Creativity Research Journal Copyright © 2005 by

2005, Vol. 17, No. 2 & 3, 155–166 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

The Adaptable Mind in Design: Relating Personality,

Cognitive Style, and Creative Performance
Jason Meneely
Cornell University
Margaret Portillo
University of Florida

ABSTRACT: This study examined domain-specific re-
lationships between creative personality traits, cogni-
tive styles, and creative performance in design. Design
students (n = 39) completed the Adjective Check List
(ACL) and the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instru-
ment (HBDI) to gauge personality and cognitive style,
respectively. The ACL was scored using Domino’s Cre-
ativity Scale (ACL-Cr) to identify creative personality
traits. The sample also completed a design task that
was evaluated for creativity using the Consensual As-
sessment Technique (CAT). Findings indicated that
participants showing flexibility between cerebral,
limbic, right, and left modes of thinking had signifi-
cantly higher mean scores on creative personality than
did those who exhibited a more entrenched cognitive
style. Creative personality traits (ACL-Cr) signifi-
cantly predicted creative performance on the design
task. While cognitive style (HBDI) did not predict cre-
ative performance, flexibility between styles was sig-
nificantly correlated to the creative personality. In
sum, individuals exhibiting adaptable thinking appear
to possess the flexibility necessary to design creatively
and potentially transform the domain with original and
imaginative solutions.
certainly we often describe their work as creative”
(Lawson, 1997, p. 106). Despite these assumptions
about creativity, little empirical evidence has advanced
an explicit understanding of creative designers, their
processes, and products. As Goldschmidt (1999)
noted, “Creative design is held in great esteem, but we
still know little about design cognition and the cogni-
tive abilities and strategies that contribute to creative
design thinking” (p. 526).
Although a need for further inquiry prevails, it is
commonly recognized that design problems demand
an integrative and holistic approach to developing so-
lutions (Goldschmidt, 1999; Lawson, 1997; Rowe,
1987; Zeisel, 1981). Designers need to address dispa-
rate artistic and technical criteria that frequently place
competing demands on problem solving. In recogni-
tion of this, Mackinnon (1962) observed the following:
In architecture, creative products are both an expression of
the architect and thus a very personal product, and at the
same time an impersonal meeting of the demands of an exter-
nal problem. … Architecture, as a field of creative endeavor,
requires that the successful practitioner be both artist and sci-
entist—artist in that his designs must fulfill the demands of
“Delight,” and scientist in that they must meet the demands
of “Firmnesse” and “Commodity.” (pp. 485–486)

Design involves the creation of objects, spaces, places,

and other material artifacts for human use. Design is
future oriented; in fields such as architecture, interior
design, apparel design, and industrial design there is an
overriding expectation to challenge precedent by de-
veloping original and adaptive ideas. “It is generally
accepted that design is a creative occupation and that
good designers are themselves creative people, and
The authors would like to acknowledge Professor Sheila Danko for
her insightful comments on the manuscript.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Jason
Meneely, Instructor, Cornell University, Design and Environmental
Analysis, Martha Van Rensselaer Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853–4401.
E-mail: jm349@cornell.edu

Creativity Research Journal 155

J. Meneely and M. Portillo
The polemic that design entails both artistic and scien-
tific mindsets suggests that creativity in design may de-
pend on one’s capacity to be adaptable, exhibiting flex-
ibility to negotiate complex and multi-dimensional
design problems.
Although a handful of studies have profiled person-
ality, cognitive style, and creative self-awareness in
samples of designers (see, e.g., Clitheroe, 2001; Lam,
1996; Mackinnon, 1962, 1965, 1970; Portillo, 1996;
Russ & Weber, 1995; Watson & Thompson, 2001), few
studies have assessed the influence of the relationship
among these intrinsic traits on real-world creative per-
formance. In contrast, the present study explored the
relationship between creative persons and their perfor-
mance on a design task evaluated by field experts.
The purpose of this study was to empirically probe a
domain-specific understanding of creativity in design,
using multiple measures of the creative person in tan-
dem with an authentic design task. In alignment with a
systems view of creativity, relationships between cre-
ative personality traits, cognitive styles, and creative
performance were assessed in a sample of beginning
design students, who were faced with the task of devel-
oping creative design solutions on work judged by
field-specific standards.
The Holistic Demands of Design
“Creativity is best described as the human capacity
to regularly solve problems or to fashion products in a
domain, in a way that is initially novel but ultimately
acceptable in a culture” (Gardner, 1989, p. 14). Many
agree that both novelty and appropriateness define cre-
ative products (Amabile, 1996; Jackson & Messick,
1973; Mackinnon, 1962; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996);
however, the relationship between these two criteria
form an interesting dialectic. Novelty implies that cre-
ative solutions depart from mainstream approaches
and challenge domain precedent; conversely, appropri-
ateness implies that creative solutions acknowledge or
fit into the established practices of a domain in some
way. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1996; Johnson-Laird,
1988; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995).
In design, novelty and appropriateness relate to cri-
teria of “form” and “function”: form in the sense that
designers are expected to create novel objects with
compositional qualities that embody delight or sur-
156
prise and challenge precedent. At this level, design in-
volves artistic criteria and becomes concerned with
aesthetics, self-expression, personal philosophy, and
subjective reactions to the final product. However,
what differentiates design from art is the degree to
which externally imposed demands factor into the cre-
ative process.
In addition to form, designers are expected to de-
velop solutions that address the functional demands of
their clients and end users, who have distinct needs,
lifestyles, goals, and objectives to consider. Conse-
quently, if a newly designed object fails to serve its in-
tended user, it is rarely, if ever, deemed appropriate.
From this standpoint, designers must become more sci-
entific and objectively focused, as they systematically
evaluate functional criteria such as safety, comfort, er-
gonomics, and overall product performance. Although
“art is more often an introspective journey and science
more of an externally focused one” (Feist, 1999, p.
283), design criteria compel the designer to employ
both subjective and objective approaches to prob-
lem-solving.
Design criteria guiding appropriateness not only
channel the creative process of designing but serve as a
measure of evaluation, gauging levels of suitability or
fit in ideas and solutions during the design process,
“Criteria offer both direction and adaptability in devel-
oping solutions” (Portillo & Dohr, 1994, p. 407). To
address the competing demands of multiple design cri-
teria, designers need to employ flexible thinking as
they weigh factors that influence novelty and appropri-
ateness. In design, flexibility appears central to cre-
ative adaptation, where transformation occurs in both
the self and the domain.
Creative Adaptation
Particularly relevant for a better understanding of
creativity in design is the concept of creative adapta-
tion. According to Cohen and Ambrose (1999), cre-
ative adaptation involves flexibility in thinking, re-
sponsiveness to environment (self-adaptation), and
transformation and evolution of the environment (do-
main adaptation). Situated in both internal and exter-
nal loci, creative adaptation rests on a theoretical
foundation that is both developmental and systemic,
with mature creativity marking the most profound re-
Creativity Research Journal

alization of adaptation. Cohen and Ambrose defined
mature creativity in terms of this external and internal
transformation:
External transformation involves sensitivity to a context as
well as awareness of the limitations of a field and the desire to
work hard to transform it. … Internal transformation in-
volves sensitivity to one’s self and the openness and willing-
ness to modify one’s present ways of thinking in order to con-
struct a unique point of view. (p. 12)
Some scholars have suggested that the paradoxes
found in the creative person appear to support adapt-
ability—in thought and behavior—as an attribute of
creative performance (Brophey, 2001;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Guastello, Shissler, Driscoll,
& Hyde, 1998; Herrmann, 1989; Mackinnon, 1962,
1970; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995, 1996). Using inter-
view data collected from over 90 luminaries across
varied fields, Csikszentmihalyi (1996) identified par-
adoxical traits in his sample of mature creatives, in-
cluding the capacities to be playful and disciplined,
logical and naive, humble and proud, reality-bound
and fantastical, introverted and extroverted, and mas-
culine and feminine.
Paradox as an integral component of the creative
personality emerged in a classic study of personality
correlates of noted male architects. Mackinnon (1962,
1970) identified creative architects as having a rela-
tively high level of traditionally feminine traits with an
increased openness to emotions, high intuition,
self-awareness, and diversity of interests atypical of
males from a Western perspective in that time period.
Mackinnon concluded, “It would appear that the cre-
ative person has the capacity to tolerate the tension that
strong opposing values create in him, and in his cre-
ative striving he effects some reconciliation of them”
(1962, p. 490). Mackinnon’s study also found that the
creative personality contained both introverted and in-
terpersonal characteristics. In a later study of design-
ers, Watson and Thompson (2001) concluded that de-
sign students exhibited dominance in more cognitive
styles than nondesign majors; however, they did not re-
late this finding to creative performance.
Other studies recognized a flexible thinking style
as a hallmark of the creative person. Guastello et al.
(1998) found that creative performance “was highest
for people who engaged in a wide repertoire of cogni-
tive styles” (p. 77). Similar findings have prompted
Creativity Research Journal
The Adaptable Mind in Design
the development of “whole-brained” theories of cre-
ativity that relate creative performance to an ability to
operate flexibly between opposing poles of cognitive
spectra (Herrmann, 1989; Leonard & Straus, 1997).
Extending Guilford’s (1967) insights that creativity
incorporates divergent and convergent modes of
thinking, Brophey (2001) noted higher levels of cre-
ative performance in combination thinkers when
compared to those who are primarily divergent or
convergent in their thinking.
Research Questions
The need for domain-specific inquiry into creativity
is supported both theoretically (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990, 1996) and by recently emerging studies (Baer,
1991, 1998; Han, 2003; Han & Marvin, 2002; James &
Asmus, 2001) that examined creativity across multiple
domains. Utilizing a performance-based methodology,
Han and Marvin investigated the creativity of children
on art, math, and verbal tasks. They found that individ-
ual creative performance varied across tasks, providing
support for a domain-specific rather than a global defi-
nition of creativity.
Inquiry into a specific domain calls for a systems
framework of creativity that accounts for both intrinsic
and extrinsic adaptation (Cohen & Ambrose, 1999).
This framework accounts for interactions between the
individual who creates, the domain that provides the
creative venue, and the field experts who act as gate-
keepers to the domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1996).
A systems research approach couches individual char-
acteristics and thinking styles in the domain where the
creative activity occurs and accounts for the creative
performance standards of the field.
This study examined personality and cognitive style
profiles of beginning design students, engaged them in
a domain-specific task, and evaluated their products
with field experts. Empirically spanning the creative
person, process, and product, this study examined the
following research questions: (a) What profiles of cre-
ative personality traits and cognitive styles character-
ize beginning design students? (b) What relationships
emerge between creative personality traits and cogni-
tive styles? (c) How do individual profiles relate to the
level of creativity expressed in design solutions?
157
J. Meneely and M. Portillo
Method
To explore a domain-specific and systemic under-
standing of creativity in design, the study employed
multiple measures of the creative person and product.
Personality trait and cognitive style profiles were col-
lected from a sample of beginning design students us-
ing two standardized self-report instruments. In addi-
tion, performance-based measures of creativity were
utilized to externally validate the personality and cog-
nitive style findings. Design experts were utilized to
evaluate the creative output each participant produced
from a design-related problem solving task. This strat-
egy positioned the methodology beyond a
unidimensional profiling of traits to explore relation-
ships among the individual, field, and domain.
Participants
The participants were 41 beginning female design
majors (M age 19.7 years; SD 1.74) enrolled in an ac-
credited school of interior design at a land grant univer-
sity in the central United States. This sample reflects
the female dominance in interior design education. The
Foundation of Interior Design Education and Research
(FIDER) reported a demographic composition of 10%
males and 90% females in the 142 accredited interior
design programs across North America (K. Dunn,
FIDER Executive Director, personal communication,
June 1, 2003).
All participants volunteered and gave written con-
sent to participate in the study. The sample included
two sections of a freshman interior design course. Data
collection spanned four class sessions in November
2002. Because of absences that occurred during the
second and third data-gathering sessions, the cognitive
style and personality data reported in this article are
based on a sample size of 39, whereas creative perfor-
mance data are based on a sample size of 37.
Measures
Personality inventory. The Gough Adjective
Check List (ACL), scored for Domino’s Creativity
Scale (ACL-Cr), was used to inventory personality
traits associated with creativity. The ACL is a standard-
ized self-report instrument composed of 300 alphabeti-
cally ordered adjectives and adjectival phrases that
commonly describe diverse personality attributes.
158
ACL respondents are asked to select self-descriptive
adjectives that ultimately are compiled into a personal-
ity profile. Reviews of this instrument (Buros, 1972;
Keyser & Sweetland, 1984) reported solid
psychometric properties. Since the ACL’s develop-
ment in 1949, researchers have employed it to investi-
gate a wide range of human behaviors using several
standardized scales (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983).
The ACL contains 37 standard scales, one of which
is the Creative Personality Scale (ACL-Cps) that mea-
sures unorthodox and original traits. The Cps was
normed in samples of students, professionals, and ran-
domly selected adults (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983).
Using the ACL, Domino (1970) developed a separate
creativity scale, the ACL-Cr, during a 3-year longitudi-
nal study of creative achievement in students. A subse-
quent cross-validation study of 800 science, art, and lit-
erature students found that the ACL-Cr significantly
differentiated creative students from the control groups
(Domino, 1970). The ACL, scored with the Domino’s
creativity scale (ACL-Cr), was endorsed as a sound
measure of creativity by Davis (1999), who included
the 59-item scale and scoring guide in the book, Cre-
ativity is Forever (4th ed.).
The ACL-Cr has been employed to examine do-
main-specific creativity, discriminating statistically
between student, novice, and expert photographers
(Domino & Giuliani, 1997); dancers (Alter, 1984);
musicians (Alter, 1989); cinematographers (Domino,
1974); and patent holders (Albaum & Baker, 1977). It
has also gauged creativity training effects (Davis &
Bull, 1978) and identified creative students (Sussman
& Justman, 1976).
Cognitive style inventory. The Herrmann Brain
Dominance Instrument (HBDI) was used to identify
each participant’s preferred thinking style (Herrmann,
1989). The HBDI is a standardized self-report instru-
ment comprising 120 questions. Each of the 120 ques-
tions characterizes one of four of the following cogni-
tive dimensions: cerebral (analytic thinking), limbic
(affective thinking), right (global thinking), and left
(local thinking). Specific information on the
psychometric properties of the HBDI can be found in
independent reviews by Bunderson (1987) of the Edu-
cational Testing Service, and in the Eleventh Mental
Measurements Yearbook (Buros, 1992).
An internal-validation study of the HBDI using
7,989 cognitive profiles from participants in profes-
Creativity Research Journal

sional workshops and personal consultations found
good stability among its four discrete clusters (Ho,
1988). Other studies further support the validity of the
instrument; Rowe and Waters (1992) found that the
HBDI was able to discriminate cognitive variability
between master’s students in accountancy, business ad-
ministration, and public administration. External vali-
dation studies conducted by Bunderson, Olsen, and
Herrmann (1982) correlated the HBDI to the Myers
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Later studies con-
ducted by DeWald (1989), Power and Lundsten
(1997), and Power, Kummerow, and Lundsten (1999)
replicated the correlations between the HBDI and
MBTI as well. Figure 1 graphically summarizes the
correlations from these studies.
As Figure 1 indicates, these studies found that op-
posing quadrants on the HBDI correlate to opposing
components on the MBTI. For example, thinking ver-
sus feeling on the MBTI related to cerebral-left versus
limbic-right quadrants on the HBDI. The decision to
use the HBDI in this study instead of the MBTI was
based on the fact that the MBTI scoring system does
not permit a respondent to have “bipolar” responses,
whereas the HBDI does. To elaborate, MBTI scoring
places a respondent at one point on a continuum be-
tween thinking and feeling, whereas HBDI scoring al-
lows a respondent to have a singular preference as a
thinker (cerebral), a singular preference as a feeler
Figure 1. Relationship of the HBDI to the MBTI. Based on a summation of findings from multiple studies (Bunderson, 1987; Bunderson, Olsen,
& Herrmann, 1982; DeWald, 1989; Power, Kummerow, & Lundsten, 1999; Power & Lundsten, 1997).
Creativity Research Journal
The Adaptable Mind in Design
(limbic), or a flexible preference as both a thinker and a
feeler (cerebral and limbic). The ability of the HBDI to
account for flexibility between styles was a deciding
factor for its inclusion in this study and is consistent
with findings and theories linking oppositional traits to
creative performance (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996;
Mackinnon, 1970, 1978).
Measure of creative performance. After com-
pleting the personality and cognitive measures, the par-
ticipants completed a timed design task. Each partici-
pant was asked to design a three-dimensional form that
was transformed into an original piece of furniture for
book storage. The participants received a short list of
functional criteria to be incorporated in their final de-
sign solutions. These criteria included (a) storage for a
specific quantity of books, (b) storage for different
sized books, and (c) accessibility for an average height
adult. Each participant was asked to design and con-
struct a three-dimensional model using uniform con-
struction materials, design instructions, and time con-
straints for task completion.
Following Amabile’s (1996) Consensual Assess-
ment Technique (CAT), a panel of four expert judges,
composed of design faculty, was asked to evaluate the
completed design solutions. The judges were in-
structed to rate the projects relative to one another
based on their own subjective definitions of creativity
159
J. Meneely and M. Portillo
Figure 2. Two example solutions to the design task (furniture for book storage).
and to work independently. Inter-rater reliabilities of
.72, calculated for this study, were above the accept-
able level of .70 recognized by Amabile (1996) and
Barnard (1992). Figure 2 illustrates a high and a low
scoring creative solution to the book storage furniture
problem.
Procedures
The first author informed the participants that the
study would involve completing a paper-and-pencil
personality inventory, a computer-administered cog-
nitive style inventory, and a problem-solving task that
involved presenting design solutions in a three-di-
mensional model. During the first data-gathering ses-
sion each participant completed the ACL in an
untimed classroom setting. All participants finished
the ACL within 20 min. The following week, a sec-
ond data-gathering session occurred in a campus
computer lab where the participants individually
completed the HBDI via an Internet link with the in-
strument developer. As with the ACL there was no
160
imposed time limit for completion. All participants
completed the HBDI within 45 min. During the 3rd
week the design problem-solving task was assigned.
After the project instructions were administered, par-
ticipants were asked to work quietly at their own ta-
bles and not to obtain any input from others. The par-
ticipants were allotted two consecutive days of class,
totaling 5 hr 30 min, to complete a three-dimensional
model of their design solution.
The final component in the data-collection se-
quence involved the evaluation of each participant’s fi-
nal design solution using the CAT. All of the models
were randomly arranged on tables and assigned a num-
ber. Each judge was supplied with written instructions
and an evaluation sheet to record their responses. In ac-
cordance with Amabile’s protocol on the consensual
assessment of products, each judge was then assigned a
different starting point within the room and was asked
to evaluate each model on a 5-point scale of creativity.
Each judge was instructed to rate the projects relative
to one another rather than according to some absolute
standard of creativity.
Creativity Research Journal

Results
Creative Personality
The ACL was administered and scored using Dom-
ino’s (1970) creativity scale (ACL-Cr) to assess cre-
ative personality traits. Cronbach’s αs calculated from
the personality data indicate a high degree of internal
consistency, achieving reliabilities of .97 for the total
ACL instrument and .89 for the creativity scale
(ACL-Cr). Out of 300 total adjectives on the ACL, the
number of items checked per subject ranged from 40 to
176 with a mean of 101.6 (SD = 35.6); which is consis-
tent with normative sample scores (M = 97.4, SD =
34.6) found in the ACL scoring manual (Gough &
Heilbrun, 1983).
Creativity scale (ACL-Cr) scores were calculated
from the raw ACL data using T tables to control for the
total number of items checked. The resultant scores in-
dicated that the sample ranged in creative personality
from 27 to 69 with a mean of 48.5 (SD = 9.2); slightly
higher than found in previously published research us-
ing a multidisciplinary college sample (M = 45.3, SD =
11.5; Davis & Bull, 1978). A frequency analysis iden-
tified the most common ACL-Cr self-descriptors
within the sample: imaginative (92%), artistic (90%),
independent (90%), curious (82%), ambitious (79%),
adventurous (77%), humorous (77%), sensitive (77%),
intelligent (74%), and energetic (72%).
Figure 3. Composite cognitive profile of the entire sample (HBDI). Means of 67 and above indicate a quadrant dominance (indicated by a
checkmark). N = 39.
Creativity Research Journal
The Adaptable Mind in Design
Cognitive Flexibility
The HBDI was administered and scored to profile
cognitive preferences within the sample. Aggregate
HBDI scores revealed an overall group dominance in
the right-cerebral and right-limbic quadrants, indicat-
ing that the sample collectively preferred right as op-
posed to left modes of thinking and displayed an al-
most balanced preference between cerebral and limbic
modes. Figure 3 graphically summarizes the mean
HBDI scores per quadrant, forming a composite cogni-
tive profile of the entire sample.
On the HBDI a respondent can exhibit a preference
in one, two, three, or all four cognitive quadrants. Ac-
cording to Herrmann’s whole-brained theory of cre-
ativity, as the number of quadrant preferences on the
HBDI increases so too does the ability to shift cogni-
tive modes flexibly during creative processes
(Herrmann, 1989). Table 1 presents the distribution of
cognitive flexibility (number of HBDI quadrant prefer-
ences) found within the sample.
Creative Personality and Cognitive
Flexibility
Correlations between the ACL-Cr and HBDI were
used to examine relationships between creative person-
ality and cognitive flexibility. Mean creative personal-
ity scores (ACL-Cr), grouped by the number of HBDI
161
J. Meneely and M. Portillo

