Relationship between Academic Challenge Stress and Creativity: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Hao Yao
,
Shuzhen Chen
,
Ang Liu

Creativity, a multidimensional construct, is commonly defined as the production of novel and useful ideas or solutions. The quality of graduate student cultivation, especially their level of creativity, largely determines the quantity and quality of innovative talents. Therefore, improvement of graduate student creativity is also considered as an important indicator for evaluating the quality of higher education. How to cultivate and stimulate graduate student creativity and thus enhance the innovation capacity and performance of universities has gradually become the focus of universities. However, creativity as an important feature of graduate student performance has received little academic attention.  Studies showed that challenge stress has a positive impact on an individual’s life, work, and personal growth. In addition, challenge stress is a positive stressor that enhances innovation performance.

  • academic challenge stress
  • creativity
  • resilience
  • academic self-efficacy
  • heterogeneity

1. Introduction

Previous studies have mostly analyzed the factors influencing creativity in terms of psychological and organizational factors (Anderson et al. 2014; Standing et al. 2016). But research stressing creativity is not very mature, and scholars often take stress as a negative factor affecting individual abilities. Indeed, there has been no consistent conclusion on the theoretical attributions, effects, and underlying mechanisms of different stressors affecting creativity (Byron et al. 2010; Cai et al. 2022). Hon and Lui (2016) suggest that stress deserves more attention as a key factor in creativity. Current research on the effects of stress on individual creativity can be divided into positive functional theory, negative stress theory, and stress balance theory. Functionalism is based on the idea that “stress is motivation”. That is, stress can motivate individuals’ sense of achievement and efficacy. This is because they see difficult tasks as a great opportunity to improve their skills and knowledge. Moreover, when they are under great stress, they are stimulated to be more challenged, and individuals have higher levels of positive motivation in trying to achieve their goals (LePine et al. 2004). In other words, the process of overcoming stress can awaken creativity (Bunce and West 1994; Yeh et al. 2015). Negative stress theory is a pessimistic perception that stress depletes cognitive resources. Individuals facing external pressures may experience work overload, role ambiguity, and role conflict and perceive that they do not have abilities to perform satisfactorily at work, which may result in stress reactions that cause individuals to experience physical and psychological symptoms (Devereux et al. 2009) and even weaken creativity (Talbot et al. 1992; Grosser et al. 2018). The equilibrium theory suggests an inverted U-curve relationship between stress and creativity, with the right level of stress maximizing creativity (Baer and Oldham 2006; Shao et al. 2019; Antwi et al. 2019). In response to the findings that stress affects creativity differently, a specific categorization framework of challenge versus blocking stress has been proposed, i.e., there are also “good” and “bad” categories of stress, and differences in the nature of stress may be a key factor in explaining differences in creativity outcomes (Byron et al. 2010; Byron et al. 2018). Challenge stress may originate from positive stressors. Challenge stress comes from the environment, such as competition, work, study, family, etc. It can also come from internal motivation, such as self-motivation, self-challenge, self-actualization, etc. Challenge stressors can help people attain higher achievement, stimulate their potential, and promote positive psychological experiences after individuals achieve their goals (LePine et al. 2005, 2016).
Little research on the relationship between challenge stress and creativity has focused on the field of graduate education. Zhao et al. (2021) analyzed the effect of advisor–student relationships on student creativity, analyzing challenge stress as a mediating variable. Eisenberg and Thompson (2011) analyzed the role of stress of students as a mechanism influencing creative performance during improvisation. However, there is a lack of research on academic challenge stress and the creativity of graduate students. Academic challenge stress focuses on the academic field and refers to positive stress in terms of academic responsibilities, academic tasks, academic goals, and academic workload.
The relationship between challenge stress and creativity may be influenced through the mediating role of resilience (Liang et al. 2021) and academic self-efficacy (Zhang et al. 2018). Resilience refers to a person’s ability to coordinate and adapt psychologically when they are facing adversity such as difficulties, setbacks, and failures (Holdsworth et al. 2018). It relates to an individual’s ability to recover from risk and stress and has been widely recognized as an important competency for graduate students’ development (Van Kessel et al. 2022). Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s judgment of his or her ability to organize and perform to achieve desired goals (Bandura 1997). Academic self-efficacy is self-efficacy in a particular academic field. Academic self-efficacy is defined as the learner’s judgment of one’s ability to successfully achieve academic outcomes in a given academic context (Elias and MacDonald 2007). It is more specifically regarded as a graduate student’s perceived ability to successfully deal with different curriculum, learning activities, academic research projects, and faculty–student peer relationships (Greco et al. 2022).
This study of the relationship between academic challenge stress and creativity is unique to Chinese graduate students. According to statistics from the Chinese Ministry of Education, there were 3.33 million graduate students in China in 2021. Unfortunately, with such a large graduate student population, Chinese graduate students lack creativity education, and creativity research has not received sufficient attention (Pang and Plucker 2012). In addition, Chinese graduate students face complex academic stress. Intense academic competition has transferred the stress to graduate students, which has significantly increased the stress on graduate students in terms of academic performance and publication (Li 2016; Wang et al. 2019). Actually, current research on graduate students’ academic stress in the Chinese context does not strictly distinguish between challenge stressors that have positive effects and hindering stressors that have negative effects.

2. Academic Challenge Stress and Creativity

Most graduate students face two differential outcomes when they suffer from academic stress. The first one is that academic stress drives graduate students to engage in academic activities and prompts them to enhance their creativity (Sun et al. 2019). Another outcome is that the academic stress seriously increases the psychological burden of graduate students, leading to a negative psychological state and resistance, which may also breed academic corruption and academic misconduct, not to mention the inability to enhance individual creativity (He and Wong 2015). The reason for the two different results on the impact on graduate student creativity is that there are differences in the types of stressors. LePine et al. (2004) explain that stressors can be categorized into challenging and hindering stressors based on differences in their attributes. Although stress sounds slightly negative, academic challenge stress appears to be a positive element because it is understood to be stress that individuals believe they can overcome and that is beneficial to their own work performance and academic development. Taking on the appropriate stress is accompanied by a corresponding reward and a sense of recognition of the value of the current academic work (Travis et al. 2020). Moreover, academic challenge stress usually has benefits on individual outputs. For example, Zhu et al. (2017) showed that academic challenge stress was positively associated with students’ academic performance. For the purpose of this research, an example of academic challenge stress in the graduate student context is “I can conduct independent research and complete difficult academic tasks and workloads, and take on challenging academic responsibilities”.
Previous studies showed that challenge stress has a positive impact on an individual’s life, work, and personal growth (Liu and Ren 2022; LePine et al. 2005). In addition, challenge stress is a positive stressor that enhances innovation performance (Cai et al. 2022; Moin et al. 2022). In terms of the reason why challenge stress affects creativity performance, from a psychological perspective, the Conservation of Resources (COR) Model indicates (Halbesleben et al. 2014) that individuals strive to protect their resources and obtain additional resources in all situations. Challenge stress may largely result in a successful outcome. If a person enjoys challenging and creative tasks, this leads to a spiral of individual resource acquisition, which increases positive emotions and creative performance (Akinola et al. 2019). Kim and Beehr (2018) found that challenge stressors can promote individuals to produce better work behaviors and enhance achievement motivation and psychological empowerment as a way to promote creativity. Akinola et al. (2019) argued that explanations of physiological responses to stress can inspire scholars to understand the relationship between stress and creativity. The effect of stress on creative performance critically depends on whether stress-inducing situations engender challenging physiological states (i.e., fluid physiological stress responses). The transactional model of stress predicts that an individual facing a creative task will first appraise whether engaging in the creative task is likely to be beneficial or harmful (Li et al. 2018). For example, if an individual is faced with the need for creativity to solve a problem, he will judge whether it is worth investing time to solve and overcome the problem based on what is at stake for him in the current situation (Akinola et al. 2019). When graduate students are confronted with academic tasks that require creativity, they show higher levels of creativity when they view the experience of the academic task as a challenge rather than a threat.

3. The Mediating Effect of Resilience

Garmezy et al. (1984) identified three primary models of resilience including the compensatory model, protective factor model, and challenge model. The challenge model refers to the fact that challenge stress actually increases resilience. Wister et al. (2016) describe resilience as the dynamic process by which individuals use personal, life, and environmental resources to effectively negotiate, adapt, and manage stressors in order to adapt to adversity. Moderate challenge stress, especially when individuals are able to adapt to and overcome such stress, actually contributes more to individual resilience (Smith and van der Meer 1994; McLaughlin et al. 2008).
Thomson (2020) highlights the close relationship between resilience and creativity. Resilient and creative individuals share characteristics such as flexibility, initiative, resourcefulness, adaptability, spontaneity, and originality (McFadden and Basting 2010). It also includes emotional positivity, as individuals with high resilience can cope with critical situations with humor, creative exploration, and optimistic thinking (Fredrickson et al. 2003) and generate higher levels of creativity (López-Aymes et al. 2020). Individuals with high resilience also have higher individual adaptive cognition and divergent thinking patterns (Cranney and Morris 2011), which is a component of creative potential (Runco 2008). Adaptive cognition and divergent thinking patterns enable them to understand problems in complex situations from different perspectives and find possible solutions to overcome various difficulties with creativity (Kashdan and Rottenberg 2010). When graduate students face academic challenge stress, for example, when they choose a research topic, summarize existing empirical evidence in the literature review, and outline a research design, they may undertake the stress of an academic research task with high goals. The stressful process of academic research can help them to develop a certain level of initiative and adaptability to promote resilience. After overcoming this academic stress, they can generate higher achievement, motivation, etc., which promotes the creativity of graduate students (Eisenberg and Thompson 2011).

4. Mediating Effects of Academic Self-Efficacy

When graduate students face academic challenge stress, the supervisor or organization assigns more academic research tasks to them, which indicates the expectation, trust, and empowerment of the organization and supervisor, and the graduate students are convinced that they are fully capable of achieving their academic research tasks or goals by putting in extra efforts and gaining high moral benefits after achieving their goals, and this social persuasion effect helps stimulate positive psychological states such as the self-efficacy of graduate students (Widmer et al. 2012; Prem et al. 2017). Hence, academic challenge stress can promote academic self-efficacy.
Social cognitive theory suggests that self-efficacy is an important motivator for individuals to sustain their efforts in the face of challenges to achieve their goals (Gong et al. 2009). Graduate students with high academic self-efficacy are more likely to set challenge goals that change the status quo, generate novel and useful ideas, work hard to achieve their goals, and persevere in the face of difficulties and failures (Liao et al. 2010). Graduate students with high self-efficacy also tend to have the confidence and ability to make a difference and generate creative ideas (Tierney and Farmer 2011). Empirical research also confirms that self-efficacy is a positive predictor of creativity (Liao et al. 2010; Kim et al. 2019).

