<%BANNER%>

Springboards and Barriers to Creative Risk-taking and Resolve in Undergraduate Interior Design Studios

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043772/00001

Material Information

Title: Springboards and Barriers to Creative Risk-taking and Resolve in Undergraduate Interior Design Studios
Physical Description: 1 online resource (128 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Ellis, Natasha Nicole Ferguson
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: barriers -- creative -- risk -- risk-taking -- safe-keeping -- springboards
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study identified springboards and barriers to creative risk-taking that interior design students perceive in their design studio courses. The sample was composed of 66 undergraduate interior design students from the University of Florida, including 21 sophomores, 23 juniors, and 22 seniors. Four research questions were asked: 1) What personality traits associated with creative risk-taking do interior design students' display? 2) What springboards and barriers to creative risk-taking do interior design students perceive in their studio courses? 3) What personality differences exist between students identified as safe-keepers vs. risk-takers? 4) What perceptions of the design process do safe-keeping vs. risk-taking students have when designing in their studio courses? Do any differences emerge? The NEO-PI-R was used to profile personality traits while a locally developed survey identified student perceptions of creative risk-taking in studio. Using self-reported and faculty ratings of student risk-taking the sample was split into a group of safe-keepers and a group of risk-takers for data analysis. Private interviews with students in each risk-taking group were conducted to further understand their perceptions of risk-taking. Personality findings indicated that the sample displayed higher levels of Extraversion, Openness, and lower levels of Agreeableness than normative populations. Safe-keepers and risk-takers displayed significant personality differences on activity, assertiveness, competence, and Extraversion. Safe-keepers expressed a need for compassionate support, positive feedback, and more guidance in the development of ideas from professors; whereas, risk-takers wanted professors to be more challenging and critical in their feedback, and exhibit more influence on their ideas. Safe-keepers favored a more detailed project structure with more requirements; whereas, risk-takers preferred a loose project structure with broad instructions and limitations. Safe-keepers also wanted team members that offer ideas and support; whereas, risk-taking students wanted team member that were creative and free flowing with their ideas.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Natasha Nicole Ferguson Ellis.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Meneely, Jason Matthew.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-06-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043772:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043772/00001

Material Information

Title: Springboards and Barriers to Creative Risk-taking and Resolve in Undergraduate Interior Design Studios
Physical Description: 1 online resource (128 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Ellis, Natasha Nicole Ferguson
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: barriers -- creative -- risk -- risk-taking -- safe-keeping -- springboards
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study identified springboards and barriers to creative risk-taking that interior design students perceive in their design studio courses. The sample was composed of 66 undergraduate interior design students from the University of Florida, including 21 sophomores, 23 juniors, and 22 seniors. Four research questions were asked: 1) What personality traits associated with creative risk-taking do interior design students' display? 2) What springboards and barriers to creative risk-taking do interior design students perceive in their studio courses? 3) What personality differences exist between students identified as safe-keepers vs. risk-takers? 4) What perceptions of the design process do safe-keeping vs. risk-taking students have when designing in their studio courses? Do any differences emerge? The NEO-PI-R was used to profile personality traits while a locally developed survey identified student perceptions of creative risk-taking in studio. Using self-reported and faculty ratings of student risk-taking the sample was split into a group of safe-keepers and a group of risk-takers for data analysis. Private interviews with students in each risk-taking group were conducted to further understand their perceptions of risk-taking. Personality findings indicated that the sample displayed higher levels of Extraversion, Openness, and lower levels of Agreeableness than normative populations. Safe-keepers and risk-takers displayed significant personality differences on activity, assertiveness, competence, and Extraversion. Safe-keepers expressed a need for compassionate support, positive feedback, and more guidance in the development of ideas from professors; whereas, risk-takers wanted professors to be more challenging and critical in their feedback, and exhibit more influence on their ideas. Safe-keepers favored a more detailed project structure with more requirements; whereas, risk-takers preferred a loose project structure with broad instructions and limitations. Safe-keepers also wanted team members that offer ideas and support; whereas, risk-taking students wanted team member that were creative and free flowing with their ideas.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Natasha Nicole Ferguson Ellis.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Meneely, Jason Matthew.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-06-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043772:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SPRINGBOARDS AND BARRIERS TO CREATIVE RISK TAKING AND RESOLVE IN UNDERGRADUATE INTERIOR DESIGN STUDIOS By NATASHA NICOLE FERGUSON ELLIS A MASTER S THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PART IAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Natasha Nicole Ferguson Ellis

PAGE 3

3 To my most avid supporters, my Husband and my Mom and Dad

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my husband ; he offered continuous encouragement and understanding for my venture back to school. His support, love, and encouragement have been paramount in my success I would also like to thank my parents who have always been supportive and encou raging of my goals and aspirations. I would not be here if it were not for my parents. I would also like to thank my professors Dr. Margaret Portillo, Dr. Mary Jo Hasell, Jason Meneely and the remainder of the University of Florida Interior Design facult y. Dr. Hasell taught me how to research and write a good paper. Dr. Portillo a member of my c ommittee encouraged my studies in creativity by furthering my growth in creativity and creative literature through her creativ ity seminar, and continued fine tu ning my writing skill s And finally, thank you to Jason Meneely my committee chair, for guidance through my thesis. I cannot extend my gratitude enough to all of those who have helped me along my path to furthering my education.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 RISK TAKING IN CREATIVITY ................................ ................................ .............. 13 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 14 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 15 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 16 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 17 Defining Creativity ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17 A Novel and Appropriate Consensus ................................ ............................... 17 Common Framework: The Four P s ................................ ................................ .. 18 The Creativity Personality ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Trait Based Approaches ................................ ................................ ................... 19 Five Factor Model ................................ ................................ ............................. 20 Five Factor Model and the Creative Personality ................................ ............... 23 Limitations of Solely Trait Based Approaches ................................ .................. 24 Creative Environment ................................ ................................ ............................. 25 Emerging Systems Theories ................................ ................................ ................... 28 The Role of Risk Taking ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 Risk Taking Defined ................................ ................................ ......................... 30 Creative Risk Taking Defined ................................ ................................ ........... 32 Studies Examining Creative Risk Taking ................................ .......................... 34 Sco pe of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 37 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 37 Students ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 37 Faculty ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 37 Instruments ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 38

PAGE 6

6 Assessing Student Personality Traits with the NEO Personality Inventory Revised ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 38 Assessing the Studio Climate for Creative Risk taking ................................ ..... 42 Assessing Creative Risk Taking Performance: Identifying Safe Keepers and Risk Takers ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 42 Assessing Differences among Safe Keepers and Risk Takers ........................ 43 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 43 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 45 Study Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 45 Sample and Domain ................................ ................................ ......................... 45 Instrument ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 45 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 46 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 48 Professor Personality and Teaching Style ................................ .............................. 50 Projects ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 51 Evaluations/critiques ................................ ................................ ............................... 51 Studio Teamwork ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 52 Self Perceived Personality Traits ................................ ................................ ............ 52 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 63 Professor Personality/Teaching Style ................................ ................................ ..... 69 Project Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............................ 71 Ev aluation/Critiques ................................ ................................ ................................ 72 Peer and Team Interactions ................................ ................................ .................... 73 Personal Abilities and Personalities ................................ ................................ ........ 76 Professor Personality/Teaching Style ................................ ................................ ..... 81 Project Structure ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 83 Evaluation and Critique ................................ ................................ ........................... 87 Studio Teamwork ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 89 Self Perceived Personality Traits ................................ ................................ ............ 91 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 93 Safe keepers and Risk takers in the Design Process ................................ ...... 94 Future Research ................................ ................................ ............................... 96 APPENDIX A STUDENT CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ ................. 99 B FACULTY CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ ............... 101 C STUDENT CREATIVE RISK SURVEY ................................ ................................ 103 D FACULTY CREATIVE RISK SURVEY ................................ ................................ .. 112 E INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................ ................................ .................... 117

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 128

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Personality differences between the sample and NEO PI R norms ................... 54 4 2 Barriers to creative risk taking perceived by students ................................ ........ 55 4 3 Springboards to creative risk taking perceived by students ................................ 56 4 4 T Test results differentiating personality traits of safe keepers vs. risk takers ... 57 4 5 Interview responses on the topic of professor p ersonality and teaching style .... 58 4 6 Interv iew responses on the topic of projects ................................ ....................... 59 4 7 Interview responses on the topic of evaluation and critique ............................... 60 4 8 Interview res ponses on the topic of studio teamwork ................................ ......... 61 4 9 Interview responses on self perceived personality traits ................................ .... 62

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Research study design. ................................ ................................ ...................... 47 5 1 Process of design development ................................ ................................ .......... 98

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S A Agreeableness A I Adaption innovation theory C C onscientiousness E Extraversion EI Experience i n ventory FFM Five Factor Model are the five dimensions of personality: Neuroticism Extraversion Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness N Neuroticism NEO PI R The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (2010) is a standardized questionnaire and measures the Five Factor Model (FFM). Revised from the original standardized questionnaire the NEO. Created by Paul T. Costa, Jr., PhD and Robert R. McCrae, PhD. O Openness 16PF Cattell sixteen personality factor inventory

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Interior Design SPRINGBOARDS AND BARRIERS TO CREATIVE RISK TAKING AND RESOLVE IN UNDERGRADUATE INTERIOR DESIGN STUDIOS By Natasha Nicole Ferguson Ellis December 2011 Chair: Jason Meneely Major: Interior Design This study identif ied springboards and barriers to creative risk taking that interior design student s perceive in their design studio courses The sample was composed of 66 undergraduate interior design students from the University of Florida, including 21 sophomores, 2 3 juniors, and 2 2 seniors. Four research questions were asked : 1 ) What personality traits associated with creative risk taking do i nterior displa y ? 2) What springboards and barriers to creative risk taking do interior design students perceive in their studio courses? 3) What personality differences exist between students identified as safe keepers vs. risk takers? 4) What perceptions of the design process do safe keeping vs. risk taking students have when designing in their studio c ourses? Do any differences emerge? The NEO PI R was used to profile personality traits while a locally developed survey identified student perceptions of creative risk taking in studio. Using self reported and faculty ratings of student risk taking the sample was split into a group of safe keepers and a group of risk takers for data analysis. Private interviews with students in each risk t aking group were conducted to further understand their perceptions of risk taking. Personality f indings indicated that t he sample displayed

PAGE 12

12 higher levels of Extraversion Openness and lower levels of Agreeableness than normative populations Safe keeper s and risk takers displayed significant personality differences on activity, asser tiveness, competence, and Extraversion Safe keepers expressed a need for compassionate support, positive feedback, and more guidance in the development of ideas from profes sors; whereas, risk takers wanted professors to be more challenging and critical in their feedback, and exhibit more influence on their ideas. Safe keepers favored a more detailed project structure with more requirements; whereas, risk takers preferred a loose project structure with broad instructions and limitations. Safe keepers also wanted team membe rs that offer ideas and support; whereas, r isk taking students wanted team member that were creative and free flowing with their ideas.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 R ISK TAKING IN CREATIVITY Introduction Creativity is inseparable from design In fact Lawson (1997) stated people would describe design as one of the most creative of human p 148). D esigners are tasked to develop creative solutions they must also function appropriately due to the sizable impact they have on people and their life (Lawson, 1997). As designers develop solutions they mus t be willing to step outside the boundaries of precedent and take creat ive risks. In fact, c reativity is seen as a professional competency that must be nurtured and developed through design education (Pederson & Burton, 2009). As Kowaltowski, Bianchi, and de Pa i va (2009) rticularly design education (p. 454). As design educators pursue this goal, it is important that they understand the varied perceptions students have toward taking c reative risks in their studio courses. Creative problem solving involves a high degree of uncertainty since new ideas are often unproven in their function and appropriateness; t herefore, the creative process, especially for students, may include multiple p n fact, Casakin and Kreitler (2009 ) found that design students exhibiting higher levels of during problem solving; h owever, too often student s fail to take the necessary risks that push their thinking to new levels of creativity (p.479) Kowaltowski et al. (2009), observed

PAGE 14

14 (p.458). How can design educators help students to step outside of their comfort zone and push the boundaries of precedent? All students do not embrace creative risk the same, indeed t hose who prefer a more ord ered and certain world may find themselves Students who prefer a sense of stability and security are often less inclined to challenge the status quo and experiment (Sternberg, 2003) R isk takers embrace ch allenge despite the potential risk of failure. classic study on the creative personality found that creative arc hitects embrace d risk and were 37). How can design educators suppor t students with different levels of risk aversion? P urpose Despite the importance of creative risk taking only a limited nu mber of studies have been conducted on the subject F ewer, perhaps none focus on student perceptions of creative risk taking in des ign education. Students and professors may not fully realize the springboards and barriers to creative risk taking that play out in their studio courses. As Dewett (2002) noted ri s ks as it relates to creative pe Addressing this need the current study wa s de veloped to uncover springboards and barriers to creative risk taking in i nterior design education Creative solutions by untested that often evolves along a path of failures and dead ends. Portillo (2002) stated position of great consequence as the y pionee r new vistas in their work

PAGE 15

15 Learning to take these creative risks must begin at the educational level in order to prepare students for a fruitful and rewarding career. The current study was developed to empirical ly profile springboa rds and barriers to creative risk taking in design studio courses. The study specifically pinpoint s percept ions between safe keeping and risk taking students to identify differences that may impact pedagogical strategies in the classroom A personality a ssessment, the NEO PI R, was used to profile student personality traits; whereas a locally developed survey was used to identify student perceptions of creative risk taking in their design studio courses Self reported and faculty rankings were employed t o develop two groups for data analysis, safe keepers and risk takers. I nterviews were then completed by both groups of students, the safe keep ers and r isk tak ers. The information garnered from this study will be useful to determine perceptions students h ave of creative risk taking in design education and how students with varying degrees of risk taking propensity can be supported in their studio courses. Research Questions This study wa s desi gned to identify how students perceive creative risk taking in t heir design studio courses using the following research questions. (1) What personality traits associated with creative risk tak ing do interior design students display? And h ow does this relate to normative populations? (2) What springboards and barriers to creative risk taking do interior design students perceive in their studio courses? (3) What personality differences exist between students identified as safe keepers vs. risk takers? (4) What perceptions of the design process do safe keeping vs. risk ta king students have when designing in their studio c ourses? Do any differences emerge?

