It Doesn't Hurt to Ask . . . But Sometimes It Hurts to Believe ... - CiteSeerX

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2011, Vol. 5, No. 2, 154 –164

© 2010 American Psychological Association 1931-3896/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021427

It Doesn’t Hurt to Ask . . . But Sometimes It Hurts to Believe: Polish Students’ Creative Self-Efficacy and Its Predictors Maciej Karwowski Academy of Special Education This study examined predictors of creative self-efficacy (CSE) within a large sample (N ⫽ 1,878) of Polish school students. Results indicate that creative self-efficacy is significantly predicted by creative abilities (measured by Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production) as well as self-reported originality, with 12% of the creative self-efficacy variance predicted by these criteria. Analysis of the potential antecedents of creative self-efficacy showed that it is connected with gender, socioeconomic status, and locality size. Socioeconomic status (SES) was a positive predictor of CSE. Male students were characterized by higher self-efficacy than female students and they also tended to overestimate their creative self-efficacy as predicted by abilities. In turn, females underestimated their creative self-efficacy. Socioeconomic status moderated the relations between creative abilities and creative self-efficacy, with stronger associations between abilities and efficacy in high SES groups. Keywords: creative self-efficacy, Poland, creative abilities

studies confirm that self-efficacy predicts creative achievements (Tierney & Farmer, 2002), that this works at a group level as well as an individual level (Baer, Oldham, Jacobson, & Hollingshead, 2008), and that it is influenced by a wide scope of social factors. This means that creative self-efficacy may be promoted by improving classroom atmosphere (Beghetto, 2006) or by teachersupported behavior (Beghetto, 2006). The question formulated by Beghetto (2006) is whether people’s self-efficacy is valid and accurate; in other words—are people with high levels of creative self-efficacy really creative? And, are creative people characterized by high creative self-efficacy? Self-reported creative self-efficacy may depend on the individual’s understanding of creativity, especially including implicit theories of creativity. Previous research (Wood & Bandura, 1989) has shown that when people believe that abilities are inherent intellectual aptitudes (as opposed to those who think that these are acquirable skills), their self-efficacy decreases. If we realize that one of the most common myths about creativity identified in research (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004; Sawyer, 2004) is the belief that it is a gift which cannot be developed, consequences for creative self-efficacy are easily identified. If someone believes that only Michelangelo or DaVinci were creative, his or her creative self-efficacy will be lower than for those who believe creativity is a trait distributed among different people.

In the title of this paper, the title of O’Hara and Sternberg’s (2000 –2001) article was paraphrased. O’Hara and Sternberg’s studies demonstrated how explicit instruction influences students’ creativity in essay-writing. In the present study, the main goal was to find and describe predictors of students’ creative self-efficacy. This paper concentrates on two main issues. The first is a problem of the extent to which self-reported creative self-efficacy is associated with creative abilities and originality. The second is a question of contextual factors which might influence both creative self-efficacy and its relations with possible predictors. Three such factors are analyzed: gender, socioeconomic status, and locality size. In the introductory part of this article, creative self-efficacy is defined in the context of self-rated creativity. Then studies on creative self-efficacy, its most important criteria, predictors, and correlates are shortly discussed.

Creative Self-Efficacy: In Search of Understanding The issue of self-efficacy has recently become the focus of several creativity researchers (Beghetto, 2006; Choi, 2004; Jaussi, Randel, & Dionne, 2007; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Creative self-efficacy may be defined as a capacity judgment made in an area of creative functioning (Bandura, 1997; Jaussi, Randel, & Dionne, 2007; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Results of empirical

Correlates, Predictors, and Potential Antecedents of Creative Self-Efficacy

This article was published Online First November 8, 2010. Maciej Karwowski, Creative Education LAB, Academy of Special Education. Preparation of this article was supported by Grant BW 03/07-I from the Academy of Special Education. This support does not imply acceptance or endorsement of the position taken in the article. I thank Kimberly Sanborn, Jeff Smith, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maciej Karwowski, Academy of Special Education, Creative Education LAB, Szczesliwicka 40, St., 02-353 Warsaw, Poland. E-mail: mackar@aps .edu.pl

Creative self-efficacy is studied with the use of various measures, theoretical contexts and groups of participants. For example, CSE was shown to positively correlate with satisfaction with life as well as with subjective happiness (Tan, Ho, Ho & Ow, 2008). Elsewhere, CSE was positively related to time management (r ⫽ .52), and long-range planning (r ⫽ .64) (Zampetakis, Bouranta, & Moustakis, 2010). Farmer and Tierney (2007) concluded that creative leadership is a significant predictor of subordinates’ cre154

PREDICTORS OF CREATIVE SELF-EFFICACY

ativity, their creative role identity, as well as creative self-efficacy. It was demonstrated that the perceived appraisal of creative role identity was the main predictor of perceived creative self-efficacy (␤ ⫽ .44). In a study by Tierney and Palmer (2004), creative self-efficacy was influenced by the expectancy effect, in which supervisor expectations of employee creativity translated into higher supervisor creativity-supporting behavior, which was strongly associated with the employee’s view of creativity expectations and creative self-efficacy.

