Creativity Research Journal

ISSN: 1040-0419 (Print) 1532-6934 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

The Structural Relationships of Parenting Style,

Creative Personality, and Loneliness
Sungtaek Lim & Joshua Smith
To cite this article: Sungtaek Lim & Joshua Smith (2008) The Structural Relationships of
Parenting Style, Creative Personality, and Loneliness, Creativity Research Journal, 20:4, 412-419,
DOI: 10.1080/10400410802391868
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400410802391868

Published online: 04 Nov 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 323

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcrj20
Download by: [West University from Timisoara ]

Date: 24 November 2015, At: 03:13

CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 20(4), 412419, 2008

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400410802391868

The Structural Relationships of Parenting Style, Creative

Personality, and Loneliness
Sungtaek Lim

Downloaded by [West University from Timisoara ] at 03:13 24 November 2015

Kangwon National University

Joshua Smith
Indiana UniversityPurdue University Indianapolis

The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of the relationships between
childrens reports of their mothers and fathers parenting style (leniency and acceptance), teachers reports of childrens creative personality, and teachers reports of
childrens loneliness in school in a sample of South Korean sixth graders (N 421).
Using structural equation modeling, the results showed that parenting styles that
reflected higher levels of leniency were associated with higher levels of loneliness and
no relationship with childrens creative personality. Parenting styles that reflected higher
levels of acceptance were associated with higher levels of creativity in their children, but
did not have a direct effect on loneliness. However, there was an indirect effect; the
relationship between acceptance and loneliness was mediated by creativity.

Increasingly, teachers are expected to take additional

responsibility to foster student creativity, while simultaneously helping them to adjust to the social aspects
of school and society at large. Some have argued that
schools are being charged with the untenable task of fostering competing values. For example, Barron (1969)
contended that creativity, by its very nature, exemplifies
resistance to socialization, and Burkhardt (1985) posited
the notion of the individual against society further by
suggesting that creative individuals must actively fight
against societys quest desire for sameness and conformity to the norm. Sternberg and Lubart (1995) identified
this propensity as defying the crowd and labeled the
tendency of creative individuals to resist societys pressure to conform contrarianism (as cited in A. Cropley,
2006, p. 125). Propositions stating that creative personalities are associated with antisocial behavior and=or

Correspondence should be addressed to Sungtaek Lim, Department

of Education, College of Education, Kangwon National University,
192-1 Hyoja 2 Dong, Chuncheon, Kangwon, South Korea, 200-701.
E-mail: stlimyh@yahoo.com; Or to Joshua Smith, School of Education,
Indiana UniversityPurdue University Indianapolis, 902 West
New York Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202. E-mail: jss2@iupui.edu.

beliefs have been challenged. A. Cropley agreed that

creativity may be at least asocial if not antisocial in
origin, purpose, content, and extent.
In practice, schools have prioritized socialization over
creativity development, even though many laud the
results and products of student creativity (Runco,
2003). Teachers exercise extensive control over the
amount of time and the novelty of learning situations
that promotes or restricts student expression. The extent
to which teachers value and reward conformity or individual expression is thought to impact creativity
evidenced in school settings. On one hand, high levels
of conformity with social norms have the advantage of
producing student behavior that is socially adaptive.
One the other hand, student behavior and statements
that challenge the status quo can be discouraged and
often punished. As a result, expressions of creativity
may be rarely seen in schools. For example, Fasko
(2001) and Runco (2003) reported that teachers held
negative attitudes and expressed little tolerance for
behaviors and attributes associated with creativity.
Runco (2003) summarized these findings by saying that,
teachers value creative results, but do not appreciate
the creative process (p. 40).

