BIPOLAR DISORDER and CREATIVE POTENTIAL the Manic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BIPOLAR DISORDER AND CREATIVE POTENTIAL 1 The Manic Idea Creator? A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Bipolar Disorder and Creative Cognitive Potential Karin Kazcykowski1, Boris Forthmann2, Mathias Benedek3, and Heinz Holling1 1Institute of Psychology, University of Münster 2Institute of Psychology in Education, University of Münster 3Institute of Psychology, University of Graz Author Note Boris Forthmann https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9755-7304 Mathias Benedek https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6258-4476 Heinz Holling https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0311-3970 We would like to thank Celeste Brennecka for proofreading of an earlier version of this work. We have no known conflict of interest to disclose. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Boris Forthmann, Institute of Psychology in Education, University of Münster, Fliednerstrasse 21, 48149 Münster, Germany. Email: [email protected] BIPOLAR DISORDER AND CREATIVE POTENTIAL Abstract Even though a relationship between psychopathology and creativity has been postulated since the time of ancient Greece, systematic meta-analyses on this topic are still scarce. Thus, the meta-analysis described here can be considered the first to date that specifically focuses on the relationship between creative potential, as measured by divergent thinking, and bipolar disorder, as opposed to psychopathology in general. An extensive literature search of 4,670 screened hits identified 13 suitable studies, including a total of 42 effect sizes and 1,857 participants. The random-effects-model showed an overall significant, positive, yet diminutively small effect (d = 0.11, 95% CI: [0.002, 0.209], p = .045) between divergent thinking and bipolar disorder. A handful of moderators were examined, which revealed a significant moderating effect for bipolar status, as either euthymic, subclinical, manic, or depressed. We discuss further results, especially regarding the differences between subclinical and clinical samples. Keywords: bipolar disorder, creativity, divergent thinking, meta-analysis BIPOLAR DISORDER AND CREATIVE POTENTIAL The Manic Idea Creator? A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Bipolar Disorder and Creative Cognitive Potential Since the time of the ancient Greece philosophers, the idea of the mad genius has insinuated a connection between psychopathology and creativity; for most laypeople, this image still exists today (Kaufman, Bromley, & Cole, 2007). This putative association between psychopathology and creativity has also been the subject of empirical psychological research. However, most studies on this topic have examined the link between creativity and psychopathology in general rather than focusing on the link between creativity and a specific disorder (Silvia & Kimbrel, 2010). Furthermore, studies have not conceptualized creativity in a homogeneous way, as most have focused on creative achievement, but others on creative professions, or creative personality, and only few measured creativity with established assessments of creative cognitive potential (Thys, Sabbe, & De Hert, 2014). Studies that have focused on the specific link between bipolar disorder and creative potential, so far, revealed inconsistent findings: While some studies found a positive relation between bipolar disorder and creative potential (e.g. Santosa et al., 2007; Simeonova, Chang, Strong, & Ketter, 2005), some found no relation between the two constructs (e.g. Siegel & Bugg, 2016; Von Stumm, Chung, & Furnham, 2011), and other studies even indicated a negative relationship between bipolar disorder and creative potential (e.g. Alici, Özgüven, Kale, Yenihayat, & Baskak, 2019). To clarify the relationship between bipolar disorder and creative potential, this meta-analysis considered all relevant data and took relevant moderators into account that might explain these contradicting results. Creativity, Creative Potential, and Divergent Thinking Since creativity is multi-layered and complex concept, definitions of creativity usually focus on specific aspects of the construct. In the Standard Definition of Creativity, Runco and Jaeger (2012) noted that finding a standard definition of creativity is not easy, partly due to BIPOLAR DISORDER AND CREATIVE POTENTIAL historical changes of the term. Interestingly, one of the most extensive and precise definitions of creativity was given as far back as 1956 by Drevdahl, who summarized creativity as the following: “Creativity is the capacity of persons to produce compositions, products, or ideas of any sort which are essentially new or novel, and previously unknown to the producer.” (Drevdahl, 1956, p. 22). As an extension of this definition, Sternberg (2012) suggested in his investment