Creative Self-Efficacy Versus Self-Rated Creativity There is an increasing amount of research which examines self-reported creativity. Usually in those studies (i.e., Batey & Furnham, 2008; Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin, & O’Connor, 2009), people simply rate how creative they are. Such ratings are not synonymous with creative self-efficacy, as CSE deals with an individual’s beliefs that a person is able to be creative, not that a person simply is creative. Despite this, self-rated creativity is theoretically a close construct of creative self-efficacy. In several studies of self-rated creativity, Furnham and his colleagues analyzed associations between criteria and possible antecedents of self-rated creativity. Batey and Furnham (2008) found significant relations between self-rated creativity on the Creative Personality Scale (r ⫽ .37), and biographical inventory of creative behaviors (r ⫽ .34). SRC was not correlated with IQ, but it was associated with unusual experiences (r ⫽ .26) and impulsive non-conformity. In a study by Furnham and Bachtiar (2008), SRC correlated significantly (yet weakly) with divergent thinking tasks (r ⫽ .18), biographical inventory of creative behavior (r ⫽ .22), and Barron-Welsh Art Scale (r ⫽ .20). Weak associations with extraversion were also observed (r ⫽ .17). Gender significantly predicted self-rated creativity, with men characterized by a higher level of SRC than women. Furnham, Batey, Anand, and Manfield (2008) found no significant gender differences, but they encountered significant (yet weak) correlations between self-rated creativity, two of the three divergent thinking tasks, and biographical inventory, with rs ranging from .17 to .24. Self-rated creativity correlated stronger with hypomanic traits (r ⫽ .41), extraversion (r ⫽ .35), and openness (r ⫽ .36). Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin, and O’Connor (2009) analyzed the relationships between different measures of creativity and two higher-order factors of personality: plasticity and stability. Aside from applying the different measures of creativity, they also studied creative self-concepts by means of asking people to rate their creativity. In the case of global creativity (self-rated creativity in fact), they found strong and significant relations with plasticity (␤ ⫽ .74).

Predictors of Creative Self-Efficacy There is no one universal criterion of creative self-efficacy. In case of renowned creators, actual creative achievements may be treated as such, yet among people of a small-c creativity level, the most valid criteria are likely to be associated with creative abilities measured by tests, certain personality traits measured by inventories and questionnaires (Hocevar, 1981), as well as high evaluations of products conducted by expert judges (Amabile, 1982).

155

However, even among children and youths there is a possibility of hidden creative potential—the so called ‘not-yet evident creativity’ (Treffinger, Young, Selby & Shepardson, 2002, p. 39). Someone may be characterized by fluency and flexibility of thinking, while at the same time not think of themselves as creative. Lack of occasions to behave creatively and creatively solve problems at home or school may result in ignoring one’s own creativity skills. Creative self-efficacy was found to be significantly and substantially correlated with creative performance (r ⫽ .39; Mathisen & Bronick, 2009) and Creative Personality Scale (r ⫽ .26; Zampetakis, Bouranta, & Moustakis, 2010). Questionnaires and self-report measures are usually weakly correlated with measures of creative performance (product evaluations, test scores) (Kaufman, Plucker, & Baer, 2008). Therefore, both types of information should likely be applied as criteria of creative self-efficacy. The level of creative abilities measured by such creativity tests as Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Torrance, 1998) or Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP) (Urban, 1996, 2004; Urban & Jellen, 1996) is an important source which may be treated as a predictor of CSE. Self-reported creative interests (Davis, 1986), style (Kirton, 1976), ideation (Runco, Plucker & Lim, 2001), or originality form another source of the predictors of creative self-efficacy. In this study, the criteria of creative selfefficacy was operationalized as a result of a creativity test (TCTDP) and self-reported originality of ideas. Batey and Furnham (2008) argue that a rationale for the belief that creative people would rate themselves as highly creative flows from research into self-rated intelligence and personality. In their own words: Studies have demonstrated that people are able to predict their own IQ scores with the typical correlation between estimated and psychometric IQ on the order of r ⫽ .20 (Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998). In the domain of personality, studies have shown that people can consistently predict their own personality test scores with correlations on the order of 0.30 – 0.50 for different personality factors (Furnham, 1997; Gray, 1972). The rationale for suggesting that self-ratings of creativity are valid follows thus. If creativity is in part a combination of intellectual and personality variables (Amabile, 1996; Eysenck, 1993) and individuals have insight into their own intelligence and personality, it follows that individuals should be able to recognize their own creativity to a certain degree. Additionally, “creative” is a popular term, therefore individuals may be hypothesized to have received feedback throughout their development as to how creative they are perceived to be. (p. 816)

Although the last sentence is true (Karwowski, 2009), the consequence may not be as positive as the authors suggested. It may be expected that because of the popularity of creativity, which is a desired human characteristic, creative self-efficacy (as predicted by abilities and self-rated personality factors) will be overestimated. The main hypothesis of the study, drawn on previous research and literature, was formulated in the following way: Hypothesis 1: Creative abilities and originality are positively related to creative self-efficacy. At the same time, it is expected that the effect size is moderate.

KARWOWSKI

156 Possible Contextual Antecedents of Creative Self-Efficacy and Self-Rated Creativity Gender

Studies in gender differences generally find no significant differences in creative potential between males and females (Baer & Kaufman, 2008) but have found higher creative achievements in case of males than females (Abra & Valentine-French, 1991). Of 829 Nobel Prize winners, only 41 are women.1 There are different hypotheses which attempt to explain those discrepancies (see Abra & Valentine-French, 1991, for a review), but one of the possible explanations may lie in a different level of creative self-efficacy of males and females. Beghetto (2006) found a weak but significant gender effect, indicating higher creative self-efficacy among males than females. Similarly, Furnham and Bachtiar (2008) and Karwowski (2009) found such effects in case of self-rated creativity. In the study by Kaufman (2006), a large sample of high school and college students was asked to rate themselves in 56 different domains of creativity. Males rated themselves higher than females in case of the science-analytic and sports factors; females rated themselves higher on social-communication and visual-artistic dimensions, with no differences on the verbal-artistic factor. Selfreported creativity of males was higher than that of females in 28 areas, and female self-reported creativity was higher in 15 areas. Thus, the second hypothesis in the study was: Hypothesis 2: Males are characterized by higher levels of creative self-efficacy than females. However, due to the anticipated lack of differences in creative potential, it was also assumed that: Hypothesis 2a: Males overestimate their creative selfefficacy, and females underestimate it as predicted by creative abilities and originality.

