Toward a Theory of
Creativity in Diverse Creative Women
I tell you, there
are a great line of women stretching
behind you into the past, and you have to seek them
out and find them in yourself and be conscious of them.
— Doris Lessing
Little research has been completed and little
is known about creative women, their creative processes, and the decisions
they face about their own creative productivity, and therefore how we can
develop creativity and promote creativity in diverse girls and women. The
social and political movement focusing on women during the past five decades
has provided some understanding of women’s creative processes as well as the
creative roles that women have played in our society and the forces that shape
those roles. In this chapter, current
research is analyzed, focusing on the development of women’s creativity and
the classification of this research into major themes. Internal and external blocks to creativity in
women are discussed as is current research on these blocks, and an explanation
is suggested for different types of creative productivity exhibited by women.
A theory is proposed regarding the diversion of women’s creativity into multiple
areas in their lives, including relationships, work
related to both family and home, personal interests, and aesthetic sensitivities.
This diversion of creative efforts may result in different levels of creativity
applied to work, as well as different patterns of creative productivity emerging
in a diverse group of creative women. The groups of women studied in research cited
in this chapter included women of various ages, adolescence through old age;
from various cultural groups, Caucasian, African American, Indian, Asian,
Australian, South American, and from various Hispanic groups; and from different
domains, including artists, researchers, students, scientists, entrepreneurs,
and politicians.
When we reflect on what has been learned about creativity during the last fifty years, we are forced to acknowledge that a gap exists in one major area. Little research has been completed and little is known about diverse, creative women, the choices they make, and the decisions they face about creative productivity in their lives. As Simonton recently indicated, “Psychologists still have a long way to go before they come anywhere close to understanding creativity in women and minorities” (2000, p.156). This is probably true because the majority of research conducted on creativity and productivity in adult life has concentrated on men (Cattell, 1903; Diamond, 1986; Lindauer, 1992; McLeish, 1976; Schneidman, 1989; Sears, 1977; Simonton, 1977, 1984, 1989).
This fact is not often discussed in these data-based studies, and for
this reason, Huyck (1990) called for
research to investigate how gender and age account for interests, believing
that researchers must develop a “sensitivity to issues of gender,” through
“accepting the possibility that men and women have substantially different
basic experiences”(p. 130).
It has been noted that male professors produce more creative work in research publications work than female professors (Axelrod, 1988; Ajzenberg-Selove, 1994; Bateson, 1989), and men earn more degrees, produce more works of art, and make more contributions in professional fields (Callahan, 1979; Ochse, 1991; Piirto, 1991; Reis, 1987,1998). Even in areas such as literature, in which both younger boys and girls believe that females excel, adult men are more productive in their professional accomplishments. For many years, for example, more men than women have been recipients of grants from the National Endowment Fellowships in Literature. As Callahan (1979) pointed out two decades ago and is still true today, men write more books than women.
A few recent researchers have questioned why so few eminent female creators exist (Gates, 1994; Ochse, 1991; Piirto, 1991), but Gates (1994) reminds us that the same question was raised by Havelock Ellis in 1894. Gates quoted Ellis as explaining the absence of famous female composers by describing the theory of variability, that is, a greater variation of ability exists in males, as more males than females are geniuses as well as idiots (Gates, 1994, p.27). Although Ellis called this theory the variability hypothesis, some later writers renamed it “the mediocrity of women hypothesis” (Gates, 1994, p.27).
Despite limited research on highly creative women, some explanations have been offered for the small number of women recognized as highly creative in certain domains. Piirto (1991) suggested that one reason for the absence of many famous women artists is how intensely they pursue their passions for art. But how intensely do creative women pursue other fields? Isaac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology is subtitled "The Lives and Achievements of 1510 Great Scientists from Ancient Times to the Present, Chronologically Arranged". Of the 1510 scientists included in the book, only 14 are women. When Barbara McClintock won the Nobel Prize for Science in 1983, she was only the fifth woman to receive this award in the eight decades since it was established. Research on the creative processes and personalities of creative girls and women has demonstrated that gender stereotyping throughout their lifetimes, as well as both internal and external barriers in their education, marriage, and family lives affect their creative productivity (Reis, 1987; 1995; 1996; 1998). The choices that some highly creative women make willingly, or are forced to make, have a profound impact on both the quantity and direction of their creative output. These choices affect the focus of their creativity, either as applied to work or to other essential components of their lives, including: family, relationships, personal interests, and work related to family and home.
The social and
political movement focusing on women during the past five decades has provided
some understanding of women’s creative processes as well as the creative roles
that women have played in our society and the forces that shape those
roles. Research focusing on the
development of women’s creativity can be classified into three major themes.
Theme One: Personality Characteristics of Creative Women and their Barriers to and Supports for Creative Work
The first theme relates to the personality characteristics of highly creative women, the internal blocks that may prevent them from creating, and the study of these characteristics as a means of helping other women with creative potential to develop their creativity. Research in this area generally falls under the umbrella of either historical views or more modern explanations. To explore historical issues, researchers use retrospective analyses to investigate how creativity evolved in eminent women. Studies have been conducted, for example, on famous writers, scientists, and artists in order to attempt to identify factors characterizing the lives of talented, creative women of the time. These have generally included: the ability to overcome challenges or problems, the need for or absence of support, the opportunity to learn independently in the absence of formal education, and the willingness to live a different life from their peers or counterparts. Wallace & Wahlberg (1995), for example, attempted to identify the early conditions of successful adult females by using a historical analysis of psychological traits and childhood environments. Results suggested what is already known, that is, both intelligence and environment were correlates in the success of notable women. As girls, notable women were intelligent, hard working, imaginative, and strong willed. Future writers studied were encouraged by their parents, were culturally and financially advantaged, and learned much outside of school. In addition, girls who became famous writers were more apt to question assumptions and conventions than were those who became notable artists, scientists, lawyers, and politicians.
Subotnik and Arnold (1995) investigated women in science, generally finding what has been noted in previous research, that creative female scientists appear to be motivated largely by deep intellectual engagement and the recognition associated with influential discoveries. The degree to which women scientists resemble or differ from this largely male-derived profile has not been extensively researched. Subotnik and Arnold (1995) found, however, that a potential mismatch existed between the single-minded devotion to science, characteristic of eminent researchers, and the desire to balance family and career that appears so prevalently in reports of professional women. For some groups of culturally diverse creative women, the extended family creates other obligations and blocks to creativity. In a four year longitudinal study of talented, culturally diverse highly creative teenage girls conducted using case study analysis, some of the Puerto Rican girls studied indicated that their focus on individual attainment and creativity resulted in negative pressure from their extended family (Reis, Hebert, Diaz, Maxfield &Ratley, 1995). In order to support their daughters’ creative development, some parents moved to another part of the city to enable their daughters to have freedom from extended family criticism regarding the pursuit of the girls’ creative talents.
