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

net/publication/344179524

Parental warmth, rejection, and creativity: The mediating roles of openness

and dark personality traits

Article  in  Personality and Individual Differences · September 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110369

CITATION READS

1 136

3 authors:

Jiajun Guo Jing Zhang

East China Normal University East China Normal University
15 PUBLICATIONS   46 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Weiguo Pang
East China Normal University
28 PUBLICATIONS   203 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Culture, Family, and Creativity View project

Testing the Online Database Adoption and Satisfaction (ODAS) Model Across Cultures: A three Country Study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jiajun Guo on 10 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110369

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Parental warmth, rejection, and creativity: The mediating roles of openness T

and dark personality traits
Jiajun Guoa, Jing Zhangb, , Weiguo Panga
⁎

a
School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, China
b
Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Psychology, East China Normal University, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Family plays an important role in shaping one's creativity. In the current study, 559 college students, ranging
Creativity from 18 to 30 years of age, were recruited to complete a survey measuring perceptions of their parents' rearing
Rearing styles (warmth & rejection), personality traits (openness & the dark triad, including narcissism,
Warmth Machiavellianism, & psychopathy), and creativity (originality, creative activities, & creative achievements).
Rejection
Using structural equation modeling, we found that both parental warmth and parental rejection were positively
Openness
Dark traits
associated with creativity. More importantly, openness fully mediated the influence of warmth on all the indices
of creativity. However, only Machiavellianism, of the three dark traits, served as a partial mediator between the
effects of parental rejection on creative activities. Results are further discussed from the perspective of eastern-
western cultural differences.

1. Introduction to the two paths.

Two lines of past research, investigating the relationship between 1.1. Parents' rearing styles and creativity
family context and individuals' creativity, have yielded two theoretical
frameworks that contradict each other. On the one hand, families that The autonomy-supportive parenting theory can be traced back to
provide support, acceptance, and space are associated with creative Rogers (1954), who posited that the fostering of creative talents is
personalities and creative accomplishments in one's later life (called based on environmental conditions characterized by both psychological
autonomy-supportive family theory; Gute et al., 2008; Harrington et al., safety and psychological freedom. Parents who are more accepting,
1987). On the other hand, numerous studies found that creative people more empathic, and less evaluative are more likely to establish a cli-
often come from families that are anything but harmonious (called mate that permits a child's real self to emerge and promotes expression
distance-conflicted family theory; Albert, 1978; Chan, 2005; Michel and in varied and novel forms. It is the freedom of thinking, feeling, and
Dudek, 1991; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2000; Subotnik et al., 2003). The doing that further enables an individual to be creative. Along similar
existence of these two contradicting theories indicates that there may lines, Csikszentmihalyi and his colleagues proposed the complex family
be two paths, stemming from the familial context, which contribute to framework, which holds that both support and challenge are needed in
individual creativity. Moreover, the two types of family influences the family in order for a child to develop independence and in-
might be mediated by personality variables as past research findings dividuality for later-life creativity (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993).
have shown that parents' rearing styles have a significant impact on a While autonomy-supportive family theories generally reflect the
child's personality (Lianos, 2015; Rohner, 2004), and that personality, positive side of family influences, a bulk of evidence has pointed to
in turn, can be a strong predictor of creativity (Dahmen-Wassenberg another possibility— the absence of harmony or presence of conflicts in
et al., 2016; Furnham et al., 2013). To our knowledge, however, little families is also related to later life creative achievements. For example,
research has attempted to include all the three constructs (namely, children with creative giftedness or artistic interests were often found to
parenting styles, personality, & creativity) into an integrative model to come from families replete with tensions, parental conflicts, and stress
further investigate how family influences an individual's creativity. To (Brooks, 1973; Koestner et al., 1999). Creative children often opined
close this gap, the present study aims to test both family theories in one that their families were less child-centered (Olszewski et al., 1987), had
model by investigating potential personality mediators that contribute mothers who were not as emotionally involved with them, and were on

⁎
Corresponding author at: Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Zhongshan North Road 3663, 200062 Shanghai, China.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110369
Received 26 May 2020; Received in revised form 21 August 2020; Accepted 27 August 2020
0191-8869/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Guo, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110369

