articol 3.pdf

7/24/2019 articol 3.pdf

1/22

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

XX(X) 122

The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0162353212459257

http://jeg.sagepub.com

459257JEGXXX10.1177/0162353212459257Joural for theEducation of theGiftedMiller et al.

1

Indiana University, Bloomington, USA2Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA

Corresponding Author:

Angie L. Miller, Indiana University, 1900 E 10th St., Suite 419 Bloomington, IN 47406, USA

Email: [email protected]

Parenting Style,

Perfectionism, and

Creativity in High-Ability and High-

Achieving Young Adults

Angie L. Miller1, Amber D. Lambert1,

and Kristie L. Speirs Neumeister2

Abstract

The current study explores the potential relationships among perceived parentingstyle, perfectionism, and creativity in a high-ability and high-achieving young adultpopulation. Using data from 323 honors college students at a Midwestern university,bivariate correlations suggested positive relationships between (a) permissiveparenting style and creativity and (b) authoritarian parenting style and sociallyprescribed perfectionism. Furthermore, negative relationships were also foundbetween authoritarian parenting style and creativity. These relationships were furtherinvestigated using a path model that included control variables for gender andparent education level. Findings suggest statistically significant relationships betweencreativity and gender, authoritarian parenting and socially prescribed perfectionism,authoritarian parenting and creativity, and permissive parenting and creativity.

Keywords

creativity, high ability, high achieving, parenting style, perfectionism

The ability to think creatively, to produce novel and appropriate responses and out-

comes in given situations (Brown, 1989; Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004), will be

paramount for individuals to succeed in a competitive, global environment. Although

creative-thinking skills are important for all individuals, they are particularly

important for high-ability individuals, as they are more likely to enter professions such

Original Article

at West Uni from Timisoara on November 24, 2015jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jeg.sagepub.com/http://jeg.sagepub.com/http://jeg.sagepub.com/http://jeg.sagepub.com/


2/22

2 Journal for the Education of the GiftedXX(X)

as medicine, engineering, and technological fields that demand problem-solving skills

and innovation. To succeed in these professions, high-ability learners cannot rely on

mastery of content alone but need to hone their creative-thinking skills as well.

Acknowledgment of this realization leads parents and educators to then pose the fol-lowing question: What factors influence creative-thinking skills in high-ability stu-

dents? Gaining an understanding of this question will allow parents and educators to

adapt their styles to more effectively develop creative-thinking skills in high-ability

students. To determine potential influences on creativity within a high-ability and

high-achieving population, a review of previous research is first necessary.

Creativity has been extensively studied in educational research (Andiliou & Murphy,

2010; Dai, Swanson, & Cheng, 2011; Piirto, 2004). Yet, despite the broad accumulated

knowledge on the topic, more research is needed to understand what aspects of person-

ality affect creative expression and how background experiences influence the develop-ment of creativity. It is also important to determine precisely what is meant by the term

creativity, as many researchers in the field are not even in complete agreement about the

exact nature of this construct (Davis, 2004). For the purpose of this study, a widely used

and basic description of the construct would be any behavior or outcome that is both

novel and appropriate (Brown, 1989; Plucker et al., 2004). In addition, in our dis-

cussions of creativity, we implicitly refer to what is known as little ccreativity (Davis,

2004). This type of little c creativity is demonstrated through everyday problem solving

by relatively ordinary people, as opposed toBig Ccreativity, that is demonstrated by

individuals such as artists or scientists who are well known and distinguished in theirdomain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). As little c creativity can be investigated in larger

groups of individuals, rather than only with a few eminent people in a particular field,

it is the preferred conceptualization for the current study.

In addition to the little c/Big C distinction, within the field of creativity research,

there is also an ongoing debate over the manifestation of creativity. Some claim that

creativity is specific to individual domains such as music, fine arts, writing, or science

and that the characteristics and skills necessary for creativity in a certain domain do

not translate to other domains (Baer, 1994). However, others assert that creativity is a

more general trait or cognitive skill that can be expressed in a wide range of circum-stances (Plucker, 1998). This debate is discrete from, yet also related to, the little c/Big

C issue, insofar as Big C is demonstrated within specific fields and would therefore

support a more domain-specific conceptualization of creativity. The converse idea that

domain generality can be connected with little c creativity, as a general cognitive skill

would be more apparent in everyday problem solving, also applies to the conceptual-

ization of creativity used in the current study. Although it is true that some researchers

prefer to conceptualize little c creativity in conjunction with domain specificity (i.e.,

Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2004), for the purposes of the current study, a little

c/domain-general perspective will be applied.Because a domain-general, little c creativity is applicable to a variety of individuals

and across many different domains (Davis, 2004), the measure of creativity should

also be consistent with this conceptualization. A variety of creativity measures exist,

http://jeg.sagepub.com/http://jeg.sagepub.com/http://jeg.sagepub.com/


3/22

Miller et al. 3

and range from self-report measures (Gough, 1979) to divergent thinking assessments

(Torrance, 1998) to ratings of creative products (Amabile, 1982). Self-report measures

are methodologically the most efficient, and as they explicitly assess multiple aspects

of creativity are the most reflective of a little c, domain-general perspective. Thedimensions of creativity can be cognitive in nature, such as use of imagination or intel-

lectual problem solving; behavioral, such as engaging in creative activities; or affec-

tive and emotional, such as desire for spontaneity and openness to ideas. One such

self-report measure, the Scale of Creative Attributes and Behaviors (SCAB; Kelly,

2004), defines these various dimensions of creativity as creative engagement, creative

cognitive style, spontaneity, tolerance, and fantasy.

Creativity research is often categorized into a focus on four different variables:

person, process, product, and pressthe 4 Ps (Davis, 2004). The person component

emphasizes the internal personality characteristics of creative individuals, the processcomponent looks at the internal processes that take place during creative expression,

the product component explores the characteristics of products considered to be cre-

ative, and the press component investigates the ways in which environment can influ-

ence creativity. It is crucial to note that the 4 Ps are not considered to be separate types

of creativity, but instead as potential lenses through which researchers can design,

explore, and interpret investigations of creativity. Viewing creativity from these poten-

tial lenses is consistent with a multidimensional understanding of creativity. Although

they are often presented as separate categories, it is nevertheless important to explore

how these components intermingle in the manifestation of creativity. For example, theperson component may affect the process, which in turn can affect the final product,

all of which can be influenced by the press of the situation. The current study attempted

to examine one potential connection among these components by investigating how

thepresscomponent of parenting style, along with the personcomponent of perfec-

tionism, can affect creativity.

Parenting Styles

The notion of different types of parenting styles has received a great deal of attentionin developmental psychology through the past four decades (Berk, 2009; Crain,

2000). Baumrind (1978) described different parenting styles, which vary according to

their degree of responsiveness and demandingness. An authoritative style exhibits

high levels of responsiveness and demandingness. Authoritative parents make reason-

able demands, but are very accepting of their children as well. An authoritarian style

exhibits a high level of demandingness but a low level of responsiveness. Authoritarian

parents are very strict with their children and emphasize discipline over nurturing. A

permissive style exhibits a low level of demandingness but a high level of responsive-

ness. Permissive parents are very accepting but exhibit less control over their children.Maccoby and Martin (1983) also described a fourth parenting style, indifferent, in

which parents show low levels of responsiveness and demandingness. Indifferent

parents have little interest or involvement in the childs life.



4/22


These parenting styles may have an effect on creativity, although this effect can vary

by age, gender, and different cultural factors (Chao, 2001; Coolahan, McWayne,

Fantuzzo, & Grim, 2002; Snowden & Christian, 1999; Tennent & Berthelsen, 1997).

Harsh treatment, such as that found in psychically and emotionally abusive parentchildrelationships, along with excessive control and demands, can lead to low levels of cre-

ativity (Pandey, 2005). Research also suggests that authoritarian mothers are less likely

to provide home environments conducive to creativity, instead establishing restrictive

environments that inhibit growing independence; use physical means of discipline; and

expect children to not make mistakes (Tennent & Berthelsen, 1997). This negative rela-

tionship between parental control and creativity has also been demonstrated in labora-

tory settings (Gronick, Gurland, DeCourcey, & Jacob, 2002). Because authoritarian

parenting style is characterized by harsh treatment and high levels of control, it is impor-

tant to further understand how various components of this and other parenting styles canpositively or negatively affect creative expression. Is it the low level of responsiveness,

characteristic of the authoritarian style, which negatively affects creativity? If so, should

indifferent parenting also be negatively related to creativity? Or is it the high level of

demandingness in the authoritarian style, also found with the authoritative style, which

contributes to the negative influence?

Results linking responsiveness to creativity have been found in gifted populations

as well. Snowden and Christian (1999) found that authoritative parenting was impor-

tant for fostering creativity in young gifted children. In a study of adolescents, Dacey

(1989) also found that an interest in a childs behavior with few specific rules to gov-ern it was largely present in the families of highly creative individuals. This type of

responsiveness to the childs behavior is characteristic of the permissive and the

authoritative parenting styles. Furthermore, Lim and Smith (2008) found that higher

levels of acceptance, related to authoritative and permissive styles, from parents are

associated with higher levels of creativity in children. Given the previous research on

the effect of parenting style for gifted and nongifted populations, it may be that respon-

siveness is the most important dimension for creative expression. Generally, the litera-

ture has indicated that parenting styles high in responsiveness (permissive and

authoritative) had positive relationships with creativity, whereas the authoritarianstyle, which is low in responsiveness, was usually negatively related to creativity.

Perfectionism

In addition to parenting style, perfectionism is another construct that has been studied

within gifted populations. Although a debate exists over the precise nature and poten-

tial effects of perfectionism (Greenspon, 2000; Parker, 1997, 2002), some evidence

suggests that this characteristic is commonly associated with many high-ability and

high-achieving individuals (Parker & Adkins, 1995; Schuler, 2000). The construct ofperfectionism is widely accepted as multidimensional (Frost, Marten, Lahart, &

Rosenblate, 1990). Hewitt and Flett (1991) defined the dimensions based on the

source of the excessively high standards. Self-oriented perfectionists are those that



5/22

Miller et al. 5

maintain unrealistically high standards for themselves, whereas other-oriented perfec-

tionists have unrealistically high standards for other people. Finally, socially pre-

scribed perfectionists perceive that others have unrealistically high expectations for

them. Although some researchers have argued that perfectionism has a healthy com-ponent (e.g., Owens & Slade, 2008; Silverman, 2009), Flett and Hewitt (2006) argued

that their research collectively shows that self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially

prescribed perfectionism are not healthy but rather associated with various maladap-

tive tendencies. These researchers assert that healthy perfectionism is sometimes

confused for conscientiousness, and perhaps this is what others are referring to when

they speak of the adaptive aspects of perfectionism.

When Joy and Hicks (2004) explored the potential relationship between perfection-

ism and creativity, they found that high degrees of perfectionism were negatively

related to creative performance. This negative relationship between creativity and per-fectionism has also been found in gifted individuals (Gallucci, Middleton, & Kline,

2000). In addition, studies have found that perfectionism correlates with various fac-

tors such as stress, anxiety, and concern for mistakes (for a review of studies, see Flett

& Hewitt, 2002) that have been found to negatively correlate with creativity as well

(Curl, 2008; Zhang, 2009).

There is also evidence that demonstrates a connection between parenting style and

perfectionism. An extensive qualitative study suggested that the development of socially

prescribed perfectionism is related to authoritarian parenting (Speirs Neumeister, 2004).

Furthermore, Speirs Neumeister and Finch (2006) found an indirect relationship betweenparenting style and perfectionism, reporting that authoritarian and indifferent parenting

styles predicted insecure attachment, which then predicted either self-oriented or socially

prescribed perfectionism. Research has also indicated that authoritarian styles are related

to maladaptive perfectionism, or particularly negative aspects of perfectionism such as

excessive doubts and extreme concern for making mistakes, in a college student popula-

tion (Kawamura, Frost, & Harmatz, 2002). The emphasis on enforcing strict rules may

not only inhibit a freedom for creative expression but can also contribute to the develop-

ment of strict self-imposed rules. The imposition of strict controls, either from the self or

from others, can have a negative effect on creative potential, as authoritarian parentingand perfectionism may decrease creativity.

Demographic Characteristics

As with any psychological construct, certain demographic aspects of an individual can

have an effect on his or her personal and social experience, and the concepts of creativity,

perfectionism, and parenting style described above are no exception. One must keep in

mind that many factors can play a role in explaining individual differences. Therefore, it

should be noted that previous research shows gender-based differences in perceptions ofparenting style (McGillicuddy-De Lisi & De Lisi, 2007), the relationship between parent-

ing style and perfectionism (Flett, Hewitt, & Singer, 1995), and creativity (Baer &

Kaufman, 2008; Rejskind, Rapagna, & Gold, 1992). Furthermore, research suggests that



6/22


parenting style may differ depending on socioeconomic status (SES) of families (Coolahan

et al., 2002), with parental education level having great influence on SES in our society.

Given this wealth of prior research, it is important to consider these differences in any

explanation of how parenting style, perfectionism, and creativity may be related.

The Current Study

Based on the results of previous research, the goal of the current study was to explore

the relationships among parenting style, perfectionism, and creativity in a population of

high-ability and high-achieving college students. It was hypothesized that those parent-

ing styles high in responsiveness (permissive and authoritative) would be positively

related to overall creativity, whereas the parenting styles low in responsiveness (author-

itarian and indifferent) would be negatively related to overall creativity. Given themultidimensional conceptualization of creativity utilized with this study, more specifi-

cally it was predicted that authoritarian parenting style would be negatively related to

creative engagement. This hypothesis was derived from the idea that the low responsive-

ness of authoritarian parenting would contribute to a lack of encouragement for involve-

ment in creative activities. It was also predicted that authoritarian parenting style would

be negatively related to the creative aspects of spontaneity and tolerance. These aspects

of creativity have affective and emotional components that may be less likely to thrive

in environments of high demands but low responsiveness associated with authoritarian

parenting. It was expected that authoritative and permissive parenting styles would bepositively related to creative engagement and fantasy, as the high responsiveness of

these styles is more likely to encourage creative thoughts and activities. Permissive

parenting style was also expected to be positively related to spontaneity and tolerance,

as the low demandingness coupled with high responsiveness of this style might boost

these emotional components. Finally, it was expected indifferent parenting style would

be most negatively related to creative engagement, as the low demands and responsive-

ness of this style would probably not provide children with either the encouragement or

resources to engage in many types of creative activities and behaviors.

Furthermore, it was expected that all three types of perfectionism (self-oriented,other-oriented, and socially prescribed) would be negatively related to creativity but

positively related to authoritarian parenting style. More specifically, it was expected

that the more affective and emotional components of spontaneity and tolerance would

be more negatively related to self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism. As

these types of perfectionism have an internal target, individuals high in these types of

perfectionism may not allow themselves to engage in unplanned, unconventional, and

potentially unapproved behavior. In addition, it was expected that other-oriented per-

fectionism would be negatively related to tolerance, as expecting perfection from others

is inconsistent with showing a lenient attitude. Given the prior research suggesting thatperfectionism is linked to both parenting style and creativity, a final goal of the current

study was also to explore these three constructs together, investigating how parenting

style and perfectionism might relate to each other in their influence on creativity.



7/22

Miller et al. 7

Method

Participants

The participants were 323 students in the honors college of a Midwestern university,ranging in age from 18 to 23 years (M = 19.6, SD = 1.5). There were 85 males

(26.3%), 230 females (71.2%), and 8 students (2.5%) not reporting their gender. The

majority of students (89.8%) reported their ethnicity as Caucasian. Although there are

more females than males, and more Caucasian than minority students in the sample,

these respondent characteristics do not differ significantly when compared with the

demographics of the entire honors college population; therefore, the sample was

highly representative of the population and not considered biased in terms of gender

or ethnicity. Each class was represented, with freshmen (45.2%), sophomores

(18.3%), juniors (12.7%), and seniors (20.4%) included in the sample. A majority(80%) of the students reported that at least one parent had completed a 4-year degree.

Admissions to the honors college is based on standardized test scores (SAT and ACT),

high school grade point average (GPA), recommendations, and writing samples.

Data Collection Procedures

Students were recruited through an email requesting their participation in a research

study about the psychological development of giftedness. All students in the honors

college received this email, which contained a link to the survey instrument. Thesurveys were completed online during a single session. An incentive raffle for a free

mp3 player was used, and approximately 26% of all honors college students partici-

pated. Although this response rate is somewhat lower than desirable, comparisons

with population demographics (see above) ensure the representativeness of the sample

and generally relieve concern of a self-selection bias by key characteristics. Three

separate recruitment periods took place over the spring of 2008, fall of 2008, and

spring of 2009. The average completion time, after removing outliers of greater than

2 hr (most likely due to participants leaving the web browser open while leaving the

computer or working on other tasks) was 43 min. Students completing the surveyinstrument more than once had their second set of responses deleted from the sample.

Materials

The following measures were included in a larger battery of 12 instruments, plus demo-

graphic items. The instruments covered topics including creativity, temperament,

attachment style, parenting, perfectionism, suicide ideation, social coping, ethnic iden-

tity, social dominance, achievement motivation, overexcitability, and personality traits;

not all instruments administered are included in the current study. Two versions wereadministered; each version contained all of the instruments. The order of instruments

was counterbalanced between versions to account for potential survey fatigue, as all

participants completed all 12 instruments and demographic items.



8/22


Parenting Scales. The parenting style assessment was adapted from a study by Lamborn,

Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch (1991), in which the instrument was designed as part of

a larger group of scales to retrospectively determine perceived authoritative, authoritarian,

permissive, and indifferent parenting styles for the mothers and fathers of participating

students. Participants read four descriptive paragraphs, one for each style, and indicatedwhether the description was characteristic of their mother, father, or other caregiver. If the

description was not characteristic of any caregiver, they left it blank. For each style, respon-

dents could score 0 (neither parent), 1 (one parent), 2 (both parents or one parent and one

other caregiver), or 3 (both parents and one other caregiver). This produced an ordinal-

level variable for each parenting style, indicating the degree of exposure to that particular

style; the higher the score, the greater the degree of perceived exposure to the parenting

style. Previous research shows that the parenting style descriptions are able to determine

predicted patterns in outcomes of psychosocial development, school achievement, inter-

nalized distress, and problem behavior (Lamborn et al., 1991).Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS). The MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) mea-

sured perfectionism with a 45-item scale to assess self-oriented, other-oriented, and

socially prescribed perfectionism. Participants indicated their level of agreement with

statements about certain perceptions and behaviors (i.e., I strive to be the best at

everything I do and My family expects me to be perfect) using a 7-point Likert-

type scale. Three subscale scores were calculated from the responses, with higher

scores indicating higher levels of perfectionism. Scores for each subscale can range

from 15 to 105. Cronbachs alphas for the current study are found in Table 1.

In the original validation studies on the MPS, Hewitt and Flett (1991) reportedadequate internal consistency (across 4 studies, ranged from .74 to .89 for subscales).

Factor analysis confirmed the three hypothesized types of perfectionism, providing

support for the construct validity. Additional analyses indicated a significant positive

Table 1.Cronbachs Alphas for MPS and SCAB

Number of items Cronbachs

MPS Self-oriented perfectionism 15 .912

Other-oriented perfectionism 15 .824

Socially prescribed perfectionism 15 .851

SCAB

Overall creativity 20 .845

Creative engagement 4 .882

Creative cognitive style 4 .816

Spontaneity 4 .826

Tolerance 4 .790

Fantasy 4 .751

Note: MPS = Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; SCAB = Scale of Creative Attributes and Behaviors.



9/22

Miller et al. 9

relationship with observer ratings (r= .35-.61 for subscales), and the subscales were

able to differentiate between samples of students and clinical patients. Furthermore,

the authors obtained evidence for concurrent and divergent validity in the coadminis-

tration of the MPS with a variety of personality measures, performance standards, andclinical assessments (Hewitt & Flett, 1991).

SCAB. The SCAB is a self-report creativity measure (Kelly, 2004) designed to

assess the dimensions of creative engagement, creative cognitive style, spontaneity,

tolerance, and fantasy. This 20-item scale instructs participants to indicate their level

of agreement with statements about typical attitudes, characteristics, and behaviors

(i.e., I enjoy creating new things, I am flexible in my thinking, and I often fanta-

size) using a 7-point Likert-type scale. Five subscale scores and one overall score can

be calculated from the responses, with higher scores indicating higher levels of cre-

ativity. The overall score can range from 20 to 140, whereas the subscale scores canrange from 4 to 28. Cronbachs alphas for the current study are found in Table 1.

In the original validation studies on the SCAB, Kelly (2004) reported adequate inter-

nal consistency ( = .75 total scale; = .69-.82 for subscales) and testretest reliability

after 1 month (r= .80 total scale; r= .70-.90 for subscales). Factor analysis confirmed

the five hypothesized components, providing support for the construct validity.

Additional validity studies indicated a significant positive relationship with the person-

ality trait of Openness to Experience (r= .51 total scale), and this similarity to findings

using other creativity measures provides evidence of concurrent validity (Kelly, 2006).

Other demographics. Additional demographic information was also collected andrecoded for use as control variables. Gender was recoded as a dichotomous variable (0 =

male, 1 =female). Educational level of both parents was also asked of participants. This

information was then recoded into a dichotomous variable for status as a first-generation

college student (0 = not a first-generation student[at least one parent had completed a

4-year degree], 1 = first-generation student [neither parent had completed a 4-year

degree]).

Analytical Procedures

In the first stage of analyses, a series of bivariate correlations were completed to

explore the potential relationships between parenting style and creativity, parenting

style and perfectionism, and perfectionism and creativity. In the next stage, we created

a structural equation model using our hypothesized relationships suggested by past

literature and our findings from the first stage of this study. Creating this path model

allowed us to further investigate the relationship between variables while correcting

for potential inflation due to multiple correlations. Because AMOS, the statistical

package used for analysis of the path model, does not allow for missing values in the

computation of modification indices, only those cases without any missing data wereincluded in the model. Perhaps due to the high achievement and conscientiousness of

the students in this study, there were very few cases with missing data and thus only

a few cases were lost (path model n= 298) and these lost cases did not change the



10/22


makeup of the characteristics of the sample. After determination of acceptable model

fit, the path coefficients were examined to review the possible relationships.

Results

Correlation Analyses

The correlation matrices for all three instruments (SCAB, MPS, and Parenting Scales)

and their subscales are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Permissive parenting showed a

significant positive relationship with creativity, for the overall SCAB score (r= .151,

Table 2.Bivariate Correlations for Creativity and Parenting Style

Authoritarian Authoritative Permissive

Overall creativity .138* .029 .151**

Creative engagement .119* .060 .105

Creative cognitive style .150** .074 .109

Spontaneity .020 .013 .073

Tolerance .121* .072 .065

Fantasy .053 .102 .136*

*p< .05. **p< .01.

Table 3.Bivariate Correlations for Creativity and Perfectionism

Self-orientedperfectionism

Other-orientedperfectionism

Socially prescribedperfectionism

Overall creativity .016 .074 .048

Creative engagement .078 .083 .067

Creative cognitive style .081 .092 .080

Spontaneity .100 .034 .075

Tolerance .136* .080 .165*

Fantasy .058 .020 .045

*p< .05. **p< .01.

Table 4.Bivariate Correlations for Parenting Style and Perfectionism

Self-orientedperfectionism

Other-orientedperfectionism

Socially prescribedperfectionism

Authoritarian .009 .055 .210**

Authoritative .082 .109 .062

Permissive .061 .048 .013

*p< .05. **p< .01.



11/22

Miller et al. 11

p= .008) and the fantasy subscale (r= .136,p= .016). Authoritarian parenting showed

a significant negative correlation with creativity, for the overall SCAB score (r= .138,

p = .015), the Creative Engagement subscale (r = .119, p = .035), the Creative

Cognitive Style subscale (r= .150,p= .008), and the Tolerance subscale (r= .121,p= .033). Authoritarian parenting also showed a significant positive correlation with

socially prescribed perfectionism (r= .210,p< .001). Socially prescribed perfection-

ism showed a significant negative correlation with creativity for the SCAB subscale of

tolerance (r= .165,p= .004). In addition, self-oriented perfectionism showed a sig-

nificant negative correlation for the SCAB subscale of tolerance (r= .136,p= .017).

Due to an extremely low variance, indifferent parenting style was not included in the

correlation analyses (82% of participants had a score of zero for this variable).

Although some were hypothesized, no other significant correlations were found for any

of the parenting style, perfectionism, or creativity scales.Although many of these correlations were significant, it should be noted that the

strengths of the correlations were rather weak. In considering theR2values, calculated

by squaring the correlation coefficient to create an estimate of the explained variance,

for many of these relationships, the correlation only explained anywhere from 1% to

4% of the variance. It may be that there is not a strong relationship between the differ-

ent variables, or it may be that the relationship with parenting style is not reflected well

with a linear analysis. Although participants could theoretically score between 0 and 3

on the parenting style measures (with a higher score meaning greater exposure to the

style), there was a negative skew for authoritarian and permissive styles, with manyparticipants scoring a 0 and very few scoring a 2 or 3. Mathematically, this limits the

variability and reduces the likelihood of getting a strong correlation.

Path Model

To create the most parsimonious path model, only those variables with significant

bivariate correlations were selected for inclusion in the model. This combination of

bivariate correlations and path analyses has been utilized in previous research with

college student scores on multiple self-report instruments (e.g., Diseth & Kobbeltvedt,2010). Therefore, authoritative parenting style, indifferent parenting style, self-oriented

perfectionism, and other-oriented perfectionism were not included in the model.

Furthermore, only the overall creativity score was included as an endogenous variable

in the model, rather than including each of the subscales, because the overall score was

the only creativity measure consistently related to parenting style. When using the

traditional measure of model fit (2), the model had a weak fit. Because the size of the

sample inflates the chi-square value, other model-fit indices were considered. The fol-

lowing cutoffs suggest a good fit when testing structural models: TuckerLewis Index

(TLI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values greater than .95, root mean square errorof approximation (RMSEA) value less than .06, and PCLOSE should be greater than

.05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). As shown in Table 5, these tests, even the more conservative

RMSEA and PCLOSE, all suggest that the model is a good fit for the data.



12/22


The outcome for the path model was overall creativity. Both gender (1 = female)

and parental education level (1 = first-generation college student) were exogenous

variables in the model. The two parenting styles (authoritarian and permissive) that the

correlation analyses showed were related to perfectionism and creativity were alsoincluded in the model. Because socially prescribed perfectionism was the only type of

perfectionism that was correlated with overall creativity or parenting style, it was the

only perfectionism scale included in the model.

Although both indirect and direct effects were explored in the path model (see

Figure 1), only four direct relationships were statistically significant (p< .05 or lower).

Permissive parenting style was shown to have a statistically significant positive effect

on a students overall creativity (.162), whereas, in contrast, exposure to an authoritar-

ian parenting style had a negative effect (.212). This negative effect was actually the

strongest influence on a students overall creativity. The path coefficient for authoritar-ian parenting style on socially prescribed perfectionism (.218) suggested a positive

relationship and the strongest one in the overall model. Finally, although there is not

much literature to support this finding, the negative path coefficient for gender on

overall creativity (.168) suggests that male students reported higher overall creativ-

ity. Possible explanations for this finding, as well as the others, are explored in more

detail in the discussion section.

Discussion

Several different sets of analyses were completed, each revealing further evidence

concerning the relationship between creativity, parenting style, and perfectionism in

high-ability and high-achieving young adults. The positive correlation between cre-

ativity (overall and fantasy subscale) and permissive parenting suggests that more

perceived exposure to a permissive style is related to higher levels of self-reported

creativity. This finding provides evidence for a potential strength of a permissive

parenting, at least among gifted young adults. The results of the path model also sup-

port this potential strength of permissive parenting, as this relationship remained

significant even when taking into account the influence of other variables. Althoughmost research provides evidence supporting authoritative parenting as being associ-

ated with positive outcomes, this study failed to find evidence for this. Recent

research does suggest that the positive outcomes of authoritative parenting may not

Table 5.Model-Fit Results for Path Model

N TLI CFI RMSEA PCLOSE

298 .929 .917 .040 .999

Note: TLI = TuckerLewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = root mean square error ofapproximation. Strong model fit is reflected by CFI and TLI greater than .95, RMSEA less than .06, andPCLOSE greater than .05.



13/22

13

Figure

1.

Pathmodelwithstatisticallys

ignificantstandardizedpathco

efficients



14/22


generalize to other cultures (Chao, 2001). It may be that the high degree of respon-

siveness found in permissive and authoritative parenting is what is most important for

nurturing creativity, but the high degree of demandingness is not as effective for this

particular population of high-ability and high-achieving young adults. There is alsothe possibility that because it is virtually impossible to disentangle genetic and envi-

ronmental influences, it may also be that more creative parents tend to be more per-

missive and are passing on their creative traits biologically to their children. This

would be an interesting question for future research to address.

The relationship between authoritarian parenting and creativity is more complex to

interpret. The negative correlation between authoritarian style and creativity suggests

that more perceived exposure to this style is related to lower levels of creativity, and

this relationship was also significant in the path model. This finding further supports

the potential weaknesses of this style, particularly with a gifted population (Dwairy,2004). The positive correlation between authoritarian style and socially prescribed

perfectionism, with more exposure to authoritarian parenting also showing higher lev-

els of perfectionism, replicates previous research (Speirs Neumeister, 2004; Speirs

Neumeister & Finch, 2006) and provides further evidence for the weaknesses of

authoritarian parenting. The results of the path model further elaborate on the relation-

ship between these variables. Even when controlling for gender and first-generation

status, the significant relationships between authoritarian parenting style and socially

prescribed perfectionism, and authoritarian parenting style and creativity remained.

Perceived authoritarian parenting style appears to have detrimental consequences invarious areas for high-ability and high-achieving young adults, related to increases in

socially prescribed perfectionism and decreases in creativity.

It is noteworthy that permissive and authoritarian are the exact opposite styles when

considering dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness. Authoritarian parents

are high in demandingness and low in responsiveness, whereas permissive parents are

low in demandingness and high in responsiveness. These opposite styles had opposite

effects on creativity in the model, with permissive as a positive predictor and authoritar-

ian as a negative predictor. It may also be that the combination of both dimensions is the

critical piece in understanding the effect of parenting style on creativity.Further complicating the relationships between the constructs in the model is the

idea of conditional acceptance and the effect it can have on perfectionism. Conditional

acceptance by parents results in a childs thinking pattern of I am acceptable [to my

parents] as long as I can perform well [make good grades, win awards, etc.] and is a

pervasive theme in the literature concerning the clinical implications of perfectionism

(Greenspon, 2008). Judgments and critiques may be frequently voiced, and children

grow up believing they are never good enough (Greenspon, 2011). However, although

conditional acceptance plays a role in the development of perfectionism, it is not nec-

essarily constrained to one particular parenting style, which may additionally obscurepatterns in the results.

Although previous literature has demonstrated a link between perfectionism and

creativity (Gallucci et al., 2000; Joy & Hicks, 2004), in neither the bivariate correlation



15/22

Miller et al. 15

nor the path model was socially prescribed perfectionism significantly related to overall

creativity. This result may be due to the differences in the various facets of perfection-

ism in the instrument that was used in this study, or it may be that this finding is not

apparent in a high-ability and young adult population. Some highly creative giftedyoung adults may not be perfectionists, or some may be creative despite their perfec-

tionism. Another potential reason for a lack of relationship between perfectionism and

creativity in this study may be the conceptualization of creativity from a domain-

general perspective. It could be that in a subpopulation within a specific domain, per-

fectionism might have greater explanatory power when it comes to domain-specific

creativity. Some researchers assert that perfectionism is a facet of the conscientiousness

trait (MacCann, Duckworth, & Roberts, 2009), and indeed some have found that con-

scientiousness is a predictor of self-oriented perfectionism (Stoeber, Otto, & Dalbert,

2009). Incorporating this research with the findings of a meta-analysis by Feist (1998)who found that conscientiousness was related to scientific creativity, but not artistic

creativity, one can understand how a domain-general measure of creativity, such as the

one included in this study, might not fully capture the relationship. This conclusion is

further supported by the work of Kelly and Kneipp (2009), which linked scores on the

SCAB to artistic vocational interests, suggesting that this domain-general measure

might not be the most precise assessment of nonartistic domains.

The age of the sample is an additional piece of information that is important to

consider when interpreting the findings of this study. Although the parenting style

measure was written in the present tense, the participants were retrospectively respond-ing to the instrument, given that they had approximately two decades of parenting

information to contemplate. They could have based responses on their current rela-

tionship with their parents or over the course of growing up. It may be that authorita-

tive is related to the most positive outcomes growing up, as the literature suggests

(Baumrind, 1983; Roberts Gray & Steinberg, 1999), but is less important to college

students. Perhaps once they become young adults, a more permissive style is associ-

ated with more positive outcomes, particularly for high-ability and high-achieving

students who may want the support without the demands.

There were also some interesting findings based on the inclusion of the controlvariables of gender and first-generation student status in the path model. First-

generation status was included to account for a potential effect on parenting style, as

previous research has suggested that parenting styles can differ depending on the SES

of the family (Coolahan et al., 2002). However, these paths were not significant in the

model. It may be due to the skewed distribution of the sample, as only 20% of the

students were first-generation college students. It may also be that these socioeco-

nomic differences in parenting style are not found in families with high-ability or high-

achieving children, or that parenting styles were altered to accommodate the special

needs of these children. More research with high-ability and high-achieving popula-tions is needed to further explore potential reasons for this finding.

Gender was another control variable that was included based on previous

research, but does not consistently reflect prior findings. Although empirical evi-

dence (McGillicuddy-De Lisi & De Lisi, 2007) suggests that perceptions of parenting



16/22


style can differ for males and females, the paths for gender and permissive and authori-

tarian parenting style were not significant in our model. Furthermore, the paths for gen-

der and socially prescribed perfectionism were not significant in the model. Previous

research by Flett et al. (1995) found that authoritarian parenting style was related tosocially prescribed perfectionism in males, but not females. However, later research with

a sample of gifted college students (Speirs Neumeister, 2004) did not find evidence for

this gender difference. It may be that the distinctive experiences of high-ability and high-

achieving individuals, as compared with a more general sample of college students, can-

cel out the differences between males and females. Again, more research is needed on

the family experiences of high-ability and high-achieving students.

The model showed a significant path coefficient from gender to creativity, suggesting

that in our sample, males had higher levels of creativity than females. A significant differ-

ence in this direction was not expected, as a majority of research indicates no gender dif-ferences for creativity (Baer & Kaufman, 2008) or slightly favors females on measures of

verbal creativity (Rejskind et al., 1992). It may be that males and females vary in different

types or aspects of creativity, and some measures are more sensitive to these variations

than others. One study found a similar gender difference for flexibility and elaboration,

using a divergent thinking test to assess creativity (Ai, 1999), whereas another found dif-

ferences in the ways that creative males and females (in a sample of engineers and musi-

cians) chose to describe themselves on a self-report measure (Charyton & Snelbecker,

2007). Some research suggests that males self-report more positively on other character-

istics (Simon & Nath, 2004); this may be true for creativity as well.It could also be that gender differences emerge under certain environmental condi-

tions, as Baer (1997) found that an expectation of evaluation is detrimental to females,

but not males, creative production. Perhaps the females in this study were more sensi-

tive to the scientific nature of the research process and felt their responses would be

evaluated more severely. A final explanation for this finding could relate to this sample

itself. Previous research has found that the relationship between creativity and aca-

demic achievement is much stronger for males than females (Asha, 1980). Because

admission to the honors college is based primarily on academic achievement (stan-

dardized test scores, GPA, teacher recommendations), the males in the sample mayshow higher levels of creativity, as compared with the females, who show greater

variation in creativity. More research is needed to explore gender differences in cre-

ativity specifically with high-ability and high-achieving young adult populations.

Limitations

Although there are several strengths of this study, some limitations should also be

considered. One limitation involves the online data collection. Although this type of

research has the advantages of increased sample size and ease of data collection, onemust rely completely on self-reported measures, which may not always be objective.

However, most studies looking at self-reports of students in higher education suggest

that self-reports and actual abilities are positively related (Anaya, 1999; Hayek,



17/22

Miller et al. 17

Carini, ODay, & Kuh, 2002; Pike, 1995). One should also keep in mind that the par-

enting style measure was not only self-reported but retrospective, which could have

introduced further error into the precision of the instrument. Furthermore, the sample

was somewhat homogeneous in terms of age and ethnicity. Because admission to thehonors college was based on high achievement, only those students with high ability

who are also high achievers could be included in the study; therefore, there were no

underachievers in our sample. The pattern of results might differ dramatically for

high-ability underachievers, as parenting and perfectionism may influence achieve-

ment levels as well (Nugent, 2000; Rimm, 1996).

In addition to these limitations, there were relatively weak significant correlations

and path coefficients, which suggest that there are many other factors not measured in

this study having an influence on the perceived parenting style, perfectionism, and

creativity of the participants. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution.Although complex correlational models such as path analyses can provide richer infor-

mation than simple bivariate correlations, the research is still correlational and causal-

ity cannot be confirmed (Trafimow, 2006). Additional research with more representative

samples including high-ability underachievers that incorporate other measures of the

same constructs is needed to draw more definitive conclusions. Findings may not be

replicated on samples of young adults at different ability levels. In young adults who

show a broader range of abilities, the patterns found in this study may not be repro-

duced, or it could be that the explanatory power of parenting style increases.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that parenting styles can have an effect on creativity

for high-ability and high-achieving young adults, in particular authoritarian and per-

missive styles. However, these relationships are complicated by other factors, such as

gender and perfectionism, which can also influence creativity. More research is

needed on how parenting style, something one is exposed to since birth, affects the

individual as a young adult in positive and negative ways. Furthermore, potential

gender and cultural differences are important for consideration in the study of howparenting style can influence development. As previous studies have shown, parenting

style can have a differential effect, depending on certain characteristics of the child

and the environmental context (Chao, 2001; McGillicuddy-De Lisi & De Lisi, 2007).

There are multiple subjective factors to be considered in emotional development,

particularly attachment, and the potential for individual variation requires more inves-

tigation of these constructs (Sroufe, 1996). Research is also needed to explore the

complexities of how the thought processes associated with perfectionism and creativ-

ity are moderated by characteristics such as gender as well as environmental and

cultural experiences.As we leave the information age and enter the innovation age (Hill, 2007), the

importance of creativity for success beyond the classroom cannot be overstated. This

study contributes to the understanding of influences on creative thinking for



18/22


high-achieving, high-ability students. It also generates several additional questions

regarding influences on creativity that provide a springboard for future research. As

more research is completed in this area, we will hone our understanding of how best

to nurture the development of creativity in our high-ability students, thus benefitingnot only the students but also education and society as a whole.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

Ai, X. (1999). Creativity and academic achievement: An investigation of gender differences.

Creativity Research Journal, 12, 329-337.

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.

Anaya, G. (1999). College impact on student learning: Comparing the use of self-reported

gains, standardized test scores, and college grades. Research in Higher Education, 40,

499-526.

Andiliou, A., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Examining variations among researchers and teachersconceptualizations of creativity: A review and synthesis of contemporary research. Educa-

tional Research Review, 5, 201-219. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.003

Asha, C. B. (1980). Creativity and academic achievement among secondary school children.

Asian Journal of Psychology & Education, 6, 1-4.

Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment.

Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35-36.

Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation on creativity. Creativ-

ity Research Journal, 10, 25-31.

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity.Journal of Creative Behav-ior, 42, 75-105.

Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth &

Society, 9, 239-276.

Baumrind, D. (1983). Rejoinder to Lewiss reinterpretation of parental firm control effects: Are

authoritative families really harmonious?Psychological Bulletin, 94, 132-142.

Berk, L. E. (2009). Child development(8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Brown, R. T. (1989). Creativity: What are we to measure? In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning &

C. R. Reynolds (Eds.),Handbook of creativity(pp. 3-32). New York, NY: Plenum.

Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for ChineseAmericans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-1843.



19/22

Miller et al. 19

Charyton, C., & Snelbecker, G. E. (2007). Engineers and musicians choices of self-descriptive

adjectives as potential indicators of creativity by gender and domain.Psychology of Creativ-

ity, Aesthetics, and the Arts, 1, 91-99. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.91

Coolahan, K., McWayne, C., Fantuzzo, J., & Grim, S. (2002). Validation of a multidimensionalassessment of parenting styles for low-income African-American families with preschool

children.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 356-373.

Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: Concepts and applications(4th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.

New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Curl, K. (2008). Assessing stress reduction as a function of artistic creation and cognitive focus.

Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 25, 164-169.

Dacey, J. S. (1989). Discriminating characteristics of the families of highly creative adolescents.Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 263-271.

Dai, D. Y., Swanson, J. A., & Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted educa-

tion: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998-2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55,

126-138. doi:10.1177/0016986210397831

Davis, G. (2004). Creativity is forever(5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Diseth, A., & Kobbeltvedt, T. (2010). A mediation analysis of achievement motives, goals,

learning strategies, and academic achievement.British Journal of Educational Psychology,

80, 671-687. doi:10.1348/000709910X492432

Dwairy, M. (2004). Parenting styles and mental health of Arab gifted adolescents. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 48, 275-286.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290-309.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002).Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2006). Positive versus negative perfectionism in psychopathology:

A comment on Slade and Owenss dual process model.Behavior Modification, 30, 472-495.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Singer, A. (1995). Perfectionism and parental authority styles.

Individual Psychology, 51, 50-60.Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.

Gallucci, N. T., Middleton, G., & Kline, A. (2000). Perfectionism and creative strivings.Journal

of Creative Behavior, 34, 135-141.

Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List.Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398-1405.

Greenspon, T. S. (2000). Healthy perfectionism is an oxymoron!Journal of Secondary Gifted

Education, 11, 197-208.

Greenspon, T. S. (2008). Making sense of error: A view of the origins and treatment of perfec-tionism.American Journal of Psychotherapy, 62, 263-282.

Greenspon, T. S. (2011). Perfectionism: A counselors role in a recovery process. In T. Cross &

J. Riedl Cross (Eds.), The handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents:



20/22


Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 597-

614). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Gronick, W. S., Gurland, S. T., DeCourcey, W., & Jacob, K. (2002). Antecedents and conse-

quences of mothers autonomy support: An experimental investigation.Developmental Psy-chology, 38, 143-155.

Hayek, J. C., Carini, R. M., ODay, P. T., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Triumph or tragedy: Comparing

student engagement levels of members of Greek-letter organizations and other students.

Journal of College Student Development, 43, 643-663.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualiza-

tion, assessment, and association with psychopathology.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 60, 456-470.

Hill, R. C. (2007, January). Unpublished paper presented at creativity or conformity? Building

cultures of creativity in higher education conference. University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK.Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Joy, S., & Hicks, S. (2004). The need to be different: Primary trait structure and impact on

projective drawings. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 331-339. doi:10.1080/10400419.20

04.9651462

Kawamura, K. Y., Frost, R. O., & Harmatz, M. G. (2002). The relationship of perceived parenting

styles to perfectionism.Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 317-327. doi:10.1016/

S0191-8869(01)00026-5

Kelly, K. E. (2004). A brief measure of creativity among college students. College StudentJournal, 38, 594-596.

Kelly, K. E. (2006). Relationship between the five-factor model of personality and the Scale of Cre-

ative Attributes and Behavior: A validational study.Individual Differences Research, 4, 299-305.

Kelly, K. E., & Kneipp, L. B. (2009). You do what you are: The relationship between the Scale

of Creative Attributes and Behavioral and vocational interests.Journal of Instructional Psy-

chology, 36, 79-83.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of compe-

tence and adjustment among adolescents form authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and

neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.Lim, S., & Smith, J. (2008). The structural relationships of parenting style, creative personality,

and loneliness. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 412-419. doi:10.1080/10400410802391868

MacCann, C., Duckworth, A. L., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). Empirical identification of the

major facets of conscientiousness. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 451-458.

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.03.007

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child

interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4 Socializa-

tion, personality, and social development(4th ed., pp. 1-101). New York, NY: Wiley.

McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., & De Lisi, R. (2007). Perceptions of family relations when moth-ers and fathers are depicted with different parenting styles.Journal of Genetic Psychology,

168, 425-442. doi:10.3200/GNTP.168.4.425-442



21/22

Miller et al. 21

Nugent, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism: Its manifestations and classroom-based interventions.

Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 215-222.

Owens, G., & Slade, P. D. (2008). So perfect its positively harmful? Reflections on the adap-

tiveness and maladaptiveness of positive and negative perfectionism. Behavior Modifica-tion, 32, 928-937.

Pandey, S. (2005). Child abuse: An impediment to the development of creative potential in

children.Psychological Studies, 50, 238-242.

Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism in academically talented children.

American Educational Research Journal, 34, 545-562.

Parker, W. D. (2002). Perfectionism and adjustment in gifted children. In P. Hewitt & G. Flett

(Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 133-148). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Parker, W. D., & Adkins, K. K. (1995). The incidence of perfectionism in honors and regularcollege students.Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7, 303-309.

Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Pike, G. R. (1995). The relationship between self-reports of college experiences and achieve-

ment test scores.Research in Higher Education, 36, 1-22. doi:10.1007/BF02207764

Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativ-

ity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179-182. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1102_8

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isnt creativity more important to

educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research.

Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1Rejskind, F. G., Rapagna, S. O., & Gold, D. (1992). Gender differences in childrens divergent

thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 165-174. doi:10.1080/10400419209534430

Rimm, S. B. (1996). Parenting for achievement. Roeper Review, 19, 57-60. doi:10.1080/

02783199609553789

Roberts Gray, M., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a

multidimensional construct.Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 574-587.

Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The

link between polymathy and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer

(Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization(pp. 127-152). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents.Journal of Secondary Gifted Educa-

tion, 11, 183-196.

Silverman, L. K. (2009). Petunias, perfectionism, and levels of development. In S. Daniels

& M. M. Piechowski (Eds.), Living with intensity (pp. 145-164). Scottsdale, AZ: Great

Potential Press.

Simon, R. W., & Nath, L. E. (2004). Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and

women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior?American Journal of Soci-

ology, 109, 1137-1176. doi:10.1086/382111Snowden, P. L., & Christian, L. G. (1999). Parenting the young gifted child: Supportive behav-

iors.Roeper Review, 21, 215-222. doi:10.1080/02783199909553964



22/22


Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004). Factors influencing the development of perfectionism in gifted

college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 259-274. doi:10.1177/001698620404800402

Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in high-ability students: Relational

precursors and influences on achievement motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 238-251.doi:10.1177/001698620605000304

Sroufe, L. A. (1996). Emotional development: The organization of emotional life in the early

years. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Stoeber, J., Otto, K., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Perfectionism and the big five: Conscientiousness

predicts longitudinal increases in self-oriented perfectionism. Personality and Individual

Differences, 47, 363-368. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.004

Tennent, L., & Berthelsen, D. (1997). Creativity: What does it mean in the family context?

Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 91-104.

Torrance, E. P. (1998). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual figural(Streamlined) forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Trafimow, D. (2006). Multiplicative invalidity and its application to complex correlational

models. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 215-239. doi:10.3200/

MONO.132.3.215-240

Zhang, L. (2009). Anxiety and thinking styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 47,

347-351. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.001

Bios

Angie L. Millerhas a research faculty position at the Center for Postsecondary Research atIndiana University. She does research and data analysis for the National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE) and the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP). Her research

interests include creativity assessment, the utilization of creativity in educational settings, and

factors impacting gifted student engagement and achievement.

Amber D. Lambertis a member of the research analyst team at the Center for Postsecondary

Research at Indiana University, where she provides analytic support to several large survey

research projects, including the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project and the National Survey

of Student Engagement. Her research interests include gender issues in higher education, artseducation, engineering education, creativity, and quantitative reasoning.

Kristie L. Speirs Neumeisteris an associate professor of educational psychology at Ball State

University, where she directs the licensure program and teaches graduate courses in gifted

education. She is currently the president elect of the Indiana Association for the Gifted and has

served on the board of the Council for Exceptional ChildrenThe Association for the Gifted.

Her research interests center on the social and emotional needs of gifted individuals.

Date post:	19-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	alexandra-ciocea
View:	231 times
Download:	0 times

articol 3.pdf

Documents