Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kreativität bei Drogenkonsumierenden, Drogenabhängigen und Drogenentwöhnten

Creativity in cannabis-users and in drug addicts in maintenance treatment and in rehabilitation

  • originalarbeit
  • Published:
neuropsychiatrie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Das Hauptziel der vorliegenden Arbeit war es, Unterschiede zwischen unterschiedlichen Gruppen von Drogenabhängigen (SubstitutionspatientInnen, n = 14; abstinente Personen auf einer Langzeit-Rehabilitation, n = 12) und Cannabis-KonsumentInnen (n = 13) im Vergleich zu einer gesunden Kontroll-Gruppe (n = 18) in Bezug sowohl auf verbale und figurale Kreativität als auch auf allgemeine kognitive Leistungsfähigkeit zu untersuchen. Die ProbandInnen bearbeiteten mehrere Verfahren zur Erfassung unterschiedlicher Facetten der Kreativität, Intelligenz und Persönlichkeit sowie der Symptombelastung. In der verbalen Kreativität erzielten die Gruppe der SubstitutionspatientInnen und teilweise die Cannabis-KonsumentInnen höhere Werte als abstinente Drogenabhängige auf Rehabilitation. In der figuralen Kreativität waren keine Gruppenunterschiede feststellbar. Im Hinblick auf die Big Five-Persönlichkeitsmerkmale erzielten die SubstitutionspatientInnen in der Dimension Neurotizismus die höchsten Werte, während die Cannabis-KonsumentInnen auf einer rein deskriptiven Ebene durch vergleichsweise hohe Werte in den Dimensionen Offenheit für Erfahrungen und Extraversion charakterisiert werden konnten.

Abstract

The main aim of this study was to investigate potential differences between different groups of drug addicts (patients in maintenance treatment, n = 14; patients in rehabilitation, n = 12) and Cannabis-Users (n = 13), along with a healthy control group (n = 18), with respect to verbal and figural creativity and general cognitive ability. Participants worked on different measures for the assessment of different facets of creativity, intelligence and experienced psychiatric symptoms. The results indicated that patients in maintenance and, to some extent Cannabis-Users scored higher regarding verbal creativity than patients in rehabilitation. With respect to figural creativity we observed no differences between the experimental groups. Concerning the Big Five personality traits, patients in maintenance treatment scored highest on Neuroticism while on a purely descriptive level Cannabis-Users achieved the highest scores with respect to openness to  experience and extraversion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Abraham A, Windmann S. Selective information processing advantages in creative cognition as a function of schizotypy. Creativity Res J. 2008;20:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andreasen N. The creating brain: the neuroscience of genius. New York: Dana Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arbeitsbereich für Biologische Psychologie. Test zum Erfassen des kreativen Denkens. Graz: Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz; 2010.

  4. Bader A, Navratil L. Zwischen Wahn und Wirklichkeit. Kunst, Psychose, Kreativität. Luzern: Bucher; 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bäuml J. Psychosen aus dem schizophrenen Formenkreis. Ein Ratgeber für Patienten und Angehörige. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beck AT, Steer RA, Hautzinger M. Beck-Depressions-Inventar. 1. Aufl. Bern: Huber; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beghetto RA, Kaufman JC. The genesis of creative greatness: Mini-c and expert performance approach. High Ability Studies. 2007;18(1):59–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Belli S. A psychobiographical analysis of Brian Douglas Wilson: Creativity, drugs, and models of schizophrenic and affective disorders. Pers Indiv Differ. 2009;46:809–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Borkenau P, Ostendorf F. NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar nach Costa und McCrae. Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Carson SH, Peterson JB, Higgins DM. Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85:499–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carson SH. Creativity and psychopathology: A shared vulnerability mode. Can J Psychiat. 2011;56:144–3.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Czikszentmihalyi M. Kreativität. 3. Aufl. (Klosterman M., Übers.). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Derogatis LR. Brief Symptom Inventory (Kurzform der SCL-90-R). Göttingen: Beltz Test; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ellenbroek BA, Budde S, Cools AR. Prepulse inhibition and latent inhibition: The rule of dopamine in the medial prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience. 1996;75:535–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Eysenck HJ. Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychol Inq. 1993;4:147–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eysenck HJ. Creativity as a product of intelligence and personality. In: Saklofske DH, Zeidner M. International Handbook of personality and intelligence. New York: Plenium Press; 1995. S. 231–7.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Feist GJ. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1998;2:290–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fink A, Slamar-Halbedl M, Unterrainer HF, Weiss EM. Creativity: Genius, madness, or a combination of both? Psychology of Aesthetic, Creativity, and the Arts. 2012;6:11–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Flaherty AW. Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative drive. J Comp Neurol. 2005;493:147–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Holm-Hadulla RM. Kreativität: Konzept und Lebensstil. 2. überarb. & erg. Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jäger AO, Süß HM, Beauducel A. Berliner Intelligenzstruktur-Test. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Iten XP. Fahren unter Drogen- oder Medikamenteneinfluss. Forensische Interpretation der Begutachtung. Institut für Rechtsmedizin der Universität Zürich. D-Hallstadt Rosch-Buch 1994.

  23. Jones KA, Blagrove M, Parrott AC. Cannabis and Ecstasy/MDMA: Empirical measures of creativity in recreational users. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2009;41:323–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jungaberle H, Röske T. Rausch im Bild – Bilderrausch. Drogen als Medien von Kunst in den 70er Jahren. Heidelberg: Das Wunderhorn; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Keefe JA, Magaro PA. Creativity and schizophrenia: An equivalence of cognitive processing. J Abnorm Psychol. 1980;8:390–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. King LA, McKee Walker L, Broyles SJ. Creativity and the Five-Factor Model. J Res Pers. 1996;30:189–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Knafo D. The senses grow skilled in their graving: Thoughts on creativity and addiction. Psychoanal Rev. 2008;95:571–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Köhler T. Rauschdrogen und andere psychotrope Substanzen. Formen, Wirkungen, Wirkmechanismen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Köhler T. Biologische Grundlagen psychischer Störungen. 2. überarb. Aufl. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kris E. Psychoanalytic explorations in art. New York: International Universities Press; 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Le Bon O, Basiaux P, Streel E, Tecco J, Hanak C, et al. Personality profile and drug of choice; a multivariate analyses using Cloninger’s TCI on heroin addicts, alcoholics, and a random population group. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2003;73:175–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ludwig AM. Creative achievement and psychopathology: Comparison among professions. Am J Psychother. 1992;46:330–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. McCrae RR. Creativity, divergent thinking, and openess to experience. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:1258–65.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mendelsohn GA. Associative and attentional processes in creative performance. J Pers. 1976;44:341–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nettle D. Schizotypy and mental health amongst poets, visual artists, and mathematicians. J Res Pers. 2006b;40:876–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Peterson JB, Carson S. Latent inhibition and openess to experience in a high-achieving student population. Pers Indiv Differ. 2000;28:323–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Peterson JB, Smith KW, Carson S. Openess and extraversion are associated with reduced latent inhibition: replication and commentary. Pers Indiv Differ. 2002;33:1137–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Plucker JA, Beghetto RA. Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction doesn’t matter. In: Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL, Singer JL. Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington: American Psychological Assosiation; 2004. S. 153–8.

  39. Prentky RA. Mental illness and roots of genius. Creativity Res J. 2000–2001;13:95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Runco MA, Plucker JA, Lim W. Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Res J. 2001;13:393–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sauer O, Weilemann S. Drogen: Eigenschaften-Wirkungen-Intoxikationen. Hannover: Schlütersche GmbH & Co; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Seidl O. Dissoziation und Kreativtät – Entrückung im Alltag. Forum Psychoanal. 2003;19:149–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Torrance EP. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Services; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Unterrainer HF. Soziodemographische Daten/Anamnesebogen für die ARS Addiction Research Society (Unveröffentlichtes Manual) 2008.

  45. Weckowicz TF, Fedora O, Mason J, Radstaak D. Effect of Marijuana on divergent and convergent production cognitive tests. J Abnorm Psychol. 1975;84:386–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Wolf PL. The effects of diseases, drugs, and chemicals on creativity and productivity of famous sculptors, classic painters, classic music composer, and authors. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:1457–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wonderlic EF. Wonderlic Personnel Test. Libertyville: Wonderlic Inc.; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Es besteht kein Interessenkonflikt.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, Arbeitsbereich für Biologische Psychologie, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Universitätsplatz 2/III, 8010, Graz, Österreich

    Brigitta Bliem, Human F. Unterrainer, Ilona Papousek, Elisabeth M. Weiss &  Andreas Fink

Authors
  1. Brigitta Bliem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Human F. Unterrainer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ilona Papousek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elisabeth M. Weiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Fink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Fink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bliem, B., Unterrainer, H., Papousek, I. et al. Kreativität bei Drogenkonsumierenden, Drogenabhängigen und Drogenentwöhnten. Neuropsychiatr 27, 2–10 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40211-012-0045-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40211-012-0045-3

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation