GENDER, GENDER ROLE, AND CREATIVITY
By G. Stoltzfus, BradyLeigh Nibbelink, Debra Vredenburg, E. Thyrum. 2011
128 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Undergraduate students (136) were assessed with 3 measures of creative ability and a gender role measure to explore relationships between gender, gender role, and creativity. Male participants’ performance on the creativity measures generally was better than that of females, with significant differences in 2 specific creativity tasks. Androgynous individuals’ creative productions were judged to be superior to those of participants representing other gender role categories. Further analysis revealed the highest levels of creativity in men who strongly identified with feminine gender role characteristics, with androgynous women recording the next highest scores. Undifferentiated men and women, and highly feminine women achieved low creativity scores. Both men and women who reported strongly masculine gender role characteristics surpassed the performance of undifferentiated participants.
Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/26dc114698a0491b83561a7955988d5ac48fa360
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Developmental and Educational Psychology
In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Citations in the corpus
- Personal factors of creativity: A second order meta-analysis (2015, background): “…of gender identity, it was found that having expressive traits alongside instrumental ones, i.e., androgyny, is associated with creativity more strongly than being male or female, which suggests that the psychological is more relevant that the biological sex (Ma, 2009; Stoltzfus et al., 2011).”
- Improving Creative Thinking Skills of Students through Differentiated Science Inquiry Integrated with Mind Map (2017, background): “These results are consistent with previous researches (Proudfoot, 2015; Singh, 2014; Stoltzfus et al., 2011).”