Toward a personality integration perspective on creativity: between- and within-persons associations among autonomy, vitality, and everyday creativity

ABSTRACT

Rooted in self-determination theory and guided by its organismic theorizing on personality integration, the present research examined the association between autonomy and everyday creativity at the levels of individual differences in personality and daily fluctuations in motivation, and whether vitality explains this association. In Studies 1a (N = 203) and 1b (N = 68), participants completed measures of trait autonomy, trait vitality, and everyday creativity via self-ratings and responses to a behavior checklist, respectively. In Study 2 (N = 152), undergraduates completed daily measures of autonomous motivation, state vitality, ‘little-c’ creativity (self-reported and independently rated), and ‘mini-c’ creativity. Results of Studies 1a and 1b revealed indirect effects (between-persons) of autonomy on everyday creativity through vitality. Results of Study 2 revealed indirect effects (within-persons) of autonomous motivation on ‘little-c’ creativity and ‘mini-c’ creativity through state vitality. This complementary set of findings offers a more refined perspective on personality integration and the development of creativity in daily life.

KEYWORDS:

• Autonomy
• creativity
• self-determination theory
• vitality

Acknowledgements

We greatly thank Mr. Wen Jiang for his generous sharing of experience in mutilevel modeling and Miss Niwen Huang for her helpful suggestions on designing dairy studies.

Disclosure statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

1. Here, the term trait was used in reference to individual differences in general levels of autonomous functioning, and this terminology is not to be used interchangeably with research on ‘trait profiles’ that was discussed in the previous paragraph, as they represent different conceptualizations of individual differences.

2. Although Beghetto and Kaufman (2007) nearly equated ‘little-c’ creativity with everyday creativity, the concept of everyday creativity was expanded to include ‘mini-c’ creativity, ‘little-c’ creativity, and ‘pro-c’ creativity as their theorizing progressed. Indeed, as Kaufman and Beghetto (2009, p. 6) stated, ‘It is important to note that little-c, in our model, is no longer purely synonymous with “everyday creativity.” The idea of everyday creativity can extend from mini-c to little-c throughout Pro-c. It is only Big-C that remains “eminent creativity,” although some Pro-c individuals may certainly also be eminent.’

3. It is important to note that although ‘mini-c’ creativity is ubiquitous in daily life and thus extends beyond the university setting, academic learning primarily involves the acquisition of new knowledge, interpretation, and understanding, which affords an important opportunity for the examination of ‘mini-c’ creativity.

4. These participants provided data for Study 1b, too.

5. Participants were instructed to complete either the ‘task questionnaire’ or the ‘reading questionnaire’ on a daily basis, and thus it is reasonable to combine these data in order to calculate an average response rate.

Additional information

Funding

The authors disclosed the receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article: Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the MOE Project of Key Research Institutes of Humanities and Social Science at Universities [16JJD880007].