Creativity is a critical part of the
design process. It takes creativity on the part of the designer to address the
problems in new ways to develop novel solutions. It is the creative element
that is the less common, less taught, less understood, yet more desired and influential
aspect of design.
Novel ideas or concepts generated by one’s mental processes is often
referred to as creativity. Thus, creativity may be described in relation
to the thoughts of novelty and utility (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004;
Mumford, 2003). This also
includes associating existing ideas and concepts. To the everyday person,
creativity appears to be a simple concept to grasp as it pertains largely to
originality. However, the significance of creativity is one that has been a
quandary for the field of science and as such, it is difficult to measure and
define it (Kaufman and Sternberg, 2010). Despite there being over hundreds of
definitions for creativity that pervades various different disciplines (Torrance
et al., 1989), there has yet to be a definitive explanation for it, and this
makes it a unique concept of scientific phenomenon.
The big push of interest in the subject of creativity began in
1950 when J. P. Guilford of the University of Southern California was President
of the American Psychological Association. Guilford said in his presidential address that he found an appalling lack of
research on creativity. He said he had searched Psychological Abstracts for a
quarter of a century and found that only 186 out of 121,000 entries dealt in any
way with creativity, imagination, or any topic closely related. In the years
since 1950 more than a dozen books have appeared on the subject. The research
undertaken since Guilford gave his speech has yielded results of basic
significance to the field of education and to the archives of knowledge.
Creativity in the
The healthcare field is often
known for its rigidity due in part to being a science based field that prizes
facts and curricular knowledge. However, allowing students to engage in the
various disconnected subject and learning experiences within the curriculum, as
well as the ambiguity and uncertainty of medical practice, they will have
opportunities to broaden their perspectives, gain new insights into both
medical practice and themselves, and explore different ways of making meaning.
Potential learning barriers can be transformed into opportunities for
discovery, self-reflection, and personal growth (Liou et al., 2016).
Ness (2011) points out that innovation is a
factor of propagation for scientific progress, and as such the author and
founder of Innovative Thinking, a creativity training pilot program at the
University of Texas, states implementation and evaluation of new methods to
enhance the innovative thinking of science students by academic health centres
to be a necessity in order for the United States to retain their status as a
worldwide leader in scientific discovery.
The field of nursing benefits
from this too, as a more holistic view of clients can be fostered alongside
creativity in students by integrating nursing and fine arts (Pavill, 2011).
of everyday feelings, thoughts and behaviour of an individual. Some research explained
personality in two components which are temperament, acts as the biological
aspect, and character, which is acquired by interactions with the environment
and social, (Cloninger, 2002). Because of this, personality formation is
considered as a developmental process and to fully comprehend it we need to assess
the individual critically by observing their developmental process and its
impact in personality construction. Due to the different interactions between
these two components, which components of personality are biological and which
one is social cannot be differentiated.
Big Five Personality
in term of many characteristics such as types of personality. The development
of the Big Five model has significant implications for the field of psychology.
It demonstrates that personality comprises of five independent dimensions which
provide a profound foundation for studying individual differences. Researchers
have found that openness to experience relates with creativity in a wide span of
domains (Feist, 1998; Feist & Gorman, 1998; Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin,
& O’Connor, 2009). The other four dimensions predict creativity less
consistently (Silvia, Nusbaum, et al., 2009).
It has been
widely agreed that the first dimension originates from Eysencks Extraversion
and Introversion hypothesis. Today, this dimension has been called Extraversion
(Botwin & Buss, 1989; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Hakel, 1974;
Hogan, 1983; Howarth, 1976; John, 1989; Krug & Johns, 1986; McCrae &
Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967). The trait often
associated with being sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, and active
(Barrick & Mount, 1991).
dimension is also generally agreed by many researchers. This dimension is
called Neuroticism. However, it was previous called Emotional Stability,
Stability, Emotionality (Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Hakel, 1974; John, 1989;
Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987;
Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967). Some traits associated with this dimension includes
being anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed and emotional.
dimension has been widely interpreted as Agreeableness (Borgatta, 1964; Conley,
1985; Goldberg, 1981; Hakel, 1974; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; McCrae & Costa,
1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967; Tupes & Christal,
1961). Other researcher may have labelled it Friendliness (Guilford &
Zimmerman, 1949), Compliance versus Hostile Non-Compliance (Digman &
Takemoto-Chock, 1981), Social Conformity (Fiske, 1949) or Love (Peabody &
Goldberg, 1989). Traits
associated with this dimension include being courteous, flexible, trusting,
good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted, and tolerant.
