Huge Two Meta traits – Reconnoitring the Relationship with Creative Self-Concept and Performance on Creativity Tasks

This study explores the relationship between personality traits and creativity, specifically focusing on the role of stability and plasticity. The study found weak correlations between creative self-perception and stability, as well as between creative self-concept and plasticity. The study also examined the impact of self-control depletion on performance in creative tasks.

Huge Two Meta traits – Reconnoitring the Relationship with
Creative Self-Concept and Performance on Creativity Tasks
Word count: 2860 words

Abstract
The objective of the scholar was to investigate the inextricable link between personality
and creativity. The author has assessed the role of stability and plasticity in taking on creativity.
The purpose of this task is to investigate the inextricable link between creativity and personality.
The Australian bachelor students (N = 57) in the third year batch form Psychology department
formed the sample of the study. The inter-relationship between creative self-perception and
stability was weak. The association had a correlation coefficient which reflected a weak linear
relationship (r = 0.29, p < 0.05) (Francis, 2013). Huge Plasticity was also considered to have a
weak linear connection with creative self-concept (r = 0.28, p < 0.05). Self-Control depletion
task was not able to have a differentiating significant effect (t =-0.23, p = 0.82) between the
experimental group's creative tasks requiring divergent as well as convergent cognitive abilities
and that of the control group. Huge meta-analysis scores and self-control depletion task failed to
estimate the performance of creative tasks.
Keywords: Stability, Plasticity, Self-Perception, Self-Control depletion, Huge Meta-Analysis,
Creative Tasks
2

Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................2
Introduction......................................................................................................................................4
Methodology....................................................................................................................................7
Participants...................................................................................................................................7
Measures......................................................................................................................................7
Demographic variability...........................................................................................................7
Personality Traits......................................................................................................................8
The Creative Self-Concept.......................................................................................................8
Experimental task and Depletion of Self-Control........................................................................9
Tasks on Creativity......................................................................................................................9
Procedure...................................................................................................................................10
Results............................................................................................................................................11
Discussion......................................................................................................................................15
Limitations.....................................................................................................................................17
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................18
References......................................................................................................................................19
3

Introduction
Creative people possess unique attributes and mindsets that are rare to be found in non-
creative people. The scientific study on creativity delves into the study of the study of various
aspects of personality. The personality framework espoused in the Big Five model has delved
into the evaluation of this intricate subject. Among the five factors, the exposure to experiences
plays a monumental role in the stimulation of creativity in an individual. This factor envisages
creativity in various genres of activities such as arts, humanities, science and significant skills
like objectives, achievements, hobbies and thinking pattern that are embedded in creativity. On
the other hand, the rest four elements envision creativity in a poor consistency. However, few
domains seem to be negative like mind consciousness or appear to be positive such as
extroversion and sociability (Batey & Furnham, 2006).
It has been evidenced by various researches that big five model is not the highest form of
theory in the field of personality study. These five elements can be accommodated under the two
significant meta-traits (Silvia et al., 2008). The facet of stability comprising agreeability,
sentimental steadiness and emotional vigilance exhibit the tendency to secure stability and avert
impediments in the social, emotional and motivational arenas. However, the element of plasticity
constituting the exposure to experiences and extroversion resonate with the tendencies of
exploration and engagement in both cognitive and behavioral terms (De Young, 2006).
The huge two factors comprising the meta-traits estimate the results pertaining to the
control and impulsive nature and behavioral variations. For an instance, people rich in plasticity
have enhanced extrovert behavior pattern, greater divergence in thinking (Silvia et al., 2008) and
4

score negligible in conventional compliances. The contrasting picture is provided by people with
greater stability with higher conformity capability, meager externalizing behavior pattern and
meager divergent thinking (De Young, Peterson, Séguin, & Tremblay, 2008).
It is imperative to find out the ways in which stability and plasticity interface. The
research results found by Feist’s (1998) Meta-analysis underlines that people that are creative
possess greater levels of plasticity attributes, while the stability qualities are rare to be found in
them. However, an amalgamation of stability and plasticity can create various types and patterns
of creativity.
The interaction between the latent variables is often overlooked by the researchers since
methods and software makes it difficult to achieve the interfaces. Nonetheless, the latent
predictors can still be made to interact and with the use of a finite mixture of latent variable
model and maximum likelihood estimations. This approach is useful in deriving of an estimate of
interface impact.
The research results surfacing over the years have insinuated that personality attributes
are squarely related to the factor of creativity (Jonason, Richardson, & Potter, 2015; Silvia,
Kaufman, Reiter-Palmon, & Wigert, 2011). It has been observed across diverse cultures that
understanding and acceptance of experiences have resulted in creative growth in those cultures
(Furnham, Zhang, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2005). Therefore, accessibility to experiences trait is
considered as the most imperative trait that invokes creativity in an individual. On the other
hand, the evidence regarding the relationships between the rest of the traits for an instance,
conscientiousness and extraversion are inconsistent in nature.
5

The purpose of this assignment is to investigate the inextricable link between creativity
and personality. Creativity has been defined on the basis of individual's introspection in own
creativity level (Karwowski et al., 2016) and further their behavioral creativity in activities
necessitating divergent and convergent cognitive senses (Cropley, 2006). Personality has been
analyzed through the lenses of the big five-factor model of personality and further in term of
huge two factors (Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016).
The author has evaluated the contribution of big five in the prediction of creativity and
also analyzed the role of stability and plasticity in assuming creativity. Furthermore, the scholar
has examined the relation interface between the stability and plasticity. Creative people are often
characterized as having lack of self-control, though there is meager research to support this. The
concept of self-control has been observed as a capability to control thoughts, sentiments, and
behavior in the context of impulsiveness and temptations. According to Baumeister & Vohs
(2007), self-control can be diminished or reinvigorated depending on the situational and demand
factors encountered by the individual.
The present article studies that have dealt in the interconnection between perceptions on
creativity induced by own self and the differential constructs of personality and cognitive ability.
The author has defined the imperative constructs within the investigation. It deals in providing
paraphernalia that classifies self-perceptions. Next section explains important theories for
comprehending the studies. While scholar also discusses the significant trends from the study,
scholar intricate and layered findings are discussed. In the next section, deductions are provided
by the scholars provide descriptive model formulated on the basis of the review. The scholar
further believes that the review has the potential to guide future research work. The following
hypotheses are framed to address the research questions in the present article.
6

The first hypothesis was based on the assumption that The Huge Two meta-traits of
personality, Stability, and Plasticity are positively associated with creative self-concept.
Secondly, it is hypothesized that creativity tasks requiring (a) convergent cognitive abilities and
negatively correlated with (b) divergent cognitive abilities are significantly and positively
correlated performance on Huge Two meta-traits of personality, Stability, and Plasticity. Lastly,
self-control depletion is hypothesized to affect significantly and positively the performance on
creativity tasks, which required (a) convergent cognitive abilities and (b) divergent cognitive
abilities.
Methodology
Participants
The Australian undergraduates of third-year batch form psychology department formed
the sample of the study. They have been studying at Swinburne University, in Southern
Australia.
Measures
Demographic variability
A total number of fifty-seven undergraduate students participated in the study. The total
of average age was found to be 24.35 (SD=6.75), wherein the average age of male was 20.58
(SD=6.57), while the average age of females is found to be 24.20 (SD=6.85). The participants
had to complete the scales of self-report. It was assured that their anonymity and secrecy of their
information would be maintained.
7

Table 1: Means of the age of the participants for self-control depletion groups
Group Sex t p
Male (n=11) Female (n=46)
M SD M SD
Experimental 26.7 9.9 24.4 7 -0.51 0.61
Control 24.4 5.7 23.95 6.8 -0.15 0.88
N = 57
Personality Traits
The IPIP-NEO was chosen to assess the meta-characterization of plasticity and stability
(Maples, Guan, Carter, and Miller, 2014). Participants were asked to assess the accuracy of the
individual statements on a scale ranging from 1 (almost inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). The
results of experiential openness and the parameters of open elements were combined with the
general plasticity, and also the conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism were combined
with plasticity together, for a general assessment of stability.
The Creative Self-Concept
The scale to measure creative self (Karwowski, 2012) consisted of eleven statements rated
by the participants on the accuracy of self-concept. The scores earned on individual elements
have been averaged for forming a creative self-concept score that ranged from 1-5 and the
greater score implying higher in self-concept creativity.
8

Experimental task and Depletion of Self-Control
Upon experimenting, self-control was depleted with using the Simon Task in the digital
version (Proctor, 2011). Blue or red colored Square surfaced on the right or left slide screen.
Display of blue light required the participants to press left shift key and the red light display
required pressing of the right one. The appearance of the blue square on the left was congruent;
while the red appeared on the left it was incongruent. With the use of the Simon task's two
versions low and high self-control depletion condition was created. One comprising 10%
incongruent trials (negligible self-control depletion) and another with 50% congruent trail
(greater self-control in depletion).
In the experiment, using the functionality of Simon in the digital version of compromised
self-restraint (Proctor, 2011). Blue or red full-color square with the right or left presence in the
screen, showing the blue light required by the participant to press the left shift button and
pressing the right shift button for the display of red light. The blue square on the left has the
same in appearance; although red appears on the left, it was not congruent. Using the Simon
Task, two depletion versions of low and high self-control textures were created. First contained
10% incongruent research and another 50% congruent key (more Self-control exhaustion).
Tasks on Creativity
Guilford’ Alternate use task (Batey, & Furnham, 2006)., the divergent task necessitated
the participants to present several usages in three minutes for the objects such as “a brick”, “a
shoe”, and “a newspaper”. The scoring on the responses was dependent on how intelligent,
9

remote and unconventional the responses were. Responses were to be measured on a scale of 1 to
5.
During members ' remote studies, participants in the mind had to observe three words that
had few associations and ideas for the fourth word, compared to the three words. Assigned 3
minutes to answer 30 questions was used by the participants, and each correct answer was issued
with a flag.
Procedure
The creativity and Simon tasks were conducted in Inquisit program and took almost 45
minutes to be completed. The questionnaire on the parameters of self-concept creativity and
personality was completed using the Qualtrics. The scores achieved on Simon Task, self-report
measures and creativity tasks were connected through the medium of code number allotted to
every participant on a random basis and at the beginning of the Simon task.
Prior to the conducting of the study, the participants were given the liberty to withdraw
from the study if they wished to at any moment. At the end of the study, statements were made
that promulgated the aims entailed in the study.
Self-concept creativity and activity on convergent and divergent tasks were the dependent
variables. Whereas, personality variability, depletion of self-control, gender and age were the
independent variables.
10

Results
This paper examines the relationship between the stability of Huge, plasticity and
creative self-image, and makes two types of correlation analysis. As shown in table 2, there was
a significant positive correlation between stability and creative self-determination. Parallel
consideration established a positive and significant correlation with Huge plasticity and creative
self-esteem. The relationship between stability and creative self-perception is weaker because it
has a correlation coefficient in weak linear relationships values (r = 0.29, p < 0.05) (Francis,
2013). Huge plasticity was also found to have a linear relationship with creative self-concept (r
= 0.28, p < 0.05), where the relationship was weak in nature. Hence, the first set of alternate
hypotheses was accepted at 5% level of significance, rejecting the null hypotheses. Hence, it was
clear that the Huge Two meta-analysis scores were significantly correlated with creative self-
concept, which was positive in direction.
Table 2: Correlation Matrix with Descriptive Values for Huge Two Scores and Creative Self-
Concept
11

The correlations for the performance on creativity tasks requiring divergent as well as
convergent cognitive abilities, with Huge scores have been found. Firstly, Huge computed
Stability (the independent variable) was positively correlated with creativity tasks requiring
divergent cognitive abilities (the dependent variable). Secondly, Stability was negatively
correlated with creativity tasks requiring convergent cognitive abilities (the dependent variable).
Thirdly, Huge computed Plasticity (the independent variable) was positively correlated with
creativity tasks requiring divergent cognitive abilities. The fourth correlation reflected that
Plasticity was negatively correlated with creativity tasks requiring convergent cognitive abilities.
It was an interesting and astonishing fact that none of the correlations were statistically
significant. The only significant and positive correlation (r = 0.28, p < 0.05) was found between
Huge Two Meta scores (Stability and Plasticity). Hence, the second set of hypotheses was not
found to be statistically significant. Hence, the null hypotheses, assuming no significant
correlation between the creativity tasks requiring convergent and divergent cognitive abilities
and Huge Two Meta scores, failed to get rejected at 5% level of significance.
Table 3: Correlation Matrix with Descriptive Values for Huge Two Scores and performance on
creativity tasks
Variables Stability Plasticity RAT AUT
Stability 1 - - -
Plasticity .285* 1 - -
RAT -.136 -.125 1 -
AUT .053 .066 .232 1
M 249.75 167.61 0.12 1.82
SD 25.93 18.77 0.09 0.34
Note: N = 57 & *. Significant Correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
12

An impending mediation effect of self-control depletion task was to assess through
comparison of means (independent t-test) analysis, using creativity tasks requiring divergent as
well as convergent cognitive abilities as the dependent variables, a group for self-control
depletion task as the independent variable. The comparison analysis is displayed in Table 4.
Self-control depletion task failed to find any significant difference (t = -0.65, p = 0.52) between
experimental group’s average score for creativity tasks requiring convergent cognitive abilities
(AUT) (M = 1.85, SD = 0.36) and control group’s average score for AUT (M = 1.79, SD =
0.33). A similar comparison yielded that Self-control depletion task was not able to have a
differentiating significant impact (t = -0.23, p = 0.82) between experimental group’s creativity
tasks requiring divergent cognitive abilities (RAT) (M = 0.13, SD = 0.07) and control group’s
RAT (M = 0.12, SD = 0.10). The third set of hypotheses failed to be supported by statistical
evidence. Therefore, the set of null hypotheses failed to get rejected at 5% level of significance,
implying that self-control depletion task did not have any effect on creativity tasks (AUT &
RAT).
Table 4: Comparison of means to assess the impact of self-control depletion on the performance
on creativity tasks
Variables Group t p
Experimental (n = 28) Control (n = 29)
M SD M SD
RAT 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.10 -0.23 0.82
AUT 1.85 0.36 1.79 0.33 -0.65 0.52
N = 57
13

To confirm the statistical output of the t-test, a hierarchical regression analysis was
performed using creativity tasks requiring divergent as well as convergent cognitive abilities as
the dependent variables, Stability, and Plasticity as the independent variables, and self-control
depletion task group as the mediator. The hierarchical regression analysis outputs are displayed
in Table 5 and Table 6. Huge meta-analysis scores and self-control depletion task failed to
estimate the performance of creativity tasks (both for convergent and divergent).
Table 5: Regression analysis for predicting AUT using Huge Two Meta-analysis Scores with
self-control depletion Group as the mediator
Variable Standard
β p Part Correlation Partial
Correlation 95% CI
Model 1
Huge
Plasticity 0.05 0.70 0.05 0.05 -0.004 0.006
Huge Stability 0.04 0.80 0.04 0.04 -0.003 0.004
Model 2
Huge
Plasticity 0.04 0.76 0.04 0.04 -0.004 0.006
Huge Stability 0.03 0.81 0.03 0.03 -0.003 0.004
Group 0.08 0.58 0.08 0.08 -0.136 0.242
Note: Dependent Variable = AUT and both the models were statistically not significant
14

Table 6: Regression analysis for predicting RAT using Huge Two Meta-analysis Scores with self-
control depletion Group as the mediator
Variable Standard
β p Part
Correlation
Partial
Correlation 95% CI
Model 1
Huge
Plasticity -0.09 0.51 -0.09 -0.09 -0.002 0.001
Huge Stability -0.11 0.44 -0.10 -0.11 -0.001 0.001
Model 2
Huge
Plasticity -0.10 0.48 -0.10 -0.10 -0.002 0.001
Huge Stability -0.11 0.44 -0.11 -0.11 -0.001 0.001
Group 0.06 0.68 0.06 0.06 -0.039 0.059
Note: Dependent Variable = RAT and both the models were statistically not significant
Discussion
The present article analyses the relationship between the meta-characterization of a
person’s "Huge two meta-characteristics of personality" (Karwoski & Lebuda, 2016) and meta-
functions defined by the creative Self-concept (SSCS). There are at least two aspects of this
relationship that are interesting. Firstly, there is the empirical question of the intensity of the
correlation between the five major personality factors directly linked to a discriminatory effect.
These are two meta-functions closely linked to personality traits, especially the openness of
experience, and their experience and theoretical usability are negligible. The second issue is
rather theoretical, involving whether the relationship between personality factors and creative
self-awareness (SSCS), which is an evaluation of causation or related. There can be no
15

conclusive empirical evidence on this issue, as it is difficult to imagine an experimental or
longitudinal study of the manipulation of personality.
The current research work studied the creativity and personality through the prism of the
emergent theory of Huge Two factors. As per the Big Five, exposure to experience is the most
effective in inducing creativity. It is observed that this factor has wide effects on all form of
creativity. According to Batey and Furnham (2006), several studies have noted the fruitful
impact of extraversion while adverse effects of conscientiousness. As per this study, Stability
and Plasticity have negligible effects on creative self-concept when compared to the factor of
openness to experience. To measure the relationship between creativity and personality,
performance on creative tasks that require convergent cognitive abilities and divergent cognitive
abilities were compared to plasticity and spatiality. No significant association was found between
the two personality predictors and creativity of the participants.
However, the creativity marker in the field of science and math could not be predicted by
the factor of openness. It has been observed by Kaufman and Baer (2004) that this particular
domain differed from other categories as it failed to qualify on the self-concept in creativity
eligibility. This pattern is a resultant consequence of the stereotypical ideas that promote no
relation between creativity and math-science (Charyton, Jagacinski, & Merrill, 2008).
In the present study, under the rubric of Huge Two, plasticity and stability are associated
with the aspect of creative performance, though the impact sizes were negligible for divergence
as well as convergence in creative tasks. It’s some relationships were positive, while others
negative. Positives were the own rating in convergent creativity and stability as well as plasticity,
whereas negative for rating in convergent creativity and stability as well as plasticity. The
16

scholar has lastly examined the capability of Huge Two factors in predicting creativity. Upon
studying their contrasting effects and everyday creativity, it can be assumed that these two
elements can interact to elicit a prediction. For an instance, individual enriched in plasticity and
low scoring stability perhaps have increased creativity level. However, there was no substantial
evidence to show latent interactions occurred. Therefore it can be deduced that stability and
plasticity exercise individual impacts on creative aspects. This was in line with the research
outcomes of Silvia et al. (2009).
The roles of the elements in creativity would be better clarified in an in-depth analysis. It
has been argued by Feist (1998) that the quality of confidence could predict creative
achievement, while the sociable aspect did not induce any achievement. According to Batey and
Furnham (2006), extraversion can predict the quantity and not the quality of creative ideas. In
this particular study, the author has evidenced few impacts of plasticity and stability on creative
self-concept, but the detailed impact of Big-Five factors was not investigated.
Limitations
The present study has its limitations. Most essentially, the sample size of the study was
not investigated for the effect size. Due to that the regression modeling probably was not
significant and neither the correlations between the Huge Two Scores and performance on
creativity tasks. Also, the correlational model with Huge Two Scores and Creative Self-Concept
was not evaluated by the hierarchal regression model. The future model could enhance the
research with investigation of the Big Five traits along with Huge Two traits. Also, different
measures of creativity could be a matter of interest. Especially, including creative ability with
17

performance on creativity tasks includes additional richness in addressing the associations
addressed in the present study.
Conclusion
Despite limitations and constrained significance of the results, the study enlightens the
association of Creative Self-Concept and Huge Two Scores and non-association between
performance on divergent and convergent creativity tasks and Huge Two Scores. This suggested
a significant relationship between creative self-concept, stability, and plasticity, though relations
were very weak. Hence, the study was able to find two predictors for creative self-concept but
lacked a reasonable mediator for estimation modeling.
18

References
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of
the scattered literature. Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs, 132(4),
355-429.
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of
the scattered literature. Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs, 132(4),
355-429.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self‐Regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social
and personality psychology compass, 1(1), 115-128.
Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R. J., & Merrill, J. A. (2008). CEDA: A research instrument for
creative engineering design assessment. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 2(3), 147.
Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity research journal, 18(3), 391-404.
DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(6), 1138.
DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., Séguin, J. R., & Tremblay, R. E. (2008). Externalizing behavior
and the higher order factors of the Big Five. Journal of abnormal psychology, 117(4),
947.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality
and social psychology review, 2(4), 290-309.
Furnham, A., Zhang, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). The relationship between
psychometric and self-estimated intelligence, creativity, personality and academic
achievement. Imagination, cognition and personality, 25(2), 119-145.
19

Jonason, P. K., Richardson, E. N., & Potter, L. (2015). Self-reported creative ability and the Dark
Triad traits: An exploratory study. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
9(4), 488.
Karwowski, M. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Relationship between trait curiosity, creative
self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(4), 547-
558.
Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2016). The big five, the huge two, and creative self-beliefs: A
meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(2), 214.
Karwowski, M., Dul, J., Gralewski, J., Jauk, E., Jankowska, D. M., Gajda, A., ... & Benedek, M.
(2016). Is creativity without intelligence possible? A necessary condition analysis.
Intelligence, 57, 105-117.
Maples, J. L., Guan, L., Carter, N. T., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of the International
Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and
development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor model. Psychological
Assessment, 26(4), 1070.
Proctor, R. W. (2011). Playing the Simon game: Use of the Simon task for investigating human
information processing. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 182-188.
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Discernment and creativity: How well can people identify their most creative
ideas?. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 139.
Silvia, P. J., Kaufman, J. C., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Wigert, B. (2011). Cantankerous creativity:
Honesty–Humility, Agreeableness, and the HEXACO structure of creative achievement.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 687-689.
Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A. (2009). Openness to
experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order, and interactive
effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 1087-1090.
20