5. The Chain Mediating Effect of Resilience and Academic Self-Efficacy

Research on the relationship between resilience and self-efficacy has been recognized as an important topic (Schwarzer and Warner 2013; Sagone and De Caroli 2016a). According to Hurtes and Allen’s (2001) approach and the revised model of resilience by De Caroli and Sagone (2014), individuals with high resilience have distinguishing characteristics, such as the ability to know how to deal with problems in unfavorable environments or under significant stress. It reflects the tendency of individuals with high resilience to look for the “positive side” of difficult situations. They can manage stress with positive emotion and regulate behavior (Sagone et al. 2020). These characteristics are positively associated with Bandura’s (2007) sense of self-efficacy. As in Hamill’s (2003) study, analyses based on the distribution of students’ levels of resilience indicated that differences in resilience were an important feature in distinguishing students’ self-efficacy. Sagone and De Caroli’s (2016b) study also found that adolescents with high resilience showed greater self-efficacy than those with less resilience in general (and in academic settings in particular). Therefore, this research concluded that graduate student resilience contributes to academic self-efficacy. Meanwhile, resilience underlies an individual’s ability to deal with stress and anxiety (Holdsworth et al. 2018; Brannick et al. 2005), which can be affected by academic stress (Caruana 2014). Academic self-efficacy in turn positively affects individual creativity (Shaabani et al. 2011).

6. Heterogeneity of Effects on Creativity

There may be a difference in the effects of stress, resilience, and academic self-efficacy on creativity across individuals. Individuals with high levels of creativity may have different characteristics than those with low levels of creativity, and individuals with higher levels of creativity may have better openness, unconventionality, and ambition (Helson and Srivastava 2002). And these characteristics will cause stress to have differential effects on individuals with different levels of creativity. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the impact effects on graduate students with different creativity. Furthermore, in terms of the relationship between resilience and creativity, López-Aymes et al. (2020) argued that resilience is a dynamic rather than a linear process, and that it can evolve in response to shifts in people and their environmental subsystems. Therefore, there may also be individual differences in the relationship between resilience and creativity. De Caroli and Sagone (2014) found a significant relationship between creative personality traits and resilience in adolescents, and the more creative individuals perceived themselves to be, the more they tended to work on finding new solutions to their problems in a resilient way. Thus, the effect of resilience on creativity may vary due to the individuals’ own level of creativity and thus the differences in impact. As far as the relationship between academic self-efficacy and creativity is concerned, Haase et al. (2018) analyzed that most of the existing studies present a positive correlation between creative performance and creative self-efficacy, but the results of these studies indicate that the strength of the association varies and that there will be variability in the individual impact due to the influence of some moderating variables.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jintelligence11090176

