ASSIGNMENT 1 FRONT SHEET

Qualification BTEC Level 5 HND Diploma in Business

Unit number and title Unit 11: Research Project

Submission date Date Received 1st submission

Re-submission Date Date Received 2nd submission

Student Name Nguyễn Thị Thu Huyền Student ID GBS200904

Class GBS0908A Assessor name Nguyễn Trần Kiều Vân

Student declaration
I certify that the assignment submission is entirely my own work and I fully understand the consequences of plagiarism. I understand that
making a false declaration is a form of malpractice.

Student’s signature

Grading grid
P1 P2 M1
 Summative Feedback:  Resubmission Feedback:

Grade: Assessor Signature: Date:

Internal Verifier’s Comments:

Signature & Date:

Table of Contents
I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
II. Main body ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.Research Proposal .................................................................................................................................................................2
2.Research Ethics .......................................................................................................................................................................5
III. In conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Introduction
Working as a business analyst for a global organization in Vietnam. I intend to do study to alter the
present workplace. My creative research will help the organization succeed in the digital era.
Main body
1.Research Proposal
Research Proposal Form
Section One: Title, objective, responsibilities
Title or working title of research project : Creative self-efficacy as mediator between creative
mindsets and creative problem-solving
Research project objectives : The goal of this study is to see if creative self-efficacy is also an
essential mechanism through which creative mindsets link to creative performance in the workplace.
Section Two: Reasons for choosing this research project
Reasons for choosing the project : This study is the first to analyze creative self-efficacy as a process
through which creative mindsets impact creative problem-solving abilities rather than concentrating
on the direct link between mindsets and creativity, which is why this topic was chosen. As a result, I
would want to do research on this topic to improve the study of creativity by illuminating how creative
self-efficacy functions as a key mechanism connecting creative attitudes to creative performance. It
enables people to develop their creative skills and succeed at work. especially in the areas of
marketing and design
Section Three: Literature sources searched
• Creative mindset
A number of authors including e.g., Dweck (1986, 1989), Dweck & Leggett(1988) and Dweck et al.,
(1995) have argued that early research on attitudes was mostly focused on intellect and academic
success.As Dweck(1986) and Dweck & Leggett(1988 ) point out fixed and flexible mindsets were
first thought of as two opposite extremities of a continuum, with individuals having either a fixed or
an adaptable mentality in a particular domain like intelligence or athletic prowess. More recent
research, however, has demonstrated that people can actually have both fixed and malleable
mindsets at the same time and that they should be treated as two distinct dimensions altogether
(Burnette, O'Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2013; Dweck et al., 1995; Hass et al., 2016;
Karwowski, 2014).
Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan(1999),King (2012),Miele, Finn, & Molden (2011), ; Smiley &
Dweck(1994) have shown that strongly flexible individuals are more likely to attribute success to
effort, try again after failing, attempt to improve their competence, and display higher levels of self-
esteem . When faced with difficult problems in which they believe they have reached the boundaries
of their ability, they may also feel disappointed or powerless (Dweck, 1986, 1989; Dweck & Leggett,
1988; King, 2012; Robins & Pals, 2002; Smiley & Dweck, 1994).
Some research have reworded an existing implicit attitude of intelligence scale to reflect creativity in
order to measure people's beliefs of the fixedness of creative abilities(e.g., Makel, 2009; O’Connor
et al., 2013). Fixed and malleable creative mindsets were seen as being at opposite ends of a
continuum by both Makel (2009) and O'Connor et al. (2013), who discovered that people with
malleable mindsets tended to perform better on insight problem-solving and displayed more creative
achievements than those with fixed mindsets(O’Connor et al., 2013). However, the validity of insight
problem-solving as a practical measure of creativity has occasionally been questioned(Beaty,
Nusbaum, & Silvia, 2014). Insight problem-solving ability was found to be connected with intellect
by Beaty et al. (2014), but there was no proof that it might predict either self-reported creativity or
creative activity.
Karwowski (2014) created a scale that measures both fixed and changeable creative mindsets. Hass
et al. (2016) recently completed a study that verified both fixed and changeable creative mindsets
as distinct characteristics. They also discovered that items from Karwowski's (2014) creative attitude
scale outperformed an implicit theory scale that had been reworded to represent creativity.
According to Karwowski (2014), adaptable creative mindsets are positively connected to insight
problem-solving, whereas rigid mindsets are adversely related. Karwowski (2014) discovered that
adaptable mindsets were associated with higher levels of creative self-efficacy and self-identity,
whereas fixed mindsets were associated with lower levels of both variables.
• Creative self-efficacy
The importance of creative self-efficacy as a predictor of creative performance and accomplishment
has garnered much attentione (e.g., Karwowski, 2011; Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016; Puente-Dıaz,
2016; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Tierney & Farmer (2002) point out when someone feels confident
and capable of being creative at work and producing creative results, they are said to have a high
level of creative self-efficacy . For creative output, Bandura's (1997) research on general self-efficacy
is essential. Tierney and Farmer (2002) first used Bandura's research on general self-efficacy to
study organizational creativity and discovered that, in contrast to job-related self-efficacy, creative
self-efficacy better predicted creative performance. Since Tierney and Farmer's (2002) study, the
importance of creative self-efficacy in understanding how to improve individual, team, and
organizational creative performance has been clear (Carmeli & Schau- broeck, 2007; Choi, 2004).
It has been demonstrated that one's creative self-efficacy predicts their creative self-identity and
creativity(Karwowski, 2014; Mathisen & Bronnick, 2009).
Karwowski, (2011) has shown that creative self-efficacy appears to be connected to one's own
creativity ratings; however, this relationship may rely on one's sense of what it means to be creative.
Choi (2004), for example, demonstrated in a sample of university students that creative self-efficacy
moderated the link between individual variables such as ability, personality, and drive and creativity.
According to Karwowski (2016), creative self-efficacy influences the link between creative potential
and creative success. Wood and Bandura (1989) observed that when people believe that
intelligence is a fixed trait, they tend to have lower self-efficacy. This diminished self-efficacy
consequently has a detrimental impact on real performance (Karwowski, 2011).
• Hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1a: Malleable creative mindsets will be associated with higher levels of creative self-
efficacy. Hypothesis 1b: Fixed creative mindsets will be adversely associated to creative self-efficacy
Hypothesis 2a: The quality and originality of answers to creative problem-solving activities will be
favorably connected to malleable creative mindsets.
Hypothesis 2b: The quality and originality of creative problem-solving activities would be adversely
associated to fixed creative mindsets.
Hypothesis 3: The quality and originality of solutions to creative problem-solving activities will be
positively connected to creative self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 4: The association between changeable creative mindsets and the caliber and originality
of answers to creative problem-solving challenges will be mediated by creative self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 5 : The association between fixed creative mindsets and the caliber and originality of
solutions to creative problem-solving tasks will be mediated by creative self-efficacy
Section Four: Activities and timescales
This study will be carried out in a single month, from August 1 to August 31, 2022.
Section Five: Research approach and methodologies
1. Research approach
A total of 152 undergraduate students (76 percent female, 23 percent male, and 1 percent unknown)
from a Midwestern institution were recruited for this study. They must complete two surveys using
Karwowski's (2014) 10-item measure. Then, for the final time, they must resolve the issue.
2. Methodologies
• Correlational Research
We show the relationships between the variables used in the study. Positive correlations between
creative self-efficacy and flexible creative mindsets (r =.33, p .01) and negative correlations between
fixed creative mindsets (r =.24, p .01) were found. This result therefore supported hypothesis 1a and
1b. Fixed creative mindsets were adversely correlated with both solution quality (r =.19, p .01) and
originality (r =.15, p =.03), whereas flexible creative mindsets were favorably connected to solution
quality (r =.16, p =.02) and originality (r =.19, p =.01). So, we discovered evidence to support 2a and
2b. Both solution quality and originality were strongly correlated with creative self-efficacy (r =.22, p
.01), supporting hypothesis 3.

• Macro SPSS

We utilized Preacher and Hayes' (2004) SPSS macro to estimate indirect effects within each
mediation model in order to evaluate hypothesis 4 about the potential mediating role of creative self-
efficacy in the link between adaptable creative mindsets and both solution quality and originality.
Using Preacher and Hayes' (2004) SPSS macro, we estimated indirect effects within each mediation
model to test hypothesis 5 that creative self-efficacy also mediated the association between fixed
mindsets and the caliber and originality of creative problem-solving solutions.
I confirm that the project is not work which has been or will be submitted for another qualification
and is appropriate.
Agreed: Nguyễn Thị Thu Huyền
Comments and agreement from project proposal checker (if applicable)
Comments (optional):

I confirm that the project is appropriate.

Agreed: Nguyễn Thị Thu Huyền

2.Research Ethics
Research Ethics Approval Form
Section 1: Basic Details
Project title: Creative self-efficacy as mediator between creative mindsets and creative problem-
solving
Student name ( group representative):Nguyễn Thị Thu Huyền
Programme: Business Administration
School: University of Greenwich Vietnam
Intended research start date: 25/07/2022
Intended research end date: 31/08/2022
Section 2: Project Summary
Please select all research methods that you plan to use as part of your project:
• Interviews: 
• Questionnaires: 
• Observations: 
• Use of Personal Records: 
• Data Analysis: 
• Action Research: X
• Focus Groups: 
• Other (please specify): Survey of 152 students based on scale and complex problem
solving

Section 3: Participants
Please answer the following questions, giving full details where necessary.
Will your research involve human participants?
The research will involve human participants.
Who are the participants? Tick all that apply:
Ages 12-16:  Young People aged 17–18:  Adults: x
How will participants be recruited (identified and approached): A total of 152 undergraduate students
from a Midwestern institution were recruited for this study.
Describe the processes you will use to inform participants about what you are doing:
In the first two studies, we used Karwowski scale for participants to rate themselves at a level
of 1 to 5 .In the last sudy, participants will solve the problems
How will you obtain consent from participants? Will this be written? How will it be made clear to
participants that they may withdraw consent to participate at any time?
Participants earn extra credit in a psychology course in return for participating.
Studies involving questionnaires: Will participants be given the option of omitting questions
they do not wish to answer?
Yes:  No: x

Studies involving observation: Confirm whether participants will be asked for their informed
consent to be observed.
Yes: x No: 

Will you debrief participants at the end of their participation (i.e. give them a brief explanation of
the study)?
Yes: x No: 

Will participants be given information about the findings of your study? (This could be a brief
summary of your findings in general)
Yes: x No: 

Section 4: Data Storage and Security

Confirm that all personal data will be stored and processed in compliance with the Data Protection
Act (1998) Yes: x No: 
Who will have access to the data and personal information?
The data and personal information used in the study process will only be accessible by the
researcher.
During the research:
Where will the data be stored? Yes: x No: 

Will mobile devices such as USB storage and laptops be used? Yes: x No: 

If yes, please provide further details:

Data from the study will be saved on the researcher's own laptop as well as on the researcher's
Google Drive.
After the research:
Where will the data be stored?
on the researcher's own laptop as well as on the researcher's Google Drive.
How long will the data and records be kept for and in what format? Will data be kept for use by other
researchers?
Yes:  No: x
If yes, please provide further details:

Section 5: Ethical Issues

Are there any particular features of your proposed work which may raise ethical concerns? If so,
please outline how you will deal with these:
It is important that you demonstrate your awareness of potential risks that may arise as a result of
your research. Please consider/address all issues that may apply. Ethical concerns may include, but
are not limited to the following:
• Informed consent.
• Potentially vulnerable participants.
• Sensitive topics.
• Risks to participants and/or researchers.
• Confidentiality/anonymity.
• Disclosures/limits to confidentiality.
• Data storage and security, both during and after the research (including transfer, sharing,
encryption, protection).
• Reporting.
• Dissemination and use of your findings.

Section 6: Declaration
I have read, understood and will abide by the institution’s Research and Ethics Policy:
Yes: x No: 

I have discussed the ethical issues relating to my research with my Unit Tutor:
Yes: x No: 

I confirm that to the best of my knowledge:

The above information is correct and that this is a full description of the ethics issues that may
arise in the course of my research.
Name:Nguyễn Thị Thu Huyền
Date:5/8/2022
In conclusion
The findings of this study indicate that creative self-efficacy mediates the association between
creative mindsets and creative problem-solving quality and originality, contributing to our knowledge
of how creative mindsets work through other self-concepts of creativity. This discovery has
implications for both educational and business contexts, as it allows us to better understand how
increasing the malleability of one's creative mentality may boost one's views of their ability to be
creative, which in turn increases their actual creativity.
Bibliography
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S.M, 2002. Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and relationship to
creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, p. 1137–1148.
B.King, R., 2012. How you think about your intelligence influences how adjusted you are: Implicit
theories and adjustment outcomes. 53(5), pp. 705-709.
Bandura, A., 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New york: s.n.
Beaty, R. E., Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. , 2014. Does insight problem solving predict real-world
creativity?. APA PsycArticles, 8(3), p. 287–292.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. , 2007. The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative
expectations on individual involve- ment in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, pp. 35-48.
Choi, J., 2004. Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of
psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, p. 187–199.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L., 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality..
APA PsycArticles, p. 256–273.
Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C., & Hong, H., 1995. Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and
Reactions: A Word From Two Perspectives. the Advancement of Psychological Theory , VI(4), p.
87–136.
Dweck, C., 1986. Motivational processes affecting mastery. APA PsycArticles, p. 1040–1048.
Dweck, C., 1989. Motivation. pp. 87-136.
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?. APA PsycArticles, 10(4), p. 436–446.
Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I., 2016. The big five, the huge two, and creative self-beliefs: A meta-
analysis. APA PsycArticles, 10(2), p. 214–232.
Karwowski, M., 2011. It doesn’t hurt to ask... But sometimes it hurts to believe. Psychology of
Aesthetics, p. 154–164.
Karwowski, M., 2014. Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. APA
PsycArticles, p. 62–70.
Makel, M. C., 2009. The malleability of implicit beliefs of creativity and creative production.
Miele, D., Finn, B., & Molden, D., 2011. Does Easily Learned Mean Easily Remembered?: It
Depends on Your Beliefs About Intelligence. Psychological Science, p. 320–324.
O’Connor, A.J., Nemeth, C.J., & Akutsu, S., 2013. Consequences of Beliefs about the Malleability
of Creativity. Creativity Research, 25(2), pp. 155-162.
Patricia A. Smiley and Carol S. Dweck, 1994. Individual Differences in Achievement Goals among
Young Children. 65(6), pp. 1723-1743.
Richard W. Robins &Jennifer L. Pals, 2002. Implicit Self-Theories in the Academic Domain:
Implications for Goal Orientation, Attributions, Affect, and Self-Esteem Change. 1(4), p. 2002.