Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Week 7.5

    Uploaded by

    Logan
    Creative Thinking Paper

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Week 7.5

    Uploaded by

    Logan
    16 views12 pages
    Creative Thinking Paper

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Creative Thinking Paper

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    16 views12 pages

    Week 7.5

    Uploaded by

    Logan
    Creative Thinking Paper

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 12
    132 7. The Genetic Basis of Creatiy; A Multivariate Approach ty Baptiste Barbot and Henry Eff Just as ereativity isan ability composed of multiple resources recruit ai, tially across a range of domains and tasks, there is not one single “creatig, aia Creativity gene As a complex phenotype, creativity involves multiple traits and abilities vt themselves map onto distinet brain functions and networks. Each ofthese ‘ne? has atleast partly distinct genetic underpinnings. Although popular culture in associating broad human psychological characteristics such as creath cone or the other hemisphere of the brain (e.g., left hemisphere for logical and right hemisphere for creative thinking), there is evidence that cresige involves the dynamic interactions of large-scale brain system (eg. Beay a) 2016). Similarly, tracing exceptional creative “talent” solely to hereditary and the search fora single creativity gene are vain causes: Much like other comply phenotypes such as intelligence, the contribution of a single gene is usaly infinitesimal, and it is only the combined effect of multiple genes that explin a sizable share of the phenotype, Based on a multivariate approach to creativity nd its current extension as well as a growing body of Gene-Creativity research since the 2000s, this chapter suggests that a more promising direction is to uncover the common genetic bases of multiple resources involved in creativity (i.e., cognitive and noncognitive resources such as divergent thinking (DT), motivational ni personality dimensions that contribute to creativity). This approach would ilun- nate the co-occurrence of individual resources of a different nature and, in pai- cular, their “optimal” combination within an individual, leading to creative succes in specific creative outlets. This chapter first examines the evolutionary forces that impact the human genome and shape creativity and how, in turn, eminent creative contribution impact the genome too. A first line of genetic studies of creativity is thet reviewed, focusing on “real-world” creativity (e.g., creative achievemees, talents, product-based assessment of creativity), followed by a second browt line of work focusing on resources that have been determined as important fo creativity (e.g., the genetic underpinning of DT, openness to experienct, cognitive flexibility). The chapter concludes by discussing future directions # the study of Gene-Creativity and its importance in uncovering a better Wi" standing of the phenomenon and, ultimately, the realization of everyone's ct" potential. ¢ Genetics ativity: From Recl evolution to Individuals’ Multivariate Creative Pote: pe contextoFereaterslobal challenges, creativity is an aspectofthe“human Ini oo 988) inereasingly recogized a a valuable asst fo individuals in solving because it contributes to personal and societal development. sian oc human evolution is far from new: Creativity has dynamically and cont ipeen shaped by evolutionary pressures (¢.g., Dissanayake, 2007; Feist, cco PO cular well illustrated with the use of creative ars outlets, which 3007) TH For enhancing cultural cohesion throughout evolution (Boyd, 2005; pve Bet (2007) extrapolate that two evolutionary frees of selection have 2 creativity over the millennia, First, natural selection pressures have ped “applied” forms of creativity such as technological advances because pedwbl SP ten had direct implications for solving survival problems. Second, sineon pressures ave possibly underined the more “mate and aesthetc™ tatty (©, Music of visual as), a they implicitly signal an individual's jc, physical, and mental fitness, which is attractive to the opposite sex (Feist, 2007; 2c re Reciprocally, Big-C innovations (i, creative breakthroughs that most wil. x) and creative products such as the contro offre, orthe advent of electricity elecommunication, may change the course of human evolution and ultimately impact ay. (Barbot, Tan, & Grigorenko, 2013). This reciprocal influence of cultural ie erations and genetic evolution is elegantly operationalized by Lumsden and fin (1981) Who outline how culture is shaped by biological constraints and how apa etires ae simultaneously altered by the genetic evolution brought about by aint innovations. Accordingly, human Big-C innovations may be viewed as impact- septal the sociocultural and physical envionment bt also the genetic composition ieeowing generations through natural selection and nonselective evolutionary Mechanisms (1e., Gene-Culture transmission). ihaum, as much as creativity is an essential human characteristic of adaptation and evolaton that can elicit creative responses to evolving global problems, this human shy is evidently partly genetically grounded. Although shaped by popular discourse sointllectual and creative talents, Galton's (1869) Hereditary Genius paved the way to the empincal study of exceptionalism and its hereditability, which has fundamentally inflyonced the field of intelligence and creativity research. Almost 150 years later, there is a continued interest in uncovering the genetic bases of individual differences in intelli- gene: (c2, Deary, Johnson, & Houlihan, 2009), exceptional intelligence (Spain et al., 2016)and talents (Vinkhuyzen et al., 2009), and, more recently, the genetic underpinning ofereativity (Reuter et a., 2006). From the later (thin) body of research, it is apparent that crcaivty isa highly complex phenotype that involves multiple genes as well as multiple environmental influences (¢.g., Zabelina et al,, 2016; Zhang & Zhang, 2017), Despite this “multivariate view” of creativity’s biological underpinning, genetic Studies o date have overwhelmingly focused on very few of creativity’s individual "sources. In particular, they have largely focused on DT, often interpreted as a proxy {oran individual's “global creativity.” Since Guilford (1950), perhaps influenced by of Crei ipt cn BAPTISTE BARBOT AND HENRY EFF ‘a Galtonian view of human phenomenon as normally dig DT has indeed been the primary way to operate Outed a , ary rati However, although DT is one of ereativity's essentiat en ti2e ici y i established that creativity is not a monolithic entity, ns ts, decades, it has been increasingly acknowledged that creat the 5% and partly domain-specific phenomenon that results from ne, 1 #8 & meet ty tion of resources coming into play in creative work, incase ie and personality (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Conceptually, ie ; Ofeape of resources (i.e., “profile”) is what constitutes his or her creative ity creative work, Baer and Kaufman 2005) offer a hybrid view ore iy generalty/specifcty of creativity in their Amusement ark within” Model, whic illustrates the interplay between these various ing ap They consider creative potential asa nested system in which sone! Sac) for entry into the whole park (a general ticket), some eign ge Pei of the park (e.g, a section-specific ticket), and some exist for indi aes tig height requirements). Similarly, some requirements for creatine, general (e.g., a base level of intelligence) and some are domei’<** training in a particular medium). aCe Further, a person can show distinct levels of creativity in distinct ou fiction writing vs. musical composition) according tothe “it” between unique profile of resources and the specific requirements of the creative 1S othe, people engage in. Each creative work relies on adiferentmintueotpect resources. Often the level of creativity ofa person ina given create average or low when the ft between all the individual resources needefs the task requirement is not present in that individual in an “optimal” confgar, tion, This “optimal fit view” of creative potential (Barbot, Lubart, & Bee 2016) is both theoretically useful and surprisingly practical (Silvia, Cran & Cotter, 2016). Firs, it illuminates why exceptional creativity is veryrax ty is because there i alow probability that one’s creative potential profleph fits the specific requirements of a given creative outlet. Second, because itisax, likely that one's creative potential profile will optimally fit the requiteme multiple creative tasks, this view explains why creativity appears mainly domi specific. Finally, it elucidates why scientific evidence on creativity is soneiax contradictory or lacks replication, including evidence from genetic studisofT (Zhang & Zhang, 2017), This is because studies involve different DT tai ts vary in domain, stimuli, or instruction, and therefore rely on a differs task-specific resources beyond “general” DT (Barbot, Besangon, & Lutst 2016). With this increasingly acknowledged conceptualization of creativity in mish understanding the genetic foundations of human creativity should therefore) several analytical angles. First, it should seek to illuminate the genetic basesof oe resource (¢.g., DT, or openness to experience, but not exclusively Leet commonly studied factors). Second, it should explore the interaction 0°" resources and underlying mechanisms that explain the “optimal” oo these resources. Finally, it should investigate the mediating role of The Genetic Basis of Creativity Bs ” fund and tasl a a 2015). Indeed, genotype-phenotype relationships don’t happen ‘ pater TCeatvity involves multiple traits and abilities, which themselves map ave" en prain functions and networks, with (often) distinct genetic underpin- goto distin ned in the section “In Search of Common Genetic Bases of the