See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315298440

Connected to Create: A Social Network Analysis of Friendship Ties and

Creativity

Article  in  Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts · August 2017

DOI: 10.1037/aca0000117

CITATIONS READS
21 3,021

3 authors:

Alexander S McKay Pawel Grygiel

Virginia Commonwealth University Jagiellonian University
23 PUBLICATIONS   239 CITATIONS    87 PUBLICATIONS   713 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Maciej Karwowski
University of Wroclaw
215 PUBLICATIONS   5,844 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

critical thinking and creativity View project

Forma kształcenia a trajektorie rozwoju teorii umysłu View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexander S McKay on 20 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts © 2017 American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 0, No. 999, 000 1931-3896/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000117

Connected to Create: A Social Network Analysis of

Friendship Ties and Creativity

Alexander S. McKay Paweł Grygiel

The Pennsylvania State University Educational Research Institute

Maciej Karwowski
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The Maria Grzegorzewska University

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

The purpose of this article was to examine the relationship between friendship ties and creativity. Based
on the homophily hypothesis, we predicted friendship ties would more likely occur between people
similar to each other on creativity-related attributes. We also predicted students would be more likely to
report friendship ties with peers who have higher creativity scores in general. Across a pilot and primary
study, we examined the relationship between friendship strength among high school students in a pilot
study (Study 1) and friendship nominations among elementary school students in a primary study (Study
2) with creativity. In Study 2, but not Study 1, we found that friendship nominations were more likely
to occur when scores on a creativity task were similar. In both studies, we found that popularity was
positively related to originality (Study 1) and creativity (Study 2). The results indicate that elementary
school students nominated peers as friends who are similar to them when it comes to creativity and that
there is a positive relationship between popularity and creativity.

Keywords: creativity, social networks, friendship, homophily, similarity-attraction

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000117.supp

Although layperson stereotypes align with the idea that “cre-
ative people” are “mad geniuses” with mental disorders, working
in isolation on radical new discoveries (Kaufman, Bromley, &
Cole, 2006; Simonton, 2014), this is often not the case (Sawyer,
2012). Rather, many inventors and radical creators like Bill Gates,
Jane Austen, Ada Lovelace, Steve Jobs, Frida Kahlo, and Mark
Zuckerberg were or are well connected to others to develop and
implement their ideas within their disciplines (Sawyer, 2012).
These social connections allow them to gain new information,
identify others who they can work, and gain “buy in” to implement
their ideas.
Alexander S. McKay, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania
State University; Paweł Grygiel, Department of Educational Measurement,
Educational Research Institute; Maciej Karwowski, Creative Education
Lab, Department of Educational Sciences, The Maria Grzegorzewska Uni-
versity.
Study 1 was supported by a grant funded to Maciej Karwowski by Polish
Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Iuventus Plus Program -
0193/IP3/2015/73). We thank Diane Felmlee and Anne DeLessio-Parson
for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alexan-
der S. McKay, Department of Psychology, 142 Moore Building, Pennsyl-
vania State University, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: asm273@
psu.edu
Creativity research has a long and fruitful history of studying the
relationship between creativity with individual differences (e.g.,
personality; Feist, 2010) and contextual factors (e.g., characteris-
tics of the workplace; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron,
1996). There have, however, been fewer studies examining the role
of social connections with creativity in everyday settings (for
exceptions see Kéri, 2011; Lau & Li, 1996; Simonton, 1984). This
lack of research is unfortunate because studies examining the role
of social connections, primarily in the organizational literature,
have found that they are important drivers of individual creativity
(Baer, Evans, Oldham, & Boasso, 2015). Indeed, as Simonton
(1984) argued, “A successful ‘social psychology of creativity’
demands that the creative individual be placed within a network of
interpersonal relationships and group influences” (p. 1273). Thus,
examining social relations is important to identify the full range of
antecedents for creativity.
Over the past decade, researchers in the organizational sci-
ences have begun to use social network methods to examine the
relationship between social connections and creativity (e.g.,
Cattani & Ferriani, 2008; Perry-Smith, 2006; Perry-Smith &
Shalley, 2003). These studies have primarily examined the role
of information sharing ties and have rarely examined how other
informal ties like friendship are related to creativity. Baer et al.
(2015) “encourage future research to more systematically con-
sider the role that tie type and the content conveyed through ties
may play in determining the effects of certain network features
on innovation” (p. 215).

