University of Iowa

Iowa Research Online

Theses and Dissertations

2014

The relationship between creative potential and

self-regulation among high achieving young adults
with the moderating effects of parenting styles
Nanseol Heo
University of Iowa

Copyright 2014 Nanseol Heo

This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4643
Recommended Citation
Heo, Nanseol. "The relationship between creative potential and self-regulation among high achieving young adults with the
moderating effects of parenting styles." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2014.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4643.

Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd

Part of the Student Counseling and Personnel Services Commons

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CREATIVE POTENTIAL AND SELFREGULATION AMONG HIGH ACHIEVING YOUNG ADULTS WITH THE
MODERATING EFFECTS OF PARENTING STYLES

by
Nanseol Heo

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Rehabilitation and Counselor Education (Counselor Education and Supervision)
in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa

May 2014
Thesis Supervisors: Professor Nicholas Colangelo
Associate Professor Susannah M. Wood

Copyright by
NANSEOL HEO
2014
All Rights Reserved

Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

_______________________

PH.D. THESIS
_______________

This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of

Nanseol Heo

has been approved by the Examining Committee

for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Rehabilitation and Counselor Education (Counselor Education and
Supervision) at the May 2014 graduation.

Thesis Committee:

___________________________________
Nicholas Colangelo, Thesis Supervisor
___________________________________
Susannah Wood, Thesis Supervisor
___________________________________
Susan Assouline
___________________________________
David Duys
___________________________________
Malik Henfield

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I would like to acknowledge my academic advisor and co-chair of my
dissertation committee, Dr. Nicholas Colangelo. When I cited his work in my masters
thesis, I never dreamed of becoming his last advisee. His work led me to move from
Seoul to Iowa, and I would like to say that it is truly an honor to work with him. I have
learned how to be a good leader and scholar from him. In addition, I would like to
express my deep appreciation for Dr. Susannah Wood, my co-chair. I have greatly
valued her willingness to give her time so generously. From the moment that I struggled
with entangled ideas to this moment that I prepare for my final defense, her insights help
me in many ways. I also tremendously appreciate Dr. Woods suggestions for me to
apply for invaluable professional opportunities.
I would also like to thank Dr. Susan Assouline for her advice regarding my
research. I am deeply grateful for her consistent and generous support during my time
working as a research assistant in the Belin-Blank center. In the future, I would like to be
as great a mentor to my advisees as she has been for me. I want to also extend my
grateful appreciation to Dr. David Duys for his statistical and methodological guidance
on my dissertation. His warm and insightful support often helped me regain faith in
myself. Advice given by Dr. Malik Henfield has been also a great help in the brain
storming stage of my dissertation. His true respect for students has been a great
inspiration and benchmark to me.
Also, to my husband, Daesung, as we went through this journey together with our
love, I believe we can overcome any obstacle that lies before us together.

ii

To my parents, I know how you have been concerned for your eldest daughter who
decided to choose the studying job. Thank you for respecting my choice and being
proud of me. To my mother and father-in-laws, I have felt that you care about me just
like your own daughter. I am a lucky person to have such great parents-in-laws. I am
looking forward to celebrating holidays together as a family. To my younger sister,
Nanyoung, I appreciate how, living near them, you care for our mother and father. To my
younger brother, Hyungjoon, I have strong faith in your potential. Your big sister will be
near you to back up your choice.
To my best colleagues, Jee Hyang and Hongryun. You have been my family in
Iowa. I am grateful for countless moments that we shared together to discuss personal
matters, as well as professional work. There is no way I would have gone through this
process without you. I look forward to seeing each other grow as great counselor
educators in the field. I also would like to express my appreciation to my kind cohorts,
Berhan, Cassie, George, Lisa and Mashone. I also extend my thanks to my Iowa Korean
friends, Ayoung, Hanyi, Hyungjin, Hyewon, Jayoung, Jin-ah, Seohong, Kyegon, Uijin,
and Yujin. I will keep all the wonderful memories that we shared together.
To the Belin-Blank administrators and staff, Dr. Croft, Dr. Marron, Dr. Baldus,
Pam, Jan, Emily, Josh, Brian, Rachelle, Lori, Mellissa, Bridget, and Nancy, I wish to
thank all of them for providing a welcoming work environment. I will be a member of the
Belin-Blank family in my mind, even after graduation. My very special thanks goes to
Claudia. As a writing consultant and friend, she has provided me the best support.
I thank God for the love and wisdom that He bestows upon me. As He teaches, I
will do my best in my life to do things justly, walking humbly and loving my neighbors.

iii

ABSTRACT
Previous literature has suggested that creative students often have difficulties adapting to
academic and social contexts, even if they are intellectually gifted (Goertzel & Goertzel,
1960; Kim, 2008). Creative individuals difficulties in social adaptation can be
explained better by introducing the concept of self-regulation, since self-regulation has
been found to be a strong predictor of ones academic success, school engagement, and
peer social acceptance (Duckworth& Seligman, 2005). Thus, the purpose of this study
was to investigate the relationship between creative potential and self-regulation among
gifted young adults. In addition, this study aims to examine the moderating effects of
parenting styles on that relationship.
Participants in this study were311high achieving students who participated in the
Honors Program at the Midwestern University. Their creative potential was assessed by
theRunco Ideation Behavior Scale (Runco, Plucker, & Lim, 2001). Results showed that
there was no relationship between creative potential and short-term self-regulation.
However, creative potential was positively related to the long-term self-regulation of
gifted young adults after controlling the effect of gender and semester in the
college/university, although it was a small correlation (partial r=.132, p<.05). Additional
regression analysis showed that the negative effect of the perceived neglected parenting
style was larger than the positive effects of creative potential and semester on long-term
self-regulation, while overall model accounted for 6.1 % of the variance in long-term
self-regulation. Lastly, perceived neglected parenting styles had a significant moderating
effect on the relationship between creative potential and long-term self-regulation. The
relationship between creative potential and long-term self-regulation was significant

iv

among the participants who perceived a neglected parenting style, but not for participants
who perceived an authoritative parenting style. However, overall long-term selfregulation scores were higher in the authoritative parenting style group that the neglected
parenting style group regardless of the creative potential level.
Findings from this study refute the position that gifted individuals creative
potential may relate negatively to their self-regulation capacities. Findings also suggest
that authoritative parenting can nurture childrens long-term self-regulation without
hindering creative potential development.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
Socio-Emotional Needs of Creative Individuals ..............................................3
Statement of Problem .......................................................................................6
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................10
Research Questions .........................................................................................10
Definitions of terms ........................................................................................11
Gifted undergraduate students .................................................................11
Honors Program.......................................................................................12
Creative Potential ....................................................................................13
Self-regulation .........................................................................................13
Parenting styles ........................................................................................14
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................15
Creativity ........................................................................................................15
Definition of creativity ............................................................................15
Assessment of creativity ..........................................................................19
Creativity and giftedness .........................................................................28
Parenting styles ...............................................................................................33
Definition of parenting styles ..................................................................33
Parenting styles and Creative potential ...................................................35
Self-regulation ................................................................................................38
Definition of self-regulation ....................................................................38
Self-regulation of Gifted and Creative Individuals .................................41
Honors Program ..............................................................................................43
Summary .........................................................................................................45
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................46
Participants .....................................................................................................46
Procedure ........................................................................................................50
Measures .........................................................................................................51
Demographic Information Survey ...........................................................51
Creative potential.....................................................................................51
Self-regulation .........................................................................................53
Parenting Styles .......................................................................................54
Design and Data Analysis ...............................................................................56
Preliminary data analysis .........................................................................56
Main study analysis .................................................................................56
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS .................................................................................................58
Reliability of the Measures .............................................................................58
Preliminary Analysis ......................................................................................59
Descriptive Analysis .......................................................................................61
vi

Correlations among the continuous variables..........................................62

Mean differences of the main study variables by gender ........................64
Mean differences of the main study variables among four parenting
style groups ..............................................................................................66
Main Analysis .................................................................................................68
Preceding procedures...............................................................................68
Regression diagnostic analysis ................................................................69
Analyses for the Research Question 1 .....................................................70
Analyses for the Research Question 2 .....................................................72
Summary .........................................................................................................78
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................81
Review of the Study........................................................................................81
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................82
Findings from the descriptive analysis ....................................................82
Findings from the main analysis for Research question 1. ......................85
Findings from the main analysis for Research question 2 .......................87
Implications for Counselors ............................................................................90
Implications for Counselor Educators ............................................................93
Implications for Parents ..................................................................................94
Future Research Suggestions ..........................................................................96
Limitations ......................................................................................................98
Conclusion ......................................................................................................99
APPENDIX A. RESEARCH INVITATION E-MAIL...................................................101
APPENDIX B. CONSENT LETTER .............................................................................103
APPENDIX C. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY .................................................................106
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................112

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.Selective List of Creativity Measures .............................................................................20
2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants .................................................................49
3. Comparisons of Mean Differences on Parental Warmth and Parental Behavioral
Control Measures Between the Current Sample and the Scale Developers
Study .........................................................................................................................60
4. Descriptive Statistics of the Main Study Variables .......................................................62
5. Correlations among the Continuous Variables ..............................................................63
6. Mean Differences of the Main Study Variables by Gender ...........................................65
7. Uni-variate Test for the Mean Differences of the Main Study Variables among
Four Parenting Style Groups.....................................................................................66
8. Post-Hoc Tests of the Main Study Variables among Four Parenting Style Groups ......67
9. Dummy Coding for the Parenting Style Variable ..........................................................69
10. Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Research Question 1-(b) ..................................72
11. Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Research Question 2-(B) ..................................75

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.

Parenting Style Categorization In This Study ..........................................................61

2.

Separate Regression Lines For the Authoritative VS. Neglected Parenting

Style Group ..............................................................................................................79

ix

1
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION
Historically, creativity has been regarded as a critical aspect of human talent,
allowing people to solve everyday problems at the individual level as well as improving
society through new research, invention, or artistic works (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).
Therefore, most theories regarding giftedness or human talent embrace creativity as a
core component (Kaufman, Plucker, & Russell, 2012). For example, Renzulli (1971)
included creativity as one factor of his three-ring conception of giftedness, in addition to
above average ability and task commitment. In addition, the federal governments
definition of giftedness, initially developed in the Marland Report to the Congress (1971),
identified students who gave evidence of creative capacity as gifted students. Thus, the
gifted and talented population has included students who have demonstrated creative
performance in various fields. Creativity has also been considered an important factor to
understand intellectually gifted students (Piirto, 1995).
Creativity implies multiple dimensions. Rhode (1961) provided the conceptual
dimensions to understand creativity (often referred to as the 4Ps of creativity product,
process, press and person). Creative products represent novel and useful outcomes that
include ideas, solutions, and concrete objects. Creative processes are related to cognitive
processes involved in generating creative products. Creative press refers to the
environment or contexts in which the creative product is made through the creative
process. Lastly, the person aspect of creativity includes various attributes such as
personality or motivational characteristics of creative people. In addition, Runco (2010)
described the distinction between the terms, creativity and creative potential. Creativity is

2
often used to describe the achieved creative performance in specific domains, and
judgments about creative performance are determined in the social contexts. In this vein,
strictly speaking, creativity as products can only be referred to as creativity (Runco,
2010). On the other hand, creative potential refers to a broad set of variables that engage
in generating creative products (Piffer, 2012).
Once gifted students with creative potential are identified, it is important for
educators and counselors to nurture their creative potential so that they can yield creative
products in specific domains. Gagn (1985), who defines giftedness as potential to future
talents, regards creative potential as one of the human giftedness clusters, along with
intellectual, social, perceptual, and physical giftedness. In his theory of the Differential
Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), Gagn (2004) emphasized Talent Development
as a lifelong developmental process of transforming outstanding natural potential into
systemically developed talents. While a gifted students creative potential develops into
creative talent, they are also influenced by various intrapersonal and environmental
factors (Gagn, 2004). Gagn suggested that the development of creative potential is
influenced by significant people such as family members, educators, mentors and
counselors, in addition to the effects of the educational interventions and social contexts.
In other words, if gifted students do not experience enough psychological support, their
creative potential remains undeveloped (Gagn, 2004). Such a failure in gifted students
creative talent development may bring about not only personal difficulties, but also
societal loss of potential contributors who might significantly improve society. In this
sense, professionals who work with gifted and creative students need to be aware of their
unique developmental needs.

3
In this sense, counselors who work with highly creative individuals should
understand how high levels of creative potential are related to personality or behavioral
patterns. When highly creative students are referred to college counselors or private
practitioners, a counselor has a professional duty to understand the social-emotional
needs of creative individuals. Without understanding such needs, counselors can neither
help clients develop better management strategies in academic domains, nor understand
their social relationship to others. Marriage and family counselors can also meet with
families of highly creative students. In order to increase family members level of
awareness of the family dynamics, counselors need to ascertain how parents responded to
the students intense emotions and intellectual passions related to their creative potential.
Lastly, school counselors who work in elementary, junior high and high schools
can play a vital role in assisting highly creative students. In addition to the individual
counseling services, school counselors can advocate for such highly creative students by
consulting teachers who may struggle in working with such students. Chapter 1 of this
dissertation will present a brief overview of the socio-emotional needs of creative
individuals. Next, for further understanding of the socio-emotional needs of creative
individuals among educators and counselors, the necessity of examining the relationships
among creative potential, self-regulation and parenting styles will be explained. Lastly,
the purpose and research questions of this study will be presented.
Socio-Emotional Needs of Creative Individuals
The unique developmental needs of creative students encompass socio-emotional
needs. For example, Dabrowski (1964), a Polish psychiatrist and psychologist who
studied highly creative artists and gifted people during World War II, noted that their

4
socio-emotional development is largely affected by constitutional endowment. He
suggested the concept of developmental potential to explain the inherited differences of
psychological features of gifted population (Mendalgio, 2008). Dabrowski argued that
gifted individuals may experience more inner conflicts in their lives as they have greater
developmental potential. However, such inner conflicts may lead them to reach higher
stages in his personality development model (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009).
In particular, Dabrowski (1964) noted that intensity of human perception is a
critical part of constitutional differences of gifted individuals, and suggested the concept
of over-excitabilities. Over-excitabilities refer to the heightened responses of the central
nerve system to internal and external stimuli (Mendalgio, 2008). Dabrowski
distinguished five types of over-excitabilities psychomotor, sensual, intellectual,
imaginational, and emotional. Specifically, imaginational over-excitability is
characterized by the free play of the imagination, spontaneous imagery as an expression
of emotional tension, and a low tolerance for boredom (Probst & Piechowski, 2012).
Gallagher (1985) found that this imaginational over-excitability was highly correlated
with the creative potential of gifted students. The notion of over-excitability implies that
highly creative individuals may think and behave differently due to their neurological and
psychological differences; thus, they may deal with unique difficulties in academia and in
their social relationships (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009; Probst & Piechowski, 2012).
Indeed Subotnik and Oleszewski-Kubilius (1997) noted that creative minds find it
difficult to succeed in school due to the mismatch of a rigid environment and creative
students behavioral patterns. For example, Toth and Baker (1990) found that creative
adolescents experience more difficulties in completing academic tasks within the time

5
limitations of a traditional classroom. Atkinson (2000) also argued that teachers tend to
plan their classes involving less creative activities, since they do not think creative
activities are important, or they are concerned about devoting more time on evaluating
students creative potential. Therefore, students may perceive that their creative thinking
is unappreciated by teachers.
Teachers negative stereotypes or evaluations of creative students have been well
documented through empirical studies. For example, Gner and Oral (1993) found that
educators tend to perceive creative students as being non-conformist, behaviorally
distracted, and hindered from fulfilling their academic obligations. Westby and Dawson
(1995) also found that highly creative students can suffer from disadvantages in schools
because of their teachers perceptions about their behavioral patterns. In their
experimental research (Westby &Dawson, 1995), college students evaluated the creative
potential of students based on the checklist developed by the researchers. Then, they
asked elementary school teachers to list their favorite and least favorite students, and
teachers judgments were negatively correlated with the creative checklist scores.
In the gifted education field, common perceptions of educators and counselors
regarding creative students are well illustrated in the profiles of the gifted and talented
individuals that Betts and Neihart (1988; 2010) provide. They present the theoretical
constructs of gifted and talented students profiles which show differentiated emotional
and behavioral patterns based on their observations, interviews and literature reviews.
These profiles were revised from the initial version (Betts & Neihart, 1988) and included
the creative (p.1, Betts & Neihart, 2010) among six subtypes of gifted and talented
students. They described creative students as having wider interests, strong motivation to

6
follow inner conviction, and high tolerance for ambiguity. At the same time, highly
creative students are acting on their impulses, challenging teachers, questioning rules,
engaging in power struggles and may have poor self-control (Betts & Neihart, 2010).
Davis (2003) also described creative and gifted people are less mindful about their
careless mistakes, feel more boredom in class and behave unpredictably, while they seek
original ideas rather than details and need new information. In brief, scholars have
considered that a creative individuals personality or behavioral pattern can be harnessed
into their creative potential that is beneficial for themselves; however, their personality
and behavioral pattern may be related to their difficulties in adapting to academic and
social contexts.
Indeed, past research has described that creative students can have more
difficulties in adapting to academic and social contexts compared to their peers (Amabile,
1989; Betts & Neihart, 2010). For example, in early research, Goertzel and Goertzel
(1962) reported that 60% percent of 400 eminently creative individuals had serious
difficulties in school adaptation. In addition, Whitmore (1980) observed gifted
underachievers and found that they tend to have a high level of creative potential. More
recently, Kim and VanTassel-Baska (2010) found that scores on multiple creative
potential measures largely correlated to behavioral problems examined by teachers
among underachieving students. Along this line, Kim (2008) argued that creative students
may experience more underachievement and drop out of school, even if they are highly
intelligent.
Statement of Problem
Understanding creative students' difficulties in adapting to social and academic

7
contexts is a critical issue in serving the gifted and talented population. However, the
literature in the counseling and gifted education fields has devoted limited attention to
understanding the underlying mechanisms of creative students' difficulties. In this sense,
creative students difficulties in adapting to social and academic contexts might be
explained better by introducing the concept of self-regulation. As noted above, oin
previous literature in the gifted education and counseling fields, creative students were
often depicted as having poor self-control (Betts & Neihart, 2010; p.1) and behav[ing]
unpredictable (Davis, 2003, p.313). Moreover, previous research has suggested the
association of creative potential to some personality traits, such as high impulsivity and
low conscientiousness, both of which have been reported as related to self-regulation
(Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006; Rothbart & Bates, 1998).
Self-regulation has been defined as the modulation of thought, affect, behavior,
or attention via deliberate or automated use of specific mechanisms and supportive metaskills (Karoly, 1993, p.25). Both temperamental controls in immediate contexts (i.e.,
short-term self-regulation) and goal-oriented efforts over a longer period of time
contribute to self-regulation (i.e. long-term self-regulation) (Demetriou, 2000; Moilanen,
2007). Self-regulation has been found to predict higher academic achievement, school
engagement, peer social acceptance, and risk aversion (Baumeister,Gailliot, DeWall, &
Oaten, 2006; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Furthermore, Duckworth and Seligman
(2005) found that the effect of self-regulation exceeds the effect of intelligence on
academic achievement. Therefore, examining the relationship between creative potential
and self-regulation among intellectually gifted individuals may expand our understanding
of creative individuals difficulties in adapting to social and academic contexts.

8
To date, although creative individuals self-regulation difficulties were often
discussed among practitioners, empirical studies have rarely examined the relationship
between creative potential and self-regulation. One recent empirical study did not find a
significant correlation between dispositional self-control and creative potential (Chang,
Huang, & Choi, 2012). However, the dispositional self-control measure used in this
study (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004) assessed the self-regulation as a trait
without a distinction between short-term and long-term self-regulation (Chang, Huang, &
Choi, 2012). Because this line of research examining the relationships between creative
potential and self-regulation variables has been limited, more empirical efforts are needed
for further exploration.
Admittedly, care should be taken when discussing creative students behavioral
patterns. On the one hand, misinterpreting the relationship between creative potential and
self-regulation can reinforce negative stereotypes that may damage the potential of
creative students. On the other hand, if issues that creative students may need to cope
with are ignored, educators would fail to nurture their creative potential. In this sense, it
is important to find relationship patterns between creative potential and self-regulation.
Thus, identifying the moderating variables that impact the relationship between creative
potential and self-regulation can be helpful.
Barron and Kenny (1986) described that a moderator can partition a focal
independent variable into subgroups that establish its domains of maximal effectiveness
in regard to a given dependent variable (p.1173). In other words, moderating variables
may increase or decrease the strength of the relationship or even change the direction of
the relationship depending on the level of the moderators. Thus, identifying the

9
moderating variables that impact the relationship between creative potential and selfregulation may provide a more sophisticated understanding and better rationale for
intervention for creative students.
It is logical to assume that some environmental factors such as parental influence
can promote or hinder the development of both creativity and self-regulation. In spite of a
handful of studies examining the influence of the parents on creative talent development,
it is possible to draw the hypothesis that parenting style may alter the relationship
between creative potential and self-regulation. For example, Miller and Gerald (1979),
who conducted a review about parental influence on the development of creativity,
described that the parent-creative child relationships are marked by independence and
freedom rather than emotional closeness between parents and children. Along similar
lines, Gardner and Moran (1990) found that undergraduate students who scored high in
the creative thinking style questionnaire reported more flexible and chaotic family
environments rather than structured or rigid ones. Meanwhile, family cohesion was not
related to creative potential of the participants in their study. They discussed that lower
levels of stress in a family is significant in developing creative potential.
More recently, Miller, Lambert and Neumeister (2012) found that the permissive
parenting style, defined as a less balanced style, were more chosen by highly creative
undergraduate students who participated in university honors programs, rather than the
authoritative parenting style, defined as a most balanced style. Lim and Smith (2008)
also reported that parenting styles that reflected higher levels of acceptance were more
related to higher levels of creative personality scores that teachers evaluated. These
studies imply that acceptance and freedom in parenting may be more important than

10
parental control in nurturing creative potential. Meanwhile, previous studies have
indicated that an authoritative parenting style and structure in family environment play an
important role in nurturing the self-regulation of children (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Strage
& Brandt, 1999). In this sense, it is possibly assumed that less balanced parenting styles
may contribute to the increase of creative potential, but fail to nurture self-regulation.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between creative
potential and self-regulation among gifted undergraduate students, and the moderating
effects of parenting styles in that relationship. It is assumed that the relationships between
creative potential and self-regulation will change its direction or strength of the
association depending on the moderating effects of perceived parenting styles. Finally,
this study assumes that the relationship between creative potential and self-regulation,
and the effects of the moderators in that relationship are varied depending on the types of
self-regulation (i.e., short-term and long term). Examining the relationship between
creative potential and self-regulation, and the moderating effects of perceived parenting
styles, may extend the scope of previous literature, which has rarely explored the
underlying mechanisms of creative students' difficulties in social adaptation. Findings
from this study can be used to inform counselors who work with creative individuals in
various settings.
Research Questions
The specific research questions of this investigation are as follows:
1. What is the relationship between creative potential and self-regulation among
gifted undergraduate students?