Socioeconomic Status Beghetto (2006) revealed students’ socioeconomic status (SES) as one of the correlates of middle and secondary school students’ creative self-efficacy. Although this finding was not explored in detail, it seems to be of special importance. Socioeconomic status is not only an indicator of a family’s wealth but also of a specific climate, habitus in the family (Bourdieu, 1999). Classic works in the sociology of education have shown that socioeconomic status strongly influences parents’ attitudes toward children and values important to them when rearing their children. The works of Kohn (1969, 1976, 2006) and his colleague (Kohn & Slomczynski, 2006) may be treated as sources of important findings for creativity researchers. It was found that low SES parents concentrate on such uncreative child qualities as conformity, whereas higher SES parents support intellectual flexibility, nonconformity and imagination (Kohn & Slomczynski, 2006). As Runco (2007) wrote: “although family SES has itself been directly related to creativity (Bruininks & Feldman, 1970; Dudek et al., 1994) and more generally to problem-solving strategies (Odom, 1967), this is an area of research that is clearly incomplete” (p. 53). Karwowski (2009) demonstrated that socioeconomic status positively predicts selfrated creativity. Therefore, the third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Socioeconomic status is positively related to creative self-efficacy. Following on the formulated hypothesis, it was also hypothesized that socioeconomic status may significantly moderate the relations between creative abilities and creative self-efficacy. Assuming so, it was predicted that the associations between creative abilities and self-rated originality and creative self-efficacy will be higher for people with higher SES than for those from lower SES families. Hence: Hypothesis 3a: Socioeconomic status moderates the effects of creative abilities (H3a1) and self-reported originality (H3a2) on creative self-efficacy. Indeed, to such an extent that the positive relationship between creative abilities and creative self-efficacy is stronger for higher SES participants.

Locality Size and Social Ties Contemporary research in creativity accentuates the role of a place as a stimulator or inhibitor of creative potential. Florida (2005) demonstrated that big cities are better places for the development of creativity mainly because of higher level of talent, technology, and tolerance observed there. Biographical study of highly creative people developed by Nalaskowski (1998) provides contrary results, suggesting that a small town is the most fruitful place for creative functioning. Nalaskowski argues that a village may be harmful because of a high level of control, but the problem of a big city lies in its high level of anonymity. In his conception, a small town guarantees the best balance between safety (typical for the village) and freedom (typical for a big city). Of course place is not only a geographical area, but also a source of social ties, with a higher possible number of weak ties in a big city and a lower number of weak ties (and probably a higher number of strong ties) in villages. According to Granovetter (1973), weak ties may result in more novel, diverse, and thus creative solutions. This assumption was confirmed in several studies. Perry-Smith (2006) found positive relations between creativity and the weak ties. Similarly, Zhou, Shin, Brass, Choi, and Zhang (2009) found curvilinear relations (inverted U shape) between the number of weak ties and creativity, and the moderating role of an individual’s conformity. In a study of information system developers, Yang and Cheng (2009) found that creative self-efficacy was significantly predicted by computer self-efficacy, domain-specific IT skills, but also such social factors as strength of ties and degree centrality (with a negative value). The issue of the relationship between locality size and creative self-efficacy was treated as exploratory, as locality size may only be treated as an indirect measure of social ties.

Overall Research Model The overall scheme of the present research may be found in Figure 1. 1 In 2009, 5 women were awarded which makes 38% of all 2009 laureates (men were awarded 8 prizes), so the proportion is changing, but still the ratio of men/women prizes is lower than 50%.

PREDICTORS OF CREATIVE SELF-EFFICACY

157

Figure 1. Overall research model.

Method Participants The sample consisted of 1,878 participants (N ⫽ 1,878): 930 males (49.5%) and 935 females (49.7%); 13 did not indicate their gender. Participants were high school (n ⫽ 706; 37.6%) and gymnasia2 (n ⫽ 1,172; 62.4%) students living in three different environments: villages and small towns (n ⫽ 418; 22.3%), medium towns (n ⫽ 620; 33%), and a large city (n ⫽ 840; 44.7%) in central Poland. Participants’ age was at 14 –18 years with M ⫽ 16.8 and SD ⫽ 1.2.

Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP) To evaluate the level of creativity, the Polish adaptation (Matczak, Jaworowska & Stanczak, 2000) of the Test for Creative ThinkingDrawing Production (TCT-DP) (Urban, 1996, 2004; Urban & Jellen, 1996) was applied. The TCT-DP is a drawing test developed to measure creative abilities and is based on a componential model of creativity by Urban (1996). It encompasses the following six groups of components: divergent thinking, general competences, specific knowledge and abilities, task-oriented engagement, as well as motives and tolerance of ambiguity. The subjects are asked to complete an unfinished, framed drawing that already includes six graphic elements. Validation studies presented in the manual to the Polish version of TCT-DP demonstrated its high validity and reliability (Matczak, Jaworowska, & Stanczak, 2000). In the Polish version of this test, one single score is used and treated as an indicator of creative abilities.

Self-Reported Originality (SRO) Nine items measured on a 5-point (definitely not— definitely yes) Likert-type scale were applied to assess students’ self-

reported originality. Sample items for this scale were: (a) I always think about new solutions of the problem, (b) I prefer to create new solutions than respect older ones, (c) I have fresh perspectives in resolving old problems. The scale was factor analyzed, showing a one-factor solution with 40% explained variance. Coefficient alpha for the scale was estimated at .72.

Creative Self-Efficacy (CSE) As in previous studies on creative self-efficacy (Beghetto, 2006; Tierney & Palmer, 2002) CSE was measured with the use of a short adjective scale. Three items measured on a 5-point (definitely not— definitely yes) Likert-type scale were applied to assess students’ creative self-efficacy (␣ ⫽ .78). The items were (a) “I think I am creative”, (b) “I would describe myself as a talented person”, (c) “I am gifted enough to manage problems”. Intercorrelations among items were between moderate and strong, and statistically significant: rab(1843) ⫽ .44, p ⬍ .001; rac(1843) ⫽ .47, p ⬍ .001; rbc(1843) ⫽ .71, p ⬍ .001.

Socioeconomic Status (SES) Parents’ educational level was an indicator of their socioeconomic status. A student’s mother’s and father’s educational level was coded on a four-point scale (1 – elementary, 2 – vocational, 3 – high school, 4 – college/university) and then summed. The reliability of this scale was satisfactory (␣ ⫽ .73).

Locality Size Participants lived in 19 different towns and cities with the number of inhabitants which ranged from 2,000 to 1.7 million. 2 In Polish educational system, a gymnasium is a 3-year obligatory school, after elementary and before high school. It is similar to middle schools in the United States.

KARWOWSKI

158

About half of all participants lived in Warsaw—the capital of Poland with 1.7 million inhabitants. The number of inhabitants was averaged, resulting in a skewed distribution with M ⫽ 776,153 and SD ⫽ 831,402, and therefore the data were log-transformed to create a more useful variable in multivariate analyses (see Table 1).

Procedure The paper-and-pencil tests were completed individually in a group administration session (around 15–20 people at a time), lasting approximately 45 min each. The timed test (TCT-DP) was administered first, and participants were subsequently allowed to complete the remainder of the tests at their own pace. Any further questions were attended to during the session.

Design According to hypotheses H2a and H3a, contextual factors moderate the relationship between criterion variables (TCT-DP and originality) and creative self-efficacy. To verify those hypotheses a two-step procedure was conducted. First, cross-product interactions were introduced in a separate step within the hierarchical regression analyses. Second, the results of the first step of the regression analysis (with two criteria as predictors) were saved as a standardized value and then, derived from creative self-efficacy score, standardized to scale z. Scores below 0 indicate underestimations of an individual’s creative self-efficacy, whereas scores higher than 0 show overestimations. This index was used as a dependent variable in ANOVA with gender, socioeconomic status, and locality size as factors. In the last step, potential problems with common method variance were emphasized and verified basing on the procedure recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003).

Results Scale reliabilities, descriptive statistics, and intercorrelations among variables of the study are presented in Table 1. Almost all correlations are significant; scales are characterized by acceptable reliabilities ranging from ␣ ⫽ .72 (self-reported originality) to ␣ ⫽ .78 (creative self-efficacy). Creative self-efficacy was significantly and positively correlated with creative abilities measured by TCT-DP (confirming H1a) and self-reported originality, hence confirming H1b. Significant corre-

lations between socioeconomic status and creative self-efficacy confirm H3. The correlations presented in Table 1 allow not only to confirm the hypotheses, but also to show relations among creativity measures, and between creativity measures and social factors. It may be observed that although significant, the relations between the two creativity measures (TCT-DP and SRO) are weak, which indicates their relative independence. Creativity is significantly correlated with family SES, indicating not only higher creative self-efficacy among students with higher SES, but also higher level of creative abilities as measured by TCT-DP and originality. To explore the hypothesized relationships, hierarchical regression analysis was performed. To avoid problems of multicollinearity, the predictor variables were centered before calculating crossproduct terms (Aiken & West, 1991). The Variance Inflation Factors for all variables were below 1.7, with the exception of a number of inhabitants, the squared term of the variable and the terms of interaction. However, in these cases multicollinearity was an effect of the creation of the polynomial and interaction term, not of high correlations between different main effect variables. It is therefore usually argued that there is no problem in the interpretation of the regression results (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Neter, Kutner, Nachtsheim, & Wasserman, 1996). Predictors were introduced into the model in five separate steps, coherent with the hypotheses. In the first block, creativity-level variables (TCT-DP and SRO) were introduced. In the second step three contextual variables were introduced: gender, socioeconomic status, and the number of inhabitants. The third step consisted of a squared number of inhabitants to assess potential curvilinear relations with creative self-efficacy. In the fourth step interactive products were introduced in accordance with H2a and H3a. The last block verified the possible interactions between analyzed contextual factors, and hence the “gender ⫻ SES” interaction was introduced. Table 2 summarizes the results. To guard against potentially unstable regression coefficients caused by multicollinearity, the interpretation of ⌬R2 associated with a particular step at which a term testing certain hypothesis was entered is emphasized instead of an interpretation of the regression coefficients obtained at the final step of the regression analysis (e.g., Cohen et al., 2003; Pedhazur, 1982). The two predictors included in the first block explain 12% of the creative self-efficacy variance, being both positive and statistically

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Between Variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CSE TCT-DP SRO SES INHAB

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

11.19 20.89 3.67 6.28 11.88

2.47 10.20 .56 1.54 2.35

(.78)

.15ⴱⴱⴱ (.75)

.32ⴱⴱⴱ .05ⴱ (.72)

.27ⴱⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱⴱ (.73)

.16ⴱⴱⴱ .03 .10ⴱⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱⴱ (—)

Note. Cronbach’s ␣ on the diagonal. CSE ⫽ Creative Self-Efficacy; TCT-DP ⫽ Test of Creative ThinkingDrawing Production; SRO ⫽ Self-Reported Originality; SES ⫽ Socioeconomic Status; INHAB ⫽ The number of inhabitants (log transformed). ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .0001.

