How do 15-year-old students perceive creativity and their creative potential, and does it make a difference to their creative thinking proficiency? Are there individual attitudes, mindsets, dispositions or personality traits that help demonstrate stronger creative thinking? And if so, what can schools and policy makers do to nurture more favourable attitudes towards creative thinking in their students?

Previous chapters in this volume focused on reporting on the international results of student performance in the PISA 2022 Creative Thinking assessment. Students’ performance overall (i.e. their test score), across contexts (the four domains), and across ideation processes (the three facets) was analysed in relation to students’ mathematics, reading and science proficiency, as well as in relation to a range of socio-economic characteristics. This chapter analyses how student performance in creative thinking relates to student beliefs about creativity and attitudes towards creative thinking.

This section examines the beliefs of 15-year-old students about the nature of creativity and their attitudes towards creative thinking, and analyses the relationship between these beliefs and attitudes with creative thinking proficiency. “Beliefs about the nature of creativity” refer to how students perceive creativity, in general and in relation to themselves. “Attitudes towards creative thinking” refer to students’ engagement with specific thought processes, activities and tasks that support or contribute to one’s capacity to engage in creative thinking, as defined by the PISA 2022 Creative Thinking framework (OECD, 2023[1]). These attitudes encompass four key constructs in the research literature around creative thinking: creative self-efficacy, openness to intellect, openness to art and experience, and imagination and adventurousness.

Do 15-year-old students across the world believe that creativity is simply an innate talent or rather a skill they can develop through practice? Do they believe it belongs only in the arts or that it can be applied to many different contexts?

On average across OECD countries, 71% of 15-year-old students disagreed or strongly disagreed that creativity can only be expressed through the arts, and 82% reported believing that it is possible to be creative in nearly any subject (Table III.B1.5.1). In Portugal and Chinese Taipei, around 90% of students agreed or strongly agreed that it is possible to be creative across subject areas; in contrast, in Jordan and Morocco, just over 69% of students felt the same way about creativity. Nonetheless, in general, students tend to recognise that creativity extends to other contexts than just the arts.

Do boys and girls share different opinions about the nature of creativity? On average across OECD countries, more girls than boys reported believing that creativity extends beyond the arts; this gender gap in favour of girls is statistically significant in 24 countries and economies (Figure III.5.2). Girls also believed that it is possible to be creative in nearly any subject more often than boys did. This gender gap in beliefs aligns with the PISA 2022 findings that girls consistently outperformed boys in the creative thinking assessment across countries and economies (Table III.B1.3.4). However, in the United Kingdom*, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Argentina, Kosovo, Albania** and Greece, more boys than girls believed that creativity extends beyond the arts.

Both socio-economically advantaged students and students in socio-economically advantaged schools were more likely to believe that creativity is not exclusive to the arts and that one can be creative in nearly any subject. This aligns with the socio-economic gap in creative thinking performance reported in Chapter 3.

Students who believe that it is possible to be creative in nearly any subject show higher creative thinking proficiency than their peers; on average across OECD countries, students who agreed or strongly agreed scored over 3 points higher in creative thinking (on a scale that counts 60 points) than those who disagreed or strongly disagreed, after accounting for students’ gender and students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile (Figure III.5.3). This represents a large difference in performance between students who do and do not hold positive beliefs about the nature of creativity (about one-third of the OECD standard deviation in performance), and this positive relationship holds across all countries and economies. In the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Finland, the Philippines, Kazakhstan, Chile, and in the Ukrainian regions (18 of 27) (in descending order), the average difference exceeded 5 score points. Across participating countries and economies, a similar performance difference was observed between students who think that creativity can be expressed outside of the arts and those who do not.

Holding a more open view of the nature of creativity is associated with stronger performance in creative thinking, but what about the beliefs about one’s creativity? On average across OECD countries, 47% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed that their creativity is something about them that they cannot change much (that is, 46% hold a growth mindset on creativity); up to 57% when it comes to their intelligence (Table III.B1.5.4). For many thus, creativity and, to a lesser extent, intelligence, are akin to innate talents, non-malleable competencies that are closer to personality traits that no education, training or experience can improve (i.e. fixed mindset). Students’ mindsets related to their own capacity for creativity appear largely uncorrelated to their beliefs about the nature of creativity in general: those who think it is possible to be creative in nearly any subject are neither more nor less prone than others to hold a growth versus fixed mindset on creativity (r = 0.04 on average across OECD countries).