Table 1. Distribution of Cognitive Flexibility Within the Sample (HBDI)

Sample Population Normative
Population
Cognitive Flexibility (Number of HBDI Quadrant Preferences) n % %

1 Quadrant 2 5.1 5
2 Quadrants 25 64.1 58
3 Quadrants 9 23.1 34
4 Quadrants 3 7.7 3
Total 39 100 100

Note. Normative population data supplied by Herrmann International: www.hbdi.com. HBDI = Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument.

Table 2. Mean Creative Personality Scores (ACL-Cr) by Level of Cognitive Flexibility (HBDI)
Creative Personality (ACL-Cr)

Cognitive Flexibility (Number of HBDI Quadrant Preferences) M SD n

1 Quadrant 42.50 6.36 2

2 Quadrants 46.76 8.59 25
3 Quadrants 51.67 9.31 9
4 Quadrants 57.67 9.87 3
Total 48.51 9.16 39

Note. ACL-Cr = Adjective Check List Creativity Scale; HBDI = Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument.

quadrant preferences per participant, are presented in
Table 2. The reported ACL-Cr scores indicate a linear
relationship between creative personality and the ca-
pacity to think flexibly.
A linear regression analysis confirmed that cogni-
tive flexibility (number of HBDI quadrant preferences)
was a significant predictor of creative personality
scores on the ACL-Cr (r = .39, p = .014), accounting
for 15% of the variance. To further test this relation-
ship, the authors split the sample into two groups; those
preferring one or two HBDI quadrants were clustered
into a low-flexibility group (n = 27), whereas those
preferring three or four HBDI quadrants were clus-
tered into a high-flexibility group (n = 12). That is to
say, 69% of the sample showed low flexibility, with a
preference for 1 or 2 cognitive styles, whereas 31% ex-
hibited high flexibility, with a preference for 3 or all 4
styles. A t test confirmed that the high-flexibility group
(M = 53.17, SD = 9.39) achieved a significantly higher
creative personality score on the ACL-Cr than did the
low-flexibility group (M = 46.44, SD = 8.43), t (37) =
–2.22, p = .033.
To gain further insight into how the low- and
high-flexibility groups differed, the authors used
Chi-square analyses using Fischer’s Exact Test to iden-
tify salient items on the ACL that discriminated be-
tween the two groups. Table 3 presents, in ranked order
of significance, the discriminating adjectives for each
group. ACL-Cr items that were reported significantly
more often by the high-flexibility group included the
following: alert, logical, humorous, insightful, and as-
sertive, whereas items reported significantly more of-
ten by the low-flexibility group included ab-
sent-minded and careless.
Creative Performance
Creativity evidenced by the final design solutions
was evaluated using the CAT. Ratings from each of the
four judges were averaged for each participant’s solu-
tion, resulting in mean creativity scores ranging from a
low of 1.00 to a high of 4.50, with an overall sample
mean of 2.34 (SD = .76). A regression analysis re-
vealed that ACL-Cr was a significant predictor of
judged product creativity from the CAT (r = .33, p =
.046), accounting for 11% of the variance. To further
test this relationship the authors performed a median
split on the ACL-Cr to produce a high-Cr group (n =
17) and a low-Cr group (n = 20). A t test confirmed that
the high-Cr group (M = 2.62, SD = .97) achieved sig-

162 Creativity Research Journal

 The Adaptable Mind in Design

Table 3. Significant Adjectival Discriminators (ACL) by Level of Cognitive Flexibiltiy (HBDI)

Fischer’s
Low-Flexibility Group Preference Exact High-Flexibility Group Preference
in 1 or 2 HBDI Quadrants, n1 = 27 Test in 3 or 4 HBDI Quadrants, n2 = 12

Adjective (ACL) n % n1 p % n2 n Adjective (ACL)

6 22 .001 83 10 Alert
4 15 .002 67 8 Precise
8 30 .003 83 10 Logical
Absent-minded 10 37 .017 0 0
10 41 .018 83 11 Clear-thinking
Forgetful 16 59 .018 17 2
2 7 .020 42 5 Suspicious
5 19 .023 58 7 Thorough
0 0 .024 25 3 Cold
7 26 .031 67 8 Steady
18 67 .036 100 12 Humorous
18 67 .036 100 12 Sociable
12 44 .037 83 10 Headstrong
12 44 .037 83 10 Insightful
10 37 .041 75 9 Assertive
Careless 8 30 .042 0 0

Note. N = 39. ACL = Adjective Check List; HBDI = Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument.

nificantly higher levels of judged creativity than did the
low-Cr group (M = 2.10, SD = .43), t (35) = –2.16, p =
.038. A final regression analysis was performed to
evaluate how well the HBDI predicted creative perfor-
mance. This analysis found no statistically significant
relationship (r = .19, p = .249).
In summary, the relation between the HBDI and
ACL-Cr indicated that participants showing flexibility
among cerebral, limbic, right, and left modes of think-
ing had significantly higher mean scores on creative
personality than did those who exhibited a more en-
trenched cognitive style (r = .39, p = .014). Creative
personality traits (ACL-Cr) significantly predicted cre-
ative performance on the design task (r = .33, p = .046).
Although cognitive style (HBDI) did not predict cre-
ative performance (r = .19, p = .249), flexibility be-
tween styles was significantly correlated to the creative
personality.
Discussion
This study identified creative personality traits and
thinking styles in beginning design students to better
explain domain-specific creativity. The findings from
self-report and external performance measures suggest
that beginning designers with stronger creative person-
ality traits showed greater flexibility in their thinking
and designed more creatively than their less creative
counterparts. This finding may be explained through
the concept of creative adaptability. In design, flexibil-
ity appears central to creative adaptability, where the
ability to tap into oppositional traits and thinking styles
facilitate holistic and dynamic problem solving.
Adaptability may be particularly apropos to the design
domain, enabling one to synthesize disparate artistic
and functional criteria into creative solutions.
Internal Adaptability: Traits and Thinking
Styles
The study found that the sample collectively fa-
vored a right-brain thinking style, indicating a prefer-
ence for big-picture issues and a broad focus to prob-
lem solving. Interestingly, those participants who
exhibited stronger creative personality traits differed
from the overall sample by further displaying a prefer-
ence for a left-brain thinking style, indicating an addi-
tional propensity for details and analytic scrutiny. ACL
items, such as alert, precise, logical, thorough, and sus-
picious, were found to significantly discriminate this
high adaptability group and provided additional evi-

Creativity Research Journal 163

J. Meneely and M. Portillo
dence of their accompanying left-brain thinking style.
In possessing this propensity, the high adaptability
group appeared more open to evaluation, revision, and
refinement of their concepts during the design process
than their predominantly right-brain peers.
Supporting these findings, the linkage between
flexible thinking and creativity has been well estab-
lished, emphasizing the integration of opposing cogni-
tive processes in creative problem solving (Brophey,
2001; Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992; Guilford, 1967;
Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). We theorize that the level
of cognitive flexibility required for creativity varies be-
tween disciplines; furthermore, we maintain that the
hybrid nature of design disciplines may demand a
higher degree of cognitive flexibility, to synthesize ar-
tistic and scientific problem criteria. Supporting this
notion, Lawson (1997) stated,
Whilst we have seen that both convergent and divergent
thought are needed by both scientists and artists, it is proba-
bly the designer who needs the two skills in the most equal
proportions. Designers must solve externally imposed prob-
lems, satisfy the needs of others and create beautiful objects.
(pp. 156–157)
Mounting evidence suggests that differing disciplines
and domains attract people with relatively similar cog-
nitive/personality profiles (Herrmann, 1989; Leonard
& Straus, 1997; Rowe & Waters, 1992). This stratifica-
tion of cognitive styles may explain why creativity is
increasingly conceptualized as domain specific. Rules
and standards of a domain attract those with certain
characteristics and thinking styles and, thus, a domi-
nant approach to operating in a domain emerges. In
contrast, creative people may not only have a capacity
to engage the established mindset; they may also have
a capacity to defy it, thereby escaping domain en-
trenchment and precedent (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995).
The flexibility to think both within and in opposition to
established norms characterizes creative adaptability.
External Adaptability: Creative
Performance
Creativity does not occur in a vacuum. In design,
creativity emerges in context within a person–environ-
ment system that can be studied with psychological
and performance-based assessments. By evaluating the
level of creativity in design solutions, this study was
able to assess predictive validity by relating internal
164
personality and cognitive measures to an externalized
measure of creative performance. It was found that be-
ginning designers with stronger creative personality
traits (ACL-Cr) produced work that was judged to be
more creative than that of their peers who did not ex-
hibit the same level of creative personality. This find-
ing is consistent with other research (Alter, 1984,
1989; Domino, 1970, 1974, 1994; Domino & Giuliani,
1997) identifying the ACL-Cr as a significant predictor
of creative performance. Although the HBDI did not
directly predict creative performance, it was signifi-
cantly linked to the creative personality. This suggests
that cognitive style variables may be necessary but not
fully sufficient to account for creativity in design. For
example, a person could exhibit opposing cognitive
abilities and not have the personality or motivational
faculties to engage in adaptive behavior. Although this
study found evidence that beginning designers who are
more creative in their personalities and design projects
appeared to think more flexibly than their peers, fur-
ther research is necessary to fully relate cognitive style
to creative performance in design.
Flexible thinking supports the concept of internal
and external adaptability advanced by Cohen and
Ambrose (1999), who declared that experts within a
field are more highly skilled at adaptability compared
to those entering a field:
Neophytes, who are new to a field, and novices, who have
some rudimentary knowledge of the field, have not devel-
oped automaticity nor the necessary knowledge or skills.
Consequently, they are not efficient adaptors within the field.
(p. 16)
However, our findings challenge this distinction. Al-
though it appears reasonable to maintain that creative
adaptability could be more developed in field experts
as opposed to beginners, that does not negate that, even
at beginning levels, some individuals exhibit more
adaptive thinking than others.
Although domain expertise has been identified as
an important facet of creativity, entrenched assump-
tions about a domain can thwart innovation (Amabile,
1983, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995, 1996). Pos-
sessing some level of naiveté may facilitate the forma-
tion of novel ideas and help one move beyond estab-
lished precedents. Conversely, having expertise in a
domain may make it easier to perceive appropriate
venues and opportunities for creativity to transpire. We
Creativity Research Journal

