See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/368509799

The Role of Emotional Intelligence in the Relationship between University

Students’ Individual Creativity and Psychological Resilience Levels

Conference Paper · February 2023

CITATIONS READS

0 17

2 authors, including:

Turgut Emre Akyazı

Aksaray Üniversitesi
19 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Turgut Emre Akyazı on 05 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN BİREYSEL YARATICILIK VE
PSİKOLOJİK DAYANIKLILIK DÜZEYLERİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE
DUYGUSAL ZEKÂNIN ROLÜ

THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESILIENCE LEVELS

Prof. Dr. Adem ÖĞÜT

Selçuk Üniversitesi
ogut.adem@gmail.com

Okt. Turgut Emre AKYAZI

Aksaray Üniversitesi
teakyazi@gmail.com

Özet
Yaratıcılık, bireylerin hedefe ulaşmaya çalışırken karşılaştıkları zorluklara ve sorunlara özgün ve faydalı
çözümler geliştirdikleri süreçtir (Hirst vd., 2009: 281). Diğer yandan, dayanıklılık ise “stres koşulları altında
güçlü olabilme yeteneği” olarak tanımlanmaktadır (Coutu, 2002: 52). Bu çalışma, Aksaray Üniversitesi
öğrencilerinin bireysel yaratıcılık ve psikolojik dayanıklılık düzeyleri arasındaki muhtemel ilişkinin tespit
edilmesidir. Çalışmanın temel amacı, duyguları algılama, asimile etme, anlama ve yönetme kabiliyetini içeren
(Mayer vd., 2000: 268) duygusal zekânın bu ilişkide düzenleyici etkisi olup olmadığının belirlenmesidir.
Çalışmada elde edilen veriler anket yöntemi ile toplanmıştır. Çalışmada kullanılan veri toplama formunda yer
alan ölçekler Raudsepp’in “Ne Kadar Yaratıcısınız? (How Creative Are You?) ölçeği, Friborg ve diğerleri (2003)
tarafından geliştirilen (Yetişkinler için Dayanıklılık Ölçeği” ve Wong ve Law (2002) tarafından geliştirilen
duygusal zekâ ölçeğidir. Çalışmanın örneklemini Aksaray Üniversitesi’nde çeşitli bölümlerde okumakta olan 241
öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışma bulguları, bireysel yaratıcılık ve psikolojik dayanıklılık arasında pozitif yönlü
ve anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu yönündedir. Ayrıca, bireysel yaratıcılık ve psikolojik dayanıklılık arasındaki ilişkide
duygusal zekânın kısmi düzenleyicilik etkisi olduğu da çalışmada ortaya çıkan sonuçlar arasındadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Yaratıcılık, Psikolojik Dayanıklılık, Duygusal Zekâ

Abstract
Creativity is a process in which individuals develop novel and useful solutions to challenges and problems
encountered in goal pursuit (Hirst et al., 2009: 281). Resilience, on the other hand, can be defined as “the skill to
be strong under conditions of stress” (Coutu, 2002: 52). This study aims to find out the possible relationship
between individual creativity and psychological resilience levels of the university students in Aksaray University.
The main aim is to reveal whether emotional intelligence, which involves the ability to perceive, assimilate,
understand, and manage emotions (Mayer et al., 2000: 268), has a moderating effect on this relationship. The data
used in the study was obtained via questionnaire method. Raudsepp’s “How Creative are You?” questionnaire
was used to measure individual creativity, “Resilience Scale for Adults”, designed by Friborg et al. (2003), was
used for the purpose of measuring participants’ psychological resilience levels and Wong and Law’s (2002)
emotional intelligence scale was used in order to measure the participants’ emotional intelligence levels. The
study was carried out on 241 students studying in various departments in Aksaray University. The findings of the
study revealed a positive and meaningful relationship between individual creativity and psychological resilience.
Besides, it was found out that emotional intelligence has a partial moderator effect on the relationship between
individual creativity and psychological resilience.
Keywords: Creativity, Psychological Resilience, Emotional Intelligence

1
INTRODUCTION
Studies on creativity are historically rooted in the traditions of psychology, and they are typically the
outcome of an effort to understand why some people are more creative than others. In general it
focuses on cognitive and motivational processes rather than the social perspective (Jen, 2014: 111-
112). As employee creativity is an important source of competitive advantage and organizational
innovation (Amabile, 1988, 1996; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1991; Zhou, 2003),
organizations are increasingly seeking to encourage individual creativity (Hirst et al., 2009: 280).
Competitiveness is driven by creativity and innovation in the 21st century enterprises. Dynamic
competitive markets expect innovations from all employees in most global enterprises. Leaders
influence and set the contextual environments under which their employees demonstrate creativity
(Gehani, 2010: 82). Another popular concept in organizational behavior literature is emotional
intelligence (EI). In the popular literature, as well as in empirical studies, claims have been made
regarding the importance of EI for effective leadership, successful learning in classes, and for
maintaining positive interpersonal relationships (Van Rooy et al., 2005: 445). People with high
emotional intelligence are claimed to understand and express their own emotions, recognize emotions
of others and use moods and emotions to motivate adaptive behaviors (Salovey and Mayer, 1990:
202). Finally, psychological resilience, which is a component of positive psychological behavior, is a
term related to people’s problem solving skills, social confidence, sense of purpose and future and
autonomy (Luthans et al., 2004: 49). Resilient people are thought to have the ability to create meaning
and build bridges from present-day challenges to a better future (Coutu, 2002: 50).
1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Individual Creativity
A product or response is creative when observers agree that it is novel and appropriate, useful, correct,
or valuable to the task at hand, and when that task is open-ended and appropriately carried out via
discovery rather than via a predetermined step-by-step procedure (Taggar, 2002: 315). In a very broad
sense, creativity has been defined as a judgment of the novelty and usefulness of something (Pirola-
Merlo and Mann, 2004: 236). Some of the commonly understood indicators of a creative individual
are: (1) cognitive abilities including general intelligence, (2) mastery of a discipline, and (3) the
subjectivity of their actual creative output such as performance on creativity tests involving puzzle-
solving ability (Gehani, 2010: 84). The definition of creativity entails both novelty and usefulness
(Gilson et al., 2013: 208). Creativity can be defined as producing genuine and useful ideas by an
individual or small group working together’ and can be interpreted as the idea generation component
of innovation. As innovation involves both developing and implementing these ideas, creativity often
is considered as the first phase of the innovation process (Eisenbeiss and Boerner, 2013: 55).
Creativity is a process in which employees develop novel and useful solutions to challenges and
problems encountered in goal pursuit (Hirst et al., 2009: 281). Creativity-relevant processes primarily
determine response novelty. Creativity-relevant processes involve goal setting, preparation,
participation in group problem solving, and synthesis of ideas (Taggar, 2002: 327). Creative behaviors
are easy to recognize but hard to define precisely. A creative product, service, or work of art is
something that is novel and useful. It may be useful and novel either to the individual or to the society
as a whole. Creativity with personal novelty is more common than creativity that is novel society-
wide – that is something that has been never before experienced or produced by a society. Creativity
may range from the mundane to extraordinary (Smith et al., 2000; Gehani, 2010: 83). Gehani
mentions “four P” components of creativity, which are personal characteristics, processes, products
and presence of contextual environment (Gehani, 2010: 84).

1.2. Emotional Intelligence

Emotions are considered as responses that are organized and go beyond many psychological
subsystems, including cognitive, physiological, motivational and experiential systems. Emotions
typically appear in response to an internal or external factor with a positive or negative meaning for
the person (Salovey and Mayer, 1990: 186). They are also considered to coordinate conscious
awareness and cognitions (Mayer et al., 2000: 267). Peter Salovey, a psychologist from Yale
University, and John Mayer from University of New Hampshire were the first scholars to combine

2
emotion and intelligence under the terminology of “emotional intelligence” (Thingujam, 2002: 55).
Salovey and Mayer (1990) define emotional intelligence as “the ability to monitor feelings and
emotions of yourself and others, to discriminate among those feelings and to guide one’s thinking and
actions using this information” (p.189). Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to recognize the
meanings of emotions and to solve problems using them. Emotional intelligence is involved in the
capability to perceive emotions, understand the information of those emotions, assimilate emotion-
related feelings, and manage them (Mayer et al., 2000: 267). While intelligence is related to the
capacity to comprehend information, emotion is considered a reaction to the environment.
Emotionally intelligent public handling may comprehend and problem-solve cases that are significant
for massive communities of individuals and for policy topics under the supervision, administration, or
supervision of governments (Ljungholm, 2014: 129). Emotional intelligent people are aware of their
emotions and the way in which they respond and perform in respect of them. They maintain
awareness in regards to the way they behave (Brown, 2014; Ljungholm, 2014). Emotional intelligence
has often been considered in the literature as involving much more than the ability to perceive,
assimilate, understand, and manage emotions (Mayer et al., 2000: 268).

1.3. Psychological Resilience

A simple definition of resilience, which is one of the components of psychological capital, is “the
ability to be strong under conditions of stress” (Coutu, 2002: 52). According to another clear
definition, resilience is the difference between those who recover well after adverse situations and
those who remain devastated and unable to move forward (Luthans et al., 2010: 47). The term
psychological resilience was first brought into positive organizational behavior (POB) literature by
Fred Luthans (2002). He defined resilience as “the positive psychological capacity to rebound, to
'bounce back' from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure or even positive change, progress and
increased responsibility” (Luthans, 2002: 702). Masten and Reed (2002) referred to resilience as a
class of phenomena characterized by patterns of positive adaptation in the context of significant
adversity or risk, and they argued that resilient individual could recover through positive adaptation to
adversities encountered (Siu et al., 2014: 981). Academic research into resilience began in the 1960s
by Norman Garmezy, who was a professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota. Professor
Garmezy had realized that the children of schizophrenic parents did not have psychological problems
while growing up thanks to their resilience (Coutu, 2002: 47). Luthans (2002) also asserted that
resiliency, like the other positive psychological capacities, has roots in clinical work, especially child
psychopathology. In the past, resiliency was thought to be a special gift that only a few people
possessed. Now resiliency is recognized to come from the ordinary human resources and to promote
competence and human capital in individuals and society (Luthans, 2002: 702). Resilience is one of
the four dimensions of psychological capital other three of which are confidence, hope, and optimism.
Confidence is defined as individual’s conviction about their abilities to mobilize the motivation,
cognitive resources, and courses of action required to successfully perform a specific task in a given
context. Hope is considered to be the positive motivational state that is based on an interactive sense
of successful agency and pathways. Thirdly, optimism is considered to be related to people’s
interpretation of good and bad events. Lastly, resilience is regarded as being able to accept reality, to
believe life is meaningful and to improvise and adapt to significant change. Tugade and Fredrickson
(2004) suggested that resilient individuals are better equipped individuals to deal with the stressors in
a continuously changing workplace environment. They are open to new experiences, flexible to
changing demands, and demonstrate more emotional stability when faced with adversity (Avey et al.,
2009: 682). According to Reivich and Shatte, to become resilient individuals, people need to avoid
negative thinking traps when things go wrong, question the accuracy of beliefs about problems and
how to find useful solutions and remain calm and focused when overwhelmed by emotion or stress
(Luthans et al., 2004: 47). When facing adversities, resilient individuals rely upon their psychological
resources to exhibit persistence and thus exert behaviors through the motivation path of engaging in
the work at hand (Siu et al., 2014: 981).

3
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Aim and Sample
The aim of this study is to determine the relationship among university students’ individual creativity,
psychological resilience and emotional intelligence levels and to reveal whether emotional
intelligence has an impact over the relationship between individual creativity and psychological
resilience. The sample of the study consists of 241 university students studying in Aksaray University.
The participant students were selected from 3 major faculties of Aksaray University which are
Education Faculty, Faculty of Science and Letters and Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences and 1 vocational school which is Vocational School of Social Sciences.
2.3. Research Model and Hypotheses
As a result of the literature review, it was predicted that individual creativity and psychological
resilience might have a relationship. There is research suggesting that creativity and resilience have
common characteristics. As creativity is a process which involves finding solutions to challenges and
problems (Hirst et al., 2009: 281), so is psychological resilience, which involves skills such as being
strong under conditions of stress (Coutu, 2002: 52) and being able to recover well after adversity
(Luthans et al., 2010: 47). Likewise, adaptation to encountered problems (Siu et al., 2014: 981) is also
considered as resilience. Besides, both creativity and resilience are considered as a kind of skill,
ability or capacity. Gehani (2010: 84) relates creativity to cognitive abilities including general
intelligence. Moreover, Ljungholm, (2014: 129) suggests creativity is the capacity to comprehend
information. Similarly, Fred Luthans (2002) defines resilience as capacity to rebound, to 'bounce back'
from adversity, uncertainty, conflict and failure. In light of current research that leads us to the
possible relationship between creativity and resilience, the possible moderator effect of emotional
intelligence was also added to the model. The research model can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Research Model Showing the Possible Moderator Effect of Emotional Intelligence on
the Relationship between Creativity and Resilience

As the aim of the study is to find out the relationship among individual creativity, emotional
intelligence and psychological resilience, the hypotheses were formed based on this purpose. Besides,
whether the individual creativity, emotional intelligence and psychological resilience levels of the
students vary according to their age levels was analyzed. Therefore, the research hypotheses of the
study were formed as follows:
H1: Individual creativity varies H4: There is a positive and
according to participants’ age. meaningful relationship between individual
H2: Psychological resilience varies creativity and psychological resilience.
according to participants’ age. H5: Emotional intelligence has a
H3: Emotional intelligence varies moderating effect on the relationship between
according to participants’ age. individual creativity and psychological
resilience.

4
2.4. Data Collection
In the study, questionnaires were given to 241 students studying in various departments in Aksaray University.
The participants were chosen from the 3 major faculties and 1 vocational school in Aksaray University. The data
were collected in 16 days. 234 of the questionnaires were returned and the return rate was calculated to be 97%.
21 of the questionnaires were not included in the analysis process due to various reasons. Therefore, 213
questionnaires were considered appropriate for analysis. Raudsepp’s “How Creative are You?” questionnaire,
which was used in Tanıt’s (2007) Master of Art’s thesis, was used to measure individual creativity in this study.
The questionnaire consists of 50 items. “Resilience Scale for Adults”, designed by Friborg et al. (2003), was
used for the purpose of measuring participants’ psychological resilience levels. The validity and reliability of the
scale were performed by Basım and Çetin (2011). The Cronbach’s Alpha was found out to be 0,81 (Basım and
Çetin, 2011: 109). Wong and Law’s (2002) Emotional Intelligence Scale, which was used in Orhan’s (2012)
Master of Art’s thesis, was used in order to measure the participants’ emotional intelligence levels. The
questionnaire is composed of 16 items. The Cronbach’s Alpha level of the questionnaire was found to be 0,745
(Orhan, 2012: 64).

2.5. Data Analysis and Findings

The data obtained from the participants in the study were evaluated via SPSS 17 software. First, KMO and
Bartlett’s measure of sampling adequacy was used in order to test whether the sample of the study was adequate
enough for analysis. The KMO values of individual creativity, psychological resilience and emotional
intelligence were 0,655, 0,788 and 0,762 respectively. Next, Cronbach’s Alpha values regarding the reliability of
the scales were calculated. The alpha coefficients of the individual creativity, resilience and emotional
intelligence scales were ,775, ,846 and ,782 respectively. After that, frequencies and percentages regarding the
demographic data of the participants were analyzed. Following this analysis, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was
performed to reveal the distribution of the dataset. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov distribution test revealed that the
data was not normally distributed (pPR= 0,002; pIC= 0,004; pEI= 0, 000); thus Mann-Whitney U test was carried
out to find out whether the variables vary according to age. The relationship among the variables were measured
via Spearman’s correlation analysis. Lastly, hierarchical regression analysis and a follow-up Sobel test was
performed in order to test the moderating effect.
2.5.1. Demographical Data

120 of the participants (56,3%) are 19 years old or younger and 93 participants (43, 7%) are 20 years old or
older. Also, more than two thirds of the participants are female (67,6%). As for the financial status, 201 out of
213 participants come from families which have a monthly income less than 4.000 TL. Regarding the place
where the participants were brought up, 96 participants (45,1%) were brought up in villages, towns or counties
whereas 117 participants (54,9%) were raised in cities or big cities.
2.5.2. Variables and Demographical Features
In the study, Mann-Whitney U test was carried out to test whether the variables vary according to age level. The
results are demonstrated in Table 4.
Table 4. Average Scores and Mann-Whitney U Test Results Regarding Individual Creativity, Psychological Resilience
and Emotional Intelligence and Participants’ Age Levels

Psy. Resilience N Avr. Std. Dev. Min. Max. Median Test Sig. Sig. Differ.
19 and younger 120 3,88 9,790 1,65 4,90 3,90
20 and older 93 3,95 10,923 1,80 4,75 4,05 Z= -1,456 ,145 No
Ind. Creativity N Avr. Std. Dev. Min. Max. Median Test Sig. Sig. Differ.
19 and younger 120 3,48 6,886 2,70 4,40 3,50
20 and older 93 3,57 7,125 2,50 4,45 3,60 Z= -2,006 ,045 Yes
Emotional Int. N Avr. Std. Dev. Min. Max. Median Test Sig. Sig. Differ.
19 and younger 120 3,57 8,826 2,30 4,55 3,55
20 and older 93 3,69 11,124 1,65 4,65 3,70 Z= -1,913 ,056 No

According to the table, there was no significant difference in psychological resilience (p= 0,145) and emotional
intelligence (p= 0,056) regarding age levels, therefore, “H2: Psychological resilience varies according to
participants’ age.” and “H3: Emotional intelligence varies according to participants’ age.” were rejected. On
the other hand, it was found out that individual creativity varies according to age level (p= 0,045), so “H1:

5
Individual creativity varies according to participants’ age.” was accepted. In order to test the H4 hypothesis,
Spearman’s correlation analysis was performed on the variables. The results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Correlations among the Variables

PR IC EI
Spearman's rho Psy. Res. Correlation Coefficient 1,000 ,193** ,164*
Sig. (2-tailed) . ,005 ,017
N 213 213 213
Ind. Cre. Correlation Coefficient ,193** 1,000 ,768**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,005 ,000
N 213 213 213
Emo. Int. Correlation Coefficient ,164* ,768** 1,000
Sig. (2-tailed) ,017 ,000 .
N 213 213 213
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

From Table 5, it can be seen that there is a positive and meaningful relationship between individual creativity
and psychological resilience (R= 0,193; p= 0,005). Thus, “H4: There is a positive and meaningful relationship
between individual creativity and psychological resilience.” was accepted. Finally, to test H5 hypothesis and to
test the impact of emotional intelligence on the relationship between individual creativity and psychological
resilience, the three-level regression analysis suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) was performed. This method
requires that first the independent variable must have an effect on the dependent variable, secondly independent
variable must have an impact on the moderator variable in order for moderating effect to take place. Lastly,
when the moderator variable is included in the regression analysis with the independent variable, the regression
coefficient of independent variable on the dependent variable must decrease while the moderator variable must
have effect on the dependent variable as well. The regression analysis is given in Table 6.

Table 6. Regression Analysis Summary

Ind. Var. Dep. Var. R R2 Adjusted R2 F p

IC EI 0,783 0,613 0,611 333,904 0,000
EI PR 0,186 0,034 0,030 7,524 0,007
IC PR 0,233 0,054 0,050 12,100 0,001

From Table 6, it can be seen that the independent variable (IC) has a meaningful effect (R= 0,783, p= 0,000) on
the moderator variable (EI); the moderator variable (EI) has a meaningful effect (R= 0,186, p= 0,007) on the
dependent variable (PR); and the independent variable (IC) has a meaningful effect (R= 0,233, p= 0,001) on the
dependent variable (PR).

Table 7. Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Model Ind. Var. Dep. Var. R R2 Adjusted R2 t F p

1 IC PR 0,233 0,054 0,050 3,478 12,100 0,001

Moderator IC 2,099
PR 0,233 0,054 0,045 6,024 0,003
included
EI 0,078

From the table, it can be understood that the regression coefficient of IC decreases once the moderator (EI) is
included in the model (0,045 < 0,050) and its effect on PR together with EI is meaningful (p= 0,003). Thus, it
can be interpreted as EI has a partial moderator effect on the relationship between IC and PR and “H5:
Emotional intelligence has a moderating effect on the relationship between individual creativity and
psychological resilience.” was accepted. In order to test this result statistically, Sobel test was performed. As a
result of the Sobel test, it was found out that the z value (2,6019) is statistically meaningful (p<0,05). Therefore,
it can be concluded that EI has a partial moderator effect on the relationship between IC and PR.

6
3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
In this study, the data were obtained from 241 university students studying in various departments in Aksaray
University with the aim of determining whether emotional intelligence has a moderating effect on the
relationship between individual creativity and psychological resilience. The demographical data analysis
revealed that 52,1% of the students come from families with 1500 TL or less monthly income. Besides, 42,3% of
the students have parents who earn between 1501 TL and 4000 TL per month. On the other hand, only 5,6% of
the students have families with more than 4000 TL income per month. Regarding the research hypotheses, it was
found out by the Mann-Whitney U test that individual creativity (IC) varies according to age level (z= -2,006;
p= 0,045), so “H1: Individual creativity varies according to participants’ age.” was accepted. However, “H2:
Psychological resilience varies according to participants’ age.” and “H3: Emotional intelligence varies
according to participants’ age” were rejected. Spearman’s correlation analysis demonstrated that there is a
positive and meaningful relationship between IC and PR (R= 0,193; p= 0,005). Thus, “H4: There is a positive
and meaningful relationship between individual creativity and psychological resilience.” was accepted. Finally,
to test H8 hypothesis and to test the impact of emotional intelligence (EI) on the relationship between IC and PR,
the three-level regression analysis suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) was performed. The test results
demonstrated that EI has a partial moderator effect on the relationship between IC and PR and “H5: Emotional
intelligence has a moderating effect on the relationship between individual creativity and psychological
resilience.” was accepted. As a result of the Sobel test, it was found out that the z value (2,6019) is statistically
meaningful (p<0,05). Therefore, it can be concluded that EI has a partial moderator effect on the relationship
between IC and PR. Future research should focus on the possible similarities and differences between university
students from different countries. A comparison between undergraduate level students and graduate level
students in terms of psychological resilience and emotional intelligence is also recommended for future research.