1
 2 MCKAY, GRYGIEL, AND KARWOWSKI
In the current study, we expand on previous network research
and examine a different type of tie with regard to creativity in
everyday settings. Specifically, we examine how friendship ties
relate to creativity across two studies in two school settings (ele-
mentary and high schools). This natural setting is where students
have the opportunity to develop friendships and engage in creative
activities, which likely occur in tandem. Often times this creativity
is everyday creativity like “little-c” and “mini-c” creativity rather
than “pro-c” or “Big-C” creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009).
We investigate the relationship between friendship ties and
creativity using two perspectives. First, we examine the relation-
ship between friendship and creativity based on the homophily or
similarity-attraction hypothesis. That is, people are attracted to and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
select friends that are similar to themselves (Byrne, 1971; McPhe-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
rson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). Second, we argue that creative
students are more popular within their friendship networks based
on prior research. Because social network analyses are less com-
mon in the creativity literature, we begin with an overview of its
basic assumptions. We then discuss the two perspectives on the
relationship between friendship ties and creativity. Last, we test
our hypotheses in two studies.
Social Network Analysis
Social network analysis is a methodological and analytical ap-
proach to studying how nodes are connected or unconnected to
other nodes through various ties (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson,
2013; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Nodes are people, teams, ani-
mals, countries, and so forth, and are distinguished from each other
based on categorical (e.g., race, ethnicity) or continuous (e.g., age,
personality, or a country’s GDP) attributes. Ties or relations be-
tween two nodes can be anything from friendship, information
sharing, marriage, or kinship. These ties can be dichotomous (e.g.,
married or not married) or valued/weighted (e.g., friendship
strength). The information that is acquired from the network is
often used to describe various everyday social systems (e.g., or-
ganizational dynamics, friendship in school settings).
Researchers also use social network measures (e.g., centrality,
subgroups) as predictors or outcomes when testing research ques-
tions and hypotheses. These hypotheses might be at the node level
(e.g., does age predict one’s location in the network?), dyad level
(e.g., are two people similar in personality traits more likely to
become friends?), or network level (e.g., how does turnover in an
organization influence the structure of the network?). In summary,
social network analysis allows researchers to determine how var-
ious social relationships predict behavior. This information can be
useful for understanding how social relations predict workplace
performance, unhealthy behaviors (e.g., smoking), and more. In
the current study, we apply social network analysis to examine the
relationship between friendship ties and creativity.
The Role of Friendship Ties With Creativity
Based on the homophily and similarity-attraction hypotheses,
we argue that people will report friendships with similar creative
others. People often form relationships (e.g., friendship, marriage,
and exchange) with people who are similar to them on various
attributes like gender, race, social status, education, religion, and
personality (Byrne, Griffitt, & Stefaniak, 1967; Izard, 1960; Kao &
Jouyner, 2004; McPherson et al., 2001). These relationships form
through various mechanisms like feelings of trust, ease of com-
munication, beliefs that friendship will be reciprocated, and that
someone is not alone in their values and preferences.
Although homophily has been demonstrated across a variety of
factors, we expand on this previous research and examine the
relationship between creativity and friendship ties. Creativity will
influence friendship formation because two people will have sim-
ilar values and preferences, which will lead people to have positive
interpersonal experiences (Izard, 1960). For example, the person-
ality factor openness to experience, which is closely related to
creativity, influences the hobbies that people engage in (Wolfradt
& Pretz, 2001). Thus, creative people might be drawn to others
who are similarly creative because both share a preference for
engaging in similar hobbies and obtaining new experiences. If
people did not share the same values and preferences, then either
person has the option to change their values and preferences or end
the friendship (McPherson et al., 2001). Additionally, people sim-
ilar with regard to creativity might feel more comfortable sharing
their ideas without fear that people will be biased toward those
ideas (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012). Dissimilar people
might lead one person (or both) to feel uncomfortable sharing new
ideas with each other for fear of criticism. Thus, we predicted:
Hypothesis 1: Similarity in creativity-related factors will pre-
dict stronger friendship ties.
Although people might be drawn to similar others, people are
likely drawn to creative others in general. That is, people might
report friendship ties with creative others, whether or not this
friendship is reciprocated. In line with this notion, Lau and Li
(1996) examined the relationship between peer and teacher per-
ceived creativity and popularity among students in primary school
(Grade 5) in China. They found that “popular” students were
significantly more likely to be perceived as creative by their peers
and teacher compared with students who were in an “average”
group. Additionally, Kéri (2011) found in a sample of adults that
the size of one’s primary network (i.e., close friends and family)
positively predicted a person’s creative achievements, but the size
of one’s secondary network (i.e., who they send Christmas cards to
by mail or electronically) was unrelated to creative achievement.
Despite the above studies providing support for the relationship
between popularity and creativity, they are limited in certain ways.
First, Lau and Li (1996) focused on perceived creativity rather than
using more objective measures. Thus, people might infer that
popular students are more creative when they are not. Second, Kéri
(2011) used the interview measure of social relationships (Brugha
et al., 1987) to assess one’s primary network. This measure utilizes
an open-format where people must recall their close friends and
family. Thus, memory biases might influence one’s recall of their
friendship network (Borgatti et al., 2013). To overcome these
potential limitations, we measured creativity objectively with a
creative performance test and measure popularity using social
network methods in smaller group of students where recall errors
are less likely to occur. Based on the above research, we predicted:
Hypothesis 2: Popularity will be positively related to creative
performance.
 CONNECTED TO CREATE
The Present Studies
The goal of the present study was to test two hypotheses on the
role of friendship ties with creativity. For Hypothesis 1, we exam-
ined the relationship between friendship ties and similarity on
various creativity-related attributes. For Hypothesis 2, we exam-
ined whether popularity predicted creative performance on a cre-
ativity test. We tested these hypotheses across two studies. In
Study 1, which was a pilot study, we examined the relationship
between friendship strength and creativity among high school
students. In our primary study (Study 2), we examined the rela-
tionship between friendship nominations and creativity among
elementary school students (Grade 5).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Study 1: Pilot Study
Method
Participants and procedure. Students (N ! 100) from six
high school classrooms in Poland participated in the study. There
were nine students in Class A, 22 in Class B, 14 in Class C, 15 in
Class D, 25 in Class E, and 15 in Class F. Students first rated all
other students within the same classroom on five friendship criteria
and then completed the Creative Behavior Questionnaire and the
test of creative imagination.
Measures.
Creative Behavior Questionnaire. We used the 60-item KANH
Creative Behavior Questionnaire (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2013,
2016; Karwowski, 2008a) to assess creative and imitative atti-
tudes. Each score is composed of two subscales. The Creative
Attitudes Scale includes the nonconformism personality subscale
(" ! .82) and the heuristics behavior subscale (" ! .79) assessing
cognitive approaches to problem solving. The Imitative Attitudes
scale includes the conforming personality subscale (" ! .79) and
the algorithmic behavior subscale (" ! .69) assessing cognitive
approaches to problem solving. Each subscale has 15 items, which
are rated on a 3-point scale. Participants indicate whether an item
was reflective of them (score of 2), they do not know if it reflects
them (score of 1), or if it does not reflect them (score of 0). Scores
ranged from 0 to 60 for the creative and imitative attitude scales.
Test of creative imagination. The test of creative imagination
(TCI; Karwowski, 2008a, 2008b) is a nonverbal, culture-fair test
and was used to assess creative performance. Participants were
given a sheet of paper with 16 elements on it: 4 straight lines, 4
dots, 4 curvy lines, and 4 semicircles. They were instructed to use
some or all 16 elements (but not more) to draw figures that
represent something that does not exist, but should exist. These
could be anything from new appliances, inventions, or expressed
ideas. Participants were instructed to come up with ideas that were
as original as possible and provide a short description of their
drawing and what the figure could be used for. Participants worked
on the task for 30 min.
The test was scored for (a) fluency, (b) transformativeness, and
(c) originality. Fluency was defined as the number of responses
provided. Responses were not counted if: (a) more than 16 ele-
ments were used, (b) a description of the drawing was not pro-
vided, or (c) a drawing was of a common object (e.g., a table).
Transformativeness was defined as the elaboration and extent of
the drawing visualization. Scores were calculated as the average
3
number of elements and sets used for the creation of the individual
drawing. Transformativeness scores range from 2 (one element
from one set) to 20 (all 16 elements from the 4 sets). Originality
was scored by an external judge trained in the scoring of the TCI
using quarter point increments on a 5-point scale.
Network data. Students were asked to evaluate their class-
room peers on five criteria using a 1–5 scale. The five criteria
were: (a) who they liked to spend their holidays with, (b) who they
would go to the cinema with, (c) who they would talk with about
personal troubles, (d) who can help if they have problems with
school subjects, and (e) and who they think is gifted. This resulted
in five matrices with rows indicating each student’s evaluation of
all other students and columns indicating the other students’ eval-
uation of a given student.
To identify a parsimonious number of matrices, we conducted
principal components analysis (PCA) on the five matrices using
UCINET (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2002).1 To conduct PCA
in UCINET, a correlation matrix is calculated across the five
matrices for each classroom, which is then used as the input for the
PCA analysis. Across the six classes, one component emerged
with an eigenvalue greater than one and extracted between 65 and
69% of the total variance (see Table 1). All five criteria loaded on
the one “friendship” component. Based on the results of the PCA,
scores across the five criteria were averaged into a single friend-
ship matrix, which was used for all analyses.
Two characteristics of the data must be considered. First, the
network data is valued. Valued data allows us to examine friend-
ship strength, but does not allow us to examine certain measures
like betweenness and closeness centrality, which are moderately
correlated with creativity (Baer et al., 2015). However, these other
measures are also beyond the scope of the current study. Although
valued data can be dichotomized, doing so results in a loss of
useful information regarding friendship strength and choosing a
point to dichotomize the data is often a difficult decision (e.g., if
a value of 3 were chosen as a cutpoint to dichotomize the data, 2.9
and 3.0 would be coded as 0 and 1, respectively). Indeed, Was-
serman and Faust (1994) note, “The graph for a valued relation
must convey more information by representing the strength of an
arc or a line” (p. 136). In this study, we are able to test our
hypotheses with valued data. Thus, we retained the valued data
rather than dichotomize it.
Second, the six classrooms were sociocentric (i.e., closed net-
works), which is distinguished from egocentric networks. Egocen-
tric networks might involve one person listing who is in their
primary friend group and secondary friend group (e.g., Kéri,
2011). This results in many stand-alone personal networks and
data analysis is centered on the person providing the data. Socio-
centric networks, on the other hand, have a boundary of who is
included. In the current study, this was the total number of students
in each classroom. Thus, network size was fixed to classroom size.
Network measures. We used two social network measures to
test our hypotheses. First, to test Hypothesis 1, we created five
difference score matrices using participants’ scores on the Creative
Behavior Questionnaire and TCI. There were matrices for each of
the six classes: (a) creative attitudes, (b) imitative attitudes, (c)
fluency, (d) transformativeness, and (e) originality. The values in
1
Principal Axis Factoring is not available in UCINET.
 4 MCKAY, GRYGIEL, AND KARWOWSKI