theory of creativity that creativity is not only a capacity but in fact a habit that leads creative people to routinely approach problems in a novel way. It has further been proposed to divide creativity into different domains or facets, such as the hierarchical six-P framework by Runco (2007), extending the 4-P model by Rhodes (1961), who fundamentally differentiated between creative performance (further comprising product, persuasion, and interaction between person and environment) and creative potential (further comprising person, process, and press). Creative performance is what laypeople generally understand as creativity: a creative profession, creative achievement, even reaching the level of a creative genius, as exemplified by famous creative individuals such as Vincent van Gogh, Robert Schumann, Ernest Hemmingway, or Virginia Woolf. Additionally, creative performance can further be separated into different areas of performance, such as artistic creativity in fields of art, music, and literature, or scientific creativity in scientific fields (Feist, 1998). However, because not all creative people have (yet) reached the point of actually behaving or performing creatively, one must also take into account the potential to have creative ideas. Creative potential does not involve actual creative execution but rather examines a person’s potential to produce new and original ideas that may (but does not have to) lead to creative performance (Runco, 2007). More contemporary approaches that are in line with separating creative performance and potential distinguish between Big-C, Pro-C, little-c and mini-c creativity (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009): while Big-C creativity is seen as creativity on BIPOLAR DISORDER AND CREATIVE POTENTIAL a groundbreaking level that is able to change a field, Pro-C creativity refers to skilled creative actions that make a contribution to a field without making a revolutionary change, little-c creativity describes everyday creativity in laypeople, and mini-c creativity refers to someone’s first creative spark, such as using creative learning processes in experiences, events, and actions. These four levels of creativity are directly connected, in that mini-c creativity may lead to little-c creativity, which in turn may lead to Pro-C creativity, which might eventually result in Big-C creativity (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007). Creative potential can be seen on a par with little-c, everyday creativity; this is also the most important domain for investigating creativity in the general population, as opposed to studying selective creative samples, which occurs when sampling from creative fields or even from the small pool of famous creative people. Since this meta-analysis aimed to study everyday creativity, the main variable of interest were assessments of creative potential. The most commonly used way to measure creative potential is through divergent thinking (DT; Runco & Acar, 2012) tasks, which are open-ended tasks that require participants to generate ideas. DT performance can be scored for different aspects such as fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration (Guilford, 1950, 1957; Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971). Fluency can be understood as the number of different ideas or solutions generated to address a specific problem; flexibility relates to the number of different conceptual categories from which ideas were generated; originality can be defined as remoteness, novelty, and inventiveness of ideas; and elaboration describes the detailedness of produced ideas (Guilford, 1950, 1957; Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971). These facets of DT are not independent but are intertwined, since generating a greater number of ideas, reflecting greater fluency, enhances the likelihood of generating more unique ideas, thus reflecting more originality (e.g. Plucker, Qian, & Wang, 2011). Moreover, the relationship between facets depends on how scores are aggregated across responses: Summative scorings, which add scores across all BIPOLAR DISORDER AND CREATIVE POTENTIAL responses, result in huge correlations between fluency and other facets (i.e., fluency confound; Hocevar, 1979; Dumas & Dunbar, 2014; Forthmann, Szardenings, & Holling, 2020), whereas discriminant validity of facets can be maintained when scorings are independent of fluency. This can be achieved by dividing the number of original ideas by the total number of ideas (i.e., average scoring; Runco & Mraz, 1992; Yamamoto, 1964), or by scoring subsets of ideas rather than scoring every idea individually as in the snapshot scoring (Silvia et al., 2009) or top scoring (Benedek, Mühlmann, Jauk, & Neubauer, 2013; Silvia et al., 2008). Common examples of DT tasks include the Alternate Uses Test (AUT; Guilford, 1967), and the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT;