Creative Identity

Creative personal identity (CPI) is defined as "the belief that creativity is an important element in a person's self-definition; and creative role identity is about how important being creative is in each given position" [37] (p. 248).

Studies related to creative personal identity are relatively recent, whereas research measuring "artistic identity" has been studied since the 1970s. Most research on creative identity or related concepts has showed up in the academic domain, focused on K-12 or college students, or in workplace domains focused on company employees. In business journals, effort has been spent toward testing or developing creative thinking skills that correlate with creative behavior, not identity. Importantly, some work on creative identity, thus far, has been linked to the arts.

For instance, in an extension to a study started by Getzels and Csikszenmihali [38], Freeman [39] studied the progress of a graduated group of art students from the mid-1960s to mid-1980s. He concluded that many individuals did not meet their artistic potential because of mythical, unrealistic expectations about being artistic. Debunking such myths and differentiating them from the actual creative process helped artists feel, and be, more creative [40].

Rostan [40] conducted a study exploring children's (ages 8–11) perceptions about being artistic and creative. The children participated in unstructured, open-ended interviews discussing their long-term painting projects and the process of creating art. Albeit a younger population than adults in business, the findings demonstrated salient points of identity production. Rostan's work illustrated how the motivation to work hard at developing a skill, such as creativity, related to an individual's artistic focus and their perception of what it meant to identify as an artist or creative person. Also, students perceived their identity as an artist to emerge from the act of producing art, rather than the

belief in an innate skill. Toward this point, other studies have also concluded that becoming creative is expressed in terms of incremental learning, rather than as innate properties [41].

In more recent studies targeting adults, Jaussi et al. [37] examined the relationship of creativity at work by exploring creative identity and its relationship with creative self-efficacy and problem-solving. Results suggested that creative identity explained the variance in creativity at work. Also, the positive relationship between creative personal identity and creativity at work was stronger when individuals had opportunities to engage in non-work experiences—such as arts-based activities—and apply these toward solving work-related problems.

There are different ways that some areas of scholarship consider identity with creativity. Some scholars look at the connection more generally, aiming to examine identity states alongside creative production, seeking to study how, or when individuals are prone to being creative, depending on identity issues [42]. Other scholars have sought to look at creative identity as a whole construct, and examine either its precursors [43] or consequences [44]. Others have tried to manipulate social identity in order to discover causal links between identity norms and creativity in certain contexts [45]. Much work on creativity and identity begins with the assumption that creative identity relates to creative performance. The relationship between creativity beliefs about the self and performance is studied under "creative self-efficacy", and we examine this in a later theory section. While both self-efficacy and identity contribute to a more "creative self" factor, identity underpins self-efficacy, and may enhance its effects across contexts [46].

Glăveanu and Tanggaard [47] suggested that creative identities are considered representational projects which emerge in the interaction between self (the creator), multiple others (different audiences), and notions of creativity informed by societal discourses. They note that, in order to properly consider the link between identity and behavior, we must understand more than just how important a given identity (e.g., a creative identity) is for an individual. We need to understand what this identity actually *means*, for the person.

A relevant concept here, for creative identity, is the idea of a "Voice of Judgment", or, an internal monologue that critically judges our work and actions and affects our willingness to engage creatively. This is predicated on the fact that each human individual has thousands of thoughts on a daily basis; and along with that, comes an internal voice that judges and filters these thoughts. While this idea was not initially coined alongside the term "creative identity", it has since been noted by scholars and practitioners as relevant. In the literature, Ray and Meyers [48] gave a name to this as the Voice of Judgment (or VOJ), which is inextricably tied to our sense of identity. They claim that even a slight decrease in judgment increases an individual's ability to respond more creatively in various situations. This internal voice is the sum of all voices from past experiences in one's life. In order for a creative voice to come though, one must become aware of and address silence, or even destroy their VOJ.

Ray and Meyers [48] sugges<sup>t</sup> that it is possible to silence one's VOJ with concentrated effort. The development of a creative identity at any age is a continuing and dynamic process. In fact, an individual's creativity and personal identity grow and change together, since they develop at critical points in life based on experiences [49]. One method often used in the arts to help people identify and manage their VOJ involves creating a visual representation of the VOJ as a physical entity (through drawing, modelling, or other means). This serves to personify and represent it outside of the individual to help one de-identify with the voice [50]—and this common psychological technique of the VOJ (which is often embodied or worked with in arts-based interventions) has become an intermediary step in beginning to identify and allow creative identity, by acknowledging the views that work against it.

#### *4.2. Mindset Theory*

The concept of mindset further provides theoretical grounding for creative experiences that enhance self-belief. Mindset describes the effects of the beliefs that people hold about the nature of their intelligence—and with "creative mindset" this is extended to beliefs about their creative abilities.

"Mindset" is a type of implicit theory—meaning it is a personal construction about a particular phenomenon that resides in the minds of individuals. Sternberg [51] noted that implicit theories must be discovered, rather than invented, because they already exist in people's heads. He investigated beliefs that people held about traits they felt *other* people ought to have. Dweck, on the other hand, was more interested in beliefs people held about *their own* abilities [52], and she introduced the term "mindset" as an implicit theory that focused on explaining beliefs about abilities people valued and sought in themselves.

Dweck's original research started in the mid-1970s when she challenged the common belief that intelligent people are *born* smart. Through empirical studies, she demonstrated that individuals' perceptions about their intellectual abilities could dictate their intellectual achievements. Dweck has provided evidence that people who hold a *growth mindset* think that intelligence is malleable, intellectual ability is learnable, and talents and abilities can be grown with one's effort and help from others [27]. Mistakes are not viewed as a cause for condemnation but, rather, as information to improve, grow, and develop [53].