Table 1
Principal Component Analysis Results and Network-Level Descriptive Results Across the Six Classes (Study 1)

Measures Class A (N ! 9) Class B (N ! 22) Class C (N ! 14) Class D (N ! 15) Class E (N ! 25) Class F (N ! 15)

Principal component analysis

Holiday .87 .89 .90 .87 .89 .89
Cinema .88 .84 .86 .88 .88 .85
Personal troubles .82 .72 .82 .80 .83 .88
Academic troubles .68 .83 .80 .76 .72 .73
Gifted .87 .73 .80 .82 .68 .78
Eigenvalue 3.42 3.24 3.48 3.43 3.25 3.44
% Total variance extracted 68.4 64.7 69.7 68.6 65.0 68.7
Cronbach’s " .88 .86 .89 .88 .86 .88
Network-level measures
Density M (SD) 3.88 (1.03) 2.56 (1.00) 3.08 (1.03) 2.81 (1.07) 2.33 (1.02) 2.97 (1.03)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Indegree centrality M (SD) 3.88 (.78) 2.56 (.47) 3.08 (.79) 2.81 (.56) 2.33 (.40) 2.97 (.28)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Indegree centrality min./max. 2.28/4.68 1.56/3.31 1.52/4.40 1.70/3.54 1.47/2.86 2.67/3.71

Outdegree centrality M (SD) 3.88 (.37) 2.56 (.49) 3.08 (.35) 2.81 (.49) 2.33 (.45) 2.97 (.40)
Outdegree centrality min./max. 3.20/4.20 1.71/3.45 2.63/3.59 1.77/3.70 1.40/3.06 2.33/3.53