REFERENCES
Avey, J.B.; Luthans, F. and Jensen, S.M. “Psychological Capital: A Positive Resource for Combating Employee Stress and
Turnover”, Human Resource Management, 48(5), 2009, 677-693.
Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:
Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1986, 1173-1182.
Basım, N.H. and Çetin, F. “Yetişkinler için Psikolojik Dayanıklılık Ölçeği’nin Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik Çalışması”, Türk
Psikiyatri Dergisi, 22(2), 2011, 104-114.
Brown, C. “The Effects of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Leadership Style on Sales Performance”, Economic Insights –
Trends and Challenges, 3(3), 2014, 1-14.
Coutu, D.L. “How Resilience Works”, Harvard Business Review, 2002, 80(5), 46-50.
Eisenbeiss, S.A. and Boerner, S. “A Double-edged Sword: Transformational Leadership and Individual Creativity”, British
Journal of Management, 24, 2013, 54-68.
Gehani, R.R. “Individual Creativity and the Influence of Mindful Leaders on Enterprise Innovation”, Journal of Technology
Management & Innovation, 6(3), 2010, 82-91.
Gilson, L.L.; Lim, H.S.; Luciano, M.M. and Jhoi, J.N. “Unpacking the Cross-Level Effects of Tenure Diversity, Explicit
Knowledge, and Knowledge Sharing on Individual Creativity”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86,
2013, 203-222.
Hirst, G.; Van Knippenberg, D. and Zhou, J. “A Cross-Level Perspective on Employee Creativity: Goal Orientation, Team
Learning Behavior, and Individual Creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 2009, 280-293.
Jen, C.T. “Social Ties, Knowledge Diversity and Individual Creativity”, Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 6(2), 2014,
110-124.
Ljungholm, D.P. “Emotional Intelligence in Organizational Behavior”, Economics, Management and Financial Markets,
9(3), 2014, 128-133.
Luthans, F. “The Need for and Meaning of Positive Organizational Behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 2002,
695-706.
Luthans, F.; Avey, J.B.; Avolio, B.J. and Peterson, S.J. “The Development and Resulting Performance Impact of Positive
Psychological Capital”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 2010, 41-67.
Luthans, F.; Luthans, K.W. and Luthans, B.C. “Positive Psychological Capital: Beyond Human and Social Capital”, Business
Horizons, 47(1), 2004, 45-50.
Mayer, J.D.; Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. “Emotional Intelligence Meets Traditional Standards for an Intelligence”,
Intelligence, 27(4), 2000, 267-298.
Orhan, N.. “Bankacılık Sektöründe Duygusal Zekâ ve Yenilikçi İş Davranışlarının İş Tatmini Üzerine Etkileri”,
(Unpublished Master Thesis), 2012, Beykent University.
Pirola-Merlo, A. and Mann, L. “The Relationship between Individual Creativity and Team Creativity: Aggregating Across
People and Time”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 2004, 235-257.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. “Emotional Intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 1990, 185-211.
Siu, O.L.; Bakker, A.B. and Jiang, X. “Psychological Capital among University Students: Relationships with Study
Engagement and Intrinsic Motivation”, Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 2014, 979-994.

7
 Taggar, S. “Individual Creativity and Group Ability to Utilize Individual Creative Resources: A Multilevel Model”, Academy
of Management Journal, 45(2), 2002, 315-330.
Tanıt, T. “Eğitim Yöneticilerinin Değer Tercihleri ile Yaratıcılıkları Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi”, (Unpublished Master
Thesis), 2007, Yeditepe University.
Thingujam, N.S. “Emotional Intelligence: What is the Evidence?”, Psychological Studies, 47(1-3), 2002, 54-69.
Van Rooy, D.L.; Viswesvaran, Chockalingam and Pluta, Paul. “An Evaluation of Construct Validity: What is This Thing
Called Emotional Intelligence?”, Human Performance, 18(4), 2005, 445-462.

View publication stats