Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

Team growth mindset and team scientific creativity of college

students: The role of team achievement goal orientation and
leader behavioral feedback
Hui Zhao a, *, Jianwei Zhang b, Shupeng Heng a, Chunhui Qi a
a
Faculty of Education, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China
b
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The team scientific creativity of college students is important for building an innovative country.
College students To explore the factors that influence team scientific creativity, the current study builds a theo­
Team scientific creativity retical model of team growth mindset and team scientific creativity and explores the relationship
Team growth mindset
among team growth mindset, team achievement goal orientation, leader behavioral feedback, and
Team achievement goal orientation
Leader behavioral feedback
team scientific creativity. A total of 601 college students majoring in science and engineering
from 132 innovation teams in China completed the questionnaire. The results showed that team
growth mindset was positively related to team scientific creativity. Team achievement goal
orientation mediated the relationship between team growth mindset and team scientific crea­
tivity. In addition, leader behavioral feedback moderated the relationship between team growth
mindset and team achievement goal orientation, as well as the relationship between team growth
mindset and team scientific creativity. The results not only help provide an understanding of the
relationship between team growth mindset and team scientific creativity but also have important
implications for promoting the development of science and technology innovation teams among
college students.

1. Introduction

College students’ science and technology innovation teams closely integrate scientific innovation and talent training. The scientific
creativity of these teams is related to the smooth development of university innovation education and the virtuous circle of the national
innovation system. Exploring in depth the problem of the team scientific creativity of college students majoring in science and en­
gineering has important theoretical and practical significance. Team scientific creativity is a combination of team creativity devel­
opment and scientific practical activities in the context of scientific tasks (Liu, Zhang, Yang & Ma, 2013). Many studies on the
formation mechanism of college students’ team scientific creativity have focused on contextual predictors, such as team innovation
climate (e.g., Zhang, Zhao, Li & Ren, 2018) and supervisory support (e.g., Zhang, Li, Zhao & Ren, 2019). However, a meta-analysis
study showed that team cognition explained variance in team processes above and beyond the influence of behavior and many
other factors (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). In reality, the extent to which team members interact effectively depends on the
kind of cognitive beliefs they hold (Gadgil, 2014). Therefore, team cognitive beliefs may have important value in the scientific creation

* Corresponding author at:Faculty of Education, Henan Normal University, Jianshe Road, Muye District, Xinxiang City, Henan Province, China.
E-mail address: zhaohui@htu.edu.cn (H. Zhao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100957
Received 4 March 2021; Received in revised form 25 September 2021; Accepted 27 September 2021
Available online 30 September 2021
1871-1871/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Zhao et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

process of teams.
According to Dweck’s implicit theory (Dweck, 2006), teams with a growth mindset hold the cognitive belief that a group’s
characteristics (e.g., intelligence, ability) are malleable (Rydell, Hugenberg, Ray & Mackie, 2007). In other words, they believe that a
group’s characteristics can be continuously developed through unremitting effort. At present, studies on the positive relationship
between growth mindset and creativity have mostly focused on the individual level (Gucciardi, Jackson, Hodge, Anthony & Brooke,
2015; O’connor, Nemeth & Akutsu, 2013). However, Rydell et al. (2007) proposed that differences in implicit theories of groups
would, over and above individual implicit theories, affect basic social-cognitive processes and phenomena. Meanwhile, team scientific
creativity is not a simple summation of individual scientific creativity. Although individual creativity provides teams with innovative
points or raw materials, many factors determine whether these raw materials can be transformed into team output (Liu et al., 2013).
Therefore, team creativity researchers believe that it is very valuable to study whether phenomena at the individual level also occur at
the team level (Cooper & Jayatilaka, 2006). A previous study found that a mindset conducive to creativity could enhance group
creativity (Choi & Yoon, 2018). In this study, we aim to expand the theoretical system of team scientific creativity by examining the
effect of team cognition – growth mindset – which has been found to be related to differential creativity outcomes at the individual
level (Dweck, 2006; Gucciardi et al., 2015; O’connor et al., 2013) but has not fully been explored in terms of its team effect. We believe
that, based on individual-level research, the team growth mindset can give us a deeper understanding of how team cognition affects
team scientific creativity.
Based on achievement goal theory (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), implicit theories determine the way people approach achievement
situations, the kinds of goals they adopt, and their behaviors and ultimate achievements (Dupeyrat & Mariné, 2005). Existing
individual-level studies have mostly used achievement goal orientation to explain the influence mechanism of individual mindset on
creativity (Gucciardi et al., 2015; Royston, 2016), but they have not empirically tested this mediation effect (Zhao, Zhang, Zhang &
Heng, 2020). At the team level, team achievement goal orientation is defined as a collective state that represents the common cognition
of team members about the goals pursued by their team (Mehta, Field, Armenakis & Mehta, 2009), and it is related to the improvement
of team creative performance (Shin, Kim & Lee, 2017). Team goal orientation manifests a closer link through which implicit theory
affects team process and team performance (Beckmann, Wood, Minbashian & Tabernero, 2012). Therefore, this study attempts to
introduce team achievement goal orientation to explore the motivation mechanism of the team growth mindset influencing team
scientific creativity. Furthermore, the componential theory of creativity holds that contextual factors have an important moderating
effect on the formation process of creativity (Amabile, 1998). Given the important contextual status of team leaders, the role of their
feedback in the team innovation process cannot be ignored. Informational feedback was found to be positive for creativity (Shalley &
Gilson, 2004). However, is leadership feedback necessarily beneficial? Unlike informational feedback, behavioral feedback empha­
sizes the follower’s compliance with specific behaviors (Kohli & Jaworski, 1994), reflecting a higher degree of behavioral control.
Cognitive evaluation theory holds that the external reinforcement of control behavior weakens autonomous motivation and has a
negative effect on abilities (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This may mean that leader behavioral feedback has a dark side in the field of
innovation. This study intends to take leader behavioral feedback as the contextual condition for team growth mindset influencing the
team scientific creativity through team achievement goal orientation.

1.1. Team growth mindset and team scientific creativity

Team scientific creativity is the intelligence of team members or their ability to produce scientific achievements with novel and
unique social value under the guidance of team leaders in the context of scientific tasks (Liu et al., 2013), which are the specific
application of team creativity in science education and scientific practice. A team with a growth mindset holds an implicit theory about
groups in which groups’ characteristics are changeable and fluid (Rydell et al., 2007). The team growth mindset is the team members
shared implicit cognition. According to the componential theory of creativity, an appropriate cognitive style and the implicit heuristic
knowledge needed to produce new ideas are necessary for creativity in all fields (Amabile, 1998). As an important aspect of team
cognition, the influence of the team growth mindset on team scientific creativity remains to be tested.
Based on a review of the previous literature, growth mindset is related to some related concepts concerning creativity at the in­
dividual level. Empirical studies support that a growth mindset plays a potentially important role in motivating people to carry out
creative activities (Karwowski, 2014). A growth mindset not only improves individuals’ creative self-efficacy and enhance their in­
terest in participating in creative thinking (Hass, Katz-Buonincontro & Reiter-Palmon, 2016; O’connor et al., 2013) but also is the key
factor in their continuing to adhere to a creative desire after having a negative performance (Beghetto & Dilley, 2016). A growth
mindset makes people more convinced that making an effort can change the situation, thereby enhancing their creativity and creative
problem-solving ability (Gucciardi et al., 2015; O’connor et al., 2013; Royston, 2016). The above demonstrates that a growth mindset
determines people’s belief in hard work and plays a positive role in the process of innovation.
However, in the field of team creativity, few studies have tested the impact of the team growth mindset. The individual growth
mindset focuses on how individual characteristics change through personal development, while the team growth mindset focuses on
how the team changes based on coordinated team effort (Rydell et al., 2007). Rydell et al. (2007) also believed that the team mindset
has surpassed the individual mindset to affect social phenomena. Up to the team level, the degree to which team members express
beliefs about the malleability of ability affects the team process (Beckmann et al., 2012). Beliefs about group malleability could
enhance group efficacy beliefs and collective action tendencies (Cohen-Chen, Halperin, Saguy & Zomeren, 2014). Furthermore,
thinking processes conducive to creativity promote group creativity (Choi & Yoon, 2018). Based on the contribution of the individual
growth mindset in the field of creation and the research of beliefs about group malleability, the team growth mindset may have a
positive impact on team scientific creativity. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis in the context of scientific and

2
H. Zhao et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

technological innovation:
Hypothesis 1. Team growth mindset has a positive effect on team scientific creativity.

1.2. Mediating role of team achievement goal orientation

Team achievement goal orientation is a kind of motivation orientation (Mehta et al., 2009). When team members believe that their
team has learning goals, focus on acquiring new knowledge and new skills, support each other and undertake challenging tasks, the
team has a learning goal orientation (Mehta & Mehta, 2018). However, when team members think that their team has performance
goals, emphasize proving their ability to obtain a favorable evaluation, and avoid failure and negative evaluations, the team has a
performance goal orientation (Mehta & Mehta, 2018). Team goal orientation establishes a set of mutually recognized motivational
beliefs among team members and guides their actions. Achievement goal theory holds that implicit cognition can play a role in the
choice of achievement goals, which affect behavior and its results (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Team members influence their team’s
potential to be creative by affecting cognitive and motivational processes (Paulus, Dzindolet & Kohn, 2012). Based on the above
theory, the team growth mindset may act on team scientific creativity through team achievement goal orientation.
First, team growth mindset may affect team achievement goal orientation. Achievement goal theory proposes that mindset de­
termines the way individuals handle learning and achievement, the types of goals adopted, and whether goals are viewed as achievable
through hard work and perseverance (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Empirical research at the individual level found that the growth
mindset played a positive role in individual learning goal orientation and had a negative impact on performance goal orientation
(Dinger, Dickhäuser, Spinath & Steinmayr, 2013; Puente-Díaz & Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017). Individuals with a high growth mindset focus
on improving their ability, looking for challenging goals, and persisting in overcoming possible or even necessary setbacks; individuals
with a low growth mindset mainly focus on achieving good performance to prove their ability to themselves or others and tend to have
a performance goal orientation (Dupeyrat & Mariné, 2005). However, little attention has been given to the relationship between the
growth mindset and achievement goal orientation at the team level. The study found that compared with groups with a low growth
mindset, groups with a high growth mindset chose more challenging group goals, owed their performance more to their efforts, and
exhibited more obvious collective effectiveness (Beckmann et al., 2012). In one study, the growth mindset group showed more
situational intrinsic motivation (Moreno, González-Cutre, Martín-Albo & Cervelló, 2010). It can be inferred that a team growth
mindset encourages members to make more of an effort when facing challenging innovation tasks, which helps them enhance their
learning goal orientation and weaken their performance goal orientation.
Second, team achievement goal orientation may play a unique role in the process of team scientific creation. In the field of team
creativity, previous research results showed that team learning goal orientation helped create a positive development intention and
learning atmosphere, which actively predicted team creativity by stimulating team self-examination and clarifying the challenges
faced by the team (He, 2018). This is because a team learning goal orientation increases team learning and encourages members to
address problems when facing an innovation task together (Gong, Kim, Zhou & Lee, 2013). In contrast, teams with a performance goal
orientation pay too much attention to external evaluation, and information sharing among team members is reduced, ultimately
limiting the team’s creativity (Hirst, Van Knippenberg, Chen & Sacramento, 2011). However, the scientific creativity of college student
science and technology innovation teams differs from general team creativity among employees in the field of organization and
management (Liu et al., 2013). Although studies on team creativity have laid the foundation, the role of team achievement goal
orientation in the scientific creation process of college student innovation teams needs to be further revealed. Individual studies have
shown that a growth mindset indirectly influences creative self-efficacy (Puente-Díaz & Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017) and interest in creative
thinking (O’connor et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2020) by influencing the choice of achievement goals. However, in the direct relationship
between individual growth mindset and creativity, the mediating role of achievement goal orientation has not been empirically tested
(Zhao et al., 2020). This study attempts to explore the mediating role of team achievement goal orientation between implicit theory
about groups and team scientific creativity. Thus, the following hypotheses are developed in the context of scientific and technological
innovation:
Hypothesis 2. Team learning goal orientation mediates the relationship between team growth mindset and team scientific creativity.

Hypothesis 3. Team performance goal orientation mediates the relationship between team growth mindset and team scientific
creativity.

