Genetic and environmental influences on applied creativity: A reared-apart twin study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.014Get rights and content

Highlights

  • First reared-apart twin study of applied creativity.

  • Applied creativity assessed by judgments of creative aspects of drawings.

  • Genetic influences on applied creativity detected, but varied by drawing type.

Abstract

Applied creativity involves bringing innovation to real-life activities. The first reared-apart twin study assessing genetic and environmental origins of applied creativity, via Draw-a-House (DAH) and Draw-a-Person (DAP) tasks, is presented. Participants included 69 MZA and 53 DZA twin pairs from the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Drawings were evaluated by four artists and four non-artists. Genetic effects were demonstrated for the DAP (.38–.47), but not for the DAH. Creative personality showed genetic effects (.50), and modest, but significant correlations with scores on the two drawings (rs = .17–.26). Both genetic and nonshared environmental influences underlie variance in applied creativity. Individuals concerned with enhancing creativity among students and others may better understand individual differences in performance and training.

Introduction

“The first step is imagination, the capacity that we all have to see something in the mind’s eye. Creativity is then using that imagination to solve problems—call it applied imagination. Then innovation is putting that creativity into practice as applied creativity.”

(Robinson, 2006).

Defining creativity is challenging for psychologists, educators and artists. Originality and usefulness are often considered to characterize creativity; however, originality alone is insufficient because it might reflect random processes or lack of purpose (Runco and Jaeger, 2012, Sarkar and Chakrabarti, 2011). Another key issue is how much creativity is genetically or environmentally influenced. Applied creativity—“putting creativity into practice” (Robinson, 2006)— is the focus of the present report. Specifically, genetic and environmental factors underlying esthetic, artistic and novel qualities of reared-apart twins’ paper and pencil drawings are examined.

As Simonton notes (2012), Sir Frances Galton considered creativity in the context of nature and nurture in English Men of Science (1874). Galton concluded that heredity (“pre-efficients”) contributed significantly to his subjects’ eminence. However, the environmentalist perspective in the United States permeated much of psychological research in the 1930s–1970s. Many studies emphasized situational factors affecting creativity, e.g., educational practices (Biber, 1958) and freedom to pursue problems (Kaplan, 1960). By the 1960s cognitive psychology was gaining ground, emphasizing the acquisition/development of domain-specific skills, and in the 1980s behavioral-genetics became more mainstream. A more balanced view of creativity emerged, in which both genetic and environmental factors were acknowledged for achieving creative outcomes. However, environmental influences on creativity, such as sustained practice (Ericsson, 2014) and collaborative partnership (Shenk, 2014), are still emphasized.

Creativity can be enhanced following training. Cropley and Cropley (2000) increased the innovation/creativity of engineering students via lectures and counseling. The Creative Project, at the College Misericordia, in Dallas, TX, enhanced the creativity of student nurses regarding humanistic aspects of patient care (Pavill, 2011). A meta-analysis of 70 creativity studies showed that effective training programs focused on skill application using realistic exercises (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004). Regardless, how much training effects persist, and why they vary across individuals, remains uncertain. Resolving such debates requires genetically-informed research, e.g., twin/adoption studies. It is possible that genetically-based tendencies affect variation in the efficacy and persistence of creativity training.

A reared-apart twin study of applied tasks, in which ideas are expressed via activities, has never been undertaken. Findings from this analysis have implications for individuals dedicated to fostering creativity. To the extent that genetic factors affect applied creative activities, efforts toward individually tailored programs may be advised.

IQ has a genetic component (Johnson, Bouchard, Krueger, McGue, & Gottesman, 2004), but general intelligence differs from creativity (Bouchard & Lykken, 1999). Nusbaum and Silvia (2011) showed that openness predicted creativity, but not fluid intelligence, whereas intellect predicted fluid intelligence, but not creativity. As Simonton (1999) suggested, high intelligence may be necessary, but not sufficient, for extraordinary creative achievement. Similarly, low levels of intelligence may not support creative undertakings.

Recent work underlines the complexity of giftedness of which creativity is one form. Creativity may involve the ability to go beyond intelligence to synthesize unrelated associations among concepts. The relationship between intelligence and creative potential may be mediated by biologically-based executive mechanisms. Such mechanisms may include cognitive inhibition and task-switching (Benedek, Franz, Heene, & Neubauer, 2012).

Twin designs include identical (monozygotic or MZ) twins who share 100% of their genes and fraternal (dizygotic or DZ) twins who share, on average, 50% of their genes. Greater MZ than DZ resemblance demonstrates genetic influence on behavior. Twin studies of creative attributes have produced mixed findings regarding genetic effects. An early study of thirteen twin pairs suggested that creativity was not heritable, but was related to intelligence measures (Richmond, 1966). Another twin study found that environment plays a stronger role than heredity in shaping creativity (Vandenberg, 1968).

Additional research suggests that genetic contributions to creativity vary with construct and type of measure. Reznikoff, Domino, Bridges, and Honeyman (1973) found genetic effects on word association, but not on associational fluency in teenage twins. An Italian study of adolescent twins showed genetic effects on adaptive flexibility and esthetic judgment, but not on ideational or expressional fluency, findings replicated with an American sample (Barron, 1972). A subsequent study of young adult twins reported genetic effects on perceptual and esthetic abilities, but not on esthetic preferences (Barron & Parisi, 1976).

Summarizing ten creativity studies, average correlations were .61 for MZ twins and .50 for DZ twins, suggesting modest heritability (Nichols, 1978). However, Canter (1973) proposed that these correlations would have been more similar controlling for general cognitive ability. Accordingly, a recent survey failed to support genetic influence on creative behavior (Chávez-Eakle, 2007).

A recent study reported a .29 heritability on four-year-old twin children’s human figure drawing, using the Draw-a-Child task (Arden, Trzaskowski, Garfield, & Plomin, 2014). This was not a creativity study, but an assessment of children’s ability, based on the presence/correct number of body features. Creative attributes, such as esthetic quality and interesting features, were not examined. The generalizability of these findings to adults is unknown.

The relatively young age of the twin participants in some previous studies may have limited conclusions regarding genetic effects on creative expression. Specifically, genetic influence on many traits, e.g., general intelligence and exercise participation, increases with age as individuals gain greater control over their environments (McClearn et al., 1997, Stubbe et al., 2006). Lehman (1960) asserted that most creative products are generated during young adulthood and that 80% of significant creative contributions occur by age 50. Lifespan research on creativity suggests that creativity peaks in middle adulthood (Simonton, 1996).

Some limitations of extant twin research on creativity can be overcome using reared-apart adult twins. Adults exert greater control over their environments than children, allowing expression of genetically-based proclivities. Furthermore, MZA twins provide direct estimates of genetic effects on behavior given their shared genes and nonshared environments. Varied measures of creativity can also identify heritable features. It is anticipated that applied creative ability will show heritable individual differences, given the unstructured nature of the task with respect to time and direction. The possibility that creative behavior in an applied task is influenced by genetic and environmental factors to the same degree as creative personality will be assessed.

The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA) is the only reared-apart twin study to have assessed creativity (Segal, 2012). Measures included the Creative Personality Scale (Gough, 1979) and Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire’s Traditionalism scale (Tellegen et al., 1988). Heritabilities on these measures ranged between .40 and .50 (Bouchard et al., 1999, Waller et al., 1993). The scales used, while informative, did not assess applied creativity.

Many studies assessing creativity report higher consistency among experts than non-experts (Kaufman, Baer, & Cole, 2009). It has been suggested that experts judge artifacts in comparison with others in the group, rather than with reference to an absolute standard (Kaufman et al., 2009). The current study offered an opportunity to compare the reliabilities of artist and non-artist raters.

The first analysis of applied creative ability using reared-apart twins is presented. It was hypothesized that (1) MZA twin pairs would receive more concordant creativity scores than DZA twin pairs, consistent with genetic effects, and (2) artists’ scoring agreement would exceed that of non-artists.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants included 18–77-year-old, reared-apart monozygotic (MZA, N = 69) and dizygotic (DZA, N = 53) twin pairs from the MISTRA. MZA twins consisted of 41 female and 28 male pairs; two individual female MZA twins were included in some analyses. DZA twins consisted of 36 same-sex pairs and 17 opposite-sex pairs. Mean ages of the MZA and DZA pairs were 42.31 years (SD 12.82) and 45.40 years (SD 13.12), respectively, and did not differ significantly. Mean age at reunion was 32.51 years (SD = 15.80,

Pilot study

A pilot study assessed experimental procedures, rating scales and inter-rater reliabilities. Raters were three artists (two females, one male) and one male non-artist. Pilot rating sessions included a brief description of the study and instructions for completing the AQRS. Twenty “mock” drawings each of houses and people were created by research staff for this purpose. The four raters viewed the 40 drawings twice in one session.

Inter-rater reliabilities were good to excellent as indicated by

Genetic and environmental influences on creativity

It was hypothesized that MZA twin pairs would receive more similar creativity scores than DZA twin pairs, indicative of genetic effects. Genetic influence was indicated for the DAPs, given the MZA and DZA intraclass correlations and model-fitting results, explaining 38–47% of the variance. This suggests that applied creativity on the DAP task is partly heritable, and also arises from individuals’ unique experiences. In contrast, findings of genetic influence on DAH appeared somewhat

Acknowledgements

This research was facilitated by the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (Dr. Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr.), the Minority Access to Research Careers program at CSUF (NIMH 5T34GM008612-18) that supported the first author, and faculty–student research awards to the first and second authors.

References (43)

  • F. Barron et al.

    Twin resemblances in creativity and in esthetic and emotional expression

    Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellogiae

    (1976)
  • B. Biber

    Premature structuring as a deterrent to creativity

    American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

    (1958)
  • T.J. Bouchard et al.

    Life achievement in a sample of twins reared apart: Estimating the role of genetics and environmental influences

  • R.A. Chávez-Eakle

    Creativity, DNA, and cerebral blood flow

  • D.H. Cropley et al.

    Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates

    High Ability Studies

    (2000)
  • K.A. Ericsson

    Creative genius: A view from the expert-performance approach

  • H.G. Gough

    A creativity personality scale for the adjective checklist

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1979)
  • W. Johnson

    Genetic and environmental influences on behavior: Capturing all the interplay

    Psychological Review

    (2007)
  • N. Kaplan

    Some organizational factors affecting creativity

    IRE Transactions on Engineering Management

    (1960)
  • J.C. Kaufman et al.

    Expertise, domains, and the Consensual Assessment Technique

    The Journal of Creative Behavior

    (2009)
  • K.S. Kendler et al.

    Parental treatment and the equal environment assumption in twin studies of psychiatric illness

    Psychological Medicine

    (1994)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Currently in the Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

    View full text