This pilot study developed a Creativity Identification & Attitudes Scale, identifying two factors: 'creative averse' and 'creative approach' through exploratory factor analysis. It highlights that bias against creativity, influenced by social identity theory, may hinder individuals' self-identification as creative, especially in educational contexts. Recommendations include raising awareness of creative biases and implementing interventions to foster creative expression among students.

1. Development of a
Creativity Identification &
Attitudes Scale: A Pilot
Study using EFA
Scott R. Furtwengler, PhD
Brazosport College
ECER/WERA 2015
Budapest, Hungary

2. Outline
 Overview
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Questions

3. Overview
 Pilot study – Possible latent factors
associated with bias against creativity &
creative identification
 Exploratory Factor Analysis
 Creativity Identification & Attitudes Scale
 Two Salient Factors emerged – creative
averse and creative approach

4. Introduction
 The problem: Deficit in creativity/innovation

5. Introduction: Lit. Review
 Creativity covaries with mental illness
(schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) &
intellectual disability (autism spectrum
disorder), yet no causal relationship has
been established (Jamison, 2011; Kyaga,
et al., 2013; Ludwig, 1989, 1992; Richards,
et al, 1988; Richards & Kinney, 1990).

6. Introduction: Lit. Review
 A stigma exists against people with mental illness that
has been well-documented across cultures and within
populations (Clark, et al., 2013; Cummings, Lucas, &
Druss, 2013; Girma, et al., 2013A; Girma, et al. 2013B;
Jamison, 2006; Perry, 2014; Yang, et al., 2014).
 Persons with mental illness are likely to avoid or delay
treatment is because of the prejudice against persons
with mental illness and the expectation of being
discriminated against (Henderson, Evans-Lacko, &
Thornicroft, 2013).

7. Introduction: Lit. Review
 Innovation resistance (Adarves-Yorno, et
al., 2008)
 Uncertainty avoidance (Mueller, et al.,
2012)
 Do such perspectives cause individuals
who would otherwise identify as creative to
self-censor or suppress their creative
identification, ideation, or expression?

8. Introduction: Theoretical
Framework
 Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner, 1975) provides a
theoretical framework to explore the social
influences, specifically in-group bias, on
divergent and convergent thinking.
 When an individual’s perceives that he or
she is not a typical group member or is not
fully accepted as part of the group, the
individual’s sense of in-group inclusion is
threatened (Pickett & Brewer, 2005).

9. Introduction
 The problem: Deficit in creativity/innovation
 Hypothesis: There is an underlying
psychological construct, a bias against
innovation, influencing the deficit in
creativity.
 Research Question: Can the researchers
develop a scale to measure 1) latent
attitudes toward creativity and 2) the extent
to which individuals identify as creative?

10. Methods
 Participants & Data Collection – Snowball
sampling via social media (Facebook,
Twitter, & LinkedIn) and academic
programs.
 Instrument – Creativity Identification &
Attitudes Scale (CIAS)
 Analysis – Exploratory Factor Analysis,
specifically, minimum rank factor analysis
with oblique (Promin) rotation

11. Results
Rotated Factor Loading Matrix from Exploratory Factor Analysis with Promin Rotation with
Associated Eigenvalues (N = 237)
Factor Loading
Variable 1 2 3 Communality
11. Creative people interrupt the workflow. .62 .52
23. Creative individuals are a threat to traditional
values.
.55 .45
12. Creative people are dishonest. .52 .48
5. I do not trust creative people. .52 .49
8. Creative people are strange. .51 .57
7. I would prefer not to let others see my creative
side.
.38 .44
3. Creative people add value to our organization. .82 .78
13. Creativity and innovation are necessary for a
strong economy.
.72 .78
14. I would like to be more creative. .68 .79
6. I prefer to be around people who are creative. .63 .65
4. Creative people are good at problem solving. .59 .62
17. Society imposes too many rules on me. .40 .54
27. Taking risks makes life more exciting. .35 .51
16. I would prefer to work alone. .33 .29
20. The idea of change excites me. -.76 .78
21. I do not like the notion of change. .65 .48
Eigenvalues 3.80 1.91 0.85
% of Variance 37.32 18.76 8.31
Coefficient Alpha .75 .87 .74
Notes: Factor loadings below .30 are excluded. Factor 1 = creative averse. Factor 2 = creative
approach.

12. Discussion
 Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner, 1975) provides an
appropriate theoretical framework
 Evidence for a latent factor, creative
averse, representing bias against creativity
and creative individuals
 Supports the notion of innovation
resistance (Adarves-Yorno, et al., 2008)
and
 Uncertainty avoidance (Mueller, et al.,
2012)

13. Discussion: Implications
 The presence of creative averse may
influence behavior with regard to threats to
individuals’ sense of in-group inclusion
(Pickett & Brewer, 2005).
 High-stakes testing and scripted curricula
have impeded creativity in teaching and
learning (Henriksen & Mishra, 2015). This
may carry over to university.

14. Discussion: Implications
 Research has indicated that teachers prefer
traits such as conformity and unquestioning
acceptance of authority (Bachtold, 1974;
Cropley, 1992; Dettmer, 1981; Getzels &
Jackson, 1962; & Torrance, 1963 as cited
in Westby & Dawson, 1995).
 Students and teachers can be more
conscientious of creative averse biases and
environments. Administrators can and
should give teachers the latitude to be
creative without fear of reprisal.

15. Future research
 Determine the frequency and extent to
which students may be inclined to self-
censoring of creative ideation.
 Develop more reliable and valid scales to
target those who identify as creative.
 Administer interventions at the student,
classroom, school, and district levels that
enhance creative ideation and expression.

16. Limitations
 Sample size
 Sample homogeneity
 Items

17. Questions?

18. References
 Adarves-Yorno, I., Haslam, S., & Postmes, T. (2008). And now for something completely
different? The impact of group membership on perceptions of creativity. Social Influence, 3,
248-266.
 Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2015). We teach who we are: Creativity in the lives and practices
of accomplished teachers. Teachers College Record Volume 117 Number 7, 2015, p. 1-46
http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 17947.
 Mueller, J., Melwani, S., Goncalo, J. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire yet
reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 21, 13-17.
 Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2005). The role of exclusion in maintaining in-group inclusion. In
D. Abrams, M. Hogg, & J. Marques (Eds.), Social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp.
89–112). New York: Psychology Press.
 Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61–76). London: Academic Press.
 Tajfel, H., & Turner. J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Chicago: Nelson.
 Turner, J. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup
behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5–34.
 Westby, E., & Dawson, V. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom. Creativity
Research Journal, 8, 1-10.

19. Contact
Scott R. Furtwengler
sfurtwengler@gmail.com
scott.furtwengler@brazosport.edu
srfurtwengler@uh.edu
www.scottfurtwengler.com