Interviewing the Embodiment of Political Evil - Inter

Multivariate Approach to Creativity: Cognition and Personality
Christiane Kirsch and Claude Houssemand
Abstract
Our study can be located in a multivariate approach to creativity, by taking into
account as well cognitive as personality factors in relationship to creative potential.
The sample consists of 37 middle aged adults from the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg (20 women, 17 men, MAge = 41.03, SD = 7.23, age range: 29-55
years). Analyzes have revealed that the factor Ego-Strength is highly significantly
related to the factor Creative Potential (r = .46, p < .001). Furthermore, the wellestablished relationship between psychoticism and creativity could not be
replicated. Consequently, we argue that psychoticism would not be a prerequisite
of creative potential, as suggested by the correlation surface between
psychopathology and ego-strength of Eysenck (1995). It would rather be the other
side of the same coin. Ego-strength would be some kind of moderator variable,
who determines which feature will be uncovered.
Key Words: Creativity, multivariate approach, cognition, personality.
*****
1. Theoretical background
Creative thinking takes on a preponderant role on the job market, not only in
the domain of arts, design, research and innovation but also in maybe less obvious
domains like media, publicity, communication industry and not to forget in
ordinary enterprises. Hence the analysis of the different cognitive and personality
factors intervening in the creative process and fostering creative production
become increasingly important. These new insides could be applied to different
domains like specific promotion of these characteristics in young population or
their identification in the framework of employee selection processes.
There are multiplicities of theories covering the topic of creativity. However,
they are situated into several different approaches. These theories try to elucidate
the various factors or personality features, which would be important for the
creative process.
Since the 1980s, creativity models are increasingly designed according to a
multivariate approach (Lubart, 2003). Generally speaking, this approach takes into
account cognitive, personality, emotional and environmental factors (Sternberg &
Lubart, 1991; 1996). The relationship and interaction between these factors may
vary according to the respective theories (Lubart, 1999a).
According to this multivariate approach, the individual profile on these three
personal factors, (cognitive, emotional and conative) is thought to combine in an
2
Multivariate Approach to Creativity: Cognition and Personality
__________________________________________________________________
interactive manner with the creative requirements of a particular field, in order to
determine the expression of the creative potential of an individual in a specific
social context (Lubart, 2003).
Previous studies on creativity were often either positioned in the cognitive or
conative approach, without attempting a real connection between both paradigms.
According to Batey and Furnham (2006), future studies of creativity should take a
multiple-components perspective and examine the relative importance of the
different constituents in predicting creativity. Moreover, the authors suggest that
the creativity measure should encompass different aspects of creative thinking.
They should apply a multitrait multimethod approach, not only based on divergent
thinking scores as absolute criteria of creativity.
So far, only few studies are situated in a multivariate approach and attempted to
predict creativity by means of cognitive and conative factors, all by estimating the
relative impact of these different components.
Batey and Furnham (2006) attempted to establish a synthesis of previous
research done in the cognitive-conative approach, by representing typical profiles
of creative people in different domains of creative achievement.
Figure 1. Multivariate approach (Batey & Furnham, 2006)
Our study can be clearly placed in a multivariate approach, by taking into account
as well cognitive as personality features in relation to creativity. Furthermore, the
employed creativity measure (Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production)
Christiane Kirsch and Claude Houssemand
3
__________________________________________________________________
refers to the judgment of a genuine production, realized spontaneously within a
restricted time frame. Hence, it exceeds a mere quantitative divergent thinking
measure of creative potential.
Eysenck (1995) calls attention to the fact that so far research findings of the
conative approach are ambiguous. On one hand creativity is associated with a
tendency towards psychopathology (Lombroso, 1891; Ellis, 1926; LangeEichbaum, 1931) and on the other hand with self-actualization, mental health and
emotional stability (Adler, 1927; Fromm, 1955; Maslow, 1976; Rogers, 1976).
Eysenck (1995) perceives the resolution of this contradiction in the combined
disposition of these two divergent features: Psychopathology (psychoticism)
and ego-strength. More specifically, the transferring of a creative potential into a
genuine performance would testify of the competence to equilibrate an innate lack
of cognitive inhibition and an impulsive tendency through a pronounced emotional
strength. This complementation of characteristics would reveal a prominent
creative potential.
