Further Evidence that Creativity and Innovation are Inhibited by Conservative Thinking: Analyses of the 2016 Presidential Election

REFERENCES

• Ambrose, D. (2006). Large-scale contextual influences on creativity: Evolving academic disciplines and global value systems. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 75–85. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1801_9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2012). How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Avarim, A., & Milgram, R. (1977). Dogmatism, locus of control, and creativity in children educated in the Soviet Union, the United States, and Israel. Psychological Reports, 40, 27–34. doi:10.2466/pr0.1977.40.1.27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feist, G. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Florida, R. (2014). The rise of the creative class–revisited: Revised and expanded. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Helson, R. (1999). A longitudinal study of creative personality in women. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 89–101. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1202_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helson, R., Roberts, B., & Agronick, G. (1995). Enduringness and change in creative personality and prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1173–1183. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertz, M. (1999). Invention. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Prentky (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 2, pp. 95–102). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huber, J. C. (1998). Invention and inventivity is a random, poisson process: A potential guide to analysis of general creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 231–241. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1103_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 51–65. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285–294. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_06
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, S. J. H. (2009). Political conservatism, authoritarianism, and societal threat: Voting for Republican representatives in U.S. congressional elections from 1946 to 1992. Journal of Psychology, 143, 341–358. doi:10.3200/JRLP.143.4.341-358
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, S. J. H. (2011). Conservatism, openness, and creativity: Patents granted to residents of American states. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 339–345. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.621831
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N. (1992). The topography of invention. In R. Weber, & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Inventive minds: Creativity in technology (pp. 238–250). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rubenson, D. L., & Runco, M. A. (1995). The psychoeconomic view of creative work in groups and organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 4, 232–241. doi:10.1111/caim.1995.4.issue-4
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (2001). Creativity as optimal human functioning. In M. Bloom (Ed.), Promoting creativity across the lifespan (pp. 17–44). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (2012). Parsimonious creativity and dogma. In D. Ambrose, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking (pp. 136–144). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice (rev ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., Acar, S., Campbell, W. K., Jaeger, G., McCain, J., & Gentile, B. (2016). Comparisons of the creative class and regional creativity with perceptions of community support and community barriers. Business Creativity and the Creative Economy, 2, 83–92.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1983). Formal education, eminence, and dogmatism: The curvilinear relationship. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17, 149–162. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1983.tb00348.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1990). Political pathology and societal creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 85–99. doi:10.1080/10400419009534339
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2003). Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations: Strategies and results. In P. B. Paulus, & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 304–328). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. patent office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97–106. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.676974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and applied multilevel analysis (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, J. H., & Hicks, J. M. (1966). Construction and validation of a Thurstone scale of liberalism-conservatism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 9–12. doi:10.1037/h0022811
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar