K+¦pingOlsson(2022)Covarying effects of creativity studies on

K+¦pingOlsson(2022)Covarying effects of creativity studies on (PDF)

2022 • 20 Pages • 785.63 KB • English
Posted July 01, 2022 • Submitted by Superman

Visit PDF download

Download PDF To download page

Summary of K+¦pingOlsson(2022)Covarying effects of creativity studies on

This paper was presented at The XXXIII ISPIM Innovation Conference "Innovating in a Digital World", held in Copenhagen, Denmark on 05 June to 08 June 2022. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-694-8 1 Covarying effects of creativity studies on academic performance in innovation processes Bengt Köping Olsson Mälardalen University, Box 325, Västerås, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The aim of this paper is to investigate the effects of the relationships between personal characteristics, thinking preferences and learning activities on academic achievements in creativity studies for innovation management. Development of theory related reflexivity on creative experiences and competence as well as training of required skills in innovation processes needs to activate both the pre-requisites and predictors of creativity (OECD, 2019). Statistical analysis of quantitative data and qualitative data collected within the framework of a course aiming to develop competence and skills for creativity in innovation processes’ is presented. The results are related in the model for covarying creativity constructs based on the statistical correlation and regression analyzes. Based on this developed understanding consequences for developing creativity competences and considerations for assessment and grading of academic achievements. Keywords: creativity; innovation process; cognitive and social flexibility; creativity training; attitude; aptitude. 1 Introduction The aim of this paper is to investigate the effects of the relationships between personal characteristics, thinking preferences and learning activities on academic achievements in creativity studies for innovation management. Creativity teaching needs to activate both competences, skills and enabling conditions for creativity, as well as reconsider the effects of the creative activity, its reinforcing function, cognitively as well as socially, also in relation to what creativity accomplishes, the outcome of creativity (OECD, 2019). Goller and Bessant (2017) presents an understanding of creativity as a set of competences and skills that should be trained to enable and enhance creativity in relation to the requirements of innovation management. Their presented competence model is linked to working out at the gym to develop and train creativity. In addition, Backström & Söderberg (2016) state that the collective level is more crucial in modern organizations than individual creativity and contribute with a framework for training of collaborative creativity. From the perspective of emergence, they argue that group creativity is driven by the interaction among group members and suggest a model for self-organization. Backström & Söderbergs innovation competence model, denoted GroPro, is developed under the umbrella of an external funded project called the InnovationsGym®, it expands the scope of creativity training of Goller and Bessant (2017). Furthermore, Köping Olsson & Harmat (in press) found strong positive correlations between a group's capability to combine competencies and produced functional outcome, rather than propelling original ideas. They argue that it is the This paper was presented at The XXXIII ISPIM Innovation Conference "Innovating in a Digital World", held in Copenhagen, Denmark on 05 June to 08 June 2022. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-694-8 2 combination of ability to enable ongoing combination of creative initiatives with sustainable long-term ways of collaborating that result in highly functional outcome. Therefore, group members idea generating capabilities should be encouraged and trained to increase the group members’ cognitive and social flexibility, attitude, and aptitude to perform interdependent tasks. This paper addresses the overall problem of how and to what extent competence, skills and enabling conditions play out in the activities of a course on creativity in an innovation management education, and to what extent required factors presented in the next section are captured in assessments and grading of academic achievements. 2 Current understanding, development of propositions Creative productivity and academic performance for innovation management Researchers and have long argued that the most important predictor of creativity is productivity (e.g., Simonton, 2012; Hocevar, 1979). Sternberg, Lubart, Kaufman, and Pretz (2005) emphasized that creativity is important for society, and research on problem solving, abductive reasoning, cognitive flexibility, or functional fixation studies important aspects of creativity without using the word creativity. Three factors of creativity constitute criteria for assessment of creative responses in three dimensions fluency (amount of responses/suggestions/ideas during specified time period), flexibility (the amount of different responses/suggestions/ideas during specified time period), and originality (e.g. Torrance, 1981; Beghetto & Kaufman, 2009) is assessed on criteria of a qualitative nature based on perceptions of deviations from the ordinary (Amabile, 1982; Sternberg & Kaufman, 2018). The generation of original initiatives is a result of divergent thinking processes whereas the blending of several deviant initiatives and the assessment of this combinational outcomes’ appropriateness is regarded a convergent thinking process (Shamay-Tsoory, 2011; Guilford, 1950). Cognitive flexibility is significant for living, working, and learning in our rapidly changing world (OECD, 2019). People are expected to be flexible in solving new problems, managing new job requirements, adapting to new technologies, and communicating in diverse cultural settings. Social flexibility can be reflected in the degree to which a person can receive information and developing insights into others’ opinions, the ability to be critically receptive to alternative possibilities (Hare, 2003; McCrae and Sutin, 2009). Social flexibility is also required for effective teamwork, a facilitator of interpersonal communication (McComb et al., 2007). Barak & Levenberg (2016) developed a model of flexible thinking in contemporary education. They apply a social perspective on flexibility conceptualized as ‘openness to others’, that is, the inclination to adjust one’s view to suit changing interpersonal situations. When an individual displays flexible behavior, it is perceived as cognitive flexibility (Barak & Levenberg, 2016). Österberg and Köping Olsson (2021) found that a short physical activity such as dancing to music for a few minutes has a positive effect on school children's flexibility thinking. Collaborative engagement: Creativity in innovation processes Creativity involves the interplay of several factors where the correlation between social interaction processes and the characteristics of interacting individuals needs to be addressed together (Rhodes, 1961; Diakidoy and Constantinou, 2001). Chrysikou (2019) maintain that the generative process of originality is characterized by spontaneous, unregulated bottom-up processes, whereas convergent processes is a controlled, top- down process focused on task goals. Mukherjee et al. (2018) suggests that divergent thinking and a broadening attentional scope is reciprocally linked to social behaviours and consider this thinking style (c.f. executive function) as underlying generic cognitive processes for social interaction and decision making (Andersson et al., 2002). In addition, the research of Wronska et al., (2018), and Colzato et al., (2013) has recently shown positive correlation between broadened thinking and prosocial behavior. Valdesolo et al. (2010) suggest that group members should train their perceptual sensitivity towards group members actions as this promotes performance on joint-action tasks. This perceptual sensitivity towards others could be associated with langerian mindfulness when developing understanding of what prerequisites is needed for exchange in social interaction. Proposition 1: Creative productivity develops cognitive and social flexibility - the ability that something can mean several completely different “things”. Thinking strategies: Co-creation and group interaction. There is a growing research interest in the quality of flow in social contexts, i.e., group flow experiences (Sawyer, 2015; 2017; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) or team flow (van den Hout, Davis, & Walrave, 2016). Pels et al (2018) have recently reviewed research on group flow and defined it as a “shared state of balance within a group as represented by (a) fluent, positive interactions within the group, (b) a high collective competence of the group and (c) a collective state of mind of the group by means of positive relationships between group members, often resulting in optimal collective performance and creativity, and making group flow a positive collective experience”. This intragroup outcome is characterized by the group members' experience of effortlessness in group interaction (Köping Olsson and Harmat, in press). Creative thinking is defined as the competence to engage productively in the generation, evaluation, and improvement of ideas, that can result in original and effective solutions, advances in knowledge and impactful expressions of imagination (OECD, 2019). Wonder & Donovan, (1984) has developed an instrument for mapping preferred thinking strategies when solving complex problems. In accordance with current understanding of creativity-driven cognitive processes, combinations of factual and metaphysical are expressions of creative thinking, rather than one or the other. The ability to perform this type of meaningful combinations can be trained/developed through different types of exercises (e.g., Sawyer, 2013; Michalko, 2001) but also practice of idea generation, both training methodologies are included in the studied course's practical activities. Proposition 2: Idea generation develops integrative thinking which correlate positively with engagement in social interaction with others (group members). Creative attitude: Mindfulness or mindlessness The Western utilization of mindfulness has a socio-cognitive approach. Introduced by Ellen Langer in the early 1970 mindfulness is an attitude towards that one encounter in the environment, to which the individual relates in a subjectively meaningful way. The main distinction of langerian mindfulness is the encouraging propensity for proactive creation of new categories. Mindlessness/mindfulness is orthogonal such as automatic vs controlled processing. Mindlessness is marked by a rigid use of information during which the individual is not aware of its potentially novel aspects. According to this definition, one deals with information as though it has a single meaning and is available for use in only that way. This results in a lack of attention to details and alternative meanings, or uses of the information become unavailable for active cognitive use. Mindfulness, on the other hand, is characterized by active distinction making and differentiation. One who demonstrates mindfulness engages in the process of creating new categories - of making finer and finer distinctions (Langer & Piper, 1987; Langer, 2007). This socio-cognitive This paper was presented at The XXXIII ISPIM Innovation Conference "Innovating in a Digital World", held in Copenhagen, Denmark on 05 June to 08 June 2022. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-694-8 4 sense-making plays out in social interaction such as an organizational team or working group (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007), often operationalized by four components: a search for novelty, a phenomenological engagement in the present moment, the creation of new categories of thinking, and flexibility (Pirson et al., 2012; Langer, 1989). We denote langerian mindfulness as an attitude of creativity characterized by the openness to explore new ways of performing daily activities, to see the benefits of such intellectual and behavioral challenges driven by curiosity and the joy of discovery to find out how “things” work (Fatemi et al., 2016). Personal characteristics: Extraversion/Openness to experiences The well-established framework for assessing most individuals' human personality is called the Big-Five and is based on five broad empirically derived personality traits. Each bipolar factor (e.g., Extraversion vs Introversion) summarizes several more specific aspects (e.g., sociability), which in turn encompass a large number of even more specific characteristics (e.g., talkative, outgoing) (Gosling et al., 2003). Openness to experience includes "intellectual curiosity, complex problem solving, and reasoning, imagination, artistic and aesthetic interests, and emotional and fantasy richness" usually categorized into two factors: Intellect, cognitive engagement with abstract and semantic information primarily through reasoning. Openness: cognitive engagement with sensory and perceptual information (Kaufman, 2013). Openness to experience can be trained but the experience of the activity depends mainly on the existing degree of openness Kaufman et al (2016). For example, activities engaging people in openness-related activities over the course of multiple days have the strongest effect on those who already score high on openness. Those who already score low in openness probably looked at the activities as a nuisance (Kaufman, 2016). It seems to be good reasons to train openness but the trained needs to be adapted to the characteristics and preferences of those involved. Proposition 3: Creative training increases students’ openness to others in their interaction and exchange with group members. Aptitude: Creative self-efficacy Creative aptitude involves such as tolerance for ambiguity, flexibility in thinking, motivation, and persistence (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2008). Plucker, Beghetto and Dow (2004) include “aptitude” in their definition of creativity characterized as a multidimensional social readiness by which an individual or a group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context (Goller & Bessant, 2017). There are several compilations of adjective lists and explanations of what characterizes creative aptitude (e.g., Gardner et al., 2018; Getzels, 1976). In this study, we used an inventory tool created by Higgins (1997 based on Lyman's description of creative individuals' aptitudes in working life, consisting of four constructs 1) prospective, 2) self-efficacy, 3) independent, 4) strategic. In recent research, experiences of states during these kinds of ongoing challenging activities have been studied (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). When people perform creative and challenging processes, where the degree of difficulty of the task requires full utilization of skills, there are conditions for flow state to arise. Characteristics of the flow experience include high but subjectively effortless attention, a sense of control, loss of self-awareness, and altered experience of time and enjoyment (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2010). Proposition 4: The combination of personal characteristics and willpower and the characteristics of the task are crucial for creative productivity and success in academic studies. Creativity is a multidimensional construct (Sternberg & Kaufman, 2017). Several of these constituent dimensions is presented, investigated, measured, and analyzed in this paper. A summary of these dimensions can be divided into two main categories (table 1): 1) competence and skills, 2) the enabling conditions for creativity at individual and group level. Table 1 Defined dimensions for examination, measuring and analysis in this study. Practiced individually and socially, analysed from cognitive and interactionist perspectives. Competences and skills Enabling conditions Flexibility, cognitive/social Attitude, mindfulness/mindlessness Divergence, integrative thinking Personality characteristics, openness/extraversion Originality, deviation from the ordinary Aptitude, being creative/self-efficacy Cooperation, Interdependent CPS Interaction quality 2 Research design The basis for this study is a course in creativity within the framework of an education in innovation management given at a university in central Sweden. The education's perspective on creativity is not based on cognitive psychology, social psychology, or social sciences, although theories from these fields of knowledge are present through the literature's different perspectives, it is rather organizational levels and management practices that characterize the education. 