance factor;
IF
KSI
= invariant knowledge/skill inquisitiveness factor; G1VF4
KS
, G2VF4
KS
, G3VF4
KS
, and G4VF4
KS
=
respective variant fourth factors for male-hard-copy-survey group, male-Internet-survey group, female-
hard-copy-survey group, and female-Internet-survey group; know1 = In My Special Interest Area (IMSIA),
I spend time learning new information that will help me generate new thoughts, new ideas or different
approaches; know2 = IMSIA, I take time to try to understand new directions or changes in the field; know3
= IMSIA, I use energy to gather more information about the area; know4 = IMSIA, I believe I am
consistently increasing my knowledge; skill1 = IMSIA, I am frequently engaged in acquiring or developing
appropriate skills; skill3 = IMSIA, I take time to experiment with my skills in new ways or under different
conditions; skill4 = IMSIA, when I observe others using skills with which I am not familiar, I try to figure
out how I might use those skills.

87

rewarding than if there had been no contradiction at the outset” (conv5); “in my special interest area, my
preference is to bring together contrasting ideas with unexpected connections rather than to bring together
ideas with clear connections” (conv6); “in my special interest area, I prefer a single idea that is open
to several possible interpretations over an idea that has one clear interpretation” (divr2); “in my special
interest area, I appreciate the solitary idea that, like a ‘fork in the road,’ suggests that I can go in either of
two directions” (divr3); and, “in my special interest area, if I had to choose between ideas, I would choose
the idea that allows my mind to move in multiple directions at once rather than the one idea that moves my
mind in one direction” (divr4).
A MG-SEM invariance analysis was executed in a step-wise fashion; a two-factor model was
identified as providing a reasonable fit: RMSEA = .061 with a 90%CI from .000 to .110, and 
2
(71) =
83.081. It was expected that two factors would be extracted from these variables. This was the case. The
factor loadings can be examined in Table 9, p. 88. The first factor (high scores) describes an affinity for
merging unexpectedly associated ideas into a single interpretation. The second factor (high scores)
describes an affinity for branching a single idea into several other possible simultaneous ideas. It is
consistent with theory (e.g. Rothenberg, 1971; 1976) that a more highly creative individual would be aware
of and maximize both these cognitive dispositions/abilities, but that less creative individuals might be
disposed to prefer one ideation strategy over the other, or perhaps neither. The inter-correlation between
factors 1and 2 was estimated to be invariant across the four groups: r = .0215; by this estimation, the
factors were suggested to be virtually orthogonal; this is consistent with a belief that such cognitive
processes should be unrelated.
Anomaly and change. The items selected to represent the anomaly-and-change domain were
drawn as a subset of the BCSI-2 items originally introduced to measure this domain (see Appendix 1, p.
138). In an examination of inter-item reliabilities across the full sample, it was difficult to select individual
items that might be preferred to measure the constructs. Nine items were selected as offering the best,
though less than satisfactory, reliability among the available items. The inter-item reliability among the
nine items was  = .59. The items chosen to represent the anomaly-and-change scales were: “in my special
interest area, unusual incidents or directions quickly catch my attention” (ansen1); “in my special interest

88

Table 9.
Factor loadings for the convergent/homospatial and divergent/janusian constructs. SEM fit indices:
RMSEA = .061 with a 90%CI from .000 to .113, and 
2
(71) = 83.081.
Variable IF
CH
IF2
DJ

conv1
conv2
conv5
conv6
divr2
divr3
divr4

.9500
.9050
.8894
.5905
-.4608
.0000
-.4298

.1193
.1163
.0000
-.3082
.6678
.1905
.9500

Note. IF
HD
= invariant convergent-homospatial processing factor; IF
DJ
= invariant divergent-janusian
processing factor; conv1 = In My Special Interest Area (IMSIA), I search for unusual connections among
ideas that I haven’t put together before – to evaluate whether they connect well; conv2 = IMSIA, I
sometimes bring together two very different ideas to see if the unusual combination is useful in any way;
conv5 = IMSIA, I sometimes try to unite contradictory ideas, because in resolving the contradiction, the
outcome is more mentally rewarding than if there had been no contradiction at the outset; conv6 = IMSIA,
my preference is to bring together contrasting ideas with unexpected connections rather than to bring
together ideas with clear connections; divr2 = IMSIA I prefer a single idea that is open to several possible
interpretations over an idea that has one clear interpretation; divr3 = IMSIA, I appreciate the solitary idea
that, like a ‘fork in the road,’ suggests that I can go in either of two directions; divr4 = IMSIA, if I had to
choose between ideas, I would choose the one idea that allows my mind to move in multiple directions at
once rather than the idea that moves my mind in one direction.

89

area, I anticipate and welcome surprises because they make me adapt my thinking in ways that can
contribute to unusual results” (ansen3); “in my special interest area, I would rather be sensitive to the
unexpected than be clear about my direction” (ansen4); “in my special interest area, I have come to
understand that rules can change or may need changing in order to address new circumstances” (caut2); “in
my special interest area, I am confidant that there may be circumstances that would require me to change
my methods or reassess my understanding of the area” (caut3); “in my special interest area, I acknowledge
that something out-of-the-ordinary could cause me to modify my beliefs” (caut4); “in my special interest
area, if something interesting happens, I try to understand what might have caused it” (abdct1); “in my
special interest area, when I notice something different, I spend time thinking about what made it different”
(abdct2); and, “in my special interest area, when I am surprised by something, be it a good surprise or bad,
I try to form some theory that accounts for the surprise” (abdct3).
A MG-SEM invariance analysis was executed in a step-wise fashion; a four-factor model was
identified as providing a reasonable fit: RMSEA = .072 with a 90%CI from .029 to .122, and 
2
(109) =
132.407. Three of the factors were invariantly measured while the fourth was not. The three invariant
factors might be differentiated most simply in the following ways: The first factor (high scores) describes a
disposition to be sensitive to unexpected events within one’s interest area and to understand what caused
them. The second factor (high scores) describes an expectation that surprising events will likely occur
within one’s area of interest, requiring one to change or reassess their understanding or beliefs; and that this
type of event is welcomed to some extent because it leads to unusual results. The third factor (high scores)
describes a general affiliation toward the use of abductive logic within one’s area of interest; that is, high
scores on this factor express a disposition to produce a set of post-hoc explanations for unusual events. The
fourth factor was not invariant, thus ambiguous at best to interpret in this context. The factor loadings can
be examined in Table 10, p. 90. The inter-correlations between factors one, two, and three were separately
estimated but constrained by theory to be both positive and less than or equal to .33. The obtained inter-
correlations were .33 in each case. The standard deviations for factors one, two, and three were estimated to
be invariant across groups: factor 1 SD = .72; factor 2 SD = .85; and factor 3 SD = .87. The fourth factor

90

Table 10.
Factor loadings for the anomalytic sensitivity, expectation of change, and abductive reasoning constructs.
SEM fit indices: RMSEA = .072 with a 90%CI from .029 to .122, and 
2
(109) = 132.407.
Variable IF
SEN
IF
ECN
IF
ABD
G1VF4
DP
G2VF4
DP
G3VF4
DP
G4VF4
DP

ansen1
ansen3
ansen4
caut2
caut3
caut4
abdct1
abdct2
abdct3

.9500
.7000
.9500
.6982
-.5542
.0000
.7500
.0000
.6427

.2846
.9500
.4004
.2500
.9500
.7500
.0000
.4911
-.4640

.0000
-.4463
-.6956
.4168
.9500
.0000
.6000
.8000
.9500

.9500
.0000
.2888
.3306
.4164
.0000
-.4043
.0000
.0000

-.6343
-.5081
.9500
.9500
.9500
.8110
.0000
.0000
.3013

.5211
-.8000
.9500
.0000
.4751
.0000
-.2421
-.3304
-.6906

.0000
.2156
.5953
-.1327
.0000
.0000
.5522
.6733
.9500

Note. IF
SEN
= invariant sensitivity-to-anomaly factor; IF
ECN
= invariant expectation-of-change-need factor;
IF
ABD
= invariant abductive-reasoning factor; G1VF4
DP
, G2VF4
DP
, G3VF4
DP
, & G4VF4
DP
= respective
variant fourth factors for male-hard-copy-survey group, male-Internet-survey group, female-hard-copy-
survey group, and female-Internet-survey group; ansen1 = In My Special Interest Area (IMSIA), unusual
incidents or directions quickly catch my attention; ansen3 = IMSIA, I anticipate and welcome surprises
because they make me adapt my thinking in ways that can contribute to unusual results; ansen4 = IMSIA, I
would rather be sensitive to the unexpected than be clear about my direction; caut2 = IMSIA, I have come
to understand that rules can change or may need changing in order to address new circumstances; caut3 =
IMSIA, I am confident that there may be circumstances that would require me to change my methods or
reassess my understanding of the area; caut4 = IMSIA, I acknowledge that something out-of-the-ordinary
could cause me to modify my beliefs; abdct1 = IMSIA, if something interesting happens, I try to
understand what might have caused it; abdct2 = IMSIA, when I notice something different, I spend time
thinking about what made it different; abdct3 = IMSIA, when I am surprised by something, be it a good
surprise or bad, I try to form some theory that accounts for the surprise.

91

was treated as group error in the model; that is, it was fixed as orthogonal to each of the other three factors
and the fourth factor’s standard deviation was allowed to vary between groups.
Pre-inventive events. The items selected to represent the pre-inventive events domain were
drawn as a subset of the BCSI-2 items originally introduced to measure this domain (see Appendix 1, p.
139). In an examination of inter-item reliabilities across the full sample, individual items were observed to
be preferred choices for measuring the constructs. Six were selected as approaching reasonable reliability
among the available items. The inter-item reliability among the six items was  = .68. The items chosen to
represent the pre-inventive events scales were: “in my special interest area, I sometimes enter dream-like
states in which my unbounded, floating thoughts lead to useful ideas” (anim1); “in my special interest area,
I believe that I have come up with useful ideas as a result of drifting in a day-dream” (anim2); “in my
special interest area, an unusual event can trigger a dream-like state where my mind sifts through ideas that
aren’t clearly connected to the triggering event itself, but somehow seem useful in other ways” (anim5); “in
my special interest area, I can be completely frustrated by a problem, when, like a flash, I’ll get an idea out
of nowhere that takes me in a different direction and solves the problem” (spem2); “in my special interest
area, when I am in the midst of a project, I do not feel like it’s a distraction to allow the process to be
interrupted by spontaneous intuitive thoughts” (spem3); and, “in my special interest area, I frequently have
moments where ideas materialize from nowhere and guide me toward new projects or new ways to
complete current projects” (spem4).
A MG-SEM invariance analysis was executed in a step-wise fashion; a three-factor model was
identified as providing a reasonable fit: RMSEA = .025 with a 90%CI from .000 to .075, and 
2
(37) =
30.372. Two of the factors were invariantly measured while the third was not. The two invariant factors
might be differentiated most simply in the following ways: The first factor (high scores) describes a
disposition to immerse in dream-like states of consciousness wherein useful thoughts seem to arise and then
influence work in one’s interest area. The second factor (high scores) describes an affirmation of
extraordinary events wherein problem solutions or new ideas emerge from ‘out of nowhere’ regarding
one’s interest area (a.k.a. the ‘aha!’ experience). The third factor was not invariant, thus ambiguous at best
to interpret in this context. The factor loadings can be examined in Table 11, p. 92. The correlation between

92

Table 11.
Factor loadings for the pre-inventive immersion and spontaneous emergence constructs. SEM fit indices:
RMSEA = .025 with a 90%CI from .00 to .075, and 
2
(37) = 30.372.
Variable IF
PI
IF
SE
G1VF3
PRI
G2VF3
PRI
G3VF3
PRI
G4VF3
PRI

anim1
anim2
anim5
spem2
spem3
spem4

.9500
.7500
.9500
.0000
.2637
.5136

.0000
.6671
-.1922
.7500
.9500
.7500

.0000
.9500
.0000
.0000
.5164
.5428

.9500
.9202
.1545
.9396
.4265
.0000

.5494
.0000
.6944
.9500
.0000
.4085

.1481
.1020
.9500
.8797
.0000
.0000

Note. IF
PI
= invariant pre-inventive immersion factor; IF
SE
= invariant spontaneous-emergence factor;
G1VF4
PRI
, G2VF4
PRI
, G3VF4
PRI
, & G4VF4
PRI
= respective variant fourth factors for male-hard-copy-survey
group, male-Internet-survey group, female-hard-copy-survey group, and female-Internet-survey group;
anim1 = In My Special Interest Area (IMSIA), I sometimes enter dream-like states in which my unbounded,
floating thoughts lead to useful ideas; anim2 = IMSIA, I believe that I have come up with useful ideas as a
result of drifting in a day-dream; anim5 = IMSIA, an unusual event can trigger a dream-like state where my
mind sifts through ideas that aren’t clearly connected to the triggering event itself, but somehow seem
useful in other ways; spem2 = IMSIA, I can be completely frustrated by a problem, when, like a flash, I’ll
get an idea out of nowhere that takes me in a different direction and solves the problem; spem3 = IMSIA,
when I am in the midst of a project, I do not feel like it’s a distraction to allow the process to be interrupted
by spontaneous intuitive thoughts; spem4 = IMSIA, I frequently have moments where ideas materialize
from nowhere and guide me toward new projects or new ways to complete current projects.

93

factors one and two was estimated but constrained by theory to be positive; the correlation was identified in
the procedure as virtually orthogonal, r = .0209. The standard deviations for factors one and two were
estimated to be invariant across groups: factor 1 SD = 1.25; and factor 2 SD = .78. The third factor
was treated as group error in the model; that is, it was fixed as orthogonal to both factors one and two and
its standard deviation was allowed to vary between groups.
Concept formation. The items selected to represent the concept formation domain were drawn as a
subset of the BCSI-2 items originally introduced to measure this domain (see Appendix 1, pp. 139-140). In
an examination of inter-item reliabilities across the full sample, it was difficult to select individual items as
preferred to measure the constructs. Six items were selected as offering the best, though less than
satisfactory, reliability among the available items ( = .47). The items chosen to represent the concept
formation scales were: “In my special interest area, if a project is not proceeding according to my
preconceptions, I try to re-examine how the parts are related, to decide if I should change my general
expectation” (beval2); “in my special interest area, once I start a project, I will re-analyze its pieces to
consider whether the relationships between them might imply something different than I had been trying to
achieve” (beval3); “in my special interest area, when I am working on a project, I sort through the ideas as
they surface, evaluating whether they join together in some general concept that might give clear direction
to the project” (beval4); “in my special interest area, each project has a central concept that dictates the
kind of ideas that I use” (teval1); “in my special interest area, as I’m trying to assemble ideas on a project, I
discard the ideas that don’t stay true to the overall concept with which I began the project” (teval2); and,
“in my special interest area, when I am trying to decide whether a project is going well, I take time to
decide whether all the ideas are converging on the initial concept of the project” (teval4).
A MG-SEM invariance analysis was executed in a step-wise fashion; a three-factor model was
identified as providing a reasonable fit: RMSEA = .078 with a 90%CI from .000 to .146, and 
2
(48) =
58.404. Two of the factors were invariantly measured while the third was not. The two invariant factors
might be differentiated most simply in the following ways: The first factor (high scores) describes a
disposition to utilize bottom-up evaluative processes when developing projects, ideas, or products; in other
words, throughout the process, one assesses the components, as they are being generated/recruited, to

94

suggest the direction of the project and the final form it will take. The second factor (high scores) describes
a disposition to utilize top-down evaluative processes when developing projects, ideas, or products; in other
words, throughout the process, one assesses the components, as they are being generated/recruited, to
evaluate whether they are consistent with an initial intended direction and preconception about the project’s
final form. The third factor was not invariant, thus ambiguous at best to interpret in this context. The factor
loadings can be examined in Table 12, p. 95. The correlation between factors one and two was fixed by
theory to be zero, orthogonal. The standard deviations for factors one and two were estimated to be
invariant across groups: factor 1 SD = .92; and factor 2 SD = .81. The third factor was treated as group
error in the model; that is, it was fixed as orthogonal to both factors one and two and its standard deviation
was allowed to vary between groups.
Loci of assessment standards. The items selected to represent the loci for standards-of-assessment
domain were the original BCSI-2 items introduced to measure this domain (see Appendix 1, p.140). Four
items were expected to define a single factor. The reliability of the items was less than satisfactory (=
.47). The items written to represent the factor(s) were: “In my special interest area, when I evaluate my
efforts, I am unconcerned that they are as good as or better than the efforts of others” (comp1); “in my
special interest area, I judge the success of my work only in relation to how well my intentions have been
realized, not on how well the work measures up to what others are doing” (comp2); “in my special interest
area, I do not judge my own work by measuring it against models of excellence that others have
established” (comp3); and, “in my special interest area, I am more interested in establishing my own
individual standards than I am in being recognized for ‘doing well’ with respect to the standards of the
field” (comp4).
A MG-SEM invariance analysis was executed in a step-wise fashion; a two-factor model was
identified as providing a reasonable fit: RMSEA = .044 with a 90%CI from .000 to .153, and 
2
(37) =
30.372. These two invariant factors might be differentiated most simply in the following ways: The first
factor (high scores) describes a disposition to apply internal standards of assessment – one’s personal goals
and judgments about the appropriateness of their work and products is the primary assessment standard.
The second factor (high scores) describes a disposition to apply external standards of assessment – one’s

95

Table 12.
Factor loadings for bottom-up and top-down concept formation strategies constructs. SEM fit indices:
RMSEA = .078 with a 90%CI from .000 to .146, and 
2
(48) = 58.404.
Variable IF
BU
IF
TD
G1VF3
BT
G2VF3
BT
G3VF3
BT
G4VF3
BT

beval2
beval3
beval4
teval1
teval2
teval4

.9500
.4587
.5695
-.2163
.0000
.0000

.0000
-.9500
.0000
.3318
.9500
.0000

.9500
.0000
.9500
.9500
.9500
.9500

.6447
.6647
.9500
.5176
.0000
.9500

.8050
.0000
.9500
.9500
.9500
.9500

.6606
.9500
.6643
.9500
.0000
.9500

Note. IF
BU
= invariant bottom-up assessment-of-project-progress factor; IF
TD
= invariant top-down
assessment-of-project-progress factor; G1VF4
BT
, G2VF4
BT
, G3VF4
BT
, & G4VF4
BT
= respective variant
fourth factors for male-hard-copy-survey group, male-Internet-survey group, female-hard-copy-survey
group, and female-Internet-survey group; beval2 = In My Special Interest Area (IMSIA), if a project is not
proceeding according to my preconceptions, I try to re-examine how the parts are related, to decide if I
should change my general expectation; beval3 = IMSIA, once I start a project, I will re-analyze its pieces to
consider whether the relationships between them might imply something different than I had been trying to
achieve; beval4 = IMSIA, when I am working on a project, I sort through the ideas as they surface,
evaluating whether they join together in some general concept that might give clear direction to the project;
teval1 = IMSIA, each project has a central concept that dictates the kind of ideas that I use; teval2 =
IMSIA, as I’m trying to assemble ideas on a project, I discard the ideas that don’t stay true to the overall
concept with which I began the project; teval4 = IMSIA, when I am trying to decide whether a project is
going well, I take time to decide whether all the ideas are converging on the initial concept of the project.

96

anticipation of what others/experts may judge about their work and products is the primary assessment
standard. The factor loadings can be examined in Table 13, p. 97. The correlation between factors one and
two was fixed by theory to be zero, orthogonal. The standard deviations for factors one and two were
estimated to be invariant across groups: factor 1 SD = 1.25; and factor 2 SD = 1.14. In the construction of
these items, it was expected that creative individuals use both external and internal standards of assessment
as they work in their areas of special interest. On the other hand, some individuals may operate with one
locus of assessment standards dominant over the other. With this in mind, a model with two orthogonal
dimensions was tested, suggesting that individuals may simultaneously apply both internal and external
standards to different degrees, as moderated by the task or context.
Productivity resolve and satisfaction. The items selected to represent the productivity domain
were drawn as a subset of the BCSI-2 items originally introduced to measure this domain (see Appendix 1,
pp. 140-141). In an examination of inter-item reliabilities across the full sample, individual items were
observed to be preferred and reasonable choices for measuring the constructs. Eight items were selected;
the inter-item reliability for the productivity resolve-and-satisfaction items was  = .81. The items selected
to represent the productivity scales were: “In my special interest area, when I start projects, I usually feel
like I need to finish them” (resv2); “in my special interest area, if I get frustrated because a project gets
complicated, I don’t think it’s good to just leave it behind” (resv3); “in my special interest area, as my work
progresses, I generally have something to show for it” (aprd2); “in my special interest area, I recently
produced something new” (aprd3); “in my special interest area, I am usually happy with what I produce”
(gprd2); “in my special interest area, I know the results of my work can sometimes be extraordinary”
(gprd3); “in my special interest area, I am pleased by my latest products” (rprd2); “in my special interest
area, my last completed project has a spark of innovation” (rprd3).
A MG-SEM invariance analysis was executed in a step-wise fashion; a three-factor model with
two invariant factors and one variant factor was identified as providing a reasonable fit: RMSEA = .079
with a 90%CI from .040 to .120, and 
2
(79) = 100.956. The two invariant factors might be differentiated
most simply in the following ways: The first factor (high scores) describes one’s sense of tenacity for
completing projects in their interest area – not only with regard to continuing to work even when projects

97

Table 13.
Factor loadings for the loci of assessment standards constructs. SEM fit indices: RMSEA = .044 with a
90%CI from .000 to .153, and 
2
(18) = 19.037.
Variable IF
IL
IF
EL

comp1
comp2
comp3
comp4

.3073
.9500
.5311
.9500

-.9500
.3447
-.9500
.0262

Note. IF
IL
= invariant internal-locus-of-assessment-standards factor; IF
EL
= invariant external-locus-of-
assessment-standards factor; comp1 = In My Special Interest Area (IMSIA), when I evaluate my efforts, I
am unconcerned that they are as good as or better than the efforts of others; comp2 = IMSIA, I judge the
success of my work only in relation to how well my intentions have been realized, not on how well the
work measures up to what others are doing; comp3 = IMSIA, I do not judge my own work by measuring it
against models of excellence that others have established; comp4 = IMSIA, I am more interested in
establishing my own individual standards than I am in being recognized for ‘doing well’ with respect to the
standards of the field.

98

become frustrating, but also as a general appreciation for progress in the work. The second factor (high
scores) weighs more toward a disposition to be pleased with the work that one accomplishes in their
interest area – and these accomplishments are characterized as being obtained fairly often and
possessing an innovative quality. The third factor was not invariant (except between the male-Internet and
female-hard-copy groups). Thus the factor is ambiguous at best to interpret in this context, though it seems
to represent the idea of producing something new across all the groups with somewhat different emphases
in each. The factor loadings can be examined in Table 14, p. 99. The initial expectation was that there
would be a positive correlation between the factors. In the model, the correlation was free to be estimated
as positive. The result identified a relationship that was orthogonal rather than oblique. The standard
deviations for factors one and two were estimated to be invariant across groups: factor 1 SD = 1.17; and
factor 2 SD = 1.04.
Second-order factor structure of creativity processes
As above, the method used to identify the second-order factorial inter-relationships among the
creativity-process first-order factors implemented a MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis (e.g. Horn and
McArdle, 1992). Again, the groups tested for measurement invariance were the male-hard-copy group, the
male-Internet group, the female-hard-copy group, and the female-Internet group. The factor scores for the
invariant first-order creativity-process factors were derived from the beta weights identified in the first-
order analyses described above; the beta weights for those invariant factors have been depicted in Tables 7
through 14. Nested models were compared in a step-wise fashion to determine both the inter-relationships
among the first-order invariant factors and the number of second-order factors that best represents those
inter-relationships.
Generally, throughout the MG-SEM factorial invariance model comparisons, the loadings for the
second-order factor relationships and inter-correlations were each estimated but constrained to be invariant
among all four groups. The factor standard deviations were free to vary among the groups; the comparison
models did not constrain an invariant factorial scale of measurement among the groups on the second-order
factors. The step-wise comparisons proceeded by the same exploratory method as was executed with the

99

Table 14.
Factor loadings for the productivity resolve and satisfaction constructs. SEM fit indices: RMSEA = .079
with a 90%CI from .040 to .120, and 
2
(79) = 100.956.
Variable IF
PR
IF
PS
G1VF3
RS
G2VF3
RS
G3VF3
RS
G4VF3
RS

resv2
resv3
aprd2
aprd3
gprd2
gprd3
rprd2
rprd3

.9500
.9500
.7103
.4295
.7999
.7011
.3284
.0000

.1015
.0000
.4656
.8777
.9500
.6084
.9500
.9500

.4967
.1191
.7806
.1400
.0000
.6652
.9500
.4679

.4982
.7868
.4527
.3943
.0771
.0000
.2446
.9500

.4982
.7868
.4527
.3943
.0771
.0000
.2446
.9500

.1506
.2178
.3606
.9500
-.2728
.0000
-.0942
.2066

Note. IF
PR
= invariant productive-resolve factor; IF
PS
= invariant productive-satisfaction factor; G1VF4
RS
,
G2VF4
RS
, G3VF4
RS
, & G4VF4
RS
= respective variant fourth factors for male-hard-copy-survey group, male-
Internet-survey group, female-hard-copy-survey group, and female-Internet-survey group; resv2 = In My
Special Interest Area (IMSIA), when I start projects, I usually feel like I need to finish them; resv3 =
IMSIA, if I get frustrated because a project gets complicated, I don’t think it’s good to just leave it behind;
aprd2 = IMSIA, as my work progresses, I generally have something to show for it; aprd3 = IMSIA, I
recently produced something new; gprd2 = IMSIA, I am usually happy with what I produce; gprd3 =
IMSIA, I know the results of my work can sometimes be extraordinary; rprd2 = IMSIA, I am pleased by
my latest products; rprd3 = IMSIA, my last completed project has a spark of innovation.

100

first-order comparisons; first a null model, then a one-factor model, a two-factor model, and so on up to a
ten factor model were examined sequentially until a reasonably fitting model with substantive
interpretability was obtained. The ten factor model exhibited the following fit indices: RMSEA = .065
with a 90%CI from .031to .090, and 
2
(190) = 230.547.
The factor loadings (see Table 15, p. 101.) form ten different invariant creativity second-order
factors. The dominant loadings for each factor are italicized in the table. The loadings suggest that the
factors might be characterized in the following ways. (1) The first second-order factor (high scores)
describes a disposition to acquire knowledge and to be inquisitive; it is shaped by an inclination to use
abductive reasoning as well as divergent ideation strategies, to acquire pertinent skills, to experience
spontaneous emergences, and to have a sense of resolve about producing results; the factor is somewhat
disposed to lack both top-down concept formation and external locus of assessment standards. (2) The
second second-order factor (high scores) describes an inquisitiveness about one’s interest-area skills and an
inclination to acquire and maintain relevant skills; it is influenced by a tendency to utilize convergent
ideation and bottom-up concept formation strategies; the factor is somewhat marked both by a lack of
expectation that one’s skills may need changing and by a lack of assessment standards, either external or
internal. (3) The third second-order factor (high scores) describes an emphasis on divergent ideation
strategies, which is simultaneously contrasted by a lack of convergent strategies – it represents a polar
ideation strategies dimension; it is more richly nuanced by noting that the convergent pole is associated
with skill building, the presence of pre-inventive immersions, and both loci of assessment standards; and
that the divergent pole is marked somewhat by productivity resolve. (4) The fourth second-order factor
(high scores) describes sensitivity to anomaly in one’s area of creative interest and is supported by an
acquisition of knowledge in that interest area; it describes a tendency to use internal and to not use external
loci of assessment standards; the factor is also marked by an improbable use of bottom-up concept
formation strategies. (5) The fifth second-order factor (high scores) primarily represents the use of
abductive reasoning, a post-hoc formulation of hypotheses to account for unusual events; it is nuanced by
contributions from bottom-up concept formation strategies, convergent ideation strategies, pre-inventive

101

Table 15.
Factor loadings for the second-order creative process constructs. SEM fit indices: RMSEA = .065 with a
90%CI from .031 to .090, and 
2
(190) = 230.547.
Variable
2
F
1
2
F
2
2
F
3
2
F
4
2
F
5
2
F
6
2
F
7
2
F
8
2
F
9
2
F
10

FKnow
FSkill
FInqui
FConv
FDivr
FSens
FExpCh
FAbdct
FImmer
FSpon
FBott
FTop
FIntSt
FExtSt
FPrRes
FPrSat

.83
.41
.91
-.03
.45
-.04
-.17
.80
.11
.36
.01
-.35
-.05
-.35
.30
.13

.50
.83
.98
.80
-.12
.04
-.26
.45
.35
.00
.70
.00
-.30
-.35
.04
.03

.00
-.35
-.18
-.75
.93
.13
-.20
.11
-.35
-.19
-.11
-.35
-.30
-.32
.30
.00

.53
.12
.02
.15
.18
.89
.35
.00
-.18
-.12
-.32
-.04
.35
-.35
.01
.24

.20
.11
.24
.29
.00
-.19
.04
.92
.28
.24
.32
-.27
-.01
-.04
.01
-.32

-.04
.10
.32
.38
-.35
-.18
-.01
.01
.98
.83
-.30
-.30
.30
.35
.11
.05

-.35
.35
-.22
.34
.00
.04
.11
.35
-.35
-.27
.70
-.90
.30
.22
.12
-.17

-.35
-.03
-.26
.30
-.40
-.02
.54
.14
.35
.37
.35
-.47
.48
.93
.29
.00

-.03
-.04
-.35
.30
-.45
.35
.20
.00
-.04
-.23
-.35
.02
.95
.42
.13
.22

.40
.08
.19
-.05
.09
.00
.00
.45
.55
.85
-.45
-.23
.17
-.09
.91
.92

Note. FKnow = first-order factor for knowledge acquistion; FSkill = first-order factor for skill acquisition;
FInqui = first-order factor for knowledge and skill inquisitiveness; FConv = first-order factor for
convergent ideation strategies; FDivr = first-order factor for divergent ideation strategies; FSens = first-
order factor for sensitivity to anomaly; FExpCh = first-order factor for expectation of change; FAbdct =
first-order factor for abductive reasoning; FImmer = first-order factor for pre-inventive immersions; FSpon
= first-order factor for spontaneous emergence; FBott = first-order factor for bottom-up concept formation;
FTop = first-order factor for top-down concept formation; FIntSt = first-order factor for internal locus of
assessment standards; FExtSt = first-order factor for external locus of assessment standards; FPrRes = first-
order factor for productivity resolve; FPrSat = first-order factor for productivity satisfaction.
2
F
1
through
2
F
10
are the identified second-order factors in the model.

102

immersion, spontaneous emergences, inquisitiveness, and knowledge acquisition; the factor also describes
an unlikely presence of either sensitivity to anomaly, top-down concept formation strategies, or
productivity satisfaction. (6) The sixth second-order factor (high scores) describes an experiencing of
pre-inventive events, both pre-inventive immersions and spontaneous emergences; it is shaped by the use of
convergent ideation and the disuse of divergent ideation strategies with an improbable presence of either
bottom-up or top-down concept formation strategies; it is marked by some support from both loci of
assessment standards. (7) The seventh factor (high scores) describes an emphasis on bottom-up concept
formation strategies, simultaneously contrasted by a lack of top-down concept formation strategies – it
represents a polar concept formation dimension; the bottom-up pole is more indicative of support from
convergent ideation strategies, skill acquisition, abductive reasoning, and both loci of assessment standards;
the top-down pole is more likely to exhibit pre-inventive events and knowledge acquisition and
inquisitiveness. (8) The eighth second-order factor (high scores) describes an emphasis on an external locus
of assessment standards; it is strongly shaped by an expectation that change may be needed in one’s
concepts or problem solving strategies; there is support from internal standards of assessment, but the
dimension primarily defers to external loci; there is a tendency towards bottom-up and away from top-
down concept formation strategies as well as towards convergent and away from divergent ideation
strategies; the dimension is further shaped by a lack of inquisitiveness, especially as regards knowledge
acquisition; there is a likely presence of productivity resolve and pre-inventive events. (9) The ninth
second-order factor (high scores) describes an emphasis on an internal locus of assessment standards; the
dimension is shaped much like the external locus of assessment standards factor with some differences;
there is somewhat less likelihood of expectation of change; the unlikelihood of inquisitiveness is more
general than pointed directly at knowledge acquisition; pre-inventive events are improbable here; and
whereas this dimension is shaped by sensitivity to anomaly, there is no similar tendency in the external
locus dimension. (10) The tenth second-order factor (high scores) describes a general productivity
dimension, emphasizing both productivity resolve and productivity satisfaction; there is striking support
from pre-inventive events, especially spontaneous emergences, and from abductive reasoning; the

103

dimension is also shaped by knowledge acquisition and the improbable presence of either bottom-up or top-
down concept formation strategies.
Life-satisfaction factor structure
The items selected to represent the life-satisfaction domain were drawn as a subset of the BCSI-2
items originally introduced to measure this construct (see Appendix 1, pp. 141-142). In an examination of
discriminability and inter-item reliabilities across the full sample, individual items were observed to be
preferred and reasonable choices for measuring the constructs. By selecting these items, the inter-item
reliability for the life-satisfaction items was  = .91. The items chosen for the life satisfaction domain were:
“I have gotten pretty much what I expected from life” (lsps1); “I would not change the past, even if I
could” (lsps2); “I have gotten more of the breaks in life than most of the people I know” (lsps3); “these are
the best years of my life” (lspr1); “I am not bored with the things that I do these days” (lspr5); “presently, I
think my life is as interesting as I could have ever hoped it would be” (lspr6); “I believe that my future will
be as fascinating as my present life is” (lsfu2); “as I become older, I believe that my life will be more about
enjoying than about enduring” (lsfu5); “I am not concerned when I think about how satisfactory my life is
likely to be in the future” (lsfu6).
A MG-SEM invariance analysis was executed in a step-wise fashion; a four-factor model, with
three of those factors comprising a second-order factor, was identified as providing a reasonable fit:
RMSEA = .076 with a 90%CI from .000 to .123, and 
2
(101) = 120.612. Three of the first-order factors
were invariant and the fourth was not. The three first-order invariant factors might be differentiated most
simply in the following ways: The first factor (high scores) describes a general satisfaction with one’s
expectations about life, from past to present; the second factor (high scores) describes a disposition to feel
engaged by the current activities in one’s life, to not feel bored; and the third factor (high scores) describes
a general expectation that life will continue to be satisfactory in the future. The fourth factor was not
invariant among the groups thus will not be interpreted in this context. The factor loadings can be examined
in Table 16, p. 104. The standard deviations for factors one, two, and three were estimated to be invariant
across the groups: factor 1 SD = 1.16; factor 2 SD = .76; and factor 3 SD = 1.41. The loadings on the
invariant second-order factor were fixed by theory to be equal, asserting approximate inter-correlations of

104

Table 16.
Factor loadings for the life-satisfaction constructs. SEM fit indices: RMSEA = .076 with a 90%CI from
.000 to .123, and 
2
(101) = 120.612.
Variable IF
GEN
IF
CONT
IF
FUT
G1VF4
LS
G2VF4
LS
G3VF4
LS
G4VF4
LS

lsps1
lsps2
lsps3
lspr1
lspr5
lspr6
lsfu2
lsfu5
lsfu6

.9500
.4486
.5602
.7513
.0000
.7821
-.4130
.0000
.0000

.3108
.0000
-.3151
.0000
.9500
.3957
.0000
-.1500
.9000

.0000
.2260
.0000
-.1390
.0000
.2524
.5367
.9500
.6176

.0000
.2039
-.2996
.3393
.8500
.1767
.0000
.2954
.0000

.0000
.2673
-.3691
-.1309
.8500
.4425
-.1145
.1727
.0000

.0000
.0000
.8500
-.7500
.0000
-.4315
.4030
.1071
.0000

.0000
.4759
.0000
.6085
.8500
.3327
.4115
-.1800
.0000

Note. IF
GEN
= invariant general satisfaction with one’s expectations about life; IF
CONT
= invariant general
sense that life is not boring; IF
FUT
= invariant general sense that life will continue to be interesting in the
future; G1VF4
LS
, G2VF4
LS
, G3VF4
LS
, & G4VF4
LS
= respective variant fourth factors for male-hard-copy-
survey group, male-Internet-survey group, female-hard-copy-survey group, and female-Internet-survey
group; lsps1 = I have gotten pretty much what I expected from life; lsps2 = I would not change the past,
even if I could; lsps3 = I have gotten more of the breaks in life than most of the people I know; lspr1 =
these are the best years of my life; lspr5 = I am not bored with the things that I do these days; lspr6 =
presently, I think my life is as interesting as I could have ever hoped it would be; lsfu2 = I believe that my
future will be as fascinating as my present life is; lsfu5 = as I become older, I believe that my life will be
more about enjoying than about enduring; lsfu6 = I am not concerned when I think about how satisfactory
my life is likely to be in the future.

105

.33 among the first-order factors; therefore the loadings were fixed at .58. The standard deviation of the
second-order factor was estimated but constrained to be invariant across the groups: SD = .75. The fourth
first-order factor was constrained (i.e. fixed) to be orthogonal to the other three first-order factors and
to provide no contribution to the second-order factor, life satisfaction.
Relationship of creative processes to life satisfaction
A multiple-group structure equation model regression analysis was executed to test the
relationship between the creative processes and life satisfaction. The second-order life satisfaction single
composite factor was regressed on the ten factors of creative processing. The goal was not to fit the
multiple correlations among the creative process factors as invariant across the groups but to test the life
satisfaction regression weights. Having said this, the correlations were constrained to be invariant in the
analysis. Though this affects the overall fit, the test of the models’ regression weights was not concerned
with the overall fit per se; instead, the investigation relied on a comparison of different models’ respective
regression structures via a difference-in-chi-square at difference-in-degrees-of-freedom test. The model
obtaining the best relative fit in such a comparison offers the best structural interpretation of the regression
equation for a theoretically constructed invariant model. Furthermore, the regression weights were
constrained to be invariant across the models. The model comparisons can be seen in Table 17, p. 106.
Since the principal hypothesis predicted that all the creative processes would be significant
multiple predictors of life satisfaction, this was the first model tested after the null model’s fit was obtained.
A compared to the null model, a significant reduction in chi-square was obtained in the multiple regression
model while losing ten degrees of freedom for estimating the creative processing parameters. Thus, there
is some evidence to support the initial hypothesis though the directions of the relationships are more
complex than originally anticipated. A post-hoc examination of individual predictor regression
relationships (see Table 17, p. 106) suggested that most of the factors were good individual predictors of
life satisfaction as compared to the null model. These included knowledge acquisition, knowledge and skill
inquisitiveness, sensitivity to anomaly, abductive reasoning, pre-inventive events, concept formation,
external loci of assessment standards, and personal productivity. Sensitivity to anomaly was found to be the

106

Table 17.
Comparison of structural model fits of life satisfaction regressed on creative processes.

Model


2
fit index

df

Comparison
Model


2

fit index

df

Significance
of difference

Null
2
F
allin
.p
2
F
1
.p
2
F
2
.p
2
F
3
.p
2
F
4
.p
2
F
5
.p
2
F
6
.p
2
F
7
.p
2
F
8
.p

2
F
9
.p

2
F
10
.p

2
F
allin
.p
-
2
F
2
.p

2
F
allin
.p
-
2
F
9
.p

2
F
allin
.p
-
2
F
2
.p
-
2
F
9
.p

336.117
295.920
307.312
335.076
325.365
273.878
330.570
312.719
326.476
314.132

335.758

304.132

297.159

283.755

307.370

175
165
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174

166

166

167

Null
Null
Null
Null

Null

Null

Null

Null
Null
Null
Null

2
F
allin
.p

2
F
allin
.p

2
F
allin
.p

-40.197

-28.805

-1.041

-10.752

-62.239

-5.547

-23.398

-9.641

-21.985

-0.359

-32.038

1.239

-12.165

11.45

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

1

1

2

p < .01

p < .01

n.s.

p < .01

p < .01

p < .05

p < .01

p < .01

p < .01

n.s.

p < .01

n.s.

p < .01

p < .01

Note: The symbol ‘.p’ designates the predictor variable(s) in the regression.
2
F
allin
indicates life-
satisfaction is regressed on all 10 creativity processing factors.
2
F
1
through
2
F
10
represent the individual
creativity processing factors. The ‘-‘ sign indicates predictors fixed at zero in the regression.

107

Figure 8. A Cartesian plane (chisq x df) depiction of the MG-SEM regression model comparisons,
life satisfaction regressed on creative processes. Comparison model 1 represents the
null model, model 2 includes all creative processes, model 3 is the best substantive
model and includes all creative processes except factor 9 (internal locus of assessment
standards), and model 4 includes only factor 4 (sensitivity to anomaly) as a single
creative process predictor of life satisfaction.

108

best single predictor of life satisfaction. In the evaluation strategy, several modified multiple regressions
were compared to evaluate whether specific factors should be dropped from the hypothesized ten factor
multiple regression. The respective model fits of these regressions can be quickly compared in Figure
8, p. 107, across a Cartesian plane by utilizing a visual assessment strategy suggested by researchers such
as McArdle (in Horn, 2000). This strategy suggests plotting the degrees of freedom on the abscissa (the x-
axis) and chi-square on the ordinate (the y-axis). The null model is included to specify a baseline among all
the plausible nested models. After plotting all the models, one derives a linear approximation of the points,
a drawn diagonal. The models falling below the line are understood to be the better fitting models. Those
falling farthest from the diagonal are the best fitting models. The comparisons suggested that the factor for
internal loci of assessment standards (factor 9) might be dropped from the multiple regression equation.
The unstandardized beta weights estimated in the analysis were:
life-satisfaction = .97 *
2
F
1
+ .16 *
2
F
2
– .64 *
2
F
3
+ .16 *
2
F
4
– 1.80 *
2
F
5
[6]
– 1.37 *
2
F
6
– .66 *
2
F
7
+ 1.07 *
2
F
8
+ 0.00 *
2
F
9
+ .49 *
2
F
10

The different directions of influences indicated by these weights suggest a complex relationship between
life satisfaction and creative processing. Knowledge acquisition (
2
F
1
), skill acquisition (
2
F
2
), sensitivity to
anomaly (
2
F
4
), external locus of assessment standards (
2
F
8
), and personal sense of productivity (
2
F
10
) seem
to be positively related to life satisfaction. Divergent ideation strategies (
2
F
3
), abductive reasoning (
2
F
5
),
pre-inventive events (
2
F
6
), and bottom-up concept formation strategies (
2
F
7
) are negatively related to life
satisfaction. The most parsimonious model was also the best fitting model. It specified sensitivity to
anomaly as a single predictor of life satisfaction. But a more substantively defensible model with respect to
bi-path theory was found to compare well to the other models; it is represented in equation [6] above.
Chapter 7: Discussion
As a general statement, the investigation has provided evidence to support its hypotheses. In a
population with diverse interests (albeit primarily comprised of university students), a structure of explicit
creative processes has been extracted from across a variety of different types of individual special
interests. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that these creative processes are complexly related to life

109

satisfaction. Lastly, bi-path theory’s hypothesized reparative-nurtural dimension of personality was found
to manifest a curvilinear relationship with need-to- create; however, the lonerism/self-counsel tendency
was not found to provide a linear contribution to the reparative-nurtural dimension as had been
predicted.
After a review of the ways by which creativity has been characterized in the past and noting a
general preference by investigators to examine creativity in terms of its relationship to extraordinary
products, we turned our attention to a study of personal, phenomenological experiences of creativity. We
suggested that personal creativity, creativity, is a self-recognized capacity to engage in processes that
generate new and useful ideas within a person’s self-nominated area of interest. One of the research
questions was whether individuals are able to explicitly recognize using such processes; a second question
pertained to how those processes might be interrelated. The data obtained in the BCSI-2 suggests that
individuals commonly recognize using a number of processes in the pursuit of their special interests. The
results of the analysis indicate that creative processes can be structured as a set of basic, first-order
processes as well as higher-order interrelationships among those processes. The structure was found to be
invariant across four different groups: males and females responding to two different modes of data
collection. The invariance of the structure across these different groups suggests that the research is
measuring that which it purports to be measuring, creativity.
Individuals were able to identify creative areas of interest. Differences among individuals’
creativity can be observed in the degrees to which they explicitly report activating the following sixteen
creative processes: (1) knowledge acquisition to generate new thoughts; (2) skill acquisition and
maintenance; (3) inquisitiveness to explore skill use and the implications of new knowledge; (4) convergent
ideation – merging several associated concepts into single interpretations; (5) divergent ideation –
branching a single concept into several simultaneously possible interpretations; (6) sensitivity to anomaly
in one’s area of interest; (7) anticipation of change and/or need for modifications in one’s area of interest;
(8) abductive reasoning – conceiving post hoc explanations for unusual events; (9) pre-inventive immersion
– project-influencing, dream-like cognitive drifts of consciousness; (10) spontaneous emergence – a sudden

110

realization of solutions to problems or directions for new projects; (11) bottom-up concept formations – the
essential nature and direction of a project is formed from elements that emerge as the project unfolds; (12)
top-down concept formations – one’s preconceptions about a project’s final form provide the primary
basis for evaluating the usefulness of emerging elements; (13) internal locus of assessment – using personal
goals and judgments of one’s progress as a primary assessment standard; (14) external locus of assessment
– using an anticipated judgment from the field (i.e. others’ or experts’) as a primary assessment standard;
(15) resolve or tenacity to complete projects regardless of complexity or frustration; and (16) satisfaction
with project progress, innovation, and general output.
The invariance analysis further suggested that these 16 factors are complexly interrelated in ways
that identify 10 higher-order factors. These second-order factors include: (1) a disposition to be inquisitive
about knowledge and to acquire knowledge, associated with tendencies to utilize complex cognitive
strategies such as abductive reasoning and divergent ideation and to be persistent about one’s work; (2) a
disposition to be inquisitive about skills and acquire skills, associated with convergent ideation about how
those skills might be used, but not with any sense of assessing those skills or that they might need to
change; (3) a polar disposition to use either divergent or convergent ideation strategies – with the
convergent pole more related to skill building and pre-inventive events; (4) a disposition to be sensitive to
anomaly due to one’s quest for knowledge and to use internal standards of assessment, but interestingly, no
association to utilize bottom-up concept formation when working on projects; (5) a disposition to use
abductive reasoning especially as applicable to bottom-up concept formations, pre-inventive events, and
knowledge inquisitiveness; (6) a disposition to experience pre-inventive events, associated with convergent
rather than divergent ideation strategies and with both loci of assessment standards; (7) a polar disposition
to use either bottom-up or top-down concept formation strategies – with the top-down pole more related to
pre-inventive events and knowledge acquisition; (8) a disposition to use external locus of assessment
standards with support from both bottom-up concept formation and convergent ideation strategies; (9) a
disposition to use internal locus of assessment standards, similar to the external locus of assessment
standards dimension but with some differences, such as the improbability of pre-inventive events; and (10)