Helson (1996) compared a sample of highly creative women mathematicians with a sample of other female mathematicians. The two groups differed only slightly on measures of intelligence, cognition, and masculine traits, but the creative mathematicians had more research activity, were highly flexible, original, and rejected outside influence. Half of the creative women were foreign born, and most had professional men as fathers. As compared with creative male mathematicians, the creative women had less assurance, published less, and occupied less prestigious positions. She also found differences between creative and comparison subjects in background and personality, perhaps indicating that their personality characteristics were powerful determinants of creativity of female mathematicians. The traits most characteristic of these creative women were: (a) rebellious independence, introversion, and a rejection of outside influences; (b) strong symbolic interests and a marked ability to find self-expression and self-gratification in directed research activity; and (c) flexibility, or lack of constriction, both in general attitudes and in mathematical work. Helson attributed differences in creative productivity between men and women after graduate school to social roles and institutional arrangements.
Research with creative women has demonstrated that internal personal barriers often exist in the process of completing creative work (Arnold & Denny, 1985; Callahan, 1979; Hollinger & Fleming, 1988; Kerr, 1985; Ochse, 1991; Piirto, 1991; Reis, 1987, 1998; Subotnik and Arnold, 1995). The way women have been raised and the cultural messages they encounter seem to result in these internal barriers and failure to develop the belief in self necessary for a commitment to highly creative work (Reis, 1998). Instead, some creative women remain in the background, in a less “center stage” position, as implementers of the ideas of others (Reis, 1998). Creative potential in some women may be directed to lower-profile work. While their male counterparts produce plays, write articles or books, undertake large deals, and are viewed as creative high achievers, many highly creative women make conscious or unconscious decisions to work in a more facilitating role, often implementing the creative ideas of others (Reis, 1998).
Highly creative women who are able to capitalize on this potential in their work often display single-minded purpose, make difficult choices about personal lives, and have support systems to enable their creativity to emerge. These support systems include supportive spouses, or choices made about personal life that have been considered non-traditional in the past, such as remaining unmarried, choosing not to have children, living alone or with a partner, or any combination of these. These decisions are often made to support the adaptation of a life style conducive to the production of highly creative work.
One female composer studied by Reis (1995) lived with a domestic partner who was an older man totally devoted to her talent and her ability to work. She often worked seven days a week on her music and was extremely happy in her choices, feeling she explained, an obligation to work as hard as she did to make a contribution to a female presence in musical composition.
Her first
work for orchestra, written in 1981, has become extremely successful, having
been played by thirty orchestras including the New York Philharmonic.
Reviews of her work have appeared in major news papers, journals, magazines
and music periodicals and she has received numerous awards, commissions, fellowships,
and grants from the Guggenheim, Fromm, Naumburg, Kousssevitzky, and Jerome
foundations. She has been profiled
in an award winning PBS documentary and major symphonies continue to perform
her work. Recently, one of her compositions
competed against 140 other new orchestral works to win the Grawemeyer Award,
the largest cash prize award in music. She
has a long-term relationship with a man with whom she has lived for almost
20 years, and has never had children. She
has commissions until 2002 and currently holds a chair at a small college
where she teaches for two days each week.
She admits that during the other five days of every week she often
spends seven or eight hours a day composing.
She does not like to take time off from her work and feels an obligation
to be a female composer who continues to contribute.
"We still have such a long way to go," she says.
"I mean, just look at the statistics. How many pieces by women composers do you know?
And how many do you really know? The
musicology network is still overwhelmingly a male network.
I mean, the standard music history textbook—the Grout history of music—listed
two women. That's for the whole history
of music."
At the same time, many women with high creative potential are not able to capitalize on their potential in work. A female sculptor who had incredible potential for success in art and won several prizes as a student and young artist explained why her career had been on hold, “ I have spent the last 25 years sculpting my three children. They have taken every ounce of my creativity, and there has been little left, either time or creative energy, for my work.” (Reis, 1998).
Theme
Two: Societal Factors that Facilitate or Impede the Development of Women’s
Creativity
The second theme in research relates to the societal factors that facilitated or became an impediment to the development of women’s creativity. Research in this area is generally divided into either historical or more modern explanations. Ochse (1991) asked why there were so few eminent female creators (scientists, composers, and artists). Researchers who study the history of female achievement have shown that creative works produced by women are often underrated or ignored in history. Historical research indicates that although intellectual stimulation in the home seems to play a major role in the development of creative ability, many girls were typically not encouraged or even allowed to engage in intellectual pursuits by their families or peers. They traditionally received less education than boys, and society often denied women access to certain cultural materials and teachers. In the past, women, and especially culturally diverse women, undoubtedly received little encouragement, stimulation, and access to tools necessary for building intellectual skills and developing the ability to create something of cultural value. Moreover, females were regarded as less able than males to use their intellectual skills creatively. Women who have the need to create may also experience constraints on their personal lives (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997).
Some authors have posited “modern” explanations of why there continue to be relatively few eminent women creators, and asked questions similar to those posed by the researchers who have offered “historical” views on why have we not had more female writers, painters, scientists, sculptors, or artists. One explanation offered is that many women do not perceive themselves as creators, follow their interests into career preparation, or place importance on the works they produce (Arnold, 1995; Callahan, 1979; Kerr, 1985; Reis, 1987, 1998). The problem may be further exacerbated when women do produce original, creative works, as some researchers have found that women are more conscious of criticism than men (Baer, 1997; Roberts, 1991; Roberts & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1994) and find it more difficult to deal with negative perceptions of their work.
Other explanations of why there are so few eminent women creators have to do with time commitments. Researchers who have offered “historical” explanations about the limited number of women creators argue that women were burdened with family responsibilities, child bearing, and limited educational opportunities. Contemporary researchers argue that creative women may have too many demands on their time, feel guilty if they attempt to do creative work in time that should be spent with their family, or in some cases, dislike working alone for the periods of time necessary for creative accomplishment (Callahan, 1979; Kerr, 1985; Ochse, 1991; Piirto, 1991; Reis, 1987, 1998). Some researchers have noted that the same years in which Lehman (1953) found the height of male creative productivity to occur characterize the peak period of women’s responsibilities to children (Reis, 1998). Some contemporary researchers have noted that in our society, exceptionally able women experience considerable stress related to role conflict and overload, which many reduce creative urges (Ochse, 1991; Piirto, 1991; Reis, 1987, 1998).
A few studies have examined current highly creative women to investigate the factors enabling them to develop their creativity. For example, List and Renzulli (1991) examined the impact of societal influences on the development of creative artists and studied their formal educational experiences, familial support, the role played by mentors, and the artists’ views about the development of their own creative processes. Results indicated that despite negative formal educational experiences, these creative artists generally had supportive families and the benefit of at least one influential mentor in their lives. Each experienced both a strong personal drive to create and a need to share their products with appropriate audiences.