61 students (29 women, age M=25.77; SD=5.96) active participants in an undergraduate level course with the title ‘Creativity in innovation processes’ at a university in central Sweden. Within the framework of this course, lectures and workshops were included, as well as facilitation of groups' creative processes. The aim of the course is to develop an understanding of the conditions and processes of creativity at the individual and group level, apply critical reflection on the importance of creativity for innovation processes. The student should be able to apply tools for generation and development of creative ideas and working methods as well as develop practical competence in creativity as central factor in innovation processes. The course addresses most dimensions in the OECD (2019) model of "Enablers and manifestations of creative thinking in the classroom" (pp. 13). This paper was presented at The XXXIII ISPIM Innovation Conference "Innovating in a Digital World", held in Copenhagen, Denmark on 05 June to 08 June 2022. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-694-8 6 Figure 1 Content and measurements in the course "Creativity in innovation processes". The first part of the course focused on individual perspectives on creativity and included the activity of conducting two different creative exercises, changed every day for three weeks, in parallel with academic studies on individual creativity. The second part shifted to group perspectives and involved participants outside the course, other students but also employees at organizations that collaborate with the university. The course participants were expected to design a creative group process and carry it out with the volunteer outside participants and afterwards evaluate and reflect on experiences and learning. In connection with various course elements, the participants were given practical tasks that also contained various types of measurements relevant as support in reflection on the activities' theory base. All course participants' responses to questionnaires and experiments were anonymized using codes. All participants were informed of the purpose of this arrangement and were allowed to choose to participate and thus fill in a letter of consent. Consequently, the number of participants in the course activities and associated measurements varies. However, the total number of participants and responders in each survey extends over three years of course occasions. The assessment and measuring instruments • Creativity attitude, Mindfulness and Mindlessness Scale (Bercovitz et al. 2017), (MMS, Appendix 2). • Creative aptitude, The Being Creative Inventory (Higgins 1997; Lyman, D. H., 1989), is a 21-item questionnaire (Appendix 3). • Personality traits, TIPI personality test, Gosling (2003). • Preferred thinking strategy, e.g., heuristics in CPS, Wonder & Donovan (1990) (Appendix 4). • Experience of cooperation and interaction quality during an interdependent CPS- task. The Flow Synchronization Questionnaire (FSyQ, appendix 1). • Creative productivity, Creativity test J&D (Österberg & Köping Olsson, 2021). For the measurement of subjects’ individual creativity, divergent thinking, the experiment utilized the J&D-test developed by Österberg and Köping Olsson (2021) building on the research as well as the TTC-figural test (Torrance, 1981). The subjects were requested to produce as many meaningful combinations as possible out of two shapes formed as the letter J and D for 5 minutes, writing their responses on a paper. Analyses The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 24. We used Pearson`s Product- moment for correlation analyses, a p value of .05 was used as the limit of significance in all statistical tests. The qualitative analysis on individual creativity capacity consisted of assessment in three dimensions (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2009): 1) Fluency - the total number of objects constructed. 2) Flexibility, to what extent the subject used the graphical figures other than as letters. 3) Combination, the number of combinations of both figures into meaningful objects, i.e., by rotating the figures. 3 Results This section presents results from statistical analyses in relation to assessments of creative productivity and grading of academic achievements. Figure 2 Boxplot: participants creative productivity by grading in the course "Creativity in innovation processes". The course grade is not directly affected by creative productivity, ways of thinking, personality traits or how persistent in cooperation with others or self-reflective. But the attitude affecting academic achievement (i.e., grading) are mindlessness, rather than mindfulness. Proposition 1: Creative productivity develops cognitive and social flexibility - the ability that something can mean several completely different “things”. Table 2 ANOVA of Cooperation (dependent variable) and Mindlessness (independent variable). ANOVAa,b Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 6.195 1 6.195 22.321 .042c Residual .555 2 .278 Total 6.750 3 a. Dependent Variable: Cooperation = Synchronized Flow b. Selecting only cases for which Grading>= Pass with Distinction This paper was presented at The XXXIII ISPIM Innovation Conference "Innovating in a Digital World", held in Copenhagen, Denmark on 05 June to 08 June 2022. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-694-8 8 c. Predictors: (Constant), Mindlessness Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Grading >= Pass with Distinction (Selected) 1 .958a .918 .877 .52681 a. Predictors: (Constant), Mindlessness Academic performance assessed “Pass with Distinction” correlate with low levels of creative productivity and is explained by mindlessness rather than mindfulness. However, creative productivity correlate with the academic performance assessed “Pass”. Thus, training in broadened (divergent) thinking such as idea generation does not prepare for/results in higher levels of academic achievement. Creative productivity covaries positively with confidence in creative processes and self- efficacy. Creative productivity, however, co-varies negatively with the self-image of being creative. The perception that one has a positive impact on fellow students' performance co-varies negatively with creative productivity. Proposition 2: Idea generation develops integrative thinking which correlate positively with engagement in social interaction with others (group members). Table 3 ANOVA of Openness of experiences (dependent variable) and Mindfulness (independent variable). ANOVAa,b Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 4.705 1 4.705 9.556 .013c Residual 4.431 9 .492 Total 9.136 10 a. Dependent Variable: Openness to Experiences b. Selecting only cases for which ThinkingStrategy = Integrative Thinking c. Predictors: (Constant), Mindfulness Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate ThinkingStrategy = Integrative Thinking (Selected) 1 .718a .515 .461 .70168 a. Predictors: (Constant), Mindfulness The students who think divergently, but do not prefer to collaborate, are not as successful academically as those who think rationally, logically/analytically but collaborate with group members to a greater extent. Proposition 3: Creative training increases students’ openness to others in their interaction and exchange with group members. Thinking strategies and perceptions of collaboration and interaction. Thinking strategies correlate with Mindfulness. The variables that affect academic presentation ("pass with distinction" in studies of creativity) are "mindlessness" (sticking to the proven) and "Flow Synch" (collaboration). Students who are patient and encourage each other present better academic achievements than those who are more adventurous and original. Table 4 Correlations between Personal characteristics (TIPI), Attitude (MMS), Aptitude (Being Creative). Attitude: Mindfulness Personality characteristics: Openness to Experiences Extraversion Open to new ways of doing things. r = .613** Think of new ways of doing things. r = .381* An open mind about everything, even things that challenge my core beliefs. r = .363* Easy to create new and effective ideas. r = .354* Aptitude: Creative self-efficacy r = .430** Spontaneous r = .471** Enthusiastic, idealistic, responsive r = .600** Playful r = .339* * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). Significance count on N=49. Proposition 4: The combination of personal characteristics and willpower and the characteristics of the task are crucial for creative productivity and success in academic studies. Overall results are that the personality traits that generally (previous research) show a strong connection with creativity (Extraversion, Emotional stability) in this study strongly correlate with Mindlessness. The personality trait "Openness to experiences" which is considered to have the strongest connection with creativity correlates with an attitude of Mindfulness. Finally, the creative aptitude, “Creative Self-efficacy” correlate with Mindlessness r= .397* p< .010, and “Focused -Strategic” Mindfulness r= .407* p< .032 4 Analysis The results presented are related in the model for covarying creativity constructs based on the statistical correlation and regression analyzes (figure 3). This study has contributed to the understanding of how key factors in the creativity constructs covariate. This paper was presented at The XXXIII ISPIM Innovation Conference "Innovating in a Digital World", held in Copenhagen, Denmark on 05 June to 08 June 2022. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-694-8 10 Figure 3 Model of measured constructs covarying effects. An attitude of mindfulness influences the personal characteristics ‘Openness to experience’ in a way that strengthens integrative heuristic thinking. This way of thinking, considering different (e.g., paradoxical) aspects, supports creative productivity as well as interdependent cooperation and exchange in social group interaction during creative problem solving. However, creative productivity has a stronger effect on the aptitude characterized as an independent than on the social interaction between group members. However, the results in this study have shown positive correlation between cooperation and individual creative productivity. Finally, and surprisingly, a mindlessness approach explains to the success of academic studies in creativity, rather than mindfulness and creative productivity. 5 Discussion This paper addresses the challenges and benefits of creativity studies for academic performance in innovation management. How does these requirements and expectancies plays out in the activities of a course on Creativity in innovation management, and to what extent are required competences and skills captured in assessments and grading of academic achievements? Academic studies on creativity in innovation management, its design enables the course participants' understanding and experience creativity. The extent to which the perspectives and forms of expression relate to the assessment of performance in relation to current research in the field. The approach in the studied course is that knowledge, skills, and abilities can be developed through active conscious training. A balance is sought between what extent independent genius and self-efficacy are established, as well as (not instead of) creative mindfulness, integrative thinking and openness in collaboration are fostered who realize the benefit, but also challenge, of integrating divergence in perspectives, values, and competencies. The results show that success in academic studies with practical activities for the development of experience-based understanding as well as theory-based reflection on these experiences of creativity in innovation processes can only to some extent be explained by divergent thinking (idea generation), broadened scope of attention and personality characteristics (Openness, R2 = 46.6, Extraversion + Mindlessness, R2 = 87.7). However, in academic studies, as well as in working life in general, there is collaboration, interaction and exchange between group members and other classmates (colleagues). In this study, the perception of exchange and learning between group members is a significant intervening factor in academic studies. Thus, the purpose of developing divergent thinking is not primarily for more efficient individual idea generation. A set of thought operations activated in divergent thinking for idea generation is denoted executive functions in the field of developmental psychology. Based on findings in previous research on creativity, the results in this study can be perceived as disappointing, depending on traditional definition of creativity. But if creativity is rather defined in terms of integrative collaboration and thinking, patience / persistence and to exploit what one already knows and can do rather than primarily strive for originality then academic studies seems to promote creativity. This does not contradict traditional creativity theory on divergent thinking and diversity in idea generation and the importance of striving for originality in processes and outcomes as these are crucial for creativity in integrative social interaction and collaboration, as well as in the ability to exploit and develop existing competencies. However, this means that the basic purpose of creativity needs to focus more on the quality of social interaction, that interaction and exchange can accommodate the breadth of perspectives, interpretations, and contradictory paradoxes. This shift means that the traditional parameters in the assessment of creativity, i.e., fluency, flexibility, originality, and complexity, both can and need to be applied on social interaction, exploit of the existing in both processes and outcome. And, as we suggest, that academic studies in creativity should focus on this in assessments as a basis for grading. From educational and facilitating perspectives there are two categories of pre- conditions that intervene: personal and behavioral characteristics. Both pre-conditions affect the direction and scope of training and knowledge. Personal characteristics that for ethical reasons should not be changed. Behavioral characteristics that can be influenced through training and increased understanding. For example, can attitudes such as increased awareness be developed as well as aptitude gradually developed by activities in the innovations gym. However, as Kaufman (2013) points out that affective engagement may be detrimental to creative achievement in the sciences, but intellectual engagement was a better predictor of scientific creative achievement than explicit cognitive ability. Kaufman’s findings may explain the results of this study regarding the surprisingly effect of creativity studies on academic achievements. Personal characteristics such as the personality trait openness to experiences correlate with mindfulness, engagement and concentration in collaboration and self-efficacy. These abilities do not seem to relate to (or are given significance to) the academic achievement, i.e., in the grading. On the other hand, personality traits that in previous research have shown a strong positive correlation with creativity, in this study strongly correlate with mindlessness. This finding can be perceived as paradoxical that the personality characteristics extraversion and emotional instability correlate with an attitude of mindlessness (sticking to the proven) and an aptitude of creative self-efficacy (having faith in the process, spontaneous and responsive). In addition to giving examples of prerequisites for creativity and how it can be expressed on an individual level, this can also contribute to an increased understanding of the effect Openness to experiences has in creativity practices and for academic performance. Contribution Based on learning from teaching about creativity in innovation processes as well as measurements and assessments of students' creativity characteristics and academic performance, this study flesh out the effects of creativity in higher education in innovation management. This paper was presented at The XXXIII ISPIM Innovation Conference "Innovating in a Digital World", held in Copenhagen, Denmark on 05 June to 08 June 2022. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-694-8 12 Development of education should generally pay attention to creativity research where broadened thinking, exchange for integration of differences as well as quantity in initiative and co-creation (Österberg & Köping Olsson, 2021). However, learning activities and classrooms rarely become these places that promote creativity (Plucker et al., 2004). This problem is even more important in education for tomorrow's innovation leaders where expectations of both deep theoretical knowledge and experience-based abilities which Goller and Bessant (2017) address by proposing the gym metaphor for developing everyday creativity in innovation processes. Creativity training should focus on the effects of creativity rather than on the immediate results of creative processes. The interaction is needed for creativity as well as creativity is needed for interaction and even integrating of differences. Practical implications Higher education can set the conditions for multidimensional development and assessment of creativity. The solution orientation may primarily be considered a matter of developing better methodology, pedagogy, and assessment criteria. However, based on the results of this study, it is suggested that measures to address this challenge need to consider the more profound impact of creativity. Conclusions and future research The limited number of participants and responses entails that the results of the statistical analysis should be interpreted with caution. Despite this, the study has contributed to the understanding of how key factors in the creativity competence and enabling conditions covariate. The tentative findings of this study extend the understanding of creativity assessments and academic achievement in the sciences and thus confirm Kaufman’s (2016) distinction of intellectual versus artistic openness, as well as Barak and Levenbergs (2016) distinctions cognitive versus social flexibility. Practitioners, educators, and facilitators of creative processes should acquire deeper understanding of the predictors and pre-requisites of creativity. We argue that an overlooked value of creativity is social, i.e., the combination of and interaction between differences, fostered understanding of different perspectives, diversity, and empathy. And, that this therefore needs to be taken more seriously into account in different types of education and training of creativity. References Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43, No. 5, 997-1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997 Andersson, P. (2002). Assessment and Development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.71-82. https://doi.org/10.1076/chin. Backström, T and Söderberg, T. (2016). Self-Organisation and Group Creativity. Journal of creativity and business innovation, Vol.2, pp.65-79. ISSN 2351 – 6186 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, pp. 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 295X.84.2.191 Bercovitz, K., Pagnini, F., Phillips, D., and Langer, E. (2017). Utilizing a Creative Task to Assess Langerian Mindfulness, Creativity Research Journal, 29:2, 194-199, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2017.1304080 Brislins R.W. (1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301 Cha E. S., Kim, K. H., and Erlen J. A. (2007). Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: issues and techniques Journal of Advanced Nursing 58(4), pp. 386–395. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04242.x Chrysikou, E. G. (2019). Creativity in and out of (cognitive) control. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 27, pp. 94-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.09.014 Colzato, L. S., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., and Hommel, B. (2013). Increasing self-other integration through divergent thinking. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, (20), 1011-1016. DOI 10.3758/s13423-013-0413-4 Csikszentmihalyi, M., and Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (ed.) (1988). Optimal Experience. Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Csikszentmihalyi, M., and Nakamura, J., (2010). Effortless attention in everyday life: a systematic phenomenology. In: Bruya, B. (Ed.), Effortless Attention: A New Perspective in the Cognitive Science of Attention and Action. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 179–190. De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., and Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (94)5, 739- 756. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.739 Diakidoy, I-A. N., & Constantinou, C. P. (2001). Creativity in Physics: Response Fluency and Task Specificity. Creativity Research Journal, (13)3-4, 401- 410. DOI: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_17 Fatemi, S. M., Ward, E., D., & Langer, E. J. (2014). Peak performance: Langerian mindfulness and flow. In AL Baltzell (Ed.) Mindfulness and performance, pp.101-111. Goller, I., & Bessant, J., (2017). Creativity for innovation management. New York: Routledge. Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M., & Chen, J. Q. (2018). The theory of multiple intelligences: Psychological and educational perspectives. In The Nature of Human Intelligence (pp. 116-129). Cambridge University Press. Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem-finding in art. New York, NY: Wiley. This paper was presented at The XXXIII ISPIM Innovation Conference "Innovating in a Digital World", held in Copenhagen, Denmark on 05 June to 08 June 2022. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-694-8 14 Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., and Swann Jr., W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, (37), 504-528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1 Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), pp. 444-454. Haigh, E. A. P., Moore, M. T., Kashdan, T. B. and Fresco, D. M. (2011). Examination of the factor structure and concurrent validity of the Langer mindfulness/mindlessness scale. Assessment, 18(11), 11-26. Hare, W. (2003). The ideal of open-mindedness and its place in education. Journal of Thought, 38(2), 3-10. Hocevar, D. (1979). Ideational Fluency as a Confounding Factor in the Measurement of Originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (2), 191-196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.191 Higgins, J. M. (1997). Escape from the maze: 9 steps to personal creativity. New Management Publishing: Florida Jackson, S. A., Eklund, R. C., 2004. The Flow Scales Manual. Publishers Graphics, Morgantown, WV. Kaufman, J. C. and Sternberg, R. J. (eds) (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge. Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Opening up openness to experience: A four factor model and relations to creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Creative Behavior, (47)4, 233-255. DOI: 10.1002/jocb.33 Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R eterson, J. B., and DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to Experience and Intellect Differentially Predict Creative Achievement in the Arts and Sciences. Journal of Personality, 84:2, pp. 248-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156 Köping Olsson, B and Harmat, L (in press). The Impact of creativity, flow, and interaction quality on collaborative design solutions in social groups. Journal of Creativity and Business Innovation. Köping Olsson, B. and Harmat, L. (2018). State Flow, Creativity and Flow Synchronization During Group Based Problem Solving Task. 5th Participatory Innovation Conference, Eskilstuna, Sweden, January 9-11. Köping Olsson, B. (2007b). Languages for creative interaction: descriptive language in heterogeneous Groups. The 10th European conference on creativity and innovation, ECCI-X. Copenhagen 14 – 17 October 2007. Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: De Capo Press. Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Cambridge, MA: De Capo Press. Langer, E J. (1992). Matters of Mind: Mindfulness/Mindlessness in Perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, Vol 1, 289-305. Lyman, D. (1989). Being creative. Training & development journal., pp. 45-47. Magyaródi, T. and Oláh, A. (2015). Flow Synchronization Questionnaire: Measuring the mechanism of optimal experience in interactions. Mentálhigiéné és Pszichoszomatika, 16(4), 271—296. Magyaródi, T. and Oláh, A. (2017). The effect of social interaction on flow experience. International Journal of Psychology and Behavior Analysis. Volume 3, 126. 10-15344. Martin, A. J., and Jackson, S. A. (2008). Brief approaches to assessing task absorption and enhanced subjective experience: Examining ‘short’ and ‘core’ flow in diverse performance domains. Motivation and Emotion. 32:141–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-008-9094-0 McComb, S. A., Green, S. G., & Compton, D. W. (2007). Team flexibility’s relationship to staffing and performance in complex projects: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(4), 293- 313. McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to experience. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257–273). The Guilford Press. Michalko, M. (2001). Cracking Creativity - The Secrets of Creative Genius for Business and Beyond. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press. Mukherjee, S., Srinivasan, N., Kumar, N. & Manjalay, J. A. (2018). Perceptual broadening leads to more prosociality. Frontiers in Psychology, (9)1821, 1- 10. Nakamura, J., and Csikszentmihályi, M. (2001). "Flow Theory and Research". In C. R. Snyder Erik Wright, and Shane J. Lopez. Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford University Press. pp. 195–206. Tulio M. Otero, Lauren A. Barker & Jack A. Naglieri (2014) Executive Function Treatment and Intervention in Schools, Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 3:3, 205-214, DOI: 10.1080/21622965.2014.897903 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2019). PISA 2021. Framework for the assessment of creative thinking (third draft). Paris: OECD publishing. Österberg, P., & Köping Olsson, B. (2021). Dancing: A strategy to maintain schoolchildren’s openness for idea generation. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 92:3, 20-25. Österberg, P. & Köping Olsson, B. (2018). The Influence of music experience and body movement prior to ideational fluency. Proceedings of the 5th Participatory Innovation Conference, 11-13 January in Eskilstuna, Sweden. Pels, F., Kleinert, J., and Menningen, F. (2018). Group Flow: A scoping review of definitions, theoretical approaches, measures, and findings. PLoS ONE, Vol. 13, No. 12;e0210117, pp. 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210117