111

a disposition toward productivity that manifests a resolve to complete projects and positive personal
assessments of output and level of innovation – supported by pre-inventive events and abductive reasoning.
One of the prominent tenets of bi-path theory is that the cognitive components of creative
processing are intrinsically self-reinforcing and that individuals benefit from the use of these processes
whether or not they result in an external product. Bi-path theory has proposed that an enhanced sense of
life-satisfaction is an important outcome of the activated creative processes within individuals. The results
of the analysis suggest that creative processes do not uniformly express a positive relationship to life-
satisfaction as had been hypothesized. One interpretation of these results suggests that knowledge
acquisition, skill acquisition, sensitivity to anomaly, external locus of assessment standards, and
productivity components of creative processing are positively related to life-satisfaction; additionally, in a
comparison of the measured creative processes, sensitivity to anomaly is the best single predictor of life-
satisfaction. This interpretation provides partial support for the proposed association between creative
processing and life satisfaction, but the finding of a strong positive relationship between productivity (as a
single predictor) and life satisfaction places strain on bi-path theory’s position that the true reason for
creative activity within a person lies somewhere other than with its external products.
A closer consideration of creativity’s productivity dimension, examining its constituent first-
order factors (Table 15, p. 101), reveals a complexly rich within-person sense of productivity. First, there is
the phenomenological assessment of ones’ amount of output and innovative quality that clearly identifies
the factor as a dimension of products. But consistent with bi-path theory, there is also a small trend away
from external standards of assessment toward internal standards. And even more revealing, we find a strong
influence from pre-inventive events within the factor, especially as regards spontaneous emergences. There
are also moderate influences from the abductive reasoning and knowledge acquisition components. Thus
we see that the creative productivity dimension represents a specific type of intra-individual productivity
– a productivity obtained via persistence, pre-inventive cognitions, abductive sensibility, and knowledge
acquisition. This type of productivity does not emphasize external productions per se but an intra-individual
sense of progress and commitment in one’s area of creative interest. This closer consideration of creative

112

productivity clarifies its relationship to life satisfaction. The results do not simply suggest that the
production of external products is associated with life satisfaction. Instead, creative productivity is a more
complexly weighted linear composite of internal assessments of progress/productivity summed with
multiple other internal cognitions; this characterization, depicting an internal dimension of recognized
creative progress, is the dimension that the results suggest is related to life satisfaction.
As already noted, the results do not support bi-path theory’s prediction that all creative processes
are positively related to life satisfaction. However, the mixed directional relationships found between
creative processes and life satisfaction may still be consistent with a primary objective of bi-path theory.
The objective of the theory is to formulate a set of general principles for understanding the pushmi-pullyu
characteristics of creativity, that is, the life challenging versus life enhancing attributes of creativity. The
initial conception of the theory specifies that this dynamic be based in a behavioral drive to either repair
narcissistic injury (psychodynamic theory) or nurture self-actualization (humanist theory). This premise has
been referred to as the reparative-nurtural hypothesis. One possible interpretation of the mix of
relationships found between the different creative processes and life satisfaction is that these positive and
negative associations may be indicating details of particular pushmi-pullyu characteristics as they pertain to
the creative processes. It may be the case that not only does the reparative-nurtural dimension moderate
the operations of the creativity system (endoadaptive, exoadaptive, creative processes, and life
satisfaction domains), but that the creative processes are themselves moderators in the pushmi-pullyu
dynamic of the system.
The investigation has provided evidence of a curvilinear/quadratic relationship between the
hypothesized reparative-nurtural dimension and a need-to- create. A MG-SEM factorial invariance
analysis and follow-up regression analysis found a significant relationship between the squares of the
distachment dimension and the need-to- create scores. This was anticipated by the reparative-nurtural
hypothesis of bi-path theory. However, the expected linear contribution from the loner/self-counsel factor
to the reparative-nurtural dimension was not supported by the data. This latter prediction was founded in a
general agreement in the field that lonerism tendencies are associated with extraordinary creativity. It may

113

be the case that a lonerism component could surface in a population of exceptional creatives to a greater
extent than was estimated in this general population. Interestingly, there was evidence of a curvilinear trend
suggesting that both gregarious individuals and loners may be more likely to manifest a need-to-
create than those with less extreme social tendencies. Again, one explanation for this trend suggests that a
general population may express this component in a different way than is expressed in a population of
exceptional creatives. Nonetheless, the main conclusion formed here is that a curvilinear relationship
between the hypothesized reparative-nurtural dimension and need-to- create has been supported by the
data (see Figure 7, p. 83). Bi-path theory proposes that this relationship exists not only as regards
differences among individuals with respect to a stable trait, but also in terms of dynamic state changes
within individuals across time. If this proposal is correct, Figure 7 could represent creative activity within
a single person across multiple time points as he or she experiences different degrees of narcissistic
challenge versus self-efficacy support.
The curvilinear influence of the reparative-nurtural dimension does not appear to be extreme in
Figure 7. This ‘gentle’ relationship is consistent with one of the hypotheses in bi-path theory regarding the
dynamic influence of the reparative-nurtural dimension. The theory suggests that creative activity is
generated (driven) by a gentle pendulum-like movement along the reparative-nurtural dimension, but that
too rapid and drastic a movement or too static a position results in relatively less creativity within a
person. This premise can be examined via intra-individual investigations of dynamical models such as that
proposed by Boker (2001). Boker asserts that individuals must adapt to changes in the environment and that
they regulate their behavior based on such changes. In bi-path theory, the reparative-nurtural dimension of
personality is regarded as an intra-individual dimension of change that can be measured across time and
tested in relation to creativity in order to better understand how cyclic changes in one dimension affects
changes in the other.
Limitations and future research directions. As a final thought, we note that we have not suggested
that extraordinary products are forthcoming from any of the individuals in the investigation. There were no
comparison groups constructed to differentiate supposed creative individuals versus non-creative

114

individuals even though popularly recognizable and admired creative professionals were included in the
sample. Questions have arisen in the investigation that could be addressed by forming such groups. For
example: Might it be the case that the lonerism component suggests a clear linear relationship to need-
to- create in a ‘creative’ population where it did not in this general population? In what way would such a
finding change the derivation of the reparative-nurtural dimension and our understanding of creativity?
There was a practical reason for not forming such groups in this study – too few known creatives
volunteered (only half a dozen). Insufficient compensation is the likely cause of this small recruitment
response. It is not surprising that creative individuals may value their own creative endeavors over their
curiosity about psychological studies. The task for future studies will be to develop/determine a financially
realistic strategy to encourage such subjects to volunteer.
The analysis of the data has tried to avoid Big C vs. little c debates – still, the items constructed to
measure the creative processes have been based on prior research investigating just such issues.
Phenomenological self-reports of the processes that individuals explicitly recognize as useful in the pursuit
of their personal interests have been obtained as measures of personal creativity. Still, we again note that
the formation of a comparison group of known creatives would offer a strategy for determining whether
creative processes operate differently depending on whether one is a known creative versus not.
The research has achieved several objectives by its approach to considering creativity. Invariant
measures of creative processing, life satisfaction, and a theoretical reparative-nurtural dimension of
personality have been identified. A curvilinear relationship between reparative-nurtural and creative
activity has been supported. A structure for the relationship(s) between creative processes and life
satisfaction, as well as the relevant constructs of each domain, have been identified. Still, there remains
much to investigate with regard to the creativity system and the reparative-nurtural hypothesis.
In the future, this research expects to gravitate towards an examination of intra-individual change
in creativity across time and to questions about how the reparative-nurtural dimension of personality and
life satisfaction are dynamically related to intra-individual creative activity. For the present, there is still
much to be inter-individually investigated with regard to the creativity system. A major task remains – to

115

identify the inter-individual structure of the endoadaptive and exoadaptive domains and their
interrelationships with creativity and life satisfaction, and how the reparative-nurtural dimension of
personality may moderate those relationships. Identifying a comprehensive structure for the holistic
system of creativity will provide a foundation upon which intra-individual research questions can be
pursued.
The investigation has provided information that is consistent with our initial expectations of
creativity. But we are not surprised to have uncovered additional ideas regarding the pushmi-pullyu
characteristics of creativity and its complex positive/negative relationship to life satisfaction; we are not
surprised to find ourselves still eluded by an unclouded understanding of creativity’s relationship to life
satisfaction. Our intent remains simple – to continue to pursue a comprehensive and clear structure of
creativity and its relationship to life satisfaction.

116

References
Abraham, A., Windmann, S., Daum, I., and Gunturkun, O. (2005). Conceptual expansion and creative
imagery as a function of psychoticism. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal
14(3), 520-534.
Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., and Boyle, M. O. (2002). Individual differences in working memory within
a nomological network of cognitive and perceptual speed abilities. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 131(4), 567-589.
Ainsworth, M., and Bell, S. (1974). Mother-infant interaction and the development of competence. In K.
Connolly and J. Bruner (Eds.), The growth of competence. New York: Academic Press.
Albert, R. S., and Runco, M. A. (1999) A history of research on creativity. In R. J Sternberg (Ed.).
Handbook of Creativity (pp. 16-31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Alper, G. (1992). Portrait of the artist as a young patient: Psychodynamic studies of the creative
personality. New York: Insight Books/Plenum Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabilie, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376.
Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., and Brackfield, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation,
coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3(1), 6-21.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creativity environment scales: Work Environment
Inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231-253.
Arieti, S. (1976) Creativity: The magic synthesis. New York: Basic.
Baas, M., De Dreu, K. W., and Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity
research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6) 779-806.
Baer, J. (2008). Evidence of gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 78-105.
Baker-Sennet, J., and Ceci, S. (1996). Clue-efficiency and insight: Unveiling the mystery of inductive
leaps. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 153-172.
Bandura, F. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barron, F. (1972). The creative personality: Akin to madness. Psychology Today, 6(2), 42-44, 84-85.
Barron, F. (1963). Creativity. In Albert Deutsch and Helen Fishman’s (Eds.) The encyclopedia of mental
health, Vol II (pp. 396-401). New York: Franklin Watts.
Beck, A. T., and M. Freeman, A. M. (1990). Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders. New York:
Guilford

117

Benjamin, M. and Hollings, A. (1997) Student satisfaction: Test of an ecological model. Journal of College Student
Development, 38(3), 213-228.
Boker, S. M. (2001). Differential models and “differential structural equation modeling of
intraindividual variability.” In Linda M. Collins and Aline G. Sayer (Eds.) New methods for
the analysis of change. Decade of Behavior (pp. 5-27). Washington, D.C.:American Psychological
Association.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (2
nd
edition). New York: Basic Books.
Breland, W. M. (2000). Creativity and life satisfaction: A factor analysis and interpretation to specify a creative
system as it relates to life satisfaction. Unpublished paper presented at University of Southern California.
Seminar in Structural Equation Modeling Techniques, J. Horn (chair).
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, M. W., and Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24(4), 445-455.
Camfield, D. (2005). Neurobiology of Creativity. In Con Stough’s (Ed.) Neurobiology of exceptionality: the biology
of normal and abnormal traits (pp. 53-75). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Cattell, R.B. (1973). Personality pinned down. Psychology Today, 7(2), 41-46.
Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cattell, R.B. (1941). Some theoretical issues in adult intelligence testing. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 592.
Cattell, R. B., and Cattell, H. E. (1995). Personality structure and the new fifth edition of the 16PF.
Education and Psychological Measurement, 55(6), 926-937.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective. In R. J Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of
Creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York,
NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Where is the evolving milieu? A response to Gruber. Creativity Research
Journal, 1, 60-67.
Dawson, M.E., Schell, A.M., & Catania, J.J. (1977). Autonomic correlates of depression and clinical
improvement following electroconvulsive shock therapy. Psychophysiology, 14(6), 569-578.
Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across
life's domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(1), 14-23.
Epstein, R., Kirshnit, C. E., Lanza, R. P., and Rubin, L. C. (1984). “Insight” in the pigeion: Antecedents
and determinants of an intelligent performance. Nature, 308(5954), 61-62.

118

Eysenck, H. J. (1955). Cortical inhibition, figural aftereffect, and theory of personality. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychological, 51(1), 94-106.
Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 147-178.
Eysenck, H. J., and Furnham, A. (1993). Personality and the Barron-Welsh Art Scale. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 76, 847-838.
Farley, F. H. (1985). Psychobiology and cognition. In Jan Strelau, Frank Farley, and Anthony Gale (Eds.),
The biological bases of personality and behavior: Volume 1, theories, measurement techniques,
and development. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J Sternberg (Ed.).
Handbook of Creativity (pp. 273-296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In R. J Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of Creativity (pp.
169-186). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, D. H., with Goldsmith, L. T. (1991). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of
human potential. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fine, R. (1980). Work, depression, and creativity, psychoanalytic perspective. Psychological Reports, 46(3,
pt. 2), 1195-1221.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., and Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fisher, R. A. (1929). Moments and product moments of sampling distribution. Proceedings of the London
Mathematical Society, 199-238.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300-319.
Fredrickson, B. L., and Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-
action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313-332.
Furnham, A., and Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality
and Individual differences, 45(7), 613-617.
Galton, F. (1869/2005). Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry Into Its Laws and Consequences. New York:
Cosimo Classics.
Gardner, H. (1988). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 8-26.
Gardner, H. (1993a). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (10
th
anniversary ed.) New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993b). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein,
Pciasso, Stravinsksy, Eliot, Graham, And Ghandi. New York: Basic.

119

Gatz, M., and Zarit, S. H. (1999). A good old age: Paradox of possibility. In Vern Bengston, Klaus Warner,
et.al (Eds.) Handbook of theories of aging (pp. 396-416). New York: Springer Publishing Co.
Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Retzlaff, P. D., and Espy, K. A. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in a clinical sample. Child
Neuropsychology. Special Issue: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), 8(4),
249-257.
Glover, J., and Gary, A. L. (1976). Procedures to increase some aspects of creativity. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 9(1), 79-84.
Gluck, J., Ernst, R., and Unger, F. (2002). Creatives define creativity: Definitions reflect different types of
creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(1), 55-67.
Goetz, E. M., and Baer, D. M. (1973). Social control of form diversity and the emergence of new forms in
children’s blockbuilding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6(2), 209-217.
Greenspoon, P. J., and Saklofske, D. H. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the multidimensional
Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5), 965-971.
Gruber, H. (1985). From epistemic subject to unique creative person at work. Archives de Psychologie, 53,
167-185.
Gruber, H. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 27-51.
Gruber, H., & Wallace, D. B. (1999) The case study method and evolving systems approach for
understanding unique creative people at work. In R. J Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of Creativity (pp.
93-115). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1983). Transformation abilities of functions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17(2), 75-83.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454.
Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural conception conjunctions. Memory and Cognition,
15, 55-71.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds
(Eds.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 135-145). New York: Plenum.
Hennessey, B. A. (1989). The effect of extrinsic constraints on children’s creativity while using a
computer. Creativity Research Journal, 2(3), 151-168.
Hoff, E. V. (2005). Imaginary companions, creativity, and self-image in middle childhood. Creativity
Research Journal, 17(2-3), 167-180.

120

Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment,
45(5), 450-464.
Horn, J. L. (2000). SEM fit functions, model comparisons, and factor analysis. Unpublished paper
presented at University of Southern California. Seminar in Structural Equation Modeling
Techniques, J. Horn (chair).
Horn, J. L. (1972). Human abilities and their development. In R. M. Dregar (Ed.), Multivariate Personality
Research. Baton Rouge, LA: Claiton.
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general
intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253-270.
Horn, J. L., and McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in
aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117-144.
Horney, K. (1991). The goals of analytic therapy. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis. Special Issue:
[Karen Horney], 51(3), 219-226.
Hull, C. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hyman, R. (1964). Creativity and the prepared mind: The role of information and induced attitudes. In C.
W. Taylor (Ed.), Widening horizons in creativity (pp. 69-79). New York: Wiley.
Isen, A., Daubman, K., and Nowicki, G. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6). 1122-1131
Ivcevic, Z., Brackett, M. A., and Mayer, J. D. (2007). Emotional intelligence and emotional creativity.
Journal of Personality, 75(2), 199-235.
Jackson, P. W., and Messick, S. (1965). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problems in
the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality, 33(2), 309-329.
Jones, C. J., and Nesselroade, J. R. (1990). Multivariate, replicated, single-subject, repeated measures
designs and P-technique factor analysis: A review of intraindividual change studies. Experimental
Aging Research, 16(4), 171-183.
Joreskog, K. G. (1970). Testing a set of true scores for linear dependencies. Proceedings of the Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, 5(1), 117-118.
Joy, S. (2000, August). Innovation motivation: The need to be different. Paper presented at the meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Joy, S., and Hicks, S. The need to be different: Primary trait structure and impact on projective drawings.
Creativity Research Journal, 16(2-3), 331-339.
Kaplan, S. M. (1984-1985). Narcissistic injury and the occurrence of creativity: Freud’s Irma dream.
Annual of Psychoanalysis, 12–13, 367-376

121

Kersting, K. (2003). What exactly is creativity? Monitor on Psychology, 34(10), 40.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Macmillan.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3
rd
Edition). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lawley, K. N. (1943). The application of maximum likelihood to factor analysis. British Journal of
Psychology, 33, 172-175.
Lofting, H. (1920). The Story of Doctor Doolittle. New York, NY: Random House Children’s Books.
Lubart, T. I. (1999) Creativity across cultures. In R. J Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of Creativity (pp. 339-
350). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Luchins, A. S., and Luchins, E. H. (1959). Rigidity of Behavior. Eugene: University of Oregon Press.
Ludwig, A. M. (1995). The Price of Giftedness. New York, NY: Guilford.
Lundsteen, S. W. (1968). Improving the abstract quality in creative problem solving. The Journal of
Special Education, 2(2), 177-183.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity.
Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
Madill, A., and Gough, B. (2008). Qualitative research and its place in psychological science.
Psychological Methods, 13(3), 254-271.
May, R. (1975). The Courage to Create. New York: Bantam Books.
McArdle, J. J., and McDonald, R. P. (1984). Some algebraic properties of the Reticular Action Model for
moment structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 234-251.
McArdle, J. J., and Hamagami, F. (1992). Modeling incomplete longitudinal and cross-sectional data using
latent growth structural models. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 145-166.
McClelland, D.C. (1987). Human motivation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American
Psychologist, 40(7), 812-825.
McDonald, R. (1999). Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mednick, S. A. (1967). The remote associates test. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2(3), 213-214.
Mednick, M. T. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 202-232.
Meeker, M., Meeker, R., and Roid, G. (1985). Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA). Los
Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

122

Mollod, D. S. (2008). Berlioz’s symphonie fantastique: Enriching psychoanalytic views of creativity.
Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 77(2), 433-476.
Nesselroade, J. R. (1991). The warp and woof of the developmental fabric. In Roger M. Downs, Lynn
S. Palermo, and David Stuart’s (Eds.) Visions of the aesthetics, the environment &
development: The legacy of Joachim F. Wohlwill (pp. 213-240). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Okamoto, K. and Takaki, E. (1992). Structure of creativity measurements and their correlations with
sensation seeking and need for uniqueness. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
31(3), 203-210.
Pearson, K. (1936). Method of moments and method of maximum likelihood. Biometrika, 28, 34-59.
Plato. (1952). Ion: From the Dialogues of Plato (Benjamin Jowett, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press. (Original work published in 380 B.C)
Plucker, J. A., and Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J
Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of Creativity (pp. 35-61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Policastro, E., and Gardner, H. (1999). From case studies to robust generalizations: An approach to the
study of creativity. In R. J Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of Creativity (pp. 213-225). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pryor, K. W., Haag, R., and O’Reilly, J. (1969). The creative porpoise: Training for novel behavior.
Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12(4), 653-661.
Pufal-Stuzik, I. (1992). Differences in personality and self-knowledge of creative persons at different ages:
A comparative analysis. Special Issue: Geragogics: European research in gerontological education.
Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 13, 17-90.
Pufal-Struzik, I. (1996). Demand for stimulation in young people with different levels of creativity. High
Ability Studies, 7(2), 145-150.
Rabbitt, P., Maylor, E., McInnew, L., and Bent, N. (1995). What goods can self-assessment questionnaires
deliver for cognitive gerontology? Applied Cognitive Psychology. Special Issue: Donald
Broadbent and Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, S127-S152.
Raine, A. (2002). Annotation: The role of prefrontal deficits, low autonomic arousal and early health
factors in the development of antisocial and aggressive behavior in children.Journal of Child
Psychology & Psychiatry, 43(4), 417-434
Rank, O. (1932). Art and Artist: Creativity Urge and Personality Development. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc.
Raven, J. C. (1941). Standardization of the progressive matrices, 1938. British Journal of Medical
Psychology, 19, 137-150.

123

Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new century.
Exceptionality, 10(2), 67-75.
Reuter, M., Panksepp, J., Schnabel, N., Kellerhoff, N., Kempel, P. and Hennig, J. (2005). Personality
and biological markers of creativity. European Journal of Personality, 19(2), 83-95.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.
Rossman, B. B., and Horn, J. L. (1972). Cognitive, motivational, and temperamental indicants of creativity
and intelligence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 9(4), 265-286.
Rothenberg, A. (1971). The process of Janusian thinking in creativity. Archives of General Psychiatry, 24,
195-205.
Rothenberg, A. (1976). Homospatial thinking in creativity. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33, 17-26.
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. San Diego,
CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177-189.
Runco, M. A. 1986). Maximal performance on divergent thinking tests by gifted, talented, and nongifted
children. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 308-315.
Russ, S. (1993). Affect and creativity: the role of affect and play in the creative process. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological
Review, 103(3), 403-428.
Schroth, M. L. and Lund, E. (1994). Relationships between need achievement, sensation seeking and
cognitive performance. Personality & Individual Differences, 16(6), 861-867.
Schuldberg, D. (2005). Eysenck Personality Questionnaire scales and paper-and-pencil tests related to
creativity. Psychological Reports, 97(1), 180-182.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined and measured. American Journal of
Psychology, 15(2), 201-293.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach.
Multivariate Behavioral Research. 25(2), 173-180.
Steiger, J. H., Shapiro, A., and Browne, M. W. (1985). On the multivariate asymptotic distribution of
sequential chi-square statistics. Psychometrika, 50(3), 253-263.

124

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49, 607-627.
Sternberg, R. J., and Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J
Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Sternberg, R. J., and Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677-688.
Sternberg, R. J., and Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of
conformity. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J., and Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human
Development, 34, 1-32.
Storr, A. (1988). Solitude: A return to the self. New York: Free Press.
Thagard, P. (1997). Coherent and creative conceptual combinations. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid.
(Eds.). Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 129-141).
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Torrance, E. P. (1984). Some products of 25 years of creativity research. Educational Perspectives, 22, 3-8.
Torrance, E. P. (1975). Creativity research in education: Still alive. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.).
Perspectives in Creativity (pp. 278-296). Chicago: Aldine.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., and Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative Cognition. In R. J Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook
of Creativity (pp. 189-212). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999) Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J Sternberg (Ed.).
Handbook of Creativity (pp. 226-250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wishart, J. (1930). The derivation of certain high order sampling product moments from a normal
population. Biometrika, 22, 224-238.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and
Language, 35, 434-453.
Wold, H. (1953). Some artificial experiments in factor analysis. Nordic Psychology Monographs, 3, 43-64.
Wright, S. (1934). The method of path coefficients. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 5, 161-215.

125

Yau, C. (1991). An essential relationship: Healthy self-esteem and productive creativity. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 25(2), 154-161.
Zhang, Y., Straub, C., and Kusyk, S. (2007). Making a life or making a living? Cross-cultural
comparisons of business students’ work and life values in Canada and France. Cross Cultural
Management, 14(3), 174-195.
Zickar, M. J., and Slaughter, J. E. (1999). Examining performance over time using hierarchical linear
modeling: An illustration using film directors. Human Performance, 12(3-4), 211-230.
Zuckerman, M. (1985). Biological foundations of the sensation-seeking temperament. In Jan Strelau, Frank
Farley, and Anthony Gale (Eds.), The biological bases of personality and behavior: Volume 1,
theories, measurement techniques, and development. New York: Hemishphere Publishing
Corporation.

126

Appendix 1: Constructs embedded in the Bi-path Creativity System Inventory

Basic Info

age

occup

sex

educ

Need to Create

Personal Creativity
Indicators
- Need + Value

Early perceptual
orientation (region of
creative engagement)

oerl1

oerl2

oerl3

oerl4

Current orientation

opnd1

opnd2

opnd3

opnd4

Age box

Occupation box

Gender box … Male = 1 …. Female = 2

Education choices … 1 = none, 2 = some but no HS diploma, 3 = HS
diploma, 4 = some college, no BA, 5 = prof certificate of training, 6 =
BA/BS, 7 = Masters, 8 = Doctorate

Fill-in the blank items to assess orientation, motivation, power of focus, and
diversity scores; need to create is expressed by broad identification of
primary, adjacent, and tertiary areas of interests; completed sentence rated by
participant

(Justification: need to achieve in specific areas would be marked by an
individual’s disposition to pay attention to that area, though the need itself
might be subconscious, the interest would be conscious)

Throughout my life, I have been likely to lose track of time when I discover
something new about __________________.

Across the course of my life, regardless of whatever else I might be doing, I
can be distracted by anything that is associated with ________________.

When I think of those domains of knowledge that have interested me over the
course of my life, I think of __________________.

In comparison to how attentive I have been to other things across my lifetime,
_______________ has engaged my attention most quickly and to the greatest
depth.

Regardless of what I am doing these days, I still seem to especially notice
those things that are associated with or that I can apply to
__________________.

There are some areas that I presently enjoy because they completely engage a
sense of my “whole self.” The areas I feel most this way about are:
_________________.

Over the last month or so, my thinking has been the most fully energized by
ideas that are associated in some way with _____________________.

Recently, I find that I sometimes gain useful insights from unexpected
sources; and though the sources may vary, the insights themselves are
consistently helpful to my interest in __________________.

127

Long-term aspiration
(region of creative
engagement)

olta1

olta2

olta3

Intermediate aspiration
(region of creative
engagement)

oint1

oint2

oint3

Immediate aspiration
(region of creative
engagement)

oimd1

oimd2

oimd3

Endoadaptive Domain

-Need to be different

ndif1

I wish that someday I could be recognized for doing work which freely
expresses both my uniqueness and the usefulness of my contributions in the
area of __________________.

Given the proper favorable conditions, I believe that in the distant future I can
achieve a specific goal of self expression or, perhaps, even of social value in
the area of _____________________.

When I think about those areas where I have long term aspirations, where I
sometimes feel innovative, flexible, or adaptive, I am usually thinking about
___________________.

I have an idea in the area of ___________________, which I believe will
result in my generating something new, fresh, or unusual over the next few
months.

I am currently motivated to achieve an objective, not too far in the future,
which occupies my mind when I am alone and requires flexible thinking in
the area of ____________________.

I know that I will not finish it today, probably not this week, and perhaps not
even this month, but I have been working on and thinking about a new
idea/project in the area of ________________.

Right now, because it brings me a sense of personal expression and growth, I
wish that I could spend some time thinking and/or working on a project in the
area of _____________.

Today, I have spent, or intend to spend some time thinking about and working
toward improving or contributing something new in the area of
__________________.

It would not be unusual if, at some point today, I were to allow my thoughts
to drift into a more or less imaginative, dream-like state regarding my hopes
in the area of ____________________.

Internal factors

Intrinsic motivation to be different

In conversations, I enjoy offering contrary thoughts that go against the
opinions of others more than I enjoy offering opinions that add support to
their position.

128

ndif2 neg scale

ndif3

ndif4

ndif5 neg scale

ndif6

ndif7 neg scale

-Need to engage in
creative activity

neng1

neng2 neg scale

neng3

neng4

neng5 neg scale

Sensation-seeking

-Disinhibition

dsin1

dsin2

dsin3

dsin4

dsin5 neg scale

-Risk-taking

rskt1

rskt2

rskt3
I don’t like to stand out in a crowd; I prefer to feel like I belong with the
group, like I am the same kind of person.

Regardless of what is appropriate for the occasion, I try to dress with an
element of the unexpected.

I am more of a radical than a conformist.

I would rather be uninteresting than be a misfit.

I think that it is more important to be imaginative than to be sensible.

I would rather be productive than innovative.

Intrinsic motivation to be creative

I think I have always engaged in activities that allow me to generate new
ideas and express my individuality.

I usually try to avoid tasks that ask me to generate new ideas.

In everything I do, I try to add something that expresses my own
individuality.

I think that it is more important to be imaginative than to be sensible.

I would rather be productive than innovative.

Arousal level scales

Regardless of the occasion, I feel free to behave as outrageously as I want.

I think other people too often repress their spontaneous nature, whereas I like
to openly express mine.

I believe that we should each do what we want, because right and wrong
should not be dictated to us.

No matter how important the occasion, I believe that people should behave
like they want and do what they want.

When I believe I am being observed by others, I tend to behave in a less
conspicuous manner.

I frequently drive over the posted speed limit.

I disobey traffic signs (no left turn, yellow light, etc.).

I have exposed myself to unusual risks, such as sky diving.

129

rskt4

rskt5 neg scale

rskt6 neg scale

rskt7 neg scale

-experience seeking

exsk1

exsk2 neg scale

exsk3

exsk4 neg scale

exsk5

exsk6 neg scale

exsk7

exsk8

exsk9

exsk10

exsk11 neg scale

-boredom susceptibility

bora1

bora2

bora3 neg scale

bora4

bora5

bora6 neg scale

I feel stimulated when engaging in behavior that contains an element of risk.

I do not participate in an activity if there is any risk involved.

I would rather be safe than be stimulated.

It bothers me when I am around people who are doing dangerous things.

In general, I like to experience new things.

In describing my social behavior, I would say I am more conventional than
alternative.

I seek out experiences that stimulate my mind.

Experiences that maximally stimulate my senses (sight, hearing, taste, touch,
smell) are less enjoyable to me than simpler experiences.

As a group, my friends could easily be described as “unconventional.”

I do not watch cultural, artistic programs on TV.

I am an avid consumer of news.

I attend performing arts events.

I visit museums, cultural exhibits, and other similar points of interest.

I am an avid reader of books and magazines.

I have no desire to travel

I would describe myself as “easily bored.”

When I become bored with an activity, I try to find a way to make it less
boring.

I seldom feel restless when performing a task, even when the task is simple
and repetitious.

I hate routine and will do almost anything to avoid it.

In general, I seem to get bored quicker than the people around me.

Sometimes situations can be boring, but I do not feel an urge to escape them.

130

Health

-current health status
check boxes

diabet
cramp
kidney
liver
hiblod
skin
angina
dizzy
fatig
swell
shrtbrth
lung
stiff
walker
diar
urine
dent
gums

chrnhlt1 – chrnhlt6
chrnhlt7

occhlt1 – occhlt6
occhlt7

-Pain issues

pain1

pain2

pain3

pain4

pain5

pain6

-Diet issues

diet1

diet2

Endoadaptive dimension general health of the participation

Diabetes
Cramping when walking
Kidney problems
Liver problems
High blood pressure
Skin rash problems
Chest pains
Recurring dizziness
Fatigue easily
Swelling in extremities
Shortness of breath after activity or even at rest
Sought treatment for lung problems
Chronic stiffness in joints
Use a wheel-chair or a walker
Chronic diarrhea or constipation
Experience bladder frequency or urgency
Use dentures
Have trouble with teeth or gums

Subject lists 6 possible chronic health problems
Check box indicating more chronic health problems

Subject lists 6 possible occasional health problems
Check box indicating more occasional health problems

I need prescription-strength medication daily to help me cope with pain or
discomfort

I use some type of medication, either over-the-counter or prescription
strength, several times a week to help me cope with pain or discomfort

I rarely take any kind of medication for pain or discomfort

I have physical pain or discomfort so seldom, I don’t really think about it

I have constant worrisome pain or discomfort

When I make plans to do things, thoughts of my physical discomfort or pain
never enters into my decisions

My diet is unrestricted and I eat whatever I like

I have to avoid certain foods because of their affect on my health.

131

diet3

-Exercise issues

exer1

exer2

exer3

-Self-medication

smed1

smed2

smed3

smed4

smed5

smed6

smed7

Supra-attributive

-suprativity

supr1

supr2 neg scale

supr3

supr4 neg scale

-serendipity

sern1

sern2

sern3

I have a sensitive stomach.

I am not able to exercise like I would if my range of motion was better.

When I exercise, my body responds like a well-oiled machine.

I try to exercise as often as I can but I tire quickly.

I think that my drinking (or use of drugs) helps me to better relate my
thoughts to others.

I feel that my drinking (or use of drugs) helps to change my mood.

I am convinced that I get better ideas when I am drinking (or using drugs).

Drinking (or taking drugs) has helped me to be more confident, to reach for
higher goals.

I drink (or take drugs) to relax and have a good time.

Drinking (or using drugs) helps me to forget about my problems.

I am convinced that drinking (or taking drugs) helps me to be more receptive
to new ideas.

Endoadaptive affiliation to supra-normal explanations for corporeal events

I believe that mystical, unexplainable forces sometimes affect real events.

I do not believe that any kind of supernatural power influences the outcomes
of our lives.

I am convinced that the major questions of the universe cannot necessarily be
best addressed by science.

I believe that everything can be explained in terms of the laws of science.

I believe that chance can be as important an ingredient as effort in achieving
results.

I feel that finding one’s place in life turns on matters of chance.

Random events determine outcomes as much as goal-directed activities do.

132

sern4 neg scale

sern5 neg scale

sern6 neg scale

Positive affect

posa1

posa2

posa3

posa4 neg scale

posa5

posa6 neg scale

posa7 neg scale

posa8

Negative affect

nega1

nega2 neg scale

nega3

nega4

nega5

nega6

nega7 neg scale

nega8 neg scale

Social tolerance

-Macro-system tolerance

tmacro1 neg scale

tmacro2

I have accepted that chance plays no part in either my successes or my
failures.

Coincidence never adds much to what intentions can produce.

Everything happens for a reason, there is no such thing as a random event.

Endoadaptive average positive affect

In general, I feel alert.

I think of myself as generally active.

I am an attentive person most of the time.

People who know me would describe meas more unenthusiastic than
enthusiastic.

I would rate my general outlook as “interested.”

Generally, I do not feel excited.

I seldom feel inspired.

In general, I feel proud.

Endoadaptive average negative affect

In general, on some level, I feel afraid.

I seldom feel upset.

I think I am generally more hostile than pleasant.

Quite often, I have a sense of being “jittery.”

I would rate my general manner as “distressed.”

I often feel guilty about things.

I am not generally a nervous person.

In general, it would be incorrect to say that I am irritable.

Endoadaptive acceptance of others’ beliefs and behaviors

Tolerance in general cultural setting

I believe that all things being equal, a society with several sub-cultures can
never be as strong as a society with one unified culture.

No matter how much I may disagree with the way some sects conduct
themselves, I can still put up with their conduct.

133

tmacro3 neg scale

tmacro4 neg scale

tmacro5

tmacro6

-Micro-system

tmicro1 neg scale

tmicro2

tmicro3 neg scale

tmicro4 neg scale

tmicro5

tmicro6

Exoadaptive domain

Social setting

-Close intimate (lover,
etc.)

intm1 neg scale

intm2 neg scale

intm3

intm4 neg scale

intm5

There are certain beliefs in this world that are so wrong they should be
eradicated.

I can’t tolerate some of the ideas that other groups of people claim to be
truths.

I could live in any ethnic neighborhood.

When another group’s practices come into direct conflict with mine, I feel
permissive rather than disapproving.

Tolerance for proximal events

When I have strong disagreements with my closest intimate, my first
inclination is to try to change her/his opinion rather than accept it as a
difference.

I believe that children need not always obey.

I have no tolerance when my family does things against my wishes.

If my cohabitants routinely practiced that which conflicts with my beliefs,
either they or I would have to move.

I believe that I could maintain closeness to someone and still disagree on
important, divisive issues.

It’s always been easy for me to put up with the behavior of my housemates
regardless of their individual habits.

Extrinsic factors

I believe that my closest intimate is much more likely to appreciate something
that has no flaws than she/he is to appreciate something that is unusual.

I sometimes feel like it’s impossible for my closest intimate to enjoy or
understand things that are different.

My closest intimate generally finds positive things to say about new and
uncommon things.

I believe that my closest intimate is more likely to make fun of something
new and different than she/he is to celebrate its novelty.

My closest intimate notices and compliments my efforts to be inventive and
to volunteer fresh ideas.

134

-Family influence (past)

dfam1

dfam2 neg scale

dfam3

dfam4 neg scale

dfam5

dfam6 neg scale

-Family influence
(present)

cfam1

cfam2 neg scale

cfam3

cfam4 neg scale

cfam5 neg scale

cfam6

-Friend influence

frnd1

frnd2 neg scale

frnd3

When I was growing up, my immediate family was more likely to appreciate
something that was out of the ordinary than they were to appreciate
something that was perfect with no flaws.

When I was growing up, my immediate family was more appreciative when I
was practical, rather than when I was inventive.

When I was growing up, my immediate family was flexible in the ways that
we dealt with each other and the circumstances which we encountered.

When I was growing up, I felt that my immediate family expected me to
behave a certain way, one that was more structured than I would have liked.

When I was growing up, my immediate family’s ethic was closer to “follow
your heart to happiness” than to “climb the ladder of success.”

When I was growing up, my immediate family’s ethic was closer to “play by
the rules” than to “rules are made to be broken.”

Currently, my immediate family is more likely to appreciate something that is
out of the ordinary than they are to appreciate something that is perfect with
no flaws.

Currently, my immediate family is more appreciative when I am practical,
rather than when I am inventive.

Currently, my immediate family is flexible in the ways that we deal with each
other and the circumstances which we encounter.

Currently, I feel that my immediate family expects me to behave a certain
way, one that is a bit more structured than I would like.

Currently, my immediate family’s ethic is closer to “climb the ladder to
success” than to “follow your heart to happiness.”

Currently, my immediate family’s ethic is closer to “play by the rules” than to
“rules are made to be broken.”

My friends encourage my efforts to express myself, even when they don’t
understand what I am trying to do.

I am aware that my friends have certain expectations about how I should
behave.

My friends, as a whole, are receptive to new ideas.

135

frnd4 neg scale

frnd5

frnd6 neg scale

-Work influence

work1

work2

work3 neg scale

work4 neg scale

work5 neg scale

-Overarching society
influence

gsoc1 neg scale

gsoc2

gsoc3 neg scale

gsoc4

gsoc5 neg scale

gsoc6 neg scale

gsoc7

-Social duress

sdur1 neg scale

sdur2

sdur3

When I volunteer something new to the group conversation or to the group’s
plans, my friends often disregard my ideas without really considering them.

My friends stimulate me to try new things.

When I try to do something new, my friends generally have something
negative to say.

In my work, fresh ideas are more valued than steady efforts.

I feel that my job allows me to express my individuality.

I feel that my job is like a closed box, and not much of the real me is allowed
inside.

At work, I feel like none of my ideas are well received.

At work, I feel like a machine, not thinking on my own, but doing a task.

When I think of how society might describe me (i.e. lawyer, salesman, etc.), I
believe that society has a narrow expectation of how I am supposed to
behave.

I believe that society continually transforms itself; and, like a sponge, it
eagerly absorbs originality.

There is no inclination in this society to accept truly different ideas.

In general, I think that society is more of an enabling force than a restrictive
force.

Society needs to be shocked in order for even a small amount of change to
occur.

Society is a robotic system that promotes similar thinking in everyone.

Society is a fluid system that encourages the intermingling of a wide range of
different ideas.

I feel that my living conditions could dramatically worsen at any moment.

I believe that even though there is turmoil around me, it is improbable that my
life will change in any noticeable way.

I am not worried about how the events at work or in the world will affect my
life.

136

sdur4 neg scale

sdur5 neg scale

sdur6 neg scale

sdur7

Creative Process
Domain

-Knowledge acquisition

know1

know2 neg scale

know3 neg scale

know4

-Skill acquisition

skil1

skil2 neg scale

skil3 neg scale

skil4

-Expertise satisfaction –
ability to identify and
resolve problems

xsat1

xsat2 neg scale

There are real problems in the world around me that are having a direct
negative effect on me.

The comfort I find in my private world is constantly being challenged by the
world outside.

I sometimes feel a noticeable sense of stress as a result of what’s going on in
the world around me.

I do not feel that my style of living is currently at risk.

Dimensions of creative processing

In my special interest area, I spend time learning new information that I
believe will help me generate new thoughts, new concepts, or different
approaches.

In my special interest area, I do not use my time trying to understand new
directions or changes in the field.

In my special interest area, I do not use my energy trying to gather more
information.

In my special interest area, I believe I am consistently increasing my
knowledge.

In my special interest area, I am frequently engaged in acquiring or
developing appropriate skills.

In my special interest area, I am not interested in looking for ways to improve
my skills.

In my special interest area, I do not use up time experimenting with my skills
in any new ways or under any new conditions.

In my special interest area, when I observe others use skills with which I am
not familiar, or which I have not yet mastered, I try to figure out how I might
use those skills.

In my special interest area, I feel confident about my ability to notice and
evaluate something new.

In my special interest area, I am unsure that I can identify potential problems.

137

xsat3

xsat4

xsat5 neg scale

-Convergent -
homospatial similarity
matching

conv1

conv2

conv3 neg scale

conv4 neg scale

conv5

conv6 neg scale

-Divergent-janusian
thinking

divr1

divr2 neg scale

divr3

divr4 neg scale

In my special interest area, I am confident that my opinions are appropriate
for solving problems.

In my special interest area, I believe that my level of skill is high enough to
help me achieve my aspirations.

In my special interest area, I am often frustrated by my skills.

In my special interest area, I search for unusual connections among ideas that
I haven’t put together before and then evaluate whether they connect well.

In my special interest area, I sometimes bring together two very different
ideas that I could not have predicted I would ever try to combine, to see if the
unusual combination is useful.

In my special interest area, it is a waste of time to look for something
common between two unrelated ideas.

In my special interest area, I do not believe that two totally different ideas
can be joined together to merge as one idea.

In my special interest area, I sometimes try to unite contradictory ideas,
because in resolving the contradiction, the outcome is more mentally
rewarding than if there had been no contradiction at the outset.

In my special interest area, my preference is to bring together ideas with clear
connections rather than to bring together contrasting ideas with unexpected
connections.

In my special interest area, I look for a single idea that can be interpreted in
two distinct, different ways; in other words, I look for a perspective that has
something like a “double meaning.”

In my special interest area, I prefer a single idea that has one clear
interpretation over a single idea that is more open to several possible
interpretations.

In my special interest area, I appreciate the solitary idea which, like a “fork in
the road,” suggests that I can go in either of two directions.

In my special interest area, if I had to choose between ideas, I would choose
the one idea that moves my mind in one direction rather than the idea that
moves my mind in multiple directions at once.

138

- Anomalytic
sensitivity

ansen1

ansen2 neg scale

ansen3

ansen4 neg scale

ansen5

-Caution for surface
variants

caut1 neg scale

caut2

caut3 neg scale

caut4

-Abduction – backward
hypothesis formulation
after confrontation with
surface variant

abdct1

abdct2 neg scale

abdct3

abdct4 neg scale

In my special interest area, unusual incidents or directions quickly catch my
attention.

In my special interest area, I have no general expectation that unusual
occurrences, chance irregularities, or happenstance events will occur.

In my special interest area, I anticipate and welcome surprises because they
make me adapt my thinking in ways which can contribute to unusual results.

In my special interest area, I would rather be clear about my direction than be
sensitive to the unexpected.

In my special interest area, I believe that, over time, I have become more and
more aware of what is typical and what is not.

In my special interest area, I believe that my customary procedures and
methods can be used in any situation that might come up.

In my special interest area, I have come to understand that the rules can
change or may need changing in order to respond to new circumstances.

In my special interest area, I am confident that no circumstance or new piece
of information would cause me to change my methods or reassess my
understanding of the area.

In my special interest area, I acknowledge the possibility that something out-
of-the-ordinary could cause me to modify my beliefs.

In my special interest area, if something interesting happens, I try to
understand the particular sequence of things that caused it.

In my special interest area, when I notice something that is different, I don’t
spend time thinking about the process that might have led to its being
different.

In my special interest area, when I am surprised by something, be it a good
surprise or bad, I try to develop some belief about how it happened.

In my special interest area, when I am unsure about the how and why of an
unusual thing, I accept the mystery of it rather than think up some reason for
it.

139

-Pre-inventive
immersions

anim1

anim2 neg scale

anim3 neg scale

anim4

anim5

- Spontaneous
emergences

spem1

spem2

spem3 neg scale

spem4 neg scale

-Bottom-up eval – letting
the steps guide the
destination

beval1

beval2

beval3 neg scale

In my special interest area, I enter dream-like states in which I trust the
unbounded, floating thoughts to land on something useful to me.

In my special interest area, I don’t believe that I have ever come up with a
useful idea as a result of drifting into a day-dream or meditative state.

In my special interest area, the dreams I have when I am asleep do not seem
to provide any ideas or intuitions that stimulate my efforts.

In my special interest area, when I am trying to solve a problem, I can fall
into a quiet, meditative state, not consciously trying out different solutions,
but where untried directions seem to surface as hunches.

In my special interest area, an unusual event can trigger a dream-like state
where my mind sifts through ideas that aren’t clearly connected to the event.

In my special interest area, there are occasions where, unexpectedly, when I
have not been consciously thinking about my project, I can suddenly see my
way past a mental barrier.

In my special interest area, I can be completely frustrated by a problem,
when, like a flash, I’ll get an idea out of nowhere that takes me in a different
direction and solves the problem.

In my special interest area, when I am in the midst of a project, it is a waste
of time to allow the process to be interrupted by spontaneous intuitive
thoughts.

In my special interest area, I do not have “magical” moments where
interesting ideas materialize from nowhere and guide me to new projects or
new ways to complete current projects.

In my special interest area, my projects can take on a life of their own, and I
sometimes find myself evaluating the parts already completed, trying to
understand where they are leading me.

In my special interest area, if a project is not proceeding according to my
preconceptions, I try to re-examine how the parts are related, to decide if I
should change my general expectation.

In my special interest area, once I start a project, I do not re-analyze the
pieces to consider whether the relationships between them might imply
something different than I had been trying to achieve.

140

beval4

-Top-down eval – letting
the destination guide
the steps

teval1

teval2

teval3 neg scale

teval4 neg scale

-Standards of assessment

comp1 neg scale

comp2

comp3 neg scale

comp4

-Resolve

resv1

resv2 neg scale

resv3 neg scale

resv4

In my special interest area, when I am working on a project, I sort through
the ideas as they come, evaluating whether they join together in some general
concept which might give clear direction to the project.

In my special interest area, each project has a central concept that dictates the
kind of ideas that I use.

In my special interest area, as I’m trying to generate ideas on a project, I
discard the ideas that don’t stay true to the overall concept with which I began
the project.

In my special interest area, once I’ve started a project, I do not exclude new
ideas because they are different from the primary purpose of my project.

In my special interest area, when I’m trying to decide whether a project is
going well, I care more about the ideas having some kind of unique quality
than I care about their remaining true to the initial general concept of the
project.

In my special interest area, when I evaluate my efforts, I am primarily
concerned that they are as good as or better than the efforts of others.

In my special interest area, I judge the success of my work only in relation to
how well my intentions have been realized, not on how well the work
measures up to what others are doing.

In my special interest area, the only way I can judge my own work is by
measuring it against a model of excellence which others have established.

In my special interest area, I am more interested in establishing my own
individual standards than I am in being recognized for “doing well” with
respect to the accepted standards of the field.

In my special interest area, my projects can be tiresome and can include their
fair share of troublesome obstacles, but I persevere until they are finished.

In my special interest area, when I start projects, I don’t necessarily feel like I
need to finish them.

In my special interest area, if I get frustrated because a project gets
complicated, it’s best to just leave it behind.

In my special interest area, I do not abandon a project.

141

-General productivity
satisfaction

gprd1

gprd2 neg scale

gprd3 neg scale

gprd4

-Recent productivity
satisfaction

rprd1

rprd2 neg scale

rprd3 neg scale

rprd4

-Amount of product

aprd1

aprd2 neg scale

aprd3 neg scale

aprd4

Life Satisfaction
Domain

-Past

lsps1

lsps2

lsps3

lsps4

In my special interest area, the results of my work are generally quite good.

In my special interest area, I am not usually happy with what I produce.

In my special interest area, I know the results of my work have never been
extraordinary.

In my special interest area, on average, I produce valuable results.

In my special interest area, I regard my most recent results as possessing
something uncommon.

In my special interest area, I am not at all pleased about my latest products.

In my special interest area, my last completed project seems to lack any spark
of innovation.

In my special interest area, I am sure that my latest results are worthwhile in
a broad sense.

In my special interest area, the amount of results I produce is, on average,
high compared to others.

In my special interest area, my work progresses in starts and stops with not
much to show for it.

In my special interest area, it’s been a long time since I have produced
anything new.

In my special interest area, I am in constant motion, always generating
something to complete my projects.

I have gotten pretty much what I expected from life.

I would not change the past, even if I could.

I have gotten more of the breaks in life than most of the people I know.

When I think about the things that I have tried to do in the past and the things
I have experienced, I am fairly well satisfied with my life.

142

-present

lspr1

lspr2

lspr3 neg scale

lspr4

lspr5 neg scale

lspr6

-future

lsfu1

lsfu2 neg scale

lsfu3

lsfu4

lsfu5 neg scale

lsfu6 neg scale

lsfu7

Reparative-Nurtural
Dimension

-Lonerism

lonr1

lonr2 neg scale

lonr3

lonr4

lonr5 neg scale

These are the best years of my life.

I am just as happy as when I was younger.

My life could be happier than it is now.

When I think about the kinds of things I am trying to do right now in my life,
I feel pretty satisfied.

I am bored with the things that I do these days.

Presently, I think that my life is as interesting as I could have ever hoped it
would be.

I expect that some interesting and pleasant things will happen to me in the
future.

I believe that my future will be less fascinating than my present life.

As I become older, I am confident that I can avoid the discontent with life
that some people experience.

I think that the future will be a time where I can enjoy a truer sense of life
satisfaction.

As I become older, I believe that my life will be more about enduring than
about enjoying.

I become a little concerned when I think about how satisfactory my life is
likely to be in the future.

I welcome what the future brings to me.

Mostly, I believe I can be described as a “loner.”

I prefer spending time with other people, rather than spending time by myself.

Other people seem to need companionship more than I do.

I tend to avoid situations where I have to interact with a group of people.

The thought of spending a weekend alone immediately makes me want to call
up some friends.

143

lonr6 neg scale

lonr7

-Community
involvement

grpc1 neg scale

grpc2 neg scale

grpc3

grpc4

grpc5 neg scale

-Small group
involvement

grpw1

grpw2 neg scale

grpw3

grpw4

grpw5 neg scale

-Self-counsel

slfc1

slfc2

slfc3 neg scale

slfc4 neg scale

slfc5

-DisAnx
high = distrustful
versus low = trustful

dstr1 neg scale

I don’t like to be alone.

I don’t talk to my neighbors.

I am involved in organizing the community or motivating others to become
involved in community events.

I attend civic or club meetings.

I do not enjoy being a member of a committee.

It’s a waste of energy to join community organizations.

I am an active member of an organization or club.

I would always prefer to attend a small intimate affair rather than some large
important social occasion.

Throughout my working life, I have always been inclined to get together with
my coworkers outside of work.

The smaller the group of gathered friends, the better I like it.

It’s never been important for me to enjoy my coworkers.

I like the social aspects of my work as much as, or more than, I like the
challenges of the work itself.

When I am troubled, I generally keep my own counsel, I don’t need advice
from others.

I don’t talk to others about my options when I need to make a decision.

I initiate a plan of action only after I have shared my concerns with someone.

I usually tell someone about my worries.

Whatever doubts I may have, I keep them to myself.

I find that people will generally be there when you need them.

144

dstr2

dstr3

dstr4 neg scale

dstr5

dstr6

dstr7 neg scale

dstr8

dstr9

dstr10

dstr11

dstr12 neg scale

dstr13 neg scale

dstr14

-Attachment style
high score = not
intimate

atts1

atts2 neg scale

atts3 neg scale

atts4 neg scale

atts5 neg scale

As a rule, there is no reason to believe that people will do what they say.

I find that it is difficult for me to trust others completely.

In a tough situation, I am sure that I could rely on my friends.

It makes me uncomfortable when anyone tries to get too close.

My friendships can be better described as acquaintances rather than close and
intimate relationships.

People are trustworthy.

It’s not easy for me to become close to others and really open up to them.

When I open up and show my feelings for people, I am usually afraid that
they won’t feel the same way about me.

In relationships, I often wonder whether my partner really cares about me.

In relationships, I feel like no matter how hard I try, my partner and I will
eventually drift apart.

I am comfortable trusting others with my deepest feelings.

I do not worry about someone getting too close to me.

I feel that the closer I become to others, the more likely I am to be hurt.

In general, I feel somewhat distant from my mate, like it’s hard to be close.

I have experienced several very close friendships in my life.

I have shared intimate, innermost feelings with several people in my life.

I find it easy to develop a warm connection with new acquaintances.

As a teenager, I had a wide circle of intimate friends.

145

Appendix 2: Distributed version of the BCSI-2 (hard-copy).

Please answer these beginning, basic background questions:

 What is your age?________

 Occupation?________________________________________

 Circle your gender: Male Female

 Circle the number of years of your formal education:

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 plus

< ------------------- | | --------------------- >
{less than high-school high school graduate college graduate masters doctorate post-doc}

The following questions are being asked to determine your impressions about your general health:

Please circle your answer

 Do you have diabetes? Yes … No
 Do you experience cramping or discomfort in your legs when walking? Yes … No
 Do you have any problems with regard to your kidneys? Yes … No
 Do you have any problems with regard to your liver? Yes … No
 As far as you know, do you have a condition with high blood pressure? Yes … No
 Do you any recurring problems with your skin? Yes … No
 Do have recurring chest pain or angina? Yes … No
 Do have recurring dizziness? Yes … No
 Do you fatigue easily? Yes … No
 Do you have recurring swelling in the feet or lower extremities of your body? Yes … No
 Do you find that you are short of breath after activity or even at rest? Yes … No
 Have you sought treatment for lung disease or lung problems? Yes … No
 Do you have chronic pain or stiffness in your joints? Yes … No
 Do you use a wheel chair or a walker? Yes … No
 Do you have chronic diarrhea or constipation? Yes … No
 Do you experience frequent urinary tract infection? Yes … No
 Do you have dentures? Yes … No
 Do you have problems with your teeth or gums? Yes … No

The following items provide blank spaces for you to list those general health problems that may be causing
you concern:

Continuing, chronic problems
Please list ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

Occasional recurring problems
Please list ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

146

 On the number line below please indicate the usual degree of physical pain that you experience
every day, by circling the appropriate number:

1 indicating “no pain whatsoever” to 9 indicating “constant, worrisome pain”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Identify your interest areas – Listed on this page are several types of activities; carefully read each and
CIRCLE the categories that have interested you throughout your life. There is not enough space to present
more than a few examples, so the list can represent only a small, limited number of the possible interest
areas which you might think are important. You may find that none of the categories on this list are of
interest to you, in which case you need not circle any; instead, the list may simply serve to stimulate your
thinking about the areas that DO interest you. If this is the case, there is space at the bottom of the page for
you to write those in.

Accounting services
Advertising
Aerospace science
Animal training
Architecture
Art (painting, sculpting, etc.)
Astronomy
Automation
Automotive design
Aviation
Banking
Biological sciences
Broadcasting
Carpentry
Chemistry
Child care
Civics
Communications
Computer science
Construction
Dance (artistic dance, ballet, etc)
Data processing
Economics
Education
Electronics
Engineering (electrical, civil, etc)
Event coordination
Fashion design (jewelry, etc)
Finance
Floral arrangement
Food preparation (chef, etc)
Food manufacturing
Footware design
Forestry
Funeral industry services
Furniture design
Gardening
General business
Geophysics
Gerontology
Graphic design
Hairstyling
Health Care
History
Human sexuality
Hunting
Information management
Investigation & security services
Investments
Journalism
Landscape design
Linguistics
Law and legal services
Oceanography
Organizational management
Manufacturing
Marketing
Masonry
Mathematics
Mental health
Music
Neuroscience
Cinema/video industry
Performing arts
Pharmaceutical sciences
Philosophy
Photography
Physical therapy
Physics
Political science
Product development
Promotional services
Psychology
Real Estate development
Religion/spiritualiy
Restaurant
Sales
Scientific research
Sociology
Sound recording
Sports
Technical drafting
Telecommunications
Textiles
Theatre arts
Vocational rehabilitation
Writing (prose, poetry, etc)

Other areas which stand out as being interesting to you, but which are not on this list:
(Write in as many as you like)
___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
Appendix 2
147

Complete the following sentences with answers that come easily to mind. The attention and effort you
gave to the previous page should guide your thinking to the type of answers that will be appropriate here.
There is no need to think too deeply, just respond with whatever comes easily to mind. You might decide
that the same answer applies to multiple sentences. Or you might decide to complete each sentence with a
different response. Neither of these outcomes is more correct or likely than the other. Just read each item
carefully and complete the sentence as best you can; if no response comes easily to mind, respond with NR
to indicate no response, and move on to the next sentence.

Also, it may be the case that you can think of more than one response to complete a sentence. It is
appropriate to respond with more than one answer only if that seems appropriate to you (up to three spaces
are provided). There is no expectation in this questionnaire that you will fill up all the answer spaces;
however, you should supply multiple answers whenever they occur to you.

Each answer space is followed by a number scale to indicate the degree to which the completed sentence is
true about you. If you provide an answer in the space, you should also circle a number to indicate how well
the completed sentence describes you. The exception: do not circle a number when you respond with NR.
The number scale runs from 1 to 9, with 1 indicating “barely true” and 9 indicating “completely true.” The
following scale descriptions may be helpful:

Barely
True

A Little
True
Moderately
True
Mostly
True

Completely
True
_|__________|__________|_________|__________|__________|_________|_________|_________|_
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Example:

a. My mind often drifts to ___________________, sometimes when I am not thinking of anything in
particular and sometimes when I should be thinking about other things.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix 2
148

1. Throughout my life, I have been likely to lose track of time when I discover something new
about ____________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. Regardless of what I am doing these days, I still seem to especially notice those things that are
associated with or that I can apply to __________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. Right now, because it brings me a sense of personal expression and growth, I wish that I could
spend some time thinking and/or working on a project in the area of _____________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________
Appendix 2
149

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. Recently, I find that I sometimes gain useful insights from unexpected sources; and though the
sources may vary, the insights themselves are consistently helpful to my interest in
__________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. I am currently motivated to achieve an objective, not too far in the future, which occupies my
mind when I am alone and requires flexible thinking in the area of ____________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
150

6. I wish that someday I could be recognized for doing work that freely expresses both my
uniqueness and the usefulness of my contributions in the area of __________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. In comparison to how attentive I have been to most things across the course of my lifetime,
_______________ has always engaged my attention most quickly and to the greatest depth.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

8. When I think about those areas where I have long term aspirations, where I sometimes feel
innovative, flexible, or adaptive, I am usually thinking about ___________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________
Appendix 2
151

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. When I think of those domains of knowledge that have interested me over the course of my life,
I think of __________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. I know that I will not finish it today, probably not this week, and perhaps not even this month,
but I have been working on and thinking about a new idea/project in the area of
________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
152

11. There are some areas that I presently enjoy because they completely engage a sense of my
“whole self.” The areas I feel most this way about are: _________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12. I have an idea in the area of ___________________, which I believe will result in my
generating something new, fresh, or unusual over the next few months.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. Today, I have spent, or intend to spend some time thinking about and working toward
improving or contributing something new in the area of __________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________
Appendix 2
153

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

14. Across the course of my life, it’s been true that, regardless of whatever else I might be doing, I
can be easily distracted by anything that is associated with ________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15. Over the last month or so, my thinking has been the most fully energized by ideas that are
associated in some way with _____________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix 2
154

16. It would not be unusual if, at some point today, I were to allow my thoughts to drift into a more
or less imaginative, dream-like state regarding my hopes in the area of ____________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

17. Given the proper favorable conditions, I believe that in the distant future I can achieve a specific
goal of self expression or, perhaps, even of social value in the area of _____________________.

Response 1:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 2:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Response 3:____________________________________________________

Rating (1 = “barely true” to 9 = “completely true”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix 2
155

In the preceding section, you responded to several questions which have been designed to highlight
important areas of interest to you, personal areas of expertise which actively engage your thinking in
different ways. It could be the case that you identify these interest areas as those where you consider
yourself to be especially expert. On the other hand, it might be the case that you disclaim any extraordinary
expertise whatsoever, but you simply recognize that your thinking is engaged by these interests and that
you enjoy learning about and gathering skills in these areas.

In the 5 numbered items at the bottom of this page, we again ask questions about important areas of interest
to you. We want you to concentrate your responses on interests with certain special characteristics. We
want you to identify those interests which engage your thinking, which might or might not require specific
physical skills, but which fulfill most, if not all, of the following characteristics:

 Focus & loss of time - It brings about a sense of “forgetting yourself,” a sense of being so
mentally engaged in the activity that time seems to disappear.
 Idea formation - It stimulates you to use your knowledge in new ways or to combine thoughts
from different, unusual sources to solve problems or to venture in new directions.
 Self representation - It allows you to apply your personal viewpoint to your activity in ways
which are an expression of your uniqueness.
 Vigilant curiosity - It motivates you to acquire new information about the area and to be
especially curious about new information that does not conform to your expectations.
 Ability development - As you work in the area, the activity inspires you to improve your
abilities.
 Aspiration - As you work in the area, you often formulate ideas about how you might contribute
something new and/or useful.

1. Think of the area of interest/expertise in your life that most closely corresponds to the descriptions
above. - your responses in the previous section should guide your response here -
Name that area -
___________________________________________________
**Let’s call this your primary special interest area.**

2. How many years (approximately) have you been interested in your primary special interest area?
_____

3. True or False. Your primary special interest area is also the field which you identify as your
occupation.
Circle: True (or) False

4. True or False. Your primary special interest area is not your major source of income but you spend a
considerable portion of your free time each week in activities that pertain to your primary special
interest area.
Circle: True (or) False

5. You may have multiple areas of interest/expertise that correspond to the descriptions above in varying
degrees. If this is true, for how many different areas is it true?
(respond with the sum total, including your primary special interest area) _______

Appendix 2
156

For the items in the next section, respond with the degree to which you believe each statement is true. For
each statement, respond by circling the number that describes how strongly you believe the statement is
true or false. The number scale runs from 1 to 9, with 1 indicating “As false as it could possibly be” and 9
indicating “As true as it could possibly be.” The number you decide to circle for each response should be
conceptually aligned with this scoring guide:

*

As false
as it
could
possibly
be

Almost
as false
as
possible

False

Slightly
more
false than
not

*
This is
as often
true of
me as it
is false

Slightly
more true
than not

True

Almost
as
true as
possible

*

As true
as it
could
possibly
be
_|____________|_________|_________|_________|__________|_________|________|__________|_
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

To simplify the scoring, follow this procedure:

(a) Let your immediate impression guide you (follow your gut instinct)…does the statement sound
like you or not – true or false…try to let your first impression guide you, do not “over-think” your
initial reaction.

(b) If you think the statement sounds true…then “fine tune” your reaction and circle the number that
indicates the degree of truth in the statement (6 to 9)… see the scoring guide above for help in
assigning a number

(c) If you think the statement sounds false…then circle the number that indicates the degree of falsity
in the statement (1 to 4)…see the scoring guide above for help in assigning a number

(d) If the statement doesn’t seem true or false, in other words, if it could as easily be true as false, then
give the statement a score of 5.

This section includes statements regarding your “special interest area;” in each case, first interpret this as
meaning the primary special interest area which you noted above. In other words, suppose you had
selected your primary special interest area to be “psychology,” and the statement to be evaluated was “I
like working on my projects as much as possible.” You should mentally place the statement within a
context that regards the field of psychology.

In this consideration, “I like working on my projects as much as possible,” you should interpret the
statement to include the notion of psychology in some fashion, for example:
“I like working on my projects (in the area of psychology) as much as possible.”

In this manner you will evaluate the truth of each statement in this next section. It may be the case that the
statement seems more appropriate to one of the other areas of interest that you considered but did not select
as your primary special interest area. If this is the case, then apply whichever area seems more appropriate
for your mental substitution.

Example: I like working on my projects as much as possible.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
157

Regarding my special interest area:

1. I feel confident about my ability to notice and evaluate something new.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. I believe that my level of skill is high enough to help me to achieve my aspirations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. I spend time learning new information that I believe will help me generate new thoughts, new
concepts, or different approaches.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. I am not interested in looking for ways to improve my skills.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. I am sure that my latest results are worthwhile in a broad sense.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

6. I search for unusual connections among ideas that I haven’t put together before and then
evaluate whether they connect well.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. I do not use my time trying to understand new directions or changes in the field.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

8. I am frequently engaged in acquiring or developing appropriate skills.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. I have come to understand that the rules can change or may need changing in order to respond to
new circumstances.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. When I notice something that is different, I don’t spend time thinking about the process that
might have led to it being different.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11. When I evaluate my efforts, I am primarily concerned that they are as good as or better than the
efforts of others.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix 2
158

Regarding my special interest area:

12. There are occasions where, unexpectedly, when I have not been consciously thinking about my
project, I can suddenly see my way past a mental barrier.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. My projects can take on a life of their own, and I sometimes find myself evaluating the parts
already completed, trying to understand where they are leading me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

14. My projects can be tiresome and can include their fair share of troublesome obstacles, but I
always persevere until they are finished.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15. I am confident that my opinions are appropriate for solving problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

16. I am unsure that I can identify potential problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

17. I know the results of my work have never been extraordinary.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

18. My preference is to bring together ideas with clear connections rather than to bring together
contrasting ideas with unexpected connections.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

19. The amount of results I produce is, on average, high compared to others.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

20. When I start projects, I don’t necessarily feel like I need to finish them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

21. My last completed project seems to lack any spark of innovation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

22. I believe that, over time, I have become more and more aware of what is typical and what is not.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

23. If a project is not proceeding according to my preconceptions, I try to re-examine how the parts
are related, to decide if I should change my general expectation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
159

Regarding my special interest area:

24. It is a waste of time to look for something common between two unrelated ideas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

25. I am confident that no circumstance or new piece of information would cause me to change my
methods or reassess my understanding of the area.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

26. If something interesting happens, I try to understand the sequence of things that caused it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

27. I am not usually happy with what I produce.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

28. If I feel like my patterns of thought are becoming too predictable, I intentionally change my
patterns in order to judge whether the change is interesting.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

29. I do not use my energy trying to gather more information.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

30. When I observe others use skills with which I am not familiar, or which I have not yet mastered,
I try to figure out how I might use those skills.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

31. I am more interested in establishing my own individual standards than I am in being recognized
for “doing well” with respect to the accepted standards of the field.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

32. I believe I am consistently increasing my knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

33. I do not use up time experimenting with my skills in any new ways or under any new
conditions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

34. I enter dream-like states in which I trust the unbounded, floating thoughts to land on something
useful to me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

35. If I get frustrated because a project gets complicated, it’s best to just leave it behind.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
160

Regarding my special interest area:

36. I acknowledge the possibility that something out-of-the-ordinary could cause me to modify my
beliefs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

37. I can be completely frustrated by a problem, when, like a flash, I’ll get an idea out of nowhere
that takes me in a different direction and solves the problem.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

38. I judge the success of my work only in relation to how well my intentions have been realized,
not on how well the work measures up to what others are doing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

39. My work progresses in starts and stops with not much to show for it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

40. When I am surprised by something, be it a good surprise or bad, I try to develop some belief
about how it happened.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

41. When I am in the midst of a project, it is a waste of time to allow the process to be interrupted
by spontaneous intuitive thoughts.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

42. Unusual incidents or directions quickly catch my attention.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

43. I would rather be clear about my direction than be sensitive to the unexpected.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

44. I am often frustrated by my skills.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

45. I do not abandon a project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

46. Each project has a central concept that dictates the kind of ideas that I use.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

47. I don’t believe that I have ever come up with a useful idea as a result of drifting into a day-
dream or meditative state.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
161

Regarding my special interest area:

48. As I’m trying to generate ideas on a project, I discard the ideas that don’t stay true to the overall
concept with which I began the project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

49. The dreams I have when I am asleep do not seem to provide any ideas or intuitions that
stimulate my efforts.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

50. I am not at all pleased about my latest products.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

51. I anticipate and welcome surprises because they make me adapt my thinking in ways which can
contribute to unusual results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

52. Once I start a project, I do not re-analyze the pieces to consider whether the relationships
between them might imply something different than I had been trying to achieve.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

53. Once I’ve started a project, I do not exclude new ideas because they are different from the
primary purpose of my project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

54. I have no general expectation that unusual occurrences, chance irregularities, or happenstance
events will occur.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

55. When I am trying to solve a problem, I can fall into a quiet, meditative state, not consciously
trying out different solutions, but where untried directions seem to surface as hunches.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

56. I regard my most recent results as possessing something uncommon.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

57. When I am working on a project, I sort through the ideas as they come, evaluating whether they
join together in some general concept which might give clear direction to the project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

58. If I had to choose between ideas, I would choose the one idea that moves my mind in one
direction rather than the idea that moves my mind in multiple directions at once.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
162

Regarding my special interest area:

59. I appreciate the solitary idea, which, like a “fork in the road,” suggests that I can go in either of
two directions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

60. I have never found it useful to throw out what I know and consciously go against my normal
procedures.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

61. When I am unsure about the how and why of an unusual thing, I accept the mystery of it rather
than think up some reason for it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

62. It’s been a long time since I have produced anything new.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

63. I do not believe that two totally different ideas can be joined together to merge as one idea.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

64. I don’t deliberately change anything that has worked for me in the past.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

65. I prefer a single idea that has one clear interpretation over a single idea that is more open to
several possible interpretations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

66. When I’m trying to decide how well a project is going, I care more about the ideas having some
kind of unique quality than I care about their remaining true to the initial concept of the project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

67. I do not have “magical” moments where interesting ideas materialize from nowhere and guide
me to new projects or new ways to complete current projects.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

68. On average, I produce valuable results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

69. I sometimes bring together two very different ideas that I could not have predicted I would ever
try to combine, to see if the unusual combination is useful.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix 2
163

Regarding my special interest area:

70. I sometimes purposely alter my methods in some instinctive way to see if I can improve or
broaden my concepts.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

71. I am in constant motion, always generating something to complete my projects

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

72. I look for a single idea that can be interpreted in two distinct, different ways; in other words, I
look for a perspective that has something like a “double meaning.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

73. I believe that my customary procedures and methods can be used in any situation that might
come up.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

74. An unusual event can trigger a dream-like state, where my mind sifts through ideas that aren’t
clearly connected to the event.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

75. The only way I can judge my own work is by measuring it against a model of excellence which
others have established.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

76. I sometimes try to unite contradictory ideas, because in resolving the contradiction, the outcome
is more mentally rewarding than if there had been no contradiction at the outset.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

77. The results of my work are generally quite good.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix 2
164

For the items in this last section, follow the same scoring procedure you followed in the previous section,
responding with the degree to which you believe each statement is true. Again, the number you decide to
circle for each response will be conceptually aligned with the same scoring guide:

*

As false
as it
could
possibly
be

Almost
as false
as
possible

False

Slightly
more
false than
not

*
This is
as often
true of
me as it
is false

Slightly
more true
than not

True

Almost
as
true as
possible

*

As true
as it
could
possibly
be
_|____________|_________|_________|_________|__________|_________|________|__________|_
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Again, simplify the scoring by letting your immediate impressions guide your gut instinct as to the truth or
falsity of each statement…then “fine-tune” your sense of how true or how false the statement may be.

However, in contrast to the previous section, this section DOES NOT regard your “special interest area.”
Instead, each statement regards the general context of your lifestyle preferences and your interactions with
other people.