Socio-economically disadvantaged students are more likely to hold a fixed mindset. Across most countries and economies, and often by a significant degree, larger proportions of socio-economically disadvantaged students think that their creativity is something about them that they cannot change much. On average across OECD countries, there were 3.4 percentage points more disadvantaged than advantaged students with a fixed mindset on creativity (Figure III.5.4). This difference rose to around 14 percentage points in Brazil and Panama*, and 16 percentage points in Peru. In only two countries (Korea and Italy) was the opposite observed, with disadvantaged students more likely to hold a growth mindset on creativity than their peers.

Students who think their creativity is something about them that they can change scored better than those who don’t hold a growth mindset (around 1 score point higher, OECD average) (Table III.B1.5.6). This moderate but statistically significant difference accounts for students’ and schools’ socio-economic characteristics, and it holds in most countries and economies – only in Malaysia is the relationship significantly inverted (Figure III.5.5). By comparison, students who believe their intelligence is something about them that they can change scored around 2 points higher than their peers, on average across OECD countries.

In sum, on average across OECD countries, holding a growth mindset on creativity was positively associated with creative thinking performance, but less so than thinking that it is possible to be creative in nearly any subject or that creativity can be expressed outside the arts. It appears that broadening students' beliefs about the nature of creativity – how it can be expressed and its relevancy in many contexts – is more closely associated with their performance than their own beliefs about their capacity to change their creativity.

Four attitudes commonly support or contribute to an individual’s capacity to engage in a creative thinking process: creative self-efficacy, openness to intellect, openness to art and experience, and imagination and adventurousness (Box III.5.1). The PISA 2022 Creative Thinking framework constructed four distinct indices to analyse and compare these four attitudes (see Annex A1).

The four indices of attitudes towards creative thinking are positively correlated with one another. On average across OECD countries, the strongest correlations are observed between the index of openness to intellect, on one hand, and the other three indices on the other: with creative self-efficacy (r = 0.54), openness to art and experience (r = 0.49), and imagination and adventurousness (r = 0.47) (Table III.5.1). The correlations among the three other indices are also statistically significantly positive, ranging between 0.38 and 0.42. In a nutshell, the most open-minded students are the most imaginative (and vice versa, with all four attitudes). In terms of social-emotional constructs, stress resistance and emotional control appear very intertwined (r = 0.51) and often found in the same students; and so do persistence and curiosity, though to a lesser extent (r = 0.37).

Creative self-efficacy describes students’ confidence in successfully engaging in creative thinking activities and overcoming related challenging tasks (Beghetto and Karwowski, 2017[2]). Most students showed a high level of confidence in their ability to demonstrate creative thinking in everyday situations, for instance if prompted to come up with many good ideas for helping people in need (71% on average across OECD countries), or ideas for solving disagreements with people (70%) (Figure III.5.6 and Table III.B1.5.7). When broadly contextualised, a majority of students were also confident that they can be creative (72%). However, when prompted to think about a school situation or a specific assessment, less students felt that they can demonstrate creative thinking: for instance, just 62% were confident or very confident that they can come up with creative ideas for school projects.

Students also less confidently believe that they can think creatively in specific domain contexts: only 61% were confident or very confident that they can tell creative stories; 58% that they can invent new things; 55% that they can produce creative drawings; and only 50% that they can come up with good ideas for science experiments. This suggests that actual or perceived domain readiness – prior domain knowledge and experience relevant to successfully produce creative work – is an important mediating factor (Baer, 2016[22]).

In all countries and economies where there is a statistically significant gender gap in creative self-efficacy, it was in favour of girls over boys – except in several Asian countries and economies including Korea, Hong Kong (China)*, Macao (China), Chinese Taipei and Indonesia (in descending order), as well as in Brazil, where it was in favour of boys over girls (Table III.B1.5.8). For comparison, boys reported higher levels of general self-efficacy than girls, across OECD countries, and much lower levels of fear of failure (OECD, 2023[23]).

