Are Boldness and Risk-Taking the Common Threads Between Creativity and ?

The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters

Citation Madjd Taymoori, Ada. 2020. Are Boldness and Risk-Taking the Common Threads Between Creativity and Psychopathy?. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School.

Citable link https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37365050

Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Are Boldness and Risk-Taking the Common Threads Between Creativity and Psychopathy?

Ada Madjd Taymoori

A Thesis in the Field of

for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies

Harvard University

2020

Abstract

This study examined boldness and risk-taking as potential common threads between creativity and psychopathy by analyzing the correlation between boldness and risk-taking and psychopathy and creativity. Psychopathy was measured by the PPI-SD scores and creativity was measured by the creative personality scale (CPS), and creative achievement questionnaire (CAQ). Boldness was tested through case scenarios represented to the participants to which they had to mention how close they feel to a fictional character on a scale of 1-5. The balloon analogue risk task (BART) was used to measure risk-taking behaviors in participants. The questionnaires were represented to the participants via the MTurk platform. Through a correlation table, we examined the correlation between risk-taking and affective and antisocial traits of psychopathy and also the correlation between boldness and creativity. Then we investigated the correlation between boldness and affective and antisocial traits of psychopathy and also the correlation between boldness and creativity.

We found a significant positive correlation between boldness and creative personality based on the creative personality scale (CPS) score. We also found a significant and inverse correlation between boldness and antisocial traits of psychopathy.

There was no significant correlation between risk-taking and creativity or between risk- taking and affective or antisocial traits of psychopathy. Creative achievement was no correlated with boldness or risk-taking but it was significantly correlated with affective and antisocial traits of psychopathy. This study provided the first evidence of a common thread between creativity and psychopathy (boldness), and showed that boldness was positively correlated with creative personality but inversely correlated with psychopathy. It is inferred that boldness is used differently among creative individuals and those with psychopathic traits. This study also provided evidence and creative achievement is to some extent correlated with psychopathic traits although such correlation is not statistically significant between creative personality and psychopathy. Dedication

To my parents… Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Dante Spetter for her patience and constant support. I would also like to thank Dr. Shelley Carson for spending hours with me to guide me through the best possible ways to measure creativity and psychopathy. My sincere thanks to Charles Houston for his continuous support and encouragement. And finally, my special thanks to Harvard

University, and to all my professors for this wonderful experience. Table of Contents

Dedication………………………………………………………………………..……vi

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………...…vii

I.Introduction…………………………………………………..………………………...1

Background………………………………………………………………….....3

Significance of the study………………………………………………...……10

II. Method……………………….……………………………………………...... 10

Study Design………………………………………………………………….10

Participants………………………………………………………………...….11

Measures……………………………………………………………………...12

Creativity Measures………………...……………………………..12

Psychopathy Measure…………………………………….……….13

Boldness Measure……………………………..…………………..15

Risk Taking Measure ………………………………………..……16

Procedure………………………………………………………….17

Data Analysis………………………………...………………….…19

Hypotheses………………………………………….……………..20

III. Results………………………..………………………………………………..…21

IV. Discussion…………………………..…………………………………………….39

Research Limitations………………………………………………..44 References……………...…………………………………………………………47

Chapter I.

Introduction

Studies have shown a small but consistent correlation between psychopathic traits and creativity. Understanding this correlation has been a challenge for researchers. One possibility is that there are traits common to highly creative people and people who are psychopathic. For instance, boldness or fearlessness may be common in both in psychopathic and in creative individuals. In fact, the word bold has been used to describe creative works (e.g., a bold painting or a bold theater production) and psychopathic behavior (bold confrontation or bold robbery).

Similarly, risk taking behaviors as well may be used to describe behaviors in creativity and in psychopathy. Risk taking behaviors such as gambling, breaking the law, aggression and drug use are associated with psychopathy (Snowden, Smith, & Gray, 2017) Selective risk-taking is more common in creative personality, meaning creative individuals have tendencies to take risks in social situations (criticizing and speaking up about the social issues) but not in other domains (Tyagi, et al., 2017).

These findings suggested that boldness and risk-taking behaviors might be the common threads between psychopathy and creativity. Therefore, it was expected that individuals who scored higher on self-report measures and behavioral measures of boldness and risk-taking behaviors would score higher in both creativity and psychopathy. Creativity was measured through two self-report tests; the Creative Achievement

Questionnaire that measures creative achievement in specific areas of visual arts, music, dance, architecture, creative writing, humor, inventions, scientific discovery, theater and film and culinary arts (Carson et al., 2005 & Silva, et al., 2012) and the Creative Personality Scale, also a self-assessment test based on adjectives that test takers choose to apply to themselves (Indiana

University Website, 2016). Psychopathy is measured by The Psychopathic Personality Inventory

– Short Form (PPI-SF) which is as well a self-report test.

Understanding this connection shed light on the common threads between creativity and psychopathy and for the first time introduced boldness as the common thread between creativity and psychopathy. We hope this study will be a corner stone for future studies on better understanding of both creativity and psychopathy in human mind. Background

Individuals with psychopathy who prioritize their own needs with little to no consideration for others or for the impact of their decisions and actions on others, are romanticized on the media. Psychopath’s raging, unpredictability, dominance, and cold, bold personality have attracted the curiosity of authors, movie producers, journalists and the general public. In reality though, individuals who meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for psychopathy are abusive, potentially dangerous, criminal, and can be physically or emotionally violent. From the neuroscience point of view, psychopaths’ lack of a sense of and limited or lack of empathy may be due to an atypical inactivation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex

(Decety, Chen, Harenski, & Kiehl, 2013). None-the-less, there has been a tendency to see them as clever and creative. This perspective may be due to similar characteristics seen in people with creativity in areas such as music, painting, poetry, writing and psychopathological conditions in general and psychopathy in particular.

There have been several studies examining the prevalence of common traits associated with psychopathy among creative groups. A study on 30 participants of which 90% were male writers who attended Iowa Writers’ Workshop, showed a higher percentage of alcoholics among the writers in the Iowa Writers’ Workshop study compared to the control groups. 10% of the participant writers were alcoholic while the prevalence of alcoholism in the control group was

7%. Based on this research, a familial predisposition for creativity and psychopathy was proposed in this group of writers since they reported alcoholism in their immediate family members (Andreasen, 1987). Co-morbidity of alcoholism and antisocial behaviors has been shown in a previous research to be associated with the presence of common genes (CNR1 and FAAH) (Hoenicka, et al., 2007). Later, Ludwig replicated this study among female writers and also confirmed a higher prevalence of alcoholism and drug abuse (17% vs. 5%) among the writers compared to the controls. In Ludwig’s study 20% of female writers were alcoholic while the prevalence of alcoholism in the control group was 10%. Also 17% of writers reported substance abuse compared to 5% of the control group individuals. In this study, the percentage of writers who reported having been physically and sexually abused in childhood was higher than the control group. It is possible that the higher prevalence of mental disorders in this group is related to these adversities experienced in childhood. It is also possible that writers are more familiar with mental disorders and are more likely to seek mental health services compared to the general public.

This research concludes there is a link between emotional disturbances and creative expression for writers. However, little is known about the mental processes in these individuals, that enables them to transform their “disturbing emotional experiences” into literature (Ludwig,

1994). Additionally, the history of experiencing traumatic events makes it difficult to determine whether the higher percentage of alcoholism and substance abuse in this group of female writer participants is related to psychopathy or is the consequence of traumatic events in the past. Creativity has been described as a survival mechanism and a form of evolutionary adaptation. Highly creative individuals have a higher risk for certain mental disorders - bipolar disorder, depression, substance abuse - than the members of the general public (Petri & Miotto,

1997). The relationship between creativity and psychopathologyy is dose-dependent, meaning individuals with lower levels of psychopathology are more likely to be creative than individuals with severe mental disorders (Carson, 2011). At the higher levels of mental health disorders, one can expect mental disorders hinder creative work.

There is a fundamental need for a neuro-scientific approach in studying the relationship between creativity and psychopathology, since there are genetic arrangements that can lead to both creative abilities and psychopathology. For example, the NRG1 gene, responsible for

Neuregulin 1 (an adhesion molecule) (Holmes et al., 1992) is associated with creativity and some types of psycho-pathology including schizophrenia (Duan et al., 2005). Certain psychopathological traits such as cognitive seen both in schizotypal personality and highly creative individuals, can facilitate creativity (Carson, 2014). It also has been suggested that cognitive disinhibition in highly intelligent individuals can lead to high levels of creativity

(Carson, Peterson, Higging, 2003). The Shared Vulnerability Model posits factors such as high IQ and perseveration as protective factors, and cognitive flexibility and low IQ as risk factors affect the genetic patterns that are shared among creative individuals and those suffering from psychopathological conditions. Based on the influence of these protective and risk factors, genetic predispositions might then be expressed as creativity, psychopathology or a combination of both. For instance, a particular sequence of genes in a person with high IQ and high perseverance might induce creativity while the same sequence in an individual with lower IQ and more can manifest as psychopathy (Carson, 2014).

Regarding milder traits of antisocial behavior for example, dishonesty, it is hypothesized that; first, in situations of ethical dilemmas, creativity is positively associated with dishonesty, second, this relationship would be true both in permanent creativity and in cases of challenges that temporarily trigger creativity. Examples of permanent creativity are skills that are learned for lifetime such as painting, sculpting or dancing. Temporary creativity can be triggered by giving creative tasks to participants to complete in a short period of time. These tasks usually do not require high levels of skills or training. An example of these tasks is asking participants to write a short story based on 2-3 given words. Third, creativity is positively associated with

“moral flexibility” or the ability to justify one’s immoral actions in several different ways. For example, justifying lying as imagination or the thought process at the moment (Gino & Ariely,

2012). It has been suggested that Creativity has the potential to increase individual’s dishonesty through giving the individual interpersonal skills to justify their unethical behavior (creative justification). One hundred forty-five participants were studied, there were 52 males, and 112 of the participants were students. The average age was 22.42, with a standard deviation of 2.81. The participants were divided into creative and control groups based on the creative personality test.

They completed a Remote Association Task, and a task to test the power of justification in which one group would roll a die in a cup only once and the other group would role the die in the cup multiple times but both would report the first result. The participants would earn money based on the outcome (higher numbers would get paid a higher amount). The results showed that individuals with higher scores on the creativity task more often reported higher scores on the die rolls dishonestly, compared to the control group. (Gino, & Aliery, 2012).

However, the strongest common threads between psychopathy and creativity might be boldness and risk-taking behaviors. Recently, the relevance of boldness to psychopathy has interested researchers. In a study conducted on mental health professionals and graduate students, boldness scores on Berg’s boldness test were positively correlated with psychopathy. In

Berg’s test, a fictional character was introduced to participants and case scenarios would describe how the character felt or acted in different situations. The participants had to choose on a scale of

1-5 how close their characteristics were to the fictional character (Berg, & Lilienfeld, 2017).

In a study on the common traits of psychopathy and creativity, it was shown that of all psychopathic traits, boldness specifically has a strong positive correlation with creative achievement (Galang, et al., 2016).

As risk taking behaviors such as gambling, drug use, and aggression are usually associated with psychopathy, Snowden and colleagues used The Balloon Analogue Risk Test (BART), a computerized decision-making test to measure willingness to take risks through balancing the possibility of reward vs loss. Participants were given a balloon on the computer monitor and they could to make the balloon bigger (pumping the balloon) by clicking on it. For every click (pump), money would be added to a virtual money box but if the balloon bursts, they would lose all the money they had made. Participants did not know when the balloon would burst. Therefore, how many times they risked pumping the balloon, the number of their cash outs before the balloon was burst and the number of times they lost all their winnings combined to measure the risk-taking behavior. BART test was given to a group of study participants who were adult male offenders from a category C closed prison in England. All offenders in this facility were approached with the exception of “drug therapeutic community” and the

“resettlement unit”. The results showed participants who scored higher in BART were more willing to take risks, also scored higher in psychopathy tests (Snowden, Smith, & Gray, 2017).

When five different domains of risk taking (financial, health and safety, recreational, ethical and social) were studied among creative individuals, lab-based results showed that creativity was associated with higher risk-taking traits in social domains but not in any other aspect. Financial risk taking was measured based on a roulette betting task. Financial risk taking along with other areas of risk taking were also measured through a questionnaire that asked participants about their behaviors in different situations. Not wearing a seatbelt was considered a health/safety risk taking. The example for social risk taking was engaging in an argument with an authority figure. Passing off someone else’s work as their own was the example for ethical risk taking. Bungee jumping off a tall bridge was the scenario to measure recreational risk taking and betting a day’s income on a high risk poker was the question to measure financial risk taking on the questionnaire. When a second study was conducted for verification purposes, social risk- taking scores were the strongest predictors of creative personality (Tyagi, et al., 2017).

After reviewing the literature, is seems that boldness and risk taking behaviors seen both in creative and psychopathic individuals may be the common factors linking creativity and psychopathy (Breg, et al., 2017, Galang, et al., 2016, Snowden, Smith, & Gray, 2017 and Tyagi, et al., 2017), it was expected that both psychopathy scores and creativity scores were higher in those who scored higher in boldness and risk taking behaviors

Significance of the Study

Despite the longstanding interest in the overlay between creativity and psychopathy, there are limited research studies that have examined both similarities and differences between creative individuals and those with higher levels of psychopathic traits.

In the limited pool of data, there is a noticeable shortage of studies looking at specific features when examining the common threads between psychopathy and creativity.

The current study examines the underlying elements of creativity and psychopathy to better understand the traits found in both creative people and individuals with high psychopathy scores on the PPI-SF test. Those who score higher on the PPI-SF test are individuals with high levels of traits associated with psychopathy such as boldness and risk taking.

Chapter II

Method

The study was conducted using an online survey that included a demographics questionnaire, the Creative Personality Scale (CPS), the Creative Achievement Questionnaire

(CAQ), The Psychopathic Personality Inventory - Short Form (PPI-SF), and boldness test based on a case scenario as well as a computer-based risk taking task (Balloon Analogue Risk Test)

BART administered via Harvard Qualtrics. The target sample was 200 participants, from the general public without any preference for age, gender, or ethnicity. Participants were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Surveys were distributed to all participants in the United States.

We reached out target number of 200 and had 3 extra participants in 10 hours. The collected data were then transferred to an Excel file for more processing. Statistical analysis was conducted on the SPSS.

Study Design

The online survey is consisted of 6 sections; 1 - the informed consent form, consisted of a description of the study and its purpose, the optional nature of participation and the possibility of leaving the study at any time during participation. At the end of the form, the participants would click NEXT to be directed to the surveys and clicking next would be considered as consenting for participation as explained on the informed consent form. This method of consenting was used by the IRB direction in order to maintain complete anonymity of the participants. 2 – The biographic and demographic questions; in this section participants were asked to enter their age group, gender, and race for the purpose to the study. 3 – The CAQ, 4 – The CPS, 5 - The

Psychopathic Personality Inventory - Short Form (PPI-SF), 6 – the balloon test (BART) and 7 – the boldness test.

Bivariate Pearson Correlation analysis using SPSS examined the association between our quantitative variables to test the hypothesis that boldness and risk taking would be associated with both risk taking and psychopathy.

Participants

A total number of 203 respondents participated in the study. 201 surveys were collected

(112 males and 89 females). All participants completed the study from the United States.

Because the surveys were distributed via MTurk, participants were MTurk workers. In 2015, 300 of the most influential science journals published over 500 papers in which data collection fully or partially relied on MTurk data gathering system. Recruiters and respondents who are willing to participate in research studies are points of strength or MTurk (Casey et al., 2017).

MTurk samples are more are more diverse than population samples taken from a single location such as college campuses or hospitals. However, in this study, there is an overrepresentation of whites and Asians and an under-representation of Latinos and African-

Americans.

The inclusion criteria for participants were: 18 years of age or older, fluency in English and being currently located in the United States. The exclusion criteria were being physically outside the United States at the time of taking the survey, inability to complete the survey in one sitting, completing the entire test in less than 36 minutes (30% of the allocated time) because it would raise concern of choosing answers randomly, answering fewer than 90% of the questions or a participant’s decision to stop the study. After the completion of data collection, the data was evaluated to ensure all participants met the inclusion criteria and to exclude those who met the exclusion criteria. Surveys were checked for consistency and complete responses. No duplicate attempts were noted.

Measures

Measures of creativity, psychopathy, boldness and risk taking were as follows:

Creativity Measures

Creative Personality Scale or Gough Personality Scale (CPS)

CPS is a self-assessment test for creativity. Participants are given 30 adjectives and test takers choose the ones that more closely apply to them (Indiana University Website, 2016). This test considers creativity a personality trait.

Self-report creativity tests in general consider creativity a measurable trait. Gough’s creative personality test is one of the most widely used self-report tests for creativity. On this checklist there are 30 adjectives 18 adjectives indicative and 12 counter-indicative of a creative personality. Participants are given one point for each positive item and lose one point for each counter-indicative adjective. The final score ranges from -12 to +18 (Zampetakis, 2010).

Validity was established through a study on 1,701 subjects with a broad range of work and interest (science, arts, law, military, etc.). Their self-report adjectives were also compared to reports by expert judges and observers. The CPS scale considers all adjectives of equal value (positive or negative). The CPS is the most broadly used and accepted scale for creative personality (Zampetakis, 2010).

On one-tailed tests of significance CPS can claim a statistically significant relationship with every criterion in every sample used to test its reliability. On two-tailed tests 10 of 12 validity coefficients for CPS were significant at at the .05 level of probability or beyond. CPS is a reliable and moderately valid measure of creative potential (r = .33, p = .004) (Gough, 1979).

Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ)

CAQ “is a self-report measure of creative achievement” and evaluates achievement in 10 areas (Carson, et al., 2005). These areas of creativity are visual arts, music, dance, architecture, creative writing, humor, inventions, scientific discovery, theater and film, and culinary arts

(Silva, et al., 2012). For each domains seven levels of accomplishment are defined and can be chosen by participants. Participants were get 0-7 points based on their level of achievement in each domain of creativity. Levels of achievement are from no training (0) to international recognition of the creative work (7). The entire questionnaire consists of a checklist of 96 items

(Carson, Peterson & Higgins, 2005).

CAQ’s test-rested reliability is r = .81, p<.0001 as established in a sample 117. Its validity was established in a different section of the same study (r = .59, p<.0001) (Carson,

Peterson & Higgins, 2005).

The Psychopathic Personality Inventory - Short Form (PPI-SF)

Created by Lilienfeld and Andrew in 2001, PPI-SF is a self-report form on psychopathic traits consisted of fifty-six questions. It has comparable reliability and validity with the longer version of PPI (Iyican, Sommer, Babcock, 2015). This self-report test measures different traits of psychopathy ranging from milder ones like dishonesty up to major traits such as antisocial behaviors for example fighting, bullying or committing fraud. It consists of twenty-six statements and test takers must decide whether each of them applies to them scoring their agreement with the statement on a scale of 1 to 5. (Levenson, Kiehl K, & Fitzpatrick C, 1995).

Participants completed the PPI-SF on the survey and scores were calculated accordingly. Higher scores are associated with greater psychopathic tendencies.

Validity of the PPI-SF is supported by its strong correlation to PCL-R (The Hare

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised). Its subscales measure different traits such as fearlessness, non- helpfulness, impulsivity, and lack of conformity with social norms. A well-designed and validated short form of PPI (PPI-SF) – the one we used in this study - was developed in 2012

(Tonnaer et al., 2012).

The PPI-SF was designed to measure the traits that are measurable through the PPI

(egocentricity, social potency, cold-heartedness, carefree unhelpfulness, fearlessness, blame externalization, impulsive nonconformity, stress immunity, deviant responding, unlikely virtues) in a briefer and more time efficient checklist (Tonnaer et al., 2012).

The PPI-SF yields two scores; a factor for affective traits such as dishonesty, , manipulation, constant focus on personal profit, lying, cheating and lack of empathy and remorse etc. and antisocial traits such as vandalism, substance use, gambling, breaking the law, fighting, bullying, threatening and committing crimes. It provides a different score for each category. This characteristic of PPI-SF was utilized in our research study to examine the probable differences between affective and antisocial aspects of psychopathy in correlation with creativity (Tonnaer et al., 2012). Boldness Test

Although PPI-SF can measure some elements of fearlessness, to measure boldness accurately, there was a need for more focused tools to evaluate elements of boldness that go beyond not experiencing . Boldness also includes resilience, leadership, assertiveness, risk taking, handling stressful situations, being able to express controversial ideas and go against social norms, and taking seemingly impossible tasks.

There are methods for measuring boldness in animals but there are limited ways to measure this behavioral trait in humans. One quantitative measure of boldness which is a survey- oriented method is the Boldness Inventory. This test evaluates boldness as as a combination of factors including social assurance, dominance, persuasiveness, self-confidence, resilience, optimism, risk taking and tolerance for uncertainty.

A measure of boldness was created using brief vignettes. Participants were given a series of seven brief vignettes describing a fictional individual (Patrick, 2010; Patrick, et al., 2009; Poy,

Segarra, Esteller, López, & Moltó, 2014; Seldom & Phillips, 2013). Because only one vignette was available in the original paper for just one element of boldness, the rest of the vignettes were written by the author and were based on descriptions of the three domains of the triarchic model of psychopathy. The triarchic model of psychopathy defines psychopathy as persistent behaviors against the norms of the society along with emotional detachment. In this model, three major elements are considered for psychopathy; disinhibition, meanness and boldness (Patrick, et al.,

2009). The boldness test based on this model measures factors such as poise and personal charm, resilience, assertion, dominance, risk-taking and outspokenness. The vignettes that were presented to the participants, described an imaginary character’s specific characteristics and behaviors that would show the aforementioned factors. The participants were then asked on a scale of 1-5, how much resemblance they felt with the fictional character. Because this measure of boldness was created for this study, its reliability and validity have not been confirmed but the correlation with both psychopathy and creativity is an evidence for its validity.

BART (Balloon Analogue Risk Test)

BART is a computer based on an online test that is used to measure risk taking behaviors.

Participants were shown a balloon on their computer screen and were offered the chance to collect virtual money by inflating the balloon by clicking on it. They were warned as well that pumping the balloon could bring it closer to the threshold where the balloon would burst and they would lose all the virtual money they had earned if the balloon bursts. In each of the 30 trials of this test, participants were shown a balloon, a balloon pump and a button displaying

Collect $$ on it.

The number of points that could be earned from each pump on each trial was different and unpredictable, therefore, test takers did not have an estimated of the number of pumps before a balloon bust. There were collectively 60 balloons throughout the 60 trials. 20 of the balloons had low value, meaning they could tolerate more pumps of air, 20 of them had medium value and 20 had high value which might burst by the first or second pump of air. The balloons were distributed randomly throughout the test. The participants could stop pumping each balloon and press Collect $$ to collect their earning at any time during each trial of the test. When money was collected, the participants would hear a sound similar to a jackpot machine whereas when a balloon burst a pop sound could be heard, the balloon would disappear from the screen and the money on their account that was displayed on the screen would disappear as well. Then the next trial would begin and the process would continue until all 60 balloons were tested (Lejuez et al., 2002; 2003, White, Lejuez & Wit, 2008).

At the end of this test, the participants were asked to choose the number of their burst balloons from one of these options: 1) None, 2) 1-3, 3) 3-5, 4) More than 5, 5) I burst all of them.

The results were self-reported. participants were scored based on the number of burst balloons.

The BART measures behavioral risk taking. Based on the previous studies, the risk taking score of the BART test is correlated with real life risk taking behaviors such as alcoholism, substance abuse, gambling, impulsivity, etc. (Lejuez et al., 2002; 2003, White,

Lejuez & Wit, 2008). The BART test has shown has shown acceptable test-rested reliability (r =

+.77, p<.001) and adequate test-rested stability and therefore performance on the task on a single occasion is likely to be representative of an individual’s performance on other occasions (White et al., 2008).

Procedure

Surveys were distributed on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform and therefore, data was collected from the online users of MTurk who were based in the United States.

Recruitment

MTurk settings were set to provide the survey only to participants of 18 years of age and above and to the population present in the United States at the time of completing the survey.

Interested participants were provided with a link to the survey through Mturk. By clicking on the link, participants saw a complete description of the study and the purpose of the study, how their information will be used for data extraction and the fact that no personal information would be collected by the researcher. It was also explained to the participants that some personality questions might make some individuals feel uncomfortable and they can exit the survey at any time. Since we were precise in not collecting any personal information, based on the IRB instructions, participants were informed that no signature or name would be collected and clicking on the “Next” button would represent their agreement to participate in the study.

After this process, participants would be shown a set of demographic questions about age, gender and ethnicity. Next, participants would take the Creative Personality Scale test

(CPS), consisting of 30 adjectives and were asked which adjective describes them.

The next section was the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) where participants were asked to choose their achievements in different fields of creativity (visual arts, music, dance, architectural design, creative writing, humor, inventions, scientific discovery, and culinary arts) from the provided options.

Afterward, participants completed the PPI-SF to evaluate psychopathic traits. They were informed these questions are for research purposes only and their responses would not indicate the presence or absence of psychopathy. This section consisted of 26 questions explaining a mindset and participants were to choose one of the options: Agree, Neutral, Disagree. The next section of the survey started with a brief description of the BART test, explaining participants would require to pump 30 balloons shown on their computer screen. They could then collect points for each pump knowing that if they over-inflate a balloon, it might burst and they will lose all the points they gathered for that balloon. Then they would click on a link that would take them to a website where they could take the standard BART test and report their results.

The last section was the boldness measure where a genderless character was introduced to the participants. Specific characteristics of boldness including poise, charm, charisma, assertion, ability to handle stress and stress tolerance, risk-taking, resilience, outspokenness and willingness to take seemingly impossible tasks were represented as this person’s characteristics and participants were asked to decide how close they felt to each of these characteristics.

Data Processing

Data Analysis

In order to assess the strength, direction and statistical significance of linear relationships between variables, a correlation was calculated in the SPSS.

The first aim was to evaluate the correlation between boldness, psychopathy and creativity, in order to realize whether boldness could be considered a common thread between creativity and psychopathy.

The second aim was to evaluate the correlation between risk-taking, psychopathy and creativity, in order to understand whether risk-taking could be considered a common thread between creativity and psychopathy. The final aim was to examine the correlation between creativity and psychopathy, in other words, to examine the correlation between CAQ, CPS and PPI-SF scores in order to discover whether or not psychopathy and creativity are significantly correlated and also to evaluate the direction and strength of the correlation.

Hypotheses

There is a statistically significant correlation between boldness and psychopathy and also between boldness and creativity.

There is a statistically significant correlation between risk taking and psychopathy and also between risk taking and creativity.

There is a statistically significant correlation between creativity and psychopathy. Chapter III

Result

The sample consisted of 201 participants. 85.1% of our participants were over 25 years old. The exact age distribution is detailed in Table 1. 14.9% of participants were between 18-25 years old, 41.3 were

between 26-35 years old and 43.8% were over 35 years old. Table 1. Age Distribution

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 18-25 30 14.9 14.9 14.9 26-35 83 41.3 41.3 56.2 >35 88 43.8 43.8 100.0 Total 201 100.0 100.0

112 (55.7%) males and 89 (44.3%) female completed this study. Race Distribution is outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Race Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent White 139 69.2 69.2 69.2 Black 18 9.0 9.0 78.1 Asian 32 15.9 15.9 94.0 other 12 6.0 6.0 100.0 Total 201 100.0 100.0 Correlations between all variables are shown in Table 4. There was a statistically significant inverse correlation between Creative Personality Scale scores and psychopathy scores both in affective (p = .001) and antisocial features (p < .001). These correlations are displayed in

Figs. 3&4. Participants with a more creative personality self-reported fewer psychopathic traits both in affective (dishonesty, lack of empathy) and in antisocial aspects (gambling, substance use). On the other hand, there was a statistically significant positive correlation between Creative

Achievement score and both affective (p < .001) and antisocial (p =<.001) aspects of psychopathy (Figs. 1&2).

The correlations between CAQ and PPI-SF scores are statistically significant and of moderate strength (0.41 for affective psychopathy features and 0.39 for antisocial features).

Regarding risk taking and boldness, there was no statistically significant correlation between creativity and risk taking, or between either aspect of psychopathy and risk taking.

Therefore, risk taking as measured here was not a common thread between creativity and psychopathy.

Boldness was related to the Creative Personality Scale score (p < .001). However, the correlation between boldness and Creative Achievement score was not statistically significant.

Thus, higher CPS scores were associated with fewer psychopathic traits and higher scores in boldness whereas, higher CAQ scores are associated with more psychopathic traits and were not related to boldness. Boldness and risk taking were significantly and positively correlated (p

< .05).

Table 3. Correlations

Correlations CPS CAQ PPI- PPI-SF (Antisocial Risk – SF(Affective Features) Taking Features CPS Pearson Correlation Sig. (2- tailed)

CAQ Pearson Correlation -0.08 Sig. (2- 0.24 tailed)

PPI- Pearson Correlation -0.24 0.41 SF(Affecti ve Features) Sig. (2- 0 0 tailed)

PPI- Pearson Correlation -0.25 0.39 0.65 SF(Antiso cial Features) Sig. (2- 0 0 0 tailed)

Risk Pearson Correlation 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.07 Taking Sig. (2- 0.88 0.32 0.43 0.34 tailed)

Boldness Pearson Correlation 0.4 -0.04 -0.08 -0.22 0.17 Sig. (2- 0 0.61 0.27 0 0.02 tailed) ANOVA Psychopathy Score (Affective Features) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 26.44 2 13.22 17.32 0 Within Groups 151.13 198 0.76 Total 177.58 200 Table 4. Mean PPI-SF for Age

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means

Variances F Sig. df Sig. Mean Std. Error

(2- Difference Difference

tailed)

PPI-SF Score Equal 4.82 0.029 19 0.002 0.414 0.131

(Affective Features) variances 2 9

assumed Equal variances not 19 0.002 0.413 0.129

assumed 7

Table 5. T-Test for PPI-SF Scores Between Males and Females The only variable with a significance value of <.05 for mean differences between gender was the PPI-SF score for affective features. Therefore, the mean differences of the PPI-SF score for affective features between males and females is significant and higher in males meaning males in this study showed more affective features of psychopathy than females. ANOVA CAQ Score Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 4405.46 2 2202.73 6.188 0.002 Within Groups 70486.55 198 2202.73 Total 74892.01 200 Table 6. One-way ANOVA for CAQ Variance of Means Between Age Groups

Descriptives CAQ Score N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

1 : 18-25 Years Old 30 23.57 28.364 5.179 2: 26-35 Years Old 83 15.22 21.606 2.372 3: >35 Years Old 88 9.82 10.1 1.077 Total 201 14.1 19.351 1.365 Table 7. Descriptives Table of Variance of Mean for CAQ Score Between Age Groups

Based on Tables 6&7, The mean variance of CAQ scores between age groups is

significant p<0.05. The mean CAQ decreases by age meaning creative achievements decrease in

older ages. ANOVA PPI-SF Score (Affective Features) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 26.445 2 13.223 17.323 .000 Within Groups 151.13 198 0.763 Total 177.576 200 Table 8.. One-way ANOVA for PPI-SF score mean between age groups

Descriptives Psychopathy Score (Affective Features) N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

1: 18 – 25 30 2.67 0.89 0.161 2: 26 – 35 83 2.57 0.89 0.097 3: >35 88 1.87 0.85 0.090 Total 201 2.28 0.94 0.066 Table 9. Descriptives table of means of the PPI-SF (Affective Features) Score Between Age

Groups

Tables 8 and 9 display, the mean differences of the PPI-SF score for affective features of psychopathy between age groups. These data show that PPI-SF decreases with age. In this study, older individuals self-reported fewer affective features of psychopathy.

ANOVA PPI-SF Score (Antisocial

Features) Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 8.63 2 4.315 5.199 0.006 Within Groups 164.33 198 0.83 Total 172.97 200 Table 10. One-way ANOVA for PPI-SF score (Antisocial Features) mean between age groups

Descriptives Psychopathy Score (Antisocial Features) N Mean Std. Deviation Std.

Error

1: 18-25 30 2.573 0.933 0.170 2: 26-35 83 2.562 0.932 0.102 3: >35 88 2.152 0.883 0.094 Total 201 2.562 0.929 0.065 Table 11. Descriptive table of mean differences of PPI-SF (Antisocial Features) between age groups

As shown on Tables 10&11, the mean differences between PPI-SF scores for antisocial features between age groups are significant (p<.05) and the mean score decreases by age. Older participants in this study self-reported fewer antisocial traits of psychopathy.

Differences between mean scores of the CPS, boldness and risk-taking tests between age groups were not statistically significant.

The mean differences of the CAQ, CPS, PPI-SF, Boldness and Risk-taking tests between races were not significant in this study. ) S P C (

e r o c S

e l a c S

y t i l a n o s r e P

e v i t a e r C -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Psychopathy Score (Affective Features)

Fig. 1. The scatter plot of the correlation between Creative Personality Scale

(CPS) and Psychopathy Score (Affective Features). This plot shows a strong and negative

correlation between CPS and affective features of psychopathy.

Table 12. Predominance of Psychopathic traits among those with CAQ>50 and CAQ<50

CAQ>50 Percentage CAQ<50 Percentage Total Total

of CAQ>50 of CAQ<50 CAQ>50 CAQ<50

Lack of empathy 5 62% 49 39% 8 123

Anything one 5 62% 37 30% can get away with is right Doing anything 6 75% 37 30% to succeed Self-profit 7 87% 65 53%

Money as the 7 87% 64 52% main goal Quick loss of 5 62% 41 33% interest Lack of concern 4 50% 25 20% for moral values If someone gets 5 62% 40 33% scammed they deserve it Acting out 7 87% 68 55%

Charm 5 62% 45 36%

Anger outbursts 6 75% 32 26% Love is overrated 6 75% 35 28%

Admiring a 7 87% 48 39% clever scam

Manipulation 4 50% 27 22%

Feeling Remorse 5 62% 123 100% Cheating is not 5 62% 118 96% acceptable We also examined psychopathic traits among individuals with higher (CAQ > 50) and lower (CAQ < 50) creative achiement., Table 12 shows the participants’ responses to the PPI-SF questions. Examined this way, the data shows that More participants with a CAQ>50 reported psychopathic traits including lack of empathy, doing anything to succeed, focus on self-profit and self-promotion, money as their main goal, quick loss of interest, lack of concern for moral values, acting out and anger outbursts, superficial charm, admiring a clever scam, and enjoying manipulation of other people. Also, fewer of these participants with a CAQ>50 reported remorse.

More participants with a CAQ>50 said cheating is not acceptable. ) S P C (

e r o c S

e l a c S

y t i l a n o s r e P

e v i t a e r

C -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Psychopathy Score (Affective Features)

Fig. 2. The scatter plot of the correlation between Creative Personality Scale

(CPS) and Psychopathy Score (Antisocial Features). This plot shows a strong and negative correlation between CPS and antisocial features of psychopathy. e r 6 o c S

e 5 r i a n n 4 o i t s e

u 3 Q t n 2 e m e v 1 e i h c

A 0

e 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 v i t a Psychopathy Score (Affective Features) e r C

Fig. 3. The scatter plot of the correlation between Creative Achievement

Questionnaire (CAQ)score and Psychopathy Score (Affective Features). This plot shows

a positive correlation between CAQ and affective features of psychopathy. e 5 r o c

S 4.5

)

Q 4 A C

( 3.5 e r i 3 a n n 2.5 o i t s e 2 u Q

1.5 t n e 1 m e v 0.5 e i h c 0

A 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 e v i t Psychopathy Score (Antisocial Features) a e r C

Fig. 4. The scatter plot of the correlation between Creative Achievement

Questionnaire (CAQ)score and Psychopathy Score (Antisocial Features). This plot shows

a positive correlation between CAQ and antisocial features of psychopathy. Chapter IV

Discussion

There is a long history of assuming that creative people would be more likely to show signs of psychopathology in general, and psychopathy in particular. The goal of this study was to examine the common threads between creativity and psychopathy to try to understand why this presumption persists, despite limited evidence. We examined the correlation between psychopathy andcreativity, with particular attention to the specific dimensions of boldness and risk taking, both often associated with psychopathy and included on many measurements of psychopathy. We predicted a correlation between boldness and creativity and also between boldness and psychopathy. We also predicted a correlation between risk taking and creativity and also between risk taking and psychopathy. Finally, we expected to see a statistically significant correlation between creativity and psychopathy.

Based on our data, the Creative Personality Scale score, which measures creative personality traits was inversely related to both affective and antisocial aspects of psychopathy. In other words, individuals with a more creative personality were less likely to report being dishonest, manipulative or having antisocial traits.

In contrast, creative achievement was related to both affective and antisocial aspects of psychopathy. These findings suggest there is a link between creativity being recognized and reaching high levels of achievement and traits of psychopathy such as lack of empathy and remorse, dishonesty, manipulation, impulsivity, low moral standards, and focus on self-serving goals. It means not all individuals with a creative personality are high achievers in creativity.

However, higher scores of creative achievement were strongly correlated with psychopathic traits.

There were more tendencies of self-promotion, putting oneself ahead of others (thereby seeming to be lower in empathy) to have one’s creativity recognized by others among participants with with higher creative achievements.

Most people with a creative personality demonstrate some level of creative achievement.

Some have achievements reflected by their level of training or they are recognized in their own social circles, and some have performed in public, or produced nationally and internationally recognized works. Regardless of how the creative achievement manifests, scores for affective and antisocial aspects of psychopathy were significantly higher among those with higher levels of self-reported creative achievement.

These findings suggest that individuals with a creative personality who are lower in characteristics of psychopathy, such as self-promotion, may reach a certain level of creative achievement and stop there whereas, creative individuals with higher psychopathic tendencies, reach higher levels of achievement and are more likely to be recognized for their work.

Psychopaths are often described as charming. Superficial charm – the tendency to tell people what they want to hear in order to have them do what the person would like – was more likely to be self-reported among participants with CAQ>50 compared to those with lower scores.

This charming presentation may increase the chances of one’s creativity to be recognized.

To better understand these findings, consider the impact of as a trait in psychopathy on self-report tests. Individuals higher in narcissistic traits consider their level of achievement more exceptional than the general population (Jonason et al., 2017). Although narcissism was not one of the variables in this study, as a dominant personality trait in psychopathy, it may have an impact in self-reported creative achievement results. In future studies, other-reported creative achievements could be compared with self-reported results in correlation with narcissism.

The approach and goal of creativity are also different in people with psychopathic trait.

Truly psychopathic individuals engage in creativity for self-serving goals (to be recognized and to earn profit rather than for intrinsic goals) just as they pursue other things from a self-serving perspective while individuals with more empathetic tendencies engage in creative activities to share feelings, acknowledge other people’s feeling, display sympathy and/or for broadcasting awareness and drawing attention to particular causes (Konrath, 2019).

The higher achievement in creativity - which is measured in CAQ as national and international recognition – in individuals with psychopathic traits, can be due to the goal of self- representation and the self-centered approach toward creativity in this population. It takes a certain disregard for what others may think or how others react to promote oneself.

Interestingly, in this sample, there was no relationship observed between creative personality scale scores and creative achievement. This suggests that it is not creativity per se that overlaps with psychopathic traits but the ability to promote oneself or display one’s creativity to get recognition from others for that creative ability. These findings further validate the separation of creative ability from creative achievement.

What we conclude from this study is that a creative personality does not guarantee or support creative achievements although creative personalities thrive for some creative achievements. Some highly creative people may actually under-report their achievements or they might be overshadowed, by higher self-representation of their counterparts who display more psychopathic characteristics such as lower regard for others.

In this study, boldness was significantly correlated with creative personality but not with creative achievement counter to the hypotheses, boldness was inversely correlated with antisocial

(aggressive) aspects of psychopathy.

Looking at the adjectives used to self-describe by individuals who completed the CPS, and the correlation with boldness, we can conclude those who use more positive and stronger adjectives to describe themselves, those who have a stronger positive self-image, are bolder individuals.

On the other hand, boldness was not related with creative achievements. Also, bolder individuals show fewer antisocial traits of psychopathy. This suggests that boldness can manifest in different ways. In creative people, boldness may be associated with the creative production rather than its display and promotion but in antisocial people, boldness may be associated with violating laws and social norms.

Creative individuals showed boldness in breaking barriers in creative fields such as writing and fine arts, trying their hand in highly challenging and competitive creative domains such as dancing, exposing their creative work for the world’s judgement and criticism, trying new ideas, and rising above traditions such as modern art has constantly challenged classic arts without either of them trying to vanish the other.

However, antisocial individuals, show boldness in breaking the law, committing crimes and being open to destructive habits such as substance use and gambling.

In this study, risk taking showed no significant correlation with creative personality, or creative achievement and it was not correlated with any aspects of psychopathy. It is possible that our risk taking measurement tool (the BART test) did not capture creative risk taking.

Considering the BART test is focused on impulsivity and risk-taking for profit, it can miss risk taking in creative individuals. This may also suggest that creative risk taking, is a unique form of risk taking that would require more specific measurement tools.

Further, our data showed a decrease in creative achievements with age. This finding can be due to fewer opportunities for older individuals or due to loss of physical fitness that is required for achievement in certain domains of creativity such as dancing and sports.

Older participants also self-reported fewer affective and anti-social traits of psychopathy.

It can be a matter of social maturation or as individuals age, they learn to conceal psychopathic features. Additionally, impulsivity declines and judgment improves as people move from adolescence to adulthood and onward. Furthermore, most people continue learning to adapt to social norms so that if they are continuing to break rules, they are less likely to be caught and sanctioned.

Boldness and risk taking do not seem to be affected by age in this study.

Affective traits of psychopathy were more self-reported by male participants.

Finally, as expected, the differences of mean scores of the CSP, CAQ, PPI-SF, Boldness and Risk-taking between different races were not significant.