In this consideration, “I like spending time with others,” you should interpret the statement as regarding a
general, averaged context in your life, for example: “I like spending time with others (as a general rule).”

Example: I like spending time with others.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix 2
165

As a general rule:

1. I am involved in organizing the community or motivating others to become involved in
community events.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. I do not feel that my style of living is currently at risk.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. I seldom feel upset.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. I am an attentive person most of the time

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. These are the best years of my life.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

6. My friends encourage my efforts to express myself even when they don’t understand what I am
trying to do.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. I feel that finding one’s place in life turns on matters of chance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

8. In general, it would be incorrect to say that I am irritable.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. There are real problems in the world around me that are having a direct negative effect on me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. As a teenager, I had a wide circle of intimate friends.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11. Coincidence never adds much to what intentions can produce.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12. I am more of a radical than a conformist.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. In general, I feel proud.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
166

As a general rule:

14. Drinking (or using drugs) helps me to forget about my problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15. I believe that everything can be explained in terms of the laws of science.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

16. I am an avid reader of books and magazines.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

17. I do not believe that any kind of supernatural power influences the outcomes of our lives.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

18. I initiate a plan of action only after I have shared my concerns with someone.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

19. I can’t tolerate some of the ideas that other groups of people claim to be truths.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

20. I am not worried about how the events at work or in the world will affect my life.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

21. When I volunteer something new to the group conversation or to the group’s plans, my friends
often disregard my ideas without really considering them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

22. I disobey traffic signs (no left turn, yellow light, etc.).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

23. I have no tolerance when my family does things against my wishes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

24. I have gotten more of the breaks in life than most of the people I know.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

25. In relationships, I often wonder whether my partner really cares about me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

26. My closest intimate generally finds positive things to say about new and uncommon things.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
167

As a general rule:

27. I seldom feel inspired.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

28. Throughout my working life, I have always been inclined to get together with my coworkers
outside of work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

29. I have gotten pretty much what I expected from life.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

30. Society is a fluid system that encourages the intermingling of a wide range of different ideas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

31. Presently, I think that my life is as interesting as I could have ever hoped it would be.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

32. When I try to do something new, my friends generally have something negative to say.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

33. Currently, my immediate family’s ethic is closer to “play by the rules” than to “rules are made
to be broken.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

34. I think that the future will be a time where I can enjoy a truer sense of life satisfaction.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

35. I believe that mystical, unexplainable forces sometimes affect real events.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

36. Regardless of what is appropriate for the occasion, I try to dress with an element of the
unexpected.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

37. I believe that even though there is turmoil around me, it is improbable that my life will change
in any noticeable way.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

38. I have no desire to travel.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
168

As a general rule:

39. I could live in any ethnic neighborhood.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

40. I feel that the closer I become to others, the more likely I am to be hurt.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

41. I don’t like to be alone.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

42. When I was growing up, my immediate family’s ethic was closer to “play by the rules” than to
“rules are made to be broken.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

43. I feel that my job is like a closed box, and not much of the real me is allowed inside.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

44. I am just as happy as when I was younger.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

45. I believe that chance can be as important an ingredient as effort in achieving results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

46. When I was growing up, my immediate family was more likely to appreciate something that
was out of the ordinary than they were to appreciate something that was perfect with no flaws.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

47. I often feel guilty about things.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

48. Currently, my immediate family is more likely to appreciate something that is out of the
ordinary than they are to appreciate something that is perfect with no flaws.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

49. My life could be happier than it is now.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

50. I do not watch cultural-artistic programs or documentaries on TV.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix 2
169

As a general rule:

51. I think that my drinking (or use of drugs) helps me to better relate my thoughts to others.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

52. I am bored with the things that I do these days.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

53. I think of myself as generally active.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

54. I have shared intimate, innermost feelings with several people in my life.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

55. I am convinced that the major questions of the universe cannot necessarily be best addressed by
science.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

56. When I think about the things that I have tried to do in the past and the things I have
experienced, I am fairly well satisfied with my life.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

57. No matter how much I may disagree with the way some sects conduct themselves, I can still put
up with their conduct.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

58. I drink (or take drugs) to relax and have a good time.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

59. Everything happens for a reason, there is no such thing as a random event.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

60. I feel that my job allows me to express my individuality.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

61. In general, on some level, I feel afraid

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

62. When I think of how society might describe me (i.e. lawyer, salesman, etc.), I believe that
society has a narrow expectation of how I am supposed to behave.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix 2
170

As a general rule:

63. Currently, my immediate family’s ethic is closer to “climb the ladder to success” than to “follow
your heart to happiness.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

64. Society needs to be shocked in order for even a small amount of change to occur.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

65. It’s never been important for me to enjoy my coworkers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

66. I believe that I could maintain closeness to someone and still disagree on important, divisive
issues.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

67. I am convinced that drinking (or taking drugs) helps me to be more receptive to new ideas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

68. My friends stimulate me to try new things.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

69. At work, I feel like a machine, not thinking on my own, but doing a task.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

70. I find that people will generally be there when you need them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

71. Generally, I do not feel excited.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

72. I would rather be productive than innovative.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

73. The smaller the group of gathered friends, the better I like it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

74. As a rule, there is no reason to believe that people will do what they say.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

75. I seldom feel restless when performing a task, even when the task is simple and repetitious.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
171

As a general rule:

76. I have accepted that chance plays no part in either my successes or my failures.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

77. I find it easy to develop a warm connection with new acquaintances.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

78. At work, I feel like none of my ideas are well received.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

79. There is no inclination in this society to accept truly different ideas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

80. People are trustworthy.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

81. It bothers me when I am around people who are doing dangerous things.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

82. I attend performing arts events.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

83. I would rate my general manner as “distressed.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

84. I hate routine and will do almost anything to avoid it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

85. My closest intimate notices and compliments my efforts to be inventive and to volunteer fresh
ideas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

86. When I was growing up, my immediate family’s ethic was closer to “climb the ladder to
success” than to “follow your heart to happiness.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

87. In general, I think that society is more of an enabling force than a restrictive force.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix 2
172

As a general rule:

88. I tend to avoid situations where I have to interact with a group of people.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

89. Experiences that maximally stimulate my senses (sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell) are less
enjoyable to me than simpler experiences.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

90. In relationships, I feel like no matter how hard I try, my partner and I will eventually drift apart.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

91. In general, I like to experience new things.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

92. I would rate my general outlook as “interested.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

93. I do not worry about someone getting too close to me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

94. I would rather be uninteresting than be a misfit.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

95. Mostly, I believe I can be described as a “loner.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

96. No matter how important the occasion, I believe that people should behave like they want and
do what they want.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

97. I am comfortable trusting others with my deepest feelings.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

98. I seek out experiences that stimulate my mind.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

99. When I am troubled, I generally keep my own counsel, I don’t need advice from others.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix 2
173

As a general rule:

100. I believe that, all other things being equal, a society with several sub-cultures can never be as
strong as a society with one unified culture.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

101. There are certain beliefs in this world that are so wrong they should be eradicated.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

102. Whatever doubts I may have, I keep them to myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

103. When I think about the kinds of things I am trying to do right now in my life, I feel pretty
satisfied.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

104. When I have strong disagreements with my closest intimate, my first inclination is to try to
change her/his opinion rather than accept it as a difference.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

105. When I open up and show my feelings for people, I am usually afraid that they won’t feel the
same way about me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

106. I am convinced that I get better ideas when I am drinking (or using drugs).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

107. I prefer spending time with other people, rather than spending time by myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

108. In general, I feel somewhat distant from my mate, like it’s hard to be close.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

109. I attend civic or club meetings.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

110. Quite often, I have a sense of being “jittery.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

111. When I was growing up, my immediate family was flexible in the ways that we dealt with each
other and the circumstances which we encountered.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
174

As a general rule:

112. Other people seem to need companionship more than I do.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

113. I like the social aspects of my work as much as, or more than, I like the challenges of the work
itself.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

114. I have experienced several very close friendships in my life.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

115. Regardless of the occasion, I feel free to behave as outrageously as I want.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

116. My friendships can be better described as acquaintances rather than close and intimate
relationships.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

117. When I believe I am being observed by others, I tend to behave in a less conspicuous manner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

118. I frequently drive over the posted speed limit.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

119. I believe that we should each do what we want, because right and wrong should not be dictated
to us.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

120. Sometimes situations can be boring, but I do not feel an urge to escape them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

121. I welcome what the future brings to me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

122. I feel stimulated when engaging in behavior that contains an element of risk.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

123. In describing my social behavior, I would say I am more conventional than alternative.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
175

As a general rule:

124. When I was growing up, I felt that my immediate family expected me to behave a certain way,
one that was more structured than I would have liked.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

125. Currently, I feel that my immediate family expects me to behave a certain way, one that is a bit
more structured than I would like.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

126. I am an avid consumer of news.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

127. I don’t talk to others about my options when I need to make a decision.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

128. In general, I feel alert.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

129. I become a little concerned when I think about how satisfactory my life is likely to be in the
future.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

130. I am an active member of an organization or club.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

131. I find that it is difficult for me to trust others completely.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

132. I would describe myself as “easily bored.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

133. In conversations, I enjoy offering contrary thoughts that go against the opinions of others more
than I enjoy offering opinions that add support to their position.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

134. The thought of spending a weekend alone immediately makes me want to call up some friends.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

135. I believe that children need not always obey.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
176

As a general rule:

136. I don’t like to stand out in a crowd; I prefer to feel like I belong with the group, like I am the
same kind of person.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

137. In a tough situation, I am sure that I could rely on my friends.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

138. I think I am generally more hostile than pleasant.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

139. I think I have always engaged in activities which allow me to generate new ideas and express
my individuality.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

140. I sometimes feel like it’s impossible for my closest intimate to enjoy or understand things that
are different.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

141. As a group, my friends could easily be described as “unconventional.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

142. When I was growing up, my immediate family was more appreciative when I was practical,
rather than when I was inventive.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

143. It’s a waste of energy to join community organizations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

144. Currently, my immediate family is more appreciative when I am practical, rather than when I
am inventive.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

145. I believe that my closest intimate is much more likely to appreciate something that has no flaws
than she/he is to appreciate something that is unusual.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

146. As I become older, I am confident that I can avoid the discontent with life that some people
experience.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
177

As a general rule:

147. I have exposed myself to unusual risks, such as sky diving.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

148. I am aware that my friends have certain expectations about how I should behave.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

149. It makes me uncomfortable when anyone tries to get too close.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

150. In my work, fresh ideas are more valued than steady efforts.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

151. I think other people too often repress their spontaneous nature, whereas I like to openly express
mine.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

152. I believe that society continually transforms itself; and, like a sponge, it eagerly absorbs
originality.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

153. I feel that my living conditions could dramatically worsen at any moment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

154. When I become bored with an activity, I try to find a way to make it less boring.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

155. When another group’s practices come into direct conflict with mine, I feel permissive rather
than disapproving.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

156. I would not change the past, even if I could.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

157. I believe that my future will be less fascinating than my present life.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

158. Drinking (or taking drugs) has helped me to be more confident, to reach for higher goals.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
178

As a general rule:

159. I expect that some interesting and pleasant things will happen to me in the future.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

160. Random events determine outcomes as much as goal-directed activities do.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

161. It’s not easy for me to become close to others and really open up to them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

162. My friends, as a whole, are receptive to new ideas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

163. I feel that my drinking (or use of drugs) helps to change my mood.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

164. I don’t talk to my neighbors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

165. I usually tell someone about my worries.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

166. If my cohabitants routinely practiced that which conflicts with my beliefs, either they or I would
have to move.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

167. I sometimes feel a noticeable sense of stress as a result of what’s going on in the world around
me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

168. It’s always been easy for me to put up with the behavior of my housemates regardless of their
individual habits.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

169. I do not enjoy being a member of a committee.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

170. I would always prefer to attend a small intimate affair rather than some large important social
occasion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2
179

As a general rule:

171. I would rather be safe than be stimulated.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

172. I visit museums, cultural exhibits, and other similar points of interest.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

173. In general, I seem to get bored more quickly than the people around me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

174. I think that it is more important to be imaginative than to be sensible.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

175. I believe that my closest intimate is more likely to make fun of something new and different
than she/he is to celebrate its novelty.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

176. Currently, my immediate family is flexible in the ways that we deal with each other and the
circumstances which we encounter.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

177. Society is a robotic system that promotes similar thinking in everyone.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

178. The comfort I find in my private world is constantly being challenged by the world outside.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

179. I do not participate in an activity if there is any risk involved.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

180. As I become older, I believe that my life will be more about enduring than about enjoying.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

181. People who know me would describe me as more unenthusiastic than enthusiastic.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

182. I am not generally a nervous person.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

180

Appendix 3: Rater Guidelines for Rating the Qual-Quant Section of the BCSI-2

Thank you for agreeing to rate subject qualitative responses on the Bi-path Creativity System
Inventory (BCSI-2). Your participation will provide this research with a means to evaluate inter-rater
reliability, supporting a research claim of rating consistency among different judges.
Brief description of measurement instrument.
The BCSI-2 is an instrument that has been developed to assess the relationship between Creativity
and Life-Satisfaction. The BCSI-2 includes one section that has been designed as a fill-in-the-blanks
qualitative measure. The qualitative section begins by offering a list of possible interests (e.g.
accounting_services to music to writing) that the subject might decide to identify as having been of interest
to them at some point in their lifetime. The subjects are also provided a space to write-in their own special
area(s) of interest that have been left off the list. Then, with such initial ideas priming their thoughts, the
subjects are asked several questions about their interest areas (for example: “throughout my life, I have
been likely to lose track of time when I discover something new about_________;” and, “I am currently
motivated to achieve an objective, not too far in the future, which occupies my mind when I am alone and
requires flexible thinking in the area of _________”). You will be rating such fill-in-the-blank responses.
The rating guidelines suggested in this document are useful to this research, informing you and
other raters of a uniform procedure that you will all use to identify the flexibility of the subjects’ qualitative
responses as well as their degree of response-focus towards a “primary interest area.”
The BCSI-2 is interested in the breadth and depth of the subject responses as an approach to
characterizing their “creative surface” in cognitive space. You will be assessing the breadth of responses in
two ways: general (different types of interest areas, i.e. flexibility of interests) and primary (ratio of
“primary interest” responses).
A step-by-step procedure for rating the flexibility of responses and for identifying the primary
interest ratio will follow over the next few pages.
First, you need a little information about the organization of the responses that you will see in the
tables. The first line of each subject’s responses begins with his/her group number and his/her subject
identification number.

181

1 110110

family school NA
food tv relaxation
baking dynamics friendships
school family friends

…. etc.

Underneath this identifying information, you will find five sections of responses. Above you see
one of those sections. Notice that there are four lines of three responses in this section.
Examining all the subject’s responses below, notice that there are four questions (response lines)
in sections 1 and 2, but only three questions (response lines) in sections 3, 4, and 5. Together, the different
sections address questions regarding different stages of interest and types of aspirations.
Generally, each line will present three possible responses to a question; but sometimes, if the
responses are long, a question-line may spill over into a second line in the table with the subsequent
question then beginning on the next line as you would expect. Each question’s responses will always begin
on its own line and will offer only three responses…and each section of questions will always be separated
by a space.
If a subject has chosen not to provide three answers to any particular question, then a ‘NA’ has
been placed where the subject has chosen not to respond (see below).
Primary Interest Assessment
Using a pencil, start your assessment by circling the primary interest as specified by the subject at
the bottom of his/her response list. The subjects specify this in response to certain criteria after having
answered seventeen prior questions about their different interests. This circling event should be the first
step of your evaluation (as in circled item below).
1 110110

family school NA
food tv relaxation
baking dynamics friendships
school family friends

tv therapies friends
work family friends
Group #
Subject #

182

school semester work
psychology friends roommates

service work friendship
psychology marriage friendship
school hobbies work

career friendship family
language money friends
language own_business NA

summer therapy friends
history statistics sociology
bakery relationships career

psychology = primary interest

flexibility = ______________ (line primary matches)

This is the subject’s self-nominated area of primary interest. Use this nomination to go back
through the subject’s answers to see where there are any exact matches.
The exact matches should then be underlined (see below). This is step two of the procedure.

1 110110

family school NA
food tv relaxation
baking dynamics friendships
school family friends

tv therapies friends
work family friends
school semester work
psychology friends roommates

service work friendship
psychology marriage friendship
school hobbies work

career friendship family
language money friends
language own_business NA

summer therapy friends
history statistics sociology
bakery relationships career

psychology = primary interest

flexibility = ______________ (line primary matches)

183

Next…you should place dots next to the ‘almost’ matches. This is step 3.

1 110110

family school NA
food tv relaxation
baking dynamics friendships
school family friends

tv therapies friends
work family friends
school semester work
psychology friends roommates

service work friendship
psychology marriage friendship
school hobbies work

career friendship family
language money friends
language own_business NA

summer therapy friends
history statistics sociology
bakery relationships career

psychology = primary interest

The judgment of whether the response is an exact match is up to you as a rater. The judgment of
whether the response is an ‘almost match’ is also up to you as a rater. Use your best judgment. Even the
exact matches may not be precisely exact. Use your best judgment. As a rater, it is your decision.
1 110110

family school NA
food tv relaxation
baking dynamics friendships
school family friends

tv therapies friends
work family friends
school semester work
psychology friends roommates

service work friendship
psychology marriage friendship
school hobbies work

career friendship family
language money friends
language own_business NA

184

summer therapy friends
history statistics sociology
bakery relationships career

psychology = primary interest

flexibility = ______________ (line primary matches)

The primary-interest rating procedure is fairly easy. We’ve taken the effort to separate out the
steps. Stated simply, it only requires circling the subject-nominated primary interest, looking for what you
judge to be ‘exact’ matches in the preceding subjects’ answers, underlining those choices, and then placing
dots next to what you judge to be ‘almost’ matches. You should use a pencil for this process. Please make
the lines and dots visually easy to see. Place the dots just to the left of each designated ‘almost’ match. The
dots need not be as large as in the example; simply make sure that both the dots and the underlines can be
easily seen in reasonable light.
Flexibility Assessment
All that’s left is to evaluate the number of different types of responses. How many different types
of responses does the subject proffer? The number of different types is what is referred to as the
‘flexibility’ or the general breadth of the creative surface.
Rating this may be somewhat more difficult than the preceding effort. You should count the
number of different types of responses – do not count the total number of responses, but the number of
different types of responses. You should start at the top of the responses for a particular subject.
In our example we see that in the first section of questions, you would likely judge there to be 5 different
types of responses in just the first two lines. However, you might judge the “tv” and the “relaxation”
responses to be of the same type; if this were the case, you would have counted 4 instead of 5 on the first
two lines. But, for the purpose of this example, let’s say you have a count of 5 at the end of the second line.
With a count of 5 at the second line, we encounter ‘baking’ on the third line, which you might
decide is related to ‘food’ from the previous line (i.e. it’s the same type of response). So your count is still
5. But ‘dynamics’ and ‘friendships’ brings your count to 7. You notice that on the fourth line ‘school’ and
‘family’ have already been seen on the first line and that ‘friends’ is the same type of response as

185

‘friendships’ from line three…thus you might judge the first section to have 7 different types of responses.
You should write that count next to the section.

1 110110

family school NA
food tv relaxation
baking dynamics friendships
school family friends

tv therapies friends
work family friends
school semester work
psychology friends roommates

service work friendship
psychology marriage friendship
school hobbies work

career friendship family
language money friends
language own_business NA

summer therapy friends
history statistics sociology
bakery relationships career

psychology = primary interest

flexibility = ______________ (line primary matches)

Then, in the next section, you see that ‘therapies’ seems like a new type of response…as does
‘work’…but ‘semester’ sounds like the same type of response as ‘school’ (just a different designation for
the same idea). So then we see that we must consider whether ‘roommates’ are different from ‘friends.’ My
judgment would be that they are much the same in that they are close associates of some kind. So, my
judgment would be that there are only an additional 2 types of responses that are different from the
previous responses. However, you might have judged ‘roommates’ a different type of response than
‘friends’ in which case you might have arrived at a count of 3 new types for this section.
For the purposes of this example, we will maintain the count at 2 new types of responses for the
second section.

186

Continuing in the same way, but without over-explaining the choices. I would judge section 3 as
containing 3 new types of responses (‘service,’ ‘psychology,’ and ‘hobbies’). You might argue with my
judgment of ‘marriage’ as being the same type of response as ‘family.’ But that would be your choice in
your own judgment of ratings.
And so on and so forth, across the next two sections, I would judge an additional 5 new types of
responses. Thus, adding all my judged different types of responses, I derive a sum of 17. Thus, for this
subject, I have provided a rating of 17 for their flexibility.

1 110110

family school NA
food tv relaxation
baking dynamics friendships
school family friends

tv therapies friends
work family friends
school semester work
psychology friends roommates

service work friendship
psychology marriage friendship
school hobbies work

career friendship family
language money friends
language own_business NA

summer therapy friends
history statistics sociology
bakery relationships career

psychology = primary interest

flexibility = ______________ (line primary matches)

You will find that the flexibility evaluation procedure gets easier after the first couple of pages.
There are 4 subjects on each page. So after about 5 to 10 subjects, you will become accustomed to thinking
about different types of responses. It will become easier to make judgments about the equivalency of
response types after you have judged a few.

187

Taking breaks
Once you find a rhythm to your rating technique, you should be able to rate one page (4 subjects)
approximately every 5 minutes. This means that your rating of the entire subject pool will take about 4
hours to complete. At the very least, you should take a break after every 11 pages (once every hour). You
need not complete all ratings in one day…you may decide to work at the ratings over morning coffee,
dividing the work over 4 or five days. My only request is that you complete your ratings as quickly as
possible; there is a deadline approaching and your participation as a rater is very important to the research.
Conclusion
Thank you again for agreeing to rate these qualitative responses. Such judgments about qualitative
data are never without some degree of ambiguity and I know that your conscientious nature will no doubt
trigger some decision frustrations. But I do not expect nor want you to over-think any of your rating
judgments…simply engage the rating procedure with full attention and use your best judgment.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address, dr.billi@creativepsych.com, or
by my personal phone (805) 551-6770.

188

Appendix 4: Group means and standard deviations for the analyzed constructs.

