*Limitations*

There are some notable limitations in this work. First, we limited our examination to two core databases. Although these are comprehensive sources of academic scholarship in English, and encompass most major and smaller journals that cover creativity research and scholarship, it remains a potential limitation of scope and size.

Further, our own personal biases as educational researchers could have limited us in scoping each of the search terms, as researchers naturally bring in their own preconceptions, assumptions, or interests that may lead to a potential tendency to seek confirming evidence of each theory or area of interest [33].

Most importantly, while we have aimed to systematize and explain our search processes and provide the reader with more clarity on the process and rationale for the review, this review is not a full systematic literature review. We do not aim to present each body of literature as a kind of "data" set for empirical dissection, as the literature on this topic is not necessarily manageable to represent as systematized data, but may be relevantly explored in a traditional narrative review format.

A significant concern with any sort of attempt at systematic review, in this topical context, would be that, in certain areas of creativity research, this type of full systematic method is a methodological impossibility or, at the very least, a fraught challenge. This is due to the nature of the terrains of education and psychology in which creative self-belief literature is often situated. These are areas that are not often built upon the types of clean, positivistic approaches to data and research that are common in medical, business, or scientific fields, in which most systematic reviews originate and, indeed, in which systematic reviews originate as a method. Thus, the literature itself does not always lend itself to conversion into systematic data.

This also presents a limitation within creativity research itself, because although some positivistic and quantifiable studies exist in creativity, they are more often around the psychometrics of creativity or cognitive approaches to creativity. Within the newer and somewhat emergent, exploratory area of creativity and self-beliefs, there are certainly interesting and worthwhile points of scholarship to review and consider, but these are often more inimitable and may be theoretical or qualitatively focused approaches or methods that are less easily empiricized into a full systematic review. As Tranfield et al. [32] note:

Systematic reviews, due to their positivistic origins, sit comfortably with studies that use quantitative methods such as randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, and cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness studies, *therefore*, establishing criteria for ascertaining what is "relevant" or "good quality" in qualitative research provides a further challenge [34]. With qualitative studies there is no possibility of testing statistically the significance of the results (p. 216).

Thus, our reporting of each area of literature, as follows, is more narrative than systematically data-driven. Although we do not present a full systematic review method, we have aimed to be methodical about our search process as noted, and clarify the logic of our approach. Through this, we seek to help the reader understand the logical train of approach to each theory, to understand significant points of interest that might be culled from each theoretical area, for consideration in creativity and business training.

#### **4. Examining Theories of Creativity and Self-Belief: Creative Identity, Mindset, and Self-Efficacy**

In promoting creativity in the field of business, it is important to understand factors linked to supporting individuals' creative development from an education perspective. Beghetto and Dilley [22] have noted that one of the most essential drivers of whether individuals are able to think, act, and work creatively, depends on their own self-beliefs about themselves as a creative individual. Without creative self-belief, or a sense of one's potential and ability to be creative, it is difficult to function creatively.

As educational researchers examining creativity in business education and training, we sugges<sup>t</sup> that core theories dealing with self-belief can help us understand what supports creativity. These theoretical foundations involve creative identity, creative mindset, and creative self-efficacy. We review each, then connect this to the value of arts-based interventions and learning in business.

#### *4.1. Identity Theory*

The primary source originators of identity are Stryker [27] and Burke [28]—and this primary work furthered their later collaborations on the topic. Among primary identity theorists, such as Stryker and Burke [35], the use of the term *identity* involves components of a view of the self, or the meanings people attach to themselves based on roles they play in contemporary societies. Identity theory points toward either explaining how social structures impact the self [27], or to how the sense of self impacts social behavior [28].

There are two notable points about identity formation. First, an individual has multiple identities that interact with each other based on the systems they operate in. Second, these identities are initially situation-specific but, over time, they are organized into a hierarchy of identities [36]. Their most salient identities are at the top of the hierarchy. Identity salience is defined as the probability that an identity will be invoked across varied situations [35]. Identity theorists have noted how, when an identity has higher salience than other identities, more significant behavioral choices connect to that identity.
