Assignment overview

The overarching aim of the assignment is to examine the associations between personality and creativity. The two are closely linked, with certain personality traits more likely to be associated with both a person’s creative self-concept and their creative behaviour (Batey & Hughes, 2017; Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin, & O’Connor, 2009). 

For the purposes of the assignment, personality is defined in terms of the five-factor trait model of personality, and specifically, the Huge Two meta-traits (Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016). Creativity is defined in terms of both how creative an individual thinks they are, i.e. their creative self-concept (Karwowski, 2016), as well as the creativity of their behaviour in tasks requiring convergent and divergent cognitive abilities (Cropley, 2006). 

For your assignment, you will write a full research report that addresses the following research question:

How do the Huge Two meta-traits of personality relate to creative self-concept and performance on creativity tasks requiring (a) convergent cognitive abilities and (b) divergent cognitive abilities?

Before you start working on your research report, please visit Assignment 2: Methodology to familiarise yourself with the study.


The assignment will be presented in the form of a lab report containing the following sections:

  • Title page
    • Come up with a title for your study.
    • Important: The Title page is not included in your final word count.
  • Abstract (120–150 words, 5% of your overall mark)
    • The Abstract should summarise your Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion clearly and succinctly.
  • Introduction (approximately 1000 words, 30% of your overall mark)
    • You must include at least two  hypotheses:
      • At least one hypothesis must address relationships between the Huge Two meta-traits of personality and creative self-concept.
      • At least one hypothesis must address relationships between the Huge Two meta-traits and performance on creativity tasks requiring (a) convergent cognitive abilities and (b) divergent cognitive abilities.
  • Method (approximately 400 words, 5% of your overall mark)
    • You can base this section on the Method information described in Assignment 2: MethodologyImportant: Do not just copy and paste the ‘Method’ information provided on the page.
  • Results (approximately 400 words, 20% of your overall mark)
    • Include descriptive statistics (M, SD) for the variables used in your analyses and the results of hypothesis testing.
    • Present results according to APA 7th standards.
  • Discussion (approximately 1000 words, 30% of your overall mark)
    • Were the hypotheses supported? Why/why not?
    • How do the results of this study compare with previous studies?
    • What are the implications of the findings for theory and practice in personality psychology?
    • What are the methodological limitations of the study, and how could they have affected the findings or future directions?
    • Present a coherent conclusion.
  • Reference list (10% of your overall mark)
    • Along with the quality of grammar/expression in the report, adherence to APA 7th referencing style contributes 10% to your overall mark.
    • Important: The reference list is not included in your final word count.

Note: The maximum number of words is the absolute maximum and markers will stop reading at the word limit. The word count includes everything except for the Title page and Reference list.

Assignment 2: methodology


Participants were third-year psychology students at Swinburne University. Basic demographic data for the sample is available in the data set.


Demographic variables

Sex (male, female, or other) and age.


The IPIP-NEO 120 (Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014) was selected to assess the personality meta-traits of Stability and Plasticity. It is a validated measure of the Big Five. The scale consists of 120 phrases, and participants are asked to rate how accurately each statement reflects how they are on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Scores on each of the Openness to experience and Extraversion items were summed to create the total Plasticity score, and scores on the (reversed) Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness scales were summed to create the total Stability score.

Creative self-concept

The Short Scale of Creative Self (Karwowski, Lebuda, & Wisniewska, 2018) was used to measure creative self-concept. The scale consists of 11 statements which participants rate according to how accurately they reflect their self-concept. Responses are given on a 5-point likert-type scale. Scores on individual items are averaged to create a creative self-concept score ranging from 1-5.

Creativity tasks

One divergent thinking task and one convergent thinking task were used to assess creative behaviour.

The divergent thinking task, Guilford’s Alternate Uses Task (Guilford, 1967), required participants to come up with as many uses as possible for the following common items in 3 minutes: “a brick”, “a newspaper”, and “a shoe”. Responses were scored using the subjective multiple-rater method outlined by Silvia et al. (2008), based on how uncommon, remote and clever the responses were. Each response received a rating from 1 (not at all creative) to 5 (highly creative). For the creativity index, participants’ scores were summed then divided by the number of responses. Overall scores range from 1-5.

The convergent thinking task, the Remote Associates Test (Mednick, 1962), required participants to look at three remotely associated words (e.g., paint/doll/cat) and come up with a fourth word that is related to all three (e.g. house). Thirty questions were presented in 3 minutes with one mark given for each correct response. Scores are expressed as the proportion of total responses answered correctly.