Construct Variable Group Mean St.Dev

Distachment
I find that it is difficult for me to trust others Male-HC 5.13 2.08
completely. Male-Int 5.52 2.35
Female-HC 5.46 2.19
Female-Int 5.39 1.96

It makes me uncomfortable when anyone tries Male-HC 3.61 1.78
to get too close. Male-Int 4.20 1.71
Female-HC 3.88 2.00
Female-Int 4.28 1.56

When I open up and share my feelings, I am Male-HC 5.42 1.77
usually afraid that they won’t feel the same way Male-Int 5.24 2.07
about me. Female-HC 5.02 2.05
Female-Int 5.76 1.82

In relationships, I often wonder whether my Male-HC 5.03 2.43
partner really cares about me. Male-Int 4.92 2.21
Female-HC 4.25 2.31
Female-Int 5.22 2.15

I find that the closer I become to others, the more Male-HC 4.19 2.40
likely I am to be hurt. Male-Int 5.24 2.15
Female-HC 4.51 2.60
Female-Int 5.35 2.00
Lonerism
Mostly, I believe I can be described as a loner. Male-HC 3.90 2.40
Male-Int 4.13 2.30
Female-HC 2.43 1.86
Female-Int 3.00 1.87

I prefer spending time by myself, rather than Male-HC 4.19 1.78
spending time with others. Male-Int 4.63 1.81
Female-HC 4.00 1.65
Female-Int 3.73 1.47

I tend to avoid situations where I have to Male-HC 3.65 1.82
interact with a group of people. Male-Int 3.92 1.95
Female-HC 3.06 1.88
Female-Int 3.60 1.97

I have never been inclined to mingle in large Male-HC 5.68 2.15
social gatherings. Male-Int 4.88 2.35
Female-HC 5.36 1.72
Female-Int 3.16 1.83

When I am troubled, I generally keep my own Male-HC 5.10 2.15
counsel, I don’t talk to anyone about it. Male-Int 5.00 2.18
Female-HC 4.47 2.00
Female-Int 3.58 1.93

189

Construct Variable Group Mean St.Dev

Knowledge/Skill
Acquisition
In my special interest area, I spend time learning Male-HC 7.00 1.73
new information that will help me to generate Male-Int 7.42 1.74
new thoughts, new ideas, or different approaches. Female-HC 7.31 1.04
Female-Int 6.47 1.42

In my special interest area, I take time to try to Male-HC 6.56 2.19
understand new directions or changes in the field. Male-Int 6.33 1.97
Female-HC 7.27 1.95
Female-Int 6.43 1.58

In my special interest area, I use energy to gather Male-HC 6.74 1.46
more information about the area. Male-Int 7.00 1.50
Female-HC 7.23 1.35
Female-Int 6.67 1.52

In my special interest area, I believe I am Male-HC 7.42 1.46
consistently increasing my knowledge. Male-Int 7.52 1.12
Female-HC 7.67 1.28
Female-Int 6.91 1.15

In my special interest area, I am frequently Male-HC 7.32 1.22
engaged in acquiring or developing appropriate Male-Int 7.40 1.29
skills. Female-HC 7.50 1.06
Female-Int 6.83 1.37

In my special interest area, I take time to Male-HC 6.64 1.43
experiment with my skills in new ways or Male-Int 6.32 2.12
under different conditions. Female-HC 6.42 1.82
Female-Int 6.26 1.48

In my special interest area, when I observe others Male-HC 6.74 1.48
using skills with which I am not familiar, I try Male-Int 7.52 1.12
to figure out how I might use those skills. Female-HC 7.33 1.20
Female-Int 6.96 1.32

Convergent Ideation
Strategies
In my special interest area, I search for unusual Male-HC 6.48 1.44
connections among ideas that I haven’t put together Male-Int 6.20 1.58
before – to evaluate whether they connect well. Female-HC 5.88 1.90
Female-Int 6.07 1.39

In my special interest area, I sometimes bring Male-HC 6.13 1.74
together two very different ideas to see if the Male-Int 6.56 1.47
unusual combination is useful in any way. Female-HC 5.85 1.70
Female-Int 5.89 1.54

190

Construct Variable Group Mean St.Dev

Convergent Ideation
Strategies…continued
In my special interest area, I sometimes try to Male-HC 5.56 1.68
unite contradictory ideas, because in resolving the Male-Int 6.12 1.74
contradiction, the outcome is more mentally Female-HC 5.96 1.74
rewarding than if there had been no contradiction Female-Int 5.62 1.56
at the outset.

In my special interest area, my preference is to Male-HC 4.79 1.74
bring together contrasting ideas with unexpected Male-Int 4.92 1.98
connections rather than to bring together ideas with Female-HC 4.37 1.87
clear connections. Female-Int 4.75 1.56

Divergent Ideation
Strategies
In my special interest area, I prefer a single idea Male-HC 4.90 1.63
that is open to several possible interpretations Male-Int 5.20 1.80
over an idea that has one clear interpretation. Female-HC 4.90 2.48
Female-Int 4.38 1.63

In my special interest area, I appreciate the solitary Male-HC 5.73 1.62
idea that, like a ‘fork in the road,’ suggests that I Male-Int 5.88 1.33
can go in either of two directions. Female-HC 5.81 1.76
Female-Int 5.91 1.51

In my special interest area, if I had to choose Male-HC 5.38 2.00
between ideas, I would choose the idea that allows Male-Int 5.00 1.50
my mind to move in multiple directions at once Female-HC 5.13 2.18
rather than the one idea that moves my mind in Female-Int 4.67 1.83
one direction.

Anomaly and
Change
In my special interest area, unusual incidents Male-HC 6.36 1.43
or directions quickly catch my attention. Male-Int 6.67 1.47
Female-HC 6.67 1.64
Female-Int 6.70 1.03

In my special interest area, I anticipate and wel- Male-HC 6.68 1.34
come surprises because they make me adapt my Male-Int 6.76 1.45
thinking in ways that can contribute to unusual Female-HC 6.46 1.50
results. Female-Int 6.39 1.67

In my special interest area, I would rather be Male-HC 4.67 1.65
sensitive to the unexpected than be clear about Male-Int 3.58 1.36
my direction. Female-HC 4.00 1.94
Female-Int 3.91 1.44

191

Construct Variable Group Mean St.Dev

Anomaly and
Change…continued
In my special interest area, I have come to Male-HC 6.90 1.22
understand that rules change or may need Male-Int 7.13 1.71
changing in order to address new circumstances. Female-HC 7.46 1.67
Female-Int 6.87 1.47

In my special interest area, I am confident that Male-HC 6.41 1.90
there may be new circumstances that would require Male-Int 6.00 2.13
me to change my methods or reassess my under- Female-HC 6.63 2.17
standing of the area. Female-Int 6.00 1.72

In my special interest area, I acknowledge that Male-HC 6.58 1.48
something out-of-the-ordinary could cause me to Male-Int 6.54 1.84
modify my beliefs. Female-HC 7.14 1.28
Female-Int 6.32 1.51

In my special interest area, if something Male-HC 7.00 1.25
interesting happens, I try to understand what Male-Int 6.96 1.40
might have caused it. Female-HC 6.23 1.86
Female-Int 6.49 1.16

In my special interest area, when I notice some- Male-HC 5.97 1.92
thing different, I spend time thinking about what Male-Int 6.62 1.50
made it different. Female-HC 6.62 2.05
Female-Int 6.12 1.59

In my special interest area, when I am surprised Male-HC 6.83 1.12
by something, be it a good surprise or bad, I try Male-Int 6.25 1.62
to form some theory that accounts for the surprise. Female-HC 6.27 1.76
Female-Int 5.85 1.75

Pre-inventive Events
In my special interest area, I sometimes enter Male-HC 6.61 1.73
dream-like states in which my unbounded, floating Male-Int 6.24 1.86
thoughts lead to useful ideas. Female-HC 5.65 2.17
Female-Int 5.93 1.54

In my special interest area, I believe that I have Male-HC 6.17 2.41
come up with useful ideas as a result of drifting in Male-Int 6.23 1.90
a day-dream. Female-HC 6.37 1.89
Female-Int 6.43 1.55

In my special interest area, an unusual event can Male-HC 5.98 1.94
trigger a dream-like state where my mind sifts Male-Int 6.19 1.30
through ideas that aren’t clearly connected to the Female-HC 6.08 1.97
triggering event itself, but somehow seem useful Female-Int 5.87 1.47
in other ways.

192

Construct Variable Group Mean St.Dev

Pre-inventive Events…continued
In my special interest area, I can be completely Male-HC 6.50 1.55
frustrated by a problem, when, like a flash, I’ll get Male-Int 6.09 1.62
an idea out of nowhere that takes me in a different Female-HC 6.96 1.51
direction and solves the problem. Female-Int 5.78 1.54

In my special interest area, when I am in the midst Male-HC 5.63 2.24
of a project, I do not feel like it’s a distraction to Male-Int 5.63 2.08
allow the process to be interrupted by spontaneous Female-HC 6.31 2.14
intuitive thoughts. Female-Int 5.39 1.85

In my special interest area, I frequently have Male-HC 6.24 1.86
moments where ideas materialize from nowhere Male-Int 5.78 1.59
and guide me toward new projects or new ways Female-HC 6.00 2.28
to complete current projects. Female-Int 5.67 1.66

Concept formation
In my special interest area, if a project is not pro- Male-HC 6.48 1.60
ceeding according to my preconceptions, I try to Male-Int 6.39 1.44
re-examine how the parts are related, to decide if Female-HC 6.38 1.46
I should change my general expectation. Female-Int 6.02 1.26

In my special interest area, once I start a project, Male-HC 5.77 1.74
I will re-analyze its pieces to consider whether Male-Int 5.92 1.41
the relationships between them might imply some- Female-HC 6.44 1.87
thing different than I have been trying to achieve. Female-Int 5.74 1.75

In my special interest area, when I am working on Male-HC 6.38 1.08
a project, I sort through the ideas as they surface, Male-Int 6.63 1.38
evaluating whether they join together in some Female-HC 6.33 1.62
general concept that might give clear direction Female-Int 6.09 1.13
to the project.

In my special interest area, each project has a Male-HC 6.20 1.54
central concept that dictates the kinds of ideas Male-Int 6.40 0.96
that I use. Female-HC 6.06 1.61
Female-Int 6.16 1.23

In my special interest area, as I’m trying to assem- Male-HC 4.40 1.87
ble ideas on a project, I discard the ideas that don’t Male-Int 5.48 1.48
stay true to the overall concept with which I began Female-HC 4.54 1.82
the project. Female-Int 4.69 1.51

In my special interest area, when I am trying to Male-HC 4.20 1.47
decide whether a project is going well, I take time Male-Int 5.68 1.49
to decide whether all the ideas are converging on Female-HC 4.15 1.89
the initial concept of the project Female-Int 5.19 1.67

193

Construct Variable Group Mean St.Dev

Loci of assessment
standards
In my special interest area, when I evaluate my Male-HC 3.45 1.98
efforts, I am unconcerned that they are as good as Male-Int 3.96 1.94
or better than the efforts of others. Female-HC 3.44 1.77
Female-Int 4.30 1.56

In my special interest area, I judge the success of Male-HC 6.02 2.12
my work only in relation to how well my intentions Male-Int 5.67 1.74
have been realized, not on how well it measures up Female-HC 5.92 1.75
to what others are doing. Female-Int 5.89 1.54

In my special interest area, I do not judge my work Male-HC 4.97 2.15
by measuring it against models of excellence that Male-Int 4.21 1.57
others have established. Female-HC 4.37 2.07
Female-Int 4.74 1.87

In my special interest area, I am more interested Male-HC 5.77 2.09
in establishing my own individual standards than Male-Int 5.71 1.73
I am in being recognized for ‘doing well’ with Female-HC 6.25 1.85
respect to the standards of the field. Female-Int 5.36 1.73

Productivity Resolve
and Satisfaction
In my special interest area, when I start projects Male-HC 5.96 2.59
I usually feel like I need to finish them. Male-Int 6.04 1.78
Female-HC 7.12 2.05
Female-Int 6.50 1.62

In my special interest area, if I get frustrated be- Male-HC 6.87 1.63
cause a project gets complicated, I don’t think it’s Male-Int 6.63 1.69
good to just leave it behind. Female-HC 6.69 1.93
Female-Int 6.34 1.76

In my special interest area, as my work progresses, Male-HC 5.74 2.08
I generally have something to show for it. Male-Int 5.60 1.94
Female-HC 6.75 1.75
Female-Int 5.40 1.53

In my special interest area, I recently produced Male-HC 6.43 2.16
something new. Male-Int 5.67 2.26
Female-HC 6.63 2.13
Female-Int 5.56 1.89

In my special interest area, I am usually happy Male-HC 6.63 2.15
with what I produce. Male-Int 6.24 2.03
Female-HC 7.02 1.85
Female-Int 6.18 1.74

194

Construct Variable Group Mean St.Dev

Productivity Resolve
and Satisfaction…continued
In my special interest area, I know the results of Male-HC 5.52 2.36
my work can sometimes be extraordinary. Male-Int 6.24 1.94
Female-HC 6.04 1.68
Female-Int 5.38 1.84

In my special interest area, I am pleased by my Male-HC 5.72 2.33
latest products. Male-Int 6.12 1.64
Female-HC 6.40 2.10
Female-Int 6.38 1.37

In my special interest area, my last completed Male-HC 6.10 2.14
project has a spark of innovation. Male-Int 5.83 1.61
Female-HC 6.50 2.00
Female-Int 5.89 1.69

Life Satisfaction
I have gotten pretty much what I expected Male-HC 5.73 2.08
from life. Male-Int 5.20 1.85
Female-HC 5.40 1.75
Female-Int 5.30 1.62

I would not change the past, even if I could. Male-HC 5.68 2.23
Male-Int 5.00 2.58
Female-HC 5.50 2.39
Female-Int 6.13 1.97

I have gotten more of the breaks in life than Male-HC 5.69 2.12
most of the people I know. Male-Int 5.84 1.75
Female-HC 4.96 2.06
Female-Int 5.80 1.27

These are the best years of my life. Male-HC 6.97 1.76
Male-Int 5.64 2.38
Female-HC 6.79 1.73
Female-Int 6.10 1.74

I am not bored with the things that I do these Male-HC 5.81 2.01
days. Male-Int 5.57 2.31
Female-HC 6.33 1.91
Female-Int 5.69 1.70

Presently, I think my life is as interesting as I Male-HC 5.77 1.89
could have ever hoped it would be. Male-Int 4.56 2.16
Female-HC 5.29 1.92
Female-Int 4.94 1.77

I believe that my future will be as interesting Male-HC 6.00 2.10
as my present life is. Male-Int 5.88 1.62
Female-HC 6.84 1.57
Female-Int 6.33 1.74

195

Construct Variable Group Mean St.Dev

Life Satisfaction…continued
As I become older, I believe that my life will Male-HC 6.31 2.05
be more about enjoying than about enduring. Male-Int 5.92 1.95
Female-HC 5.92 1.53
Female-Int 5.57 2.03

I am not concerned when I think about how Male-HC 5.30 2.15
satisfactory my life is likely to be in the Male-Int 4.50 2.30
future. Female-HC 4.47 2.06
Female-Int 4.59 1.97

2
nd
order creative
processing factors
Inquisitivenes about knowledge & acquisition Male-HC 0.16 2.45
Male-Int 0.88 2.64
Female-HC 1.12 2.51
Female-Int -1.19 2.57

Inquisitivenes about skill & acquisition Male-HC 0.06 2.75
Male-Int 1.65 3.35
Female-HC 0.84 2.55
Female-Int -0.99 3.06

Divergent vs. convergent ideation strategies Male-HC 0.11 2.08
Male-Int -0.65 1.77
Female-HC -0.07 1.84
Female-Int -0.14 2.08

Sensitivity to anomaly Male-HC 0.05 1.25
Male-Int 0.77 1.23
Female-HC 0.26 1.23
Female-Int -0.52 1.75

Abductive reasoning Male-HC 0.13 1.61
Male-Int 0.52 1.82
Female-HC 0.36 1.45
Female-Int -0.44 1.50

Pre-inventive events Male-HC 0.31 2.71
(immersion & spontaneous emergence) Male-Int 0.51 2.57
Female-HC 0.51 2.37
Female-Int -0.17 2.17

Bottom-up vs. top-down concept formation Male-HC 0.21 1.59
Male-Int 0.20 1.67
Female-HC 0.04 1.50
Female-Int -0.15 1.53

External locus of assessment standards Male-HC 0.29 2.84
Male-Int 0.04 3.04
Female-HC 0.20 2.18
Female-Int 0.05 2.10

196

Construct Variable Group Mean St.Dev

2
nd
order creative
processing factors…continued
Internal locus of assessment standards Male-HC -0.13 1.68
Male-Int 0.30 1.57
Female-HC -0.20 1.88
Female-Int 0.26 1.51

Productivity resolve and satisfaction Male-HC -0.08 3.72
Male-Int 0.62 3.10
Female-HC 1.24 2.28
Female-Int -0.94 2.50

need-to- create
(standardized & transformed
to zero minimum)
Code 1: general transformed fluency score in the Male-HC 2.02 0.91
qual-quant section of the BCSI-2 Male-Int 2.21 0.97
Female-HC 1.82 1.05
Female-Int 1.73 1.01

Code 2: general transformed fluency score Male-HC 15.27 1.85
summed to average transformed depths Male-Int 16.11 1.95
of affiliation for the primary, adjacent, Female-HC 15.42 2.32
and tertiary interests in the qual-quant Female-Int 14.53 1.70
section of the BCSI-2

197

Appendix 5: Multiple-group covariance matrices used in MG-SEM analyses.

1. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis of distachment and lonerism; ten
variables were included and are ordered here as they are ordered in Appendix 4, p. 190.

Male hard-copy group
4.32644
1.29195 3.17849
2.19080 0.46774 3.11828
1.88736 1.47957 1.11935 5.89892
2.48506 2.14409 1.58280 3.02688 5.76129
0.94023 1.26129 0.70860 0.70323 1.41935 5.75699
1.14943 0.01075 0.28280 -0.20645 0.32796 1.01935 3.16129
0.46437 0.52473 0.48710 0.87849 0.70430 2.86452 1.17097 3.30323
0.14943 0.43763 0.97312 -0.42258 0.86452 3.26774 1.66452 2.64839 4.62581
0.55172 1.03871 0.42473 0.296770 0.58065 2.67634 0.24731 2.00215 2.19892 4.62366

Female hard-copy group
4.78408
1.65519 3.98531
1.56463 0.85034 4.18327
1.20612 2.31184 1.79143 5.32843
3.13690 2.28997 0.39583 1.81725 6.7349
0.70082 1.05633 0.91102 1.12196 1.0049 3.4502
-0.67347 -0.1298 -0.49020 -0.7200 -0.22449 0.0800 2.72000
1.18694 0.03347 0.02041 -0.29882 1.39306 1.05412 1.04000 3.53647
-0.11990 -1.05796 0.25128 -0.73143 -0.14201 1.01469 0.51184 0.92000 2.9698
1.396330 0.39592 1.11265 -0.03059 0.68694 0.39294 0.46000 1.65176 0.93469 4.01412

Male Internet group
5.53360
1.40514 2.91667
2.37662 1.27174 4.27333
3.67143 2.19763 2.83696 4.86232
2.64502 1.75000 3.10667 2.48551 4.60667
1.38095 1.46640 2.62253 1.28571 3.23320 5.24457
-0.03333 0.62253 0.99209 0.08225 1.64625 2.74457 3.28804
2.07143 1.08498 2.30830 2.71861 1.61462 1.70652 1.48913 3.81884
1.13420 0.82971 2.91304 2.31423 1.47826 2.26630 0.59239 2.60507 5.52667
1.25541 1.69565 0.71739 1.08103 1.59420 1.41304 0.67391 0.89855 -0.33333 4.7500

Female Internet group
3.84348
0.88182 2.42947
1.43340 0.87374 3.32525
1.38990 0.60455 1.88161 4.61836
1.76364 0.18841 1.53232 2.70455 4.00966
1.00813 1.22648 0.46280 0.35192 0.64228 3.51111
0.62179 0.84939 0.62256 1.02564 0.69085 0.54968 2.15645
1.51052 1.92525 1.33798 0.76633 0.78128 2.17778 0.59408 3.89824
1.81417 0.91638 0.91638 1.02091 0.84669 2.13008 1.00244 1.47342 3.36162
0.38462 1.06667 0.28947 0.07179 -0.75385 1.61098 -0.43657 1.74939 0.75962 3.72536

198

2. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM invariant regression analyses of the reparative-nurtural
hypothesis with distachment, lonerism, distachment^2, lonerism^2, and distachment x lonerism
interaction as predictors of need-to- create; the six variables included are ordered here as just
described. These covariance matrices reflect relationships as derived from the Code 1 approach with
need-to- create calculated as the general fluency qual-quant scores.

Male hard-copy group
0.8602
0.3314 0.9385
0.0165 -0.2654 1.0089
0.2902 0.7060 0.2064 1.3958
-0.0645 0.1420 0.6304 0.4940 0.9508
-0.2061 0.1674 0.1939 0.2821 0.3089 0.8235

Female hard-copy group
0.8664
0.2044 0.5447
-0.1062 -0.0428 0.9343
0.0429 0.0396 -0.0439 0.3344
-0.0628 0.0070 0.3257 0.0013 0.3920
0.0227 -0.1068 0.3412 0.0545 0.1731 1.0943

Male Internet group (only 5 variables entered due to positive definite problem – items entered were
distachment, lonerism, distachment^2, distachment x lonerism interaction, and need-to- create)
0.9033
0.4803 0.7395
0.1872 -0.0985 0.8651
0.1442 -0.3398 0.5364 0.8330
0.4109 0.1043 0.2758 0.2968 0.9370

Female Internet group
0.7332
0.3269 0.7494
0.2627 0.2985 0.4687
0.1662 0.0443 0.2379 0.7173
-0.0204 0.5059 0.2464 0.3627 0.8379
0.0711 -0.0454 -0.0657 0.1673 -0.0763 1.0242

3. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM invariant regression analyses of the reparative-nurtural
hypothesis with distachment, lonerism, distachment^2, lonerism^2, and distachment x lonerism
interaction as predictors of need-to- create; the six variables included are ordered here as just
described. These covariance matrices reflect relationships as derived from the Code 2 approach with
need-to- create calculated as the general fluency qual-quant scores summed to the respective
average affiliation to primary, adjacent and tertiary interests.

Male hard-copy group
0.8602
0.3314 0.9385
0.0165 -0.2654 1.0089
0.2902 0.7060 0.2064 1.3958
-0.0645 0.1420 0.6304 0.4940 0.9508
0.3138 0.2488 0.7785 0.3185 0.3468 3.4410

199

Female hard-copy group
0.8664
0.2044 0.5447
-0.1062 -0.0428 0.9343
0.0429 0.0396 -0.0439 0.3344
-0.0628 0.0070 0.3257 0.0013 0.3920
-0.2112 -0.1522 0.5969 -0.0964 0.3176 5.3962

Male Internet group
0.9033
0.4803 0.7395
0.1872 -0.0985 0.8651
-0.1641 0.2023 0.3384 0.6902
0.1442 -0.3398 0.5364 0.1174 0.8330
0.2154 0.1406 0.8720 0.0963 0.1343 3.7874

Female Internet group
0.7332
0.3269 0.7494
0.2627 0.2985 0.4687
0.1662 0.0443 0.2379 0.7173
-0.0204 0.5059 0.2464 0.3627 0.8379
0.1779 -0.3845 -0.1397 0.6328 0.0438 2.8891

4. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis of knowledge and skill acquisition;
seven variables were included and are ordered here as they are ordered in Appendix 4, p ?.

Male hard-copy group
3.0000
-0.1333 4.7790
1.2667 0.2672 2.1312
-0.2000 1.2220 0.1452 2.1183
0.1000 0.4618 0.1860 1.1269 1.4925
-0.3491 1.3999 0.4920 1.1096 0.7007 2.0517
0.2333 0.6005 -0.0022 0.8118 0.5193 0.9649 2.1978

Female hard-copy group
1.0799
0.3077 3.8085
0.2805 0.1131 1.8280
0.3379 0.0505 0.3122 1.6361
0.5294 0.0196 0.2941 0.1471 1.1177
0.4359 1.2368 0.9004 1.0038 0.0392 3.3077
0.1915 -0.2270 0.1388 0.3247 0.3431 0.0943 1.4401

Male Internet group
3.0362
2.2826 3.8841
1.0870 1.5158 2.2609
1.5906 1.5797 0.7826 1.2600
0.9249 1.1917 -0.1047 0.8333 1.6667
0.3340 1.3715 0.0316 0.7029 1.0333 4.4767
0.5830 0.4249 0.5237 0.4565 0.2246 -0.3333 0.8433

200

Female Internet group
2.0273
0.8682 2.5106
0.8621 1.2556 2.3135
0.6876 1.3275 0.6197 1.3256
0.5159 0.1838 0.1601 0.6697 1.8834
-0.1268 -0.2071 -0.2702 0.3663 0.8058 2.1943
0.3804 0.3611 0.3763 0.6184 0.8409 0.9459 1.7373

5. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis of divergent vs. convergent ideation
strategies; seven variables were included and are ordered here as they are ordered in Appendix 4, p.
191-192.

