A meta-analysis of the relation between (creative) self-efficacy beliefs and creativity
(2015) PSYP01 20151Department of Psychology
- Abstract
- This meta-analysis synthesized 60 effect sizes from 41 papers (overall N = 17.226), about the relation between self-efficacy beliefs and creativity. Taken as a whole, the relation between those two constructs, assuming a random-effects model, is with r = .39 of medium size, as was proposed. Further subgroup analyses revealed a pattern of self-rated creativity measures (r = .53) those which use items (r = .43) or focus on the creative person (r = .47) correlate much higher with self-efficacy scales than scores for divergent thinking tests (r = .23), actual performance measures (verbal measurements, r = .27; figural measurement, r = .19) or with focus on the creative product (r = .32) or process (r = .27). So the relation between... (More)
- This meta-analysis synthesized 60 effect sizes from 41 papers (overall N = 17.226), about the relation between self-efficacy beliefs and creativity. Taken as a whole, the relation between those two constructs, assuming a random-effects model, is with r = .39 of medium size, as was proposed. Further subgroup analyses revealed a pattern of self-rated creativity measures (r = .53) those which use items (r = .43) or focus on the creative person (r = .47) correlate much higher with self-efficacy scales than scores for divergent thinking tests (r = .23), actual performance measures (verbal measurements, r = .27; figural measurement, r = .19) or with focus on the creative product (r = .32) or process (r = .27). So the relation between self-efficacy and creativity is very much dependent on the measurement used in the study, emphasizing the need to explicitly separate creativity measures according to what they actually focus on. Efficacy scales differed in their focus, whether they assessed general self-efficacy beliefs, creative self-efficacy or creative-self-efficacy with focus on a special domain (e.g. math, science). However, those levels did not reveal any clear differences concerning their relation to creativity measures. All results are independent from the sample of the studies (considering type of sample, age and sex), country of origin, as well as the environment of assessment. Conceptual implications are discussed, likewise limitations, pitfalls and critics concerning both concepts and the method of the meta-analysis itself. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/7362360
- author
- Haase, Jennifer LU
- supervisor
-
- Eva Hoff LU
- Åse Innes-Ker LU
- organization
- course
- PSYP01 20151
- year
- 2015
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- creativity, creative, self-efficacy, CSE, meta-analysis, creativity measures
- language
- English
- id
- 7362360
- date added to LUP
- 2015-06-18 11:18:01
- date last changed
- 2015-06-18 14:04:28
@misc{7362360,
abstract = {{This meta-analysis synthesized 60 effect sizes from 41 papers (overall N = 17.226), about the relation between self-efficacy beliefs and creativity. Taken as a whole, the relation between those two constructs, assuming a random-effects model, is with r = .39 of medium size, as was proposed. Further subgroup analyses revealed a pattern of self-rated creativity measures (r = .53) those which use items (r = .43) or focus on the creative person (r = .47) correlate much higher with self-efficacy scales than scores for divergent thinking tests (r = .23), actual performance measures (verbal measurements, r = .27; figural measurement, r = .19) or with focus on the creative product (r = .32) or process (r = .27). So the relation between self-efficacy and creativity is very much dependent on the measurement used in the study, emphasizing the need to explicitly separate creativity measures according to what they actually focus on. Efficacy scales differed in their focus, whether they assessed general self-efficacy beliefs, creative self-efficacy or creative-self-efficacy with focus on a special domain (e.g. math, science). However, those levels did not reveal any clear differences concerning their relation to creativity measures. All results are independent from the sample of the studies (considering type of sample, age and sex), country of origin, as well as the environment of assessment. Conceptual implications are discussed, likewise limitations, pitfalls and critics concerning both concepts and the method of the meta-analysis itself.}},
author = {{Haase, Jennifer}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{A meta-analysis of the relation between (creative) self-efficacy beliefs and creativity}},
year = {{2015}},
}