PREDICTORS OF CREATIVE SELF-EFFICACY

159

Table 2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Creative Self-Efficacy Hypothesis Step 1: Criteria of creative self-efficacy TCT-DP SRO Step 2: Context Variables Gender SES Inhabitants Step 3: Testing curvilinear relationship with number of inhabitants Inhabitants Inhabitants2 Step 4: Interactions TCT-DP ⫻ SES SES ⫻ SRO TCT-DP ⫻ Gender Gender ⫻ SRO Step 5: Interactions between contextual factors Gender ⫻ SES

␤

R2

⌬R2

1a 1b

.14ⴱⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱⴱ

.121ⴱⴱⴱ

.12ⴱⴱⴱ

2 3 —

⫺.06ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱ

.170ⴱⴱⴱ

.049ⴱⴱⴱ

— —

⫺1.09ⴱⴱⴱ 1.16ⴱⴱⴱ

.175ⴱⴱⴱ

.005ⴱⴱ

2a1 2a2 3a1 3a2

.05ⴱ .05 ⫺.02 .07ⴱ

.182ⴱⴱⴱ

.007ⴱⴱ

—

⫺.25ⴱⴱ

.185ⴱⴱⴱ

.003ⴱⴱ

Note. TCT-DP ⫽ Test of Creative Thinking Drawing Production; SRO ⫽ Self-Reported Originality; SES ⫽ Socioeconomic Status; INHAB ⫽ the number of inhabitants (log transformed); Gender ⫽ coded 0: male; 1: female. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .0001.

significant. Standardized weight of originality was twice higher than that of TCT-DP. As those predictors were weakly correlated, regression result indicates that each of them explains CSE variance beyond the other criterion. This finding supports H1; the relations are significant and positive, but of medium effect. Gender and socioeconomic status along with locality size improved the model by another 5% of the explained variance, with the strongest relations of CSE observed in case of status. Hence two further hypotheses (H2 and H3) were also confirmed. Locality size was significantly related to creative self-efficacy, but in the next step a squared term was also introduced to verify potential

curvilinear relations. The curvilinear relationships were confirmed, revealing a U-shape relationship. Creative self-efficacy was at the highest level among big city inhabitants, and at the lowest among those participants who lived in towns. Village inhabitants were characterized by medium level of creative self-efficacy (see Figure 2). The next step (including interactions) shows a significant change in R2 with two significant cross-products: interaction between creative abilities measured by TCT-DP and SES, as well as between gender and self-reported originality. The interactive term of gender and self-reported originality (expected in H2a) was analyzed by two separate regression models; in each of them CSE

0.3

Creative self-efficacy (z-scored)

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3 Vill ages

Medium Towns

Bi g Cities

Size of place of living

Figure 2.

Curvilinear relationship between locality size and creative self-efficacy.

160

KARWOWSKI

was predicted by self-reported originality separately among males and females. In the case of females, the percentage of creative self-efficacy variance explained by self-reported originality was twice higher than in the case of males (R2 ⫽ .15 and R2 ⫽ .074, respectively). As expected (H3a1), SES significantly moderated the relationship between creative abilities and creative self-efficacy, but it did not do so in case of originality, hence rejecting H3b. To better understand the nature of the effects, further analyses were conducted, as suggested by Aiken and West (1991). As shown in Figure 3, the relationship between creative abilities and creative self-efficacy was stronger for students with high SES (1 SD above mean) than in case of their low SES peers. More detailed analyses showed that the slopes were significant only in case of high (b ⫽ .04, SE ⫽ .007, p ⬍ .001) and medium SES (b ⫽ .003, SE ⫽ .006, p ⬍ .001); in the case of students with low socioeconomic status, their creative self-efficacy was not significantly predicted by creative abilities (b ⫽ .01, SE ⫽ .008, p ⫽ .07). Results from separate steps in regression analyses allow answering three types of questions. The first step showed how strongly self-ratings of creative self-efficacy are connected with creative abilities and self-rated originality. The next two steps showed possible antecedents of creative self-efficacy, hence making it possible to answer the question of how gender, socioeconomic status, and number of inhabitants in a locality are connected with CSE. Although the effects are small ⌬’s R2 they are nevertheless significant, indicating that males perceive their CSE as higher than females, that CSE increases along with socioeconomic status, and that it is related to locality size in a curvilinear pattern. Interactive terms introduced in the last step make possible a closer look at the predictors of CSE. Significant cross-product effects in case of the interaction of TCT-DP and socioeconomic status indicate higher correlations between creative abilities creative self-efficacy among participants from families with higher status (see Figure 4). Moreover, a significant interaction between originality and gender suggests that in the case of women, originality is a better predictor of CSE than among men.

Figure 3. Interaction of socioeconomic status and creative abilities on creative self-efficacy.

Figure 4. Interaction of socioeconomic status and gender on creative self-efficacy.