Male hard-copy group
2.0581
-0.2023 3.0161
0.9011 0.8471 2.8124
1.2968 -0.2169 0.7512 3.0271
-0.8828 0.3586 -0.2431 -0.8942 2.6448
0.5678 -0.5493 0.7988 0.5926 -0.5222 2.6161
-0.3325 -0.0966 -0.5764 -1.7607 1.1733 -0.0394 3.9581

Female hard-copy group
3.6259
0.9012 2.8778
0.1376 0.6998 3.0181
-0.2153 0.2730 0.9163 3.4913
0.5635 -0.9170 -0.3175 -1.1799 6.1278
-0.0459 0.4208 0.0709 -1.2225 0.7851 3.0995
0.7494 0.0407 -0.1320 -0.5992 3.1505 0.6342 4.7462

Male Internet group
2.5000
1.8417 2.1733
2.1417 1.8467 3.0267
0.8877 1.0072 1.5761 3.9058
-0.5362 -0.3514 -0.7500 -1.4546 3.2500
0.1014 -0.3442 -0.1196 0.2213 -0.0583 1.7767
-0.8333 -0.4583 -1.1793 -1.0929 1.4583 0.0417 2.2500

Female Internet group
1.9255
1.3582 2.3821
0.8361 1.0275 2.4222
0.5914 0.4402 0.1570 2.4244
-0.1568 -0.6250 -0.1185 -0.7299 2.6495
0.0055 -0.0518 -0.0469 -0.7090 0.3710 2.2706
-0.0494 -0.2474 -0.1208 -0.8360 1.8541 0.8782 3.3636

201

6. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis of anomaly and change items; nine
variables were included and are ordered here as they are ordered in Appendix 4, p. 192-193.

Male hard-copy group
2.0517
0.5505 1.8014
0.8892 0.2011 2.7126
0.7888 0.1052 -0.3103 1.4903
1.0164 0.5265 1.1429 0.4729 3.6084
0.5837 0.6385 0.2874 0.4247 0.7549 2.1850
-0.3077 0.2692 0.0860 0.2857 0.3929 0.6429 1.5714
0.2796 0.6425 0.4023 0.6968 2.2500 1.1194 0.6786 3.6989
0.0647 0.0488 0.1149 0.2931 0.5450 0.6264 0.8571 0.9425 1.2471

Female hard-copy group
2.6949
-0.1599 2.2534
0.7600 -0.5600 3.7600
0.1342 0.0769 0.3400 2.8024
0.9174 -0.1026 0.3200 0.2700 4.7070
0.1567 0.6457 0.0963 0.1849 0.8474 1.6331
1.0181 0.7934 -0.0600 -0.0694 0.7134 -0.2759 3.4751
-0.1674 0.6908 -0.4400 0.3575 0.3469 -0.1845 0.7572 4.2021
-0.3024 0.6772 -1.1200 1.2262 -0.0762 -0.4163 1.1523 0.4389 3.1026

Male Internet group
2.1449
1.3188 2.1067
-0.2029 0.0567 1.8538
-0.1082 0.2233 1.4170 2.9368
-0.1429 -0.2905 0.4348 1.5336 4.5217
-0.1905 -0.3518 0.9511 0.5887 1.5237 3.3895
0.9524 0.9091 0.3750 1.0411 0.1364 -0.3377 1.9547
0.7984 0.3004 -0.6413 -0.0024 1.5325 0.0238 0.3004 2.2446
0.2338 0.3557 0.1848 1.3420 1.2826 0.4783 1.2283 -0.0474 2.6304

Female Internet group
1.0502
0.4463 2.8007
0.5238 1.0967 2.0828
0.7729 0.6140 0.2352 2.1604
0.1283 0.2195 -0.4978 0.5971 2.9565
0.0482 0.1220 -0.0548 0.4773 0.3478 2.2655
0.3738 0.2010 0.5714 0.3283 0.0000 0.2396 1.3384
0.1986 0.3449 0.4862 0.6998 0.1091 -0.0727 0.9388 2.5372
0.2973 -0.1254 0.7182 0.1237 -0.7071 0.2374 1.0776 1.0583 3.0634

202

7. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis of pre-inventive event items; six
variables were included and are ordered here as they are ordered in Appendix 4, p. 193-194.

Male hard-copy group
2.9785
1.1724 5.7988
1.6367 0.7894 3.7586
0.2833 1.0316 0.9541 2.4167
0.6414 3.3736 0.2081 0.9167 4.9989
0.4276 3.3793 0.1484 0.6207 1.8690 3.8897

Female hard-copy group
4.7014
1.5603 3.5698
2.2428 0.8733 3.8763
1.1237 0.2104 1.2579 2.2730
0.2678 0.5620 -0.2314 0.3337 4.5796
1.3725 0.8431 1.2941 1.2941 2.4149 5.1765

Male Internet group
3.4400
2.8050 3.6246
1.6900 1.3538 1.6815
1.8009 2.0375 0.3518 2.6285
1.2451 1.5707 0.6141 1.1601 4.3315
1.0519 1.1107 0.8478 0.6561 0.2134 2.5415

Female Internet group
2.3818
0.8411 2.3906
1.4958 0.7976 2.1636
-0.1742 0.2116 0.5041 2.3586
0.0628 0.5281 0.1665 0.1041 3.4054
0.9911 0.7584 0.3876 -0.2475 0.8145 2.7580

8. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis of bottom-up vs. top-down concept
formation items; six variables were included and are ordered here as they are ordered in Appendix 4,
p. 194.
Male hard-copy group
2.5443
0.7037 3.0126
0.3348 -0.2130 1.1724
-0.0370 -0.6414 0.1005 2.3724
-0.5926 -1.6966 0.2897 1.1241 3.5586
0.5000 -0.3655 0.3862 -0.5931 0.4345 2.1655

Female hard-copy group
2.1237
0.4736 3.4672
1.0091 1.1859 2.6165
0.5600 -0.2729 0.6741 2.5765
0.5339 -0.6546 1.0362 0.8659 3.3122
0.6652 0.3424 0.7722 0.6094 1.1901 3.5837

203

Male Internet group
2.0672
1.1719 1.9928
1.0791 0.7935 1.8967
-0.1277 -0.0731 0.4881 0.9167
-0.2511 -0.4387 -0.1621 0.1333 2.1767
0.8204 0.9012 1.0810 0.0500 -0.9233 2.2267

Female Internet group
2.1237
0.4736 3.4672
1.0091 1.1859 2.6165
0.5600 -0.2729 0.6741 2.5765
0.5339 -0.6546 1.0362 0.8659 3.3122
0.6652 0.3424 0.7722 0.6094 1.1901 3.5837

9. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis of external vs. internal locus of
assessment standards items; four variables were included and are ordered here as they are ordered in
Appendix 4, p. 195.

Male hard-copy group
3.9226
-0.9741 4.4911
2.0542 -0.0549 4.6059
0.3387 1.7966 -0.2254 4.3807

Female hard-copy group
3.1143
0.4392 3.0737
0.7960 0.3929 4.2756
0.4755 0.4804 0.9657 3.4069

Male Internet group
3.7808
0.3333 3.0145
0.9656 0.7681 2.4330
1.0743 2.0725 1.4547 2.9982

Female Internet group
2.4386
-0.0808 2.3657
1.7298 0.3404 3.4860
0.1227 1.5077 0.1759 2.9750

10. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis of productivity resolve and
satisfaction items; eight variables were included and are ordered here as they are ordered in
Appendix 4, p. 195-196.

Male hard-copy group
6.7024
0.8803 2.6713
2.5476 1.5379 4.3312
1.7180 1.9606 1.6218 4.6678
0.5258 0.4034 1.5344 1.3419 4.6328
2.0251 0.9564 3.3990 0.7050 3.0887 5.5443
2.2992 0.9606 3.7592 1.9273 2.0491 3.7348 5.4428
2.1124 -0.2354 1.7870 1.3214 1.9785 1.8374 3.1415 4.5961

204

Female hard-copy group
4.1825
1.6048 3.7074
1.5588 1.4902 3.0539
1.0626 1.0815 0.7304 4.5502
1.6840 0.8492 1.3186 1.0072 3.4310
0.5641 1.0121 1.1471 0.5830 0.9208 2.8220
0.2466 0.7541 1.8480 1.4446 1.5019 0.6901 4.4023
1.3725 1.4118 1.5784 1.9118 1.1471 1.2745 1.4804 3.9804

Male Internet group
3.1721
2.5815 2.8533
0.9257 1.4946 3.7500
1.0237 1.0435 2.2319 5.1014
1.8949 1.8152 2.1000 2.0725 4.1067
0.8605 1.0380 1.3083 2.0000 1.9817 3.7733
1.1739 1.1542 1.5543 1.7866 1.7572 1.1051 2.6933
0.8182 1.3680 1.6225 1.8138 1.4051 0.6779 1.4058 2.5797

Female Internet group
2.6111
1.1778 3.0990
1.0610 0.7927 2.3444
0.9856 1.0465 1.4948 3.5858
0.7935 0.7231 0.7878 0.4965 3.0131
1.0233 1.3361 0.8945 0.8374 1.7040 3.3768
0.7392 0.3427 -0.0385 0.4866 0.9582 0.2247 1.8768
0.2924 -0.1691 0.4982 1.2823 0.5830 0.5377 0.7674 2.8546

11. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis of creative processing first order
factors interrelationships as higher order factors; positive definite problems were encountered in the
male groups and an incomplete data analysis was executed (McArdle & Hamagami, 1992) – for this
reason, male groups included thirteen items and the female groups included sixteen items.

Male hard-copy group – thirteen items ordered as knowledge acquisition, inquisitiveness, convergent
ideation, divergent ideation, sensitivity to anomaly, expectation of need for change, abductive
reasoning, pre-inventive immersion, spontaneous emergence, bottom-up concept formation, top-
down concept formation, internal locus of assessment standards,and productivity satisfaction.
0.6739
0.3605 0.9690
0.2734 0.4292 0.9697
-0.0691 -0.2996 -0.4765 1.2068
0.0409 0.0792 0.2894 -0.1502 0.6425
-0.1040 0.2948 0.5474 -0.3659 0.5067 1.2614
0.1378 0.4160 0.5153 -0.4244 0.1965 0.6282 0.9554
0.2828 0.4955 0.4810 -0.3221 0.3675 0.6014 0.3939 1.1248
0.0547 0.2565 0.2712 -0.2320 0.2226 0.4161 0.1328 0.2993 0.9398
-0.1520 -0.5591 -0.4538 0.4513 -0.2379 -0.5732 -0.3866 -0.6968 -0.6266 1.4220
-0.1209 -0.1470 0.2962 -0.1812 0.1878 0.2728 0.1024 0.2030 0.2728 -0.1328
1.1642
-0.1884 0.0282 0.2101 -0.4238 0.1616 0.5703 0.3851 0.1807 0.3303 -0.5923
0.2954 1.4134
0.2903 0.4421 0.3115 -0.1877 -0.0703 0.1024 0.5859 0.9320 0.1208 -0.6335
0.1661 0.1636 1.4396

205

Female hard-copy group – sixteen items ordered as knowledge acquisition, skill acquisition,
inquisitiveness, convergent ideation, divergent ideation, sensitivity to anomaly, expectation of
need for change, abductive reasoning, pre-inventive immersion, spontaneous emergence, bottom-
up concept formation, top-down concept formation, internal locus of assessment standards,
external locus of assessment standards, productivity resolve, and productivity satisfaction.
0.5648
0.2791 0.7282
0.5366 0.5532 1.0838
0.1278 0.1798 0.1362 0.8504
0.2427 0.1708 0.1339 -0.1487 1.1884
0.0575 0.1688 0.1715 0.3764 -0.1130 0.9749
0.0032 0.1192 0.1385 0.0979 -0.3538 0.2109 0.9531
0.2739 0.1326 0.1065 -0.1615 0.2750 0.2173 0.3328 1.1302
-0.1968 -0.0351 -0.0411 0.3889 -0.3286 0.2322 0.3293 -0.3733 1.1255
-0.1191 0.2477 0.1755 0.1528 -0.3506 0.1628 0.3500 -0.1835 0.6398 0.9796
0.3471 0.2396 0.3246 -0.0402 0.4626 0.2514 0.0942 0.6193 -0.1484 0.0550
1.0787
-0.2012 -0.1720 -0.2311 -0.2081 0.1949 -0.0725 -0.1220 0.0834 -0.2333 -0.4359
-0.2977 1.1203
-0.1383 0.0125 -0.1156 0.2195 -0.1818 0.2153 0.1837 -0.1640 0.1294 -0.1142
-0.2032 0.0036 0.9358
-0.0454 -0.0567 0.0101 0.1316 -0.3561 0.2316 0.2248 -0.1528 0.2206 0.2648
-0.2301 -0.2412 0.4686 0.8673
0.2344 0.2161 0.2765 0.0034 -0.0792 0.0500 0.0930 0.1212 -0.0711 0.3318
0.2456 -0.3389 -0.2361 0.0772 0.9527
0.1255 0.2558 0.2878 0.0930 -0.2178 0.0449 0.0433 -0.0874 0.0225 0.3733
0.0656 -0.2890 -0.1767 0.0403 0.8134 0.9621

Male Internet group – thirteen items ordered as knowledge acquisition, skill acquisition, inquisitiveness,
convergent ideation, divergent ideation, sensitivity to anomaly, expectation of need for change,
pre-inventive immersion, spontaneous emergence, bottom-up concept formation, top-down
concept formation, internal locus of assessment standards, and productivity resolve.
1.4766
0.4513 0.9394
0.8618 0.8921 1.2937
0.7372 0.5600 0.4705 1.5829
0.0319 -0.0157 0.1707 -0.2483 0.4388
0.1990 0.5979 0.5256 0.5864 -0.0181 1.1853
0.3986 0.1476 0.2764 0.6989 -0.0859 0.2262 1.0399
0.7610 0.3015 0.3459 1.0125 -0.1347 0.3953 0.8271 1.1576
0.6891 0.3144 0.4650 0.8835 -0.1380 0.1597 0.5674 0.8759 0.9948
0.7300 0.3092 0.4880 0.7235 0.0812 0.3908 0.5927 0.7173 0.6696 1.1433
-0.3245 -0.1116 -0.2474 -0.4828 0.1194 -0.1909 -0.6015 -0.6253 -0.5056 -0.5116 0.6596
0.0010 0.0289 0.1696 0.1320 -0.0562 0.1854 0.5830 0.4570 0.3457 0.5003 -0.4013
1.2229
0.3391 0.8808 0.7276 0.4945 -0.0647 0.5980 0.2483 0.4931 0.4183 0.4439 -0.2013
0.2821 1.1811

206

Female Internet group – sixteen items ordered as knowledge acquisition, skill acquisition, inquisitiveness,
convergent ideation, divergent ideation, sensitivity to anomaly, expectation of need for change,
abductive reasoning, pre-inventive immersion, spontaneous emergence, bottom-up concept
formation, top-down concept formation, internal locus of assessment standards, external locus of
assessment standards, productivity resolve, and productivity satisfaction.
1.3053
0.1721 1.0944
0.6913 0.5270 0.7340
0.3332 0.4162 0.3922 0.8945
0.2306 -0.0273 0.0103 -0.2330 0.8667
0.7836 0.0796 0.3004 0.1874 0.5354 1.1934
0.5213 -0.1529 0.2453 0.2905 0.0337 0.3520 0.8651
0.4729 0.1909 0.3030 0.2245 -0.0831 0.2008 0.1560 0.8173
0.5493 0.1534 0.3311 0.4373 -0.1892 0.3639 0.2368 0.2528 0.7212
0.4454 0.1729 0.3315 0.4242 -0.1428 0.1552 0.4733 0.1733 0.3760 0.5881
0.0824 0.4565 0.2789 0.4406 0.0013 -0.1626 -0.0011 0.2222 -0.0348 0.1824
0.8429
-0.0501 -0.0950 -0.1795 -0.1971 -0.1504 -0.1876 -0.1390 0.0227 -0.0327 -0.1327
-0.3312 0.6515
0.2866 -0.0185 0.1711 0.1418 -0.0310 0.0813 -0.0604 -0.0664 0.3003 0.0394
-0.1475 0.1903 0.8976
0.0350 0.0165 0.0840 0.1774 -0.2497 -0.2194 0.1514 0.1478 0.1055 0.2116
0.0133 -0.0129 0.3430 0.9914
0.3046 0.2967 0.2207 0.2162 0.1868 0.2692 0.1600 0.2907 0.1283 0.2029
0.3211 -0.1922 0.1183 0.2381 0.7522
0.1945 0.2203 0.1834 0.2576 0.0918 0.1643 0.0951 0.2587 0.2460 0.2158
0.2828 -0.1965 0.0387 0.1214 0.5688 0.6322

12. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM factorial invariance analysis of life satisfaction items; nine
variables were included and are ordered here as they were ordered in Appendix 4, p. 196-197.

Male hard-copy group
4.3307
-0.9081 4.9591
0.0382 1.5145 4.5113
1.5909 0.2559 0.5231 3.0989
0.1118 0.8022 -1.4613 1.3269 4.0280
1.9420 0.5322 0.3983 1.6736 1.0207 3.5644
-0.9667 -0.5333 -0.6333 -0.9333 0.5667 0.0402 4.4000
-0.3965 1.3855 -0.1863 0.5269 1.5446 0.7500 1.4667 4.2113
0.7741 0.9448 0.1948 0.6414 1.5000 0.2636 0.9414 2.5052 4.6310

Female hard-copy group
2.5349
1.3912 5.7245
1.2404 -0.1122 4.2338
0.1616 -0.3469 -0.2436 2.9936
0.7671 -0.1531 0.2481 0.3842 3.6361
0.8071 0.2653 0.2662 1.0230 1.0607 3.6995
-0.0408 -0.2449 0.3502 -0.6375 0.3959 0.2841 2.4637
0.2359 0.4592 0.3353 -0.2588 0.4882 0.9035 0.6914 2.3537
0.2971 0.3265 -0.5718 -0.0671 1.2906 0.4188 0.2694 0.9376 4.2541

207

Male Internet group
3.4167
2.6667 6.6667
0.5333 0.2500 3.0567
2.9500 1.5833 1.0233 5.6567
0.7154 1.8577 -2.0395 -0.1067 5.3478
2.6750 2.6667 -0.4900 2.2100 3.2233 4.6733
-1.2174 -0.4185 -0.2391 -1.6793 -1.0043 -1.1304 2.6359
0.6377 0.4456 -0.8406 0.2862 0.9610 1.5362 1.2935 3.8188
1.0870 -0.5435 0.6522 1.8478 -0.2900 1.6522 0.7174 2.2174 5.3044

Female Internet group
2.6316
0.3541 3.8937
0.5343 0.2521 1.6083
0.1905 0.5079 0.5691 3.0315
0.3252 0.9746 -0.0697 1.0800 2.9003
0.8987 0.7833 0.2317 0.3045 1.0574 3.1237
0.1249 0.8494 -0.4808 0.3013 0.8557 0.7738 3.0246
-0.5627 0.0994 0.3217 -0.5417 -0.5159 -0.3658 0.6338 4.1179
0.3768 0.2398 -0.3323 -0.8206 0.9053 0.4446 1.0782 0.3499 3.8753

13. Covariance matrices for MG-SEM invariant regression analyses where the ten creative processes
are entered as predictors of life satisfaction. The eleven variables included are ordered as
inquisitiveness about knowledge, inquisitiveness about skills, divergent/convergent ideation,
sensitivity to anomaly, abductive reasoning, pre-inventive events, bottom-up/top-down concept
formation, internal locus of assessment standards, external locus of assessment standards,
productivity resolve/satisfaction, and life-satisfaction.

Male hard-copy group
6.0165
5.8493 7.5664
-1.6762 -3.6964 4.3418
1.4844 1.7097 -1.1204 1.5545
2.9881 3.8772 -2.7275 1.0273 2.5858
4.7436 5.4016 -4.1045 1.6538 3.7893 7.3590
0.2252 1.4182 -2.0827 0.4185 1.3832 2.1180 2.5397
2.1076 3.4266 -4.6240 1.1814 3.4148 6.4174 3.6862 8.0866
-0.2136 0.5113 -2.4611 1.0052 1.1430 2.3897 1.7369 3.6210 2.8244
7.8952 6.8400 -2.8434 1.9788 4.2100 8.6958 0.7932 5.5336 1.4008 13.8306
-1.1744 -4.3503 2.7705 0.2588 -2.2729 -0.9290 -1.5484 -1.6769 0.1808 0.4255
25.6333

Female hard-copy group
6.3128
5.8555 6.5129
1.5082 0.1923 3.3830
1.4605 1.8395 -0.5698 1.5238
2.7677 2.9726 -0.0561 0.6916 2.0965
-0.6472 0.2913 -3.4821 0.2554 0.2470 5.6000
1.9677 2.2824 -0.1554 0.8622 1.4455 0.1405 2.2435
-0.8561 -0.0582 -3.2361 0.5917 0.5476 4.3333 1.1889 4.7662
-2.4413 -1.7119 -2.6702 0.7721 -0.7993 2.2542 0.1771 2.9370 3.5532
2.8031 2.5118 -0.7596 0.8516 0.9924 3.1305 0.8245 2.4280 0.2839 5.2139
1.2884 0.2664 1.6124 0.5625 -0.3946 -1.4233 0.1582 -0.8551 -0.2212 1.9241
17.3189

208

Male Internet group
6.9778
8.1878 11.2301
-2.1270 -3.4076 3.1244
2.5655 3.2057 -0.7803 1.5037
3.0507 3.8840 -2.2915 0.8178 3.3101
4.0218 4.9025 -3.9434 1.0573 3.4034 6.5993
1.8346 2.6052 -1.9800 0.8576 2.2934 2.5365 2.7908
2.8445 3.3018 -4.6773 0.8502 3.7930 6.6548 3.8876 9.2403
-0.3631 -0.6377 -1.3249 0.2479 0.5475 1.8179 1.6264 3.3798 2.4536
6.7755 7.8573 -3.5887 2.2829 3.3855 6.6479 2.8079 6.2942 1.5784 9.6396
-2.8516 -1.6126 -1.7354 -0.4941 -4.6530 -1.5684 -2.6521 1.3055 0.7320 -0.3824
34.4028

Female Internet group
6.5856
6.8760 9.3562
-1.1706 -3.2068 4.3451
2.9679 2.3037 0.0433 3.0575
3.1959 3.9448 -1.6521 0.8897 2.2619
2.5537 3.7176 -3.8703 1.0598 2.0468 4.6984
0.8892 1.9656 -0.4414 -0.4569 0.9446 0.3555 2.3411
0.9818 1.9815 -3.1644 -0.1271 1.6116 3.5764 1.5479 4.4083
-0.2701 -0.1528 -1.8769 0.4824 0.1725 1.9614 -0.1048 2.0204 2.2740
5.2387 5.1326 -1.9518 2.6015 2.6312 3.8843 0.4911 2.6335 1.1677 6.2616
5.4007 5.9100 -2.2024 3.5884 1.8859 3.4214 0.2107 1.7041 1.1162 5.6032
15.9157

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In reviewing the elusive nature of creativity and the evidence and theories that comprise our understanding of how creativity operates in a system of internal and external influences, the author remarks that there are life-enhancing and life-challenging (a.k.a. pushmi-pullyu) facets to creativity that warrant a closer examination. A bi-path theory of creativity is introduced that synthesizes psychodynamic and humanist perspectives on creativity to formulate a general rubric for describing and examining a pushmi-pullyu dynamic in creativity.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship between social anxiety and verbal creativity in the context of induced mindfulness

PDF

Attrition in longitudinal twin studies: a comparative study of SEM estimation methods

PDF

The impact of psychosocial rehabilitation services on recovery outcomes for racial/ethnic minorities with severe mental illness

PDF

Sacrificing cost, performance and usability for privacy: understanding the value of privacy in a multi‐criteria decision problem

PDF

Blue‐collar, white‐collar: Raymond Carver's and John Cheever's versions of the American (anti) pastoral (a critical study); and, Beyond the lights and other stories (a short story collection)

PDF

Building the leadership capacity of women in K-12 education: successful strategies that create the next generation of women school and district leaders