No abstract

How people perceive their creativity is a growing area of research, but less is known about how people perceive the distinction between inborn (fixed) versus learnable (growth) aspects of their creative competence. This study measured fixed and growth creative mindsets, and its relationship to creative self-efficacy and creative identity in a sample of 620 undergraduate students. The data were split into 2 equal-sized samples to perform exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis results showed that items adapted from Dweck's previous studies with the word creativity replacing intelligence did not perform as well as Karwowski's creative mindset items. Confirmatory factor analysis results suggest that the best measurement model for mindsets is one that also includes self-efficacy, but not necessarily creative identity. Fixed mindsets correlated much less with the other factors, and all of the small correlations were in the negative direction, which could be expected given that those with a fixed mindset employ more helpless strategies. Fixed and growth creative mindsets were moderately negatively correlated, suggesting that while the 2 mindsets are related, it is important for future researchers to measure levels of both dimensions. This study also suggests that fixed and growth mindsets are better measured using descriptions that pertain specifically to the creative process. Implications and theoretical considerations are discussed.

The aim of this article is to provide a systematic literature review of studies published between 1984 and 2013 that used measures of creativity in undergraduate students. We present previous reviews that show an increasing interest in creativity research and the measures used in creativity assessment. Four questions guided our analyses: (a) What measures have been used to study creativity?; (b) What is the prevalence of creativity measures in studies published in different types of journals?; (c) What are the most prevalent key terms used in respect to creativity in these studies?; and (d) How is creativity used as variables (e.g., dependent vs. independent)? The initial database search produced 3,993 resulting articles; after applying our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we narrowed the sample of the studies to 446. Our analyses revealed an increase in the use of self-report and product rating measures to study creativity in undergraduate students over the 30-year period; the overall use of divergent thinking and convergent thinking measures, however, has decreased. The most frequently used term was creativity; creativity was also most commonly used as an outcome variable in studies. The observed trends are consistent with earlier observations of growing interest in creativity assessment, most likely the result of changes in the domain of creativity research itself. We conclude with recommendations for future creativity research based on the results.

The present research explored the relationship between the creative self and creative performance. Based on prior research purporting that perceptions of the self can predict behavior, the authors predicted that beliefs about the creative self would predict creative performance. Participants completed two scales on beliefs about their creativity (creative self-efficacy; fixed and growth mindsets about creativity), and then completed two types of creativity tasks: three divergent thinking tasks and one creative-problem-solving scenario. Model comparisons based on constellations of predictors were performed using Bayesian analyses (Bayes factors and Bayesian regression). Results show that creative self-efficacy predicted fluency in divergent thinking but did not relate to originality ratings of ideas generated during divergent thinking. Endorsing a fixed mindset about creativity was related to decreased performance in creative problem solving, with no mediation by creative self-efficacy. However, creative self-efficacy remained correlated with growth mindset. Implications for further research on the creative self are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper reports on an integrative literature review of published articles that used either quantitative or qualitative observation methods to research creativity in learning contexts. Observation is an empirical research method used in quantitative and qualitative naturalistic studies focused on understanding behavior and interactions as they unfold in real‐time, which makes it particularly salient for examining the processes associated with the generation and adoption of creative ideas. However, observation remains underutilized in the field of creativity studies, partly because data collection can be time and resource intensive, but also because there are a lack of protocols and recommended research practices for observing creative thinking and problem solving in an educational environment that covers all phases of design, collection, analysis, and reporting. Thirty‐seven articles from 1980–2018 were reviewed along seven dimensions: definition of creativity, unit of observation, observer role, observation sampling method, research design, data collection, and data analysis. The paper concludes with five recommendations for using observation to advance the state of research on creativity and education.