pe gesourees Forming Creative Potential,” there are, however, creativity of avery different nature (such as personality traits and cognitive func- that seem © share common genetic grounds, Another strategy to understand sions) ge underpinning of “optimal” creative potential in a specific domain or task eo epic nal talent) is to adopt a more holistic approach to creativity and focus fier te with real-world creative achievement and talents so that their genetic examined. in wo acteristics an be The Genetic Bases of Domain-Specific Creative Achievements” and Talents a The vast majority of genetic studies of creativity have taken a resource- ed approach, focusing on components of creativity such as DT or sensation Peng insolation. However, few studies have focused on achievements (ie, real seg erativt)). This small body of existing research falls into three categories. ipfist focuses ona group of individuals (or families) known for their creativity in particular creative outlet. The second focuses on cumulative creative achievements ‘ees multiple domains. Finally, the third involves production-based tasks that are then nite for their level of creativity using the consensual assessment technique of creativity (Amabile, 1983) or related techniques. in the first line of research (domain-specific “talents"), for example, Bachner- Melman and colleagues (2005) investigated the genetic components of creative dance performance using both case-control and family-based designs. They identi- fed two main genes contributing to the “dancer phenotype”: the AVPRJa (a gene already associated with affiliative and social behavior) and SCL6A4 (a gene found in this study to be associated with altered states of conscientiousness and spirituality that may predispose individuals to a greater ability for imagery and attention to musical stimuli). In the second line of research (cumulative creative achievement), Zabelina and colleagues (2016) investigated dopaminergic pathways of (self-reported) real-world creative achievements among 100 healthy young adults. They found that creative achievements in the arts, but not in the sciences, were partly explained by an interaction between genetic polymorphisms related to frontal (Catechol- O-methyltransferase; COMT) and striatal (Dopamine Active Transporter; DAT) dopamine pathways, in a configuration associated with “leaky” attentional control that may help individuals create new ideas by integrating irrelevant information with relevant information. This result, according to the authors, provides good support for the domain-specific grounding of dopaminergic pathways associated with creativity. Thats, this particular dopaminergic “configuration” between levels in multiple brain 136 OT AND HENRY EFF BAPTIST associated with leaky attention, may be relevant to ary Finally, inthe third line of research (prodict-basedassessmen) omaing be, and Horwitz (2015) investigated applied creativity in drawn’! pleasing, well-executed, and creative drawings). This reared. 8 (ie, Seay tifed greater performance similarity between monozygotic pein Mi Ra, 100 percent oftheir genes) than dizygotic twins (Le, wh ghee" My = 50 percent oftheir genes) on the Draw-a-Person task, with abou "tag influence. However, there was no difference between the monozyyeqP i twins on the Draw-a-House task. This result, according to hes differences in task requirements with respect to the level of indi" Sas elicited by each task. In particular, drawing a person leads to gre! re, features, allowing for more personal expression, than drawing « jy g uniformly includes unexpressive features, howe, From these few examples, it appears thatthe genetic contibuton different creative outlets is often “domain-relevant.” For example, creat a a phenotype that involves motor coordination, musical processing. ant motor coordination, among other factors. This data points out to the come of both genetic and nonshared environmental influences in creativity domain-relevant skills that seem difficult to disentangle from commen" "ela creative potential involved across domains and tasks (i.e,,‘domain-gene = ments such as DT or ereative motivation). In other words, regadles or outlined above, one possible limitation of these Gene-Creative achi is that the genetic bases identified as correlates of high or exceptions abilities may be confounded with other domain-specific skills (knowledge, ans skills, a priori deemed independent from creativity) that lead to creative achnn ments in that domain, Hence, it seems critical to investigate also the genes pas of creativity using a more “resource-based” approach that focuses on isla components leading to successful creative outputs in various domains and ta Domain-Specific Skills and Knowledge The contribution of domain-specific knowledge and skills for creativity i obvins If one doesn’t master key characteristics of the domain of interest, creative exe sion will likely be impeded. Even in the resolution of narrow tasks