Creativity : psychological and evolutionary perspectives

The most commonly cited explanation for the evolutionary emergence of creative ability is sexual selection. This suggests that the ability to produce creative products arose to advertise the qualities of the artist and thereby attract sexual partners. Thus the higher the quality of the product the greater the number of mates the artist will attract. The first study considered the definition of creativity by a general population and developed a measure of self-perceived creative ability. From the 344 participants it was found that creativity was predominantly considered to encompass Arts based activities. It was also considered by over 80% of the participants that creative products communicated something about the creative individual. The second study investigated whether artworks act as fitness indicators by accurately conveying the qualities of the artists. Six male artists each made an artwork and completed a personality inventory and an intelligence test. Fifty-one females rated the artists on creativity, intelligence and personality traits. Whilst intelligence was the only variable that was found to be significantly accurately assessed, qualitative analysis suggested that the raters were able to assess levels of personality traits but not to make subtle distinctions between these levels. Furthermore, these ratings were used in mate choice decisions when choosing which artist they would most like to go out on a date with. The final study was an online questionnaire asking artists about their artistic behaviours and attitudes, their and their partner's personality and their reproductive success. Results demonstrated that more professional male artists gained greater numbers of sexual partners and used a more short-term mating strategy. Moreover, both male and female professional artists had significantly greater potential fertility than less professional artists. These results strongly support the sexual selection theory for the emergence of creativity.

[1]  Young Adult Predictors and Midlife Outcomes of Male Fine Art Careers. , 1990 .

[2]  A. Furnham,et al.  Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: a study using the Neo Personality Inventory and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator , 2003 .

[3]  D. Rawlings Personality correlates of liking for 'unpleasant' paintings and photographs , 2003 .

[4]  M. Runco,et al.  Implicit Theories of Artistic, Scientific, and Everyday Creativity* , 1986 .

[5]  M. Daly The Cost of Mating , 1978, The American Naturalist.

[6]  John T. Manning,et al.  Second to fourth digit ratio in elite musicians: Evidence for musical ability as an honest signal of male fitness , 2000 .

[7]  Joanne Hoven Stohs,et al.  Career Patterns and Family Status of Women and Men Artists , 1992 .

[8]  Susan P. Besemer,et al.  The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale , 1989 .

[9]  D N Jackson,et al.  What is beyond the big five? Plenty! , 2000, Journal of personality.

[10]  Steven P. Reise,et al.  Personality and Unrestricted Sexual Behavior: Correlations of Sociosexuality in Caucasian and Asian College Students , 1997 .

[11]  D. Schmitt,et al.  Is Short-Term Mating the Maladaptive Result of Insecure Attachment? A Test of Competing Evolutionary Perspectives , 2005, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[12]  M. Wiederman Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey , 1997 .

[13]  Alan S. Kaufman,et al.  Time for the Changing of the Guard: A Farewell to Short Forms of Intelligence Tests , 2001 .

[14]  R. Richards,et al.  Mood Swings and Creativity , 1990 .

[15]  Andrew Pomiankowski,et al.  Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work – sometimes , 1987, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[16]  Dean Keith Simonton,et al.  Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. , 1997 .

[17]  Art preference and personality. , 1972, British journal of psychology.

[18]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  Contemporary Studies on the Concept of Creativity: the East and the West , 2002 .

[19]  C. Spiel,et al.  Implicit Theories of Creativity: the conceptions of politicians, scientists, artists and school teachers , 1998 .

[20]  A. Whiten Theories of theories of mind: When does smart behaviour-reading become mind-reading? , 1996 .

[21]  Susan Sprecher,et al.  Liking Some Things (in Some People) more than Others: Partner Preferences in Romantic Relationships and Friendships , 2002 .

[22]  S. Gosling,et al.  A room with a cue: personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  Karolien Poels,et al.  Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[24]  Robin I. M. Dunbar The thinking ape: Evolutionary origins of intelligence , 1995 .

[25]  Franz J. Neyer,et al.  Personality and social network effects on romantic relationships: a dyadic approach , 2004 .

[26]  David M. Saunders,et al.  A method for empirically assessing volunteer selection effects: Recruitment procedures and responses to erotica. , 1985 .

[27]  D. Simonton,et al.  Age and outstanding achievement: what do we know after a century of research? , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  Implicit Theories of Spanish Painters , 2003 .

[29]  A. Evers,et al.  Testing practices in European countries , 2001 .

[30]  R. Richards,et al.  Assessing everyday creativity: Characteristics of the Lifetime Creativity Scales and validation with three large samples. , 1988 .

[31]  D. Schmitt The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity , 2004 .

[32]  D. Watson,et al.  Match makers and deal breakers: analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. , 2004, Journal of personality.

[33]  A Meta-Analysis,et al.  Can Only Intelligent People Be Creative , 2005 .

[34]  G. Orians,et al.  Evolved responses to landscapes. , 1992 .

[35]  Maria M. Clapham,et al.  The Convergent Validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and Creativity Interest Inventories , 2004 .

[36]  H. Kokko,et al.  The evolution of mate choice and mating biases , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[37]  Mark A. Runco,et al.  Everyone has creative potential. , 2004 .

[38]  M. Runco,et al.  Parents' and Teachers' Implicit Theories of Children's Creativity: A Cross-Cultural Perspective , 2002 .

[39]  G. Miller,et al.  Schizophrenia as one extreme of a sexually selected fitness indicator , 2004, Schizophrenia Research.

[40]  S. Mithen The prehistory of the mind: a search for the origins of art, religion and science , 1999 .

[41]  J. Archer,et al.  Variability among Males in Sexually Selected Attributes , 2003 .

[42]  L. Rowe,et al.  The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[43]  P. Regan What if You Can't Get What You Want? Willingness to Compromise Ideal Mate Selection Standards as a Function of Sex, Mate Value, and Relationship Context , 1998 .

[44]  J. Plucker,et al.  Handbook of Creativity: Psychometric Approaches to the Study of Human Creativity , 1998 .

[45]  R. Johnstone,et al.  MUTUAL MATE CHOICE AND SEX DIFFERENCES IN CHOOSINESS , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[46]  M. Bellis,et al.  Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences , 2005, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[47]  Richard P. Bentall,et al.  Schizotypy and creativity: an evolutionary connection? , 2001 .

[48]  R. Sternberg Implicit theories of intelligence. creativity, and wisdom , 1985 .

[49]  J. L. Tomkins,et al.  On the resolution of the lek paradox. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[50]  M. Murphy,et al.  Attractiveness and Personality Warmth: Evaluations of Paintings Rated by College Men and Women , 1976 .

[51]  D. Buss,et al.  Sexual Dimensions of Person Description: Beyond or Subsumed by the Big Five? ☆ , 2000 .

[52]  Oren Hasson,et al.  Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle , 1984 .

[53]  N. Schmitt,et al.  Developing a biodata measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors of college student performance. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[54]  A. Pomiankowski The costs of choice in sexual selection. , 1987, Journal of theoretical biology.

[55]  I. Deary,et al.  Relationships between ability and personality:does intelligence contribute positively to personal and social adjustment? , 2002 .

[56]  P. Morokoff Volunteer Bias in the Psychophysiological Study of Female Sexuality , 1986 .

[57]  D. Perusse Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at the proximate and ultimate levels , 1993 .

[58]  D. Buss,et al.  Human mate poaching: tactics and tempations for infiltrating existing mateships. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[59]  A. Zahavi Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. , 1975, Journal of theoretical biology.

[60]  A. Houston,et al.  The sexual selection continuum , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[61]  E. Muten Self-reports, spouse ratings, and psychophysiological assessment in a behavioral medicine program: an application of the five-factor model. , 1991, Journal of personality assessment.

[62]  Adrian Furnham,et al.  Why is Conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence , 2004 .

[63]  D. Watson,et al.  General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: evidence from self- and partner-ratings. , 2000, Journal of personality.