PAGE 16

16 Summary Studies conducted on creative risk taking will add valuable information to the body of knowledge. Although, the study of creativity has vastly increased over th e last 30 years the topic of creative risk taking in design education has received little empirical attention This study employed a systems approach to identify psychological and sociological antecedents of creative risk taking and their perceived impac t on creative performance in the domain of interior design education

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of literature discusses creativity, creative risk taking and design problem solving in four sections. The first section defines creativity an d illustrates a common framework used in creativity studies. The second section looks at research of the creative personality, the Five Factor Model (FFM) and how the NEO PI R has been utilized to profile creative personalities. Section three outlines r ecently emerging systems theories that focus on psychological, social, environmental, and process interactions that lead to creativity. Finally, s ection four considers risk taking and creative risk taking in design Defining Creativity A Novel and Appropr iate Consensus Creativity is a complex and multifaceted topic with many debated issues Due to this complexity one may question, how has creativity be en defined and is there a consensus among scholars ? Torrance (1988) explained se definition difficulty putting it into words ( p. 43). Runco and Sakamoto (1999) noted efinition (p. 62) Although a universal definition of creativity is still needed, m ost scholars agree that creativity involves the creation of a final solution or product that is both novel and appropriate (Amabile, 1983 1996 ; Torr a nce, 1988). Novelty that the idea or contribution

PAGE 18

18 Beghetto, 2004, p. 157). Plucke r and Beghetto (2004) explained that products and solutions are not considered creative unless they display both no velty and appropriateness novel, not creative. Likewise, that which is useful but is not novel, unique, or original is In fact, Amabile (1996) e xplained that is most likely to be useful for empirical research is one grounded in an examination of products (p. 33). ed by most creativity Common Framework: The Four P s The four P s, person, process, product and press ( environment ) are conceptual approaches or lenses often used by scholar s to categorize and understand creativity (Torra nce, 1993, p. 232). This framework first proposed by Mooney (1963) wa s used to clarif y and identify different approaches to the study of creativity found in the literature The person approach looks at identifying personality traits and behaviors w hich denote creative pe ople The process approach looks at the decisions and actions of the creator while problem solving ; it examines how changes and interventions during the process can positively or negatively impact creative solutions The product approach emphasizes the creative solution and its acceptance or rejection by the field. The la st approach of press, ( environment ) focuses on cultural and their impact on creative problem solving (Mooney, 1963) While each of the four categorie s has a specific focus all parts

PAGE 19

19 interact to either suppor t or impede creativity. Rhodes (1987) define d ea ch category in succinct relation to the other : the person creating, the processes involved in the creation, the environment where the creativity occurs, and the product that is the outcome of the creative ac tivity and subject to scrutiny by the field The Creativity Personality Trait Based Approaches Research into the creative personality is extensive, in fact Amabile (1996) stated has been on Feist (1999) explain ed intriguing issue raised with regard to personality and creativity is the potential causal link between the two domains he maintain ed luence on creative Personality s tudies have led to the discovery of multiple core traits th at comprise creative individuals. Barron and Harrington (1981) found creative individuals to possess traits such as broa d interests, attraction to complexity, high energy, independence of judg ment, autonomy, intuition, self confidence and Sternberg (1988) found that the creative personality exhibits a high tolerance of ambigui ty, willingness to overcome obstacles, willingness to grow, intrinsic motivation, risk taki ng, and desire of recognition. Interestingly, p aradoxical characteristics often characterize creative individual s Cskszentmihlyi (1996) described the creative in dividual as complex with the ability to contain extremes that are contradictory whereas most individuals usually develop one pole of a specific trait In his classic study of creative architects MacKinnon (1962) also found paradoxical traits especially

PAGE 20

20 difference between the low an d high creative architects was perceiving and judging and attraction to complexity Low creative architects were significant ly more prone to judgment than higher creative arc hitects who preferred perceiving. H igh creative architects also achieve the most difficult and far compared to a lower desire of complexity for l ess creative architects (MacKinnon, 1962, p. 30) Five Factor Model While tra it based research has helped to define t he gam ut of the creative personality one standardized model for describing human personality has rece ived growing attention in psychological research. Feist (1998) personality has recently wi tnessed a relatively well agreed upon standardization of the (p. 292) The study of personality analysis was prompted by suggestion that personality could be defined by five d istinguishable factors This led to (Digman, 1990, p. 418 ) The body of k nowledge in the field of personality developed from studies using language analysis and que stionnaires The analysis of language led to large pools of terms used to describe personality traits while t he questionnaire approach allowed for more concise and objective organization of thousands of terms identified by language analysis (Digman, 1990) Language analysis and the questionnaire approach eventually merged and formed the contemporary F ive F actor M odel (FFM) ( John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988; Digman, 1990; McCrae & John

PAGE 21

21 1992). After much debate by researchers and scholars the five trai ts have become typically referred to as (I) E xtraversion vs. i ntroversion described as assertive and energetic vs. reserved, (II) A greeableness described as good natured, cooperative, and trustful; (III) C onscientiousness defined as dependable, responsible and orderly (IV) N euroticism vs. emotional stability; (V) O penness designated as flexibility of thought; (John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988; Digman, 1990). The FFM has been analyzed by human personality can be adequately described (Digman, 1990, p. 420). Despite consensual support for the FFM some discrepancies have emerged regarding the (Digman, 1990, p. 420) The five constructs, sometimes vary with semantic differences produced by varying researchers Some of those differences include likeability vs agreeableness, social adaptability vs. extraversion, or will to achieve vs. conscientiousness ( Digman, 1990). Al thou gh differences exist among naming convention s of the five constructs, t he wide ly adopt ed terms of the FFM in the psychology include : Neuroticism, E xtraversion, O penness, Agreeableness, and C onscientiousness (Feist, 1999) These dimensions are collections of specific cognitive, affective, and behavioral tendencies (Costa & McCrae, 1995 p. 23) McCrae and Costa (2010), further describe d the terms used in the FFM and their personality assessments the NEO inventories, as Neuroticism (N) which contrasts adjustment or emotional stability with maladjustment ; those who are high in N are prone to irrational ideas, and are less able to cope with stress and impulses ( p. 19) Those who score low in N are emotionally stable, calm, and even tempered, they can

PAGE 22

22 fa ce stressful situations without being upset or overwhelmed. Extroverts (E) prefer large groups, are sociable, assertive, and talkative. They like excitement and stimulation they also usually have a cheerful disposition. At the other end of the spectrum, introverts are reserved, independent, and even paced. A misconception is that introverts are unhappy and pessimistic ; however they just do not have the same fervor and liveliness as an extrovert. C haracteristics associated with O penness (O) are active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, and preference for variety, intellectual curiosity, and independence of judgment. These individuals are rientially especially related to aspects of intelligence such as divergent thinking (McCrae & Costa, 2010, p. 20). Agreeableness (A) (McCrae & Costa, 2010, p. 20) An a greeable individual is altruistic sympathetic, and eager to help. Those who score low in agreeablen ess are usually antagonistic, egocentric, skeptical, and competitive. The se traits should not always be vi ewed as negative; the ability to disagree and fight for an idea is often useful in professions such as the arts science s Costa, 2010, p. 20). Finally, C ons cientious (C) individuals have self control, and (McCrae & Costa, 2010, p. 20) Although this trait can lead to achievement

PAGE 23

23 F ive F actor M odel a nd t he Creative Personality The FFM, has help ed to clarify basic personality traits; however, studies that use the FFM to define the creative personality are still needed and are slowly emerging (Batey & Furnham, 2006). Feist (1999) explained the strongest relationship is formed between O penness and creativity. Feist (1998) conducted a study on creative scientists versus non creative scientist s and artists and non artists Creative scientists were found to have positive correlations with Extraversion and O penness. Artists were found to be nega tively correlated with C onscientiousness and positively correlated with O penness (Feist, 1998). Batey and Furnham (2006) found that across various personality tests E xtraversion was predictive of creativity and N euroticism inhibits creativity in science b ut improves creativity in artistic domains. The NEO PI assess the five factors of personality : N e uroti cism, Extraversion, Openness Agreeableness, and C onscientiousness (Batey, Chamorro Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010, p. 92). Many studies have been found that use the NEO PI R yet, very few have directly examined the relationship between creativity and the FFM ; however, two studies were found that employ ed the NEO PI R in various capacities to study creativity. Batey, Chamorro Premuzic, and Furnham (20 10) used the NEO PI R in their study of ideational behavior personality, and intellect The study was conducted on undergraduate students of an introductory personality psychology course at a British University (p. 93) There was a posit ive correlation between Ideational B ehavior and O penness and a negative correlation b etween I deatio nal B ehavior and C onscientiousness F indin gs also revealed several subscales that correlated with

PAGE 24

24 Ideational Behavior. For e xample; angry h ostility positively correlated and v ulnerability negatively correlated with Ideational Behavior (both subscales of Neuroticism ); a esthetics and i deas positively correlated while a ctions negatively correlated with Ideational Behavior (all subscales of Openness ) Finally, c ompetence was positively correlated and d eliberation was negative ly correlated with I deational B ehavior (both a subscale of Conscientiousness ) ( Batey, Chamorro Premuzic, and Furnham, 2010 ) Another study by Harris (2004) used portions of the NEO PI R. The study Measured intelligence, achievement, openness to experience, and creativity used the ideas subscale of O penness and self discipline a subscale of C onscientiousness Her study looked at undergraduates from a psychology course. The i deas subscale was used to measure O penness and self discipline was used to measure achievement. The study found stronger correlations between Openness and I ntelligence tha n Achievement and I ntelligence. Further studies into creativity using the NEO PI R will help to solidify the use of the FFM in creativity literature focused on personality traits. Limitations of Solely Tra it Based Approaches Research by scholars (Gruber, 1988; Eysenck, 1997; Feist, 1999) into creative personality traits is important to understanding the concept of creativity more thoroughly ; however, models of creativity based solely on personality traits d o not fully explain creative risk are also subjected to social and environmental influences ; therefore, i t is an unrealistic approach to define creativity by personality traits alone Despite the clear research have focused almost exclusively on a personality approach t o creativity (Amabile, 1983, p. 357). Both Amabile (1983, 1996) and Cskszentmihly i (1988a,

PAGE 25

25 1996 1999) emphasize the important role of social and environmental factors in creativity scholarship Amabile (1983) explained, the creative person has been studied to the expense of creative situations, intrinsic determinants have been resear c hed with inattention to extrinsic determinants and finally genetic factors have been examined with inattention to s ocial environment al factors W hile the significance of the personality should not be ignored it is imperative to acknowledge that other fa ctors contribute to creativity. In fact, Sternberg and Lubart to produce a creative outcome (p. 10). Cskszentmihlyi ( 1996 creativity can be observed only in the interrelations of a system confluence model that includes the environment that the creative individual works within (Amabile, 1996; Cskszentmih lyi, 1988a; Sternberg & Lubart, 1992 1996). Creative Environment Amabile (1996) developed a componential model of creativity seeded in social psychology. There is very little research that looks at social and environmental influences on creativity; the historical tendency of researchers is to compartmentalize and narrow their studies to one concern. The field of social psychology does not claim to be an all inclusive answer to the complexities of creativity, rather an integration (Amabile, 1996) Amabi cognitive, and social factors that produce favorable conditions for creative performance. The componential framework includes : domain relevant skills, creativity relevant skills, and task m otivation.

PAGE 26

26 Domain relevant skills are the skills an individual needs to be competent in a particular field ; they can include factual knowledge, technical skills, and other distinctive talents. Creativity relevant skills can be applied across multiple doma ins, rely on an individual to have creative personality traits, and allow them to take on new perspectives to a problem. Task motivation includes the motivational variables that help 1990). These three components operate at different levels of specificity. Creativity relevant skills are most general; these are skills necessary for creativity in any domain. Domain relevant skills require more specificity and are those necessary for c reativity to occur in a specific domain (Amabile, 1996). The last component, the most specific, task motivation pertains to the motivation for a particular task within a given d model differs from other systems theories due its strong focus on task motivation. A significant amount of her research foc uses ds a greater level of explanation and detail (Amabile, 1996, p. 107). intrinsic motivation and creative performance (Hennessey & Amabile, 1988, p. 11) Intrinsically motivated be most creative wh en they feel motivated primarily by the interest, enjoyment, satisfaction and challenge of the work itself & Amabile 1988, p. 11). At the opposite end of the spectrum certain types of extrinsic motivation can poten tially have detrimental effects on creative performance (Collins & Amabile, 1999). Research has led to an understanding of two types of extrinsic

PAGE 27

27 motivation those that are controlling and those that are informational. Controlling extrinsic motivation is negative and detrimental to creativity ; however, informational extrinsic motivation can enable an individual to be more creative (Collins & Amabile, 1999). Constraints caused by extrinsic motivation can be either social or physical including: evaluation, rewards, task constraints, peer and authoritative figures, and physical classroom or workplace climates (Amabile, 1996). Content analysis of previous research led Amabile to develop a list of several stimulants of creative behavior (Amabile, 1996). Freed om in what or how to perform a task Sufficient resources Encouragement: of new ideas, an environment free of threats Recognition: creative work will get feedback, recognition, and reward Challenge: task that the individual sees as a personal sense of chall enge Pressure: internally generated The same analysis also led to a list of environmental obstacles of creativity. Little regard for innovation Lack of freedom in what or how to perform task Lack of organizational support, interest, or faith Inappropriate or inequitable evaluation and feedback, focus on criticism In sufficient resources Insufficient time to think creatively, to o large of a workload Overemphasis on Status Quo: unwillingness to take risks Competition that creates a self defensive attitude C reative individuals must negotiate paradoxical ob s tacles that surface in their work Some of t hese obstacles and concerns include : evaluation and recognition vs. rejecting societal demands and criticism, external rewards vs. competition ( Hennessey & Amabi le, 1988). For example, the creative individual often displays an internal locus of control and does not need approval from other s in order to proceed and find value in

PAGE 28

28 their work however it is ultimately approval from the intended audience that would de em the work creative and appropriate. Emerging Systems Theories Cskszentmihlyi ( 1996 sociocultural contex become increasingly clear that variables external to the individual must be considered if one wishes to explain why, when, and from where new ideas or products arise and become establ The first component proposed by Cskszentmihly omain ; a domain is defined by rules, processes, procedures, and instructions. A n example of a domain would be a rt and the d ifferent movements and styles of art would be subdomains (Abuhamdeh &Cskszentmihlyi, 2004, p. 33). Creativity cannot be in which it exists. Innovation and creative I t must (Cskszentmihlyi, 1999, p. 315). In other words, without pattern or reference to the old, one canno t possibly know what is new and original N ew is meaningful only in old ; therefore, a creative risk is also only definable in reference to what has been done in the past (Cskszentmihlyi, 1999, p. 315). When an idea or product is modified or is added to a domain then it can be considered creative. ield, relates to the social aspect as well. The field is defined as gatekeepers to a given domain that either accepts or rejects a new product or idea (Abu hamdeh & Cskszentmihlyi, 2004). The

PAGE 29

29 as teachers, critics, and historians (Cskszentmihlyi, 1999 p. 315 ). Good ideas are not always accepted by the audiences they are intended for. A creative idea or product rts (Cskszentmihlyi, 1988 b, p 62) Likewise, creative risks will be evaluated by the field, ultimately leading to acceptance or rejection. Cskszentmihlyi (1999) an idea is nothing more than an id ea, not a creative contribution (p. 314) The final component ndividual. When an individual develops a product or idea within a domain and it is accepted by the field only then is it considered creative and adopted by the domain (Abuhamdeh & Cskszentmihlyi, 2004). Cskszentmihlyi (1988 a ) proposed in his model, ic ; he explained the connections between the person, field, and ent s creative process (p. 329). It is possible to begin at any location within this model rather than always beginning with t he individual, this is due to information from the domain being required to exist long before the creative individual This information was stored in the culture of the domain. Also, the field is made up of individuals; these roles are privileged as gatekeepers and as such they may have a higher chance of incorporating change into a domain (Cskszentmihlyi, 1988 a ). T he field and/or the domain can also directly stimulate new ideas thus again proving that although the main trend is to begin at the person, creativity can start in one of the other two systems as well. His model

PAGE 30

30 also represent ed a spiral in cultural evol 1988 a p. 333). Creativity is not merely the outcome of an individual it is the result of social institutions or the fiel d, a cultural domain, and finally, the individual who brings a creative change to both the field and the domain for acceptance. The Role of Risk Taking Risk Taking Defined Risk is the outcome of a decision whethe Sitkin & Pablo, 1992, p. 10). Risk taking is rejecting the strictures and pursuing the unkno wn or the uncertain (Farley, 1986 ). Although, easily defined, risk and risk at often intertwines : propensity or attitude, situation or domain, and personality ( Slovic 1964, p. 228; Kogan & Wallach, 1967 ; Jackson, Hourany, and Vidmar, 1972). Mindsets and attitudes contribute to one s choices and decisions towards risk. MacCrimm on and Wehrung (1985) explained that two components exist in risk taking: the extrinsic riskiness of a situation and the intrinsic willingness of the individual to take a risk. Risk attitude is a mind set towards taking or avoiding risk in a situation, co mmonly called risk propensity and risk aversion (Rohrmann, 2002 ). Due to the studies must be furthered to find systematic differences in risk attitudes (MacCrimmon & Wehru ng, 1985). In some research risk taking has been treated as a concept able to be generalized across situations rather than multi faceted notion It has been conceived as d

PAGE 31

31 embody situational specifics within a trans situational framework (Jackson, et al. 1972, p. 48 5 ). Jacks on, et al. (1972) found that risk taking can be organized into four categories : 1) monetary, 2) physic al, 3) social, and 4) ethical. M onetary risk involve s financial gain or loss ; physical risk relates to adventurous activities that could lead to bodily injury ; social risk may involve embarrassment loss of social s tatus or esteem; while ethical risk involves compromis ing one s standards or values to achieve a goal. Another approach to risk taking focuses on the individual and their personality type. Farley (1991 ) developed what he called the Type T personality, in dividuals that seek thrills, stimulation, excitement and take s risks The type t is a biologically based over time. The type T personality is composed of both a negative and destructive side as well as a positive and constructive side. The positive and negative dimensions form a continuum with some stimulation and risk taking as positive ( i.e. arts and sciences ) and some as negative ( i.e. drug taking and theft ) (Farley, 1991) There are Big T (also known as Type T) individuals a nd Small t individuals. These individuals have varying motivating factors for example, Big high risk, novelty, complexity and ambiguit y; small predictability, low risk, familiarity, clarity, and structure (Farley, 1991) There is also another dimension to the Type T (thrill seeker) personality : T mental, T physical, and T balance (Farley, 1991 ) T physical types seek physical stimulation, while T mentals primarily seek cognitive or intellectual stimulation. A T balance type is as implied, the balance of the two mental and physical ( Morehouse, Farley, and Youngquist, 1990 ).