Downloaded by [West University from Timisoara ] at 03:13 24 November 2015

PARENTING, CREATIVITY, AND LONELINESS

Individual differences in creativity are suspected to be

largely attributable to the influence of immediate social
conditions. Csikszenmihalyi (1988) postulated that
social supports were vital determinants of creativity in
the generation and maintenance of individuals creativity inside and outside of school. The explicit actions
and implicit messages from parents, teachers, and peers
determine significantly whether or not creativity is
encouraged or tolerated in the larger society (Runco &
Johnson, 2002). Tolerance and encouragement from
parents represents an initial and continually influential
environment in which the development and maintenance
of creativity is dependent upon.
Developmental theorists (e.g., Baumrind, 1978;
Cumming, Davies, & Campbell, 2000; Maccoby, 1992;
E. S. Schaefer, 1965) have positioned parenting styles
along two continua. The first, lenient toward demanding,
moves from the lenient side where parents excise little
control, provide little guidance, and often yield to their
childs demanding side which represents the opposite;
strict control without concern for the childs perspective
on most matters. The acceptancerejection continuum is
characterized on one side that tends to be nurturing and
responsive, whereas the rejection side of the continuum
reflects indifference or neglect (Steinberg & Belsky,
1991). Components of the leniency and acceptance sides
of the two parenting continuums appear to promote
conditions that facilitate creativity development. One
reason is that creativity is fostered in familial environments that provide this balance of independence,
self-expression and risk-taking in a safe environment
(Ekvall, 1999; Harrington, 1999). Social climates that
facilitate creativity reflect tolerance for novelty, valuing
variability, and support for decision-making that
questions the status quo (A. Cropley, 2006).
Western and Eastern cultures have been frequently
compared along the individualismcollective continuum.
Individualism has been recognized as a defining characteristic of Western culture. Particularly in America, characteristics such autonomy, independence, freedom, and
personal goals are valued over cooperation or goals of
the group. Collectivism is characterized by shared group
values, within-group cohesion, and adhering to the greater good (Fletcher, Olekals, & Cieri, 2001; Triandis,
1989). Accordingly, East Asian parents socialize children
to be psychologically dependent on the in-group and to
avoid conflict, whereas Western parents expect children
to be independent and to stand up for ones perspectives
in a debate or conflict (Rudowicz & Ng, 2003). Given
these differences, lenient and accepting parenting styles
are more likely to be encouraged in Western families,
but discouraged in Eastern cultures. Studies of families
in mainland Chinese and Korean samples have shown
that children and young adolescents who were inhibited
or what Westerners would call shy, were rated as more

413

popular with peers than those who were outgoing or

gregarious (Chen, Rubin, & Sun, 1992). Pressure to
conform to social norms has been considered as a major
barrier limiting the expression and development of creativity in the East (Kim, 2005, Rudowicz & Ng, 2003;
Saeki, Fan, & Dusen, 2001).
Within this context, it is not surprising that parenting
styles in Asian families are thought to be qualitatively
different than in American families. Strict parental control in a sample of Chinese families was found to facilitate familial harmony (Chao, 1994). In a latter study,
Chao (2001) found that the authoritative style evidenced
by parental support and acceptance, well-defined rules,
and negotiated consequences did not have the uniform
effects on school performance for first-generation Chinese and European Americans. School outcomes were
less positive for first-generation Chinese students whose
parents exhibited authoritative parenting styles than for
Chinese youth whose parents followed more of an authoritarian parenting style. The latter practices utilized
strict control, little input from the child regarding rules
or consequences, and a belief that children should be
seen, but not heard. Blaire and Qian (1998) found that
a higher level of control was related to the higher levels
of school performance in a sample of Chinese adolescents, but not for a sample of Filipino adolescents.
The literature demonstrates that there is variability
within and across cultures, including Asian cultures.
Previous studies examining the impact of parenting
style focused mainly on the effects of parenting on childrens social adaptation and school performance, but
considerably fewer looked at the relationships between
parenting style and creativity (Albert & Runco, 1989;
Runco & Albert, 2005). As stated above, it appears that
social adaptation=conformity and creativity may represent constructs that are potentially at odds with one
another. Davis (1999) pointed out that a major barrier
to creative thinking and innovation is conformity and
blindly following customary ways of thinking and
responding. Social influence, parental expectations that
children conform to social norms can create in children
a fear of being different, and thereby stifling creativity.
Khaleefa, Erdos, and Ashria (1996) noted that a creative
personality includes traits that are in opposition to
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors expected in traditional
cultures. For example, characteristics such as being
self-assertive, self-sufficient, unconventional, radical,
expressive, nonauthoritarian, and being willing to break
with customs have been associated with creative
personalities.
The purpose of the current study was to examine the
relationships of two dimensions of parenting style,
childrens creative personality, and loneliness in a
sample of sixth graders in South Korea (see Figure 1).
The proposed model of the relationship between the

414

LIM AND SMITH

Measures

Downloaded by [West University from Timisoara ] at 03:13 24 November 2015

All measures in this study were translated and backtranslated by the authors and Korean psychologists
fluent in English and Korean.