The last significant interaction between gender and SES shows different profiles of creative self-efficacy among genders with different socioeconomic status. To estimate the level of the accuracy of creative self-efficacy and its direction (underestimation, accuracy, or overestimation) the index described in design section was used. The constructed index ranged from z ⫽ ⫺4.94 to z ⫽ 5.35 with M ⫽ 0 and SD ⫽ 1. Scores below 0 indicate underestimations of an individual’s creative self-efficacy, whereas scores higher than 0 show overestimations. Males and females differed significantly (M ⫽ .14, SD ⫽ 1.26 and M ⫽ ⫺.13, SD ⫽ 1.04, respectively, t[1832] ⫽ 4.94, p ⬍ .001; Cohen’s d ⫽ .23, 95%CI: .14 –.32). The direction of means initially confirms H2a, but in order to verify it more carefully, scores of both males and females were compared against a theoretical mean of 0 using single-sample t test. For males, the difference was significant (t[909] ⫽ 3.28; p ⬍ .001; d ⫽ .11, 95% CI: .04 –.17), and so it was for females (t[923] ⫽ ⫺3.78; p ⬍ .0001; d ⫽ ⫺.12, 95% CI: ⫺.19- ⫺.06). Those results fully confirm H2a; hence revealing that males overestimate their creative self-efficacy and females underestimate it. The effects in both cases are very similar and very weak. ANOVA also indicated a significant main effect of socioeconomic status when dichotomized into low and high values (F[1, 1731] ⫽ 5.82; p ⫽ .02; eta2 ⫽ .003) with low SES Participants M ⫽ ⫺.15, SD ⫽ 1.21 and high SES M ⫽ .04, SD ⫽ 1.12. Although those two groups differed significantly, they were compared against the theoretical mean equal to 0 with the use of t test. It was demonstrated that low SES subjects underestimated their creative self-efficacy (t[270] ⫽ ⫺2.13; p ⫽ .03; d ⫽ ⫺.13, 95%CI: ⫺.25- ⫺.01), and high SES participants were quite accurate (t[1470] ⫽ 1.44; p ⫽ .15). Interaction of gender and SES was also significant (F[1, 1731] ⫽ 5.67; p ⫽ .02; eta2 ⫽ .003). Profiles of means are presented in Figure 5. Males with high SES overestimated their creative self-efficacy (t[720] ⫽ 4.62; p ⫽ .001; d ⫽ .17, 95% CI: .10 –.25). Selfevaluated creative self-efficacy of males from low socioeconomic status families was close to their creative abilities and self-rated originality. Women underestimated their CSE in case of both low

PREDICTORS OF CREATIVE SELF-EFFICACY

Figure 5. efficacy.

Effects of gender and socioeconomic status on creative self-

and high SES (t[135] ⫽ ⫺2.25; p ⫽ .03; d ⫽ ⫺.19, 95% CI: ⫺.36 –⫺.03 and t[739] ⫽ ⫺2.78; p ⫽ .006; d ⫽ ⫺.10, 95% CI: ⫺.17–⫺.04, respectively). Although those differences were significant, the effect size was weak in all cases.

Assessment of the Common Method Variance Because creative self-efficacy and self-reported originality were assessed by self-descriptions, there exists a potential risk of common method variance. To avoid this problem, the procedure proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was applied. Two confirmatory factor models were created and compared. The items for creative self-efficacy and self-reported originality scales were averaged to create single indicators for each latent variable, and then the latent-to-manifest parameter for each variable was fixed to one. The value of one minus reliability, multiplied by the variable’s variance was used as an error variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). According to Harmon’s one-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003), evidence that common method variance does not account for the observed relationships would be provided if a two-factor model representing each variable as a separate construct was superior to a one-factor model. The hypothesized measurement model fit the data better than its alternative (GFI ⫽ .95 and .76, respectively)3; hence indicating that the common method effects are not a likely contaminant of the results observed in this investigation.

Discussion This study contributes to our understanding of the determinants of creative self-efficacy for minimum three reasons. First, it incorporates contextual factors which are connected with creative self-efficacy—namely gender, socioeconomic status, and locality size. Second, it demonstrates different patterns of creative selfefficacy among males and females as well as among different socioeconomic groups. Third, it brings results from a culture different from the North American perspective, but at the same time showing very similar pattern of relationships as in other European studies (Batey & Furnham, 2008).

161

The hypotheses in this study were partially supported. The level of students’ creative abilities and their originality became statistically significant and positive predictors of creative self-efficacy, but taken together, those two unrelated criteria explained only 12% of the creative self-efficacy variance. Therefore, there are still students with creative abilities or high levels of originality who do not perceive themselves as creative. There are also those who describe themselves as creatively efficient while actually being weakly creative thinkers. Those findings support the assumptions that creative self-efficacy is only partially connected with psychometrically measured creative abilities and self-rated originality and should not be treated as the main indicator of creative abilities. The question of the possible antecedents of creative selfefficacy was explored in consideration with the following three individual and social factors: gender, socioeconomic status, and locality size. It was demonstrated that women’s self-evaluations of creative self-efficacy were more strongly connected to originality than in the case of men. More detailed comparisons showed that males tend to overestimate their creative self-efficacy. In turn, females tend to underestimate it. This result is in line with the findings from previous studies of gender differences in creativity (Abra & Valentine-French, 1991; Baer & Kaufman, 2008) and suggests that although there are no differences in creative potential among males and females, differences in self-perception do exist. Further explorations showed that the accuracy of creative self-efficacy depends on both gender and socioeconomic status, with the only group which significantly overestimated their creative selfefficacy being males from families characterized by high socioeconomic status. This interactive effect may indicate an important role played by social stratification and culture capital of the family in developing creative self-efficacy, and possibly also in creative role-identity (Jaussi et al., 2007), self-rated creativity (Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008) and in high values toward self-direction (Schwartz, 1994). The assumed role of socioeconomic status was hypothesized on the basis of the findings of Beghetto (2006). Despite the fact that the study was conducted in a different culture and with the use of different methods, the pattern of relationships is coherent. This result is in line with studies of sociologists who explore the questions of the relations between SES and socialization practices as well as parental values. The large body of research of Kohn (1969) and his colleagues, also developed across cultures (Kohn & Slomczynski, 2006), as well as the studies of Alwin (1988, 1990) all suggest that the location on social stratification strongly influences the values and traits perceived as important for the child. The Polish study of Karwowski (2004) showed that the importance of creativity as a precious trait for the child is highly explained by parent education level. More educated parents develop different micromilieus in their homes, improving child self-perception as creative, and so they positively influence their child’s (children’s) creative self-efficacy. Socioeconomic status was also found to be an important moderator of the relationships between creative abilities and creative self-efficacy. This result may be interpreted in two different ways. First, it shows that creative abilities are significantly stronger connected with creative self-efficacy among 3

Detailed data are available upon request from the author.