A large socio-economic gap also exists across all participating countries and economies. There was a difference of 0.36 units on the index of creative self-efficacy in favour of advantaged students over their disadvantaged peers (Table III.B1.5.8).

Openness to intellect describes an individual’s receptivity to appreciate and engage with abstract and complex information (Box III.5.1). Across OECD countries, most students reported that they enjoy learning new things, that they like doing something creative, or playing a game that challenges their creativity (all above 70%) (Table III.B1.5.11). Less students, though still a majority in most countries and economies, said they are open to intellect when the task they are prompted to think about is challenging. For instance, about one student out of two reported that he or she enjoys solving complex problems or doing challenging schoolwork, on average across OECD countries. Interestingly, the four countries and economies that underperformed the most in creative thinking given their performance in the other PISA tests (Czechia, Hong Kong [China]*, Macao [China], and Chinese Taipei) have the largest discrepancies between the shares of students who enjoy learning in general and those who enjoy learning at school.

This pattern is reflected in students’ openness to art and experience, which captures individual’s receptivity to engage with novel ideas, imagination, fantasy, aesthetics and emotions, and predicts creative achievement in the arts. When prompted to imagine an activity that involves the creation of an output (e.g. “I enjoy creating art”, “I express myself through art”) students were less prone to report high levels of openness to art and experience than when it relates to broader experiences or a less concrete outcome (e.g. “I see beauty in everyday things”, I enjoy artistic activities”) (Table III.B1.5.15). Perhaps surprisingly, only around one in two students across OECD countries reported enjoying artistic activities and creating art – especially considering that about the same percentage of students said they enjoy solving complex problems.

Openness to art and experience is a very gendered attitude across all countries and economies, with girls having scored 0.46 index-unit higher than boys on average across OECD countries (about half one standard deviation) (Table III.B1.5.16). It is also largely determined by their socio-economic status, with a 0.24 unit difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students on average across OECD countries. Indeed, not everyone has access to artistic activities inside or outside of school (see Chapter 6). Openness to intellect is less associated with gender (there is no statistically significant difference between boys and girls at the OECD average) but more associated with students’ socio-economic status than openness to art and experience: there was a 0.36 index-unit difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students on average across OECD countries (Table III.B1.5.12). This also held for all countries and economies but Jamaica*.

Engaging in creative thinking, and in particular in its divergent thinking component, entails expressing and communicating ideas and imagination, which is nurtured by dispositions to exploration and adventurousness. On average across OECD countries, most students said they would like to travel to places they have never been (88%) and that they would get bored doing the same thing every day (73%) (Table III.B1.5.19). Those dispositions relate to their adventurousness. Similarly, a majority of students reported that they have a good imagination (74%) and that coming up with new ideas is satisfying to them (74%). They often get lost in thought (73%) and like to be spontaneous (71%). The latter four dispositions relate to their imagination. If being creative was only a matter of imagining diverse ideas, 15-year-old students could be confident in their capacity to engage in creative thinking (see Chapter 4). Yet generating diverse ideas is just one facet of the creative thinking process; generating appropriate and original ideas, as well as evaluating and improving ideas, are two other key facets.

Students’ self-reported sense of imagination and adventurousness differ by both their gender and socio-economic status (Table III.B1.5.20). Girls reported higher levels of imagination and adventurousness than boys (+0.29 index-unit on average across OECD countries), and so did advantaged students over their disadvantaged peers (+0.34 index-unit at the student level, +0.30 at the school level).

For almost all participating countries and economies, the four PISA indices were positively associated with students’ creative thinking proficiency, even after accounting for student and school characteristics (Tables III.B1.5.10, III.B1.5.14, III.B1.5.18, and III.B1.5.22). On average across OECD countries, the largest performance change was observed with a one-unit increase in the index of imagination and adventurousness (+1.5 score points). Then comes the index of openness to intellect (+1.3 score points), of openness to art and experience (+0.9), and of creative self-efficacy (+0.8).

However, the variation along any of these four indices only explains a marginal part of the variance in creative thinking performance, ranging from 1 to 4.4% on average across OECD countries and after accounting students’ and schools’ socio-economic characteristics (Tables III.B1.5.10, III.B1.5.14, III.B1.5.18, and III.B1.5.22). For comparison, the variation in mathematics performance alone explains 28.4% of the variation in creative thinking performance, accounting for the same students’ and schools’ characteristics (Figure III.2.3).

Within those four attitudes, it is possible to identify sub-attitudes towards creative thinking that are more strongly associated with better creative thinking performance than others (Figure III.5.7). For instance, after accounting for students’ and schools’ characteristics, and on average across OECD countries, students who enjoy learning new things (openness to intellect) scored nearly 4 points higher than those who do not and those for whom coming up with new ideas is satisfying (imagination and adventurousness) scored around 3 points higher.

Box III.5.2 below provides some insights as to how parents’ beliefs about creativity as well as about their and their child’s openness to intellect, influence students’ creative thinking performance.

More general social-emotional characteristics may also support students to engage in creative thinking, and can be drivers of the overarching beliefs and mindsets previously discussed in this chapter. In particular, curiosity, persistence and perspective-taking are all attitudes that characterise good learners and that might support students’ capacity to generate, evaluate and improve creative ideas (Box III.5.3).

Curiosity denotes an eagerness to learn and explore the unknown and is thus related to students’ attitudes towards creative thinking (Box III.5.3). Students reported more curiosity when considering everyday life situations, as opposed to school experiences. A wide majority reported being curious about many different things (77% on average across OECD countries) and liking to know how things work (77%) (Table III.B1.5.29). While 70% of students reported that they like learning new things, only 50% said they love learning new things in school.

A significant socio-economic gap exists in the index of curiosity. On average across OECD countries, there was a 0.36 index-unit difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students (more than one-third of its standard deviation, close to 1); and a 0.21 difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools (Table III.B1.5.30). In many participating countries and economies, girls reported being significantly more curious than boys, with the highest gender gaps observed in Albania**, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, the Dominican Republic** and Kosovo (as always, in descending order). However, in wealthier countries and economies, the curiosity gender gap was lower or even inverted and in favour of boys, as was the case on average across OECD countries and in Singapore and Chinese Taipei.

Students who reported a higher sense of curiosity performed better in creative thinking. On average across OECD countries, a one-unit increase in the index of curiosity was associated with a moderate increase of around 1.5 points in the creative thinking score – after accounting for gender and student and school socio-economic profile (Figure III.5.10). This relationship held for virtually all participating countries and economies, with the highest changes observed in the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia (above 3 score points).

In particular, students who reported being curious about many things, who like to know how things work, or who like learning new things, respectively scored about 3 points higher than those who did not, on average across OECD countries (Figure III.5.11).

Persistence is also instrumental to the creative thinking process, as it allows students to maintain concentration for long periods and deal with frustrations that may arise when generating and iterating upon novel ideas (Box III.5.3). The index of persistence highly correlated with that of curiosity (more than other constructed indices, Table III.5.1): students who believe they are curious tend to believe they are persistent too; and countries with more curious students tend to be countries with more persistent students (Figure III.5.12).

Across participating countries and economies, a majority of 15-year-old students reported being perseverant when facing challenges. On average across OECD countries, most students said that they keep working on a task until it is finished (62%), even when it becomes more difficult than they thought (55%) or boring (54%) (Table III.B1.5.23). Larger proportions of students disagreed with statements that are phrased negatively, as they reflect laziness or unwillingness more than a lack of persistence. For example, on average across OECD countries, only a minority of students agreed that they give up after making mistakes (15%), that they give up easily (18%), or that they stop doing homework if it is too long (27%) or when work becomes too difficult (27%). A similar pattern emerges between students’ views on these supporting attitudes and the attitudes towards creative thinking examined earlier in this chapter. Namely, students appear more confident about their dispositions towards these activities when prompted to think about broad, everyday life situations rather than about their school life. Another similar pattern is the observation that students in Latin American countries reported the highest levels of persistence compared to others, with Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru and Mexico topping the list.

In most participating countries, boys showed significantly higher persistence than girls; and so did socio-economically advantaged students and students in advantaged schools (Table III.B1.5.25).

Reporting higher levels of persistence is also associated with stronger creative thinking performance. On average across OECD countries, a one-unit increase in the index of persistence was associated with a 1.2 points difference in the creative thinking scale – again, accounting for gender and students’ and schools’ profiles (Table III.B1.5.26). The more persistent students think they are, the better they performed in the assessment. This positive relationship held for all participating countries and economies except Chinese Taipei. By contrast with curiosity, the associated score-point increase remained quite homogenous across jurisdictions, with a minimum at 0.5 point in Romania and Singapore, and a maximum of just over 2 points in Denmark*.

Perspective taking is linked to creativity (Box III.5.4) and supports creative thinking (Box III.5.3). Considering multiple perspectives on a topic, reflecting on (new) ideas and assessing alternative solutions from different points of view are typical critical thinking processes that are also central to creative thinking, as examined in Chapter 1 of this volume, and to related competencies such as design thinking.

On average across OECD countries, less than half of students disagreed or strongly disagreed that there is only one correct position in a disagreement (46%), with two countries where the proportion went below 20% (Thailand and Indonesia in descending order) (Table III.B1.5.33). More students reported that they imagine how they would feel if they were in somebody else’s place (68% on average across OECD countries) and that they want to understand why people behave the way they do (67%).

In nearly all participating countries and economies, girls tended to show higher dispositions towards perspective taking than boys; and so did socio-economically advantaged students over their disadvantaged peers (Table III.B1.5.34).

PISA 2022 data show that perspective taking is strongly associated with students’ creative thinking proficiency (Figure III.5.11, Tables III.B1.5.37 and III.B1.5.39). Students who disagreed (or strongly disagreed) that there is only one correct position in a disagreement scored over 3 points higher than their peers on the creative thinking assessment, on average across OECD countries and after accounting for gender and students’ and schools’ profiles (Table III.B1.5.35). Those who want to understand why people behave the way they do scored around 3 points higher than those who do not; as did those who imagine how they would feel if they were in somebody’s else place. Above a 3-point score difference constitutes a large performance gap, especially after controlling for other factors associated with higher performance in general.

Further analyses examined the relationships between students’ creative thinking performance and other social-emotional constructs and attitudes that relate to their assertiveness, co-operation, stress resistance and emotional control. No strong relationships emerged overall, though a sample of sub-attitudes did positively relate to creative thinking performance, as reported in Figure III.5.11. Students who reported that they do not keep their opinions to themselves in group discussions, are comfortable with taking the lead role in a group, speak up to others about thing that matter to them, and take initiatives when working with their classmates, scored about 2 points higher than their peers on average across OECD countries. Those who reported that they can work under pressure or like to help others also scored about 2 points higher than their peers.

Setting goals and expectations, and persevering until they are achieved, denotes a set of student attitudes that are conducive to creative thinking – at least within the context of an exercise, a task or a piece of schoolwork. On a longer timeframe, PISA 2022 also asked students about their goals and expectations for the future, namely about the level(s) of education they expect to complete and about the kind of job they expect to work at 30 years old. Answers to those questions can be seen as expressions of students’ motivation, may it be intrinsic or extrinsic, and may thus relate to their creative thinking performance. Reciprocally, these data cast light on the extent to which positive attitudes related to creative thinking shape future study and career aspirations. Furthermore, analysing the sectors in which students expect to work, in light of their current creative thinking proficiency, may allow the identification of potential skills mismatch.

Fifteen-year-old students who expect to complete at least a certain degree of higher education demonstrated more creative thinking proficiency than those who have lower education expectations. Accounting for students’ and schools’ characteristics, this finding held across all participating countries and economies except Kazakhstan. On average across OECD countries, the 70% of 15-year-old students who expect to complete at least a certain degree of higher education (ISCED 5 and above) scored 2.4 points higher than their peers. Further accounting for their mathematic and reading performance, their advantage in creative thinking appears lower but remains significant, at close to 1 score-point (Tables III.B1.5.43 and III.B1.5.45).

Looking more closely at students’ answers to the question, it appears that the score-point increase in creative thinking performance is relatively linear along students’ expected end of education: the higher their expectations, the higher their scores (Figure III.5.13). Two exceptions exist though; first, students who expect to stop after they complete a general upper-secondary level of education (ISCED 3.4, which directly leads to tertiary education) largely outperformed those who expect to stop after a post-secondary, non-tertiary education degree (ISCED 4) and are on par with those who expect to complete a short-cycle tertiary education degree (ISCED 5) (Table III.B1.5.46). This is partly explained by the fact that in many countries, 15-year-old students are already enrolled in either a general or vocational track, so the selection bias is important and reflects the differences in creative thinking performance observed in those two populations (see Chapter 3). Second, those who expect to complete every level education up to a doctoral level (ISCED 8) scored lower than those who expect to leave formal education after a bachelor’s or a master’s degree. The reason for that partly lies in student over-statement: 23% of students said they expect to complete a doctoral degree or equivalent (more than any other level), which probably hides a number of streamliners (students ticking all the boxes), or a self-desirability bias, or simply a misunderstanding of what a doctoral degree is. Accounting for gender, students’ and schools’ profile flattens the curve, but level-to-level differences remain statistically significant. Further accounting for mathematics and reading performance, only the strongest differences remain statistically significant (Table III.B1.5.46).

The PISA 2022 assessment also asked 15-year-old students about the kind of job they expect to have at 30 years old. Student responses can be coded and classified according to the 2008 International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08). Interestingly, no significant difference in creative thinking performance was observed between students who have a clear idea about their future job, and those who do not. However, among those who already have a clear idea, a sharp difference appeared between students who expect to work a job in the cultural and creative sectors, and those who expect to work in a different sector.1 On average across OECD countries, students who expect to work in the cultural and creative sector scored over 2 points higher than their peers in creative thinking (Table III.B1.5.49). This difference is not a result of a comparison between the career expectations of high-performing students and students who struggle: accounting for their mathematic and reading performance, as well as for their gender and for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, the difference remained significant at around 1 score point. Furthermore, this score-point advantage in creative thinking was higher than the one observed between students who expect to work as managers or professionals (jobs that belong in the top two major groups in the ISCO-08 classification, some of which include cultural and creative sectors), after accounting for the same characteristics (Table III.B1.5.54).

These score-point differences suggest that there is a good skills match between students who demonstrate the highest creative thinking proficiency at 15 years old and those who expect to work a job in the cultural and creative sectors at 30 years old – though working in such sectors is not always indicative of working a job that involves engaging in creative thinking. It also aligns with the first results from the OECD survey of social and emotional skills that evidenced high corelations between students’ self-reported creativity and expectations to work a creative occupation at 30-year-old (OECD, 2021[37]). In any case, thinking creatively – as measured in PISA – is an asset in any profession and any sector.

Students who reported having at least one parent working in the cultural and creative sectors did not demonstrate stronger creative thinking than students who do not, accounting for mathematics and reading performance and student and school backgrounds (Table III.B1.5.51). They are, however, more likely to pursue a career in these sectors (Table III.B1.5.48).

Interestingly, the percentage of students who expect to work in the cultural and creative sectors (about 6.1% on average across OECD countries, Table III.B1.5.47) was three times superior to the percentage of students who reported having at least one parent working in these sectors (1.8% on average, Table III.B1.5.50). A share of the difference may be explained by the relative scarcity of those jobs compared to their demand. But there may be other reasons – are these jobs more attractive at 15 than they are at 30? Or does something in the school environment temper students’ inclination towards creativity and creative thinking to the benefit of other skills that they see more suitable for the job market? The following Chapter 6 will address these questions and others.

[27] Amabile, T. (1997), “Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving What You Do”, California Management Review, Vol. 40/1, pp. 39-58, https://doi.org/10.2307/41165921.

[26] Amabile, T. (1983), “The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45/2, pp. 357-376, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357.

[29] Amabile, T. and M. Pratt (2016), “The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36, pp. 157-183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001.

[22] Baer, J. (2016), Creativity doesn’t develop in a vacuum, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[4] Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Worth Publishers, https://books.google.fr/books/about/Self_Efficacy.html?id=eJ-PN9g_o-EC&redir_esc=y.

[35] Barbot, B., M. Besançon and T. Lubart (2016), “The generality-specificity of creativity: Exploring the structure of creative potential with EPoC”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 52, pp. 178-187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.005.

[10] Batey, M. and A. Furnham (2006), “Creativity, intelligence, and personality: a critical review of the scattered literature”, Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, pp. pp. 355-429.

[3] Beghetto, R. (2006), “Creative Self-Efficacy: Correlates in Middle and Secondary Students”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 18/4, pp. 447-457, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1804_4.

[2] Beghetto, R. and M. Karwowski (2017), “Toward Untangling Creative Self-Beliefs”, in The Creative Self, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809790-8.00001-7.

[12] Berzonsky, M. and C. Sullivan (1992), “Social-Cognitive Aspects of Identity Style”, Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 7/2, pp. 140-155, https://doi.org/10.1177/074355489272002.

[13] Chávez-Eakle, R. (2009), Creativity and 16 Personality. Measuring creativity.

[16] Cooper, M. (ed.) (2014), Openness/intellect: a dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration, American Psychological Association, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.725.2495&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

[20] Cropley, A. (2006), “In Praise of Convergent Thinking”, Creativity Research Journa, Vol. Vol. 18/3, pp. pp.391-404.

[24] Cropley, A. (1990), “Creativity and mental health in everyday life”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. Vol. 13/3, pp. pp. 167-178.

[30] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013), Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention, Harper Collins, New York.

[32] Eisenberger, R. and L. Shanock (2003), “Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: a case study of conceptual and methodological isolation”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. Vol. 15/2-3, pp. pp. 121-130, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.615.6890&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

[11] Feist, G. (1998), “A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. Vol. 2/4, pp. pp. 290-309.

[17] Guilford, J. (1956), “The structure of intellect.”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 53/4, pp. 267-293, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040755.

[28] Hennessey, B. and T. Amabile (2010), “Creativity”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. Vol. 61, pp. pp. 569-598.

[33] Hoever, I. et al. (2012), “Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential.”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97/5, pp. 982-996, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159.

[15] Kashdan, T. and F. Fincham (2002), “Facilitating creativity by regulating curiosity”, The American Psychologist, Vol. Vol. 57/5, pp. pp. 373-4, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12025769.

[8] Kaufman, J. et al. (2010), “Personality and Self-Perceptions of Creativity across Domains”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 29/3, pp. 193-209, https://doi.org/10.2190/ic.29.3.c.

[9] Kaufman, S. et al. (2015), “Openness to Experience and Intellect Differentially Predict Creative Achievement in the Arts and Sciences”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 84/2, pp. 248-258, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156.

[5] McCrae, R. (1987), “Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience.”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52/6, pp. 1258-1265, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258.

[1] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en.

[23] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.

[36] OECD (2023), Supporting Students to Think Creatively: What Education Policy Can Do, https://issuu.com/oecd.publishing/docs/supporting_students_to_think_creatively_web_1_.

[37] OECD (2021), Beyond Academic Learning: First Results from the Survey of Social and Emotional Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92a11084-en.

[6] Prabhu, V., C. Sutton and W. Sauser (2008), “Creativity and Certain Personality Traits: Understanding the Mediating Effect of Intrinsic Motivation”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 20/1, pp. 53-66, https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410701841955.

[18] Reiter-Palmon, R. and E. Robinson (2009), “Problem identification and construction: What do we know, what is the future?”, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,, Vol. Vol. 3/1, pp. pp. 43-47.

[19] Runco, M. (1997), The creativity research handbook.

[21] Schank, R. and R. Abelson (1977), Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding : An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures, L. Erlbaum Associates.

[31] Snyder, C. (ed.) (2002), The concept of flow, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

[25] Sternberg, R. (ed.) (1998), The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing, Cambridge University Press, http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-98009-002.

[14] T. Rickards, M. (ed.) (2009), Creativity and personality, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

[34] Vincent-Lancrin, S. et al. (2019), Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What it Means in School, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en.

[7] Werner, C. et al. (2014), “The Chinese Version of the Revised Creativity Domain Questionnaire: First Evidence for its Factorial Validity and Systematic Association with the Big Five”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 48/4, pp. 254-275, https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.51.