FIGURE 1 Proposed model of relationships between lenient parenting, accepting parenting, childrens creative personality, and their
loneliness.

variables was created based on the findings of previous

research conducted with European and European American samples. The findings demonstrated that higher
levels of both parental leniency and acceptance predicted higher levels of creativity and positive social
development. The study explores the extent to which
these relationships hold for a sample of South Korean
students. Unlike studies in the West, it is hypothesized
that both components of parenting would not only be
positively related to creativity, but also higher levels of
loneliness in school.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
The sample consisted of 421 sixth-grade elementary
school students and their respective teachers (N 15)
from four different schools in the province of Jeonnam,
South Korea. All 15 intact classes sampled in the study
were from middle-sized public (58 classes per grade)
schools in urban areas. The average number of students
was 28 per class. During the school day, students completed a questionnaire asking about their mothers and
fathers parenting practices, respectively (see the following). Teachers rated students creative personality traits
and levels of loneliness exhibited in the classroom (see
the following). Investigators explained the criteria for
rating students creative personality traits. Teachers
were provided with descriptions of each component of
creativity and given examples of creative behaviors
reflective of each component. Students, parents, and
teachers were informed that participation was voluntary
and that their answers would remain completely anonymous and confidential. Participants were also informed
that their data would be reported in a group format and
that the results would be used only for research
purposes.

Child report of parenting styles. Children were

asked to rate their mothers and fathers parenting
behaviors on two subscales of the Korean version of
the 22-item Parenting Behavior Inventory: Accepting
Rejecting and LenientDemanding. The scales were
translated and shortened from the 108-item Child
Report of Parenting Behavior Inventory (E. S. Schaefer,
1965). Children rated how similar their mothers and
fathers parenting behaviors were to the item on a 5point scale ranging from 1 (not like at all) to 5 (very
much like). Examples on the lenient parenting scale
included items such as: (a) My mother (or father) says,
if I really cared for her (or him), I would not do things
that cause her (or him) to worry and (b) My mother
(or father) lets me get away with a lot of things. Examples on the accepting parenting scale included items such
as: (a) My mother (or father) gives me much attention
and care and (b) My mother (or father) almost always
speaks to me in a warm and friendly tone. Answers
were summed for each factor.
Teacher report of childrens loneliness. A 24-item
Childrens Loneliness Scale (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw,
1984) was translated into Korean and shortened to a 15item scale by the authors. The selected 15 items were
transformed into teacher report items. The teachers
rated loneliness for each of the students in his (or her)
class (n 2535) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(always true) to 5 (not true at all). Examples included:
(a) is good at working with other children and
(b) can find a friend when s=he needs one.
Teacher report of creative personality. A 13-item
checklist scale of adjectives relating to creative personality traits was used to assess childrens creative characteristics reported by teachers. Previous studies (e.g.,
Gough, 1979; Runco, 1989) have confirmed the
reliability and validity of teacher ratings of a creative
personality scale using the adjective checklist. The adjectives used in this study consisted of common creative
personality traits identified in the literature (Davis &
Rimm, 1982; Feldhusen, 1995; Gough, 1979; C. E.
Schaefer, 1971). The creativity personality traits
included items such as independence, confidence, risk
taking, adventurousness, curiosity, originality, openmindedness, liking complicated problems, unconventional, insightful, inventive, looking for new ways of
doing things, and imaginative. Teachers were asked to

PARENTING, CREATIVITY, AND LONELINESS

TABLE 1
Correlation Coefficients Between Measurement Variables and
Standard Deviations
Variables

Downloaded by [West University from Timisoara ] at 03:13 24 November 2015

1. F lenient
2.M lenient
3.F accept
4.M accept
5.Creative
6.Lonely
SD
Cronbach a

.699


.488


.359


.233


.343


5.787
.75

.299


.412


.134

.251


5.748
.69

.727


.423


.321


6.829
.74

.422


.316


6.643
.71

.310


6.910
.73

10.122
.88

Note. F lenient fathers lenient parenting, M lenient mothers

lenient parenting, F accept fathers accepting parenting, M accept
mothers accepting parenting.


p < .05;

p < .01.

