J

Jordan B. Peterson

National Laboratory of the Rockies

ORCID: 0000-0002-3015-6896

Publishes on Dialysis and Renal Disease Management, Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development, Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes. 283 papers and 27.5k citations.

283Publications
27.5kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five.
Colin G. DeYoung, Lena C. Quilty, Jordan B. Peterson|Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|2007
Cited by 1.9k

Factor analyses of 75 facet scales from 2 major Big Five inventories, in the Eugene-Springfield community sample (N=481), produced a 2-factor solution for the 15 facets in each domain. These findings indicate the existence of 2 distinct (but correlated) aspects within each of the Big Five, representing an intermediate level of personality structure between facets and domains. The authors characterized these factors in detail at the item level by correlating factor scores with the International Personality Item Pool (L. R. Goldberg, 1999). These correlations allowed the construction of a 100-item measure of the 10 factors (the Big Five Aspect Scales [BFAS]), which was validated in a 2nd sample (N=480). Finally, the authors examined the correlations of the 10 factors with scores derived from 10 genetic factors that a previous study identified underlying the shared variance among the Revised NEO Personality Inventory facets (K. L. Jang et al., 2002). The correspondence was strong enough to suggest that the 10 aspects of the Big Five may have distinct biological substrates.

Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire
Shelley Carson, Jordan B. Peterson, Daniel M. Higgins|Creativity Research Journal|2005
Cited by 1k

Abstract The Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) is a new self-report measure of creative achievement that assesses achievement across 10 domains of creativity. It was designed to be objective, empirically valid, and easy to administer and score. Study 1 established test-retest reliability (r = .81, p < .0001) and internal consistency reliability (a = .96) in a sample of 117 undergraduate students. Study 2 established predictive validity of the CAQ against artist ratings of a creative product, a collage (r = .59, p < .0001, n = 39). Study 3 (n = 86) established convergent validity with other measures of creative potential, including divergent thinking tests (r = .47, p < .0001), the Creative Personality Scale (Gough, 1979; r = .33, p = .004), Intellect (Goldberg, 1992; r = .51, p < .0001), and Openness to Experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992; r = .33, p = .002). Study 4 established discriminant validity between the CAQ and both IQ and self-serving bias. Study 5 examined the factor structure of the CAQ. A three-factor solution identified Expressive, Scientific, and Performance factors of creative achievement. A two-factor solution identified an Arts factor and a Science factor.

Decreased Latent Inhibition Is Associated With Increased Creative Achievement in High-Functioning Individuals.
Shelley Carson, Jordan B. Peterson, Daniel M. Higgins|Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|2003
Cited by 673

Reductions in latent inhibition (LI), the capacity to screen from conscious awareness stimuli previously experienced as irrelevant, have been generally associated with the tendency towards psychosis. However, "failure" to screen out previously irrelevant stimuli might also hypothetically contribute to original thinking, particularly in combination with high IQ. Meta-analysis of two studies, conducted on youthful high-IQ samples. demonstrated that high lifetime creative achievers had significantly lower LI scores than low creative achievers (r(effect size) = .31, p = .0003, one-tailed). Eminent creative achievers (participants under 21 years who reported unusually high scores in a single domain of creative achievement) were 7 times more likely to have low rather than high LI scores, chi2 (1, N = 25) = 10.69, phi = .47. p = .003.