Journal for the Education of the Gifted http://jeg.sagepub.

com/

Parenting Style, Perfectionism, and Creativity in High-Ability and High-Achieving Young Adults
Angie L. Miller, Amber D. Lambert and Kristie L. Speirs Neumeister Journal for the Education of the Gifted 2012 35: 344 originally published online 12 September 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0162353212459257 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jeg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/344

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
The Official Publication of the Association for the Gifted (a division of the Council for Excep tional Children)

Additional services and information for Journal for the Education of the Gifted can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jeg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jeg.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jeg.sagepub.com/content/35/4/344.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 31, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 12, 2012 What is This?
Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com by guest on October 30, 2013

459257
nal for the Education of the GiftedMiller et al.

JEG35410.1177/0162353212459257Jour

Parenting Style, Perfectionism, and Creativity in HighAbility and HighAchieving Young Adults
Angie L. Miller1, Amber D. Lambert1, and Kristie L. Speirs Neumeister2

Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35(4) 344365 The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0162353212459257 http://jeg.sagepub.com

Abstract The current study explores the potential relationships among perceived parenting style, perfectionism, and creativity in a high-ability and high-achieving young adult population. Using data from 323 honors college students at a Midwestern university, bivariate correlations suggested positive relationships between (a) permissive parenting style and creativity and (b) authoritarian parenting style and socially prescribed perfectionism. Furthermore, negative relationships were also found between authoritarian parenting style and creativity. These relationships were further investigated using a path model that included control variables for gender and parent education level. Findings suggest statistically significant relationships between creativity and gender, authoritarian parenting and socially prescribed perfectionism, authoritarian parenting and creativity, and permissive parenting and creativity. Keywords creativity, high ability, high achieving, parenting style, perfectionism The ability to think creatively, to produce novel and appropriate responses and outcomes in given situations (Brown, 1989; Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004), will be paramount for individuals to succeed in a competitive, global environment. Although creative-thinking skills are important for all individuals, they are particularly important for high-ability individuals, as they are more likely to enter professions such
1 2

Indiana University, Bloomington, USA Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA

Corresponding Author: Angie L. Miller, Indiana University, 1900 E 10th St., Suite 419 Bloomington, IN 47406, USA Email: anglmill@indiana.edu

Miller et al.

345

as medicine, engineering, and technological fields that demand problem-solving skills and innovation. To succeed in these professions, high-ability learners cannot rely on mastery of content alone but need to hone their creative-thinking skills as well. Acknowledgment of this realization leads parents and educators to then pose the following question: What factors influence creative-thinking skills in high-ability students? Gaining an understanding of this question will allow parents and educators to adapt their styles to more effectively develop creative-thinking skills in high-ability students. To determine potential influences on creativity within a high-ability and high-achieving population, a review of previous research is first necessary. Creativity has been extensively studied in educational research (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010; Dai, Swanson, & Cheng, 2011; Piirto, 2004). Yet, despite the broad accumulated knowledge on the topic, more research is needed to understand what aspects of personality affect creative expression and how background experiences influence the development of creativity. It is also important to determine precisely what is meant by the term creativity, as many researchers in the field are not even in complete agreement about the exact nature of this construct (Davis, 2004). For the purpose of this study, a widely used and basic description of the construct would be any behavior or outcome that is both novel and appropriate (Brown, 1989; Plucker et al., 2004). In addition, in our discussions of creativity, we implicitly refer to what is known as little c creativity (Davis, 2004). This type of little c creativity is demonstrated through everyday problem solving by relatively ordinary people, as opposed to Big C creativity, that is demonstrated by individuals such as artists or scientists who are well known and distinguished in their domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). As little c creativity can be investigated in larger groups of individuals, rather than only with a few eminent people in a particular field, it is the preferred conceptualization for the current study. In addition to the little c/Big C distinction, within the field of creativity research, there is also an ongoing debate over the manifestation of creativity. Some claim that creativity is specific to individual domains such as music, fine arts, writing, or science and that the characteristics and skills necessary for creativity in a certain domain do not translate to other domains (Baer, 1994). However, others assert that creativity is a more general trait or cognitive skill that can be expressed in a wide range of circumstances (Plucker, 1998). This debate is discrete from, yet also related to, the little c/Big C issue, insofar as Big C is demonstrated within specific fields and would therefore support a more domain-specific conceptualization of creativity. The converse idea that domain generality can be connected with little c creativity, as a general cognitive skill would be more apparent in everyday problem solving, also applies to the conceptualization of creativity used in the current study. Although it is true that some researchers prefer to conceptualize little c creativity in conjunction with domain specificity (i.e., Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2004), for the purposes of the current study, a little c/domain-general perspective will be applied. Because a domain-general, little c creativity is applicable to a variety of individuals and across many different domains (Davis, 2004), the measure of creativity should also be consistent with this conceptualization. A variety of creativity measures exist,

346

Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35(4)

and range from self-report measures (Gough, 1979) to divergent thinking assessments (Torrance, 1998) to ratings of creative products (Amabile, 1982). Self-report measures are methodologically the most efficient, and as they explicitly assess multiple aspects of creativity are the most reflective of a little c, domain-general perspective. The dimensions of creativity can be cognitive in nature, such as use of imagination or intellectual problem solving; behavioral, such as engaging in creative activities; or affective and emotional, such as desire for spontaneity and openness to ideas. One such self-report measure, the Scale of Creative Attributes and Behaviors (SCAB; Kelly, 2004), defines these various dimensions of creativity as creative engagement, creative cognitive style, spontaneity, tolerance, and fantasy. Creativity research is often categorized into a focus on four different variables: person, process, product, and pressthe 4 Ps (Davis, 2004). The person component emphasizes the internal personality characteristics of creative individuals, the process component looks at the internal processes that take place during creative expression, the product component explores the characteristics of products considered to be creative, and the press component investigates the ways in which environment can influence creativity. It is crucial to note that the 4 Ps are not considered to be separate types of creativity, but instead as potential lenses through which researchers can design, explore, and interpret investigations of creativity. Viewing creativity from these potential lenses is consistent with a multidimensional understanding of creativity. Although they are often presented as separate categories, it is nevertheless important to explore how these components intermingle in the manifestation of creativity. For example, the person component may affect the process, which in turn can affect the final product, all of which can be influenced by the press of the situation. The current study attempted to examine one potential connection among these components by investigating how the press component of parenting style, along with the person component of perfectionism, can affect creativity.

Parenting Styles
The notion of different types of parenting styles has received a great deal of attention in developmental psychology through the past four decades (Berk, 2009; Crain, 2000). Baumrind (1978) described different parenting styles, which vary according to their degree of responsiveness and demandingness. An authoritative style exhibits high levels of responsiveness and demandingness. Authoritative parents make reasonable demands, but are very accepting of their children as well. An authoritarian style exhibits a high level of demandingness but a low level of responsiveness. Authoritarian parents are very strict with their children and emphasize discipline over nurturing. A permissive style exhibits a low level of demandingness but a high level of responsiveness. Permissive parents are very accepting but exhibit less control over their children. Maccoby and Martin (1983) also described a fourth parenting style, indifferent, in which parents show low levels of responsiveness and demandingness. Indifferent parents have little interest or involvement in the childs life.

Miller et al.

347

These parenting styles may have an effect on creativity, although this effect can vary by age, gender, and different cultural factors (Chao, 2001; Coolahan, McWayne, Fantuzzo, & Grim, 2002; Snowden & Christian, 1999; Tennent & Berthelsen, 1997). Harsh treatment, such as that found in psychically and emotionally abusive parentchild relationships, along with excessive control and demands, can lead to low levels of creativity (Pandey, 2005). Research also suggests that authoritarian mothers are less likely to provide home environments conducive to creativity, instead establishing restrictive environments that inhibit growing independence; use physical means of discipline; and expect children to not make mistakes (Tennent & Berthelsen, 1997). This negative relationship between parental control and creativity has also been demonstrated in laboratory settings (Gronick, Gurland, DeCourcey, & Jacob, 2002). Because authoritarian parenting style is characterized by harsh treatment and high levels of control, it is important to further understand how various components of this and other parenting styles can positively or negatively affect creative expression. Is it the low level of responsiveness, characteristic of the authoritarian style, which negatively affects creativity? If so, should indifferent parenting also be negatively related to creativity? Or is it the high level of demandingness in the authoritarian style, also found with the authoritative style, which contributes to the negative influence? Results linking responsiveness to creativity have been found in gifted populations as well. Snowden and Christian (1999) found that authoritative parenting was important for fostering creativity in young gifted children. In a study of adolescents, Dacey (1989) also found that an interest in a childs behavior with few specific rules to govern it was largely present in the families of highly creative individuals. This type of responsiveness to the childs behavior is characteristic of the permissive and the authoritative parenting styles. Furthermore, Lim and Smith (2008) found that higher levels of acceptance, related to authoritative and permissive styles, from parents are associated with higher levels of creativity in children. Given the previous research on the effect of parenting style for gifted and nongifted populations, it may be that responsiveness is the most important dimension for creative expression. Generally, the literature has indicated that parenting styles high in responsiveness (permissive and authoritative) had positive relationships with creativity, whereas the authoritarian style, which is low in responsiveness, was usually negatively related to creativity.

Perfectionism
In addition to parenting style, perfectionism is another construct that has been studied within gifted populations. Although a debate exists over the precise nature and potential effects of perfectionism (Greenspon, 2000; Parker, 1997, 2002), some evidence suggests that this characteristic is commonly associated with many high-ability and high-achieving individuals (Parker & Adkins, 1995; Schuler, 2000). The construct of perfectionism is widely accepted as multidimensional (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). Hewitt and Flett (1991) defined the dimensions based on the source of the excessively high standards. Self-oriented perfectionists are those that

348

Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35(4)

maintain unrealistically high standards for themselves, whereas other-oriented perfectionists have unrealistically high standards for other people. Finally, socially prescribed perfectionists perceive that others have unrealistically high expectations for them. Although some researchers have argued that perfectionism has a healthy component (e.g., Owens & Slade, 2008; Silverman, 2009), Flett and Hewitt (2006) argued that their research collectively shows that self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism are not healthy but rather associated with various maladaptive tendencies. These researchers assert that healthy perfectionism is sometimes confused for conscientiousness, and perhaps this is what others are referring to when they speak of the adaptive aspects of perfectionism. When Joy and Hicks (2004) explored the potential relationship between perfectionism and creativity, they found that high degrees of perfectionism were negatively related to creative performance. This negative relationship between creativity and perfectionism has also been found in gifted individuals (Gallucci, Middleton, & Kline, 2000). In addition, studies have found that perfectionism correlates with various factors such as stress, anxiety, and concern for mistakes (for a review of studies, see Flett & Hewitt, 2002) that have been found to negatively correlate with creativity as well (Curl, 2008; Zhang, 2009). There is also evidence that demonstrates a connection between parenting style and perfectionism. An extensive qualitative study suggested that the development of socially prescribed perfectionism is related to authoritarian parenting (Speirs Neumeister, 2004). Furthermore, Speirs Neumeister and Finch (2006) found an indirect relationship between parenting style and perfectionism, reporting that authoritarian and indifferent parenting styles predicted insecure attachment, which then predicted either self-oriented or socially prescribed perfectionism. Research has also indicated that authoritarian styles are related to maladaptive perfectionism, or particularly negative aspects of perfectionism such as excessive doubts and extreme concern for making mistakes, in a college student population (Kawamura, Frost, & Harmatz, 2002). The emphasis on enforcing strict rules may not only inhibit a freedom for creative expression but can also contribute to the development of strict self-imposed rules. The imposition of strict controls, either from the self or from others, can have a negative effect on creative potential, as authoritarian parenting and perfectionism may decrease creativity.