PAGE 32

32 Most psychological phenomena ar (Farley, 1991, p. 373). Another interpretation would be how people risk or what people risk, either physical or intellectual /social. T physical individuals are those who seek exhilaration for physical risk s, such as skydiving. T mental types would be those who seek intellectual risks in daily and/or scholarly settings. T positive and negative concepts cover behavior and the T mental and physical cover the domain in which risk taking behavior takes place ( Farley, 1991) Creative Risk Taking Defined Risk Creative risk taking can be understood as a social risk that opens one up to evaluatio n and criticism (Jackson, et al., 1972). T o engage in creative effor ts is c reative individuals do not have ; i deas that are new or different are (Dewett, 2004, p. 258 259 ) Creative risks can lead to failure which may lead one to abandon rather than push their idea forward Dewett (2004) explained f we are to understand how an employee might consistently engage in we must develop a theoretical understanding of the mechanism that drives their (p. 259) (2004) study of creative effort and risk taking in the workplace parallel s the study of creative risk taking in education and design studios. To taking w e need to understand the perceptions and motivation s towards creative risk taking Understanding on risks is a precursor to creative efforts or creative risks. W illingness to take risks

PAGE 33

33 positive job related (Dewett, 2 004, p. 260) W illingness to take risks is a relatively new construct in creativity literature used to (Dewett, 2004 p. 260 ) At the opposite end of the spectrum r isk aversion is the idea that most people avoid risks still in hopes of outcomes that will yield the same or better results (Larri c k, 1993). (1989) Adaptor Innovator Theory (AI) identifies two types of creative personalities Adaptors and Innovators. Adaptors typically re ly on well accepted paradigms. The characteristic adaptor is left brained, is less tolerant of ambiguity and displays numerous safe keeping traits They are also typically more introverted, humble, conscientious, controlled, and anxious (Kirt on, 1989 ) In contrast t he characteristic innovator is more right brained, self confident, is often impractical, unpredictable and displays numerous risk taking traits (Kirton, 1989 ) Organizations need innovators in order to survive and stay in ranks w ith competition; likewise, organizations need adaptors to implement ideas while avoid ing unnecessary and non productive risk (Kirton, 1989). Kirton (1989) stressed that the personality traits of adaptors and innovators exist on a continuum and that one pr eference is not pejorative, nal 261 ) Unsworth (2001) developed a typology that identified different forms of creativity ; the typology includes responsive, contributory, expected,

PAGE 34

34 an d proactive creativity based on driver s and problem type Dewett (2004) mo dified pe of creativity Responsive creativity is a situation where employees respond to an that has a known or accept ed which involves a low perceived risk. Expected creativity also responds to an discovered open ended problem and involves modest perceived risk. Contributory creativi risk is also modest. The searching for open (Dewett, 20 04, p. 261) Open problems and internal drivers cause higher levels of perceived risk vs. closed problems and e x ed with p reviously forged paths or typical solutions (Dewett, 2004, p.262) An internal driver is intrinsically generated by the creator and does not rely on external prompts or suggestions. Conversely, e be role of intrinsic (Dewett, 2004, p.262) While t hese different types of risk and their influence on willingness to t ake risks have been applied in an organizational setting s they can be used to draw similar conclusions on willingness to take risks in educational setting s Studies Examining C reative R isk Taking Dewett (2007) lative to risk taking and creativity remains largely unexplored in applied settings However, a few

PAGE 35

35 studies have been conducted. Using 165 employee and supervisor pairs from a private R&D organization in the Southwest United States Dewett (2007) examined links between intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativ ity and common creativity antecedents such as, encouragement, autonomy, self efficacy and openness to experience Employee creativity was based on ratings of creative behavior determined by supervisors, as well as objective measures such as awards, patent applications, invention disclosures, etc. Dewett (2007) made two hypot hes es: 1) that i ntrinsic motivation would mediate the influence of encouragement, autonomy, self effica cy, and openness on an emplo that a to take risks is link ed to intrinsic motivation and employee creativity. first h ypothesis was supported with significant relationships of encourageme nt and self efficacy. Hypothesis two was also supported i ntrinsic motivation was found to significantly influenc e employee willingness to take risks This study made three important contributions to the cr eativity body of literature 1) it demonstrated t he importance of intrinsic motivation in an applied setting, 2) it provide d evidence that the effect of intrinsic motivation on creativity is spread through an increased willingness to take risks, 3) the pattern of findings varies due to the type of creati vity indicator that is used (Dewett, 2007) While study produce d useful information pertaining to creative risk taking in organizational settings few, if any other studies have specifically examined creativ e risk taking in education. Scope of S tudy More studies are needed that examine creativity and risk taking from a systems perspective (Amabile, 1983, 1990, 1996; Cskszentmihlyi, 1988 a 1996, 1999); therefore, the current study endeavored to examine creative risk taking across person,

PAGE 36

36 process and press. Trait based research has revealed the connection personality plays in creativity and thus creative risk taking (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Feist, 1999) ; therefore, a standardized personality assessment based on the Five Factor Model ( FFM ) was used to profile these traits. Following Kirton (1976, 1987, 1989) the current study assumes that both safe keeping and risk taking traits play an essential role in the creative problem solving process. Relating personality to system wide influences, t he study also employed a locally developed survey and interview protocol that assessed perceptions of studio climate, projects, and processes as they relate to creative risk taking. Finally, studies are needed that examine creativity and risk taking in app lied (Dewett, 2007) and domain specific settings (Cskszentmihlyi 1996). The current study addresses this call by examining creative risk taking in an applied educational setting with a nationally accredited interior design program.

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOG Y This study was designed to reveal springboards and barriers to creative risk taking perceived by in terior design students in their studio courses. A standardized psychometric instrument was used to profile personality while a locally developed survey an d interview protocol identified pe rceptions and tendencies toward creative risk taking. A second survey was created for faculty, as field experts, to rank their perception o f each creative risk taking ( Appendix C, D, and E ). C ontent analysis of the student survey was used to identify perceived springboards and barriers of creative risk ta king in the studio environment. Content analysis of the interviews further identif ied perceptual differences between safe keepers and risk takers Figure 3 1 is a m odel reflecting the design of this study. Participants Students The student sample ( n =66 ) include d sophomore ( n=21 ) junior ( n=23 ) and senior ( n=22 ) undergraduate interior design students enrolled in their respective Spring 2011 studio courses at t he University of Florida, a Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) accredited program. Due to the large proportion (91.7%) of female students enrolled in CIDA accredited programs male students could not be effectively studied and were not includ ed in the quantitative data set (C ouncil for I nterior D esign A ccreditation 2010) Faculty The faculty sample include d six professors who teach interior design studio courses. The faculty members include d five tenure track faculty and one licensed

PAGE 38

38 profes sional a djunct professor with a in interior design. The faculty have educational backgrounds in architecture, interior design, art history, fine arts, and historic preservation Instruments Assessing Student Personality Traits with the NEO P ersonality Inventory R evised The NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO PI R) is one of a series of instruments developed by McCrae and Cost a to profile personality traits ; namely, Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N), Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C) and Agreeableness (A) These main traits or domains are typically referred to using capitalization. A different version of the instrument, t he NEO PI 3 is used when assessing individuals 12 and older, it is a modification to the NEO PI R to allow for the inclusion of a younger sample and adults with lower education levels. The NEO Five Factor Inventory 3 (NEO FFI 3) is a shortened version of the NEO PI R allowing for a fast and reliable measure of the five personality dimensions. It can be used when a limited time frame is available and only a broad assessment of personality traits are needed (McCrae & Costa, 2010) The NEO PI R was selected for this study based on age, education level, and desired range of personality traits. There are two forms of the instrument, the Rater (R) and Self (S); this research used the S form, to be completed by each of the students based up on their self rating The instrument is 240 questions long, and uses a 5 point Likert scale (Weiner & Greene, 2008) Costa and McCr ae developed the NEO PI R specifically to assess the five main dimensions of person ality (Rossier, Stedelhofen, & Berthoud, 2004). They began their research using cluster analy sis on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Duri ng this analysis two major dimensions of personality traits

PAGE 39

39 were identified Extraversion and N euroticism Extraversion assesses the extent and intensity of interaction for example need for stimulation and capacity for Neuroticis m distress, coping abilities, and cravings ( Leong & Dollinger, 1990, p. 527). A third dimension Openness was also identified during their research; this dimension considers open or closed t o stances towards experiences Costa and McCrae felt the Openness dimension was not measured adequately by the 16PF ; therefore, t hey developed the Experienc e Inventory (EI) to measure this dimension using multiple subscale s Openness measured by the EI b ecame the third dimension in the personality trait construct and was added to Neuroticism and Extroversion to become the NEO PI Inventory. The use of subscale s on the Openness dimension proved so sound that subscale s were developed and integrated in Neuro ticism and Extroversion (Leong & Dollinger, 1990) With the growing popularity of the Five Factor Model Costa and McCrae developed and integrated the last two dimensions Agreeableness and Conscientiousness to the inventory and it became the NEO PI R (Ros sier, Stedelhofen, and Berthoud, 2004). The Agreeableness and Conscientiousness dimensions were added to the inventory based on factor analysis research by Norman (1963) and Goldberg (1981) Their research indicated five factors that span ned adult person alities, also known as the Five Factor Model ( FFM ) mentioned earlier The revised NEO inventory now known as the NEO PI R measures the five dimensions of the FFM and six subscale s for each dimension (Leong & Dollinger, 1990). The dimensions and subsca le s of the NEO PI R include : Neuroticism ( anxiety, hostility, depression, self consciousness, impulsiveness, vulnerability ), Extraversion ( warmth, gregariousness,

PAGE 40

40 assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, positive emotions ), Openness ( fantasy, aesthetic s, feelings, actions, ideas, value s ), Agreeableness ( trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, tender mindedness ), and Conscientiousness ( competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self discipline, deliberation ) (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These five scales and their six subscales give a comprehensive review of personality in normal adults. The NEO PI R reports good internal reliability (Weiner & Greene, 2008). The self rating forms have excellent d imension level reliabilities or a coefficient alpha of .86 to .92 and subscale level reliabilities at .56 to 81 Median reliabilities for each d imension include: Neuroticism .76, Extraversion .73, O penness .715, Agreeableness .70, and Conscientiousness .67 (Tinsley, 1994) Test retes t scores ranged from .75 to .83 and averaged .79 for the five scales The standard error of measurement on the five scales is +/ 4T points two thirds of the time (Weiner and Greene, 2008). NEO PI R norms are a good representation of the general populati on as it comes from a sample of 1000 (500 men and 500 women) stratified to match the 1995 U.S. Census for age, gender, and race (Botwin 1996 ) The NEO PI R scales demo n strate validity in multiple ways. Strong consensual validity exists between the differ ent report forms of the test: self, peer, and spouse (Botwin, 1996) This type of validation is often hard to obtain but is a trademark of the NEO PI R and aids to dispel objections about self perception bias (Leong & Dollinger, 1990 p. 532 ). The NEO PI R scales also correlate with analogous scales of other well known instruments such as the

PAGE 41

41 Meyers Briggs Type Indicator, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Adjective Check List, and the Cal ifornia Psychological Inventory (Botwin, 1996). Finally, c oncurrent validity also has been found between the five dimensions and the adjective rating scale the validities ran ged from .57 to .64 (Leong & Dollinger 1990 ). The authors of the NEO caution against simplistic interpretation of the scales ; the scales represent continuous dimensions or a continuum with extreme poles for each dimension For example, one should not category. Individuals that score high or low in a d imension Dollinger, 1990, p. 530). The five d imensions The se five d imension s and the original 18 subscale s have good internal consistency and co nvergent and discriminat e validity. The most recently added 12 subscale s have adequate validity ; however, they have less internal consistency and lower convergent and discriminant validity. Regardless, of these minor criticisms the NEO PI R has an Dollinger, 1990, p. 537). Tinsley (1994) support ed assessment of normal adult personality a standard set of useful t ools for personality assessment in, 1996, p. 86 3). The NEO PI R is a reliable and well

PAGE 42

42 instrument that rep resents a comprehensive operational translation of the Five Factor 1996, p. 86 7). There were no time constraints for the students to complete the inventory ; however most students completed it in 45 minutes. Scoring for the NE O PI R was done by calculating raw scores for each participant using a tally sheet included with each rating packet. Using the raw scores multiple analyses were run on Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 19). Assessing the Studio Climate for Creative Risk taking A survey was developed for the current study to assess willingness to take creative risks in their current studio environment ( Appendix C ). The survey was 17 quest ions in length and included items using 5 and 7 point Likert rating scale s and open ended questions. Question topics included : task /project process /procedures self and environment (physical and social) ( Fig ure 3 1 ). Students were not restricted by a time limit to complete the survey ; however most participan ts compl eted it within a 30 minute time frame. Th rough content analysis and scaled questions the survey provided qualitat ive and quantitative information. Assessing Creative Risk Taking Performance : Identifying Safe Keepers and Risk Takers The faculty par ticipants were asked to complete a survey about creative risk in their studio courses (Appendix D). The survey asked faculty to identify each pro pensity to take creative risk s by ranking them as a high, average, or low creative r isk taker D they were asked to complete the survey on their own time and return it to the researcher when completed.

PAGE 43

43 The faculty survey provide d qualitative information gathered through content analysis and quantit a tive information provided by scaled questions. Assessing Differences among Safe Keepers and Risk Taker s I nterview questions were developed to gain further qualitative information from safe keep ing and risk tak ing students S tudents (3) safe keepers a nd (3) risk takers from each cohort (sophomore senior) were selected to the complete the interview. These student s were selected by combining scores from their self rankings and professor rankings. A total of 18 students 27% of the total sample, were i nterviewed. The interview protocol include d a series of qualitative open ended questions Interview questions were based on findings of questions three and four of the student creative risk taking survey (all students participated in survey) (Appendix C) Answers from question three and four of the student survey produced categories in which interview questions were organized. The questions included: 3) W hat hinders or would hinder your ability to take creative risks in your studio projects ? and 4) What facilitates or would facilitate your ability to take creative risks in your studio projects? The interview questions were de signed to delve deepe r into the process the students take during their projects and what they felt influenced their ability to tak e creative risks The interview process was not timed ; however most student interviews were completed within 30 minutes. The student interviews were transcribed and content analy zed to identify emerging themes. Procedures Data collection took place in t he spring 2011 semester in three stages ; stage one during week 7, 8, and 9 ; stage two during week 6, 7, and 8 ; and stage three during week 12 and 13

PAGE 44

44 Stage 1 : E ach professor was contacted to set up optimal times for data collection to minimize conflict s with assignment due dates in their courses. The researcher attend ed a studio course of each level (sophomore senior) to administer both the NEO PI R and the student survey on the same day. Students were presented with the informed consent procedure, wh ich cover ed anon ymity and that any type of participation would not affect st udio course grades Professors were not present during the completion of both the personality inventory and the survey t o further provide anonymity to the students who volunteer ed for the study. T he last half of the studio course 1.5 hours was dedicated to the inventory and survey completion First s tudents were given the NEO PI R to complete When they completed the inventory they returned it to the researcher who then gave t he student the risk taking survey When each student completed the ir survey they returned it to the researcher and were given a brochure to thank them for their participation. St udents who were absent from class were individu ally approached to t ake the inventory and survey at a later time This procedure was completed in a private room in the same manner as the scheduled procedure. Stage 2 : The second stage involved the faculty survey E ach professor was given the survey via email or their office mail to complete. The survey included directions a short description of purpose and an informed consent form Upon completion the professors either returned the s urvey via email or to the researcher personally. Stage 3 : T he thir d stage involved the student interviews. Students were selected based on self and faculty ratings of their creative risk taking propensity Each s elected student was emailed a request to schedule a private interview with the researcher.

PAGE 45

45 Safe keepers and risk takers f rom each studio completed their interviews during two scheduled days The two days schedul ed for each cohort, sophomore senior, resulted in six total days of interviews. Students participate d in the interview in a separate room during class time Limitations Study Design This study was cross sectional in design. This type of design does not allow for students to be followed throughout the trajectory of their education Although, research has shown personality traits to be relatively stable study would be beneficial to understand developmental milestones to creative risk taking Sample and Domain Other l imitation s to this study include d sample gender, domain specificity, a nd case Due to the high percent age of females enrolled in accredited programs nation wide, 91.7% according to CIDA program studies, studying creative risk taking in a sample of male interior design students was not within the study scope (Council for Interior Design Accreditation, 2010) Although findings of this study may translate to other design disciplines the findings should be viewed as domain specific to undergradu ate interior design education. Finally, this is only one case on a topic that needs much more replication through re search. Instrument The form rated form of the NEO PI R was used for this study. Since this is a self report instrument findings may reflect personal bias. Individuals may score themselves as they wish to see themselves rather than a s a true r epresentation of their

PAGE 46

46 personality. Students were also aware of the topic of the research, creative risk taking, and could have appropriated their responses on both the profile and survey to what they thought the researcher was looking for. Anticipating bias, professor rankings of students assisted in the selection of safe keeping and risk taking students. Both the surveys and interview protocol for this study were not standardized and were developed by the primary investigator. The student survey was pilot tested to receive feedback on question type and format. These instruments would benefit from additional iterations to improve questions to more closely obtain desired information. Assumptions The current study utilizes f ive assumptions that have bee n set forth by previous researchers. First, it is assumed that a continuum of creativity exists, meaning that ose that are seen in everyday life. Second, also related to this spectrum are the degrees of creativity exhibit within all of the work they produce. Their work may demonstration different levels of creativity, not every work or idea produced leads to high levels of creativity. The third assumption is that everyone can be creative; therefore, creativity can be a learned behavior Fourth, certain personality traits have been found to exist in highly creative individuals (Amabile, 1996). Fina (1976, 1987) research on adaptors and innovators, it is assumed a continuum of creative risk taking exists. Risk taking is assumed to be beneficial to the development of creative solutions ; however, too much risk taking can be coun terproductive and inhibit the implementation of a design solution. The role of safe keeping is therefore seen as an equally vital part of the design process

PAGE 47

47 Neuroticism Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Student NEO PI R Personality Assessment Studio Survey Student Perception Faculty Perception of Students Work Format Time Constraints Task Type Evaluation Motivation Environment Personal skills and abilities Interview Protocol Safe Keeping R isk T aking Safe Keepers & Risk Takers Figure 3 1. Research study design.

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Question 1 : What personality traits a ssociated with creative risk t aking do i nterior isplay? How d o interior design students compare to normative p opulations? Z tests were conducted to compare the sample to population norms on the NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO PI R) (McCrae & Costa, 2010) The r esulting z tests are presented in Table 4 1. The z test s indicated that the sample ( n =66 ) displayed significantly high er levels on Neuroticism ( z=2.52, p<.05 ) and two of its subscales ; a nxiety ( z= 4.12, p<.05 ) and i mpulsiveness ( z=2.65, p<.05 ) The sample also displayed significant ly higher levels on E xtraversion ( z=6.49 p<.05 ) and five of its subscales; g regariousness ( z=5.70, p<.05 ), a s sertiveness ( z=3.05, p<.05 ), a ctivity ( z=1.98, p<.05 ), e xcit e ment seeking ( z=8.96, p<.05 ), and p ositive emotions ( z=4.70, p<.05 ). Similarly, the sample displayed significantly high er levels on O penness ( z=7.58, p<.05 ) and five of its subscales; f a ntasy ( z=7.35, p<.05 ), a es thetics ( z=6.25, p<.05 ), f e elings ( z=4.90, p<.05 ), i deas ( z=6.36, p<.05 ), and v alues ( z=2.12, p<.05 ). The sample also displayed significantly higher levels o n two Conscientiousness subscales; a chievement striving ( z=2.82, p<.05 ) and d eliberation ( z=2.58, p<.05 ) and significantly lower levels on two subscales; d utifulness ( z= 2.58, p<.05 ) and s elf discipline ( z= p<.05 ). Likewise t he sample displayed significantly lower levels of Agreeableness ( z= 4.22, p<.05 ) and four of i t s subscales ; t rust ( z= 5.36 p<.05 ), s traightforwardness ( z= 4.47, p<.05 ) c ompliance ( z= 2.50, p<.05 ) and m odesty ( z= 2.40, p<.05 ). Question 2 : What springboards and barriers to creative risk taking do interior design students perceive in their studio c ourses? Conten t analysis of the

PAGE 49

49 creative risk taking survey respo nses identified six perceived barriers to creative risk taking (Table 4 2) In descending order 37.89% of students reported professor personality / teaching style ; 30.30% identified project characteristics; 28.79% stated evaluation /critique ; 25.76% specif ied their own personality; 16.67% mentioned peers and team interactions ; and finally 15.15% noted their own abilities Conversely, the following springboards to creative risk taking where identified by the sample (Table 4 3) I n descending order 40.91% of students stated professor personality/ teaching style ; 39.39% mentioned project characteristics ; 31.82% identified peers and team interactions ; 7.58% reported the physical environment; 6.06% s pecified evaluations/critiques ; 6.06% stated their own persona lities; and finally 4.55% identified th eir own abilitie s Professor personality/teaching style was recorded as the top category in both, springboards and barriers. Project characteristics ranked second in both categories. Evaluations were also ranked in both categories however it was seen as a barrier by nearly 26% of students and a springboard by only 6%. Peer and team interactions were seen as positive by over 30% of students and negative by almost 17%. A high number of students 26% saw their own pe rsonalities as barriers while only 6% saw their personality as a springboard. Students mentioned their own abilities as barriers and springboards at fairly low levels in both categories 15% and 5% respectively. Lastly, the category of physical environmen t only surfaced as a positive influence. Questio n 3 : What personality differences exist between students i dentified as safe k eepers vs. risk t akers? A survey question, I often take creative risks in my work based on a L ikert scale of 1 to 5 1 being do not agree and 5 being strongly

PAGE 50

50 agree, was used to identify safe keepers and risk takers. A mean split was used to group the sample into safe keep ers ( n=32 ) and risk takers ( n=34 ) A n ANOVA test was performed to reveal significant differences between safe keeping and risk taking groups on the following four NEO scales and subscales : a ctivity ( F (1,64) =8.59, p =.005) a ssertiveness ( F (1,64) =9.462, p =.003) Extraversion ( F (1,64) =6.046, p =.017) and f inally, c ompetence ( F (1,64) =4.2521, p =.043) G regariousn ess ( F (1,64) =3.728, p =.058) was approaching significance and therefore was included in the presented findings (T able 4 4 ). Question 4 : What perceptions of the design process do safe k eeping vs. risk taking students have when designing in their studio c ou rses? D o any differences e merge? Content analysis from transcribed interview data identif ied differences between the safe keep ing and risk tak ing groups (T ables 4 5 4 9 ) Student responses were organized in the following categories: professor person al ities/teaching style, project structure evaluation/critiques, studio teamwork and self perceived personality traits ( Appendix E ). Professor Personality and Teaching Style Safe keepers and risk takers displayed a range of opinions on professor personaliti es and teach ing styles Both safe keeping and risk taking students felt professor personality played significant roles in creative risk taking. Safe keepers want professors to be energetic not R isk significant role in the creative process, they want professors to be critical, motivating,

PAGE 51

51 and excited However, one risk taking student insisted that professor personalities played no role in their creative risk taking Safe keepers wanted professors : are compassionate, explain ideas/help each step of the way, offer positive reinforcement/good feedback, and draw and give ideas. R isk takers wanted professor s that : are not afraid to influence, involve open ended work style s and are critical. Further, s afe keepers listed unfavorable traits of professors as : judgmental/critica l, do not give enough feedback, cannot suggest other R isk takers s uggested an un favorable trait of professors to include getting too involved in projects Finally, safe keeping and risk taking students also varied o n safe keepers wanting structure and routine while risk takers wanted a loose, info rmal or casual teaching style (T able 4 5 ) Projects Safe keepers and risk takers varied in all response categories pertaining to projects. Safe keepers indicated that they prefer more requirements on pr oject s, while r isk takers indicated preference towards loose project structures with broad generalized instructions. Safe keepers need more detail and r isk takers want open ended projects with less detail. Finally, while wo rking on a project safe keepers prefer to meet with their professors more often than risk takers (T able 4 6 ). E valuations / C ritiques Safe keepers and risk takers also varied in their perceptions of evaluations and critiques Safe keeping students said r eceiving a negative critique would hinder them R isk takers said: it would put them back a bit but they would bounce back after get ting a new idea, they would re valuate their decisions

PAGE 52

52 and find a new idea, they also said they like criticism and find it motivating. Students also differed in their preference to have their ideas supported or challenged. Safe keepers said R isk it forces you to be more creati [project/ideas] [my project/idea] f it needs to be challenged I c support your ideas but challenge the way you are thinking about your ideas (T able 4 7 ) Studio Teamwork Students also seemed to assume different roles when working in groups. Safe keepers were contributors, supporters, and tended to question or challenge ideas to make sure they were plausible. R isk takers pushed ideas, were leaders, and combined ideas and strengths of students D ifferences also emerged in team characteristics that hinder creative risk taking and team characteristics that facilitate creative risk taking. Safe keepers found dominant individuals and individuals with similar design approaches as hindrances. R isk takers found partners that just want to get the work done are unreliable and criticize but offer no other solutions as hindrances. C haracteristics of teams that facilitate creative risk taking also varied and include d safe keepers wanti ng people who are organized and responsible. R isk takers wanted people who are passionate and willing to work and people who are free flowing with their ideas and just put themselves out there (T able 4 8 ). Self Perceived Personality Traits Differences also emerged when students were prompted to di scuss self perceived personality traits. Personality traits safe keeping students have that they felt suppor t

PAGE 53

53 creative risk taking i ncluded: a logical and methodical nature and being good at listening to others. Personality traits risk taking students ha ve that they felt support creative risk taking included: being curious, confident, and avoid ing feeling comfortable. Personality traits safe keeping students found that hinder creative risk taking included: too methodical and logical often getting stuck on minor details, they also felt they were not natural risk takers. R isk takers found that sometimes they were too functional and do not think as creatively as they should (T able 4 9 ).

PAGE 54

54 Table 4 1. Personality differences between the sample and NEO PI R norms (n=66) Population Norms Sample Mean SD Mean SD Z value Cohen D Total Neuroticism 83.1 21.7 90.18 20.994 2.52* .33 Anxiety 15.4 5.4 18.31 5.657 4.12* .53 Hostility 12.6 4.8 12.97 5.060 0.59 Depression 12.9 5.6 13.69 5.263 1.09 Se lf Consciousness 15.0 4.5 15.54 4.872 0.91 Impulsive 16.3 4.6 17.87 4.674 2.65* .34 Vulnerable 10.9 4.0 11.88 4.392 1.86 Total Extraversion 110.3 18.4 125.97 19.767 6.49* .82 Warmth 23.6 3.8 24.04 4.378 0.87 Gregariousness 17.0 4.7 20.54 5.30 7 5.70 .71 Assertiveness 15.4 4.8 17.31 4.970 3.05* .39 Activity 17.8 4.4 19.91 3.621 1.98* .28 Excitement Seeking 15.7 5.1 21.69 5.431 8.96* 1.14 Positive 20.8 4.5 23.55 4.503 4.70* .61 Total Openness 111.0 17.2 128.51 21.482 7.58* .90 Fantasy 16.2 5.0 21.10 5.995 7.35 .89 Aesthetics 18.5 5.1 22.64 5.044 6.25 .82 Feelings 20.8 4.1 23.42 4.182 4.90* .63 Actions 16.8 3.6 17.30 4.519 1.03 Ideas 18.2 5.0 22.36 5.227 6.36* .81 Values 20.5 3.8 21.58 4.694 2.12* .25 Total Agreeableness 128.5 14.4 120.27 18.956 4.22* .49 Trust 21.7 4.0 18.81 5.109 5.36 .63 Straightforward 22.2 4.3 19.64 5.095 4.47 .54 Altruism 24.3 3.2 25.01 3.740 1.67 Compliance 19.6 4.1 18.22 5.143 2.50* .30 Modesty 19.7 3.8 18.46 5.103 2.40* .28 Ten der M indedness 21.0 3.1 20.42 4.072 1.38 Total Conscientiousness 122.7 17.8 122.16 22.066 0.23 Competence 21.8 3.5 22.19 3.470 0.86 Order 19.1 4.2 19.01 5.409 0.00 Dutifulness 23.2 3.8 21.91 4.166 2.58* .32 Achieving 19.6 3.9 21.06 4.539 2.82* .35 Self Disciplined 21.7 4.4 19.15 5.617 4.30* .51 Deliberation 17.3 4.3 18.81 5.753 2.58* .30 *p<.05

PAGE 55

55 Table 4 2. B a rriers to creative risk taking perceived by students (n=66) Frequency Total % Professor Personality/Teaching Style n=25 37. 89% Too opinionated/impose personal taste on student projects Reject student ideas/not open to creative ideas Lack of support/lack of guidance Not creative themselves Demanding and strict attitude Focus on technical details vs. concep ts Team teachers that do not agree Teaching style Project Characteristics n=20 30.30% Too many restrictions/guidelines Not enough time/deadlines Cost of materials/out of pocket expense Design elements (i.e. geometries such as angle s are difficult to work with) Evaluation/Critiques n=19 28.79% Negative feedback/criticism Gives low grades for failed creative risks Push/use their own ideas instead of student ideas Does not listen to student during feedback/discussions Criticizes students in front of class My Personality n=17 25.76% Fear of failure/fear others will reject ideas Too realistic when designing Desire to please others Nervous to take creative risks Int erest in the type of project Social Peers & Group members n=11 16.67% Judgment/criticism from peers Close minded/opinionated group member Cautious group member Too much time spent explaining ideas to group members Group members My Abilities n=10 15.15% Lack of creativity/skill set Ideas are too different/too creative Cannot explain ideas/misunderstood S tudents may have listed items in multiple categories Items listed in descending order.

PAGE 56

56 Table 4 3. S pringboards to creative risk taking perceived by students (n=66) Frequency Total % Professor Personality/Teaching Style n=27 40.91% Giving encouragement/support for ideas Open minded Pushing creativity Taking time with students/giving guidance on projec ts Appreciation/encouragement for creative risk taking Giving feedback Giving praise for successful projects Enthusiastic Attitude Having multiple professors Project Characteristics n=26 39.39% Mor e freedom/less guidelines More research, finding precedents/inspirational images More abstract thinking/process work /brainstorming Doing charrettes/break Sufficient amount of time to complete project More time conce ptualizing/more focus on concept Type of project (i.e. competition) Less deadlines/laid back deadlines Open ended project statements More inspiring projects Social Peers & Group members n=21 31.82% Group work/collaboration Around open minded peers Get encouragement/support from peers Relaxed atmosphere Get feedback from peers Competitive atmosphere Group members that help push thinking Physical Environment n=5 7 .58% Access to resources Studio environment Views to nature/daylighting Evaluation/Critiques n=4 6.06% If taking a creative risk would not impact grade My Personality n=4 6.06% Desire to stand out Feel comfortable Interest in p roject My Abilities n=3 4.55% Ability to take project to the next level Skills/Sketching S tudents may have listed items in multiple categories Items listed in descending order.

PAGE 57

57 Table 4 4. T Test results differentiat ing personality traits o f safe keepers vs. r isk takers ( n=66) p Mean (Raw Score) SD n Assertiveness .003 Safe Keepers 15.53 4.945 32 Risk Takers 19.09 4.447 34 Activity .005 Safe Keepers 17.63 3.765 32 Risk Takers 20.12 3.131 34 Extravert (total) .017 Sa fe Keepers 120.06 18.852 32 Risk Takers 131.68 19.479 34 Competence .043 Safe Keepers 21.38 3.405 32 Risk Takers 23.09 3.343 34 Gregariousness .058 Safe Keepers 19.22 5.085 32 Risk Takers 21.71 5.363 34 p > .05

PAGE 58

58 Table 4 5. Intervie w responses on the topic of professor personality and teaching style ( n=18, safe keepers=9, risk takers= 9) Safe Keepers Risk Takers involved it really helps us, we know more of what they want to see and we can de liver that compassionate, just more understanding of and not afraid to influence you advice when you need it instead of trying to steer you a certain way and trying to impose th e when professors are] excited about elps] when [professors] are more compassionate, just more understanding of an issue with the professors not telling me ev erything that they wanted to see in my give you the project and a few directives and let you go do your own research and educate are judgmental and critical going to stand back and do something simple have their opinions and you have to go with th

PAGE 59

59 Table 4 6. Interview responses on the topic of project s ( n=18, safe keepers=9, risk takers= 9) Safe Keepers Risk Takers Do you prefer more structured or unstructured projects? rom iled so I know exactly what I need to going t and there is no routine I get overwhelmed and How often do you like to receive professor desk critiques on a project? ily every class, I ave my ideas (professors) for a week and then sometimes I I

PAGE 60

60 Table 4 7. Interview responses on the topic of evaluation and critique ( n=18, safe keepers=9, risk takers= 9) Safe Keepers Risk Takers How do you feel / respond when you receive a neg ative critique? you do take that risk and it is not applauded down a few steps but the second you come up with another really g ood idea that they like you change it completely, with whatever [the but at the same time it might be opening a new evaluate my decisions and egative critique] I probably would be really cautious the next time around in fear projects so I appreciate when I get criticism it and better and to think of something completely Do you prefer your ideas to be supported or challenged? where I wa s headed was right or my intentions think it is important for people like me I feel difficult and forces you to be more c would prefer to be challenged more so than to help push the design forward that would be ed I can support because you know you are doing something right but if you are not challenged that I would learn mo re if they were your ideas but challenge the way you are

PAGE 61

61 Table 4 8. Interview responses on the topic of studi o teamwork ( n=18, safe keepers=9, risk takers= 9) Safe Keepers Risk Takers What role do you usually play on team based projects and assignments? someone giving out dates and setting times or ck a crazy ...they just say no, we are going to do this because it is easier and faste r person that turns it from an idea What hinders creative risk taking on a student team? t things done the group [hinders creative risk depth in the project and people who are not s What facilitates creative risk taking on a student team? and help you along and push you farther in e motivated and love to work with someone that is pretty has a value set that refle cts wanting to change more and putting their ideas out and not being

PAGE 62

62 Table 4 9. Inter view responses on self perceived personality traits ( n=18, safe keepers=9, risk takers= 9) Safe Keepers Risk Takers What personal traits do you have th at support creative risk taking? profes What personal traits do you have that hinder creative risk taking? exactly what my professor s or I ultimately the box there are times where I still do think of people think so if I cared less then I would prob shy, not feel that any ideas is stupid or crazy or more and research more, to open my mind sometimes just go with it and not be so strict times you just want to

PAGE 63

63 C HAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This pedagogical study was designed to explore the phenomenon of creative risk taking in undergraduate interior design studio s Creativ e solutions are vital to success ; design students must first learn to take creative risks i n the classroom in order to apply that same knowledge in the organizational atmosphere (Dewett, 2004) Creative risk taking can lead to develop cutting edge and novel solutions in their work; however, it must be acknowledged that a counterpoint of safe keeping is also necessary to ensure that solutions are appropriate to a given context and domain The following discussion examines th e role of personality traits and perceived springboards and barriers to risk taking. Educational strategies and relevant instructional approaches are discussed based on implications surfacing from the findings. Question 1 : What personality traits associat ed w ith creative risk t aking d o i nterior isplay? How do interior design students compare to normative p opulations? The z test scores on the NEO PI R i ndicated that the sample displayed significantly high er levels in the fol lowing persona lity scales and subscales; Neuroticism: anxiety, impulsiveness; Extraversion: gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and positive emotions; Openness: fanta sy, aesthetics, feelings, ideas and values The sample also displayed signif icantly high er levels in two Conscientiousness subscales achievement striving and deliberation as well as significantly lower levels in the subscales of self discipline and dutifulness The sample also display ed significantly lower levels of Agreeablene ss and its subscales; trust straightforwardness, compliance, and modesty Findings from the z tests reveal a

PAGE 64

64 sample that is primed for creativity when compared to population norms, as the majority of personality differences are traits indicative of highl y creative individuals. The sample displayed significantly high er levels of Neuroticism and two of its subscales anxiety and impulsiveness Batey and Furnham (2006) found that across various personality tests Neuroticism improved creativity in artistic domains because these individuals are typically more emotionally sensitive ; and therefore can appreciate and express ideas involving emotional content. Emotional sensitivity can be viewed as an important trait for interior design ers as they design spac es for clients and users who ultimately foster connections with their environment Interior designers must understand and help support these emotional connections through design. Feist (1999) also suggested artists are more prone to anxiety and impulsive ness. Impulsivity is often The sample also displayed significantly higher levels of Extraversion and five of its subscales ; gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, exc itement seeking, and positive emotions Extraversion has often been correlated to the creative personality. In fact, Cskszentmihlyi (1996) explained that creative individuals are capable of displaying both introverted and extroverted traits at the same time; however, he highlight ed a vital component of the creative process (p. 66). I nterior design is a collaborative field therefore, it follows that individuals with gregarious and extraverted traits may be attracted to the profession. Other subscales of Extraversion are also linked to the creativ e personality ; such as assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and positive emotions Mackinnon (1962) found that highly creati ve architects display higher levels

PAGE 65

65 of assertive ness while (1999) research found that highly c reative scientists have a tendenc y to exhibit dominan ce, assertiveness and high self confidence. Activity or frequently correlat ed to the creative personality (Barron & Harrington, 1981, p.453 ). Cskszentmihlyi (1996) explained that creative work often entails many hours of intense concentration and thus requir es (p. 58). The sample also displa yed higher levels of excitement seeking These types of individuals enjoy stimulation and active environments (McCrae & Costa, 2010). Hirt (1999) (p. 252) Farley (1991) described the creative individual as one that seeks excitement stimulation, and enjoys risk taking Creative individuals thrive in e nvironments that are ulating Amabile 1996, p. 249). The sample also displayed significantly higher levels of positive emotions Many scholars have suggested that positive affect increase s creativity Isen creat however a positive outlook can also help one to persevere against emerging blocks and failures during problem solving (Hirt, 1999; Isen, Daubman, & Nowi cki, 1987). The sample also displayed significantly high er levels in Openness and five of its subscales: fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, ideas, and values Openness is a trait repeatedly linked to the creativ e personality Feist (1999) found openness to experience as a distinguishing trait in both creative artists and scientists. When individuals are open to experience they exhibit a desire

PAGE 66

66 & Zhou, 2001, p. 514). Creative individuals are more prone to using their imagination resulting in an open ness to fantasy (Feist, 1999). People who are new ideas are often drawn to crea tive professions such as design. The sample al so displayed signi ficantly higher levels in the aesthetics subscale. These individuals have 2010 also supported this finding Design is a highly visual field requiring sensitivities to color and aesthetics; this connection may explain the high level of the aesthetics subscale within the study sample. Students also d isplayed higher levels in the ideas and values subscale s individuals who score high in ideas have Those who score high in values are willing to reexamine typical ideals ( McCrae & Costa, 2010, P. 23) Designers must tend toward fresh and untried ideas to always stay ntial Finally, the sample also displayed significantly higher levels in the feelings subscale of Openness ; these individuals are receptive to their own inner feelings, these individuals often feel more keenly that others who may score low in this subscale (McCrae & Costa, 2010) (1999) findings show artistic and creative individuals to be more sensitive and in tune with emotion.

PAGE 67

67 On the Conscientiousness subscal es the sample displayed significantly high er levels in deliberation and achievement striving as well as significantly lower levels of self discipline and dutifulness I ndividuals that score high in deliberation and achievement have high aspirations, are d iligent, have purpose, and think carefully before acting (McCrae & Costa, 2010) (1999) research showed that creative artists and creative scientists both display high levels of achievement. Similarly, (1962) study found that highly c reative architects were determined, diligent, and conscientious or deliberate. With regard to the lower sample scores on self discipline and dutifulness Cskszentmihlyi (1996) explained that creative individuals are often child like, light hearted, and individuals tend to possess (p.61). Creative individuals have the unique ability to possess contradictory traits such as hard working (Cskszentmihlyi, 1996, p. 57). High scorers of dutifulness 2010, p. 24). More so than any other, artists (1996) explained yet another paradoxical condition within the creative individual. He said it is impossible to be creative without understanding and respecting a domain however, it will always remain unchanged if someone is not willing to push the limits of

PAGE 68

68 respect the past and accepted norms ; however, creative design requires one to question accepted values and doctrines. The sample also displayed significantly lower levels of Agreeableness and four of its subscales: trust, straightforwardness, compliance, and modesty Low levels of agreeableness are commonly found creativ e people For example, agreeable individuals often rely on t he belief of an external locus of control and are more likely to conform to the status quo become a follower rather than a leader, and tend to shy away from competition. People who display low levels of Agreeableness usually have an internalized locus of control and a belief that the control of external events lies within themselves ( Feist, 1 999, Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 198 9 ). Interior design is a highly competitive field and may attract people with an internal locus of control who are less likely to agr ee with social norms and the status quo. Students also displayed low er levels of trust and straightforwardness MacKinnon (1962) found that highly creative architects were slow to trust others, he stated that they showed (p. 32). A high level of curiosity and skepticism will lead individuals to constantly question norms and precedent I ndividuals that score low in straightforwardness may be more likely to use flattery manipulation and persuasion (McCrae & Costa, 2010). Designers must convince or influence in order to get them to accept their creative endeavor s persuade the world that you had a creative idea, how do you know that you actually had Simonton (1990) also acknowledged the importance of persuasion, as he included it in the framework of

PAGE 69

69 the f our p influenced others into concluding that creativity has in fact been exhibited p u 99). The sample also displayed lower levels of com pliance and modesty Creative individuals are often independent and do not conform to rules (Feist, 1999). Furthermore, creative individuals can be arrogant and lack modesty. Their accomplishments provide self assurance and often pridefulness (Cskszent mihlyi, 1999). This same confidence and self assurance surface s in design as well; (1962) classic study of architects, saw themselves as dominant, ascendant, and self assured. Question 2 : What springboards and barriers to creative risk taking do interior design students p erce ive in their s tud io c ourses? Content analysis of the Creative Risk taking Survey identified several perceived springboards and barriers to creative risk taking in the studio environment W hile categories of perceived affects remain consistent, student comments reveal ed different rankings of importance. Categories are listed in descending order of response rate. Students saw professor personality/teaching style; project characteristics, ev aluation/critiques, their own personality, peers and group members, and their own abilities as barriers that hindered their creative risk taking. Conversely, students saw professor personality/teaching style, project characteristics, peers and group membe rs, evaluations/critiques, their own personalities, and finally, their own abilities as springboards to creative risk taking. A discussion of each identified category follows Professor Personality/ Teaching Style Nearly 38% of students saw professor pers onalities or teaching styles as a barrier to creative risk taking and just over 40% found them to be springboards to their creative

PAGE 70

70 risk taking. taking and innovative att and taking are accepting stance. Students also ex plained that having their ideas shut down or dismissed hinder ed their creative risk taking. Listening seemed to be a core trait that hen a teacher dismisses my idea student commented taking is Students also suggested that it was important to take time to develop a rapport, communication, and trust with their pro fessors. casual friendship kind of style where professor and trust is importan A responsive classroom atmosphere allows to students to express themselves creatively with teacher behaviors that welcome unusual questions, are r espectful of imaginative and unusual ideas, and show [students] that their ideas are value d (Torra nce & My ers, 1970 ). Teachers must be accepting, open, and flexible ( Dac e y, 1989 ) and develop relationships with student s (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1980 ; Morganett, 1991, Ryans, 1960) It is important for professors to listen to students and

PAGE 71

71 encourage communicatio n through expression of feelings and ideas. Professors should promote communication of ideas, be respectful of student ideas, and realize the value in student ideas, this is a reflection to the student that the professor is listening and encouraging creat ivity. Project Characteristics A fter professor personality, project characteristics were the second most mentioned component that could positively or negatively impact willingness to take creative risk s in studio Over 30% of students identifi ed project characteristics as barriers and nearly 40 % identified project characteristics as springboards to creative risk taking. In general, students indicated that i ncreased fr eedom on projects facilitated creative risk taking while timelines and guide lines hindered creative risk taking As one student commented When we have a little more freedom and [projects are] not so structured, I feel like some of the projects we do have similar results I can be a little more creative when I can kind of make m Some students expressed a desire to work at their own pace, having freedom in their working style and prefer red very loose [teaching] style where [professors] giv e the project and a few directives and they kind of come se e you every now and again professors ] let you go and do your own research and educate yourself Encouraging independence and freedom of choice allows students to find their own creative style; one way to accomplish this is to integrate choices into assignments (Cole, Sugioka, & Yamagata Lynch, 1999). Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenb y & Herron (1996) explained that creative results are more frequently produced when people have autonomy and control in how they work. Dewett (2004) explained that willingness to take risk i s affected by autonomy. When i ndividuals feel that they have freedom in their work they will take more risks.

PAGE 72

72 Amabile et al. (19 96 ) also commented on timelines and workload pressures. A paradox exists on workload pressures; some degrees of pressure ca n have positive influences whereas extreme loads can hinder creativity Some students work well under pressure while others need less stressful deadlines and more time. One student etc. I think I could Another student explained w ith very little time given sometimes I just want to finish the work without putting too much stress on myself to Deadline s are inherent characteristics of interior des ign studio projects. Suggestions to r eliev e the stress from deadlines might include: allowing students to set a pace comparable to a professor s deadlines, in order to keep track, for example including grace periods before and after the due date Student s may also be allowed to choose from a selection of deliv erables and varied techniques Another suggestion semester; one cohort may differ from another prompting a professor to modify demands of a completed projec t. Evaluation/Critiques Evaluation was also found to play a significant role in creative risk taking most frequently as a barrier; almost 30% of students identified evaluations and critiques as a barrier, while only 6% found evaluations and critiques as springboards to creative risk taking One student explained because there is a greater risk that you can be critiqued badly for it but if you have an etting a bad grade or getting critiqued harshly on a project Kawenski (1991) Some s tudents may feel

PAGE 73

73 more comfortable not taking risks and not bein g creative for fear of poor evaluation and the possibility of a low grade. important in college and if a professor is constantly grading negatively on my While conducting research in organizational settings Dewett (2004) noted that the nature of the evaluative feedback given to an emplo yee by their supervisor can impact in the future depending on how was received. This can also be applied to the classroom; students that get positive feedback even for failed attempts may be more encouraged to take creative risks in the future. grades ra ther than pursuits of learning (Berenson & Carter, 1995 p. 182) In order to avoid this type of thought, B erenson and Carter (1995) sugg an opportunity for students to make conceptual connections and reflect on Also t o help circumvent the fear of evaluation p rofessors could integrate projects that are evaluated based on creative risk t aking alone or projects that are discussed without a scaled evaluation. Torra nce and Myers (1970) (p. 253). Peer and Team Interactions Peer and team interactio ns can also influence creative performance ; nearly 17% of students found peer and team interactions as barriers to creative risk taking however, over 30% found these interactions to be springboards Some students explained they would take more creative ri

PAGE 74

74 Horng, Hong, Ch anLln, Chang, & Chu 2005, p. 355). S tudents also create hierarchical struc tures w hether real or perceived. O ne student explained hindered when] working with students who try to c ontrol a group too much and limit the decisions of other group memb ers Some s tudents mentioned that they prefer groups where everyone is on the same playing field and one student is not dominating the group. Students also mentioned that they usually enjoy team projects and that projects are easier to take risks with because you always have someone pushing you and fee d They also fel t more comfortable with risk because they have others in the group to share the criticism and to help defend ideas. Group learning should be implemented regular ly as a large number of students regard this type of learning as beneficial; it also prepares students for the profession where m ost projects are team efforts. Professors should encourage team building and prime teams to understand the role that safe keep ing and risk taking play in problem solving. T hey can do so by: 1) establishing the importance of team work, explain why teamwork is important in their profession, provide specific examples; 2) defining the task, track and practice teamwork skills necessary for timely completion of projects ; 3 ) encourage establishment of roles, relationship roles. Task roles include seeking and ; 4) meet with teams professors should attend some group meetings in order to observe progress and

