3.8 Article

Did Curiosity Kill the Cat? Relationship Between Trait Curiosity, Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Personal Identity

期刊

EUROPES JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 547-558

出版社

PSYCHOPEN
DOI: 10.5964/ejop.v8i4.513

关键词

curiosity; creative self-efficacy; creative personal identity; creative self; stretching; embracing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main objective of the study presented in this article was to examine the relationship between trait curiosity and two self-concept constructs which are gaining popularity in the creativity literature - creative self-efficacy (CSE) and creative personal identity (CPI). Although the role of curiosity in creativity seems well established, in fact there is little empirical evidence of the relationship between curiosity treated as a trait and both CSE and CPI. In a study conducted on a sample of middle and high school Polish students (N = 284; 55% female, aged 13-18, M = 14.74, SD = 1.14), curiosity was measured by the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI-II; Kashdan, Gallagher, Silvia, Winterstein, Breen, Terhar, & Steger, 2009) and CSE and CPI by the Short Scale of Creative Self (SSCS; Karwowski, Lebuda, & Wisniewska, in press). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed the existence of substantial correlations between measured constructs. Latent factor of CSE correlated strongly with a tendency to seek out new experiences (stretching, r = .72) and an acceptance of unpredictability (embracing, r = .67), while CPI correlated substantially with stretching (r = .62) and slightly less with embracing (r = .48) - all correlations were highly reliable (p < .001). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis showed the existence of a strong relationship between the higher-order factor of curiosity (composed of stretching and embracing) and creative self (composed of CSE and CPI): r = .75, which may indicate common basis of creativity and curiosity. The consequences of curiosity for the development of CSE and CPI are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据