References

  1. Anderson, Neil, Kristina Potočnik, and Jing Zhou. 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management 40: 1297–333.
  2. Standing, Craig, Denise Jackson, Ann-Claire Larsen, Yuliani Suseno, Richard Fulford, and Denise Gengatharen. 2016. Enhancing individual innovation in organisations: A review of the literature. International Journal of Innovation and Learning 19: 44–62.
  3. Byron, Kristin, Shalini Khazanchi, and Deborah Nazarian. 2010. The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 201–12.
  4. Cai, Wei, Chao Xu, Shengxian Yu, and Xiaoxiao Gong. 2022. Research on the impact of challenge-hindrance stress on employees’ innovation performance: A chain mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 745259.
  5. Hon, Alice H. Y., and Steven S. Lui. 2016. Employee creativity and innovation in organizations: Review, integration, and future directions for hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28: 862–85.
  6. LePine, Jeffrey A., Marcie A. LePine, and Christine L. Jackson. 2004. Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 883.
  7. Bunce, David, and Michael West. 1994. Changing work environments: Innovative coping responses to occupational stress. Work & Stress 8: 319–31.
  8. Yeh, Yu-chu, Guey-Jen Lai, Chun Fu Lin, Chung-Wei Lin, and Hua-Chun Sun. 2015. How stress influences creativity in game-based situations: Analysis of stress hormones, negative emotions, and working memory. Computers & Education 81: 143–53.
  9. Devereux, Jason, Richard Hastings, and Steve Noone. 2009. Staff stress and burnout in intellectual disability services: Work stress theory and its application. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 22: 561–73.
  10. Talbot, Reg, Cary Cooper, and Steve Barrow. 1992. Creativity and stress. Creativity and Innovation Management 1: 183–93.
  11. Grosser, Travis J., David Obstfeld, Emily W. Choi, Meredith Woehler, Virginie Lopez-Kidwell, Giuseppe (Joe) Labianca, and Stephen P. Borgatti. 2018. A sociopolitical perspective on employee innovativeness and job performance: The role of political skill and network structure. Organization Science 29: 612–32.
  12. Baer, Markus, and Greg R. Oldham. 2006. The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 963–70.
  13. Shao, Yan, Bernard A. Nijstad, and Susanne Täuber. 2019. Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 155: 7–19.
  14. Antwi, Collins Opoku, Chong-jun Fan, Michael Osei Aboagye, Patrick Brobbey, Yasin Jababu, Emmanuel Affum-Osei, and Philip Avornyo. 2019. Job demand stressors and employees’ creativity: A within-person approach to dealing with hindrance and challenge stressors at the airport environment. The Service Industries Journal 39: 250–78.
  15. Byron, Kris, Suzanne J. Peterson, Zhen Zhang, and Jeffery A. LePine. 2018. Realizing challenges and guarding against threats: Interactive effects of regulatory focus and stress on performance. Journal of Management 44: 3011–37.
  16. LePine, Jeffery A., Nathan P. Podsakoff, and Marcie A. Lepine. 2005. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal 48: 764–75.
  17. LePine, Marcie A., Yiwen Zhang, Eean R. Crawford, and Bruce Louis Rich. 2016. Turning their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance. Academy of Management Journal 59: 1036–59.
  18. Zhao, Di, Jianlin Wu, and Jibao Gu. 2021. Can high leader–member exchange spark low creativity among graduate students? The role of stress and personal initiative. Current Psychology 40: 4488–99.
  19. Eisenberg, Jacob, and William Forde Thompson. 2011. The effects of competition on improvisers’ motivation, stress, and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal 23: 129–36.
  20. Liang, Yiming, Hao Zheng, Jin Cheng, Yueyue Zhou, and Zhengkui Liu. 2021. Associations between posttraumatic stress symptoms, creative thinking, and trait resilience among Chinese adolescents exposed to the Lushan earthquake. The Journal of Creative Behavior 55: 362–73.
  21. Zhang, Yong, Haiquan Liu, Mingxuan Wang, and Ping Qing. 2018. The impact of challenge stress and hindrance stress on employee creativity: The mediating role of self-efficacy and the moderating role of justice. Acta Psychologica Sinica 50: 450–61.
  22. Holdsworth, Sarah, Michelle Turner, and Christina M. Scott-Young. 2018. … Not drowning, waving. Resilience and university: A student perspective. Studies in Higher Education 43: 1837–53.
  23. Van Kessel, Gisela, Margo Brewer, Murray Lane, Berni Cooper, and Fiona Naumann. 2022. A principle-based approach to the design of a graduate resilience curriculum framework. Higher Education Research & Development 41: 1325–39.
  24. Bandura, Albert. 1997. Selfefficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman.
  25. Elias, Steven M., and Scott MacDonald. 2007. Using past performance, proxy efficacy, and academic self-efficacy to predict college performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37: 2518–31.
  26. Greco, Andrea, Chiara Annovazzi, Nicola Palena, Elisabetta Camussi, Germano Rossi, and Patrizia Steca. 2022. Self-efficacy beliefs of university students: Examining factor validity and measurement invariance of the new academic self-efficacy scale. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 6120.
  27. Pang, Weiguo, and Jonathan A. Plucker. 2012. Recent transformations in China’s economic, social, and education policies for promoting innovation and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior 46: 247–73.
  28. Li, Y. 2016. “Publish SCI papers or no degree”: Practices of Chinese doctoral supervisors in response to the publication pressure on science students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 36: 545–58.
  29. Wang, Xueyu, Chun Wang, and Jian Wang. 2019. Towards the contributing factors for stress confronting Chinese PhD students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being 14: 1598722.
  30. Sun, Yongbo, Xiaojuan Hu, and Yixin Ding. 2019. Learning or Relaxing: How Do Challenge Stressors Stimulate Employee Creativity? Sustainability 11: 1779.
  31. He, Wu-jing, and Wan-chi Wong. 2015. Creativity slump and school transition stress: A sequential study from the perspective of the cognitive-relational theory of stress. Learning and Individual Differences 43: 185–90.
  32. Travis, Justin, Alyssa Kaszycki, Michael Geden, and James Bunde. 2020. Some stress is good stress: The challenge-hindrance framework, academic self-efficacy, and academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology 112: 1632.
  33. Zhu, Yu, Wei He, and Yanfei Wang. 2017. Challenge–hindrance stress and academic achievement: Proactive personality as moderator. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 45: 441–52.
  34. Liu, Y., and L. Ren. 2022. Challenge-hindrance stressors and career initiative: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology 37: 467–79.
  35. Moin, Muhammad Farrukh, Paola Spagnoli, Ali Nawaz Khan, and Zahid Hameed. 2022. Challenge-hindrance stressors and service employees job outcomes. Current Psychology. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-022-03531-y (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  36. Halbesleben, Jonathon R. B., Jean-Pierre Neveu, Samantha C. Paustian-Underdahl, and Mina Westman. 2014. Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management 40: 1334–64.
  37. Akinola, Modupe, Chaitali Kapadia, Jackson G. Lu, and Malia F. Mason. 2019. Incorporating physiology into creativity research and practice: The effects of bodily stress responses on creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives 33: 163–84.
  38. Kim, M., and T. A. Beehr. 2018. Challenge and hindrance demands lead to employees’ health and behaviours through intrinsic motivation. Stress and Health 34: 367–78.
  39. Li, Fuli, Tingting Chen, and Xin Lai. 2018. How does a reward for creativity program benefit or frustrate employee creative performance? The perspective of transactional model of stress and coping. Group & Organization Management 43: 138–75.
  40. Garmezy, Norman, Ann S. Masten, and Auke Tellegen. 1984. The study of stress and competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development 55: 97–111.
  41. Wister, Andrew V., Katherine L. Coatta, Nadine Schuurman, Scott A. Lear, Miriam Rosin, and Dawn MacKey. 2016. A lifecourse model of multimorbidity resilience: Theoretical and research developments. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 82: 290–313.
  42. Smith, Gudmund J. W., and Gunilla van der Meer. 1994. Creativity through psychosomatics. Creativity Research Journal 7: 159–70.
  43. McLaughlin, AnnaMaria Aguirre, Lisa Stines Doane, Alice L. Costiuc, and Norah C. Feeny. 2008. Stress and Resilience. In Determinants of Minority Mental Health and Wellness. Edited by Sana Loue and Martha Sajatovic. New York: Springer.
  44. Thomson, Paula. 2020. Resilisence and adaptation. In Encyclopedia of Creativity. Edited by Mark A. Runco and Steven R. Pritzker. Cambridge: Elsevier, vol. 2, pp. 442–47.
  45. McFadden, Susan H, and Anne D. Basting. 2010. Healthy aging persons and their brains: Promoting resilience through creative engagement. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine 26: 149–61.
  46. Fredrickson, Barbara L., Michele M. Tugade, Christian E. Waugh, and Gregory R. Larkin. 2003. What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2002. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84: 365–76.
  47. López-Aymes, Gabriela, Santiago Roger Acuña, and Gabriela Ordaz Villegas. 2020. Resilience and creativity in teenagers with high intellectual abilities. A middle school enrichment experience in vulnerable contexts. Sustainability 12: 7670.
  48. Cranney, Jacquelyn, and Sue Morris. 2011. Adaptive cognition and psychological literacy. In The Psychologically Literate Citizen: Foundations and Global Perspectives. Edited by Jacquelyn Cranney and Dana S. Dunn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 251–68.
  49. Runco, Mark A. 2008. Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2: 93–96.
  50. Kashdan, Todd B., and Jonathan Rottenberg. 2010. Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review 30: 865–78.
  51. Widmer, Pascale S., Norbert K. Semmer, Wolfgang Kälin, Nicola Jacobshagen, and Laurenz L. Meier. 2012. The ambivalence of challenge stressors: Time pressure associated with both negative and positive well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80: 422–33.
  52. Prem, Roman, Sandra Ohly, Bettina Kubicek, and Christian Korunka. 2017. Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38: 108–23.
  53. Gong, Yaping, Jia-Chi Huang, and Jiing-Lih Farh. 2009. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal 52: 765–78.
  54. Liao, Hui, Dong Liu, and Raymond Loi. 2010. Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal 53: 1090–109.
  55. Tierney, Pamela, and Steven M. Farmer. 2011. Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 277–93.
  56. Kim, Hyunjee Hannah, Jin Nam Choi, and Arif Nazir Butt. 2019. Reflected self-efficacy and creativity: The power of being recognized by others toward individual creative performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 47: 1–13.
  57. Schwarzer, Ralf, and Lisa Marie Warner. 2013. Perceived self-efficacy and its relationship to resilience. In Resilience in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: Translating Research into Practice. Edited by Sandra Prince-Embury and Donald H. Saklofske. The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality; Berlin: Springer, pp. 139–50.
  58. Sagone, Elisabetta, and Maria Elvira De Caroli. 2016a. “Yes… I can”: Psychological resilience and self-efficacy in adolescents. Revista INFAD de Psicología. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology 1: 141–48.
  59. Hurtes, Karen P., and Lawrence R. Allen. 2001. Measuring resiliency in youth: The resiliency attitudes and skills profile. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 35: 333–47. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-00528-005 (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  60. De Caroli, Maria Elvira, and Elisabetta Sagone. 2014. Resilient profile and creative personality in middle and late adolescents: A validation study of the Italian-RASP. American Journal of Applied Psychology 2: 53–58.
  61. Sagone, Elisabetta, Maria Elvira De Caroli, Rossella Falanga, and Maria Luisa Indiana. 2020. Resilience and perceived self-efficacy in life skills from early to late adolescence. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 25: 882–90.
  62. Bandura, Albert. 2007. Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty experimentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 26: 641–58.
  63. Hamill, Sarah K. 2003. Resilience and self-efficacy: The importance of efficacy beliefs and coping mechanisms in resilient adolescents. Colgate University Journal of the Sciences 35: 115–46.
  64. Sagone, Elisabetta, and Maria Elvira De Caroli. 2016b. Are value priorities related to dispositional optimism and resilience? A correlational study. Contemporary Educational Researches Journal 6: 11–20.
  65. Brannick, Michael T., Donald E. Miles, and Jennifer L. Kisamore. 2005. Calibration between student mastery and self-efficacy. Studies in Higher Education 30: 473–83.
  66. Caruana, Viv. 2014. Re-thinking global citizenship in higher education: From cosmopolitanism and international mobility to cosmopolitanisation, resilience and resilient thinking. Higher Education Quarterly 68: 85–104.
  67. Shaabani, Farzaneh, Gholam Hossein Maktabi, Manijeh Shehni Yeylagh, and Zekrollah Morovati. 2011. The relationship between academic self-efficacy and creativity with critical thinking in university students. Journal of Educational and Management Studies 1: 32–37.
  68. Helson, Ravenna, and Sanjay Srivastava. 2002. Creative and wise people: Similarities, differences, and how they develop. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 1430–40.
  69. Haase, Jennifer, Eva V. Hoff, Paul H. P. Hanel, and Åse Innes-Ker. 2018. A meta-analysis of the relation between creative self-efficacy and different creativity measurements. Creativity Research Journal 30: 1–16.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback