The main challenge for creativity education is to improve practice of whom lack overall engagement in creative activities. Understanding which process is comfortable for such persons will be essential for designing a universal creativity education. A quantitative survey was conducted to construct zoom-in models on the relation between individual traits and CPE (creative process engagement).
This paper proposes models regarding the relation between individual trait and CPE (creative process engagement). Creativity education uniformly promotes enthusiastic and outgoing attitudes, such as active fieldwork for information gathering, flexible brainstorming, and intensive collaboration with individuals from different disciplines. However, these trainings may primarily benefit individuals who are naturally inclined towards such activities, leading to a tautological outcome that "a creatively gifted person is inherently creative." The funda-mental mission of such education should be to enhance the creativity of individuals facing greater challenges.
Recognizing this issue, we must begin by understanding which traits of individuals are
associated with their original engagement in each stage of the creative process: namely,
problem identification, information searching and encoding, and idea generation [
2.1. CPE
CPE was initially defined and measured as a latent variable with a positive effect on
individuals’ creativity [
Among the Big Five traits, the positive effect of Openness towards CPE as an integrated
variable with the original three steps of the creative process has been clearly examined [
H1: Openness has a positive impact on engagement in every stage of the creative process.
Conscientiousness is expected to affect certain stages of the creative process that require patience. The dual pathway to creativity model was proposed from a plenty of research reviewing, suggesting that creativity outcomes are achieved through two different cognitive styles: flexibility or persistence [9]. Within the five stages of the creative process, information searching (and encoding) and idea selection are considered to require patience compared to the other tasks, as immediate results may not be apparent. Individuals high in consciousness, who can work diligently and patiently over the long term, are likely to engage in information searching (and encoding) and idea selection, which require time for outcomes to materialize.
H2: Conscientiousness has a positive impact on engagement in information searching (and encoding) and idea selection.
The last step of the creative process, idea execution, would be an activity at which extraverted individuals excel. Their outgoing and sociable personalities make them wellsuited for activities that involve persuading and engaging others to bring selected ideas to fruition.
H3: Extraversion has a positive impact on engagement in idea execution.
In addition to Big Five traits, we focus on the relation between regulatory focus [10] and engagement in each step of the creative process. Individuals with a promotion focus are said to possess high adaptability and are associated with high levels of creativity [11] [12]. Similarly to openness, individuals with promotion focus, who pursue positive outcomes to achieve their goals, are likely to engage in all steps of the creative process from the outset.
H4: Promotion focus has a positive impact on engagement in every step of the creative process.
Traditionally, prevention focus has been understood as inhibiting creativity in contrast to promotion focus. However, nowadays, there is growing recognition of a relationship between prevention focus and creativity [13]. Individuals with a prevention focus, who aim to avoid uncertainty, must engage partially in activities to mitigate risk. In this perspective, information searching (and encoding) and idea selection are steps aimed at reducing the risk of idea failure. By consulting a wide range of existing information, preventing the emergence of stale ideas, and carefully selecting ideas, this process contributes to increasing the survival rate of ideas.
H5: Prevention focus has a positive impact on engagement in information search-ing (and encoding) and idea selection.
From a Japanese traditional imaging and electronics company, a total of 109 samples were collected from the employees involved in R&D for this survey. We utilized a web-based anonymous survey tool to collect data to uncover participants’ true feelings. To reveal which stage of the creative process individuals inherently engage with, participants were asked to respond to questions regarding their engagements in current projects.
Five observed variables were used to measure individuals’ Creative Process Engagement
(CPE): problem identification, information searching (and encoding), idea generation, idea
selection, and idea execution. An 11-item scale to measure the former three variables was
adapted from [
A 29-item scale to measure Big Five traits (Extraversion/ Conscientiousness/ Neuroticism/ Openness/ Agreeableness) was adopted from [14]. Respondents answered on a five-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Regulatory focus (Promotion focus, Prevention focus) was measured with a 10-item scale developed by [15]. Respondents answered on a seven-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
The relationship between each creative process and individual traits was examined through structural equation modeling (SEM). The structural modeling results concerning the Big Five traits suggested that the hypothesized motel in Figure 1 fit the data well (χ2/df= .627, CFI= 1.000, GFI= .986, AGFI= .933, RMSEA= .000). Hypothesis 1 states that openness has a positive impact on engagements of every step of the creative process. Our results supported this view (problem identification; β= .45, p < .01, information searching and encoding; β= .25, p < .01, idea generation; β= .57, p < .01, idea selection; β= .38, p < .01, idea execution; β= .41, p < .01). Hypothesis 2, which suggests that conscientiousness is positively related to engagements in information searching (and encoding) and idea selection, was also supported (information searching and encoding; β= .16, p < .05, idea selection; β= .15, p < .05). Hypothesis 3, which states that extraversion is positively related to idea execution, received support as well (β= .15, p < .05).
Structural modeling results regarding regulatory focuses also suggested that the hypothesized motel in Figure 2 fit the data well (χ2/df= .905, CFI= 1.000, GFI= .986, AGFI= .933, RMSEA= .000). The results support Hypothesis 4, indicating that promotion focus is positively related to engagements in each of the five steps of the creative process (problem identification; β= .53, p < .01, information searching and encoding; β= .43, p < .01, idea generation; β= .57, p < .01, idea selection; β= .41, p < .01, idea execution; β= .55, p < .01). Additionally, Hypothesis 5 pre-diction that prevention focus is positively related to engagements in information searching (and encoding) and idea selection is supported as well (information searching and encoding; β= .19, p < .05, idea selection; β= .20, p < .05).
Our results show differences in the original engagement with each step constituting the creative process due to individual traits. Openness and promotion focus have positive influences on all steps, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and prevention focus were found to have positive effects on only some steps. It suggests that in creativity education, the focus should not solely be on individuals who already possess high levels of openness or promotion focus and are highly engaged throughout all stages. Instead, it should also cater to those who may initially have partial engagement, providing them with opportunities for receiving recognition and ultimately fostering engagement across all stages of the creative process.
A hint for designing such educational methods lies in the differences in nature between three steps constituting the problem identification, idea generation, and idea execution, and the two steps of information searching (and encoding) and idea selection within the creative process. The former three steps tend to attract attention and offer immediate gratification as they involve proposing ideas where recognition and praise from peers can be readily obtained. Conversely, the latter two steps may not receive immediate acknowledgment as their outcomes are not immediately recognized. Information searching (and encoding) serves as preparation for idea generation and may not directly contribute to generating good ideas at the time, as well as idea selection involves assessing whether chosen ideas will succeed, which takes time. Thus, although essential for mitigating the risk of idea failure, these steps are perceived as activities requiring time and patience.
In creativity education, it is necessary to allocate time not only for engaging in activities such as problem identification and idea generation, which are easy to tackle and exciting without prior preparation but also for input through information searching (and encoding) and emphasis on methods for idea selection as preparatory steps. By providing opportunities for individuals with inherently high engagement, such as those with high conscientiousness or prevention focus, to actively participate and be recognized in such tasks, they would approach other processes with confidence and understanding, ultimately enhancing overall creative process engagement.
In conclusion, this study uniquely explicates the zoom-in models of relationship between individual traits and each step of the creative process which have got lumped together and interpreted as one factor in previous studies. Those models can provide an understanding of individuals’ inherent engagement with each task, serving as a premise for designing universal creativity education that can potentially yield training effects for everyone.
two ways: [7] Cropley, A., In Praise of Convergent Thinking, Creativity Research Journal, vol. 28, no.
3, (2006) 391-404. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13 [8] Howell, J. M., Shea C. M., Higgins, C. A., Champions of product innovations: defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 20 (2005) 641-661. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.06.001 [9] Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. F., Baas, M., The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence, European Review of Social Psychology, vol.21, no.1 (2010) 34-77. doi: 10.1080/10463281003765323 [10] Higgins, E. T., Beyond pleasure and pain, American Psychologist, No.52, Issue 12 (1997) 1280-1300. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280 [11] Friedman R. S., Förster, J. The Effects of Promotion and Prevention Cues on Creativity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 81, Issue 6 (2001) 1001-1013. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.6.1001 [12] Baas, M., Dreu K. W. C. De, Nijstad, B. A., A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 134, no. 6 (2008) 779-806. doi: 10.1037/a0012815 [13] Petrou, P., Baas M., Roskes, M., From prevention focus to adaptivity and creativity: the role of unfulfilled goals and work engagement, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 29, no. 1 (2010) 36-48. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2019.1693366 [14] Namikawa, T., Tani, I., Wakita, T., Kumagai, R., Nakane A., Noguchi, H., Development of a short form of the Japanese Big- Five Scale, and a test of its reliability and validity, The Japanese Journal of Psychology, vol. 83, no. 2 (2012) 91-99. doi: 10.4992/jjpsy.83.91 [15] Haws, K. L., Dholakia U. M., Bearden, W. O., An Assessment of Chronic Regulatory Focus Measures, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.47, no. 5 (2010) 967-982. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.5.967