Personality and Individual Differences 105 (2017) 170–174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality types and scholarly creativity in undergraduate students:

The mediating roles of creative styles
Ming-Zhong Wang a,1, Wu Chen c,d,1, Chen Zhang a, Xue-Li Deng b,⁎
a
School of Educational Science, Qufu Normal University, Qufu 273165, China
b
School of History and Culture, Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
c
School of Marxism, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
d
Institute of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Guided by an integrative model of Jung's personality type theory, Kirton's adaption-innovation theory, and
Received 10 July 2016 Kaufman's creativity domain theory, this study examined the mediating role of creative styles in the association
Received in revised form 24 September 2016 between personality types and scholarly creativity in undergraduate students. 495 undergraduate students (305
Accepted 26 September 2016
girls, mean age = 19.55 years) completed questionnaires on personality types, creative styles and scholarly
Available online 1 October 2016
creativity. Results indicated that the innovative creative style was positively associated with Extroversion and
Keywords:
Perceiving personality types, and negatively associated with Feeling type. The innovative creative style, but not
Extroversion the adaptive creative style, was positively associated with scholarly creativity. Furthermore, Extroversion and
Intuition Perceiving types were positively and indirectly associated with scholarly creativity completely through the me-
Perceiving diator of innovative creative style, whereas Feeling type was negatively and indirectly associated with scholarly
Feeling creativity partially through the mediator of innovative creative style. This study enhances our understanding of
Creative styles the ways in which personality types could affect undergraduates' scholarly creativity. These findings suggest
Scholarly creativity that undergraduate students of different personality types tend to perform creative work in different creative
styles, further influencing how much scholarly creativity they could demonstrate.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.2. Distinctions between creative styles and creativity

1.1. Scholarly creativity
As one specific domain of creativity, academic or scholarly creativity
has captivated the interest of many researchers (Kaufman, 2012;
Torrance & Goff, 1990). Academic creativity is defined as a student's
way of thinking about, learning, and producing information in school
courses such as science and mathematics (Torrance & Goff, 1990). It is
thought to involve creative analysis (Kaufman, 2012) as well as diver-
gent thinking (Torrance & Goff, 1990), a skill that has traditionally
been regarded as the primary element of creativity (Aljughaiman &
Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005).
Many educators try to foster students' creativity. With the aim of
promoting our understanding of the factors influencing scholarly crea-
tivity, this study tested the relationship between personality types and
scholarly creativity in undergraduate students, with special attention
to the mediating roles of different creative styles in this relationship.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xuelitao328@126.com (X.-L. Deng).
1
These two authors contributed equally to the study. They should be regarded as joint
first authors.
For a long period, researchers held that creative feats could only be
achieved by special creative persons who were capable of unique and
rare ways of creation or problem solving. However, psychologists have
gradually rejected this notion and focused greater attention on under-
standing and cultivating creativity in all individuals (Keller, Lavish, &
Brown, 2007; Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999). With this notable change, re-
searchers began to consider the creative styles adopted by individuals to
facilitate creative work in their everyday lives (Keller et al., 2007). Cog-
nitive psychologists realized that individuals differed in their style of in-
teraction with the environment and the ways they solved the same
problems (Houtz et al., 2003; Stemberg, 1997; Stemberg &
Grigorenko, 1997). Accordingly, creative styles appeared as a significant
topic in research on creativity (Houtz et al., 2003). Researchers mainly
examined how people displayed their creativity rather than how
much creativity they had or demonstrated.
Adaption-innovation may be the most researched dimension of cre-
ative styles (Kirton, 1976). It has often been regarded as a cognitive
preference involved in tasks such as creative problem solving or deci-
sion making, and it is conceptualized as a continuum with adaptors
and innovators at each end (Gelade, 2002). Adaptors typically approach
problems in ways that adhere to the orthodox expectations of their fel-
low group members. They are organized and predictable, resourceful