We conclude that boldness and not risk taking is the common threated between psychopathy and creativity. The way boldness is demonstrated by creative individuals is completely different from its manifestations in psychopathy. Research Limitations

Creativity is a broad area with multiple dimensions. This research explores creative achievements in a few major domains through the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ), and creative personality based on the Creative Personality Scale. Creativity in several other fields such as economics, business, marketing, politics, media, journalism and sports has been beyond the scope of this research.

We did not include measures for divergent and convergent thinking in our study.

Divergent thinking is the ability to find several solutions for a problem. The thought process for divergent thinking is very close to brain storming and the person can explore several answers to a problem in a relatively small amount of time (Basadur et al, 1992), such as Rubik’s solvers who create several different algorithms to solve a Rubik’s cube in different timeframes. Divergent thinking can also manifest as the ability to find multiple and unusual uses for everyday objects, for example, using ketchup and water to create a solution for polishing silver or on the higher end of creativity, James Watt’s steam engine invention by watching the steam moving the lid of his grandmother’s teakettle.

Convergent thinking is the ability to give correct answer to questions. Convergent thinking is mostly valuable in academic fields and was once stigmatized as being the opposite of creativity. Later however, it was concluded that convergent thinking is also essential for creativity in order to direct and balance divergent thinking to put the thought process in a goal- directed pathway (Cropley, 2010).

We also did not measure Openness as one of the elements of creativity. Openness is the ability to accept new challenges and ideas along with curiosity, imagination and liberalism

(Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2007). In future broader studies, every trait of psychopathy can be measured through specific tests. Our PPI-SF, measures affective and antisocial traits of psychopathy effectively, and separately, however it gives a general score for affective and antisocial traits. There are though specific tests for each affective trait of psychopathy such as the HEXACO personality assessment for dishonesty (Lebowitz, 2015). These tests can be added to future studies to see which traits of psychopathy are correlated with creativity and to what extent.

Although creativity can and does start in early childhood, this research is focused on an adult population and therefore, it does not study creativity in child prodigies or in children in general.

Narcissism as one of the dominant personality traits in psychopathy was not directly and separately measured in our study. Narcissism symptoms include , entitlement, dominance and superiority (Paulhuss, D. & Williams, K., 2002). Narcissism as mentioned before, might have a role in directing creativity toward personal achievements. This remains to be studied in future research projects.

The survey prepared for this study was based on self-report tests and there was be no face

- to - face interview with participants. The validity of the self-report relevance test on boldness has not been tested, however, a positive correlation between measured boldness and creativity and psychopathy would serve as an evidence for the validity of this test.

Our research was conducted in a general population sample. We did not study criminal psychopaths, and therefore, the results for this study probably cannot be expanded to that population.

We did not consider intelligence or IQ in this investigation. In previous studies, IQ seemed to be only moderately correlated with creativity (Furnham et al., 2008). In another study, IQ was reported to be a protective factor in child psychopathy (Salekin et al., 2010). Based on these two previous studies, we expect IQ to work in favor of creativity and protected individuals against psychopathic traits, a correlation very similar to the one between boldness, creativity and psychopathy. However, our research was focused on boldness and risk taking as the probable common threads between creativity and psychopathy. Future studies, might add IQ to the correlation table to broaden the perspective on factors that affect human creativity and psychopathy.

Because this research achieved interesting results, there is a noticeable potential for future cohort studies on creative individuals over a period of years. References

Andreasen, N.C. (1987). Creativity and mental illness: prevalence rates in writers and their first- degree relatives. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1288-92.

Archer, R. P., Wheeler E. (2013). Forensic Uses of Clinical Assessment Instruments, p. 80.

Basadur, M., Wakabayashi, M., and Takai, J. (1992). Training effects on the divergent thinking attitudes of Japanese managers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Vol. 16(3). 329- 345.

Berg, S., & Hoicka, E. (2014). Individual Differences and Age-Related Changes in Divergent Thinking in Toddlers and Preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 50 (6), 1629-1639. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library.

Berg J., Lilienfeld S. (2017). The Role of Boldness in Psychopathy: A Study of Academic and Clinical Perceptions. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Vol. 8. No. 4. 319-328.

Blair, R.J.R. (2003). Neurobiological basis of psychopathy. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 182, 5-7.

Buhrmester M, Kwang T and Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1): 3–5.

Byrnes, J. Miller D., and Schafer W. D. (1999). Gender Differences in Risk Taking: A Meta- Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 3, Vol. 125, 367-383.

Carson, S., Peterson, J., Higging, D. (2003). Decreased Latent Inhibition Is Associated With Increased Creative Achievement in High-Functioning Individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 499-506. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library.

Carson, S., Peterson, J., & Higgins, D. (2005). Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37-50. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library. Casey, L.S., Chandler, J., and Levin, A.D. (2017). Intertemporal Differences Among MTurk Workers: Time-Based Sample Variations and Implications for Online Data Collection. SAGE Journals. Vol. 7(2). Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244017712774#.

Carson, S. 2010. Your Creative Brian. San Francisco, California: Jossey - Bass. Harvard Health Publications. Harvard Medical School. Carson, S. (2010). Creative Thinking and the Brain. Interview with Harvard Health Letter. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library.

Carson, S. (2011). Creativity and Psychopathology: A Shared Vulnerability Model. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56 (3), 144-153. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library.

Carson, S., (2014). Leveraging the “mad genius” debate: why we need a neuroscience of creativity and psychopathology. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8 (1), 771. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library.

Chammoro-Premuzic, T., & Reichenbacher, L. (2008). Effects of Personality and Thread of Evaluation on Divergent and Convergent Thinking. Journal of Research in Personality. Vol. 42(4). 1095-1101. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library.

Clerkly, H. (2016). The Mask of Sanity. 3rd Edition [Kindle Version]. Retrieved from amazon.com.

Clifford, S., Jewell, R.M., and Waggoner, P.D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics. October-December 2015. 1-9. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2053168015622072.

Cropley, A. (2006). In Praise of Convergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal. Vol 18(3). 391-404.

Crowner, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC-SDS). Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (4), 349-354. Retrieved from www.sjdm.org/Marlowe- Crowne_Social_Desirability_Scale.html.

Crump MJC, McDonnell JV and Gureckis TM (2013) Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PloS one 8(3): e57410.

Decety J., Chen C., Harenski C. and Kiehl K. A. (2013). An fMRI study of affective perspective taking in individuals with psychopathy: imagining another in pain does not evoke empathy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 24. Sep. 2013. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00489.

Dow, G. (2003). Creativity Test: Guilford’s Alternative Uses Task (1967). Indiana University Website.

Duan, J., Martinez, M., Sanders. A.R., Hou. C, Krasner, J., Schwartz, D.B. and Gejman, P.V. (2005). Neuregulin 1 (NRG1) and schizophrenia: analysis of a US family sample and the evidence in the balance. Psychological Medicine. Vol. 35(11). 1599-1610. Evenden, J. 1999. Varieties of Impulsivity. Psychopharmacology, 146, pp 348-361. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FPL00005481.

Farnham, A. (2015). The Bright and Dark Side Correlates of Creativity: Demographic, Ability, Personality Traits and Personality Disorders Associated with Divergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 27:1, 39-45. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library.

Fischbacher, U., & Follmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Lies in Disguise—An Experimental Study on Cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association. Vol. 11(3). 524-547.

Galant, A. J. R. (2010). The prosocial psychopath: Explaining the paradoxes of the creative personality. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, 34, 1241-1248. Retrieved from Elsevier via Harvard Online Library.

Galang A.J.R., Castello V., Santos III L., Perlas C., Angeles M.A. (2016). Investigating the prosocial psychopath model of the creative personality: Evidence from traits and psychophysiology. Personalist and Individual Differences. Vol. 100. 28-36.

Gillespie, S.M., Rotshtein, P., Beech, A., and Mitchell, I.J. (2017). Boldness psychopathic traits predict reduced gaze toward fearful eyes in men with a history of violence. Biological Psychology. Vol. 128. 29-38.

Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The Dark Side of Creativity: Original Thinkers Can Be More Dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 445-459. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library.

Gough, H. G. (1979). Gough Personality Scale: A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Indiana University Website. Retrieved from

Hassall, J., Boduszek, D., & Dhingra, K. (2015). Psychopathic traits of business and psychology students and their relationship to academic success. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 227-231. Retrieved from Elsevier via Harvard Online Library.

Hilbig, B.E., & Zettler, I. (2015). When the cat’s away, some mice will play: A basic trait account of dishonest behavior. Journal of Research for Personality. Vol. 57. 72-88. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library.

Hoenika J, Ponce G, Jime-Nez Arriero M, Ampuero I, RodriGuez-Jimenez R, Rubio G, Aragues M, Ramos J, Palomo T. (2007). Association in alcoholic patients between Psychopathic Traits and the additive effect of allelic forms of theCNR1andFAAH endocannabinoid genes, and the 3′ Region of theDRD2 Gene. Neurotoxicity Research, 11, pp 51-59.

Holmes, W.E., Sliwkowski, M.X., Akita, R.W., Henzel, W.J., Lee, J., Park, J.W., Yansura, D., Ahadi, N., Baab, H., Lewis, G.D. (1992). Identification of heregulin, a specific activator of p185erbB2. Science. 256 (5020). 1205-10 Iyican S, Sommer, J. M., Kini, S., & Babcock, J.C. (2015). Collateral Report of Psychopathy: Jamison K.R. (1989). Mood disorders and patterns of creativity in British writers and artists. Psychiatry, 52, 125-34.

Jasmin K, Casasanto D (2012) The QWERTY Effect: How typing shapes the meanings of words. Psychon Bull Rev 19: 499–504.

Jauk E, Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). The Road to Creative Achievement: A Latent Variable Model of Ability and Personality Predictor. The European Journal of Personality, 28, 95-105.

Lejuez CW, Read JP, Kahler CW, Richards JB, Ramsey SE, Stuart GL, Strong DR, Brown RA. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. Vol. 8. No. 2. 75-84.

Leveson, M., Kiehl, K., & Fitzpatrick, C. (1995). Assessing Psychopathic Attributes in a non- institutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Li, D., Collier, D. & He, L. (2006). Meta-analysis shows strong positive association of the neuregulin 1 ( NRG1 ) gene with schizophrenia. Human Molecular Genetics. Vol.15(12). 1995- 2002.

Ludwig, A. (1994). Mental Illness and Creative Activity in Female Writers. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 1650-1656. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library.

Matthews, G., Deary, I.J., & Whiteman, M.C. (2009). Personality Traits. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/87786/frontmatter/9780521887786_frontmatter.pdf.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

Newton W. 2016. Is This Goya Painting A Political Cartoon? Blog Of The Courier. Retrieved from: https://blogofthecourtier.com/2016/09/15/is-this-goya-painting-a-political-cartoon.

Ohikuare, J. (2014). Life as a Nonviolent Psychopath. Interview with James Fallon. The Atlantic Website. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/life-as-a- nonviolent-psychopath/282271/.

Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic concep- tualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, p.926. Retrieved from : http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492.

Patrick, C. J., Kramer, M. D., Vaidyanathan, U., Benning, S. D., Hicks, B. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2019). Formulation of a measurement model for the boldness construct of psychopathy. Psychological Assessment, 31(5), 643–659. Paulhus., D.L., & Williams, K.M. (2002). The of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality. Vol. 36. 556-563. Retrieved from https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~dpaulhus/research/DARK_TRIAD/ARTICLES/JRP %20Paulhus%20&%20Williams.2002.pdf.

Ponto, J. (2015). Understanding and Evaluating Survey Research. Journal of Advanced Practitioner in Oncology. 6(2). 168-171.

Preti, M. & Miotto, P. (1997). Creativity, Evolution and Mental Illnesses. Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission. Vol. 11. Retrieved from http://cogprints.org/ 2009/1/preti_a&miotto_p.html.

Shane, S., & Nicolau, N. (2015). Creative personality, opportunity recognition and the tendency to start business: A study of their genetic predispositions. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 407-419. Retrieved from Elsevier via Harvard Online Library.

Shaughnessy, M. Carson, S. (2014). An Interview with Shelley Carson: Creativity and It’s Relatives. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 24(1), 29-35. Retrieved from Harvard Online Library.

Silvia, P.J., Wigert, B., Palmon, R.R., & Kaufman, J. (2012). Assessing Creativity With Self- Report Scales: A Review and Empirical Evaluation. University of Nebraska Omaha Psychology Faculty Publications. Retrieved from digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1055&context=psychfacpub.

Snowden R., Smith C, Gray N. (2017). Risk Taking and the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. Vol. 39. No. 10. 988-1001.

Tonnaer, F., Uzieblo, K., and Cima, M. (2013). Screening for Psychopathy: Validation of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form with Reference Scores. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. Vol. 35. 153-161. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235351671_Screening_for_Psychopathy_Validation_o f_the_Psychopathic_Personality_Inventory-Short_Form_with_Reference_Scores.

Tyagi V, Hanoch Y, Hall SD, Runco M, Denham S. (2017). The Risky Side of Creativity: Domain Specific Risk Taking in Creative Individuals. Frontiers in Psychology. Vol. 8. 145.

Ulrich, S., Harrington, D., & Coid, J. (2007). Psychopathic personality traits and life-success. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1162-1171. Retrieved from Elsevier via Harvard Online Library. Wassenberg, P., Kammerle, M., Unterreiner, H., & Fink, A. (2016). The Relation Between Different Facets of Creativity and the Dark Side of Personality. Creativity and Research Journal, 28:1, 60-66.

White, T.L., Lejuez, C.W., and Wit, H.D. (2008). Test-Retest Characteristics of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 16(6). 565-570.

Zampetakis, L.A. (2011). Unfolding the Measurement of the Creative Personality. Journal of Creative Behavior. Vol. 44(2). 105-123. Retrieved from https://hollis.harvard.edu/primo-explore/ fulldisplay?docid=TN_crossref10.1002/j.2162- 6057.2010.tb01328.x&context=PC&vid=HVD2&search_scope=everything&tab=everything&la ng=en_US.