occasion less likely to deny hostile feelings towards them (Kaufman, enables people to “think outside of the box” while not being tied to any
2002). one perspective. In addition, the link between a supportive family
Compared to supportive families, the psychological mechanisms context and openness to experience has been also confirmed by pre-
orchestrating the stimulation of creativity in distance-conflicted family vious studies (Aluja et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2000; Khaleque, 2013;
environments may be different. Specifically, conflicted and stressful Metsäpelto and Pulkkinen, 2003). Thus, autonomy-supportive parental
family environments may force individuals to develop creative ways to rearing practices are believed to develop children's tendencies towards
solve problems and minimize tensions, which in turn may contribute to openness as well as other positive outcomes, including a child's pro-
creative processes and outcomes (Kerr and Chopp, 1999). social behavior, psychological health, and overall well-being.
Therefore, on the basis of the literature above, Hypothesis 3 is
1.2. The mechanism underlying family influences on creativity proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 3. Openness to experience plays a mediating role on the
One measurement capable of reflecting the two contradicting par- effect of parental warmth on creativity.
enting styles and thus testing the two theories is the Egna Minnen
Beträffande Uppfostran (Own memories of childrearing experiences;
Perris et al., 1980). Parenting behaviors that are affectionate, stimu- 1.2.2. Dark traits as potential mediators on the distance-conflicted path
lating, and praise-oriented generally reflect the types of family influ- Contrarily, traits triggered by adverse environments may also serve
ences characterized by support and autonomy. In contrast, rearing be- as variables mediating the effect of distance-conflicted family influ-
haviors that are punitive, shaming, abusive, and criticizing generally ences on creativity. Those traits often touch upon defense mechanisms,
reflect the kind of family influences characterized by conflict, stress, which help people to stay vigilant, focused, and persistent in order to
and distant feelings. The former rearing behaviors fall under the con- achieve important goals (Baas et al., 2013). It is in situations en-
struct of parental warmth while the latter behaviors are associated with gendered by distance-conflicted family influences that dark personality
the construct of parental rejection. traits may come into play. One frequently used taxonomy of dark per-
Therefore, on the basis of the literature above, Hypotheses 1 and 2 sonality traits is the Dark Triad, which includes narcissism, Machia-
are proposed as follows: vellianism, and psychopathy. Psychologists describe narcissists as ex-
hibiting pervasive patterns of grandiosity and self-importance, and as
Hypothesis 1. Parental warmth significantly and positively influences invested in demonstrating their superiority (Morf and Rhodewalt,
creativity. 2001). Machiavellianism comprises increased aggression towards, and
Hypothesis 2. Parental rejection significantly and positively influences manipulation of, people (Jonason et al., 2017). Psychopathy is de-
creativity as well. scribed as callousness, manipulation, and selfishness, as well as a lack of
self-control, empathy, and remorse (Hare, 1996).
Given the underlying mechanisms, it is easy to theorize that par- Notably, previous studies have found significant positive relation-
ental warmth would provide psychological safety and encourage psy- ships between creativity and dark traits. For example, Furnham et al.
chological freedom, which can increase children's openness to experi- (2013) found that narcissism significantly predicted both self-evaluated
ence and contribute to their later-life creative achievements (Rogers, and objective creativity measures; being a Machiavellian (e.g. acting
1954). However, from a contrasting perspective, rearing styles char- dishonestly) makes people feel unconstrained by rules, which in turn
acterized by rejection may lead to a different form of safety and makes them more creative (Gino and Wiltermuth, 2014); Some psy-
freedom. Specifically, parental rejection might force children to find chopathy-related traits, such as boldness and emotional disinhibition,
psychological safety (and freedom) on their own as rejected individuals were found to be correlated with creative achievements (Galang et al.,
may “turn against people and seek power, prestige and domination 2016). Empirical evidence also supports the relationship between a
(Olszewski-Kubilius, 2000)” in order to seek psychological safety. conflicted family environment and an individual's dark personality
Freedom, on the other hand, is not sought but forced upon those in- traits. Children who experience significant rejection and maltreatment
dividuals by rejection; children who are rejected, have to “turn away from their parents are likely to feel ever-increasing resentment (Rohner,
from people and seek self-sufficiency and independence (Olszewski- 2004), exhibit skepticism (Therivel, 1999), and display a predisposition
Kubilius, 2000)”. In other words, distance and conflict in the family towards aggression and anti-social behaviors (Blanch and Aluja, 2011;
may lead to (unintended) independence and autonomy. In that sense, Smeijers et al., 2018). Such children likely develop challenged per-
children who grow up in a conflicted family environment might de- sonality traits in their later life, such as narcissism (Huxley and
velop some negative traits, which initially serve the purpose of a de- Bizumic, 2016), a tendency to dominate and control others (in the
fense mechanism but later enable them to break away from convention terms of the dark triad & Machiavellianism; Petrowski et al., 2009), and
and finally lead to creative achievements. In the subsequent sections, even psychopathic traits (Durand and Velozo, 2018).
we review specific relationships and propose further hypotheses. Therefore, on the basis of the above literature, Hypothesis 4 is
proposed as follows:
1.2.1. Openness as a potential mediator in the autonomy-supportive path
Hypothesis 4. Dark personality traits, including narcissism,
With regard to the underlying mechanisms, previous studies suggest
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, are mediators for the effect of
that personality traits, in particular openness to experience, might act
parental rejection on creativity.
as an important mediator in the process encompassing positive family
influences resulting in creativity. Openness to experience, one of the Big
Five personality traits, refers to an interest in varied experiences for 2. Methods
their own sake and can be further divided into sub-traits, including
intellectual curiosity, aesthetic sensitivity, liberal values, and emotional 2.1. Participants and procedure
differentiation (McCrae, 1987). Past research has established a strong
and consistent link between openness to experience and creativity, in- A sample of Chinese undergraduates (N = 559), enrolled in dif-
dicating that individuals with increased openness to experience are ferent majors at the East China Normal University, participated vo-
more likely to be creative (Dahmen-Wassenberg et al., 2016; Jauk et al., luntarily in this study. None of the participants were offered compen-
2014; Kaufman et al., 2016; Silvia et al., 2009). It is easy to surmise that sation for participation. The sample included 178 men and 381 women
open people are often unconventional and imaginative as well as re- ranging from 18 to 30 years old of age (M = 21.21 years old,
bellious at times. As Feist (1998) argued, the openness tendency SD = 2.46). Students were provided with a link to an online assessment

2
J. Guo, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110369

platform comprising a consent form, questions related to demographic an umbrella, and a book. Participants were asked to imagine and write
information, and items assessing perceived parental rearing styles, their down all the uses each object might have. Objective ratings of origin-
divergent thinking, creative activities and achievements, as well as ality were used to score the test responses. Originality scores were
openness to experience. Participants took approximately 15–20 min to calculated by counting the number of responses given by less than 10%
complete the survey. With the assistance of two researchers, students of the sample to each question (Plucker et al., 2014). In the current
completed the items during regular classroom time. sample, internal consistencies for originality was 0.78.

2.2. Measures 2.2.5. Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (ICAA; Diedrich
et al., 2018)
2.2.1. The Short Form of the Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran (s- While originality is a frequently used indicator of creative potential,
EMBU; Arrindell et al., 1999) it is not an ideal indicator of real-life creativity. Therefore, participants'
Perceived parental rearing styles were measured using the Chinese everyday creative activities (little-c) and actual creative achievements
version of the s-EMBU (Li, Wang, & Zhang, 2012). A Warmth Form (Pro-C and Big-C) were measured using the inventory of creative ac-
(containing 6 items, e.g., “My mother/father praised me”) and a Re- tivities and achievements (ICAA). This inventory assesses real-life
jection Form (containing 6 items, e.g., “My mother/father were sour or creativity in eight domains, including literature, music, arts and crafts,
angry with me without letting me know the cause”) were used in the creative cooking, sports, visual arts, performing arts, science, and en-
current study. Scoring for each item involved a separate Likert-type gineering.
scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”) for each parent The creative activities scale consists of six relevant activities for
(father and mother). Since the scores for father and mother were highly each of the eight domains, measuring everyday creativity in terms of
correlated, they were combined, and averaged emotional warmth and human originality at work and during leisure across the diverse activ-
rejection scores between parents were calculated. In the current sample, ities of everyday life. Participants were asked to report how often they
internal consistencies for both subscales were excellent (0.92 for par- carried out certain activities within the last 10 years. Responses were
ental warmth & 0.94 for parental rejection). assigned 0–4 points for the following options: Never, one to two times,
three to five times, 5–10 times, and more than 10 times. Domain scores
2.2.2. Openness Scale in the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John et al., 1991) were obtained by summing points across domain-specific activities. In
We measured openness using the Chinese version of the 44-item Big the present sample, the internal consistency for the creative activities
Five Inventory, which comprised a 12-item openness subscale (Zhou, scale was 0.80.
2010). Participants rated all items on a 5-point Likert-type scale The creative achievement scale taps into actual real-life creative
(1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”). In the current sample, accomplishments (such as composing a piece of music, making a sci-
internal consistency for openness to experience was 0.85. entific discovery, or writing a book). Participants were required to in-
dicate which achievements they have attained in each of the eight
2.2.3. The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen scale (DTDD; Jonason and Webster, domains. Specifically, they were asked to rate all items ranging from “I
2010) have never been engaged in this domain” (0 points) to “I have already
The Dark Triad personality traits were measured using the 12-item sold some of my work in this domain” (10 points). All applying levels
Chinese version of the DTDD. Following the English original, partici- were checked and summed up to yield the achievement score for each
pants rated all items on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (“strongly domain. In the present sample, the internal consistency for the creative
disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Psychometric details of the Chinese achievements scale was 0.71.
version were provided by Geng et al. (2015). In the current sample,
reliability estimates for all the Dark Triad subscales were accep- 2.3. Statistical analyses
table—0.71, 0.90, and 0.84—for psychopathy, narcissism, and Ma-
chiavellianism respectively. After correlational analysis, the proposed model depicted in Fig. 1
was tested by means of structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus
2.2.4. Alternative Uses Test (AUT; Guilford, 1967) 7.2. To judge model fit, we used the chi-square statistic, the Com-
The Alternative Uses Test, a measure of divergent thinking abilities, parative Fit Index (CFI), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
was used to assess originality—an index of creative potential. This (SRMR), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
index distinguishes the uniqueness of one's ideas from others. In the with 90% confidence intervals. We deemed the fit to be acceptable with
present study, participants were provided with three objects that cut-offs of CFI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤0.08, and SRMR ≤0.06 (Beauducel
Chinese individuals use or encounter often, including a ping pong ball, and Wittmann, 2005; Hu and Bentler, 1999).

Fig. 1. The proposed model of family influences on creativity. The model includes paths from perceived rearing styles to personality traits and creativity.

3
J. Guo, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110369

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, zero-order correlations, and reliability estimates for all variables tested in this study.
Variable Mean (SD) Zero-order correlation coefficients

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Parental warmth 3.88 (0.79) (0.92)

2. Parental rejection 1.69 (0.78) −0.46⁎⁎⁎ (0.94)
3. Openness 3.39 (0.57) 0.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.02 (0.85)
4. Narcissism 3.60 (0.80) 0.11⁎ 0.14⁎⁎ 0.12⁎⁎ (0.90)
5. Machiavellianism 2.20 (0.81) −0.08⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.09⁎ 0.40⁎⁎⁎ (0.84)
6. Psychopathy 1.89 (0.67) −0.14⁎⁎ 0.29⁎⁎⁎ −0.04 0.12⁎⁎ 0.47⁎⁎⁎ (0.71)
7. Originality 1.01 (1.06) 0.11⁎⁎ −0.03 0.17⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 −0.03 −0.07 (0.78)
8. Creative activities 39.35 (22.03) 0.13⁎⁎ 0.11⁎ 0.39⁎⁎⁎ 0.09⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ 0.01 0.15⁎⁎⁎ (0.80)
9. Creative achievements 33.20 (30.30) 0.08 0.10⁎ 0.33⁎⁎⁎ 0.09⁎ 0.06 −0.05 0.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.57⁎⁎⁎ (0.71)

Note. N = 559. Numbers in parentheses represent reliability estimates.

⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.

First, measurement models for all studied constructs were tested. 3.3. Structural model
Parental warmth and parental rejection were both modeled with six
indicators. Openness to experience, creative activities, and creative After the measurement model was accepted, a structural model
achievements were all represented by three parcels each instead of (Model 1) was used as a baseline to test the four major hypotheses.
multiple indicators due to the large number of items, thereby balancing First, parents' rearing styles, including parental warmth and parental
factor loadings, increasing model parsimony, and reducing the influ- rejection, were hypothesized to have both direct and indirect associa-
ence of specific measurement errors associated with individual items tions with the three indicators of creativity, and were shown to co-vary.
(Little et al., 2013). Second, a structural model via maximum likelihood Openness to experience was tested as a potential mediator between
estimations was then tested to confirm whether the measurement model parental warmth and creativity indices. Narcissism, Machiavellianism,
was indeed accepted. Third, in order to figure out whether the media- and psychopathy were tested as potential mediators between parental
tion was full or partial, we tested the dual-path model twice: Once with rejection and creativity indices. All the potential mediators were al-
and once without direct effects from parental rearing styles to crea- lowed to co-vary with each other. For Model 1, there was only a slight
tivity. The significance of the indirect effects was determined by a decrease of the goodness-of-fit indices as compared to the measurement
bootstrap method based on 5000 samples using 95% confidence inter- model. However, closer examination revealed that neither narcissism
vals (Mallinckrodt et al., 2006). nor psychopathy was a significant predictor of any creative indices (ß
ranges from −0.101 to 0.096, and p ranges from 0.139 to 0.995).
3. Results Additional findings indicated that Machiavellianism was not a sig-
nificant predictor of originality and creative achievements
3.1. Preliminary analysis (ß = −0.059, p = 0.529; ß = 0.095, p = 0.327, respectively), and
neither was parental rejection a significant predictor of originality
Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and zero-order (ß = 0.019, p = 0.742). Therefore, the links between: narcissism and
correlations between parenting, personality, and creativity variables. all the creative indices, psychopathy and all the creative indices,
As expected, parental warmth correlated positively with openness to Machiavellianism and originality and creative achievements, and par-
experience, and parental rejection correlated positively with narcissism, ental rejection and originality, were removed from Model 1, resulting in
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Moreover, both rearing styles Model 2. The goodness-of-fit indices for Model 2 were reasonable (see
correlated positively with creativity to some extent, supporting Table 2).
Hypotheses 1 and 2. With regard to the relationships between person- The significance of indirect effects was further determined by the
ality traits and creativity, openness to experience showed strong and bootstrap method. Table 3 shows both Model 3, with openness to ex-
positive correlations with originality and both indicators of real-life perience (but not Machiavellianism) fully mediating the effects from
creativity. Narcissism and Machiavellianism of the dark personality parental warmth to all the creativity indices, and Model 2, with open-
traits had positive but slightly weaker correlations with creativity. ness being a partial mediator, fitted the data well. Model comparisons
Psychopathy had no significant relationships with any of the creative indicated that Model 3 was the more parsimonious model. Nonetheless,
indices. further constraining the direct effect of parental rejection on creative
activities (Model 4) resulted in a significant increase of chi-square, in-
dicating that Machiavellianism was a partial mediator. Therefore,
3.2. Measurement model
Model 3 was finally adopted. Mediation analysis with the bootstrap
method further confirmed that openness to experience significantly
The initial model consisted of nine latent factors and thirty-six
mediated the influences of parental warmth on originality, creative
variables. Results of an initial test of the measurement model did not
activities, and creative achievements, supporting Hypothesis 3. In ad-
show an adequate fit of data. Therefore, the model was modified ac-
dition, the mediation effect of Machiavellianism from parental rejection
cording to the modification index. Six pairs of error terms were then
to creative activities was significant. Parental rejection also had a direct
allowed to be correlated. As a result, the revised measurement model
effect on creative activities, indicating a partial mediation (Table 4),
improved significantly and fitted the data well (see Table 2). All factor
thus, partially supporting Hypothesis 4. The final model is summarized
loadings for the indicators of the latent variables were significant
in Fig. 2.
(p < 0.001), implying that all the latent factors were well represented
by their respective indicators. All the inter-correlations among the la-
tent variables were significantly correlated in conceptually expected
ways (p < 0.001).

4
J. Guo, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110369

Table 2
Model fit indices for measurement models and structural models.
Model χ2/df (χ2, df) RMSEA [90% CI] SRMR CFI TLI AIC BIC

Initial model 2.924 (1631.955, 558) 0.059 [0.055–0.062] 0.047 0.904 0.891 64,476.720 65,099.685
Measurement model 1.843 (1017.566, 552) 0.039 [0.035–0.043] 0.043 0.958 0.952 63,874.331 64,523.253
Model 1 1.895 (1059.246, 559) 0.040 [0.036–0.044] 0.056 0.955 0.950 63,902.012 64,520.651
Model 2 1.877 (1066.416, 568) 0.040 [0.036–0.043] 0.057 0.955 0.951 63,891.181 64,470.885
Model 3 1.873 (1069.524, 571) 0.040 [0.036–0.043] 0.057 0.955 0.951 63,888.289 64,455.015
Model 4 1.882 (1076.429, 572) 0.040 [0.036–0.043] 0.060 0.955 0.950 63,893.194 64,455.593

Note. RMSEA (90% CI) = root mean square error of approximation with 90% confidence internal; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual;
CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; AIC = Akaike's Information Criteria; BIC = Bayesian Information Criteria.

4. Discussion Table 4
Standardized estimates and 95% CIs for indirect influences of parental rearing
The present study represents one of the first attempts to test two styles on creativity via personality factors.
contradicting family theories of creativity in an integrated model. The Models Estimate 95% CI
results have expanded existing knowledge on the role families play in
fostering and stimulating individuals' creativity. First, the hypothesis Lower Upper
2.5% 2.5%
that a supportive family environment, as characterized by parental
warmth, has a positive influence on creativity was validated. The pre- Parental warmth → Openness → Originality 0.057 0.023 0.091
sent study further confirmed that this influence is fully mediated by Parental warmth → Openness → Creative 0.131 0.076 0.185
openness to experience. The results provide empirical support for and activities
Parental warmth → Openness → Creative 0.120 0.067 0.173
extend upon Roger's theory of creative environments as well as
achievements
Csikszentmihalyi's complex family model. Both theories hold that, in Parental rejection → Machiavellianism → 0.028 0.001 0.055
order to foster a child's creativity, parents need to provide both support Creative activities
(or psychological safety) and autonomy (or psychological freedom).
Establishing such an environment allows children to express themselves
more freely, to engage with challenging tasks, and thus, to achieve ultimately lead to the development of a Machiavellian personality. This
creative goals. outcome would in turn enable a person to see things from a different
Second, the hypothesis that a conflicted family environment, as perspective, break rules, and thus promote participation in activities
characterized by parental rejection, would lead to creativity was vali- that enable them to do so. Secondly, individuals from distance-con-
dated as well, but to a lesser extent. This finding provides empirical flicted family environments may choose to take part in creative activ-
support for the claim that tensions and conflicts between children and ities simply to reduce their inner tensions and find acceptance among
their parents positively impacts the latter's engagement in creative ac- others outside of the family.
tivities and fosters creative achievements (Albert, 1978; Brooks, 1973; The finding that neither narcissism nor psychopathy plays the role
Koestner et al., 1999;Olszewski et al., 1987 ; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2000). of a mediator was contrary to past research, which has established links
However, two findings are worth noting with caution. First, parental between narcissism and psychopathy to both parental rejection and
rejection didn't lead to higher originality (a divergent thinking index) creativity (Furnham et al., 2013; Galang et al., 2016; Gino and
scores, suggesting that distance-conflicted family environments do not Wiltermuth, 2014; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2000). This outcome can be
lead to changes in creative thinking but rather contribute towards an attributed to the fact that both narcissism and psychopathy share some
increase in creative behaviors. Second, only Machiavellianism served as common variances with Machiavellianism, leading to the reduction of
a partial mediator between parental rejection and creative activities. their effect sizes when tested in an integral model. Another plausible
Neither narcissism nor psychopathy was a significant mediator between explanation lies in the cultural differences in parent-child relationships.
parental rejection and any indices of creativity despite the fact that both The present study used a Chinese sample, and past research has de-
had strong associations with parental rejection. As to the reasons why monstrated a weaker association between parental rejection and ne-
Machiavellianism, rather than the other two dark traits, was found to be gative cognition among children in the Chinese culture as compared to
a mediator, the authors propose two plausible explanations based on Western culture. This weaker association might be due to the fact that
the tension reduction view (Olszewski et al., 1987; Olszewski-Kubilius, rejection and control exhibited by Chinese parents are likely driven by
2000). Firstly, an individual is more likely to use deception, flattery, parental concern and high standards rather than hostility (Fung and
and manipulation to minimize tensions in the family, which may Lau, 2012). Once children understand the motives behind their parents'

Table 3
Model fit indices for mediation models.
Model χ2/df (χ2, df) RMSEA [90% CI] SRMR CFI TLI AIC BIC

Openness—partial mediator
Machiavellianism—partial mediator (Model 2) 1.877 (1066.416, 568) 0.040 [0.036–0.043] 0.057 0.955 0.951 63,891.181 64,470.885

Openness—full mediator
Machiavellianism—partial mediator (Model 3) 1.873 (1069.524, 571) 0.040 [0.036–0.043] 0.057 0.955 0.951 63,888.289 64,455.015
Difference between Model 2 and Model 3 ∆χ2 [3] = 3.108, p = ns

Openness—full mediator
Machiavellianism—full mediator (Model 4) 1.882 (1076.429, 572) 0.040 [0.036–0.043] 0.060 0.955 0.950 63,893.194 64,455.593
Difference between Model 3 and Model 4 ∆χ2 [1] = 6.905, p < 0.01

Note. RMSEA (90% CI) = root mean square error of approximation with 90% confidence internal; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual;
CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; AIC = Akaike's Information Criteria; BIC = Bayesian Information Criteria.

5
J. Guo, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110369

Fig. 2. Structural equation modeling analysis of the proposed model of family influences on creativity.
Note: ***p < 0.001. **p < 0.01. * p < 0.05. + p < 0.06. Original. = originality. Creative achieve. = creative achievements. Mach. = Machiavellianism. Psycho.
= psychopathy.

rejection, the probability of developing dark personality traits might be CRediT authorship contribution statement
greatly reduced. This narrative perhaps partly explains the direct effects
of parental rejection on creative activities as well as creative achieve- Jiajun Guo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation,
ments as found in the present study. The results indicate that dark Writing - original draft. Jing Zhang: Methodology, Formal analysis,
personality traits could not fully explain inherent workings within the Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Weiguo Pang: Supervision,
context of distance-conflicted family environments. In other words, the Validation, Writing - review & editing.
specific mechanisms underlying the effects of parental rejection on
one's creativity are still largely unclear despite taking personality Acknowledgement
variables into considerations. Thus, this aspect warrants further re-
search to investigate potential mediators, such as motivation and value. This work was sponsored by the Happiness of Flower Project at East
Overall, the present study demonstrated that the influence of fa- China Normal University (2019ECNU-XFZH015) and Fundamental
milial tension on creativity operates differently from the manner in Research Funds for the Central Universities (41300-20101-222665). We
which supportive family environments work to foster creativity. While also thank the school principals, teachers and students whose support
the distance-conflicted path of family influences was relatively weak made this study possible.
when compared to the supportive-autonomy path, the long-term impact
may not necessarily stay the same as the present sample mainly in- References
volved college students in their early twenties. It is possible that those
who experience rejection from parents may develop resilience when Albert, R. S. (1978). Observations and suggestions regarding giftedness, familial influence
facing setbacks in later life, or display changes to the contrary. Another and the achievement of eminence. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 201–211. https://
doi.org/10.1177/001698627802200214.
aspect worth noting is the inconsistency found between the two types of Aluja, A., del Barrio, V., & García, L. F. (2007). Personality, social values, and marital
creativity measures (the divergent thinking test & measure of real-life satisfaction as predictors of parents’ rearing styles. International Journal of Clinical and
creativity) in terms of their relationships with personality and parent's Health Psychology, 7, 725–737.
Arrindell, W. A., Sanavio, E., Aguilar, G., Sica, C., Hatzichristou, C., Eisemann, M., ... van
rearing styles. This result indicates that both parenting and personality der Ende, J. (1999). The development of a short form of the EMBU: Its appraisal with
traits, especially those considered to be on the negative spectrum, are students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, and Italy. Personality and Individual
associated with real-life creative behaviors rather than specific thinking Differences, 27, 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00192-5.
Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Personality and
skills. While divergent thinking tests are mainly focused on novelty and creativity: The dual pathway to creativity model and a research agenda. Social and
uniqueness, the ICAA says more about one's adaptivity and practicality Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 732–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12062.
in real-life creativity. This distinction perhaps explains why parental Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. W. (2005). Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA based
on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 12,
rejection is associated more with real-life creativity—children who
41–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1201_3.
experience parental rejection are more focused on survival and goal- Blanch, A., & Aluja, A. (2011). Personality and job stress: A comparison of direct effects
reaching. As Zeng, Proctor, and Salvendy (2011) have claimed, mea- on parenting. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 667–674. https://doi.org/10.
surement tools need to address both the novelty and appropriateness 5209/rev_sjop.2011.v14.n2.15.
Brooks, J. B. (1973). Familial antecedents and adult correlates of artistic interests in
criteria in order to have sound construct validity. For this reason, we childhood. Journal of Personality, 41, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
encourage future researchers to employ more than one type of assess- 6494.1973.tb00663.x.
ment to uncover a more comprehensive picture of one's creative abil- Chan, D. W. (2005). Self-perceived creativity, family hardiness, and emotional in-
telligence of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Journal of Secondary Gifted
ities. Education, 16(2–3), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-471.
In sum, the present study examined and confirmed two seemingly Chen, X., Liu, M., & Li, D. (2000). Parental warmth, control, and indulgence and their
contradictory family theories in predicting creativity. Both the sup- relations to adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family
Psychology, 14, 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.14.3.401.
portive-autonomy parental theory and distance-conflict parental theory Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of
were validated, with the former theory exhibiting stronger supporting success and failure. Cambridge University Press.
evidence. Nonetheless, the distance-conflict parental theory was em- Dahmen-Wassenberg, P., Kämmerle, M., Unterrainer, H. F., & Fink, A. (2016). The rela-
tion between different facets of creativity and the dark side of personality. Creativity
pirically confirmed as well. The relatively weaker evidence supporting Research Journal, 28, 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1125267.
the latter theory may be attributed to the younger sample recruited in Diedrich, J., Jauk, E., Silvia, P. J., Gredlein, J. M., Neubauer, A. C., & Benedek, M. (2018).
the present study. Future research would benefit from involving a Assessment of real-life creativity: The inventory of creative activities and achieve-
ments (ICAA). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 304–316. https://
middle- or senior-aged population. Future researchers could also in-
doi.org/10.1037/aca0000137.
vestigate family influences from a qualitative perspective in order to Durand, G., & Velozo, J. D. C. (2018). The interplay of gender, parental behaviors, and
gain insights into the underlying mechanisms behind these impacts. child maltreatment in relation to psychopathic traits. Child Abuse & Neglect, 83,

6
J. Guo, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110369

120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.07.013. short-form of the embu among chinese adolescents. Psychological Reports, 110(1),
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. 263–275.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/ Lianos, P. G. (2015). Parenting and social competence in school: The role of pre-
s15327957pspr0204_5. adolescents personality traits. Journal of Adolescence, 41, 109–120. https://doi.org/
Fung, J., & Lau, A. S. (2012). Tough love or hostile domination? Psychological control and 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.03.006.
relational induction in cultural context. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 966–975. Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030457. parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300. https://doi.
Furnham, A., Hughes, D. J., & Marshall, E. (2013). Creativity, OCD, narcissism and the org/10.1037/a0033266.
Big Five. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013. Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in testing
05.003. the statistical significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53,
Galang, A. J. R., Castelo, V. L. C., Santos, L. C., Perlas, C. M. C., & Angeles, M. A. B. 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.372.
(2016). Investigating the prosocial psychopath model of the creative personality: McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal
Evidence from traits and psychophysiology. Personality and Individual Differences, of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/
100, 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.081. 0022-3514.52.6.1258.
Geng, Y., Sun, Q., Huang, J., Zhu, Y., & Han, X. (2015). Dirty dozen and short dark triad: Metsäpelto, R. L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Personality traits and parenting: Neuroticism,
A Chinese validation of two brief measures of the Dark Triad. Chinese Journal of extraversion, and openness to experience as discriminative factors. European Journal
Clinical Psychology, 23, 246–250. of Personality, 17, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.468.
Gino, F., & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2014). Evil genius? How dishonesty can lead to greater Michel, M., & Dudek, S. Z. (1991). Mother-child relationships and creativity. Creativity
creativity. Psychological Science, 25, 973–981. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Research Journal, 4, 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534400.
0956797614520714. Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill. self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196. https://doi.org/
Gute, G., Gute, D. S., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihályi, M. (2008). The early lives of 10.1207/s15327965pli1204_1.
highly creative persons: The influence of the complex family. Creativity Research Olszewski, P., Kulieke, M., & Buescher, T. (1987). The influence of the family environ-
Journal, 20, 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802391207. ment on the development of talent: A literature review. Journal for the Education of the
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Gifted, 11, 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235328701100102.
Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854896023001004. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2000). The transition from childhood giftedness to adult creative
Harrington, D. M., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl Rogers’s theory productiveness: Psychological characteristics and social supports. Roeper Review, 23,
of creative environments: Child-rearing antecedents of creative potential in young 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554068.
adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 851–856. https://doi. Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Linndström, H., Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1980). Development
org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.851. of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 61, 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1980.
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: tb00581.x.
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118. Petrowski, K., Berth, H., Schmidt, S., Schumacher, J., Hinz, A., & Brähler, E. (2009). The
Huxley, E., & Bizumic, B. (2016). Parental invalidation and the development of narcis- assessment of recalled parental rearing behavior and its relationship to life satisfac-
sism. The Journal of Psychology, 151, 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980. tion and interpersonal problems: A general population study. BMC Medical Research
2016.1248807. Methodology, 9, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-17.
Jauk, E., Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). The road to creative achievement: A Plucker, J. A., Qian, M., & Schmalensee, S. L. (2014). Is what you see what you really get?
latent variable model of ability and personality predictors. European Journal of Comparison of scoring techniques in the assessment of real-world divergent thinking.
Personality, 28, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1941. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory—Versions 4a and 901023.
5. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. Rogers, C. R. (1954). Towards a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics,
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the Dark 11, 249–260.
Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265. Rohner, R. P. (2004). The parental “acceptance-rejection syndrome”: Universal correlates
Jonason, P. K., Abboud, R., Tomé, J., Dummett, M., & Hazer, A. (2017). The Dark Triad of perceived rejection. American Psychologist, 59, 830–840. https://doi.org/10.1037/
traits and individual differences in self-reported and other-rated creativity. 0003-066x.59.8.830.
Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A. (2009). Openness to
2017.06.005. experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order, and inter-
Kaufman, J. C. (2002). Dissecting the golden goose: Components of studying creative active effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1087–1090. https://doi.org/10.
writers. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/ 1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015.
s15326934crj1401_3. Smeijers, D., Brazil, I. A., Bulten, E. B. H., & Verkes, R. J. (2018). Retrospective parental
Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & rejection is associated with aggressive behavior as well as cognitive distortions in
DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict forensic psychiatric outpatients. Psychology of Violence, 8, 495–504. https://doi.org/
creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84, 248–258. 10.1037/vio0000134.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Beyond bloom: Revisiting
Kerr, B., & Chopp, C. (1999). Families and creativity. In M. Runco, & S. Pritzker (Eds.). environmental factors that enhance or impede talent development. In J. H. Borland
Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 709–715). Academic Press. (Ed.). Rethinking gifted education (pp. 227–238). Teachers College Press.
Khaleque, A. (2013). Perceived parental warmth and children’s psychological adjustment, Therivel, W. A. (1999). Why Mozart and not Salieri. Creativity Research Journal, 12,
and personality dispositions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1201_8.
297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9579-z. Zeng, L., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Fostering creativity in product and service
Koestner, R., Walker, M., & Fichman, L. (1999). Childhood parenting experiences and development: validation in the domain of information technology. Human Factors,
adult creativity. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 92–107. https://doi.org/10. 53(3), 245–270.
1006/jrpe.1998.2240. Zhou, J. (2010). Construct validity of Big Five Inventory. Science of Social Psychology, 25,
Li, Z., Wang, L., & Zhang, L. (2012). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of a 22–29.

View publication stats