PAGE 75

75 provide feedback (Page & Donelan, 2003 p p 125 126 ). Enco uraging level playing fields between students is also important; one way to do this is to help students understand and respect the different working styles of their peers cognitive approaches for assimilating data and solving proble Professors should foster an appreciation of those differences among students and teach students to employ the differences to lead to creative solutions of problems ( Leonard & Straus, 1997 p. 1 ) Professors can assist students in getting to know eac differences by employing team building activities that identify safe keeping and risk taking temperaments Instead of jumping into a project right away professors could give students time to acclimate to their new team members, and allow for a b rief team building exercise. One of these activities may involve having students discuss their personal and work characteristics (Page & Donelan, 2003) Another suggestion to incorporate differences would be to set aside time for both divergent and conve rgent thinking during a project as it has been shown that students excel in different aspects of cognitive style s (Leonard & Straus, 1997; Meneely, 2010 ) It is also important for students to address conflict in the early stages of a project for example one suggestion from Leonard and Straus (1997 ) was handle conflict by stating that anyone [can] disagree with anyone else about anything, but no one [can] disagree without saying the (p. 1) Professors should ( Leonard & Straus, 1997, p. 1)

PAGE 76

76 Personal Abilities and Personalities A small number of students felt their personalities 6%, and abilities almost 5%, helped to support creative risk Another student stated m y artistic and creative side has definitely helped me take One student explained m y ability to look at things differently facilitates Conversely a larger majority of students felt their personality, over 25%, and abilities over 15%, were barrier s to creative risk taking realism always seems to beat out my dreaming. I am too afraid of creating something ridiculously non One s tudent explained because I sometimes feel I cannot produce what is in my mind. Another said risk entails more time spent on a project, I work very meticulously and it hinders my It is not unexpected that students perceived their abilities and personalities to affect their creative risk taking Dewett (2004) explained that self efficacy is linked to creativity and influences behavior. An employee that has self efficacy increases the ir willingness to take risks likewise, a student with high self efficacy would be more willing to overcome obstacles and take risks in their projects. Puccio and Grivas (2009) conducted a study that examined the relationship between personality traits an d creativity styles using Foursight and the DiSC Personal Profile System. Foursight is a self identify the strength of preference they have for including: problem clarification, idea generation, solution development, and implementation (p. 248) The cat egories one might identify with in the Foursight model include: the Clarifier, Ideator, Developer, and Implementer respectively related to the

PAGE 77

77 creative process stages The other instrument used by Puccio and Grivas (2009) was DiSC which stands for dominance, influence, steadiness, and conscientiousness ; it is used to measure surface traits that are descriptive of certain behaviors. I ndividuals with the Dominance trai be active when dealing with problems and challenges those with Influence traits are associated with enthusiasm, persuasiveness and optimism Steadiness refers to individuals who dislike change and prefer a steady pace and security fin ally those who are Conscientious are concerned with producing quality work and are described as cautious, careful, exacting and systematic (p.250) Puccio and Grivas (2009) found clarification and ideation (p. 253) The y concluded that process are likely to show such traits as willingness to challenge prevailing thought, need for change and attr (Puccio & Grivas, 2009, p. 247) They also (Puccio & Grivas, 2009, p. 247 ) Puccio and Grivas (2009) continued to explain that these distinctions within the creative tempered personality traits would seem to be beneficial they] enable an individual to concentrate on (p. 253) Conversely, the stage involving the generation of play with possibilities, to not be satisfied (Puccio & Grivas, 2009, p. 253) Puccio and Grivas (2009) a diverse set of personality traits that enable individuals to more easily navigate

PAGE 78

78 through, and engage in, the varying kinds of mental operations associated with th e full (p. 253) Kirton and de Ciantis (1986), with the Adaption innovation (A I) theory, supported the idea that personality dimensions have connections to cognitive styles, or an andling and storing inform ation Adaptors prefer the tried and true; they often use solutions that have been known to work. Innovators prefer to approach problems from a new angle and break with typical or known solutions (Kirton, 1987) Kirton and de Ciantis (1986) found correl ations of the Kirton Adaption Innovation The correlations for Adaptors include d : Humble, Conscientious, Conservative, and Controlled; Innovators correlated with: Assertive, Expedie nt, Experimental, and Undisciplined. Adaptors can be described as cautious, able to maintain a degree of accuracy in detailed work, methodical, often seek solutions using past methods, precise, reliable. Conversely, innovators are impatient with detail, bored with routine, challenge rules, question assumptions, and bring about radical change (Kirton & de Ciantis, 1986) Students in the study described similar traits that they viewed to both hinder and facilitate their creative risk taking; all of these t raits can be viewed as important at various points in the creative design process. Professors should encourage students to identify with the type of personality traits their behavior tendencies reveal, as well as encourage students to step outside of th eir comfort zone and engage in activities to grow and improve in the other types of behaviors that support the creative process that they are not as comfortable with.

PAGE 79

79 Question 3 : What personality differences e xist between students i dentified as safe keeper s vs. r isk t akers? S tatistically significant personality differences appeared between safe keepers and risk takers on t he following NEO PI R subscales: Extroversion, assertiveness, activity, and competence Risk takers displayed significantly higher level s of E xtraversion than safe keepers McCrae & Costa (2010) described the extraverted individual to enjoy excitement, and stimulation; they are also assertive, active, and talkative (McCrae & Costa 2010 ). Research has shown that p ersonality characteristi ; and that e xtraversion has a strong connectio n with risk propensity and risk taking (Nicholson, Soane, Fento Farley (1986) also linked extroversion, risk taking, and experimental artistic preferences together. R isk takers also displayed significantly h igher levels of assertiveness A ssertive individuals [ly] ascendant (McCrae & Costa, 2010, p.22) Several schola rs support assertiveness as a recurring trait of the creative personality (Mackinnon, 196 2 ; Feist 1998, 1999). Eight y two percent of creative architects were ranked as creative architects. Mackinnon (1962) noted that whe n required to interact with others highly p.28). Likewise, found that innovators l in unstructure and often display R isk takers also displayed significantly higher levels on t he a ctivity subscale Active individuals display a

PAGE 80

80 and a ne (McCrae & Costa, 2010, p. 23) Active individuals tend to display an internal locus of control and put themselves out there in the world. Traits such as a dri ve for accomplishment, task focus, perseverance in the face of obstacles, risk taking and high energy are consistently correlated to the creative personality ( Sternberg & Lubart 1995 ). Sternberg and Lubart (1995) noted p. 9). Finally, risk takers also displayed significantly higher levels of c ompetence Competent people are (McCrae & Costa, 2010, p. 23) Creative ideas entail some level of risk since the y challenge social norms (p. 222) C ompetence and perseverance are associated wi th high self esteem and an internal locus of contro l, (Feist, 1999, Amabile, 19 96; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). While many risk taking traits have been correlated in the literature to the creative personality ; i t is important to note that the external locu s of control embodied by the safe keeping personality does play an important role during problem solving. A safe keeping mindset may be particular ly suited to identifying, clarifying, and understanding the problem at hand (Puccio & Grivas, 2009) Also sa fe keeping may be particularly suited for implementing ideas and ensuring that solutions meet certain criteria for acceptance in the domain Portillo and Dohr (1994) found that different designers often consider different criteria when designing. They su ggested that various types of training and personality may affect a designers approach to designing and design criteria.

PAGE 81

81 1994, p. 415 ) Cskszentmihlyi (1996) ideas would not be recognized Questi on 4 : What perceptions of the design process do safe keeping vs. risk taking students have when designing in their studio courses? Do any differences emerge? A content analysis of the interview transcripts revealed different perceptions and preferences f or professor personality/ teaching style, project structure, evaluation, teamwor k roles, and self between safe keepers and risk takers. This section explores these differences and suggest s educational practices that encourage creative risk taking for stude nts of all dispositions. Professor Personality/Teaching Style Both safe keepers and risk takers fe lt that professor personalities influenced their ability to take creative risks however, some differences emerged Safe keepers expressed a need for compa ssion ate support positive feedback and more guidance in the development of ideas from professors ; whereas, risk takers want ed professors to be more challenging and critical in their feedback, and exhibit more influence on their ideas One safe keeping s tudent explained do your work to make them happy because they are the on while another safe always makes me standoff In contrast, one risk taker commented, the professor

PAGE 82

82 embarrassed if some body says taker said actually love criticism more than praise for my projects so I appreciate when I get d forces me to be more creative 7) research of adaptors and innovators found similar differences Adaptors like safety and tried and true paths to solutions, which explains safe desire to have professors thoroughly clarify an idea; they are more apt to embrace precedent to gain the approval of a professor. Dewett (2004) found in his organizational study (p. 263) This idea can be transferred to the studio By providing more app roval and affirmation of risk taking behaviors and the important role of learning keeping students with the external to take risks Innovators are the opposite; they like to question the status quo, challenge authority, and do not need approval from others. Studio p rofessors need to understand where their students fall in the risk taking/ safe keeping continuum and decipher which students require more direction and positi ve reinforcement and which student s not only need less but desire less. Developing deeper relationships with students lets them know you have a vested interest in them professionally and personally (Cole Sugioka, & Yamagata Lynch, 1999) this also provid es the instructor with valuable information on how to best support Professors also learn more about students by observation; they working and thinking preference by seeing their work unfol d throughout their studio course Long term this method is

PAGE 83

83 effective ; however, implementing a brief reflection assignment at the beginning of the semester will help both the professor and student learn valuable information about their working and thinking preference s early on. (Jonassen 1997, p. 65 ). Creating a problem solving reflection assignment using well and ill structured problems is a good and accurate way Well structured problems are clarified the types of problems a safe keeper would gravitate towards. In opposition, ill structured problems ; the type of problem a risk taker would enjoy working on (Jonassen, 1997, p. 65) This type of reflection assignment helps the student think critically about the problem at hand, engages them in two types of problem structures, and allows them to see their working and thinking preferences. This type of assignment also allows the professor to learn more about the student and how they approach problems; armed wi th this information a professor would know where each students strengths lie and how to better serve the student in future studio projects. Project Structure Safe keepers and risk takers also varied on the ir preference of project structure a nd how often t hey would like to receive feedback. Safe keepers favor ed a more detailed project structure with more requirements ; whereas, risk takers prefer red a loose project structure with broad instructions and limitations O ne safe keeper explained, on open ended [projects] another safe keeper commented, In contrast, risk

PAGE 84

84 [projects] leave a li ttle more room for creativity and you can kind of interpret them Safe keepers also expressed a desire to meet with their professors more often to receive feedback on th eir projects than risk takers. One safe keeper mentioned they would like t every day Another safe keeper said In contrast, risk taker s noted, a and like to meet with [professors] Dewett (2004) explained that there are various types or levels of creative risk one is willing to t ake. Responsive creativity requires the least amount of risk because an individual has been given permission to approach a problem with well defined solutions, and can reference precedent for things that have worked in the past. Safe keepers are more lik ely to find comfort in responsive creativity because of the low level of risk associated with it. Expected and contributory creativity involve somewhat higher perceived levels of risk because the types of problems and drivers change; expected creativity h as open problems with external drivers and contributory has closed problems with internal drivers. Expected and contributory creativity may have a range of risk takers that it attracts. For example, safe keepers enjoy defined problems and therefore, may be comfortable with contributory creativity. Risk takers are often internally driven and enjoy open problems so they could be attracted to both types of creativity. The last type of creativity is proactive an d requires the highest amount of risk, with op en

PAGE 85

85 problems and internal drivers. Risk tak ing students would be much more drawn to proactive creativity v ersus safe keep ing students because of the level of risk involved. Adaptors, are approach problems methodically sometimes experience self doubt and are vulnerable to social pressure thus reacti ng with compliance (Kirton, 1987, p. 283 ). It follows that these individuals would rely heavily on their professors for detailed and cl arified design problems and more extensive support during more ill defined phases of the design process (ex. i deation and conceptualization) In contrast, innovators these individuals also have little respect for past custom and do not need endorsement from authority (K irton, 1976, p. 623) It can be understood that risk takers do not need as much guidance from their professors during more ill defined phases own and form their own rules ; however, professors should ensure that risk taking students embrace external criteria to evaluate and implement their idea s during more well defined phases of the design process (ex: problem analysis and d esign development). People have different preferences for different learning styles (Nuss baumer, 2001) and thinking styles (Meneely, 2010) Nuss baumer (2001) explained that instruction incorporat ing dents to learn through is to challenge and encourage students to incorporate multiple learning styles. Different student preferences for either detailed or loose pr oject structures can be reconciled by implementing various stages in proj ects. The initial stages of a project may be ill

PAGE 86

86 defined and less structured which is supportive of risk takers. structured problems risk takers (Jonassen, 1997, p. 65). During this phase students should be reassured that further detail will be given at a later time (the second po rtion of the project). Safe keepers may require more support an d affirmation during the initial stages of the project that incorporate the ill structured problem. The second stage should include well engage the application of a limited number of rules and principles safe keepers (Jonassen, 1997, p.65) Problem solving in different contexts and situations requires different skills thus engaging both types of creative risk takers/learners at the different stages (Jonass en, 1997) This type of project staging causes both types of students, safe keepers and risk takers to break set with their tendencies at one point in the project stage and learn to incorporate various learning strategies. Professors need to help studen ts identify which type of problem solving they prefer and where their strengths might best come into play. Metacognitive strategies where student r eflection on their thinking and behavior during assignments is important to incorporate into the classroom ( Meneely, 2010). reflection, he or she takes an experience from the outside world, brings it inside the mind, turns it over, makes connections to other experiences and filters it though personal bias es allows one to approach problems differently than if reflection had not occurred. Re flection assignments also teach students to think critically ( Daudelin, 1996, p. 39) Danko, Meneely, and Portillo (2006) suggest ed one type of reflection assignment to in clude a narrative where a student writes about a

PAGE 87

87 space from the perspective of a visitor This type of reflection causes the student to see describe the encounter that visitor When used in their study the narrative narrative enabled them to synth esize diverse design elements and] envision space Danko, Meneely, & Portillo, 2006, p. 21). This type of reflection assignment is import ant in education and may help student s and professor s identify the students preference of thought while helping them to learn to think more holistically. Professors should also be attuned to student needs when answering questions and giving critiques and feedback. As the current study showed students prefer different levels of attention from professors throughout a project Professors should temper any feelings they have about critiquing every student, every day. Instead, s tudents sh ould be asked at the beginning of class and at the middle of class who needs time to talk This strategy would allow both types of students the freedom to either ask for help or decline until they need it ; however, a professor may want to check in with student s at least once a week to avoid a student from falling off track Evaluation / Critique Safe keepe rs and risk takers also preferred different types of evaluation and critique. Safe keepers described more adverse reactions to negative critiques and preferred to have their ideas supported. A s one safe keeping student noted, negative critique] can h inder because if you do take that risk and it is not applauded

PAGE 88

88 ideas] supported but then, if [the professors] have any feedback to help push the design forward that would There was even a safe keeper who placed the locus of control completely on their professor, In contrast, risk takers seemed to have more ability to get past a negative critique and generally preferred to have their ideas challenge d. On e r isk negative critique] would be pretty depressing but at the same time it might be opening a Another risk ta ker said think it makes it more difficult and forces you Kirton (1987) noted that adaptors rarely challenge rules and only do so when they are confident of receiving strong support. The y try to adapt a common so lution to make it fit the current problem. Innovators challenge rules, have less of a need for guidance, and have low self doubt in regards to their ideas. As noted earlier within the two types of locus of control i nternal individuals feel as though the y have great control over the outcome s of situations whereas ex ternal locus of control individuals feel that contextual and social influences govern outco mes (Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 198 9 p. 85). Evaluation is one such contextual influence internal locus of control individuals may allow to affect their creativity. Evaluation is necessary for growth and learning, one must learn where mistakes were made and where improvements can occur. framework for interior design ins truction she suggests that teachers play differing roles throughout a design project. Those roles include: motivator, teacher, coach, facilitator,