Figure 2. Correlation surface of psychopathology and ego-strength (Eysenck,
1995)
Figure 2 represents a negative correlation of -.60 between psychopathology and
ego-strength, by taking into account the inversion of the x-axis. Only in a sample
of people with outstanding creativity this generally negative correlation between
psychopathology and ego-strength would turn into a positive one.
It was only after a suggestion of Eysenck (1993) that various studies started to
concentrate rather on psychoticism, as a dispositional trait underlying susceptibility
to the development of psychotic symptoms.
Multivariate Approach to Creativity: Cognition and Personality
4
__________________________________________________________________
The consideration of the model represented in Figure 2 leads us to the
following hypotheses:
- There is a negative correlation between psychoticism and ego-strength.
-
There is a positive correlation between psychoticism and creative
potential.
-
There is a positive correlation between ego-strength and creative
potential.
The objective of the cognitive approach is to measure basic mental processes
that lead to creative production (Lubart, 2003).
In the framework of theories about decentralized attention, cognitive inhibition
is conceptualized as a mechanism limiting the flow of information to the focus of
attention (Dorfman, Martindale, Gassimova & Vartanian 2008), through the
availability of supplementary data for information processing (Payne, Matussek &
George, 1959). The broadening of the focus of attention enables people to access a
larger range of potential solutions to a given problem. This is thought to favor the
establishment of a personalized solution. This solution would be more creative in
the sense that conceptions, generally perceived as non-significant, would be taken
into account (Muhlenen, Rempel, & Enns, 2005).
Hence, reduced cognitive inhibition could be an advantage for creative problem
solving, by allowing the perception of an increased number of resolution options,
which are more improbable and more extreme. On the other hand, it could also be
a disadvantage, in the sense that the person could drown in a sensorial flood,
caused by an overwhelming affective information excess. This would higher the
risk to develop a psychosis.
A protective variable against such an unmanageable emotional submersion
could be intelligence, measured in form of IQ or working memory capacity.
(Eysenck, 1995)
In this line, a meta-analysis conducted by Carson, Peterson & Higgins (2003)
revealed that the combination of reduced cognitive inhibition and elevated IQ
highly significantly predicts creative performance. Consequently, researchers
suggest that the expression of reduced cognitive inhibition, either as a selective
attention deficit or a creativity facilitator, would be moderated by IQ.
Accordingly, one of the principle objectives of the studies, situated in the
cognitive approach, was to determine the degree of intersection between
evaluations of creative thinking and more general measures of intelligence, like IQ
(Lubart, 2003).
According to Lubart (2003), this association is characterized by three different
properties. First of all, creative people would generally display an above average
IQ, frequently even above 120. The second observation concerns the instability of
Christiane Kirsch and Claude Houssemand
5
__________________________________________________________________
the correlation between IQ and creativity, varying however mainly around 0.20.
Finally, this positive correlation would only be ascertained for IQ scores until 120.
Figure 3. Correlation diagram between creativity level and intellectual quotient
(Lubart, 2003)
Literature review of the cognitive approach leads us to the following
hypotheses:
- There is a negative correlation between cognitive inhibition and creative
potential.
- There is a positive correlation between fluid intelligence gf and creative
potential.
2. Method
The sample consists of 37 middle aged adults (20 women, 17 men, MAge =
41.03, SD = 7.23, age range: 29-55 years).
The measure of creative potential was realized through the Test for Creative
Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP; Urban & Jellen, 1995). The administered
personality test was Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2)
(Hathaway & McKinley, 1986). Five tests measuring either fluid intelligence or
cognitive inhibition were administered: B53, D70, Wisconsin Sorting Test
(WCST) manual version, Go/Nogo1 and Go/Nogo2.
Intelligence in form of reasoning capacity was measured through the test
Evaluation of Logical Reasoning (B53) of Bonnardel (1971) and the Domino Test
(D70) of Anstey (1970). By means of nonverbal items, B53 evaluates inductive
reasoning and spatial aptitudes. D70 is part of the family of domino tests, which
aim a quick evaluation of general nonverbal intelligence.