Demographic Characteristics
As with any psychological construct, certain demographic aspects of an individual can have an effect on his or her personal and social experience, and the concepts of creativity, perfectionism, and parenting style described above are no exception. One must keep in mind that many factors can play a role in explaining individual differences. Therefore, it should be noted that previous research shows gender-based differences in perceptions of parenting style (McGillicuddy-De Lisi & De Lisi, 2007), the relationship between parenting style and perfectionism (Flett, Hewitt, & Singer, 1995), and creativity (Baer & Kaufman, 2008; Rejskind, Rapagna, & Gold, 1992). Furthermore, research suggests that

Miller et al.

349

parenting style may differ depending on socioeconomic status (SES) of families (Coolahan et al., 2002), with parental education level having great influence on SES in our society. Given this wealth of prior research, it is important to consider these differences in any explanation of how parenting style, perfectionism, and creativity may be related.

The Current Study

Based on the results of previous research, the goal of the current study was to explore the relationships among parenting style, perfectionism, and creativity in a population of high-ability and high-achieving college students. It was hypothesized that those parenting styles high in responsiveness (permissive and authoritative) would be positively related to overall creativity, whereas the parenting styles low in responsiveness (authoritarian and indifferent) would be negatively related to overall creativity. Given the multidimensional conceptualization of creativity utilized with this study, more specifically it was predicted that authoritarian parenting style would be negatively related to creative engagement. This hypothesis was derived from the idea that the low responsiveness of authoritarian parenting would contribute to a lack of encouragement for involvement in creative activities. It was also predicted that authoritarian parenting style would be negatively related to the creative aspects of spontaneity and tolerance. These aspects of creativity have affective and emotional components that may be less likely to thrive in environments of high demands but low responsiveness associated with authoritarian parenting. It was expected that authoritative and permissive parenting styles would be positively related to creative engagement and fantasy, as the high responsiveness of these styles is more likely to encourage creative thoughts and activities. Permissive parenting style was also expected to be positively related to spontaneity and tolerance, as the low demandingness coupled with high responsiveness of this style might boost these emotional components. Finally, it was expected indifferent parenting style would be most negatively related to creative engagement, as the low demands and responsiveness of this style would probably not provide children with either the encouragement or resources to engage in many types of creative activities and behaviors. Furthermore, it was expected that all three types of perfectionism (self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed) would be negatively related to creativity but positively related to authoritarian parenting style. More specifically, it was expected that the more affective and emotional components of spontaneity and tolerance would be more negatively related to self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism. As these types of perfectionism have an internal target, individuals high in these types of perfectionism may not allow themselves to engage in unplanned, unconventional, and potentially unapproved behavior. In addition, it was expected that other-oriented perfectionism would be negatively related to tolerance, as expecting perfection from others is inconsistent with showing a lenient attitude. Given the prior research suggesting that perfectionism is linked to both parenting style and creativity, a final goal of the current study was also to explore these three constructs together, investigating how parenting style and perfectionism might relate to each other in their influence on creativity.

350

Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35(4)

Method Participants
The participants were 323 students in the honors college of a Midwestern university, ranging in age from 18 to 23 years (M = 19.6, SD = 1.5). There were 85 males (26.3%), 230 females (71.2%), and 8 students (2.5%) not reporting their gender. The majority of students (89.8%) reported their ethnicity as Caucasian. Although there are more females than males, and more Caucasian than minority students in the sample, these respondent characteristics do not differ significantly when compared with the demographics of the entire honors college population; therefore, the sample was highly representative of the population and not considered biased in terms of gender or ethnicity. Each class was represented, with freshmen (45.2%), sophomores (18.3%), juniors (12.7%), and seniors (20.4%) included in the sample. A majority (80%) of the students reported that at least one parent had completed a 4-year degree. Admissions to the honors college is based on standardized test scores (SAT and ACT), high school grade point average (GPA), recommendations, and writing samples.

Data Collection Procedures

Students were recruited through an email requesting their participation in a research study about the psychological development of giftedness. All students in the honors college received this email, which contained a link to the survey instrument. The surveys were completed online during a single session. An incentive raffle for a free mp3 player was used, and approximately 26% of all honors college students participated. Although this response rate is somewhat lower than desirable, comparisons with population demographics (see above) ensure the representativeness of the sample and generally relieve concern of a self-selection bias by key characteristics. Three separate recruitment periods took place over the spring of 2008, fall of 2008, and spring of 2009. The average completion time, after removing outliers of greater than 2 hr (most likely due to participants leaving the web browser open while leaving the computer or working on other tasks) was 43 min. Students completing the survey instrument more than once had their second set of responses deleted from the sample.

Materials
The following measures were included in a larger battery of 12 instruments, plus demographic items. The instruments covered topics including creativity, temperament, attachment style, parenting, perfectionism, suicide ideation, social coping, ethnic identity, social dominance, achievement motivation, overexcitability, and personality traits; not all instruments administered are included in the current study. Two versions were administered; each version contained all of the instruments. The order of instruments was counterbalanced between versions to account for potential survey fatigue, as all participants completed all 12 instruments and demographic items.