1.3. Moderating role of leader behavioral feedback

Team innovation involves the interactions between team members and leaders. Leader behavioral feedback is the information
communicated to team members by leaders on specific behaviors with the aim of helping followers work, including the extent and
direction of rights and errors in behaviors (Kohli & Jaworski, 1994). It enables followers to master more expected ways of doing things
and reduces their uncertainty about how to perform tasks. Zhou (1998) divided feedback into controlling feedback and informational
feedback. Controlling feedback emphasizes the demands and expectations of an external force to achieve certain behavioral goals
(Zhou, 1998). In contrast, informational feedback provides information to improve performance, which does not attempt to force the
recipient to act in a certain way (Hu, Wang, Yi & Runco, 2018; Zhou, 1998). Studies have shown that compared with informational
feedback, controlling feedback is associated with lower intrinsic motivation and lower creativity (Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001; Zhou &
Oldham, 2001) because feedback conveyed in a control style may be understood as inhibiting and restraining (Zhou, 1998). When

3
H. Zhao et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

leaders impose clear requirements or restrictions on feedback recipients, their feedback style is controlling feedback (Slijkhuis,
Rietzschel & Van Yperen, 2013). Behavioral feedback conveys information that leaders expect and do not expect, focuses on the
specific behavior of followers, and pays more attention to followers’ compliance and behavioral role clarity, which might have a
negative impact on team innovation. According to the componential theory of creativity (Amabile, 1998), creativity components such
as motivation and the whole innovation process cannot be separated from the influence of contextual factors. In other words, the
formation mechanism of team achievement goal orientation and team scientific creativity may be negatively moderated by leader
behavioral feedback.
Trait activation theory holds that team goal orientation is significantly affected by contextual factors (Beck & Schmidt, 2013). Team
leaders act as a contextual variable that can influence team members’ commitment and recognition of team innovation goals and have
an important impact on the team process (Sui, Chen & Wang, 2012). Leaders’ specific behaviors and communication can modify the
prioritization of team goals (Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014). Leader behavioral feedback may be a boundary condition of team
growth mindset acting on team motivation. Cognitive evaluation theory emphasizes that the external reinforcement of control
behavior frustrates the individual’s motivation to engage in behavior autonomy and further weakens his or her ability (Ryan & Deci,
2000). Emphasizing that followers’ behaviors match leaders’ expectations imposes a sense of control on followers and frustrates their
autonomous motivation, which conflicts with the freedom and support needed for innovation (Wang & Cai, 2016). These restrictions
may weaken the enthusiasm of team members to make continuous efforts and learn driven by the team growth mindset, making them
tend to avoid negative evaluation and making it difficult for them to actively participate in innovation activities. Therefore, leader
behavioral feedback may negatively moderate the relationship between team growth mindset and team achievement goal orientation.
Research has found that the relationship between behavioral feedback and performance is stronger when the individual has less
experience and higher compliance (Kohli & Jaworski, 1994). This finding has strong guiding value for improving performance, but it is
inconsistent with a free and inclusive innovation atmosphere. When leaders provide more feedback, individuals are more likely to
choose relatively clear and easily achieved goals that will be met with leader approval while avoiding uncertainty, which may bring
greater benefits (Ma & Yan, 2020). Furthermore, in the face of negative behavioral feedback, followers may regard feedback as un­
welcome and try to avoid it (Kohli & Jaworski, 1994). As a result of controlling feedback, followers’ sense of autonomy decreases,
which in turn inhibits intrinsic motivation and creative performance (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999). Because behaviors are not
initiated by themselves, the creativity of followers may decline. Many studies have substantively examined the negative impact of
controlling feedback on creativity, especially at the individual level (Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Zhou & Oldham, 2001). At the team level,
the law of diminishing marginal utility holds that the continuous increase in information or knowledge reduces the positive effects it
brings, especially in the context of teamwork (Guan, Luo & Zhong, 2016). Based on this, it is inferred that when leaders attach
excessive behavioral feedback to members’ innovation behaviors, this may undermine the positive influence of the team growth
mindset on team scientific creativity. Therefore, this research proposes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4. Leader behavioral feedback moderates the relationship between team growth mindset and team achievement goal
orientation. That is, the higher the level of leader behavioral feedback is, the weaker the relationships between team growth mindset
and team learning goal orientation and between team growth mindset and team performance goal orientation.

Hypothesis 5. Leader behavioral feedback moderates the relationship between team growth mindset and team scientific creativity.
That is, the higher the level of leader behavioral feedback is, the weaker the positive relationship between team growth mindset and
team scientific creativity.
This study aims to investigate the positive impact of a team growth mindset on team scientific creativity among college students in
the context of scientific and technological innovation. It reveals the internal mechanism by which team growth mindset affects team
scientific creativity by examining the mediating role of team achievement goal orientation. Furthermore, this study determines the
boundary condition of the relationship between team growth mindset and team scientific creativity by exploring the moderating role of
leader behavioral feedback. This study will help increase the scientific creativity of college students’ scientific and technological
innovation teams. Fig. 1 depicts the research model.

Fig. 1. Research model.

4
H. Zhao et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Participants

This study administered a questionnaire survey to innovation teams of science and engineering college students participating in
various Chinese college innovation competitions. The teams’ support was obtained for this survey through in-depth communication at
the competition venue. In addition, through the recommendations of relevant teachers and leaders, additional teams were contacted,
and their participation was requested. To control for response bias, the survey was conducted in two stages with an interval of 1 – 2
weeks. The first on-site survey questionnaire measured team growth mindset, leader behavioral feedback, and demographic variables.
In the second stage, information on team achievement goal orientation and team scientific creativity was collected through email. The
questionnaire used a unique code matching method (requiring participants to provide the last six digits of their identity card numbers)
to match the two questionnaires. In total, 714 and 631 questionnaires were collected in the two stages, respectively. After individual
review, 601 sets of questionnaires were matched successfully, for a matching rate of 84.17%.
The demographic survey yielded results for 601 students on 132 teams from 105 universities in China. The students ranged in age
from 18 to 24 years. The sample included 465 males (77.37%) and 136 females (22.63%). There were 367 engineering students
(61.06%) and 234 science students (38.94%), and there were 86 freshmen (14.31%), 303 sophomores (50.42%), 166 juniors (27.62%),
and 46 seniors (7.65%). The students represented 31 3-person teams (23.48%), 39 4-person teams (29.55%), 37 5-person teams
(28.03%), 15 6-person teams (11.36%), 3 7-person teams (2.27%), and 7 8-person teams (5.30%); thus, the average team size was 5.
There were 63 teams (47.73%) with a male ratio of 75% or more, 51 teams with a male ratio of 50% – 75% (38.64%), 10 teams (7.58%)
with a male ratio of 25% – 50%, and 8 teams with a male ratio of less than 25% (6.06%). The entire investigation process was con­
ducted under the guidance and supervision of the Ethics Committee of Henan Normal University.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Team growth mindset

Team growth mindset was assessed using the Dweck Mindset Instrument (Dweck, 1999). The Chinese version of the scale has been
tested in previous studies in China and has been proven to have high reliability (e.g., Ma, Ma & Lan, 2020). This scale had 8 items (e.g.,
“No matter how much intelligence your team has, you can always change it quite a bit”). Four of these items were reverse scored. Items
were rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). The level of team growth mindset was represented by
the average score of all items. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.88.

2.2.2. Team achievement goal orientation

Team achievement goal orientation was assessed using the Goal Orientation Instrument (Vandewalle, 1997). The Chinese version
of the scale has good psychometric characteristics and has been used many times to measure the team achievement goal orientation of
Chinese participants (e.g., Yu, Yang & Li, 2020). The scale had 13 items separated into two subscales: learning goal orientation (5
items; e.g., “We are willing to select a challenging work assignment that we can learn a lot from”) and performance goal orientation (8
items; e.g., “We prefer to avoid situations at work where we might perform poorly”). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alphas for the reliability of the two subscales were 0.79 and 0.76.

2.2.3. Leader behavioral feedback

Leader behavioral feedback was evaluated using the Behavioral Feedback Scales (Jaworski & Kohli, 1991). We invited two
management doctoral students to translate the English scale into Chinese, and then, two English doctoral students were invited to back
translate it into English. Finally, we invited two English-speaking psychology lecturers with doctor’s degrees to compare the two
versions of the questionnaires until agreement was reached. The scale had 9 items divided into two subscales: positive behavioral
feedback (e.g., “Our leader makes a point of telling us when he or she thinks we manage our time well”) and negative behavioral
feedback (e.g., “When my leader doesn’t find us working the way he or she expects, he or she tells us about it”). Items were rated on a
5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.95. The
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results showed good fit (χ 2/df = 2.411, CFI = 0.992, RMSEA = 0.048).

2.2.4. Team scientific creativity

Team scientific creativity was assessed using the Chinese version of the Team Scientific Creativity Scale (Liu et al., 2013). The scale
has been verified to have good reliability and was often used to measure the team scientific creativity among Chinese college students’
innovation teams (e.g., Zhang et al., 2018). The scale had 12 items (e.g., “Our team can come up with various ideas”). Items were rated
on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), and the Cronbach’s alpha for scale reliability was 0.93.

2.2.5. Control variables

Team size and proportion of males were included as control variables. Team size expressed by the number of team members
predicts teamwork and team effectiveness (Li, Long & Zhu, 2017). Team gender diversity is an important factor affecting team pro­
cesses (Chen, Liu & Zhang, 2020). Team members of the majority gender tend to ignore the opinions and suggestions of team members
of the opposite gender, which may hinder the free flow of information on the team (Ni, Xiang & Yao, 2016). Therefore, we controlled
the team size and the proportion of males in the data analysis of this study.

5
H. Zhao et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

2.3. Data analysis

SPSS 23.0, Amos 23.0, and R 4.1.0 were used to analyze the data. SPSS 23.0 was used for the reliability analysis, data aggregation
test and correlation analysis. R 4.1.0 was used to test the homogeneity of variances. A common method bias test was performed using
Amos 23.0. Finally, Amos 23.0 and SPSS 23.0 were used to test the mediating effect and moderating effect, respectively. Because both
6-point and 5-point Likert scales were used in this study, we standardized the original data of all the variables before testing the
hypotheses.

3. Results

3.1. Homogeneity of variance test

To test for homogeneity of variances, Levene’s test was conducted for each variable on the 132 teams. The results showed that the
variances were homogeneous between team growth mindset (F = 1.101, p > 0.05), team learning goal orientation (F = 0.999, p >
0.05), team performance goal orientation (F = 1.088, p > 0.05), leader behavioral feedback (F = 1.117, p > 0.05), and team scientific
creativity (F = 0.967, p > 0.05). The above p-values were all greater than 0.05, so the assumption of homogeneity of variance was
considered valid. This finding laid a foundation for further hypothesis testing.

3.2. Common method bias test and discriminant validity test

The method-factor method was selected to verify the existence of common method bias. After the addition of a common method
factor to the five-factor model (team growth mindset, team learning goal orientation, team performance goal orientation, leader
behavioral feedback, team scientific creativity), the model fit (χ 2/df = 2.58, CFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05) was not signifi­
cantly improved. This showed that there was no obvious common method bias in the data of this study.
We tested the discriminant validity among the variables with CFA (see Table 1). The results showed that all the fit indicators (χ 2/df
= 2.59, CFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05) of the five-factor model were within the acceptable range, and the five-factor model had
a better model fit than the other five alternative models (model 1 ~ model 5). The results showed that the five variables had higher
discriminant validity in the five-factor model assumed in this study.

3.3. Data aggregation test

Although the variables were measured with the team as the reference point, because the data were obtained at the individual level,
it was necessary to test the feasibility of adding individual-level variables to the team level. The Rwg index of within-group agreement
is often used to diagnose the appropriateness of aggregating data to higher levels of analysis (James, Demaree & Wolf, 1984). A high
degree of agreement means team members have enough shared perception that an average of individual responses can represent the
concept of the team level (Newman & Sin, 2009). The Rwg mean indexes of team growth mindset, team learning goal orientation, team
performance goal orientation, leader behavioral feedback and team scientific creativity (0.94, 0.84, 0.94, 0.94, 0.95) exceeded the
critical level of 0.7. Thus, within-group interrater reliability met aggregation requirements.
Furthermore, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was also selected to justify the aggregation of lower-level responses into
higher-level construct scores (James, 1982). ICC (1) is interpreted as the proportion of total variance that can be explained by group
membership; ICC (2) is a reliability index for group average scores, with high values indicating that aggregate measures of a
group-level construct are reasonably free of idiosyncratic rater error (Newman & Sin, 2009). The ICC (1) values of the five scales were
0.13, 0.15, 0.14, 0.10 and 0.27, and the variable values were acceptable. The ICC (2) values were 0.45, 0.49, 0.48, 0.37 and 0.67,
respectively, except for the ICC (2) values of team growth mindset and leader behavioral feedback, and the other variables were
significant. However, the lower ICC (2) also indicated that the relationship between variables tended to be more conservative (Sui
et al., 2012). Therefore, the aggregation of data at the team level was appropriate and effective, and five variables could be aggregated
into team variables.

Table 1
Comparison of the measurement models.
Measurement models χ2/ df CFI IFI RMSEA

Five-factor model: TM, TL, TP, LBF, TSC 2.59 0.90 0.90 0.05
Four-factor model 1: TM, TL + TP, LBF, TSC 3.13 0.87 0.87 0.06
Four-factor model 2: TM, TL, TP + LBF, TSC 3.62 0.84 0.84 0.07
Three-factor model 3: TM + TL + TP, LBF, TSC 3.94 0.82 0.82 0.07
Three-factor model 4: TM, TL + TP + LBF, TSC 4.75 0.77 0.77 0.08
Single factor model 5: TM + TL + TP + LBF + TSC 10.57 0.41 0.41 0.13

TM = team growth mindset; TL = team learning goal orientation; TP = team performance goal orientation; LBF = leader behavioral feedback; TSC =
team scientific creativity.

6
H. Zhao et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

3.4. Correlations between primary variables

Table 2 lists the mean values (M), standard deviations (SD) and correlation coefficients among the variables. There were significant
positive relationships between team growth mindset and team scientific creativity, between team growth mindset and team learning
goal orientation and between team learning goal orientation and team scientific creativity. There were significant negative re­
lationships between team growth mindset and team performance goal orientation as well as between team performance goal orien­
tation and team scientific creativity. Leader behavioral feedback was not related to team learning goal orientation or team scientific
creativity. The correlation coefficients among all variables were moderate and lower than their Cronbach’s alphas (see Table 2). The
results showed that the measurement tool had good validity.

3.5. Hypothesis testing

We built a mediation model with team size and proportion of males as the control variables, team growth mindset as the inde­
pendent variable, and team learning goal orientation and team performance goal orientation as mediators of the effect of team sci­
entific creativity. As shown in Table 2, to test the total effect of team growth mindset on team scientific creativity, it was found that the
standardized path coefficient of team growth mindset to team scientific creativity was 0.57 (p < 0.01), and the model fit well (χ 2/df =
1.296, CFI = 0.977, IFI = 0.977, RMSEA = 0.048). The results show that team growth mindset positively predicted team scientific
creativity, supporting Hypothesis 1.
Then, team achievement goal orientation was added to the model (see Fig. 2). The standardized path coefficient of team growth
mindset to team learning goal orientation was 0.48 (p < 0.01), and the standardized path coefficient of team learning goal orientation
to team scientific creativity was 0.42 (p < 0.01). The standardized path coefficient of team growth mindset to team performance goal
orientation was − 0.31 (p < 0.01), and the standardized path coefficient of team performance goal orientation to team scientific
creativity was − 0.59 (p < 0.01). These path coefficients were significant, and the model fit well (χ 2/df = 1.456, CFI = 0.913, IFI =
0.914, RMSEA = 0.059). The results showed that the team growth mindset indirectly affected team scientific creativity through team
learning goal orientation and team performance goal orientation, supporting Hypotheses 2 and 3.
Taking team size and proportion of males as control variables, this study used hierarchical regression analysis to test the
moderating effect of leader behavioral feedback (see Table 3). Latent variables were used in this analysis. The interaction between
team growth mindset and leader behavioral feedback had significant effects on team learning goal orientation (β = − 0.19, p < 0.05),
team performance goal orientation (β = 0.22, p < 0.05) and team scientific creativity (β = − 0.21, p < 0.01). The results showed that
leader behavioral feedback moderated the relationships between team growth mindset and team learning goal orientation, team
growth mindset and team performance goal orientation as well as team growth mindset and team scientific creativity, supporting
Hypotheses 4 and 5.
To show the moderating effect of leader behavioral feedback more clearly, we mapped the relationships between team growth
mindset and team learning goal orientation, team growth mindset and team performance goal orientation as well as team growth
mindset and team scientific creativity at different levels of leader behavioral feedback (Fig. 3). The straight lines representing the
above relationships changed from steep to gradual as the level of leader behavioral feedback changed from low to high. This showed
that leader behavioral feedback had a negative moderating effect. Meanwhile, the simple slope analysis confirmed that team growth
mindset had a stronger effect on team learning goal orientation under low leader behavioral feedback (simple slope = 0.224, t = 7.359,
p < 0.001) than under high leader behavioral feedback (simple slope = 0.140, t = 3.583, p < 0.001). The team growth mindset had a
stronger effect on team performance goal orientation under low leader behavioral feedback (simple slope = − 0.149, t = − 5.855, p <
0.001) than under high leader behavioral feedback (simple slope = − 0.073, t = − 2.219, p < 0.05). The team growth mindset had a
stronger effect on team scientific creativity under low leader behavioral feedback (simple slope = 0.318, t = 8.575, p < 0.001) than
under high leader behavioral feedback (simple slope = 0.201, t = 4.208, p < 0.001). The above results further support Hypotheses 4 and
5. They showed that under the condition of high leader behavioral feedback, team growth mindset had weaker effects on team learning
goal orientation, team performance goal orientation and team scientific creativity.

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities (in brackets).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Team size — —
2 Proportion of males — — 0.02
3 TM 3.89 0.42 0.07 − 0.21* (0.88)
4 TL 4.04 0.37 0.10 − 0.12 0.49** (0.79)
5 TP 2.43 0.30 − 0.10 − 0.03 − 0.44** − 0.37** (0.76)
6 LBF 3.54 0.43 0.06 0.04 − 0.26** 0.10 0.20* (0.95)
7 TSC 4.02 0.49 0.13 − 0.11 0.54** 0.56** − 0.51** 0.10 (0.93)

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, N = 132 teams; TM = team growth mindset; TL = team learning goal orientation; TP = team performance goal orientation; LBF
= leader behavioral feedback; TSC = team scientific creativity. The numbers in brackets on the diagonal are the Cronbach’s alphas.

7
H. Zhao et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

Fig. 2. Mediating model of team achievement goal orientation.

4. Discussion

What remains to be determined is how a team growth mindset contributes to team scientific creativity. Thus, this study revealed the
mechanism of the team growth mindset on team scientific creativity and the moderating role of leader behavioral feedback among
innovation teams of science and engineering college students in China. Our findings have shown that the team growth mindset
positively predicts team scientific creativity. Additionally, team learning goal orientation and team performance goal orientation
mediate the relationship between team growth mindset and team scientific creativity. Leader behavioral feedback moderates the role
of team growth mindset; that is, the higher the level of leader behavioral feedback is, the weaker the positive relationships between
team growth mindset and team learning goal orientation and between team growth mindset and team scientific creativity, and the
weaker the negative relationship between team growth mindset and team performance goal orientation.

4.1. Theoretical implications

This study demonstrated that team growth mindset has a positive effect on team scientific creativity. This finding showed that the
growth mindset of teams is indeed an important team cognitive factor to stimulate the scientific creativity of teams. This team-level
conclusion is consistent with the results of studies on the relationship between growth mindset and creativity at the individual level
(O’connor et al., 2013; Royston, 2016). However, unlike the individual growth mindset, the team growth mindset emphasizes how the
team develops through the continuous coordination and efforts of team members (Rydell et al., 2007). Team attribute characteristics
play a unique role in team scientific creativity (Liu et al., 2013). Therefore, this study increased the explanatory power of the
componential theory of creativity and implicit theories about groups in the field of team-level innovation and enriched the theoretical
system of team scientific creativity by clarifying the important impact of team cognition on team scientific creativity. A possible
explanation for the results of this study is that the stronger the beliefs about group malleability are, the stronger the group efficacy and
collective action tendencies are (Cohen-Chen et al., 2014). When team members hold the concept that team characteristics are
malleable, they will be more flexible to invest in team innovation activities with confidence and cohesion. Second, high-growth
mindset teams showed more open communications and stronger task focus than low-growth mindset teams (Beckmann et al.,
2012). The increase in team interaction brought by the growth mindset has a positive impact on the team innovation process. Last, a
growth mindset could help team members acquire higher meaning, such as realizing their potential (Zhang, Lian, Li & Wong, 2020).
Team members firmly believe that their team could change the status quo through hard work and practice, which promotes the
development of members’ potential and the improvement of team scientific creativity.
This study investigated the mediating role of team achievement goal orientation on the relationship between team growth mindset
and team scientific creativity. In the study of individual creativity, the mediating role of achievement goal orientation, which is often
used to explain the influence of growth mindset (Royston, 2016), has not been empirically tested (Zhao et al., 2020). Different from
individual goal orientation, team achievement goal orientation establishes a set of mutually agreed motivational beliefs among team
members to guide their actions and outcomes (Mehta & Mehta, 2018). Goal selection and goal striving constitute the basis of a team’s
motivation process (Chen & Kanfer, 2006). By providing team-level empirical support for the mediating role of team achievement goal
orientation, this study revealed the internal mechanism of team growth mindset affecting team scientific creativity. Potential expla­
nations for the findings are as follows. Since a high growth mindset represents a more flexible and relaxed semantic system, members
with a growth mindset are more likely to pay attention to being able to improve their inner needs, acquiring knowledge, satisfying
curiosity, and mastering learning tasks (Chen & Wong, 2014). In this context, team members gain mutual support mechanisms to drive
them to engage in complex and challenging tasks (Mehta et al., 2009) and to motivate them to view the problem-solving process as an
opportunity for progress, thereby voluntarily generating and discussing creative ideas (Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014). In
contrast, because members with a low growth mindset do not easily believe in the possibility of expanding their abilities, they analyze
their achievement situations in terms of status and evaluation (Dinger & Dickhäuser, 2013). If creation is not met with a positive
evaluation or instilled a sense of competitiveness, the creative will of performance goal-oriented teams will decline (Beghetto & Dilley,
2016). These teams will be unwilling to take risks and make new attempts for innovation (Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014). Goal
orientations based on different levels of growth mindset result in different innovation states among team members, which promotes or
hinders team scientific creativity.
This study clarified the boundary condition of the effect of team growth mindset on team scientific creativity. It found that leader
behavioral feedback weakens the positive effects of the team growth mindset on team learning goal orientation and team scientific

8
H. Zhao et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

Table 3
Moderating effect of leader behavioral feedback.
TL TP TSC
Variables β t β t β t β t β t β t

Team size 0.05 0.62 0.02 0.21 − 0.08 − 0.97 − 0.04 − 0.53 0.08 1.07 0.04* 0.61
Proportion of males − 0.02 − 0.28 − 0.02 − 0.26 − 0.12 − 1.50 − 0.12 − 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
TM 0.55*** 6.90 0.49*** 6.06 − 0.44*** − 5.25 − 0.38*** − 4.42 0.60*** 7.90 0.54*** 7.00
LBF 0.24** 3.10 0.28*** 3.61 0.09 1.15 0.05 0.56 0.25** 3.41 0.30*** 4.01
TM*LBF − 0.19* − 2.36 0.22* 2.56 − 0.21** − 2.67
R2 0.30 0.33 0.22 0.26 0.36 0.39
△R2 0.03 0.04 0.03
F 13.52*** 12.31*** 9.08*** 8.90*** 17.63*** 16.21***

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, N = 132 teams; TM = team growth mindset; TL = team learning goal orientation; TP = team performance goal
orientation; LBF = leader behavioral feedback; TSC = team scientific creativity.

creativity and the negative effect of the team growth mindset on team performance goal orientation. Zhao and Xiang (2021) clearly
proposed that when studying team innovation, we should pay attention to the interaction between team members’ cognition and team
leadership behavior. This study complied with the above suggestions, and the results supported the moderating effect of team leader
feedback on the team innovation process. It also provided new insight into the negative side of leader behavioral feedback in the
achievement goal orientation and team scientific creativity literature. Specifically, this study revealed the boundary condition of the
mechanism between team growth mindset and team scientific creativity, which helped enrich the understanding of contextual factors
affecting the team scientific creation process, extending the componential theory of creativity to the creativity relationship of the team.
One of the potential reasons for the findings is that leader behavioral feedback emphasizes external restrictions and obedience
feedback, which reduces the level of followers’ intrinsic motivation and makes them feel resistant (Zhou, 1998). This is because in­
dividuals feel pressure to achieve specific behavioral results (Priest, 2006). High leader behavioral feedback occurs when leaders exert
more intervention in and control over team behavior. This feedback conflicts with the free and democratic atmosphere needed for
innovation (Wang & Cai, 2016). In this situation, people are less likely to obtain high levels of intrinsic motivation (Slijkhuis et al.,

Fig. 3. Moderating effect of leader behavioral feedback. LTM = low team growth mindset; HTM = high team growth mindset; LLBF = low leader
behavioral feedback; HLBF = high leader behavioral feedback.

9
H. Zhao et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

2013) and idea generation performance (Wang, Schneider & Valacich, 2015). Such feedback dampens team members’ enthusiasm for
independent learning and innovation, decreases their acceptance of challenges and pursuit of innovation goals, and slows the effect of
the team growth mindset on team achievement goal orientation and team scientific innovation.
This study took innovation teams of Chinese science and engineering college students as the research object. Against the back­
ground of Chinese culture, the study investigated the relationship between team growth mindset and team scientific creativity. Existing
research has shown that creativity is an important product of human culture and a tool to enrich culture due to its close and complex
relationship with culture (Li, Chen & Luo, 2020). Previous studies on the effect of growth mindset on creativity are mainly based on
participants from other countries (e.g., O’connor et al., 2013; Royston, 2016) and have paid little attention to college students’
innovation teams and Chinese culture. This study expands on previous studies and lays a foundation for the future study of team
scientific creativity and other creativity variables among various groups and cultures.

4.2. Practical implications

Innovation teams should strengthen team members’ growth mindset to increase their team scientific creativity. A team growth
mindset is a positive factor to enhance a team’s scientific creativity. In the process of innovation, teams should not only integrate a
growth mindset into team management and guide members to think and act with dynamic and open beliefs but also create a free and
inclusive atmosphere of team innovation so that the team can forge ahead regardless of the situation faced. When members succeed in
solving problems or gain new knowledge, they should be encouraged to remember their experience of improving creativity through
effort. When members encounter failures in the process of innovation, they should learn from their frustration and take as role models
those who lack initial ability but finally succeed, deriving from these role models encouragement not to give up in the face of setbacks.
The above measures can continuously enhance a growth mindset in members and enable them to accumulate enthusiasm to deal with
future challenging team innovation tasks.
College innovation teams should cultivate team learning goal orientation, reduce team performance goal orientation, and enhance
team scientific creativity. A team achievement goal orientation is one of the core drivers of team scientific creativity, and it depends on
the individual factors of team members and has contextual plasticity. A team should not only clarify its vision of innovation and help
members understand the great influence of team innovation work on improving individual ability and team development but also
create more learning and growth opportunities for members, guide them to experience happiness in achieving while learning, and help
them maintain a good learning state, rather than avoid challenges. Colleges and universities also need to develop a learning culture,
establish learning teams, highlight the team learning concept of “no learning, no innovation”, and strive to transform the concept into
team collective behavior and habits. Teams should encourage positive communication among members and create a learning atmo­
sphere of trust and equality within the teams.
Leaders of college innovation teams need to use leadership feedback scientifically to reduce their control over member behavior
and improve their teams’ scientific creativity. Excessive behavioral feedback from leaders plays a negative role in the positive in­
fluence of the team growth mindset on team learning goal orientation and team scientific creativity. Therefore, leaders need to be
familiar with the art of feedback, listen carefully to team members’ innovation ideas, use objective and permissive persuasion, give
play to the incentive effect on followers, and ultimately promote the high-quality operation of team innovation work. It should be
noted that when communicating about specific innovative behaviors or innovative solutions, leaders and team members must prevent
the negative effects of stifling behavioral feedback, such as “control-obey” messaging. Whether a feedback style is “controlling” or
“informational” needs to be considered, and informational feedback should be the focus. Leaders should facilitate equal and free
communication and adapt their feedback styles to specific situations to improve the effectiveness of their feedback.

4.3. Limitations and future research

This study revealed the mechanism underlying the impact of a team growth mindset on team scientific creativity. Several limi­
tations are as follows. First, the data were collected through self-reports from college students. Therefore, the data may be affected by
the response bias of the participants. In the future, research can include data from team leaders’ evaluations for more comprehensive
measurement. Second, this research was carried out only during a final competition between college student innovation teams, which
was the stage of team scientific creativity output. Future studies should focus not only on the internal operation of the team but also on
the changing external environment. In the future, we can consider the moderating effect of the dynamic situation on the role of the
team growth mindset in team scientific creativity. Third, this study examined the relationship between team growth mindset and team
scientific creativity only at the team level and did not include the influence of factors at the individual level (such as the growth
mindset in individual students) or organizational level (such as the school’s innovation climate). Future research can further carry out
cross-level research, which will help reveal the formation process of team scientific creativity.

5. Conclusion

The team growth mindset appears to be a critical factor that influences the team scientific creativity of college student innovation
teams. The team growth mindset predicts team scientific creativity not only directly but also indirectly through team achievement goal
orientation. In addition, leader behavioral feedback has a moderating effect on the above relationships. It is hoped that these findings
will guide the development of interventions to cultivate a team growth mindset in college students’ innovation teams, thus promoting
the improvement of team scientific creativity.

10
H. Zhao et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

Author contributions

HZ conceived the research idea, and structured and drafted the manuscript; JZ guided the manuscript, was involved in its design
and coordination; SH and CQ collected the data. All authors contributed to the article and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Youth Science Foundation of Henan Normal University (Henan Normal University; Project ID.
2021QK23), PHD Initial Fund of Henan Normal University (Henan Normal University; Project ID. QD18044), Soft Science Research
Project of Henan Province (Science and Technology Department of Henan Province; Project ID. 202400410067), and National Natural
Science Foundation Project of China (National Natural Science Foundations of China; Project ID. 72074024 and 72041002).

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Alexander, L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal orientation perspective. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 423–438.
https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2017.7888809
Amabile, T. M. (1998). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2013). State-level goal orientation as mediators of the relationship between time pressure and performance: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031145
Beckmann, N., Wood, R. E., Minbashian, A., & Tabernero, C. (2012). Small group learning: Do group members’ implicit theories of ability make a difference? Learning
and Individual Differences, 22(5), 624–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.06.007
Beghetto, R. A., & Dilley, A. E. (2016). Creative aspirations or pipe dreams? Toward understanding creative mortification in children and adolescents. New Directions
for Child and Adolescent Development, 2016(151), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20150
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27006-0
Chen, W. W., & Wong, Y. L. (2014). Chinese mindset: Theories of intelligence, goal orientation and academic achievement in Hong Kong students. Educational
Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 35(6), 714–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.893559
Chen, W., Liu, M., & Zhang, X. (2020). How does team peer monitoring influence team creativity? ——Perspectives of team conflict asymmetry and learning from
failure. R&D Management, 32(2), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.13581/j.cnki.rdm.20181502
Choi, H. S., & Yoon, Y. J. (2018). Collectivistic values and an independent mindset jointly promote group creativity: Further evidence for a synergy model. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 22(4), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000093
Cohen-Chen, S., Halperin, E., Saguy, T., & Zomeren, M. V. (2014). Beliefs about the malleability of immoral groups facilitate collective action. Social Psychological &
Personality Science, 5(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613491292
Cooper, R. B., & Jayatilaka, B. (2006). Group creativity: The effects of extrinsic, intrinsic, and obligation motivations. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 153–172.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1802_3
DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017328
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Dinger, F. C., & Dickhäuser, O. (2013). Does implicit theory of intelligence cause achievement goals? Evidence from an experimental study. International Journal of
Educational Research, 61, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.03.008
Dinger, F.C., .Dickhäuser, O., Spinath, B., & Steinmayr, R. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of students’ achievement goals: A mediation analysis. Learning &
Individual Differences, 28, 90–101. 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.005.
Dupeyrat, C., & Mariné, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck’s model with returning
to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.007
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, Penn: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.95.2.256
Gadgil, S. (2014). Understanding the interaction between students’ theories of intelligence and learning activities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh.
Gong, Y., Kim, T., Zhou, J., & Lee, D. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. The Academy of Management Journal,
56(3), 827–851. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0177
Guan, J., Luo, J., & Zhong, J. (2016). The effect of ambidextrous leadership behavior and team creativity in dynamic environments: Based on perspective of team goal
orientations. Science of Science and Management of S.& T, 37(8), 159–169.
Gucciardi, D. F., Jackson, B., Hodge, K., Anthony, D. R., & Brooke, L. E. (2015). Implicit theories of mental toughness: Relations with cognitive, motivational, and
behavioral correlates. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4(2), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000024
Hass, R. W., Katz-Buonincontro, J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). Disentangling creative mindsets from creative self-efficacy and creative identity: Do people hold fixed
and growth theories of creativity? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(4), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000081
He, Y. (2018). A multilevel study of the influence of learning goal orientation on creativity. Science of Science and Management of S.& T, 39(6), 136–148.
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C. H., & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team
contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 624–641. https://doi.org/10.5465/
AMJ.2011.61968124
Hu, W., Wang, X., Yi, L. Y. X., & Runco, M. A. (2018). Creative self-efficacy as moderator of the influence of evaluation on artistic creativity. The International Journal
of Creativity & Problem Solving, 28(2), 39–55.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.67.2.219
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1),
85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85

11
H. Zhao et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100957

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1991). Supervisory feedback: Alternative types and their impact on salespeople’s performance and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing
Research, 28(2), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172807
Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0034898
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1994). The influence of coworker feedback on sales people. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224299405800407
Li, L., Chen, H., & Luo, L. (2020). The enlightenment of the sociocultural approach of creativity on the traditional psychometric approach. Studies in Dialectics of
Nature, 36(7), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.19484/j.cnki.1000-8934.2020.07.018
Li, S., Long, L., & Zhu, S. (2017). Is inequality rather than scarcity the cause of problem? An empirical research on the relationship between differentiated empowering
leadership and team performance. Chinese Journal of Management, 14(7), 1006–1014. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-884x.2017.07.008
Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Yang, S., & Ma, B. (2013). Research and cultivation of scientific creativity of science and engineering graduate teams. Academic Degrees & Graduate
Education, 8, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.16750/j.adge.2013.08.009
Ma, C., Ma, Y., & Lan, X. (2020). A structural equation model of perceived autonomy support and growth mindset in undergraduate students: The mediating role of
sense of coherence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2055. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02055
Ma, J., & Yan, J. (2020). The impostor syndrome in positive feedback: How does positive motivation exacerbate the inhibition of pay for performance on creativity?
Management World, 36(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-5502.2020.01.011
Mehta, A., Field, H., Armenakis, A., & Mehta, N. (2009). Team goal orientation and team performance: The mediating role of team planning. Journal of Management,
35(4), 1026–1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308326773
Mehta, A., & Mehta, N. (2018). Knowledge integration and team effectiveness: A team goal orientation approach. Decision Sciences, 49(3), 445–486. https://doi.org/
10.1111/deci.12280
Moreno, J. A., González-Cutre, D., Martín-Albo, J., & Cervelló, E. (2010). Motivation and performance in physical education: An experimental test. Journal of Sports
Science & Medicine, 9(1), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.09.003
Newman, D. A., & Sin, H. P. (2009). How do missing data bias estimates of within-group agreement? Sensitivity of SDWG, CVWG, rWG(J), rWG(J)*, and ICC to
systematic nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 12(1), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106298969
Ni, X., Xiang, X., & Yao, C. (2016). Balance of team diversity’ effects on team creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(5), 556–565. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.
J.1041.2016.00556
O’connor, A. J., Nemeth, C. J., & Akutsu, S. (2013). Consequences of beliefs about the malleability of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 155–162. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.783739
Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M., & Kohn, N. W. (2012). Collaborative creativity-group creativity and team innovation. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
creativity (pp. 327–357). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Priest, T. (2006). Self-evaluation, creativity, and musical achievement. Psychology of Music, 34(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606059104
Puente-Díaz, R., & Cavazos-Arroyo, J. (2017). The influence of creative mindsets on achievement goals, enjoyment, creative self-efficacy and performance among
business students. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 24, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.007
Royston, R. P. (2016). The relationship between big-c, little-c, and pro-c creativity and fixed and malleable creative mindsets. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Omaha:
University of Nebraska at Omaha.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55
(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Rydell, R. J., Hugenberg, K., Ray, D., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Implicit theories about groups and stereotyping: The role of group entitativity. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 549–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206296956
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly,
15(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004
Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social psychological factors on creative performance: The role of informational and controlling expected
evaluation and modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2918
Shin, Y., Kim, M., & Lee, S. H. (2017). Reflection toward creativity: Team reflexivity as a linking mechanism between team goal orientation and team creative
performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(6), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9462-9
Slijkhuis, J. M., Rietzschel, E. F., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2013). How evaluation and need for structure affect motivation and creativity. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 22(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.626244
Sui, Y., Chen, Y., & Wang, H. (2012). Climate for innovation, creative efficacy and team innovation: The moderating role of team leadership. Acta Psychologica Sinica,
44(2), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2012.00237
Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995–1015.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164497057006009
Wang, L., & Cai, Y. H. (2016). Paternalistic leadership and teachers’ teaching innovation performance: The mediating role of trust and autonomous motivation.
Educational Research and Experiment, 2, 41–46.
Wang, X., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. S. (2015). Enhancing creativity in group collaboration: How performance targets and feedback shape perceptions and idea
generation performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.017
Yu, Y., Yang, Z., & Li, J. (2020). Research on the influence mechanism of leader’s boundary spanning behavior on team creativity. Studies in Science of Science, 3,
515–524. https://doi.org/10.16192/j.cnki.1003-2053.2020.03.023
Zhang, J., Li, H., Zhao, H., & Ren, Y. (2019). Mechanisms of supervisory support for innovation on team scientific creativity: The chain mediating role of team positive
emotion and team creative efficacy. Fudan Education Forum, (2), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0059.2019.02.010
Zhang, J., Zhao, H., Li, H., & Ren, Y. (2018). Team innovation climate, team intrinsic motivation and team scientific creativity—The moderating role of team shared
mental model. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 35(6), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.6049/kjjbydc.2017050234
Zhang, R., Lian, R., Li, D., & Wong, P. T. P. (2020). Theoretical perspectives, methods and strategies of meaning therapy: Based on the perspectives of existential
positive psychology. Psychological Exploration, 3, 195–202.
Zhao, H., Zhang, J., Zhang, Z., & Heng, S. (2020). Review on the mindset and its relationship with related concepts concerning creativity. Science & Technology Progress
and Policy, 37(11), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.6049/kjjbydc.Q201908461
Zhao, K., & Xiang, S. (2021). How to reconcile team innovation paradox? An explorative study from the perspectives of members’ cognitive style “composition” and
“configuration. Advances in Psychological Science, 29(1), 1–18.
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.261
Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2001). Enhancing creative performance: Effects of expected developmental assessment strategies and creative personality. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 35(3), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01044.x

12