Fourth dimension has been called
Conscientiousness or Conscience (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Hakel, 1974;
John, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963;), and
it has also been called Conformity or Dependability (Fiske, 1949; Hogan, 1983).
It was suggested that this dimension reflects dependability; that is, being
careful, thorough, responsible, organized, and planful (Botwin & Buss,
1989; Fiske, 1949; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; Noller et al., 1987).
last dimension has been most difficult to recognize. McCrae and Goldberg (1989)
called it as Openness to Experience. Traits commonly associated with this
dimension include being imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad-minded,
intelligent, and artistically sensitive.
The development of the Big Five model has notable
implications for the field of psychology. It demonstrates that personality
comprises of five independent dimensions which provide a profound foundation
for studying individual differences. Researchers have found that openness to
experience relates with creativity in a wide span of domains (Silvia, Nusbaum,
Berg, Martin & O’Connor, 2009; Feist, 1998; Feist & Gorman, 1998). The
other four dimensions,
Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism, predict
creativity less consistently (Silvia et al., 2009).
creativity has the strongest relationship with openness to experience, research
has connected all of the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) dimensions to creativity: Neuroticism, conscientiousness,
introversion, as well as agreeableness. Despite the existence of evidence
showing the relationship between personality and creativity, some authors who
attempted to connect the NEO-FFI dimensions to creativity found no relationship
(Dollinger & Clancy, 1993). Helson (1996) concluded that there is “no
single homogeneous set of personality characteristics that is typical of all
creative individuals and differentiates them as a group from less creative people”.
As an example, Cropley (1990) found that although creative artists were likely
to encounter strange and peculiar ideas, these were likely to stimulate excitement
that some researchers have noted among creative individuals is the aggregation
of conflicting attributes in the same person. This was referred to by McMullan (1978)
as involving a “paradox.” According to him, “the creative personality is characterized
by seven polarities:
• Openness versus drive to complete
• High level of fantasy versus
strong sense of reality
• Destructive versus constructive
• Cool neutrality versus passionate
• Self-centeredness versus altruism
• Self-doubt versus self-confidence
• Tension versus relaxedness”
special quality of creative people as a group may not be a distinctive profile
of personality, but “greater “complexity” in personality: The creative
individual may be able to fluctuate between apparently contradictory poles such
as selfishness versus altruism or acceptance of fantasy versus rigid realism”
(Courvoisier, 2013). Csikszentmihalyi (1996) argued that the complexity is
present within all of us, but that people often develop a strong preference.
most people tend consistently toward one end of each personality preference,
according to the preferences of the environment in which they live. Sticking to
a specific set of traits that are highly approved in one’s social setting not
only wins the approval of most other people but also makes the surrounding
world more easily understandable and predictable, that is, it makes getting
along easy, although the price is conformity.
Creativity and Openness
is the fundamental feature of personality surrounding characteristics such as originality
(McCrae & Sutin, 2009). In Tilburg, Sedikides & Wildschut’s (2015) experiments
on the subject of nostalgia’s capability of fostering creativity through
openness to experience, found that nostalgia increased the levels of openness
which indirectly contribute to creativity. The experiment is uniform with
previous research stating that “nostalgic evocation begets openness”. Inspiration,
illustrated by openness (Hart, 1998) was increased by nostalgia (Stephan et
al., 2015) in addition to correlating with openness (Thrash & Elliot, 2003).
Furthermore, nostalgia assists the transition from avoidance-type motivation to
approach-type motivation. To demonstrate, Stephan et al. (2014) stated that “behavioural
inhibition is associated with nostalgia, which in turn leads to activation of
the behavioural approach system”.
Also, it has
been demonstrated that divergent thinking in creativity to be related to Openness
(positively). Batey, Furnham & Safiullina (2010), “self-rated creativity
demonstrated positive and significant relationships to Openness. Additionally,
self-rated creativity has been shown to be predicted by Openness to Experience
(Furnham et al., 2008).
To further discuss, Openness to Experience have been reported
to be positively related to creativity when measured using inventories of
creative achievement (Carson et al., 2005; Furnham et al., 2008; Furnham, &
Bachtiar, 2008). These discoveries are consistent with previous research conducted
by Aguilar-Alonso (1996), Sen & Hagtvet (1993) and Wuthrich & Bates in
to King, Walker & Broyles (1996), the relation between conscientiousness
and creativity present a question. In general idea, conscientiousness appears
to have little relevance to creative ability. Furthermore, conscientious work
habits may allow less talented individuals to produce creatively. However, King
et al. (1996) stated “for those highest in creative ability, conscientiousness
shared a negative relation with accomplishments”. As predicted by King et al.
(1996), although agreeableness was unrelated to creative ability, it was negatively
correlated with creative accomplishments.
Toh and Miller (2015) reported that
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness traits are “positively related to novel
concept selection” which is supported by previous study. As an example supporting
Toh and Miller, Bell (2007) showed that “teams with high conscientiousness and
agreeableness levels are more motivated to achieve goals” and in turn leads the
team to be more creative (Woodman et al. 1993). The outcome of Toh and Miller’s study offer
empirical confirmation that team-level personality characteristics affect the
team’s views and tendency for the “novelty dimension of creativity”. In
addition to that, their study discovered that “high levels of agreeableness and
conscientiousness resulted in the selection of more novel ideas”, contradicting
to Baer et al.’s (2007) study on the “role of team personality and creativity”,
where they found that with high levels of extraversion and openness and low
levels of conscientiousness in teams, it results in the production of
extremely innovating ideas.
from other studies that explore these personality traits at the individual
level show that agreeableness personality trait is negatively related to
creativity (Feist 1998), indicating that team-level personality
traits may differ from individual-level personality traits at a fundamental
Moreover, it has been demonstrated that
divergent thinking in creativity to be related to Extraversion (positively)
Batey, Furnham & Safiullina (2010) reported that
“self-rated creativity demonstrated positive and significant relationships to
Extraversion”. Additionally, self-rated creativity has been shown to be
predicted by Extraversion (Furnham, & Bachtiar, 2008). Similar to Openness
to Experience, Extraversion have been shown to be positively related to
creativity when measured using inventories of creative achievement (Carson et
al., 2005; Furnham et al., 2008; Furnham, & Bachtiar, 2008). These findings
are consistent with previous research (Aguilar-Alonso, 1996; Sen & Hagtvet,
1993; Wuthrich & Bates, 2001).
A possible explanation of this from Eysenck and Eysenck
(1985) is that divergent thinking tests for creativity are commonly
administered in group settings, “which are advantageous for extraverts as they
tend to seek stimulation”. Another possible justification is the combination of
Extraversion and Openness to Experience that allows these individuals to be
more curious and experiential which may in turn increase their ability to
generate new novel ideas (Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008).
Arshad and Rafique (2016) conducted a study on personality and creativity as
predictors of students’ psychological well-being and their findings
showed that with high level of extraversion and conscientiousness and
low level of neuroticism, student’s psychological well-being can be predicted when
controlling the student’s demographic data.
Similarly, the outcomes of the study are alike to Grant et al.’s (2009) result
which investigates whether the Big Five traits are factors of subjective and
psychological well-being of an individual. They have found a significant relationship
between extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness and their
findings revealed that “the association between personality factors and
psychological wellbeing was stronger than the relationship between personality
factors and subjective well-being”.
level of extraversion and conscientiousness among college students is
an indicator of sociability and possibility of higher social support from
family and friends. Students who are more extraverts tend to form friendships
and if they are conscientious, they are more likely to maintain these
friendships (Grant et al., 2009). Having friends denotes that they have larger
social networks and social support. Social support characterizes
predispositions for well-being among college students (Dollete, Steese,
Phillips, & Matthews, 2004). Social support helps the college students to
lessen depression, anxiety, and stress and also reduce other psychological
concerns and thus, improve psychological well-being (Elliot & Gramling,
Also, it has been demonstrated that divergent thinking in
creativity to be related to Agreeableness (negatively) (Furnham et al., 2008;
Furnham, & Bachtiar, 2008; Batey et al., 2009; Chamorro-Premuzic, &
Feist (1998) reported that Agreeableness negatively
correlate with creativity
The association between neuroticism and creativity also
presents a dilemma (King et al., 1996). The widespread stereotype of the
creative person suggests that creative individuals are likely to be neurotic (Dowd,
1989). However, it is not clear as to how much truth is to be found in this
stereotype (Berenbaum & Fujita, 1994). In addition to that, King et al.
(1996) reported that Neuroticism was unrelated to creative ability as well as accomplishments.
Based on a study by Batey, Furnham & Safiullina
(2010), “self-rated creativity demonstrated negative relationships to
evidence shows that there is no connection between high neuroticism and
intellectual creativity, creative problem solving, high intelligence, or genius
(Pickering, Smillie & DeYoung, 2016). By contrast, the (unrelated)
personality trait of openness/ intellect has been reliably linked with various
measures of creativity. The only empirically supported link between creativity
and neuroticism is a weak association between artistic creativity and risk for
mood or psychotic disorders. Importantly, this is specific to artistic rather
than intellectual creativity and appears to apply only to mental disorders and
not to the general personality trait of neuroticism.
Purpose of research
purpose of this research is to explore the association between personality and