rate how much each student demonstrated showed

behaviors and held attitudes reflective of each adjective
on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (always true) to 5 (not
true at all).
Analytic Procedure
Bivariate correlations of all variables were calculated to
diagnose the presence of multicollinearity and to explore
the relationships between the predictor and criterion
variables (see Table 1). The proposed model (see
Figure 2) was estimated using SEM with LISREL
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 2001). The criteria used to judge
the model fit included chi-square (v2), root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA values below .05 indicate a very good fit and those below .10 indicate a
reasonable fit; Steiger, 1990), and two other common
fit indices: the comparative fit index (CFI > .95; Bentler,
1990) and the standardized root mean square residual

415

(SRMR < .05; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Due to the fact that
the v2 statistic is sensitive to both sample size and model
complexity, the v2 ratio (v2=df) is reported. The ratio
adjusts for model complexity and is a more conservative
estimate of fit.
The proposed model was further modified by adding
paths with over 5.0 values of modification indices when
its fit was not satisfactory and not significant (p > .05)
paths to arrive at the most parsimonious representation
of the significant relationships (see Figure 3).

RESULTS
The bi-serial correlation coefficients between measurement variables, standard deviations, and internal consistency of the scales used in the current study are
presented in Table 1. Ratings of father and mother
within each dimension of parenting were highly correlated (.67 for lenient parenting; .73 for accepting parenting). The relationship between the two dimensions of
parenting, while understandably highly correlated, did
not conform to parametric and multivariate assumptions. All exogenous variables (lenient and accepting
parenting) were significantly correlated with all
endogenous variables (creativity and loneliness). Evidence of internal consistency was acceptable for all the
scales in the current study, with Cronbach alpha coefficients of .75 for father and .69 for mother on the lenient
parenting scale, .74 for father and .71 for mother on the
accepting parenting scale, .73 for teacher report of creative personality, and .88 for teacher report of childrens
loneliness.
The goodness of fit for the proposed model was
unsatisfactory according to all fit indices with the exception of the SRMR: v2 (5, N 421) 75.91, p < .001,

FIGURE 2 Proposed model with standardized maximum likelihood estimates. Note. Errors of measurement variables of loneliness and creativeness
were fixed with. 12 and .27 (1Cronbach as) respectively. The dotted lines are those that received nonsignificant path estimates in the initial estimate
and were dropped in the corrected model.

Downloaded by [West University from Timisoara ] at 03:13 24 November 2015

416

LIM AND SMITH

FIGURE 3 Final model corrected on the basis of the statistical significance of regression coefficients. Note. Errors of measurement variables of
loneliness and creativeness were fixed with .12 and .27 (1Cronbach as) respectively.

RMSEA .18, CFI .92, and SRMR .031. Modification indices showed unanticipated correlated error
parameters between fathers and mothers two dimensions of parenting (53.04 for father; 64.35 for mother).
Two nonsignificant paths were noted in the proposed
model: (a) c .03 (t .46, p > .05) including the path
representing predictive relationship from accepting
parenting to loneliness and (b) c 0.13 (t 1.66,
p > .05) from lenient parenting to creative personality.
While modifying the model to include those paths
between the correlated errors in the parenting dimensions and fixing nonsignificant structural paths in the
model, a corrected model was reached (see Figure 3).
This model seemed to best characterize the relationships
among the latent constructs, observable variables, and
estimated the relationships among them.
The final corrected model (see Figure 3) fit the data
better than the proposed model. All goodness of fit
indices were satisfactory: v2 (5, N 421) 8.43, p >
.05, RMSEA .04, CFI 1.00, and SRMR .02. All
estimated parameters were significant and of acceptable
magnitude. Specifically, lenient parenting style was
associated with higher levels of child loneliness
(c .29). Parenting styles that reflected acceptance were
associated with the characteristics of a creative personality (c .59), and indirectly associated with higher
levels of loneliness (c .18), mediated by creative personality. Finally, creative personality was positively
related to loneliness (b .31) in the sample as anticipated. Table 2 displays the total effects and indirect
effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables.
In the full model, 23% of the variance of childrens
loneliness was explained by childrens creative personality and lenient parenting. Approximately 35% of
childrens creative personality was explained by only
acceptance parenting.

TABLE 2
Decomposition of the Effects of Exogenous Latent Variables on
Endogenous Latent Variables
Dependent
Variables

Creativeness

p < .01.

Predictors

Total
Effects

Direct
Effects

Indirect
Effects

R2

Creativeness
Lenient parenting
Accepting parenting
Accepting parenting

.31



.29



.18


.59

.31



.29

.59

.18

.35

p < .001.

DISCUSSION
As expected, accepting parenting was predictive of high
levels of creative potential and loneliness and that
creative personality mediated the effects of childrens
loneliness. The results of the model were generally consistent with the initial hypotheses, though some findings
did not support them. For instance, lenient parenting
predicted loneliness, but not via creativity as expected
in the proposed model.
Parenting Style and Creative Personality
The findings demonstrate the strength of the relationship between accepting parenting and creativity in children. Parentchild relationships exhibited by a sense of
caring and responsiveness to the needs of the child is
thought to facilitate an environment where independent,
unconventional, curious, unique, open-minded, insightful, inventive, and imaginative behaviors and reactions
are valued. Parental support characterized by acceptance has been linked with measures of adolescent
functioning such as students psychological well-being
and competence (Eccles, Early, Fraser, Belansky, &

PARENTING, CREATIVITY, AND LONELINESS

Downloaded by [West University from Timisoara ] at 03:13 24 November 2015

McCarthy, 1997; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Herman,

Dornbusch, Herron, & Herting, 1997).
Lenient parenting was not related to creativity as
anticipated. The absence of a direct effect on this path
may be attributed to the extreme characteristics of
leniency as being synonymous with neglect. Aspects
of lenient parenting also include ways of controlling
childrens behaviors rather than promoting their
psychological, social, and academic well-being. That is,
lenient parenting may not be a sufficient condition for
maintaining childrens creative personality in the South
Korean culture and specifically in schools where
teachers maintain an air of authority.
Parenting Style and Loneliness
Lenient parenting style was positively associated with
the higher level of loneliness. Lenient parenting that fostered autonomy was associated with the higher levels of
teacher-reported loneliness in children. However,
accepting parenting was not directly related to loneliness. The positive relationship between lenient parenting
and loneliness was consistent with the initial hypotheses,
but in contrast to previous research on Western samples
(e.g., Baumrind, 1978; Galambos, Barker, & Almeida,
2003; Herman et al., 1997) that demonstrated a relationship between demanding parenting style that is the
opposite of lenient parenting and later behavior problems in adolescence. Lenient parenting may not be a
beneficial family environment to develop childrens
social adaptation in South Korean society where parents
are expected to control their children with firmness.
Chao (1994) labeled this kind of parenting as training,
another style of parenting for immigrant Chinese. Independent children from autonomous family environments may experience problems adapting to a school
culture where teachers and peers emphasize compliance
to collective norms and traditions and getting along with
others without conflicts. Ng (2003) found that Singaporean students who hold the strong collectivism tradition
had significantly lower level of independent selfconstrual, which was negatively associated with social
conformity, than Australian students who hold individualism. This finding implies that individuals propensity of independence are not welcome by societies in
Eastern cultures. The victims of bullying, a relatively
novel but serious problem in South Korea, are disproportionally students whose behaviors are outside the
norms of their peer group.
Creativity and Loneliness
Cultural factors have previously been associated with
conformity as potential barriers to creativity. Torrance
(1977) found that evidence of creativity decreases when

417

children enter kindergarten, marking the beginning

of conformity and regimentation. He explained, this
drop . . . is a societal or cultural phenomenon rather than
a biological or natural one, (p. 21). It should be obvious that the transition from family to school necessarily
requires children to comply with increasing and more
nuanced rules, control, group pressure, and social norms
that guide personal, social, and institutional behavior.
However, this may be explained by a restriction or
inhibition of creativity.
Whether a creative individual is accepted by or
excluded from his or her peer group depends in part
on how the group responds to individuals conformity
to the norm. If creativity is characterized by uniqueness
and innovative and unconventional thoughts and behaviors, it can be perceived as atypical or even abnormal in
societies such as China, Japan, and South Korea where
conformity is valued and the collective rather than individualistic is emphasized (Markus & Kitayama, 1991;
Triandis, 1995). In societies where social conformity is
emphasized, promoting creativity may be seen as
additional, a luxury duty, or even as an act of defiance.
Creative individuals can be socially excluded from the
school community or wider society where the majority
values conformity and interdependence (Ng, 2003).
It is important to point out that students peer
relations were rated by teachers in the study. Teachers
perceived that creative students would have higher levels
of loneliness. This finding may reflect teachers implicit
beliefs that creativity is not among the valued, socially
adapted personality traits. For example, teachers
implicit theories of an ideal child were different from
descriptions of a creative student (A. J. Cropley, 1992).
Similar to previous research, teachers valued children
who reflected a degree of conformity, compliance, and
politeness over children with traits that reflected questioning of authority or being autonomous (Runco,
2003). Teachers tend to regard creative students as
disruptive nuisances or recklessly disruptive rather
than as valuable contributors to a dynamic classroom
(Scott, 1999).
More creative products are acquired in the situation
where the majority tolerates individuality, uniqueness,
and unconventional thoughts and behaviors. On the
one hand, most societies embrace the products created
by people (e.g., art, music, and innovations), but people
are less tolerant or appreciative of the creative process,
which often looks different than the norm. In this study,
accepting parenting was positively associated with a
higher level of creativity. In schools, individuals will
have room to experiment with their creativity when
teachers and peers accept and even encourage novel
and unique thinking and behaviors. Recently, Beghetto
(2006) found that pre-service teachers whose personal
schooling environment supported creativity were more

418

LIM AND SMITH

likely to advocate for student creativity than their counterparts who attended schools that did not promote
creativity. Beghetto coined this phenomenon creative
justice, suggesting that current school environments
are not favorable for student creativity, and it is rare
to find teachers that facilitate such justice.

The source of the correlated error variances is not clear;

therefore, the future study needs to preclude the possibility of correlated measurement errors when measuring
parenting.

IMPLICATIONS

Downloaded by [West University from Timisoara ] at 03:13 24 November 2015

LIMITATIONS
The findings of this study must be considered in the context of the study limitations. For example, students
creativeness and loneliness were rated by teachers, and
the parenting styles were rated by the children. These
methods have strengths and weaknesses. First of all,
one of the strengths is that teachers ratings are more
objective than students self-reports or peers ratings of
creativity and loneliness (Runco, 1989). This method
made it possible for those responsible for creating a
positive learning environment for all learners to respond
to students creativity and social adaptation in the classroom. Our findings show that teachers rated creative
students as lonelier than their less creative peers.
Teachers subjective ratings of students creativity
and loneliness could reflect the problem of a halo
effect, with their initial impressions of a student influencing all subsequent ratings. This limitation should be
taken into account for the measure of creative personality because the current study used an adjective checklist format in which all adjectives reflecting creativity
were listed in one positive direction. To prevent a possible measurement bias from response sets, future
research will use a checklist in which adjectives reflecting
both creativity and its opposite are imbedded. In
addition, future research will incorporate observations
in various situations such as structured classroom,
lunchroom, and playtime observations along with
teacher, family, and self-report as multiple measures of
creativity and loneliness.
Social desirability is another concern in the childs
report of parenting styles. This would also be a concern
if the parents self-reported their actions and behaviors.
Future inquiry could incorporate their perceptions
along with the childs perception. Two unexpected
correlated error parameters (see Figure 3) were found
between fathers parenting of leniency and acceptance,
and between mothers parenting of leniency and acceptance. These correlations between error variances suggest
that there could be something unique about these errors
that was not accounted for in their respective factors, or
there could be some correlated measurement errors
caused by childrens repeated ratings of parenting behaviors of the same mother and father. The fit of the model
was improved by adding paths between those error variances, but at the cost of the parsimony of the model.

The findings have implications for teacher professional

development and research in teacher education. It is
important to ask South Korean teachers about their
perceptions of creativity, the extent to which school
practices foster or restrict creativity, and what
protections are in place to assist creative students who
experience difficulty fitting within the school culture.
Additional empirical research using interaction parameters is needed to explain the combinations for varying
schooling=classroom environments and parenting styles
that either promote or restrict creativity in children. Several approaches and questions can guide future research
in this important area. For example, what environmental factors explain increases or decreases in creativity as
students make the transition from one classroom that
promotes creativity to another that prohibits creativity
in the classroom? What are systematic relationships
between the characteristics of parents, teachers, and
peers that promote or inhibit creativity? In what ways
can Schools of Education prepare pre-service and
in-service teachers to foster students creativity? Finally,
further research is needed to examine similarities and
differences in parenting styles and student functioning
within and across Eastern and Western samples.

REFERENCES
Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1989). Independence and cognitive
ability in gifted and exceptionally gifted boys. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 19, 221230.
Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P. D. (1984). Loneliness in
children. Child Development, 55, 14561464
Barron, F. X. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social
competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 239276.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative justice? The relationship between
prospective teachers prior schooling experiences and perceived
importance of promoting student creativity. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 40, 149162.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 238246.
Blair, S. L., & Qian, Z. (1998). Family and Asian students educational
performance. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 335374.
Burkhardt, H. (1985). Gleichheitswahn Parteienwahn [Obsession with
equality]. Hohenrain, Germany: Tubingen University.
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural
notion of training. Child Development, 65, 11111120.

Downloaded by [West University from Timisoara ] at 03:13 24 November 2015

PARENTING, CREATIVITY, AND LONELINESS

Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child
Development, 72, 18321843.
Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., & Sun, Y. (1992). Social reputation and peer
relationships in Chinese and Canadian children: A cross-cultural
study. Child Development, 62, 13361343.
Cropley, A. J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cropley, A. (2006). Dimension of creativity: A social approach. Roeper
Review, 28, 125130.
Csikszenmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A system
view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity
(pp. 325339). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cumming, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Campbell, S. B. (2000). Developmental psychopathology and family process. Theory, research, and clinical
implications. New York: Guilford Press.
Davis, G. A. (1999). Creativity is forever. Iowa: Kendall-Hunt.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. (1982). Group inventory for finding interests
(GIFFI) I and II: Instruments for identifying creative potential in
the junior and senior high school. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16,
5057.
Eccles, J. S., Early, D., Fraser, K., Belansky, E., & McCarthy, K.
(1997). The relation of connection, regulation, and support for autonomy to adolescents functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research,
12, 263286.
Ekvall, G. (1999). Creative climate. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. I, pp. 403412). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 13, 317327.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Creativity: A knowledge base, metacognitive
skills, and personality factors. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29,
255268.
Fletcher, L., Olekalns, M., & Cieri, H. (2001). Cultural differences in
conflict resolution: Individualism and collectivism in Asia-Pacific
region, Retrieved January 31, 2003, from http://egade.sistema.
itesm.mx/investigation/documentos/documontos/4agade_husted.pdf
Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Almeida, D. M. (2003). Parents
do matter: Trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing
problems in early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578594.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creativity personality scale for the adjective
check list. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
13981405.
Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 61, 574587.
Harrington, D. M. (1999). Conditions and settings=environment. In
M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity
(Vol. I, pp. 403412). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Herman, M. R., Dornbusch, S. M., Herron, M. C., & Herting, J. R.
(1997). The influence of family regulation, connection, and psychological autonomy on six measure of adolescent functioning. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 12, 3467.

419

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2001). Lisrel 8: Structural equation
modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Khaleefa, O. H., Erdos, G., & Ashria, I. H. (1996). Creativity in an
indigenous Afro-Arab Islamic culture: The case of Sudan. Journal
of Creative Behavior, 30, 268282.
Kim, K. H. (2005). Learning from each other: Creativity in East Asian
and American education. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 337347.
Maccoby, E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of
children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28,
10061017.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98,
224253.
Ng, A. K. (2003). A cultural model of creative and conforming
behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 223233.
Rudowicz, E., & Ng, T. S. (2003). On Hgs Why Asians are less
creative than Westerners [Book review]. Creativity Research Journal,
15, 301302.
Runco, M. A. (1989). Parents and teachers ratings of the creativity of
children. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 7383.
Runco, M. A. (2003). Creativity, cognition, and their educational
implications. In J. C. Houtz (Ed.), The educational psychology of
creativity (pp. 2556). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (2005). Parents personality and the creative potential of exceptionally gifted boys. Creativity Research
Journal, 17, 355367.
Runco, M. A., & Johnson, D. J. (2002). Parents and teachers implicit
theories of childrens creativity: A cross-cultural perspective.
Creativity Research Journal, 14, 427438.
Saeki, N., Fan, X., & Dusen, L. V. (2001). A comparative study of
creative thinking of American and Japanese college students.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 2438.
Schaefer, C. E. (1971). Creativity attitude survey. Jacksonville, IL:
Psychologists & Educators.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Childrens report of parental behavior: An
inventory. Child Development, 25, 413424.
Scott, C. L. (1999). Teachers biases toward creative children. Creativity
Research Journal, 12, 321328.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An
interval approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173180.
Steinberg, L., & Belsky, J. (1991). Infancy, childhood, and adolescence.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. L. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating
creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1977). Creativity in the classroom. Washington, DC:
National Education Association.
Triandis, H. T. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural
contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506512.
Triandis, H. T. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.