It has been argued that reading disability may be accompanied by compensatory enhancements in creativity. Here, we assessed reading, spelling and nonword repetition in a large, representative sample of adolescents and young adults, and examined associations with creativity, indexed by trait Openness to Experience and a creative writing task. Creativity and reading ability were significantly associated in a series of regression models controlling for IQ, age, and sex, but the effect was in the opposite direction to that predicted by compensation hypotheses: Higher reading scores were associated with higher scores on creativity measures. We discuss possible explanations for this finding, suggesting a ‘facilitation’ hypothesis by which reading ability might facilitate creative thinking.
Research indicates that dyslexia – defined here as reading ability in the lower tail of the normal distribution (Bates et al., 2011 and Shaywitz et al., 1992) – is not incompatible with high levels of intelligence or creativity (e.g. Shaywitz, 2003 and Wolf, 2007) and that it is distinguishable from general cognitive ability at both the psychological and biological levels (Gabel et al., 2010, Luciano et al., 2007 and Marlow et al., 2003). However, beyond this, it has been suggested that reading disability may involve a compensatory cognitive benefit in the form of enhanced creativity (e.g. Chakravarty, 2009, Davis and Braun, 1997, Eide and Eide, 2011, LaFrance, 1997, Rack, 1981, Tafti et al., 2009 and West, 1997). Here, we examine this compensatory cognitive benefit hypothesis in a large sample with measures of reading and a trait measure linked to creative ability and a creative writing measure.
Support for the compensation hypothesis has come from a relatively small number of studies, generally with small sample sizes and varying conceptions of reading disorder. Nevertheless, their results are consistently in favor of a link between reading disorder and creativity. For instance, in four studies of 14–37 formally-diagnosed dyslexic participants and similar numbers of controls, dyslexic adults showed a small advantage over non-dyslexic adults in both laboratory-based creativity tasks and self-report measures of creativity (Everatt, Steffert, & Smythe, 1999). This effect was not found in dyslexic children aged around 7 years, and on this basis, Everatt et al. (1999) suggested that creative ability might develop over time as a coping mechanism for low literacy. This developmental model is supported by reports of higher creativity scores in older dyslexic children compared to their non-dyslexic peers (Everatt et al., 2008 and Tafti et al., 2009).
Validity is particularly important in assessing creativity research, and researchers have noted that laboratory-based tasks measuring creativity have only modest predictive or criterion validity (e.g. Dietrich, 2007 and Dietrich and Kanso, 2010), prompting the use of additional creativity measures. Two such methods have gained particular prominence: Measuring real-world creative output, such as occupational type, and using comprehensive personality inventories. The former method was used in the context of reading and creativity by Wolff and Lundberg (2002), who reported a significant deficit in phonological processing – measured via word and nonword recognition tests, and not formal diagnoses of dyslexia – in art and photography students compared to students in the economics department of the same university. Such associations may, however, result from active course-selection effects by students based on their skills in reading. Logan (2009) posited a self-selection theory to account for her finding of increased prevalence of dyslexia among ‘entrepreneurs’ – businesspeople requiring creativity and adaptability – compared to ‘corporate managers’ – those used to conventional organizational structures and rules. Thus, reading disability may not involve innate compensatory enhancements, but instead may lead some individuals to learn compensatory skills.
The second criterion-valid creativity measurement derives from personality theory, in which creativity is associated with the trait of Openness to Experience. This personality trait is moderately heritable, while some 50–60% of its variation is explained by environmental influences (Bouchard, 2004). High Openness has been reliably linked to enhanced performance on both laboratory tasks such as the alternative uses test (McCrae, 1987), and to higher objective creative achievements, gauged by metrics such as patents, professional esteem, and peer-rankings of creativity (McCrae, 1994 and McCrae, 2007). Further validating Openness as a marker of creativity, higher scores are associated with involvement in creative professions (Barrick et al., 2003, King et al., 1996 and Larson et al., 2002), and with rated adaptability (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000).
Here we utilized Openness as a broad-spectrum index of creativity, supplemented by a creative writing test. We tested the hypothesis that creativity is a compensatory response to poor reading in a large, unselected, representative sample of adolescents and young adults, who had been assessed on a battery of reading and language measures.