Participants first completed the creativity tasks in a counterbalanced order in class at their usual tutorial time. The tasks were undertaken in the Inquisit program and took approximately 15 minutes to complete. The self-report questionnaire containing the measures of personality and creative self-concept was completed online via Qualtrics outside class at a time and location convenient to participants within 1 week maximum of their tutorial. Scores on the creativity tasks and self-report measures were linked via a unique code number randomly allocated to each participant at the start of the creativity tasks in Inquisit. The code number also permitted anonymous participation in the study.

Before beginning the study in class, participants were informed via a consent statement of their rights as volunteers not to participate in the study if they so choose and that they could withdraw their participation at any time prior to submitting their results. A debriefing statement was provided at the end of the survey detailing the aims of the study.

The independent variables for the study were age, sex, and the personality variables of Plasticity and Stability. The dependent variables were self-reported creative self-concept and performance on the divergent thinking and convergent thinking tasks.

Supporting resources

The data file is provided here, however, it is strongly suggested that you examine the measures so you understand their strengths and weaknesses.

Further resources:

Note: This is an example from a different topic.


Your report must demonstrate APA-style referencing in the body text and within the Reference list. Visit Assignment 2: Starting references to help you get started on your reference search.

Assignment 2: Starting references

You may use additional references than those listed here. The ones below are provided to help you get started.

Batey, M., & Hughes, D.J. (2017). Individual difference correlates of self-perceptions of creativity. In M. Karwowski & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.). The Creative Self: Effect of Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, Mindset, and Identity (pp. 185-218). London, UK: Academic Press. ***eBook available through the library; Chapter 11 only*** 

Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391-404. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13 

Guilford, J.P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 1, 3-14. 

Karwowski, M. (2016). The dynamics of creative self-concept: Changes and reciprocal relations between creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Creativity Research Journal, 28, 99-104. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1125254 

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, 214-232. doi:10.1037/aca0000035 

Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., & Wisniewska, E. (2018). Measuring creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 28(1), 45-57. 

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, 1070-1084. doi:10.1037/pas0000004 

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232. 

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, 1087-1090. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015 

Silvia, P.J., Winterstein, B.P., Willse, J.T., Barona, C.M., Cram, J.T., Hess, K.I., . . . Richard, C.A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 68-85. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68 

Assignment criteria ( you must follow this )

  1. Abstract.
  2. Introduction.
  3. Method.
  4. Results.
  5. Discussion.
  6. Grammar, expression, referencing.

Your work will be assessed using the following marking guide. The grade allocated for each criteria will be based on accuracy and quality of information provided.

5 marks    The Abstract should include (at least):

  • the aim of the study/main research question
  • description of the sample and methods
  • a statement about the hypotheses and whether they were supported.

30 marks     In this section, the following learning objectives will be assessed:

  1. Write testable hypotheses/research questions.
  2. Present the hypotheses/research questions in a clear and coherent manner.

The Introduction should:

  • broadly describe the area under investigation and its importance
  • clearly define the key constructs—Big Five, Huge Two, creative self-concept, divergent and convergent creative performance
  • critically review the relevant research literature.

Hypotheses should:

  • be directional
  • clearly link to the research literature reviewed in the introduction
  • be testable using the given data.

5 marks Method should include:

  • Participants
  • Measures
  • Procedure.

20 marksIn this section, the following learning objectives will be assessed:

  1. Conduct appropriate analyses to test the research question/hypotheses.
  2. Present results according to APA standards.
  3. Convey understanding of the results in a clear and concise manner.

Results should include:

  • descriptive statistics for the variables used in the analyses
  • a correlation table showing relationships between variables of interest
  • description of what each statistical test is showing.

Whatever statistical methods are used, make sure they are presented and reported correctly, including:

  • direction, size and significance (for correlation)
  • direction, Beta and significance (for regression)
  • t-score (or F-score), degrees of freedom, significance (for t-test/ANOVA).

30 marks In this section, the following learning objectives will be assessed:

  1. Demonstrate understanding of the theories and concepts.
  2. Use the theories to explain results.
  3. Coherently consider applications of the findings for theory and practice.
  4. Present the methodological limitations that may have influenced the findings.
  5. Present a coherent and logical conclusion.

Discussion should include:

  • statement of whether the hypotheses were supported
  • comparison of how results of this study compare to previous studies
  • implications of the results for theory and practice in personality psychology
  • methodological limitations:
    • How the limitations potentially affected the findings must be addressed.
  • conclusions and future directions.

Grammar, expression, referencing

10 marks

There should be clear expression and strict adherence to APA conventions throughout the assignment. This includes both in-text references and in the Reference list.

Order a Similar or Custom Paper from our Writers