Miller et al.
Table 1. Cronbachs Alphas for MPS and SCAB Number of items MPS Self-oriented perfectionism Other-oriented perfectionism Socially prescribed perfectionism SCAB Overall creativity Creative engagement Creative cognitive style Spontaneity Tolerance Fantasy 15 15 15 20 4 4 4 4 4

351

Cronbachs .912 .824 .851 .845 .882 .816 .826 .790 .751

Note: MPS = Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; SCAB = Scale of Creative Attributes and Behaviors.

Parenting Scales. The parenting style assessment was adapted from a study by Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch (1991), in which the instrument was designed as part of a larger group of scales to retrospectively determine perceived authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and indifferent parenting styles for the mothers and fathers of participating students. Participants read four descriptive paragraphs, one for each style, and indicated whether the description was characteristic of their mother, father, or other caregiver. If the description was not characteristic of any caregiver, they left it blank. For each style, respondents could score 0 (neither parent), 1 (one parent), 2 (both parents or one parent and one other caregiver), or 3 (both parents and one other caregiver). This produced an ordinallevel variable for each parenting style, indicating the degree of exposure to that particular style; the higher the score, the greater the degree of perceived exposure to the parenting style. Previous research shows that the parenting style descriptions are able to determine predicted patterns in outcomes of psychosocial development, school achievement, internalized distress, and problem behavior (Lamborn et al., 1991). Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS). The MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) measured perfectionism with a 45-item scale to assess self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism. Participants indicated their level of agreement with statements about certain perceptions and behaviors (i.e., I strive to be the best at everything I do and My family expects me to be perfect) using a 7-point Likerttype scale. Three subscale scores were calculated from the responses, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perfectionism. Scores for each subscale can range from 15 to 105. Cronbachs alphas for the current study are found in Table 1. In the original validation studies on the MPS, Hewitt and Flett (1991) reported adequate internal consistency (across 4 studies, ranged from .74 to .89 for subscales). Factor analysis confirmed the three hypothesized types of perfectionism, providing support for the construct validity. Additional analyses indicated a significant positive

352

Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35(4)

relationship with observer ratings (r = .35-.61 for subscales), and the subscales were able to differentiate between samples of students and clinical patients. Furthermore, the authors obtained evidence for concurrent and divergent validity in the coadministration of the MPS with a variety of personality measures, performance standards, and clinical assessments (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). SCAB. The SCAB is a self-report creativity measure (Kelly, 2004) designed to assess the dimensions of creative engagement, creative cognitive style, spontaneity, tolerance, and fantasy. This 20-item scale instructs participants to indicate their level of agreement with statements about typical attitudes, characteristics, and behaviors (i.e., I enjoy creating new things, I am flexible in my thinking, and I often fantasize) using a 7-point Likert-type scale. Five subscale scores and one overall score can be calculated from the responses, with higher scores indicating higher levels of creativity. The overall score can range from 20 to 140, whereas the subscale scores can range from 4 to 28. Cronbachs alphas for the current study are found in Table 1. In the original validation studies on the SCAB, Kelly (2004) reported adequate internal consistency ( = .75 total scale; = .69-.82 for subscales) and testretest reliability after 1 month (r = .80 total scale; r = .70-.90 for subscales). Factor analysis confirmed the five hypothesized components, providing support for the construct validity. Additional validity studies indicated a significant positive relationship with the personality trait of Openness to Experience (r = .51 total scale), and this similarity to findings using other creativity measures provides evidence of concurrent validity (Kelly, 2006). Other demographics. Additional demographic information was also collected and recoded for use as control variables. Gender was recoded as a dichotomous variable (0 = male, 1 = female). Educational level of both parents was also asked of participants. This information was then recoded into a dichotomous variable for status as a first-generation college student (0 = not a first-generation student [at least one parent had completed a 4-year degree], 1 = first-generation student [neither parent had completed a 4-year degree]).

Analytical Procedures
In the first stage of analyses, a series of bivariate correlations were completed to explore the potential relationships between parenting style and creativity, parenting style and perfectionism, and perfectionism and creativity. In the next stage, we created a structural equation model using our hypothesized relationships suggested by past literature and our findings from the first stage of this study. Creating this path model allowed us to further investigate the relationship between variables while correcting for potential inflation due to multiple correlations. Because AMOS, the statistical package used for analysis of the path model, does not allow for missing values in the computation of modification indices, only those cases without any missing data were included in the model. Perhaps due to the high achievement and conscientiousness of the students in this study, there were very few cases with missing data and thus only a few cases were lost (path model n = 298) and these lost cases did not change the

Miller et al.
Table 2. Bivariate Correlations for Creativity and Parenting Style Authoritarian Overall creativity Creative engagement Creative cognitive style Spontaneity Tolerance Fantasy
*p < .05. **p < .01.

353

Authoritative .029 .060 .074 .013 .072 .102

Permissive .151** .105 .109 .073 .065 .136*

.138* .119* .150** .020 .121* .053

Table 3. Bivariate Correlations for Creativity and Perfectionism Self-oriented perfectionism Overall creativity Creative engagement Creative cognitive style Spontaneity Tolerance Fantasy
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Other-oriented perfectionism .074 .083 .092 .034 .080 .020

Socially prescribed perfectionism .048 .067 .080 .075 .165* .045

.016 .078 .081 .100 .136* .058

Table 4. Bivariate Correlations for Parenting Style and Perfectionism Self-oriented perfectionism Authoritarian Authoritative Permissive
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Other-oriented perfectionism .055 .109 .048

Socially prescribed perfectionism .210** .062 .013

.009 .082 .061

makeup of the characteristics of the sample. After determination of acceptable model fit, the path coefficients were examined to review the possible relationships.

Results Correlation Analyses

The correlation matrices for all three instruments (SCAB, MPS, and Parenting Scales) and their subscales are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Permissive parenting showed a significant positive relationship with creativity, for the overall SCAB score (r = .151,

354

Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35(4)

p = .008) and the fantasy subscale (r = .136, p = .016). Authoritarian parenting showed a significant negative correlation with creativity, for the overall SCAB score (r = .138, p = .015), the Creative Engagement subscale (r = .119, p = .035), the Creative Cognitive Style subscale (r = .150, p = .008), and the Tolerance subscale (r = .121, p = .033). Authoritarian parenting also showed a significant positive correlation with socially prescribed perfectionism (r = .210, p < .001). Socially prescribed perfectionism showed a significant negative correlation with creativity for the SCAB subscale of tolerance (r = .165, p = .004). In addition, self-oriented perfectionism showed a significant negative correlation for the SCAB subscale of tolerance (r = .136, p = .017). Due to an extremely low variance, indifferent parenting style was not included in the correlation analyses (82% of participants had a score of zero for this variable). Although some were hypothesized, no other significant correlations were found for any of the parenting style, perfectionism, or creativity scales. Although many of these correlations were significant, it should be noted that the strengths of the correlations were rather weak. In considering the R2 values, calculated by squaring the correlation coefficient to create an estimate of the explained variance, for many of these relationships, the correlation only explained anywhere from 1% to 4% of the variance. It may be that there is not a strong relationship between the different variables, or it may be that the relationship with parenting style is not reflected well with a linear analysis. Although participants could theoretically score between 0 and 3 on the parenting style measures (with a higher score meaning greater exposure to the style), there was a negative skew for authoritarian and permissive styles, with many participants scoring a 0 and very few scoring a 2 or 3. Mathematically, this limits the variability and reduces the likelihood of getting a strong correlation.

Path Model
To create the most parsimonious path model, only those variables with significant bivariate correlations were selected for inclusion in the model. This combination of bivariate correlations and path analyses has been utilized in previous research with college student scores on multiple self-report instruments (e.g., Diseth & Kobbeltvedt, 2010). Therefore, authoritative parenting style, indifferent parenting style, self-oriented perfectionism, and other-oriented perfectionism were not included in the model. Furthermore, only the overall creativity score was included as an endogenous variable in the model, rather than including each of the subscales, because the overall score was the only creativity measure consistently related to parenting style. When using the traditional measure of model fit (2), the model had a weak fit. Because the size of the sample inflates the chi-square value, other model-fit indices were considered. The following cutoffs suggest a good fit when testing structural models: TuckerLewis Index (TLI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values greater than .95, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value less than .06, and PCLOSE should be greater than .05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). As shown in Table 5, these tests, even the more conservative RMSEA and PCLOSE, all suggest that the model is a good fit for the data.

Miller et al.
Table 5. Model-Fit Results for Path Model N 298 TLI .929 CFI .917 RMSEA .040

355

PCLOSE .999

Note: TLI = TuckerLewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. Strong model fit is reflected by CFI and TLI greater than .95, RMSEA less than .06, and PCLOSE greater than .05.

The outcome for the path model was overall creativity. Both gender (1 = female) and parental education level (1 = first-generation college student) were exogenous variables in the model. The two parenting styles (authoritarian and permissive) that the correlation analyses showed were related to perfectionism and creativity were also included in the model. Because socially prescribed perfectionism was the only type of perfectionism that was correlated with overall creativity or parenting style, it was the only perfectionism scale included in the model. Although both indirect and direct effects were explored in the path model (see Figure 1), only four direct relationships were statistically significant (p < .05 or lower). Permissive parenting style was shown to have a statistically significant positive effect on a students overall creativity (.162), whereas, in contrast, exposure to an authoritarian parenting style had a negative effect (.212). This negative effect was actually the strongest influence on a students overall creativity. The path coefficient for authoritarian parenting style on socially prescribed perfectionism (.218) suggested a positive relationship and the strongest one in the overall model. Finally, although there is not much literature to support this finding, the negative path coefficient for gender on overall creativity (.168) suggests that male students reported higher overall creativity. Possible explanations for this finding, as well as the others, are explored in more detail in the discussion section.

Discussion
Several different sets of analyses were completed, each revealing further evidence concerning the relationship between creativity, parenting style, and perfectionism in high-ability and high-achieving young adults. The positive correlation between creativity (overall and fantasy subscale) and permissive parenting suggests that more perceived exposure to a permissive style is related to higher levels of self-reported creativity. This finding provides evidence for a potential strength of a permissive parenting, at least among gifted young adults. The results of the path model also support this potential strength of permissive parenting, as this relationship remained significant even when taking into account the influence of other variables. Although most research provides evidence supporting authoritative parenting as being associated with positive outcomes, this study failed to find evidence for this. Recent research does suggest that the positive outcomes of authoritative parenting may not

356

Figure 1. Path model with statistically significant standardized path coefficients

Miller et al.