PAGE 89

89 evaluator, and remediator. This idea of different roles can also be applied to the evaluation of a project. Professors are needed at varying levels for different students; thus enters the different roles of facilitator, coach, motivator, and consultant. As this study showed some students are more sensitive to evaluations than others These students may exhi bit reactions that suggest an external locus of control feeling as though they have less control over the situation at hand Suggestions for a student that has evaluation sensitivities would be to approach those students as more of a coach or consultant during reviews and critiques. Amabile (1996) found ev aluation to decrease creativity when students were expecting it Another study by Torrance (1965) showed that extrinsic reward increase d creativity ; during that study children were given a monetary incentive for the most creative work. Harrington (1975) also found that students who were told they were going to be judged on creativity were more creative than students who were not told they were going to be judged on creativity. The suggestion that c an be taken from ved as a threat, it usually hur t s creativity Evaluation standards or a rubric is important in design and may alleviate stresses from evaluation for some students; it is always benef icial to creativity to know what criteria they will be evaluated by (St ernberg & Lubart, 1995, p. 261) It may be helpful to make evaluation standards known and upfront during the start of a project. Studio Teamwork Safe keepers and risk takers also saw their roles differently in team work Safe keepers typically fell into supportive roles and did not like working with group members to work on a te am In

PAGE 90

90 describing the role they norma l l y play on a team one safe keeper said A nother stated, Conversely, risk takers typically fell into leadership roles and found team work criticiz e without giving another option [ hard to work with One risk taker also explained innovators on the other hand see adapt p 285 286). It can be understood that these two groups often have conflict when working together. Safe keepers and risk takers both have import ant roles in the development and implementation of design work. It is when these two groups collide in working environments that they quite often come upon disagreements. Kirton (1987) explained, when adaptors and innovators work together adaptors offer ; he continued on to say both of these types of individuals are necessary to a successful institution (p. 285). It is at various stages in design that these two groups are most h elpful for example, innovators excel during the beginning of a project when ideas need to be abundant and unpredictable. At the implementation of the design work is when an

PAGE 91

91 tail would be highly valued. These two groups of individuals n eed to realize and respect the various traits and skills each has to offer. Meneely (2010) suggested a mix of both adaptors and innovators which Kirton (1987) c brain dominance is related to adaption and right brain dominance is related to innovation (p.289). Meneely (2010) f ound interior design programs typically have a higher number of right brained individuals. He suggested the distributi on of left br ained individuals across groups of right brained individuals to increase creative abrasion Creative abrasion is working wi th different minded individuals to increase outcomes (p. 30). Self Perceived Personality Traits Safe keepers and risk takers also described different personality traits whi ch they felt facilitate d or hinder ed their creative risk taking. Safe keepers felt their methodical nature and good listening skills improved their creative risk taking. One safe keeper st throwing something out there I am more likely to take a risk because I can back it up Another safe keeper In contrast r i sk takers felt that their curiousness, confidence, and stubborn nature facilitated their creative risk taking One risk taker e l ing comfortable with mentioned, ness to keep pushing e ven if [my idea or

PAGE 92

92 project] [helps me] risk care what Students also identified traits that hindered their creative risk taking ability. Safe keepers felt thei r methodical nature and their tendency to get stuck on details hindered their creative risk tak i ng. explain I have a lot of trouble just getting myself to not look at something so realistic ally safe keeper described their problems with details st R isk takers sometimes felt their desire to be functional hinder ed their creative risk taking and sometimes t hey just were not creative enough. One risk taker explained Another student said k taking] to complete ly have no inhibitions at all, not be shy, not feel that any idea while innovators a (Kirton, 1987, p. 285) While these two types of individuals have opposing characteristics and approaches to problems, both are necessary for design. Meneely (2010)

PAGE 93

93 (p. 21 22) The ro le of the professor is to be aware of their thinking preference, Zimmerman (2002) stressed the importance of educating students to become self regulated learners to help them (p.66) He described three phases which are part of self regulated learning: 1) forethought which includes task analysis and self motivation, 2) performance which includes self control and self observation, 3) self reflection which is self judgment and self reaction (Zimmerman, 2002) Professors should encourage these phases in the studio to increase self regulation Suggestions may include : phase one, hav e students set goals for project s such as incorporating new materials or learnin g a new technique for rendering; phase two, have students self observe and take note of their ideas during a brainstorming session ; finally, phase 3, encourage students to self evaluate their projects. Self ta ke place as a casual one on one meeting with professors to encourage honest self constructive criticism. Self (Zimmerman, 20 02, p.70) Conclusion T his study identified personality traits springboards and barriers interior design students perceive to affe ct creative risk taking as well as personality differences and perceptions safe keepers and risk takers have towards creativ e risk taking The findings

PAGE 94

94 of this study, identifying differing personality traits and perceptions of safe keepers and risk takers gained ( 1987 ) work on adaptors and innovators and n willingness to take risks. It is important to stress that both safe keepers and risk takers play vital roles at different phases of the design process. When the importance of both types of creative risk takers is realized the necessity of supporting both types of individuals in studio becomes clear. Safe keepers and Risk takers in the Design Process As this study has shown, safe keepers and risk takers have different personality traits and behavioral tendencies that al ign with the various parts of th e design process. In an effort to recognize these differences; suggestions from the study have been overlaid on Zeise (Figure 5 1) Zeisel (1984) described ctivities are (p. 5) He ( Zeisel 1984, p. 6) By ela borating on these three elementary activities, both safe keeping and risk taking students can find their place in the creative design process. phase designers are focusing on a problem, and developing a plan to approach the problem. It is here where designers produce mental images to analyze and work through the given problem. Safe keepers and risk takers work differently in this step based on the ty pe of problem presented; well or ill structured (Figure 5 1) As the current study presented safe keepers work best with and often

PAGE 95

95 prefer well structured problems; whereas risk takers typically favor ill structured problems. The next stage in design dev elopment is presenting; designers work in this phase through sketching, modeling, etc. in order to communicate their ideas and images. This phase can be broken into two parts, divergent and convergent development, and may require multiple passes (Figure 5 1) Risk takers typically excel at divergent thinking, or brought to fruition. Safe keepers are valuable and adept at narrowing down possibilities through convergent thinking. Zeisel (1984) explained in the presenting went on to choose and organize only some elements from a larger number This stage in the design process benefits from the input of both safe keepers and risk takers. The last step is testing, and involves various types of tests such as, appraisals, criticisms, comparisons, reflections, and reviews. Once an idea has been presented, it must undergo critique in order to decipher feasibility, appropriateness, and novelty. This step may include critique from other design team members, clients, and /or safety regulations. ension of the design activity of testing is that designers ( Zeise l, 1984, p. 9). Designers are looking backward in order to decide if the product under scrutiny will be good and forward in order to continue r efining the idea and product (Figure 5 1) Safe keepers takers (Zeisel, 1984, p.

PAGE 96

96 9) While the tes ting stage aides directly in contributions to innov ation, if the design fares well; it also helps a designer to make the number of potential solutions more manageable if more work must be done to an idea to make it work (Zeisel, 1984) Each one of these s solution (Zeisel, 1984, p. 14) Future Research Creative risk taking is an area of schola rship with much room for exploration. Future areas of research may include further study into creative risk taking involving I Theory assessment, the KAI. The body of knowledge on this topic would also benefit from 1) longitudinal studies of c reativ e risk taking in order to monitor student development al trajectories through the course of their education, 2) studies looking at creative risk 3) future studies would be more valuable if able to i nclude a sample with male interior design students. This study was undertaken in order to better understand student perceptions toward creative risk taking in their design studio courses. The motivation for conducting this study arose from the suspicion t hat many of the springboards and barriers to creative risk taking lay hidden from our view as they play out in studio. While this study helped to clarify personalities and perceptions across a continuum of risk taking students more effort is needed to put this knowledge into practice by developing and testing new educational strategies. I t is important that design educators and students acknowledge and value the role of risk taking and safe keeping in their work. As both play important and distinct roles i n design problem solving. Ultimately, educators and

PAGE 97

97 students alike, should seek to value the dichotomous and adaptive role each contribute to the design process.

PAGE 98

98 Figure 5 1. Process of design development (Modified from Zeise l 1984, pp. 10, 14)

PAGE 99

99 APPENDIX A STUDENT CONSENT FORM Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to identify student perceptions towards creative risk taking in interior design studios ; participating students include sophomores, juniors, and seniors Qualitative and quantitative items will be used to identify springboards and barriers students perceive in creative risk taking. These findings will be used to improve the quality of design education. What you will be asked to do in the stud y: You will be asked to take a personality assessme nt, to identify personality traits associated with crea tive risk taking You will also be asked to fill out a survey developed by the researcher to identify variables that affect your creative risk tak ing. You may be asked at a later time to participate in an interview used to gain further qualitative information on perceived springboards and barriers within the interior design studio. Time required: (approximate) (1) 30 minute interval Personality A ssessment (1) 30 minute interval Survey (1) 30 minute interval Interview 1hr 30 minutes total Risks and Benefits: Students will receive a publication, name of publication, with suggestion s for improving their creative risk taking skills. Compensation: A br ochure, How to increase your creativity. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Based on your previous project(s) from your studio courses, each faculty will rate the level of creative risk taking evident in your work Beyond the coordination of student responses to the faculty ratings, your personal information will not be used, at that time names will be replaced with a number system. The same numbering system will be implemented to replace student name s on the personality assessment, the survey, and the interview in order to prot ect student privacy. Faculty will not be present during any session of data collection. Data rcher. No faculty will have access to individual information

PAGE 100

100 Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Your choice to participate or not to participate will have no bea ring on your grade. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. And you can choose to not answer any question you do not feel comfortable answering. Whom to contact if you have questi ons about the study: Natasha Ferguson, Graduate Student, Department of Interior Design, phone 352.422.2108 Jason Meneely, Assistant Professor and Thesis Advisor, College of Design, Planning, and Construction 331 ARCH P.O. Box 115701 Gainesville, Florida 32611 5701 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 101

101 APPENDI X B FACULTY CONSENT FORM Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to identify student perceptions towards creative risk taking in interior design studios ; participating students include sophomores, juniors, and seniors Qualitative and quantitative items will be used to identify springboards and barriers students perceive in creative risk taking. These findings will be used to improve the quality of design education. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to part icipant in a survey, to independently rank students on a 3 point Likert scale from low, medium, to high in their creative risk taking ability This ranking should be developed from your Time required: (approximate) (1) 30 minute interval Survey 30 minutes total Risks and Benefits: The study may also be used to help improve course curriculum in the future. Compensation: None Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your personal information will not be used during this project. Students will not be present during the faculty survey. Data will be locked in the le by the researcher. No stude nts will have access to completed survey information Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from th e study at any time without consequence. And you can choose to not answer any question you do not feel comfortable answering. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Natasha Ferguson, Graduate Student, Department of Interior Design, phone 352.422.2108

PAGE 102

102 Jason Meneely, Assistant Professor and Thesis Advisor, College of Design, Planning, and Construction 331 ARCH P.O. Box 115701 Gainesville, Florida 32611 5701 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Off ice, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 103

103 APPENDIX C STUDENT CREATIVE RIS K SURVEY Creative Risk Survey This survey will ask you to co nsider your creative risk taking while in the studio environment. You will be asked to identify barriers and supporting elements of your creativity. I mportant Note: This survey is about your opinions and perceptions therefore, there are N O Right or Wrong Answers All answers will be confidential.

PAGE 104

104 Please answer the questions below by circling the appr opriate number on a scale of 1 7, 1 being lowest and 7 being highest: Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor D isagree Somewhat A gree Agree Strongly Agree 1. In general I feel free to take creative risks in my day to day activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. In my current studio I feel free to take creative risks in my studio projects. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Res pond to each question with a short written answer: 3. W hat hinders or would hinder your ability to take creative risks in your studio projects ? ___________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Please explain why this would hinder your ability. ________________________________________________ ___________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________ _______________________________

PAGE 105

105 4. What facilitates or would facilitate your ability to take creative risks in your studio projects? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Please explain why this would facilitate your ability. _________________________________________________________ __________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ _______________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ _______________________________ ____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 5. Do you enjoy tak ing creative risks in your studio projects? Explain why or why not. ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ _______________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________ ____________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

PAGE 106

106 6. Do you think your studio projects are improved when you take creative risks? Explain why or why not. ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________ __________________________ _____ _______ Respond with a short written answer to parts A and B of each question: 7. Can you elaborate on any interactions with others at school (peers and teachers) that hinder and facilitate your ability to take creative risks in your studio projects? A. Hinders : ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

PAGE 107

107 B. Facilitates : ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _________ 8. Can you elaborate on any personal characteristics that hinder and facilitate your ability to take creative risks in your studio projects? A. Hinders : ________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

PAGE 108

108 B. Facilitates : ________________________________________________________________ ________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________ ________________________________________________ 9. Can you elaborate on any aspects of your physical environment(s) that hinder and facilitate your ability to take creative risks in your studio projects? A. Hinders : _________________________________________ _______________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________ _______________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________ _______________________ B. Facilitates : ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

PAGE 109

109 ________________________________________________________________ _______________________ _________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 10. Can you elaborate on any processes or procedures that hinder and facilitate your abi lity to take creative risks in your studio projects? A. Hinders: ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ B. Facilitates : ______________________________________________ __________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________ __________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________ __________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

PAGE 110

110 Please answer the questions below by circling the appr opriate number on a scale of 1 5, 1 being lowest and 5 being highest: Do Not Agree Somewhat Agree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 11. I am a creative risk taker. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I often ta ke creative risks in my work. 1 2 3 4 5 13. I took a creative risk on my last studio project. 1 2 3 4 5 14. I feel that I can take more creative risks during group projects. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I fe e l that I can take more creative risks during individual projects. 1 2 3 4 5 Re spond to each question with a short written answer: 16. Based on question 14 and 15 please elaborate on why you feel that you can take more creative risks in either individual or group projects? ______________________________________________________________ _____ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

PAGE 111

111 17. If you could change anything in studio what would you change in order to facilitate your ability to take creative risks? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________ __________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ ______________________________________ Thank you for participating!

PAGE 112

112 APPENDIX D FACULTY CREATIVE RISK SURVEY Creative Risk Survey This survey will ask you to consider each Students creative risk taking while in your studio course Please base your answers on your personal knowledge of e while also considering any prior studio experience you may have with each student. Please base your ranking of students relative to each other rather than to some absolute standard. I mport ant Note: This survey is about your opinions and perceptions therefore, there are NO Right or Wrong Answers. All answers will be confidential.

PAGE 113

113 Please answer the questions below : 1. How long have you work at the University of Florida? _______ 2. How long have you been teaching studio courses? __________ Respond to each question with a short written answer: 3. How do you define creative risk taking in student work? ___________________________________________________________________ _______________________________ ____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________ _____________________________ __________________ creative risk taking by circling the appropriate number on a scale of 1 3, 1 being lowest and 3 being highest. Rankings should be made relative to the students you teach, not an absolute standard. Student LOW Creative Risk Taker MED. Creative Risk Taker HIGH Creative Risk Taker 1. 1 1 2 3 1.2 1 2 3 1.3 1 2 3 1.4 1 2 3 1.5 1 2 3 1.6 1 2 3 1.7 1 2 3 1.8 1 2 3

PAGE 114

114 Student LOW Creative Risk Taker MED. Creative Risk Taker HIGH Creative Risk Taker 1.9 1 2 3 1.10 1 2 3 1. 11 1 2 3 1. 12 1 2 3 1. 1 3 1 2 3 1. 14 1 2 3 1. 1 5 1 2 3 1. 1 6 1 2 3 1. 1 7 1 2 3 1. 1 8 1 2 3 1. 1 9 1 2 3 1. 20 1 2 3 1. 21 1 2 3 1. 22 1 2 3 Respond to each question with a short written answer: 4. Based on th e above chart what char acteristics and behaviors make risk takers standout? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________ _____________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________ ________ ___________________________________________________________

PAGE 115

115 5. Based on the above chart what characteristics and behaviors make safe keepers standout? ________________________________________________________________ ___ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ _______________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ ________ ability to r esolve their design solutions by circling the appropriate number on a scale of 1 3, 1 being lowest and 3 being highest. Rankings should be made relative to the students you teach, not an absolute standard. Student LOW Design Resolution MED. Design Resol ution HIGH Design Resolution 1. 1 1 2 3 1.2 1 2 3 1.3 1 2 3 1.4 1 2 3 1.5 1 2 3 1.6 1 2 3 1.7 1 2 3 1.8 1 2 3 1.9 1 2 3 1.10 1 2 3 1.11 1 2 3 1.12 1 2 3 1. 1 3 1 2 3 1.14 1 2 3

PAGE 116

116 Student LOW Design Resolution MED. Design Resolution HIGH Design Resolution 1. 1 5 1 2 3 1. 1 6 1 2 3 1. 1 7 1 2 3 1. 1 8 1 2 3 1. 1 9 1 2 3 1.20 1 2 3 1.21 1 2 3 1.22 1 2 3 Please answer the following question by circling the appr opriate number on a scale of 1 5 1 being lowest and 5 being highest: 6. Based on previous c ohorts, does this class as a whole rate high or low on creative risk taking? Low Creative Risk Takers Somewhat Low Creative Risk Takers Medium Creative Risk Takers Somewhat High Creative Risk Takers High Creative Risk Takers 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 117

117 APPENDIX E INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Project 1. What type of project or project structure would help you take risks? For example, what is the nature of the project is it well detailed with many guidelines for you to utilize or maybe something realistic instead of somethin g developed just for the course or a competition. 2. Do you prefer more open ended projects statements versus more detailed and thoroughly clarifies every part of the program? 3. Could you describe a past project that you were able to take a creative risk? 4. Wha 5. Would you prefer having a schedule to follow, for example planned deliverables along the way or do you prefer just having one large deadline to include all portions of the pr oject? 6. When working, how often do you prefer to meet with professors? ______________ a. As much as possible b. 3 x a week c. 2x a week d. 1 x a week e. Every other week Environment 7. If you could change anything about your physical studio environment to improve your creativ e risk taking what would that be?

PAGE 118

118 8. If you could change anything about your studio culture (the social environment) to improve your creative risk taking what would that be? 9. Tell me the characteristics of a team that would help you take creative risks? 10. Tell m e the characteristics of a team that would hinder your ability take creative risks? 11. What role do you normally fill in a group? __________________ a. Leader b. Conceptualizer c. Presenter Professor 12. ty to take creative risks? a. What are some favorable traits? b. What are some unfavorable traits? 13. What type of teaching style would help you to take creative risks? 14. On a scale 1 to 5. 5 = important 1 = not very important. feedba ck in order for you to move forward in a project? 15. On a scale of 1 to 5 5 = important 1 = not very important. How important is it that faculty encourage your ideas on a studio project ? 16. On a scale of 1 to 5 5 = important 1 = not very important. How much do you like challenging a professor in support of a creative risk you may have taken on a project? Critique 17. How would you define a critique that supports creative risk taking? 18. Have you ever had a time that a critique got in the way of you taking a creativ e risk?

PAGE 119

119 19. Assume you just received a negative critique what would that do to your ability to take creative risks in a project? Can you give an example when this may have happened? 20. H as a negative critique ever helped you take creative risks? 21. Can you explain a time when you received a negative critique but still took a creative risk? I have some different s cenarios to ask you about now, on a scale of 1 to 5. 5 being high stress and 1 being low stress. 22. How much stress do you have when you have a desk crit? 23. As a group desk crit? 24. In front of a student audience on an individual project? 25. In front of a student audience on a group project? 26. In front of professionals/critics on an individual project? 27. In front of professionals/critics on a group project? Self 28. What trai ts do you have that support your ability to take creative risks? Can you give an example? 29. Conversely, what traits do you have that hinder your creative risk taking? Can you give an example? 30. Is there anything you would change about yourself to make you take more creative risks? 31. Would you rather have your ideas challenged or supported when working on a studio project? What kind of value do you see in it, if any at all?

PAGE 120

120 LIST OF REFERENCES Abuhamdeh, S. & Cskszentmihlyi, M. (2004). The artistic perso nal ity: a systems perspective. In R.J. Sternberg, E .L. Grigorenko, and J.L. Singer ( Eds ) Creativit y from potential to realization ( pp. 31 42). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: a c omp onential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357 376. Amabile, T. ( 1990). Within you, w ithout you: T he social psycho logy of creativity, and beyond. In M.A. Runco and R.S. Albert (E ds. ) Theories of creativity (pp. 61 91). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in c ontext. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc. Amabile, T ., Conti R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for cr eativity. Academy of Management J o urnal, 39(5), 1154 1184. Barron, F. & Harrington, D.M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review Psychology, 32, 439 476. Batey M., Chamorro Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Individual diffe rences in ideational behavior: C an the big five and psychometric intelligenc e predict creativity scores? Creativity Research Journal 22(1), 90 97. Bat ey, M. & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical revie w of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and Gene ral Psychology Monographs, 132, 355 429 Berenson, S.B. & Carter, G.S. (1995). Changing assessment practices in science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 95(4), 182 186. Botwin, M. D. (1996). Review of the revised NEO Personality Inventory. In J.C. Conoley & J.C. Impara ( Eds. ) The twelfth m ental m easurements y earbook ( pp.862 863). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Casakin, H. & Kreitler, S. (2009). Motivation for creativity in architectural design an d engineering design students: I mp l ications for design education. International Journal of Technology Design Education, 20 477 493. Cole, D.G., Sugioka, H.L., & Yamagata Lynch, L.C. (1999). Supportive classroom environments for creativity in higher education. The Journal of Creative B ehav ior, 33(4), 277 293. Collin s M.A. & Amabile, T. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (E d. ) Handbook of creativity (pp. 297 312 ) Cambridge, U K: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 121

121 Costa, P.T. Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Normal personality a s sessme nt in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment 4, 5 13. Costa, P.T. Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1995). Domai ns and facets: H ierarchical personality assessment usi ng the revised NEO Personality I nventory. Journal of Personality As sessment, 64(1), 21 50. Council for Interior Design Ac creditation (2010). Program Summaries. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://accredit id.org/faculty programs/resources/ Cskszentmihlyi, M. (1988 a ). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of c reativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.) The nature of c reativity (pp. 325 339). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cskszentmihlyi, M. (1988 b ). Where is the evolving milieu? A response to Gruber. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 60 62. Cskszentmihlyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention New York: HarperPerennial. Cskszentmihlyi M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity (pp. 313 335) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dacey, J.S. (1989). Fund amentals of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Danko, S., Meneely, J., & Portillo, M. (2006). Humanizing design through narrative inquiry. Journal of Interior Design, 31(2), 10 28. Daudelin, M.W. (1996). Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 36 48. Dewett, T.C. (2002). Differentiating ou tcomes in employee creativity: U nderstanding the role of risk in creative performance. Unpublish ed doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University. Dewett, T.C. (2004). Employee creativity and the role of risk. European Journal of Innovation Management 7(4), 257 266. Dewett, T.C. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment. R& D Management, 37(3) 197 208. Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: E mergence of five factor model. Annual Review Psychology 41, 417 440. Eysenck, H.J. (1997). Creativity and personality. In M.A. Runco (E d. ) The creativity research handbook (pp. 41 66). Cresskill, N J: Hampton Press, Inc.

PAGE 122

122 Farley, F. (1986). The big T in personality. Psychology Today, 20, 44 52. Farley, F. (199 1 ). Type T personality. In L. P Lipsitt & L L. Mitnick (E d s ) Self regulatory behavior and risk taking ; causes and consequences ( pp. 371 382) Norwood, N J: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Feist, G.J. (1998). A meta analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290 309. Feist, G.J. (1999). The i nfluence of personality on artistic and scientific c reativity. In R.J. Sternberg (E d. ) Handbook of creativity (pp. 273 296) Cambridge, U K: Cambridge University Press. George, J.M & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are rel ated to creative behavior: An interactional approach. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513 524. Goldberg, L.R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.) Review of personality an d social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141 165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gruber, H .E. (1988). The evolving syst ems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 27 51. e psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality, 43(3), 434 454. Harris, J.A. (2004). Meas ured intelligence, achievement, openness to experience and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 913 929. Hennesse y, B.A. & Amabile, T. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.) The nature of c reativity (pp. 11 38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hirt, E.R. (1999). Mood. In M.A. Runco & S.R. Pritzker (Eds.) Encyclopedia of creativity (V ol. 2, pp. 241 250). New York: Academic Press. Horng, J., Hong, J., ChanLln, L., Chang, S., & Chu, H. (2005). Creative teachers and creative teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer S tudies, 29(4), 352 358. Isen, A.M. (1999). Positive affect. In T. Dalgleish & M. Power (Eds.) The handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 521 539). Sussex, England: Wiley. Isen, A.M, Daubman, K.A, & Nowicki, G.P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol ogy, 52(6), 112 1131.

PAGE 123

123 Jackson, D.N., Hourany, L. & Vidmar, N.J. (1972). A four dimensional interpretation of ris k taking. Journal of Personality, 40(3), 483 501. John, O.P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: a his torical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171 203. Jonassen, D.H (1997). Instructional design models for well structured and ill structured problem solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology R esearch and Develop ment, 45(1), 65 94. Juni, S. (1996). Review of the revised NEO Personality Inventory. In J.C. Conoley & J.C. Impara ( Eds. ) The t welf th mental measurements y earbook ( pp. 86 3 86 8 ). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Kawenski, Mary (1991). Encouragin g creativity in design. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(3), 263 266. Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622 629. Kirton, M. J. (1987). Adaptors and innovators: Cognitive style and personality. In S.G. Isaksen (Ed) Frontiers of creativity research (pp. 282 304). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Kirton, M. J. (1989). A theory of cognitive style. In M.J. Kirton (Ed) Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving (pp. 1 36 ). London: Routledge Kirton, M. J. & de Ciantis, M.S. (1986). Cognitive style and personality: The Kirton adaption Personality and Individual Differences, 7(2), 141 146. Kogan N. and Wallach M.A. (1967). Risk taking as a function of the situation, the person, and the group. In G. Mandler (E d .) New directions in p sychology (Vol 3, pp. 111 280) New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Kowaltowski D.C.C.K Bianchi, G. & de Paiva, V. (2009). M ethods that may stimulate creativity and their use in a rchitectural design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20, 453 477. Lawson, B. (1997 ). How designers think: The design process demystified Oxford: Architectural Press Larrick, R.P. (1993). Motivational factors in decision theories: The role of self protection. Psychological Bulletin, 13(3), 440 450.

PAGE 124

124 Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 110 123. L eong, F.T.L. & Dollinger, S.J. (1990). NEO Personality Inventory. In D.J. Keyser & R.C. Sweetland (Eds.) Test c ritiques (Vol. III, pp. 527 539). Austin, TX : Pro Ed. Maccrimmon, K.R. & Wehrung, D.A. (1985). A portfolio or risk measures. Theory and Decision 19, 1 29. MacKinnon, D.W. (1962). The persona lity correlates of creativity: A study of American architects Proceedings of the 14 th I nternational Congress of Applied Psycholog y 2, 11 39. McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. Jr. ( 2010 ). NEO inventories professional m anual. Lutz: PAR, Inc. McCrae, R.R. & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five fac tor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175 215. Meneely, J. (2010). Educating adaptable minds: How diversified are the thinking preferences of i nterior design students? Journal of Interior Design, 35(3), 21 32. Mooney, R.L. (1963). A conceptual model for integrating four approaches to the identific ation of creative talent. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.) Scientifi c c reativity: Its recognition an d development (pp. 331 339). New York: Wiley. Morehouse, R.E., Farley, F. and Youngquist, J.V. (1990). Type T personality and the Jungian classification system. Journal of Personality Assessment 54, 231 235. Morganett, L. (1991). Good teacher student rel ationships: A key element in classr oom motivation and management. Education 112(2), 260 264. Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton domain specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 157 176. Norman W.T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social psychology, 66, 574 583. Nussbaumer, L.L (2001). Theoretical framework for instruction that accommodates all learning styles. Journal of Interior Design, 27(2), 35 45. Page, D. & Donelan, J.G. (2003). Team b uilding tools for students. Journal of Education for Business, 78(3), 125 128. Pederson, E.L. & Burton, K. (2009). A concept analysis of creativity: Uses of creativity in s elected design journals. Journal of Interior Design, 35, 15 32

PAGE 125

125 Pluc ker, J.A. & Beghetto, R.A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R.J. Ster nberg, E.L. Grigorenko, and J.L. Singer (Eds.) Creativity from potential to realization (pp. 153 167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. P ortillo, M. (2002). Creativity d efined: Implicit theories in professions of interior design, archite cture, landscape architecture and engineering. Journal of Interior Design, 28(1), 10 26. Portillo, M. & Dohr, J.H. (1994). Bridging process and structure through criteria. Design Studies, 15(4), 403 416. Puccio, G. & Grivas, C. (2009). Examining the relati onship between personality traits and creativity styles. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 247 255. Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In S.G. Isaksen (Ed.) F rontiers of creativity research (pp. 216 222). Buff alo, N Y: Bearly Limited. Rohrmann, B. (2002). Risk attitude scales: concepts and questionnaires. Retrieved on August 10, 2011 from http://www.rohrmannresearch.net/pdfs/rohrmann ras report.pdf Rossier, J., Stadelhofen, F.M., & Berthoud, S. (2004). The hierarchical structures of t he NEO PI R and the 16 PF 5. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20(1), 27 38. Runco, M.A. & Sakamoto, S.O. (1999). Experimental studies of creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity (pp. 62 92) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universit y Press. Ryans, D. G. (1960). Characteristics of teachers, their description, comparison, and appraisal: A research study. Washington: American Council on Education Simonton, D.K. (1990). History, chemistry, psychology, and genius: An intellectual autobio graphy of historiometry. In M.A. Runco & R.s. Albert (Eds.) Theories of Creativity (pp. 92 115). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sitk in, S.B. & Pablo, A.L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. T he Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9 38 Slovi c, P. (1964). Assessment of risk taking b ehavior. Psychological Bulletin, 61(3), 220 233. Sternberg, R.J. (1988). A three facet model of crea tivity. In R.J. Sternberg, (Ed.) The nature of c reativity (pp. 125 147). Cambridge, U K: Cambridg e University Press.

PAGE 126

126 Sternberg, R.J. (2003). The development of creativity as a decision making process. In M. Marschark (E d. ) Creativity and d evelopment (pp. 91 138). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sternberg, R.J & Lubart, T. (1992). Buy low and sell hi gh: an i nve stment approach to c re ativity. Cu r rent Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 1 5. Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the crowd: C ultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York, NY : Free Press Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart T. (1996). Investing in creativity American Psychol o gist, 51(7), 677 688. Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R.J. Sternberg (E d. ) Handbook of creativity (pp. 3 15) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Terenzini, P.T. and Pascarella, E.T. (1980). Student/Faculty relationships and freshman year educational outcomes: A further investigation. Journal of C ollege Student P ersonnel 21, 521 528. Tinsley, H.E.A. (1994). NEO personality inventory revised In D.J. Keyser & R.C. Sweetland, (E d s ) Test critiques ( Vol. VIII, pp. 443 456). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America. Torrance, E P (1963). The creative pe rsonality and the ideal pupil. Teachers College Record, 65, 220 226. Torrance, E.P. (1965 ). Rewarding creative behavior: Experiments in classroom creativity. Engelwood Clifs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Torra nce, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R.J. Sternberg (E d. ) The nature of c reativity (pp. 43 7 5). Cambridge, U K : Cambridge University Press. Torrance, E. P. (1993). Understanding creativity: Where to start. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3) 232 234. Torrance, E. P. & Myers, R.E. (1970). Creative learning and teaching New York: Dodd, Mead. Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 289 297. Weiner, I.B. & Greene, R.L. (2008). Handbook of personality a ssessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

PAGE 127

127 Woodman, W.R. & Schoenfeldt, F.L. (198 9 ). Individual differences in creativity: An interactionist perspective. In J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning, & C.R. Reynolds (Eds) Handbook of c reativity (pp. 77 91). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Zei sel, J. (1984). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment behavior research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64 70.

PAGE 128

128 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Natasha graduated from Florida State University in 2003 with her degree in Apparel Design. Apparel Design was housed in the same department as Residential Sciences a degree that encompasses property management, land development, and design. With a growing interest in housing, construction, and design she decided to continue her education and began working towards her mast Sciences. During the summer of her last year at Florida State she was offered an internship with Pulte Homes in the architecture department. Prior to leaving the intern position in the Fall of 2004 she was offered a job with Pulte Hom es after graduation. Upon graduation in 2005 from Florida State University she moved to Tampa to begin a career with Pulte Homes in their architectural department. Over the next three years at Pulte she gained invaluable knowledge in construction, engine ering, and multiple other facets of the design/construction field. With the desire to create her own designs she left Pulte Homes to attend graduate school at the University of Florida in 2008 in the Interior Design department. During her three years of course work and thesis work she also worked as a graduate teaching assistant in multiple capacities and completed an internship with a local and well known interior design firm.