“It’s not perfect - I need to start again!”
Exploring the relationship between
Self-compassion and Creativity
in a high school art environment
Philippa Glossop, BFA

Supervisors:
Dr. Joi Freed-Garrod
Dr. John Churchley
Thompson Rivers University
Kamloops, B.C.

February, 2014

i
Abstract:
This action research study examines the relationship between self-compassion and
creativity amongst high school art students in order to determine if self-compassion plays a
positive or negative role in the creative process. This inquiry was undertaken to inform and
enrich the researcher’s teaching practice and to lay the foundation for future research. The study
took place in the researcher’s classroom with her art students volunteering as subjects.
Relying on multiple sources of evidence, this study was designed with a mixed methods
approach to capture both quantitative and qualitative data in order to generate significant and
accurate results. This researcher had a strong interest in learning how creativity could be
measured amongst individuals and to what extent that number could be influenced by levels of
self-compassion. This researcher was also interested in hearing the voices of her students to
discover if their perceptions and ideas on creativity and self-compassion correlated with the
statistical data.
Forty five (twenty-seven female and eighteen male) students, aged fifteen to eighteen,
volunteered to participate in this inquiry by taking the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking
(Thinking Creatively with Pictures), the Kristen Neff Self-Compassion Scale: short form and by
answering two closed and four open-ended interview questions. These tests were administered in
the classroom during class time. Data were collected from both tests along with the students’
perception of their own level of perfectionism and level of frustration, and the data were
analysed using statistical tools including the Pearson Correlation Analysis, and Minitab
Scatterplots. These two statistical tools were chosen to represent the findings from a number of
different viewpoints and to answer the two questions that guide this study: do lower levels of
self-compassion inhibit creativity in the art making process amongst high school art students?;

ii
and do higher levels of self-compassion facilitate creativity in the art making process amongst
high school art students?
While the study was limited to a small number of participants, the results strongly
suggest there is a correlation between self-compassion and creativity. Students who suffer from
low self-compassion exhibited low creativity scores and students with higher levels of selfcompassion exhibited higher creativity scores. If self-compassion is understood to be an
important component of the creative process, ultimately its nurture should alleviate self-critical
tendencies and promote a free approach to creative expression. This research study may
contribute insight into this compelling subject in which to date there has been little formal
research. It may also provide a starting point for further research into possible interventions that
would aid self-compassion amongst art students, thus encouraging creativity to flourish.

iii

Table of contents
Abstract i, ii
Table of Contents iii, iv
Acknowledgements v
Dedication vi
Chapter One: Introduction
Introduction to the study 1
Purpose of the research 5
Research questions 5
Significance of the research 6
Chapter Two: Review of the literature
Introduction 8
Understanding perfectionism 8
Looking at self-compassion 10
Exploring creativity12
Defining creativity12
Creativity theory 14
Measuring creativity 18
Interactions between self-compassion and creativity 23
Conclusion 24
Chapter Three: Design and methodology
Introduction 25
Approach to this study as Teacher/Researcher 25
About the participants 27
Ethical considerations, approval and consent 27
Measures 28
Procedure 33
Chapter Four: Presentation of the findings
Quantitative findings 36
Qualitative findings 42
Conclusion 49
Chapter Five: Limitations of this study and recommendations for further research
Limitations of the research 51
Recommendations for future research 52
Chapter Six: Personal Reflection and Conclusion
Implications for future teaching practices 54
Unexpected findings 56
Conclusion 57

iv
References 60
Appendices
Appendix A:
• Sample of the Torrance Creativity Test 69
• Sample of Self-Compassion Scale 77
• Sample of Likert-type Scale 78
Appendix B: University of Georgia, Certificate from the Torrance Center for Creativity 79
Appendix C: Consent Forms for Minors 80
Appendix D: Certificate of approval from the TRU Ethics Committee 82
Appendix E: Letter of approval from School Principal 83
Appendix F: Human Subject Feedback Form 84
Tables and Figures
Table 1: Pearson Correlation Analysis, Self-compassion, Creativity, Perfectionism and
Frustration 37
Figure 1: Scatterplot of Raw Creativity Score vs. Self-Compassion Score 38
Figure 2: Scatterplot of Raw Creativity Score vs. Self-Compassion Score, by gender 39
Figure 3: Scatterplot of Self-Compassion vs. Perfectionist Behaviour 40
Figure 4: Scatterplot of Raw Creativity Score vs. Perfectionist Behaviour 41

v

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my academic advisors, Dr. Joi Freed-Garrod and Dr. John
Churchley for all their patience, support and encouragement throughout the writing of this thesis.
Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Shane Rollans and Dr. Patrick Walton for their
help in assisting me with the statistical data.
Last, but not least, I am forever thankful to my family, my husband Eric, my two sons
Tim and Robert and my parents Ingrid and Howard for their patience, encouragement and
interest in my research.

vi

Dedication
This research project is dedicated to

Tim and Robert
Two amazing individuals

1
Chapter One: Introduction

Introduction to the study
My interest in teaching art to children began purely by accident. I hadn’t considered
teaching as a profession when I graduated from Queen’s University with a Bachelor of Fine Arts
Degree in 1986. It wasn’t until 1994, when asked by a friend to tutor her daughter in still life
drawing, that I was introduced to the rewards of teaching. My student was keen and I was more
than happy to share my knowledge. As word travelled in the community that art classes were
available, my art school started to grow from a few students per week to thirty-six. Eventually, I
moved my studio from my home to a larger working space in in a nearby elementary school in
order to provide my students with more space in which to be creative. Additionally, the new
space permitted the installation of a printing press, a pottery wheel and floor mounted easels. I
was enthusiastic about teaching these students because they had passion for creating visual
imagery. For the most part students would arrive eager to see what they could create that day.
They were open to new methodologies that I would introduce and they were keen to experiment
with the materials provided. I endeavoured to provide a non-judgemental environment which
allowed students the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them. As my art school grew I
divided my classes into three levels: beginner, intermediate and advanced with equal numbers of
elementary and high school aged students.
In 1997, I started teaching visual art at a local high school where I continue to teach
today. As the only art teacher in the school I am responsible for delivering all the visual arts
courses, grades 8 to 12. I work with approximately one hundred students a day.
In the past eighteen years I have worked with over six thousand students, helping to
nurture their creativity in varying forms. I have also had the opportunity to observe their

2
individual creative processes, the unique way they approach their design problems and their
overall behaviour towards creating visual art.
One observation I found compelling was the emergence of perfectionist tendencies some
of my students showed during the creative process. Where ten years ago I may have had one or
two such students in a population of one hundred, today I have twelve. It is yet to be determined
why this number appears to be growing but there is some speculation that the problem stems
from a parent-child dynamic where the child receives little approval, or conditional approval
from their parents (Hamachek, 1978). Through my own observations, it is without doubt that
these students are usually highly creative thinkers with an abundance of ideas and a passion for
learning. They strive to be creative in an art making process yet they invariably run into
difficulty shortly after starting a project. With as little as one line on the paper they complain that
their first attempt was unsuccessful. Often several attempts are made before the student feels his
or her work is adequate enough to continue. At this juncture, some students refuse to continue
thus abandoning their project altogether.
Although these students are individuals, I have observed that they do share some
common characteristics. They are very self-critical, telling themselves and others, through
actions or words, that what they have created is inadequate. They spend hours agonizing over
where they went wrong, voicing their frustration over their failure. Typically, they lack selfcompassion, a construct defined by Dr. Kirsten Neff as, being kind to oneself in instances of
failure, perceiving one’s experiences as part of the larger human experience, and holding painful
feelings in mindful awareness (2003, p.85). These students often acknowledge they are highly
self-critical and talk openly about the fear of making mistakes. Some talk about their artwork,
aware before they start that they have set exceptionally high standards; others feel they are

3
unable to acquire the skills necessary to complete the project to their expectations. Their inner
critic does not allow for experimentation as unwanted mistakes could easily occur. They are
unsure of the causal reasons of why they are so self-critical but they do recognize that their lack
of self-compassion inhibits their creativity and stops them from moving forward with a particular
project. As a result, it appears their ability to create is stifled, which in turn causes them to
feelings of inadequacy and frustration.
Recent studies have linked such lack of self-compassion directly to dimensions of
perfectionism and the inhibition of creativity (Neff & Vonk, 2009; Leary, Tate, Adams &
Hancock, 2007). In support of this study, one other research paper has suggested that healthy
levels of self-compassion tend to alleviate the self-critical tendencies that undermine creative
expression (Zablina & Robinson, 2010). Beyond this, there is little formal research on the
interactions between self-compassion and creativity. However, this compelling subject is gaining
more attention from creativity researchers particularly in the United States, United Kingdom and
Australia. One possible reason for this surge in interest is the significant amount of research now
being done on the concept of self-compassion itself. Neff, a researcher and professor of
Educational Psychology at the University of Texas, has further defined the concept of selfcompassion in greater detail making it easier for researchers to position their findings. In the
context of this study, I have used Neff’s definition of self-compassion to guide my research. Neff
expands on the above definition to clarify the three elements that contribute to self-compassion.
•

Self-kindness – being kind and understanding toward oneself in instances of pain
or failure rather than being harshly self-critical.

•

Common Humanity – perceiving one’s experiences as part of the larger human
experience rather than seeing them as separating and isolating.

4
•

Mindfulness – holding painful thoughts and feelings in awareness rather than
over-identifying with them (2003).

The definition of creativity itself is decidedly more complex. Research into the subject
has been underway since the early 1950s and still to date there is no one globally accepted
definition. While researching this study, over one hundred and seventy-five different definitions
were considered. Many of them were rejected as they were written in the context of a business
environment. Other definitions were too short and inadequately descriptive while others did not
relate to creativity in a high school art environment. Eventually, I settled on the definition
proposed by creativity researcher Paul Torrance, who defines creativity as: “a process of sensing
difficulties, problems, gaps in information, missing elements, something askew; making guesses
and hypotheses about a solution of these deficiencies; evaluating and testing these hypotheses;
possibly revising and restating them; and finally communicating the result” (Torrance, 1962,
p.24).
Although this definition has been used by many researchers worldwide and is most
commonly used in a general sense (Kim, 2006), it can also be used in a specific context of the
creative process in a high school art room. What makes this definition significantly relevant is its
reference to the understanding and processing of a problem, in this case a design problem the
student might have been assigned. Analysing and predicting how the problem might be solved
and then attempting to solve it with openness to experimentation are also important elements,
along with the understanding that the process may take several attempts before satisfaction is
achieved. In addition, this particular definition of creativity provides consistency throughout the
study as it aligns with the ideology behind the creation, and implementation of the Torrance Test

5
of Creative Thinking, one of the four measures used in this study to collect data. More
information on the Torrance Creativity Test will be provided in subsequent chapters.

Purpose of the research
The main purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between self-compassion
and creativity amongst high school art students in order to determine if self-compassion plays a
positive or negative role in the creative process. This inquiry was undertaken to inform and
enrich the researcher’s teaching practice and to improve the learning environment for those
students who exhibit self-critical tendencies. If self-compassion is understood and accepted as an
important component of the creative process, its nurturance would ultimately alleviate the selfcritical tendencies and promote less constrained creative expression.
This study will also provide data to be used in the future to develop an effective
intervention designed to promote self-compassion amongst art students, stimulating creativity to
prosper. This research study contributes insight into a compelling subject in which there has been
minimal formal research.

The research questions guiding this study
The research questions that guide this study are:
•

Do lower levels of self-compassion inhibit creativity in the art making process amongst
high school art students?

•

Do higher levels of self-compassion facilitate creativity in the art making process
amongst high school art students?