KARWOWSKI

162

students from families with high and medium SES than from those with low SES. The second way is more important for educators and social policy, as it was found that students from low SES families do not perceive themselves to be creative even if they are characterized by high creative abilities. As an effect, their chance to fulfill their creative potential decreases. Regarding the exploratory research question about the role of locality size in creative self-efficacy, results indicate that creative self-efficacy was connected with locality size, and the shape of the relationship was curvilinear. The level of creative self-efficacy declined along with locality size, and then it increased, revealing the highest levels of CSE among youth who live in big cities. The lowest creative self-efficacy was noted among participants from midsized towns.4 Locality size may be described and analyzed in many different ways: as a source of specific ties; as an epiphenomenon of socioeconomic status; as a generator of autonomy versus control; or as a root of different values. When compared to a big city, a small village functions differently; it is built on different values and norms and its inhabitants are bound by different social ties. Drawing upon the findings of Zhou et al. (2009) and the theory of Grannonvetter (1973), it was assumed that the large number of weak ties which is characteristic of big cities rather than small towns will be positively related to creative self-efficacy.

Limitations As any empirical research, this study has obvious limitations. First and most important of them is the form of conducted research and formulated conclusions. Because the study was crosssectional, the possibility of reverse causality exists. Longitudinal and experimental studies should incorporate designs to account for reciprocal causality. The second limitation is connected with applied measures. These instruments may raise doubts for three reasons. First, there are visible limitations of criterion measures used in this study. Although creative abilities and self-rated creativity seem to be right criterion variables to estimate creative self-efficacy, other measures, including product evaluations (Amabile, 1982) and biographical inventories (Batey & Furnham, 2008) should be used to confirm findings of this study. Second, two of three instruments (measures of creative self-efficacy and self-rated originality) have been developed only recently and are still extensively studied in validation research. Although reliabilities of the instruments were adequate, future investigations are needed. The third problem— also rightly identified by Beghetto in his study (2006) – calls for more elaborate scales for measuring creative self-efficacy. The scale used in this study was reliable, yet it was composed of only three items. In the future, longer scales are welcome to be developed (Karwowski, 2010).

Implications and Further Research This study also opens some areas for future research of creative self-efficacy. At least three seem to be of special importance. First, relations between socioeconomic status and creative self-efficacy need further and more detailed studies. In the presented research, SES was treated as one of the possible antecedents of creative self-efficacy and measured roughly as a sum of parents’ education

levels. Future studies should explore the more subjective elements of the family world which may influence creative self-efficacy. Especially fruitful may be an analysis of parental attitudes toward their children. There are classic works on families of creative people; they also use methods of measuring parent– child relations (MacKinnon, 1962). The second area of future studies not explored here but important as Beghetto (2006) rightly noted is the problem of teachers’ influence on the development of students’ creative self-efficacy. It may be hypothesized that certain teachers’ behaviors, such as those connected with transformative leadership (Jung, 2000 –2001), will influence students’ creative self-efficacy. Such possible mediators of this relationship as school and class climate or students’ intrinsic motivation should be studied. This study revealed a significant role played by contextual factors, namely gender, socioeconomic status, and locality size; but the problem still needs explorations in the future. The relationship between creative self-efficacy and locality size needs to be studied carefully, with stress on three separate problems. The first is the number and strengths of social ties in the locality. The second is the deepened description of the mechanisms of control and anonymity between small towns and big cities, as well as a search for reasons for different levels of CSE among such factors. The third is the analysis of specific values and attitudes toward child rearing as well as creativity among inhabitants of small towns and big cities. Looking from the theoretical standpoint, future studies should make it possible to make a more clear distinction between creative self-efficacy, self-rated creativity and creative self-identity. Although correlated, those concepts seem to be relatively distinct and separate. Reliable and valid methods of studying these overlapping phenomena are of special importance for future studies (Karwowski, 2010).

4

This finding may appear contrary to the results of Nalaskowski (1998). However, it is worth to mention that in his study creative abilities were measured instead of the CSE. Curvilinear relationship between locality size and creative self-efficacy tells little about actual creative abilities of youths from different environments. Rather, it informs about their self-perception. However, additional analyses omitted here and available upon request showed that the relations between creative abilities and locality size were weak and of different nature than may be expected basing on Nalaskowski’s (1998) research. The relationship between locality size and standardized regression-predicted value was curvilinear with the highest creativity in big cities and lowest in midsized towns. Villages fell in between these two categories.

References Abra, J. C., & Valentine-French, S. (1991). Gender differences in creative achievement: A survey of explanations. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 117, 233–284. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (2001). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Alwin, D. F. (1988). From obedience to autonomy. Changes in traits desired in children, 1924 –1978. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 33–52. Alwin, D. F. (1990). Cohort replacement and changes in parental socialization values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 347–360. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual

PREDICTORS OF CREATIVE SELF-EFFICACY assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. New York: Westview. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411– 423. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75–105. Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., Jacobson, G. C., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2008). The personality composition of teams and creativity: The moderating role of team creative confidence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 255–282. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2008). The relationship between measures of creativity and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 816 – 821. Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 447– 457. Bourdieu, P. (1999). Scattered remarks. European Journal of Social Theory, 2, 334 –341. Bruininks, R. H., & Feldman, D. H. (1970). Creativity, intelligence and achievement among disadvantaged children. Psychology in the Schools, 7, 260 –264. Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 187–199. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Davis, G. A. (1986). Creativity is forever. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Dudek, S. Z., Strobel, M., & Runco, M. A. (1994a). Cumulative and proximal influences of the social environment on creative potential. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 487– 499. Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147–178. Farmer, S. M., & Tierney, P. (2007). Leader behavior, creativity, and the creative self-concept. Paper for the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York City, 2007. Florida, R. (2005). The flight of the creative class. The new global competition for talent. New York: Harper Business. Furnham, A. (1997). Knowing and faking one’s five-factor personality scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 229 –243. Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 613– 617. Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1060 –1069. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1360 –1380. Gray, J. (1972). Self-rating and Eysenck Personality Inventory estimates of neuroticism and extraversion. Psychological Reports, 30, 213–214. Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 450 – 460. Jaussi, K. B., Randel, A. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2007). I am, I think, and I do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and cross-applications of experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 247–258. Jung, D. G. (2000 –2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 185–195. Karwowski, M. (2004). Dzieci two´rcze czy konformistyczne? Wartos´ci

163

wychowawcze Polako´w 1992–2002. [Creative or conformist children? Poles socialization values 1992–2002]. Ruch Pedagogiczny, 5– 6, 23– 43. Karwowski, M. (2009). I’m creative, but am I Creative? Similarities and differences between self-evaluated small and Big C creativity in Poland. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 19, 7–26. Karwowski, M. (2010, July). Measuring Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Self-Identity. Paper presented at 12th European Council for High Ability Conference, Paris, July 7th, 2010. Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by gender and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1065–1082. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12. Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons. Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators. A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622– 629. Kohn, M. L. (1969). Class and conformity: A study of values. Homewood: Dorey Press. Kohn, M. L. (1976). Social class and parental values: Another confirmation of the relationship. American Sociological Review, 41, 538 –545. Kohn, M. L. (2006). Change and stability. A cross-national analysis of social structure and personality. Boulder, London: Paradigm Publishers. Kohn, M. L., & Slomczynski, K. M. (2006). Social structure and selfdirection. Warsaw: IFiS Publishers. MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17, 484 – 495. Matczak, A., Jaworowska, A., & Stanczak, J. (2000). TCT-DP: Rysunkowy Test Tworczego Myslenia K. K. Urbana i H. G. Jellena. Podrecznik. [TCT-DP: Test of Creative Thinking Drawing Production: Manual]. Warsaw: Pracownia Testow Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego. Mathisen, G. E., & Bronnick, K. S. (2009). Creative self-efficacy: An intervention study. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 21–29. Nalaskowski, A. (1998). Spoleczne Uwarunkowania Two´rczego Rozwoju Jednostki. [Social determinants of individual creative development] Warszawa: WSiP. Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical methods. Chicago: Irwin. Odom, R. D. (1967). Problem solving strategies as a function of age and socioeconomic level. Child Development, 38, 753–764. O’Hara, L. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (2000 –2001). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Effects of instructions to be creative, practical, or analytical on essaywriting performance and their interactions with students’ thinking styles. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 197–210. Paulhus, D. L., Lysy, D. C., & Yik, M. S. M. (1998). Self-report measures of intelligence. Are they useful as proxy IQ tests? Journal of Personality, 66, 525–554. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85–101. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologist? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879 –903. Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 317–324.

164

KARWOWSKI

Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Theories and themes. San Diego: Academic Press. Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 393– 400. Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Explaining creativity. The science of human innovation. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19 – 45. Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A. (2009). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lowerorder, higher-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1087–1090. Tan, A.-G., Ho, V., Ho, E., & Ow, S. (2008). High school students’ perceived creativity self-efficacy and emotions in a service learning context. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 18, 115–126. Tierney, P. (1997). The influence of cognitive climate on job satisfaction and creative efficacy. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 831– 847. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148. Tierney, P., & Palmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30, 413– 432. Torrance, E. P. (1998). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking NormsTechnical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center of the Gifted and Talented. Urban, K. K. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP) by Klaus K. Urban & Hans G. Jellen [Manual]. Frankfurt: Swets and Zeitlinger. Urban, K. K. (2004). Assessing creativity: The Test for Creative Thinking– Drawing Production (TCT–DP): The concept, application, evaluation, and international studies. Psychology Science, 46, 387–397. Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 47– 415. Yang, H.-L., & Cheng, H.-H. (2009). Creative self-efficacy and its factors: An empirical study of information system analysts and programmers. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 429 – 438. Zampetakis, L., Bouranta, N., & Moustakis, V. S. (2010). On the relationship between individual creativity and time management. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5, 23–32. Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., Brass, D. J., Choi, J., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Social networks, personal values, and creativity: Evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1544 –1552.

Received August 5, 2009 Revision received July 22, 2010 Accepted July 26, 2010 䡲

Online First Publication APA-published journal articles are now available Online First in the PsycARTICLES database. Electronic versions of journal articles will be accessible prior to the print publication, expediting access to the latest peer-reviewed research. All PsycARTICLES institutional customers, individual APA PsycNET威 database package subscribers, and individual journal subscribers may now search these records as an added benefit. Online First Publication (OFP) records can be released within as little as 30 days of acceptance and transfer into production, and are marked to indicate the posting status, allowing researchers to quickly and easily discover the latest literature. OFP articles will be the version of record; the articles have gone through the full production cycle except for assignment to an issue and pagination. After a journal issue’s print publication, OFP records will be replaced with the final published article to reflect the final status and bibliographic information.