Roscher (1987) studied a group of 12 highly creative successful women scientists who attributed part of their accomplishments to a role model, whether during high school or college, or an individual professor or family member who provided encouragement. The majority of the married women attributed their continued success to the encouragement of their spouse, often a scientist, who recognized the sacrifices necessary for success.
Theme Three: Gender and Cultural Differences in the Creative Process and Product
A third theme relates to the notion that gender differences exist in creativity and the creative process. A growing number of researchers have called for changes in the paradigm of how we view women and creativity, and the need for changes in society that could facilitate the development of creativity in women. Women have made, and continue to make, many creative contributions that are different from the creative accomplishments made by men, yet men’s creative accomplishments seem to be valued more by society (Reis, 1987; 1996; 1995; 1998). The creative accomplishments of women are regarded by them as more modest, and do not reflect the types of creative productivity that result in awards, prizes, books, articles, art, patents, professional stature and financial gain. Rather, their creative efforts were diversified over several initiatives and their creative products were different than those listed above.
A number of researchers have argued that gender differences exist in creativity among men and women. Some researchers perceive that at least some women perceive creative phenomena differently from men. Since women’s experiences and situations in society have been vastly different from men’s, one would expect differences in perception to emerge, for perception cannot be separated from learning and experience. For example, some female artists believe that their creative growth from both childbirth and parenting can actually contribute to their creative growth in art (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997). It is interesting to note that these artists, however, were regional award winners and not artists who have emerged as highly creative in their respective fields, at least at this period in their lives.
Van Tassel-Baska (1995) studied the lives of Bronte and Woolf to investigate whether the path of a talented female writer is different from a male writer, and identified similarities in the lives and work of Bronte and Woolf over the life span. She found three major influences on females writers: adversity (obstacles that the women had to overcome in order to realize their potential); autodidactism (dependence on self-learning due to limited or absent formal educational opportunities); and emotional support (need to have mentors to help these gifted women attain their potential). These areas also surface in other research related to women and the creative process across domains.
Explanations for gender differences in creative productivity vary. Some researchers point to studies from the 1950s indicating that women were more conservative, conventional, and unlikely to posses the traits most associated with creativity. However, in later replication studies, Eisenman & Johnson (1969) found that creative females preferred more complexity than males and that women were more open than males in terms of emotional expression.
Perhaps the most controversial issue related to women and the creative process is the claim that there may be a potential mismatch between the single-minded devotion necessary for creative accomplishment and the desire to balance family and career that appears so frequently in research about creative women. In fact, many women have the potential to display single-minded devotion to their work, but they also choose to diversify their creative efforts. One highly productive female scientist who had several patents and had published over a hundred scientific papers admitted she did her scientific research in addition to being Dean of a large Science College in a very competitive university. She had the responsibility for almost a hundred faculty members, over 20 million dollars in budget and grants, and she ran a large lab on her own research initiatives. She was committed to having more economically disadvantaged and culturally diverse students become scientists so part of her work continued to be the mentoring of young talented African American students from urban high schools. She explained that she was very efficient and could do multiple tasks. She also explained that on many weekends, she did not do science, but rather pursued another love, gardening. She had three children who had all graduated from college and a loving relationship with her husband, an architect. He indicated that his work had always been secondary to that of his wife. She is, he explained, brilliant and he had always been committed to encouraging her career. They have a close marriage and by all accounts she had been an involved and loving mother. Their marriage appeared close and happy and had survived over 30 years.
(Reis, 2000). This female scientist may never win a Nobel prize or become a household name and she clearly has that potential and a single-minded devotion to work. But she has chosen, like many creative women, to diversify her creativity potential; it was applied to her lab, to her work as an administrator, to mentoring poor African American high school students, to her spouse and children, and to her gardening. More work remains to learn more about diversion of creative potential in women.
The creative process in women may emerge differently than in males, and in some women, it may have difficulty in emerging. Women’s perceptions of the creative process in art as well as other areas have been filtered through male perspectives and the cultural roles developed for women but not by women. Therefore, female writers, artists, scientists and creators in all domains deal with male conceptions of creativity and a creative process that has been accepted as the standard within that domain, but may only be the standard for male creators (Reis, 1998). Again, more research is needed in this area.
New
Initiatives or Research on Women and Creativity
Figure 1. A model of talent realization in women.
A
Model of Talent Realization in Women
Five factors emerged from
the data that suggested the model of talent realization in women depicted
in Figure 1. Thismodel evolved from separate research studies
conducted over a decade (Reis, 1987; Reis, 1991; Reis & Callahan, 1989;
Reis, 1995; 1996; 1998; Reis, et al. 1995; Kirchenbaum
& Reis, 1997; Walker,
Reis, & Leonard, 1992). The samples for this work were extremely diverse.
The groups of women participating in the research included women of
various ages, adolescence through old age; from
various cultural groups, Caucasian, African American, Indian, Asian, Australian,
South American, and from various Hispanic groups; and from different domains,
including artists, researchers, students, scientists, entrepreneurs, and politicians.
The
factors in the model include (a) above average intelligence, contextual intelligence,
and/or special talents, (b) personality traits, (c) environmental contributions,
and (d) the perceived social importance of the use or manifestation of the
talent. This combination of factors
results in a belief in self and a desire to actively develop one’s talents.
Above Average Ability and Special Talents
Women
who realized their talent indicated that they were good but not superior school
students during the time they were in school, reflecting the distinction made
by Renzulli (1986) between schoolhouse giftedness and creative-productive
giftedness. The women who displayed creative productive giftedness choose
creative options as opposed another route that would have resulted in high
grades or superior performance in school.
In almost every case, the creativity, interests and talents of the
subjects merged to enable the development of their talent.
Contextual or practical intelligence (Sternberg, 1985) was also manifested
by all of the participants as each was able to creatively cope with the problems
encountered. They displayed skills
such as adapting to existing environments; shaping existing environments in
ways that rendered them a better fit to their unique abilities, values, and
interests; and selecting new environments when existing environments were
not and could not be made suitable.
Personality Traits
Personality
traits emerging from interviews or other primary source data included determination,
motivation, various ways of manifesting creativity, patience, and the ability
to take—and in some cases thrive on—risks. Determination was clearly exhibited by every
study participant throughout her life. The
ability to strive for success and to continue to work hard, sometimes under
adverse odds, with or without the support of family, was evident in most cases.
The participants explained their motivation and their creative processes
differently. Some were certain it had developed from the
positive role modeling of their parents. Others believed they developed their motivation
because of their strong need for a purpose in life such as preserving the
environment, being a successful female composer, or bringing theater to disadvantaged
urban youth. Still others believe that
their motivation came from a desire to produce, to leave a mark upon the world,
or from the sheer joy of the creative act.
Their creativity is also evident in their love for their work, the
sheer volume of their work, and their persistent evolution into higher and
more challenging talent forms.
Patience
was also a characteristic of all of subjects in this study. Some had to wait years for the opportunity to
invest considerable blocks of time in the development of their own talent. Some worked steadily over the years only to
be acknowledged for their specific talents later in life. One woman (Reis, 1995) postponed her congressional
career until her youngest daughter was ready for college. The composer, worked consistently to improve
her art form. This “wait time” differs
markedly from research conducted on achievement in males. Lehman (1953), for example, concluded that achievement
tended to be a curvilinear function of age: from the onset of a creator’s career, productivity
increases rapidly, levels off at a productive peak age and thereafter, declines
with increasing age. While some have
questioned Lehman’s belief in a creative decline in later years, Simonton
(1988, 1990a, 1990b) has indicated that recent research employing multivariate
techniques has demonstrated the general truth of Lehman’s basic conclusions,
even though specific details often need to be qualified.
For example, Simonton (1990a) cites specific domains such as pure mathematics
and theoretical physics in which early peaks of productivity exist (late 20s
or early 30s). Later peaks (late 40s or even 50s with a minimal,
if not largely absent, drop-off afterward) exist, according to Simonton, in
domains such as history, philosophy and general scholarship. What is not always or even often discussed in
these data-based studies is that the research leading to these findings was
conducted with populations primarily or exclusively consisting of males. It is for this reason that research is needed
to investigate how gender and age interact with high levels of creative productivity.
Another
trait clearly displayed by these creative, talented women was their willingness
to take risks and to engage in tasks that others might not have the courage
to attempt. One woman who achieved
eminence was almost 50 years old and financially insecure when she chose to
return to graduate school to work on a Ph.D. in Renaissance literature. Another was elected to the national House of
Representatives after her children had graduated from high school. How many women who are over 50 will run for
Congress in the future, exposing themselves to the rigors of public life and
a forced separation from home and family?
Another was a forester who became a conservation activist who continued
to move across the country from job to job, sleeping in tents and living under
adverse conditions simply to do the work she loved until she was almost 80
years old.
Finally,
the participants who participated in this research displayed a trait that
was difficult to define but can be described as high creative energy or vitality,
and a contentment about life. Some
were enthusiastic while others were quiet; some laughed frequently and moved
constantly, others were very calm and almost reserved. However, each exuded a creative energy and intensity
about her life and work, and a spirit of satisfaction about the direction
her life had taken.
Environmental Factors
The
participants in some of the studies, such as the study of older eminent women
(Reis, 1996) were more educated than the participants in other studies (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997; Reis, et al., 1995). Some participants came from upper middle class
families, others from relatively poor families. Some attended prestigious women's colleges,
some went to large state universities, and some flunked out of high school.
Some received advanced degrees, but most did not.
Some had nurturing families but some had families who were abusive
or distant. Almost all had siblings. Almost all were members of families in which
sufficient income was present to provide them with food, a materially good
home, and a commitment to future education.
Some were
born to parents with college degrees, who were of middle to upper middle class
socioeconomic status, and encouraged their daughters to attend college and
graduate. Some were born to parents
who had not attended high school. Some
were white and others reflected culturally, ethnically and linguistically
diverse populations. Many were single,
most who married or had long term relationships had children. The women who did not have children believed
that they labored more steadily on their journey to accomplishment. All participants who had children, however,
delayed placing primary emphasis on their career because of their children’s
needs, and worked in different ways to prepare themselves for their future
work. The congresswoman, for example,
waited until her daughters entered college to run for office, while maintaining
a steady record of community, civic and other responsibilities that contributed
to her eventual election to the House of Representatives. She did not initially realize how qualified
she had become to run for public office until she sought help from her college
career office. That help was vital
to her and integral to her success:
I
don't know how I got the idea that I should go back to the career office at
my college. Somebody suggested it to
me when I applied to law school and didn't get in because I applied late. You see, I didn't know what to do with my life
so I applied to law school and The School of Social Work. My career office helped me to arrange all of
the volunteer stuff I had done and to put it into professional terms. Then I began to see that all of the programs
that I'd developed and marketed, all of the leadership
that I'd provided in the PTA to get parents more involved and all of the other
stuff that I'd done could be marketed in professional terms. And I can remember saying: ‘Look at all the things I've done’. The career office counselor helped me realize
that all of the things I've done fit
into the real world of business and after that , I said I'm not going to do
volunteer work any more, I'm not going to repeat this phase of my life. I'm going to move forward.
Perceived Social Importance of Talent
Manifestation
All
participants had a strong desire to use their talents in ways that were personally
satisfying and would benefit society. They did not simply have a drive to succeed;
rather, they defined success in their own unique ways that involved ways their
talents could benefit society. Before
she became a congresswoman, one participant was asked to be the first woman
in her area to chair the United Way Fund Drive and to be the first president
of The League of Women Voters. Later
she consciously decided that volunteer work would no longer help her to achieve
her goals. The composer started her
own instrumental group but also sought to become a successful and famous composer.
A poet worked to produce poetry that was personally joyful and which
would also help teachers make poetry enjoyable for their students.
An African American researcher discussed her research efforts in the
context of her status as a woman and someone who was black, calling herself
“twice exceptional”. She also spoke of her need to be a role model
to other young African American women considering doctoral work and a career
in research.
Belief in Self and Desire to Develop
and Contribute their Creative Productivity
Each
of these women developed a belief in her self and a desire to make a creative
contribution and each had a personal desire to develop her talents and creative
productivity. Each had reasonably high
levels of self-esteem, found
to characterize other successful women (Northcutt, 1991; Steinem, 1992), although
many had problems dealing with criticism of their work.
Most believe their self concept and self esteem came from their own
successes, as well as from the love and support they received from family
and friends
Each
participant also wanted to contribute. None
were satisfied with their lives unless they could actively develop their talent.
Most, when asked, discussed friends and siblings who were just as smart
or even smarter (if one uses school performance as the basis for assessment)
but who were content to lead lives that did not involve the constant work
and energy needed to develop one's talent.
Why did these women continue to strive?
Why did they work so hard when their friends and colleagues were content
to live such different lives? My research
has indicated that these women had no choice; they wanted to contribute in
some way, they believed in themselves and their creative potential.
Several of them explained this simply and eloquently: "Something inside of me had to come out.”
Gruber (1985) has referred to this as moral giftedness which requires
a commitment to prolonged, steady work. Some of these women had to delay the time in
which they could make a prolonged, steady commitment because of family responsibilities
but once they began, they continued. Many were not able to focus their creative potential
simply on their work, but rather they diversified their creative efforts to
multiple venues. Some mentioned their
cultural diversity as a stimulus to creative effort, indicating that they
made greater creative efforts due to their understanding of the necessity
for creative contributions from minority women.
The Diversification Theory of Female Creativity
Research (Reis, 1987, 1995; 1996; 1998) has demonstrated that women’s creativity is diverted to multiple areas in their lives, including relationships, work related to family and home, personal interests, aesthetic sensitivities, and appearances. This diverse creativity emerges in their work but also in other areas including their relationships with family and friends, the ways they decorate their homes, prepare meals, plan complicated schedules for their families; balance time between work and personal life, and stretch the family budget. This diversification of creativity (See Figure Two) emerged across several studies and is eloquently explained by one participant in a study of older creative women (Reis, 1996; 1998). When asked about various periods of creative productivity in her life, one of the first female producers on Broadway discussed her beliefs about the ways in which women’s creativity evolves in a different pattern than men’s:
Women spend their lives moving from one creative act to another and they find satisfaction from their creative expression in many different outlets. I have found that men, on the other hand, see an end goal and move directly toward the pursuit of that creative goal. That is why men are able to achieve goals and fame more quickly than women, but I think that women have a richer creative journey, find joy in the diversity of their creative acts, and in the end, enjoy the creative process so much more.
Women have different ways of demonstrating
their creativity. As suggested by other
researchers, it may be that they are so frequently involved in multiple tasks,
they are less capable of focusing only on one aspect of creativity, such as
their work. This research indicates that the diversity in
their creativity occurs because they enjoy and derive pleasure from diverse
creative acts and that the diversification of their creative potential is
natural for these women. Because women have had to struggle to find a place
for themselves in many work situations, they have not yet had the time or
experience to be able to engage in the single-minded devotion to work that
many of their male peers have had. Perhaps
the barriers that they have experienced over time have led to the need to
diversify their creative talents, as several external and internal barriers
to creativity have been identified in recent work conducted about creative
women (Kirschenbaum
& Reis, 1997; List and Renzulli, 1991; Ochse, 1991; Piirto, 1991 Reis,
1987; Reis, 1995; 1996; 1998; Roscher; 1987).
Or it may be that they enjoy many diverse expressions of creativity,
as indicated by many participants in the research studies leading to this
theory.
Figure 2. Diversification of creativity in women.
External
and Internal Barriers to Creative Accomplishment in Women
What types of barriers cause women with high levels of creative potential to fail to realize their potential, at least according to traditionally male standards of realizing potential. It may be that their creativity is manifested in ways not generally recognized by society, or perhaps our society has a view of creativity defined according to male standards of creative accomplishment.
When the limited body of research on women and creativity is examined, external barriers to creativity in women seem clear. The first set of barriers to creativity in women deal with childhood and family issues, such as number and sex of siblings, birth order of the siblings, and presence and absence of one or both parents (Reis, 1998). Other childhood issues include the attitudes of parents toward having and raising girls and boys, including purchasing different stereotypical toys for each gender (Kuebli & Fivush, 1992; Schwartz &Markham, 1985), and decorating rooms differently. Girls’ rooms have more dolls and dollhouses, and boys’ rooms have more vehicles, educational and art materials, and machines (Rheingold & Cook, 1975; Pomerleau & Malcuit, 1990). Some parents hinder the creative process in their daughters. In a study of young gifted female sculptors, Sloane and Sosniak (1985) found that it was most important to parents that their daughters be happily married. Parents also hoped that their daughters would be able to do something in which they were interested, finish their education, and become financially secure. If parents are primarily encouraging their talented daughters in these areas, little encouragement may have been given to their creative potential. Socialization also involves breaking cultural stereotypes and assumptions. Many of the talented Hispanic young women we studied discussed issues relating to their movement away from their families as they received higher levels of education and the negative cultural stereotypes they encountered.
Jeanne H. Block (1982), a pioneer in gender research, believed that a fundamental task of the developing individual is the mediation between internal biological impulses and external cultural forces as they coexist in a person's life space and life span (p. 2). She further believed that the socialization process, defined as internalization of values, appears to have differential effects on the personality development of males and females. Socialization, Block asserted, narrows women's options while broadening men's options (p. 220). Unfortunately, as girls get older, many of them learn that their perception of reality differs from the life experiences they encounter.
Because many women still assume the primary responsibility of family nurturer and caretaker, their creative energies are diverted into several different areas including work, relationships, family and home, while many men’s creative energy is more available to be directly applied to work. While female nurturing has in the past been directed primarily to childcare, people are living longer and the need for care has been shifted to elderly parents. In the early 1970s, for example, only 25% of people in their late 50’s had a surviving parent, but by 1980, 40% did, as did 20% of those in their early 60’s, and 3% of those in their 70’s. The need for care has become most necessary for the oldest people in our society, those over the age of 85, a group that has grown from fewer than 300,000 in 1930 to over 3 million today (Beck, Kantrowski and Beachy, 1990). The majority of those who care for elderly parents are women, and thus, the responsibilities for care increase.
Completing creative work requires long periods of concentrated effort which are not available to many women in their peak work and childbearing years, and perhaps not even in their older years. Many women of all ages who have families simply do not have that kind of time available for their professional work. A study of gifted females who selected a traditionally female career was conducted to identify the social forces, if any, that caused these women to select a career in teaching or business and to learn whether they regretted their decisions (Reis, 1995). A questionnaire was administered to 67 gifted women aged between 25 and 62, and follow-up interviews were conducted with 25 women. When asked how much free time each respondent had each day, the mean amount of time listed by respondents was slightly more than one hour each day (X = 1.20 hrs.) The most frequent response about the amount of free time these gifted women had daily was 1/2 hour. When asked what percentage of household work and chores respondents did as compared to spouse/partner and/or children, a larger percentage than might be expected was indicated. Deleting the responses of unmarried participants, who did 100% of their housework, the mean percentage of household work and chores undertaken by these gifted females was 70.8%. Only 31% of the sample did less than 75% of the work, and 90% of this group attributed the lower percentage to their children's contributions rather than their spouse's.
Those talented females who selected a traditional career (Reis, 1995) present a contradictory picture of parental influence on the development of creativity and talent emerged. Parents usually encouraged these gifted females to do well in school, but provided little encouragement beyond the college years. Approximately 20% of the participants believed that their parents had reserved this encouragement solely for their sons. When encouragement was given to daughters, it was not applied to a specific career goal. Accordingly, these talented females learned to do well in school but had no idea how to focus their good grades and achievement scores into career aspirations. Another theme that emerged from the questionnaires and interviews involved parental expectations that these women would marry and have a family. Some respondents said their parents encouraged their education and career only when combined with family. Many of these talented females were discouraged by their parents (especially their mothers) from pursuing their careers after they had children. They were often encouraged to pursue a career only if it allowed them to "put their family first”, so teaching and nursing were considered appropriate career choices and excellent outlets for creative energy by many parents of the women who participated in this study.
Runco (1991) suggested that two broad personality and cognitive “transformations” occur in the development of high levels of creativity in persons of high potential. The first is the development of outstanding creative ability during the first two decades of life. The second begins in adolescence and entails the transformation of creative abilities into an integrated set of cognitive skills, career-focused interests and values, specific creative personality dispositions, and moderately high ambitions. Accordingly, if parental encouragement of any creative work is regarded as less important than encouragement to marry and have children, a different set of priorities may be embedded in creative females than in males.
