GENDER DIFFERENCES IN CREATIVITY AMONG STUDENTS IN PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

Katarina Sokić, Fayyaz Hussain Qureshi, Sarwar Khawaja

Abstract


The primary purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between openness to experience, creativity, creative behaviour, general creativity, and support for creative behaviour from academic staff (lecturers and professors) and by the environment among students in private higher education. The aim was to investigate the contribution of gender, support for creative behaviour from academics, and the environment in predicting different measures of creativity. Additionally, this study examined the structure of the creative behaviour self-assessment questionnaire. The openness to experience scale, creativity subscale, inventory of creative behaviours, creativity self-assessment questionnaire and assessment of incentives for creative behaviour by academics and the environment were tested on a sample of 346 students (54% female), who were randomly selected from different private higher education institutions (college and universities). Students with different majors participated (70% finance and law, 16% information technology and 14% web design). Consistent with our predictions, the 'openness to experience’ domain was positively related to the creativity facet, creativity behaviour and general creativity. As expected, the openness to experience domain and its creativity facet and creative behaviour and general creativity were associated with supporting creative behaviour by the environment in both males and females. However, contrary to our predictions, support for creative behaviour from academics was unrelated to openness to experience, creativity and general creativity in both males and females. In contrast, support for creative behaviour by academics was related to creative behaviour in females but not in males. Creative behaviour and general creativity were positively associated and supported creative behaviour by academics and the environment. Support for creative behaviour from the environment was positively associated with openness to experience, creativity, creative behaviour and general creativity, while gender only showed independent positive associations with creative behaviour. Gender, support for creative behaviour from academics and support for creative behaviour from the environment together accounted for 9% of the variance in openness to experience, 7% of the variance in creativity, 12% of the variance in creative behaviour and 13% of the variance in general creativity. The results highlight the importance of support for creative behaviour from the environment in explaining openness to experience, creativity, creative behaviour and general creativity. Furthermore, they show that gender is a significant predictor of creative behaviour. The results also provide further validation of the Inventory of Creative Behaviours and further delineate the nomological network of the creativity construct.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


creativity, gender differences, students, private higher education

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abraham, A. (2015). Gender and creativity: an overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 10(2), 609–618. doi:10.1007/s11682-015-9410-8

Acar, S., Tadik, H., Myers, D., van den Sman, C, Uysal, R. (2020). Creativity and well-being: A Meta analysis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(3), 738-751. doi:10.1002/jocb.485

Ai, X. (1999). Creativity and Academic Achievement: An Investigation of Gender Differences. Creativity Research Journal, 12:4, 329-337, doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1204_11

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer – Verlag.

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review,11, 150–166. doi:10.1177/1088868306294907

Averill, J. R., & Nunley, E. P. (1992). Voyages of the heart: Living an emotionally creative

life. New York: The Free Press

Babarović, T., & Šverko, I. (2013). The HEXACO personality domains in the Croatian sample. Društvena istraživanja, 3, 397-411. doi:10.5559/di.22.3.01

Barnes, B. R. (2007). Analyzing Service Quality: The Case of Post-graduate Chinese Students. Total Quality Management, 18(3), 313-331. doi:10.1080%2F14783360601152558

Barron, F. (1988). Putting creativity to work. U: R.J. Sternberg (Ur.), The nature of creativity:

Contemporary psychological perspectives (str. 76-98). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.

Batey, M. (2007). A psychometric investigation of everyday creativity. (Unpublished doctoral

theses). University College, London.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. (U M.A. Runco i R.S. Albert (Ur.) Theories of creativity (190-212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Chan, D. W. (2005). Self-perceived creativity, family hardiness, and emotional intelligence of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 47–56. doi:10.4219/jsge-2005-471

da Costa, S. Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Garaigordobil, M., Gondim, S. (2015). Personal factors of creativity: A second order meta-analysis. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(3), 165-173. doi:10.1016/j.rpto.2015.06.002

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.

Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creativity and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (2), 269–299. doi:10.1037/edu0000133

Gravetter, F. i Wallnau, L. (2014). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (8th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Guastello, S. J. (2009). Creativity and personality. U: T. Rickards, M. A. Runco i S. Moger (Ur.), Routledge companion to creativity (str. 256-266). Abington, England: Routledge.

Guilford, J. P. (1971). The nature of human intelligence. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga

Hayes. J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. U: J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning i C. R. Reynolds (Ur.), Handbook of creativity (str. 135-145). New York: Plenum Press.

He, W.- J., & Wong W.C. (2021). Gender Differences in the Distribution of Creativity Scores: Domain-Specific Patterns in Divergent Thinking and Creative Problem Solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 12:626911. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626911

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12. doi:10.1037/a0013688

Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by ethnicity and gender. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(8), 1065–1082. doi:10.1002/acp.1255.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8

Lin, W.-L., Chen, H.-C., Hsu, K.-Y. i Wang, J.-W. (2012). The relations of gender and personality traits on different creativities: A Dual-process theory account. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 6(2),112-123. doi:10.1037/a0026241

Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. U R. J. Sternberg, Thinking and Problem Solving (289-332). New York: Academic Press.

Ljubotina, D., Juničić, N., & Vlahović-Štetić, V. (2015). Samoprocjene kreativnosti kod srednjoškolaca. Psihologijske teme, 24 (3), 369-399.

Matud, M. P., Rodríguez, C., & Grande, J. (2007). Gender differences in creative thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1137– 1147. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.006

McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258-1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258

Min, S., Khoon, C. C, Tan, B. L. (2012). Motives, Expectations, Perceptions and Satisfaction of International Students Pursuing Private Higher Education in Singapore. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(6). doi:10.5539/ijms.v4n6p122

Qureshi, F. H. & Khawaja, S. (2021). The Growth of Private Higher Education: An Overview in the Context of Liberalisation, Privatisation and Marketisation. European Journal of Education Studies, 8 (9).

Runco, M. A. (2008). Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 93-96. doi: 10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.93

Runco, M. A., Dow, G., & Smith, W. R. (2006). Information, experience, divergent thinking: An empirical test. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 269-277.

Oleynick, V. C., DeYoung, C. G., Hyde, E., Kaufman, S. B., Beaty, R. E., & Silvia, P. J. (2017). Openness/intellect: The core of the creative personality. In G. J. Feist, R. Reiter-Palmon, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity and Personality Research (pp. 9-27). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316228036.002

Silvia, P. J., Kaufman, J. C., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Wigert, B. (2011). Cantankerous creativity: Honesty–Humility, Agreeableness, and the HEXACO structure of creative achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 687–689. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.011

Silvia, P. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2009). Is creativity domain-specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments and creative self-descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 139–148.

Simonton, D. K. (2000) Creativity: cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychology, 55, 151-158. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.151

Shury, J., Adams, L., Barnes, M., Huntley Hewitt, J., & Oozeerally, T. (2016). Understanding the Market of Alternative Higher Education Providers and their Students in 2014. London: BIS. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alternative-providers-of-highereducation-the-market-and-students-in-2014

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Kognitivna psihologija. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap.

Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the Crowd; Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. New York: Free Press.

Stumpf, H. (1995). Scientific creativity: A short overview. Educational Psychology Review,

, 225-241. doi:10.1007/BF02213372

Taylor, C. L., & Barbot, B. (2021). Gender differences in creativity: Examining the greater male variability hypothesis in different domains and tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 174, 110661. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.110661

Torrance, P. E. (1974). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical-norms manual. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Services

von Stumm, S., Chung, A., & Furnham, A. (2011). Creative ability, creative ideation and latent classes of creative achievement: What is the role of personality? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 5(2), 107-114. doi: 10.1037/a0020499

Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v8i11.3974

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Katarina Sokić, Fayyaz Hussain Qureshi, Sarwar Khawaja

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2021. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.


This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).