6

Significance of the research
In general, there seems to be interest amongst researchers, educators and business people
to promote a stronger sense of creativity in schools and in the workplace (Alenizi, 2008;
Beghetto, 2006; Kim & VanTassel-Baska, 2010). Robinson suggests that children are not given
enough opportunities to think creatively in school and as a result when they leave to join the
adult workforce they are unable to contribute on a creative and innovative level (2001).
Additionally, in the current educational system, the traditional model of mass-education, stemming
from the industrial age where testing and retesting of students is the only way they can be

evaluated, many students shy away from experimentation (Kim & VanTassel-Baska, 2010). In
general, many individuals feel they lack the ability to be creative, however research reveals that
all individuals have the ability to be creative (Seltzer & Bentley, 1999). Others, after years of
being informed there are correct and incorrect ways of being creative, find they are unable to
problem solve, for fear of being criticized (Robinson, 2001).
The results of this study may be significant if they contribute to ratifying these problems.
As this is an action research study which seeks to inform future teaching practices, the results
have the potential to modify ways that teachers approach teaching creative thinking in their class
rooms. If higher levels of self-compassion facilitate the creative process the findings of this study
could improve teaching methods by making teachers aware of the correlation between selfcompassion and creativity and bringing it into the forefront of contemporary teaching and
learning. If lower levels of self-compassion inhibit the creative process the findings of this study
could improve teaching practices by enabling the teacher to identify and better support individual
students with self-critical tendencies by mitigating their inhibitions, teaching the acceptance of
failure, and the motivation to try again.

7
Other researchers agree that identifying the link between self-compassion and creativity
may be of some benefit to self-critical individuals (Zablina & Robinson, 2010), mainly because
once recognized, an attempt can be made to nurture self-compassion, thus alleviating selfcriticism and allowing creativity to flourish.
Although this study contributes to preliminary data, further research will be necessary to
discover the best form of successful intervention that could possibly alleviate the self-critical
tendencies of such individuals.

8
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Introduction
This literature review presents information on three distinct topics: self-compassion;
creativity; and the possible relationship between them. A brief review of the literature on
perfectionism is also included to give the reader a clearer understanding of its relationship to
self-compassion and to emphasize the impact perfectionism can have on the day to day lives of
high school students. Within the context of this inquiry an attempt was made to include a variety
of articles and books covering a range of topics including: defining self-compassion and
creativity; exploring and understanding the variety of tools that are available to measure these
two topics, confirming their reliability and validity; discovering what research has been done in
this area and what still remains to be undertaken. For the purpose of comparing these results with
those of other research studies, wherever possible, attempts have been made to include studies
that dealt specifically with high school students or subjects fifteen to eighteen years of age.

Understanding perfectionism
Perfectionism, particularly in high school students, has been a subject of study since the
early 1960s and although few of these results voice concern over the increase in students with
perfectionist tendencies, research into the symptoms and the causes of perfectionism are
plentiful. Educational Psychologist, Dr. Donald Hamachek, was the first to distinguish two types
of perfectionism, normal and neurotic. Though other studies use different headings, such as SelfOriented Perfectionism and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism or Adaptive and Maladaptive
Perfectionism, for the purpose of this study, the terms normal and neurotic perfectionism, will be
used.

9
Normal perfectionism is associated with positive outcomes such as an individual striving
to do his/her best in an examination or competition. Studies show that students in this subset
pursue excellence in a healthy way, achieving success through hard work, patience and practice
(Christopher & Shewmaker, 2010). When students with normal perfectionist tendencies make
mistakes, their reaction is to attempt the task again, recognizing that the error was part of the
learning process and ultimately part of the human experience (Frost, Marten, Lahart, &
Rosenblate, 1990).
Neurotic aspects of perfectionism are associated with negative characteristics including:
the setting of excessively high personal goals which, for the most part, are unachievable; fear of
failure; procrastination; an all or nothing mind-set; depression; social alienation and lack of selfcompassion (Hamachek, 1978; Rice 2011). Several studies suggest that these neurotic
characteristics can have a devastating effect on students, often leaving them unable to cope with
day to day tasks (Frost, Marten, Lahart & Rosennblate, 1990). Young adults with neurotic
perfectionism also experience higher rates of depression, concentration difficulties, social
alienation and suicide (Callahan, 1993; Cross, 1996; Hewitt & Dyck, 1986; Hewitt, Flett &
Turnbull-Donovan, 1992; Huggins, Davis, Rooney & Kane, 2008; Huprich, Porcerelli,
Keaschuk, Binienda, & Engle, 2008; LaPointe & Crandell, 1980). As perfectionism affects
individuals at varying rates on the scale of normal to neurotic the majority of researchers theorize
perfectionism as a construct which is multidimensional (Christopher & Shewmaker, 2010).
Neurotic perfectionism can be caused by numerous factors but studies strongly suggest
there is a high correlation between perfectionism and the perception of high parental
expectations and high parental criticism. Researchers on perfectionism agree that the relationship
between the parent and the perfectionist student is at the core of the disorder (Burns, 1980; Frost,

10
Marten Lahart, & Rosenblat, 1990). Such research also suggests that the perfectionist individual
may have been raised in a family where love and approval were conditional. In order to avoid
disapproval and seek the love and approval he/she desires the student must perform to the
highest standards. Self-evaluation is tied directly to how the student perceives his/her parents
reaction, therefore any mistake may cause parental rejection (Burns, 1980; Pacht 1984;
Hamachek & Hollander, 1978). On a day-to-day basis these students are highly self-critical and
have little self-compassion. They hesitate over starting their work; procrastination highly
correlates with perfectionist traits (Iskender, 2011). They doubt the quality of their work,
questioning if their attempts will be good enough. They become fussy over their work striving
for precision and seeking an orderly environment (Hollander, 1978). Additionally, the literature
suggests that students with neurotic perfectionist tendencies are greatly concerned about making
errors and are held back by fear of failure, not driven by a need for achievement (Hamacheck,
1978). In contrast with normal perfectionism, neurotic perfectionists cannot tolerate mistakes;
even minor flaws will be considered a failure (Hamachek, 1978; Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart,
C., & Rosenblate, R. 1990).

Looking at self-compassion
Research on the topic of self-compassion is still in its infancy and though there are only a
small number of practising experts, those who have written on the topic provide a depth of
knowledge. The consensus amongst these authors is that a healthy level of self-compassion
correlates with psychological well-being such as optimism, curiosity and the freedom to learn
even when making mistakes (Neff & Vonk, 2009; Iskender, 2011; Leary & Tate, Adams &
Hancock, 2007).

11
The construct of self-compassion originates from Buddhist psychology which teaches
that individuals should nurture and practice self-compassion while also developing compassion
towards others (Neff, 2003). As mentioned in the previous chapter, self-compassion is defined
using three essential components. The first is self-kindness, to be kind to oneself when one has
experienced something painful or experienced failure. The second advocates for the recognition
and acceptance of one’s own failures as part of a greater human experience. The third component
is that of mindfulness, to be aware of one’s own feelings and emotions and keeping them in
equilibrium (Neff, 2003). Research suggests that self-compassion is positively associated with
good mental health, social connectedness, and overall wellbeing while being negatively
associated with depression, anxiety and neurotic perfectionism (Iskender, 2011; Neff, 2003). It is
also an alternative concept to that of self-esteem, which has been strongly correlated to
narcissism and self-centeredness. As Neff argues, “that self-esteem stems not only from selfevaluations but also the perceived evaluations of others” and “individuals with unstable selfesteem are highly focused on the implications of negative events for self-worth, making them
more vulnerable to depression and reduced self-concept clarity” (Neff & Vonk, 2009, p.25).
Self-compassion is also distinguished from self-pity which can cause individuals to become
overly embedded in their problems, disconnecting or alienating themselves from others (Neff &
Vonk, 2009; Zabelina & Robinson, 2010).
Literature on self-compassion offers a variety of studies comparing self-compassion with
other concepts such as academic procrastination, dysfunctional attitudes (Iskender, 2011), stress
and coping (Allen & Leary, 2010), academic failure and human development
(Neff, Hsieh, & Dejitterat, 2005), and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events (Leary, Tate,
Adams, Hancock, 2007). Only one study to date was found to compare self-compassion to

12
creativity (Zablina & Robinson, 2010).
Exploring creativity
Literature on creativity research is vast and has grown exponentially since the 1950s. It
has become its own area of research particularly in the United Kingdom, United States and
Australia. This review focuses mainly on creativity in education, though many constructs in the
literature originate from other disciplines such as psychology, sociology and philosophy. Where
possible, studies were sought out that dealt specifically with creativity and visual art. This
section of the review is broken down into three areas of interest, its focus is on: the definition of
creativity; theories in creativity, with particular interest in factors that stultify creativity and those
factors that facilitate it and identifying reliable creativity tests that are available.

Defining creativity
The biggest challenge for researchers is defining the concept of creativity (Runco, 1997).
Frank Barron, a pioneer in the psychology of creativity in the 1960s, defined creativity simply as
“a product of the creative process done by a creative person”, (Barron & Harrington, 1981).
Although it appears to be quite a simple definition it covers three main elements of creativity
found in most definitions; the process, the person and the product (Ivcevic, 2009). Other
researchers have added a forth element, the environment, in which the artwork was created. Sir
Ken Robinson, an internationally recognized leader in the development of education, creativity
and innovation defines creativity as “a process of having original ideas that have value”
(Robinson, 2001). Creativity researcher Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi states that “creativity results
from the interaction of a system composed of three elements: a culture that contains symbolic
rules, a person who brings novelty into the symbolic domain, and a field of experts who
recognize and validate the innovation” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Howard Gardner defines a

13
creative individual as a person “who regularly solves problems, fashions products or defines new
questions in a domain in a way that is initially considered novel, but that ultimately becomes
accepted in a particular culture setting” (Gardner, 1993). Paul Torrance defines creativity as “a
process of sensing difficulties, problems, gaps in information, missing elements, something
askew; making guesses and hypotheses about a solution of these deficiencies; evaluating and
testing these hypotheses; possibly revising and restating them; and finally communicating the
result” (Torrance, 1962, p.24).
Inevitably, the word creativity itself means different things to different people across a
broad spectrum of subject areas; even within one subject area it is difficult to find two similar
definitions (Amabile, 1988). Researchers are continually redefining the word, struggling to get a
clear consensus of what creativity is. As a result, creativity researchers find it difficult to situate
their studies (Albert and Runco, 1999).
To circumnavigate this problem, creativity expert Zorana Ivcevic suggests that instead of
working towards one universal definition, creativity researchers in particular should fine-tune
their own definition making sure it aligns with their research. She states that “each study should
start with a definition of creativity and situate the research in relation to this definition” (Ivcevic,
2009).
As mentioned previously, this study is guided by Paul Torrance’s definition of creativity
and although his definition stands on its own, it can be viewed as a combination of other
definitions. For example, it encompasses the three elements of Barron’s definition to include a
person (the student, their personality type), a process (taking interest, questioning, investigating
exploring, taking chances trial and error) and a product (the artwork itself, the making of
something new). The reference to the individual expressing their “basic nature” reflects

14
Csikszentmihalyi’s reference to expressing ones ideas including cultural influences, and finally
the product as a form of communication with others like Barron, Robinson, Csikszentmihalyi,
and Gardner all believe is an important element in creativity.

