- 56 - can be identified.
In fact, procedures are available for identifying critical processes, requisite processing strategies, and relevant knowledge in the various fields where creative problem solving is sought. For example, one might conduct think aloud protocol studies contrasting creative experts and less creative experts or novices on a sample of creative problems to identify relevant processes, strategies, and knowledge (Ericsson, 2009). Alternatively, one might conduct a cognitive task analysis as people working in a field attempt to solve creative problems (Schraagen, 2009). Still another approach might involve modeling creative problem-solving (Vanlehn & van de Sande, 2009).
Regardless of the approach applied, it should be clear that techniques are available for identifying requisite knowledge, viable strategies, and critical processes applying in various domains of creative work As a result, development of strategy based training for improving creative problem-solving is, in fact, feasible.
- 57 -
people’s willingness to engage in creative thought in organizational settings. For example, creative effort has been linked to perceived rewards (Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001). Creative work has been linked to visible top management support for the creative effort (Dougherty & Hardy, 1996). And, creative effort has been linked to characteristic patterns of interaction among team members (Taggar, 2001). Although many variables influence people’s willingness to invest in creative efforts, and thus transfer the gains resulting from training in the workplace, four variables appear especially salient: (1) climate, (2) leadership, (3) creative self-efficacy, and (4) resources.
The significance of climate perceptions may be traced to people’s active appraisal of the risk arising from creative effort. In keeping with this observation, Oldham and Cummings (1996) found that the creative performances of more creative people were especially sensitive to their appraisal of the support for creativity in their work environment. Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford (2007) conducted a meta-analytic study of the impact of climate perceptions on creative work performance. In the 42 studies examined in this effort, creativity was assessed using either supervisory ratings or production of creative products (e.g., articles). Climate inventories, shared perceptions of the work environment, were assessed through various survey measures.
It was found that the Cohen’s Δ obtained for those climate surveys in accounting for creative performance was 0.75. More centrally, positive interpersonal exchanges (Δ
=0.91), intellectual stimulation (Δ=0.88), challenges (Δ=0.85) and flexibility and risk taking (Δ=0.78) were found to be the climate dimensions creating the strongest effects on creativity. Apparently, if one wants people to apply creative thinking skills, one must provide an engaging, interpersonally supportive work environment. Indeed, this kind of work environment was found to be especially crucial to creativity when people were working in professional environments characterized by high turbulence, high competitive pressure, and high production pressure.
Although our foregoing observations indicate that climate perceptions may be
- 58 -
particularly important for the transfer of creativity training, these observations also suggest that a supportive, intellectually challenging environment is most important in environments (e.g. turbulent, competitive, professional) where it is most difficult to establish and maintain such a climate. In this regard, however, the leaders of creative efforts appear especially important. It has long been recognized that leaders are the key to establishing climate perceptions (James, James, & Ash, 1990). Moreover, the ways in which leaders interact with followers, for example, encouraging participation, recognizing divergent opinions, and fostering autonomous accountability (Zhang &
Bartol, 2010), appears to be a salient force shaping people’s perceptions of the climate for creativity.
As one might expect based on these observations, leadership has been found to be a powerful influence on creative performance in organizational settings—and thus, the transfer of creativity training. For example, Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999) found that positive exchange relationships between leaders and followers were strongly positively related (r =.40) to both supervisory evaluations of creativity and invention disclosures. Similarly, Andrews and Farris (1967) and Barnowe (1975) have found that the technical skills were strongly related (r =.40) to manifest creative achievement (e.g., publications) among scientists and chemists. Findings of this sort led Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and Strange (2000) to conclude that leader acceptance of and support for creative work may be among the most important influences on the transfer of creative thinking skills to the work place.
Mumford, Gibson, Mecca, and Giorgini (in press) and Mumford, Peterson, and Robledo (2013), however, have argued that the creative leader behaviors underlying the establishment of a creative climate may be quite complex. More specifically, they argue that leaders, to establish a creative climate, must engage in three key activities.
First, they must establish engaging, technically challenging missions and be actively involved in planning and monitoring of the technical work. Second, they must establish a supportive, engaged team process where all are expected to contribute to
- 59 -
the creative effort. Third, they must sell the project to the organization both to obtain resources and political support from other relevant constituencies in the organization.
