ABSTRACT Interest in understanding creativity through Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data is on the rise, yet researchers face methodological challenges in synthesizing findings across various constructs, measures, and datasets. Meta‐analysis—a valuable methodology for synthesizing quantitative data—remains underutilized in creativity research involving large‐scale assessments like PISA. This paper provides guidelines for applying meta‐analytic techniques to PISA creative thinking assessment data to help researchers address these challenges. It introduces meta‐analysis by outlining its definition and advantages, followed by key steps and methodological considerations for synthesizing bivariate and multivariate relationships within PISA. Finally, the paper discusses techniques for managing the computational complexity of meta‐analyzing PISA data. Ultimately, these guidelines aim to support researchers in effectively synthesizing PISA data to advance the study of creativity.

ABSTRACTThe Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) introduced creative thinking as an innovative domain in 2022. This paper examines the unique methodological issues in international assessments and the implications of measuring creative thinking within PISA's framework, including stratified sampling, rotated form designs, and a distinct scoring metric. Cross‐cultural considerations and data quality issues underscore the need for critical evaluation of cultural equivalence and data quality, especially at the individual educational system level. The paper also highlights the limitations of causal inference and provides guidance and resources for handling sampling weights, plausible values, and multilevel structures. By reflecting on PISA's history and design, this work offers insights for researchers navigating the complexities of innovative domain assessment to ensure valid interpretations.

ABSTRACTCreativity is an essential skill that is at the heart of 21st‐century education. Mobile phone use occupies considerable amounts of time in people's lives and may influence creativity. However, few studies have linked mobile phone dependence (MPD) to adolescents' domain‐specific creativity (science and art). This study investigated the relationship between MPD and the scientific and artistic creativity of 2922 adolescents (10–15 years old) by using the Test of Mobile Phone Dependence, the Middle School Students' Everyday Creativity Questionnaire, the Rosenberg Self‐Esteem Scale, and the Short Scale of Creative Self, all self‐reported measures. Specifically, linear regression analysis and segmented regression analysis were conducted to explore the relationships between MPD and scientific and artistic creativity. The study also investigated the mediating effect of self‐esteem and the chain mediating effect of self‐esteem and creative identity in these relationships. The results revealed potential breakpoint values in the relationship between MPD and both scientific and artistic creativity. Specifically, MPD was negatively associated with scientific creativity when MPD scores were below the breakpoint (mean < 0.52) and with artistic creativity when scores were below its respective breakpoint (mean < 0.54). In contrast, above these breakpoints (mean > 0.52 and > 0.54, respectively), MPD was unrelated to scientific creativity but positively associated with artistic creativity. In addition, MPD predicted scientific creativity via self‐esteem and the chain mediation of self‐esteem and creative identity. Similar mediations were found for artistic creativity in the below‐breakpoint MPD group. Above‐breakpoint MPD predicted artistic creativity via the chain mediation of self‐esteem and creative identity. These findings suggest that educators should raise awareness and discriminately intervene in the effects of smartphone dependence on domain creativity.

ABSTRACTThis study investigates the mechanisms and conditions through which coworker knowledge sharing influences employee creativity, grounded in the conservation of resources (COR) theory. Specifically, the study proposes that employee self‐efficacy functions as a mediating mechanism in the relationship between coworker knowledge sharing and employee creativity, while job demands serve as a boundary condition for this indirect effect. To test these hypotheses, two studies were conducted in South Korea. Study 1 analyzed data from 198 supervisor–employee dyads within a state‐owned enterprise, while Study 2 examined data from 241 dyads across six of the nation's largest private companies. Results indicate that coworker knowledge sharing significantly enhances employee creativity, with self‐efficacy fully mediating this relationship. Furthermore, the findings reveal that job demands moderate both the effect of coworker knowledge sharing on employee self‐efficacy and the indirect effect of coworker knowledge sharing on employee creativity via self‐efficacy. The study discusses implications for both theory and practice.

ABSTRACTCreativity and learning have long been connected in scholarship, with emphasis on developing and facilitating personal creativity. For this Fulbright‐sponsored, exploratory qualitative study, I aimed to understand how college students construct meaning of creativity where contextual constraints exist using Kaufman and Beghetto's Four C Model of Creativity. Based on an international case study, the research question was, What forms of student creativity might emerge in constrained college classroom environments? I describe creativity concepts and provide an application from my program Creativity Under Duress in three countries. Methodologies were adapted from educational psychology to discover whether creative expression could manifest in difficult situations. Undergraduate and graduate students (N = 152) in education and humanities courses participated in four creative activities: written response to prompts, personal creativity essay, 3D paper poster, and 4‐Cs presentation script. Student responses to my intervention paradoxically showed genuine creative engagement despite high‐pressure, test‐driven contexts and with time limits on each activity. This was the greatest outcome associated with revealing creativity in classrooms across different cultures.

ABSTRACTWhen people are working on creative tasks, they make progress in conscious thought (CT) and unconscious thought (UT) processes. UT occurs outside conscious awareness, and unlike CT, it is independent of working memory resources. Previous studies suggest UT is more influential under certain conditions, known as the UT effect. Typically, these studies utilize a UT paradigm where participants are divided into CT and UT groups: the CT group reflects on the task, while the UT group engages in a distraction. However, UT effect is inconsistent across studies. This study aims to explore the condition under which UT effect works and how to facilitate it. By manipulating performance‐contingent reward, this study compared the creativity of UT and CT in reward and non‐reward conditions under a modified UT paradigm (N = 179). Creativity was measured by a divergent thinking task (the unusual uses task). Results indicated the fluency and originality in the reward condition were higher than non‐reward condition for the UT group. What's more, UT surpassed CT in fluency and originality only in the reward condition. This study extends UT theory and provides insights in maximizing the benefits of UT, enabling individuals to boost creativity without thinking consciously or consuming working memory resources.

ABSTRACTThe traditionally studied positive outcomes of creativity tend to be product‐focused, such as Big‐C contributions, good grades, or strong work performance. This paper makes an argument for the importance of less‐discussed products of the process—the benefits that arise from being creative, regardless of one's abilities or level of achievement. These positive outcomes are more tied to such meaning‐related concepts as self‐understanding, feeling one's life is significant and worth living, and gaining both short‐term and long‐term purposes. In highlighting these potential consequences of being creative, we get to question clear separations between processes and products in the field of creativity studies and show that engaging in the creative process itself “produces” experiences that are less tangible or even noticeable but by no means unimportant.

ABSTRACTNovelty seeking has been found to affect creative performance, but its impact on the temporal dynamics of creative information processing remains unclear. Creative information is identified by two key indicators—novelty and appropriateness. To explore the effect of novelty seeking on the temporal processing of novelty and appropriateness, a revised alternative uses task (AUT) was conducted with 29 high novelty‐seeking (HNS) and 31 low novelty‐seeking (LNS) individuals. Event‐related potentials (ERPs) and spontaneous blink rate (EBR) were used to measure temporal dynamics and infer physiological mechanisms. (1) For novelty processing, HNS individuals performed quicker information processing (shorter N1/P2 latency) and had a greater capacity to recognize semantic distance (higher P600 peak amplitude). (2) For appropriate processing, HNS individuals also had a faster information processing rate (shorter N1/P2 latency). (3) HNS individuals had higher baseline EBR and showed enhancements in cognitive speed based on real‐time EBR. In contrast, the LNS group did not show the same improvement even with increased attention allocation. These findings expand the application of the Novelty Seeking Model (NGM) in creative information processing. Additionally, the results of EBR suggest that dopamine might be the critical physiological mechanism through which novelty‐seeking influences creative information processing.

ABSTRACTFrom the perspective of survival adaption, adverse childhood experiences may promote creativity, and this effect would be enhanced by external threat. This study adopted three approaches to explore the impact of childhood harshness and unpredictability on creativity. By using a historiometric approach to investigate the adverse childhood experiences among eminent psychologists in 20tth century, Study 1 found that the proportion experiencing childhood adversity was significantly higher than the proportion who did not, especially in the group experiencing an external threat. Study 2 measured college students' early childhood experiences and creative thinking in a threatening circumstance (COVID‐19 pandemic), which showed that childhood harshness was significantly correlated with the originality of creative thinking. Study 3 explored the moderating role of threat through experimental manipulation. Results showed that childhood harshness predicted originality only in the threatening condition but not in the control condition. These results have theoretical significance for understanding individual creative development.

ABSTRACTIn 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.