Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 14-17

AENSI Journals Advances in Environmental Biology

Journal home page: http://www.aensiweb.com/aeb.html

The Relationship between Personality Traits and Creativity in Coaches

1 2 N. Jahansa and R. Nickbakhsh

1MA, Physical Education- Sport Management, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Islamic Azad University – South Tehran Branch, Iran. 2Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Islamic Azad University – South Tehran Branch, Iran.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: This article was aimed to investigate the relationship between personality traits and Received 22 October 2013 creativity in coaches, 308 coaches with 31/81 mean age were selected through random Received in revised form 14 sampling. NEO- Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and Abedi January 2014 creativity questionnaire were used. The Pearson regression analysis indicated that Accepted 20 January 2014 creativity had positive relationship with Extraversion, Openness to experience, Available online 1 March 2014 Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and negative relationship with Neuroticism. Also, Neuroticism, Openness to experience and Conscientiousness were the predictor of Key words: creativity. The results also indicate that women have high Neuroticism than men and Personality Traits, there were no differences between creativity. Creativity, Coaches.

© 2014 AENSI Publisher All rights reserved. To Cite This Article: N. Jahansa and R. Nickbakhsh., The Relationship Between Personality Traits and Creativity in Coaches Adel Mirzaei. Adv. Environ. Biol., 8(1), 14-17, 2014

INTRODUCTION

Creativity is a structure with important individual differences. Lack of studies in this area may be related to the problems of defining and measuring variables of creativity [1]. There is more operational and conceptual definition of creativity. However, the ability to extract ideas and past experiences and incorporate them into innovative and effective methods as a key feature of creativity was accepted) [2, 3, 4]. Most of creativity researchers have believes that creativity in peoples will depend on a number of components) [1, 5, 6]. However, all of them consider the role of individual differences in creativity [7]. Psychologists, who have studied creativity for the first time, focused on personality and recognition of it and then generalized their findings to the social and cultural aspects [8]. In personality studies Five Factor Model of personality (FFM) widely used. The model consists of five personality dimensions: extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness [9]. Most of researchers [10, 11, 12] believe that these five dimensions represent the major dimensions of personality diversity. Five Factor Model of personality (FFM) Had a major impact on theory and research on personality [13], psychology [14], National cross- cultural [15, 16], organizational behavior [17]. Five Factor Model of personality (FFM) is one of the most common ways to observe information that can be used in creativity and personality relationship. Hypothesis the relationship of the overall score, with some creativity and personality variables is difficult, because studies have shown mixed results about it. Batey [18] indicate four different variables of creativity: Divergent Thinking (DT) fluency, Rated DT, Creative Achievement and Self-Rated creativity and a combined Total Creativity variable that overall creativity had positive significant relationship with openness to experience. Yann-Jy Yang [19] find positive significant relationship between creativity with Extraversion and Agreeableness and negative relationship with Neuroticism. However, some researchers Hoseinifar [20], Kaufman [21] indicate positive significant relationship between creativity with Extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness and negative relationship with neuroticism. Every coach has a different personality and because new knowledge is easily available for all coaches, having creativity and innovation in using knowledge and pedagogical methods is most important factor.

Corresponding Author: N. Jahansa, MA, Physical Education- Sport Mnagment, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Islamic Azad University – South Tehran Branch, Iran E-mail: [email protected] 15 N. Jahansa and R. Nickbakhsh, 2014 Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 14-17

Given the inconsistency in the result of the relationships between personality traits and creativity, it seems that the differences in population (student, employees), method and instrument could be possible reason. Present study tries to investigate the relationship between personality traits and creativity among sport coaches and then determine which components could predict creativity among them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The statistical population of this research is consisted of All coaches working in the city of Tehran municipality must have a minimum of level 3 coaching card. From this group, a study sample was selected by randomly sampling method, including 308 subjects (254 women and 54 men) with a mean age of 81/31 years (range 57-20) and coaching 31/6 years. For the purpose of measuring creativity and five factors of personality, subjects were asked to fill in Abedi creativity test and NEO-Five Factor Inventory Costa & McCrae. This survey is a kind of correlation study. The NEO personality inventory and Abedi creativity test were administered on 630 students. Coaches were fully briefed as to how to answer the questions; they were also given enough time for finishing the test. The data survey was analyzed by the methods of descriptive statistics, statistics test of Pearson's correlation coefficient, T-independent and multiple regression analysis.

NEO-Five Factor Inventory Costa & McCrae: Personality was assessed with Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness [9]. Participants were required to indicate, on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree), whether the statement was true of them. In this research, Cronbach's Alpha showed the values of 0.72 for Neuroticism, 0.70 for Extraversion, 0.70 for Openness, 0.71 for Agreeableness and 0.80 for Conscientiousness. The internal consistency was 0.73.

Abedi creativity test: Abedi [22] Creativity Test is a self-rating instrument comprised of 60 items. ACT is divided into four subscales: fluency (22 items), flexibility (11 items), originality (16 items), and elaboration (11 items). Each item has three options ranging from least to most creative response. This inventory is widely used and has adequate validity and reliability. Estimates of internal consistency for ACT which were obtained using Cronbach's alpha; ranged from 0.71 to 0.86. In this research, Cronbach's Alpha showed the values of 0.75 for fluency, 0.70 for flexibility, 0.79 for originality and 0.75 for elaboration.

Results: To investigate the relationship between personality traits and creativity Pearson correlation were used. The results were indicated in table 1.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations for personality and creativity. M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Neuroticism 18.79 6.96 1 2. Extraversion 32.33 5.60 -0.50** 1 3. Openness 25.86 4.44 -0.04 0.11 1 4. Agreeableness 33.25 6.03 -0.48** 0.45** -0.01 1 5. Conscientiousness 37.00 6.26 -0.44** 0.47** 0.04 0.44** 1 6. Fluency 27.74 6.18 -0.47** 0.30** 0.22** 0.20** 0.35** 1 7. Elaboration 11.43 3.63 -0.40** 0.23** 0.06 0.27** 0.31** 0.49** 1 8. Originality 19.43 5.25 -0.38** 0.29** 0.16** 0.25** 0.27** 0.62** 0.70** 1 9. Flexibility 14.36 3.87 -0.35** 0.29** 0.23** 0.20** 0.30** 0.53** 0.41** 0.59** 1 10. Total Creativity 72.97 15.64 -0.49** 0.34** 0.21** 0.28** 0.38** 0.85** 0.77** 0.89** 0.75** 1 **. P<0.01

The results of table 1 show that there was significant relationship between creativity components and personality components except openness to experience. Also, there was positive significant relationship between total score of creativity with Extraversion (r=0.34, p<0.05), openness to experience (r=0.21, p<0.01), Agreeableness (r=0.28, p<0.01), Conscientiousness (r=0.38, p<0.01) and negative significant relationship with Neuroticism (r=0.49, p<0.01).

Table 2: Regressions of the personality and creativity. R R2 Adjusted R2 F (df) personality B Beta t Sig. Creativity 0.56 0.31 0.30 *27.44 (5,302) Constant 51.82 5.52 0.00 Neuroticism -0.82 -0.38 -6.48 0.00 Extraversion 0.13 0.05 0.83 0.47 Openness 0.65 0.18 3.85 0.00 Agreeableness -0.01 0.06 -0.10 0.91 Conscientiousness 0.44 0.17 3.11 0.00 *.P<0/05 16 N. Jahansa and R. Nickbakhsh, 2014 Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 14-17

Given that the multiple correlation coefficient 0.56 and the coefficient of determination obtained 0.30, F=27.44, df= (5, 302) from Table 2, with the knowing the component of personality traits 30% of the score changes will predicting creativity. Based on standardized regression coefficients (path coefficient analysis) it observed that among the components of personality traits, respectively Neuroticism (β =-0.38), but also the most important adverse effects, have first rank, Openness (β =0.18) second rank and Conscientiousness (β =0.17) is ranked third. The regression line equation is as follows. Creativity score = 51.82-(0.86 * Neuroticism) + (0.65 * Openness) + (0.44 * Conscientiousness)

Table 3: Independent Samples Test personality. T df Sig. gender M SD Neuroticism 2.18 306 0.03 female 19.19 6.87 male 16.92 7.20 ـــــــــ ـــــــــ Extraversion -0.37 306 0.71 female male ـــــــــ ـــــــــ Openness 0.10 306 0.32 female male ـــــــــ ـــــــــ Agreeableness 1.27 306 0.21 female male ـــــــــ ـــــــــ Conscientiousness -0.42 306 0.67 female male P<0/05

After checking the normality of the data and according to the results of Table 3, Parametric t-test for two independent groups, it observed that there is significant difference between male and female coaches is Neuroticism (p=0.03, df=306, t=2.18) and Neuroticism in women is more than men.

Table 4: Independent Samples Test creativity. T df Sig. gender M SD ـــــــــ ـــــــــ Creativity 0.15 306 -1.43 female male P<0/05

After checking the normality of the data and according to the results of Table 4, Parametric t-test for two independent groups, it observed that there is not significant difference between male and female coaches creative (p=0.15, df=306, t=-1.43).

Discussion: The results of this study showed the positive and significant relationship between extraversion with creativity. It was consistent with the results of Jaimes [21], Hosseinifar [20], Yann-Jy [19] and inconsistent with the results of Baty [18]. The main reason of positive relationship between extraversion and creativity is that individuals with high extraversion are satisfied with other people, easily tolerates others and they are flexible that these characteristics are part of creativity process [23]. Other results of this study show the positive and significant relationship between openness to experience with creativity. It was consistent with the results of Jaimes [21], Hosseinifar [20], Baty [18] and inconsistent with the results of Yann-Jy [19]. Openness to experience means that people tend to have new experiences and perceptions that they can be susceptible to change. Therefore, based on this could expect that tend to have new experiences increase the capacity of creativity [24]. Other results of this study show the positive and significant relationship between Agreeableness with creativity. It was consistent with the results of Jaimes [21], Hosseinifar [20], Yann-Jy [19] and inconsistent with the results of Baty [18]. Agreeableness is largly related to others because it is associated with behaviors such as compassion, cooperation. Individuals with high agreeableness seek to find ways to solving problems and acceptance and cooperation in society. Creativity is a way that person use it to reaching the goals, and used his/her capacity in this field. Also, results of this study show the positive and significant relationship between Conscientiousness with creativity. It was consistent with the results of Jaimes [21], Hosseinifar [20], and inconsistent with the results of Baty [18] and Yann-Jy [19]. Conscientiousness is one of the creative person's characteristics [25]. Creative person's have high motivation and are hard working and spend more time to their works and creative planes. Individuals with high Conscientiousness have internal commitment to doing works. Other results of this study show the negative and significant relationship between Neuroticism with creativity. It was consistent with the results of Jaimes [21], Hosseinifar [20], Yann-Jy [19] and inconsistent with the results of Baty [18]. Neuroticism is included psychological maladjusted and experiencing more anxiety. Neuroticism decrease enjoyment of recluse and it is the main factor of creativity [26]. It seems that differences in instrument and population could be reasons of inconsistent results. 17 N. Jahansa and R. Nickbakhsh, 2014 Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 14-17

REFERENCES

[1] Batey, M., A. Furnham, 2006. Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 132: 355-429. [2] Barron, F.X., 1955. The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 51: 478- 485. [3] Mumford, M.D., 2003. Taking stock in taking stock. Creativity Research Journal, 15: 147-151. [4] Mumford, M.D., 2003. Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15: 107-120. [5] Guilford, J.P., 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist, 5: 444-454. [6] Runco, M.A., 2004. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55: 657-687. [7] Batey, M., 2007. A psychometric investigation of everyday creativity. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of London. [8] Maslow, A.H., 1987. Motivation and Personality, 3rd edition. HarperCollins Publishers, 1954. [9] Costa & McCrae, 1992. Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. [10] Goldberg, L.R., 1993. The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits. American Psychologist, 78(1): 26- 34. [11] Taylor, A. and D.A. MacDonald, 1999. Religion and the Five Factor Model of Personality: An Exploratory Investigation Using a Canadian University Sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27: 1243-1259. [12] Zhang, L.F. and J. Hung, 2001. Thinking Styles and the Five-Factor Model of Personality. European Journal of Personality, 15: 465-476. [13] Srivastava, S., P.J. Oliver, D. Samuel and G.J. Potter, 2003. Development of Personality in Early and Middle Adulthood: Set Like Plaster or Persistent Change?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5): 1041-1053. [14] George, J.M. and J. Zhou, 2001. When Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness Are Related to Creative Behavior: An Interactional Approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 513-524. [15] Furnham, A., K.V. Petrides, I. Tsaousis, K. Pappas and D. Garrod, 2005. A Cross-cultural Investigation into the Relationships between Personality Traits and Work Values. Journal of Psychology, 139(1): 5-32. [16] Shadel, W.G. and R. Niaura, 2002. Does the Five Factor Model of Personality Apply to Smokers? A Preliminary Investigation. Journal of Applied Bio behavioral Research, 5(2): 114-120. [17] Taggar, S., 2002. Individual Creativity and Group Ability to Utilize Individual Creative Resources: A Multilevel Model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 315-330. [18] Mark Batey, Adrian Furnham, Xeniya Safiullina, 2010. Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as predictors of creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 20: 532-535. [19] Yann-Jy Yang, Chih-Chien Wang, 2010. Creativity among R&D Professional: Supervisory Support and Personality Traits. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 18(1): 229-248. [20] Jafar Hoseinifar, Mir Mohammad Siedkalanb, Seyyed Rasoul Zirak, Masoomeh Nowrozi, Ali Shaker, Elmira Meamar, Esmaeil Ghaderi, 2011. An investigation of the relation between creativity and five factors of personality in students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30: 2037-2041. [21] James C. Kaufman, Tessy T. Pumaccahua, Ryan E. Holt, 2013. Personality and creativity in realistic, investigative, artistic, social, and enterprising college majors. Personality and Individual Differences, 54: 913-917. [22] Auzmendi, E., A. Villa, J. Abedi, 1996. Reliability and validity of a newly-constructed multiple-choice creativity instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1): 89-95. [23] Kelly, K.E., 2006. Relationship between the five factor model of personality and the scale of creative attributes and behavior: A validational Study. Individual Differences Research, 4: 299-305. [24] Langer, Hatem, Joss, Howell, 1989. Conditional teaching and mindful learning: The role of uncertainty in education. Creativity Research Journal, 2: 139-159. [25] Feist, G.J., 1998. A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4): 290-309. [26] Heilman, K.M., 2005. Creativity and the brain. New York: Psychology Press.