357

generalize to other cultures (Chao, 2001). It may be that the high degree of responsiveness found in permissive and authoritative parenting is what is most important for nurturing creativity, but the high degree of demandingness is not as effective for this particular population of high-ability and high-achieving young adults. There is also the possibility that because it is virtually impossible to disentangle genetic and environmental influences, it may also be that more creative parents tend to be more permissive and are passing on their creative traits biologically to their children. This would be an interesting question for future research to address. The relationship between authoritarian parenting and creativity is more complex to interpret. The negative correlation between authoritarian style and creativity suggests that more perceived exposure to this style is related to lower levels of creativity, and this relationship was also significant in the path model. This finding further supports the potential weaknesses of this style, particularly with a gifted population (Dwairy, 2004). The positive correlation between authoritarian style and socially prescribed perfectionism, with more exposure to authoritarian parenting also showing higher levels of perfectionism, replicates previous research (Speirs Neumeister, 2004; Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006) and provides further evidence for the weaknesses of authoritarian parenting. The results of the path model further elaborate on the relationship between these variables. Even when controlling for gender and first-generation status, the significant relationships between authoritarian parenting style and socially prescribed perfectionism, and authoritarian parenting style and creativity remained. Perceived authoritarian parenting style appears to have detrimental consequences in various areas for high-ability and high-achieving young adults, related to increases in socially prescribed perfectionism and decreases in creativity. It is noteworthy that permissive and authoritarian are the exact opposite styles when considering dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness. Authoritarian parents are high in demandingness and low in responsiveness, whereas permissive parents are low in demandingness and high in responsiveness. These opposite styles had opposite effects on creativity in the model, with permissive as a positive predictor and authoritarian as a negative predictor. It may also be that the combination of both dimensions is the critical piece in understanding the effect of parenting style on creativity. Further complicating the relationships between the constructs in the model is the idea of conditional acceptance and the effect it can have on perfectionism. Conditional acceptance by parents results in a childs thinking pattern of I am acceptable [to my parents] as long as I can perform well [make good grades, win awards, etc.] and is a pervasive theme in the literature concerning the clinical implications of perfectionism (Greenspon, 2008). Judgments and critiques may be frequently voiced, and children grow up believing they are never good enough (Greenspon, 2011). However, although conditional acceptance plays a role in the development of perfectionism, it is not necessarily constrained to one particular parenting style, which may additionally obscure patterns in the results. Although previous literature has demonstrated a link between perfectionism and creativity (Gallucci et al., 2000; Joy & Hicks, 2004), in neither the bivariate correlation

358

Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35(4)

nor the path model was socially prescribed perfectionism significantly related to overall creativity. This result may be due to the differences in the various facets of perfectionism in the instrument that was used in this study, or it may be that this finding is not apparent in a high-ability and young adult population. Some highly creative gifted young adults may not be perfectionists, or some may be creative despite their perfectionism. Another potential reason for a lack of relationship between perfectionism and creativity in this study may be the conceptualization of creativity from a domaingeneral perspective. It could be that in a subpopulation within a specific domain, perfectionism might have greater explanatory power when it comes to domain-specific creativity. Some researchers assert that perfectionism is a facet of the conscientiousness trait (MacCann, Duckworth, & Roberts, 2009), and indeed some have found that conscientiousness is a predictor of self-oriented perfectionism (Stoeber, Otto, & Dalbert, 2009). Incorporating this research with the findings of a meta-analysis by Feist (1998) who found that conscientiousness was related to scientific creativity, but not artistic creativity, one can understand how a domain-general measure of creativity, such as the one included in this study, might not fully capture the relationship. This conclusion is further supported by the work of Kelly and Kneipp (2009), which linked scores on the SCAB to artistic vocational interests, suggesting that this domain-general measure might not be the most precise assessment of nonartistic domains. The age of the sample is an additional piece of information that is important to consider when interpreting the findings of this study. Although the parenting style measure was written in the present tense, the participants were retrospectively responding to the instrument, given that they had approximately two decades of parenting information to contemplate. They could have based responses on their current relationship with their parents or over the course of growing up. It may be that authoritative is related to the most positive outcomes growing up, as the literature suggests (Baumrind, 1983; Roberts Gray & Steinberg, 1999), but is less important to college students. Perhaps once they become young adults, a more permissive style is associated with more positive outcomes, particularly for high-ability and high-achieving students who may want the support without the demands. There were also some interesting findings based on the inclusion of the control variables of gender and first-generation student status in the path model. Firstgeneration status was included to account for a potential effect on parenting style, as previous research has suggested that parenting styles can differ depending on the SES of the family (Coolahan et al., 2002). However, these paths were not significant in the model. It may be due to the skewed distribution of the sample, as only 20% of the students were first-generation college students. It may also be that these socioeconomic differences in parenting style are not found in families with high-ability or highachieving children, or that parenting styles were altered to accommodate the special needs of these children. More research with high-ability and high-achieving populations is needed to further explore potential reasons for this finding. Gender was another control variable that was included based on previous research, but does not consistently reflect prior findings. Although empirical evidence (McGillicuddy-De Lisi & De Lisi, 2007) suggests that perceptions of parenting

Miller et al.

359

style can differ for males and females, the paths for gender and permissive and authoritarian parenting style were not significant in our model. Furthermore, the paths for gender and socially prescribed perfectionism were not significant in the model. Previous research by Flett et al. (1995) found that authoritarian parenting style was related to socially prescribed perfectionism in males, but not females. However, later research with a sample of gifted college students (Speirs Neumeister, 2004) did not find evidence for this gender difference. It may be that the distinctive experiences of high-ability and highachieving individuals, as compared with a more general sample of college students, cancel out the differences between males and females. Again, more research is needed on the family experiences of high-ability and high-achieving students. The model showed a significant path coefficient from gender to creativity, suggesting that in our sample, males had higher levels of creativity than females. A significant difference in this direction was not expected, as a majority of research indicates no gender differences for creativity (Baer & Kaufman, 2008) or slightly favors females on measures of verbal creativity (Rejskind et al., 1992). It may be that males and females vary in different types or aspects of creativity, and some measures are more sensitive to these variations than others. One study found a similar gender difference for flexibility and elaboration, using a divergent thinking test to assess creativity (Ai, 1999), whereas another found differences in the ways that creative males and females (in a sample of engineers and musicians) chose to describe themselves on a self-report measure (Charyton & Snelbecker, 2007). Some research suggests that males self-report more positively on other characteristics (Simon & Nath, 2004); this may be true for creativity as well. It could also be that gender differences emerge under certain environmental conditions, as Baer (1997) found that an expectation of evaluation is detrimental to females, but not males, creative production. Perhaps the females in this study were more sensitive to the scientific nature of the research process and felt their responses would be evaluated more severely. A final explanation for this finding could relate to this sample itself. Previous research has found that the relationship between creativity and academic achievement is much stronger for males than females (Asha, 1980). Because admission to the honors college is based primarily on academic achievement (standardized test scores, GPA, teacher recommendations), the males in the sample may show higher levels of creativity, as compared with the females, who show greater variation in creativity. More research is needed to explore gender differences in creativity specifically with high-ability and high-achieving young adult populations.

Limitations
Although there are several strengths of this study, some limitations should also be considered. One limitation involves the online data collection. Although this type of research has the advantages of increased sample size and ease of data collection, one must rely completely on self-reported measures, which may not always be objective. However, most studies looking at self-reports of students in higher education suggest that self-reports and actual abilities are positively related (Anaya, 1999; Hayek,

360

Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35(4)

Carini, ODay, & Kuh, 2002; Pike, 1995). One should also keep in mind that the parenting style measure was not only self-reported but retrospective, which could have introduced further error into the precision of the instrument. Furthermore, the sample was somewhat homogeneous in terms of age and ethnicity. Because admission to the honors college was based on high achievement, only those students with high ability who are also high achievers could be included in the study; therefore, there were no underachievers in our sample. The pattern of results might differ dramatically for high-ability underachievers, as parenting and perfectionism may influence achievement levels as well (Nugent, 2000; Rimm, 1996). In addition to these limitations, there were relatively weak significant correlations and path coefficients, which suggest that there are many other factors not measured in this study having an influence on the perceived parenting style, perfectionism, and creativity of the participants. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Although complex correlational models such as path analyses can provide richer information than simple bivariate correlations, the research is still correlational and causality cannot be confirmed (Trafimow, 2006). Additional research with more representative samples including high-ability underachievers that incorporate other measures of the same constructs is needed to draw more definitive conclusions. Findings may not be replicated on samples of young adults at different ability levels. In young adults who show a broader range of abilities, the patterns found in this study may not be reproduced, or it could be that the explanatory power of parenting style increases.

Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that parenting styles can have an effect on creativity for high-ability and high-achieving young adults, in particular authoritarian and permissive styles. However, these relationships are complicated by other factors, such as gender and perfectionism, which can also influence creativity. More research is needed on how parenting style, something one is exposed to since birth, affects the individual as a young adult in positive and negative ways. Furthermore, potential gender and cultural differences are important for consideration in the study of how parenting style can influence development. As previous studies have shown, parenting style can have a differential effect, depending on certain characteristics of the child and the environmental context (Chao, 2001; McGillicuddy-De Lisi & De Lisi, 2007). There are multiple subjective factors to be considered in emotional development, particularly attachment, and the potential for individual variation requires more investigation of these constructs (Sroufe, 1996). Research is also needed to explore the complexities of how the thought processes associated with perfectionism and creativity are moderated by characteristics such as gender as well as environmental and cultural experiences. As we leave the information age and enter the innovation age (Hill, 2007), the importance of creativity for success beyond the classroom cannot be overstated. This study contributes to the understanding of influences on creative thinking for

Miller et al.

361

high-achieving, high-ability students. It also generates several additional questions regarding influences on creativity that provide a springboard for future research. As more research is completed in this area, we will hone our understanding of how best to nurture the development of creativity in our high-ability students, thus benefiting not only the students but also education and society as a whole. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References
Ai, X. (1999). Creativity and academic achievement: An investigation of gender differences. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 329-337. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013. Anaya, G. (1999). College impact on student learning: Comparing the use of self-reported gains, standardized test scores, and college grades. Research in Higher Education, 40, 499-526. Andiliou, A., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Examining variations among researchers and teachers conceptualizations of creativity: A review and synthesis of contemporary research. Educational Research Review, 5, 201-219. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.003 Asha, C. B. (1980). Creativity and academic achievement among secondary school children. Asian Journal of Psychology & Education, 6, 1-4. Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35-36. Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 25-31. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75-105. Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth & Society, 9, 239-276. Baumrind, D. (1983). Rejoinder to Lewiss reinterpretation of parental firm control effects: Are authoritative families really harmonious? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 132-142. Berk, L. E. (2009). Child development (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. Brown, R. T. (1989). Creativity: What are we to measure? In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-32). New York, NY: Plenum. Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-1843.

362

Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35(4)

Charyton, C., & Snelbecker, G. E. (2007). Engineers and musicians choices of self-descriptive adjectives as potential indicators of creativity by gender and domain. Psychology of Creativity, Aesthetics, and the Arts, 1, 91-99. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.91 Coolahan, K., McWayne, C., Fantuzzo, J., & Grim, S. (2002). Validation of a multidimensional assessment of parenting styles for low-income African-American families with preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 356-373. Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Curl, K. (2008). Assessing stress reduction as a function of artistic creation and cognitive focus. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 25, 164-169. Dacey, J. S. (1989). Discriminating characteristics of the families of highly creative adolescents. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 263-271. Dai, D. Y., Swanson, J. A., & Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998-2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 126-138. doi:10.1177/0016986210397831 Davis, G. (2004). Creativity is forever (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Diseth, A., & Kobbeltvedt, T. (2010). A mediation analysis of achievement motives, goals, learning strategies, and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 671-687. doi:10.1348/000709910X492432 Dwairy, M. (2004). Parenting styles and mental health of Arab gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 275-286. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290-309. Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2006). Positive versus negative perfectionism in psychopathology: A comment on Slade and Owenss dual process model. Behavior Modification, 30, 472-495. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Singer, A. (1995). Perfectionism and parental authority styles. Individual Psychology, 51, 50-60. Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468. Gallucci, N. T., Middleton, G., & Kline, A. (2000). Perfectionism and creative strivings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 135-141. Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398-1405. Greenspon, T. S. (2000). Healthy perfectionism is an oxymoron! Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 197-208. Greenspon, T. S. (2008). Making sense of error: A view of the origins and treatment of perfectionism. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 62, 263-282. Greenspon, T. S. (2011). Perfectionism: A counselors role in a recovery process. In T. Cross & J. Riedl Cross (Eds.), The handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents:

Miller et al.

363

Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 597614). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Gronick, W. S., Gurland, S. T., DeCourcey, W., & Jacob, K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of mothers autonomy support: An experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology, 38, 143-155. Hayek, J. C., Carini, R. M., ODay, P. T., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Triumph or tragedy: Comparing student engagement levels of members of Greek-letter organizations and other students. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 643-663. Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470. Hill, R. C. (2007, January). Unpublished paper presented at creativity or conformity? Building cultures of creativity in higher education conference. University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Joy, S., & Hicks, S. (2004). The need to be different: Primary trait structure and impact on projective drawings. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 331-339. doi:10.1080/10400419.20 04.9651462 Kawamura, K. Y., Frost, R. O., & Harmatz, M. G. (2002). The relationship of perceived parenting styles to perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 317-327. doi:10.1016/ S0191-8869(01)00026-5 Kelly, K. E. (2004). A brief measure of creativity among college students. College Student Journal, 38, 594-596. Kelly, K. E. (2006). Relationship between the five-factor model of personality and the Scale of Creative Attributes and Behavior: A validational study. Individual Differences Research, 4, 299-305. Kelly, K. E., & Kneipp, L. B. (2009). You do what you are: The relationship between the Scale of Creative Attributes and Behavioral and vocational interests. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36, 79-83. Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents form authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065. Lim, S., & Smith, J. (2008). The structural relationships of parenting style, creative personality, and loneliness. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 412-419. doi:10.1080/10400410802391868 MacCann, C., Duckworth, A. L., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). Empirical identification of the major facets of conscientiousness. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 451-458. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.03.007 Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4 Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1-101). New York, NY: Wiley. McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., & De Lisi, R. (2007). Perceptions of family relations when mothers and fathers are depicted with different parenting styles. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168, 425-442. doi:10.3200/GNTP.168.4.425-442

364

Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35(4)

Nugent, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism: Its manifestations and classroom-based interventions. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 215-222. Owens, G., & Slade, P. D. (2008). So perfect its positively harmful? Reflections on the adaptiveness and maladaptiveness of positive and negative perfectionism. Behavior Modification, 32, 928-937. Pandey, S. (2005). Child abuse: An impediment to the development of creative potential in children. Psychological Studies, 50, 238-242. Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism in academically talented children. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 545-562. Parker, W. D. (2002). Perfectionism and adjustment in gifted children. In P. Hewitt & G. Flett (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 133-148). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Parker, W. D., & Adkins, K. K. (1995). The incidence of perfectionism in honors and regular college students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7, 303-309. Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Pike, G. R. (1995). The relationship between self-reports of college experiences and achievement test scores. Research in Higher Education, 36, 1-22. doi:10.1007/BF02207764 Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179-182. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1102_8 Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isnt creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1 Rejskind, F. G., Rapagna, S. O., & Gold, D. (1992). Gender differences in childrens divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 165-174. doi:10.1080/10400419209534430 Rimm, S. B. (1996). Parenting for achievement. Roeper Review, 19, 57-60. doi:10.1080/ 02783199609553789 Roberts Gray, M., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 574-587. Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 127-152). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 183-196. Silverman, L. K. (2009). Petunias, perfectionism, and levels of development. In S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski (Eds.), Living with intensity (pp. 145-164). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Simon, R. W., & Nath, L. E. (2004). Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? American Journal of Sociology, 109, 1137-1176. doi:10.1086/382111 Snowden, P. L., & Christian, L. G. (1999). Parenting the young gifted child: Supportive behaviors. Roeper Review, 21, 215-222. doi:10.1080/02783199909553964

Miller et al.

365

Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004). Factors influencing the development of perfectionism in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 259-274. doi:10.1177/001698620404800402 Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in high-ability students: Relational precursors and influences on achievement motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 238-251. doi:10.1177/001698620605000304 Sroufe, L. A. (1996). Emotional development: The organization of emotional life in the early years. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Stoeber, J., Otto, K., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Perfectionism and the big five: Conscientiousness predicts longitudinal increases in self-oriented perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 363-368. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.004 Tennent, L., & Berthelsen, D. (1997). Creativity: What does it mean in the family context? Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 91-104. Torrance, E. P. (1998). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual figural (Streamlined) forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Trafimow, D. (2006). Multiplicative invalidity and its application to complex correlational models. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 215-239. doi:10.3200/ MONO.132.3.215-240 Zhang, L. (2009). Anxiety and thinking styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 347-351. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.001

Bios
Angie L. Miller has a research faculty position at the Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University. She does research and data analysis for the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP). Her research interests include creativity assessment, the utilization of creativity in educational settings, and factors impacting gifted student engagement and achievement. Amber D. Lambert is a member of the research analyst team at the Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University, where she provides analytic support to several large survey research projects, including the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project and the National Survey of Student Engagement. Her research interests include gender issues in higher education, arts education, engineering education, creativity, and quantitative reasoning. Kristie L. Speirs Neumeister is an associate professor of educational psychology at Ball State University, where she directs the licensure program and teaches graduate courses in gifted education. She is currently the president elect of the Indiana Association for the Gifted and has served on the board of the Council for Exceptional ChildrenThe Association for the Gifted. Her research interests center on the social and emotional needs of gifted individuals.