Connecting the Dots of Creativity and Curiosity: A Weekly Diary Examination Using Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling

Leonidas A. Zampetakis
{"title":"Connecting the Dots of Creativity and Curiosity: A Weekly Diary Examination Using Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling","authors":"Leonidas A. Zampetakis","doi":"10.1002/jocb.1500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the last decade, research on the connection between curiosity and creativity has surged revealing a positive correlation. However, these findings are primarily based on cross‐sectional studies, which do not establish the direction of the relationship between creativity and curiosity. Is curiosity the driving force behind creativity, or does creativity spark curiosity? The present study addresses this question by examining the potential reciprocal associations between creativity and curiosity within‐persons using state‐of‐the‐art methodology and statistics. Self‐reported data were collected on a weekly basis from a sample of Greek entrepreneurs (N = 195, 49% female) over a 10‐week period. We used the dynamic structural equation modeling (DSEM) framework for data analyses. Results supported the positive relationship between creativity and curiosity within and between individuals. At the within‐person level, creativity and curiosity exhibited significant carry‐over effects from 1 week to the next. However, we did not find consistent evidence for cross‐lagged effects, meaning that curiosity and creativity did not directly cause changes in each other within a 1‐week period. We also found significant random effects underscoring the role of curiosity as a catalyst for creativity, particularly when individuals do not have a strong tendency for their creative levels to persist but do have a strong tendency for their curiosity levels to persist. In such cases, curiosity seems to have a more pronounced impact on shaping creative endeavors. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice and suggest directions for future research.","PeriodicalId":516032,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Creative Behavior","volume":"5 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Creative Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.1500","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the last decade, research on the connection between curiosity and creativity has surged revealing a positive correlation. However, these findings are primarily based on cross‐sectional studies, which do not establish the direction of the relationship between creativity and curiosity. Is curiosity the driving force behind creativity, or does creativity spark curiosity? The present study addresses this question by examining the potential reciprocal associations between creativity and curiosity within‐persons using state‐of‐the‐art methodology and statistics. Self‐reported data were collected on a weekly basis from a sample of Greek entrepreneurs (N = 195, 49% female) over a 10‐week period. We used the dynamic structural equation modeling (DSEM) framework for data analyses. Results supported the positive relationship between creativity and curiosity within and between individuals. At the within‐person level, creativity and curiosity exhibited significant carry‐over effects from 1 week to the next. However, we did not find consistent evidence for cross‐lagged effects, meaning that curiosity and creativity did not directly cause changes in each other within a 1‐week period. We also found significant random effects underscoring the role of curiosity as a catalyst for creativity, particularly when individuals do not have a strong tendency for their creative levels to persist but do have a strong tendency for their curiosity levels to persist. In such cases, curiosity seems to have a more pronounced impact on shaping creative endeavors. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice and suggest directions for future research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
连接创造力与好奇心的纽带:使用动态结构方程模型的周日记研究
近十年来,有关好奇心与创造力之间联系的研究激增,揭示了两者之间的正相关关系。然而,这些研究结果主要基于横断面研究,并没有确定创造力与好奇心之间关系的方向。好奇心是创造力背后的驱动力,还是创造力激发了好奇心?本研究针对这一问题,采用最先进的方法和统计数据,研究了创造力和好奇心之间潜在的相互关联。在为期 10 周的时间里,我们每周收集希腊企业家样本(N = 195,49% 为女性)的自我报告数据。我们采用动态结构方程建模(DSEM)框架进行数据分析。结果表明,在个体内部和个体之间,创造力和好奇心之间存在正相关关系。在个体内部,创造力和好奇心在一周到下一周之间表现出显著的延续效应。然而,我们并没有发现交叉滞后效应的一致证据,这意味着好奇心和创造力在一周内并不会直接导致彼此的变化。我们还发现了明显的随机效应,强调了好奇心作为创造力催化剂的作用,尤其是当个体的创造力水平并没有强烈的持续倾向,但好奇心水平却有强烈的持续倾向时。在这种情况下,好奇心似乎对创造性努力的形成有更明显的影响。我们讨论了我们的发现对理论和实践的影响,并提出了未来研究的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Connecting the Dots of Creativity and Curiosity: A Weekly Diary Examination Using Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling Making Design Moves: Exploring the Relationship Between Gender, Self‐Efficacy, and Design Moves in Collaborative Ideation Unraveling the Impact of Team Performance‐Prove Goal Orientation on Employee Creative Performance Through a Transactional Stress Theory Framework The Three‐Way Interaction of Autonomy, Openness to Experience, and Techno‐Invasion in Predicting Employee Creativity Creativity and Autism: A Systematic Review of Interventions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1