The overarching aim of the assignment is to examine the associations between personality and creativity. The two are closely linked, with certain personality traits more likely to be associated with both a person’s creative self-concept and their creative behaviour (Batey & Hughes, 2017; Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin, & O’Connor, 2009).
For the purposes of the assignment, personality is defined in terms of the five-factor trait model of personality, and specifically, the Huge Two meta-traits (Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016). Creativity is defined in terms of both how creative an individual thinks they are, i.e. their creative self-concept (Karwowski, 2016), as well as the creativity of their behaviour in tasks requiring convergent and divergent cognitive abilities (Cropley, 2006).

For your assignment, you will write a full research report that addresses the following research question:
How do the Huge Two meta-traits of personality relate to creative self-concept and performance on creativity tasks requiring (a) convergent cognitive abilities and (b) divergent cognitive abilities?
Before you start working on your research report, please visit Assignment 2: Methodology to familiarise yourself with the study.
Structure
The assignment will be presented in the form of a lab report containing the following sections:
• Title page
o Come up with a title for your study.
o Important: The Title page is not included in your final word count.
• Abstract (120–150 words, 5% of your overall mark)
o The Abstract should summarise your Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion clearly and succinctly.
• Introduction (approximately 1000 words, 30% of your overall mark)
o You must include at least two hypotheses:
 At least one hypothesis must address relationships between the Huge Two meta-traits of personality and creative self-concept.
 At least one hypothesis must address relationships between the Huge Two meta-traits and performance on creativity tasks requiring (a) convergent cognitive abilities and (b) divergent cognitive abilities.
• Method (approximately 400 words, 5% of your overall mark)
o You can base this section on the Method information described in Assignment 2: Methodology. Important: Do not just copy and paste the ‘Method’ information provided on the page.
• Results (approximately 400 words, 20% of your overall mark)
o Include descriptive statistics (M, SD) for the variables used in your analyses and the results of hypothesis testing.
o Present results according to APA 7th standards.
• Discussion (approximately 1000 words, 30% of your overall mark)
o Were the hypotheses supported? Why/why not?
o How do the results of this study compare with previous studies?
o What are the implications of the findings for theory and practice in personality psychology?
o What are the methodological limitations of the study, and how could they have affected the findings or future directions?
o Present a coherent conclusion.
• Reference list (10% of your overall mark)
o Along with the quality of grammar/expression in the report, adherence to APA 7th referencing style contributes 10% to your overall mark.
o Important: The reference list is not included in your final word count.
Note: The maximum number of words is the absolute maximum and markers will stop reading at the word limit. The word count includes everything except for the Title page and Reference list.

Assignment 2: methodology
Participants
Participants were third-year psychology students at Swinburne University. Basic demographic data for the sample is available in the data set.
Measures
Demographic variables
Sex (male, female, or other) and age.
Personality
The IPIP-NEO 120 (Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014) was selected to assess the personality meta-traits of Stability and Plasticity. It is a validated measure of the Big Five. The scale consists of 120 phrases, and participants are asked to rate how accurately each statement reflects how they are on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Scores on each of the Openness to experience and Extraversion items were summed to create the total Plasticity score, and scores on the (reversed) Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness scales were summed to create the total Stability score.
Creative self-concept
The Short Scale of Creative Self (Karwowski, Lebuda, & Wisniewska, 2018) was used to measure creative self-concept. The scale consists of 11 statements which participants rate according to how accurately they reflect their self-concept. Responses are given on a 5-point likert-type scale. Scores on individual items are averaged to create a creative self-concept score ranging from 1-5.
Creativity tasks
One divergent thinking task and one convergent thinking task were used to assess creative behaviour.
The divergent thinking task, Guilford’s Alternate Uses Task (Guilford, 1967), required participants to come up with as many uses as possible for the following common items in 3 minutes: “a brick”, “a newspaper”, and “a shoe”. Responses were scored using the subjective multiple-rater method outlined by Silvia et al. (2008), based on how uncommon, remote and clever the responses were. Each response received a rating from 1 (not at all creative) to 5 (highly creative). For the creativity index, participants’ scores were summed then divided by the number of responses. Overall scores range from 1-5.
The convergent thinking task, the Remote Associates Test (Mednick, 1962), required participants to look at three remotely associated words (e.g., paint/doll/cat) and come up with a fourth word that is related to all three (e.g. house). Thirty questions were presented in 3 minutes with one mark given for each correct response. Scores are expressed as the proportion of total responses answered correctly.
Procedure
Participants first completed the creativity tasks in a counterbalanced order in class at their usual tutorial time. The tasks were undertaken in the Inquisit program and took approximately 15 minutes to complete. The self-report questionnaire containing the measures of personality and creative self-concept was completed online via Qualtrics outside class at a time and location convenient to participants within 1 week maximum of their tutorial. Scores on the creativity tasks and self-report measures were linked via a unique code number randomly allocated to each participant at the start of the creativity tasks in Inquisit. The code number also permitted anonymous participation in the study.
Before beginning the study in class, participants were informed via a consent statement of their rights as volunteers not to participate in the study if they so choose and that they could withdraw their participation at any time prior to submitting their results. A debriefing statement was provided at the end of the survey detailing the aims of the study.
The independent variables for the study were age, sex, and the personality variables of Plasticity and Stability. The dependent variables were self-reported creative self-concept and performance on the divergent thinking and convergent thinking tasks.

Supporting resources
The data file is provided here, however, it is strongly suggested that you examine the measures so you understand their strengths and weaknesses.
• Download the Assignment 2 dataset file (SAV 5 KB) Download Assignment 2 dataset file (SAV 5 KB). (are in separate file)
Further resources:
• Download the Assignment 2: HD example (PDF 307 KB) Download Assignment 2: HD example (PDF 307 KB). (are in a separate file)
Note: This is an example from a different topic.
References
Your report must demonstrate APA-style referencing in the body text and within the Reference list. Visit Assignment 2: Starting references to help you get started on your reference search.

Assignment 2: Starting references
You may use additional references than those listed here. The ones below are provided to help you get started.
Batey, M., & Hughes, D.J. (2017). Individual difference correlates of self-perceptions of creativity. In M. Karwowski & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.). The Creative Self: Effect of Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, Mindset, and Identity (pp. 185-218). London, UK: Academic Press. eBook available through the library; Chapter 11 only
Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391-404. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13
Guilford, J.P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 1, 3-14.
Karwowski, M. (2016). The dynamics of creative self-concept: Changes and reciprocal relations between creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Creativity Research Journal, 28, 99-104. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1125254
Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2016). The Big Five, the Huge Two, and creative self-beliefs: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 214-232. doi:10.1037/aca0000035
Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., & Wisniewska, E. (2018). Measuring creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 28(1), 45-57.
Maples, J.L., Guan, L., Carter, N.T., & Miller, J.D. (2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the revised NEO personality inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the Five-Factor model. Psychological Assessment, 26, 1070-1084. doi:10.1037/pas0000004
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232.
Silvia, P.J., Nusbaum, E.C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A. (2009). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1087-1090. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015
Silvia, P.J., Winterstein, B.P., Willse, J.T., Barona, C.M., Cram, J.T., Hess, K.I., . . . Richard, C.A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 68-85. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68

Assignment criteria ( you must follow this )

  1. Abstract.
  2. Introduction.
  3. Method.
  4. Results.
  5. Discussion.
  6. Grammar, expression, referencing.
    Your work will be assessed using the following marking guide. The grade allocated for each criteria will be based on accuracy and quality of information provided.

Abstract
5 marks The Abstract should include (at least):
• the aim of the study/main research question
• description of the sample and methods
• a statement about the hypotheses and whether they were supported.

introduction
30 marks In this section, the following learning objectives will be assessed:

  1. Write testable hypotheses/research questions.
  2. Present the hypotheses/research questions in a clear and coherent manner.
    The Introduction should:
    • broadly describe the area under investigation and its importance
    • clearly define the key constructs—Big Five, Huge Two, creative self-concept, divergent and convergent creative performance
    • critically review the relevant research literature.
    Hypotheses should:
    • be directional
    • clearly link to the research literature reviewed in the introduction
    • be testable using the given data.

Method
5 marks Method should include:
• Participants
• Measures
• Procedure.
Results
20 marksIn this section, the following learning objectives will be assessed:

  1. Conduct appropriate analyses to test the research question/hypotheses.
  2. Present results according to APA standards.
  3. Convey understanding of the results in a clear and concise manner.
    Results should include:
    • descriptive statistics for the variables used in the analyses
    • a correlation table showing relationships between variables of interest
    • description of what each statistical test is showing.
    Whatever statistical methods are used, make sure they are presented and reported correctly, including:
    • direction, size and significance (for correlation)
    • direction, Beta and significance (for regression)
    • t-score (or F-score), degrees of freedom, significance (for t-test/ANOVA).
    Discussion
    30 marks In this section, the following learning objectives will be assessed:
  4. Demonstrate understanding of the theories and concepts.
  5. Use the theories to explain results.
  6. Coherently consider applications of the findings for theory and practice.
  7. Present the methodological limitations that may have influenced the findings.
  8. Present a coherent and logical conclusion.
    Discussion should include:
    • statement of whether the hypotheses were supported
    • comparison of how results of this study compare to previous studies
    • implications of the results for theory and practice in personality psychology
    • methodological limitations:
    o How the limitations potentially affected the findings must be addressed.
    • conclusions and future directions.

Grammar, expression, referencing
10 marks
There should be clear expression and strict adherence to APA conventions throughout the assignment. This includes both in-text references and in the Reference list.

Sample Solution

Sample solution

Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell. 

In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.

God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.

Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.

To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.

 

References

Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.

Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies4(8), 487.

Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.