Some creative young girls are willful and determined, and their parents strive to “correct” creative aspects of their daughters’ personalities. Too many parents squelch their daughters’ enthusiasm and spirit under the guise of manners and behavior codes, and sometimes squelch some of the passion in their creative spirited daughters (Reis, 1998). Recent research (Reis, 1998) indicates that the mixed messages creative girls receive emanate from the interaction of family variables, their parents’ relationship and their expectations that their daughters will have certain types of manners and behaviors. Many highly creative young girls have problems reconciling messages that have emerged from home and school with their creative potential, which causes external barriers to create internal barriers. Parents’ strict guidelines about manners for their daughters create confusion about roles and expectations. Being praised for appearance, being encouraged to consistently mind their manners, and told to be polite and ladylike may conflict with the characteristics which are necessary for girls with high creative potential to evolve into women whose creative potential is manifested in adult productivity. These characteristics include the ability to challenge convention, to question authority, and speak out for change (Reis, 1998). The very characteristics found to be associated with older creative women (Reis, 1996) including determination, commitment, assertiveness, risk taking, and the ability to control one’s life, directly conflict with good and appropriate manners parents demand from daughters.
Internal, Personal Barriers to Creative Expression in Women
Another reason why fewer creative women fulfill their potential to complete professional and creative endeavors is their different priorities. Miller (1976) wrote in Toward a New Psychology of Women that women she saw in her practice were preoccupied with how their actions affected others, with questions about connecting and giving, and whether they were perceived as being selfish or measuring up. Highly creative women often value relationships as much or more than creative work (Reis, 1998). A sick child or elderly parents who need care, a friend who is in trouble, and many other personal issues cause talented women to make choices about what is more important to them, and since creative energy may be finite, force them to make difficult decisions. For many creative women, having to split time between the people that they love and creative work they want to do is a difficult and often wrenching choice (Reis, 1996; 1995; 1998). The greatest conflicts found in talented, creative women in their twenties, thirties, and forties concern the interaction between their career and personal life (Reis, 1998).
This intensely personal struggle to try to develop their personal talents while they also try to meet the needs of those they love causes creative women the most conflict, guilt, and pain. Maric Mileva Einstein, Albert’s first wife, was a gifted mathematician with extremely high potential who was a fellow classmate at the prestigious Swiss Federal Polytechnic. In a biographical study of her life, Andrea Gabor found that “the more insecure Maric became in her relationship with Einstein, the more she came to identify her interests with his, ultimately putting Einstein’s welfare ahead of her own” (1995, p. 12). After she married and had children, however, her life changed drastically, and friends recalled that she often spent all day cleaning, cooking and caring for the children and then would busy herself in the evening, proofreading her husband’s work and doing mathematical calculations to help him in his writings.
Lee Krasner, a talented artist, married Jackson Pollock, following a similar path to Maric Mileva Einstein, defined by Gabor as the Invisible Wife Syndrome. “In her marriage to Jackson Pollock, she succumbed to a potent brew of upbringing, social expectations and precedent by deliberately choosing to exercise much of her artistic devotion through the work of her husband” (1995, p. 58). It was only after his death that Krasner created art that seemed to be a reaffirmation of life but this creative energy in art stemmed from her loss of this complicated man she so deeply loved. Sculpting a personal and professional life for highly creative women is an intensely difficult challenge, and putting the needs of their husbands ahead of their own needs is an ongoing personal decision, one which does not seem to have been reconciled effectively in many women’s lives. Consider the reflections of Mary Catherine Bateson: “As a young woman, I never questioned the assumption that when I married what I could do would take second place to what my husband could do” (1990, p. 40).
Another reason that women with high levels of creative potential may not pursue creative productive work is that they may possess certain personality traits often conflicting with high-profile creative endeavors (Reis, 1998). These traits occur in many women, whether they work within or outside of the home, are married or single, and whether or not they have children. One of the most common traits is perfectionism, which causes some girls and women to expend maximum energy at all times, attempting to do everything and do it well. Often, it is not enough to try to be outstanding in work; perfectionistic women also feel they have to strive for a flawless body, a beautiful house and perfect children. Creative women often wear themselves out trying to do everything well, often with minimal help from their spouses. Despite these accomplishments, they still feel plagued by guilt that they may not have given enough to their husbands, children, home, and career.
A tendency exists for many females, regardless of their age, to try to minimize their differences. Both young girls and older women have been found to have a greater need to be accepted and to have others like them. Defying the Crowd, the title of a recent book on creativity by Sternberg and Lubart (1995), illustrates a fundamental difference in creative endeavors for women. Defying the crowd is the last thing that many women with high creative potential seek to accomplish, as many creative women want to minimize differences through quiet work completed without calling attention to themselves (Reis, 1998). Many creative women want to create quietly, in an environment in which their differences do not appear so obvious (Reis, 1987, 1996, 1995; Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997).
Many creative women with firm religious backgrounds and beliefs have grappled with the religious training which conflicts with what is required if they are to develop their own talents (Reis, 1998). Selflessness, modesty, turning the other cheek, and the subjugation of individual pursuits for the good of others are learned from earliest interaction with religious training, and these lessons may conflict with experiences that occur later in life. Concerns that pursuing one’s creative talents will be misconstrued as selfish consideration has been mentioned repeatedly by creative women (Reis, 1998) who have been raised with religious beliefs. Many struggle with learned beliefs and perceptions that to pursue their own talents is selfish. Guilt seems intertwined with many creative women’s struggles to understand the relationship between their own talent development and what they learned in their previous experiences, including their religious training, about their responsibilities to those they love. As a result, little time is left for individual creative work. As one extremely creative artist explained, she can work only:
“When my life is in order, the kids are happy, dinner is cooking, the house is clean, the laundry is caught up, and there’s a semblance of calm in the household. It just seems like ideas flow. I can sit down and write poetry just like that. I can sit at the computer and turn out two or three pages of a screenplay" (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997, p. 261).
The guilt experienced by creative women from putting work ahead of other responsibilities, perhaps, explains why selecting work that results in social change or the improvement of the human condition is so important to some talented women with strong religious backgrounds.
Females across the lifespan hide or mask their abilities so as not to appear too different, or to appear as if they are immodest (Callahan, 1979; Kerr, 1985; Noble, 1989; Reis, 1987). Parental influences, such as teaching daughters to be modest or polite, seem to confound this issue. In many interviews with young and adolescent gifted girls, they explained that they did not like to share the news of a high grade or a special accomplishment because it would seem as if they were bragging (Reis, 1998).
