I need an ANALYSIS and INSIGHT regarding the following tables (no need for chart
ID: 359593 • Letter: I
Question
I need an ANALYSIS and INSIGHT regarding the following tables (no need for charts, etc. Just insight)
Background:
Individual Differences in Ideational Behavior: Can the Big Five and Psychometric Intelligence Predict Creativity Scores?
The assessment of trait creativity (Eysenck, 1993; Guilford, 1950) has proven to be a difficult undertaking, in part due to the difficulty in selecting appropriate measures (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). Inconsistent definitions of the creativity construct (Parkhurst, 1999) have obfuscated the selection of appropriate assessments of creativity. However, a recent review of the creativity literature concluded that ‘‘over the course of the last decade, however, we seem to have reached a general agreement that creativity involves the production of novel, useful products’’ (Mumford, 2003, p. 107).
There is a convergence among researchers that creativity in the individual will be reliant upon multiple components (Amabile, 1996; Eysenck, 1995, Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989). These components usually include cognitive ability, per- sonality factors, cognitive style, motivation, knowledge, and the environment as sources of stimulation (Dodds, Smith, & Ward, 2002; Moss, 2002) and evaluation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). Although it has been argued that studies of creativity should focus on eminent crea- tors (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999), Mumford (2003) indi- cated that studies of creativity in normative samples are an important future avenue of creativity research. Runco et al. (2000–2001) suggested creative ideation (or Ideational Behavior; IB) to be a universal compo- nent of creativity, in that creativity at all levels involves ideation. The Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (RIBS) was devised to assess self-reported creative ideation or ‘‘behavior that clearly reflects the individual’s use of, appreciation of, and skill with ideas’’ (Runco et al., 2000–2001, p. 394).
Runco et al. (2000–2001) suggested that the product approach to creativity assessment, although popular (Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989), may be considered flawed. The product approach to creativity assessment may not be suitable for children and nonprofessionals, does not elucidate upon the processes involved in product cre- ation, and the discriminant validity of judge’s ratings of creativity in some domains is contentious (Lindauer, 1990). Last, in practical terms the assessment of creative products is time-consuming and open to considerable bias in judgment. To take account of the difficulties of a product- oriented approach to creativity assessment, Runco et al. (2000–2001) suggested the RIBS as an alternative measure. Their primary contention was that ‘‘ideas can be treated as the products of original, divergent, and even creative thinking’’ (p. 394). From this perspective, ideas are seen as common products related to creativity across domains and, therefore, suitable for understand- ing normally distributed traits or everyday creativity (Runco & Richards, 1998). The benefits of assessing IB are that ideas are products created by everyone; IB will be domain-general and that the processes underlying the production of ideas have been described (Guilford, 1967; Mednick, 1962). To capture the essence of IB, Runco et al. (2000–2001) developed the RIBS to provide a self-report measure of an individual’s per- ceived ‘‘ability to be original, flexible and fluent—with ideas’’ (p. 394); facets of divergent thinking (DT). Runco et al. (2000–2001) developed an initial pool of 100 questionnaire items. Following a priori item selec- tion, the pool was reduced to 23 items that reflected the principles of ideation. Typical items include; ‘‘I come up with an idea or solution other people have never thought of,’’ ‘‘I am good at combining ideas in ways that others have not tried,’’ and ‘‘I have always been an active thinker—I have lots of ideas.’’ The questionnaire items are responded to using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).
Exploratory factor analysis using principle axis fac- toring and a scree test suggested a single factor solution. The reliability of the RIBS was established in two samples of 97 and 224 students, respectively, yielding internal consistency coefficients on the order of a 14 .92 and .91, respectively. Discriminant validity of the RIBS was established in a sample of 91 students with regards to two measures of attitudes and student grade point average (GPA). Basadur’s (Runco & Basadur, 1993) self-report 8-item measure of openness to divergence and 6 item measure of tendency toward premature closure were found to share 10–12% of variance with the RIBS (r’s 14 .34 and .32, respectively, ps < 0.1). Student GPA was not significantly related to the RIBS. Subsequent studies of the validity of the RIBS have used the original 23-item version of the RIBS and, in the case of Ames and Runco (2005), a 37-item variant (cf. Runco et al., 2000–2001). These studies have found the measure to be correlated with DT (Ames & Runco, 2005; Plucker, Runco, & Lim, 2006), levels of successful entrepreneur- ship (Ames & Runco, 2005) and to be largely invariant in a sample of Korean and American students (Plucker, Runco, & Lim, 2006). However, the extent to which the RIBS overlaps with intelligence and the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality is unknown.
The primary aim of this study was to ascertain the relationship of IB to validated (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003; Neisser et al., 1996) measures of individual differences: personality and intelligence. This analysis will allow an investigation of the taxonomic location of IB in relation to established individual differ- ences measures and to ascertain further the construct validity of the measure.
Studies of the creative personality using the FFM have repeatedly found a relationship between creativity and Extraversion (E), Openness to Experience (O) and, to a smaller extent, Conscientiousness (C, negatively; Feist, 1998; Furnham, Batey, Anand, & Manfield, 2008; King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996; McRae, 1987; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001; see Batey & Furnham [2006] for a review). It is likely that IB possesses differential relationships to personality and intelligence. From the FFM, the factors E, O, and C will most likely be related to IB scores. E and O may be positively related to IB, and C will likely be negatively related to IB. E may be postulated to provide both the energy for creative pur- suits and the sociability that increases the likelihood that an individual’s creative ideas have been appreciated in the past; leading to a self-appraisal of superior creative ideation. An important caveat to these findings is that most of the studies that have revealed a significant positive relationship between E and creativity have employed group-administered, timed tests of DT. It is possible that the observed relationships of E to DT may be a result of the nature of the creativity criterion employed. In timed tests of DT, E traits such as sensation-seeking and gregariousness will favor per- formance. Extraverts might use the divergent thinking test scenario as a means of seeking excitement and may be more comfortable with a group administration. The RIBS was not a performance measure of creativity, but rather focuses on the internal world of ideas, with this in mind it is possible that Introversion, rather than E, might predict IB.
O is likely to influence the richness of ideas an individual holds, thereby increasing the chances that remote ideas may be associated; resulting in improved creative thinking (Mednick, 1962). This perceptual and ideational openness may, in part, be due to a decreased ability to inhibit irrelevant stimuli (Peterson, Smith, & Carson, 2002). Decreased C may be postulated to pro- mote creativity, in that low C individuals are more likely to disregard instruction, avoid order, and act impul- sively. These behaviors may improve the chances of finding new and useful ways of approaching tasks and ideas. It is expected that IB will be positively correlated with O (H1a) and E (H1b), but negatively with C (H1c).
Studies of creative intelligence using DT tests have found a weak to moderate relationship to psychometric intelligence (Batey & Furnham, 2006). Early research indicated that there may be a curvilinear relationship between intelligence and DT (Guilford, 1981; Torrance, 1962; Yamamoto, 1964). However, recent research has suggested that the data do not support the threshold theory as weak linear relationships between DT and intelligence have been observed (Kim, 2005; Silvia, 2008). Studies relating rated creativity to measures of intelligence have found nonsignificant relationships (MacKinnon, 1961). The RIBS is a behaviorally anchored self-report measure of IB, therefore a positive relationship between IB and IQ and gf is expected. It is likely that the relationship between IB and gf will be of greater magnitude than that observed between IB and IQ. This is because self-reported creative ideation or IB will be more reliant upon efficient cognitive function, than accumulated knowledge; though both will be required in real-life creative problem-solving. Were the IB measure to assess actual ideational performance (as opposed to perceived ideational behavior), it is likely that a test of crystallized intelligence or knowledge would be predictive. It was hypothesized that there would be a significant positive relationship between IB and gf (H2a) and a significant positive relationship between IB and IQ (H2b). Of the two intellectual constructs, the magnitude of the relationship between gf and IB will be greater than that observed between IQ and IB (H2c).
METHOD
Participants
A total of 158 undergraduate students from a large British university took part in this study. All participants possessed a high degree of English language proficiency, in accordance with university admission requirements. There were 112 females and 46 males. Their ages ranged from 18 to 27 (M 14 20.43, SD 14 2.45).
Measures
Ideational behavior. Ideational behavior was assessed through the RIBS (Runco et al., 2000–2001). This is a 23-item self-report scale that assesses
differences in individuals’ recalled tendency to generate novel and original ideas. Participants respond on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The theoretical rationale underlying this scale is based on Guilford’s (1967) comprehensive structure of intellect (SOI) model, in particular the belief that ideas are the result of original, divergent, and creative thinking processes. Despite the novel aspect of this scale, it has been reported to have good internal reliability (Runco et al., 2001). The inter- nal consistency of the scale for this study was found to be acceptable (a 14 0.88). The construct validity of this measure in relation to established measures of individual differences was the aim of this investigation.
Personality. Personality was assessed through the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1992), which is a well-established and widely used 240-item, nontimed questionnaire that assesses the Big Five personality factors, namely, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, as well as the 30 underlying facets. Items involve questions about typical behaviors and are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree). The manual shows impressive indexes of reliability and validity (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Intelligence (IQ). IQ was measured through the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 1992). This omni- bus IQ test consists of 50 items and is administered in 12min. Scores can range from 0 to 50. Items include word and number comparisons, disarranged sentences, serial analysis of geometric figures, and story problems that require mathematical and logical solutions. The test has been normed extensively and correlates very highly (r14.92) with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale– Revised (WAIS-R).
Fluid intelligence (gf). Fluid intelligence (gf) was measured through the Baddeley Reasoning Test (Baddeley, 1968). This 64-item test is administered in 3min and measures fluid intelligence through logical reasoning. Each item is presented in the form of a gram- matical transformation that has to be answered with true=false, e.g., ‘‘A precedes B – AB’’ (true) or ‘‘A does not follow B – BA’’ (false). Studies have reported good validity and reliability indicators for this measure (e.g., Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutafi, 2005).
Procedure
Data were collected as part of an introductory class on personality psychology (students had no previous for- mal background in psychology) and participants were debriefed, including feedback on their scores. Tests were administered by three experimenters in a large and quiet lecture theater. Participants completed the ability measures first, followed by the self-report scales of personality and ideational behavior.
RESULTS Bivariate Correlations
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all measures are reported in Table 1. As can be seen, IB was significantly correlated with two personality factors, namely O (positively), and C (negatively). This confirmed H1a and H1c. IB was also positively and significantly correlated with gf, confirming H2a. It is noteworthy that, despite the high correlation between IQ and gf, IB was only significantly correlated with fluid aspects of intelligence.
Multiple Regressions
Next, a series of hierarchical regressions using the SPSS enter method were performed on the data to test the extent to which personality and intelligence, as well as gender, could predict differences in IB. Personality was a better predictor of IB than was intelligence, although the model that included both personality and intelli- gence scores was most successful at predicting differ- ences in IB. Moreover, the amount of variance explained in IB increased when gender was added to the equation. The significant individual predictors of IB were (in decreasing order): O, C, IQ, gf, gender, and Agreeableness (see Table 2).
Regressions were also performed with facets of per- sonality, and then specifically the primary factors of the Big Five that were significantly correlated with IB. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. As can be seen, angry hostility, vul- nerability (negatively), aesthetics, ideas, and deliberation (negatively) were significant predictors of IB, and in fact the selected primary factors explained more variance in IB than did the personality factors, intelligence, and gender combined, namely 35%.
DISCUSSION
This study demonstrated, as predicted, that intelligence and personality traits were systematically related to creativity as measured by IB. Indeed, together they account for approximately a third of the variance. Furthermore, personality (notably Openness) possesses major incremental validity over intelligence, as might be expected since both the RIBS and NEO-PI-R were self-report measures.
The first hypotheses (H1a–c) were partially sup- ported. The correlational analyses revealed a positive correlation between IB and O, and a negative corre- lation between IB and C, confirming H1a and H1c. No significant relationship was observed between the measure of IB and E, failing to confirm H1b. The results of the regressional analysis provided further support for the hypotheses. The personality factors O and E were positively related to IB, while C was nega- tively related, confirming H1a–c. Of these, O accounted for the greatest amount of variance.
An examination of the facets of the NEO-PI-R significantly related to IB was able to provide a finer detailed consideration of the relationships between personality facets and ideational behavior. The findings that angry hostility and ideas (positively), and deliber- ation (negatively) were related to IB indicate that the construct would appear related to an inability to restrain impulses. These primary factors suggest that self- perceived fluent and flexible ideational behavior is partly a result of disinhibition. This theme is recurrent in the literature. Psychoticism has been demonstrated to relate to fluent performance in DT tests (Woody & Claridge, 1977) and real-world artistic achievement (Gotz & Gotz, 1979a, 1979b). It is likely that disinhibition plays an important role in creative cognition, in that less cogni- tively inhibited individuals will be more likely to proffer unusual ideas. Conversely, individuals that inhibit or censor their ideas will be less fluent and perceive them- selves to be so (Batey & Furnham, 2008). The negative relationship between the actions facet of O and IB may be allied to the notion that openness to actions involves physical action (whereupon ideation presum- ably desists), whereas IB focuses more upon continued ideation. Interestingly, the regression of the selected facets of the NEO-PI-R against IB accounted for greater variance than the broad traits. This may be explained with reference to the finding that there were not unidir- ectional relationships between the facets and IB. That is, within the broad traits some facets were found to be positively significantly related to IB, and others were significantly negatively related to IB. This was the case for two facets of N (where angry hostility was positive and vulnerability negative), three facets of O (where aes- thetics and ideas were positive and actions negative), and two facets of C (where competence was positive and deliberation negative). In effect, when examining the relationships between primary factors and IB, some of the facets would have cancelled each other out in the process of producing the primary factor scores.
The second set of hypotheses (H2a–c) were that there would be significant positive relationships between IB and gf (H2a) and between IB and IQ (H2b). These hypotheses were partially supported. A correlational analysis indicated there to be a positive correlation between IB and gf, confirming H2a. In the first model where cognitive ability measures alone were regressed against IB, gf, as anticipated revealed a positive relationship, but IQ was unrelated. However, in the second and third models (with the addition of personality factors and gender as independent vari- ables) IQ was revealed to be a significant negative indi- cator of IB.
Perhaps this negative relationship may be explained with reference to the concept of the cognitive styles of divergent versus convergent thinking (Hudson, 1966). It has been suggested that divergent thinking tests ‘‘require individuals to produce several responses to a specific prompt, in sharp contrast to most standardized tests of achievement or ability that require one correct answer’’ (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999, p. 38). If a preference for divergent thinking lies on a continuum with a preference for convergent thinking at its opposite pole (Guilford, 1967), then we may hypothesize that participants who reported divergent creative ideation preferences would not score highly on tests of convergent thinking as they would experience diminished motivation to complete the tests of IQ and gf as this would not be their preferred cognitive style. However, stylistic differences indicate a preference for handling information in certain ways (e.g., divergent thinking), this is not the same as lacking the ability to process information in a different way (e.g., convergent thinking).
Another possible explanation for the finding that IB is negatively related to IQ may be that the cognitive characteristics that accompany IB are antithetical to convergent thinking. So, rather than style being the issue, it is a matter of ability. It has been suggested that the cognitive style of the divergent, creative thin- ker is overinclusive (Eysenck, 1993) and involves remote associations (Mednick, 1962). Such cognitive character- istics may be different to those used during convergent thinking (Folley & Park, 2005). Therefore, we may hypothesize that IB is negatively related to IQ not because of preference, but because the cognitive characteristic of IB interferes with the rapid retrieval and manipulation of contextual information (cf. Powers & Kaufman, 2004). The same processes that allow diverse ideas to be combined in unusual ways in conceptual space may interfere with the unhindered retrieval of information used in timed tests of g. Conversely, the processes that allow for rapid retrieval and focused abstract reasoning (and therefore elevated IQ scores) may be poorly suited for the purposes of creative ideation.
There is evidence that the thinking of creatives is simi- lar to that of those suffering from psychopathologies (cf. Andreasen & Powers, 1974; Eysenck, 1993) and to those who possess subclinical manifestations of psychopath- ology (Batey & Furnham, under review; Furnham et al., 2008; Furnham, Crump, Batey, & Chamorro- Premuzic, 2009; Green & William, 1999; Nettle, 2006; Schuldberg, 1990). The thought disorder is characterized by ‘‘overinclusivity’’ or a ‘‘widening of the associative horizon’’ (Eysenck, 1993, p. 165). This widening of con- ceptual relevance may be hypothesized to result in slower performance in tests of intelligence where contex- tual information must be retrieved. An analysis of some of the items used in the RIBS indicate that they appear to be assessing ideational behaviors related to overinclu- sive thinking (e.g., ‘‘When writing papers or talking to people, I often have trouble keeping with one topic because I think of so many things to write or say’’ and ‘‘Some people think me scatterbrained or absentminded because I think about a variety of things at once’’). It could be that circuitous thinking may prove to be of benefit during the production of creative products, but be a disadvantage in standardized tests of IQ (Powers & Kaufman, 2004).
There are limitations to this analysis of IB. First, the relationship of IB to established individual differences measures was explored in a sample of (predominantly female) undergraduates, limiting the generalizability of the results. Second, the two mea- sures of intelligence employed, although possessing adequate validity, could have been more robust. Both tests were verbal and short, therefore the relationships observed with IB and intelligence might differ should a nonverbal test of gf be employed. Third, although the primary aim of this study was to analyze IB in the context of established individual differences mea- sures, other constructs may have been able to explain variance in IB scores. For example, a measure of schi- zotypy (e.g., OLIFE; Mason, Claridge, & Jackson, 1995) may have explained significant variance and also have indicated whether IB is related to cognitive disorganization. Fourth, that both the RIBS and NEO-PI-R are self-report measures could indicate that observed correlations were in part attributable to method overlap. Fifth, item content overlap between items on the RIBS and NEO-PI-R could explain observed correlations.
TABLE1 Descriptive Statistics and Inter-Correlations for All Measures SD 12.0 72.1 08 09 18* 06 61 67** 03 .22 .22 .31 Ideational Behavior 1. Gender 2. Neuroticism 3. Extraversion 4. Openness 5. Agreeableness 6. Conscientiousness 7. gf (BRT) 8. IQ (WPT) 15 10 07 .30 05 19 .02 02 16 .54** 59** .55* 122.4 133.2 135.8 133.7 133.2 30.8 25.7 28.7 21.7 20.8 23.7 27.7 12.8 6.5 .59* .13 05 .02 .28 20 Note. N= 158, Gender coded: 1-male, 2= female. gf = fluid intelligence, BRT-Baddeley Reasoning Test, WPT-wonderlic Personnel Test. pExplanation / Answer
New Business Concept
New Venture Eco Homes Inc.
Product
New Venture Dream Homes will sell budget and environment friendly apartments & homes to people who have budget constraints but love their environment deeply. For us, it is more than a business, it's about giving back to the society. The typical American home is around 2,600 square feet, whereas New Venture Eco homes is between 100 and 400 square feet. It would come in all shapes, sizes and forms,but they enable simpler living in a smaller more efficient space. These homes will be equipped with solar panels, energy efficient appliances, and environment friendly energy conservation setups.
Target Market
Target market would be lower to middle class, environment friendly people.For most Americans one-third to one-half of their income is dedicated to the roof over their heads; this translates to approx 15 years of lifetime, to just pay for it. Our solutions would target these consumers, who want get rid of financial burden and at the same time, live in an environment friendly setup.
Why New venture Eco Homes Inc. ?
Home prices keep climbing as inventories sit at historic lows yet the pace of construction lags. Affordability is worsening for millennials, and baby boomers are deciding to stay put. Our venture, would provide the new generation affordable homes, at competitive pricing and more importantly environment friendly options. Our homes incorporate the following features like life simplification, environmental consciousness, self sufficiency,sound fiscal plans, and life adventure. Our venture will contribute in making planet more sustainable.
Special Feature - No real estate firm offers
Our firm will promote our campaign as a mission for sustainable homes. Our homes will be self sustainable. We will help those people, who are often neglected by builders and real estate firm. We will plant 100 trees for each home we sell. Our homes will contribute in energy conservation and at the same time be pocket friendly. We will launch save the environment campaign, and will explain to the people why is it beneficial to adopt eco friendly homes both from financial and environment perspective. Real estate firms mostly focus on profitability and not the environment, our firm will bridge this gap.
Management Team
New Venture Eco Homes will be led by environmentalist Mark Weber. He has around 10 years of experience in environment protection and conservation, and also 15 years of experience in real estate industry. He has many certifications from world bodies for energy conservation and protection. He has also worked with some of the top architects of the country.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.