Naive theories of creativity and sociocultural factors revisited. The potential explanatory role of creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity.
As an object of these theories, creative behavior is positively valued, but sometimes ambiguously or negatively reinforced (Karwowski, 2010). The present research investigates the relations between the way people judge themselves on the dimension of creativity, how they position themselves in relation to groups and significant others and their evaluations of the typical creative person. Does self-efficacy in generating novel and useful solutions, coupled with adherence to creative roles relate to the extent to which competition and harmony are valued? Creativity is suspected to have a dark side, which is mainly examined in terms of social motives and interpersonal functioning, a side that may be particularly salient in contexts and for individuals that value harmony and the quality of relations. In the following pages, we inspect each piece of this investigation. Because naive psychologies often derive from the expert ones, but the latter also tend to incorporate elements from the other in a dynamic way (Furnham, 1988), we also mention research data on the creative personality.
Naive Theories of Creativity between Cultural Perspectives and Differential Approaches
Naive theories of creativity refer to lay conceptions regarding what and who is creative, how creativity can be diagnosed and predicted. Contrasted with naive formulations, scientific efforts to explain and identify creativity have been dominated by a Western view that emphasizes personal qualities and accomplishments.
Taking a look at both simultaneously, the area of study of implicit, lay, or naive theories is primarily motivated by the search for the personal factors that maintain or hinder the manifestation of creativity (Ablard & Mills, 1996; Fryer & Collings, 1991; Puccio & Chimento, 2001; Runco, Johnson, & Bear, 1993; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993), with contrasting comparisons between Eastern and Western conceptions (e.g. Lim & Plucker, 2001).
However, there are some problems with the study of naive theories of creativity, beginning with its polysemic nature within the lay discourse which is doubled by the inflation of terms within the corresponding field of study. The word implicit is often used interchangeably with naive or lay although each has slightly different connotations. For instance, naive, folk or lay convey an assessment of the unscientific character of these epistemic tools. Naive points to the weak familiarity with the documented views on a topic; the other two imply the widespread, socially validated character of the formulations. Adrian Furnham (1988) promoted the term "lay theory", defined as sets of assumptions held by individuals, usually vague and contradictory, often confusing cause and effect.
The concurrent term, "implicit", consecrated in this literature through the works of Sternberg (1985) and Runco (1984), is currently becoming the appanage of the field of implicit social cognition. In relation to commonsense theories, the history of the uses of the term implicit has been controversial since its beginning. As observed by Glaveanu (2011), different authors attach different meanings to it. In Sternberg's (1985) descriptions, these cognitions appear as shared, accessible and expressed in a declarative fashion, while Runco (1984) regard them as largely tacit, unarticulated.
The review of the literature leads us to the assumption that the label and definition of the construct is ultimately the personal choice of the author, sometimes guided by the employed method. In the study of lay theories on the intraindividual variability of personal characteristics (malleability, consistency), although results are based largely on self-report, the formula implicit theories is still preferred; however, in studies of perceived inter-individual differences (the traits that tend to be associated with creative outcomes), the term implicit has been increasingly replaced by lay, naive, personal beliefs and perceptions. Thus, one of the goals of the domain of lay theories and commonsense beliefs is finding solutions and explain these terms and measures. A remedy for this situation would be the integration of the domain into an appropriate theoretical and methodological hosting framework, such as the associative-propositional model (Strack & Deutsch, 2004) that would clarify the implicitness/ explicitness distinctions, but this is not the goal of the current study.
To avoid these conceptual contaminations, we choose the unchallenged, but less flattering term "naive" over the "implicit" one, to examine the theories people have of the personalities of creative individuals. The accessible methodological apparatus only permits an examination of the explicit or self-reported cognitions of people about the interindividual differences associated with creativity.
Besides these problems of both lay and scientific discourses, the meaning of creativity seems to be biased towards an elitist view, where distinctiveness, superiority and exceptionality prevail. This "person-centered" approach has its roots in the romantic philosophy (apud Glaveanu, 2010), where creativity is either a given or a privilege of the few, that, in Ludwig's (1995) terms, may come at a great price. In this view, being and acting "creatively" becomes an identity goal. In addition, creative expression springs not only from the desire to create, but also becomes an extension of one's identity. This motive could be influenced by how much successful and different a person wants to be, such type of distinctiveness being specific to individualism.
