Personality: Stability vs. Change
The idea of humans as predictable beings capable of highly consistent behavior in different situations is deeply rooted in most cultures. However, it is also a matter of significant theoretical interest since there is a possibility of behavior being determined situationally. According to Alwin (2019), even though there is little variation in the nature of cultural concepts of personality constancy, psychologists argue about the extent to which personal qualities are indeed constant in time and circumstances. Life span personality stability hypotheses have prompted substantial research, and there is a number of brilliant works on the matter, albeit they feature a wide range of opinions and judgments. However, the general consensus is: personality in adulthood is relatively stable over time, despite being able to change due to certain factors.
When it comes to personality, it must be spoken about personality traits. Atherton et al. (2021) note that much is known about traits today, and most of them are linked to one or more of domains that are known as The Big Five. These domains include extroversion (attributes such as assertiveness, confidence, sociability, and independence), agreeableness (attributes such as cooperation, kindness, modesty, and trust), and openness (attributes such as artistry, inquisitiveness, inventiveness, and open-mindedness). In addition to that, there are conscientiousness (attributes such as hard work, human decency, self-control and determination) and neuroticism (attributes such as anxiety, tenseness, moodiness, and easy anger). The Big Five is one of the most prevailing classifications to organize a wide range of personality attributes that distinguish one person from another.
The levels of these domains tend to change as a person grows older. Donnellan (2019) states that the average levels of extroversion (especially the attributes associated with confidence and independence), conscientiousness, and agreeableness seem to increase with age. In their turn, neuroticism and openness do the opposite, with the latter especially decreasing after the middle of life. These changes are often deemed positive due to higher conscientiousness and agreeableness levels and lower neuroticism levels being associated with many desirable outcomes. Among these are better health, greater work success, improved stability and quality of relationships, decreased criminality risks and mental health problems, and even reduced mortality (Donnellan, 2019). According to Donnellan (2019), this model of positive changes in personal attributes is referred to as the maturity principle of adult personality development. The general notion is that the average levels of the attributes linked to positive adaptation and successful adult roles fulfillment increase in adulthood.
Researchers established that young adulthood (the period between 18 years of age and the late 20s) was the most active time in life for average change observation. It is typically a period of life that includes various life changes: graduating school, starting a career, entering into romantic relationships, and becoming parents (Alwin, 2019). The fact that young adulthood is an active personality development time gives circumstantial evidence that adult roles can exert pressure for certain personality development patterns. As per Donnellan (2019), this is one possible explanation of the principle of maturity of personality development. This pattern of stability growing with age is known as the cumulative continuity principle of personality development. It is suitable for both women and men and is applicable to a wide variety of personality traits, from extroversion to openness. However, it must be noted that there is not an age at which the observed correlations are perfect. It means that personality changes can occur whenever during a lifetime; it is just that there are more inconsistencies in childhood and adolescence than in adulthood.
In general, the literature suggests that personality traits are relatively stable attributes that increase in stability from childhood to adulthood. Nevertheless, the stability of personality attributes is not ideal at any point in life. This inference is an important one as it calls into question two extreme viewpoints that have influenced psychological research (Donnellan, 2019). According to Donnellan (2019), over 100 years ago, a well-known psychologist, William James, stated that for most people personality was completely set by the age of 30. This perspective implies an almost flawless personality stability in adulthood. On the contrary, as reported by Donnellan (2019), other psychologists have sometimes insisted on any lack of stability in personality whatsoever. Their view is that individual desires, feelings, and thoughts are simply a reaction to temporary situational influences that most likely are to not have much consistency throughout life. Donnellan (2019) states that current research shows no support for either of these extremes. However, a proven degree of stability causes questions about the precise mechanisms and processes generating personality stability – and personality change.
Today there is a distinction between the mechanisms likely producing personality stability and those likely producing change. Atherton et al. (2021) speak about the acronym ASTMA that was invented to help remember these mechanisms: attraction (A), selection (S), manipulation (M), and attrition (A) typically generate stability, while transformation (T) creates change. A, S, M, and A explain how for many individuals a kind of correspondence takes place between personality attributes and environmental conditions. It tends to generate personality consistency as the ‘pressure’ of a situation strengthen one’s attributes. This observation is at the basis of the corresponsive principle of personality development. The idea is that the environment often reinforces those traits that were partly responsible for the initial environmental conditions by themselves (Donnellan, 2019). For instance, ambitious and assertive people can be drawn to and selected for more challenging work positions. These types of jobs frequently require energy, dedication, and commitment to achievement, thereby increasing the dispositional tendency for ambition and assertiveness.
Although several mechanisms provide continuity of personality by creating a correspondence between the characteristics of an individual and the environment, personality change is still possible. According to Donnellan (2019), the simplest mechanism of generating transformation is the foundation of behaviorism: behavior patterns that bring positive outcomes (pleasure) are repeated, while behavior patterns that bring negative outcomes (pain) are reduced. Social conditions might have the power to change an individual if they are subjected to various rewards and punishments and the environment imposes restrictions on a person’s reasonable behavior. It is also possible for people to transform their personality traits by actively seeking to change their behavior with the help of outsiders, which is a concept that underlies psychotherapy.
In conclusion, there are many ways to measure personality stability. Evidence points to personality attributes being relatively stable and showing predictable changes on an average level throughout life. Personality stability is generated by the complex interaction between people and their social conditions. There is a mutually reinforcing cycle: personality attributes appear to mold the context of the environment, and these contexts often emphasize and strengthen these personality attributes. However, personality transformation is possible due to people responding to their environments or wanting to change their personalities.
Intelligence: Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences
The theory of multiple intelligences, or MI, was outlined in 1983 by an American psychologist and researcher named Howard Gardner. According to the theory, intelligence is a biopsychological potential for information processing (Kornhaber, 2020). Moreover, all people have a number of relatively autonomous intelligences that they utilize in various combinations to solve problems or create culturally valued products. Put together, the intelligences are at the core of the range of adult end-states found in different cultures. Thus, MI is at odds with theories entrenched at the beginning of the 20th century that deem general intelligence, g, fundamental to all human problem-solving. MI challenges the measurement of intelligence through psychometric methods and provides a comprehensive view of how intelligence is structured.
Psychometric intelligence conceptions are often employed to explain and predict a variety of measurable outcomes. Kornhaber (2020) notes that among these outcomes are especially those closely related to school: grades, performance tests, other intelligence tests, and professional status. Such inferences are made in part by means of test tools relying on discrete objects and decontextualized, standardized conditions that have commonly generated and been purportedly explained by g and its descendants. In contrast, MI aims at identifying the intellectual abilities that enable people to take on the full range of adult end-states that are valued within and throughout cultures (Kornhaber, 2020). Thus, the theory promotes the understanding of not only the traditionally evaluated cognitive abilities that are the attributes of scientists and lawyers, but also the cognitive abilities of artists, athletes, pilots, animal trainers, or peace keepers.
To determine the intelligences that would explain the adult end-state range, Gardner reviewed an extensive body of scientific literature. During this exploration, he also constructed a set of criteria against which to test candidates’ intelligences (Martin, 2018). The criteria included developmental trajectory characterization and selective sparing or malfunction in people with brain damage. Additionally, an intelligence is to be recognizable by its neural functions and structures, evolutionary biology, basic information processing, distinctive symbolic representation forms, and experimental tasks (Martin, 2018). Gardner argued that a candidate’s intelligence has to meet all or almost all criteria.
These criteria can be summarized by looking at two potential intelligences: linguistic and bodily-kinesthetic. According to Kornhaber (2020), the linguistic one clearly manifests itself in psychometric testing, and its typical development trajectory, from initial expression to mastery of usage skills, is quick and different from that of music or mathematics. It is recognizable by neural structures linked to it and contains basic information processes for syntax and phonology. Moreover, stroke victims tend to selectively lose or retain linguistic intelligence. Evidence for this intelligence can be discovered in experimental tasks; for example, newborns respond differently to speech and non-speech sounds with similar temporal and spectral qualities (Kornhaber, 2020). The evolutionary biology criterion is based on the gesticulation of apes and their use of specific noises to indicate the presence of danger. Linguistic intelligence is also reflected in various symbol systems, from cuneiform to Morse code to sign language.
By contrast, bodily-kinesthetic abilities are not evaluated by psychometric models. However, evidence for this type of intelligence is present in a developmental trajectory from infancy to mature age use that is more variable than language use, with some applications needing years of practice (Kornhaber, 2020). Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence has specific neural structures, such as the motor strip, which contributes to coordinated movement’s execution. It is selectively lost among people with brain damage suffering from apraxia, even if such people can continue comprehending speech or composing music. The evolutionary biology evidence comes in the form of tools that primates utilize. Finally, bodily-kinesthetic capacities are reflected in different symbol systems as well, for instance, choreographic charts and game sheets used in sports.
Applying these criteria to extensive research literature, Gardner primarily described seven intelligences. As per Martin (2018), these are linguistic, spatial, musical, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. In 1995, Gardner identified another one, naturalist, which is the ability to distinguish between the natural world’s organisms and entities (Martin, 2018). He has contemplated other intelligences to include in the classification, among which are pedagogical, existential, and moral ones; however, none of them has sufficiently met the criteria.
The theory has greatly contributed to researchers’ comprehension of intelligence’s nature and structure. For example, Shearer and Karanian (2017) note that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish clearly between intelligences and other human abilities. Moreover, even when the neurological foundations of the human mind are fully defined, the establishment of these boundaries is likely to continue to imply significant judgment. In such a case, MI theory’s basic criteria and level of analysis can be useful in identifying several key differences (Shearer and Karanian, 2017). For example, because intelligences work on specific content, they can be separated from so-called general or ‘horizontal’ abilities, such as motivation, attention, and cognitive style. Whereas it is believed that these general abilities are applicable in different situations, the ‘vertical’ intelligences help individuals comprehend specific content, data, or objects in the world. Therefore, while attention is necessary to participate in any type of intellectual activity and motivation is needed to support and strengthen it, attention and motivation are separate from an intelligence’s operation.
Similarly, the cognitive style of an individual (sometimes called a learning/working style) is not linked to specific content just as an intelligence is. According to Shearer and Karanian (2017), a cognitive style symbolizes an individual’s common approach to cognitive tasks. For example, where one person approaches a number of situations with careful thought, another one might do it more intuitively. Contrastingly, the work of an intelligence involves computing specific content, such as phonemes, numerical patterns, or sounds of music. A closer look at people’s different cognitive styles often reveals specificity of content. For instance, a student approaching a chemical experiment methodically may be less reflective when playing the piano or writing essays. Similarly, individuals resort to different styles depending on the intelligence or group of intelligences they use. The key difference is that it is possible to utilize either a deliberative or intuitive style to a poem interpretation, but it cannot be doubted that some degree of linguistic intelligence will be required.
In conclusion, the theory of multiple intelligences, or MI, views intelligence differently than psychometrics do. The purpose of MI is to identify the intellectual abilities that empower people to assume culturally relevant adult end-states. The theory has contributed to the understanding of the cognitive abilities of individuals with different mindsets and intelligence’s nature and structure. MI helps make a distinction between intelligences and other human abilities or cognitive styles and offers a comprehensive view of the nature and structure of intelligence.
Creativity: Methods of Assessment
The history of assessment of creativity is said to be as old as the notion itself. Scholars from different cultures and disciplines tried to define the concept and suggest valid ways to evaluate it. Usually, creativity is defined as the ability to generate product that is innovative and appropriate (Al-Ababneh, 2020). Researchers in the field attempted different methods of creativity measurement and to answer the questions of what mental processes are engaged in creative thought and what personality traits are linked to creativity. The most widely used measurement tests are those connected to divergent thinking, and they are still considered to be the most effective ones due to their consideration of multiple aspects of a person’s creativity.
Nowadays creativity is considered a result of cognitive, conative, and emotional aspects dynamically interacting with the environment. Since all these aspects are present in an individual and all these variables influence them to some extent, one can argue that their specific combination leads to creativity (Kanlı, 2020). In the historical study of creativity, some researchers attempted to explore the nature of the phenomenon from the perspective of the above-mentioned factors. Kanlı (2020) notes that, among the widely accepted creativity classifications in psychometric study, the 4P framework is one of the most popular ones. The first P stands for Process, that is, mental processes associated with creative thought or work. The second P stands for Personality, that is, personality traits or types related to creativity. The third P stands for Product, that is, products that are deemed creative by a relevant social group. Finally, there is Press, also referred to as Environment, which are external forces that impact creative people or processes, such as socio-cultural context or trauma.
Psychometric measures of creativity and processes associated with it have been comprehensively utilized in the field. Plucker (2022) states that these processes include cognitive factors resulting in creative realization like problem finding and problem solving, selective encoding, idea assessment, flexibility, associative thinking, and divergent thinking. However, from this long list, the evaluation of creative processes relied mainly on divergent thinking in the tests of creativity assessment. Kanlı (2020) emphasizes the irony: in spite of creativity itself requiring innovative and original solutions, researchers are mainly focused on tasks related to divergent thinking (DT). Not only have significant efforts been made to develop DT tests, but even the earliest of them are still used today in creative research and educational fields. In general, divergent thinking can be defined as the thought process that produces creative ideas through the search for possible solutions. Its opposite is convergent thinking, which is the ability to find one correct solution.
For DT, it is important to generate as many responses as possible to verbal or figural stimuli. Plucker (2022) reports that, in DT tests, testers score all the different answers that examinees put forward. The assessment is founded on the notions of fluency (number of responses generated), originality (uniqueness of responses), flexibility (number and/or uniqueness of response categories), and elaboration (the adding of details to the ideas produced). Because an American psychologist J. P. Guilford was a pioneer in the study of creativity, the first efforts to evaluate it came from him and his colleagues. His well-known Structure of Intellect Model (SOI) focused on identifying and analyzing the factors constituting intelligence, and he proposed 24 different DT types.
This model covers 180 intellectual capabilities organized in three dimensions, and the SOI battery includes a number of DT tasks. These are, for instance, adding lines to figures so that new ones are created in figural implications or listing frequently mentioned consequences of impossible events in semantic units (Kanlı, 2020). Other examples are the task of making objects from the provided ones and by using at least a few of them and the task of grouping names that requires participants to form subgroups from a given set of names in accordance with different sets of rules. Seeing how it was the first creativity test of its kind, it can be definitively said that Guilford did a great job of attempting to include a variety of measures to test one’s creativity.
Guildford’s work was impactful to such an extent that it was followed and interpreted by various researchers in the 1960s, among which are Wallach and Kogan. They believed that creativity tests should be conducted in a game environment and that there should not be time limits (Kanlı, 2020). Keeping this in mind, they decided to evaluate creativity in children and designed the Instances Test (list as many things that do this or that) and the Uses Test (speak about the different ways in which certain objects are used). These can be deemed successful as well due to being age-appropriate and diversely developing.
In addition to that, on the basis of Guilford’s developments, tests named the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, or the TTCT, were designed. The TTCT, being primarily based on the SOI battery, are still the most widely employed and explored creativity tests that continue to attract international attention. Kanlı (2020) notes that they were created to conduct research and be a tool for the individualization of learning. The TTCT recommend an administration of gaming environments like Wallach and Kogan did, but only with time limitations. The scores are reflected by four aspects: fluency, originality, flexibility, and elaboration. After the introduction of the optimized system, figural tests were evaluated as being resistant to premature closure and abstraction of titles in addition to originality, fluency, and elaboration. Flexibility was eliminated due to the close relationship between scores of fluency and flexibility. The utility and popularity of the TTCT can be explained by the tests having been continuously reconfigured and improved in scoring and administration.
Seeing how all the above-mentioned methods of creativity assessment feature such aspects as originality and spontaneity, it is reasonable to conclude that creativity is a psychological construct. According to Gabora (2019), the theory of creativity as an anthropological concept ignores these two aspects. Originality manifests itself in a person not copying the traditional form and represents a partial opposition between creativity and learning. Spontaneity is displayed in a person’s independence from the deliberate control and the knowledge gained previously. It implies a partial opposition between creativity and routine production. If an individual goes beyond traditional forms and their own standards, they express originality and spontaneity and are creative (Gabora, 2019). These two characteristics are integral to the psychological concept of creativity and the psychological novelty associated with it.
In conclusion, the issue of the methods of assessing creativity is the one researchers have been interested in for centuries. In accordance with psychometric measures and processes, there is a number of cognitive factors that can contribute to creative actualization. However, most creativity assessment tests are based on the concept of divergent thinking and evaluate one’s fluency, originality, flexibility, and elaboration. The work of J. P. Guilford, a pioneer in the field, was so influential that it inspired other scholars, and Guilfordean tests are some of the most popular for evaluating creativity to this day. Assessment methods focusing on such aspects as originality and spontaneity point to creativity being a psychological construct as opposed to an anthropological one.
References
Al-Ababneh, M. M. (2020). The concept of creativity: definitions and theories.International Journal of Tourism & Hotel Business Management, 2(1), 245-249.Web.
Alwin, D. F. (2019). Aging, personality, and social change: The stability of individual differences over the adult life span. In D. L. Featherman, R. M. Lerner & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 135-186). Routledge.
Atherton, O. E., Grijalva, E., Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2021). Stability and change in personality traits and major life goals from college to midlife. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(5), 841-858.
Donnellan, M. B. (2019). Personality stability and change. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds.), Noba textbook series: Psychology. DEF Publishers.
Gabora, L. (2019). Creativity: Linchpin in the quest for a viable theory of cultural evolution. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 77-83.
Kanlı, E. (2020). Assessment of creativity: Theories and methods. In P. Jain (Ed.), Creativity: A force to innovation (pp. 125-147). IntechOpen.
Kornhaber, M. L. (2020). The theory of multiple intelligences. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 659-678). Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. (2018). Profiting from multiple intelligences in the workplace. Routledge.
Plucker, J. A. (2022). The patient is thriving! Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment.Creativity Research Journal, 1-13. Web.
Shearer, C. B., & Karanian, J. M. (2017). The neuroscience of intelligence: Empirical support for the theory of multiple intelligences?Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 6, 211-223. Web.