Creativity theory
Just as there are a number of definitions for creativity there are a number of theories
regarding creativity. There is an abundance of literature discussing creativity theory within a
wide range of subjects including visual art, music, dance, science, mathematics, education in
general, business, leadership and technology just to name a few. This specific review attempts to
explore the literature discussing creativity theory in education and where possible, visual art
specifically. Before discussing which theory aligns best with this study it is prudent to look
briefly at creativity theory within a historical context.
Humankind has acknowledged creativity as far back as early Greek and Roman times
when poetry was considered to be free of rules; where poets could transcend the mundane and
interpret new ways of seeing the world around them. It was believed that true creativity was
bestowed by the gods on particular individuals as a sacred gift; the greater the creative output the
greater the gift (Kearney, 2005). The first formal study on creativity theory was written in 1869
by Francis Galton who took a strong interest in the “nature versus nurture” argument taking
interest in the common characteristics shared by creative geniuses and the mentally insane (Craft,
2001). By the 1950s, in the area of psychology, four theoretical concepts in the study of
creativity were developed: the psychoanalytic tradition which included the explorations of
Sigmund Freud into creativity and the subconscious mind and Donald Winnicott’s hypothesis
that all humans are born creative, as part of their intrinsic nature. The cognitive tradition
continued to develop Galton`s theory on creativity as well as introducing Guildford`s theory on

15
divergent thinking and IQ tests. In the behaviourist tradition, B.F.Skinner investigated the
genetics of the creative individual within a specific environment, believing that if behaviour is
judged as inadequate, then the environment can be manipulated to encourage creativity.
Ultimately, he believed that anyone can be creative given the right environment. Lastly, the
humanistic tradition involving Maslow`s view on creativity as part of the healthy human mind
saw creativity as a natural process of self-direction and self-actualization (Craft, 2001).
In the 1970s interest in creativity theory shifted to three main areas of study: personality,
cognition, and creativity stimulation. MacKinnon (1975), Csiksentmihalyi (1976), and later
Simon Simonton (1984), found that by interviewing creative people they could ascertain certain
common personality traits that made some people more creative than others. These included a
strong sense of self, commitment persistence and curiosity. This type of research has come under
some criticism as the question arose as to what criteria had been used in the selection of these
particular individuals. Moreover, these three researchers used different definitions of creativity in
their studies making it difficult to compare their results.
Under the heading of cognition, psychometrics also emerged after the 1950s introducing
ways of measuring divergent thinking. Ellis Paul Torrance introduced his Torrance Test of
Creative Thinking in 1962 and five years later Joy Paul Guildford introduced his Alternative Use
Test in 1967. Considerable debate continues concerning these tests - are they viable as an
accurate measuring tools? (Cropley, 2000), do they have potential for capturing and measuring
creative thinking? (Bachelor & Michael, 1997; Kirschenbaum, 1998; Plucker & Runco, 1998). A
more detailed discussion on this topic will continue later in this chapter.
In the 1970s and 80s a continuation of Freud’s theories progressed through the study of
psychodynamics. This took the form of analysing groups of people with the same occupation;

16
such as artists, university teachers, architects, and arts students. They found that these groups
were able to see alternative ways of solving problems, had strong imaginations, were able to
contest the conventional, and were able to immerse themselves in their creative task with passion
(Craft, 2001).
Currently, there has been a keen interest in encouraging the creativity of everyday people
in everyday events, especially within the education environment. Curriculum has been rewritten
to emphasize the importance of creative thinking particularly in the primary grades in the UK
(Alenizi, 2008). Creativity research has become immersed in a social psychological framework.
Three studies were undertaken to enhance understanding of which environment is the best one
for stimulating creativity. One of these studies was undertaken by Swedish creativity researcher
Goren Ekvall, (1997) and the other two developed in the US (Amabile, 1988; Isaksen, 1995). It
was found that small groups of individuals working together in a supportive environment where
risk taking and developing new ideas were encouraged, was highly beneficial to nurturing
creativity (Craft, 2001; Alenizi, 2008). In addition, Amabile found that a non-competitive
environment amongst students coupled with a facilitator that allowed freedom of expression was
also beneficial (Amabile,1988).
Perhaps the most current and influential theory today and one that aligns best with this
study, and my teaching philosophy, is in Sternberg and Lubart’s investment theory. Both of these
researchers suggest that creativity is a decision in three parts: the decision to be creative, the
decision of what to create, and how to implement such decisions (Sterberg and Lubart, 2006).
Their main idea holds that creative individuals “buy low and sell high”, meaning that the creative
person produces something born from an innovative idea. It is usually seen by others as different
or novel and over time it becomes valuable, compared to other ideas or products in its category.

17
Once the idea or product is embraced and accepted, the creative person moves on to creating the
next product. Thus, if creativity is part of a decision-making process, Sternberg and Lubart
suggest that all individuals have the ability to be creative. They propose that there are six
resources individuals can use to access their creativity and once this is acknowledged creativity
will flourish. A rationale is provided for each resource, explaining how it can be used in a
classroom environment.
•

Intelligence (recognizing there is a problem or a gap in information, seeing things from a
different point of view than others, using insightful ways to solve problems. Teachers
must give students challenging problems to solve and time in which to solve them).

•

Knowledge (students must have some background knowledge and some foundation in
technique in order to problem solve. Students must also have a clear understanding of
why they need to know this information).

•

Intellectual style (the authors suggest that the students take some enjoyment from their
efforts and recognize that they have the ability to create something new or solve a
problem in a creative manner).

•

Personality (the students personalities should be such that they are willing to take risks,
persevere, and have the courage to believe in themselves).

•

Motivation (students must be motivated and interested in their work in order for them to
maintain interest).

•

Environmental context (the student’s environment must encourage, evaluate and reward
creative ideas)

18

Measuring creativity
Another common perspective amongst creativity researchers questions whether creativity
could be measured and if so, whether the results would be consistent and reliable. As this study
measured creative thinking amongst forty-five high school students it was important to
understand fully the measurement tools available, which were reliable and which had the best
reputation amongst researchers in the field of creativity. As there is a plethora of creativity tests
available a set criterion was established in order to select which tests should be included in this
study. An attempt was made to include tests which were specifically designed for use with
children. The test should be deemed credible and have generated a large amount of evidence
related to validity and reliability. It also had to have been recommended by the educational
community for educational use.
Mogbel Alenizi’s Assessment of Creativity in Education (2008), Arthur Cropley’s
Defining and Measuring Creativity: Are Creativity Tests Worth Using (2000), and Michael
Mumford’s Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? Taking Stock in Creativity Research
(2003) all include reviews on contemporary measures including the Torrance Test of Creative
Thinking (1984), Guilford’s Creativity Test of Alternate Uses (1966), and the Wallach and
Kogan Creativity Test (1965). These researchers agree that such creativity tests can be valid
measuring tools for creative thought but that they should not be used as test of intelligence.
There has been some debate in psychology literature that questions whether intelligence and
creativity are part of the same mental process or whether they are separate entities. Since the
1950s researchers such as Barron, Guilford and Kogan have suggested that correlations between
these concepts are minimal. Therefore, creativity tests, in general, are designed to provide results
on a number of subscales related to divergent thinking and essential constructs of creative

19
behaviours. These must not be confused with results from an IQ tests that are derived from a
single measure of intelligence (Alenizi, 2008; Kim, 2006).
The testing of creative thinking is considered an important part of education assessment
in education particularly in the US where divergent thinking and creative behaviour assessments
are readily available. They are also commonly used to measure creative potential in children
(Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989; Ochse, 1990; Tegano, Moran, & Godwin, 1986; Runco, 1986,
1991). One of the most widely used is the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Davis,
1997). Developed by Paul E. Torrance in 1966 it has been updated five times in 1974, 1984,
1990, 1998 and 2008. It is the most frequently used creativity test in the field of education
globally, appearing in forty different languages. According to Dr. Kyung Hee Kim, “The TTCT
predicts creative achievement better than any other creativity test or divergent thinking test, and
based on my extensive analyses, I have concluded that the TTCT is more than just a divergentthinking test; it is the best creativity test currently available” (2006, p.11).
There are two TTCT tests, one verbal and the other figural and the TTCT Figural has two
parallel forms A and B. For the purposes of this review, only the TTCT Figural, Form A, will be
discussed. The test is designed around three activities: picture construction, picture completion
and picture completion using repeated lines. Additional test design information will be provided
in the methods section of this study.
Over the past twenty five years the TTCT has undergone extensive development and
evaluation (Millar, 2002). Amongst other tests of its kind it has the largest norm sample which
was collected in 1997 and published in the TTCT manual in 1998. The sample used 55,600
kindergarten to grade 12 students from across the US and Canada. The TTCT Figural Manual of
1990 records the interrater reliability among the scorers for Scholastic Testing Services Inc. was

20
greater than .90 (Cropley, 2000; Kim, 2006). In addition, there were no statistical differences
between test scores due to differences in language, gender, race, or socioeconomic background
(Cramond, 1993; Kim, 2006).
Although the TTCT has a strong reputation as one of the “most used assessments of
creative talent” (Sternberg, 2006, p.87) it has been criticized for promoting itself as a true
predictor of an individual’s creative potential (Craft, 2001). Torrance himself states that those
who score highly on the test may not necessarily exhibit creativity on a regular basis as the
motivation to create and technical knowledge are also required in the creative process (Torrance,
1990, 1998; Torrance & Ball, 1984).
The TTCT has also been criticized for the amount of time and energy required to learn
the standard scoring procedures. However, in 1983 an attempt was made to provide details on the
students creative functioning while streamlining the scoring process (Torrance & Safter, 1986).
Other researchers question the ‘test like’ atmosphere of the TTCT and have a particular
dislike for the time limits given to each activity and the test like design layout of the booklet.
According to Dentler & Mackler (1964) students had higher scores when tests were conducted in
a relaxed environment and lower scores when tested in more stringent environments, such as an
exam hall. However, creativity researchers, Kogan and Morgan (1969) could not replicate this
finding (Kim, 2006). The TTCT does however attempt to make the test as relaxing as possible.
In the Preparing for the Test section of the manual it states, “It is generally recommended that a
game-like, thinking, or problem solving atmosphere be created. Create the expectation that the
activities are enjoyable and invite the students to have fun” (Torrance & Ball, 1984, p.2).
Guilford’s Creativity Test of Alternate Uses was also designed in the early 1960s and was
used within the education field at the time. The test was based on a Structure of Intellect (SI)

21
model of intelligence and was administered to students in grade 4-6 through a verbal and figural
component. SI theory is comprised of one hundred and fifty different intellectual abilities
organized along three dimensions—Operations, Content, and Products.
•

Operations include: cognition, memory recording, memory retention, divergent
production, convergent production and evaluation.

•

Content dimensions include: figural, symbolic, semantic, and behavioural.

•

Product dimension designed to become increasingly more complex. These
include: Units (single items of knowledge), classes (sets of units sharing
characteristics), relations (unites seen in a sequence or pattern), systems (multiple
relations which make up new structures), transformations (new perspectives,
adding more knowledge to existing knowledge) and implications (predictions,
inferences) (Guilford, 1988).

Although Guilford’s test appears to be comprehensive researchers have heavily criticized
its statistical techniques and its strong correlation to a regular IQ test (Crockenberg, 1972; Hattie,
1980).
Like the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, the Wallach and Kogan Creativity Test has
both a verbal and figurative component. The figural component, called the Visual Content Tasks
requires the students to respond to various lines given as a stimulus. In contrast to the TTCT and
the Guilford’s Test the Wallach and Kogan Creativity Test is concerned with observing and
recording the creative process and as the test is designed to capture more common responses at
the beginning of the test and more complex and unique responses later, there are no time limits
set for participants (Crockenberg, 1972). This research shows that creativity variables are highly

22
reliable and correlation between creativity and IQ is low. Wallach and Kogan concluded that this
test, administered under a game like environment allowed them to isolate a form of thought that
they described as “dimensions of creativity” (Crockenberg, 1972).
Like other creativity tests, this one has also been criticized for scoring the number of
unique responses in favour of quantity over quality. Some tests, like the TTCT provide a quality
check by giving zero to responses which are clearly inappropriate (Crockenberg, 1972).
Literature also cautions administrators that many of the studies based upon this test have utilized
responses from gifted children, university students and high ability individuals, while other
researchers have suggested that the test be used only with a high IQ sample. It is evident amongst
researchers that the validity of the test is far from conclusive (Crockenberg, 1972).
Though some creativity tests have been used for thirty years or more and are well
established, there seems to be a consensus amongst researchers that they fail to capture a
complete picture of the creative potential of students (Coleman & Cross, 2001; Zimmerman,
2009). It appears more research needs to be done, particularly in the correlation of such tests with
others in a similar vein, for example IQ tests. This should include an analysis of the validity and
reliability of each test as well as the consideration of the most suitable environment in which
such tests should be administered (Hattie, 1980). However, there still remains a strong interest in
creativity testing in general as researchers continually improve on or develop new ways of
understanding the subject (Zimmerman, 2009).

23
Interactions between self-compassion and creativity
The interactions between self-compassion and creativity in a high school art room are at
the focal point of this study. Zabelina and Robinson’s study Don’t Be So Hard on Yourself: Self
Compassion Facilitates Creative Originality Among Self-Judgemental Individuals is the first of
its kind to address the relationship between the two concepts and to extend the research beyond
previous studies that consisted of small samples of self- reported data. Zablina and Robinson
used the short scale versions of Kristen Neff’s Self-Compassion Scale and a shortened form of
the Torrance Creativity Test, both of which have a reliability reading of .81, a score with which
the authors were satisfied. They also discovered that a self-compassion intervention increased
creative output amongst those who were prone to critical self-judgement. Their preliminary
studies showed that nurturing self-compassion amongst individuals could indeed have a positive
impact on their creative output (Zablina & Robinson, 2010).
Their research also demonstrated that students with low self-compassion also suffer from
neurotic perfectionist tendencies, which in turn inhibits creativity and can causes a devastating
impact on student performance (Frost, Marten, Lahart and Rosenblate, 1990). Healthy levels of
self-compassion have a positive correlation with normal perfectionism (high personal standards).
As a result of this research, it was found that self-compassionate individuals are more accepting
and experience less distress when they fail to meet their personal goals, but it was also made
clear that the same self-compassion does not lead to passivity (Neff, 2003; Iskender, 2011). It
was also noted, that individuals with higher levels of self-compassion tended to participate in in a
wider range of daily activities which involve creative thought (Collins & Amabile, 1999; Ryan &
Deci, 2000). In this study it was hypothesized that self-critical individuals would exhibit less

24
creative originality but would show higher levels of creativity after a self-compassion
intervention.
Zablina and Robinson’s study, in particular, was helpful in clarifying and justifying the
research topic that supports this thesis. However, their research involved subjects who were
undergraduate students in the psychology department at the North Dakota State University and
whose participation was mandatory and for course credit. This study attempts to extend this
research by utilizing the abilities of high school students, whose participation was strictly
voluntary.

Conclusion
While much has been written on the topic of creativity and self-compassion as separate
concepts, little research has focused on the interaction between the two. Creativity has been
acknowledged for hundreds of years and has been formally researched by many authors for over
one hundred and forty years. Although it does not have a globally recognized definition,
researchers are careful to choose a definition and then situate their research around it. In contrast
self-compassion is a much younger concept that has a clearer and more concise definition. Fewer
authors have written on this subject but the depth of their research has been vast. Additional
research in this area is necessary in order to confirm whether or not higher levels of selfcompassion can facilitate creativity in some individuals.

25
Chapter Three: Design and Methodology
Introduction
This chapter has six sections, each describing the methods used to conduct this study
including: the selected approach to the study and its design; information about the participants;
the instruments used for collecting the relevant data; the procedure; ethical considerations,
approvals and consents necessary.
Approach to this study as teacher/researcher
From the outset, this author was dedicated to researching the ever-changing attitudes and
behaviours the high school art students demonstrated toward the visual arts, particularly during
the creative process. As a visual arts teacher for more than eighteen years, it was the intent to
initiate the research in the classroom where the attitudes and behaviours are regularly evidenced.
As the main purpose of this research was to investigate how self-compassion might influence the
creative process amongst high school art students, it seemed appropriate to approach this study
both as a teacher and a researcher.
In their regular teaching practice, teachers engage in research every day developing a
learning environment, writing lesson plans to create new understandings, evaluating the work
and sharing the results with students, parents and administrators (Anderson & Herr, 1999;
Burnaford, Fischer & Hobson, 1997). They are in essence designing and implementing a plan of
action, they observe their students and analyse the results, modifying and improving their plans
to meet more effectively the needs of the students. According to Christian Faltis, who advocates
for the teacher as researcher approach, describes the role of teacher/research as, “a systematic
investigation of how teaching influences student learning over time in a single classroom or
learning community. It is an inquiry that is systematic, intentional, contextual, ethical and above

26
all responsive to the learners’ strengths and challenges” (2013). He further explains that there are
three categories in which a teacher may participate as a researcher: (1) action research, (2) the
case study approach, and (3) instructional interventions.
In the context of this research, an action research strategy was adopted to investigate a
phenomenon within its real-life context. According to Geoffrey E. Mills “Action research is any
systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school counselors, or other
stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment to gather information about how their
particular school operates, how they teach, and how well their students learn. This information is
gathered with the goals of gaining insights, developing reflective practice, effecting positive
changes in the school environment, and improving student outcomes and the lives of those
involved”(2012, p.21).
Relying on multiple sources of evidence, this study was designed with a mixed methods
approach to capture both quantitative and qualitative data in order to generate significant and
accurate results. This author had a strong interest in learning how creativity could be measured
amongst individuals and to what extent that number could be influenced by levels of selfcompassion. This author was also interested in hearing the voices of her students to discover if
their perceptions and ideas on creativity and self-compassion correlated with the statistical data.
The quantitative data was collected from the Torrance Creativity Test, the Kirsten Neff SelfCompassion Scale and two closed questions. The qualitative data were collected from four openended interview questions.
This study also serves a purpose for future research when looking at possible
instructional interventions. If self-compassion is proven to be linked to the creative process, the

27
next logical step would be to develop an intervention strategy that strengthens self-compassion
enabling the creative process to flow more easily.
About the participants
The forty-five students (out of a potential fifty eight) who participated in this study were
high school art students attending an independent school in the downtown area of a small city in
British Columbia. The school had an overall population of four hundred and twenty-five
students. The self-selected sample were students that came from two senior art classes at the
school in which they had elected to take the art course; all students were between the ages of
fifteen and eighteen. The study was undertaken in the art room during class time. The sample
was composed of twenty seven females and eighteen males, all of whom volunteered to take
part. As each art class was a general visual arts course, a cross-section of abilities was present.
Some students had never taken an art class before where others had wider experience.
Thirty-three of the students were Caucasian, two from India, three Aboriginal, two from
South Korea, two from Japan, and three from South Africa, most of whom came from middle
class families with both parents living at home. With its diverse cultural background and a wide
range of abilities the construction of this group made an ideal sample to provide quality data for
the study.
Ethical considerations, Approval and Consent
This study received a Certificate of Approval from the Thompson Rivers University
Ethics Committee for Research and other Studies Involving Human Subjects. Please see
Appendix D for a copy. Ethical considerations of students’ wellbeing were given priority to all
aspects of this study. The researcher’s philosophy was to share as much information as possible
with the participants and the participant’s parents. Although they were not given details about the

28
two tests or the interview questions, they were privy to the date and time of the data collection
and the research study’s general purpose. Parents were asked to sign the Consent Form for
Minors which outlined the scope of the study and the student’s rights as a participant. Even
though it was not necessary, students were also asked to sign the Consent Form for Minors, as
evidence they understood what was being asked of them. In addition, this study received consent
from the Principal of the school in which this study took place. Please see Appendix E for a copy
of this letter. After the data was collected a form entitled, TRU Human Subject Feedback Form,
was distributed to students and mailed home to parents. Its purpose was to receive feedback on
how the data was collected making sure that there were no significant deviations from the
original planned procedures. See Appendix F for copy of this form.
Measures
Four measures were used: the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Figural, Form
A; Kirsten Neff’s Self-Compassion Scale: (short form); two closed questions delivered in a
Likert Scale; and four open ended interview questions. Samples of each test can be found in
Appendix A.
The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking
The TTCT Figural, Form A, is appropriate for all ages, kindergarten to adult. The test is
an eight page booklet divided into three activities: Picture Construction, Picture Completion, and
Lines. Students were allowed a maximum of ten minutes to complete each section.
Activity one, Picture Construction, required students to use a given stimulus, in this case
a large black egg shape placed in the middle of an otherwise unmarked sheet of paper. The
students were asked to draw a picture using the egg shape within their drawing, thinking as

29
creatively as possible. They were then asked to give their unique drawing a carefully considered
title.
Activity two, Picture Completion, offered students ten different boxes with different line
drawings within each box. Students were asked to use the line drawings as a stimulus to inspire
them to complete a drawing which tells a story. Students were encouraged to provide titles to
accompany the drawings.
The third activity, Lines, was three pages long and displayed thirty pairs of parallel lines.
The students were asked to use these lines as a starting point for a finished drawing. In this
activity, extra points were given to those who used more than two sets of parallel lines to create
one picture.
When the test was complete, each drawing was scored using a five norm-referenced
measure within the following categories:
•

fluency

•

originality

•

elaboration

•

abstractness of titles

•

resistance to premature closer

In addition, each drawing was scored using thirteen referenced measures of creative
strengths:
•

emotional expressiveness

•

storytelling articulateness

•

movement or action

•

expressiveness of titles

30
•

synthesis of incomplete figures

•

synthesis of lines

•

unusual visualization

•

internal visualization

•

extending or breaking boundaries

•

humour

•

richness of imagery

•

colourfulness of imagery

•

fantasy
Each measure was designed to tap into different aspects of creative functioning,

culminating in a raw score. Using the raw score, five types of derived measures were made:
Torrance Creativity Index, Standard Scores by age and grade and National Percentile by age and
grade. For the purposes of this research, the Torrance Creativity Index was used, reported on
scale having a mean of 109.9 and a standard deviation of 16.4.
As mentioned in the literature review, the TTCT is known for its comprehensive scoring
system designed to capture creative thinking within an original drawing. As the test requires the
administrator to have a full understanding of the test and all of its scoring procedures, it is highly
recommended that anyone facilitating the test becomes a TTCT certified scorer. For this purpose,
the author of this research travelled to the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia, for seven
days, in February 2011. Working with creativity expert Bonnie Cramond, the certification
process was started and three months later certification was granted. A copy of this certificate is
found in Appendix B

31
The Rater Reliability of the TTCT test has been reported in five separate studies
involving students in grade 2, 5, 8 and college level, and a random group. In each group,
completed tests were independently scored by two different administrators. For fluency, the
coefficients of correlation for the 5 studies provided values of 0.96 for grade 8 and 0.99 for each
of the other grades. For originality, coefficients ranged from 0.91 to 0.99; for abstractness of
titles coefficients ranged from 0.93 to 0.99; for elaboration coefficients ranged from 0.95 to 0.98;
and for resistance to premature closure coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.99. These studies show
that when the administrators of the tests follow the scoring procedures properly, a high degree of
accuracy results (Torrance, 1998).
Self-Compassion
The Self-Compassion Scale: Short Form, (SCS-FS) created by Dr. Kirsten Neff is a
qualitative measure that asks twelve questions; two questions each from the following six
categories:
•

self-kindness

•

common humanity

•

mindfulness

•

self-judgement

•

isolation

•

over-identification
Students were asked to respond to the questions on a scale from 1 to 5. Number 1 on the

scale representing ‘almost never’ and number 5 representing ‘almost always’. Six of the twelve
questions were reversed scored.

32
Three samples were used to cross validate the factorial structure of the test, two from
Holland and one from England. The SCS-FS has proven to be both valid and reliable with an
internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha of .86. It also had a strong correlation to the SelfCompassion Scale: Long Form with .97 making it a time saving alternative to the long form
(Neff, 2003). In past studies, using 415 US students, the mean score for this scale is 36. About
70% score in the range of 29 to 43 and about 95% of participants score between 21 and 51 (Neff,
2011).
Two closed questions: Self perceptions of perfectionist behaviours and levels of frustration
Two Likert-type items were developed by the teacher/researcher for this inquiry, to
record the students’ perception of their level of perfectionist behaviours and level of frustration
while creating their artwork. Students were asked, How perfectionistic are you when creating
your artwork? Students responded on a scale of 0 to 3 (0 being Never, 1 Somewhat, 2 Most of
the time, and 3 Always). For levels of frustration students were asked, How frustrated do you get
when creating your artwork? Students responded on a scale from 0 to 3 (0 being Never, 1
Somewhat, 2 Most of the time, and 3 Always).
Four open ended questions
Four open ended questions were also designed by the teacher/researcher and were
included in the research to capture the students’ thoughts on creativity and self-compassion. The
questions were designed to draw out the students’ perception of their own creativity and any
potential issues they may have with perfectionism and being overly self-critical of themselves
during a time when they are being creative. The questions asked were:
1. Have you ever had an artist’s block? If so, what do you think blocked your creativity?
2. Do you think self-compassion has anything to do with perfectionism?

33
3. Do you think lack of self-compassion inhibits creativity?
4. What can be done to help students who experience an artist’s block?
Procedure
One week before the collection of data, fifty-eight senior art students were introduced to
the topic of the study and were asked if they would like to volunteer as subjects. They were
given a brief outline of what to expect on data collection day as well as how long the data
collection would take. A discussion on ethical procedures was also introduced emphasising the
importance of protecting the well-being of the students as research subjects. Students were told
that they did not have to participate and that their decision would not affect their grades or class
standing. Students were also made aware that they could withdraw from the study at any time
without negative repercussions. Students were reminded that, as usual, they could access their
grades at any time to check on their marks.
Students were provided with a Consent Form for Minors which they were asked to take
home and have signed by their parents and have returned for next class. Students were also asked
to review the information on this form and sign it. A copy of this form is found in Appendix C
Students were also made aware that no names or personal identification would appear on
any of the activity sheets, instead a number would be used. In addition, all information collected
would remain confidential and that the four activities would take approximately one hour to
complete.
Two classes later, forty six permission slips were returned signed by both the parent and
the student. One student reported that she had changed her mind as she would prefer to continue
with her current art assignment; leaving forty five subjects.

34
To further orient the students to the research, one class was set aside to discuss some of
the terminology they would encounter during the testing period. While the students who decided
not to participate continued with their in class assignments, the sample group looked at the
definition of creativity developed by Torrance and brainstormed about why he would include
certain elements in his definition and not others. We briefly discussed how this definition aligned
with the development of his creativity test, although we did not discuss what the test looked like.
We followed the same procedure when looking at Neff’s definition of self-compassion and again
with understanding perfectionism. In hindsight, the time taken to orientate the students was vital.
Identifying these three concepts and understanding their definitions provided the students with a
foundation on which to build their responses meaningfully. At the same time it created cohesion
between the data results and the research questions guiding this study.
On June 1, 2011, data collection day, the students were reminded that their role as a
subject was voluntary and at any time they might withdraw from the study. The researcher made
every effort to create a regular classroom environment, one which is calm and quiet. The
students were given room for their paper and art supplies, there was ample light and the
temperature of the room was made comfortable by opening the windows to let a light breeze in.
Students were then introduced to the Torrance Creativity Test as a fun interactive activity. The
researcher showed the class the booklet while encouraging them in a positive tone of voice.
Students were then instructed that they could draw anything they would like using the prompts
provided. Though written instructions in the booklet were provided for the three part activity,
they were read aloud to the whole class. Students appeared to be happy to receive their booklet
and content to get started. Students were given ten minutes to complete each section, for a total
of thirty minutes. As this test is timed, students were then asked to move to the next activity.

35
After thirty minutes the tests were collected and stored away in a secure filing cabinet in the
administration office.
Instructions for the Self-Compassion Scale activity were also read aloud. Students were
asked to place the appropriate number in the box provided that best reflected their perception of
their own self-compassion. Students were given fifteen minutes to complete the task then the
activity papers were collected and locked away with the other test booklets.
Students were then presented with two closed questions, in the form of a Likert-type
Scale, and four open-ended questions for discussion. In both cases students were offered the
choice of recording their responses on paper or in audio format. Forty-one students recorded
their responses on paper while four opted to record their responses on a tape recorder. It was
anticipated that the students would embrace the opportunity to move away from working on
paper to an open discussion format where students could share their experiences with the topic.
Although fifteen minutes was set aside for that portion of the study, it was clear that students felt
more comfortable communicating their thoughts on paper, hence requiring more time. Since this
section of data retrieval was not time sensitive students were given an additional twenty minutes,
for a total of thirty-five minutes, to record their responses, after which the papers were collected
and placed with the other data in the same locked filing cabinet.

36
Chapter Four: Presentation of the Findings
Quantitative findings
Data were collected from the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, The Kirsten Neff SelfCompassion Scale, and the students’ perceptions of their own level of perfectionism and level of
frustration, and the data was analysed using statistical tools including the Pearson Correlation
Analysis, and Minitab Scatterplots. These two statistical tools were chosen to represent the
findings from a number of different viewpoints and to answer the two questions that guide this
study; do low levels of self-compassion inhibit creativity in the art making process amongst high
school art students? do higher levels of self-compassion facilitate creativity in the art making
process amongst high school art students?
Pearson Correlation Analysis is a technique for investigating the relationship between
two quantitative, continuous variables, and in this case, was used to determine if there is a
correlation between the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking and the Kirsten Neff SelfCompassion test. As Table 1 below illustrates, the two tests positively correlated at
(r=0.85, p< .001, two tailed) suggesting that these two variables increase and decrease together;
students who scored higher on the Self-Compassion Test scored higher on the TTCT and
conversely students who scored lower on the Self-Compassion test scored lower on their TTCT.
Additional quantitative data on student’s perception of perfectionism and perceived
levels of frustration were taken from the two closed interview questions taken from a Likerttype Scale and entered into the Pearson Correlation Analysis. Results showed that perfectionism
and levels of frustration negatively correlate with the Self-Compassion and TTCT tests.
Expressed alternatively, the higher the students scored in self-compassion and creativity the less
likely they were to experience perfectionist traits and frustration. The less self-compassion, the

37
less creative, the more likely they would be to exhibit perfectionist traits and higher levels of
frustration. The following table illustrates these relationships.
Table 1
Pearson Correlation Analysis between the four variables
Torrance Creativity Kirsten Neff
Index

Perfectionism Score Frustration

Self-Compassion

Score

Test
Torrance Creativity

1

.859**

-.833**

-750**

.000

.000

.000

n=45

n=45

n=45

1

-.899**

-.876**

.000

.000

n=45

n=45

1

.898**

Index
n=45
Kirsten Neff
Self-Compassion
Test

n=45

Perfectionism Score

.000
n=45

n=45

Frustration

1

Score
n=45

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed)
In addition, a scatterplot, (see Figure One), was used to illustrate the correlation between
the TTCT and the Self-Compassion data. As the smooth line suggests the students who had more
self-compassion had a higher creative output. By fitting the line to the data points the smooth
line allows one to see the trend or relationship between the variable more easily.

38
Figure One

Torrance Creativity Index vs. Self-Compassion Score
170

Torrance Creativity Index

160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
20

25

30
35
Self-Compassion Score

40

45

Although it was not the intention of this study to analyse gender, the data was readily
available and relatively straight-forward to analyse. I chose to include these results for interested
researchers and other readers alike. The results show, (see Figure Two), that the female students
were slightly more creative than the males and had minimally more self-compassion. Of the
twenty-seven females and eighteen males who participated, eleven males scored under the mean
of 32 on the self-compassion test, and seven males scored over 32. Ten females scored under 32
in the self-compassion test and seventeen over 32. As there are three females for every two
males, the results demonstrate little difference in test results between genders. As there were a
limited number of subjects participating in this study, the results may not be generalized. Further
research into the topic of gender differences with a larger number of participants is necessary.

39
Figure Two

Torrance Creativity Index vs. Self-Compassion Score by Gender
180

Gender
f
m

Torrance Creativity Index

160

140

120

100

80
15

20

25

30
35
Self-Compassion Score

40

45

In other findings, (see Figure Three), the Self-Compassion results were compared to the
perceived perfectionist behaviour the student felt they had. In this case when students were
asked: Do you think you have perfectionist traits? twenty-five students felt they carried
perfectionist traits, eighteen said they did not and two said they did not know. The students who
recorded acute perfectionist behaviours scored between 16 and 28 on their self-compassion
scale. The students with mild to moderate perfectionist behaviours scored between 18 and 38 on
their self-compassion scale; students who thought they did not exhibit any perfectionist traits,
with the exception of one student, scored between 36 and 44 on their self-compassion scale.
These numbers suggest that the more self-compassion the less likely one is to exhibit
perfectionist traits. According to Neff, this may not be a surprising result as self-compassion is

40
“associated with increased levels of reflective and affective wisdom, personal initiative,
curiosity and exploration, happiness, optimism and positive affect” (Neff & Vonk, 2009 p.26).
Figure Three

Self-Compassion Score vs. Perfectionist Behaviors
45

Gender
f
m

Self-Compassion Score

40
35
30
25
20
15
0

1

2

3

Perfectionist Behaviors

Figure Four illustrates similar results when looking at Torrance Creativity Index scores
and levels of perfectionist behaviours. Students who scored higher on the TTCT perceived
themselves as having fewer perfectionist tendencies. In this case, twelve males and thirteen
females recorded that they had mild to acute perfectionist traits on the Likert-type Scale, and
scored between 85 and 150 on the TTCT. However, two additional students did report some
perfectionist traits and yet scored quite high on their TTCT with a score of 150, this discrepancy
was acknowledged. The eighteen students who felt they did not have any perfectionist traits
scored higher on the TTCT with scores between 117 and 173.

41
Figure Four

Torrance Creativity Index vs. Perfectionist Behaviors
Gender
f
m

170

Torrance Creativity Index

160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
0

1

2
Perfectionist Behaviors

3

Conclusion
Results from quantitative data suggest there is a relationship between self-compassion
and creativity. In particular, Figure One supports the results found in the Pearson Correlation
Analysis table which suggests that the higher the student’s self-compassion, the higher their
creative output. Figures three and four, which dealt primarily with perfectionism, found those
students with low self-compassion exhibited more perfectionist traits and less creativity.
Conversely, those students with higher levels of self-compassion exhibited less perfectionistic
traits and more creativity.
Although there seems to be little difference between genders in creativity performance,
Figure two illustrates that slightly more males perceived themselves as having perfectionist
behaviours in comparison to females.

42

Qualitative Findings
Of the possible fifty-eight art students, forty-five participated in the study and of those
forty-five, all completed the study. Four open-ended questions were included in the research to
capture the students’ thoughts on creativity and self-compassion and the possible relationship
between these two attributes. The questions were designed to draw out each student’s perception
of their own creativity and any potential issues they may have with perfectionism and being
overly self-critical during a time when they are being creative. The questions asked were:
•

Have you ever had an artist’s block and if so, what do you think blocked your
creativity?

•

Do you think self-compassion has anything to do with perfectionism?

•

Do you think lack of self-compassion inhibits creativity?

•

What can be done to help students who experience an artist’s block?

Participants responded to each question, expanding on their ideas. As expected, the
responses varied by student but after some analysis common themes became apparent.

Results from question 1
Have you ever had an artist’s block? If so, what do you think blocked your creativity?
Six students responded they had not experienced an artist block before. From their openended responses and from previous discussions in the classroom they understood and recognized
what an artist block is but added they had not experienced any themselves. They reported that
nothing blocks their creativity because they constantly create alternative options as part of their
creative process. One student explained, “I know what you mean but no, I don’t really think
anything blocks my creativity, when I have trouble I just know that if I keep trying something
will turn out”. Another student reported, “I just keep working, I sometimes turn my work upside
down (so the image is upside down to the artist); it kinda helps”. Other students wrote, “I don’t

43
think of it as an artist’s block, I just change things around, I go and work on something else until
I figure things out” and “I just keep going”.
It seems evident from the responses that these students have a level of flexibility in their
approach to creating art, either working through the issues at hand or working on something else
until a solution is found. These students are comfortable with making modifications while
creating their artwork and they recognize them as part of the process. As discussed in the
literature review, students who exhibit this level of flexibility often score higher on the selfcompassion test as they are more adaptable to experimenting with new approaches, techniques
and materials without fear of failure. In general, these types of students tend to exhibit less selfcritical tendencies, and find it less challenging when creative problem solving, (Neff, 2011; Neff
and McGehee, 2010). Specifically, these six students scored very high on their TTCT, scoring
above 152. Five of these students scored 40 and higher on the self-compassion scale.
The other forty students reported they had experienced an artist’s block but at different
levels of intensity. Eight reported they felt the condition was a normal part of the creative
process, and realised that it would only be temporary and that they had the ability to push
through the problem and keep going. The majority of these students scored higher on their TTCT
test, above the 150. These same students also scored high on their self-compassion test with
results above 38.
The majority of the class, thirty-one students, attributed their artist block to a variety of
issues: various aspects of perfectionism; being asked to explore new subjects; materials or
technologies when they felt disinclined to do so. Other complained of a lack of ideas; not
knowing what to draw; not having the skills to create what is required of them; and not having
enough time to complete the project.

44
Twelve students felt that perfectionism was the leading cause of their artist block. As one
student explains, “I just keep thinking I want it a certain way. It makes me mad that it won’t turn
out the way I want so I either quit or use something different.” Another student reported, “I don’t
know why I just stop and start all the time. I want it to be perfect the way I see it in my mind”. A
third student wrote, “I think I get creative blocks when I stress myself out. I want to be good at
what I do but I’m too hard on myself and that makes me feel even worse.”
While reflecting on the comments in this group, all students except one, scored low on
their TTCT, below 100 and the majority scored well below average on their self-compassion
tests. However, the one exception was one student that did not follow this pattern scored higher
than expected on the TTCT test at 142 and low in the self-compassion test at 22.
Three of these twelve students reported they felt they did not have the required skills to
complete the project to their expectations and found frustration in trying to create the perfect
artwork. As one student explained, their frustration came from, “not being able to draw
something new and exciting, not being able to draw what I wanted to draw…not skilled enough
or can’t do it….it looks like crap…I usually start by gripping the page arhh and then ripping it in
half”.
An additional theme amongst a number of these students was their reference to external
pressure from family and friends to create something perfect. This external pressure from others,
particularly a parent, has long been understood by researchers in the field of perfectionism and
has been established as the leading cause of perfectionism amongst youth (Burns 1980,
Hamachek, 1978 and Hollander, 1978, Pacht 1984; Frost, Marten, Lahart & Rosenblate 1990).
Five students reported that they did not like being asked to try new things; instead they
would prefer to be left alone to choose their own subject matter and drawing style. As one of the

45
students explains, “I like my own style; I don’t want to try new things….When I get an artist’s
block it’s usually because I am trying something new and I don’t like it. I get frustrated and I
don’t want to create anything anymore. People say I’m a good artist but I don’t think so or I
would be good at more.”
Four students felt their creative block was due to lack of ideas. They revealed that they
“lack inspiration”, or “….I just don’t know what to draw”, and lastly three students felt they
didn’t have enough time to complete the task at hand which caused a higher level of frustration.
The students in this category scored low to average in the self-compassion test between 25 and
33 and low to moderately high on the TTCT test from 100 to 123.

Results from question 2
Do you think self-compassion has anything to do with perfectionism?
The majority of students (thirty-four) agreed that self-compassion must have something
to do with perfectionism. A number of students who felt very strongly that these two elements
were related reported “I think self-compassion has a lot to do with perfectionism. I think if a
student had more self-compassion they might be more open to making mistakes”. Another
student reported, “If students were kinder to themselves they wouldn’t mind making mistakes
and perhaps they would be more creative. I think students who have perfectionistic traits may be
too hard on themselves. Maybe self-compassion helps to lessen that so students can work more
creatively”. These findings are in keeping with current research on self-compassion and its
correlation to perfectionism. As Kirsten Neff explains, “Research suggests that self-compassion
is strongly related to psychological well-being, including increased happiness, optimism,
decreased anxiety and depression and neurotic perfectionism” (Neff & McGeehee, 2010, p.4)
Though other students agreed that there could be a relationship between self-compassion
and perfectionism, they were unsure to what extent. One student said, “I guess self-compassion

46
could help stop perfectionism because students who felt okay about themselves and their work
would be less picky.” Another student agreed by saying, “I can’t help but feel badly about my
artwork, maybe self-compassion will help me get unstuck when I want to give up on my work.
Not sure if it will make me less of a perfectionist because I think I will always have those
thoughts I will learn how to do something different with them.”

Results from question 3
Do you think lack of self-compassion inhibits creativity?
Twenty–eight students felt strongly that lack of self-compassion could inhibit creativity
and four said they only thought it might. Eight felt that self-compassion and creativity were
unrelated and five were unsure. Unexpectedly, this author found no correlation between the
responses and the self-compassion or TTCT scores. However, several interesting themes
emerged from their responses. As the above numbers state, the majority of students felt there
could be a strong relationship between self-compassion and creativity. One student concluded by
saying, “Yes I think it does. People who give themselves such a hard time are not nice to
themselves. I think the more self-compassion a person has the more they are willing to make
mistakes and its okay.” A number of students also talked about finding the right balance, having
just enough self-compassion but not too much. As one student reported, “I think there needs to
be a balance between challenging oneself and being too hard on oneself. I think a healthy amount
of self-compassion probably helps creativity.” A second student reported, “I think selfcompassion has to be in the right balance. I think it might help with frustration and maybe less
frustration makes creativity flow better.” Other students made the case that with too much selfcompassion a student could become lazy and unmotivated. However, according to current
research on self-compassion, this has not been shown to be the case. Murat Iskender, Professor
and Researcher at Sakarya University in Turkey, explains that “self-compassion is negatively

47
associated with self-criticism, rumination, procrastination and other avoidance-oriented
strategies” (Iskender, p.231). Kirsten Neff supports this argument in more detail, “Although it is
possible that individual sometimes adopt a self-compassionate attitude as a pretext for being
complacent, passive, or to avoid taking responsibility for one’s harmful actions, this is unlikely
to occur when feelings of self-compassion are complete and genuine. Although self-compassion
requires that one not be harshly judgemental toward oneself, the mindfulness component of selfcompassion suggests that one’s failings are seen clearly rather than being ignored or disregarded.
Moreover, truly having compassion for oneself entails desiring health and well-being for oneself,
which means gently encouraging change where needed and rectifying harmful or unproductive
patterns of behaviour. Thus, self-compassion should counteract complacency as long as
mindfulness is present” (Neff 2003, p.225).
Another important point to emerge was that there were a significant number of students
who evaluated their level of self-compassion as too low. At this point, in the proceedings, the
students had written their self-compassion test but were not privy to the results. Most said that
they would like to have more self-compassion but didn’t know how to develop it. They also
wondered how self-compassion would ultimately impact other behavioural outcomes such as
frustration and anger. These particular students tended to score below 25 on their selfcompassion score and below 100 on their TTCT.
These comments were found to be mature and insightful leading the teacher/researcher to
question how might a higher level of self-compassion impact student learning in the future. Is it
possible that self-compassion could become a crucial component of social-emotional learning?
Could self-compassion encourage and support the development of other positive attributes such

48
as persistence, resilience, responsibility, and problem solving? Some of the students seem to
recognize that self-compassion might be useful once they learn to nurture it.
The responses from those students who didn’t think lack of self-compassion could inhibit
creativity varied. One student reported when, “people are hard on themselves they get frustrated
and angry which stops them from being creative I don’t think lack of self-compassion does” A
second student thought, “that a gentle push will encourage creativity, but that doesn’t mean that a
lack of self-compassion inhibits creativity.”

Responses to question 4
What can be done to help students who experience an artist’s block?
Thirty-one students suggested that those students who experience an artist block should
try to be kinder to themselves by accepting their mistakes, being less judgemental when mistakes
occur, prevent stress by taking one step at a time, take a break for a few minutes the return to
finish the project. Two additional students advised that they needed more time to work on their
assignments and suggested that music could act as inspiration. The majority of these students
scored high on both their TTCT and self-compassion scores with the exception of two that
scored in the mid-range.
Nine students felt they could not offer advice as they identified themselves as members of
a group that needed the help. As one student reported, “I’m the one who needs this advice, can
you please share these results.” A second student agreed by writing, “Not sure, I stop and start, if
you have a solution please let me know.” Another student reported, “Don’t know, I’m the one
who needs the help!” Eight of these students scored 22 on the self-compassion test and under 100
on the TTCT. The ninth student scored 22 on the self-compassion score and surprisingly high on
with 142 on the TTCT. This discrepancy was noted.

49
Conclusion
While the majority of students understood the concept of an artist block their personal
views on the subject varied. A small number of students said they had never experienced one,
whereas the majority said they had experienced an artist block on one level or another. Reasons
for the artist block also varied but 27% of students felt quite certain it had something to do with
perfectionism.
On one end of the scale, those students who had not experienced an artist block were
those with higher levels of self-compassion. This group also perceived themselves as having less
perfectionist traits and reported less frustration when creating their artwork. On the other end of
the scale were the other group of students who experienced an artist block on a regular basis.
These students perceived themselves as having strong perfectionist traits; they also reported low
levels of self-compassion and experienced more frustration during the creative process.
Similarly, the majority of students understood the concept of perfectionism with 75%
feeling strongly that there is a relationship between self-compassion and perfectionism.
However, responses concerning how these concepts are related and to what extent one influences
the other, the student’s opinions varied. A number of students started to examine their own
creative practices questioning what would happen if they could acquire more self-compassion,
could it help them to become less judgmental.
When asked if the students thought lack of self-compassion could inhibit creativity, 62%
felt strongly it could. Many of the students wrote comments on their response papers expressing
a concern that their self-compassion as too low and questioned how they could nurture it. The
researcher was surprised to see so many mature and insightful answers particularly where the

50
students pondered how self-compassion might alleviate other negative behaviours such as anger
and frustration.
After answering the first three questions it is not surprising that the students responded to
the question What can be done to help students who experience an artist’s block? with comments
associated with encouraging more self-compassion. However there were nine students that could
not give any advice as they felt they were the ones that needed help most.