These key functions of those asked to lead creative efforts are noteworthy with regard to two other variables that influence the transfer of creative thinking skills to the workplace. One key variable in this regard is creative self-efficacy or people’s confidence in their creative capacity (Tierney & Farmer, 2002, 2011). Prior studies by Jaussi, Randel, and Dionne (2007) and Tierney and Farmer (2002) have shown feelings of creative self-efficacy are strongly related to creative achievement in the workplace. Leaders, by clarifying mission, encouraging participation, and providing requisite resources contribute to people’s confidence in their ability to contribute to creative efforts, and thus, help build feelings of creative self-efficacy. Of course, creative self-efficacy is influenced by a number of other variables including culture (Lubart, 1999) and personality (Feist, 1999). Nonetheless, the ability of leaders and teams to build a sense of creative self-efficacy will prove critical to the transfer of creative thinking skills to the workplace.
Of course, beliefs in creative self-efficacy are not irrational. As a result, if people do not have the tools and resources needed for creative work, they are unlikely to exhibit creative self-efficacy. Thus, a key role of leaders is acquiring the resources needed to support creative work (Howell & Boies, 2004). In this regard, however, it is important to bear in mind the findings of Chandy and Tellis (2000) and Dougherty and Hardy (1996). More specifically, their findings indicate that creative efforts, especially radical technological creative efforts, are costly, and such efforts are unlikely to survive in organizations without sustained top management support.
- 60 -
Conclusions
Traditionally, creativity, and the innovations flowing from creative ideas, was viewed in a rather mystical light. We saw creativity as a capacity of the “gods” or, perhaps, a gift given to a select few by the “gods.” In recent years, however, we have seen the emergence of a clean, precise definition of what is meant by the term creativity––namely, the production of original, high quality, and elegant solutions (Christiaans, 2002; O’Quin & Besemer, 1989) in response to a certain class of problems—complex, novel, ill-defined problems (Mumford & Gustafson, 2012). With a clear definition of what is meant by the term creativity, it has proved possible to isolate the critical cognitive processes involved to varying degrees in most creative problem-solving efforts (Mumford, Mobley, Reiter-Palmon, Uhlman, & Doares, 1991)—
problem definition, information gathering, content selection, conceptual combination, idea generation, idea evaluation, implementation planning, and selective monitoring.
Identification of these processes is noteworthy because it has allowed identification of the strategies contributing to effective creation of these processes. Indeed, prior research has allowed definition of the crucial thinking strategies contributing to execution of a single process such as conceptual combination (Baughman & Mumford, 1995) or idea evaluation (Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, 2004), as well as strategies such as causal analyses (Marcy & Mumford, 2007) or forecasting (Byrne, Shipman, &
Mumford, 2010), contributing to effective evaluation of multiple processes.
More centrally, in recent years, it has become clear that training and educational programs that seek to provide people with effective strategies for use in creative problem solving do, in fact, work, and they work quite well. Indeed, Scott, Leritz, and Mumford’s (2004) findings indicate that well developed educational and training programs which expressly seek to develop these strategies contribute to people’s ability to solve creative problems.
- 61 -
In addition, we have formulated a number of instructional techniques for developing these strategies. More specifically, evidence is now available which points to the value of strategy demonstration, strategy modeling, strategy activation, product appraisal, and error analyses as effective techniques for encouraging application of requisite creative problem-solving strategies. Moreover, general instructional approaches have been developed in which those strategy based training interventions can be embedded (Barrett, Peterson, Hester, Robledo, Day, Hougen & Mumford, 2013)—instructional approaches such as causal analyses, application analyses, constraint analyses, and error analyses. As a result, it is now possible to take a more systematic and more disciplined approach to the development of creative thinking skills.
Of course, the likely success of these efforts depends on three key contingencies.
First, systematic job analyses or performance analyses are needed to identify critical processes and the specific strategies contributing to process execution in a given task domain. Second, those being trained in these strategies must have sufficient expertise to be able to apply these strategies in solving “real-world” creative problems. Third, the conditions that permit viable transfer of the skills gained in creativity training to the workplace––that is, a strong climate, effective leaders, a sense of creative self-efficacy, and requisite resources––must be put in place.
The development of viable training or educational programs is a non-trivial task, although the requisite infrastructure for such efforts is now available. Moreover, organizations must establish a viable climate, effective leadership practices, and provide the resources needed for people to have the sense of creative self-efficacy contributing to application of the creative thinking skills gained through education and training.
Although, it may be a challenge to establish such an environment and formulate the kind of creativity training needed, given the impact of creativity and the innovations flowing from creative ideas on the survival and success of most organizations, efforts along these lines seem amply justified. We hope that the present effort will provide an impetus for future work along these lines.
- 62 -
References
Andrews, F. M. & Farris, G. F.(1967). “Supervisory practices and innovation in scientific teams”, Personnel Psychology, Vol.20, pp. 497~515.
Antonietti, A.(2000). “Enhancing creative analogies in primary school children”, North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 75~84.
Baer, J. M.(1988). “Long-term effects of creativity training with middle school students”, The Journal of Early Adolescence, Vol.8, pp. 183~193.
Baldwin, T. T. & Ford, J. K.(1988). “Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research”, Personnel psychology, Vol.41, pp. 63~105.
Barnowe, T.(1975). “Leadership and performance outcomes in research organizations:
The supervisor of scientists as a source of assistance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol.14, pp. 264~280.
Barrett, J. D., Peterson, D. R., Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Day, E. A., Hougen, D.
P. & Mumford, M. D.(2013). “Thinking About Applications: Effects on Mental Models and Creative Problem-Solving”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.25, pp.
199~212.
Baughman, W. A. & Mumford, M. D.(1995). “Process-analytic models of creative capacities: Operations influencing the combination-and-reorganization process”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.8, pp. 37~62.
Byrne, C. L., Shipman, A. S. & Mumford, M. D.(2010). “The effects of forecasting on creative problem-solving: An experimental study”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.22, pp. 119~138.
Chandy, R. K. & Tellis, G. J.(2000). “The incumbent's curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation”, The Journal of Marketing, pp. 1~17.
Christiaans, H. H.(2002). “Creativity as a design criterion”, Communication Research Journal, Vol.14, pp. 41~54.
Clapham, M. M.(1997). “Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training programs”, Creativity research journal, Vol.10, pp. 33~44.
Clapham, M. & Schuster, D. H.(1992). “Can engineering students be trained to think more creatively?”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol.26, pp. 156~162.
Clements, D. H.(1991). “Enhancement of creativity in computer environments”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol.28, pp. 173~187.
Crouch, T. D.(1992). “Why Wilbur and Orville? Some thoughts on the Wright brothers and the process of invention”, Inventive minds: Creativity in technology, pp. 80~92.
- 63 -
Cropley, A.(2006). “In praise of convergent thinking”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.18, pp. 391`404.
Dailey, L. & Mumford, M. D.(2006). “Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Errors in appraising the implications of new ideas”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.18, pp. 385`390.
Damanpour, F. & Schneider, M.(2006). “Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers”, British Journal of Management, Vol.17, pp. 215~236.
Dougherty, D. & Hardy, C.(1996). “Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.39, pp. 1120~1153.
DeDreu, C. K. W., Baas, M. & Nijstad, B. A.(2008). “Hedonistic tone and activation level in the mood creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.94, pp. 739~756.
Dess, G. G. & Picken, J. C.(2000). “Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st century”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol.28, pp. 18~34.
Dewey, J.(1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Eisenberger, R. & Rhoades, L.(2001). “Incremental effects of reward on creativity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.81, pp. 728~741.
Ericsson, K. A.(Ed.).(2009). Development of professional expertise: Toward measurement of expert performance and design of optimal learning environments, Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A. & Charness, W.(1994). “Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition”, American Psychologist, Vol.49, pp. 725~747.
Estrin, J.(2007). Closing the innovation gap, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Feist, G. J.(1999). “The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.)”, Handbook of Creativity(pp. 273-296), Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Feist, G. J.(2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind, Yale University Press.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B. & Smith, S. M.(1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications, Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Flaherty, M. A.(1992). “The effects of a holistic creativity program on the self‐concept and creativity of third graders”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol.26, pp.
165~171.
- 64 -
Friedrich, T. L. & Mumford, M. D.(2009). “The effects of conflicting information on creative thought: A source of performance improvements or decrements?”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.21, pp. 265~281.
Glover, J. A.(1980). “A creativity-training workshop: Short-term, long-term, and transfer effects”, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, Vol.136, pp. 3~16.