Many talented, creative females often compare themselves more, express more doubt about their abilities, and criticize themselves and others more (Arnold, 1995; Bell, 1989; Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker, 1994; Cramer, 1989; Hany, 1994; Kramer, 1991; Leroux, 1988; Perleth & Heller, 1994; Reis, 1987; Reis & Callahan, 1989; Subotnik, 1988). Creative women artists (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997) were hesitant to show their art to others because they believed it wasn’t good enough or feared rejection in some form. This low self-esteem might have affected their creative process and productivity. One stated, “I make things and hide them because I don’t think they’re good enough. I’ll bring them out and somebody will say they’re pretty good and it surprises me. If I get enough positive feedback on a piece, I’ll show it somewhere. Several of the women avoided the prospect of having their efforts (and, consequently, their self-confidence and self-esteem) diminished by either having their art rejected in art competitions or ignored by the buying public.
Another internal barrier concerns strong feelings of loneliness and isolation on the parts of highly creative women. In research with both older and younger creative females, feelings of loneliness were often discussed (Reis, 1998). A successful college president, widely acclaimed for her novel ideas and creative contributions, when asked about friendships replied simply, “I have none.” Some of the reasons that many talented women had few friends and were often lonely revolved around the extremely limited time they have for friendships. The ambivalence of other women to highly creative women who achieve has also been identified in successful women who recounted situations in which their success was viewed negatively by both other women and men. Creative women who had successful careers often reported that they were pitted against women who stayed at home and worked to raise their children (Reis, 1998).
Simonton (l978) suggested several external factors that affect creative development, including a set of philosophical beliefs essential to the development of creative potential. In a society in which the majority of our leaders, politicians, artists, musicians, inventors are male, how does a woman develop a philosophical belief about her own creative potential? How might she overcome her upbringing, her parent’s and teachers’ advice and imprinting on manners and personal characteristics, and the knowledge that creative contributions take great amounts of time? When Maria Goeppart-Mayer made the discovery that later resulted in a Nobel Prize, she delayed publishing her results for months. Her biographer concluded that modesty caused this delay (Dash, p. 322). However, her hesitation may also reflect the intrinsic belief imposed upon highly able women by our society––that discoveries, inventions, and creations are usually the work of men. Until many more women are visible as discoverers, inventors or creators, they may be relegated to the traditional roles they have generally held in the past––implementers of others’ ideas, organizers, service providers, and the painters of the backdrop of creation.
Perceptions about Personal Creativity
Levels and types of creativity must also be investigated in creative women. It is clear that many women with creative potential do not believe they have been as creative in life as they might have been, given their early promise. In a study of 67 talented women who pursued a more traditional career, participants were asked to compare life today with the dreams they had for their future when they graduated from college (Reis, 1995). Sixty percent indicated they experienced a conflict between the “real world” and the cultivation and realization of their own creative talents. Societal expectations often led them not to plan a career that was personally satisfying, to put their talents and aspirations on hold while raising their families, and eventually to stop regarding themselves as capable of more creative lives than they are currently living. Many indicated that they had not been able to pursue their own creative talents because of the pressures of marriage and family. Their creative achievements, “a grant from my district,” “a curriculum unit I developed,” “developing an innovative program,” “a workshop I gave,” might be considered modest when compared to those that are often considered important by either societal or male achievement standards (books written, national awards won, etc.). Half of the women studied were apologetic when discussing their creative accomplishments, indicating that they knew their achievements in this particular area might seem “modest,” but they were also often defensive, acknowledging how hard it was to accomplish anything given their work and family commitments.
Many creative women do not have role models who exemplify how creativity can be applied to work, and even if they do, their availability may not be enough to overcome the social forces they overcame in their life. Consider the explanation of this phenomenon by Mary Catherine Bateson, whose mother was Margaret Mead, on the negative influences of social factors she experienced in her life:
I believe the issue of female inferiority still arises for virtually every woman growing up in this society. I grew up in an environment where no one told me females were inferior or that significant achievement would necessarily be beyond my reach, but the belief was all around me (p. 40).
This sentiment was also expressed by the culturally diverse creative women studied (Reis, 1998). Highly creative African American and Hispanic women consistently mentioned expressions of feeling different, negative societal pressure, negative feelings from family and peers. One African American woman explained she was a double exceptionality. “I am an accomplished, highly educated, creative woman and I am black. Imagine how hard that was for the men I encountered in my life” she explained while discussing why she had not married.
The Importance of Creative Expression
Current research (Reis, 1998) indicated the need creative women have for creative expression in their work. In research conducted on creative female artists, participants also commented about the value of the process of creating art. For those involved in some aspect of sculpting, the feeling of doing physical work as they created was very gratifying (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997, p. 262). One woman explained:
The process of doing art is often more important [than the product] to me because of my feeling that I have to get something out. The act of welding, of fusing metal together, is very important to me. The passion I feel, the violence of creating something with an arc-welder as the sparks fly everywhere, watching the metal heat up, then manipulating it by bending, hammering, and cutting it, gives me feelings that are hard to describe. It’s a rich feeling, one of power, I guess (p. 262).
Another creative artist explained, “I may not be in the mood to paint, but if I don’t do something [artistic], it’s like I’m suffering from drug withdrawal. If I don’t take care of this creative urge, I feel like I’m going to blow up. I need that high of being creative.” (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997, p. 262) When asked about their futures, the goals mentioned by these female artists included being able to keep learning and doing their art, obtaining necessary equipment and materials when the money was available, and completing specific projects in the near future. In other areas of creative expression, similar views were consistently expressed by women about their need for creative expression in work (Reis, 1998).
Conclusion
The accomplishments of some highly creative females and the failure of others to realize their creative potential is a complex issue dependent upon many factors, including personal choices and social-cultural forces. “It is obvious that the values of women differ very often from the values which have been made by the other sex. Yet, it is the masculine values that prevail,” wrote Virginia Woolf in A Room of One's Own.. Our current societal structure eliminates the possibility that many highly creative females, especially those who are married and have children, can produce at a similar level as their male counterparts. While the importance of women’s traditional contributions cannot be underestimated, these contributions are often not enough for highly creative women (Reis, 1998). These women may want a different life, or have a sense of destiny about applying their creativity to areas of choice, especially after they have been exposed to a range of options available to them.
The exploration and discussion of the personality issues and personal choices facing girls and women with high levels of creative potential should be encouraged. The development of a creative life is intricate and complex. What one young girl regards as an impossible obstacle, another may see as an intriguing challenge. Some creative women were negatively influenced by their parents’ lack of support for their career preferences, and they changed their career plans, regretting it later. A much smaller group of women were so angry that their parents tried to steer them away from their dreams that they rebelled and became eminent in their selected areas of endeavor (Reis, 1996, 1995, 1998). The ways in which the same obstacles differentially affect girls and women provides the fascination of researching their creative accomplishments. Resilience, rebellion, multipotentiality, different cycles of creativity and high creative accomplishment in the face of obstacles such as poverty and a complete absence of support characterize many highly creative women (Reis, 1998). Yet, they persist. Is this type of persistence, determination and inner will learned, or is it the result of innate personality traits?
Many creative
women develop these characteristics throughout their lives, and it is precisely
this development which creates their success—which is actively learned
throughout their lifespan. Exploring how
and when creative women develop these characteristics may help other creative
young females in their journeys.
Continuing to have limited research on this topic will result in what
Gerda Lerner described. Noting the long history of extraordinary women, she
raised a similar concern about women with special talents:
Their individual achievements are awesome and inspire respect, yet it must be noted that their individual effort could not lead to a collective advancement in consciousness. The women of talent existed, they struggled valiantly, they achieved and they were forgotten. The women coming after them had to start all over again, repeating the process (Lerner, p. 274).
The unique pattern of the lives of creative women seems almost to defy general theories of human development, yet some recent trends have emerged (Reis, 1998). There is no clear path for creative women, whose lives are intimately connected with relationships with family and friends in addition to work. Creative productivity in women is more diffused than that of their male counterparts. Because relationships are central to women’s lives, they often have an impact on their work and individual creative attainment. Yet, without meaningful work, creative women are not satisfied.
The realization of the creative potential in women requires effort, conscious decision-making and an understanding that the full range of creative talents in many women may be unrealized in our world today. Virginia Woolf, in A Room of One’s Own, wrote that the creative powers of men and women were different, “. . . that the creative power of women, though highly developed differs from the creative power of men” (1957, p. 91). However, many people do not fully understand the creative potential of women as opportunities for creative work and
productivity are less often encountered by girls and women. We live in a world in which our realities and daily experiences reinforce certain roles, expectations, and obligations that limit creative opportunities for girls and women. And the creative opportunities that women continue to have are often diversified over many different outlets. More research needs to examine this complex phenomenon in diverse creative women before we can understand the reasons for this diversification and whether it will change as work for women becomes more of a predominant theme in life. In the meantime, some of the suggestions included in Appendix A may be helpful as we consider encouraging creativity in ourselves, our colleagues, children and friends.
Bibliography
Ajzenberg-Selove,
F., (1994). A matter of choices:
Memoirs of a female physicist.
Axelrod, T. (1988). Patently successful. Ms., 16(10),44-45.
Baer, J. (1987). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation of creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 10 (1). 25-31.
Bateson, M.C.(1990).
Composing a life.
Beck, M. Kantrowski, B. & Beachy, L. (1990, July 16). Trading places, Newsweek, 48-54.
Block, J. H.
(1982). Sex role
identity and ego development.
Callahan, C. M.
(1979). The gifted and talented woman. In A. H.
Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented
(pp. 401-423) .
Callahan, C. M., Cunningham, C.M., & Plucker, J.A. (1994). Foundations for the future: The socio-emotional development of gifted, adolescent women. Roeper Review, 17, 99-105.
Cattell J. M. (1903). A Statistical study of eminent men. Popular Science Monthly, 62, 359-377.
Cramer, R. H. (1989). Attitudes of gifted boys and girls toward math: A qualitative study. Roeper Review, 11, 128-133.
Dash, J. (1988).
A life of one’s own.
Diamond, A.M. (1986). The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and Scientists. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 520-525.
Eisenman , R. & Johnson, P. (1969). Birth order, sex, perception, and production of complexity. The Journal of Social Psychology 79, 116.
Gabor, A. (1995). Einstein’s wife: Work and marriage in the lives of five great
twenty-first century women.
Gates, E. (1994). Why have there been no great women composers? Psychological theories, past and present. Journal of Aesthetic Education, (28) 2, 27-34.
Hany, E.A. (1994). The development of
basic cognitive components of technical creativity: A longitudinal comparison
of children and youth with high and average intelligence. In R. F. Subotnik
& K.D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman:
Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 115-154).
Helson, R. (1996). In search of the creative personality. Creativity Research Journal. 9(4), 295-306.
Hollinger, C.L. & Fleming, E. S. (1988). Gifted and talented young women: Antecedents and correlates of life satisfaction. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(2), 254-260.
Huyck, M. H. (1990). Gender differences in aging. In J. Biren & W. W. Schaie (Eds.). Handbook of the Psychology of Aging (3rd Ed.). 120-134. N.Y.; Academic Press.
Keubli, J & Fivush, R. (1992). Gender differences in parent-child conversations about past emotions. Sex Roles, 27 (11), 683-98.
Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women.
Kirschenbaum, R. J. & Reis, S. M. (1997). Conflicts in creativity: Talented female artists. Creativity Research Journal, 10(2&3), pp. 251-263.
Kramer, L. R. (1991). The social construction of ability perceptions: An ethnographic study of gifted adolescent girls. Journal of Early Women in Culture and Society, 16(1), 158-172.
Lehman, H. C.(1953). Age and achievement.
Lerner, G. (1993). The creation of feminist consciousness.
Leroux, J. A. (1988). Voices from the classroom: Academic and social self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11(3), 3-18.
Lindauer, M. S. (1992).Creativity in aging artists: Contributions from the humanities to the psychology of old age. Creativity Research Journal, 5(3), 211-231.
List, K. & Renzulli, J.(1991). Creative women’s developmental patterns through age thirty-five. Gifted Education International, 7(3), 114-122.
Mcleish , J.A.B. (1976). The Ulyssean adult: Creativity in the middle and later years.
Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of
women.
Noble, K.D. (1989). Counseling gifted women: Becoming the heroes of our own stories. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12(2), 131-141.
Ochse, R. (1991). Why there were relatively few eminent women creators. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(4), 334-343.
Perleth,C., & Heller, K. A.(1994). The
Piirto, J. (1991). Why are there so few? (creative women: visual artists, mathematicians, musicians). Roeper Review, 13(3), 142-147.
Pomerleau, A., Bolduc, D., & Malcuit, C. (1990). Pink or blue: Environmental gender stereotypes in the first two years of life. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 22(5-6), 359-367.
Reis, S. M. (1987). We can’t change what we don’t recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(2), 83-88.
Reis, S. M. (1995). Talent ignored, talent diverted: The cultural context underlying giftedness in females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(3), 162-170.
Reis, S. M. (1996). Older women’s
reflections on eminence: Obstacles, and
opportunities. In K. D. Arnold, K. D.
Noble, and R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable
women: Perspectives on female talent
development.
Reis, S. M.(1998). Work left
undone.
Reis, S. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1989). Gifted females: They’ve come a long way- or have they? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12(2), 99-117.
Reis, S.
M., Hebert, T. P., Diaz, E. I., Maxfield, L. R., & Ratley,
M. E. (1995). Case studies of talented students who achieve
and underachieve in an urban high school.
Research Monograph 95114,
Rheingold, H.L., & Cook, K.V. (1975). The content of boy’s and girl’s rooms as an index of parent behavior.</