11
a. What is the relationship between creative potential and short-term selfregulation among gifted undergraduate students?
b. What is the relationship between creative potential and long-term selfregulation between creative potential and long-term self-regulation among
gifted undergraduate students?
2. Do the effects of gifted undergraduate students creative potential on their
self-regulation vary as a function of their perceived parenting styles?
a. How does perceived parenting style moderate the relationship between
creative potential and short-term self-regulation among gifted
undergraduate students?
b. How does perceived parenting style moderate the relationship between
creative potential and long-term self-regulation among gifted
undergraduate students?
Definitions of terms
Gifted undergraduate students
According to the position paper of National Association of Gifted Children
(NAGC, 2010), gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of
aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence
(documented performance or achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains.
Domains include any structured area of activity with its own symbol system (e.g.,
mathematics, music, language) and/or set of sensori-motor skills (e.g., painting, dance,
sports) (NAGC, p.1). A gifted undergraduate student, in this study, refers to an
undergraduate student who participates in undergraduate honors programs at four-year

12
universities. Honors program participants have been regarded as gifted undergraduate
students in previous studies (e.g., Herbert & McBee, 2007; Miller, Lambert, &
Neumeister, 2012; Neumeister, 2004). In particulars, honors program participants for
this study are qualified as eligible participants based on their high school GPA over 3.8
with ACT composite score of 27 or higher, or their high school GPA over 3.7 with ACT
composite scores of 30 or higher. According to the ACT report (2013) for the test-takers
during 2012-2013, the national rank for a composite score of 27 and 30 were 87 (top 13%)
and 95 (top 5%) respectively.
Honors Program
In terms of the identification, gifted undergraduate students are defined as current
participants of undergraduate honors programs at four-year universities. According to the
National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC, 2013), Honors program or honors college
are overarching terms indicating educational systems incorporated with colleges or
universities that provide academic enrichment for highly achieving undergraduate
students. Although most colleges and universities use the term, Honors program, some
public four-year universities employ the new term, Honors College with more benefits
for residential opportunities or grants (Derby, 2003; Sederberg, 2003). Basically, honors
programs offer qualitatively different educational experiences in order to meet the needs
of highly achieving undergraduate students through closer contact with faculty, small
courses, adjusted teaching styles, seminars, research projects, internships, foreign study
or homogenous grouping with other gifted college students (NCHC, 2013).

13
Creative Potential
The concept of creativity needs to be distinguished from the concept of creative
potential (Piffer, 2012). Creative potential refers to a broad set of variables that
participate in generating a creative product. Creative cognition and creative personality
are subsets of ones creative potential (p. 259, Piffer, 2012). Operationalized in this
study, creative potential refers to the ideation behaviors as measured by Runco Ideational
Behavior Scale (RIBS, Runco, Plucker, & Lim, 2001). Runco and Chand (1995) viewed
that primary process of creativity consists of three components - problem finding,
ideation, and judgment. In particular, Runco and Chand (1995) insisted that ideation
component can be measured best when it is measured by same behaviors as it arises in
the natural situation. In this study, ideation behaviors refer to the behaviorally expressed
process of idea constructions in everyday life and criterion of the original and divergent
thinking (Runco, Plucker, & Lim, 2000-2001; Plucker, Runco, & Lim, 2006).
Self-regulation
The term, self-regulation, as used in this study, refers to the ability to flexibly
activate, monitor, inhibit, persevere and/or adapt ones behavior, attention, emotions and
cognitive strategies in response to direction from internal cues, environmental stimuli and
feedback from others, in an attempt to attain personally-relevant goals (p.835, Moilanen,
2006). In this study, self-regulation behaviors are defined operationally in terms of the
two constructs, short term and long term self-regulation behaviors. Short term selfregulation behaviors indicate controlled or non-controlled behaviors at the immediate
contexts, while long term self-regulation behaviors denote specific behaviors in order to
achieve long-term goals (Demetriou, 2000; Moilanen, 2006).

14
Parenting styles
Darling and Steinberg (1993) defined parenting styles as a constellation of
attitudes toward the child that are communicated to the child and that, taken together,
create an emotional climate in which the parents behaviors are expressed (p.488). In
this study, the concept of parenting styles is grounded on the work of Baumrind(1967)
and Maccoby and Martin(1983). Baumrind (1967) defined the ideal parenting styles as
authoritative, which is characterized by a high level of psychological support, democratic
communication, and autonomy granting and proper parental control. Additionally,
Baumrind(1967) and Maccoby and Martin(1983) created a four-fold classification of
parenting styles, known as authoritative, authoritarian, permissive and neglected styles.

15
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter II presents a literature review about the main study variables of this
investigation. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between creative
potential and self-regulation among gifted undergraduate students as identified members
of the university honors program. In addition, this study aims to examine the moderating
effects of parenting styles on that relationship. Therefore, in terms of the participants of
this study, this chapter will provide a framework to examine research on creative
individuals and honors program. Regarding the main study variables, this chapter
outlines the major theories and assessments of creativity and self-regulation. Lastly, the
literature regarding the effect of parenting styles on the development of creativity and
self-regulation is also reviewed.
Creativity
Definition of creativity
Although there is a lack of consensus on the constructs or assessments of
creativity, scholars agree that the core aspect of creativity is the human ability to produce
ideas or products that are both novel and useful (Feist, 1998; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).
This simple definition of creativity, requiring two core aspects -novelty and usefulness,
has been widely used from 1990s. However, this definition rooted in earlier researchers
works, such as Hutchinson(1931) who used the word, practicality relating to creativity
and Barron (1955) who defined originality (Runco& Jaeger, 2012). According to this
definition, inappropriate ideas that are novel but not useful, or conventional ideas that are
useful but not novel, are not considered creative, as viewed in historic and cultural
contexts (Piffer, 2012). Additionally, the criterion of creativity is often expanded to

16

include beauty in terms of artistic creativity. In this sense, some scholars prefer the term,
appropriateness instead of usefulness to define creativity (Piffer, 2012).
However, these definitions have limited focus on creativity as products. As
Rhode (1961) noted, the conceptualization of creativity encompasses different aspects of
creativity, including the psychological traits of creative people, the cognitive process
involved in generating a creative idea, and the environment nurturing creativity. In fact,
pioneering researchers in the creativity research field, such as Guilford (1950) and
Torrance (1974), defined creativity as a process from the psychometric view, while
another group of researchers, such as Amabile (1989) and Csikszentmihalyi (1988), noted
the relevance of environment to creativity. In this sense, Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow
(2004) suggested a comprehensive definition of creativity as follows:
Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which
an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and
useful as defined within a social context. (p. 90)

In addition to Rhodes (1961) conceptualization about the different aspects of

creativity, scholars tend to differentiate big-c and little-c creativity regarding the
influence or importance of creative products or persons (Kauffman & Beghetto, 2009;
Simonton, 2004).Research related to big-c in the field has focused on eminent creativity
or the creative geniuses whose works have lasted centuries in their chosen fields
(Simonton, 2004). Big-c has been typically studied by analyses of biographies of
eminent people or by interviewing renowned creators (Kauffman &Beghetto, 2009).
Representative works related to big-c are Galtons Hereditary Genius (1869), Simontons
works on creative genius (1994), and Gardeners Creating Minds which analyzed the
lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi (Gardener,
2011).

17
The other category of creativity research is related to little-c, small-c or everyday
creativity indicating an average persons creative activities each day (Richards, 1990).
Research related to little-c has tended to use samples of college students and/or children,
emphasizing the importance of nurturing creativity in schools, homes, and in the work
places (Kauffman &Beghetto, 2009). Research related to little-c has upheld the idea that
creative potential and intelligence are mutually exclusive (Wallach & Kogan,
1965).These findings refute the Threshold hypothesis that implies that one need to have
intelligence above the certain level in order to present creative problem-solving behaviors
(Guilford & Christensen, 1973). The distinction between Big-c (eminent and timeless
creativity) and little-c (everyday creativity which can be found across all types of people)
(Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009) has altered the traditional perception that creativity is the
preserve of eminently creative persons.
Another important discussion about the concept of creativity is concerned with
the creative process, the cognitive mechanisms of generating creative ideas or products.
As a theoretical approach regarding the creative process, Runco and Chand (1995)
provided the two-tiered theory of creativity. The primary tier represents the operations of
the creative thinking process consisting of three components: (a) problem finding, (b)
ideation and (c) judgment of the created ideas. In practical contexts, these components
are integrated in order to solve problems. Runco and Chand (1995) argued that the
interaction among these components is important, since the creative process shouldbe
regarded as a complex or syndrome (Runco & Nemiro, 1994).The second tier represents
the contributing factors to the creative process, and consists of four components: intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation, and procedural and declarative knowledge. The primary tier

18
components are influenced by the second tier components. For example, Chand and
Runco (1993) found that originality and flexibility in the ideation process can be
enhanced by increasing procedural and declarative knowledge through explicit
instructions. Meanwhile, the second tier components are influenced by the primary tier
components. For example, Runco (1994) found that intrinsic motivation for creative
tasks is influenced by judgments or appraisals of previously generated ideas.
In sum, the definition of creativity has been mostly relevant to the social and
cultural criterions viewing creative products. However, creativity has different aspects as
process, press (i.e. contextual factors) and person. The realm of inquiry for creative
processes mostly belongs to the cognitive psychology field which continues to focus on
the mechanisms underlying creative thinking and the learning process. Meanwhile, the
environmental aspect of creativity is often called organizational creativity and mainly
studied in the education and business fields (e.g., Williams & Yang, 1996).Lastly, the
personalaspect of creativity is strongly related to the publics perception that creative
people have stable tendencies of certain personality and cognitive traits (Piffer, 2012). In
particular, the creative person approach upholds the position that there are individual
differences of cognitive, motivational, and other general dispositional traits related to
creativity. Research from the creative person approach typically assesses creativity with
reference to personal attributes such as personality (Batey & Furnham, 2008).
The distinction between creativity and creative potential can be considered as the
differences between creativity-product and creativity-person approaches. As noted
above, the term Creativity is mainly related to the creativity-product approach, since it is
often used to describe the achieved creative performance in specific domains.

19
Meanwhile, creative potential refers to a broad set of variables that engage in generating
creative products (Piffer, 2012). Assessing creative potential is closely related to the
identification of highly creative individuals. Identification of highly creative potential
students is based on the belief that there are individual differences in abilities of finding
problems, generating ideas, and evaluating ideas as well as personal attributes that have
been commonly found among creative achievers.
Assessment of creativity
As the concept of creativity is multi-dimensional, there is no single method or
technique to measure comprehensive creativity, and the definition and/or constructs of
creativity or creative potential vary in each measure. Therefore, several researchers
suggested frameworks to categorize creativity measures. For example, Batey (2012)
presented a 4x4x3 three-dimension framework to outline creativity assessments,
consisting of three axes; (a) level or subjects (i.e., individual, team, organization, and
culture), (b) facet (i.e., trait, process, press, and product), (c) measurement approach (i.e.,
objective, self-rating, and other-rating). Although Bateys (2012) comprehensive is
beneficial for the synthesis of existing creativity measures, the following review of
creativity assessment in this study is specifically limited its extent, since this study will
assess creativity in order to identify highly creative individuals. As listed in Table 1, the
review of creativity assessments focused on only trait, process or product on the
individual level regarding the level or subjects axis.

20
Table 1.Selective List of Creativity Measures

Constructs
Process

Divergent thinking
(fluency,
flexibility,
originality, and
elaboration)

Convergent
thinking or
creative problemsolving
Idea generation
behaviors
Trait

Proto-typical
personality traits
Cognitiveaffective traits

Product

Quality of creative
products
Creative behaviors
in specific fields

Measures
Guilfords Structure of the
Intellect divergent production
tests (1967)
Torrances (1974;1990) Tests of
Creative Thinking (TTCT)
Profile of Creative Abilities
(Ryser, 2007)
Remote Association Test
(Mednick & Mednick, 1967)
Compound Remote Associates
Task (Bowden & Jung-Beeman ,
2003)
Runco Ideation Behavior Scale
(RIBS; Runco, Plucker, & Lim,
2000-2001)
Adjective Check-list for
Creative Personality Scale
(Gough& Heilbrun, 1983)
The Scales for Rating
Behavioral Characteristics of
Superior Students (Hunsaker &
Callahan, 1995)
Khatena-Torrance Creative
Perception Inventory (Torrance
& Khatena, 1976)
The Group Inventory for
Finding Talents and Interest
(Davis, 1989)
Consensual assessment
technique (Amabile, 1996)
Creative Achievement
Questionnaire (Carson, Peterson,
& Higgins, 2005)

Methodological
Approach
Objective
measures

Objective
measures

Self-report

Self-report

Other(Parents or
Teachers)-rating

Expert-rating
Self-report

Creative process tests

Tests of the creative process assess the underlying cognitive mechanism of
creative thinking. High scores on those tests are often regarded as evidence of greater

21
creative potential (Plucker & Rendzulli, 1999). The most widely used creative process
measures are divergent thinking tests such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
(TTCT, Torrance, 1974, 1990), which have been the backbone of creativity assessment
for decades (Kaufman, Plucker, & Russell, 2012). Considering diversity thinking as
evidence for creative potential originated from Guildfords (1967) Structure of the
Intellect Model (SOI). Guildford (1967) applied the SOI model to divergent thinking and
developed the SOI battery based on 24 distinct components of divergent thinking. Those
components consist of each combination of the content (i.e., Figural, Symbolic, Semantic,
and Behavioral) and the product (i.e., Units, Classes, Relations, Systems, transformations,
and Implications).
Other divergent thinking tests have been developed based on Guildfords SOI
battery, including The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (1974; 1990). In particular,
the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT, Torrance, 1974; 1990) continue to be
used internationally as a measure of creative potential. Given the predominant use of
TTCT tests in studies, Piffer (2012) argued that many researchers inadvertently believe
that TTCT is a comprehensive measurement for the creative process. However, Torrance
(1974) clearly described that other cognitive variables take part in the creative process in
addition to divergent thinking (Davis, 2003). Torrance (1981) validated the TTCT using
twenty year longitudinal studies. Plucker (1999) reanalyzed the study of Torrance (1981)
and indicated that the adolescents TTCT scores predicted their creative achievement
later in adulthood three times more than IQ scores. In most divergent thinking tests,
subjects responded to verbal or figural prompts that are scored on several dimensions,
including fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Those dimensions denoted the

22
number of ideas, the variety of perspectives on ideas presented, statistical infrequency,
and the amount of detail in responses, respectively (Plucker & Rendzulli, 1999). In the
case of the current version of the TTCT (1990), figural tests are scored on two more
criteria: resistance to premature closure (i.e., the degree of psychological openness during
the test), and abstractedness of the titles (i.e., the degree to abstractedness of the titles).
The TTCT verbal battery includes seven subtests and the TTCT-figural battery includes
three subtests, and there are two forms for each of test. Since the figural tests are nonverbal tests, the TTCT-figural tests are known as more culturally fair tests (Davis, 2003).
Another common creative process test is the Remote Associate test (RAT,
Mednick& Mednick, 1967), which assesses the ability to associate mutually distant ideas
and create new combinations. The Remote Associate test tends to be regarded as an
indicator of creative problem-solving ability or convergent thinking. Croplely (2006)
insists that convergent thinking is required for evaluating the usefulness of ideas, while
divergent thinking is engaged in the process of generating novel ideas. He argued that
domain-specific knowledge is particularly important for convergent thinking, and
divergent thinking without convergent thinking may result in rash changes in practical
situations. The RAT is also used to measure creative problem-solving ability. Although
the RAT is commonly used as a creative potential measure, the effects of intelligence and
verbal abilities are known to impact more heavily on the RAT scores, compared to the
divergent thinking test measures (Croplely, 2006).
Additionally, Runco, Plucker and Lim (2000-2001) developed the Runco Ideation
Behavior Scale (RIBS), which can be regarded as a creative process test. They contend
that the reason people use the divergent thinking tests in order to measure creative

23
potential is based on the belief that idea generation is an important process of creative
thinking. Runco and his colleagues (2000-2001) developed the ideation behavior scaled
based on the two-tiered theory of creativity (Runco & Chand, 1995). As noted above,
Runco and Chand (1995) viewed that primary process of creativity consists of three
components - problem finding, ideation, and judgment, and each component can be
measured. Like divergent thinking tests, the RIBS measure the ideation component.
Initially, the RIBS was developed as a criterion measure of the TTCT in order to reduce
the errors when the TTCT are validated through the domain specific creative achievement
tests (Runco, Plucker & Lim, 2000-2001). Runco and his colleagues (2000-2001) viewed
that the measure for the ideation (i.e. TTCT) is better to be validated with another
measure for the ideation. Therefore, they defined the ideation behaviors as the
behaviorally expressed process of idea constructions in everyday life (Runco, Plucker, &
Lim, 2000-2001). While the TTCT evaluate the specific quality of the ideation
component, RIBS assesses the behaviors in the process of idea generation, such the
frequency of generating ideas and the level of immersion in a particular thought.
Regarding the relationship between the TTCT and RIBS, Runco and Richards (1998)
found that the RIBS scores (i.e. ideation behaviors) of children and nonprofessionals
predict the scores of originality and flexibility in the TTCT. A number of other studies
have supported that validity and reliability of the RIBS (Ames & Runco, 2005; Batey,
Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010; Vincent, Decker & Mumford, 2002; Walczyk,
Runco, Tripp & Smith, 2008).

24
Creative trait and creative personality tests
The second major category of creative measures involves the attempts to measure
the common characteristics which have been found among creative achievers. In this
approach, instruments assess certain personality traits or other cognitive-affective traits
that are studied through correlation research with creative achievement or creativity
process measures. Some of those tests measure the cognitive-affective attributes which
contribute to a persons creative success. Such tests include the Khatena-Torrance
Creative Perception Inventory (Khatena& Torrance, 1976), the Creativity sub-scale of the
Group Inventory for Finding Talents and Interest (Davis, 1989) and the Creativity subscale of Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Student (Hunsaker &
Callahan, 1995). Since these tests focus on creativity-relevant attributes, these test are
often used to identify creatively gifted students. For example, Khatena-Torrance
Creative Perception Inventory is comprised of two self-report sub-tests. These sub-tests
are scored on the following attributes: environmental sensitivity, initiative, self-strength,
intellectuality, individuality, artistry, acceptance of authority, self-confidence,
inquisitiveness, awareness of others, and disciplined imagination (Khatena& Torrance,
1976).
Personality tests are also prevalent creativity-trait measures. Creative personality
has been examined via traditional personality measures such as Big-Five personality
measures (Costa &MaCrae, 1992). The Adjective Checklist (ACL) includes a sub-scale
that was specifically developed to measure creative personality. The original ACL items
include 300 adjectives which were derived from the Cattells trait description list and it
consists of thirty seven sub-constructs (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). Scholars expected that

25
they could assess creative personality using the ACL (Gough, 1979). In the study that
validated the use of the ACL, Gough (1979) administered the potential ACL items to
1,701 subjects. Inferred ratings of creativity or direct interviews by psychologists were
conducted for all participants, although measuring methods of creativity (e.g. evaluation
by expert judges, faculty members, psychologists or life history interviewers) were varied.
As a result of correlation analysis between the criterion (e.g. creativity ratings of the
expert judges) and each adjective item, 30 adjectives were found to be most correlated.
The positive items include the adjectives such as capable, clever, confident, egotistical,
and humorous, while the negative items include the adjectives such as affective, cautious,
commonplace, conservative and conventional (Davis, 2003).
Furthermore, psychologists examine the relationship of general psychological
traits with ones creative achievement or creative potential(e.g. Barron & Harrington,
1981; Feist, 1998; Martindale, 2007; VonStumm, Chung,&Furnham, 2011). One of the
psychological traits often referred to in relation to creative potential is impulsivity via the
construct of psychoticism of Eysencks Gigantic Three personality theory (Eysenck,
1993). In Eysencks theory, psychoticism represents the vulnerability to mental illness as
an aspect of normal personality (Eysenck, 1993). Eysenck (2003) suggested that
creative people have loose and wide associative neural networks, which make them think
divergently and discover original ideas easily. He also argued that impulsivity is a
central trait of creativity (Schuldberg, 2000-2001). A group of scholars (Martindale,
2007; Martindale &Dailey, 1996) supported Eyesencks argument and explained that
creative potential, impulsivity, and extraversion are inter-correlated due to a high level of
cortical arousal and insufficient control over various impulses.

26
In a similar vein, previous researchers have examined the relationship between
creative potential and personality traits assessed by common personality tests, such as
Big Five personality test (Costa & MaCrae, 1992) or Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (16PF; Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970). Feist (1998) conducted the metaanalysis of 83 studies that examined the personality of scientific and artistic creative
achievers based on the Big-five personality theory. The Big-Five personality test consists
of five dimensions and each dimension has five sub-dimensions (Costa & MaCrae, 1992):
(a) Extraversion (sociable, assertive, energetic, adventurous, enthusiastic, outgoing), (b)
Agreeableness (trustful, straightforward, altruistic, compliant, sympathetic), (c)
Conscientiousness (competent, organized, careful, achievement striving, deliberate, selfdiscipline), (d) Neuroticism (anxious, hostile, depressive, self-conscious, moody, not selfconfident), and (e) Openness to experience (curious, imaginative, artistic, wide interests,
excitable, unconventional). Feist (1998) found that creative achievers, in general, are
more open to new experiences, less conventional and less conscientious, more selfconfident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive (p.290).
Among these personality traits, the largest effect sizes were connected with lower level of
conscientiousness, and higher levels of openness to experience, self-acceptance, hostility,
and impulsivity.
Furthermore, Batey and Furnahm (2008) conducted extensive reviews of the
association between personality and creative potential measured by divergent thinking
tests. They suggested that divergent thinking test scores have been mostly correlated to
Extraversion and Openness to experience dimensions, while it has been also negatively
correlated to Neuroticism and Agreeableness dimensions (Batey & Furnham, 2008;

27
Furnham, Crump, Batey, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009). In addition, Batey and
colleagues (Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010) examined the relationship
between personality and ideation behaviors. They found that ideation behaviors were
significantly associated with Openness to Experience, and negatively correlated to
Conscientiousness (Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010). Negative correlation
to Conscientiousness mainly came from the strong association of creative ideation
behaviors to the lower deliberation tendency (i.e. less impulsive, Costa & McCrae, 1992),
the sub-construct of Conscientiousness dimension.
Creative achievement tests
Lastly, creative achievement assessments have been emphasized by some scholars
who believe that an analysis of creative products is the best assessment of creativity
(Plucker & Rendzulli, 1999). Creative achievement typically measured via subjectmatter expert ratings of creative products (e.g., Amabile, 1996) or self-report scales of
creative achievement in ones life time (e.g., Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005).
Among the subject-matter expert ratings of creative products, the Consensual Assessment
Technique (CAT) is a combined analysis of creative products by experts in that field
(Amabile, 1996). Five to ten experts independently judge the level of creativity of ones
products, and then one expert evaluates all products using his or her own implication
definition of creativity in that field (Kauffman, Plucker, & Russell, 2012). However, the
use of subject-matter expert ratings for research tends to be criticized because of its
subjective nature (Plucker & Rendzulli, 1999). Another type of creative product measure
is self-report type checklist of ones accumulated creative achievement. Carson et al.
(2005) described that creative products can be measured through the sum of creative

28
products in ones lifetime (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005). They developed the
Creative Achievement Questionnaire, which requires subjects to indicate theextent of
their creative attainments that have been recognized across academic domains.
In this study, ones creative potential will be assessed in order to identify
creatively gifted students. Although it is impossible to measure comprehensive creativity
or creative potential using a single measure, researchers can build a parsimonious model
of creative potential by identifying the critical components of creative potential (Plucker,
Runco, & Lim, 2006). In this sense, previous research has employed one of various
creative tests based on the belief that the measured construct can represent an appropriate
estimate of the creative potential (Plucker et al., 2006). In this study, ones creative
potential will be assessed by the Runco Ideation Behavior Scale (RIBS, Runco, Plucker,
& Lim, 2000-2001). The RIBS was selected based on the following criteria of this study.
First, each scale should be based on the assumption that creative potential is domaingeneral process or trait. Second, it should be possible to administer each scale through an
on-line data collection process. Third, the validity and reliability of the scale should be
supported by several previous studies.
Creativity and giftedness
The inclusion of creativity in defining giftedness has its origin in the studies of
genius, dating back to the 19th century (e.g., Galton, 1869). Simonton (2012) pointed out
that genius or gifted people were identified as achieving eminence in their specific fields,
before superior intelligence or academic performance became a conventional criterion of
intellectual giftedness in 20th century. Still, ones achieved eminence is often recognized
as evidence of superior mental abilities and greater creativity. However, the concepts of

29
superior intelligence and creativity have gradually separated, as the operational concept
of creativity and intelligence being used in psychometric measures dominated the view of
researchers (Gallagher, 2003).
One of the renowned studies about the relationship between intelligence and
creativity was conducted by Wallach and Kogan (1965). They administrated five
measures of creativity and ten measures of intelligence and achievement to 151
elementary students. They found that the scores of creative tests and intelligence test
scores were not correlated with each other. However, Torrances (1975) research
reported that creativity and intelligence are modestly correlated. Indeed, Batey and
Furnham (2008) conducted the review regarding the relationship between intelligence
and creativity. They argued that intelligence and creativity in previous research has been
often poorly defined and evaluated, and the assessment of creativity or creative potential
has heavily relied on the divergent thinking tests. In spite of these limitations, they
concluded that correlations between the intelligence and divergent thinking scores were
found in the range of r = .20.40 in prior studies. Kim (2005) also conducted a similar
meta-analysis and confirmed a modest level of correlations between intelligence and
creativity within the range of r =.10 to .30. Kim (2005) also reported that the
relationship between intelligence and creativity is moderated by age the most and type of
creativity tests secondly.
As noted above, the issue of relationship between creativity and intelligence is
still controversial depending how scholars define either of the concepts. Moreover, some
scholars have challenged the idea that intelligence is a unitary concept and presented
alternative models of multi-faceted intelligence (e.g., Gardener, 1983; Sternberg, 1984).

30
Such approaches suggest that human talents or giftedness should be defined in multiple
domains, exemplified by the federal governments definition of giftedness (Marland,
1972). Along these lines, Renzulli (1986) distinguished between schoolhouse giftedness
and creative-product giftedness. Schoolhouse giftedness refers to the view that
giftedness that can be measured by IQ or academic tests and learned in traditional
classrooms. On the other hand, creative-product giftedness denotes a more liberal and
expanded concept of giftedness. Renzulli (1986) described that creative-product
giftedness includes the aspects of human talents involved in the development of new and
useful material. Creative-product giftedness can be promoted by emphasizing the use
and application of content and thinking skills through practical and inductive problemsolving. Development of creative-product giftedness is different from those of
schoolhouse giftedness, which tends to highlight structured training and deductive
learning (Renzulli, 1986).
Additionally, Miller (2012) reviewed several theoretical models of giftedness that
cite creativity as a primary concept within the definition of giftedness. Renzullis (1986)
Three-Ring Conception presented giftedness as an interaction of three attributes: aboveaverage ability, creativity, and task commitment. In Sternbergs Triarchic Theory of
Intelligence model(1984), giftedness referred to high levels of ability in any type of
intelligence conceptualized as a synthesis of wisdom, intelligence, and creativity (WICS).
Other leading theories of giftedness also have included creativity. For example,
Tannenbaums Star model of giftedness (1986), giftedness refers to the ability to create
ideas or tangible products or to perform artistic, athletic or human services in ways that
are creative (Tannenbaum, 1986). Tannenbaum (1986) explained that giftedness consists

31
of five components: (a) superior general intellect, (b) distinctive special aptitudes, (c)
non- intellectual requisites, (d) environmental support, and (e) chance (Tannenbaum,
2003). Those components develop interactively in an arranged star pattern. In current
research in gifted education, creativity tends to be regarded as a domain of human talents,
which interacts with general intellectual abilities (e.g., Gagn, 2004; Sternberg, 2006).
Hence, many leading theoretical models of giftedness incorporate creativity to define
giftedness across various talent areas (Kauffman, Plucker, & Russel, 2012).
Gagns (1985; 2004) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT)
emphasize talent development as a lifelong developmental process of transforming
giftedness into talents. Gagn conceptualizes giftedness as innate potential for future
talents demonstrated as mastery in chosen fields. He identifies five domains of giftedness
including intellectual, creative, socio-affective, perceptual and physical (i.e. muscular and
motor control). Gagn suggested that creative potential can be expressed through
inventiveness in problem solving, imagination, originality or flexibility in the idea
generation process. In the creative talent development process, creatively gifted students
are influenced by intrapersonal and environmental catalysts. Intrapersonal catalysts are
the characteristics which belong to gifted individuals they consist of relatively stable
physical and mental traits, and more mobile and flexible goal-oriented process or goal
management activities. On the other hand, environmental catalysts include social
influences (as referred to environmental milieus), educational influences, and
psychological influences of significant individuals such as parents, teachers or counselors
on talent development.
Gagns view regarding creativity and giftedness as potential for future talent has

32
commonality with the concept of developmental potential in Dabrowskis theory.
Dabrowskis theory is based on his clinical experience with intellectually and creatively
gifted individuals as well as his analysis of biographies of eminent individuals
(Mendalgio, 2008). In his theory, developmental potential refers to the constellation of a
constitutional endowment that may lead individuals to reach higher levels in his positive
disintegration theory of personality development (Mendalgio, 2008). Dabrowksi argued
that ones personality develops through a two-fold process: (a) disintegration of a
primitive mental structure, which exist for satisfying ones biological needs and
following societal norms mindlessly, and (b) re-integration at a higher level of
personality development. In addition, Dabrowski suggested that that intensity of human
perception plays an important role in personality development. Therefore, he defined
such heightened responses to internal and external stimuli as over-excitabilities, and
believed that over-excitabilities are part of the developmental potential in gifted people
(Daniels & Piechowski, 2009).
Over-excitabilities have been considered as temperamental qualities of action
level, intensity of perception and reaction, and threshold of responsiveness (Daniels &
Piechowski, 2009). Dabrowski categorized over-excitabilities as having five subdomains (i.e., psychomotor intensity, sensory sensitivity, intellectual intensity,
imaginational intensity and emotional sensitivity). He suggested that a gifted individual
has at least one type of over-excitability among the five sub-domains. Dabrowskis
theory has been often cited to explain the counseling needs of gifted individuals, since his
theory has provided a rationale about qualitatively different experiences of gifted and
creative students. In addition, Mika (2005) notes that while over-excitabilities promote

33
ones inner development in some gifted and talented individuals, these inner forces can
lead to behavioral and psychological problems in other gifted and talented individuals.
Along this notion, it is possible to assume that ones inner structure of creatively gifted
individuals may increase the difficulties for some highly creative individuals to regulate
ones self.
Parenting styles
Definition of parenting styles
Parenting styles were initially conceptualized to explain childrens social
adjustment by Baumrind (1967). Baumrind (1991) noted that the key elements of
parental roles are to socialize their children to conform to the demands of family, society
and community, as well as provide stable emotional relationships (Darling & Steinberg,
1993). Baumrind (1991) created two dimensions that determine the emotional climate of
parental behaviors: Demandingness and Responsiveness. Those dimensions were defined
as follows:
Demandingness refers to the claims parents make on the child to become
integrated into the family whole by their maturity demands, supervision,
disciplinary efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys.
Responsiveness refers to actions which intentionally foster individuality, selfregulation and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive and acquiescent to the
childs special needs and demands (Baumrind, 1991; p.748)
Baumrind (1991) described an authoritative parenting style as an ideal parenting
style, and defined it by active parental functions on both demandingness and
responsiveness dimensions. More specifically, authoritative parents have parental
attribute that help children and adolescents develop competences, including responsible
independence, psycho-social maturity, and academic success (Baumrind, 1989; 2013;
Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Such parental attributes include proper autonomy granting,

34
emotional support, high standards, and democratic communication (Darling & Steinberg,
1993). Baumrind (1991) also defined two more types of parenting styles, authoritarian
and permissive parenting style. She noted the difference between parental restrictiveness
and proper parental control, and described authoritarian parents as those parents who
bring their children to submission by parental power (Kerr, Stattin, & zdemir, 2012).
While authoritative parents balance freedom and control, and tend to convince their
children to follow the family rules, authoritarian parents tend to regard their rights to
assert restrictive control as being more important than childrens autonomy based on their
conservative ideology (Baumrind, 1967; 1991). In contrast, permissive parents tend to
regard parental control as an unattractive and counteractive force in childrens
development. On the other hand, authoritative parents believe children need to comply
with parents guides in order to develop self-discipline and moral values (Baumrind,
1967; 1991).
Later, Maccoby and Martin(1983) formed a four-fold classification of parenting
styles, known as Authoritative, Authoritarian, Permissive and Neglected styles, based on
Baumrinds two-dimensions. They added on one more parenting style that was not
referred to in the original Baumrinds work (1967); namely, a neglected style which
refers to lower levels of both demandingness and responsiveness. Maccoby and
Martin(1983) contributed to the generalization of Baumrinds model by constructing a
theoretical frame that can be methodologically defined (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
According to Maccoby and Martin(1983), authoritative parents scored high on both
dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness. Authoritarian parents scored high on

35
demandingness but low on responsiveness, while permissive parents scored high on
responsiveness but low on demandingness.
Parenting styles and Creative potential
In terms of the parental and familial influence on the development of creativity,
literature on this topic has tended to cite the origins of research in the classical article,
Toward a Theory of Creativity of Carl Rogers (1959). In that article, Rogers (1959)
described how the emergence of creativity and curative forces in psychotherapy are both
linked to a human beings self-actualization desires. Thus, he argued that a non-restrictive
and psychologically safe social environment can foster the development of creativity by
letting people feel safe and free to express themselves. More specifically, Rogers (1959)
described that non-restrictive and psychologically safe environment can be instituted by
(1) respecting the individual as having unconditional value, (2) emphasizing internal
locus of evaluation without an external evaluation, and (3) communicating in an empathic
manner (Koestner,Walker, & Fichman, 1999).
Along this notion, scholars have proved that non-evaluative and a less controlling
social environment (e.g., an absence of competition, evaluation and external rewards for
tasks) promote students creative products (Amabile, 1996; Kim, 2007). In the context of
family, researchers reported that parenting practices that support childrens autonomy and
freedom tend to predict higher creative potential in their children (Miller & Gerald, 1979).
For example, Harrington, Block, and Block (1987) conducted a longitudinal study based
on Rogers hypothesis about a creativity-fostering environment. They measured the
parenting styles in participants pre-schooldays and measured creative potential in their

36
adolescence. They found that adolescents who reported warm and non-restrictive
parenting styles tended to have a higher creative potential at ages 11 and 15.
In terms of the Baumrinds typology of parenting styles, previous research
reported that the responsiveness dimension characterized by parental warmth and
autonomy support tends to be more critical to nurture creative development rather than
the demandingness dimension of Baumrinds typology (Miller, Lambert, & Neumeister,
2012). For example, Lim and Smith (2008) found that higher levels of acceptance in
parental practice (i.e., higher scores on the responsiveness dimension) correlated with
teachers reports of childrens creative personality scores among South Korean sixth
graders. In that study, higher demandingness did not correlate to creativity scores.
Miller, Lambert and Neumeister (2012) also found that permissive parenting
characterized by less parental control and more parental warmth and freedom
significantly related to higher scores on the self-report measure of creative potential
among undergraduate students participating in university honors programs.
Additionally, scholars have suggested that autonomy support, less structure (i.e.,
fewer rules to limit childrens behaviors) and lower stress (i.e., less parental monitoring
or parents criticizing attitudes ) in families, in particular, are more relevant to creative
potential rather than emotional closeness in the parents and children relationship
(Gardner & Moran, 1990; Kim, 2007). For example, Siegelman (1973) found that even
mild parental rejection correlated to divergent and independent thinking tendencies and
slightly rebellious attitudes among children. Gardner and Moran (1990) also reported that
more chaotic and flexible family environments rather than structured or rigid ones
positively correlated to the higher scores on the creative thinking style measured by the

37
How Do You Think test (Davis, 1975) among undergraduate students. Family cohesion
was not related to creative potential of the participants in their study. Moreover, Hurlock
(1978) described that children has less creative potential when their parents keep
encouraging their family members to do all things together. These findings can be linked
to the idea that creativity can be incubated when people have spare more time alone
(Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995).
Meanwhile, some scholars posit that a balanced parenting style is more beneficial
to promote creative potential, focusing on various positive parenting qualities
experienced by people who achieved creative success. For example, Csikszentmihlyi
(1996) noted that complexity, a quality of environmental system, is a core characteristic
in the lives of creative individuals who seek both differentiation and integration. In
families seeking differentiation, parents promote their children to develop unique
identities and to work toward individual goals (Gute, Gute, Nakamura,&Csikszentmihlyi,
2008). At the same time, parents of the integrated family provide consistent and stable
emotional support to their children (Gute, Gute, Nakamura,&Csikszentmihlyi, 2008).
Therefore, parents can create complexity in their family system by providing both
support (comprising harmony and help) and stimulation (comprising involvement and
freedom). Such a balanced parenting style can be defined as authoritative parenting
styles in Baumrinds typology of parenting styles.
In sum, prior research suggests that parenting styles have meaningful influence on
creative talent development. Some scholars such as Csikszentmihlyi (1996) suggested
that a balanced parenting style can provide the best environment for creative potential
development. However, previous empirical studies reported that a permissive parenting

38
style and other variables such as freedom, parental warmth and low stress in families are
mostly related to a higher level of creative potential of children (Gardner & Moran, 1990;
Lim &Smith, 2008; Miller, Lambert, & Neumeister, 2012; Siegelman, 1973).
Self-regulation
Definition of self-regulation
Self-regulation has been understood as risk-aversion and delay of gratification in
the struggles between impulse and restraint (Duckworth & Seligman, 2006). Researchers
have found that self-regulation plays a critical role in human functioning related to
various mechanisms, such as emotion, mental illness, aggression, decision-making,
academic management, and social development (Forgas, Bauneister, & Tice, 2009).
Posner and Rothbart (2000) noted that self-regulation is the single most important factor
in understanding human development. Shonkoff and Phillips (2000) also remarked that
self-regulation connects to all aspects of adaptation in academic, social and career
domains, as self-regulation denotes the alteration of ones behaviors and modulation of
ones reactivity to the given environment. In contemporary studies on the concept of
self-regulation, researchers have employed the operational definition of self-regulation
due to its various content emphases of each field (Karoly, 1993). In this study, selfregulation is defined as the ability to flexibly activate, monitor, inhibit, persevere and/or
adapt ones behavior, attention, emotions and cognitive strategies in response to direction
from internal cues, environmental stimuli and feedback from others, in an attempt to
attain personally-relevant goals (p.835, Moilanen, 2006). Molianens definition
encompasses the multi-domains of self-regulation, including attention, emotion, and
behavioral regulation, and that it emphasizes the developmental perspective.

39
Research has demonstrated that the self-regulation process takes place at both the
unconscious and conscious level (Forgas, Bauneister, & Tice, 2009). Obviously, selfregulation has a voluntary, effortful, motivated and conscious component. In terms of the
conscious component of self-regulation, scholars have used the term, self-control more
frequently (Forgas et al., 2009). Recent empirical research reported that resources related
to conscious self-control is that it can be exhausted (Baumeister, Galliot, DeWall, &
Oaten, 2006; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). For example, some people depletetheir
resources of mental energy or strength when they exert control over their responses by
tasks that demands self-regulation (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Therefore, an
excessive exertion of energy on demanding high level of self-regulation or over a long
period of time can cause a temporary state of ego-depletion as demonstrated by various
behavioral patterns, such as lower functioning of difficult reasoning, more impulsive
behaviors, or poor management of self-presentation (Baumeister et al., 2006; Muraven &
Baumeister, 2000). On the other hand, Baumeister et al. (2006) suggested that conscious
or intentional self-regulation can improve over time by regular practice.
Meanwhile, ones self-regulation has an unconscious and automatic component
based on the biological and neurological systems of ones internal state (Forgas,
Bauneister, & Tice, 2009). Although the unconscious and conscious components of selfregulation can be theoretically distinguished, the unconscious or automatic components
constantly contribute to the intentional self-regulation process. In this sense, Gestsdottir
and Lerner (2008) referred to the automatic component as organismic self-regulation
which emphasizes the developmental perspective. Organizational self-regulation
incorporates temperamental features that are mainly independent from the highly

40
conscious goal-oriented behaviors (Gestsdottir&Lerner, 2008). The temperament
variables underlying self-regulation, in particular, are related to the development of
executive functions of the human brain, representing the ability to inhibit a dominant
response (e.g., impulse) in order to perform a sub-dominant response (e.g., tasks) (Posner
& Rothbart , 2000). Developmental psychologists reported that the biological base of
executive functioning develops through infancy and childhood, and is maintained across
situations and over time (Bronson, 2000). In this sense, development of self-regulation
prior to adolescence follows the development of brain and cognition (Demetriou, 2000;
Gestsdottir &Lerner, 2008).
However, as adolescents develop the abilities of formal operational thoughts and
form a basic identity, they can do more sophisticated self-reflections (Demetriou, 2000;
Gestsdottir &Lerner, 2008). Improved ability in self-reflection and in evaluating oneself
and ones context has strongly impact on self-efficacy and self-regulation (Gestsdottir
&Lerner, 2008). As individuals become better able to do better self-monitoring (e.g.,
doing regular self-evaluation about progress), they can better regulate their behaviors
(Forgas, Bauneister, & Tice, 2009). Admittedly, their improved abilities in modifying the
standard or goals(e.g., recognizing implicit norms, or setting a proper goal level), and
more capacity to change (e.g., having stronger will power for change, or having better
meta-cognitive skills to regulate thoughts, emotions or behaviors) also provide the
foundations for the advanced intentional self-regulation in adolescence. Improvement of
intentional self-regulation ability brings about an emergence of long-term self-regulation,
which refers to self-regulation of ones actions and emotions in the immediate context in
order to attain long-term goals (Demetriou, 2000; Molianene, 2006). In sum, a review of

41
the literature has shown that ones self-regulation ability is determined by ones
developmental path; to some extent, however, self-regulation is flexible in that it can be
adjusted by ones intentions.
Self-regulation of Gifted and Creative Individuals
Previous research showed that gifted students tend to have higher levels of selfregulation compared to their age peers (Calero, Garca-Martn, Jimnez, Kazn, &
Araque, 2007; Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Lavire,1993; Dai, Moon, & Feldhusen,
1998). For example, Calero and his colleagues (2007) administered a computerized selfregulation task (Kuhl & Kraska, 1993) to high-IQ and average-ability children aged 6 to
11 years. In their research, high-IQ children showed better self-regulatory abilities on
both tasks with basic conditions (i.e., no distraction) and controlled condition (i.e., with
multiple distractions) compared to average-ability children. Bouffard-Bouchard and
colleagues (Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Lavire, 1993) compared self-regulation
abilities on the concept-formation tasks between gifted and non-gifted students aged 13 to
14 years old. They found that gifted adolescents tend to use cognitive strategies more
consistently, exert greater efforts to solve the tasks and have more specific self-appointed
goals than a comparable group of non-gifted adolescents (Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, &
Lavire,1993). Furthermore, research focusing on gifted populations suggested that
gifted students self-regulation is moderately and positively related to their self-efficacy
and intrinsic motivation (Malpass, O'Neil, & Hocevar, 1999).
On the other hand, to date, there are limited studies that have directly investigated
the self-regulation of creative individuals. Admittedly, researchers who have studied the
neurological base of creativity have consistently suggested that creative potential is

42
related to executive functioning; specifically, to the function of cognitive inhibition
which has critical roles in autonomous self-regulation (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins,
2003; Martindale, 1999). Cognitive or latent inhibition refers to the suppression of
previously experienced stimulus irrelevant from working memory (Harnishfeger & Pope,
1996). Carson, Peterson and Higgins (2003) found that a low level of cognitive
inhibition related to frontal-lobe activation contributed to original thinking, particularly in
combination with high IQ. They found that creative achievers tend to have a
significantly lower cognitive inhibition level than the rest of the sample (i.e., adolescents
with a high IQ and non-creative achievers).In this sense, scholars assumed that creativity
and self-regulation, which are two kinds of human ability relating to executive function
and inhibitory control, may be significantly related (Martindale, 1999).
However, a recent empirical study (Selart, Nordstrm, Kuvaas, &Takemura, 2008)
did not find a significant correlation between self-regulation and creative performance
among undergraduate students. They used the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire
(Ryan& Connell, 1989) and the consensual assessment technique of creativity (Amabile,
1989) in order to assess self-regulation and creative performance respectively. However,
the consensual assessment technique of creativity does not measure creative potential. In
another study, Chang and colleagues (Chang, Huang, & Choi, 2012) also failed to find
the direct correlation between dispositional self-control and divergent thinking scores
measured by TTCT (Torrance, 1990). In the study of Change and colleagues (2012), the
dispositional self-control measure (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004) assessed the
self-regulation as a trait without a distinction between short-term and long-term selfregulation. Although they failed to find the direct relationship, they found that

43
dispositional self-control moderated the relationship between the situational cues and
performance on the divergent thinking tests. They reported that participants with high
self-control tend to be more consistent regardless of unfamiliarity and ambiguity of the
creative performance tasks. Meanwhile, participants with low self-control were more
likely to change their behaviors depending on the demands of the situation. In particular,
participants with low self-control performed more creatively than those with high selfcontrol when the tasks were unfamiliar and autonomy was not given during the task
period with greater ambiguity.
The moderation effect of self-regulation on creative potential implies that there
might be an indirect relationship between creative potential and self-regulation. In this
sense, more empirical efforts are needed to identify possible moderators in the
relationship between creative potential and self-regulation. More specifically, such
moderated relationship should be more carefully examined among gifted students
considering previous research about creative students social mal-adaptation in spite of
their higher intellectual levels (Goertzel& Goertzel, 1960; Kim & VanTassel-Baska, 2010;
Whitmore, 1980).
Honors Program
For the clarification of the sample of this study, honors programs should be
defined in this section. Many colleges and universities provide advanced academic
opportunities through honors programs in the form of honors courses, seminar, smaller
classes and faculty mentoring (Fischer, 1996).The main purposes of undergraduate
honors programs are to serve the academic needs of highly achieving undergraduate
students who require modification to the usual academic experience (Herbert & McBee,

44
2007) as well as to recruit high-achieving and talented students (Seifert, Pascarella,
Colangelo, & Assouline, 2007). In this sense, it has been regarded that honors programs
for undergraduate students have similar educational philosophies with gifted education
for the K-12 population (Digby, 2003; Herbert & McBee, 2007).
As a means of academic enrichment for gifted undergraduate students, typical
honors programs provide a sequence of supplemental or substitution courses with
modified learning opportunities, such as small classes or faculty mentoring, and research
and project opportunities (The National CollegiateHonorsCouncil, 2013). Honors
programs are offered by various types of educational institutions; however, over 95% of
honors programs are concentrated in four-year public institutions (Long, 2002; Seifert,
Pascarella, Colangelo, & Assouline, 2007). Although the term honors program has been
commonly used, public four-year educational institutions have increasingly created
honors colleges for the benefit of their own diplomas (Derby, 2003) or more residential
opportunities and scholarships (Sederber, 2005).
According to the Basic characteristics of a fully developed honors program,
which was endorsed in1994 and amended in 2010 by the National Collegiate Honors
Council, most honors programs have a clear set of admission criteria based on high
school GPA, SAT scores, written essay or other satisfactory progress for the
identification of qualified students. They also have a set of requirements for satisfactory
completion (the NCHC Board of Directors, 2010). Students who meet the satisfactory
completion criteria usually graduate with honors designation. In addition, a special
curriculum is suggested to constitute 20 % to 25% of the total course work of honors
program students (the NCHC Board of Directors, 2010).

45
In terms of the academic outcome of honors programs, Seifert and her colleagues
(Seifert, Pascarella, Colangelo, & Assouline, 2007) provided the empirical evidence that
honors program participants experience more cognitive growth compared to nonparticipants. They analyzed the data of eighteen four-year colleges and universities
across the nation using the longitudinal data from the
NationalCenterforEducationStatisticsIntegratedPostsecondaryEducation Data System
collected from 1992 to 1993. The result showed that honors program participants
reported more course-related interaction with peers, invested more effort and
involvement for academic tasks, and had higher expectations, such as more assigned
readings. In addition, at the end of the first year in campus, honors program students
showed higher scores than non-participants on the cognitive composite measure,
mathematics, and critical thinking tests after controlling for the effects of demographic
factors and tested precollege academic ability scores.
Summary
In this chapter, the review of the literature has provided a broad view of the
creativity and self-regulation, and its relations to gifted and talented population. In
addition, the literature regarding parenting styles were reviewed in relation to creative
talent development. Lastly, the literature regarding honors program was reviewed for
understanding of participant group. The preceding review suggests that more empirical
studies are needed to investigate the relationship between creative potential and selfregulation among gifted individuals. In addition, the review of the literature pertinent to
creativity, self-regulation, and parenting styles provides the rationale for studies
examining the relationship among these variables with gifted population.

46
CHAPTER III.
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between creative
potential and self-regulation among gifted young adults. In addition, this study aimed to
explore the moderating effects of parenting styles on that relationship. In this chapter, the
participants, the research procedure, instruments, designs and data analysis are presented.
Participants
The participants of this study were 311 honors program participants located at a
Mid-western university. The honors program of this university sends the invitations to the
honors program when they meet one of the following criteria. First, entering first-year
students are qualified as eligible honor program students through a combination of high
school grade point average and ACT scores; specifically, when their high school GPA is
over 3.8 on a 4.0 scale with ACT composite score of 27 or higher, or their high school
GPA is over 3.7 on a 4.0 scale with ACT composite scores of 30 or higher. Second, in
the case of transfer students, students are invited to the honors program when they have a
3.5 or higher college GPA on transfer credit. Third, current students of this Midwestern
University automatically receive the invitation to the honors program when their
accumulated university GPA is greater than 3.33 on a 4.0 scale. When eligible students
accept the invitation to the honors program and participate in the orientation, they are
enrolled in the honors program of this university.
Due to the various admission criteria of the participant pool, students who were
admitted to the honors program based on their high school GPA and ACT scores were
included in this study. The admission route to the honors program was identified based

47
on their self-report on the survey. In terms of power, a sample size over 119 was
required to achieve the power over 95% for a medium effect size (i.e., f2=0.15; Faul,
Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) for the analysis with most variables; a hierarchical
multiple regression analysis with three tested variables (three interaction terms between
creative potential and each dummy variable of the parenting style) among nine
independent variables (i.e., two controlling variables gender and semester, one variable
of the main effect- creative potential, three dummy coded variables for the parenting style
and three interaction terms) at the .05 significant level.
Among 7,035 students who received the research invitation e-mail,453 students
returned their responses to the survey. The response rate was approximately 6.4 %. Of
the 453 respondents, only 311 students were included in the analysis of this study via two
screening steps. First, five cases were removed based on the missing value evaluation.
Following the general guide about missing values (Acock, 2005), decisions about
removing cases were determined when missing values were more than five percent of
each variable (i.e., creative potential, short-term self-regulation, long-term self-regulation,
parental warmth and parental behavioral control). Otherwise, mean values of each
variable were substituted for the missing values. Second, 311 students were identified to
meet the inclusion criteria of this study; they were admitted to the honors program from
high school based on the combination of their high school GPA and ACT composite
score.
Table 2 presents the summary of demographic characteristics of the participants.
Among 311 participants, the age of participants were 18(38.3%, n=119), 19 (23.2%,
n=72), 20(19.3%, n=60), 21 (13.5%, n=42), 22 (2.9%, n=9) and 23 and above (2.9%,

48
n=9). Males represented 29.9% (n=93) of the sample, while females represented 69.8%
(n=217), and one student marked other gender identity. Participants were predominantly
Caucasian (85.9%, n=267). The remaining sub-groups identified themselves as Hispanic
American (3.2%, n=10; Mexican American/Chicano/Puerto Rican/Cuban/Other Hispanic
Origin), Asian American/Pacific-Islander (6.3%, n=20), Multiracial/Mixed (2.9%, n=9),
and African American/Black (1.3%, n=4). One of the participants did not indicate their
ethnicity/race. The group with the highest participation was first-year college students
(49.9%, n=155); the remaining groups were second-year (19.0%, n=59), third-year
(15.5%, n=48) and fourth-year and more (15.5%, n=48). One of the participants did not
indicate how many semester they have spent in the college or university. Since there
was no official demographic information about the original participant pool (i.e. Whole
honors program participants of the university), comparison analysis could not be
conducted to test if this sample represent the whole group properly. .
Participants also reported their majors following the category of the College
Board (2013). Their majors were Science, Math and Technology(30.2%, n=94), Health
and Medicine(27.3%, n=85), Arts and Humanities(16.1%, n=50), Social Sciences(12.5%,
n=39), Business(7.1%, n=22), Public and Social Services(1.3%, n=4), Trades and
Personal Services(.3%, n=1) and Multi-/Interdisciplinary Studies (.3%, n=1); the
remaining participants had not decided their majors yet (2.9%, n=9) or six students
selected the others category. Lastly, the mean of their college GPA was 3.72 (SD=.24)
when representing each block of the GPA option with the median value (e.g., taking the
value of 3.95 for the block for 3.9~3.99).

49
Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Variable
Gender

Age

Semester in
colleges
/universities

Ethnicity/
Race

Major

Category

Frequency

Percentage

Male

93

29.9%

Female

217

69.8%

18

119

38.3%

19

72

23.2%

20

60

19.3%

21

42

13.5%

22

2.9%

23 and above

2.9%

1st year

155

49.9%

2nd year

59

19.0%

3rd year

48

15.5%

4th year and more

48

15.5%

Caucasian

267

85.9%

Hispanic

10

3.2%

Asian /Pacific-Islander

20

6.3%

Multiracial/Mixed

2.9%

African American/Black

1.3%

Science, Math &Technology

94

30.2%

Health and Medicine

85

27.3%

Arts and Humanities

50

16.1%

Social Sciences

39

12.5%

Business

22

7.1%

Public and Social Services

1.3%

Trades and Personal Services

0.3%

Multi-/Interdisciplinary studies

0.3%

Not decided their majors yet

2.9%

Others

1.9%

50
Procedure
The research invitation e-mail was sent out one time via a mass mail service of
the university using registration records with the permission of the director of the honors
program. When participants clicked the link included in the invitation e-mail (See
Appendix A), they could move to the website for the consent letter (See Appendix B). At
the first screen of the research survey, the purpose of the research and information about
the potential risks and benefits of research participation was described. The consent letter
described that participants completion of the on-line survey and submission would be
regarded as consent for the study. Participants had the right to leave the survey whenever
they wanted as described in the consent letter.
After participants moved to the second page of the web-survey, participants were
asked to completed the consent form, they were asked to complete the following
measures, (a) Demographic information sheet; (b) Runco Ideation Behavior Scale (Runco,
Plucker, &Lim, 2001); (c) Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory (Molianen, 2007); (d)
Parenting style measures including the inventories of parental warmth (Persson, Kerr,
&Stattin, 2004), and parent behavioral control (Kerr &Stattin, 2000).
If participants skipped items, the message for notice of skipped item appeared.
However, they could skip the items when they pressed the button for continue without
answering to this item. It took about 20-30 minutes to complete an on-line survey.
Participants had an opportunity to enter a $20 raffle for a Visa gift card, if they leave their
current e-mail information at the end of survey. Participants were asked to leave their
current e-mail information if they would like to participate in the raffle.

51
Measures
The following section presents the instruments which were used in this study. For
the purpose of this study, the four kinds of the inventories and demographic questionnaire
were administered.
Demographic Information Survey
A brief questionnaire for demographic data was collected from the participants.
Gender, age, race/ethnicity, semester in school, and the field of their majors were asked
in this survey (See Appendix C). Academic majors were categorized following the
college major category of the College Board (2013). Participants chose their fields of
academic majors among the eight fields (i.e. Arts and Humanities, Business, Health and
Medicine, Multi-/Inter-disciplinary Studies, Public and Social Services, Science, Math
and Technology, Social Sciences, Trades and Personal Services). The webpage of the
college major category of the College Board (i.e.
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/majors-careers)was linked to the survey in case
participants need further information. In addition, their admission route to the honors
program (i.e. admitted from high school, admitted as a transfer student, admitted while at
the University, and unsure) was asked. Lastly, their accumulated college GPA was
requested.
Creative potential
To measure creative potential, the Runco Ideation Behavior Scale (RIBS, Runco,
Plucker, &Lim, 2000-2001) was used. The RIBS was selected based on the following
criteria of this study. First, the measure of creative potential should be based on the
assumption that creative potential is domain-general process or trait rather than domain-

52
specific (Plucker & Beghetto, 2004). Second, it should be possible to administer each
scale through an on-line data collection process. Third, the validity and reliability of the
scale should be supported by several previous studies. Runco Ideational Behavior Scale
was developed using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses by Runco and his
colleagues (Runco, Plucker, & Lim, 2000-2001). They suggested the presence of 1 or 2
latent factors; however, one factor model was suggested as more interpretable based on
the theoretical under spinning of the scale. In previous studies that used the RIBS also
scored the scale based on the one factor structure (Pannells & Claxton, 2008). In
previous studies using RIBS, divergent thinking test scores significantly predicted the
RIBS scores, which endorse the value of RIBS as a criterion of original and divergent
thinking (Plucker, Runco, &Lim, 2006).
The RIBS consists of 23 items, and most items illustrate actual behaviors related
to idea generation that reflect an individuals use of, appreciation of, and skill with ideas
(p. 393, Runco, Plucker, &Lim, 2000-2001). Internal consistency, Cronbachs alpha of
this scale was .92in the developers study. In terms of external validity, the discriminant
validity was provided using the correlation between RIBS and the Basadur scales for the
Premature Closure and the Openness to Divergence (Runco, Plucker, & Lim, 2000-2001);
the correlation coefficients were .32 (p=.003) and .34 (p=.001) respectively. Every item is
written in the form of a self-statement (e.g., I come up with an idea or solution other
people have never thought of).Participants in this study were asked to respond to each
item which is the most representative and descriptive of them on a five-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The Cronbachs alpha coefficient for the RIBS
was calculated for this study.

53
Self-regulation
Self-regulation was assessed by the Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory (ASRI,
Molianen, 2007). It was originally developed for adolescents; however, it has been
successfully administered to undergraduate students (Vahedi, Mostafafi, &Mortazanajad,
2009).The self-regulation measure consists of two sub-scales for short-term and longterm self-regulation, since Molianen (2007) contended that previous self-regulation
measures focused on only immediate context and relatively ignored the long-term
component of self-regulation. Molianen (2007) conducted confirmatory factor analyses
with 169 adolescents and 80 parents, and demonstrated that the internal consistency of
the two factor structure of this inventory was satisfactory.
It consists of 27 self-report items and the response scale point is 5 point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (not at all true for me)to5(Really true for me). Cronbach s alpha
coefficients of short-term and long-term constructs were .75 and .80, respectively for the
version of adolescent self-report inventory. The items for the parent self-report and
adolescent self-report versions were the same except for the minor modification of the
language for the subjects. In this study, the adolescent self-report version of the ASRI
was administered. In the scale developers study (Molianen, 2007), averages of shortterm and long-term self-regulation among adolescent participants were 3.15 and 3.58,
respectively, while standard deviations were .56 and .57 respectively.
Regarding the external validity, the ASRI was positively correlated to the
comparison self-regulation measure developed by Novak and Clayton (2001) and
correlation coefficients were from .68 to .92 for the two versions of the ASRI. In
addition, ASRI significantly positively correlated to achievement level (r=.41 both for

54
long-term and short -term constructs) and pro-social behaviors (r=.20 and .31 for the
short-term and long-term, respectively). Furthermore, the ASRI was negatively
correlated to parental psychological control (r=-.30 both for short-term and long-term
constructs), externalizing behavioral problems (r=-.34 and -.46 for the short term and
long-term, respectively). Regarding the correlations of the internalized behavioral
problems, short-term self-regulation was negatively correlated (r=-.35), while long-term
self-regulation was positively correlated (r=.27).
Parenting Styles
To construct the four parenting style categories authoritarian, authoritative,
permissive and negligent parenting styles, the procedure practiced by Kerr, Stattin, and
zdemir (2012) was used in this study. Two dimensions of the parenting styles
parental warmth and parental behavioral control will be assessed by the parental warmth
scale (Tilton-Weaver, Kerr, Pakalniskeine, Tokic, Salihovic, &Stattin, 2010) and parent
behavioral control scale (Kerr &Stattin, 2000). Kerr, Stattin, and zdemir (2012)
confirmed that these scales reflected separate and internally consistent parenting
dimensions using confirmatory factor analyses.
Parental warmth scale
The measure of parental warmth consists of a six-item scale that described the
parents expressive behaviors of emotional warmth and acceptance (e.g. Show they care
for you with words and gestures). In the study of Tilton-Weaver and his colleagues
(Tilton-Weaver, Kerr, Pakalniskeine, Tokic, Salihovic, &Stattin, 2010), students
responded about their mothers and fathers responded separately; however, those
responses were substantially correlated, r = .68, p< .01, and original developers

55
aggregated the scores when both were available. In this study, the items were asked
regarding parents in general. Participants completed their responses on the three point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 3 (Most often). Internal consistency coefficients,
Cronbach's alphas ranged from .82 to .88 in the study of Tilton-Weaver and his colleague
(2010).Reliability of this measure was calculated using the data of current study.
Parental behavioral control scale
The parent behavioral control measure created by Kerr and Stattin (2000)wasused
in this study. It consists of five items illustrating parents monitor and control of their
behaviors. In an original study of Kerr and Stattin (2000), those items asked adolescents
to assess current perceptions about the amount of parental behavioral control.
Participants rated their perceptions on a five point Likert scale ranging from 1 (No, never)
to 5 (Yes, Always). Internal consistency coefficients, Cronbach's alphas ranged from .78
to .85respectively in the study of Kerr and Stattin (2000). Reliability of this measure was
calculated using the data of current study.
Constructing Parenting Styles Measures
As noted above, Parental warmth and Parental behavioral control scales was used
to construct four categories of the parenting styles. Those two scales represent the
dimensions to define the parenting styles. Therefore, median split of two scales were used
to classify then into four groups. Then, those four groups corresponded to four parenting
style as follows - authoritative (the scores above the median on both dimensions),
authoritarian (the scores above the median on behavioral control and below on parental
warmth), permissive (the scores above the median on parental warmth and below on
behavioral control), and neglectful (the scores below the median on both dimensions).

56
Design and Data Analysis
As noted above, this study was designed to explore the relationship between
creative potential and self-regulation among gifted young adults and examine the
moderating effects of parenting styles by estimating interaction effects.
Preliminary data analysis
Before the main analysis, Cronbach alpha coefficients for each scale using the
current study sample were calculated to check its reliability for the gifted undergraduate
sample. In addition, skewedness and kurtosis for each variable were explored to examine
whether those variables have substantial deviation from normality. Descriptive statistics
and frequency tests were conducted in order to configure the sample of this study. A
series of independent t-test and uni-variate tests were conducted to explore if there is a
significant difference of each variable by demographic variables - participants gender,
years in the college and majors. These three demographic variables were also included in
the controlling variables in the main analyses. Bi-variate correlations were also conducted
to examine the relationship among the main study variables.
Main study analysis
Partial correlation and hierarchical multiple regression analysis was applied as a
main data analysis method. To examine the relationship between creative potential and
self-regulation in gifted undergraduate students, as indicated in Research Question
1,partial correlation and hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted. Two
controlling variables (i.e. gender and semester in the college/university) were included in
these analyses. Controlling variables were determined since its correlations with the main
study variables were reported in the previous study. Baer and Kaufman (2008) reported

57
gender differences of creative potential in spite of some mixed results in other previous
studies (Cheung, Lau, Chan, & Wu, 2004; Matud, Rodrguez, & Grande, 2007). In
addition, semester in the college and university was included as a controlling variable
considering students maturity influence on self-regulation (Gestsdottir &Lerner, 2008).
For the hierarchical multiple regression analysis, controlling variables were entered in the
first step, and creative potential was entered in the second step. Since the dependent
variable (i.e., self-regulation) consists of two sub-constructs, the effects of creative
potential on short-term and long-term self-regulation were explored separately.
To examine the moderating effect of parenting styles on the relationship between
creative potential and self-regulation in gifted young adults, as indicated in Research
Question 2, a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were also conducted.
The moderating effects of parenting style on short-term and long-term self-regulation
were examined separately. Controlling variables were entered in the first block. Each
parenting style variable was dummy coded and entered in the second block of multiple
regression analysis with creative potential variable. Product terms (i.e., parenting styles x
creative potential) were entered in the third block. Scatter plot and regression lines
between creative potential variables and self-regulation variables were generated within
each parenting style group.

58
CHAPTER IV.
RESULTS
Chapter 4 presents the findings for the research questions. This chapter includes
the results of the data analysis in five sections: (a) reliability of the measures;(b)
preliminary analysis; (c) descriptive analysis result; (d) the results for Research Question
1,the relationship of creative potential to short-term and long-term self-regulation, and;(e)
the results for Research Question 2,the moderating effects of parenting styles in the
relationship between creative potential and self-regulation.
Reliability of the Measures
Cronbachs alpha coefficients were used for the internal consistency reliability for
all the scales of this study. According to George and Mallery (2003), the reliability
coefficients over .7 were regarded as acceptable criteria. The original internal
consistency of the each measure was .92 for the Runco Ideation Behavior Scale (Runco,
Plucker, &Lim, 2000-2001), .75 and .80 for the short-term and long-term self-regulation
measures (Molianen, 2007). For the parenting styles measures, the original internal
consistency was .82 to .88 for the parental warmth scale and .78 to .85 for the parental
behavioral control scale (Kerr, Stattin, & zdemir, 2012).
The internal consistency estimate of the Runco Ideation Behavior Scale was .94 in
this study. In terms of the Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory, the internal consistency
estimates for the current sample were .68 and .78 for the short-term and long-term selfregulation constructs respectively, while the Cronbachs alpha of the total scale was .83.
With regard to the parenting style measures, the current study yielded the Cronbachs
alphas of .87 and .93 for the parental warmth and parental behavioral control scale,

59
respectively. While the internal consistency estimates of three scales (i.e.,Runco Ideation
Behavior Scale, parental warmth and parental behavioral control scale) were similar or
higher in this study compared to the original studies, the reliability coefficients of the
Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory were lower in this study.
Preliminary Analysis
Given the nature of constructing parenting styles with the median split of the
parental warmth and parental behavioral scales, the differences of the median values of
both scales between the gifted young adult sample in the current study and the general
adolescent sample in the scale developers study (Kerr, Stattin, & zdemir, 2012) were
explored. Kerr and colleagues (2012) conducted two sub-studies in their research, and
reported the mean, median, SD of the parental warmth and parental behavioral scales, as
well as the numbers of their adolescent samples. In order to avoid the complication of
the interpretation, the values from the sub-study from the larger sample were selected for
the comparisons with the current study sample. Typically, a median value comparison
between two independent samples needs to be conducted by the Mann-Whitney U test
However, the Mann-Whitney U test cannot be conducted without actual data entries.
Hence, alternatively, independent t-tests between mean values ofthe two samples were
conducted to test if the distributions are located at different points on the scales in two
independent samples. In this analysis, the result of the independent t-tests between mean
values could approximate the result of the Mann-Whitney U test between median values.
As presented in Table 3, there was a significant mean difference on the parental
behavioral control scale. The result implies that gifted young adults tend to perceive their
parents as more controlling compared to the general adolescent sample of the scale

60
developers study Kerr, Stattin, & zdemir, 2012). In spite of this significant difference,
current samples median values of the parental warmth and parental behavioral control
scales were used in this study in order to construct the parenting style categories based on
the practice of Kerr and colleagues (Kerr, Stattin, & zdemir, 2012). This practice was
beneficial to balance the numbers of the four parenting style groups in the given samples.
In interpreting the result of this study, the influence of the higher score criteria for the
parental behavioral control scale will be discussed in chapter 5.

Table 3. Comparisons of Mean Differences on Parental Warmth and Parental Behavioral

Control Measures Between the Current Sample and the Scale Developers
Study
Measures/Sample
Parental
Warmth

Parental
Behavioral
Control

Current
sample
Kerr and
colleague
s sample
Current
sample
Kerr and
colleague

Mean

Median

SD

311

2.31

2.33

0.51

t(df)

1.57(971)
662

2.36

2.42

0.43

311

3.98

4.40

1.06

662

3.20

3.20

0.88

12.09(971)
*** a

s sample
Note. The means and standard deviations were derived from the divided value of the
total scores by the number of items following the reported form of the scale
developers study.
a

two-tailed p<.001
Thus, as presented in Figure 1, the four groups were created for the current

sample: authoritative (the scores above the median on both dimensions, 25.7%, n=80),

61
authoritarian (the scores above the median on behavioral control and below on parental
warmth, 16.7%, n=52), permissive (the scores above the median on parental warmth and
below on behavioral control, 31.8%, n=99), and neglectful (the scores below the median
on both dimensions, 25.7%, n=80).

Figure 1. Parenting Style Categorization in This Study

Above the median

(=2.31) of the
Parental Warmth
Above themedian
(=.3.98) of the
Parental
Behavioral
Control
Below the median
(=.3.98) of the
Parental
Behavioral
Control

Authoritative parenting
(25.7%, n=80)

Permissive parenting
(31.8%, n=99)

Below the median

(=2.31) of the
Parental Warmth

Authoritarian parenting
(16.7%, n=52)
Neglected parenting
(25.7%, n=80)

The median

(=.3.20) of
parental
behavioral
control in the
scale
developers
sample

Descriptive Analysis
To illustrate the basic characteristics of the current sample, the means, medians,
standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for the main study variables of this study are
presented in Table 3. The means and standard deviations were derived from the nonstandardized total scores of each variable. The result showed that parental behavioral
control scale was significantly and negatively skewed since its skewness was less than -1.
Therefore, following the guide of Delucchi and Bostrom (2004), non-parametric test was
conducted when comparing the parental behavioral control scale by gender, instead of log

62
transformation of the original data. In addition, Spearman rho coefficients were
calculated instead of Pearson correlation coefficients for the parental behavioral control
variable.

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of the Main Study Variables

Measures
Creative potential
ShortSelf-

term

regulation

Longterm

Parental Warmth
Parental Behavioral
Control

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

27.00

110.00

74.14

16.23

-.18

-.32

19.00

56.00

37.92

6.34

-.15

-.01

29.00

70.00

55.96

6.47

-.45

.56

6.0

18.00

13.88

3.05

-.52

-.50

5.00

25.00

19.91

5.32

-1.08

.36

Correlations among the continuous variables

Additionally, the bi-variate correlation coefficients among the continuous main
study and demographic variables were calculated in order to determine potential
controlling variables used in subsequent multiple regression analyses. As presented in
the Table 4, the Pearson product-moment coefficients were calculated among continuous
variables except for the correlation coefficients for the parental behavioral control
variable. For the parental behavioral control variable, Spearman rho coefficients were
calculated. The effect size of the correlation coefficients was interpreted based on

63
Cohens (1988) convention; a coefficient of .10 and over can be considered to be a small
effect, .30 and over, a moderate effect and .50 and over, a large effect.
There were a positive and significant correlation between semesters spent in the
college/university and long-term self-regulation scores (r =.127, p<.05), while age was
not correlated to any main study variable. The creative potential score was positively
correlated to long-term self-regulation (r =.127, p<.05), and negatively correlated to the
perceived parental warmth score (r =-.203, p<.01). Long-term self-regulation was
positively correlated to both parental warmth (r =.122, p<.05), and parental behavioral
control variable (r =.115, p<.05), while short-term self-regulation was not correlated to
any of those parenting variables. Lastly, short-term and long-term self-regulation scores
were positively correlated with each other (r =.512, p<.01).

Table 5. Correlations among the Continuous Variables

Variables

1. Age

2. Semesters in college

.847**

3. Creative potential

-.005

-.018

Self-

4.Short-term

.024

.079

-.062

5. Long-term

.083

.127*

.127*

.512**

.031

.056

-.203**

.037

.122*

.089

.065

.066

-.055

.115*

regula
-tion

6. Parental warmth
7. Parental behavioral
control

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

.087

64
Mean differences of the main study variables by gender
With regard to categorical variables (i.e., gender and parenting styles),
independent t-tests and uni-variate analyses were conducted to explore the mean
differences of creative potential, short-term and long-term self-regulation scores.
Additional analyses were conducted to explore whether there were significant mean
differences of the parental warmth and parental behavioral control scores by gender.
Independent t-test was conducted for the parental warmth, while Mann-Whitney U test
was conducted for the parental behavioral control variable due to its skewedness. For
each test, Levens tests were conducted together in order to detect violations of the equal
variance assumption of t-test and uni-variant test. Since the Levens tests detected
significantly unequal variances for the parental warmth variable between the female and
male groups (F=6.542, p<.05), adjusted t and df values were calculated through the
Welchs t-test built into the SPSS, 21.0 version program. In terms of the effect size,
Cohens d was calculated and interpreted based on Cohens convention for Cohens d
(1988); .20 can be regarded to be a small effect, .50 can be considered a medium effect
and .80 can be considered a large effect.
Table 6 shows that male students reported significantly higher creative potential
scores than female students (t=2.60, p<.01, Cohens d=.32). The effect size for this
analysis (Cohens d=.32) was found to exceed Cohens (1988) convention for a small
effect (Cohens d = .20).In terms of the self-regulation scores, there was no gender
difference. Lastly, Mann-Whitney U-test result indicated that female students reported
significantly higher parental behavioral control scores than male students (U=12085, Z=2.76, p<.01); Rank mean values of male and female were 98.3 and 119.5 while actual

65
score means were 18.83 (SD=5.31) and 20.35 (SD=5.26), respectively. Additionally, a
chi-square test was conducted to explore the distribution differences of perceived
parenting styles by gender. Results showed that there was no overall distribution
difference of parenting styles by gender (2= .175, p>.05)

Table 6. Mean Differences of the Main Study Variables by Gender

95% Confidence
Measures

Creative
potential
Short-term

Male

Mean

77.62

SD

16.70

2.60**
(308)

Female

72.48

15.67

Male

37.95

6.30

selfregulation
Long-term

Female

37.93

6.38

Male

56.10

6.01

selfregulation
Parental
Warmth
Parental

0.03
(308)

0.24

Female

55.90

6.69

(308)

Male

13.38

3.42

-1.78
(149.86)a

Female

14.10

2.87

Male

18.83

5.31

Lower

Upper

1.25

9.04

-1.53

1.57

-1.39

1.78

-1.52

.08

N/Ab

behavioral
control

Interval

t(df)

Female

20.35

5.26

Note. Male N=93, Female N=217 , *p<.05, **p<.01

a

Welchs t value,

Mann-Whiteney U test was conducted for the parental behavioral control variable.

66
Mean differences of the main study variables among four
parenting style groups
Uni-variate analyses were conducted to explore the mean differences of creative
potential, short-term and long-term self-regulation scores by parenting styles. Bonferonni
corrections were used to adjust Type I error rates for post-hoc tests (Seaman, Levin, &
Serlin, 1991). Partial 2 was calculated as an effect size indicator and interpreted based
on Cohen's convention (1988); >.01 for a small effect size, >.06 for medium and, >.13
for a large effect size. The result of the Levens test indicated that the error variances of
the creative potential (F (3,302) =.19, p>.05), short-term self-regulation (F(3,302) =1.35,
p>.05), and long-term self-regulation (F (3,302)=1.38, p>.05 are equal across all four
parenting groups.

Table 7. Uni-variate Test for the Mean Differences of the Main Study Variables among
Four Parenting Style Groups
Measures

Sum of
Squares

Creative
potential
Short-term
self-

df

Mean Square

F
3.49**

Between

2696.20

898.732

Within

78956.13

307

257.186

Total

1790910

311

14.94

4.98

12445.21

307

40.54

Between
Within

regulation

Total

459722

311

Long-term

Between

339.05

113.02

12638.55

307

41.17

986926

311

selfregulation

Within
Total

*p< .05, **p<.01

.123

2.75*

67
Table 8. Post-Hoc Tests of the Main Study Variables among Four Parenting Style Groups
Significant
Measures/ Parenting style
groups

Mean

SD

Sig

Mean
difference
(i-j)

a.Authoritative

74.01

15.91

Creative

b.Authoritarian

78.60

17.22

8.20

potential

c.Permissive

70.39

16.19

(b-c)

d.Neglected

75.99

15.16

a.Authoritative

37.64

6.08

b.Authoritarian

37.81

6.85

Not

c.Permissive

38.20

5.58

significant

d.Neglected

37.94

7.18

a.Authoritative

57.45

6.23

Short-term
selfregulation

Long-term
selfregulation

P<.05

Not significant

2.88
b.Authoritarian

55.60

5.64

c.Permissive

56.07

6.38

d.Neglected

54.58

7.08

(a-d)

P<.05

*p< .05, **p<.01

As Table 7 and 8 indicate, there was a significant difference of creative potential
scores among all four parenting styles groups (F(3,307)=3.49, p<.01, Partial 2=.03); its
effect size was over Cohens convention for a small effect size (Partial 2>.03). Post-hoc
test with the Bonferonni correction indicated that the creative potential scores between
authoritarian and permissive groups significantly contributed to the overall differences
(p<.05), with the authoritarian parenting style group reporting higher creative potential

68
scores than the permissive parenting style group (Mean difference =8.20). Long-term
self-regulation scores were also significantly different among the four parenting style
groups, and its effect size exceeded Cohens convention for a small effect size (F=2.75,
p<.05, Partial 2=.03). In addition, Bonferroni post-hoc tests showed that authoritative
parenting style groups reported significantly higher long-term self-regulation scores than
the neglected parenting style group (p<.05, Mean difference =2.88).
As a result of the descriptive analysis, gender and semester in the
college/university were found to correlate to one of the main study variables. Therefore,
these two variables were included as controlling variables, and simultaneously entered in
the first block of the hierarchical regression analyses for both Research Questions 1 and 2.
The parenting style variable was included as a moderator in order to respond to Research
Question 2.
Main Analysis
Preceding procedures
Before the main hierarchical multiple regression analysis corresponded to
Research Questions 1 and 2, several statistical procedures were conducted. First, the
parenting style variable was dummy coded to compare each parenting style with the
reference parenting style (i.e., authoritative parenting style) as shown in Table 8. Second,
the continuous independent and dependent variables (i.e., semester, creative potential,
short-term and long-term self-regulation) were standardized in order to reduce the multicollinearity and make zero score meaningful (Aiken & West, 1991). Standardization
does not affect the significance of test statistics; however, it may affect the coefficients
for each variable. In addition, outliers for which the absolute value of the standardized

69
deviation was 3 or above were examined. One outlier for creative potential, two outliers
for short-term self-regulation and four outliers for long-term self-regulation were found.
However, removing outliers were processed through the case-wise diagnostic based on
the standardized residuals in each regression model.

Table 9. Dummy Coding for the Parenting Style Variable

Dummy1

Dummy2

Dummy3

1 vs. 2

1 vs. 3

1 vs. 4

Parenting style

Authoritative

Authoritarian

Permissive

Neglected

Regression diagnostic analysis

Regression diagnostic analysis was conducted with each regression analysis in
order to detect the violation of regression analysis assumptions. Aguinis (2004)
described the assumptions of regression analysis to be diagnosed as follows: (a) errors, in
other words, residuals (i.e., Predicted Y- Actual Y) exhibit homoscedacity; (b) residuals
should be independent for any subset of the sample; (c) residuals should be normally
distributed and ;(d) there should be less than perfect collinearity among predictor
variables.

70
For the (a) homoscedacity and (b) independence of residuals assumptions, scatter
plots of the standardized residuals (ZRESID) against the standardized predicted values
(ZPRED) in each regression model were created. These scatter plots showed that there
were no specific trends in the scatter plots, which indicates that all of the four hierarchical
multiple regression analyses met the homoscedacity and independence of errors
assumptions. In addition, normal probability plots (P-P plot) of the standardized
residuals were created in each hierarchical multiple regression analysis in order to
examine (c) the normality of error assumption. These normal probability plots of the
standardized residual values were close to the reference line, which indicated that all four
hierarchical multiple regression analyses met the normality of error assumption. In terms
of (d) collinearity assumption, predictor and moderator variables were standardized as
noted above. Even after standardizing the predictor and moderator variables, collinearity
diagnostics were conducted in each hierarchical multiple regression analysis, and
examined if tolerance for each independent variable was over .10,and the variance
inflation factor (VIF) for each independent variable was less than 10 (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1995).
Analyses for the Research Question 1
For the Research Question 1-(a), whether creative potential is significantly related
to the short-term self-regulation after controlling the effects of gender and semester in the
college and university, partial correlation was calculated. The result showed that there
was no significant correlation between creative potential and short-term self-regulation
after controlling the effects of gender and semester (Partial r =-.053, p>.05).

71
More detailed analysis, hierarchical multiple regressions were also conducted.
One outlier of the short-term self-regulation was removed in this analysis through the
case-wise diagnostic in this regression analysis. Two controlling variables, both gender
and semester, were entered in the first block and then creative potential variable and
creative potential in the second block. Consistent with the partial correlation result, the
regression result showed that creative potential did not explain significant amount of the
variance of short-term self-regulation beyond the effects of gender and semester
(R2= .003, F change(1, 305) = .856, p>.05).
For the Research Question 1-(b), whether creative potential is significantly related
to the long-term self-regulation after controlling the effects of gender and semester,
partial correlation and hierarchical multiple regression were also conducted. One outlier
of the long-term self-regulation was removed in this analysis. Significant and positive
partial correlation between creative potential and long-term self-regulation was found
(Partial r=.132, p<.05). It was a small correlation according to Cohens guide (1988) for
correlation effect size.
Hierarchical multiple regression result is presented in Table 9. Consistent with
the partial correlation result, the result showed that creative potential explained
significant amount of the variance of long-term self-regulation beyond the effects of
gender and semester (R2= .017, F change(1, 305) = 5.419, p<.05). The unique effect of
creative potential accounted for 1.7% of the variance in long-term self-regulation and it
indicates less than small effect size (i.e., More than 2%) according to Cohens (1988)
classification. In the model 1, gender and semester by itself accounted for 1.7% of the
variance in long-term self-regulation, and it was not significant (F (2, 306) = 2.61, p>.05).

72
In the model 2, creative potential as well as gender and semester accounted for 3.4 % of
the variance in long-term self-regulation, and the model 2 was significant (R2=.034,F(3,
305)= 3.571, p<.05). When the effects of creative potential and gender were partialled
out, the effect of semester to long-term self-regulation was also significant in the model 2
(=.132, t=2.328, p<.05).

Table 10. Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Research Question 1-(b)

Change statistics
Variables

Overall
F(df)

Coefficients

F
R2

change

SE(B)

-.039

.124

-.018

-.311

.131

.057

.129

2.272*

.003

.124

.001

.022

.135

.057

.133

2.364*

.134

.058

.132

2.328*

(df)
Model 1
Gender
Semester

2.610
(2,306)

.017

2.61
(2, 306)

Model 2
Gender
Semester
Creative
potential

3.571*
(3,305)

.017

5.42*
(1, 305)

*p< .05, **p<.01

Analyses for the Research Question 2

For the research Question 2-(a), whether parenting style significantly moderates
the relationship between creative potential and short-term self-regulation after controlling
the effects of gender and semester, hierarchical multiple regression was conducted. Two
controlling variables, both gender and semester, were entered in the first block

73
simultaneously as a first step. A creative potential variable and three dummy variables for
the parenting style were added in the second block simultaneously. Three interaction
terms between creative potential and each of three dummy variables for the parenting
style were added in the third block with the stepwise function in order to which
interaction term was significantly related to the short-term self-regulation. One outlier of
the short-term self-regulation was removed in this analysis.
The result showed that there was a significant F change for interaction terms
(R2= .014, F change(1, 301) = 4.451, p<.05) after controlling the effects of gender,
semester, creative potential and three dummy variables of the parenting styles. Only the
interaction term between creative potential and the neglected parenting style dummy
variable was selected as a significant contributor for this incrementalR2 by the stepwise
function (=.138, t=2.110, p<.05). However, all of the overall model 1 (F(2, 306) =
1.086, p>.05), 2 (F(6, 302) = .569, p>.05), and 3 (F(7, 301) = 1.129, p>.05) were not
significant. According to Cohen (1983) and Aiken and West (1991), since overall F for
the model 3 was not significant, it was impractical to interpret the R2 change for the
interaction term and independent coefficient () for the interaction term for the neglected
parenting style. As a result, it was determined that there was no meaningful moderated
effect of the parenting style in the relationship between creative potential and short-term
self-regulation.
For the Research Question 2-(b), whether parenting style significantly moderates
the relationship between creative potential and long-term self-regulation after controlling
the effects of gender and semester, hierarchical multiple regression was also conducted.
All the variables were entered in the same way with the analysis for the Research

74
Question 1, while dependent variable was altered to the long-term self-regulation. One
outlier of the long-term self-regulation was removed in this analysis.
Hierarchical multiple regression result for the Research Question 2-(b) is
presented in the Table 10. Consistent with the result for the Research Question 1-(b), the
effects of gender and semester on long-term self-regulation, overall model 1 was not
significant. Overall F for the model 2 was significant (F(6, 302)= 3.281, p<.01) and
creative potential and three dummy variables for the perceived parenting style as well as
gender and semester accounted for 6.1 % of the variance in long-term self-regulation. In
the model 2, the negative effect of the neglected parenting style was significant (=-.195,
t=-2.822, p<.01), and its effect was larger than the positive effects of creative potential
(=.146, t=2.538, p<.05) and semester (=.121, t=2.159, p<.05) on long-term selfregulation.
In the model 3, the interaction term between creative potential and the neglected
parenting style dummy variable, creative potential and three dummy variables for the
parenting style as well as gender and semester accounted for 7.3 % of the variance in
long-term self-regulation; overall F for the model 3 was significant (F(7, 301)= 3.411,
p<.01). The result showed that only the interaction term between creative potential and
the neglected parenting style was selected as a significant contributor for this incremental
R2by the stepwise function (=.128, t=1.999, p<.05). There was a significant F change
for the interaction term of the neglected parenting style (R2= .012, F change(1, 301) =
3.996, p<.05) after controlling the effects of gender, semester, creative potential and
three dummy variables of the parenting style. The unique effect of the interaction term of

75
the neglected parenting style accounted for 1.2% of the variance in long-term selfregulation.

Table 11. Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Research Question 2-(B)

Overall
F(df)

Variables

Change statistics
F
R2
change
(df)

Coefficients
B

SE(B)

-.039

.124

-.018

-.311

Semester

.131

.057

.129

2.272*

Gender

-.033

.124

-.015

-.265

Semester

.123

.057

.121

2.159*

.147

.058

.146

2.538*

Model 1
Gender

2.601
(2,306)

.017

2.610
(2, 306)

Model 2

Creative
3.281**
potential
(6,302)
Authoritariana

3.573**
(4,302)

-.331

.177

-.123

-1.871

-.177

.150

-.083

-1.181

-.446

.158

-.195

-2.822**

-.042

.123

-.019

-.337

.118

.057

.116

2.085*

.083

.066

.082

1.256

-.313

.176

-.117

-1.778

-.192

.149

-.090

-1.288

Permissive
Neglected

.044

Model 3
Gender
Semester
Creative
potential
3.411**
Authoritariana
(7,301)
Permissivea

.012

3.996*
(1,301)

Neglecteda
-.471
.158
-.206 -2.986*
Creative
potential x
.269
.135
.128
1.999*
a
Neglected
*p< .05, **p<.01
Note.a All dummy variables for the parenting style were coded to compare the reference
group (i.e., Authoritative parenting style).

76
Although this R2 value represents less than small effect size (i.e., More than 2%)
according to Cohens(1988) guideline, Aguinis, Beaty, Boik, and Pierce (2005) found
that the average effect size of the interaction terms in moderation research was only
0.009. Therefore, they suggested that a more realistic standard for effect sizes of
interaction terms in moderation research might be 0.005, 0.01, and 0.025
for small, medium, and large, respectively. According to Aguinis et al s (2005) realistic
convention, the interaction effect of the neglected parenting style dummy variable in this
study was more than medium size.
Since all dummy variables were coded by comparing each parenting style to the
reference group (i.e. authoritative parenting style group), a significant interaction term of
the neglected parenting style dummy variable denotes a different strength and/or
direction of the relationship between creative potential and long-term self-regulation in
two parenting style groups (i.e., participants who perceived a neglected parenting style vs.
authoritative parenting style). Therefore, separate regression lines for each of the
neglected and authoritative parenting style groups were plotted as shown in Figure 3. As
all variables in this regression analysis were standardized, the unstandardized
independent coefficient for the creative potential in the model 3 (b=.083, t=2.085, p<.05)
directly indicated the slope coefficient of the creative potential in the reference group of
the moderator (i.e., Authoritative parenting style group). In addition, the slope
coefficient of the creative potential in the neglected group was also computed based on
the given values by adding the unstandardized independent coefficient for the interaction
term (b=.269) to the slope coefficient of the reference group (b=.083).

77
To test the computed slope coefficient for the neglected parenting group (b=.352),
a simple slope test was conducted (Aiken & West, 1991; Jaccard, & Turrisi, 2003). A
new variable was created by adding 1 to the significant moderator (i.e. the neglected
parenting style dummy variable), as well as a new interaction term between a new
dummy variable and the standardized creative potential variable. The original neglected
parenting style dummy variable and corresponding interactions term were altered to a
newly created dummy variable and a corresponding interaction term in the hierarchical
multiple analysis for the Research Question 2-(b). Then, hierarchical multiple regression
analysis was conducted in the same way of the analysis for the Research Question 2-(b).
This procedure brought only one change of the unstandardized independent coefficient
for the creative potential in the model 3 and its significance, and it indicated the slope
coefficient for the neglected parenting group and its significance (b=.352, , t=2.993,
p<.01). In sum, as Figure 2 indicates, creative potential was significantly and positively
related to the long-term self-regulation among the gifted young adults who perceived
their parents to have a neglected parenting style; however, its relationship was not
significant among those who perceived their parents to have an authoritative parenting
style. Overall, gifted students who perceived an authoritative parenting style reported
higher long-term self-regulation than neglected parenting style group regardless of their
creative potential scores. As indicated in the descriptive analysis, participants who
perceived an authoritative parenting style had significantly higher long-term selfregulation scores than neglected parenting style group (t=2.88, p<.05)
For further exploration, same procedures were repeated to calculate the slope
coefficients for the participants who perceived permissive and authoritarian parenting

78
styles, although the interaction terms for those parenting styles were not significant
compared to the authoritative parenting style group. For students who perceived an
authoritarian parenting style, there was no significant relationship between creative
potential and long-term self-regulation (b=.131, t=.716, p>.05). Meanwhile, students
who perceived a permissive parenting style, the relationship between creative potential
and long-term self-regulation was not statistically significant, although it approached to
the statistically significant level (b=.337, t=1.957, p =.052).

Figure 2. Separate Regression Lines for the Authoritative VS. Neglected Parenting Style
Group

Summary
In Chapter 4, the reliability analyses indicated that Cronbachs alpha coefficients
of all measures used in this study met the satisfactory criteria (>.70) with the sample of
this study. Preliminary analysis showed that gifted young adults reported significantly

79
higher scores of parental behavioral control scores, compared to the general adolescents
sample of the original parenting scale developers study.
Descriptive analysis results showed that female participants reported a higher
parental behavioral control scale than male participants. There was no gender difference
of parental warmth scores. Creative potential was negatively and significantly correlated
to perceived parental warmth scores. In addition, there were significant creative potential
score differences by gender and parenting styles. Male students reported significantly
higher creative potential scores than females, and participants who perceived an
authoritarian parenting style reported higher scores of creative potential than the
permissive parenting style group.
The long-term self-regulation score was positively and significantly correlated
with a semester variable, while it was not correlated with an actual age variable. Longterm self-regulation was also positively and significantly correlated with parental warmth
and parental behavioral control scores. Additionally, long-term self-regulation was
different among the four parenting style groups. The authoritative parenting group
reported significantly higher long-term self-regulation scores than the neglected parenting
style group. There was no short-term self-regulation difference by gender or parenting
styles.
Partial correlation and hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted
for Research Question 1. The findings showed that there was no relationship between
creative potential and short-term self-regulation. However, creative potential positively
related to long-term self-regulation after controlling for the effect of gender and semester
in the college/university, although it was a small correlation (partial r=.132, p<.05).

80
The hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted in order to respond to
Research Question 2. In the regression model with the variables of gender, semester,
creative potential and perceived parenting styles, the negative effect of the perceived
neglected parenting style (=-.195, t=-2.822, p<.01) was larger than the positive effects
of creative potential (=.146, t=2.538, p<.05) and semester (=.121, t=2.159, p<.05) on
long-term self-regulation, while overall model accounted for 6.1 % of the variance in
long-term self-regulation. Lastly, perceived neglected parenting styles had a significant
moderating effect on the relationship between creative potential and long-term selfregulation (R2= .012, F change(1, 301) = 3.996, p<.05). The relationship between
creative potential and long-term self-regulation was significant among the participants
who perceived a neglected parenting style, but not for participants who perceived an
authoritative parenting style. However, gifted students who perceived an authoritative
parenting style reported higher long-term self-regulation than the neglected parenting
style group, regardless of their creative potential scores.

81
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This chapter will provide (a) review of the study, (b) discussion of the findings, (c)
implications for counselors and counselor educators, (d) limitations of the study, and (e)
suggestions for future research.
Review of the Study
Previous literature has suggested that creative students may experience difficulties
in adapting to academic and social contexts, even if they are highly intellectual (Betts &
Neihart, 2010; Kim, 2008). However, empirical research regarding social mal-adaptation
of creative individuals has been limited due to the methodological difficulties to evaluate
a broad concept like social mal-adaptation. Thus, self-regulation was introduced in this
study as an indirect of social-adaptation of creative individuals, since self-regulation has
been reported as a stronger predictor for higher academic achievement, school
engagement, peer social acceptance, and risk aversion than intelligence (Baumeister,
Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006; Duckworth& Seligman, 2005; Muraven & Baumeister,
2000).
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between creative
potential and self-regulation among gifted undergraduate students. The relationships
between creative potential and self-regulation were assumed to be varied depending on
the types of self-regulation (i.e., short-term and long term). Lastly, the moderating
effects of parenting styles in the relationship between creative potential and selfregulation were examined, since previous research reported that parenting behaviors
influence both childrens creative potential (Miller, Lambert, & Neumeister, 2012) and

82
self-regulation (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Strage & Brandt, 1999).
Discussion of Findings
The findings that emerged from this study provide new insight into the
relationships among creative potential, perceived parenting styles, and short-term and
long-term self-regulation among gifted young adults. First, the results regarding
demographic analysis are discussed in this section, since the descriptive analysis of this
study included some important findings for counselors, parents and gifted educators.
Findings from the descriptive analysis
First of all, male participants reported significantly higher creative potential
scores than female participants in this study. It is interesting to note that findings of
previous studies on gender differences in creative potential were inconsistent (Baer &
Kaufman, 2008). When creative potential was measured by divergent thinking tests, the
majority of previous research studies reported no gender difference (e.g., Baer &
Kaufman, 2008; Charyton & Snelbecker, 2007; Kaufman, Baer, & Gentile, 2004).
However, when creative potential was measured by self-report measures, males tended to
report higher creative potential scores than females (Karwowski, Lebuda, Wisniewska,
& Gralewski, 2013). In previous research, males reported higher creative potential scores
on various types of self-rated scales (e.g., Beghetto, 2006; Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008;
Karwowski, 2011). Many sources such as culture, participants age, and operational
definition of creative potential, scoring methods, the testing environment or a
combination of these factors may influence these mixed results of gender difference.
Despite those factors, perhaps one reason for the females lower score in creative
potential scores via self-report measures may be their disbelief in theirability (Karwowski,

83
Lebuda, Wisniewska, & Gralewski, 2013). In self-estimated ability testing, the male
hubris-female humility bias (i.e., males tend to overestimate their abilities, while
females tend to underestimate their abilities) has been found across varying cultures
(Furnam, Hosoe, & Tang, 2002; Von Stumm, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2009).
Since creative potential was measured via self-report in this study, the findings concur
with this pattern.
In addition to the gender difference of creative potential, a creative potential
difference was found among the four parenting style groups. In particular, the creative
potential difference between the authoritarian and permissive parenting style groups was
significant. Gifted young adults who perceived an authoritarian parenting style tended to
report higher creative potential scores than those who perceived a permissive parenting
style. This result did not correspond with previous research that a permissive parenting
style with a lenient and less controlling family environment promoted students creative
potential (Lim &Smith, 2008; Miller, Lambert, & Neumeister, 2012). However, in
previous research, contradicting opinions or atypical results about the relationship
between parenting style and childrens creative potential is common. For example,
Jackson, Witt, Fitzgerald, von Eye and Zhao (2011) surveyed 490 parents and their 490
middle school children, and found that both of parent warmth and parental behavioral
control did not relate to their childs creative potential measured by TTCT, while video
gaming positively related to students creative potential level. Moreover, Koestner,
Walker, & Fichman (1999) found that parental conflict positively related to creative
personality and creative story scores, while parental warmth and non-restrictiveness did
not correlate to those creative potential scores.

84
In the current study, potential reasons for the lower creative potential scores of
participants who perceived a permissive parenting style might be caused by the
negatively skewed parental behavioral control scores, in addition to the constructing
method of parenting style categories (i.e., using the median split of the parental warmth
and parental behavioral control scale scores). In the current gifted young adult sample,
the parental behavioral control scale was significantly concentrated in the high range, and
its average score was significantly higher compared to the general adolescent sample of
the scale developers study (Kerr & Stattin, 2000).For example, over 90% of participants
responded affirmatively to one item of the parental behavioral control scale:If you have
been out very late one night, did your parents require that you explain what you did and
whom you were with?This result can be interpreted in two ways: a) a gifted young adult
sample in this study experienced more parental behavioral controls than the general
adolescent sample, and/or b) a gifted young adult sample in this study perceived parental
behavioral control,as indicated on the parental behavioral control scale (Kerr & Stattin,
2000), more positively than the general adolescent sample.
In this sense, researchers and counselors should be careful to interpret the term,
parental behavioral control used in this study in a negative manner, which might
undermine childrens psychological freedom or autonomy. Additionally, the results of
this study imply that one should be careful about generalizing the dominant opinion that
lenient or permissive parenting styles can nurture childrens creative potential
development in the gifted population, who possibly perceive parental behavioral control
more positively. Koestner and his colleagues (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieli, & Holt, 1984)s
study may give more information for more careful interpretation of the result of this study.

85
They found that clear limits did not undermine intrinsic motivation and creativity, if those
are informational in nature. Their research implies that the nature of rules and process of
setting limits might be more important rather than the amount of rules and limits in
family. For further exploration, more empirical research is necessary to examine
additional various parental behaviors and its influence on creative potential development.
Lastly, the results of this study revealed that there were significant differences of
long-term self-regulation among the four perceived parenting style groups. Participants
who perceived an authoritative parenting style showed significantly higher long-term
self-regulation scores than those who perceived a neglected parenting style, while there
was no difference of short-term self-regulation. In other words, the results of this study
imply that gifted young adults who experienced an authoritative parenting style tend to
invest more efforts into regulating themselves for long-term goals, while parenting
behaviors may have less impact on impulse control. This result concurs with the original
position of Baumrind (1967; 1991) about the positive relationship between childrens
self-regulation and authoritative parenting styles as well as those proven by other
researchers studies (e.g., Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Strage & Brandt, 1999).
Findings from the main analysis for Research question 1.
The findings for Research Question 1-(a) and (b) indicated that creative potential
was positively related to long-term self-regulation after controlling for the effects of
gender and semester in the college/university, and the unique effect of creative potential
accounted 1.7% of variances in long-term self-regulation. Although this incremental
R2valueindicates less than small effect size in hierarchal regression analyses according to
Cohens (1988) guideline, the partial correlation between creative potential and long-term

86
self-regulation was .132, which met the conventional criteria for a small size correlation
of Cohen (1988)s convention. As described in the research questions, this study was
mainly interested in the relationship between creative potential and self-regulation among
gifted young adults rather than finding significant predictors for self-regulation.
Therefore, it is possible to conclude that there is a positive relationship between creative
potential and long-term self-regulation among gifted young adults. However, there was
no relationship between creative potential and short-term self-regulation.
Long-term self-regulation was relatively more linked to effortful control,
substantial planning and goal seeking behaviors, while short-term self-regulation related
to impulse, attention or emotional control in the immediate context (Molianen, 2005).
Therefore, the finding implies that individuals with more creative potential tend to invest
more efforts into regulating themselves for long-term goals. Meanwhile, the findings
showed that there was no relationship between their creative potential and impulse,
attention or emotional control in the immediate context, which are largely influenced by
innate neurological and psychological traits. These results did not concur with the two
recent empirical studies of Selart et al. (Selart, Nordstrm, Kuvaas, & Takemura, 2008)
and Chang et al. (Chang, Huang, & Choi, 2012), who both reported no relationship
between creativity and self-regulation. However, Selart and colleagues (2008) measured
academic self-regulation and creative achievement using consensual techniques. In
addition, Chang and colleagues (2012) measured dispositional self-control and divergent
thinking. A direct comparison of the results of these studies with the current study was
difficult, since the constructs measured were qualitatively different.
One possible explanation for this positive relationship between creative potential

87
and long-term self-regulation might be the mediation roles of participants intrinsic
motivation and/or self-efficacy. In other words, intrinsic motivation of gifted young
adults may explain the significant amount of the variances of both long-term selfregulation and creative potential measured by the self-rated creative ideation behaviors
(i.e., Runco Ideation Behavior Scale, Runco, Plucker, &Lim, 2000-2001). Motivation
was argued as an important influencing factor on the creative ideation behaviors in the
two-tiered theory of creativity (Runco & Chand, 1995). In particular, meta-analysis
showed that intrinsic motivation was positively related to creative outcomes (De Jesus,
Rus, Lens,& Imaginrio, 2013). On the other hand, the effect of intrinsic motivation on
self-regulation was also empirically proven in gifted population (Malpass, O'Neil, &
Hocevar, 1999). Indeed, Prabhu, Sutton, and Sauser (2008) found that intrinsic
motivation mediated the positive relationship between self-efficacy and creative potential
as measured by the Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (Khatena &
Torrence, 1976). In brief, previous research suggested that intrinsic motivation
influences on both creative potential and ones long-term self-regulation. Therefore, it is
logical to assume that gifted young adults who have a higher level of intrinsic motivation
may think of creative ideas more often and divergently (i.e., have more creative potential),
as well as invest more effort into regulating themselves to achieve long-term goals (i.e.,
have more long-term self-regulation). However, more research is necessary to confirm
this possible connection.
Findings from the main analysis for Research question 2.
The findings for Research Question 2-(a) and (b) demonstrated significant
moderating effects of parenting styles on the relationship between creative potential and

88
long-term self-regulation was found. The unique effect of the interaction term for
comparing neglected parenting style group to the authoritative parenting style group,
explained 1.2% of the variance in long-term self-regulation. According to Aguinis et als
(2005) convention for the moderation research effect size, the interaction effect of the
neglected parenting style in this study was more than medium size. The significance
and/or direction of the relationship between creative potential and long-term selfregulation were significantly different in two parenting style groups. Additional analysis
showed that that the relationship between creative potential and long-term self-regulation
was significant in the participants who experienced a neglected parenting style, but not
for those who experienced an authoritative parenting style.
For those who experienced an authoritative parenting style, the amount of their
effortful control was independent of how much creative potential they have. Meanwhile,
the overall scores of long-term self-regulation of the authoritative parenting style group
were significantly higher than those of the neglected parenting style group. In other
words, regardless of the level of their creative potential, gifted young adults who
experienced an authoritative parenting style tended to invest more effort into regulating
themselves for long-term goals than those who experienced a neglected parenting style.
Perhaps, effortful control might be a positive consequence of having authoritative parents
who might teach their children to regulate themselves for long-term goals as ought-to
behaviors (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
On the other hand, the long-term self-regulation of gifted young adults who
experienced a neglected parenting style tends to be more influenced by how much
creative potential they have. Among gifted young adults who experienced a neglected

89
parenting style, those who think of fewer ideas and less divergently tend to invest less
effort into regulating themselves for long-term goals. While empirical studied have
showed that neglected parenting (i.e., lower parental behavioral control and lower
parental support) predict childrens lower self-esteem (Bean, Bush, & Wilson, 2003),
Waschull and Kernis (1996) study provides some hints as to how to interpret the
stronger relationship between creative potential and long-term self-regulation among the
participants who perceived a neglected parenting style compared to the participants who
perceived other parenting styles. Waschull and Kernis (1996) found that students with
lower self-esteem tended to have lower scores on measures of curiosity/interest and
preference for challenge, which indicated lower intrinsic motivation. In addition,
students who have unstable self-esteem were more likely to become angry whenever their
self-esteem was threatened by aversive interpersonal events. Waschull and Kernis (1996)
described unstable self-esteem heightened concern for ones self-worth (p.11).
Along these lines, it is possible to assume that gifted young adults who
experienced a neglected parenting style tended to have unstable self-esteem, lower
intrinsic motivation and heightened concern for ones self-worth. Students who have
heightened concern for their self-worth may have lower intrinsic motivations challenging
goals and maintaining strong commitment beyond their perceived competence.
Therefore, if gifted young adults experienced a neglected parenting style and have lower
self-esteem, their efforts for achieving long-term goals can be more influenced by their
perceived competence as indicated by their creative potential. Further empirical evidence
may help to understand these results.

90
Implications for Counselors
Stereotypes, or preconceived and oversimplified notion of characteristics typical
of a person or group (Stereotype, n.d, Retrieved from Oxford English Dictionary
Online), impacts ones attitudes and biases toward certain groups. When counselors are
not aware of certain stereotypes about clients with whom they work, they are vulnerable
to being influenced by such stereotypes. More specifically, college counselors, school
counselors, private practitioners, and marriage and family counselors who serve gifted
and/or creative individuals need to question whether or not they are influenced by any
stereotype about them. Empirical research can be the source through which counseling
practitioners obtain an in-depth understanding about gifted and/or creative students
beyond stereotypical pre-assumptions.
Findings from this study provided empirical support to refute one common
stereotype about creative individuals. i.e., highly creative individuals regulate themselves
poorly. The findings of this research claim reconsideration of such stereotypes about
creative individuals. In previous literature in the gifted education and counseling fields,
creative students were often depicted as having poor self-control (Betts & Neihart,
2010, p.1), and behav[ing] unpredictable (Davis, 2003, p.313); hence, highly creative
students may have more difficulties in adapting to academic and social contexts, even if
they are intellectually gifted (Goertzel & Goertzel, 1960; Kim, 2008).The current studys
finding, however, revealed no empirical support for such descriptions about creative
individuals. The result of this study shows that ones creative potential does not relate to
their short-term self-regulation. Creative potential rather positively relates to ones
effortful control for achieving long-term goals, although it was a small correlation.

91
Beyond reflecting on their own biases, counselors who work with creative
individuals need to help their clients by consulting educators and parents. As noted in the
literature review, highly creative students often suffer from various disadvantages rooted
in their educational environment (Gner& Oral, 1993; Westby & Dawson, 1995). In
addition, their creative potential remains undeveloped when they do not experience
enough psychological support (Gagn, 2004). In this sense, school counselors are in an
important position that can help establish a school environment that is conducive and
appreciative of intellectual and artistic pursuits of its creative students (Assouline,
Colangelo, & Heo, 2013, p.650) According to the American School Counselor
Association (ASCA, 2007), school counselors are encouraged to take an active role in the
advocacy, identification, and counseling of gifted and talented students. Therefore, the
implications of the current study for school counselors include the following categories:
advocacy, identification, and counseling of gifted and talented students.
First, when school counselors consult with teachers, parents, and/or families who
struggle with students with self-regulation difficulties (e.g., time management, disruptive
behaviors in class), school counselors need to advocate for students and solicit more
support from teachers and parents. Some of them may try to understand students selfregulation difficulties by labeling them as creative. However, such efforts can lead the
focus of difficulties and intervention strategies in the wrong directions. For example,
parents may want to ignore students self-regulation difficulties because they believe that
those difficulties are possible side effects of being talented. Or, educators may want to
avoid active intervention by thinking that students difficulties are caused by innate
factors, which cannot be changed. However, this study found that if some students have

92
self-regulation difficulties, they are more possibly caused by exterior factors, such as
neglected parenting rather than students creative potential. Therefore, when school
counselors work with students with self-regulation difficulties, they should be careful not
to focus only on students without first evaluating their family and/or class environment.
Second, while school counselors help with the identification and preparation
process of creatively talented students for various events, such as inventor contests,
writers workshops or art camps, school counselors need to be aware that great creative
potential and creative outcomes may stem from their passion as well as their inborn gifts.
In this study, creative potential positively relates to long-term self-regulation. In addition,
previous literature have described that intrinsic motivation strongly relates to both ones
creative potential and long-term self-regulation (De Jesus, Rus, Lens,& Imaginrio, 2013;
Malpass, O'Neil, & Hocevar, 1999). In other words, when students are intrinsically
motivated to achieve their goals, they are more likely to think about creative ideas in a
divergent manner as well as regulate themselves to achieve those goals. Implications of
this result might be more understandable when applying Dwecks (2006)s concept of
Growth Mindset, the belief that ones ability is something to develop through ones own
efforts. When creative students and educators do not believe their creative potential is
something they can develop through effortful control, students may be hesitant to make
an effort, since efforts may make them feel less talented. In contrast, when creative
students exhibit growth mindset about their creative potential, they will be less afraid of
undergoing any trial and error, which is necessary for great creative outcomes.
Third, when school counselors provide interventions to students who have selfregulation problems, it is helpful to remember that self-regulation is not fixed. As noted

93
in the literature review, self-regulation includes parts of intentional control, which can be
improved through training. Moreover, resources for intentional control can be
temporarily exhausted when they exert control by demanding tasks (Baumeister, Galliot,
DeWall, & Oaten, 2006; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Self-regulation training can
include several elements such as doing regular self-evaluation about progress,
recognizing implicit norms of a certain educational environment, setting a goal, and
supporting students changes consistently.
Implications for Counselor Educators
Although the issues of socio-emotional needs of gifted and talented individuals,
including creative individuals, are getting more attention in the counseling field,
counselor training for this population is still in its infancy stage. For example, even after
the American School Counselor Association articulated school counselors roles to serve
gifted and talented students in its position paper (2007), 38% of school counseling
programs accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related
Educational Programs (CACREP) did not give any attention at all to developmental
issues related to gifted and talented individuals (Peterson & Morris, 2010).Given the lack
of counselor training for gifted and talented population, counselor trainees might be
vulnerable to the misguided information and their ignorance or biases could hurt their
practice. Under the situation without officially required training, the role of counselor
educators is critical in order to increase trainees awareness and expand knowledge base
about special needs of gifted and talented individuals.
Along these lines, counselor educators can use the information from this study in
class in order to refute possible stereotypes of creative individuals among counselor

94
trainees. For example, counselor educators are encouraged to evaluate counselor
trainees how they define creativity and describe highly creative individuals. If counselor
trainees define creativity only as creative outcomes, counselor educators can distinguish
between the concepts of creative potential and actual creative outcomes. Then, they can
emphasize the role of counselors to support their talent development process. In addition,
counselor educators can help trainees to reflect their biases against creative individuals.
The current study provided empirical support that the negative stereotypes about creative
individuals self-regulation capacities have been misguided.
In addition, counselor educators need to help counselor trainees to have skills
necessary to consult parents of students who have self-regulation difficulties. The current
study found that the negative effect of a neglected parenting style on long-term selfregulation was stronger than the positive effect of creative potential. This result implies
that school counselors can help students with self-regulation difficulties better when they
can consult parents effectively. In this sense, current school counselor curriculum should
include training in the theory and practice of parent consulting and parents-counselor
collaboration as well as field experiences in their internships.
Implications for Parents
In addition to the implications for counseling practitioners and counselor
educators, parents can use the information provided from the current study to guide their
parenting. One important message from this study is that authoritative parenting can
nurture childrens long-term self-regulation without hindering creative potential
development. The authoritative parenting is characterized as a balance between freedom
and control, and authoritative parents believe that children need to comply with parents

95
guides in order to develop self-discipline and moral values (Baumrind, 1967; 1991). In
this study, gifted participants who reported higher scores both on perceived parental
warmth and parental behavioral control (c.f., conceptually, it represented that they
experienced an authoritative parenting) had higher long-term self-regulation scores
compared to those who reported lower scores on both scales (c.f., neglected parenting).
This has been consistently documented in previous research (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989;
Strage & Brandt, 1999) and concurs with the original position of Baumrind (1967) who
initially develop the categorization of parenting styles.
Moreover, participants who perceived an authoritative parenting style showed that
they invest effortful control to achieve their long-term goals, regardless of how much
creative potential they have. Their steady effortful control might be a benefit of having
authoritative parents who provide a holding environment where children can develop
autonomous self-discipline. Meanwhile, participants who perceived a neglected
parenting style showed that their effortful control for long-term goals was influenced by
how much creative potential they have, while their overall long-term self-regulation
scores was lower than those who perceived an authoritative parenting style.
It is difficult to provide definitive information about which parenting style can
nurture childrens creative potential from the result of this study. This is because
participants who perceived an authoritarian parenting style reported higher scores than
those who perceived a permissive parenting style. Although this result was statistically
proven in this study, this result neither concurs with previous research nor makes sense
conceptually. Admittedly, this result may be caused by limitations of this study, although
atypical and contradicting results were common in the previous research about the

96
relationship between parenting behaviors and childrens creative potential.
Despite of its limitation, it might be important to note that gifted young adult
participants in this study reported significantly higher parental behavioral control scores
compared to the general adolescent sample, and the parental behavioral control scores in
this study were significantly concentrated in the higher range beyond the normal
distribution. In this sense, this research suggest that one should be careful about
generalizing the dominant opinion that lenient or permissive parenting styles can nurture
childrens creative potential development in the gifted population, who possibly perceive
parental behavioral control more positively. For more careful interpretation of this result,
it might be helpful to note the result of Koestner and his colleagues (Koestner, Ryan,
Bernieli, & Holt, 1984)s study. They found that clear limits did not undermine intrinsic
motivation and creativity, if those are informational in nature. In other words, the nature
of rules and process of setting limits might be more important rather than the amount of
rules and limits in family.
Future Research Suggestions
The results of this study suggest certain possibilities for additional research. First
of all, future research needs to continue to identify more mediating and moderation
factors in the relationship between creative potential and self-regulation. In this study,
intrinsic motivation was assumed as potential mediating factors in the relationship
between creative potential and long-term self-regulation. Although previous research
provided strong possibility for the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation in the
relationship between creative potential and long-term self-regulation, future research
needs to continue to confirm this possibility. In addition to intrinsic motivation, future

97
research may explore the effects of other mediating or moderating factors such as selfefficacy and personality traits in the relationship between creative potential and selfregulation.
Additional research could be done to determine the effects of more various
parental behaviors on childrens creative development. Although this topic was not main
interest of this study, the literature review and the result of this study provided some
implications regarding this topic. In this study, the parenting style category of Baumrind
(1967; 1991) was used to represent diverse aspects of parental behaviors, and its category
was constructed by splitting the groups with the median values of two scales, the parental
warmth scale (Tilton-Weaver, Kerr, Pakalniskeine, Tokic, Salihovic, & Stattin, 2010) and
parent behavioral control scale (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Future research could be done to
examine the effects of more various parental behaviors, such as parents autonomy
support and parents psychological control on the students creative potential. In addition,
parental warmth and parental behavioral control were measured via participants
perception about their parents in this study. It might be informative if future researchers
use parents self-report measures or observation methods to determine their parenting
styles, and compared their results to this study.
Lastly, additional research on the relationship between creative potential and selfregulation can be conducted with K-12 age groups and/or non-gifted participants. In this
study, gifted young adults participating in the honor program were selected as a sample
due to the possibility of higher creative potential in that population. However, as noted in
the literature review, ones short-term and long-term self-regulation become mature as
they get older. Hence, there is a still possibility that short-term self-regulation relates to

98
creative potential in young children population, although its relationship was nonsignificant in the gifted young adult sample of this study. Additionally, future research
can compare the pattern of relationships between creative potential and self-regulation in
two groups -non-gifted and gifted individuals by expanding participant pool from this
study.
Limitations
Several limitations should be taken into account when considering the future
research in the field. The first limitation of this study was the representation issue of the
participant pool. Participants of this study were recruited from undergraduate honor
program participants while this research tried to give implication to various counseling
professionals who serve all age groups. Strictly speaking, there is a limitation to apply the
finding of this study to all age groups. In addition, the investigator used an e-mail list of
the honor program students of one University located in the mid-western area of the U.S.
Participants might have been affected by educational policies and the overall culture of
the region. Therefore, there is a limitation to generalize the research results to all gifted
individuals.
The second limitation relates to the nature of the self-report measures used in this
study. Brutus, Aguinis and Wassmer (2013) noted that self-reported data may include
some possible sources of bias that should be noted as limitations: (1) participants report
the data based on selective memory, (2) participants can have tendencies to attribute the
positive events and outcomes to themselves, while attributing negative events and
outcomes to external factors, (3) participants may have social desirability tendencies to
exaggerate or understate their responses. The human perception error of self-report

99
measures might be more salient to the parenting style measures in this study. Parenting
styles were measured through participants perceptions of their parent; however, parents
reports of their own behaviors will not be used. Indeed, Kerr, Stattin, and zdemir (2012)
noted that perceptions of parenting styles are in part influenced by respondents own
psychological status. Lastly, participants perceptions of their mothers and fathers were
not separately reported in this study for the parsimony of the research (Johnson &
Christensen, 2008). Therefore, parents reports of their own behaviors or observers
evaluations may be beneficial for future researchers.
Conclusion
The creative and mal-adaptive stereotype has been reinforced in the media, and
educators may assume that creatively gifted students difficulties in social contexts may
be caused by their innate neurological and psychological traits. However, a lack of
empirical research regarding this topic has led to confusion among counselors and
educators, who should prevent such problems. This study provided an evidence to refute
such stereotypes regarding creative individuals. Although there is a limitation to
generalize the results of this study to all age groups, the findings showed that creative
potential positively relates to long-term self-regulation among gifted individuals, while it
does not relate to short-term self-regulation. This result refutes the position that creative
individuals may have more difficulties regulating their impulses. In addition, this
research found that people who think of ideas more often and more divergently tend to
invest more effort into regulating themselves for long-term goals. This result also
challenges the supposition that creative individuals may have more difficulties in social
and academic adaptation.

100
In addition, the insight gleaned from this study provides useful information for
school counselors and parents who have strong influence on ones creative talent
development. This result raises the possibility that students self-regulation difficulties
(e.g., time management, disruptive behaviors in schools) are more possibly caused by
neglectful parenting rather than their innate psychological traits related to their creative
potential. In addition, this result of this study presented evidence that authoritative
parenting is beneficial to nurture childrens long-term self-regulation without impacting
the development of their childrens creative potential. Overall, this study was the first
research focused on the relationship between creative potential and self-regulation to my
knowledge. Therefore, this research could serve as a stimulant for future empirical work
regarding this topic.

101

APPENDIX A.
RESEARCH INVITATION E-MAIL

102
Hello,

You are invited to participate in a research study about gifted individuals because of your
membership in the Honors Program. The study is being conducted by Nanseol Heo, a
doctoral candidate from the Rehabilitation and Counselor Education department. This is
her dissertation study.

The purpose of the research is to explore the relationship among creative potential,
perceived parenting styles, and self-regulation in gifted individuals. The study consists of
an online survey that will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Your answers are
confidential and anonymous.

Compensation may be available.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Nanseol Heo.

To access the research survey, please click on the following link:

Thank you,

The University of Iowa Honors Program

/***********
Distribution of this message was approved by the University of Iowa's Institutional
Review Board. Neither your name nor e-mail address was released to the sender. The
policy and guidelines for the UI Mass Mail service, including information on how to
filter messages, are available at: http://its.uiowa.edu/apps2/support/massmail.
***********/

103

APPENDIX B.
CONSENT LETTER

104
You are invited to participate in a research study about gifted individuals because of your
membership in the Honors Program at the University of Iowa. The purpose of this
research is to explore the relationship among creative potential, perceived parenting
styles, and self-regulation in gifted individuals. Approximately 500 people will take part
in this study.

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an on-line
survey. You will be asked about your demographic information including your gender,
age, ethnicity/race, current major and university GPA. In addition, you will be briefly
asked about your experience or intentions related to the Honors program and creative
achievement. Then, you will evaluate yourself on a five point or three point rating scale
regarding your creative potential (e.g., I have many wild ideas.), perceived parenting
styles (e.g., My parents praised me for no special reason.), and self-regulation (e.g.,
When Im bored, I fidget or cant sit still.). The survey will take approximately 20
minutes to complete. You may skip any questions you prefer not to answer.

We will keep the information you provide confidential, however federal regulatory
agencies and the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board (a committee that
reviews and approves research studies) may inspect and copy records pertaining to this
research. To help protect your confidentiality for this study, the survey will be
anonymous so it will not be possible for us to link you to your study information. All
study information will be stored in locked files in locked offices and in password
protected computer files on secured computers. The survey results will be aggregated for
the analysis and report so that you cannot be directly identified.

You will be asked to provide information over the Internet. It is possible that your
responses could be viewed by persons who have access to the computers hosting the web
site or by unauthorized persons who gain access to the web site computers. We will use a
secure web site and computers to collect the study information and we will not collect
any information in the on-line questions or through the web site that would identify you.

105
You will not have any costs for being in this research study.
You will have an opportunity to win one of fifteen $20 Amazon gift cards, if you leave
your current e-mail information at the end of survey.

Taking part in this research study is completely voluntary. If you decide not to be in this
study, or if you stop participating at any time, you wont be penalized or lose any benefits
for which you otherwise qualify.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact: Nanseol Heo, (319)-631-9262,
nanseol-heo@uiowa.edu, Dr. Susannah Wood, susannah-wood@uiowa.edu or Dr.
Nicholas Colangelo, nick-colangelo@uiowa.edu.

If you have questions about the rights of research subjects, please contact the Human
Subjects Office, 105 Hardin Library for the Health Sciences, 600 Newton Rd, The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1098, (319) 335-6564, or e-mail
irb@uiowa.edu. To offer input about your experiences as a research subject or to speak to
someone other than the research staff, call the Human Subjects Office at the number
above. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Completing the survey to us will indicate your willingness to participate in the study. If
you wish to keep a copy of this information page, please save or print the page before
going on to the survey.
If you do not wish to be in the study, please close your web browser window now or at
any time before submitting the survey.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this study.

Nanseol Heo, Doctoral candidate

Department of Rehabilitation and Counselor Education, The University of Iowa
(319) 631-9262, nanseol-heo@uiowa.edu

106

APPENDIX C.
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY

107

Background Information Sheet

1.

Gender
Male

2.

Female

Other

Age
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 or above

3.

Ethnicity/Race
African-American/Black
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian-American/Pacific Islander
Caucasian-American/White
Hispanic
Multiracial
Others

4.

How many semesters have you spent at college, either at Iowa or elsewhere?
o 1
o 2
o 3

108

o 4
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
10 or more

5.

Have you taken (or are you taking) an Honors course?

o Yes
o No

6.

Have you ever been to the Blank Honors Center (BHC)?

o Yes
o No

7.

Were you admitted to the Honors Program directly from high school, or were you
invited once you were at Iowa?
o Admitted from high school
o Admitted as a transfer student
o Admitted while at Iowa
o Unsure

8.

Did you opt-in to the Honors Program? (Are you planning on completing the
requirements for University Honors?)
o Yes
o No
o Unsure

109

9.

Are you planning on graduating with Honors in your major?

o Yes
o No
o Unsure

10.

Directions: Please indicate your response to each question.

No

Once

Twice

Three
and more
times

1. Have you ever participated in research

or other creative projects as an
undergraduate? (i.e. choreography,
creative writing, art shows, musical
performance, etc)
2. Have you ever presented or performed
your original works (i.e. research or other
works) to public?
3. Have you ever received an award in
local -level competition based on your
research, works, or performances? (i.e.
District or State)
4. Have you ever received awards in
national level competition based on your
research, works, or performances?

110

5. Have you ever received a scholarship or

grant based on your research, works or,
performances (as opposed to for your
GPA)?
6. Have you ever published your creative
work or research?

11.

Please choose one field that your current college major belongs to. If you have dual
majors, please indicate the area of your primary major. If you are unsure about which
category is appropriate, please refer to the descriptions at
(https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/majors-careers).

o Open major
o Arts and Humanities (e.g.,arts,visual,and performing; English Language &
literature; Foreign Language; Linguistics; Philosophy and religion)
o Business (e.g., Accounting and finance; Business management; Human resources;
Marketing)
o Health and Medicine (e.g., Nursing; Public health; Medicine; Clinical laboratory
science)
o Multi-/Interdisciplinary Studies (e.g., Area, ethnic, cultural and gender studies;
Family & consumer science; Humanities; General studies; Parks, recreation and
fitness)
o Public and Social Services (e.g., Law; Military; Public services; Educational
policy; Public policy; Social work; Criminal justice and corrections; Theology
and religious vocation)

111

o Social Sciences (e.g., Communication & journalism; Education; Psychology;

History; Library science; Criminology; Economics; international relations)
o Science, Math and Technology (e.g. Agriculture; Architecture; Biology;
Biochemistry; Computer and information sciences; Engineering; Engineering
technologies; Math and statistics; Physical science; Science techniques)
o Trades and Personal Services (e.g. Mechanics; Culinary arts; Cosmetology;
Transportation; Construction trades)
o Others (

12.

What is your current cumulative grade point average?

o Above 4.0
o 3.9~3.999
o 3.8~3.8999
o 3.7~3.7999
o 3.6~3.6999
o 3.5~3.5999
o 3.4~3.49999
o 3.3~3.3999
o 3.2-3.2999
o 3.1-3.1999
o Below 3.1

112

REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2006). Computation of effect size for moderating effects of
categorical variables in multiple regression. Applied psychological
measurement, 30(5), 440-442.
Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in
assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: a 30year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 94-107.
Aguinis, H., Bommer, W. H., & Pierce, C. A. (1996). Improving the estimation of
moderating effects by using computer-administered questionnaires.Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 56(6), 1043-1047.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. NY:
Crown Publishers, Inc.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). What does a theory of creativity require?. Psychological
Inquiry, 4(3), 179-181.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context:Update to "The Social Psychology of
Creativity." Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ambrose, D, Sternberg, R. J., & Sriraman, B. (Eds.). (2012). Confronting dogmatism in
gifted education. New York: Routledge.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th Ed., text rev.). doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349.
American School Counselor Association (2007). ASCA position statements. Alexandria:
VA, Authors.
Ames, M., & Runco, M. A. (2005). Predicting entrepreneurship from ideation and
divergent thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 311-315.
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Heo, N., & Dockery, L. (2013). High-Ability students
participation in specialized instructional delivery models variations by aptitude, grade,
gender, and content area. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 135-147.
Assouline, S., Colangelo, N., & Heo, N. (2012). Counseling needs and interventions for
gifted students: Personality consideration and social-emotional development. In T.L.
Cross., & J.R. Cross. (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and
talents (pp. 649-664). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Atkinson, S. (2000). Does the need for high levels of performance curtail the
development of creativity in design and technology project work?. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(3), 255-281.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75-105.

113
Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment
technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 113117.
Barron, F. (1955). The disposition towards originality.Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology,51, 478485.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual
review of Psychology, 32(1), 439-476.
Batey, M. (2012). The measurement of creativity: from definitional consensus to the
introduction of a new heuristic framework.Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 55-65.
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2008). The relationship between measures of creativity and
schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(8), 816-821.
Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Individual differences in
ideational behavior: can the big five and psychometric intelligence predict creativity
scores?. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 90-97.
Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). SelfRegulation and
personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion
moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality,74(6), 1773-1802.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool
behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43-88.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.
Bean, R. A., Bush, K. R., McKenry, P. C., & Wilson, S. M. (2003). The impact of
parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic
achievement and self-esteem of African American and European American
adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18(5), 523-541.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary
students. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 447-457.
Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 32(2), 248-253.
Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (2010). Revised profiles of the gifted and talented. Retrieved
from http://www.ingeniosus.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/PROFILES-BESTREVISED-MATRIX-2010.pdf
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Lavire, S. (1993). Self-regulation on a conceptformation task among average and gifted students. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 56(1), 115-134.

114
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote
associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(4),
634-639.
Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (2005). Talent search research: what have we learned?. High
Ability Studies, 16(1), 97-111.
Bronson, M.B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nature. NY: The
Guilford.
Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future
directions in scholarly reports analysis and recommendations.Journal of
Management, 39(1), 48-75.
Calero, M. D., Garca-Martn, M. B., Jimnez, M. I., Kazen, M., & Araque, A. (2007).
Self-regulation advantage for high-IQ children: Findings from a research
study. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(4), 328-343.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor
structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire.Creativity Research Journal,
17(1), 3750.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Themes and issues in the self-regulation of
behavior.In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in social cognition: Vol. XII.
Perspectiveson behavioral self-regulation. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Cassady, J. C. (2001). Self-reported GPA and SAT: A methodological note.Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(12), 1-6.
Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W., & Tatsuoka, M.M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen
personality factor questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and
Ability Testing.
ChamorroPremuzic, T. (2006). Creativity versus conscientiousness: Which is a better
predictor of student performance?. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 521-531.
Chand, I., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Problem finding skills as components in the creative
process. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(1), 155-162.
Chang, J. W., Huang, D. W., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Is task autonomy beneficial for
creativity? Prior task experience and self-control as boundary conditions.Social
Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 40(5), 705-724.
Charyton, C., & Snelbecker, G. E. (2007). General, artistic and scientific creativity
attributes of engineering and music students. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3),
213-225.
Cicchetti, D. V., Showalter, D. & Tyrer, P. J. (1985). The effect of number of rating scale
categories on levels of inter-rater reliability: A Monte Carlo investigation. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 9, 31-36.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1965). Form of the relationship between creativity, IQ, and academic
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(6), 303-308.

115
Claridge, G. (1993). When is psychoticism psychoticism? And how does it really relate to
creativity?. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 184-188.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. & Gross, M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How
schools hold back America's brightest students. Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center
for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665.
Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using?
Roeper Review, 23(2), 7279.
Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3),
391-404.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture and person. A systems view of creativity.
In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp.325-339). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York: HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sawyer, K. (1995). Creative insight: The social dimension of a
solitary moment. In R. Sternberg, & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight(pp.
329-363). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dabrowski. K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston: Little,Brown.
Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted
students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist,33(2-3), 45-63.
Daniels, S., & Piechowski, M. M. (Eds.). (2009). Living With Intensity: Understanding
the Sensitivity, Excitability, and the Emotional Development of Gifted Children,
Adolescents, and Adults. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press, Inc.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative
model. Psychological bulletin, 113(3), 487-496.
Davis, G. A. (1975). In frumious pursuit of the creative person. The Journal Of Creative
Behavior, 9(2), 75-87.
Davis, G. A. (1989). Testing for creative potential. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 14(3), 257-274.
Davis, G. A. (2003). Identifying creative students and measuring creativity (3rd ed.). In N.
Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp.311-324). Boston,
MA: Pearson.

116
De Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W., & Imaginrio, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and
creativity related to product: a meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990
2010. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 80-84.
Delucchi, K. L., & Bostrom, A. (2004). Methods for analysis of skewed data distributions
in psychiatric clinical studies: working with many zero values.American Journal of
Psychiatry, 161(7), 1159-1168.
Demetriou, A. (2000). Organization and development of self-understanding and selfregulation: Toward a general theory. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
(Eds.),Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 209251). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting
academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16(12), 939-944.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital, Inc..
Edwards, M. P., & Tyler, L. E. (1965). Intelligence, creativity, and achievement in a
nonselective public junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology,56(2), 9699.
Emerick, L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students'
perceptions of factors that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(3), 140-146.
Eysenck, H. (2003). Creativity, personality, and the convergentdivergentcontinuum. In
M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes(pp.95114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological
Inquiry, 4(3), 147-178.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavior research methods, 39(2), 175-191.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic
creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.
Forgas, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2009). The psychology of self-regulation:
An introductoryreview. In J. P. Forgas, R. F. Baumeister, & D. M. Tice (Eds.), The
psychology of self-regulation(pp. 117). New York: Psychology Press.
Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of
creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 613-617.
Furnham, A., Crump, J., Batey, M., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality and
ability predictors of the consequences test of divergent thinking in a large nonstudent sample. Personality and Individual Differences,46(4), 536540.
Furnham, A., Hosoe, T., & Tang, T. L. P. (2002). Male hubris and female humility? A
crosscultural study of ratings of self, parental, and sibling multiple intelligence in
America, Britain, and Japan. Intelligence, 30(1), 101-115.

117
Gagn, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 103-112.
Gagn, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory.
High ability studies, 15(2), 119-147.
Gallagher, J. J. (1990). Editorial: The public and professional perception of the emotional
status of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(3), 202-211.
Gallagher, S. A. (1985). A comparison of the concept of overexcitabilities with measures
of creativity and school achievement in sixthgrade students. Roeper Review, 8(2),
115-119.
Gallucci, N. T., Middleton, G., & Kline, A. (1999). The independence of creative
potential and behavior disorders in gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(3),
194-203.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. Macmillan and Company.
Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New
York:Basic books.
Gardner, H. (2011). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of
Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi. AZ: Basic Books.
Gardner, K. G., & Moran III, J. D. (1990). Family adaptability, cohesion,
andcreativity. Creativity Research Journal, 3(4), 281-286.
Gestsdottir, S., & Lerner, R. M. (2008). Positive development in adolescence: The
development and role of intentional self-regulation. Human Development, 51(3), 202224
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with
gifted students. Oxford, England: Wiley.
Goertzel, M. G., & Goertzel, V. H. (1960). Intellectual and emotional climate in families
producing eminence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 4, 5960.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List.Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398-1405.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The adjective check list manual. Palo
Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.
Graham, J. W., Hofer, S. M., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1996). Maximizing the usefulness of
data obtained with planned missing value patterns: An application of maximum
likelihood procedures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31(2), 197-218.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with childrens selfregulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143154.

118
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5,444454.Guilford, J. P.
(1967).The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1973). The oneway relation between creative
potential and IQ. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 7(4), 247-252.
Gner, B., & Oral, G. (1993). Relationship between creativity and nonconformity to
school discipline as perceived by teachers of Turkish elementary school children, by
controlling for their grade and sex. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20(3), 208214.
Gute, G., Gute, D. S., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihlyi, M. (2008). The early lives of
highly creative persons: The influence of the complex family. Creativity Research
Journal, 20(4), 343-357.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harnishfeger, K. K., & Pope, R. S. (1996). Intending to forget: The development of
cognitive inhibition in directed forgetting. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 62(2), 292-315.
Harrington, D. M., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl Rogers's
theory of creative environments: Child-rearing antecedents of creative potential in
young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52(4), 851-856.
Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Creativity and giftedness: Published
instrument uses and abuses. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 110-114.
Hutchinson, E. D. (1931). Materials for the study of creative thinking.Psychological
Bulletin,28, 392410.
Hurlock, E. B. (1978). Child Development (3rd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (Eds.). (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression (No.
72). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Jackson, L. A., Witt, E. A., Games, A. I., Fitzgerald, H. E., von Eye, A., & Zhao, Y.
(2012). Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and
Technology Project. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 370-376.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational, & Psychological Testing of the American
Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National
Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and
psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual review of
psychology, 44(1), 23-52.

119
Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn't hurt to ask But sometimes it hurts to believe: Polish
students' creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 5(2), 154-164.
Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Big five personality
traits as the predictors of creative selfefficacy and creative personal identity: does
gender matter?. The Journal of Creative Behavior,47(3), 215-232.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of
creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12.
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Russell, C. M. (2012). Identifying and assessing
creativity as a component of giftedness. Journal of Psycho-educational Assessment,
30(1), 60-73.
Kerr, B.A. (2012). Developmental issues for gifted and creative girls: Milestones and
danger zones. In T.L. Cross, & J.R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for Counselors serving
students with gifts and talents (pp. 315-332). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Kerr, M., &Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms
of adolescent adjustment: Further evidence for a reinterpretation of monitoring.
DevelopmentalPsychology, 36, 366-380.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & zdemir, M. (2012). Perceived parenting style and adolescent
adjustment: Revisiting directions of effects and the role of parental
knowledge. Developmental psychology, 48(6), 1540 -1553.
Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1976). Manual for Khatena-Torrance creative perception
inventory. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Company.
Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Prufrock
Journal, 16(2-3), 57-66.
Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14.
Kim, K. H. (2007). Exploring the interactions between Asian culture (Confucianism) and
creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(1), 28-53.
Kim, K. H. (2008). Underachievement and creativity: Are gifted underachievers highly
creative?. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 234-242.
Kim, K. H., & Hull, M.F. (2012). Creative personality and anti-creative environment for
high school dropouts, Creativity Research Journal, 24(2-3), 169-176.
Kim, K. H., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2010). The relationship between creativity and
behavior problems among underachieving elementary and high school
students. Creativity Research Journal, 22(2), 185-193.
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F, & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children's
behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on
intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52, 233-248.

120
Koestner, R., Walker, M., & Fichman, L. (1999). Childhood parenting experiences and
adult creativity. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(1), 92-107.
Kogan, S. M., Brody, G. H., Chen, Y., & DiClemente, R. (2011). Self-regulatory
problems mediate the association of contextual stressors and unprotected intercourse
among Rural, African American, Young Adult Men. Journal of Health Psychology,
16(1), 50-57.
Kolitch, E. R., & Brody, L. E. (1992). Mathematics acceleration of highly talented
students: An evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 78-86.
Kuhl, J., & Kraska, K. (1993). Self-regulation: Psychometric properties of a computeraided instrument. German Journal of Psychology, 17(1), 11-24.
Lim, S., & Smith, J. (2008). The structural relationships of parenting style, creative
personality, and loneliness. Creativity Research Journal, 20(4), 412-419.
Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: a
10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4),
718-729.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parentchild interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology: vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th
ed.) (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
Malpass, J. R., O'Neil, H. F., & Hocevar Jr, D. (1999). Selfregulation, goal orientation,
selfefficacy, worry, and highstakes math achievement for mathematically gifted
high school students. Roeper Review, 21(4), 281-288.
Marland, S. J. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented. US Government Printing
Office.
Martindale, C. (1993). Psychoticism, degeneration, and creativity.Psychological Inquiry,
4, 209211.
Martindale, C. (2007). Creativity, primordial cognition, and personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 43, 17771785.
Martindale, C., & Dailey, A. (1996). Creativity, primary process cognition, and
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 20,409414.
Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. (1967). Examiner's manual, Remote Associates Test.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Mendaglio, S. (2008). Dabrowskis theory of positive disintegration: A personality theory
for the 21st century. In S. Mendaglio (Ed), Dabrowskis theory of positive
disintegration(pp.13-40). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press, Inc.
Mika, E. (2005). Theory of positive disintegration as a model of personality development
for exceptional individuals. Perspectives in gifted education: Complexities of
emotional development, spirituality and hope, 3, 1-2.

121
Miller, A. L. (2012). Conceptualizations of creativity: Comparing theories and models of
giftedness. Roeper Review, 34(2), 94-103.
Miller, A. L., Lambert, A. D., & Neumeister, K. L. S. (2012). Parenting Style,
perfectionism, and creativity in high-ability and high-achieving young adults. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 35(4), 344-365.
Miller, B. C., & Gerard, D. (1979). Family influences on the development of creativity in
children: An integrative review. Family Coordinator, 28(3), 295-312.
Moilanen, K. L. (2007). The adolescent self-regulatory inventory: The development and
validation of a questionnaire of short-term and long-term self-regulation. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 36(6), 835-848.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited
resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247259.
National Association of Gifted Children (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century:
shifting the paradigm. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=6404
Novak, S. P., & Clayton, R. R. (2001). The influence of school environment and selfregulation on transitions between stages of cigarette smoking: a multilevel
analysis. Health Psychology, 20(3), 196-207.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998). Talent search purposes, rationale, and role in gifted
education. Prufrock Journal, 9(3), 106-113.
Pannells, T. C., & Claxton, A. F. (2008). Happiness, creative ideation, and locus of
control. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 67-71.
Partnership for 21st century skills (2011). Framework for 21st Century learning.
Retrieved from www.pg21.org/overview
Persson, A., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2004). Why a leisure context is linked to
normbreaking for some girls and not others: personality characteristics and parent
child relations as explanations. Journal of Adolescence, 27(5), 583-598.
Peterson, J. S., & Morris, C. W. (2010). Preparing school counselors to address concerns
related to giftedness: a study of accredited counselor preparation programs. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3), 311-336.
Phillips, V. K., & Torrance, E. P. (1971). Divergent thinking, remote associations, and
concept attainment strategies. The Journal of Psychology,77(2), 223-228.
Piffer, D. (2012). Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion of
creativity and general directions for future research. Thinking Skills and
Creativity,7(3), 258264.
Piirto, J. (1995). Deeper, wider, broader: The Pyramid of talent development in the
context of the giftedness construct. Educational Forum, 59, 363371.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Re-analyses of Torrance's (1958 to
present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 103-114.

122
Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks
domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. R. Sternberg, E.L.
Grigorenko, & J.L. Singer (Eds.),Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153167). Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association.
Plucker, J. A., & Mclntire, J. (1996). Academic survivability in high-potential, middle
school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(1), 7-14.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human
creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35-61). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Plucker, J. A., & Runco, M. A. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been
greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in
creativity assessment. Roeper Review, 21(1), 36-39
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important
to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity
research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83-96.
Plucker, J. A., Runco, M. A., & Lim, W. (2006). Predicting ideational behavior from
divergent thinking and discretionary time on task. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1),
55-63.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of selfregulation. Development and Psychopathology, 12(3), 427-441.
Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits:
Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research
Journal, 20(1), 53-66.
Probst, B., & Piechowski, M. (2012). Overexitabilities and temperament. In T.L. Cross,
& J.R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for Counselors serving students with gifts and talents
(pp. 53-74). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What
do we know and where do we go?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152-170.
Renzulli, J. S. (1971). Teacher identification of superior students. Exceptional
children, 37(3), 211-214.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model
for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of
giftedness (pp. 53-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappa, 42(7), 305-310.
Richards, R. (1990). Everyday creativity, eminent creativity, and health:Afterview for
CRJ issues on creativity and health. Creativity Research Journal, 3(4), 300-326.
Robinson, A., Shore, B.M., & Enersen, D.L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education:
An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

123
Rogers, C. (1959). Toward a theory of creativity. In H.H.Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and
its cultivation(pp. 69-82). New York: Harper.
Rothbart, M.K., & Bates, J.E., (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N.
Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.). Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1. pp. 37-86). HIllsdale, NJ:
Eribaum.
Runco, M. A. (1994). Creativity and its discontents. In M.P. Shaw&M. A. Runco
(Eds.), Creativity and Affect(pp. 53-65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Runco, M. A. (2010). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and
practice. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational psychology
review, 7(3), 243-267.
Runco, M., & Jaeger, G.J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96.
Runco, M. A., & Nemiro, J. (1994). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper
Review, 16(4), 235-241.
Runco, M. A., & Richards, R. (Eds.). (1998). Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and
health. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2000-2001). Development and psychometric
integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4),
393-400.
Russell, C. J., & Bobko, P. (1992). Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: too
coarse for comfort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 336-342.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57(5), 749-761.
Ryser, G. R. (2007). Profile of creative abilities. PRO-ED, Austin, TX.
Schiever, S.W. (1985). Creative personality characteristics and dimensions of mental
functioning in gifted adolescents, Roeper Review,7(4), 223-226.
Schuldberg, D. (2000-2001): Six subclinical spectrum traits in normal creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 13(1), 5-16.
Scott, C. L. (1999). Teachers' biases toward creative children. Creativity Research
Journal, 12(4), 321-328.
Selart, M., Nordstrm, T., Kuvaas, B., & Takemura, K. (2008). Effects of reward on selfregulation, intrinsic motivation and creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 52(5), 439-458.

124
Shin, S. H., & Jacobs, S. S. (1973). An analysis of the interrelationships among
intelligence and multi-levels of creativity and achievement. Paper presented at
theProceedings of the 81st Annual Convention, American Psychological Association,
USA, 81, 629-630.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The
science of early childhood development. Washington, D.C. :National Academies
Press.
Siegelman, M. (1973). Parent behavior correlates of personality traits related to creativity
in sons and daughters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,40(1), 43-47.
Siegle, D., McCoach, D.B., & Rubenstein, L.D. (2012). Understanding and addressing
underachievement in gifted students. In T.L. Cross. & J.R. Cross. (Eds). Handbook
for counselors serving students with gifts and talents (pp.511-528). Waco: TX:
Prufrock Press.
Sierwald, W. (1989). Creative talent: Identification, development, and demand. Paper
presented at the Paper presented at the 2nd Meeting of the Section Educational
Psychology of the German Psychological Society.
Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. NY: Guilford Press
Simonton, D. K. (2012). Creative genius as a personality phenomenon: Definitions,
methods, findings, and issues. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(9),
691-706.
Sternberg, R. J. (1984). Toward a triarchic theory of human intelligence. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 7(2), 269-316.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal,18(1), 8798.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and
paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge ,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Strage, A., & Brandt, T. S. (1999). Authoritative parenting and college students
academic adjustment and success. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 146-456.
Strong, C. M., Nowakowska, C., Santosa, C. M., Wang, P. W., Kraemer, H. C., & Ketter,
T. A. (2007). Temperamentcreativity relationships in mood disorder patients,
healthy controls and highly creative individuals. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 100(1), 41-48.
Subotnik, R. F., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1997). Restructuring special programs to
reflect the distinctions between children's and adults' experiences with
giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3-4), 101-116.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72, 271-324.

125
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg & J.
E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21252). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
The College board. (2013). Major and career search. Retrieved from
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/majors-careers.
Tilton-Weaver, L., Kerr, M., Pakalniskeine, V., Tokic, A., Salihovic, S., & Stattin, H.
(2010). Open up or close down: How do parental reactions affect youth information
management?. Journal of Adolescence, 33(2), 333-346.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Torrance, E. P. (1974).Torrance tests of creative thinking: NormsTechnical Manual
Research EditionVerbal Tests, Forms A and B;Figural Tests, Forms A and B.
Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1975). Creativity research in education: Still alive. In I. A. Taylor& J. W.
Getzels (Eds.),Perspectives in creativity(pp. 278296). Chicago:Aldine Publishing
Company.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Empirical validation of criterion-referenced indicators of creative
abilitythrough a longitudinal study. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 6(3), 136-140.
Torrance, E. P. (1990). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Figural Forms A & B.
Norms-technical Manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Toth , L. S., & Baker , S. R. (1990). The relationship of creativity and instructional style
preferences to overachievement and underachievement in a sample of public school
children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 24, 190-198.
Vahedi, S. Mostafafi, F., &Mortazanajad, H. (2009). Self-Regulation and Dimensions of
Parenting Styles Predict Psychological Procrastination of Undergraduate
Students. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 4(4), 147-154.
Vincent, A. S., Decker, B. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence,
and expertise: A test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 163178.
Von Stumm, S., Chung, A., & Furnham, A. (2011). Creative ability, creative ideation and
latent classes of creative achievement: What is the role of personality? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(2), 107-114.
Walczyk, J. J., Runco, M. A., Tripp, S. M., & Smith, C. E. (2008). The creativity of lying:
Divergent thinking and ideational correlates of the resolution of social
dilemmas. Creativity Research Journal, 20(3), 328-342.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). A new look at the creativityintelligence
distinction. Journal of Personality, 33(3), 348-369.
Waschull, S. B., & Kernis, M. H. (1996). Level and stability of self-esteem as predictors
of children's intrinsic motivation and reasons for anger. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 4-13.

126
Westby, E., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom?
Creativity Research Journal, 8, 110.
Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Williams, W. M., & Yang, L. T. (1999). Organizational creativity. In R. J. Sternberg
(Ed.),Handbook of creativity(pp. 373-391). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Zampetakis, L. A. (2010). Unfolding the measurement of the creative personality. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(2), 105-123.