Creators’
sensitivity
1.
Why
is being creative a mystery? Does it need to be?
Do you find
yourself being creative frequently, occasionally, rarely, or simply never?
Maybe not
explicitly, you may see yourself coming up with new ideas different from
others, or you found a new way to make use of an old shoe box. Creativity comes
in different shapes, forms and sizes.
For example, name the most creative people, famous or not. On your list
did you name Albert Einstein, next to Picasso, or did you name your best
chemistry instructor, next to your best friend who performs poetry?
Better yet,
are you often under the impression that being creative is attain by a certain
type of person and it is something that cannot be changed?
Well you’re
not wrong, but you’re not right either. The ability to be creative differs
immensely amongst creators, as mentioned above, from an artist to a scientist. Creativity
in itself is dynamic, complex and multilayered. So, why should a person whom is
creative be any more distinct of how creativity is defined? The problem is
pinpointing what factors encompass the entirety of what it means to be
creative: the person, the process the product and the place – these are the
four P’s of creativity.
Psychologists
whom create methods and procedures to better understand what identifies and
defines an individual whom is creative, are currently standing at a roadblock. Why?
The three major indicators that may facilitate further investigation in the
individual differences of creators are cognition, affect, and personality.
Turns out
that a creative personality exists, and here’s how: personality trait
‘openness’ is the strongest predictor for creativity; biologically-based
temperament of sensitivity is likely to interact with creativity; and cognitive
processes reflect sensitive neural processing of which should be studied in
conjunction with creativity to understand its relationship (Bridges
& Schendan, 2019).
2.
So,
how can the realtionship between creativity, personality and sensitiivty be
established?
This is
what we know…
i.
Temperament and Personality
It is likely that you’ve heard
of the major “Big Five” personalities, which are Openness, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. The idea is that data (i.e.,
self-report is collected cross-culturally to assess traits that are shared and
considered stable throughout a person’s lifetime.
Thereby, personality encompasses individual differences that consistently
interact with socio-cultural factors such as our beliefs, values and
perceptions. The concern about this approach is that is based on self-report
questionnaires, critics point out that the personality questionnaire may
consist of biased language that influences individuals to response in a socially
desirable manner.
Additionally, the consensus of accepting the Big Five questionnaire as static
and determined results have led to neglecting that personality in fact evolves
throughout an individual’s development. For example, as adolescents we may have
made decisions that were driven by impulsivity, rather than using conscious
effort to determine whether skipping class was a good idea or not. It is safe
to say, that as adults, we have become more cautious if showing up to work with
a hangover is a great idea.
On the other hand, research describes early dispositions in activity,
affectivity, attention and self-regulation that are predicted by the
interaction of genetic, epigenetic, biological and environmental factors, of
which form the framework of global personality traits.
Moreover, the research describing
traits developing on a biological basis and cognitive processes are called
temperaments, of which individuals react and regulate to the interaction of
socio-cultural factors and influence thought processes.
In other words, temperaments are how our bodies and our cognition (i.e., thinking
processes) response instinctively to sensory input from the environment and
social interactions.
On the contrary, rather than analyzing
personality and temperaments as distinct, it is suggested that they describe
the same trait in their own way. In literature, what sets personality and
temperaments apart is the age these characteristics are displayed and
manifested. As children, we are described by our temperaments and as adults, we
are identified by our personality.
However, the investigation of the relationship between temperaments and
personality may be the bridge to better understanding what entails the creative
personality.
ii.
Personality and Creativity
From what was mentioned above,
personality studies have indicated that the strongest predictor of creativity
is openness. In fact, openness is traced and linked to cognitive exploration. An
individual that reports higher scores on traits of openness reflect tendencies
to be more imaginative, curious, perceptive, creative, artistic, thoughtful and
intellectual, which is also defined by cognitive exploration.
The existing relationship between openness and cognitive exploration supports
the proposition of disinhibition and hemispheric asymmetry.
By now, you’re probably asking
yourself: What does that mean?
What it means is that in
studies to better understand what factors are driven by creative individuals,
the research indicates that brain findings tells us that creativity processes
takes part in a process of disinhibition – i.e., the active role of allowing
irrelevant information into consciousness – and it occurs mostly in the right
hemisphere of the brain where exogenous attention and global processing is
thought to be dictated – i.e., the brain is processing stimuli as a whole from external
events in its environment.
In other words, the creative
process is likely to facilitate a creative individual to mind wander or
daydream.
Moreover, the differences in
individuals’ temperaments that indicate the degree of disinhibited and diffused
attentional states need to be communicated in how it impacts or influences the
highly creative individual.
iii.
Creativity and Sensitivity
When creative cognition is
examined as an indicator for physiological sensitivity, measures of brain
stimulation reactivity play a role for individuals reporting high scores of
sensory-sensitivity processing.
Participants whom report to be
oversensitive and display elevated physiological reactions from electric shock
intensity and skin conductance responses, tend to orientate their attention to
become more aware and conscious. In other words, a highly creative individual
is more likely to be more attentive to stimuli in their environment.
For example, a creative
individual in a new painting workshop (regardless of level artistry – for
simplicity purposes), is more likely to pay attention to the technique being
taught and/or more likely to experiment with colours and materials. They are
using their senses to project what their interpretation is of their
environment, they are actively present and engaged.
However, neural processing of
creative cognition needs to tie how the interaction of social and environmental
factors develop and evolve in relation to the personality of a highly creative
individual.
iv.
Sensitivity and Temperament
The way sensitivity and
temperaments are assessed (e.g., HSPS – Highly Sensitive Person Scale and ATQ –
Adult Temperament Questionnaire, respectively) already exist, yet not in
conjunction. In other words, the theoretical frameworks of individual’s sensitivity
are defined as how an individual reacts external events.
The level of reactivity for an
individual tends to hold a threshold, where the interaction between the
characteristics of neurosensitivity and the impact of external events occur.
When a threshold is reached – based on the chemical signals of emotional
response, these reactions trigger systems of emotions and motivations that lead
to behaviours that facilitate an individual to adapt in an approachable or
avoidant manner (i.e., vantage sensitivity or disproportionate reactivity).
Moreover, the reactivity that
occurs within an individual becomes part of their genes, generating chemical
reactions that pursue their personality overtime. For example, this could explain how some
individuals tend to better engage in a new context, where sometimes the same
individuals may shy away at unfamiliar faces.
The research contributes to
what traits need to be included for a sensitive individual and its implications
are of value based on great (moderate) statistical significance. However,
sensitivity frameworks indirectly suggest and include how these traits also
pertain to the development and evolvement of traits in an individual’s
temperament.
3.
What
would it mean to focus on the role of sensitivity for creators??
Based on the extensive review that Bridges and Schendan (2019) propose,
further understanding what the differences are amongst creative individuals
also pertains to looking at the big picture, rather than seeking findings with
a microscope. When the role of sensitivity is the focus in creativity, we are
more likely to gain a clearer image of how personality traits evolve
physiologically in cognitive processes. The interaction of sensitivity
thresholds, creative cognition and the stability of behavioral characteristics support
and predict creative potential and achievement (refer to figure at the top for
a general breakdown).
Creativity at face value continues to be a mystery,
especially the creative process and the creative person themselves. We often
are taught or form beliefs that a person ‘either is or is not’ creative. We are
driven to behave to mirror what we have learned, and how we have learned it.
When in reality, even having the ‘genes’ that increase your likelihood of being
more creative, what will determine an individual’s creative potential and
achievement is how you react to social and environmental interactions, it is
how you choose to perceive sensory stimuli. In other words, it is becoming more
aware and more conscious of your surroundings that will determine how your
creative potential will produce novel and effective products.
Nevertheless, an individual can be identified to have a creative
personality, in which traits will differ amongst creators, such as from Picasso
to Einstein.
4.
The
real question: how do we come up with a practical solution?
In order to understand what composes the sensitive creator, a method
needs to be created with the state-of-the-art measures. In other words, it is
the combination of all the things discussed in this blog. The authors outline
details on which assessments fit best for each concept. The following is only a
hypothetical outline of what the creative personality assessment would include:
Independent Variables
|
Dependent Variables
|
Outcomes
|
Highly Sensitive Person Scale
(HSPS) + Adult Temperament Questionnaire (ATQ)
|
Abbreviated Torrance Tests for
Adults (ATTA) + electric shock intensity and skin conductance responses
|
Neurosensitivity
|
Creativity Four-Stage Model +
ATTA with a focus on nonverbal tests
|
Default Mode Networks + EEG responses
|
Neural processing of creative attention
|
Big Five Personalities
|
Structure Temperament
Questionnaire (STQ) and Functional Ensemble Temperament
|
Development and evolvement of
personality-temperament traits throughout experience
|
In combination:
|
SENSITIVE
CREATOR ASSESSMENT
|
5.
Who
will benefit from the creative personality assessment?
The direction towards understanding the mechanisms of a biologically
based measure for the creative personality, taps into the relationship between
environment advantage and adversity, and the impact it has overtime (i.e., the
development of the individual).
For example, a parent whom may see such characteristics in themselves
and their children may consider adopting practices that flourishes and shapes
their creative sensitivity. Parents may benefit from learning to transition
from a ‘disproportionate reactivity’ to ‘vantage sensitivity.’
Another example, in classrooms, there could be a shift of promoting
adaptive practices that encourage visual literacy – using doodling effectively
and productively (for further reading: The Doodle Revolution by Sunni
Brown).
In summary, there are implications of cognitive-behavioural therapy
tactics for educators, parents, and in the workplace. That is, creating the
opportunity to physically use the surrounding environment to facilitate
‘out-of-the-box’ thinking, exploration, curiosity and openness to novelty may
lead to more successful outcomes of objectives.
References
Bridges, D., & Schendan, H. E. (2019). Sensitive individuals
are more creative. Personality and Individual Differences, 142,
186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.015