support an adaptable view suggested by Barron (1963),
who stated that the creative person “may be at once na-
ive and knowledgeable, being at home equally to prim-
itive symbolism and to rigorous logic” (p. 224). This
study found that some novice designers, with distin-
guishable creative personality traits and projects, ap-
pear to think more adaptively than their peers. What re-
mains to be seen is how these thinking abilities and
personality traits can be nurtured and developed as ex-
pertise and experience grow.
Limitations and Future Directions
Some limitations merit discussion as we interpret
the findings. First, the sample size was not large, and
the categorization of the sample by cognitive style may
have influenced the statistical power and interpretative
confidence of the study. Second, the measure of cre-
ative performance was based on a single design task,
accounting for only one instance of work. Judging a
larger portfolio of work for each participant would
have strengthened the external validity of the research.
Ideally, researchers should examine creativity over
time in designers with differing creative profiles. An-
other limiting variable in the study is gender. The
all-female sample characterized the pervasiveness of
women within interior design education. Similarly,
all-male investigations in architecture reflected the
mainstream architectural profession in the 1950s
(Mackinnon, 1962, 1965, 1970). Today, we can make a
case for examining female designers to bridge the gap
in knowledge and to advocate the exploration of poten-
tial differences across genders. Another aspect of the
study deserves mention. Design includes a consider-
able array of fields such as architecture, interior design,
landscape architecture, industrial design, engineering,
and apparel design. Although these allied fields share
many common attributes, these findings should only be
considered within the limits of the sampled population.
Future extensions of this study to related fields could
reveal interesting similarities and differences.
An adaptable mind in design exhibits oppositional
personality traits, thinking styles, and flexibility to en-
gage the external world creatively. This ability to adapt
one’s thinking appears synergistic with the holistic de-
mands of problem solving in design. What remains to
be fully understood are the environmental and social
conditions that nurture adaptable personalities, adapt-
Creativity Research Journal
The Adaptable Mind in Design
able thinking, and adaptable processes that ultimately
culminate in creative design solutions.
References
Albaum, G., & Baker, K. (1977). Cross-validation of a creativity
scale for the Adjective Check List. Educational and Psycholog-
ical Measurement, 37, 1057–1061.
Alter, J. (1984). Creativity profile of university and conservatory
dance students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(2),
153–158.
Alter, J. (1989). Creative profile of university and conservatory mu-
sic students. Creativity Research Journal, 2(3), 184–195.
Amabile, T. (1983). Social psychology of creativity. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance do-
mains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23–39.
Baer, J. (1998). Point-counterpoint: The case for domain specificity
of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.
Barnard, S. (1992). Interior design creativity: The development and
testing of a methodology for the consensual assessment of pro-
jects. Unpublished Dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,
VA.
Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health. New York:
Van Nostrand.
Brophey, D. (2001). Comparing the attributes, activities, and perfor-
mance of divergent, convergent, and combination thinkers. Cre-
ativity Research Journal, 13, 439–455.
Bunderson, C. (1987). The validity of the Herrmann Brain Domi-
nance Instrument. Unpublished manuscript.
Bunderson, C., Olsen, J., & Herrmann, W. (1982). A fourfold model
of multiple brain dominance and its validation through
correlational research (Scientific and technical report #10: Pre-
pared for General Electric). Orem, UT: Wicat Incorporated
Learning Design Laboratories.
Buros, O. (1972). The seventh mental measurements yearbook. Ox-
ford, England: Gryphon.
Buros, O. (1992). The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Ox-
ford, England: Gryphon.
Clitheroe, H. (2001). Mapping the creative context of architects. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Irvine, CA.
Cohen, L., & Ambrose, D. (1999). Adaptation and creativity. In M.
A. Runco & M. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity.
New York: Academic Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domains of creativity. In M. A.
Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp.
190–214). London: Sage.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of
discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
Davis, G. (1999). Creativity is forever (4th rev. ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall Hunt.
Davis, G., & Bull, K. (1978). Strengthening affective components of
creativity in a college course. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 70, 833–836.
165
J. Meneely and M. Portillo
DeWald, R. (1989). Relationships of MBTI types and HBDI prefer-
ences in a population of student program managers. Unpub-
lished dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo,
MI.
Domino, G. (1970). Identification of potentially creative persons
from the Adjective Check List. Journal of Consulting and Clin-
ical Psychology, 35, 48–51.
Domino, G. (1974). Assessment of cinematographic creativity. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 150–154.
Domino, G. (1994). Assessment of creativity with the ACL: An em-
pirical comparison of four scales. Creativity Research Journal,
7, 21–33.
Domino, G., & Giuliani, I. (1997). Creativity in three samples of
photographers: A validation of the Adjective Check List cre-
ativity scale. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 193–200.
Feist, G. (1999). Influence of personality on artistic and scientific
creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.
273–296). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Finke, R., Ward, T., & Smith, S. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory,
research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds. New York: Basic.
Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Design. In M. A. Runco & M. R. Pritzker
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 525–535). New York:
Academic Press.
Gough, H., & Heilbrun, A. (1983). The Adjective Check List manual.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Guastello, S., Shissler, J., Driscoll, J., & Hyde, T. (1998). Are some
cognitive styles more creatively productive than others? The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 77–91.
Guilford, J. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Han, K. (2003). Domain-specificity of creativity in young children:
How quantitative and qualitative data support it. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 37, 117–142.
Han, K., & Marvin, C. (2002). Multiple creatives? Investigating do-
main-specificity of creativity in young children. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 46, 98–109.
Herrmann, N. (1989). The creative brain (2nd ed.). Lake Lure, NC:
Brain Books.
Ho, K. T. (1988). The dimensionality and occupational discriminat-
ing power of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument. Un-
published Dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
Jackson, P., & Messick, S. (1973). The person, the product, and the
response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity.
In M. Bloomberg (Ed.), Creativity: Theory and research. New
Haven, CT: College & University Press.
James, K., & Asmus, C. (2001). Personality, cognitive skills, and
creativity in different life domains. Creativity Research Jour-
nal, 12, 149–159.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1988). Freedom and constraint in creativity. In R.
Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
166
Keyser, D., & Sweetland, R. (Eds.). (1984). Test Critiques. Kansas
City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
Lam, M. (1996). Developing architectural mindsets: Creativity and
the developmental characteristics of the values, methods, and
objectives of first, third, and sixth year architectural design stu-
dents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M.
Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process
demystified (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Architectural.
Leonard, D., & Straus, S. (1997). Putting your company’s whole
brain to work. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 110–123.
Mackinnon, D. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent.
American Psychologist, 17, 484–495.
Mackinnon, D. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative po-
tential. American Psychologist, 20, 273–281.
Mackinnon, D. (1970). The personality correlates of creativity: A
study of American architects. In P. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity (pp.
289–311). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Mackinnon, D. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying
and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education
Foundation.
Portillo, M. (1996). Uncovering implicit theories of creativity in be-
ginning design students. Journal of Interior Design, 22(2),
15–24.
Portillo, M., & Dohr, J. (1994). Bridging process and structure
through criteria. Design Studies, 15, 403–416.
Power, S., Kummerow, J., & Lundsten, L. (1999). A Herrmann brain
dominance profile analysis of sixteen MBTI types in a sample
of MBA students. Journal of Psychological Type, 49, 27–36.
Power, S., & Lundsten, L. (1997). Studies that compare type theory
and left-brain-right-brain theory. Journal of Psychological
Type, 43, 22–28.
Rowe, F., & Waters, M. (1992). Can personality-type instruments
profile majors in management programs? Journal of Education
for Business, 68, 10–15.
Rowe, P. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Russ, R., & Weber, M. (1995). Personality types of interior design
students: Implications for education. Journal of Interior De-
sign, 21, 30–38.
Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating
creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1996). Investing in creativity. American
Psychologist, 51, 677–688.
Sussman, G., & Justman, J. (1976). Characteristics of preadolescent
boys judged creative by their teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly,
19(3), 210–216.
Watson, S., & Thompson, C. (2001). Learning styles of interior de-
sign students as assessed by the Gregoric Style Delineator.
Journal of Interior Design, 27(1), 12–19.
Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by design. Monterey, CA: Brooks & Cole.
Creativity Research Journal