such as vers DT tasks, the amount of domain-based knowledge influences performance (Runco, Dos & Smith, 2006). This fact is particularly well illustrated within the musical dom. Indeed, general musical knowledge, ability, and skills are mostly independewt fe9 the ability t0 be musically creative among “novice” musicians or chile =! adolescents (Barbot & Webster, 2018; Webster, 1994), However, these stils facilitate the formulation and expression of musical ideas that have pel impact. Most of these skills are acquired through formal or informal training ‘The Genetic Basis of Creativity 137 but many other skills seem to be highly heritable olved in c1 seristc sivities in music. For example, perfect pitch ~ the ability to identify athe ae onoes without the aid of areferene tne —was linked to genes on spe 91 band of chromosome 8 in a genome-wide linkage analysis study tonne 8024 Gitschiet, 2009). On the other hand, pitch-production accuracy rent genetic underpinning (polymorphism near the UGTS gene the central nervous system and known to act in brain organiza- revs litte relied essed i d ce Hyexe yy family-based linkage and association analyses, supporting the al ee of specific music abilities (Park et al., 2012). iy estimates of genetic Bass for Key musical abilities (such as i thm discrimination, and the ability to recognize pattems in sound and (m0 pout 40-50 pereent across several family-based linkage and asso- zoees) Viet al, 2008; Tan et al., 2014). Most of these studies outline the dies Tes located in chromosome 4. Recently, Oikkonen, Onkamo, and ) used a convergent evidence method of 105 published studies to co ge genes related to general music aptitudes (including recognition and tan uns). They identified twelve genes (mainly located on chromosome jon ot ined “the genomic region for music abilities in humans”) underlying ol ‘pitudes, which, interestingly, also underline biological functions " ' in learning and memory. In another study (Oikkonen, Kuusi, et al., 2016), siko identified evidence for the involvement of genes located on the iy a0 ey for music abilities (on chromosome 4) to be involved in specific ge es in music e-., composing). case ye genomic region associated with musical abilities is distinct from of ae in other domain-specific skills. For example, a recent combined meta- “ape cohorts identified Four single nucleotide polymorphisms (ie. atype sls ariation) (SNPs 181012694, 1811743006, 1817778739, and 1817777541) 1 gone (agene on chromosome 5), showing association with mathematical then et al. 2017). these it of ge ofsPoc! ability (Cl Cognitive Skills: A Focus on Divergent Thinking A petra of studies onthe genetic bases of DT has emerged inthe past decade (eg. Kiri, 2009; Mayseless et al., 2013; Runco et al., 2011; Takeuchi et al., 2012; Fainna etal, 2015; Zhang & Zhang, 2017). Once again, most of these studies tpeDTas aproxy fora “general” creative aptitude and they often tum a blind eye to the specific parameters and requirements of each task used. As a result, studies gral vary along the domain and nature ofthe DT task used (e.g. whether the task is graphic or verbal, Alternate Uses Task [AUT], or story-completion task), the indicator of divergent production considered (¢.g., ideational fluency or originality), thetime allotted to complete the task (¢.g., 2 minutes or 10 minutes), and the method to derive divergent production scores (¢.g., top three original ideas or frequency- tased originality scoring), which can account for inconsistencies in genetic studies’ results (.g., Zhang & Zhang, 2017). Additionally, there are variations across studies BAPTISTE BARBOT AND HENRY EFF with respect to focal genes, genotyping methods, ang ender, age, and race, which too can account for: ions avis (Lavcht, Becker, & Schmidt, 2006), "°C Aicng © Nay, The issue of variations in the DT task used in geney “a ‘As outlined above, specific creative task requirements Stig that are relevant to distinct creative outlets. This he eS ding ty distinct DT tasks, which generally reflect limited mein wat ability (Barbot, Besangon, & Lubart, 2016), illustrated by vot OF & “ge Mia task correlation estimates (usually on the 0.20-0.39 tance” mage 0,30-0.50 within domains). In other words, each DT tage a of individual resources that are not DT per se, DT itself wo" 4 pea only about up to 25 percent of the total performance va Would in tasks (Barbot, Besangon, & Lubart, 2016). The contribu? ® DT important for DT production (such as knowledge, ion of Ae, components) may somewhat obscure the isolation of the me hand Rat “general” DT, viewed as core cognitive function of cent Bea domains, As such, it is warranted for future research to cong’, tage analysis ofthis growing body of studies, while factoring in SB nek istics of each task requirement used in these studies. This i noe the pee however, the identification of similar results in this li Pu hae tasks used) allows us to make some initial i erences abo it < grounding of DT. e We ae Reuter and colleagues (2006) initiated a line of wi . essentially showing the involvement of the DRD2 om) ‘aa the Benth oy TPH gene (serotonin synthesizer), which, in their pilot study, expla ty the variance on a composite index of ideational fueney of DT pres 4 tasks and three domains (verbal, figural, numeric). They alse oe specific DT differences in performance, with, for example, the st DRD? shown to be related to higher ideational fluency in verbal ass st to the Al allele, In contrast, carriers ofthe allele of TPHI showed sou higher ieational ueney scores in figural and numeric DT production a pilot work was further refined in several studies (e.g, Runeo eal, 21) ng that Reuter and colleagues’ initial conclusions of candidate genes for DT me somewhat consistent with respect to ideational fluency but not tothe ater inks Specifically, DRD4 (another dopamine receptor) was involved in both fu originality in verbal and figural tasks, whereas COMT (which breaks dova dpe mine’s messengers) was involved in fluency only, across domains. Inti s.0 genes were related to indicators of ideational flexibility. However, tis stay ut similar studies building on Reuter and colleagues’ work (e.g, Murphy ea, 23) suffered from small sample sizes and did not explore genetic variants ober those initially proposed by Reuter and colleagues (Zhang & Zhang, 2017), Zs and colleagues’ (2014) exploratory study confirmed and précised the assocait between SNP r51800497 (polymorphism of the dopamine D2 receptor DRD2 = and creative potential The Genetic Bass of Creativity colleagues (2013) examined DT using classic Torrance Tests of vse a and AUT (68 G 1978). They showed that the ive That polymorphism of the DRD4 gene (7 R allele) was associated cat of 8 ‘erry of DT productions, which was consistent with other studies ted flew ciation between 7 R and impaired cognitive flexibility, They also in the ke was associated with lower ideational fluency in an AUT-type task sh ed that 7 ral task (possibly due to an underpowered analysis), aerot ina farelted to dopaminergic pathways were identified in the literature. Mone 8% fed the polymorphism (r56994992) to be associated with DT in £6 oes pigh intellectual and academic performance, This polymorphism weil Wty confirmed to be associated with risk for psychosis and altered/ also widel a of prefrontal activation (Jagannath et a., 2018). Volf and collea- species! PONT tigated Verbal and Figural DT with a focus on 5-HTTLPR 3s (2009) rr important neurotransmitter involved with regulating psychologi- Ei yor a functions, and behaviors (Goldman et al, 2010), Using the cal ti eT they found that people with S/S (shortshort or L/S (long-short) -orance T file 5-HTTLPR polymorphism demonstrated higher ideational fluency e01P° 9 than those with the L/L genotype. People with S/S also showed higher javerbal 15 ‘acy in figural tasks than those with L/S or L/L. ideation Muetieys between genetic polymorphisms related to frontal (COMT: ‘The inte ive functioning) and striatal (DAT; dopamine transportation, asso- underlyin& a ard seeking and distractibility) were also implicated in the originality ited Wi Fon (Murphy etal, 2013; Zabelina etal, 2016), whereas three newly ofDT an ‘SNPs (186582071, 184570625, and rs11178999) were found to be jsoversd originality of figural DT production (Zhang & Zhang, 2017) associated 1 ecuiae the TPH2 134570625 was associated with originality, Zhang aston 017) speculated that this genetic variant, also involved in traits and ‘Zhang Ved to emotional dysregulation (e.g., Gutknecht etal, 2007), could be ink shared genetic vulnerability factor that links creativity to psychiatric disorder pod of Gene-DT studies illuminates the implication of multiple genes (of dna effect sizes) underlying an “additive” genetic influence on DT through rater SO sponding brain functions, This genetic combination has been increasingly i inthe neuroscience of creativity literature (e.g, relationship between Savona fuency and D2 density in the thalamus; De Manzano eta, 2010), other Cognitive Functions ‘he biological grounding of other cognitive skills involved in creativity has been explored in other studies, especially investigating general intelligence (e2., Benedek et al., 2014). Although the relationship between general intelligence and creativity is still the subject of passionate debates, it is generally acknowl- edged that general cognitive abilities contribute to some extent to creativity (see Benedek & Jauk, Chapter 10, this volume). A detailed review of the Gene- 139 140 BAPTISTE BARBOT AND HENRY EFF Intligence relationship is beyond the scope ofthis chap of this literature suggests that about 50 percent of the bay explained by genetic contributions (with great varias, ingeto od other contextual factors), This is demonstrate sand yc adoption studies (¢.8. Deary, Spinath, & Bates, 2992, Rune 2004), which also emphasize an additive genetic influeng, “Rin a genes with small effects (Davies et al., 2011), in Particulay TeSulting ft some genes (Hill et al., 2018). Relatedly, cognitive Tenis tag ciated with both the presence of the 9 R allele (Garcia ci uit hag nee the absence of the 7 allele (Mayseless et al, 2013) ar eth transporter gene. Other evidence has also supported the con DAT 0) dopamine and its underlying genetic basis in Cognitive bution op Gould, 2014), Bamett and colleagues’ (2007) meta-analyee ily studies showing the association of a classic SNP in the comes a with cognitive flexibility in both healthy individuals ang coM Be oak Other recent studies have shown tha individuals carrying » aa (154680) or T allele of rs4633 (another variant on the COMT le of tig o significantly higher on insight problem-solving tasks Giang, Bene) aley Insight problem-solving, the ability to resolve a problem «. Bsa idea on the spot, is also a cognitive ability often Telated to creay Pit realization of important discoveries (6, Simonton, 2003), “iy wa “as FFF, &\ 447; Conative, Personality, and Motivational Pathways The biological grounding of conative (natural preferences and . ality, and motivational traits involved in creativity has also be pe, targeting phenotypes other than creativity (e.g, personality aie plored, of drug abuse, or motivational dimensions involved in academie success). Hea this literature remains relevant tothe understanding of the genetic bases es given that some of these factors and traits have been shown tee “ingredients” of creative potential ‘npr One of the key personality factors associated with creativity acres a Openness to experience. Using a large sample of European adults, Power and Ph (2015) analyzed the heritability of the Big Five Personality traits through gen relatedness-matrix residual maximum likelihood analysis (GREML) of ow ta 4 million SNPs across the genome. They showed that Openness was th mat heritable trait (with 21 percent ofits variance accounted for by heritability) lee! by Neuroticism (15 percent heritable). The other three Big Five tras hl al heritability estimates. Similar to results from the creative cognition trae reviewed in the section “Cognitive Skills: A Focus on Divergent Thinking,” rst from genetic studies suggest that DRD4 and COMT (and, in general, dopaniae related genes) are genes that predict Openness/Intellect in both children and ahs (DeYoung et al., 2011). However, it is worth mentioning that the result wih children sample showed main effects of both genes, whereas results with he adit ‘The Genetic Basis of Creativity 141 ore ge! al., 2011), The authors argued that such interactions in adults but not in ev somewhat expected given that genetic interactions are more likely to hil phenotypic traits as development progresses, Jy, novelty seeking, a narrower personality trait related to Openness and studied from a geneti ‘nt, This trait, whi spr pas been far more genetic standpoint. This trait, which is not a ‘ated with high Openness/Intellect but also with low Conscientiousness and a jon (e.g. Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005), has been found to be sig) Pare mon polymorphisms (7-Repeat allele) inthe D4DR dopamine receptor seised 0 fein ct al, 1996), and DRD2-A2 (other dopamine receptor) labeled the gene (Em cing genes” (C8, Schweizer, 2006). Heck and colleagues (2009) also sovely Mntribution of the HTR2A gene (involved in encoding one of the receptors sin) © novel Sekingin specific SNPs ao associated wih bipolar and other sor sot disorders. Together, the clear involvement of the DA system in novelty personal js consistent with other studies that have shown the importance of DA genes for (eg. DeYoung et al, 2011) or sensation seeking (Derringer etal, 2010). <——~" in Search of Common Genetic Bases of the Muitiple Resources Forming Creative Potential Because creativity is a complex phenotype that involves multiple individual _ there is a nced for comprehensive, multivariate studies accounting for the imtbution of multiple Key resources coming into play in creative work, These gs would help us illuminate the genetic underpinning of each of the resources sien in isolation (such as DT or openness) and their interactions. In other words, ‘work on the biological genesis of creativity should focus on uncovering the veymmon genetic grounds of multiple resources of ereative potential (both cognitive seg noncognitive) This would illuminate the co-occurrence of resources of different “pures and their optimal combination within an individual that can result in outstanding creative performance in a specific creative outlet. ‘Although no genetic study to date has considered creative potential through such multivariate approach, its possible to hypothesize common genetic bases from the genetic investigations of isolated components reviewed above, Indeed, throughout qurbrief review of the literature, it has become apparent that many of the resources of different natures involved in creativity seem to be underlined by common biolo- gical bases, in particular both frontal and striatal dopaminergie pathways, as well as serotonin pathways. In fact, genes involved in dopamine and serotonin expression treat the center of the most complex behaviors, including creativity. Specifically, the genes most commonly outlined in our review above include the COMT, which breaks down dopamine’s messengers (DeYoung et al., 2011) and is related to the prefrontal dopaminergic pathway, showing relationships with conver- gent operations (Chermahini & Hommel, 2010), ideational fluency (Murphy et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2014), and Openness/Intellect (DeYoung et al., 2011). Dopamine BAPTISTE BARBOT AND HENRY EFF receptors DRD2 and DRD4, related to the striatal path cognitive control, novelty seeking (Zald et aj, 208 wea 2009), and ideational fluency (Murphy et al., 2013; Reuter, Fenian, to serotonin pathways, we have pointed out the contribu real, 009, novelty seeking (Heck et al., 2009), the $-HT Bene for execu of they Mit memory (Zhang & Zhang, 2017), and the TPH gene for j ee etal, 2006), Overall, the co-occurrence of “clusters” of yee ational yo potential make great conceptual sense, For example, ty woe" a novelty secking and motivational dimensions importent force es underlying bologieal marker, a8 novelty-scekers ae revert Sha hg system by their intrinsic motivation (Schweizer, 2006), Which j Via the 1, creativity. mage However, as pointed out throughout this chapter, these inf ee synthesis of numerous studies that focused on Fences are creative potential taken in isolation, Therefore, there wre rste comin for future genetic studies of creativity, First, future studies sho ata te potential comprehensively using a “resources-based” Ud assay ty would focus on cognitive and noneognitive dimension’ we Such ay gp te subjects, including eases with specific creative talents in varion® fat sont future studies should identify homogeneous profiles (i.e, combing Serog and noncognitive resources) that are associated with specie tales ing creative task. This would serve to identify the “optimal” ont ane resources coming into play in each creative task, while refini °F i specific phenotype. Third, future studies should identify “SNP progyentt OS types) associated with these well-defined phenotypes. Such invesy (he, hag, account for the possible moderating roles of participants’ gender "3 (Laucht et al, 2006), especially given the importance of ine 2d rg the phenotype of interest (Wang et al., 2004). Finally, integrating ee ™™® insights to pinpoint bran networks as mediators of Gene-Creatve Sanne to be an obvious but so far unexplored endeavor, ™ Seng Conclusion es = Every human has the genetic background that makes creativity posse and that made humanity evolve throughout time. Based on an overview of reat Gene-Creativity research, this chapter has outlined the multidimensional o both the creativity phenomenon and its genetic bases. The implication ist multiple genes of small effect sizes combine in an “additive” genetic infuse of greater effect size. Specifically, the convergence of distinct lines of wott I to the conclusion that each individual’s genetic profile (especially in wae Bene regions involved in dopamine and serotonin pathways) maps onto os unique profile of creative potential. This potential, in turn, leads to indivi differences in creativity in distinct areas of creative pursuit. These individu! The Genetic Basis of Creativity likely explained equally by biological influences and the specific ese we each creative work, as well as Sene * environment interactions, vie ne het one’s profile or resources Optimally fits the requirements of ese fF tive task and whether one’s creative potential will actually be turned jevement are questions that are probably beyond what the ivity can address, However, advances in this scientific endeavor wt ' provi dea better fundamental knowledge of this human ability but ore way for bringing one’s Potential to realization by identifying iso Yi predispositions for particular creative expressions that would other- jin latent ema eferences M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential nabs suatization. Journal of Personality and Socal Psychology, 45(2), 387-386 conte R, Dina, C., Zohar, A. H., Constantini, N., Lerer, E., Hoch, S, Mrstein, R. (2005). AVPRIa and SLC6AA gene polymorphisms are asocited rep ereative dance performance, PLOS Genetics, 13), 42. a auinan, JC. (2005) Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park gan} BP elcal (APT) model of eeativty. Roeper Review, 27(3), 188-163 iSpesancon, M., & Laban, T. (2016). The generality specificity of creativity Barbot, Ex ploring the structure of creative potential with EPoC. Learning and Individual piferences, $2, 178-187. a Laban, TL, & Besangon, M. (2016), “Peaks, slumps, nd bumps": Individual puro B> erences in the development of creativity in children and adolescents. New Siretions for Child and Adolescent Development, 151, 33-88,

    You might also like