On the other hand, people who hold *fixed mindsets* believe they have a certain amount of intelligence, talent, or ability, with no room to build upon them. Such a belief holds people back from trying new experiences, because fixed mindsets protect an ego identity that does not allow for admitting mistakes [27]. In a fixed mindset, learning, risk-taking, and adaptation drop off, while the need for perfection, or a correct answer, rules [53].

## Creative Mindset

Dweck's mindset research has served as the foundation for researchers to study creative mindsets. Dweck primed the idea that her growth/fixed mindset work is transferable to creativity research by referring to a poll of 143 creativity researchers, noting that perseverance and resilience, produced by the growth mindset, was the top ingredient in creative achievement [27]. Karwowski [54] formally defined "creative mindset" as "beliefs about the [fixed] versus [growth] character and nature of creativity" (p. 62). Karwowski indicates that, like intelligence, people often believe creativity is fixed, and that only a few geniuses are truly creative. Yet, people with growth mindsets believe that creativity is trainable, and can be developed much like other characteristics [55].

The relevance of creative mindsets as separate and unique constructs is often established through three main sources: (1) the examination of belief systems of creativity is necessary, given that intelligence is different than creativity [19]. Thus, people may have different beliefs about the nature of their own creativity than they might about intelligence. (2) Researchers have established that the myth that people are born creative (a fixed creative mindset) is deeply detrimental and harmful to the enhancement of creative performance [14]. (3) There is evidence supporting the construct validity of creative mindsets and their contribution to mindset theory more broadly. One study found that implicit theories of intelligence could not predict creative problem solving, ye<sup>t</sup> a growth creative mindset did positively predict creative problem solving [54].

The more straightforward takeaway is that mindset is important because perceptions of creativity influences an individual's desire to engage in, or disengage from, creative thinking and activities. Prior research has shown people with growth mindsets exert more effort and deal better with failure, as they see it as an opportunity to learn and grow [56]. In fixed mindset, failure is considered a threat, and the risk of failure de-motivates people from engaging in challenging activity [57]. Therefore, creativity researchers expect those who hold growth mindsets to engage in creative tasks, and those with fixed mindsets to avoid tasks that are seen as complex or creative [55].

With respect to identity and mindset, when people do not think that creativity is important in their self-description, they are characterized as having low creative personal identity (CPI) [46]; and they, likely, will not care whether creativity is malleable or fixed [54]. Thus, it is important that people both view creativity as amenable to growth, and that they see it as valuable to their self-description.

Motivated by previous findings, researchers such as Hass et al. [58] asked if the relationship between mindsets and everyday creative behaviors depended on academic domain. The simple answer was, no—but the strength of the relationships varied across the five domains in this study, which included Arts and Humanities, Business, Education, Life Sciences, and Social and Behavioral Sciences. Specifically, business students a demonstrated negative correlation between fixed mindset and everyday creativity; conversely, they also demonstrated a positive correlation between growth mindset and everyday creativity—even more so than art students—which suggests that promoting growth mindset in business students enhances their everyday creativity, and/or vice-versa.

Puente-Díaz and Cavazos-Arroyo [59] examined the influence of creative mindset on achievement goals, creative self-efficacy, enjoyment, and perceived performance and effort among college business students from Mexico. Their work provides an example of the study of creative mindset on students in a business educational setting. They noted a positive influence of a growth creative mindset on task-approach achievement goals (mastering a given task) and creative self-efficacy (a belief in their creative ability). Interestingly, a fixed creative mindset had a positive influence on other-approach achievement goals (a goal of outperforming others, rather than deep engagemen<sup>t</sup> for mastery or creativity within the task). Their work finds that growth creative mindset had a direct, positive influence on creative self-efficacy and the students' perceived performance and effort exerted, as well as an indirect influence on enjoyment. They conclude that holding a growth creative mindset is, thus, related to adaptive motivational and performance creative outcomes in business education settings.

Finally, researchers have viewed mindsets as beliefs *related* to creativity, but not the same as self-beliefs [55]. Theoretically, mindsets *shape* self-beliefs and, empirically, have been proven to relate to creative identity and self-efficacy in correlational studies [54,58,60]. How people perceive the nature of creativity can shape their self-beliefs, leading them toward either a growth or fixed mindset about learning to operate creatively in tasks. This is critical in training to foster creativity in others. Additionally, prior studies have demonstrated a correlation between creative identity or creative mindset and our third self-belief construct, of creative self-efficacy.

#### *4.3. Self-Efficacy Theory*

The final theory we deal with, related to creativity and self-belief, is self-efficacy theory. Much like identity and mindset (implicit) theories, self-efficacy theory plays an integral role in determining performance [30,52]. This theory was originally established by Albert Bandura [30], and self-efficacy is defined as "people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives" [61] (p. 1).

The strength of a person's beliefs about their effectiveness in any given task influences their choice of behavior [30]. A person's efficacy expectations or perceived self-efficacy determines how much effort they will exude, and how long they will cope with failure or obstacles. Stronger perceived self-efficacy leads to more effort.

Adding to this correlation, Bandura explains that people fear and avoid threatening situations they know they cannot cope with. However, if they persist against these fears, they will gain corrective experiences and eliminate defensive behavior, while those who do not persist will remain fearful, with self-debilitating expectations.
