Differences in thinking styles of artists and engineers.

Seventy-one professional fine artists and 147 engineers completed Sternberg's Intellectual Styles Questionnaire (R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner, 1991). Artists preferred less external input in their work than engineers preferred, and engineers were more inclined to prioritize their thinking. Artists preferred devising their own plans significantly more than did engineers.

**********

Artists and engineers both like to make things, and individuals in both professions share high visual-spatial abilities (Gelade, 2002; Harrison, Hunt, & Jackson, 1955; Holland, 1997; Holtzman, Swartz, & Thorpe, 1971; Humphreys, Lubinski, & Yao, 1993; Kandel, 1940; Roe, 1956; Roy, 1996; Strong, 1952). Despite these commonalities, however, previous research has indicated that artists have higher aesthetic interests than do engineers (Kunert, 1969), higher emotionality (Keniston, 1982; Roe, 1947), and a more pronounced tendency for personal introspection (Keniston, 1982; Kunert, 1969). Whether they also differ in other respects remained a question awaiting systematic investigation. Anecdotal reports, for instance, suggested that by comparison, engineers are more likely than artists to prioritize their thinking in hierarchies, less likely to "fly by the seat of the pants," so to speak, and are more inclined to accept input from others than to follow their own muse. By contrast, artists have a reputation for preferring an attitude of "anything goes." The present study was undertaken to learn more about the differences between these two occupational groups.

Hypotheses

Four hypotheses were tendered:

1. By comparison with artists, engineers would be more interested in executing the plans of others.

2. By comparison with engineers, artists would show more interest in devising their own plans.

3. By comparison with artists, engineers would prefer more highly prioritized thinking.

4. By comparison with engineers, artists would be more likely to prefer working without input from others.

These differences were expected to be exhibited in participants' scores on the Executive, Legislative, Hierarchic, Anarchic, and Internal scales of the Intellectual Styles Questionnaire (ISQ; Sternberg & Wagner, 1991) when collected from full-time professional fine artists and engineers.

Method

Participants

Artists were solicited at juried art fairs in Michigan and Ohio and at galleries in Ohio and in Ontario, Canada. The artists' residences and principal places of business represented many states. Thirty-six men and 35 women (ages 29-74 years, M = 45 years, SD = 12.25) completed the ISQ at their exhibition sites; all of the artists derived at least 60% of their income from selling their work and winning prizes and awards.

Engineers were solicited at receptions for local chapters of their specialty organizations (e.g., Society of Industrial Engineers, Society of Materials Engineers) and at the public areas for a national convention of the Society for Women Engineers, providing 94 women (ages 21-70 years, M = 34.49, SD = 9.52) and 53 men (ages 27-74 years, M = 43.64, SD = 11.27). They represented a wide variety of specialties, for instance, industrial, mechanical, civil, electrical, aeronautical, biomedical, metallurgical, and automotive engineering. Some questionnaires were completed at the site of the meetings; other questionnaires were completed after the meetings and were mailed to me.

Instrument

The ISQ is a self-administered questionnaire that is composed of 104 self-descriptive sentences. Respondents use a 7-point scale, with a midpoint of 4, to indicate how well each item's description characterizes their thinking. The ISQ has 13 scales of eight questions each. None of the scales share each others' questions (Sternberg & Wagner, 1991).

Some of the ISQ scales (e.g., Legislative and Executive) measure respondent's preferred activities. High scores on the Legislative scale indicate that individuals like to invent their own rules. Legislative scale scores showed an alpha of .80. High scores on the Executive scale indicate that the individual likes to follow rules and plans rather than invent them. Executive scale scores showed an alpha of .82.

The ISQ includes several scales that allow respondents to indicate favorite "forms" of "mental self government" that reflect preferred modes of organizing problem-solving strategies. The Hierarchic scale indicates preference for viewing goals in hierarchies and viewing competing goals as acceptable. Scores on the Hierarchic scale showed an alpha of .82. The Anarchic scale indicates how much the respondent is motivated by a potpourri of needs and not having rules for setting priorities. Scores on the Anarchic scale showed an alpha of .62.

The ISQ also has scales that indicate preferred source of input. Scores on the Internal scale indicate how much the respondent prefers internal rather than external sources of information and inspiration. The alpha of the Internal scale was .82.

Results and Discussion

Significantly more artists than engineers preferred generating their own plans (see Table 1). On the ISQ, the mean Legislative score for engineers (5.03, SD = 0.82) was significantly lower (t = 8.03, p < .001, df = 216) than the mean Legislative score was for artists (5.95, SD = 0.74). This makes sense because originality is prized in art, and a preference for generating one's own plans is consistent with this value.

The mean score of engineers on the ISQ's Executive scale was 4.12 (SD = 1.02), indicating that they preferred to execute the plans of others significantly more (t = 6.10, p < .001, df = 216) than artists did (M = 3.21, SD = 1.03). This makes sense because engineers usually work for clients whom they must please by implementing plans endorsed by the clients.

The engineers' mean score of 4.32 (SD = 0.73) on the ISQ's Anarchic scale indicated that they were significantly (t = 2.04, p < .05, df = 216) less anarchic in their preferred thinking styles than were the artists (M = 4.55, SD = 0.82). Scores on the ISQ's Anarchic scale would be expected to be higher for artists than engineers, because underlying originality in art is extreme flexibility and a willingness to consider almost any solution, even what some would view as the most ridiculous. Consistent with this finding, the artists obtained a mean score on the Hierarchic scale of 4.81 (SD = 1.06), which was significantly (t = 4.21, p < .001, df = 216) lower than the mean score of 5.35 (SD = 0.78) obtained by the engineers. This difference is consistent with the "anything goes" attitude that is commonly ascribed to the prototypic artist but not ordinarily ascribed to the "hardheaded" engineer.

As indicated by group mean scores on the ISQ's Internal scale, the artists and engineers differed significantly in their preference for source of input (t = 11.72, p < .001, df = 216). The artists preferred to work alone (M = 5.19, SD = 0.78), whereas the engineers did not mind outside intervention (M = 3.82, SD = 0.82). This finding makes sense in terms of the mind-set appropriate for the respective jobs of artist and engineer. "Follow your own muse" is a widely held dictum among artists. To take input from others during the creation of an artwork is often felt to accompany loss of integrity. Working alone is one factor leading to development of an original piece of art. Making art is almost exclusively a solitary activity and includes adherence to the subjective, inward-turning esthetic that says, "I know whether it is good or bad and don't need to be told. What is important is whether I am satisfied with it." In fact, studies by Amabile, Phillips, and Collins (1993) have shown that creativity among professional fine artists is lowest for commissioned works and inversely related to the amount of externally imposed parameters. The job of the engineer, on the other hand, is to listen so that problems can be solved in the way that is most satisfying for the client. During a given project, engineers often have to be almost continuously open to new demands that cause them to switch designs and incorporate changes in materials, deadlines, and methods. An engineer who did not want external input would not be happy in the job.