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.050
0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.-Z. Wang et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 105 (2017) 170–174
and efficient, and stable and orderly (Houtz et al., 2003; Selby,
Treffinger, Isaksen, & Powers, 1993). By contrast, innovators display
less attention to convention and consensus, and tend to solve problems
in ways that violate the existing orthodoxy (Gelade, 2002). They are en-
ergetic and spontaneous, individualistic and independent, and original
and insightful (Houtz et al., 2003).
Beyond unidimensionally conceptualizing adaption-innovation as a
style preference for an innovator or an adaptor, researchers established
three factors based on Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (Bagozzi &
Foxall, 1995). The factor of sufficiency of originality assesses a preference
for generating novel ideas and a preference for change rather than sta-
bility (Foxall & Hackett, 1992; Taylor, 1989). In contrast, the rule confor-
mity factor measures a predilection for working within established
conventions. Finally, the efficiency factor measures a predilection for
just a few or inclusive ideas. The first two dimensions typically repre-
sent the innovative and adaptive creative styles, respectively. In this
study, we used these two factors of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation In-
ventory to examine the roles of the innovative and adaptive creative
styles in the association between personality types and scholarly crea-
tivity in undergraduate students.
1.3. Personality types and scholarly creativity
Creative individuals tend to show a profile of creative personality
characteristics (Eysenck, 1997; Houtz et al., 2003). They are generally
more energetic, autonomous, and independent in judgment (Gelade,
2002). In research on the creative personality, these personality traits
are often conceptualized in terms of Jung's personality theory. Jung fo-
cused on six personality types, including Extroversion or Introversion,
Feeling or Thinking, and Intuition or Sensing (Cheng, Kim, & Hull,
2010). Later, Myers and Myers (1980) enriched Jung's personality
type framework by adding another dichotomy (i.e., Perceiving or Judg-
ing). Among the eight personality types, Extroversion, Feeling, Intuition
and Perceiving have often been the focus in research on the creative
personality (Cheng et al., 2010), and these four personality types were
differentially associated with individuals' creative performance. Next,
we reviewed past research supporting that the four personality traits
were differentially associated with individuals' creative performance.
First, the relationship between extroversion and creativity appears
to be complex. Some researchers offered evidence for a positive rela-
tionship (Aguilar-Alonso, 1996; Furnham & Nederstrom, 2010;
Stavridou & Furnham, 1996), whereas others supported a negative rela-
tionship (Feist, 1998). Second, similar patterns existed for the relation-
ship of Thinking/Feeling to creativity. Jacobson (1993) found the
Thinking type to be most typical of creative managers while Buchanan
and Taylor (1986) indicated that professional psychodramatists were
characterized as the Feeling type. Third, researchers have been in rela-
tive agreement concerning the positive relations of intuition (Bastick,
1982; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001) and perceiving (Jacobson, 1993) to crea-
tivity. It would not be surprising to find that these results might vary
based on the type of creativity being studied. In the current study, we
are specifically focused on how the four personality types are related
to scholarly creativity.
1.4. Creative styles as mediators between personality types and scholarly
creativity
Researchers have suggested that various creative styles are associat-
ed both with personality and with self-perceived creative capacity
(Keller et al., 2007). Gelade (2002) found that among the scales on the
NEO-PI-R, a commonly used self-report measure of personality, the
scale representing Openness to Experience was substantially and posi-
tively correlated with the innovative creative style assessed by the
Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), whereas Conscientious-
ness was substantially and negatively associated with the innovative
style. Gelade's (2002) research also showed that innovators generally
171
scored higher on Extroversion than adaptors, Neuroticism was weakly
associated with the innovative style assessed by the KAI score, and
Agreeableness had no significant correlations with the innovative style.
Using other personality instruments such as the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (Briggs & Myers, 1976), a measure based on Jung's theory, re-
searchers found that individuals who preferred to solve problems by
creating new frameworks (i.e., innovators) demonstrated a personality
style that was more external and intuitive, in contrast to adaptors who
preferred to solve problems within established frameworks (Houtz et
al., 2003; Keller et al., 2007). Inspired by these findings, we examined
the relationship between Jung's four personality types and scholarly
creativity in undergraduate students.
Researchers have proposed that specific personality characteristics
may shape particular creative styles that further influence creative be-
haviors and self-perceived creativity (Houtz et al., 2003). Therefore, it
could be reasonably inferred that Jung's four personality types should
influence how undergraduate students perform creatively in the aca-
demic area (i.e., creative styles), in turn affecting their academic or
scholarly creativity (see Fig. 1).
Based on evidence of the relations among personality types, creative
styles and creative capacity, we hypothesized that, (a) Jung's four per-
sonality types would be differentially associated with the adaptive or
the innovative style; (b) The innovative style would be more closely re-
lated with scholarly creativity than the adaptive style; and (c) The two
creative styles would mediate the effect of personality types on college
students' academic creativity.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 495 undergraduate students (305 females and 190
males) in their first or second year of an undergraduate education pro-
gram, aged from 17 to 22 years (mean age = 19.55 years, SD = 0.97).
We received approval to conduct the investigation from the Ethical
Committee for Scientific Research in our university. Students completed
the questionnaires on a website designed to “gather information
concerning their learning activities.”
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Personality types
Jung's personality types were assessed using the Keirsey Tempera-
ment Sorter II (Kelly & Jugovic, 2001). It consisted of 70 forced-choice
items. We used dimensional personality trait scores to measure each
of the four supposed “personality types”: Extroversion (e.g., “Waiting
in line, I often chat with others rather than stick to business.”), Feeling
(e.g., “If I must disappoint someone I am usually warm and considerate
rather than frank and straightforward.”), Intuition (e.g., “It is easier for
me to identify with others than to put others to good use.”), and Perceiv-
ing (e.g., “I am inclined to be more leisurely than hurried.”). These four
scores were widely examined in relevant studies (Cheng et al., 2010)
and have satisfactory internal reliability for Extroversion (α = 0.81),
Feeling (α = 0.73), Intuition (α = 0.77) and Perceiving (α = 0.72) in
the current research.
2.2.2. Creative styles
The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (Bagozzi & Foxall, 1995)
was used to assess two creative styles. It was comprised of 32 items
and required the respondent to indicate on a five-point scale (1 =
very hard, 5 = very easy) how difficult it was for him or her to maintain
adaptive or innovative behaviors. For the purpose of our study, we used
rule conformity (e.g., “I hold back ideas until they are obviously need-
ed.”) and sufficiency of originality (e.g., “I like to vary set routines at a
moment's notice.”) scales, to represent the adaptive and the innovative
172 M.-Z. Wang et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 105 (2017) 170–174

Innovative style

.16***

-.20*** .18*** .59***

-.06
Extroversion
.02

Feeling -.09*
Scholarly creativity
.06

Intuition
.01

Perceiving
-.20*** .05
.24***
-.17***

-.17***

adaptive style

Fig. 1. The mediating roles of creative styles between personality types and scholarly creativity. The dashed lines designate the nonsignificant paths.

styles, respectively. These two dimensions had satisfactory internal reli-
ability (α = 0.77 and 0.74) in the current research.
2.2.3. Scholarly creativity
This 11-item subscale was one dimension of the Kaufman Domains
of Creativity Scale (Kaufman, 2012). Respondents rated themselves
about how creative he or she was for each creative act (e.g., “composing
an original song” or “writing a notification article for a newspaper,
newsletter, or magazine.”), on a five-point Likert scale from 1 = much
less creative to 5 = much more creative. This subscale demonstrated sat-
isfactory internal reliability (α = 0.88) in the current research.
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analyses
As indicated in Table 1, Extroversion was positively associated with
the innovative style (r = 0.12, p b 0.01), indicating that undergraduates
high in Extroversion tended to display high originality, or were more
likely to be an innovator. Feeling was negatively associated with the in-
novative style (r = − 0.13, p b 0.01) and scholarly creativity
(r = − 0.16, p b 0.001), but positively associated with the adaptive
style (r = 0.13, p b 0.01), indicating that undergraduates high in Feeling
tended to conform to existing rules, were more likely to be an adaptor,
and tended to demonstrate poor scholarly creativity. Intuition was
negatively associated with the adaptive style (r = − 0.16, p b 0.001),
implying that undergraduates high in Intuition were less likely to stick
to conventions. Finally, the innovative and adaptive styles were both
significantly associated with scholarly creativity, but in opposite direc-
tions (r = 0.56, p b 0.001; r = −0.12, p b 0.01, respectively), indicating
that the innovative undergraduates were more academically creative
than the adaptive ones.
3.2. Path analyses of the mediating roles of two creative styles
In order to reduce multicollinearity, all the variables in this study
were standardized first (Dearing & Hamilton, 2006). As shown in
Table 2 and Fig. 1, three regressive models with the two types of creative
styles and scholarly creativity as respective criteria were estimated. Ex-
troversion and Perceiving were positively associated with the innova-
tive creative style but negatively associated with the adaptive creative
style. Feeling was negatively associated with the innovative creative
style but positively associated with the adaptive creative style. Intuition
was negatively associated with the adaptive creative style and nonsig-
nificantly related to the innovative creative style. As for the relations
of creative styles to scholarly creativity, the innovative but not the adap-
tive creative style was significantly and positively associated with un-
dergraduates' scholarly creativity.
We used path coefficients with their standard errors to test the sig-
nificance of the indirect effects using the Sobel test. The indirect effects

Table 1
Univariate and bivariate statistics for the main variables.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Extroversion 3.68 1.87 –

2. Feeling 2.46 1.19 0.13⁎⁎ –
3. Intuition 6.44 3.02 −0.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎⁎ –
4. Perceiving 4.47 1.96 −0.07 0.14⁎⁎ 0.45⁎⁎⁎ –
5. The innovative style 3.49 0.41 0.12⁎⁎ −0.13⁎⁎ −0.02 0.19⁎⁎⁎ –
6. The adaptive style 2.86 0.45 −0.07 0.13⁎⁎ −0.16⁎⁎⁎ −0.22⁎⁎⁎ −0.26⁎⁎⁎ –
7. Scholarly creativity 3.45 0.54 0.06 −0.16⁎⁎⁎ −0.01 0.09⁎ 0.56⁎⁎⁎ −0.12⁎⁎

Note. N = 495.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
 M.-Z. Wang et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 105 (2017) 170–174
Table 2
Testing the mediation effects of creative styles.
Criterion for Model 1
(the innovative style)
Predictors ß t
CO: Gender −0.28 −6.39⁎⁎⁎
CO: Age 0.07 1.56
X1: Extroversion 0.16 3.56⁎⁎⁎
X2: Feeling −0.20 −4.35⁎⁎⁎
X3: Intuition −0.06 −1.14
X4: Perceiving 0.18 3.72⁎⁎⁎
ME1: The innovative style
ME2: The adaptive style
R2 0.16
F 15.64⁎⁎⁎
Note. N = 495. Each column represents a regression model that predicts the criterion at the top of the column. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female. CO = control variable; X1–
X4 = independent variable; ME1–ME2 = mediator.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
of Extroversion, Perceiving and Feeling on scholarly creativity through
the innovative creative style were all significant (ind effects = 0.09,
0.11, −0.12, Z = 3.45, 3.60, −4.17, respectively). Thus, only the innova-
tive creative style mediated the effects of Extroversion, Perceiving and
Feeling on the scholarly creativity of undergraduates.
4. Discussion
Although previous studies examined the relation between personal-
ity types and creative styles, and between creative styles and creative
potential, no study has simultaneously examined the relationship pat-
terns among the three variables. Focusing on scholarly creativity as
one important educational goal (Cole, Sugioka, & Yamagata-Lynch,
1999; Esquivel, 1995; Houtz, 1992), we examined its relation to Jung's
personality types and the bridging roles of two creative styles in this re-
lationship. Results indicated that the four personality types were differ-
entially associated with the innovative creative style or the adaptive
creative style and only the innovative creative style was associated
with scholarly creativity in undergraduates.
Consistent with prior studies (Martindale & Dailey, 1996; Stavridou
& Furnham, 1996), Extroversion was associated with greater scholarly
creativity among the undergraduates in our sample. Moreover, this as-
sociation was completely mediated by innovative creative style. In addi-
tion, innovators were generally more extroverted than adaptors
(Gelade, 2002), consistent with Houtz et al.'s (2003) proposal that a
more innovative style was related to a more external preference. Taking
a further step beyond previous studies, we found that undergraduates
higher in Extroversion were more likely to perform creative work in
the innovative style which was conducive to tapping their scholarly
creativity.
Similar to the effect of Extroversion, Perceiving was positively asso-
ciated with scholarly creativity completely through the mediator of the
innovative style. People higher in Perceiving are characterized by toler-
ance of ambiguity and curiosity, enabling them to organize fragmentary
ideas patiently (Myers & Myers, 1980), and, tolerance of ambiguity has
been shown to be closely associated with creativity (Zenasni, Besancon,
& Lubart, 2008) and with the innovative creative style in particular
(Jacobson, 1993). Our study integrated these earlier studies by indicat-
ing that undergraduates high in Perceiving were also more likely to
demonstrate higher levels of scholarly creativity through carrying out
creative work in an innovative style.
Different from the positive indirect effects of Extroversion and Per-
ceiving on scholarly creativity through the mediator of the innovative
style, Feeling was negatively associated with scholarly creativity both
directly and indirectly. Jacobson (1993) demonstrated that Thinking
type, as the opposite of Feeling type, was most typical of creative
173
Criterion for Model 2 Criterion for Model 3
(the adaptive style) (scholarly creativity)
ß t ß t
0.02 0.38 0.13 3.12⁎⁎
−0.02 −0.56 −0.07 −1.95
−0.17 −3.68⁎⁎⁎ 0.02 0.37
0.24 5.14⁎⁎⁎ −0.09 −2.05⁎
−0.20 −3.74⁎⁎⁎ 0.06 1.29
−0.17 −3.43⁎⁎ 0.01 0.15
0.59 14.39⁎⁎⁎
0.05 1.33
0.11 0.34
10.25⁎⁎⁎ 30.65⁎⁎⁎
managers. People high in Feeing prefer to rely on subjective evaluation
in decision-making, whereas people high in Thinking are more likely to
base their decision-making processes on objectively logical analyses.
Thus, it is no wonder that undergraduates high in Feeling, compared
to those high in Thinking, would perform worse in the area of scholarly
creativity. In addition, our study took a further step by demonstrating
that undergraduates high in Feeling tended to display poorer scholarly
creativity because they preferred to implement creative work in an
adaptive style.
Finally, it seemed contrary to prior studies that intuition had no sig-
nificant association with scholarly creativity. Intuition has been
regarded as a prominent personality factor typical of creativity in pro-
fessional artists (Hartzell, 2000) and managers (Agor, 1991). However,
few researchers have paid attention to the association between Intui-
tion and scholarly creativity in undergraduate students. According to
Kaufman (2012), creativity is a five-dimensional construct, of which
scholarly creativity is but one. People in different professions should dif-
fer in their dominant domain of creativity. Thus, one specific personality
type such as Intuition may be associated with other forms of creativity
other than scholarly creativity.
To sum up, this study examined the relations among personality
types, creative styles and scholarly creativity in undergraduates. Our
findings indicated that both undergraduates high in Extroversion and
those high in Perceiving were more creative in the scholarly or academ-
ic area because of their innovative creative style in performing scholarly
work. In contrast, undergraduates high in Feeling tended to display
poorer scholarly creativity because they tended to execute scholarly
work in an adaptive creative style. In addition, we found no significant
paths from intuition to the innovative style or scholarly creativity.
These findings again imply that students of different personality types
generally engaged in scholarly work in different creative styles that fur-
ther affected their scholarly creativity. Our findings also provide guid-
ance for cultivating creativity in undergraduates with different
personality types.
The effect size and the cross-sectional design may limit the explana-
tions of our findings. First, some correlations among the research vari-
ables, ranging from 0.12 to 0.16, seem so weak as to be trivial.
However, this may not be the case. Our results were similar to previous
studies in this area. For example, Kaufman, Pumaccahua, and Holt
(2013) found some of the correlations among personality factors and
creativity to be in the range of 0.10 to 0.15 with a very large sample of
3295 participants. Furthermore, Mischel (1968) found 0.30 to be the
upper limit for correlations between personality traits and many other
outcome variables. Researchers pointed out that the importance of a
predictor should be judged based on not only the magnitude of its asso-
ciation with the criterion, but also the nature of the predicted outcome
174 M.-Z. Wang et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 105 (2017) 170–174
(Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). When the predictor
produces accumulating effects on the outcome variable across long pe-
riods of time, the small effect should not be ignored (Roberts et al.,
2007). As for our study, because personality traits tend to be stable,
they might produce accumulating effects on individuals' creative per-
formance in the long run. Second, the cross-sectional design of our
study could not validate causal relations among personality traits, crea-
tive styles and scholarly creativity. However, all studies, including cross-
sectional studies, can shed light on mediating processes (MacKinnon,
2008). Cross-sectional design has been extensively adopted in studies
of personality and creativity (Kaufman, 2012; Kaufman et al., 2013;
Raja & Johns, 2010), revealing short-time relations among variables of
interest. Future studies in this area may use longitudinal or experimen-
tal designs to measure the short- and long-term effects of personality
traits and creative styles on scholarly creativity in undergraduates.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Shandong Province Social Science
Planning Research Project [Number: 15CJYJ21].
References
Agor, W. H. (1991). How intuition can be used to enhance creativity in organizations.
Journal of Creative Behaviour, 25, 11–19.
Aguilar-Alonso, A. (1996). Personality and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences,
21, 959–969.
Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers' conceptions of creativity and
creative students. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 39, 17–34.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Foxall, G. R. (1995). Construct validity and generalizability of the Kirton
adaption–innovation inventory. European Journal of Personality, 9, 185–206.
Bastick, T. (1982). Intuition: How we think and act. New York: Wiley.
Briggs, K., & Myers, I. (1976). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Buchanan, D. R., & Taylor, J. A. (1986). Jungian typology of professional psychodramatists:
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator analysis of certified psychodramatists. Psychological
Reports, 58, 391–400.
Cheng, Y., Kim, K. H., & Hull, M. F. (2010). Comparisons of creative styles and personality
types between American and Taiwanese college students and the relationship be-
tween creative potential and personality types. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 4, 103–112.
Cole, D. G., Sugioka, H. L., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (1999). Supportive classroom environ-
ments for creativity in higher education. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 33, 277–293.
Dearing, E., & Hamilton, L. C. (2006). Contemporary advances and classic advice for ana-
lyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 71, 88–104.
Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviors that foster creativity. Educational Psychology
Review, 7, 185–202.
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity and personality. The creativity research
handbook, volume I. (pp. 41–66). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.
Foxall, G. R., & Hackett, P. M. W. (1992). The factor structure and construct validity of the
Kirton adaptation innovation inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 13,
967–975.
Furnham, A., & Nederstrom, M. (2010). Ability, demographic and personality predictors of
creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 957–961.
Gelade, G. A. (2002). Creative style, personality, and artistic endeavor. Genetic, Social, and
General Psychology Monographs, 128, 213–234.
Hartzell, E. A. (2000). Visual creativity through the prism of psychological type.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 5774.
Houtz, J. C. (1992). Pre-service teacher education for creative and critical thinking. Paper
presented at the Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal Conference. NJ: Critical Think-
ing Institute, Montclair State College.
Houtz, J. C., Selby, E., Esquivel, G. B., Okoye, R. A., Peters, K. M., & Treffinger, D. J. (2003).
Creativity styles and personal type. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 321–330.
Jacobson, C. M. (1993). Cognitive styles of creativity: Relations of scores on the Kirton
Adaption-Innovation Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator among man-
agers in USA. Psychological Reports, 72, 1131–1138.
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Cre-
ativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 298–308.
Kaufman, J. C., Pumaccahua, T. T., & Holt, R. (2013). Personality and creativity in realistic,
investigative, artistic, social, and enterprising college majors. Personality and
Individual Differences, 54, 913–917.
Keller, C. J., Lavish, L. A., & Brown, C. (2007). Creative styles and gender roles in under-
graduates students. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 273–280.
Kelly, K. R., & Jugovic, H. (2001). Concurrent validity of the online version of the Keirsey
Temperament II. Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 49–59.
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61, 622–629.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Martindale, C., & Dailey, A. (1996). Creativity, primary process cognition and personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 409–414.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Myers, I. B., & Myers, B. P. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological
Press, Inc.
Raja, U., & Johns, G. (2010). The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-role per-
formance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity. Human Relations, 63, 981–1005.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of
personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status,
and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.
Selby, E. C., Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Powers, S. V. (1993). Use of the Kirton Adap-
tion-Innovation Inventory with middle school students. Journal of Creative Behaviour,
27, 223–235.
Stavridou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). The relationship between psychoticism, trait-creativ-
ity and the attentional mechanism of cognitive inhibition. Personality and Individual
Differences, 21, 143–153.
Stemberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stemberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style. American
Psychologist, 52, 700–712.
Taylor, W. G. K. (1989). The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory: Should the sub-scales
be orthogonal? Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 921–929.
Torrance, P. E., & Goff, K. (1990). Fostering academic creativity in gifted students. Reston,
VA: The Council for Exceptional Children (ERIC Digest No. E484).
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 189–212). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story
writing, and hobbies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 297–310.
Zenasni, F., Besancon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: An
empirical study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 61–73.