51
Chapter Five: Limitations of this study and recommendations for further research

Limitations of the study
There are several limitations to this study including: the small sample size which
produced limited quantitative data; testing creativity and self-compassion only once, in a
relatively short period of time; the subjects tested were a highly homogeneous group with a
similar socio-economic background; and potential bias on behalf of the teacher-researcher
towards the results of the data.
This study was based on a limited number of participants, N= 45 and therefore it provides
only a small amount of quantitative data. Further research using a larger number of participants
would have to be studied before the results can be generalized. However, in contrast the
qualitative data collected was sufficient as it is not expected that the results be replicated.
Although the TTCT comes with a strong reputation for being an accurate tool for
measuring creativity it is usually administered only once. Given the small number of students in
the study if one or two students were having an “off” day in which they were feeling less creative
the numbers and the overall results could have been different. However, both the qualitative and
quantitative data show that even with certain variances the results would still illustrate a strong
correlation between creativity and self-compassion.
Although the participants in this study come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds they all
share a similar socio-economic upbringing. As most participants come from middle class
families where the student lives with both parents, responses to the two tests and the interview
questions might be seen as coming from a homogenous group of “advantaged” students. Further
research should be undertaken to include students from a larger number of ethnic and socio-

52
economic backgrounds to determine if there is a link between self-compassion and creativity in a
broader population.
This teacher-researcher acknowledges the bias towards more positive data results,
especially as the tests were administered, collected and evaluated by the teacher/researcher.
However, with this awareness, self-scrutiny and adhering to the strict guidelines set out by the
authors for evaluating the TTCT and the Self-compassion tests, the data were collected with as
much care and accuracy as possible. To increase the reliability and validity of the results, a
triangulation method was used by cross checking the quantitative data with qualitative data. In
addition, triangulation was used within the quantitative data by using different statistical tools to
see if the same results could be achieved and within the qualitative data by including the voices
of all forty-five students.

Recommendations for future research
As this study reveals, there seems to be a strong correlation between creativity and selfcompassion. It would be beneficial to replicate the quantitative data in this inquiry using a larger
number of subjects from other schools and other ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds to see
if similar results exist within a wider population. In addition, it might be significant to take a
closer look at gender differences in a similar inquiry with the purpose of exploring whether there
is a difference in levels of self-compassion within each group and how it might affect their
creativity.
A natural extension to this research would be to explore an instructional intervention, an
action research approach where one would encourage the development of self-compassion
amongst high school art students. The design of such research could be developed in three parts.
Part one would administer the TTCT, the self-compassion test, and the interview questions. In

53
part two, an intervention designed to improve self-compassion would be introduced and
implemented during a regular art lesson. Part three would administer, for the second time, the
TTCT and self-compassion tests and the interview questions to see if there was any improvement
in the level of creativity. The results may prove to be significant if students find themselves freer
to create their artwork given the tools to increase their levels of self-compassion. If higher levels
of self-compassion do facilitate creativity, redesigning the visual arts curriculum to include a
series of lessons around this concept may prove to be beneficial to the student.
In addition, it would be worthwhile to see if self-compassion could facilitate creativity
amongst other groups of visual artists such as university art students, emerging and professional
artists. This research may help to answer questions such as: does age play a factor in how an
individual evaluates their own level of self-compassion and how would their level of selfcompassion influence their creative output?; Does the level of proficiency play a part in their
level of self-compassion and thus their creative output? By taking a closer look at one of these
sub-groups it would be interesting to interview a group of professional visual artists to explore
how they might interpret their level of self-compassion and then compare the results with their
level of creativity. Potentially these results could be compared to the results collected in this
study.

54
Chapter Six: Personal Reflection and Conclusion
Implications for future teaching practices
In keeping with the framework of an action research study this chapter focuses on the
improvements made to my day to day teaching practices. As a teacher, working with students on
a regular basis has enabled me to observe emerging patterns of behaviour. As a researcher, it has
allowed me to take a closer look at these behaviours, question why they might exist, research the
topic and analyse the data, all with the end goal of improving my teaching practice. The
teacher/researcher approach ultimately supports a stronger relationship between observing the
behaviour and the design and methodology of the study. It allows for an effective way to modify
curriculum and to maximize student learning. Action research heightens my awareness, focuses
my problem solving and enhances my ability to choose design and content that specifically suits
my students. I strongly believe taking these two roles on simultaneously has provided me with
accurate and meaningful data with which to positively change the teaching and learning
experience.
Reflecting upon the data collected and the student responses I have modified my teaching
approach with students who exhibit perfectionist tendencies. I have a broader understanding of
their issues and am less likely to interpret their behaviours as being too fussy, too slow, or an
excuse to avoid getting down to work. Instead, on a day-to-day basis, I now promote open
discussions on perfectionism, self-compassion, and creativity and how these topics might affect
them as individual students.
More specifically, for those students who really struggle with perfectionism and low selfcompassion I am currently exploring new ways that students can create art without the stress of
thinking they might make a mistake. Based on some of the responses from the interview

55
questions, I now provide both group and individualized demonstrations so students have a better
understanding of how to use particular techniques or specific materials. I remind my students
that creating their artwork is a process which requires them to make many decisions along the
way. Instead of being afraid to make the wrong decision, I encourage them to be open to
experimentation and accepting of unexpected results, recognizing them as part of the creative
learning experience.
For those students who feel they do not have enough ideas when creating their work, I
have added an additional section to each of my lesson plans allowing more time for discussion
and viewing of samples. For smaller projects and sketchbook assignments, I have installed three
Idea Stations around the art room, each designed to inspire the student or prompt them with ideas
of what they could draw or paint.
In response to the students’ comments about lacking the skills and abilities to create, I
have implemented a three tier demonstration segment to each lesson. As most of the classes are
made up of more than two grade levels, I now teach three levels of ability separately, making
sure that new students, even if they are in grade 12, join the beginner group.
I continue to observe my students with keen interest as I investigate the ways they
approach their work and I watch closely for clues as to what facilitates their freedom to create.
With every new class that arrives I see a growing number of perfectionist students and wonder if
five years from now I will see a significant number more. In the near future I hope to continue
my research into self-compassion and creativity providing students with an effective intervention
program to improve their self-compassion, to alleviate their struggle and frustration and provide
them with the sense of freedom to create.

56
This study has also raised the question of how best to use this information in today’s
current educational system. If self-compassion does facilitate creativity could it be used in other
areas of study, not just the visual arts? As education in British Columbia shifts its focus toward
differentiated learning it becomes more important to understand how individual students learn,
what might inhibit their learning and what might facilitate it. Bringing the topic of selfcompassion into the learning process on a daily basis may support creative thinking across a
wider range of topics. Furthermore, according to the Premier’s Technology Council: A Vision
for 21st Century Education, published in 2010, reports that in British Columbia, as well as
elsewhere, 21st Century Learning promotes a holistic approach to education, with the objective to
teach competencies such as collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving and creativity. The
results from this type of education supports the educational perspective that promoting creativity
and expressive capabilities enables students to be well rounded by developing their personal,
cultural and social identity. This document also stresses the importance of teaching these
competencies to today’s students in order for them to meet the demands of a rapidly changing
world.
Unexpected findings
After three years of researching and writing on the subject of self-compassion and its relationship
to creativity, I am still intrigued by the topic, perhaps even more so. For some time I wondered if there
could be a relationship between the two subjects, it was a question that surfaced many times over years of
teaching and observing thousands of students work through their creative process. After collecting and
analysing the data I was surprised to see such a strong Pearson correlation. While a correlation of 0.380
with 45 observations would be significant at the 0.01 level, the correlation from this study was much
higher at .859. This indicates that close to 75% of the variation in Torrance Creativity Index can be

57
predicted using the Kirsten Neff Self-Compassion Test. (The 75% figure is called the coefficient of
determination and it is the square of the correlation coefficient: 0.859^2=0.738.)

I was equally surprised with the feedback I received from my students. They
demonstrated a mature approach to taking the two tests and answering the interview questions;
their responses were longer, included more detail, and were more articulate than I expected. I
was moved by the depth of their insight when responding to the questions on self-compassion,
particularly those who felt self-compassion was a short coming. I was also struck by their
honesty when recording their answers. Instead of giving a three or four word answer most opted
to elaborate on their feelings and their experiences. They worked diligently during the time they
had until the bell rang to change classes. On reflection, I may have asked too many questions, it
may have been more efficient to ask the first three open ended questions and delete the fourth
that didn’t directly support the research questions.
After analysing the quantitative and qualitative data, patterns started to emerge in regards
to the student’s level of self-compassion compared to their level of creativity. The data analysis
confirmed that the student’s level of self-compassion could predict their level of creativity and
vice- versa. However, there was one outlier; one student’s scores did not fit the pattern. In this
case the student had a low self-compassion score yet a high creativity score. This same student
self-identified as having acute perfectionist behaviours yet scored quite high on the creativity
test. Although this discrepancy was noted, it raises questions as to the causal reasons and
whether low levels of self-compassion must always negatively influence creativity. These types
of unexpected findings along with the questions they create provide rich opportunities for future
research.

58
Conclusion
Based on the analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data, it is evident that there is a
relationship between self-compassion and creativity with both types of data providing significant
findings regarding the two research questions that guided this study:
•

Do lower levels of self-compassion inhibit creativity in the art making process
amongst high school art students?

•

Do higher levels of self-compassion facilitate creativity in the art making process
amongst high school art students?

In both cases the Pearson Correlation Analysis provided evidence that low levels of selfcompassion inhibited creativity in the art making process, while higher levels of self-compassion
facilitated creativity, with both results showing a high degree of accuracy. In addition, the
qualitative data supported this finding with the majority of students feeling strongly that lack of
self-compassion could inhibit creativity. Ultimately, the students felt the best way to improve
creativity was to nurture their own self-compassion.
Since making modifications to my teaching practice, particularly with students who
exhibit perfectionist tendencies, there appears to be less anxiety around starting the art project.
However, there seems to be the same amount of negative self-judgement during the creative
process when the project is under way and particularly when the student prepares to complete the
project. Although the students are aware of the impact their negative attitudes could have on their
work, their self-critical tendencies still prevail. As previously discussed, an intervention,
implemented over a period of time, where students can practice nurturing their self-compassion
may contribute significantly to alleviating their self-critical tendencies.

59
Although more research needs to take place before these findings can be generalized, the
results of this study are compelling. If self-compassion can facilitate creativity in some
individuals, it could benefit a great number of art students and potentially those that work in any
creative environment.

60
References
Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1999). A history of creativity research. In R. S. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of Creativity (pp.16-31). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Alenizi, M. (2008). Assessment of Creativity in Education. On-line submissions, 1, 1-19.
Retrieved from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505220.pdf
Allen, A., & Leary, M.R. (2010). Self-compassion, stress, and coping. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 4(2), 107-118. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00246.x
Amabile, T. (1988). A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10:123-167.
Anderson, G. & Herr, K. (1999). The New Paradigm Wars: Is There Room for Rigorous
Practitioner Knowledge in Schools and Universities? Educational Researcher, 28 (5), pp.
12-21. doi:org/10.3102/0013189x028005012
Barron, F., Harrington, D. (1981). Creativity, Intelligence and Personality. Annual Review
Psychology, 32:439-76. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Beghetto, R. (2006). Creative Self-Efficacy: Correlates in Middle and Secondary Students.
Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 447-457. doi:org/10.1207/515326934crj1804_4
Bohm, D., Peat, D. F. (2010). Creativity and What Blocks It. Science, Order and
Creativity, 6. Retrieved from the Academic Search Complete database.
Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection: let go of who you think you're supposed to be and
embrace who you are. Center City, Minnesota: Hazelden.
Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., Hobson, D. (1977). Teachers Doing Research: Practical Possibilities,
The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 110, No 2, pp. 295-302.

61
Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist's script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, Nov.,
pages 34-52.
Callahan, J. (1993). Blueprint for an adolescent suicidal crisis. Psychiatric Annuals, 23(5),
263-270.
Christopher, M., Shewmaker, J. (2010). The Relationship of Perfectionism to
Affective Variables in Gifted and Highly Able Children. The Gifted Child Today,
33(3), 20-30. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ893803
Claxton, A., Pannells, T. C., & Rhoads, P. A. (2005). Developmental Trends in the
Creativity of School-Ages Children. Creativity Research Journal, 17(4), 327-335.
Retrieved from the Academic Research Complete database.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being Gifted in School: An Introduction to Development,
Guidance, and Teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Collins, M.A. & Amabile, T.M. (1999). Motivation and Creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.)
Handbook of Creativity (pp. 297-312). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Craft, A. (2001). An analysis of research and literature on Creativity in Education.
Cramond, B. (1993). The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: from design through
establishment of predictive validity. In R.F. Subotnik & K.D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond
Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. (pp.229-254).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Crockenberg, S.B. (1972). Creativity Tests: A Boon or Boondoggle for Education? Review of
Educational Research, 42, 1, pg. 27-45.
Cropley, A. (2000). Defining and Measuring Creativity: Are Creativity Tests Worth Using?
Educational Psychologist, 23(3), 72-82. doi:10.1080/02783190009554069

62
Cross, T. (1996). Examining claims about gifted children and suicide. Gifted Child Today, 18(3),
46-48.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
London: Harper Collins Publisher.
Davis, G. A. (1997). Identifying creative students and measuring creativity. In N. Colangelo &
G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 269–281). Needham Heights, MA:
Viacom.
Dentler, R.A., & Mackler, B. (1964). Originality: Some social and personal determinants.
Behavioral Science, 9, 1-7.
Ekvall, G. (1997). Organizational conditions and levels of creativity. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 6, 195-205.
Faltis, C. (2013). What is teacher research? http://education.ucdavis.edu/generalinformation/what-teacher-research. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The Dimentions of
Perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(5), 449-468. Retrieved
from the ERIC database.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating Minds. New York: Harper Collins Publishing
Guilford, J.P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill
Guilford, J.P. (1988). Some changes in the structure of intellect model. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 48, 1-4.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism.
Psychology 15: 27–33.

63
Hattie, J. (1980). Should creativity tests be administered under test like conditions? An empirical
study of three alternative conditions. Education Psychology. 72: 87–98.
Hewitt, P. L., & Dyck, D. G. (1986). Perfectionism, stress and vulnerability to depression.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10(1), 137-142.
Hewitt, P.L., Flett, G.L., & Turnbull-Donovan, W. (1992). Perfection and Suicide potential.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 181-190. Retrieved from Eric database.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used
in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.),
Handbook of Creativity (pp. 53–76). New York: Plenum.
Hollander, M. H. (1978). Perfectionism, a neglected personality-trait. Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 39, 384.
Huggins, L., Davis, M. Rooney, R. & Kane, R. (2008). Socially Prescribed and Self-Oriented
Perfectionism as Predictors of Depressive Diagnosis in Preadolescents. Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 18, 182-194. Retrieved from EBSCO database.
Huprich, S., Porcerelli, J., Keaschuk, R., Binienda, J., & Engle, B. (2008). Depressive
personality disorder, dysthymia, and their relationship to perfectionism. Depression and
Anxiety, 25, 207-217.
Iskender, M. (2011). The Influence of self-compassion on academic procrastination and
dysfunctional attitudes. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(2), 230-234.
Retrieved from the Eric database.
Ivecvic, Z. (2009). Creativity Map: Toward the Next Generation of Theories of Creativity.
Psychology and Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 3(1), 1-21. Retrieved from the
EBSCO database.

64
Kearny, R. (2005). The Wake of Imagination. Oxon, U.K.: Routledge.
Kim, K.H. (2006). Can We Trust Creativity Tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of Creativity
Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18, 1, 3-14. Retrieved from
Academic Research Complete database.
Kim, K. H. (2008). Underachievement and Creativity: Are Gifted Underachievers Highly
Creative? Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 234-242. Retrieved from the
Academic Research Complete database.
Kim, K. H., & Tassel-Baska, J. V. (2010). The Relationship Between Creativity and Behavior
Problems Among Underachieving Elementary and High School Students. Creative
Research Journal, 22(2), 185-193. Retrieved from the Academic Search
Complete database.
Kogan, N.,& Morgan, F.T. (1969). Task and motivational influences on the assessments of
creative and intellective ability in children. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 80 (1), 91127.
Lapoint, K., & Crandell, C. (1980). Relationship of irrational beliefs to self-reported depression.
Cognative Therapy and Research, 4, 247-250.
Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2010). Developmental Trends of Creativity: What Twists of Turn Do
Boys and Girls Take at Different Grades? Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 329-336.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.503543
Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self-Compassion and Reactions to
Unpleasant Self-Relevant Events: The Implications of Treating Yourself Kindly. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 887-904. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887
Millar, G.W. (2002). The Torrance Kids at Mid-Life. Westport, CT: Ablex

65
Mills, G.E. (2012). Action Research for Teachers.Retrieved from
http://www.sou.edu/education/ActionResearch/summery.htm.
Mumford, M. (2003). Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? Taking Stock in Creativity
Research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2), 107-120. Retrieved from the
EBSCO database.
Neff, K. (2003). Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude
Toward Oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85-101. doi:10.1080/15298860309032
Neff, K. (2011). The Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Self-Compassion. Self
and Identity, 2, 223-250. doi:10.1080/15298860309027
Neff, K. (2011). Self-compassion: stop beating yourself up and leave insecurity behind. New
York: William Morrow.
Neff, K., Hsieh, Y., & Dejitterat, K. (2005). Self-compassion, Achievement Goals, and
coping with academic failure. Self and Identity, 4, 263-287.
doi:10.1080/13576500444000317
Neff, K., & McGehee, P. (2010). Self-compassion and Psychological Resilience Among
Adolescents and Young Adults. Self and Identity, 9(3), 225-240.
doi:10.1080/15298860902979307
Neff, K., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion Versus Global Self-Esteem: Two Different
Ways of Relating to Oneself. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 23-50.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00537.x
Ochse, R. (1990). Before the Gates of Excellence: The Determinants of Creative Genius.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

66
Osho. (1999). Creativity: unleashing the forces within. New York, New York: St.
Martin's Griffin.
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39, 386-390. Retrieved
from Academic Research Complete.
Plucker, J., Beghetto, R., & Dow, G. (2004). Why Isn't Creativity More Important to Educational
Psychologists? Potential Pitfalls and Future directions in Creativity Research.
Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83-96. Retrieved from the Academic Search Complete
database.
Premier’s Technology Council: A Vision for 21st Century Education (2010).
www.gov.bc.ca/prem/popt/technology_council/ retrieved November 20, 2013.
Rice, K. (2011). Classifying adolescent perfectionists. Psychological Assessment.
23 (3): 563–577. doi: 10.1037/a0022482
Robinson, K. (2001). Out of Our Minds Learning to be Creative. West Sussex: Capstone
Publishing Ltd.
Rothenburg, A., Hausman, C. (1976). The Creativity Question. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Rudowicz, E., Lok, D., & Kitto, J. (1995). Use of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking in
Exploritory Study of Creativity. International Journal of Psychology, 30(4), 417-430.
doi:10.1080/00207599508246577
Runco, M. (1986). Flexibility and originality in children’s divergent thinking. J. Psychol.
120:345–52. doi:10.1080/00223980.1986.9712632
Runco, M. (1991). The evaluative, valuative, and divergent thinking in children. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 25, 311-319. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1991.tb01143.x

67
Runco, M. (1997). The Creativity Research Handbook. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and
New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54–67. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
Seltzer, K., Bentley, T. (1999). The Creative Age: Knowledge and Skills for the New Economy.
London, UK: Demos Publishing.
Shallcross, D. J. (1981). Teaching creative behavior: how to teach creativity to children
of all ages. Buffalo, New York: Prentice-Hall.
Sternberg, R.J. (2006). The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Journal, 18, 1, 87-98.
Tegano, D.W.,Morgan III, J.D.,& Godwin, L.J. (1986). Cross-validation of two creativity tests
designed for preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1(4), 387-396.
Torrance, P. (1962). Guiding Creative Talent. Englewoods Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall
Torrance, P. (1990). The Torrance tests of creative thinking norms – technical manual figural
(streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, Il: Scholastic Testing Services Inc.
Torrance, P. (1998). The Torrance tests of creative thinking norms – technical manual figural
(streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, Il: Scholastic Testing Services Inc.
Torrance, P. & Ball, O.E. (1984). The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Streamlines (revised)
manual, Figural A and B. Bensenville, Il: Scholastic Testing Services Inc.
Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. (1986). Are children becoming more creative? Journal of
Creative Behavior, 20, 1–13.
Weston, A. (2007). Creativity for critical thinkers. London: Oxford University Press.

68
Wu, C. H., Cheng, Y., Ip, H. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). Age Differences in Creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 17(4), 321-326. Retrieved July 18, 2011, from the
Academic Research Complete database.
Zabelina, D., & Robinson, M. (2010). Don't be so hard on yourself: Self-compassion facilitates
creative originality amongst self-judgmental individuals. Creativity Research Journal,
22(3), 288-293. Retrieved from the SAGE database.
Zhao, Y. (2006) http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational- leadership/may06/vol63/ num08/
Are-We-Fixing-the-Wrong-Things%C2%A2.aspx.
Zimmerman, E. (2009). Reconceptualising the role of creativity in art education theory and
practice. Studies in Art Education, 50(4), 382-399.

69
Appendix A: Sample of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Thinking Creatively with Pictures

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78
____#1_______

Please answer the following two questions by circling the one that best reflects
how you feel.

How perfectionistic are you when creating your artwork?
_______________________________________________________________________
0 Never

1 Somewhat

2 Most of the time

3 Always

How frustrated do you get when creating your artwork?
____________________________________________________________
0 Never

1 Somewhat

2 Most of the time

3 Always

79
Appendix B: University of Georgia, Certificate from the Torrance Center for Creativity

80
Appendix C: Consent Forms for Minors

THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY
Consent Form for Minors
I give permission for my son/daughter to participate in the research entitled Self-Compassion Facilitates
Creativity Amongst High School Art Students, conducted by Philippa Glossop for her Masters thesis in
Education, taught at Thompson Rivers University and supervised by Dr. Joi Freed–Garrod in the faculty
of Education (250) 371-5985.
The study investigates the relationship between self-compassion and creativity. Data will be gathered
through four components: a five page drawing assignment which measures creative thinking in visual
images; a questionnaire on self-compassion; two closed questions delivered in a Likert Scale; and a focus
group interview with four questions to capture the thoughts and ideas of the students which will be
videotaped. If any student prefers not to be videotaped they have the option of recording their answers
on paper. Videotaped material will be viewed only by those directly involved with the thesis defence
panel and will not be shared with other teachers or students.
The main purpose of this study is to confirm the relationship between lack of self-compassion and
blocked creativity. If self-compassion is understood to be an important component of the creative process,
ultimately its nurture would alleviate self-critical tendencies and promote freer creative expression. This
research study will also contribute insight into a compelling subject that appears to lack basic research.
I understand that all information will be treated with the strictest of confidence. Data collected will not
have the students name attached and all videotaped material will be stored in a locked cabinet and will
be destroyed immediately after the completion of the study.
I understand that my son/daughter will participate in this research during regularly class time scheduled
for the last week of classes June 13-16, 2011. This study has been approved by Mr. Shawn Chisholm,
Principal of St. Ann’s Academy.
I realize that my son/daughters participation is voluntary and that he/she may withdraw from the study
at any time without any negative repercussions or change in grades or class standing.
Any questions or concerns can be addressed by Dr. Michael Woloszyn Chair, TRU Human Research
Ethics Committee at mwoloszyn@tru.ca or (250) 377-6148.
DATE: __________________________

PARENT’S/GUARDIAN’S NAME: ________________________________________

81

SIGNATURE: __________________________________________________________

STUDENT’S NAME: _____________________________________________________

SIGNATURE_____________________________________________________________

TEACHER/RESEARCHER’S NAME_________________________________________

SIGNATURE_____________________________________________________________

82
Appendix D: Certificate of Approval from the TRU Ethics Committee

83
Appendix E: Letter of Approval from the School Principal

84
Appendix F: Human Subject Feedback Form

85

86