创造性思维是可塑的:“天生如此”信息的影响和创造力的不同定义

IF 3.7 2区 教育学 Q1 Social Sciences
Boby Ho-Hong Ching, Hannah Xiaohan Wu, Xiao Fei Li
{"title":"创造性思维是可塑的:“天生如此”信息的影响和创造力的不同定义","authors":"Boby Ho-Hong Ching,&nbsp;Hannah Xiaohan Wu,&nbsp;Xiao Fei Li","doi":"10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This experimental study examined the joint effects of different definitions (Big-C vs. little-c) and biological attributions of creativity (i.e., biological determinist attribution vs. interactive attribution) on creative mindsets. We randomly assigned 312 participants to one of the four experimental conditions: (a) Big-C, biological determinist attribution, (b) little-c, biological determinist attribution, (c) Big-C, interactive attribution, (d) little-c interactive attribution. Participants in each experimental group read a passage about creativity, which started with a brief definition of creativity (Big C versus little-c), followed by fictitious scientific findings about the causes of creativity. Participants who were led to think about the Big-C definition of creativity tended to endorse higher levels of fixed and lower levels of growth mindsets of creativity, compared with those who were led to think of creativity as everyday activities of ordinary people. Within the Big-C condition, the differences were significantly stronger when individuals read a passage that highlighted the deterministic role of biology in affecting creativity levels, compared with others who read a passage that emphasized the importance of both biological and environmental factors. The experimental manipulations affected creative mindsets only, but not the implicit theories of intelligence. By contrast, the differences between the biological determinist and interactive attribution conditions were not significant in the little-c condition. Our findings suggest that researchers and the media should avoid communicating biological knowledge associated with creativity in deterministic ways. Conceptualizing creativity as something that is achievable in everyday contexts may contribute to the development of a growth mindset of creativity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47729,"journal":{"name":"Thinking Skills and Creativity","volume":"48 ","pages":"Article 101308"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Creative mindsets are malleable: Effects of “born this way” messages and different definitions of creativity\",\"authors\":\"Boby Ho-Hong Ching,&nbsp;Hannah Xiaohan Wu,&nbsp;Xiao Fei Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This experimental study examined the joint effects of different definitions (Big-C vs. little-c) and biological attributions of creativity (i.e., biological determinist attribution vs. interactive attribution) on creative mindsets. We randomly assigned 312 participants to one of the four experimental conditions: (a) Big-C, biological determinist attribution, (b) little-c, biological determinist attribution, (c) Big-C, interactive attribution, (d) little-c interactive attribution. Participants in each experimental group read a passage about creativity, which started with a brief definition of creativity (Big C versus little-c), followed by fictitious scientific findings about the causes of creativity. Participants who were led to think about the Big-C definition of creativity tended to endorse higher levels of fixed and lower levels of growth mindsets of creativity, compared with those who were led to think of creativity as everyday activities of ordinary people. Within the Big-C condition, the differences were significantly stronger when individuals read a passage that highlighted the deterministic role of biology in affecting creativity levels, compared with others who read a passage that emphasized the importance of both biological and environmental factors. The experimental manipulations affected creative mindsets only, but not the implicit theories of intelligence. By contrast, the differences between the biological determinist and interactive attribution conditions were not significant in the little-c condition. Our findings suggest that researchers and the media should avoid communicating biological knowledge associated with creativity in deterministic ways. Conceptualizing creativity as something that is achievable in everyday contexts may contribute to the development of a growth mindset of creativity.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking Skills and Creativity\",\"volume\":\"48 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101308\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking Skills and Creativity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187123000780\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking Skills and Creativity","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187123000780","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本实验研究考察了创造力的不同定义(大c与小c)和生物归因(即生物决定论归因与互动归因)对创造性思维的共同影响。我们将312名参与者随机分配到四种实验条件之一:(a)大c,生物决定论归因,(b)小c,生物决定论归因,(c)大c,互动归因,(d)小c互动归因。每个实验组的参与者都读了一篇关于创造力的文章,文章以创造力的简短定义(大C和小C)开始,然后是关于创造力原因的虚构科学发现。与那些认为创造力是普通人的日常活动的参与者相比,那些被引导思考创造力的Big-C定义的参与者倾向于支持更高水平的固定思维和更低水平的成长思维。在Big-C条件下,当个体阅读强调生物在影响创造力水平方面的决定性作用的文章时,与阅读强调生物和环境因素重要性的文章的人相比,差异明显更大。实验操作只影响创造性思维,而不影响智力的内隐理论。而在little-c条件下,生物决定论和交互归因条件之间的差异不显著。我们的研究结果表明,研究人员和媒体应该避免以确定性的方式传播与创造力相关的生物学知识。将创造力概念化为在日常环境中可以实现的东西,可能有助于创造力成长心态的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Creative mindsets are malleable: Effects of “born this way” messages and different definitions of creativity

This experimental study examined the joint effects of different definitions (Big-C vs. little-c) and biological attributions of creativity (i.e., biological determinist attribution vs. interactive attribution) on creative mindsets. We randomly assigned 312 participants to one of the four experimental conditions: (a) Big-C, biological determinist attribution, (b) little-c, biological determinist attribution, (c) Big-C, interactive attribution, (d) little-c interactive attribution. Participants in each experimental group read a passage about creativity, which started with a brief definition of creativity (Big C versus little-c), followed by fictitious scientific findings about the causes of creativity. Participants who were led to think about the Big-C definition of creativity tended to endorse higher levels of fixed and lower levels of growth mindsets of creativity, compared with those who were led to think of creativity as everyday activities of ordinary people. Within the Big-C condition, the differences were significantly stronger when individuals read a passage that highlighted the deterministic role of biology in affecting creativity levels, compared with others who read a passage that emphasized the importance of both biological and environmental factors. The experimental manipulations affected creative mindsets only, but not the implicit theories of intelligence. By contrast, the differences between the biological determinist and interactive attribution conditions were not significant in the little-c condition. Our findings suggest that researchers and the media should avoid communicating biological knowledge associated with creativity in deterministic ways. Conceptualizing creativity as something that is achievable in everyday contexts may contribute to the development of a growth mindset of creativity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Thinking Skills and Creativity
Thinking Skills and Creativity EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.20%
发文量
172
审稿时长
76 days
期刊介绍: Thinking Skills and Creativity is a new journal providing a peer-reviewed forum for communication and debate for the community of researchers interested in teaching for thinking and creativity. Papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches and may relate to any age level in a diversity of settings: formal and informal, education and work-based.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信