Individualism--Motivation and Context for Creative Expression
Asserting that creativity relates to individualistic orientations may sound tautological. In describing the social-relational orientation of creative individuals, the literature suggests that individualism promotes creative expression (Goncalo & Kim, 2010; Goncalo & Staw, 2006), indicates that creative persons tend to be arrogant, hostile and abrasive (Feist, 1998), dishonest (Gino & Ariely, 2011) and that a predisposition towards dissent coupled with a willingness to diverge from the majority view fosters creative expression (Goncalo & Krause, 2010).
Internalization of individualist features promotes self-directedness, prioritization of personal goals and an active search for recognition of one's unique qualities, reflecting abilities and perseverance (Heine, Kitayama, & Lehman, 2001); when the person is rather infused with collectivists patterns of acting and thinking, is guided by the goals of the group, by mutual responsibilities and obligations (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).
For collectivists, conformism values and norms are superordinate to personal assertion; divergence in thought and action are secondary. The creativity literature emphasizes the role of conformism through conventionality and compliance as barriers to self-expression and creativity (for a review, Sheldon, 2011). Sheldon summarizes the studies that link every day and eminent creativity to autonomy and related traits (self-directedness, self-assertiveness and individuation) and explains these associations through the following factors: decreased need for approval and suggestibility, persistence in the face of adversity and self-sustained intrinsic motivation and authenticity (Sheldon, 2011, p. 243).
Independent versus Interdependent Self-construals and Values
Tied to the distinction between individualism and collectivism (Oyserman et al., 2002), self-construal defines the concern for relations versus self-assertion (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). An interdependent self-concept treasures relations and group membership, while the independent alternative emphasizes self-directedness and competition (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994). The independent follows personal goals, the interdependent pursues group goals and norms (Brewer & Chen, 2007), although the two aspects are not conceived as bipolar dimensions (Singelis, 1994; Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991). Independent self-concepts serve the protection of personal, original and often dissenting ideas (Bond & Smith, 1996). Experimental research shows that individualism also provides cognitive advantages for group outcomes: compared to collectivist groups, the individualistic ones allow the emergence and choice of more original solutions (Goncalo & Staw, 2006).
Values are also primary suspects in the shaping of lay theories of creativity. Kwang and his collaborators (2005) wonder whether values, or trans-situational goals, as defined by Schwarz (1994), influence the perceptions regarding the relationship between cognitive style and creative level; the data support the intuition of the authors. In short, these studies indicate that for adaptors, being creative means being volatile, unreliable and irritating while for the others (the innovators), this role equals to bearing the stigmata applied by dogmatic conformists.
Creative Self-efficacy and Creative Personal Identity, between Ability and the Need for Uniqueness and Distinctiveness
Creativity and its "symptomatic" personality traits could be a means of achieving distinctiveness and uniqueness. People may value certain attributes in themselves and different ones in others, and probably have more elaborate theories regarding their own personality than that of the people with whom they share certain valued attributes, such as creativity. However, it is plausible to anticipate that the way people assess the personality traits of the prototype of the creative person would be linked to the degree to which they are confident in their creative abilities and pursue creative identities.
Confidence in the ability to create is responsible for the motivation to respond flexibly in situations that require spontaneous and divergent thinking (Beghetto, 2006; Choi, 2004; Jaussi, Randel, & Dionne, 2007; Karwowski, 2011). Abbott (2010) defined self-efficacy as a state-like belief in one's own ability to perform tasks aiming at producing novel, original and appropriate solutions.
Following the conclusions of Jaussi et al. (2007), Karwowski (2010, 2011), Karwowski, Lebuda, & Wisniewska (in press) conceptualized creative self-efficacy as closely connected to creative role identity and created a scale that comprises both aspects. While creative self-efficacy refers to the perception of success in creative tasks, creative personal identity reflects the importance of assuming a creative role. In this model, the centrality of creativity for the self amplifies creative self-efficacy since individuals strive for the verification of their own views on the self.
THE PRESENT STUDY
Taken together, the conclusions presented in the first part of the study suggest that the cultural dimension of individualism may have an influence on the way people define the creative act, creative personality, and their motivations to engage in creative tasks (Goncalo & Krause, 2010; Lim & Plucker, 2001). In this study, we intend to expand the literature on implicit theories of creativity, by translating the observations made in cross-cultural investigations into an individual differences approach. In order to achieve this, we first verified whether individualistic/collectivistic orientations are related to the evaluation of the creative personality prototype and secondly, whether these relations are, at least partially, explained by people's conceptions regarding their own creative self, on both the identity and ability dimensions. This hypothesized mediating effect is based on recent propositions in the area of implicit theories of personality that suggest that inter-trait relations match the "personal geography" of the self (Critcher & Dunning, 2009). According to these authors, the egocentric pattern projection mechanism biases personal theories of psychological phenomena, since they embed within their structure the conception the individual forms of herself/himself. In line with the above-mentioned accounts, we first hypothesize a positive relationship between individualism and the way people assess the personality of the typical creative person, namely the favorability of the ratings. In the light of recent data on implicit personality theories, we also expect these evaluations on ability-related naive personality theories to be mediated by how people evaluate themselves on the same ability domain: creative personal identity and creative self-efficacy.
A number of 190 senior undergraduate students (154 female; aged 18 to 53, [M.sub.age] = 25.03, SD = 6.8) participated in the study. The majority of the participants were enrolled in Communication and public relations, but also in Psychology and Education Sciences and Economy and Business Administration lines at "Alexandra Ioan Cuza" University in Iaci.
Procedure and measures.
Participation in the study was voluntary, in exchange for extra course credits. After the study objectives and procedure were explained, together with their consent, participants provided a personal mail address. After this first meeting, all enrolled participants received the electronic questionnaire via email.
Three types of measures were chosen for individualism/collectivism, one with a focus on the frequency of behaviors, one on values and the other on differences in social orientations. These scales were the first in the order of their administration, followed by the task designed to elicit naive theories of the creative personality. The scales measuring CPI, CSE and frequency of everyday creative behaviors were presented last.
1. Self Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994) measuring independence-interdependence. The two scales assess interdependent self-construal (7 items), that indicates the extent to which individuals value relationships, groups and maintaining harmony and independence (6 items), that indicates the need for distinctiveness.
2. AICS (The Auckland Individualism Collectivism Scale; Shulruf, Hattie, & Dixon, 2007, Romanian version by Ciochina & Faria, 2006) measuring individualistic and collectivistic orientations. The individualism scale measures competition, uniqueness and responsibility while the collectivism scale refers to a preference for seeking advice and harmony.
3. Individualist vs. collectivist values (a short version of Chan's (1994)--COLINDEX, after Schwartz and Blisky, 1990, adapted in Romanian by Friedlmeier, 2006) was used. Seven items measure collectivist values (security, conformity, tradition) and the other six items measure individualist values (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism).
4. Naive theories of creative personality task. Participants received a set of 20 bipolar descriptions of Big Five factor traits, a task specially designed for this study. The adjectives representing either the positive or the negative pole were selected from a pool of adjectival markers that were previously shown to correlate with DECAS, a Romanian questionnaire designed to measure the five factors of personality (Sava, 2008); one pole was extracted from the list and matched with its antonym. A panel of five experts judged the pertinence and equivalence of the poles in reflecting the same trait and their desirability. Participants had to think of typical above-average creative individuals and rate their personality profile on a scale from 1 to 7 (1 representing the low pole, such as "distant" for agreeableness, 7 representing "warm"). In the task, the positive or desirable and the negative poles were counterbalanced. Of the markers used in the Naive theories of creative personality (NTCP) measures, only two sets reached satisfactory internal consistency (.70 for agreeableness and .87 for conscientiousness, a values for openness, extraversion and neuroticism were .57, .63 and .50).
5. The adapted version of the Short Scale for Creative Self (SSCS) (Karwowski et al., in press), designed to measure creative self-efficacy (CSE) and creative personal identity (CPI), two separate but highly correlated facets of creative self. The CSE scale was comprised of items concerning evaluations of personal creative ability (e.g. "I know I can efficiently solve even complicated problems"). The CPI scale measures the valorization of the creative identity: "My creativity is important for who I am". In a previous study, we verified the reliability and factorial invariance of the SCSS scale.
6. In addition to these scales, we also included a creativity criterion, a translated version of the Creative Behavior Inventory--Short form (Dollinger, 2011). This is a self-report measure quantifying the frequency of everyday creative behaviors on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (> 5 times).
To investigate the proposed associations between the sets of variables, in order to consider the mediating role of CPI and CSE on naive theories of creativity, we performed a latent variables path analysis using SEM with AMOS 20 software. We used Maximum Likelihood Estimation model to perform the analyses.
The first analyses inspected the relations between the personality markers for NTCP and the other variables. These relations are presented in Table 1, with the significant ones in bold (although we display the correlation of the Singelis' Self-construal scales, we will not detail the results concerning the independent self, given their low reliability). The composite scores are average values for the scales. As can be seen, agreeableness (NTCP-A) and conscientiousness (NTCP-C) facets had the most marked associations with all the study variables. Individualism correlated with the ratings of the above-average creative person on the following traits (the small scores represent the negative pole, the high scores reflecting ratings closer to the positive pole): warm, profound, confident, organized, diligent, sympathetic, imaginative, and dependable. The composed score on the individualist values correlates with: confident, sympathetic, profound, diligent, warm, nonconformist, sociable; the corresponding scores for collectivist values correlates with kind, organized, profound and diligent.
Since only the indicators for NTCP-A and NTCP-C reached satisfactory reliabilities, we decided to test the mediated relations only for them. Inspecting the pattern of associations between the variables, we observe that the two SCSS factors and individualism have moderate to high correlations, comparable to the magnitude of
Given the results regarding collectivism, this dimension did not qualify as a predictor for the mediation analysis. The mediation models tested the effect of individualism (independent latent variable) on naive theories task, both for NTCP-A and NTCP-C (latent dependent variables), through CPI and CSE, also treated as latent factors with reflective measures. Following a two-step procedure (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) to test the structural relations between the constructs, we first verified the grouping of the items for individualism, NTCP-A, NTCP-A and CPI.
After analyzing the measurement model with the paths relevant for the mediation left free to vary, we decided to eliminate an indicator corresponding to the NTCP-A facet (considerate), which indicated inadmissible high standardized residual covariances (around the value of 2) with several variables in the model.
We also inspected the modification indices for other possible sources of low fit and run the model again with three correlated errors (between meticulous--warm, meticulous--kind and organized--meticulous). Taking into account the fact that the scale is not designed for self-report of the Big-Five dimensions, but a prototype and that naive theorists tend to think in typological rather than dimensional terms, often exaggerating relations between traits pertaining to different domains of personality (Anderson & Sedikides, 1991), we allowed these associations. After these changes, the measurement model still indicated poor fit ([chi square](df=68) = 321.744, p < .001; TLI = .891; SRMR = .062, CFI = .910; RMSEA = .075).
The SEM model was however conducted to test the indirect effects of individualism on naive theories of creativity through the mediator CPI: individualism was regressed on CPI and CSE, which in turn, regressed on NTCP-A and NTCP-C. The results suggest that the model fits the data poorly: ([chi square] (df=158) = 352.641, p < .001; TLI = .872; SRMR = .077; CFI = .893; RMSEA = .081). Also, of the two SCSS variables, only CPI qualified as a mediator between individualism and NTCP-A and NTCP-C. Consequently, CSE was excluded from the analyzed model.
The modification indices pointed to some sources of misfit related to the measurement model and suggested the estimation of the correlation between the residuals of the two latent variables measuring naive theories and between one indicator of the agreeableness dimension and the conscientiousness factor residual. With the same justification offered previously in the context of the measurement model, the model was respecified, rerun and the indices improved significantly (difference [chi square] (df=91) = 244.021, p < .001). The resulting model still fails the Chi square test, but the other approximate fit indices are more favorable: [chi square](df=67) = 108.58, p = .001; TLI = .951; SRMR = .04; CFI = .964; RMSEA = .057.
The path coefficients of the final model are shown in Figure 1. Results of indirect effects of Individualism on naive theories are presented in Table 2.
We tested two models sequentially, one including the unconstrained direct paths between the predictor (individualism) and the dependent variables, to verify whether this brings an improvement in the fit of the model (Holmbeck, 1997). The [chi square] difference test between the model with the unconstrained direct paths did not significantly improve the fit compared with the model constraining these paths to be 0: [chi square] (df=67) = 110. 365, p = .001 (the result of the difference test was p = .41).
Analyzes were also run to verify whether CPI and CSE mediate together the relationship between individualism and everyday creative behaviors as measured by CBI ([chi square](df=68) = 127.179, p < .001; CFI = .965, RMSEA = .065). The result of the mentioned mediation corresponding to the relationship between individualism and everyday creativity through CPI and CSE (standardized direct effect [beta] = -.165, p = .079 and indirect effect [beta] = .35, p = 0.01, suggesting a potential suppression relationship) is not represented graphically, since it does not relate to the main objectives of the present study.
Results indicate that CSE and CPI correlate mainly with egocentric, individualistic orientations, supporting the existing evidence in the literature linking creative agency and individualism. They also translate and suggest, at the individual level, the possible source of the differences in the results obtained in studies investigating naive theories of creativity in different cultural contexts.
Naive theories of the creative person are connected to the social orientation of the individual. Agreeableness and social conduct constitute the evaluative axis that has the least consensus among studies of the creative personality (Feist, 1998; Galang, 2010). This study suggests that results of "social validation techniques", as Runco, et al. (1993) name this approach for studying naive theories, based on asking individuals to nominate or rate traits pertaining to different categories of interest, may be skewed by certain personal variables of the raters. Among these variables, we identified the interpersonal orientation of the individual and the personal identification with the appraised object, in this case, the creative personality. According to the results, the greater is a person's proclivity for individualistic behaviors, the more likely one will assume creative roles and regard creative persons through a more positive lens, as trustful, reliable and hardworking; the lower the scores on individualism, coupled with a decreased identification with the creative role, the less advantageous will these personality descriptions be.
A creative role identity is defined in relation to a social context. Embracing this identity supports the need for individual self-assertion and consequently determines the degree of engagement in creative behaviors. In contrast, people who experience disidentification with the creative role and who are less interested in autonomy and self-expression may perceive the "creative types" as troublesome and more difficult to get along with.
Naive personality theories generally function as epistemic instruments that help people describe and predict the behavior of others. Commonly shared beliefs or theories may contribute to the mystification of creativity, but also to the domestication of the "creative" by groups or authority figures: parents, teachers, managers; at the individual level, these theories may be calibrated by adherence to the creative role more than the belief in the capacity to produce actual creative behaviors. Some aspects of these lay theories may confuse creativity with the tactic of contrarianism, which can serve for the expression of originality (Runco, 2011). This implicit tradeoff in lay conceptions between creativity and desirable personality traits, such as honesty, reliability, discipline, as previously suggested by studies conducted in collectivistic contexts (e.g. Rudowicz & Yue, 2002), can supposedly work in the reversed direction in the case of individualism. An independent self-construal is believed to stimulate open expression of opinions and ideas, thus creative productivity, but also of self-focused emotions, such as pride, rage or frustration (Eid & Diener, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), that can alter the relational climate and contribute to a negative stereotypization of the creative personality.
Another possible explanation, that future experimental designs could explore, resides in the subjective perception of cognitive conflict within groups or dyads. It is possible that creative contributors to be less sensitive to aspects such as harmony and relational climate; this in turn would make them more immune to social rejection, thus ignoring the spilling over effect of conflict from the cognitive to the relational domain, and report lower levels of conflict. The degree to which individuals adhere to the creative role and its attached unintended consequences models their views: for many, the choice between embracing a risky, uneasy role and protecting harmony is unproblematic.
In a broader context, this study suggests that altering beliefs about the self as a creative person may influence the level of valorization and engagement in actual creative behaviors, an idea that could be adapted and integrated into school settings and motivational practices in organizations. Future studies should investigate the relations between the conceptions of creative personality and creative abilities and the way these interact with individualistic orientations to predict actual levels of creative performance, both for individuals and groups.
As a small sample, cross-sectional study based on self-report, this investigation presents a series of limitations that stem from several aspects. First, the participants are recruited from the student population and their number is small for SEM, especially for a latent-variables model. Secondly, insufficient development of the measure for naive theories, and a fairly unstable fit in the structural model also raises doubts over the results. Besides the absence of an estimation of biased responding through measures of social desirability, there is also an unbalanced gender distribution of the samples.
The present data were gathered from a sample of youngsters from an ex-communist country, where attempts for economic regeneration are made through the endorsement of a free market economy; these strivings are often accompanied by the clash between the post-communist nostalgia, which idealizes the social safety and order and the discourse of individualism, dominated by self-directedness, risk taking and competitiveness. These coexisting mentalities could generate in the lay perceptions the overlap between the two accentuated dichotomies: on one hand, between individualism and collectivism, and between the old and the new, on the other.
Abbott, D. H. (2010), Constructing a creative self-efficacy inventory: A mixed methods inquiry. Open Access Theses and Dissertations from the College of Education and Human Sciences. Paper 68. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/68.
Ablard, K.E., & Mills, J. A. (1996). Implicit theories of intelligence and self-perceptions of academically talented adolescents and children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 137-148.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Anderson, C.A., & Sedikides, C. (1991). Thinking about people: Contributions of a typological alternative to associationistic and dimensional models of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 203-217.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 447-457.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119 (1), 111-137.
Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y.-A. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114, 133-151.
Chan, D. K.-S. (1994). Colindex: A refinement of three collectivism measures. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 200-210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 187-199.
Ciochina, L., & Faria, L. (2006). Individualismo e colectivismo: Fundamentos conceptuais para o estudo intercultural das concepcoes pessoais de inteligencia de estudantes Portugueses e Romenos [Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual framework for the intercultural study of personal conceptions of intelligence of Portuguese and Romanian students]. Psicologia, 20(2), 143-165.
Critcher, C. R., & Dunning, D. (2009). Egocentric pattern projection: How implicit personality theories recapitulate the geography of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1-16.
Dollinger, S. J. (2011). "Standardized minds" or individuality? Admissions tests and creativity revisited. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5 (4), 329-341.
Eid, M. & Diener, E. (2001). Norms of experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter-and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (5), 869-885.
Feist, G.J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290-309.
Friedlmeier, M. (2006). Transmission of Values Within Families in Romania, Universitat Konstanz.
Fryer, M., & Collings, J. A. (1991). British teachers' views of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 75-81.
Furnham, A. (1988). Lay Theories. Oxford: Pergamon.
Galang, A. (2010). The prosocial psychopath: Explaining the paradoxes of the creative personality. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 1241-1248.
Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2011) The dark side of creativity: original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 445-459.
Glaveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(1), 79-93.
Glaveanu, V. P. (2011). Is the lightbulb still on?: social representations of creativity in a western context. The international journal of creativity & problem solving, 21 (1). 53-72. ISSN 1598-723X.
Goncalo, J.A., & Kim, S.H. (2010). Distributive justice beliefs and group idea generation: Does a belief in equity facilitate productivity? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 836-840.
Goncalo, J.A., & Krause, V. (2010). Being different or being better?: Disentangling the effects of independence and competition on group creativity. In: S. Thye & E.J. Lawler (Eds) Advances in Group Processes, 27, 129-157.
Goncalo, J.A., & Staw, B.M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96-109.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., & Lehman, D. R., (2001). Cultural differences in self-evaluation: Japanese readily accepts negative self-relevant information. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 434-443.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-610.
Jaussi, K.S., Randel, A.E., & Dionne, S.D. (2007). I am, I think I can, I do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and cross-application of experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2 & 3), 247-258.
Karwowski (2010). Are creative students really welcome in the classrooms? Implicit theories of "good" and "creative" student' personality among Polish teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1233-1237.
Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn't hurt to ask ... But sometimes it hurts to believe: Polish students' creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 154-164.
Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., & Wisniewska, E. (in press). Measurement of creative self-efficacy and creative role-identity. High Ability Studies.
Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (in press). Big Five Personality Factors as the Predictors of Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Personal Identity: Does Gender Matter. Journal of Creative Behavior.
Kwang, N. A., Ang, R. P., Ooi, L. B., Shin, W. S., Oei, T. P. S & Leng, V. (2005). Do adaptors and innovators subscribe to opposing values? Creativity Research Journal, 17 2-3: 273-281.
Lim, W., & Plucker, J. A. (2001). Creativity through a lens of social responsibility: Implicit Theories of Creativity with Korean samples. Journal of Creativity Behavior, 35, 115-130.
Ludwig, A. M. (1995). The price of greatness: Resolving the creativity and madness controversy. New York: Guilford.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Puccio, G. J. & Chimento, M. D. (2001). Implicit theories of creativity: laypersons' perceptions of the creativity of adaptors and innovators, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 675-681.
Rudowicz, E., & Yue, X.D. (2002). Compatibility of Chinese and creative personalities. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3), 387-394.
Runco, M. A. (1984). Teachers' judgments of creativity and social validation of divergent thinking tests. Perceptual Motor Skills, 59, 711-17.
Runco, M. A. (2011). Contrarianism. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd Ed., pp. 261-263). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Runco, M. A., Johnson, D. K., & Bear, P. (1993). Parents' and teachers' implicit theories of children's creativity. Child Study Journal, 23, 91-113.
Sava, F.A. (2008). A psycholexical validation of DECAS Personality Inventory. Analele Univeristatii de Vest din Timisoara, seria Sociologie-Psihologie [en. The Annals of the West University, Timisoara, Sociology-Psychology Series], 14, 63-68.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universals in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.
Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Conformity and Creativity. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity (2nd Ed., pp. 241-245). San Diego: Academic Press.
Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Dixon, R. (2007). Development of a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(4), 385-401.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607 627.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 7-15.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220-247.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H.C., & Goto, S.G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and behavior in different cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.
"Alexandra Ioan Cuza" University of Iasi, Romania
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ana-Maria Hojbota, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, "Alexandra I. Cuza" University, Str. Toma Cozma nr. 3, 700554, Iasi, jud. Iasi, Romania. E-mail: a firstname.lastname@example.org
Table 1 Zero-Order Correlations between Scores on CSE, CPI, Creative Behavior Inventory, Cultural Variables and NTCP Markers M SD 1 2 3 4 1. CPI 3.85 .66 .87 2. CSF 3.80 .55 .72 .86 3. IND 4.31 .63 .44 .50 .79 4. COL. 3.42 .66 .00 -.06 .10 .78 5. IND VAL 4.33 .43 .43 .29 .50 .04 6. COL VAL 4.19 .51 .11 .05 .25 .30 7. INDEP 1.11 .36 .33 .34 .47 -.20 8. INTERDEP 2.94 .39 .14 .10 .05 .42 9. CBI 1.72 .47 .50 .45 .17 -.10 10. A-kind 4.39 1.68 .28 .13 .07 .08 11. A-warm 4.97 1.50 .34 .32 .22 .06 12. A-sympathetic 4.93 1.56 .24 .15 .16 .02 13. A-considerate 4.48 1.54 .04 .12 .12 .00 14. C-diligent 4.6R 1.75 .23 .11 .16 .07 15. C-organized 4.11 1.77 .23 .20 .17 -.06 16. C-dependable 4.86 1.62 .23 .19 .14 .02 17. C-meticulous 4.42 1.80 .20 .12 .11 .03 18. O-informed 3 48 1.53 .19 .13 -.16 .09 19. O-imaginative 6.47 1.06 .18 .13 .15 .14 20. O-nonconformist 5.56 1.60 .08 .11 .10 .04 21. O-profound 3.03 1.58 .28 .12 .20 .09 22. N-confident 5.05 1.63 .18 .18 .20 -.00 23. N-calm 3.90 1.67 .03 .00 .02 .01 24. N-optimistic 5.45 1.62 .19 .13 .05 .05 25. N-relaxed 4.87 1.85 .03 -.12 -.09 .11 26. E-talkative 5.40 1.54 .15 .10 .06 .13 27. E-lively 5.20 1.42 .06 .09 .09 -.06 28. E-Sociable 5.36 1.61 .19 .12 .11 .04 29. E-outgoing 5.59 1.44 .00 .00 .02 .10 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. CPI 2. CSF 3. IND 4. COL. 5. IND VAL .70 6. COL VAL .34 .67 7. INDEP .33 .05 .47 8. INTERDEP .02 .35 .05 .67 9. CBI .22 .00 .07 .05 .89 10. A-kind .08 .16 .11 .14 -.09 -- 11. A-warm .18 .02 .06 .18 .21 .40 12. A-sympathetic .22 .12 .08 .14 .04 .44 13. A-considerate .07 .10 .06 -.03 -.07 .44 14. C-diligent .19 .15 .11 -.02 .12 .28 15. C-organized .13 .16 .13 -.04 .12 .19 16. C-dependable .10 .13 .10 .04 .44 .20 17. C-meticulous .12 .13 .11 .03 .13 .16 18. O-informed .15 .09 .10 .04 .05 .19 19. O-imaginative .12 .05 .01 .09 .13 .10 20. O-nonconformist .16 -.07 .10 .05 .11 -.08 21. O-profound .19 .16 .13 .17 .17 .27 22. N-confident .27 .06 .21 -.01 .07 .21 23. N-calm .03 .01 .05 -.02 -.04 .17 24. N-optimistic .09 .10 .10 .16 .06 .18 25. N-relaxed .04 .08 .03 .06 -.20 .28 26. E-talkative .10 .03 .06 .07 .00 .12 27. E-lively .07 -.12 .10 .05 .18 -.18 28. E-Sociable .16 .06 .10 .02 .00 .32 29. E-outgoing .11 .07 .06 .12 .00 -.03 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. CPI 2. CSF 3. IND 4. COL. 5. IND VAL 6. COL VAL 7. INDEP 8. INTERDEP 9. CBI 10. A-kind 11. A-warm -- 12. A-sympathetic .49 -- 13. A-considerate .08 .36 -- 14. C-diligent -18 .42 .53 -- 15. C-organized .08 .28 .46 .58 -- 16. C-dependable .20 .44 .52 .69 .59 -- 17. C-meticulous -.01 .23 28 .38 .53 .43 18. O-informed .15 .30 .34 .49 -35 .53 19. O-imaginative .25 .08 .03 .15 00 .14 20. O-nonconformist .19 .03 -.22 -.12 -.26 -.10 21. O-profound .25 .35 -34 .43 .10 .30 22. N-confident .16 .23 .35 -38 .24 .37 23. N-calm .05 .16 .37 .10 .10 .15 24. N-optimistic .14 .29 09 .22 -.20 .33 25. N-relaxed .11 .20 .02 .08 .00 .01 26. E-talkative .28 .14 -.oo .16 .15 .19 27. E-lively .74 -.05 -.28 -.10 -.25 -.11 28. E-Sociable .42 .31 .19 .17 .27 -.35 29. E-outgoing .08 .03 -.04 .00 .01 .10 17 18 19 20 21 22 1. CPI 2. CSF 3. IND 4. COL. 5. IND VAL 6. COL VAL 7. INDEP 8. INTERDEP 9. CBI 10. A-kind 11. A-warm 12. A-sympathetic 13. A-considerate 14. C-diligent 15. C-organized 16. C-dependable 17. C-meticulous -- 18. O-informed .28 -- 19. O-imaginative .00 .30 -- 20. O-nonconformist -.06 .13 .47 -- 21. O-profound .40 .36 .27 .10 -- 22. N-confident .17 .30 -.26 .06 .22 -- 23. N-calm .26 .02 -.05 -.22 .13 .23 24. N-optimistic .16 .21 .13 .13 .09 .31 25. N-relaxed .09 -.05 .16 .20 .04 .05 26. E-talkative -.01 .28 .24 .11 -.07 .11 27. E-lively -.23 .01 .34 .49 -.03 .07 28. E-Sociable .13 .28 .19 .05 .05 .21 29. E-outgoing .03 .21 .37 .35 .06 .19 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. CPI 2. CSF 3. IND 4. COL. 5. IND VAL 6. COL VAL 7. INDEP 8. INTERDEP 9. CBI 10. A-kind 11. A-warm 12. A-sympathetic 13. A-considerate 14. C-diligent 15. C-organized 16. C-dependable 17. C-meticulous 18. O-informed 19. O-imaginative 20. O-nonconformist 21. O-profound 22. N-confident 23. N-calm -- 24. N-optimistic .04 -- 25. N-relaxed .36 .24 -- 26. E-talkative -.10 .12 .00 -- 27. E-lively -.26 .17 .01 .22 -- 28. E-Sociable -09 .48 .12 .61 .05 -- 29. E-outgoing -.16 .22 .09 .42 .22 .31 29 1. CPI 2. CSF 3. IND 4. COL. 5. IND VAL 6. COL VAL 7. INDEP 8. INTERDEP 9. CBI 10. A-kind 11. A-warm 12. A-sympathetic 13. A-considerate 14. C-diligent 15. C-organized 16. C-dependable 17. C-meticulous 18. O-informed 19. O-imaginative 20. O-nonconformist 21. O-profound 22. N-confident 23. N-calm 24. N-optimistic 25. N-relaxed 26. E-talkative 27. E-lively 28. E-Sociable 29. E-outgoing -- N = 190; bold type for p < .01 or lower; CPI/CSF, (Short Creative Self Scale), IND/COL (individualism mid colectivism scales from AICS), IND VAL/COL VAL (COLINDEX of individualistic and collectivistic values), INDEP/INTERDEP (Singelis Seir-Constnial), CBI (Creative Behavior Inventory). Variables 10 to 29 represent the positive pole of the individual markers of the Naive theories of creative personality measure: A-agreeableness. C-conscientiousness, O-openness to experience, N-neuroticism, E-extraversion. Table 2 Summary of Tests of Mediation Effects (Unstandardized Estimates, Standard Error and Standardized Estimates for Indirect Effects and Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals (BC CI) of Individualism on the Dependent Variables) Bias-corrected 90% CI for mean indirect effect Mediation Unstandardized SE Standardized Lower Upper Path estimate estimate CI CI 1.a. .266 .103 .208 .147 .439 Individualism [right arrow] Creative Personal Identity [right arrow] NTCP-A (a) 2.a. .289 .107 .137 .119 .493 Individualism [right arrow] Creative Personal Identity [right arrow] NTCP-C (a) Note. N--190; 2000 bootstrap sample.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving|
|Date:||Apr 1, 2013|
|Previous Article:||The art bias within the arts: creativity in the field of not-for-profit theatre management.|
|Next Article:||The Selective Problem Solving model (SPS) and its social validity in solving mathematical problems.|