Creativity Outside School: The Influence of Family Background, Perceived Parenting, and After‐school Activity on Creativity

Abstract

The present research involved two studies that investigated the creativity development of Chinese children and young adolescents (9-14 years old). It was hypothesized that family socio-economic status (SES), perceived parenting (e.g., parental autonomy support, involvement, and overcontrol), and after-school activities contribute to the development of creativity. Study 1 showed that self-rated creativity (mini-c) was positively associated with children's perceived parenting and SES, whereas expert-rated creativity (little-c) and teachers' rated creativity was positively associated with academic achievement. Study 2 replicated and expanded Study 1 by involving a larger sample and adding factors from the parents' perspective and new measurements of creativity. Study 2 found that children's perceived parenting and SES were the most significant contributors to the mini-c, followed by age. In terms of little-c, the most significant contributor was children's age, followed by children's perceived parenting and SES. Moreover, participation in after-school activities played a critical role in the development of creativity, as represented by both little-c and mini-c. The implications of this study are discussed.

Factors Influencing the Creativity of Chinese Upper-Secondary-School Students Participating in Programming Education

“…Similarly, Yang et al (2020) used data analysis to find that the socioeconomic status of college students’ families predicted creativity. Liang et al (2021) also found that respondents’ self-rated creativity is positively related to family socioeconomic status in an investigation among Chinese adolescents aged 9–14. In addition, Zhang et al (2020) argued that learners’ gender also affects creativity; specifically, boys outperform girls in terms of originality of creativity, but girls outperform boys in terms of abstraction.…”

Socio‐Economic Status and Creativity: A Meta‐Analysis

“…As a result, a higher level of education (self or parental) may result in a higher exposure to diverse ideas and enhancing DT performance, whereas a higher income may be associated with a greater level of creative activity and behavior. Some studies focused on one of these SES indicators (Chang, Hsu, Shih, & Chen, 2014; Ivcevic & Kaufman, 2013) while others proceeded without specifying the SES dimensions (Liang, Niu, Cheng, & Qin, 2022). Additional studies used psychometric instruments of SES (Seymour, 1975; Xu & Pang, 2019).…”

Democratizing Creativity by Enhancing Imagery and Agency: A Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Promoting creativity in general and in the classroom in particular, requires a better understanding of why people often decide not to create. Such reasons and obstacles are of a different nature, ranging from a low level of creative interests and abilities (Benedek et al, 2020), to a difficult position in social strata (Castillo-Vergara et al, 2018), to a low value ascribed to creativity in a family (Liang et al, 2021). Yet, what seems essential is the motivational sphere of self-perception (Karwowski & Kaufman, 2017).…”