See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263918219

Creative Mindsets: Measurement, Correlates, Consequences

Article  in  Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts · February 2014

DOI: 10.1037/a0034898

CITATIONS READS
145 11,487

1 author:

Maciej Karwowski
University of Wroclaw
184 PUBLICATIONS   3,096 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Creativity and Domains View project

Social consequences of COVID-19 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maciej Karwowski on 01 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts © 2013 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, 62–70 1931-3896/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0034898

Creative Mindsets: Measurement, Correlates, Consequences

Maciej Karwowski
Academy of Special Education

This article describes a research program exploring the structure, correlates, and consequences of creative
mindsets, defined as beliefs about the fixed-versus-growth nature of creativity. In the first study, I
reported on the development of the Creative Mindset Scale. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

two-factor structure with growth- and fixed-creative mindsets forming two relatively independent, yet
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

negatively correlated scales, rather than two ends of one continuum. I then verified this structure by
confirmatory factor analysis using a larger sample. In the second study, the growth mindset and the
creative self-concept (creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity) were strongly positively
associated. In the third study, the fixed-creative mindset was negatively related to efficiency in solving
insight problems, and an association between the growth mindset and problem solving was moderated by
the fixed mindset.

Keywords: creative mindsets, fixed and growth mindset, creative self-efficacy, creative personal identity,
item response theory

Was Albert Einstein creative because of an innate gift or did his
creativity develop as a result of his well-known curiosity? Were
Edison’s patents possible due to his innate talent or to his famous
“99% percent of perspiration?” Is it possible to develop creative
potential, as intervention studies suggest (Dziedziewicz, Oledzka,
& Karwowski, 2013), or must one be born with creative qualities
to achieve greatness? These questions are central to a discussion of
the roots and nature of creativity, but have been relatively rarely
posited in the creativity literature to date, which is surprising.
Although there are dozens of studies involving implicit theories of
creativity (see Andiliou & Murphy, 2010, for a review), these
theories usually are not analyzed by creativity researchers due to
the perceived nature of creativity—the so-called creative mindset,
defined as a set of beliefs associated with the nature of creativity,
particularly beliefs about the stable-versus-malleable character of
creativity.
People perceive the nature of their own characteristics differ-
ently, viewing abilities, motivations, and personality traits either as
fixed (stable) or malleable (able to grow or to decline). Since the
1950s (Heider, 1958; Kelly, 1955), social– cognitive and educa-
tional psychology have demonstrated that holding a fixed-versus-
a-growth mindset regarding one’s abilities translates into the ef-
fectiveness of functioning, well-being, attributional styles, learning
This article was published Online First December 23, 2013.
Maciej Karwowski, Creative Education Lab, Department of Educational
Studies, Academy of Special Education, Warsaw, Poland.
I thank Vlad Glăveanu for his helpful comments on the previous version
of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maciej
Karwowski, Creative Education Lab, Department of Educational Studies,
Academy of Special Education, Szczesliwicka Street, 40, 02-353 Warsaw,
Poland. E-mail: maciek.karwowski@gmail.com
62
goals, and school satisfaction (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995;
Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Even young children were identified as
having a fixed-versus-a-growth perception of their abilities, which
influences their functioning (Mueller & Dweck, 1998).
Analyses of mindsets are rarely provided in the creativity liter-
ature (Makel, 2008; O’Connor, Nemeth, & Akutsu, 2013). Al-
though there are findings implicitly connected with this research
area, only individual studies directly measuring creative mindsets
have been presented to date; similarly, the correlates or conse-
quences of different creative mindsets have been studied only
sparsely. Such studies have revealed people’s beliefs about the
fixed or growth nature of creativity in their implicit theories;
several have provided arguments that creativity can be perceived
as a malleable construct (Maksić & Pavlović, 2011; Seng, Keung,
& Cheng, 2008; Sen & Sharma, 2011).
The main aim of this paper was to fill the above-mentioned gap,
specifically by: (a) developing an instrument to measure creative
mindsets; (b) exploring whether growth and fixed mindsets are two
extremes of the same continuum (i.e., one factor), or whether they
could possibly be held simultaneously (i.e., two factors); and (c)
showing selected and potentially theoretically sound correlates of
these mindsets, and the consequences of holding different mind-
sets, as deduced from the existing literature. I was, therefore,
especially interested here in the structure of the creative mindset,
the correlates of different mindsets with creative self-concept
variables, creative self-efficacy (CSE) and creative personal iden-
tity (CPI), and the relationships between mindsets and solving
insight problems.
Creative Mindset
I have defined the creative mindset as beliefs about the stable-
versus-malleable character and the nature of creativity. Although
there is a wide range of work on implicit theories of creativity from
 CREATIVE MINDSETS
both experts (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003; Glück, Ernst, & Unger,
2002; Spiel & von Korff, 1998; Sternberg, 1995) and laypeople
(Chan & Chan, 1999; Runco & Johnson, 2002), these implicit
theories have rarely been studied in terms of the perceived genesis
of creative abilities and the possibility of the development of
creativity (Maksić & Pavlović, 2011). Given that creativity is a
complex phenomenon usually analyzed from different perspec-
tives, such as the four Ps (Rhodes, 1961), the five As (Glăveanu,
2013), and the various levels between little-c and Big-C creativity
(Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009), it is worthwhile to test how people
perceive its nature and roots.
It has been demonstrated in several studies that even laypeople
are able to spontaneously distinguish between Big-C and little-c
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
creativity. Karwowski (2009) has demonstrated that laypeople
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
often describe themselves as “little-c creative,” but not “Big-C
creative.” The correlation between such self-descriptions, although
statistically significant, was not particularly strong (r ⫽ .46),
showing the relative independence of these two constructs. People
may not only distinguish between different levels of creativity
when describing themselves but also hold qualitatively distinct
“theories” of different levels of creativity—that is, little-c creativ-
ity correlated strongly with self-esteem and perceiving oneself as
a successful person and Big-C creativity correlated with fixed
traits such as being gifted and talented (Karwowski, 2009).
