The Multiple Relations Between Creativity and Personality

Rosa Aurora Cha´vez-Eakle

Washington International Center for Creativity

A. Jonathan Eakle

The Johns Hopkins University

Carlos Cruz-Fuentes

National Institute of Psychiatry, Ramon de la Fuente, Mexico

The aims of this article are to review the multiple relations between creativity and
personality, exploring the measurement instruments that have been used to identify
them. Specific personality characteristics and traits found in highly creative individuals
and the interaction of these traits with the creative process are described. In addition,
results of research projects conducted at the National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon
de la Fuente in Mexico City are presented. These projects evaluated personality traits
and behaviors present in productive and successful highly creative individuals. The
association of these traits and behaviors with differential brain activation and molecular
genetic variations in neurotransmitters systems were also explored, which suggested
some neurobiological foundations for the creative personality. Finally, it is shown
how certain developmental events are critical for personality formation and creativity
maturation, pointing out the need for specific strategies in designing and producing
programs and policies to provide quality education for all children.

Creativity is crucial to what it is to be human; it enhances
our adaptation to the environment and circumstances
allowing us to transform them. Creative thinking is the
foundation for art, science, philosophy, and technology,
involving generativity, bringing into being, transforming
what already exists, or even going beyond what is
considered to be possible during an era. To understand
how creativity occurs, and what processes are involved
in creative thinking still remains a challenge and ‘‘might
transform our view of ourselves and our societies’’ (Zeki,
2001, p. 201), especially in the present times that call for
creative solutions for global crisis.

Personality involves the everyday ways of feeling,

thinking, and acting of an individual. Some models
describe two components of personality: temperament—
the biological, inheritable traits—and character—the

traits acquired by environmental and social interaction,
particularly early interactions with caregivers (Cloninger,
2002; De la Fuente, 1959=1992); for this reason, person-
ality formation is a developmental processes, and to fully
understand it we need to review critical developmental
events and their impact in personality structuring. There
is no clear separation of what components of personality
are biological and which ones are social, due to the
multiple interactions between these two dimensions.
Furthermore, recent research has shown that genetic fac-
tors have an impact on the way people experience their
environments, but at the same time the environment,
particularly early experiences, have an impact on gene
expression. The variance of complex traits such as cogni-
tive ability or personality is explained by both factors
(Plomin, 2003). Some models consider personality as a
continuum where personality disorders are the extreme
and individual differences in personality traits are related
to differences in the risk of developing psychopathology
(Cloninger, 2002).

Correspondence should be sent to Dr. Rosa Aurora Cha´vez-Eakle,

Washington International Center for Creativity, 5335 Wisconsin Ave.
NW, Suite 440, Washington, DC 20015. E-mail: drchavezeakle@
creativitywashington.com

CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 24(1), 76–82, 2012
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2012.649233

RELATIONS BETWEEN CREATIVITY

AND PERSONALITY

Since the 1950s, the study of the personalities of highly
creative individuals has been an important area in crea-
tivity research. Helson (1996) suggested it is time to
return to the question of creative personality and to
investigate whether highly creative individuals display
common personality traits regardless of the field of cre-
ative work and to examine if there are major differences
among highly creative persons. The aim of this article is
to explore the following four major relations between
creativity and personality: (a) personality traits present
in highly creative individuals, (b) effects of personality
on the realization of the creative potential, (c) effects of
creative potential in personality development, and (d)
critical developmental events that shape personality
and impact creativity maturation. In addition, results
of research projects conducted at the National Institute
of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente in Mexico City are
presented, which suggest neurobiological foundations
to the creative personality.

PERSONALITY TRAITS PRESENT IN HIGHLY

CREATIVE INDIVIDUALS

Several investigators tried to elucidate whether there are
general features of creative personality, or if there are
personality differences among highly creative or eminent
individuals, which gave great impulse to the research in
the field of creativity. For instance, MacKinnon (1962)
found that the most creative architects described them-
selves as inventive, determined, independent, individual-
istic, enthusiastic, and industrious. Domino and Giuliani
(1997) discovered that experienced photographers under-
lined their inventiveness, enthusiasm, independence, and
industriousness, and described themselves as adventur-
ous, curious, imaginative, unconventional, and humor-
ous. Some longitudinal studies found that the creative
personality is relatively consistent overtime (Helson,
1996); however, some changes in the vitality of highly
creative individuals have been observed throughout the
lifespan (Helson, Jones, & Kwan, 2002). Many of these
authors used already-established personality tests or
developed new tests that assessed and quantified the
personality traits that were observed in highly creative
individuals.

The Assessment of Personality in the
Field of Creativity

This section comprises a brief review of some of the
most used personality assessment instruments in the
field of creativity. The Adjective Checklist (ACL) is an

instrument developed for the study of well-functioning
individuals and is useful for the identification of poten-
tially creative persons. It comprises a 300-item list of
adjectives designed to evaluate the actual and the ideal
self. The ACL can be used for self-assessment or by
observers, and it is administered in 10–20 min. There
have been documented correlations of ACL scales with
the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
and general vocabulary tests (Gough & Heilbrun,
1983). However, ACL scores tend to show more vari-
ation through different stages of life, whereas CPI and
MMPI scores tend to be stable (Feist & Barron, 2003).

The Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory

is a self-report measure of creativity that comprises two
components: (a) Something About Myself (SAM), which
measures artistic inclination, intelligence, individuality,
sensitivity, initiative, and self-strength, and (b) What
Kind of Person Are You? (WKOPAY), which measures
imagination,

appeal

to

authority,

self-confidence,

inquisitiveness, and awareness of others. These tests are
administered in 20–40 min and are suitable for indivi-
duals 12 years old and older (Khatena & Torrance, 1976).

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator evaluates differ-

ences in the way individuals prefer to use their percep-
tion and judgment. It is based on Jungian dichotomies
of cognitive function (Jung 1921=1971), introversion=
extroversion, sensing=intuiting, thinking=feeling, perceiving=
judging, resulting in 16 different personality types. This
instrument can be administered to individuals 14 years
and older and involves 166 multiple choice items (Myers
& McCaulley, 1985).

The Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory (KAI)

is a 32-item instrument that can be used in mild teens
and adults and evaluates differences in creativity style,
that is how are people creative (in what way?) instead
of evaluating levels of creativity (how much?) by measur-
ing preferred styles of problem solving and creativity.
The

evaluated

cognitive

styles

are

adaptation–

innovation, which are considered as a continuum. Each
cognitive style involves particular behaviors. Adaptors
work within the system to improve things, accepting
and working within the current problem definition to
look for ways of doing things better. Innovators chal-
lenge or ignore established systems, see definitions as
part of the problem, and look for ways of doing things
differently (Kirton, 1994).

Buffalo Creative Process Inventory (BCPI), a 36-item

instrument, identifies problem solving styles and pro-
vides valuable information to understand in what ways
these styles may complement or hinder group and=or
individual problem solving (Puccio, 1999). The BCPI is
based on the three stage creative problem solving (CPS)
model of: (a) understanding the problem, (b) generating
ideas, and (c) planning for action; and the observation of

MULTIPLE RELATIONS BETWEEN CREATIVITY AND PERSONALITY

77

differences in individual interaction with different stages
of the creative process. These creative problem solving
differences are defined in the different styles assesses by
this instrument: the clarifier (collector), the ideator, the
developer, and the implementor (executor).

The MMPI is the most frequently used personality

test and is useful to identify personality structure and
psychopathology. There have been several revisions of
this instrument (MMPI-2, MMPI-2-RF) and one version
suitable for use with adolescents (MMPI-A). The MMPI
is based on the assumption that psychopathology is a
homogenous condition that is additive. It comprises
several clinical, validity, content, and temperament
scales and a creativity scale was developed for the
MMPI-2 (Nassif & Quevillon, 2008).

The Rorschach inkblot test consists of 10 ink blots

designed to elicit perceptions that are recorded and
analyzed to display psychological assessment of the per-
sonality function and psychotic=nonpsychotic thinking.
There has been controversy about the clinical validity
of this instrument; it has been proposed that the inkblots
might be used to elicit creativity in controlled settings
and, therefore, could be used to assess creative potential
(Gregory, 2000).

The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) is

based on Cloninger, Svrakic, and Przybeck’s (1993) psy-
chobiological model. This model comprises four dimen-
sions of temperament: (a) novelty seeking (impulsive vs.
reflective), (b) harm avoidance (anxious vs. calm), (c)
reward dependence (warm vs. aloof), and (d) persistence
(steadfast vs. fickle); and three dimensions of character:
(a) self-directedness (resourceful vs. helpless), (b) coopera-
tiveness (emphatic vs. hostile), and (c) self-transcendence
(self-forgetful vs. acquisitive). The JrTCI is a tempera-
ment and character inventory designed for use on adoles-
cents that is based on the same psychobiological model. It
has been suggested that an association between tempera-
ment traits and functional variations in neurotransmitter
system such as the dopaminergic, serotoninergic, noradre-
nergic, and GABA-ergic systems (Svrakic et al., 2002).

Temperament and Character Traits Present in
Highly Creative Individuals

Using the TCI to investigate temperament and character
traits in highly creative and currently productive indivi-
duals who had won National prizes in art or science,
Chavez-Eakle, Lara, and Cruz (2006) found that the
personality profile associated with a high creativity
index included the following traits: (a) high exploratory
excitability: they display exploratory behavior when they
encounter novelty (NS1 M

¼ 8.13, F ¼ 9.63, p ¼ 0.0001,

r

¼ 0.29=0.39), (b) low harm avoidance: they are optimis-

tic, unafraid when faced with uncertainty, and they do not
easily get tired (HA M

¼ 11.37, F ¼ 16.80, p ¼ 0.0001;

r

¼ 0.38=0.43); (c) high persistence: they pursue goals with

intensity, persist, and survive against adversity (P
p

¼ 0.005, r ¼ 0.31=0.3); (d) high self-directedness: they

demonstrate responsibility, are directed to their goals, uti-
lize many resources, are self accepting, and are congruent
(SD M

¼ 34.83, F ¼ 22.76, p ¼ 0.0001; r ¼ 0.51=0.53); and

(e) high cooperativeness: they display empathy, tolerance,
and integrated consciousness (C M

¼ 33.77, F ¼ 5.70,

p

¼ 0.0001, r ¼ 0.34). This temperament and character pro-

file integrated by high exploratory excitability, low harm
avoidance, high persistence, high self-directedness and
high cooperativeness was associated with both a high crea-
tivity index and a high creative achievement. This profile is
different to what has been reported in control individuals
or in psychiatric populations (Chavez-Eakle et al., 2006).

The creative potential was assessed using the the

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) figural
and verbal (Torrance, 1990). These are the most widely
used instruments that assess creative potential. These tests
have been used for identification of the creatively gifted
and they are reliable in multicultural settings. The TTCT
provide a creativity index and score the following dimen-
sions of the creative process: (a) flexibility, the ability to
move from one conceptual field to another; (b) fluency,
the number of relevant responses, which is related to the
ability to produce and consider many alternatives; (c)
originality, the amount of unusual responses, which
involves ‘‘getting away from the obvious and common
place or breaking away from habit bound thinking’’
(Torrance & Safter, 1999, p. 87), original ideas are statisti-
cally infrequent; (d) elaboration, the number of details on
each response; (e) resistance to premature closure, the
ability to remain open to uncertainty; and (f) abstractness
of titles, the degree of abstraction versus concreteness.
Additional points are added to the final score for the
presence of other recognized creative strengths such as
emotional

expressiveness,

storytelling

articulateness,

movement or action, expressiveness of titles, synthesis
of incomplete figures, unusual visualization, internal
visualization, extending or breaking boundaries, humor,
richness of imagery, colorfulness of imagery, and fantasy.
The TTCT has shown high reliability (r > 0.90) and high
predictive validity (r > 0.57) for future career image, and
for academic, and style-living creative achievements in
22- and 30-year follow-up studies (Torrance, 1988, 1990,
1993). The TTCT have been used in more than 2,000
research projects and translated into 30 languages
(Cramond, 1999).

In addition, Chavez-Eakle et al. (2006) found strong

negative correlations between creativity and psychopath-
ology (using the Symptom Check List 90) on all subscales:
somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensi-
tivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, para-
noid

ideation,

psychoticism

(R

¼ 0.52 . . . 0.36,

p

¼ 0.0001). Flexibility, abstraction, premature closure

78

CHA

´ VEZ-EAKLE, EAKLE, CRUZ-FUENTES

resistance,

emotional

expressiveness,

imagination,

humor, fantasy the most affected by psychopathology
(Chavez-Eakle et al., 2006).

BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE

CREATIVE PERSONALITY

Creativity and Overexcitability

There is evidence that highly creative individuals have a
tendency to be physiologically overactive to stimulation
(Martindale,

Anderson,

Moore,

&

West,

1996).

Dabrowski developed a theory of personality develop-
ment that offers a different approach to the creative
personality from his experience with artists and gifted
children. He recognized the critical role of the intensity
of human experiences and emotions in development,
particularly those related to richness in feelings,
thoughts, vivid imagination, and moral and emotional
sensitivity; an increase in the intensity, frequency, and
duration of these experiences is what Dabrowski called
overexcitability, an overreaction to internal and external
stimuli. In his theory of positive disintegration, he sug-
gested that some people have a strong potential for
development being overexcitabilities a critical compo-
nent of this potential. This potential for development
is what allows an individual to become authentic and
autonomous. There are five types of overexcitability:
emotional, sensual, intellectual, imaginational, and psy-
chomotor, and these patterns of intense responses have
been found to be indicators of creative potential and
giftedness (Dabrowski, Kawczak, & Piechowski, 1970).
Using the Overexcitability Questionaire II (OEQII) it
was found that individuals displaying highly creative
achievement present significantly higher scores on sen-
sual, intellectual and imaginational overexcitabilities
(Chavez, 2004). The OEQII is a 50-item instrument that
evaluates the five overexcitabilities; it has been used in
cross cultural studies involving China, Mexico, Spain,
Turkey, and the United States (Falk, Yakmaci-Guzel,
Chang, & Cha´vez-Eakle, 2007).

Molecular Genetic Variations and Brain Activation
Associated to Highly Creative Performance

Chavez and Cruz performed the first studies linking
molecular genetics to creativity (Martindale, 2007). In
these studies, it was found that there is a significant
association between the serotonin transporter gene
5’SLC6A4 and the temperament traits harm avoidance
and novelty seeking in highly creative individuals (Cha-
vez et al., 2003). Soon after this association was found,
an association between the dopamine receptor DRD4
gene and the creativity index was also discovered

(Chavez, 2004; Chavez-Eakle, 2007). Dopamine plays
an important role in cognition and motor functioning,
is a modulator of exploratory behavior in animals and
humans, and is involved with euphoria stimulation,
and with emotion, mood, and reward (Chavez, 2004).
Dopamine has been linked to specific personality traits
such as explorative behavior and novelty seeking
(Cloninger et al., 1993).

Cerebral Blood Flow and Creative Performance

When evaluating differences in brain cerebral blood flow
(CBF) between highly creative individuals (scientists
and=or artists socially recognized for their contributions
to their fields with creativity indexes corresponding to the
99% percentile) and control subjects during the perfor-
mance of a verbal task from the TTCT using single pho-
ton emission computerized tomography and statistical
parametric mapping, highly creative individuals showed
significantly higher activation in both right and left cer-
ebral hemispheres simultaneously, showed higher CBF
in right precentral gyrus BA 6, right cerebellum, culmen,
left middle frontal gyrus, BA 6 and 10, right frontal rectal
gyrus, BA 11, left frontal orbital gyrus BA 47, left inferior
temporal gyrus, BA 20 precentral gyrus, right culmen,
right and left middle frontal gyrus, left orbitofrontal
gyrus and left inferior temporal gyrus. In addition, the
increased CBF in some of these areas correlated with
the subjects’ performance on fluency, originality, and
flexibility measures (Cha´vez-Eakle, Graff-Guerrero,
Garcı´a-Reyna, Vaugier, & Cruz-Fuentes, 2007). These
brain areas have greatly developed during human evol-
ution, and are involved with multimodal processing,
cognitive processes such as thoughts, imagery, working
memory, linguistic processing, attention, processing of
emotions, and volition. Further, some of these areas are
activated during sexual arousal. The observed higher
activation in these areas could be related to the vivid
experience of insight, emotions and perceptions that are
present in highly creative individuals; these qualities,
combined with their high symbolic abilities, might enable
highly creative individuals to translate their experiences
into creative works (Cha´vez-Eakle et al., 2007).

CREATIVITY AND PERSONALITY: THE

DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE

Developmental Events Critical in Personality
Formation and Creativity Maturation

Creative impulses are present at any age, but they are
related to the individual’s first vital experiences. These
experiences are critical for the formation of a healthy
personality and for the development of creative potential

MULTIPLE RELATIONS BETWEEN CREATIVITY AND PERSONALITY

79

as well. Caregivers’ adaptations to the child’s needs
produce in the child the illusion of an exterior reality that
corresponds with their own capacity to create and also
allow the child to experience his or her feelings as his
or her own (Winnicott, 1971). The caregivers’ attuned
involvement with the children allow them to be able to
experience emotional arousal within manageable limits,
to achieve self-emotional regulation, to make meaning
of emotional states, and to feel good about their own
impulses, therefore children become able to build and
use their internal resources and to develop their intuition
(Bion, 1967; Rayner, Joyce, Rose, Twyman, & Clulow,
2005). When the early experiences of the child with the
adult are positive, the child’s potential as a human being
is activated developing a sense of continuity going on
being. The caregiver provides the context for the child
to explore inner urges as coming from the self and the
child becomes able to relate with the self and the care-
giver and the world in a benign, creative way.

However, if these early experience are negative ones,

all of the frustrations that the child cannot handle
become impingements, the sense of going on being is dis-
rupted, individuality and creativity remain hidden in a
false-self organization and urges are experienced ‘‘as a
clap of thunder from elsewhere’’ (Winnicott, 1960). Care-
givers make available the experience of being mirrored
that provides a coherent, creative sense of self. In other
words, the adults serve as mirrors to the children’s needs,
thoughts, and behaviors, and what is seen by the child in
those mirrors is what the child becomes able to see in the
self (Fonagy, 1999; Rayner et al., 2005; Winnicott, 1960).
These events have deep implications for the development
of personality and can make the difference between struc-
turing a healthy personality or in developing a serious
personality disorder. An individual with a healthier
personality will be able to mobilize his or her creative
resources and potentials with more freedom and will be
better able to adapt and create when facing painful life
situations.

Other developmental experiences that have an impact in

personality formation and creativity maturation are play,
fantasy, the experience of control and ownership over
one’s own body, imitation of adults and the roles that they
offer, early literacies broadly defined (Eakle, 2007), and
socialization. It is also important to point out that experi-
encing shame at early stages of development can lead to
future blockages in the creative process, and also to the
organization of anxious-depressive personality traits.

Effects of Creative Potential in
Personality Development

Highly creative individuals are permanently open to per-
sonality reorganizations. For instance, during adolescence
they might display what seems to be psychopathology but

without damaging consequences in adult life (Eissler,
1978). The creative process allows self-reorganizations
that makes possible to experience states that seem to be
pathological (Eissler, 1978). A highly creative individual
is in constant self-actualization (May, 1975). Creativity
makes life worth living, and involves a strong sense of
being alive (Winnicott, 1971).

The Importance in Creativity and
Personality Formation

Play is crucial for the development of creativity and the
development of a healthy personality. Play involves
experimenting, combining and generating new possibili-
ties, exploring the limits of reality and fantasy, as well as
the boundaries of inner and the external worlds. Good,
exciting, and dramatic play leaves a child calmer and
satisfied, like a good night of sleep. On the other hand,
disrupted play can leave a child in deep distress. Play
cannot happen if the child is terrified by a threatening
environment or when the child is placed in an overstrict
climate where playing is devaluated. When play is
disrupted, the child can develop ruthless play, in this dis-
tortion of playful behavior others are seen as objects and
the child might display sadistic, unempathic, cold, and
even cruel behaviors (Rayner, 2005). When this hap-
pens, the child feels full of frustrations that are torturing
the self and, therefore, the child opts for tormenting
others. These ruthless games can continue in adult life
by being ruthless to others with no consideration of their
needs, which can be seen in malevolent creativity, empire
building, or criminal behavior (Rayner et al., 2005).
That is why it is important to reconsider some of the
education policies regarding play.

Nonetheless, during recent years, play has been

pushed to the side in many school districts in the name
of education reform. During the last half of the 20th
century, and in part as a reaction against behaviorist
practices (e.g., rote learning), there was renewed interest
in progressive pedagogies that encouraged play, explo-
ration, and open-ended teaching and learning. However,
in a thus-far ineffective effort to close persistent achieve-
ment gaps, recent reform initiatives have focused on
notions of accountability, the standardization of curricu-
lum, and the reduction of education to what works,
which is narrowly defined by some policymakers as what
can be reproduced from a uniform set of curriculum
standards and scaled to increase student achievements
on decontextualized skills and tests (Eakle, in press),
where. instead of caregivers, teachers are often charged
with being test givers.

The resulting pressure on students, teachers, and

other educators to perform well on regularly adminis-
tered assessments of a standardized body of content
has not only been paralyzing to creativity and innovation

80

CHA

´ VEZ-EAKLE, EAKLE, CRUZ-FUENTES

in higher-order subject areas, but it has also led to the
dismantling of the very things that can foster creativity
in the early grades. Kindergarten and first grade class-
rooms, where in the past play, socialization, exploration,
risk taking, and community building were hallmark
practices, have increasingly become laboratories to pre-
pare children to simply do well on subsequent high-
stakes measures. Play is on the other side of such rigid
curriculum and instruction; and, if play is prevented to
gain time for the delivery of a standardized core curricu-
lum, this could have a deleterious impact in the children’s
personality formation and in the development of their
creative potential.

CONCLUSIONS

Creativity and personality have multiple and multidi-
mensional relations. There have been documented per-
sonality traits present in highly creative individuals and
deeper knowledge of these traits could be helpful to
understand the behavior of highly creative individuals
in educational settings and to serve the needs of students,
teachers, schools, and wider communities. The person-
ality tests and inventories reviewed in this article can be
useful instruments for research in diverse cultural and
education settings. Creative potential has been success-
fully assessed at early ages; nevertheless, it is important
to point out that personality is not structured until the
onset of adulthood. However, the tests assessing tem-
perament traits (e.g., the JrTCI or the OEQ-II) are useful
with younger individuals because these traits are present
very early in life. Regarding the identification of creative
potential, the TTCT are creativity-assessment instru-
ments that have been useful to identify creative potential
in children (5 years and older) and adults. These tests
have also been useful in the identification of gifted indi-
viduals from different cultural backgrounds and from
underrepresented populations due to the neutrality of
the test stimuli that can elicit creative responses in
multiple and diverse cultures. As shown in this article,
personality can have an impact on the realization of
the creative potential and the creative potential has
lifespan implications for personality development by
offering possibilities for personality reorganization. In
addition, there are events during development—in parti-
cularly during childhood—that impact both personality
formation and the development of the creative potential.
Considering that personality is in continuous develop-
ment during childhood and adolescence, changes in edu-
cation strategies and policies could have an impact in the
development and consolidation of children and ado-
lescent personality traits and in the fulfillment of their
creative potential. Here we could question what should
be the goals of education and perhaps begin to consider

personality formation and creativity development as
a priority. The quality of children’s experience with
caregivers, their attunement to the child’s need, their
reactions to the child’s unusual behaviors, and the avail-
ability of free play, as well as play that is incorporated
into learning activities are relevant events that should
be carefully considered when developing education pro-
grams and policies in order to provide quality education
and wellbeing for all children.

REFERENCES

Bion, W. (1967). Second thoughts. London, UK: Heinemann.
Cha´vez, R. A. (2004). Evaluacio´n integral de la personalidad creativa:

Fenomenologı´a, clı´nica y gene´tica [Integral evaluation of the creative
personality: Phenomenology, clinic and genetics] (Unpublished dis-
sertation). Facultad de Medicina, National Autonomous University
of Mexico UNAM, Mexico DF, Mexico.

Cha´vez, R. A., Cruz, C., Eakle, A. J., Go´mez, A., Lara, M. C., &

Lartigue, T. (2003). Association analysis of the serotonin trans-
porter gene promoter regulatory polymorphism, creativity index,
and temperament and character traits. In Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the Human Genome Conference, Cancun, Mexico.

Chavez-Eakle, R. A. (2004). On the neurobiology of the creative process.

Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 5, 29–35.

Chavez-Eakle, R. A. (2007). On the neurobiology of creativity: DNA

and brain blood flow. In C. Martindale, P. V. Locher, & V. Petrov
(Eds.), Evolutionary and neurocognitive approaches to the arts
(pp. 209–224). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Cha´vez-Eakle, R. A., Lara, M. C., & Cruz, C. (2006). Personality: A

possible bridge between creativity and psychopathology? Creativity
Research Journal, 18, 27–38.

Cha´vez-Eakle, R. A., Graff-Guerrero, A., Garcı´a-Reyna, J. C.,

Vaugier, V., & Cruz-Fuentes, C. (2007). Cerebral blood flow associa-
ted with creative performance: A comparative study. Neuroimage,
38, 519–528.

Cloninger, C. R. (2002). Relevance of normal personality for psychia-

trists. In B. J. Ebstein, & R. Belmaker (Eds.), Molecular Genetics
and the Human Personality (pp. 33–42). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Publishing.

Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psycho-

biological model of temperament and character. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.

Cramond, B. (1999). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Going

beyond the scores. In A. Fishkin et al. (Eds.), Investigating creativity
in youth (pp. 307–327). New York: Hampton Press.

Dabrowski, K., Kawczak, A., & Piechowski, M. (1970). Mental growth

through positive desintegration. London, UK: Gryf Publications.

De la Fuente, R. (1992). Psicologı´a Me´dica. Me´xico City, Mexico:

Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica. (Original work published in 1959).

Domino, G., & Giuliani, I. (1997). Creativity in three samples of

photographers: A validation of the adjective check list creativity
scale. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 193–200.

Eakle, A. J. (2007). Museum literacy, art, and space study. In D. Lapp,

J. Flood, & S. B. Heath (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching
literacy through the communicative and visual arts (2nd ed.)
(pp. 177–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eakle, A. J. (Ed.). (2012). Debating issues in education: Curriculum and

instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eissler, K. R. (1978). Creativity and adolescence—The effect of

trauma in Freud’s adolescence. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,
33, 461–517.

MULTIPLE RELATIONS BETWEEN CREATIVITY AND PERSONALITY

81

Falk, R. F., Yakmaci-Guzel, B., Chang, A., & Cha´vez-Eakle, R. A.

(2007). Measuring overexcitability: Replication across five countries.
In S. Mendaglio (Ed.), Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration
(pp. 183–199). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential.

Feist, G. J, & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to

late adulthood: Intellect, potential, and personality. Journal of
Research in Personality, 37, 62–88.

Fonagy, P. (1999). Final remarks. In R. J. Perelberg (Ed.), Psycho-

analytic understanding of violence and suicide (pp. 134–146). London,
UK: New Library of Psychoanalysis.

Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The Adjective Check List

Manual (1983 ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gregory, R. (2000). Reversing Rorschach. Nature, 404, 19.
Helson, R. (1996). In search of the creative personality. Creativity

Research Journal, 9, 295–306.

Helson, R., Jones, C., & Kwan, V. (2002). Personality change over 40

years of adulthood: Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of two
longitudinal samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
38, 752–766.

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. In Collected works of C. G.

Jung (Vol. 6). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original
work published 1921)

Khatenaj, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1976). Khatena–Torrance Creative

Perception Inventory (KTCPI). Chicago: Stoeling.

Kirton, M. (1994). Adaptors and innovators. London, UK: Routledge.
Martindale, C. (2007). Recent trends in the psychological study of

aesthetics, creativity, and the arts. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
25, 121–141.

Martindale, C., Anderson, K., Moore, K., & West, A. N. (1996).

Creativity, oversensitivity, and rate of habituation. Personality and
Individual Differences, 20, 423–427.

MacKinnon, D W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent.

American Psychologist, 17, 484–495.

May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York: Bantam Books.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). A guide to the development

and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nassif, C., & Quevillon, R. (2008). The development of a preliminary

creativity scale for the MMPI-2: The C scale. Creativity Research
Journal, 20, 13–20.

Plomin, R. (2003). General cognitive ability. In R. Plomin, J. C.

Defries, I. W. Craig, & P. McGuffin (Eds.), Behavioral genetics in
the postgenomic era (pp. 183–202). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association Press.

Puccio, G. J. (1999). Creative problem solving preferences: Their

identification and implications. Creativity and Innovation Manage-
ment, 8(3), 171–178.

Rayner, E. (2005). Three to five years old. In E. Rayner, A. Joyce,

J. Rose, M. Twyman, & C. Clulow (Eds.), Human development:
An introduction to the psychodynamics of growth, maturity and
ageing (pp. 120–146). Sussex, UK: Routledge.

Rayner, E., Joyce, A., Rose, J., Twyman, M., & Clulow, C. (2005).

Human development: An introduction to the psychodynamics of
growth, maturity and ageing (pp. 120–146). Sussex, UK: Routledge.

Svrakic, D. M., Draganic, S., Hill, K., Bayon, C., Przybeck, T. R., &

Cloninger, C. R. (2002). Temperament, character, and personality
disorders: Ethiologic, diagnostic, and treatment issues. Acta Psychia-
trica Scandinavica, 106, 189–195.

Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing.

In R. J. Sternberg, (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 43–75). New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1990). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville,

IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P. (1993). The beyonders in a thirty year longitudinal

study of creative achievement. Roeper Review, 15, 131–135.

Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. (1999). Making the creative leap

beyond. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.

Winnicott, D. W. (1960). Ego distortions in terms of the true and false

self. The maturational processes and the facilitating environment.
London, UK: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis.

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. London, UK:

Tavistock.

Zeki, S. (2001). Artistic creativity and the brain. Science, 293,

51–52.

82

CHA

´ VEZ-EAKLE, EAKLE, CRUZ-FUENTES

Copyright of Creativity Research Journal is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.