how does it feel? the development of the experience of creativity questionnaire
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 17 November 2014, At: 12:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Creativity Research JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20
How Does It Feel? The Development of the Experienceof Creativity QuestionnaireBarnaby Nelson a & David Rawlings aa Department of Psychology , University of Melbourne , AustraliaPublished online: 04 Feb 2009.
To cite this article: Barnaby Nelson & David Rawlings (2009) How Does It Feel? The Development of the Experience ofCreativity Questionnaire, Creativity Research Journal, 21:1, 43-53, DOI: 10.1080/10400410802633442
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633442
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
How Does It Feel? The Development of the Experienceof Creativity Questionnaire
Barnaby Nelson and David Rawlings
Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne, Australia
Creativity research has tended to neglect the phenomenology of the creative process.This article addresses this by describing the development of the Experience ofCreativity Questionnaire (ECQ), designed to measure experiential (Part A) andexistential (Part B) dimensions of artistic creativity. The questionnaire items weregenerated on the basis of an earlier qualitative investigation. Participants were 100artists, from diverse fields of the creative arts. Two Maximum Likelihood factor ana-lyses with Promax rotation were performed on the items comprising the initial ECQ,resulting in 6 factors in Part A and 3 factors in Part B. Factor analyses were thenperformed on a reduced number of items, providing the basis for 5 scales in Part A(labeled Distinct Experience, Anxiety, Absorption, Power=Pleasure, Clarity=Preparation) and 3 scales in Part B (Transformation, Centrality, Beyond the Perso-nal). The scales demonstrated acceptable reliability, ranging from .82 to.60 (Guttmancoefficient). Use of the ECQ in future research will facilitate further investigation ofthe phenomenology of the creative process and afford greater integration of researchparadigms in creativity research.
Recent commentators on creativity research haveobserved that there is a need to extend research intothe phenomenology of creativity (Bindeman, 1998;Conrad, 1990; Melrose, 1989; Nardone, 1996; Reinders,1992; Sass, 2001). That is, the field needs to developa fuller understanding of how the creative processis experienced, what its ‘‘lived meaning’’ is for theindividual. Sass remarked:
In the absence of such studies, there is a sense in whichwe literally do not know what we are talking about (orlooking at, or counting up in our research studies) whenwe speak of creativity, creative psychological processes,or certain types of psychopathology. (p. 42)
Qualitative approaches are the most appropriatemeans of developing a good understanding of thephenomenology of creativity, particularly in theearly stages of research into a particular question of
creativity, because they are well suited to exploratory,generative research that attempts to approach a con-struct on its own terms rather than test a particulartheory or model of the construct (see Guba &Lincoln, 1994; Smith, Harre, & Van Langenhove,1995). Useful qualitative research into the phenomen-ology of creativity has been conducted in recent years(Henderson, 2004; Mace & Ward, 2002; see Nelson,2005 for a review).
However, it is also important to be able to linkphenomenological findings with other approaches increativity research. This may be particularly relevantin creativity research, as opposed to other areas of psy-chological research, due to the apparent splintering ofendeavors in the field of creativity research, with a lackof dialogue between the approaches. Mayer (1999),Mumford (2003), and Russ (1993) have all maintainedthat there is a need for models that draw on diverseresearch approaches in order to stimulate new perspec-tives and theoretical conceptualizations, and which piecetogether an overall picture of creativity. It is unlikelythat a satisfactory comprehensive model of creativitycan be developed without a thorough exploration of
Correspondence should be sent to Barnaby Nelson, ORYGEN
Youth Health Research Centre, University of Melbourne, 35 Poplar
Rd. (Locked Bag 10), Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. E-mail:
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 21(1), 43–53, 2009
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400410802633442
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:45
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
its phenomenology and the relationship between thislevel of analysis and other aspects of the construct.Given that most of the main approaches in creativityresearch have used quantitative methodologies, it wouldbe helpful for the purposes of integrating research find-ings to be able to measure phenomenological aspects ofcreativity. The ability to link phenomenological findingswith other approaches would allow such questions to beresearched as: What is the relationship between thephenomenology of the creative process and differentpersonality traits? Does the phenomenology of creativityvary in relation to psychopathological characteristics?What is the relationship between cognitive processesinvolved in creative production and the experience ofthe creative process? We have argued elsewhere (Nelson,2005; Nelson & Rawlings, 2007) that linking a phenom-enological analysis with findings from other approachesmight further elucidate the meaning of these findings.
These considerations led to the recognition of theneed for a questionnaire instrument enabling creativeindividuals to report on their own creative experiences.The present study describes the development of such aquestionnaire, the Experience of Creativity Question-naire (ECQ), to measure phenomenological aspects ofthe creative process. The purpose of the questionnairewas to measure individual differences in the experientialand existential aspects of creativity that emerged froman earlier qualitative study of artistic creativity (Nelson,2005; Nelson & Rawlings, 2006). The experientialdimension refers to the ways in which the artistic crea-tive process is experienced and the existential dimensionrefers to the meaning that artists find in being engaged inartistic activity, as explicated in the qualitative study.The development of the questionnaire is detailed below.
METHOD
Participants
As the purpose was to develop a questionnaire that mea-sures phenomenological aspects of artistic creativity, indi-viduals involved in the various creative arts were the mostappropriate participants. One hundred participants (43males, 57 females) completed the questionnaire as partof a larger study. Ages ranged from 19 to 69, with a meanage of 34.69 years (SD¼ 11.20 years). Participants wererecruited through contacts of the researchers and throughadvertisements placed in various locations, including artschools and studios, a music school, a writer’s centre,and a writer’s newsletter. The criteria for inclusion inthe study were that the individual had been regularlyinvolved in an area of the creative arts for at least the pre-vious 2 years and that he=she was over 18 years of age. Itwas not necessary for participants to be professionalartists. The regularity of involvement was judged
informally by the researchers, with the general guidelineof at least weekly involvement (e.g., regular public musicperformance with daily practice routines, working on anovel several nights a week for the past year, etc.). Thiscriterion was used to ensure participants had a reasonabledegree of familiarity with the creative process andcommitment to their artistic activity. None of theparticipants in the earlier qualitative study took part inthe current study. In total, 141 questionnaire packs weredistributed; 41 individuals did not return the question-naire packs.
Materials
The questionnaire items were derived from statementsmade by participants in an earlier qualitative study.The earlier study consisted of interviews with 11 pro-fessional artists (5 musicians, 2 writers, 2 visual artists,1 writer=visual artist, and 1 playwright=theatre direc-tor). The qualitative analysis in this study focused onthemes that were common across participants (the gen-eral themes). However, for the purpose of developingthe ECQ, questionnaire items were taken from themesacross the whole sample of participants, some of whichwere unique to individual participants. A direct state-ment was taken from the interviews to represent eachtheme. Statements were used from this level of the qua-litative analysis—i.e., the individual rather than the gen-eral themes—in order to produce the variance inresponses necessary for a measure of individual differ-ences. Naturally, some of the themes from the individualinterviews were also common themes across interviews,forming the constituents of the general findings. In fact,all common themes were represented in the themes thatformed the basis of the ECQ. For these reasons, thequestionnaire measures both variable and commonthemes in experiential and existential aspects of creativ-ity. If items had been derived only from the constituentsof the general findings, then it would have been unlikelythat the questionnaire would generate the variancenecessary for correlational and factor analyticprocedures. However, in the interests of shortening thequestionnaire and of reducing repetitiveness, items wereremoved or collapsed together if their content wasjudged to be very similar in nature (e.g., ‘‘While creat-ing, I experienced a state of rapture, which wasalmost like being in a trance’’ and ‘‘The entire creativeprocess was characterized by being in a deeply absorbed,flowing state.’’)
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted on this shortened listof items. Three artists, none of whom were includedin the final sample, completed the preliminary
44 NELSON AND RAWLINGS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:45
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
questionnaire independently and were then asked thefollowing questions in written form:
1. In what ways do you think this questionnairemight be changed?
2. Did you have difficulty understanding any of theitems?
3. Is there enough range and variety in thequestions?
4. Do you feel that your experience of and the mean-ing you find in being engaged in artwork wererepresented in these items?
Feedback from these questions resulted in substantialchanges to the wording of items in order to increasetheir clarity. Two participants had difficulty respondingto some items due to multiple ideas being expressed insingle items: They agreed with one aspect of the item,yet disagreed with the other. Rather than changing theitem itself, which might have transformed the specificmeaning of the theme that the item represented, the fol-lowing sentence was added to the introduction of thequestionnaire: ‘‘You might relate to some aspects ofthe statement but not others—just use the number thatcomes closest to your experience (there is an opportunityto elaborate on your experience below).’’ The pilot studyparticipants agreed that their experience of and themeaning they found in artistic activity were representedin the questionnaire items. Statistical results from thepilot study showed variation in item response, whichfurther indicated the utility of the ECQ as a measuringinstrument.
The original version of the ECQ was divided intothree sections: Part A (56 items) measured the experi-ential dimension of the creative process; Part B (27items) measured the existential dimension of the crea-tive process; Part C was a qualitative section, invitingparticipants to describe elements of the creative pro-cess that they felt were neglected by the questionnaireor on which they would like to place particularemphasis.
The instructions for Part A (see the appendix) askedparticipants to think of an occasion when they wereproducing ‘‘good, creative work.’’ The purpose of thiswas to focus participants on the experience of thecreative process, rather than the experience of artisticactivity per se. Ratings were made on a 5-point Likertscale ranging from 1 (definitely not my experience) to 5(very much my experience). Part B asked participantsto rate the relevance of a series of statements made byartists to the ‘‘meaning or personal significance’’ theyfind in being engaged in artistic activity. In this section,participants were asked to think of their artistic activitygenerally, rather than the particular occasion on whichthey reflected in Part A. Ratings were made on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (definitely not relevant) to 5(highly relevant).
Procedure
The participants were mailed the ECQ, along with sev-eral other questionnaires used in the larger study (seeNelson, 2005). Participants were asked to complete thequestionnaires at their convenience and to mail themback in a reply-paid envelope within 2 weeks of receipt.
RESULTS
The analysis of the ECQ consisted of initial factor ana-lyses of the ECQ items in order to determine its factorstructure and then, following exclusion of several itemsbased on these analyses, a second set of factor analysisin order to produce sub-scales of the ECQ.