Measure of intelligence in form of executive functions, was realized through
WCST. Originally developed to assess human abstraction and framework
switching, WCST refers to the entire cognitive supply of the subject.
6
Multivariate Approach to Creativity: Cognition and Personality
__________________________________________________________________
Cognitive inhibition was measured with two different tests: Go/NoGo1 and
Go/NoGo2.
Go/NoGo1 is included in the neuropsychological test battery of attention
performances (TAP; Zimmermann & Fimm, 2007).
In the framework of the doctoral thesis of Steinmetz (2010), the Go/Nogo2 task
was developed, by means of E-prime software (Schneider, Eschman & Zuccolotto,
2002).
3. Results
Despite of the proportionally small sample size, exploratory factor analyses
were realized, on one hand on personality and creativity scales and on the other
hand on cognitive variables, considering the fact that the various constructs were
assessed through multiple measures.
Table 1
Factor Loadings for Factor Analysis without Rotation of Creativity and
Personality Scales
Scale
Psychoticism
Creative Potential
TSD-Z Creative
potential
MMPI-2
Dominance
Psychopathic
deviate
Strange thoughts
Anger
Antisocial behavior
Lack of self-control
through inhibition
default
Strange sensorial
experiences
Sensitivity
.06
.74
.20
.79
.65
.31
.82
.79
.72
.83
-.14
.06
-.10
-.36
.79
-.30
.63
.39
Note. Factor loadings > .40 are in boldface. NEO-PI-R = Personality Inventory
Revised; NEO-FFI = NEO Five Factor Inventory; TSD-Z = Test zum
Schöpferischen Denken Zeichnerisch; MMPI-2 = Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory.
Christiane Kirsch and Claude Houssemand
7
__________________________________________________________________
Table 1 shows the retained factor solution for creativity and personality scales.
The most important factor, which is composed of 7 dimensions, is entitled
Psychoticism. It is entirely represented by subscales of MMPI-2 (46.30 %
explained inertia). Factor 2 entitled as Creative Potential is represented by TSD-Z
Creative potential and MMPI-2 Dominance dimension (16.42% explained inertia).
Table 2
Factor Loadings for Factor Analysis With Varimax Rotation of Cognitive
Measures
Scale
WCST
Percent Total Correct
Perseverative Errors
Non Perseverative
Errors
Go/NoGo1
Errors
Mean Reaction Time
Go/NoGo2
Errors
Mean Reaction Time
B53
D70
Executive
Functions
Cognitive
Inhibition
-.91
.88
.82
-.23
.10
.30
.32
.11
.73
-.84
.42
.10
-.71
-.82
.74
-.75
.26
-.04
Note. Factor loadings > .40 are in boldface. WCST = Wisconsin Card Sorting Test.
Table 3 shows the retained factor solution for cognitive measures. The
predominating factor, represented by three scores of WCST as well as two
reasoning tests (B53 and D70), is entitled Executive Functions (41.70% explained
inertia). Factor 2, exclusively composed of sub scores of two cognitive inhibition
tests (Go/NoGo1 and Go/NoGo2), is accordingly entitled Cognitive Inhibition
(28.41% explained inertia).
The retained factors will represent the given concepts in further analyses.
Table 3
Mean and standard deviations for Predictor and Dependent Variables
Variables
M
SD
Psychoticismª
39.84
17.90
Creative Potentialb
36.03
11.95
Executive Functionsc
30.02
20.50
8
Multivariate Approach to Creativity: Cognition and Personality
__________________________________________________________________
Cognitive Inhibitiond
745.71
111.27
Ego-strengthe
14.78
4.22
Note. aTheoretical range = 0 to +85; btheoretical range = +5 to +60; ctheoretical
range = -20.41 to +65.91; dtheoretical range = +499 to +1088; etheoretical range =
0 to +21
Correlations were computed in order to verify the established hypotheses. They
are represented in Table 4. It displays only one significant correlation between the
factors Creative Potential and Ego-strength.
Table 4
Correlation Matrix of Personality, Creativity and Cognitive Variables
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
1. Psychoticism
.12
-.13
.02
-.20
−
2. Creative Potential
.24
-.05
.46**
−
3. Executive Functions
-.04
.03
−
4. Cognitive Inhibition
-.10
−
5. Ego-strength
−
Note. * p < .05 level; ** p < .01 level.
4. Discussion
For discussion purposes, hypotheses will be reconsidered separately.
- There is a negative correlation between psychoticism and ego-strength.
This hypothesis has been partially confirmed. There’s effectively a negative but
not a significant correlation between the factors Psychoticism and Ego-strength
(Table 4).
Our revealed correlation coefficient of r = -.20 doesn’t reach the amplitude of
the one of McKenzie (1989) and McKenzie and Tindell (1993), which found a
negative correlation of r = -.32, between neuroticism and super-ego control.
The fact that this correlation doesn’t reach significance level could rely on the
fact that according to Eysenck (1995), there would only be a negative relationship
between psychoticism and ego-strength in a sample of people with low to moderate
creativity. This possibility will be tested in a following study.
- There is a positive correlation between psychoticism and creative
potential.
This hypothesis has been partially confirmed. There is well a positive
relationship between the factors Psychoticism and Creative Potential but it fails to
reach significance level (r = .12, p > .05).
Christiane Kirsch and Claude Houssemand
9
__________________________________________________________________
Accordingly, our findings are partly in line with MacKinnon (1962b), which
found a correlation between MMPI-2 Psychopathic deviate subscale and creativity
of r = .22, in a sample of architects.
Hence, our findings are partly consistent with numerous well established
theories and works placed in the conative approach and analyzing the so called
“creativity-madness” link (Hyslop, 1925; Lange-Eichbaum, 1931; Lombroso,
1891; Nisbet, 1900; Ellis, 1926; Juda, 1949; Hasenfus & Magaro, 1976).
- There is a positive correlation between ego-strength and creative
potential.
This hypothesis has been confirmed. Ego-strength factor is even highly
positively related to the factor Creative Potential (r = .46, p < .001).
This outcome is coherent to findings of Post (1994), who uncovered marked
ego-strength in a sample of 291 world famous creative geniuses of various
domains, based on an analysis of their biographies. This confirmed the outcome of
(Cox, 1926), established on 301 creative geniuses. Furthermore, findings of Barron
(1969) revealed that creative writers show considerably higher ego-strength as
compared to non-creative writers.
- There is a negative correlation between cognitive inhibition and creative
potential.
This hypothesis has been denied. There is no significant correlation between
the factors Cognitive Inhibition and Creative Potential (Table 4).
Consequently, the uncovering of cognitive inhibition as a significant negative
predictor of creative potential (Carson et al., 2003; Peterson & Carson, 2000;
Peterson, Smith, & Carson 2002) could not be replicated in this study.
- There is a positive correlation between fluid intelligence gf and creative
potential.
This hypothesis has been partially confirmed. We reveal a positive but
nevertheless not a significant relationship between the factors Executive Functions
and Creative Potential (r = .24, p > .05).
This is partly in line with multiple works in the cognitive approach to
creativity, reviewed by Batey and Furnham (2006). They summarize in a table
those authors who established positive correlations between creativity and
intelligence, measured in various forms.
This concerns also studies, based on regression analyses, where Batey,
Furnham and Safiullani (2010), Miller and Tal (2007), Feist and Barron (2003) and
Furnham, Batey, Anand & Manfield (2008) found fluid intelligence to be a
positive predictor of creative potential.
A first serious limit of this study consists in the small sample size, which did
not completely justify some of the statistical analyses employed. At this point we
should highlight nevertheless that the internal consistency values of the considered
subscales of personality and cognitive measures are largely satisfying, being
generally above .70.
10
Multivariate Approach to Creativity: Cognition and Personality
__________________________________________________________________
Another eventual restriction concerns the composition of the sample, which
contains a majority of academic people (81.1%).
5. Conclusion and Perspectives
Taken together, the only uncovered significant relationship to creativity
concerned the factor Ego-strength. More precisely, analyzes have revealed that the
factor Ego-strength is highly significantly related to the factor Creative Potential (r
= .46, p < .001).
Furthermore, the well-established correlation between psychoticism and
creativity could not be replicated in this study. Hence ego-strength seems to be
more beneficial to creative potential than psychoticism, at least in this specific
population.
Finally, even though in our study the negative correlation between the factors
Ego-strength and Psychoticism failed to reach significance level, literature suggests
that there might be a significant negative relationship between these two variables
(Eysenck, 1995).
To summarize, this would mean ego-strength is as well related to creative
potential as to psychoticism but this relationship would be of opposite sign. On a
hypothetical basis, the following graph illustrates the mentioned aspects well:
Ego-strength
Ego-strength
-
Psychoticism
+
Creative Potential
+
Figure 4. Relation between ego-strength, psychoticism and creative potential
Based on all these findings, we claim that in the conative approach ego-strength
would predominate over psychoticism in the prediction of creativity. Furthermore,
psychoticism should not always be regarded as predictor of creative potential, as
suggested i.e. by the correlation surface of psychopathology and ego-strength
(Eysenck, 1995) (Figure 2).
One could assume that there might be another form of relationship between
these two variables, where creative potential and psychoticism could be
conceptualized as different sides of the same coin. Ego-strength would be some
kind of moderator variable that determines which side of the coin will be
uncovered.
In other words, one could imagine that there might be two different pathways to
creativity, the one passing through pronounced ego-strength and the other through
Christiane Kirsch and Claude Houssemand
11
__________________________________________________________________
marked psychoticsm. This would result in two different forms of creativity, the
first one relying on mental strength and emotional stability and the second one on
emotional vulnerability. Only the latter one would risk deriving into psychosis. The
first one could eventually be assimilated to the area of “self-actualizing” in Figure
2.
Only in case of eminent creativity, both pathways would contribute to the
creative potential, considering that the usually negative correlation between
psychoticism and ego-strength would turn into a positive one (Eysenck, 1995).
This could explain the frequently uncovered link between creative genius and
psychoticism.
Ego-strength
+
+
+
Psychoticism
Creative Potential
Figure 5. Relation between ego-strength, psychoticism and creative potential
This conception will be further elaborated in a prospective study, aiming at the
testing of the interaction between psychoticism and ego-strength in the prediction
of creative potential. 1
1
Bibliography
Adler, A. (1927). Practice and theory of individual psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace and Oswald.
Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality: A Critical Review of the Scattered Literature.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132 (4), pp. 355-429. doi:10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430
Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as predictors of creativity.
Learning and Individual Differences , 20, pp. 532-535.
Bonnardel, R. (1971). Batterie factorielle standard. Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France: Editions Scientifiques et Psychologiques.
Carson, S., Peterson, J. & Higgins, D. (2003). Decreased Latent Inhibition Is Associated With Increased Creative
Achievement in High-Functioning Individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (3), pp. 499-506.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.499
Cox, C. (1926). Genetic studies of genius. The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Dorfman, L., Martindale, C., Gassimova, V., & Vartanian, O. (2008). Creativity and speed of information processing: A
double dissociation involving elementary versus inhibitory cognitive tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, pp.
1382-1390. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.12.006
ECPA, 1970. Test D70. Manuel d’application [application manual]. Paris, France: ECPA.
Ellis, H. (1926). A Study of British Genius. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.
Eysenk, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, pp. 147-178.
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential, and personality.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37, pp. 62-88. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00536-6
Fromm, E. (1955). The sane society. New York: Rinehart.
Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativity. Personality
and Individual Differences, 44, pp. 1060-1069. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.035
Hasenfus, N., & Magaro, P. (1976). Creativity and schizophrenia: An equality of empirical constructs. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 129, pp. 346-349. doi:10.1192/bjp.129.4.346
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1986). Inventaire Multiphasique de Personalité du Minesota (MMPI) [Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Paris: Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
Hyslop, T. B. (1925). The Great Abnormals. New York: Doran.
Juda, A. (1949). The relationship between highest mental capacity and psychic abnormalities. American Journal of
Psychiatry , 106, pp. 296-307.
Lange-Eichbaum, W. (1931). The problem of genius. London: Kegan Paul.
Lombroso, C. (1891). The Man of Genius. London: Walter Scott.
Lubart, T. (1999a). Encyclopaedia of Creativity (Vol. 1). (R. &. Pritsker, Éd.) New York: Academic Press.
Lubart, T., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., & Zenasni, F. (2003). Psychologie de la créativité. Paris: Armand Colin.
McKenzie, J. (1989). Neuroticism and academic achievement : The furneaux factor. Personality and Individual
Differences,10 (5), 509-515.
McKenzie, J., & Tindell, G. (1993). Anxiety and academic achievement : Further furneaux factor findings. Personality and
Individual Differences, 15 (6), 609-617.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1962b). The personality correlates of creativity. In: G.S. Nielson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth
International Congress of Applied Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 11-39. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Maslow, A. (1976). Creativity in self-actuating people. In: A. Rotenberg & L.P. Hausman (Eds.), The Creativity Question,
pp. 86-92. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Miller, G. F., & Tal, I. R. (2007). Schizotypy versus openness and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Schizophrenia
research, 93, pp. 317-324. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2007.02.007
Muhlenen, A. V., Rempel, M. I. & Enns, J. T. (2005). Unique temporal change is the key to attentional capture.
Psychological Science, 16, pp. 979-986.
Nisbet, J. F. (1900). The insanity of genius. London: Grant Richards.
Payne, R. W., Matussek, P. & George, E. I. (1959). An experimental study of schizophrenic thought disorder. Journal of
Mental Science, 105, pp. 627-652. doi:10.1192/bjp.105.440.627
Peterson, J. B. & Carson, S. (2000). Latent Inhibition and Openness to Experience in a high-achieving student population.
Personality and Individual Differences, 28, pp. 323-332. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00101-4
Peterson, J. B., Smith, K. W. & Carson, S. (2002). Openness and extraversion are associated with reduced latent inhibition:
replication and commentary. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, pp. 1137-1147. doi:10.1016/S01918869(02)00004-1
Post, F. (1994). Creativity and psychopathology: A study of 291 world famous men. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, pp.
22-34. doi:10.1192/bip.165.1.22
Rogers, C. R. (1976). Toward a theory of creativity. In: A. Rothenberg and L.P. Hausman (Eds.), The Creativity Question,
pp. 296-305. Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press.
Schneider, W., Eschbaum, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime User’s Guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools
Inc.
Steinmetz, J.P. (2010): Personality and cognition: psychological rigidity and inhibition of dominant response tendencies
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Sternberg, R. & Lubart, T. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1-31.
doi:10.1159/000277029
Sternberg, R. & Lubart, T. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51 (7), 677-688. doi:10.1037/0003066X.51.7.677
Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1995). Test zum Schöpferischen Denken - Zeichenerisch (TSD-Z) Manual [Test of creative
thinking through drawing]. Frankfurt: Swets Test Services.
Zimmermann, P., & Fimm, B. (2007). TAP: Testbatterie zur Aufmerksamkeitsprüfung (Version 2.1). [TAP: Testbattery of
attentional performances (version 2.1)]. Herzogenrath, Germany: Psytest.
Christiane Kirsch is a PhD student in psychology at the University of Luxembourg. While she is a psychologist and art
therapist with professional dancing experience, her current research focusses on creativity. This topic builds the bridge
between her two domains of specialization.
Claude Houssemand did a PhD in differential psychology at the Nancy2 university (France) and got a position of head of
unit at the CEPS/INSTEAD (Luxemburg). He integrated the Centre Universitaire and the University of Luxembourg. He
lectures cognitive and differential psychology, scientific methodology and statistics. He is the European redactor of the
Mesure et Evaluation en Education, international review (Adméé, http://www.admee.org/) and the Chairman of the
scientific committee of the FREREF (http://www.freref.eu/). For five years, mediation has become one of his main research
fields.