GENDER, GENDER ROLE, AND CREATIVITY - PBworks

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2011, 39(3), 425-432
© Society for Personality Research
DOI 10.2224/sbp.2011.39.3.425

GENDER, GENDER ROLE, AND CREATIVITY

GENIFFER STOLTZFUS, BRADY LEIGH NIBBELINK, DEBRA VREDENBURG,
AND ELIZABETH THYRUM

Millersville University, Millersville, PA, USA

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.

Keywords: gender role, creativity, gender, androgyny, Torrance Test of Creative Thinking.

Despite four decades of scholarly interest in gender and creativity, no clear
picture has emerged regarding the relationship between these two important and
complex phenomena. Empirical studies of gender differences in creative ability
have yielded decidedly inconsistent findings, except for a consensus regarding the
disproportionately greater male presence among widely recognized figures who
are distinguished by their eminent creative accomplishments. Direct comparisons
of the performance of men and women on a wide array of creativity measures
have resulted in every conceivable outcome. In many studies, no discernible
gender differences have been found (Kaufman, Baer, & Gentile, 2004). In

Geniffer Stoltzfus, MA, Brady Leigh Nibbelink, Debra Vredenburg, PhD, and Elizabeth Thyrum,
PhD, Millersville University, Millersville, PA, USA.
Appreciation is due to Dr. Mary Margaret Kelly and anonymous reviewers.
Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Brady Leigh Nibbelink, 312 Deerfield Rd.,
Camp Hill, PA, 17011 USA. Phone: 717-871-5865; Fax: 717-871-2480; Email: bradyleighn@msn.
com

425

426 GENDER, GENDER ROLE, AND CREATIVITY

other studies, women have surpassed men in creative ability (Reuter et al.,
2005; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001), whereas in other comparisons, men outperform
women (Cox, 2002; Dollinger, Dollinger, & Centeno, 2005). Similarly, in
studies of creative men and women’s personalities, some researchers have found
similarities (Chavez-Eakle, Lara, & Cruz-Fuentes, 2006; Szobiova, 2006), while
others have found personality differences (Labouvie-Vief, 1994). As there are
more questions than answers about how men and women differ and resemble
one another in their creative pursuits, Baer (1999) called for studies designed to
explain the many inconsistencies that characterize this body of literature.

Ai (1999) has suggested that these pervasive inconsistencies might be
explained, at least in part, by differences in gender role identification across
participants. The issue of gender role has attracted far less attention than gender
itself in empirical creativity studies. However, this small but growing body of
research has yielded consistent evidence of superior creative potential among
androgynous individuals.

In an early gender role study, Carter (1985) found cognitive flexibility scores to
be significantly higher in androgynous individuals in comparison to individuals
whose gender roles were described as feminine or undifferentiated. One result
of interest is Carter’s finding that participants whose sex roles were classified
as high in masculinity, exhibited significantly higher cognitive flexibility than
did low-masculinity participants, and high-masculinity participants’ cognitive
flexibility scores were equivalent to those of androgynous individuals. Carter
found notable gender differences, with men significantly outperforming women
in cognitive flexibility tasks.

More recently, Norlander, Erixon, and Archer (2000) used multiple measures
of creativity to compare creative attitudes and creative performance in young
adults. They were sorted into one of five Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI;
Bem, 1981) gender role classifications: androgynous, characterized by high
masculinity and high femininity; stereotypic, involving placing high values on
traditional roles for one’s gender; undifferentiated, marked by low masculinity
and low femininity; retrotypic, consisting of characteristics that are the opposite
of one’s traditional gender role; and midmost, individuals whose self-appraisals
regarding gender were in the middle range for both masculinity and femininity.
Androgynous individuals obtained higher creativity scores than did stereotypic,
midmost, and undifferentiated participants. Furthermore, no differences were
found between the creativity levels of androgynous participants and retrotypic
participants. Stereotypic participants obtained the lowest scores on all creativity
measures. The authors suggest that nontraditional gender role self-attributions
are associated with cognitive flexibility that facilitates creative self-expression.
In addition to analyzing the impact of gender role in creativity the authors also
examined gender effects. They found that female participants reported more

GENDER, GENDER ROLE, AND CREATIVITY 427

creative attitudes than males did, as measured in a self-report questionnaire
tapping characteristics such as attitudes toward change, risk taking, and stability.
No gender differences emerged in creative ability.

Using a sample of Turkish university students, Karakitapoglu-Aygun
(2004) found men’s self-descriptions to contain significantly higher levels of
self-perceived openness and creativity than did the self-descriptions of women.
Additionally, openness and creativity were significantly correlated with high
levels of interest in relational priorities (such as maintaining harmony with
others) in men, but not in women, suggesting that creative men may possess at
least some characteristics that are typical of traditionally feminine gender roles.

In a recent comparison of the creative styles of androgynous and nonandrogynous
individuals, Keller, Lavish, and Brown (2007) found that androgynous individuals
utilized a wider array of strategies in the process of facilitating creative activity
in contrast to masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated individuals. The greater
variability in techniques employed to express creativity among these androgynous
participants supports the notion that androgyny might be characterized by high
levels of cognitive flexibility, which would, in turn, be expected to enhance
creative potential.

We aimed in this study to determine whether the benefits of androgyny apply
equally to men and women in their creative efforts and specifically we explored
whether the facilitative effects of androgyny operate similarly across genders.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS

Participants were 136 undergraduate students at a mid-sized regional university
(57 males and 79 females, age range from 17 to 31) who received extra credit for
their participation in the study.

MATERIALS
The materials included a modified version of the Torrance Test of Creative

Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1998). The TTCT is the most widely used test
of divergent thinking, and has been validated across cultures in widespread
international studies (Sternberg, 1999). Torrance reports reliability coefficients
for the TTCT scales ranging from .89 to .94.

Participants were instructed to: 1) list as many unusual uses as possible for a tin
can; 2) list as many unusual uses as possible for a cardboard box; 3) complete a
picture construction task using an oval shape centered on a blank sheet of paper.
Unusual uses for a tin can and cardboard box were scored on three dimensions:
fluency, the number of responses generated; flexibility, the number of distinct
categories in which the responses could be grouped; and novel responses, the
number of unique responses as determined by two doctoral-level creativity

428 GENDER, GENDER ROLE, AND CREATIVITY

researchers serving as independent judges. The picture construction task was
judged on a scale from 1 (not at all unusual/surprising) to 7 (extremely unusual/
surprising). In cases where judges’ ratings were not consistent, (7%), a third
judge’s rating resolved the discrepancy.

In addition, the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), a 24-item self-report
scale, was used to assess the psychological dimensions of masculine (M) and
feminine (F) gender role characteristics (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Each
participant was classified into one of four groups: androgynous (high on both M
and F), masculine (high on M and low on F), feminine (low on M and high on F),
and undifferentiated (low on both M and F). In a recent psychometric review of
the PAQ, Ward, Thorn, Clements, Dixon, and Sanford (2006) reported adequate
reliability (alpha coefficients ranging from .67 to .80) for both the M and the F
scale of the PAQ. Additionally, Ward et al. reported confirmatory factor analyses
of the F and M scales within the PAQ.

RESULTS

GENDER – CREATIVITY ANALYSIS
We conducted t tests on the fluency, flexibility, and novel response scores

for the tin can and cardboard box exercises. Analyses revealed that there were
no significant differences between men and women in the tin can exercise for
fluency (males: M = 17.04, SD = 8.12; females: M = 15.57, SD = 5.93, t(135)
= .924, p = .36), flexibility (males: M = 13.52, SD = 5.95; females: M = 12.48,
SD = 5.55, t(135) = .764, p = .45), and unusual uses (males: M = 2.65, SD = 3.31;
females: M = 1.79, SD = 1.73, t(135) = 1.53, p = .13). Likewise there were no
significant gender differences in the cardboard box exercise for fluency (males:
M = 19.83, SD = 8.29; females: M = 16.10, SD = 8.45 t(135) = 1.59, p = .45)
and flexibility (males: M = 13.99, SD = 5.79; females: M = 12.87, SD = 5.82,
t(135) = .893, p = .19). However there was a significant difference on unusual
uses (males: M = 2.30, SD = 2.58; females: M = 1.07, SD = 1.22, t(135) = 2.11,
p = .04). Levine’s test of homogeneity of variance for flexibility was significant
at the .05 level (F = 9.06, p = .004), therefore a t test for unequal variances was
conducted. When observing the means across the verbal creativity scores, males
outperformed females on all measures, but the results were not statistically
significant. On the picture construction task, however, males (M = 3.76, SD =
2.05) scored significantly higher than females (M = 2.79, SD = 1.67, t(135) =
2.26, p = .03.

GENDER ROLE – CREATIVITY ANALYSIS
Participants’ creativity scores were subjected to a 2 (gender: male vs. female)

x 4 (gender role: androgynous, masculine, feminine and undifferentiated)

GENDER, GENDER ROLE, AND CREATIVITY 429

analysis of variance. There were no significant main effects or interactions for
verbal creativity measures for the tin can and cardboard box exercises. There
was, however, a significant main effect for gender role categories on the picture
construction task, F(1, 135) = 3.75, p = .01. Androgynous individuals had the
highest creativity score (M = 4.06, SD = 1.71), followed by masculine individuals
(M = 3.23, SD = 1.88), then feminine individuals (M = 3.08, SD = 1.84), and lastly
undifferentiated individuals (M = 1.85, SD = 1.21). Posttest analyses revealed a
significant difference between androgynous and undifferentiated individuals
(Mdiff = 2.21, p = .003). Comparisons between the other categories were not
significant post hoc. There was no significant main effect for gender (males: M
= 3.55; females: M = 2.91, F(1, 135) = 2.08, p = .15). The interaction between
gender and gender roles was marginally significant, F(3, 135) = 2.27, p = .09
(see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). Inspection of the means reveals
that the mean for feminine males was higher than the mean for androgynous and
masculine males. Additionally, masculine females had a higher mean score than
feminine females but not androgynous females. When collapsed across gender,
androgynous individuals scored higher than all other categories.

TABLE 1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR PICTURE CONSTRUCTION BY GENDER AND GENDER ROLE

CATEGORIES

M SD n

Males Androgynous 4.00 1.83 17
Females Masculine
Feminine 3.33 2.66 15
Undifferentiated
Androgynous 4.88 1.46 18
Masculine
Feminine 2.00 1.00 7
Undifferentiated
4.10 1.73 20

3.14 1.07 16

2.61 1.65 31

1.80 1.32 12

Note. There was a significant main effect for gender role category but not for gender. The interaction
was marginally significant.

DISCUSSION

GENDER AND CREATIVITY
Significant differences were found favoring male participants’ performance in

picture construction, the nonverbal creativity measure. There were no significant
gender differences in participants’ flexibility and fluency scores on the two verbal
(alternate uses) creativity tasks except for novelty of thinking in the cardboard
box alternate uses task, where males generated significantly more original ideas
than females did. Male participants’ verbal creativity (flexibility and fluency and

430 GENDER, GENDER ROLE, AND CREATIVITY

tin can novelty) scores overall were higher than those of females, although the
differences were not significant.

A number of observers of gender issues in creativity have offered rationales for
social developmental influences that may negatively impact on the development
of creativity in women. Piirto (1991), Reis (1999), and Simonton (2000) point
to competing priorities stemming from feminine social role demands that are
particularly salient during early adulthood, the developmental stage of our
participants. These competing priorities may limit the time and energy available
to young women to pursue creative self-expression. For example, many young
women are expected to invest personal resources to meet social demands such
as laying the foundation for establishing a family and initiating child rearing.
Furthermore, the skills involved in pursuing these social role obligations may
be inconsistent with the attributes that typify highly creative individuals. The
highly affiliative interpersonal sensitivity and multitasking behaviors that
contribute to successful achievement of conventional social role expectations
for young women are incompatible with the single-minded absorption in one’s
work and unconventional, independent thinking that characterize highly creative
personalities (Kogan, 1974; Piirto, 1991; Reis, 1998). Responsiveness to gender-
specific feminine social role demands may have suppressed the creative efforts of
some members of this largely middle-class sample of American college women
as they face these expectations.

GENDER ROLE AND CREATIVITY
Gender role was not significantly related to divergent thinking as measured

by the two alternate uses tasks. Androgynous individuals’ picture construction
productions, however, were judged to be superior to those of individuals in
other gender role categories, with significant differences between androgynous
participants and undifferentiated participants. Additionally, men and women
who reported strongly masculine gender role characteristics surpassed the
performance of undifferentiated participants.

GENDER, GENDER ROLE, AND CREATIVITY
Inspection of the participants’ picture construction scores reveals relationships

between gender, gender role, and creativity that we found curious. The highest
overall picture construction scores were obtained by men who identified strongly
with feminine gender role characteristics. The highest female performance, and
the second highest picture construction creativity scores overall, were obtained
by androgynous women. The picture construction scores for androgynous men
were close behind those for androgynous women, followed by the scores of
highly masculine men and highly masculine women. Undifferentiated men and
women, as well as highly feminine women, produced particularly low creativity

GENDER, GENDER ROLE, AND CREATIVITY 431

scores on the picture construction task. In sum, androgyny was associated with
high levels of creativity in women, while identification with opposite-gender
role characteristics was associated with the highest levels of creativity in males.
In addition, both men and women who reported highly masculine gender role
self-attributions surpassed the performance of undifferentiated participants and
feminine females.

Thus, it appears that the way gender role facilitates or inhibits creativity depends
on the gender of the individual. Androgyny is more facilitative in women than in
men. In addition, both male and female participants who identify with opposite-
gender role characteristics display relatively high levels of creativity, consistent
with the findings of Norlander et al. (2000). In men, cross-gender identification
seems particularly influential in facilitating creativity. Undifferentiated gender
role identification was associated with the lowest levels of creativity in both
males and females in this sample.

In many respects, our gender role findings are consistent with early observations
of seminal creativity researchers. Reflecting on their 1976 study of male and
female art students, Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi concluded that the psychology
of creative men is a feminine psychology and the psychology of creative women
is a masculine psychology. Similarly, in his early creativity assessment validation
work, Torrance (1963) remarked that creative boys are perceived as more
feminine than other boys and creative girls possess more traditionally masculine
characteristics than other girls do.

The relationship between gender role and creativity in our participants was
clearly influenced by gender. Useful directions for further research might
include investigations of specific societal factors, such as family experiences and
educational variables that nurture or hinder the development of creativity in men
and women. Additionally, research designed to identify personal characteristics,
other than gender role, that may explain gender differences in creativity, for
example, self-esteem and self-image – would be most helpful in increasing our
knowledge about how creativity is developed and expressed in men and women.
Such information could potentially be valuable in the development of learning
experiences designed to enhance creativity in women and men.

REFERENCES

Ai, X. (1999). Creativity and academic achievement: An investigation of gender differences.
Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 329-337.

Baer, J. (1999). Gender differences. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 753-758). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

432 GENDER, GENDER ROLE, AND CREATIVITY

Carter, D. B. (1985). Relationships between cognitive flexibility and sex-role orientation in young
adults. Psychological Reports, 57(3), 763-766.

Chavez-Eakle, R. A., Lara, M. C., & Cruz-Fuentes, C. (2006). Personality: A possible bridge between
creativity and psychopathology? Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 27-38.

Cox, B. F. (2002). The relationship between creativity and self-directed learning among adult
community college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.

Dollinger, S. J., Dollinger, S. M. C., & Centeno, L. (2005). Identity and creativity. Identity: An
International Journal of Theory and Research, 5(4), 315-339.

Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem
finding in art. New York: Wiley.

Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z. (2004). Self, identity, and emotional well-being among Turkish university
students. The Journal of Psychology, 138(5), 457-478.

Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Differences in gender and ethnicity as measured by
ratings of three writing tasks. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(1), 56-69.

Keller, C. J., Lavish, L. A., & Brown, C. (2007). Creative styles and gender roles in undergraduates
students. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 273-280.

Kogan, N. (1974). Creativity and sex differences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 8(1), 1-14.
Labouvie-Vief, G. (1994). Women’s creativity and images of gender. In B. F. Turner & L. E. Troll

(Eds.), Women growing older: Psychological perspectives (pp. 140-168). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Norlander, T., Erixon, A., & Archer, T. (2000). Psychological androgyny and creativity: Dynamics
of gender-role and personality trait. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal,
28(5), 423-436.
Piirto, J. (1991). Why are there so few? (Creative women: Visual artists, mathematicians, musicians).
Roeper Review, 13(3), 142-147.
Reis, S. M. (1998). Work left undone: Choices and compromises of talented females. Mansfield
Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Reis, S. M. (1999). Women and creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 699-708). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Reuter, M., Panskepp, J., Schnabel, N., Kellerhoff, N., Kempel, P., & Hennig, J. (2005). Personality
and biological markers of creativity. European Journal of Personality, 19(2), 83-95.
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 151-158.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity & femininity: Their psychological dimensions,
correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Szobiova, E. (2006). The five personality dimensions in relation to creative thinking of adolescents.
Studia Psychologica, 48(3), 241-249.
Torrance, E. P. (1963). Education and the creative potential. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1998). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual: Figural
(streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Ward, L. C., Thorn, B. E., Clements, K. L., Dixon, K. E., & Sanford, S. D. (2006). Measurement
of agency, communion, and emotional vulnerability with the Personal Attributes Questionnaire.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(2), 206-216.
Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story writing, and
hobbies. European Journal of Personality, 15(4), 297-310.

Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal is the property of Society for Personality
Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.