the five matrices were the absolute difference between each par-
ticipant’s individual score and each person within each network. In
other words, each network allows us to determine if there is a
relationship between similarity/difference scores on the creative
attributes and friendship ties. Low scores in each of the five
difference networks indicate two people are similar to each other
and high scores indicate two people are different from each other.
These networks are sometimes referred to as reversed homophily
matrices.
Second, to test Hypothesis 2, we operationalized popularity
using degree centrality within each of the six classrooms. Degree
centrality for valued data involves indegree and outdegree ties.
Because there were six networks, we obtained standardized degree
centrality scores, which allow for comparisons across networks of
different sizes. Standardized indegree ties for each person is the
average friendship tie strength going into the person from all
people within the network. Thus, it is the entire network’s average
perception of that person as a friend, which indicates a person’s
overall popularity within the network. Standardized outdegree ties
are each person’s average friendship tie strength going out of that
person to all other people in the network. Thus, it is the person’s
average perception of other people as their friend.
Results and Discussion
Table 1 provides network-level measures for each of the six
networks. Density, which is the average tie strength across all ties
within the classroom, varied among the six classes. It is important
to note that indegree and outdegree centrality means are the same
as density (i.e., network level). This is because all ties serve as
both incoming and outgoing ties, but centrality scores differ for
each person (node level), which is why SDs for indegree and
outdegree centrality vary across the classes.
Before testing our hypotheses, we created graphs for each of the
six networks. To create the graphs, we used metric multidimen-
sional scaling (MDS) in the program NetDraw (Borgatti, 2002),
which is a visualization program accompanying UCINET. Figure
1 contains three graphs for the largest classroom (i.e., Class E).
The first graph includes all ties, the second graph includes ties
equal to or greater than density, and the third graph includes ties
equal to or greater than 1 SD above density. Thus, as one moves
right across the graphs, greater restrictions are placed on the
friendship ties displayed, which helps determine which friendship
ties in the network are stronger. In the second and third graphs,
thick lines indicate mutual ties (i.e., both people reported a friend-
ship tie above the threshold) and thin lines indicate one person
reported a friendship tie above the threshold and the other person
did not. A notable feature of metric MDS is that two nodes are
placed closer together if friendship tie strength is stronger and two
nodes are more distant if friendship tie strength is weaker. For
example, on the left side of the graph nodes E15 and E22 are
placed close together because they provided a score of 4.6 for each
other. To visualize where creative people are within each network,
we weighted the size of the nodes by students’ originality scores.
Larger nodes indicate higher scores and smaller nodes indicate
lower scores.2
Examining the graph for Class E, it appears that both hypotheses
could be supported. Specifically, throughout each of the network
graphs, people with higher originality scores were closer to other
people with higher original scores, and people with lower origi-
nality scores were closer to other people with lower originality
scores. Additionally, there are also cases where more creative
people have more incoming ties even after placing greater restric-
tions on the strength of friendship ties displayed. This was also the
case with the graphs for the other classrooms (not displayed).
To test Hypothesis 1, which stated that similarity in creativity-
related factors would predict stronger friendship ties, we con-
ducted Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) correlation and
regression analyses in UCINET. QAP analyses are a method to
correlate or regress a dependent network on one or more indepen-
dent networks. In the current study, friendship ties (dependent
network) were regressed on the five creative attribute matrices
(independent networks). With QAP analyses, observed coeffi-
cients are obtained and p values are based on comparing the
observed coefficients with thousands of pairs of matrices that are
similar to the input matrices, but are independent of one another
2
Graphs for the other classes are available in an online supplemental
file.
 CONNECTED TO CREATE 5
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 1. Class E network in Study 1 with (a) all ties present, (b) ties equal to or greater than density present,
and (c) ties equal to or greater than 1 SD above density present. Thick lines indicate mutual ties (i.e., both people
reported a friendship tie above the threshold), whereas thin lines indicate nonmutual ties (i.e., one person
reported a friendship tie at or above the threshold and the other person did not). Node size was weighted by
originality scores (i.e., larger nodes indicate higher originality scores).

(Borgatti et al., 2013). The p value obtained for each coefficient is
based on the proportion of the coefficients among the independent
matrices that were similar in size to the observed coefficients.
Thus, QAP analyses are a permutation technique and stable p
values are based on using a large number of permutations. We
conducted QAP correlations analyses and Double Dekker Semi-
Partialing Multiple Regression QAP analyses in UCINET (Bor-
gatti et al., 2002) using 2,000 permutations in each of the six
classes. Dyadic sample sizes were generally large enough in each
of the six classes to conduct the analyses for each network sepa-
rately (N ! 72– 600).
As mentioned, low scores in each of the five difference net-
works indicate two people are similar to each other and high scores
indicate two people are different. Therefore, a negative correlation
or # value would indicate similarity on the creativity attributes
predicts stronger friendship ties, whereas a positive correlation or
# value would indicate similarity on the creativity attributes pre-
dicts weaker friendship ties. Before conducting the QAP regres-
sion, we conducted QAP correlation analyses for each class using
friendship ties and similarity/difference matrices. This information
is available for each of the six classes in an online supplemental
file. However, the results were highly consistent with those of
QAP regression analysis, which is reported in Table 2. As Table 2
shows, there was only one coefficient supporting the hypothesis. In
Class C, transformativeness was significantly negatively related to
friendship ties. Notably, there were other marginally significant
correlations, but there was no consistent pattern among the coef-
ficients. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was unsupported.
To test Hypothesis 2, which stated that popularity would be
significantly positively related to creative performance, we com-
bined the data across the six classes and conducted three ordinary
least squares (OLS) regression analyses, one for each creativity
measures (fluency, transformativeness, and originality). Popularity
was conceptualized using indegree centrality. We controlled for
outdegree centrality and each student’s score on the creative and
imitative attitude scales. Because students were nested within one

Table 2
QAP Regression Results Across the Six Classes (Study 1)

Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Class F

(N ! 72) (N ! 462) (N ! 182) (N ! 210) (N ! 600) (N ! 210)
Variables b (#) SE b (#) SE b (#) SE b (#) SE b (#) SE b (#) SE

Intercept 4.01 !!!

2.44 !!!
3.35 !!!
2.72 2.46
!!! !!!
2.95!!!

Creative attitudes $.08 ($.24) 3.46 .02 (.10)† .61 .02 (.08) 1.11 .03 (.15)! .96 % .01 (.03) .54 % .01 (.01) 1.06
Imitative attitudes $.05 ($.21) 2.65 .01 (.02) 1.03 $.03 ($.10) 1.39 & $.01 ($.03) .86 & $.01 ($.02) .53 % .01 (.04) .60
Fluency .09 (.14) 12.12 $.04 ($.09) 5.27 .06 (.04) 14.31 $.24 ($.17) 14.29 $.10 ($.15) 6.41 .06 (.13)† 2.18
Transformativeness .09 (.17) 4.77 $.01 ($.02) .51 $.07 ($.38)!! 1.55 $.03 ($.16)† .75 $.02 ($.10)† .46 $.02 ($.10) 1.10
Originality .03 (.05) 11.78 .02 (.05) 4.71 .10 (.09) 11.25 .22 (.25)† 8.63 .09 (.13) 6.40 $.02 ($.06) 1.34
R2 .10! .01† .12!!! .08!! .01! .02†
Adjusted R2 .03 .001 .09 .05 .004 $.005
Note. QAP ! Quadratic Assignment Procedure. Ns for each class are based on the number of dyads in the network.
†
p % .10. ! p % .05. !! p % .01. !!! p % .001.
 6 MCKAY, GRYGIEL, AND KARWOWSKI
Table 3
Correlations Among the Variables in the Analyses (Study 1)
Measures M SD
1. Fluency 2.36 2.18
2. Transformativeness 12.55 6.49
3. Originality 2.61 2.52
4. Imitative attitudes 27.18 6.45
5. Creative attitudes 37.99 6.36
6. Indegree centrality .98 .18
7. Outdegree centrality .99 .15
Note. N ! 100.
!
p % .05. !! p % .01. !!!
p % .001.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of six classes, we created five dummy-coded variables and con-
trolled for classroom membership with Class A serving as the
referent group. Before conducting the OLS regression analysis, we
examined the bivariate correlations among the centrality scores
and the creativity factors collapsed across the six classes (see
Table 3). Indegree centrality had significant positive bivariate
correlation with fluency and originality. Thus, Hypothesis 2 had
initial support. We then conducted the OLS regressions to formally
test Hypothesis 2. As Table 4 shows, creative attitudes signifi-
cantly positively predicted fluency and originality scores. Imitative
attitudes also significantly positively predicted fluency scores.
Specific to our hypothesis, indegree centrality significantly posi-
tively predicted originality scores and accounted for 3.4% of the
variance after controlling for classroom membership, creative and
imitative attitudes, and outdegree centrality.3 Thus, Hypothesis 2
was partially supported.
Overall, the results of Study 1 failed to support Hypothesis 1,
but partially supported Hypothesis 2. Specifically, students’ sim-
ilarity on various creativity-related attributes failed to predict
friendship strength, but popularity was positively related to orig-
inality.
Although this pilot study provides an initial test of our hypoth-
eses, it is important to consider three limitations. First, the overall
and classroom sample sizes were small. This resulted in our
statistical tests being underpowered, which might have influenced
our not finding support for Hypothesis 1. Second, we did not have
demographic information for participants. Previous research has
found that men perceive themselves to be more creative than
women (Furnham, Hosoe, & Tang, 2001; Karwowski, 2011; Kar-
wowski, Gralewski, & Szumski, 2015) and men are also perceived
by others as being more creative than women (Lau & Li, 1996;
Proudfoot, Kay, & Koval, 2015). Last, we only used one concep-
tualization of friendship: friendship strength. An alternative con-
ceptualization of friendship would be friendship nomination. Al-
though we argued friendship strength is an advantage of the
current study, it can also be a limitation. These measures are
conceptually different and could result in a different pattern of
results. Friendship strength involves making judgments of how
close another person is to them, whereas friendship nominations
are simply whether someone is considered a friend or not. Utilizing
these alternate conceptualizations might result in a different pat-
tern of results. The purpose of the second and primary study was
to expand on the pilot study with a larger number of students and
classes, control for gender, and use friendship nominations as the
dependent variable rather than friendship strength.
1 2 3 4 5 6
—
.10 —
.79!!! .16 —
.27!! $.15 .22! —
.39!!! $.07 .36!!! .10 —
.27!! .12 .30!! .02 .05 —
.21! .03 .11 $.01 .05 .45!!!
Study 2: Primary Study
Method
Participants and procedure. We used data from the larger
longitudinal study “School Effectiveness Research” (Dolata,
2014), which included a representative sample of pupils from
Polish elementary schools. The study used a stratified two-stage
cluster sampling procedure. The strata were determined by type of
urbanization and the number of classrooms within a school. Within
strata, schools were sampled with a probability proportional to size
(number of students). For the current study, only students from
fifth grade (12-year-olds) were included. The final sample for the
current study was 5,659 students from 295 classrooms in 173
elementary schools (49.7% female). The average classroom size
was 19.18 (SD ! 4.45, range ! 7–30).
Measures.
Creativity. The Test of Creative Imagery Abilities (TCIA) was
used to measure creative imagination (Jankowska & Karwowski,
2015). The TCIA test booklet consists of seven tasks. The first
stage of solving each task is to generate, in an oral or written form,
as many images as possible based on a simple graphic sign, called
the initial figure. Next, participants select what they think is the
most original of the images given and create a drawing accompa-
nied by a brief description. The instructions stress the possibility of
elaborating and changing the selected image and adding any ele-
ments to it in such a way as to create something even more
original. The drawings and descriptions of the images made are
assessed on three scales based on the conjunctional model of
creative imaging ability (Dziedziewicz & Karwowski, 2015): (a)
vividness scale, (b) originality scale, and (c) transformativeness
scale. Each scale is scored according to the criteria discussed in
detail and illustrated with examples elsewhere (see Jankowska &
Karwowski, 2015). According to these criteria, it is possible to
score 0, 1, or 2 points on each scale for each drawing. The scores
on each scale are computed by adding up the points scored for all
the drawings. Rather than using the three separate scale scores, an
overall score may be used. In the current study, we averaged the
3
There was one univariate outlier on originality (z ! 4.51). We con-
ducted the analyses after removing this participant and the results remain
unchanged. Indegree centrality remained a significant predictor of origi-
nality, b ! .83 (# ! .25; SE ! .37), p ! .025, and accounted for an
additional 3.7% of the variance in originality scores after controlling for the
other predictors.
 CONNECTED TO CREATE 7

Table 4
Regression Results With the Three Creativity Measures Regressed on Creative and Imitative
Attitudes and Indegree- and Outdegree-Centrality (Study 1)

Fluency Transformativeness Originality

Variables b (#) SE b (#) SE b (#) SE

Intercept $3.89 2.60 6.28 (.21) 9.68 $2.96 3.21

Class B ! 1 $.74 ($.14) .98 3.24 (.29) 3.67 $1.06 ($.18) 1.22
Class C ! 1 $2.04 ($.33)! .86 5.34 (.17) 3.20 $2.12 ($.29)! 1.06
Class D ! 1 $1.59 ($.26) .96 3.15 (.32) 3.57 $1.57 ($.22) 1.19
Class E ! 1 $1.04 ($.21) 1.06 4.69 ($.01) 3.96 $1.45 ($.25) 1.31
Class F ! 1 .90 (.15) .88 $.21 ($.11) 3.26 .78 (.11) 1.08
Imitative attitudes .06 (.19)! .03 $.11 ($.03) .10 .05 (.13) .04
Creative attitudes .09 (.26)!! .03 $.03 ($.03) .11 .10 (.26)!! .04
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Outdegree centrality .18 (.05) .41 .64 (.06) 1.51 $.44 ($.11) .50
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Indegree centrality .52 (.16) .33 1.96 (.21) 1.24 .89 (.24)! .41
F 7.52!!! 1.24 5.41!!!
R2 .43 .11 .35
Adjusted R2 .37 .02 .29
Note. N ! 100. Degrees of freedom for the three regression analyses was 9, 99. Classes were dummy coded
and controlled for in each analysis. Class A served as the referent group.
!
p % .05. !! p % .01. !!! p % .001.

scores on the three scales for an overall score (" ! .91). For each
student, their overall creativity score was standardized within
classrooms (M ! 0, SD ! 1). For students without creativity
scores missing data were replaced with classroom means.
Network data. Children peer networks were identified by us-
ing a sociometric procedure developed by Coie, Coppotelli, and
Dodge (1982). Students were asked to nominate schoolmates from
the same classroom with whom they most liked to play. Thus, ties
were dichotomous and network size was fixed to the classroom
size (i.e., sociocentric network).
Network Measures and statistical procedure. To assess the
relevance of the different structural processes, we fitted an expo-
nential random graph model (ERGM) to each observed classroom
network. ERGM allows us to test both of our hypotheses simul-
taneously and control for the effects of the other variables. We are
also able to control for other network characteristics (e.g., reci-
procity of friendship nominations) in the same analysis. The out-
come variable in ERGMs must be dichotomous (friendship nom-
inations in this study). For more information on ERGMs, see
Borgatti et al. (2013, pp. 139 –145) and Wimmer and Lewis
(2010). Specifically, in our main ERGM, we include the following
structural parameters, which are described below: (a) reciprocity
(mutual), (b) three effects based on creativity (nodeicov, nodeo-
cov, and absdiff), and (c) controlling for effects based on gender
homophily (nodematch). All models were fitted using the “ergm”
package (Hunter, Handcock, Butts, Goodreau, & Morris, 2008) in
R (R Development Core Team, 2013). We also provide an expla-
nation and definition of the effects used in the analyses:
• Edges ! A parameter that is similar to the intercept in
regression models and should not be directly interpreted.
• Mutual ! The tendency to reciprocate friendship nomina-
tions (positive value means I like X and X likes me).
• Nodeicov ! The tendency for people with higher levels
of the covariate (creativity, in the current study) to
receive more friendship nominations from other people
(i.e., incoming ties). This parameter was used to test
Hypothesis 2.
• Nodeocov ! The tendency for people with higher lev-
els of the covariate (creativity, in the current study)
sending more friendship nominations to other people
(i.e., outgoing ties).
• Absdiff ! Reversed homophily. A positive value means
there is a tendency to reciprocate friendship nomina-
tions among people who are dissimilar on creativity,
whereas a negative value means there is a tendency to
reciprocate friendship nominations among people who
are similar on creativity. This parameter was used to
test Hypothesis 1.
• Nodematch ! Gender homophily. A positive value
indicates boys are more likely to nominate other boys
and girls nominate other girls, whereas a negative value
indicates boys are more likely to nominate girls and
girls are more likely to nominate boys.
Results and Discussion
First, we fit the models for each of the 295 classes separately.
Rather than report the results for all 295 classes separately, we
combined the results through a meta-analysis. Conducting a meta-
analysis allows us to present ERGM results from all classes
succinctly, and to evaluate overarching tendencies across all the
networks rather than within each network separately. To test
whether between classrooms variance was zero, we used the Q
statistic. Meta-analysis were conducted in R with the “metafor”
package (Viechtbauer, 2010).
The ERGM results are presented in Table 5. In support of
Hypothesis 1, we found a significant negative relationship
between the reversed homophily for creative performance and
friendship nominations, after controlling for the other variables
in the model, b ! $0.20, p % .001. In other words, students
were more likely to nominate another person as a friend when
they performed similarly on the creativity test. In support of
Hypothesis 2, we found a positive relationship between inde-
gree ties and creativity scores, b ! 0.33, p % .001. Students
 8 MCKAY, GRYGIEL, AND KARWOWSKI

Table 5
Meta-Analysis ERGM Results for the Formation of Friendship Ties (Study 2)

ERGM parameter Heterogeneity

Parameter Estimate (SE) 95% CI Tau2 (SE) I2 H2 Q

Edges $2.26 (.05) !!!

[$2.36, $2.16] .55 (.06) 84.73% 6.55 1513.44!!
Mutual 1.33 (.04)!!! [1.25, 1.41] .24 (.03) 59.07% 2.44 696.77!!
Nodeicov (CRE) .33 (.08)!!! [.18, .48] .95 (.12) 69.69% 3.30 861.14!!
Nodeocov (CRE) .17 (.07)! [.03, .31] .76 (.10) 64.85% 2.84 769.98!!
Absdiff (CRE) $.20 (.06)!!! [$.32, $.08] .41 (.07) 49.34% 1.97 571.06!!
Nodematch (GENDER) 1.51 (.04)!!! [1.43, 1.59] .32 (.03) 80.70% 5.18 1273.71!!
Note. N ! 295 classrooms. A restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used. ERGM ! exponential
random graph model; CI ! confidence interval; CRE ! creativity; GENDER: 0 ! females, 1 ! males; Tau2 !
estimate of total amount of heterogeneity; I2 ! statistic estimates (in percent) how much of the total variability
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

in the effect size estimates (that is composed of heterogeneity and sampling variability) can be attributed to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

heterogeneity among the true effects; H2 ! the ratio of the total amount of variability in the observed outcomes
to the amount of sampling variability; Q ! omnibus test for residual heterogeneity (Cochran Q test).
!
p % .05. !! p % .01. !!! p % .001.

with higher creative performance scores were more likely to be
nominated as a friend by their peers.
General Discussion
Creativity research has focused heavily on studying individ-
ual differences and contextual factors as predictors of creative
performance. Less attention has been given to the relationship
between social relationships like friendship with creativity. The
purpose of the present article was to test two hypotheses ex-
amining the relationship between friendship ties and creativity
in a natural setting (i.e., schools and classrooms). Across two
studies (a pilot and primary study), we found mixed support for
Hypothesis 1. Specifically, friendship strength was unrelated to
creative similarity among high school students (Study 1), but
elementary school students were more likely to nominate their
peers as friends when they had similar scores on a creativity test
(Study 2). However, we found support for Hypothesis 2 in both
studies. That is, there was a positive relationship between
friendship strength and originality scores (but not fluency or
transformativeness in Study 1) and students were more likely to
nominate peers who had higher creative performance scores as
friends (Study 2). The results indicate that friendship ties,
which have received less attention in the mainstream creativity
literature, and the social networks and creativity literature, are
related to creativity.
As mentioned, the results across both studies presented
mixed support for Hypothesis 1. Across the two studies, the
results indicate that people are more likely to nominate as
friends those who are similar on creativity-related attributes
(Study 2), but not necessarily report stronger friendship ties
with them (Study 1). There are three potential reasons for the
different results. First, age differences (i.e., high school vs.
elementary school students) might have influenced the results.
That is, the similarity-attraction effect might differ across age
groups when it comes to creativity. Although this is a possible
interpretation, that requires future research to rule out, we
believe the next two interpretations are more likely the reason
there was a difference. Second, and previously mentioned, the
first study had a smaller sample size, leading to the study being
underpowered. Thus, the results of Study 2 are more reliable
when determining support for Hypothesis 1. Last, we used two
different conceptualizations and methodological approaches for
friendship across the two studies. Specifically, we used friend-
ship strength in Study 1 and friendship nominations in Study 2.
The differing pattern of results might indicate that how re-
searchers measure friendship ties might influence the pattern of
the results observed. Thus, the current study provides both
theoretical and methodological contributions. Theoretically, we
provide support for the notion that people nominate similar
creative others as friends, which aligns with the homophily and
similarity-attraction hypotheses. Methodologically, we identify
that different conceptualizations of friendship might lead to a
different pattern of results. Thus, future research examining
friendship ties and creativity should consider how they measure
friendship.
The results of both studies also demonstrated a positive
relationship between popularity and creativity, which supports
Hypothesis 2 and aligns with previous research (Kéri, 2011;
Lau & Li, 1996). Specifically, we found a positive relationship
between friendship strength and originality scores (Study 1) and
students with higher creativity scores were more likely to be
nominated by their peers (Study 2). Although creative people
can be disagreeable (Hunter & Cushenbery, 2015) and “rule
breakers” (Gino & Ariely, 2012; Gino & Wiltermuth, 2014),
they also possess other positive social traits like ambition and
openness to experience (Feist, 2010) and are often perceived as
more sexually attractive than less creative people (Kaufman et
al., 2014). To sell creative ideas, people must clash with norms
and overcome biases associated with creative ideas (Mueller et
al., 2012). Such people might be difficult to handle interper-
sonally at times, but they also inspire and attract others. This is
analogous to the role of leadership in organizational settings
(Mumford, Hunter, Eubanks, Bedell, & Murphy, 2007). Leaders
must have the capacity to go against norms at times and be
creative themselves to inspire their subordinates to be creative
and develop their own capabilities. Thus, examining a person’s
friendship network early in life might be useful to identify who
emerges as future leaders.
 CONNECTED TO CREATE
The current study examines how one’s friendship network re-
lates to individual creativity. We examine how friendship ties
among people in everyday environments influences or is influ-
enced by creativity. Based on the results, we argue that social
network approaches can help provide a more nuanced view for
how individual differences, contextual sources, and social rela-
tionships influence creativity.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Although the two studies expand on the previous social net-
works and creativity literature, it is not without some limitations.
First, both studies were cross-sectional and we cannot establish
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
causality. We cannot say with any certainty that popularity causes
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
people to come up with more creative ideas or that generating
more creative ideas causes one to become more popular. In fact,
we believe this relationship is reciprocal. People who are open to
experiences and engage in creative activities might have more
opportunities to meet and attract others. People who increase their
friendship network might lead them to have more information
available to them, which can be integrated and used to form
creative ideas.
Second, we only assessed friendship ties with other students
within the same classroom. In other words, we did not obtain
information on each student’s larger friendship network that ex-
tends beyond the classroom. The method used differs from previ-
ous creativity and social network (i.e., Kéri, 2011). It is important
to note that each method has its advantages and disadvantages. If
we had chosen to have people list their friends, memory biases
might influence the results and it might have been difficult to
obtain creativity attributes from the people listed by the primary
participant. Thus, we would be unable to examine the similarity-
attraction hypothesis that we tested in the current study. The design
used in the current study allowed us to obtain complete data on the
creativity measures and friendship ties among people who spend a
large portion of their day together. It is important to note that the
results were similar across Kéri’s study and the current study,
which helps alleviate the limitations raised from using either
method. However, it would be beneficial to utilize both methods in
future research.
Aside from the limitations, social networks have received
little attention in the creativity literature. Thus, the topic is
wide-open for future research. We offer four broad ideas. First,
it can be used to examine social ties among various eminent
creators. For example, future research could examine how em-
inent artists influence other eminent artists from similar and
other artistic movements. This could be useful for determining
how interpersonal relationships shape one’s creative outputs
over time. The same forces could be considered for other
domains like science, music, and literature. Various social
interactions might have influenced various artistic movements
and breakthrough scientific discoveries.
Second, it would be interesting to examine how social relation-
ships relate to creativity across various developmental periods.
Although previous scholars have considered individual differences
in various developmental periods (Barbot, Lubart, & Besançon,
2016), the results of the current study indicate social relationships
might play an important role with creativity over different devel-
opmental phases.
9
Third, we focused on domain-general creativity in the current
study, which does not consider the specific creative domains
(e.g., art, theater, and science). Focusing on domain-specific
creativity factors might provide a different pattern of results.
That is, people interested in artistic creativity might be attracted
to others who are interested in artistic creativity and not those
interested in scientific creativity. Such studies might utilize
subgrouping analyses to determine if people cluster together
based on similar interests. Additionally, some “outsider” move-
ments might include creative people who might not be per-
ceived as popular. Greater specificity in future research might
lead to different conclusions.
Last, network tools can be used to examine connections
across multiple levels of analysis. For example, Kenett, Beaty,
Silvia, Anaki, and Faust (2016) used network analyses to un-
derstand how cognitive processes influence creativity. This
work aligns with the current study as both utilize network
measures to better understand creativity. The current studies
examining social relationships and their study developing
sematic network at the cognitive level. Developing a greater
understanding of creativity requires understanding how connec-
tions at multiple levels influence creativity.
Conclusion
Creativity occurs at the intersection of individual differences,
contextual factors, and interpersonal relationships. The current
study examined the relationship between friendship ties and cre-
ativity, extending the previous network-creativity literature by
considering a different type of tie. The current study serves as a
call for future research to investigate the relationship between
interpersonal factors and creativity.
References
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996).
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 1154 –1184. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256995
Baer, M., Evans, K., Oldham, G. R., & Boasso, A. (2015). The social
network side of individual innovation: A meta-analysis and path-analytic
integration. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 191–223. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/2041386614564105
Barbot, B., Lubart, T. I., & Besançon, M. (2016). “Peaks, slumps, and
bumps”: Individual differences in the development of creativity in
children and adolescents. In B. Barbot (Ed.), New directions for child
and adolescent development (Vol. 151, pp. 33– 45). New York, NY:
Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cad.20152
Borgatti, S. P. (2002). NetDraw software for network visualization. Lex-
ington, KY: Analytic Technologies.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2002). Ucinet for
Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic
Technologies.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social
networks. London, England: Sage.
Brugha, T. S., Sturt, E., MacCarthy, B., Potter, J., Wykes, T., & Bebbing-
ton, P. E. (1987). The interview measure of social relationships: The
description and evaluation of a survey instrument for assessing personal
social resources. Social Psychiatry, 22, 123–128. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/BF00584017
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradign. New York, NY: Academic
Press.
 10 MCKAY, GRYGIEL, AND KARWOWSKI
Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., & Stefaniak, D. (1967). Attraction and similarity of
personality characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 5, 82–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0021198
Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008). A core/periphery perspective on indi-
vidual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achieve-
ments in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19, 824 –
844. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0350
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types
of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18,
557–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557
Dolata, R. (Ed.). (2014). Czy szkoła ma znaczenie? Analiza zróżnicowania
efektywności nauczania na pierwszym etapie edukacyjnym [Does school
matter: An analysis of the variability in teaching effectiveness at the first
educational stage]. Warszawa, Poland: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Dziedziewicz, D., & Karwowski, M. (2015). Development of children’s
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
creative visual imagination: A theoretical model and enhancement pro-
grammes. Education 3–13, 43, 382–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
03004279.2015.1020646
Feist, G. J. (2010). The function of personality in creativity: The nature
and nurture of the creative personality. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 113–130).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511763205.009
Furnham, A., Hosoe, T., & Tang, T. L. P. (2001). Male hubris and female
humility? A cross-cultural study of ratings of self, parental, and sibling
multiple intelligence in America, Britain, and Japan. Intelligence, 30,
101–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00080-0
Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers
can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102, 445– 459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026406
Gino, F., & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2014). Evil genius? How dishonesty can
lead to greater creativity. Psychological Science, 25, 973–981. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614520714
Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Polite girls and creative boys?
Students’ gender moderates accuracy of teachers’ ratings of creativity.
The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 290 –304. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/jocb.36
Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2016). Are teachers’ implicit theories of
creativity related to the recognition of their students’ creativity? The
Journal of Creative Behavior, n/a. Advance online publication. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/jocb.140
Hunter, D. R., Handcock, M. S., Butts, C. T., Goodreau, S. M., & Morris,
M. (2008). ergm: A package to fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-
family models for networks. Journal of Statistical Software, 24, a54860.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v024.i03
Hunter, S. T., & Cushenbery, L. (2015). Is being a jerk necessary for
originality? Examining the role of disagreeableness in the sharing and
utilization of original ideas. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30,
621– 639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9386-1
Izard, C. E. (1960). Personality similarity and friendship. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 47–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0040056
Jankowska, D. M., & Karwowski, M. (2015). Measuring creative imagery
abilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1591. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2015.01591
Kao, G., & Jouyner, K. (2004). Do race and ethnicity matter among
friends? Activities among interracial, interethnic, and intraethnic ado-
lescent friends. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 557–573. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2004.tb02303.x
Karwowski, M. (2008a). Measuring creativity using the test of creative
imagination (TCI). Pt. 1. Presentation of a new instrument to measure
creative potential. The New Educational Review, 14, 44 –53.
Karwowski, M. (2008b). Measuring creativity using the test of creative
imagination (TCI). Pt. 2. On validity of the TCI. The New Educational
Review, 15, 216 –231.
Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn’t hurt to ask . . . But sometimes it hurts to
believe: Polish students’ creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psy-
chology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 154 –164. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0021427
Karwowski, M., Gralewski, J., & Szumski, G. (2015). Teachers’ effect on
students’ creative self-beliefs is moderated by students’ gender. Learn-
ing and Individual Differences, 44, 1– 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.lindif.2015.10.001
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four
c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
Kaufman, J. C., Bromley, M. L., & Cole, J. C. (2006). Insane, poetic,
lovable: Creativity and endorsement of the “mad genius” stereotype.
Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 26, 149 –161. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2190/J207-3U30-R401-446J
Kaufman, S. B., Kozbelt, A., Silvia, P., Kaufman, J. C., Ramesh, S., &
Feist, G. J. (2014). Who finds Bill Gates sexy? Creative mate prefer-
ences as a function of cognitive ability, personality, and creative
achievement. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publi-
cation.
Kenett, Y. N., Beaty, R. E., Silvia, P. J., Anaki, D., & Faust, M. (2016).
Structure and flexibility: Investigating the relation between the structure
of the mental lexicon, fluid intelligence, and creative achievement.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 377–388.
Kéri, S. (2011). Solitary minds and social capital: Latent inhibition, general
intellectual functions and social network size predict creative achieve-
ments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 215–221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022000
Lau, S., & Li, W.-L. (1996). Peer status and perceived creativity: Are popular
children viewed by peer and teachers as creative? Creativity Research
Journal, 9, 347–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0904_6
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather:
Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–
444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against
creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological
Science, 23, 13–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611421018
Mumford, M. D., Hunter, S. T., Eubanks, D. L., Bedell, K. E., & Murphy,
S. T. (2007). Developing leaders for creative efforts: A domain-based
approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management
Review, 17, 402– 417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.002
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relation-
ships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 49, 85–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785503
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A
static and dynamic social network perspective. The Academy of Man-
agement Review, 28, 89 –106.
Proudfoot, D., Kay, A. C., & Koval, C. Z. (2015). A gender bias in the
attribution of creativity: Archival and experimental evidence for the
perceived association between masculinity and creative thinking. Psy-
chological Science, 26, 1751–1761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0956797615598739
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human inno-
vation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1984). Artistic creativity and interpersonal relationships
across and within generations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 46, 1273–1286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1273
Simonton, D. K. (2014). The mad-genius paradox: Can creative people be
more mentally healthy but highly creative people more mentally ill?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 470 – 480. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/1745691614543973
 CONNECTED TO CREATE 11

R. Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for
statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: Foundation for Statistical Com-
puting.
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor
package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1– 48.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and
applications. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478
Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily:
ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. Amer-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ican Journal of Sociology, 116, 583– 642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/
653658
Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity:
Personality, story writing, and hobbies. European Journal of Personal-
ity, 15, 297–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.409
Received July 9, 2016
Revision received October 11, 2016
Accepted December 20, 2016 !

View publication stats