Initial Factor Analysis of the Experience of CreativityQuestionnaire (ECQ)
Separate factor analyses were performed on Part A andPart B of the ECQ. There were no missing data.
Part A. The 56 items of Part A (ECQ-A) were firstfactor-analysed using the Maximum Likelihood (ML)method of factor extraction. Three criteria were consid-ered when deciding on the number of factors to rotate.First, the scree-plot of eigenvalues was examined. Addi-tionally, Horn’s (1965) parallel analysis method wasused. This method generates a large number of randomcorrelation matrices with the same number of variablesand sample size as the actual matrix, and then compareseigenvalues in the observed matrix with mean eigenva-lues in the random matrices. Simulation studies havefound this method to be the most consistently accu-rate of the various rules for deciding on the proper num-ber of factors (Finch & West, 1997; Zwick & Velicer,1986). Finally, the meaningfulness of the various alter-native factor structures was to be used as a criterion indetermining the number of factors. These criteria wereemployed in all analyses.
The first 10 eigenvalues in the analysis of Part A were:9.54, 5.20, 2.82, 2.64, 2.48, 2.25, 1.87, 1.78, 1.65, 1.57. Ascree-plot of these items suggested a 6-factor solution,with a clear ‘gap’ appearing between factors 6 and 7.This was supported by parallel analysis, which indicateda critical eigenvalue of 2.04.
Oblique rotation was carried out because of thetheoretical relatedness of the factors. Six factors wererotated using the Promax method, which has advantagesover other oblique methods in terms of the generalrobustness of the solution it provides (Loehlin, 1998).
EXPERIENCE OF CREATIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE 45
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:45
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Briefly, the first factor referred to the creative process asa distinct change in experience, the second to absorptionin the artistic activity, the third to anxiety generated bythe activity, the fourth to feelings of control and plea-sure, the fifth to a sense of certainty about the work,and the sixth to spiritual aspects of the process.
Part B. The 27 items of Part B (ECQ-B) were factor-analysed using the Maximum-Likelihood (ML) methodof factor extraction. The first 10 eigenvalues in the ana-lysis were: 7.72, 2.17, 2.05, 1.55, 1.40, 1.13, 1.03, 1.01,.92, .88. A scree-plot of these items suggested a 3-factorsolution, with a clear ‘gap’ appearing between factors 3and 4. This was supported by parallel analysis, whichindicated a critical eigenvalue of 1.70.
As with Part A, oblique rotation was carried out, withthe three factors rotated using the Promax method. Briefly,the first factor referred to the centrality of artistic activityin the individual’s life, the second to the potential of thecreative process to inspire and educate, and the third toan allegiance to an artistic or cultural tradition.
Factor analyses were also performed across all of theECQ items and on the combined 9 factors of the ECQ-Aand ECQ-B, in order to investigate the possibleexistence of higher order factors. However, these factoranalyses were not conceptually meaningful and aretherefore not reported.
Part C. Part C of the ECQ allowed for an open-endedwritten response from participants. Forty-seven of thefull sample of 100 participants responded to this sectionof the questionnaire. However, these responses were notformally analyzed due to the fact that they were, on thewhole, fairly cursory and offered points of clarification,elaboration, or emphasis rather than introducing ele-ments that had not been covered in the questionnaireitems. The unanimous impression from these responseswas that participants were able to identify their experi-ence of artistic creativity in the questionnaire items. Thisis further indication of the ECQ being a useful instrumentfor assessing experiential and existential dimensions ofartistic creativity. However, given that only 47% ofthe sample responded to this section, it is noted thatthe responses are not representative of the sample as awhole.
Development of the Final Experience of CreativityQuestionnaire (ECQ)
A final version of the ECQ was developed on the basisof the factor analyses reported above. In the develop-ment of this version, the pattern matrices of the two fac-tor rotations (ECQ-Part A and ECQ-Part B) reported inthe factor analyses were taken as a starting point. As
noted, ECQ-Part A produced a 6-factor rotation. Itemswere removed that had low loadings, had cross-loadingsgreater than .3, or had cross-loadings almost as high asthe target loadings. Subscales were produced based onthis approach, and reliability analyses conducted onthese subscales. The reliability analyses resulted in asmall number of additional items being removed. Twoitems were also removed due to a lack of variance inresponses on these items. The criterion used for judginglack of variance was if less than 10% of responses werein the disagree=disagree strongly or agree=agree stronglycategories. In total, 8 items were removed.
Factor analysis was carried out on the remaining 48items in Part A, using the same methods as in the initialfactor analysis. The first 10 eigenvalues obtained for thisanalysis were: 8.64, 4.51, 2.62, 2.52, 2.33, 2.02, 1.71,1.49, 1.38, 1.37. The parallel analysis method now speci-fied a critical value of 2.24, suggesting five factors. This,combined with examination of the (somewhat ambigu-ous) scree-plot of eigenvalues and the low reliability ofthe sixth factor (alpha¼ .60), led to the extraction of fivefactors. The loadings on each of the five factors arepresented in Table 1, with items loading less than .3removed. The item numbers in the table are as in theinitial ECQ. Together, these 5 factors explained42.94% of variance in ECQ-A scores. There were severalmoderate correlations between the five factors, as repre-sented in Table 2.
Items were retained in a factor if they had loadingsgreater than .3. In the case of cross-loadings greaterthan .3, the item was retained in the factor on which ithad a higher loading and removed from the lower-loading factor(s). This included negative loading items.The negative loading items that were retained (items 15and 29) were interpreted in an inverse direction. Threeitems were deleted due to low loadings (<.3) and 1 itemwas deleted due to high cross-loadings (>.41 on bothfactors), resulting in a scale of 44 items in total.
The five factors in the final version of the ECQ-Part A are largely unchanged from the first five factorsin the initial factor analysis, apart from the reversal ofFactors 2 and 3. The factors, interpreted on the basisof the highest loading items, are briefly described inthe following.
1. The first factor involved items that portrayed thecreative process as distinct from everyday experi-ence. This change from everyday experience hada variety of aspects to it, including a loss of self-awareness, a breakdown of boundaries, a senseof contact with a force beyond the individualself, and a confidence and effortlessness aboutthe artistic activity. Although the items generallyindicated a greater affective intensity, the changein experience also existed as a stabilization of
46 NELSON AND RAWLINGS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:45
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
emotional state. The items suggested a sense ofheightened awareness and heightened technicaland expressive abilities. It is noted that the spiri-tual dimension of the findings of the earlieranalysis, originally represented in Factor 6 ofthat analysis, is now most strongly representedin this factor. The factor was labeled distinctexperience.
2. This factor included items that related to a senseof anxiety and vulnerability to the experience ofthe creative process. Although this seemed to referparticularly to the emotional state after the pro-cess, the factor also included items that suggesteda sense of vulnerability during the process andanxiety before and at the start of the process. Thisfactor was called anxiety.
3. This factor included items that indicated beingdeeply absorbed in the artistic activity andexperiencing a state of inspiration. A sense offreedom and close connection with the workand with self was present. The factor included asense of discovery and being receptive to the art-work, rather than having a clearly defined senseof the direction of the work. The items also sug-gested a ‘‘movement’’ between deep absorptionand a more critical, self-conscious state. This fac-tor was called absorption.
4. The major themes of this factor were a sense ofcontrol, power, and pleasure during the creativeprocess. Several items also reflected the role ofanalytical mental processes. This factor was calledpower=pleasure.
5. The items in this factor concerned feelings ofcertainty and clarity about the direction in whichthe artistic activity should proceed. This sense ofcertainty and clarity included the meaning or pur-pose of the piece of the work. The factor alsoreferred to cultivating an appropriate moodfor the creative process. The factor was namedclarity=preparation.
Despite its brevity (4 items), the last factor, clarity=preparation, was employed as the basis of a separatesubscale due to its reasonable (though somewhat low)reliability and the fact that it is conceptually meaningfuland represents an element of creative experience notcovered by the other factors.
The items in these five factors make up the fivesubscales of Part A of the final version of the ECQ.Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, andGuttman model reliability coefficients for the ECQ PartA subscales. No significant differences were foundbetween means based on gender.
TABLE 1
Pattern Matrix Following Maximum Likelihood Extraction and
Promax Rotation of Items in the Final ECQ-Part A
Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
20 .727
21 .703
39 .667
41 .501
2 .498 .356
11 .490
6 .454 �.356
3 .432
4 .397
7 .380 .340
8 .712
13 .702
10 .694
12 .589
24 .474 .381
14 .445
15 .351 �.374
16 .349
9 .716
17 .708
5 .654
18 .641
19 .550
22 .301 .540 �.300
23 .499 .316
36 .477
31 �.303 .457 .404
25 .388 .404
26 �.301 .629
27 .564
40 .564
44 .547 .388
29 .402 �.518
30 .409 .497
32 .454
33 �.453
34 .408
35 .301 .407
37 .393
38 .308 .386 �.322
42 .853
28 .510
1 .461
43 .321
Note. Item numbers are as in the final version of the ECQ. Items
with loadings of less than .3 have been removed. Items with loadings
above .3 that do not appear in the final ECQ are written in full text.
TABLE 2
Correlations Between the Five ECQ-Part A Factors
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Factor 1 —
Factor 2 .28 —
Factor 3 .51 .08 —
Factor 4 .51 .03 .57 —
Factor 5 .14 �.04 .36 .40 —
EXPERIENCE OF CREATIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE 47
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:45
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
The same process was applied to ECQ-Part B. Fiveitems were removed from the ECQ-Part B items basedon the procedures mentioned above. Two of these itemswere Hayward cases. This resulted in 22 items beingincluded in the factor analysis. A factor analysis wasconducted on these items, using the same methods asin the initial factor analysis. The first 10 eigenvaluesobtained for this analysis were: 6.62, 1.82, 1.65, 1.41,1.11, 1.04, 1.00, .92, .83, .79. The parallel analysismethod now specified a critical value of 1.73, althoughthe scree plot was somewhat ambiguous and the residualcorrelation matrix indicated the presence of a third fac-tor. Following exploratory analyses using both two andthree factors, it was decided, for reasons outlined below,to extract three factors. The loadings on each of thethree factors are presented in Table 4, with items loadingless than .3 removed. The factors showed moderateintercorrelations. The strongest correlation was betweenFactors 1 and 2 (r¼ .56), followed by Factors 1 and 3(r¼ .44) and Factors 2 and 3 (r¼ .41).
The three factors, interpreted using the highestloading items, are summarized in the following. Thefactors are similar to the factors that emerged inthe initial factor analysis, but with some changes inemphasis and order.
1. The first factor refers to the transformative effectof artistic creativity, particularly due to the natureof the experience associated with the creativeprocess. This transformation can occur throughartistic creativity’s ability to broaden experienceand provide confidence in one’s own subjectiveexperience, and through its healing quality. Thefactor emphasizes creativity as a powerful forcein the individual’s life that enables a deeperengagement with self and world. This factor hasbeen named transformation.
2. The dominant theme of this factor was of a needto engage in artistic activity and of the centralityof artistic activity in the individual’s life. Thefactor included a sense that the creative processprovides a quality of experience and sense of satis-faction not present in other areas of life. Itincluded items concerned with artwork as provid-ing the individual with meaning and purpose, withthe individual becoming anxious when notengaged in artwork, and of the addictive qualityto the experience of the creative process. Otheritems referred to a spiritual dimension and‘healing’ quality to the creative process, to joy asa primary motivation for the creative process,and to self-discovery associated with the creativeprocess. This factor was called centrality.
3. This factor emphasises the meaning associatedwith aspects of artistic activity of a less personalnature. It includes items that reflect a concern withthe context of artwork, such as interpersonal ele-ments of artwork (e.g., communication and rebel-lion), and exploration of artistic possibilities. Thisfactor was named beyond the personal.
The items in these three factors make up the subscalesof Part B of the ECQ. Three items were deleted from thepool of items due to low loadings, resulting in a scale of19 items in total. Factor 3 was subsumed into Factor 2when a 2-factor rotation was explored. However,Factor 3 was preserved as a separate subscale because
TABLE 4
Pattern Matrix Following Maximum Likelihood Extraction and
Promax Rotation of Items in the Final ECQ-Part B
Item F1 F2 F3
5 .833
12 .636
2 .575
11 .474 .311
3 .460
15 .424
9 .351
6 .736
1 .724
8 .495
10 .478
13 .446
4 .441 .355
18 .418
14 .352
16 .310
17 .433
19 .393
7 .372
Note. Item numbers are as in the final version of the ECQ. Items
with loadings of less than .3 have been removed.
TABLE 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Guttman Reliability Coefficients for
the Experience of Creativity Questionnaire (ECQ) Part A Subscales
Distinct
Experience Anxiety Absorption
Power=
Pleasure
Clarity=
Preparation
Men (n¼ 43)
Mean 31.33 22.26 39.74 41.60 13.60
SD 7.56 6.77 7.25 8.43 3.39
Women (n¼ 57)
Mean 29.16 20.12 39.28 39.95 13.42
SD 8.30 6.00 6.46 7.50 3.36
Total sample
Mean 30.09 21.04 39.48 40.66 13.50
SD 8.02 6.40 6.78 7.92 3.35
Guttman
reliability
coefficient
.81 .79 .82 .80 .60
48 NELSON AND RAWLINGS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:45
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
it was found to have acceptable, if somewhat low, relia-bility (Guttman¼ .60), to be conceptually meaningful,and to represent aspects of the construct not coveredby the other factors. Table 5 presents the means, stan-dard deviations, and Guttman model reliability coeffi-cients for the ECQ Part B subscales. No significantdifferences were found between means based on gender.
A number of significant correlations were foundbetween the ECQ scales themselves, as summarized inTable 6. With regards to the Part A scales, distinctexperience, absorption, and power=pleasure each dis-played small-moderate correlations with other Part Ascales, yet the anxiety and clarity=preparation scales dis-played negligible correlations with other Part A scales.This suggested two groupings of factors in ECQ-PartA. A rotated factor analysis of the five Part A scales sup-ported this interpretation. In this factor analysis,absorption (loading following rotation¼ .54) andpower=pleasure (.83) loaded on the first factor, withanxiety (.82) loading on the second factor. Distinctexperience displayed a similar loading on both factors(.41 and .45 respectively), and clarity=preparation
displayed a low loading (<.3) on both factors. Thetwo factors displayed a moderate correlation (r¼ .46).The final ECQ is presented in the appendix.
DISCUSSION
This article describes the development of a question-naire, the Experience of Creativity Questionnaire(ECQ), designed to measure phenomenological aspectsof artistic creativity. Although information on the valid-ity of the instrument is still lacking, and might provide adirection for future research, the ECQ provides reliablemeasures, including reliable subscales, of both experien-tial and existential aspects of the creative process.
It should be noted that the attempt to develop aquestionnaire to measure phenomenological aspects ofcreativity is not an attempt to gear study of the phenom-enology of creativity in the direction of quantitativemethodologies. Rather, it is an attempt to provide a toolfor addressing research questions concerning the rela-tionship between the phenomenology of creativity andother aspects of the construct that might most appropri-ately be addressed in quantitative terms. Qualitativeinvestigation remains the most appropriate means offurther elucidating the phenomenology of creativity. Itis hoped that the existence of a questionnaire to measurephenomenological aspects of the creative process willnot only encourage research into this dimension of crea-tivity but also lead to greater integration of researchparadigms in creativity research.
The qualitative investigation of the existential dimen-sion of artistic creativity on which Part B of the ECQ isbased was a preliminary investigation of this dimensionof creativity (see Nelson, 2005). Therefore, this sectionof the ECQ should also be regarded as preliminaryand ready for revision on the basis of further investiga-tion of existential aspects of the creative process.
The ECQ was developed on the basis of a study ofartistic creativity. It is, therefore, most appropriate to
TABLE 6
Correlations Between the ECQ Subscales
A1 DE A2 Anx A3 Abs A4 P=P A5 C=P B1 Trans B2 Cent B3 BP
A1 DE —
A2 Anx .42��� —
A3 Abs .42��� .21� —
A4 P=P .41��� .06 .45��� —
A5 C=P .15 .01 .13 .21� —
B1 Trans .40��� .19 .62��� .38��� .32�� —
B2 Cent .50��� .31�� .61��� .55��� .30�� .57��� —
B3 BP .28�� .13 .66��� .63��� .15 .57��� .61��� —
Notes. A1–A5¼ECQ-A scales 1–5. B1–B3¼ECQ-B scales 1–3. DE¼Distinct experience. Anx¼Anxiety. Abs¼Absorption.
P=P¼Power=pleasure. C=P¼Clarity=preparation. Trans¼Transformation. Cent¼Centrality. BP¼Beyond the personal.�p< .05. ��p< .01. ���p< .001.
TABLE 5
Means, Standard Deviations, and Guttman Reliability
Coefficients for the Experience of Creativity Questionnaire (ECQ)
Part B Subscales
Transformation Centrality
Beyond the
Personal
Men (n¼ 43)
Mean 25.51 34.42 11.88
SD 6.45 6.31 2.89
Women (n¼ 57)
Mean 26.91 32.54 10.89
SD 5.27 6.91 2.76
Total sample
Mean 26.31 33.35 11.32
SD 5.81 6.69 2.84
Guttman reliability
coefficient
.78 .81 .60
EXPERIENCE OF CREATIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE 49
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:45
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
use the questionnaire in studies of this domain of crea-tivity. However, the ECQ could potentially be used instudies of creativity with nonartist samples or in studiesof other creative domains. For example, a sample notselected for creativity could complete the questionnaireby thinking about their most creative experience inany domain or in everyday life. Using the questionnairein other creative domains (e.g., with a sample of creativescientists) would ascertain whether the questionnaireitems, developed on the basis of artistic creative experi-ence, are relevant to experiential=existential dimensionsof creativity in other domains and, if so, whether similarfactors emerge in these other domains. This line ofinquiry is of relevance to the specificity versus generalitydebate, concerning whether cognitive processes and per-sonality features are congruent or whether they varyacross different creative domains (Baer, 1991, 1998;Plucker, 1998). A similar form of inquiry can be con-ducted into the convergence or divergence of the experi-ence of the creative process and the meaning attributedto this process between creative domains. Finally, thequestionnaire could also be used to investigate howthe experiential and existential aspects of artistic creativ-ity identified in the questionnaire relate to noncreativeactivities, such as sport, aesthetic appreciation, such asthe experience of music-listening, or to domains relatedto creativity, such as spiritual experience, thus enablingmore detailed comparison of these areas. This might beachieved by relating the questionnaire to existingmeasures of these other domains or by modifying theECQ to make it applicable to these domains.
A consideration of some importance concerns thelimited number of participants used in the current factoranalysis. A wide range of answers has been given to thequestion of how many participants are required for astable factor analysis. For example, Tabachnick andFidell (1996) suggested that ‘‘it is comforting to have atleast 300 cases for factor analysis’’ (p. 640; italics in ori-ginal), although such large numbers are not necessary ifmarker variables have high loadings. Clearly, our sam-ple size was insufficient. Although the factors providedmeaningful concepts for interpretation, replication isrequired before we can be confident of the stability ofthe factor structure.
REFERENCES
Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains.
Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23–39.
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 11(2), 173–177.
Bindeman, S. (1988). Echoes of silence: A phenomenological study of
the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 11(1), 69–77.
Conrad, S. D. (1990). Toward a phenomenological analysis of artistic
creativity. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 21(2), 103–120.
Finch, J. F., & West, S. G. (1997). The investigation of personality
structure: Statistical models. Journal of Research in Personality,
31, 439–485.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in quali-
tative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Henderson, S. J. (2004). Product inventors and creativity: The finer
dimensions of enjoyment. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 293–312.
Horn, J. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
Loehlin, J. (1998). Latent variable models. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Mace, M. A., & Ward, T. (2002). Modeling the creative process: A
grounded theory analysis of creativity in the domain of art making.
Creativity Research Journal, 14, 179–192.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg
(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449–460). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Melrose, L. (1989). The creative personality and the creative process: A
phenomenological perspective. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going?
Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal,
15, 107–120.
Nardone, P. L. (1996). The experience of improvisation in music:
A phenomenological psychological analysis. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Saybrook Institute, San Francisco, CA.
Nelson, B. (2005). The creative process: A phenomenological and
psychometric investigation of artistic creativity. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Nelson, B., & Rawlings, D. (2007). Its own reward: A phenomenological
study of artistic creativity. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology,
38(2), 217–255.
Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content
generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179–182.
Reinders, S. (1992). The experience of artistic creativity: A phenomen-
ological psychological analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International,
52, 4512.
Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in
the creative process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sass, L. A. (2001). Eccentricity, conformism, and the primary process.
Creativity Research Journal, 13, 37–44.
Smith, J. A., Harre, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (Eds.). (1995). Rethink-
ing psychology. London: Sage.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics
(3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Zwick, W., & Velicer, W. (1986). Comparison of five rules for deter-
mining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin,
99, 432–442.
APPENDIX: THE EXPERIENCE OFCREATIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE (ECQ)
Please think of a particular occasion when you wereengaged in your art form and you felt you were produ-cing good, creative work.
Please record what type of creative activity you haveremembered (e.g., painting, performing music, etc.):
The following are statements based on descriptionsmade by artists, musicians, and writers of their creativeexperiences. How well do these statements describe feel-ings or impressions which were part of the experience that
50 NELSON AND RAWLINGS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:45
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
you have remembered? Please respond to the statements asthey relate to the particular experience you have in mind,rather than to your experience of creativity generally.
Answer by circling the most appropriate number nextto the description. You might relate to some aspects ofthe statement but not others—just use the number thatcomes closest to your experience (there is an opportunityto elaborate on your experience below).
Part A
1¼Definitely not my experience2¼Not my experience3¼Can’t decide, or am not really sure what is meant4¼To some degree my experience5¼Very much my experience
1 2 3 4 5 1. I put myself in the mood I wantedmy creative work to take on.
1 2 3 4 5 2. I felt the creative production waspushing me over a period of time towards anemotional collapse.
1 2 3 4 5 3. I felt that the source of my creativeideas was located physically in a certain part ofmy body (e.g., my chest).
1 2 3 4 5 4. I experienced a sense of diminishingself-control, which was associated with a sense ofbeauty or pleasure.
1 2 3 4 5 5. There was a sense of exploring whatemerged in the creative process, rather than havinga fixed notion of what I was trying to create.
1 2 3 4 5 6. There was a flowing ease to the process.I was not paying attention to technical aspects ofthe art form.
1 2 3 4 5 7. Before the experience, I became mentallystill and ‘‘empty,’’ and became quite withdrawnfrom others.
1 2 3 4 5 8. After the experience, I felt vulnerable,raw, and fragile.
1 2 3 4 5 9. I felt excited by the knowledge that thecreative activity was working well and wanted totake full advantage of this while it lasted.
1 2 3 4 5 10. I felt a sense of emptiness and confu-sion when I came out of an immersed, flowingstate of creative production.
1 2 3 4 5 11. I experienced relief that I was removedfrom the world of everyday perception.
1 2 3 4 5 12. There was a sense of anxiety associatedwith ‘‘coming out’’ of an immersed state of crea-tive production. I tried to maintain emotional calmand waited to become reimmersed in the process.
1 2 3 4 5 13. After the experience, I felt mentally andphysically depleted and physically tense, combinedwith feeling satisfied with what I had done.
1 2 3 4 5 14. The experience was quite fragile—therewas a sense it might ‘‘fall apart’’ at any moment.
1 2 3 4 5 15. I believed strongly in what I wascreating, without doubting or questioning myself.
1 2 3 4 5 16. Before the experience, I had a senseof lethargy, congestion, and irritability.
1 2 3 4 5 17. I lost awareness of time and myphysical surroundings.
1 2 3 4 5 18. The inspiration continued in responseto what was emerging in the creative processitself—the creative output inspired me to newcreativity, building upon itself.
1 2 3 4 5 19. There was a sense that intuitive, instinc-tive capacities were becoming more dominant thanreasoning, analytical thought processes.
1 2 3 4 5 20. I had a sense of my personal boundariesbreaking down—that I was part of my surroundings.
1 2 3 4 5 21. The creative process made me feelmore secure, as though it was ‘‘containing’’ myvolatile emotional/mental state.
1 2 3 4 5 22. There was a sense of a ‘‘closeness’’to what I was producing, a greater than normalemotional connection with it.
1 2 3 4 5 23. I had a sense of being ‘‘in touch’’ withmyself.
1 2 3 4 5 24. I went ‘‘in and out’’ of two states—onestate of being deeply absorbed, not being aware ofmyself, with there being a flowing ease to the pro-cess and another state of observing myself, usingmore critical mental processes, with greater effortinvolved in the creative process.
1 2 3 4 5 25. There seemed to be a breakdownbetween myself and what I was creating—I waswhat I was writing/playing/painting.
1 2 3 4 5 26. It was characterized by intense feelingsof joy and satisfaction.
1 2 3 4 5 27. I felt a sense of power, as though I washarnessing an energy.
1 2 3 4 5 28. I had a clear sense of which directionthe creative expression should go in.
1 2 3 4 5 29. I did not feel a sense of release fromreasoning, analytical thought processes.
1 2 3 4 5 30. I had a sense of awe at the high levels oftechnical skills being brought out of me.
1 2 3 4 5 31. I had a ‘‘parallel’’ sense of beingabsorbed in my creative production and analyzingit simultaneously.
1 2 3 4 5 32. There was a sense of the creativework as fitting in or as having significance withina social or historical context.
1 2 3 4 5 33. I found that ‘‘forcing’’ the creativitydid not hinder the experience.
1 2 3 4 5 34. After the experience, I felt an inflatedsense of self, as if there were no limits to what Icould achieve.
1 2 3 4 5 35. I had the impression of a creativebreakthrough, an ‘‘opening up’’ of expression, as
EXPERIENCE OF CREATIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE 51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:45
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
though I was now able to express material I hadbeen unable to previously.
1 2 3 4 5 36. There seemed to be an internal logicto the creative production. The experienceinvolved being receptive to this and ‘‘following’’this logic.
1 2 3 4 5 37. Joy and satisfaction were the maindriving forces behind the process.
1 2 3 4 5 38. After the experience, I felt a disparitybetween my own internal state of inspirationand my environment, which struck me as draband ugly.
1 2 3 4 5 39. There was a sense in which I was chan-neling the creative ideas from another source, asthough I was not the origin of the creative ideas.
1 2 3 4 5 40. There was a sense afterwards that Ihad been in similar creative territory to theachievements of eminent people in my field.
1 2 3 4 5 41. The experience had a spiritual ormystical quality, particularly due feeling thatI was coming in contact with a larger, morepowerful force.
1 2 3 4 5 42. I had a very clear image before startingabout what sort of ‘‘world’’ or atmosphere Iwanted to create.
1 2 3 4 5 43. I devoted a considerable amount ofattention beforehand to creating a comfortableatmosphere for myself. This allowed me to entera creative state more easily.
1 2 3 4 5 44. I felt a heightened sense of control overmy creative expression.
Part B
Please rate the relevance of the following statementsmade by artists to the meaning or personal significanceyou find in being engaged in your art form. Thistime you are not thinking about one specific creativeexperience, but about your art form generally.
Answer by circling the most appropriate number nextto the description:
1 2 3 4 5 1. I have found there is a compulsive,addictive quality to the experience of beingengaged in the creative process.
1 2 3 4 5 2. I regard my creative pursuits as a meansof coping with and dealing with aspects of life, asthough it gives me greater control over theseaspects of life.
1 2 3 4 5 3. There is a ‘‘healing’’ quality to thecreative process due to the type of experienceI have while engaged in it.
1 2 3 4 5 4. I have a sense of trying to foster thetradition of my art form.
1 2 3 4 5 5. The creative process widens the range ofmy experience, and can therefore stimulate changein myself.
1 2 3 4 5 6. Producing artwork is the main activitythat gives meaning and purpose to my life. It formsthe center of my life.
1 2 3 4 5 7. I see my creative work as a rebellionagainst narrowness and dullness.
1 2 3 4 5 8. My artistic expression (painting, playingmusic, writing, etc.) allows me to have the type ofexperience referred to in Part A more fully thanany other activity.
1 2 3 4 5 9. I find there is quite a strong differencebetween the type of experience I have whilecreating and my everyday experience.
1 2 3 4 5 10. Coming into contact with a ‘‘pure’’aspect of myself, and the sense of internal beautyassociated with this, is a major reason for meengaging with my art form.
1 2 3 4 5 11. Creative expression is one way ofvalidating my subjective experience and can encou-rage others to have confidence in their subjectiveexperience.
1 2 3 4 5 12. There is a sense that the creativeprocess has ‘‘taught’’ me about modes ofexperience and about how to engage more deeplywith life.
1 2 3 4 5 13. I find a spiritual dimension in thecreative process, because I feel I am coming intocontact with a force beyond myself.
1 2 3 4 5 14. My artistic work gives me strongfeelings of satisfaction that I do not gain fromother areas of my life.
1 2 3 4 5 15. Although the creative process canintroduce elements of uncertainty in my sense ofself, I am compelled towards the self-discoveryassociated with this.
1 2 3 4 5 16. The satisfaction I gain from my artwork is partly from having created a piece of workthat endures through time.
1 2 3 4 5 17. I feel that my creative work is one ofthe most powerful means I have of communicatingwith others.
1 2 3 4 5 18. I become anxious and unsettled when Iam not devoting time to my creative work.
1 2 3 4 5 19. There is a sense that I am exploringartistic possibilities, the possibilities of my creativemedium, rather than simply trying to satisfy mypersonal potential.
Part C
Is there any part of the experience or any aspects of yourartwork that aren’t really brought out by any of the
52 NELSON AND RAWLINGS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:45
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
items in the questionnaire? Are there any elements youwish to put particular emphasis on?
(Note that a space is left here to enable detailed comment)
Scoring details
The items in each subscale are listed below.Calculate subscale scores by summing ratings on each
item.
Part A
Distinct Experience: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 20, 21, 39, 41.
Anxiety: 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 (reversed), 16, 24.Absorption: 5, 9, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 31, 36.Power=Pleasure: 26, 27, 29 (reversed), 30, 32, 33, 34, 35,
37, 38, 40, 44.Clarity=Preparation: 1, 28, 42, 43.
Part B
Transformation: 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15.Centrality: 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18.Beyond the Personal: 7, 17, 19
EXPERIENCE OF CREATIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:45
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14