Guilford, J. P.(1950). “Creativity”, American Psychologist, Vol.5, pp. 444~454.
Mumford, M. D., Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Peterson, D. R., Day, E. A., Hougen, D. F. & Barrett, J. D.(2012). “Mental models and creative problem-solving:
The relationship of objective and subjective model attributes”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.24, pp. 311~330.
Houtz, J. C. & Feldhusen, J. F.(1976). “The modification of fourth graders' problem solving abilities”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol.93, pp. 229~237.
Howell, J. M. & Boies, K.(2004). “Champions of technological innovation: The influence of contextual knowledge, role orientation, idea generation, and idea promotion on champion emergence”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.15, pp.
123~143.
Hudgins, B. B. & Edelman, S.(1988). “Children's self-directed critical thinking”, The Journal of Educational Research, pp. 262~273.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., Hunsicker, C. M., Mumford, M. D. & Ligon, G.
S.(2008). “Applying multiple knowledge structures in creative thought: Effects on idea generation and problem-solving”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.20, pp. 137~154.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E. & Mumford, M. D.(2007). “Climate for creativity: A quantitative review”, Creativity research journal, Vol.19, pp. 69~90.
James, L. R., James, L. A. & Ashe, D. K.(1990). “The meaning of organizations: The role of cognition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.)”, Organizational climate and culture (pp. 40~84), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jaussi, K. S., Randel, A. E. & Dionne, S. D.(2007). “I am, I think I can, and I do:
The role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and cross-application of experiences in creativity at work”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.19, pp. 247~258.
Licuanan, B. F., Dailey, L. R. & Mumford, M. D.(2007). “Idea evaluation: Error in evaluating highly original ideas”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol.41, pp.
1~27.
Lonergan, D. C., Scott, G. M. & Mumford, M. D.(2004). “Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Effects of appraisal and revision standards”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.16, pp. 231~246.
Lubart, T. I.(1999). “Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.)”, Handbook of Creativity, pp. 339~250, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- 65 -
Lubart, T. I.(2003). “In search of creative intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg, J. Lautrey,
& T. I. Lubart (Eds.)”, Models of intelligence: International perspectives, pp.
279~292, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Marcy, R. T. & Mumford, M. D.(2007). “Social innovation: Enhancing creative performance through causal analysis”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.19, pp.
123~140.
Marcy, R. T. & Mumford, M. D.(2010). “Leader cognition: Improving leader performance through causal analysis”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.21, pp.
1~19.
Merrifield, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R. & Frick, J. W.(1962). “The role of intellectual factors in problem solving”, Psychological Monographs, Vol.76, pp. 1~21.
Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. L., Caughron, J. J., Connelly, S. & Beeler, C.(2010).
“Cross-field differences in creative problem-solving skills: A comparison of health, biological, and social sciences”, Creativity research journal, Vol.22, pp.
14~26.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Supinski, E. P. & Maher, M. A.(1996).
“Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: II. Information encoding”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.9, pp. 77~88.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P. & Costanza, D.
P.(1996). “Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.9, pp. 63~76.
Mumford, M. D., Gibson, C., Giorgini, V. & Mecca, J.(in press). “Leding for creativity: People, products, and systems”, In Handbook of Leadership and Organizations.
Mumford, M. D. & Gustafson, S. B.(1988). “Creativity Syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.103, pp. 27~43.
Mumford, M. D. & Gustafson, S. B.(2012). “Creative thought: Cognition and problem solving in dynamic systems, In M. A. Runco(Ed.), The Creativity Research Handbook: Volume Two. pp. 33~78, New York, NY: Hampton Press.
Mumford, M. D., Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Peterson, D. R., Day, E. A., Hougen, D. F. & Barrett, J. D.(2012). “Mental models and creative problem-solving:
The relationship of objective and subjective model attributes”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.24, pp. 311~330.
Mumford, M. D., Lonergan, D. C. & Scott, G.(2002). “Evaluating Creative Ideas:
Processes, standards, and context”, Inquiry: Critical thinking across the disciplines, Vol.22, pp. 21~30.
Mumford, M. D., Mecca, J., Gibson, C. & Giorgini, V.(2012). “Strategy-based instruction for creativity: An incremental approach to education. In O. N.
Saracho(Ed.)”, Contemporary Perspectives on Research in Creativity in Early
- 66 -
Childhood Education, pp. 319~342, Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress.
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Reiter‐Palmon, R., Uhlman, C. E. & Doares, L.
M.(1991). “Process analytic models of creative capacities”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.4, pp. 91~122.
Mumford, M. D., Peterson, D. & Robledo, I.(2013). “Leading scientists and engineers:
Cognition in a socio-technical context. In S. Hemlin, C. M. Allwood, B.
Martin, & M. D. Mumford (Eds.)”, Creativity and Leadership in Science, Technology, and Innovation, New York, NY: Routledge.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B. & Strange, J. M.(2002). “Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.13, pp. 705~750.
Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P. & Threlfall, K.
V.(1997). “Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: V. Overall prediction”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.10, pp. 73~85.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P. & Costanza, D.
P.(1996). “Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.9, pp. 63~76.
Mobley, M. I., Doares, L. M. & Mumford, M. D.(1992). “Process analytic models of creative capacities: Evidence for the combination and reorganization process”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.5, pp. 125~155.
O'Quin, K. & Besemer, S. P.(1989). “The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.2, pp.
267~278.
Oldham, G. R. & Cummings, A.(1996). “Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work”, Academy of management journal, Vol.39, pp. 607~634.
Osburn, H. K. & Mumford, M. D.(2006). “Creativity and planning: Training interventions to develop creative problem-solving skills”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.18, pp. 173~190.
Parnes, S. J. & Noller, R. B.(1972). “Applied creativity: The creative studies project:
Part results of a two year study”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol.6, pp.
164~186.
Peterson, D. R., Barrett, J. D., Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Hougen, D. F., Day, E.
A. & Mumford, M. D.(2013). “Teaching people to manage constraints: Effects on creative problem-solving”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.25, pp. 335~347.
Puccio, G. & Cabra, J. (2009). “Creative problem solving: past, present, and future. In T. Richards, M. A. Runco, & S. Moger (Eds.)”, The Routledge companion to creativity, pp. 327~337, New York, NY: Routledge.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., O'Connor Boes, J. & Runco, M. A.(1997).
“Problem construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and
- 67 -
active processing”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.10, pp. 9~23.
Robledo, I. C., Hester, K. S., Peterson, D. R., Barrett, J. D., Day, E. A., Hougen, D.
P. & Mumford, M. D.(2012). “Errors and Understanding: The Effects of Error-Management Training on Creative Problem-Solving”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.24, pp. 220~234.
Rubenson, D. L. & Runco, M. A.(1992). “The psychoeconomic approach to creativity”, New Ideas in Psychology, Vol.10, pp. 131~147.
Runco, M. A. & Acar, S.(2012). “Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.24, pp. 66~75.
Schraagen, J. M.(2009). “Designing training for professionals based on subject matter experts and cognitive task analysis. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.)”, Development of Professional Expertise, pp. 157~179, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E. & Mumford, M. D.(2004a). “The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.16, pp.
361~388.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E. & Mumford, M. D.(2004b). “Types of creativity training:
Approaches and their effectiveness”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol.38, pp. 149~179.
Scott, G. M., Lonergan, D. C. & Mumford, M. D.(2005). “Conceptual combination:
Alternative knowledge structures, alternative heuristics”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.17, pp. 79~98.
Byrne, C. L., Shipman, A. S. & Mumford, M. D.(2010). “The effects of forecasting on creative problem-solving: An experimental study”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol.22, pp. 119~138.
Speedie, S. M., Treffinger, D. J. & Feldhusen, J. F.(1971). “Evaluation of components of the Purdue Creative Thinking Program: a longitudinal study”, Psychological Reports, Vol.29, pp. 395~398.
Sternberg, R. J.(1986). “A triarchic theory of intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg
& J. E. Davidson (Eds.)”, Conceptions of giftedness, pp. 223~243, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Stokes, P. D.(2001). “Variability, constraints, and creativity: Shedding light on Claude Monet”, American Psychologist, Vol.56, P. 355.
Stokes, P. D.(2005). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough, Springer Publishing Company.
Taggar, S.(2001). “Group composition, creative synergy, and group performance”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol.35, pp. 261~286.
Tierney, P. & Farmer, S. M.(2002). “Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents