Creativity and intelligence: A link to different levels of human needs hierarchy?

Neubauer, A.C. & Martskvishvili, K. (2018). Creativity and intelligence: A link to different levels of human needs hierarchy? Heliyon, 4 (5).


The relationship between creativity and intelligence has been intensely studied, but still is not clearly understood. Here, we aimed to investigate how creativity and intelligence are related to the different levels of human needs hierarchy. 342 participants completed a battery of instruments for intelligence and creativity as well as inventories for assessing the human needs satisfaction/frustration and self-actualization. We expected that creativity, as a characteristic of a self-actualized person should be related stronger to self-actualization needs, whereas intelligence should be related stronger to satisfaction/frustration, because of its role for humans‘ adaptation and survival. Results largely confirm expectations: Intelligence is positively related to lower needs, while creativity measures (divergent thinking, creative achievements and activities) show positive associations with higher levels of human needs. These results might contribute to the scientific debate regarding the distinction and the nature of the difference between intelligence and creativity.

The impact of personality in the selection of teacher students: Is there more to it than the Big Five?

Koschmieder, C., Dumfart, B. , Pretsch, J., & Neubauer, A. C. (2018). The impact of personality in the selection of teacher students: Is there more to it than the Big Five? Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14(3), 680-694.


The bandwidth-fidelity dilemma is a controversially discussed problem in personality measurement. In this study, we contrasted the utility of broad versus narrow personality traits in an admission exam for teacher students. We compared the Big Five and narrow personality constructs (social-communicative behavior, achievement behavior, health and recreation behavior), which were part of an assessment battery for teacher student selection (N = 1120), regarding overlap and predictive validity. As criterion variables, academic satisfaction (N = 184) and GPA (N = 680) were assessed later. Reasonableness of including both questionnaires in one assessment may be questioned in terms of overlap of the personality inventories. Results show that health and recreation behavior cannot be covered by the Big Five in a selection procedure. Empirically, both broad and narrow traits show predictive validity for academic success and satisfaction.

The prediction of professional success in apprenticeship: The role of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities, of interests and personality.

Diedrich, J., Neubauer, A.C., Ortner, A. (in press). The prediction of professional success in apprenticeship: The role of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities, of interests and personality. International Research Journal for Vocational Education and Training (IRJVET).


Context: We addressed the issue of person-job-fit by focussing on both professional success and work satisfaction. Publications studying the predictive validity of (cognitive) ability, personality, or vocational interest alone have shown relationships with professional success or work satisfaction for each predictor separately. Nevertheless, these predictors have rarely been studied simultaneously.

Methods: To this end we tested the incremental validity of abilities, traits, and interests in a sample from diverse occupations: In 648 apprentices and students from five different branches (Food, Tech, People, Office, Craft) the (incremental) contributions of 3 intelligence factors (verbal, numerical, spatial), 3 alternative abilities (social-emotional, creative, practical), 4 conscientiousness facets, other big five factors (O, E, A, N), and of 14 professional interests were analysed regarding prediction of GPA in professional schools and school/job satisfaction.

Results: Intelligence and conscientiousness were best predictors, followed by social-emotional competence and interests, whereas other traits provided marginal contributions. Predictors varied between branches, mostly following expectations. The test battery allowed a very good prediction of apprenticeship success (max. 37%), but for some branches prediction was considerably lower.

Conclusion: Criteria for person-job-fit are not swappable, neither are the predictors. Professional success was mostly predicted by a different predictor set -namely ability and the personality dimension of conscientiousness- then satisfaction, which was mostly predicted by non-interest in a certain occupation. As a practical implication, we conclude that choosing the right candidate for a certain branch one needs to use a broad set of predictor variables. Besides cognitive ability also personality and vocational interests had predictive validity for an individuals person-job-fit.


The self–other knowledge asymmetry in cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, and creativity.

Neubauer, A. C., Pribil, A., Wallner, A., & Hofer, G. (2018). The self–other knowledge asymmetry in cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, and creativity. Heliyon, 4, e01061.


The self–other knowledge asymmetry model (SOKA) assumes that some personality traits might be open to oneself and other persons (‘open area’), while other traits are more accurately perceived by others (‘blind spot’); a third group of traits might be visible only to oneself and not to others (‘hidden area’), and finally a trait might neither be visible to oneself nor to one’s peers (‘unknown area’). So far, this model has been tested only for personality traits and general intelligence, not for more specific abilities; to do so was the novel intention of our study. We tested which of six abilities (verbal, numerical, and spatial intelligence; interpersonal and intrapersonal competence; and creative potential/divergent thinking ability) are in which SOKA area. We administered performance tests for the six abilities in two samples – 233 14-year-olds and 215 18-year-olds – and collected self- and peer-ratings for each domain. Numerical intelligence and creativity were judged validly both from self- and peer-perspectives (‘open area’). In the younger sample verbal intelligence was validly estimated only by peers (‘blind spot’), whereas the older group showed some insight into their own abilities as well (‘blind spot’ to ‘open area’). While in the younger group only the pupils themselves could validly estimate their intra- and interpersonal competence (‘hidden area’), in the older group peers were also successful in estimating other’s interpersonal competence, albeit only with low accuracy (‘hidden area’ to ‘open area’). For 18-year-olds, spatial ability was in the hidden area too, but in 14-year-olds this could neither be validly estimated by pupils themselves nor by peers (‘unknown area’). These results implicate the possibility of non-optimal career choices of young people, and could, therefore, be helpful in guiding professional career counselling.