The fixed-versus-growth (malleable) creativity mindsets and
their consequences have been studied by Makel (2008) and
O’Connor et al. (2013). Makel (2008), following the procedure
employed by Dweck et al. (1995), did not find differences in
creative problem solving among entity and incremental (people
holding the fixed mindset and people holding the growth mindset,
respectively) theorists of creativity. O’Connor et al. (2013) mea-
sured the fixed/growth mindset using a five-item Likert scale, with
one end of the continuum constituting the fixed, and the other the
growth, mindset. The growth-creative mindset correlated substan-
tially with a malleable theory of intelligence (r ⫽ .50, which
translates into r ⫽ .59 after correction for attenuation). Endorse-
ment of an entity theory translated into a lower interest in creative
thinking, lower self-reported creativity, and divergent thinking
production. Another study demonstrated negative associations be-
tween entity theory and creative achievements. When incremental
creativity was primed, participants behaved significantly more
creatively than when entity theory was primed. These findings
shed light on the potentially important role played by the fixed-
versus-malleable creative mindsets and their role in motivating or
demotivating people to perform creative actions. When people
perceive creativity as a fixed trait, they may encounter problems
such as rationalizations about why they should engage in activities
requiring creative thinking. An incremental mindset increases the
probability of engagement in creative tasks and, consequently,
creative solutions during problem-solving activities.
The one limitation of both studies into the creative mindset is
related to the measurement instruments used. Both O’Connor et al.
(2013) and Makel (2008) used short scales, inspired by the work of
Dweck and her colleagues (Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck & Leggett,
1988). These scales usually consist of items like: “You have a
certain amount of intelligence (creativity) and you really can’t do
much to change it” or “You are stuck with whatever amount of
intelligence (creativity) you are born with.” Given the complex
nature of creativity, however, especially its multifaceted character
63
and possible different levels of analysis (little-c, mini-c, pro-c,
Big-C, etc.), it is likely that people can hold both an entity and an
incremental view of creativity. On the one hand, they may be
convinced that famous creators with great achievements are stim-
ulated by an inborn power; on the other, they may see putting in
effort as a way to possibly increase their own creative potentials.
Hence, one of the aims of the studies presented here is to consider
whether fixed- and growth-creative mindsets (or incremental- and
entity-creativity theories) are different parts of the same contin-
uum, or whether it is possible to adhere to both an incremental and
an entity theory of creativity.
The hypothetical reasons for expecting two separate creative
mindsets (growth and fixed) rather than growth and fixed ends
of a continuum of one mindset stem from differences in the
perceived importance of creativity. People who treat creativity
as unimportant to their self-description and identity, and are
thus characterized by low CPI and creative-role identity (Tier-
ney & Farmer, 2002; Karwowski, 2012), probably will not care
too much whether creativity is malleable or fixed. On the other
hand, the understanding of creativity among people whose CPI
is well developed may be more complex. People who are
professionally engaged in creative activity hold implicit theo-
ries of creativity similar to those of laypeople (Glück et al.,
2002), but their descriptions of creativity are usually more
complex and elaborate. Both Sternberg (1985) and Glück et al.
(2002) have demonstrated the complexity of expert definitions.
Whereas laypeople usually define creativity using a person-
centered approach (Pavlović, Maksić, & Bodroza, 2013), ex-
perts highlight the role of person, process, product, and press
approaches (Glück et al., 2002), as well as the role of prepara-
tion and effort (Amabile, 2001). Elsbach and Kramer (2003),
have demonstrated that studio executives and producers in
Hollywood assess the potential of screenwriters during pitches
by comparing them with one of the seven creative prototypes.
These prototypes (artist, storyteller, show runner, neophyte,
journeyman, dealmaker, and nonwriter) differ in terms of their
creative potential and persuasiveness during the pitch. Although
not analyzed in terms of mindset, the complexity of these types
suggests that experts may hold both a fixed mindset (i.e.,
perceiving the creative person as an artist type) and a growth
mindset.
The Present Studies
Three studies were conducted to develop a method of measuring
creative mindsets and to establish (a) its factor structure (Study 1),
(b) its associations with creative self-concept variables (Study 2),
and (c) its efficiency in solving insight problems (Study 3). In
addition, aggregated data from Studies 2 and 3 were used to
examine the generalizability of the factor structure obtained during
Study 1, while aggregated data from Studies 1 through 3 were used
to examine the Creative Mindset Scale (CMS, which was designed
for this study) using item-response theory. The three studies pre-
sented below were independent, but all were conducted (with
50,000 Poles altogether, a representative nationwide sample of
Internet users) by an online panel from the Millward Brown
Poland (Warsaw, Poland) research company, whose members take
part in various research programs once or twice per year.
 64 KARWOWSKI

Study 1: CMS: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
The aim of the first study was to develop a short yet psycho-
metrically sound instrument to measure creative mindsets. An
initial pool of 25 items covering both malleable and entity theories
of creativity was generated and discussed by a group of five
experts in creativity. The redundant items were deleted and, after
several changes, 10 items were selected for further analysis.
Method
Participants. In total, 492 Poles participated in Study 1; the
sample included slightly more women (n ⫽ 291; 59%) than men
(n ⫽ 201, 41%). Participant ages ranged from 16 to 60 (M ⫽
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
with the results of an item-response-theory model estimated to
assess both the test-information functions of the scales and their
standard measurement errors after aggregation of the data from
Studies 1 to 3.
Descriptive statistics of all items as well as the results of the
EFA (with the maximum likelihood method and oblimin rotation)
are presented in Table 1.
Almost all items were normally distributed (except Item 5, in
which agree answers predominated). EFA suggested that the
fixed- and the growth-creative mindsets constituted two separate
factors rather than two ends of one continuum. Five items loaded
onto a growth-mindset factor and another five loaded onto a
fixed-creative mindset. These two factors together explained 50%

32.71, SD ⫽ 11.08). Almost half of all participants held a college of the total variance.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

or university degree (48%), 40% had completed higher education,
8% held secondary degrees, and 4% held vocational degrees.
Measure: The creative mindset. A 10-item scale was used to
measure participant perception of the nature of creativity. Answers
were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ definitely not, 5 ⫽
definitely yes). All items with descriptive statistics are presented in
Table 1.
Procedure. Participants were treated in accordance with the
ethical guidelines set out by the American Psychological Associ-
ation (2009). They were not rewarded for participating and were
informed that they could withdraw at any time.
Results
The data were analyzed in two steps. First, the descriptive
statistics of all items were computed for an initial analysis of their
distribution. Second, EFA was conducted, as it was not clear
whether a one- or two-factor solution should be expected. The
structure obtained was then tested by confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) on a larger sample composed of participants from Studies 2
and 3. CFA results are presented in the last part of the article, along
When items from EFA were averaged to form two scales, the
two mindsets were negatively correlated, and participants held
stronger growth than fixed mindsets (see Table 2).
Discussion
Although people usually are characterized as being either entity
or incremental theorists (Dweck, 2006), findings from the first
study suggest that, in the specific case of creativity, it is possible
to hold both a fixed and a growth mindset. These two implicit
theories (incremental vs. entity) were negatively correlated; how-
ever, the strength of this association was weak, suggesting their
relative independence rather than providing evidence that they
were two ends of one continuum. Further studies should analyze
the implicit theories behind both mindsets, as it can be speculated
that people may hold different implicit theories of Big-C and
little-c creativity. When they perceive Big-C creativity in a fixed
manner, but also define little-c creativity as a malleable trait, it is
possible that having a fixed Big-C mindset would not harm their
efficiency or self-perception. Thus, in the second study, I consid-

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Factor Loadings of Items From the Creative Mindsets Scale (Study 1)

Growth-mindset Fixed-mindset
Items M SD Skewness Kurtosis factor (30%) factor (20%)

(1) Everyone can create something great at some point if he or she is

given appropriate conditions 3.70 .98 ⫺.71 ⫺.07 .55 ⫺.22
(2) You either are creative or you are not—even trying very hard you
cannot change much 2.84 1.06 .10 ⫺.88 ⫺.22 .72
(3) Anyone can develop his or her creative abilities up to a certain level 3.64 .92 ⫺.81 .31 .38 .13
(4) You have to be born a creator—without innate talent you can only
be a scribbler 2.90 1.05 .06 ⫺.81 ⫺.16 .68
(5) Practice makes perfect—perseverance and trying hard are the best
ways to develop and expand one’s capabilities 4.18 .75 ⫺1.05 2.16 .57 ⫺.06
(6) Creativity can be developed, but one either is or is not a truly
creative person 3.58 .94 ⫺.59 ⫺.12 .05 .53
(7) Rome wasn’t built in a day—each creativity requires effort and
work, and these two are more important than talent 3.79 .93 ⫺.65 ⫺.08 .55 ⫺.12
(8) Some people are creative, others aren’t—and no practice can change
it 2.87 1.07 .12 ⫺.90 ⫺.19 .70
(9) It doesn’t matter what creativity level one reveals—you can always
increase it 3.60 .88 ⫺.66 .22 .60 ⫺.29
(10) A truly creative talent is innate and constant throughout one’s entire
life 3.01 1.11 ⫺.02 ⫺.98 ⫺.07 .50
Note. Structure matrix is presented in case of exploratory factor analysis results.
 CREATIVE MINDSETS 65

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Differences Between Growth and Fixed Mindsets

Mindset M SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s ␣ Paired sample t test d (95% CI)

ⴱⴱⴱ
Growth mindset 3.78 0.58 ⫺0.57 1.16 .65 t(491) ⫽ ⫺15.92 0.72 (0.62–0.82)
Fixed mindset 3.04 0.75 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.11 .76
Note. Growth-mindset scale was calculated by averaging items 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 from Table 1, and fixed-mindset scale was calculated by averaging items
2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 from Table 1.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .001.

ered whether and how the two mindsets might be associated with important to me; (10) Creativity is an important part of me; (11)
the creative self-concept constructs, CSE and CPI. Ingenuity is a characteristic which is important to me. Each of the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

statements on both scales were measured on a 5-point Likert scale

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Study 2: Creative Mindset and Creative Self-Concept (1 ⫽ definitely not, 5 ⫽ definitely yes). In this study, the internal
consistency of both scales was high: CSE ␣ ⫽ .87, CPI ␣ ⫽ .85.
Creative self-concept characteristics are of increasing interest In previous studies, both scales were characterized by high reli-
among creativity scholars. CSE is associated with creative abilities ability and validity (Karwowski et al., in press).
and self-description (Karwowski, 2011), optimism (Li & Wu, Procedure. The procedure was the same as was employed in
2011), teacher behavior (Beghetto, 2006), and curiosity (Kar- Study 1. All study materials were completed online. The partici-
wowski, 2012). CSE often is studied together with CPI, which is pants were not rewarded and were informed that they could with-
the belief that creativity is an important element of self-description draw at any time.
(Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre, 2003; Jaussi, Randel, &
Dionne, 2007). Plucker and Makel (2010) argue that CPI is also an
Results
appreciation of creativity and a positive attitude toward it. As
self-concept variables are much more dynamic and malleable than The results were analyzed in two steps. First, I calculated
“hard core” personality traits (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; descriptive statistics and correlations between both mindsets and
Marsh, Trautwein, Ludtke, Koller, & Baumert, 2006), I hypothe- creative self-concept variables (see Table 3). Then, I fit a structural
sized that a creative self-concept (a higher level factor of CSE and equation model with the two creative mindsets explaining a
CPI) is positively associated with a growth-creative mindset; how- higher-order creative self-concept latent factor (composed of CSE
ever, I had no expectations concerning a relationship between a and CPI).
fixed-creative mindset and a creative self-concept. As hypothesized, the creative-growth mindset was substantially
related to both CSE and CPI, whereas the fixed mindset was not
Method associated with creative self-concept variables.
A structural equation model, controlling for construct unreli-
Participants. In total, 296 Poles participated in Study 2; the ability and allowing the modeling of relationships between higher
sample included 145 women (49%) and 151 men (51%). Partici- order creative self-concept and creative mindsets, is presented in
pant ages ranged from 17 to 60 with M ⫽ 34.89 and SD ⫽ 12.10. Figure 1.
Almost half of all participants held a college or university degree The model fit the data well, ␹2(df ⫽ 182) ⫽ 338.60, p ⬍ .001,
(46%), 41% had completed higher education, 7% held vocational ␹2/df ⫽ 1.86, CFI ⫽ .94, SRMR ⫽ .06, RMSEA ⫽ .054, 90% CI
degrees, and 6% held secondary degrees. [.045, .063]. Both mindsets were associated with creative self-
Measures. concept variables, explaining 27% of their variance. A growth
The creative mindset. The same 10-item CMS employed in mindset was substantially related to creative self-concept (␤ ⫽ .55,
Study 1 was used. The internal consistency of the fixed-mindset p ⬍ .001), but a fixed mindset also was associated with it (␤ ⫽ .25,
scale was satisfactory (␣ ⫽ .79); the growth-mindset scale was p ⫽ .001).
moderately reliable (␣ ⫽ .65).
The creative self-concept. The Short Scale of Creative Self
(SSCS) (Karwowski, 2012; Karwowski, Lebuda, & Wisniewska, Table 3
in press) was used to measure the CSE and the CPI. The SSCS is Correlations Between Two Mindsets and Creative Self-Efficacy
composed of 11 items—six measuring CSE and five measuring and Creative Personal Identity (Study 2)
CPI. CSE is described by the following statements on the SSCS:
(3) I know I can efficiently solve even complicated problems; (4) Variables M SD 1 2 3 4
I trust my creative abilities; (5) Compared with my friends, I am ⴱ ⴱⴱ
1. Growth mindset 3.72 0.63 (.65) ⫺.20 .33 .29ⴱⴱ
distinguished by my imagination and ingenuity; (6) I have proved 2. Fixed mindset 3.16 0.82 (.79) .08 .07
many times that I can cope with difficult situations; (8) I am sure 3. CSE 3.65 0.67 (.87) .78ⴱⴱ
I can deal with problems requiring creative thinking; (9) I am good 4. CPI 3.66 0.67 (.85)
at proposing original solutions to problems. The statements de- Note. CSE ⫽ creative self-efficacy; CPI ⫽ creative personal identity;
scribing CPI were: (1) I think I am a creative person; (2) My N ⫽ 296; Cronbach’s alpha is on the diagonal in parentheses.
ⴱ
creativity is important for who I am; (7) Being a creative person is p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 66 KARWOWSKI
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 1. Types of mindset predicting creative self-concept.
Discussion
Consistent with the hypothesis, perceiving creativity as a mal-
leable characteristic translated into higher levels of CSE and CPI.
This result replicates earlier findings (O’Connor et al., 2013) that
incremental creativity theorists rate themselves as more creative
than entity theorists do; similar hypotheses also have been formu-
lated in the past (Karwowski, 2009). This strong relationship with
a growth mindset sheds light on possible conditions for the devel-
opment of CSE and CPI, and may have important educational
consequences. People who believe that creativity is conditioned by
effort rather than an inborn quality tend to perceive themselves as
more creative. The open question remains whether their beliefs
may engender higher creative achievement or efficiency in prob-
lem solving (O’Connor et al., 2013). I tested this hypothesis in the
third study.
Study 3: Creative Mindsets and Insight-Problem
Solving
Study 3 was conducted to test relationships between creative
mindsets and effectiveness in solving insight problems. Specifi-
cally, I examined (a) whether creative mindsets predict insight-
problem solving and (b) the role of the coincidence of both
mindsets in predicting the effectiveness of problem solving.
O’Connor et al. (2013) showed a positive relationship between
incremental mindset and problem solving, and so I hypothesized
positive associations between a growth mindset and problem solv-
ing and negative associations between a fixed mindset and prob-
lem solving. The possible interactive effects of both mindsets were
treated as exploratory.
Method
Participants. In total, 403 Poles participated in Study 3; the
sample included 211 women (52%) and 192 men (48%). Partici-
pant ages ranged from 16 to 60, with M ⫽ 35.64 and SD ⫽ 11.84.
The majority of participants held high school (41%) or college
degrees (43%), 8% held vocational degrees, and 8% held second-
ary degrees.
Measures.
The creative mindset. The same 10-item CMS employed in
Study 1 and Study 2 was used in this study. The internal consis-
tency of the fixed mindset scale was satisfactory (␣ ⫽ .78), as was
the growth-mindset scale (␣ ⫽ .73).
The insight problems. Eight insight problems were adminis-
tered in counterbalanced order (see Appendix). The reliability of
this scale was moderate (␣ ⫽ .68), but due to the scoring of 0 to
1, it was probably underestimated. Confirmatory factor analysis
showed the almost perfect fit of a one-factor model, ␹2(df ⫽ 14) ⫽
9.01, p ⫽ .83, ␹2/df ⫽ .64, GFI ⫽ .99, AGFI ⫽ .98, CFI ⫽ 1.00,
SRMR ⫽ .005; RMSEA ⫽ .000, 90% CI [.000, .034] and latent
factor reliability (Raykov & Hancock, 2005) was good (H ⫽ .72).
Procedure. The procedure was the same as was employed in
the two previous studies. The same Internet panel was used, but no
participants in Study 1 or 2 participated in Study 3. Participants
completed the CMS and then solved insight problems.
Results
After initial analysis of the descriptive statistics and correlations
between study variables (see Table 4), I created a regression model
predicting insight-problem solving by growth and fixed mindsets,
as well as by their interaction (see Table 5).
Consistent with the hypothesis, a fixed mindset correlated neg-
atively (albeit weakly) with effectiveness of insight-problem solv-
ing, whereas a growth mindset was associated with insight-
problem solving positively, albeit also weakly.
After controlling for associations between mindsets in the re-
gression model, only the fixed mindset continued its negative
association with insight-problem solving; the growth-mindset co-
 CREATIVE MINDSETS 67

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Growth and Fixed Mindsets and Effectiveness in
Solving Insight Problems (Study 3)

Variables Min Max M SD 1 2 3

1. Growth mindset 1 5 3.71 0.66 (.73) ⫺.12ⴱ .10ⴱ

2. Fixed mindset 1 5 3.14 0.78 (.78) ⫺.12ⴱ
3. Insight problems 0 1 .42 .28 (.72)
Note. N ⫽ 403. Cronbach’s alpha is on the diagonal in parentheses.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.

efficient was no longer statistically significant. The cross-product ␹2(df ⫽ 34) ⫽ 161.88, p ⬍ .001, ␹2/df ⫽ 4.76, GFI ⫽ .96, AGFI ⫽
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

term introduced in the second step demonstrated an increase in the .93, CFI ⫽ .92, SRMR ⫽ .06, RMSEA ⫽ .073, 90% CI [.062, .085];
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

explained variance (⌬R2 ⫽ .036, p ⬍ .001) and a highly significant
interaction (see Figure 2).
The growth mindset was positively related to effectiveness in
solving insight problems among participants with a low fixed mind-
set—the simple slope: b ⫽ .08, SE ⫽ .02, p ⬍ .001—whereas, among
people with a high fixed mindset, there was a tendency toward
negative associations between a growth mindset and problem solv-
ing—the simple slope: b ⫽ ⫺.04, SE ⫽ .03, p ⫽ .15).
Discussion
This study demonstrated the inhibiting effects of a fixed mindset on
creative problem solving. In addition, a fixed mindset moderated the
relationship between a growth mindset and creative problem solving.
Only among people with a low fixed mindset was a growth mindset
positively related to this efficiency. This study also provides an
argument in favor of looking for simultaneous consideration of both
mindsets while analyzing creativity. Perhaps people with both a low
growth and a low fixed mindset do not really care what creativity is
and thus are not motivated to solve creative problems. On the other
hand, it is still possible that people can hold both mindsets, believing
that little-c creativity may be developed and requires effort, whereas
Big-C creativity is connected with a more fixed-creative mindset.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Item Response
Theory (IRT) Properties of CMS
To corroborate the obtained CMS structure, I conducted a confir-
matory factor analysis on an aggregated sample of participants from
Studies 2 and 3 (N ⫽ 699). According to the commonly applied
indexes (Hu & Bentler, 1999), the two-factor model fit the data well,
see Figure 3. Although the chi-square test value was statistically
significant, it is well-known that this test is overly powerful when
applied to large samples (Bentler, 1990). A one-factor CFA model fit
the data poorly, ␹2(df ⫽ 35) ⫽ 649.50, p ⬍ .001, ␹2/df ⫽ 18.56,
GFI ⫽ .79, AGFI ⫽ .68, CFI ⫽ .62, SRMR ⫽ .13, RMSEA ⫽ .16
90% CI [.148, .169]; its fit was significantly worse than the two-factor
model (⌬␹2 ⫽ 487.62; ⌬df ⫽ 1, p ⬍ .001). The latent factors’
reliabilities (Raykov & Hancock, 2005; Silvia, 2011) were good for
growth mindset (H ⫽ .73) and very good for fixed mindset (H ⫽ .81).
In the last step, using the IRT methodology, and specifically, the
Rash Rating Scale Model (RRSM; Wright & Masters, 1982), I ex-
amined the distribution of test-information functions and standard
errors of measurement for both scales (the fixed and the growth
mindsets) to assess which scale more efficiently measured the fixed
and the growth mindset at the different levels of latent traits. The
information function and the standard errors of measurement are
shown in Figure 4.
The fixed-mindset scale measured the latent trait (␪) more
efficiently at an average level, whereas the growth-mindset
scale measured it more efficiently at lower levels. The standard
error distribution is characterized by a U-shaped curve, which is
typical of IRT—the reliability of the measurement is highest at
medium levels of ␪ and the measurement errors increase at very
low and very high levels of the latent traits.

Table 5
Predicting Effectiveness in Solving Insight Problems by Growth
and Fixed Mindsets and Their Interaction (Study 3)

Predictors B (SE) ␤ R2 ⌬R2

Step 1 .02ⴱⴱ
Growth mindset 0.036 (.021) 0.085†
Fixed mindset ⫺0.039 (.018) ⫺0.11ⴱ
Step 2 .058ⴱⴱⴱ .036ⴱⴱⴱ
Growth mindset 0.017 (.021) 0.04
Fixed mindset ⫺0.041 (.018) ⫺0.12ⴱ
Growth ⫻ Fixed ⫺0.074 (.019) ⫺0.20ⴱⴱⴱ
Figure 2. Growth and fixed mindset predicting effectiveness in solving
ⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
†
p ⬍ .10. p ⬍ .05. p ⬍ .01. p ⬍ .001. insight problems.
 68 KARWOWSKI
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Figure 3. A two-factor structure of the Creative Mindset Scale—results
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of confirmatory factor analysis.
General Discussion
Decades of research into sociocognitive theory (Bandura, 1997)
have demonstrated that people’s beliefs about the nature of their
psychological characteristics play an important regulatory role, influ-
encing both their motivations and their behaviors (Dweck, 1999). This
area of research is underdeveloped in the creativity literature, however
(Makel, 2008; O’Connor et al., 2013). Although there are several
works on implicit theories of creativity (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010),
the naïve perception of creativity as a malleable (state-like) or entity
(trait-like) characteristic has rarely been studied. These exploratory
studies represent an initial attempt to address this gap. Hence, they can
contribute to our understanding of both general mindsets and specific
mindsets and their relationship to creativity in several ways.
Because creativity is a complex phenomenon, it is possible to
analyze it from different perspectives (Rhodes, 1961; Glăveanu,
2013), taking into consideration different levels of creativity (Kauf-
man & Beghetto, 2009). Although one of the most common creativity
myths assumes that creativity is a fixed trait and cannot be changed
(Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004; Sawyer, 2006), in fact, this belief
represents only one of the mindsets about the nature of creativity. In
previous research, scholars have treated the creativity mindset as a
singular term, with fixed and growth orientations forming two ends of
a continuum (O’Connor et al., 2013). This study provides empirical
arguments for treating growth and fixed creativity mindsets as nega-
tively associated, yet relatively independent, constructs. Although
people exhibited a clear preference for the growth mindset, the size of
the difference between growth and fixed mindsets was moderate.
It was speculated that holding both growth and fixed mindsets may
stem from the complex nature of the creativity construct. There is
widespread belief that creativity treated as potential (Runco, 2003), or
little-c creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009), is distributed normally
(Karwowski, 2009; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009) and may be stimu-
lated and developed (i.e., Karwowski & Soszynski, 2008). On the
other hand, people commonly believe that great creative (Big-C)
accomplishments require special talents and gifts (Glück et al., 2002).
Thus, if people are able to differentiate between levels of creativity,
they will probably attribute different mindsets to the different levels
and types of creativity. This expectation needs examination in future
studies, especially studies of implicit theories of creativity among
people with different creative mindsets. Future studies should also
explore the extent to which the acceptance of both mindsets stems
from knowledge about creativity, implicit theories of creativity, or
both.
This study also demonstrated that the two mindsets have predicted
creative self-concepts and efficiency in solving insight problems dif-
ferently, thus providing an additional rationale for a separate analysis
of growth and fixed mindsets. As hypothesized, a growth mindset was
strongly related to the creative self-concept latent trait (composed of
CSE and CPI), but a fixed mindset was also positively (yet weakly)
associated with this factor. Given that the active and dynamic char-
acter of the creative self-concept is comprised of and treated as
malleable characteristics (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003), the positive
associations with creative self-concept were expected. CSE is a dy-
namic, malleable belief (Karwowski, 2011), more strongly connected
with curiosity (Karwowski, 2012) than with more fixed personality
traits (Karwowski, Lebuda, Wisniewska, & Gralewski, 2013).
Equally interesting, but also potentially problematic is the observed
association between a fixed mindset and a creative self-concept.
Although weaker, this relationship also was statistically significant,
calling for further exploration and theoretical explanation. It may be
speculated that creative self-concept, associated with an appreciation
for creativity, translates into higher awareness and knowledge about
the complex nature of creativity, hence showing that it may be both
malleable and stable. On the other hand, this finding—and generally
the role of creative self-concept for understanding creative mindsets—
requires further study.
The third study confirmed the hypothesized negative associations
between a fixed-creative mindset and effectiveness in solving insight
problems (see also O’Connor et al., 2013), but also demonstrated a
more complex relationship between a growth mindset and insight-
problem solving. Although a growth mindset was weakly and posi-
tively correlated with problem solving, it lost its statistical signifi-
cance in regression analysis when correlations between mindsets were
controlled for. The interaction of both mindsets was significant, show-
ing different patterns of association between the growth mindset and
problem solving among people with low and high fixed-creative
mindsets. When the fixed mindset was low, the growth mindset
clearly translated into higher problem-solving effectiveness. Addi-
tional studies should focus on the motivational correlations of both
mindsets, and especially their interaction, looking for different moti-
vational orientations and problem-solving styles and strategies.
Figure 4. Test information functions and standard measurement errors of
growth and fixed mindset scales—Rash IRT analysis.
 CREATIVE MINDSETS
Limitations and Future Studies
Several limitations should be considered when the findings of this
study are interpreted. First, the three studies were conducted online,
which may reduce the generalizability of the findings and requires
corroboration in further studies. Second, the results may be limited by
the measurement instruments used. Specifically, further studies
should explore the nature of creative mindsets, and the relationship
between them, using interviews to obtain better insight into their
separation or association. Future studies also should explore the
properties of the CSM proposed in this article. Although its psycho-
metric qualities seem satisfactory, Rash IRT (Wright & Masters,
1982) analysis showed that the growth mindset is best measured at
relatively low levels of latent trait (␪). This suggests the risk of a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
“ceiling effect” and in general, a tendency to accept items connected
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
with a growth mindset. It is likely that this is connected with a social
desirability effect. Hence, longer scales with more difficult growth-
mindset items probably would allow for better measurement. Last but
not least, the character of items included in the CMS may be treated
as a limitation. All items were formulated in a general form, not
dealing with specific types or levels of creativity (i.e., mini-c, little-c,
pro-c or Big-C). Thus, taking into consideration that a possible reason
for the two-dimensional solution obtained during EFA/CFA may stem
from different perceptions of creativity (especially the distinction
between malleable little-c creativity and fixed Big-C creativity), it
would be interesting to create an instrument comprised of items
measuring both growth and fixed mindsets related to both little-c and
Big-C creativity.
Probably the two most important research problems that need to be
tackled in the near future are (a) research into implicit theories of
creativity among people with different creativity mindsets and (b)
research examining the relationship between creative mindsets and
creative production (i.e., divergent thinking tasks), especially under
conditions of success and failure. Previous work on mindsets has
demonstrated the detrimental effects of a fixed mindset when an
individual fails (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). It is important to examine
whether this finding also is observed in the case of creativity.
Despite their limitations, the presented findings offer potentially
interesting information about creativity mindsets: their structure, cor-
relates, and consequences. These results also are potentially impor-
tant, especially for educators, counselors, and managers, because of
the consequences for understanding and cultivating favorable creativ-
ity mindsets.
References
Amabile, T. M. (2001). Beyond talent: John Irving and the passionate craft
of creativity. American Psychologist, 56, 333–336. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.56.4.333
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the
American Psychology Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Andiliou, A., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Examining variations among
researchers’ and teachers’ conceptualizations of creativity: A review and
synthesis of contemporary research. Educational Research Review, 5,
201–219. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.003
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003). Personality-relationship
transaction in adolescents: Core versus surface personality characteris-
tics. Journal of Personality, 71, 629 – 666. doi:10.1111/1467-6494
.7104005
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY:
Freeman.
69
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and
secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 447– 457. doi:
10.1207/s15326934crj1804_4
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 107, 238 –246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers’
perception of students characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research
Journal, 12, 185–195. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1203_3
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality
and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis/Psychology
Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York, NY: Random House.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role
in judgements and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psycho-
logical Inquiry, 6, 267–285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256 –273. doi:
10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Dziedziewicz, D., Oledzka, D., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Developing 4 to
6-year old children’s figural creativity using a doodle-book program.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.09.004
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Holly-
wood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity
judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 283–301. doi:
10.2307/30040623
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee
creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of
Management Journal, 46, 618 – 630. doi:10.2307/30040653
Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s
framework. Review of General Psychology, 17, 69 – 81. doi:10.1037/
a0029528
Glück, J., Ernst, R., & Unger, F. (2002). How creative define creativity:
Definitions reflects different types of creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 14, 55– 67. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1401_5
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York,
NY: Wiley. doi:10.1037/10628-000
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118
Jaussi, K. B., Randel, A. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2007). I am, I think, and I
do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and cross-applications of
experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 19,
247–258. doi:10.1080/10400410701397339
Karwowski, M. (2009). I’m creative, but am I Creative? Similarities and
differences between self-evaluated small and Big C creativity in Poland.
The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 19, 7–26.
Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn’t hurt to ask . . . but sometimes it hurts to
believe: Polish students’ creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psy-
chology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 154 –164. doi:10.1037/
a0021427
Karwowski, M. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Relationship between
trait curiosity, creative self-efficacy and creative role identity. Europe’s
Journal of Psychology, 8, 547–558. doi:10.5964/ejop.v8i4.513
Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., & Wisniewska, E. (in press). Measurement of
creative self-efficacy and creative role-identity. High Ability Studies.
Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Big
Five personality factors as the predictors of creative self-efficacy and
creative personal identity: Does gender matter? The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 47, 215–232. doi:10.1002/jocb.32
Karwowski, M., & Soszynski, M. (2008). How to develop creative imag-
ination? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 163–171. doi:10.1016/j.tsc
.2008.07.001
 70 KARWOWSKI
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four
c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12. doi:
10.1037/a0013688
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York,
NY: Morton.
Li, C. H., & Wu, J. J. (2011). The structural relationships between opti-
mism and innovative behavior: Understanding potential antecedents and
mediating effects. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 119 –128. doi:
10.1080/10400419.2011.571184
Makel, M. (2008). The malleability of implicit beliefs of creativity and
creative production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana Univer-
sity, Bloomington, IN.
Maksić, S., & Pavlović, J. (2011). Educational researchers’ personal ex-
plicit theories of creativity and its development: A qualitative study.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
High Ability Studies, 22, 219 –231. doi:10.1080/13598139.2011.628850
Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Koller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Integration of multidimensional self-concept and core personality con-
structs: Construct validation and relations to well-being and achieve-
ment. Journal of Personality, 74, 403– 456. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494
.2005.00380.x
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can
undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–52. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33
O’Connor, A. J., Nemeth, C. J., & Akutsu, S. (2013). Consequences of
beliefs about the malleability of creativity. Creativity Research Journal,
25, 155–162. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.783739
Pavlović, J., Maksic, S., & Bodroza, B. (2013). Implicit individualism in
teachers’ theories of creativity: Through the “four P’s” looking glass.
The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 23, 39 –57.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity
more important to educational psychologist? Potentials, pitfalls, and
future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39,
83–96. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C.
Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cre-
ativity (pp. 48 –74). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Appendix
Insight Problems Used in Study 3
1. A number of lilies in a pond doubles each day. At the
beginning of summer there is only one lily. After 30
days the whole pond is full of lilies. On which day is the
pond half-full with lilies?
2. What is it: an antique invention still used in most
countries of the world which makes it possible to look
through walls?
3. There are black and brown socks in the drawer, mixed
in the proportion of 4:5. How many socks does one need
to take out of the drawer to be certain to complete a pair
of the same color?
4. A snail climbs up a pole 10 m in length. It climbs 2 m
per day, but at night it falls asleep and falls down 1 m.
View publication stats
Raykov, T., & Hancock, G. R. (2005). Examining change in maximal
reliability for multiple-component measuring instruments. British Jour-
nal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 58, 65– 82. doi:10.1348/
000711005X38753
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42,
305–310.
Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Educational Research, 47, 317–324. doi:10.1080/
00313830308598
Runco, M. A., & Johnson, D. J. (2002). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit
theories of children’s creativity: A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity
Research Journal, 14, 427– 438. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1434_12
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human inno-
vation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Seng, Q. K., Keung, H. K., & Cheng, S. K. (2008). Implicit theories of
creativity: A comparison of student-teachers in Hong Kong and Singa-
pore. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 38, 71– 86. doi:
10.1080/03057920701419959
Sen, R. S., & Sharma, R. (2011). Through multiple lenses: Implicit theories
of creativity among Indian children and adults. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 45, 273–302. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01431.x
Silvia, P. J. (2011). Subjective scoring of divergent thinking: Examin-
ing the reliability of unusual uses, instances, and consequences tasks.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 24 –30. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.06
.001
Spiel, C., & von Korff, C. (1998). Implicit theories of creativity: The
conceptions of politicians, scientists, artists and school teachers. High
Ability Studies, 9, 43–58. doi:10.1080/1359813980090104
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and
wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607– 627.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential
antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 45, 1137–1148. doi:10.2307/3069429
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch
measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.
How many full 24-hr days does it need to climb all the
way up the pole?
5. Earth weighs 6 sextillion tons. How much would it weigh
if one were to build a wall weighing 1 sextillion tons?
6. A woman has two sons who were born at the same time, on
the same day, month, and year. They are not twins— how
is it possible?
7. A car driver has a brother, but the brother of the driver does
not have a brother. Who is the driver for the brother?
Received November 5, 2012
Revision received July 15, 2013
Accepted August 5, 2013 䡲