Advertisement

Behavior Genetics

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 365–377 | Cite as

Creative abilities in identical and fraternal twins

  • Marvin Reznikoff
  • George Domino
  • Carolyn Bridges
  • Merton Honeyman
Article

Abstract

The present research set out to investigate the possibility of a genetic component in creative ability The pool of subjects for this study consisted of 117 pairs of twins, 13–19 years of age, divided into 28 pairs of identical males, 19 pairs of fraternal males, 35 pairs of identical females, and 35 pairs of fraternal females. A battery of ten creativity tests, including five developed by Guilford, and one measure of verbal intelligence were administered to each subject. The majority of intraclass correlations for both the monozygotic and dizygotic twins on the 11 measures attained statistical significance, with the correlations tending to be somewhat higher in the identical twin groups. When the intrapair variances of the identical and fraternal twins were contrasted directly on the various tests, there were few statistically significant results. Intercorrelations between the 11 tests compared two at a time revealed higher correlations in the monozygotic group, indicating a somewhat more consistent performance from test to test. The overall results, however, failed to provide convincing evidence of a genetic component in creativity.

Keywords

Intraclass Correlation Convincing Evidence Genetic Component Identical Twin Fraternal Twin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anastasi, A., and Schaefer, C. E. (1969). Biographical correlates of artistic and literary creativity in adolescent girls.J. Appl. Psychol. 53: 267–263.Google Scholar
  2. Anastasi, A., and Schaefer, C. E. (1971). The Franck Drawing Completion Test as a measure of creativity.J. Genet. Psychol. 119: 3–12.Google Scholar
  3. Barron, F. (1965). The psychology of creativity. InNew Directions in Psychology II, Holt, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Barron, F. (1969),Creative Person and Creative Process, Holt, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, R., and Guilford, J. P. (1963)Plot Titles, Manual, Sheridan Supply Co., Beverly Hills, Calif.Google Scholar
  6. Borgatta, E., and Corsini, R. (1964).Quick Word Test Manual, Harcourt, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Cederlof, R., Friberg, L., Jonsson, E., and Kaij, L. (1961). Studies on similarity diagnoses in twins with the aid of miiled questionnaires.Acta Genet. 11: 338–362.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, P. F., and Guilford, J. P. (1959).Manual for the Christensen-Guilford Fluency Tests, Sheridan Supply Co. Beverly Hills, Calif.Google Scholar
  9. Domino, G. (1969). Maternal personality correlates of son's creativity.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 33: 180–183.Google Scholar
  10. Gershon, A., and Guilford, J. P. (1963).Manual for Possible Jobs, Sheridan Supply Co., Beverly Hills, Calif.Google Scholar
  11. Jablon, S., Neel, J. V., Gershowitz, H., and Atkinson, G. F. (1967). The NAS0NRC twin panel: Methods of construction of the panel, zygosity diagnosis and proposed use.Am. J. Hum. Genet. 19: 133–161.Google Scholar
  12. Ladner, J. (1971). Enhancement of productive thinking in institutionalized mental retardates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University.Google Scholar
  13. Maltzman, I. (1960). On the training of originality.Psychol. Rev.,67: 229–242.Google Scholar
  14. McReynolds, P., and Acker, M. (1968)The Obscure Figures Test: Manual for Administration, Behavioral Research Laboratory, Veterans Administration Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.Google Scholar
  15. Mednick, S., and Mednick, M. T. (1967).Examiner's Manual: Remote Associates Test, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
  16. Olive, H. (1972). Sibling resemblances on divergent thinking.,J. Genet. Psychol. 120: 155–162.Google Scholar
  17. Parnes, S., and Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of brainstorming instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects.J. Educ. Psychol. 50: 171–176.Google Scholar
  18. Scarr, S. (1968). Environmental bias in twin studies. In Vandenberg, S. G. (ed.),Progress in Human Behavior Genetics, Johns Hopkins Press, p. 205–213.Google Scholar
  19. Schaefer, C. (1969a).Preliminary Manual—Originality Scale FDCT, author, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Schaefer, C. (1969b).Similes Manual, Center for Urban Education New York.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, J. T. (1965). A comparison of socioenvironmental factors in monozygotic and dizygotic twins, testing an assumption. In Vandenberg, S. G. (ed.),Methods and Goals in Human Behavior Genetics, Academic Press, New York, p. 45–61.Google Scholar
  22. Taylor, D., Berry, P., and Block, C. (1957). Does Group Participation When Using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking? Technical Report No. 1, Yale University, Department of Psychology, Office of Naval Research.Google Scholar
  23. Vandenberg, S. G. (ed.) (1968).Progress in Human Behavior Genetics. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  24. Welsh, G. S. (1959).Welsh Figure Preference Test, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif.Google Scholar
  25. Wilson, R. C., Christensen, P. R., Merrifield, P. R., and Guilford, J. P. (1960).Alternate Uses Manual, Sheridan Supply Co., Beverly. Hills, Calif.Google Scholar
  26. World Health Organization (1966). The use of twins in epidemiological studies. Report of the WHO meeting of investigators on metholology of twin studies.Acta Genet. Med. Gemellol. 15: 109–128.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marvin Reznikoff
    • 1
  • George Domino
    • 1
  • Carolyn Bridges
    • 1
  • Merton Honeyman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFordham UniversityBronx
  2. 2.State Department of HealthConnecticut

Personalised recommendations