Journal of Constructivist Psychology

ISSN: 1072-0537 (Print) 1521-0650 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/upcy20

Implicit Theories of Creativity in Higher Education:

A Constructivist Study

Jelena Pavlović & Slavica Maksić

To cite this article: Jelena Pavlović & Slavica Maksić (2019) Implicit Theories of Creativity in
Higher Education: A Constructivist Study, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 32:3, 254-273,
DOI: 10.1080/10720537.2018.1477639

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2018.1477639

Published online: 31 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 964

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=upcy20
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY, 32(3), 254–273, 2019
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1072-0537 print / 1521-0650 online
DOI: 10.1080/10720537.2018.1477639

Implicit Theories of Creativity in Higher Education:

A Constructivist Study

Jelena Pavlovic and Slavica Maksic

Institute for Educational Research, Belgrade, Serbia

A qualitative constructivist study was conducted to explore university teachers’ implicit theo-
ries of creativity. The aim of the study was to understand how university teachers (NL ¼ 46)
define creativity and perceive its manifestations and development. University teachers’ con-
ceptions of creativity were elicited using the Implicit Theories of Creativity Questionnaire
(ITC-Q). The qualitative analysis resulted in five types of implicit theories of creativity and
its development: individualistic theories, activity theories, result-oriented theories, relational
theories, and growth theories. By including a new theoretical position, target group, and a
methodological framework, the study broadened the dialogue about creativity and its develop-
ment in higher education.

A central assumption underlying various approaches that can be labeled constructivisms is

that human beings create systems for meaningfully understanding their worlds and experi-
ences. In other words, constructing is essentially creating our experience through the pro-
cess of arranging and rearranging mental structures (Raskin, 2002). That is why one of the
topics central to constructivist studies is the creativity involved in the meaning-making
processes (Butt, 2008).
Creativity usually refers to the ability to produce work that is novel and appropriate—with
novel work being “original, not readily predicted, and distinct from previous work” and
appropriate work being “useful” in terms of its defined goals and the value structures that
organize them (Lubart & Sternberg, 1998, p. 66). Both novelty and appropriateness are also
at the core of the process of meaning construction. New meaning cannot be anticipated from
the old system of construction (Kelly, 1955). Adding the appropriateness criterion to the
definition of creativity fits well into the pragmatic roots of constructivist psychology
(Butt, 2008). Only new meanings that pass the test of usefulness, whatever the definition
of usefulness may be, contribute to individual development. The constructivist perspective
on development would thus assume that development is a creative activity in itself
(Viney, 1992).

Received 4 July 2017; accepted 14 May 2018.

Address correspondence to Jelena Pavlovic, Institute for Educational Research, Dobrinjska 11/III, 11000 Belgrade,
Serbia. E-mail: pavlovich.jelena@gmail.com
 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY 255

Because creativity is taken as a general characteristic of the construction of new meaning,

perhaps it is not surprising that it is not usually assumed as a separate construct in construct-
ivist psychology. Rather, it is taken as a socially constructed phenomenon that is delineated
and defined by discourses of modern psychology (Bleaky, 2004). The person-as-scientist
metaphor implies the creativity of all human beings, who grow as they innovate their ways of
viewing the world around them (Kelly, 1955).
The field of implicit theories of creativity was introduced in the last few decades as an
approach to everyday constructions of creativity that are less verbalized and articulated than
the formal scientific theories of creativity. Implicit theories of creativity are constructions that
help formulate the common cultural views that dominate thinking about creativity as a psycho-
logical phenomenon (Sternberg, 1985). Between formal scientific theories and implicit theories
stand personal explicit theories of creativity, which refer to creativity researchers’ personal
views on the topic (Runco, 1999). Because creativity researchers progressively articulate their
implicit theories, the line between explicit and implicit theories becomes less clear in experts
on creativity.
The implicit theories model finds its intellectual roots in personal construct psychology
(Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995). Personal constructs and implicit theories both serve as means
to describe the assumptions people hold about certain aspects of reality, which guide their
behavior in the world. Another similarity is found in the argument that implicit theories repre-
sent “alternative ways of constructing reality, each with its potential costs and benefits”
(Dweck et al., 1995, p. 267), in contrast to the concept of a belief system, which implies
ideas about (ir)rationality of beliefs (Ellis, 1990).
Notes on the differences between constructs and implicit theories are not usually found
in the literature, although it may be useful to elaborate. Whereas personal constructs are
seen as hierarchically organized into bipolar sets of meaning, the concept of implicit theo-
ries does not refer to such elaborated assumptions about their organization, but to a general
idea about the defining themes and components. What makes the concept of implicit theo-
ries particularly useful is their suitability for an integrative constructivist approach that
includes, but does not restrict itself to, the personal construct psychology viewpoint. This
integrative approach preserves the key premises of constructivist psychology, in which peo-
ple are seen as active meaning makers and social beings who construe ontologically and
epistemologically (Raskin, 2016). These constructivist underpinnings imply that creativity
as a phenomenon is personally and socially constructed, both as a “real” object and as an
object of reflection.
In this article we have chosen the term implicit theories to refer exactly to this open form
of meaning making around creativity, which transcends the usual categorization of personal
versus social meaning (Pavlovic, 2011, 2015). In our view, implicit theories of creativity are
both personal and social constructions, which are often not fully verbalized and articulated
but drive human actions in the world. What is theoretical in the concept of implicit theories
is that they represent a group of assumptions about creativity that are subject to continuous
experimentation. Their implicitness refers to assumptions about relatively low levels of
articulation and a need for study to make them explicit. In order to understand and make
these constructions explicit, we need a qualitative research orientation and at least partly an
inductive approach. Qualitative research into implicit theories allows elaboration and articula-
tion of constructions of creativity. These assumptions provide the basis of this article and in
our view open new pathways for research on creativity.
256  AND S. MAKSIC
J. PAVLOVIC 

AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON IMPLICIT THEORIES

OF CREATIVITY

Early research on the topic of implicit theories of creativity was based on a person-oriented
psychometric approach (Sternberg, 1985). In line with this initial quantitative orientation,
studies on implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and everyday creativity among artists and
laypersons followed (Runco & Bahleda, 1986), as well as studies on teachers’ and parents’
implicit theories about creative children (Runco, 1989). Researchers found that parents and
teachers described creative children with characteristics such as active, adventurous, alert,
ambitious, artistic, capable, curious, dreamy, energetic, enthusiastic, and imaginative, whereas
uncreative children were described using characteristics such as apathetic, cold, cynical, dull,
and interest narrow (Runco, Johnson, & Bear, 1993). Common characteristics of this quanti-
tative research into implicit theories of creativity included a focus on the individual
(Glaveanu, 2010, 2017) and reducing implicit theories to ratings of predefined characteristics
of behaviors with respect of the ideal conception of a creative person.
Moving research into implicit theories of creativity to new cultural contexts inspired
cross-cultural research in this area. A study of teachers’ implicit theories of children’s cre-
ativity in Hong Kong showed that some teachers associated creativity with being arrogant,
opinionated, attention seeking, rebellious, and self-centered, which differed from the results
of U.S. studies (Chan & Chan, 1999). Korean conceptions of creativity were found to be
similar to Western conceptions, although Korean adults also included being indifferent to
other’s opinions, not paying attention to other’s evaluations, and being headstrong (Lim &
Plucker, 2001). A comparison of the implicit theories of parents and teachers in the United
States and India confirmed that implicit theories were influenced by cultural traditions and
expectations (Runco & Johnson, 2002). In research into the implicit theories of creativity
held by students in Japan, China, and the United States, novelty was important across all
three countries for evaluations of creativity, whereas appropriateness was more important
for the Americans and Japanese in their evaluations (Paletz & Peng, 2008). A comparison
of the implicit theories of student teachers from Hong Kong and Singapore revealed
that the latter held stronger developmental beliefs about creativity (Seng, Keung, &
Cheng, 2008).
Eastern and Central European views had relatively little space to participate in the con-
struction of current research into implicit theories of creativity (Glaveanu & Karwowski,
2013). Pavlovic, Maksic, & Bodroza (2013). This pointed to a need to go beyond the usual
North American versus Asian distinction, as seen in the majority of studies into the cultural
specifics of teachers’ implicit theories of creativity. Previous research has pointed out that
Eastern and Central European implicit theories of creativity represent a mix of Eastern and
Western conceptions of creativity, and they are dominated by educationalists and their con-
cerns as to whether or not schools can facilitate students’ creative potential (Diakidoy &
Phtiaka, 2001; Dinca, 1999; Kampylis, Berki, & Saariluama, 2009; Kankaras, 2009;
Karwowski, 2010). Although cross-cultural research provided insights into the cultural influ-
ences that shaped the way individuals define creativity, it still remained dominantly quantita-
tive and reductionist in terms of allowing research participants to chose only between the sets
of predefined attributes of being (un)creative.
Few studies in the field of implicit theories of creativity were based on qualitative meth-
ods, which intended to provide an in-depth understanding of how various groups construct
 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY 257

the meaning of creativity. The findings of a qualitative constructivist case study into the
implicit theories of university instructors in the United States uncovered a lack of clarity on
the ways in which creativity was understood in relation to teaching and learning (Justyna,
2016). In a constructivist qualitative study of implicit theories of creativity in India, a multi-
plicity of views was revealed, pointing to two dominant constructions of creativity, as a fac-
ulty of the nature of prathiba (Intuitive creative power in Indian philosophy) and with
reference to the self, invoking the holistic, cognitive, experiential, and physical self to
describe creativity (Sharma Sen & Sharma, 2011). Using both emic and etic modes of
inquiry, the research pointed to further specifics of Indian implicit theories of creativity, such
as describing creativity as the act of learning and the importance of a sense of agency and the
investment of the self in the task being carried out. The study suggested that in Indian con-
ceptions of creativity, no dualistic oppositions were found, such as process (as being intuitive,
emotional, introspective, and social) versus product (as novel and original, a result of cogni-
tive, divergent thinking, and problem-solving orientation).
One of the contributions of qualitative research was an effort to build empirical frame-
works or refine the existing theoretical frameworks for the study of implicit theories of cre-
ativity. In general, attempts to frame the research on implicit theories of creativity may start
from a preexisting theoretical framework or may be organized around an empirically emerg-
ing framework. In the first case, a deductive approach to capturing implicit theories of cre-
ativity is at place, whereas in the latter case, inductive approach is employed.
One of the frameworks for analyzing and categorizing approaches to creativity is the 4Ps
model (Rhodes, 1961). It specifies a series of themes in relation to which people often struc-
ture their understanding of creativity, including the creative person, creative process, creative
product, and creative press. It may be argued that the 4Ps model has been improperly referred
to as a “model,” rather than being a framework or a conceptual organizer (Glaveanu, 2013).
However, the 4Ps approach became canonical in creativity literature and also one of the
frameworks for capturing the meaning of creativity in implicit theories (Pavlovic et al., 2013;
Spiel & Korff, 1998). The creative person includes abilities, cognitive styles, affective and
motivational patterns, intentions, attitudes, values, and other characteristics relevant to cre-
ative thinking, behavior, and production. The creative process refers to the ways in which
creators think, feel, experience, motivate, or direct themselves, and behave in relation to the
generation of original and meaningful outcomes. The creative product is the result of creative
efforts, such as a concrete product, set of ideas, or a process one is attempting to influence.
The press of the environment favoring creativity involves the circumstances around individu-
als necessary for releasing their creative production (Richards, 1999).
The 4Ps model has been used in previous qualitative studies to capture the meaning of
creativity in various groups of participants. A study of implicit theories of creativity held by
teachers, artist, scientists, and politicians pointed to the dominant view of creativity as cre-
ative process and creative person (Spiel & Korff, 1998). In their personal explicit theories,
educational researchers mainly referred to creativity in terms of the creative person and vari-
ous personality traits, divergent thinking and imagination, openness and courage, motivation,
independence, and individuality (Maksic & Pavlovic, 2011). Subsequent studies were carried
out with preschool, primary, and secondary teachers (Maksic, 2015; Maksic & Pavlovic,
2015; Maksic, 2016). Implicit individualism in the teachers’ implicit theories of creativity
was found, uncovering the dominant understanding of creativity in terms of the cre-
ative person.
258  AND S. MAKSIC
J. PAVLOVIC 

In previous studies the 4Ps model has been refined by introducing empirically developed
subcategories within the model (Pavlovic et al., 2013). These subcategories for analyzing the
meaning of creativity were developed through an iterative and emergent process of qualitative
data analysis (Maksic & Pavlovic, 2009; 2015; Pavlovic & Maksic, 2014; Pavlovic et al.,
2013). The creative person was described using the subcategories of personality, ability,
motivation, knowledge, and talent, whereas the creative process included the subcategories of
cognitive, expressive, practical, and imaginative processes. Through this mixed approach of
deductive and inductive approach to research, the classic theoretical 4Ps model has been
updated based on empirically grounded data, while at the same time a relatively comprehen-
sive framework for the study of the meaning of creativity in implicit theories has been built.
Another framework was empirically developed in qualitative studies to capture the implicit
views about developing creativity in educational contexts. This framework was first devised
in a study of implicit theories of educational researchers as experts in the field of education
(Maksic & Pavlovic, 2009), which is why it was named the Expert Model of Supporting
Creativity in School. In subsequent studies, it was used as a framework for deductive coding
in order to map the opportunities for creative development in schools (Pavlovic & Maksic,
2014). The combination of inductive and deductive approaches to coding allowed access to
participants’ construction of meaning and let the categories emerge instead of forcing the
researchers’ own categories, with subsequent classification into a theoretical system.
The Expert model consists of the three levels of potential influences on developing creativ-
ity. The first level refers to the school and includes teaching activities, scool climate, and
extracurricular activities. At the next level is the educational system, which includes the
intended curriculum, teachers, and managing creativity in terms of various activities of
assessing, recognizing, guiding, and supporting creative potential. The third level points to
the society as a whole, which can provide a social consensus on the importance of creativity
and a systemic support of the community. This framework enabled categorizing the ways in
which key stakeholders perceive the mechanisms of supporting creativity in schools, because
one of the consistent findings in research on implicit theories of creativity points to a view
that schools can play a significant role in the development of student creativity (Aljughaiman
& Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Bodroza, Maksic & Pavlovic, 2013; Maksic & Bodroza, 2012;
Maksic, 2013; Maksic & D - urisic-Bojanovic, 2013; Maksic & Pavlovic, 2013).
Studies in which the Expert model was used as a framework for understanding the implicit
theories of creativity development in educational institutions pointed to the key role of educa-
tors, who are expected to develop themselves as creative professionals (Maksic & Pavlovic,
2009). Primary school teachers’ implicit theories were analyzed using the Expert model,
pointing to the importance of the teaching activities and school climate (Pavlovic & Maksic,
2014). Additionally, it was found that teachers do not position themselves as agents of cre-
ativity development in school because of the teachers’ perceptions of the restrictive curricu-
lums, insufficient financial investment in creativity development, and the lack of valuing art
subjects. These studies uncover a contradictory role of teachers in developing student creativ-
ity: Although teachers are expected to play the key role, they do not perceive themselves as
capable of doing so because of the wider influences of the educational system level and the
society level. It was concluded that the classroom level represents an important enabling fac-
tor for supporting creativity, whereas the key disabling factors come from the educational
system and the society level of the Expert model.
 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY 259

CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH PROBLEM

Culture has been shown to influence the definition and expression of creativity, channeling
creativity into certain task domains or social groups (Lubart & Sternberg, 1998). Eastern and
Central European studies on implicit theories of creativity can surpass the traditional distinc-
tion made by cross-cultural psychologists between Eastern and Western cultures, as most of
the societies in this part of Europe are actually described to a certain extent by both
(Glaveanu & Karwowski, 2013). For instance, Serbia—with its location in Eastern and
Central Europe—can be better understood when cultural models are taken into consideration.
Cultures can be differentiated in terms of power distance, individualism, masculinity,
uncertainty avoidance, and so on (Hofstede, 2009; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010).
Power distance refers to the attitude of the culture toward inequalities among people, ranging
from small to large power distance. The degree to which people in a society are integrated
into groups varies along an individualist–collectivist dimension. Masculinity and femininity
refer to the distribution of values by gender, ranging from assertive to caring poles.
Uncertainty avoidance, varying from low to high, indicates to what extent people feel com-
fortable in unstructured situations that are novel, unknown, and surprising.
On a global cultural map, studies point to Serbian culture being similar to Eastern cultures
due to its collectivism and high power distance (Hofstede et al., 2010; What About Serbia, n.d.).
In collectivistic cultures, dominant values stress “we”-consciousness, belonging, and shared
responsibility. High power distance implies accepting hierarchical orders in groups without the
need to legitimate the use of power. However, Serbia deviates from both Eastern and Western
cultural patterns in terms of feminine values (higher caring for others and quality of life) as
opposed to masculinity (lower competition, achievement, and success), and in terms of inclin-
ation to uncertainty avoidance as opposed to embracing uncertainty. This specific cultural pos-
ition of Serbia makes a compelling case for further research into implicit theories of creativity.
This article presents a study of university teachers’ views of creativity, continuing the line of
previous qualitative research into implicit theories of creativity. The aim of the study was to
understand how university teachers define creativity and perceive its manifestations and develop-
ment during university studies and in adulthood. University teachers were chosen as persons
whose implicit theories influence not only their own creativity in developing their fields of expert-
ise but also that of their students in the teaching process. The context of student and adult creativ-
ity was introduced in order to offer participants the relevant framework for reflecting on creativity
from various perspectives, as university teachers work with the student population and prepare
them for creative production in adulthood. The study attempts to contribute to polyphony in
understanding implicit theories of creativity in different educators and different cultural contexts.

METHOD

This study used the qualitative constructivist method for the study of university teachers’
implicit theories of creativity and its development. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to
identify and analyze the themes and patterns in the data concerning the concept and develop-
ment of creativity (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The updated 4Ps model and the Expert model,
devised in previous studies, were used as frameworks for capturing the meaning, manifesta-
tions, and development of creativity. Further qualitative analysis of participants’ answers
260  AND S. MAKSIC
J. PAVLOVIC 

allowed for the articulation of meanings held about creativity in terms of implicit theories
and their defining themes and subthemes.

Participants

The study was carried out with university teachers (N ¼ 46) from three state universities and
one private university in Serbia. The age of participants varied from 23 to 67 years
(M ¼ 43.13; SD ¼ 13.43), and their average time of teaching service ranged from 1 to 41
years (M ¼ 18.39, SD ¼ 12.92). The participants’ characteristics are displayed in Table 1.
Purposeful sampling was applied in order to include the voices of teachers from different age
groups, job positions, and fields of science.

Data Collection

The university teachers’ conceptions of creativity were elicited using the Implicit Theories of
Creativity Questionnaire (ITC-Q), which was developed in previous studies (Maksic &
Pavlovic, 2009; Pavlovic et al., 2013) and modified for the purpose of this study. The modi-
fied ITC-Q includes open-ended questions about the concept and development of creativity,
and one closed question about the extent to which university studies could contribute to the
development of creativity. This article presents the results of the university teachers’ answers
to the following questions:

 What, in your opinion, is the meaning of creativity?

 How is creativity manifested in students?
 How is creativity manifested in adults?
 To what extent could university studies support students’ creativity?
 How could university studies support students’ creativity?
Table 1
Participants’ Gender, Job Position, and Field of Science

Participant characteristics f %

Gender
Male 28 60.9
Female 16 34.8
No answer 2 4.3
Total 46 100.0
Job position
Assistant & full professors 22 47.8
Teaching assistants & fellows 21 45.7
No answer 3 6.5
Total 46 100.0
Field of science
Sciences, mathematics, medicine, technology, and engineering 26 56.5
Social sciences and humanities 20 43.5
No answer 0 0.0
Total 46 100.0
 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY 261

We distributed the questionnaire in person to those university teachers who agreed to par-
ticipate and who invited their colleagues to also take part. In order to reach these varied
groups, the participants were approached individually in one-to-one communication with us
or our network of associates. The research rationale was introduced to the participants in
terms of their complex role and position in society’s cultural elite. Oral consent to participate
in the study was obtained along with assurances of anonymity and the scientific purpose of
the study.
Overall the data collection process took two years (2011–2013), with our perception that
this participant group was the hardest to reach compared to those used in previous studies
(educational researchers, preschool, primary, and secondary school teachers). Some of the
participants informally expressed the difficulty they experienced in expressing their intuitive
beliefs and their concern as to whether those beliefs would be appropriate for a scientific
study. It can be assumed that in addition to being teachers at the university level, the partici-
pants who took part in the study were also interested in the field of creativity development
and enjoyed a good reputation as experts in their field.

Data Analysis

In the first phase of coding, we independently coded the material produced by the partici-
pants. Coding schemes based on the 4Ps model and the Expert model were used to deduct-
ively approach the data. In the subsequent phases, inductive coding was used to capture the
nuances of the participants’ implicit theories, which could not be captured by the initial cod-
ing schemes. This process of inductive coding resulted in further refinement of the 4Ps model
in line with the data. An innovation to our previous coding scheme was introduced for the
categories of creative product and press, which were further articulated in this study. The cre-
ative products were fragmented into subcategories of novel or original, and appropriate or
useful. The environmental press was fragmented into subcategories of supporting and inhibit-
ing interactions. These new subcategories of the 4Ps model emerged as inductive and non-
theoretical codes. The innovation to the previous coding scheme based on the Expert model
included minor changes related to transforming the categories to fit the higher education con-
text of the study. For example, the curriculum category was transformed into the study pro-
gram, and the school climate into the educational climate.
After the consensus was made on the final coding framework, which included a combin-
ation of deductive and inductive approach, data were independently coded once again. Cases
of intercoder disagreement were noted and statistically checked using Cohen’s kappa statistic.
The degree of intercoder agreement for the categories from the 4Ps model varied from 0.61
to 0.87 (p < 0.001), indicating a good to very good level of agreement (Fleiss, Levin, & Paik,
2003). The intercoder agreement for the categories from the Expert model for supporting cre-
ativity in schools varied from 0.71 to 0.95 (p < 0.001), pointing to a good to excellent level
of agreement. The final version of codes was composed by reaching consensus about the
cases of disagreement.
Table 2 presents examples of the coding process in relation to the questions about the con-
cept (Example 1) and manifestations of creativity in students (Example 2) and adults
(Example 3). Table 3 presents examples of the coding process in relation to the questions
about the development of creativity.
262  AND S. MAKSIC
J. PAVLOVIC 

Table 2
An Illustration of the Coding Scheme Referring to Answers to the Questions About the
Concept of Creativity and Its Manifestations During Studies and in Adulthood

Answer Category Subcategory

Example 1. Person Ability

[Creativity is] one’s ability to look at things Process Practical
differently, to create something new and
make something out of nothing, to create
something different in the eyes of others …
/Person ability/
Example 2. Product Appropriate
[Creativity is manifested] through research.
/Process practical/
Example 4. [Creativity is manifested] through Process Practical
different solutions to challenges in everyday
work. /Product appropriate/ Through differ-
ent hobbies. / Process practical/

Table 3
An Illustration of the Coding Scheme Referring to Answers to the Questions About the
Contribution of University Studies to the Development of Creativity

Answer Category

Example 1. Teachers
[Creativity is supported] by adequate teaching staff Teaching activities
who support the development of thinking skills by
introducing problem solving tasks. /Teachers/
Example 2. Curriculum
[Creativity is supported] by a positive evaluation of Educational climate
unusual solutions, even though they were not part of
the teachers’ expectations. By introducing material and
media that students are interested in /Teaching activ-
ities/. By reducing the amount of content to be memo-
rized by students /Study program/. By setting tasks
that are still unresolved /Teaching/. By supporting self-
confidence in students /Educational climate/.

The frameworks used to code the answers about the concept of creativity and ways of sup-
porting it during university studies allowed the fragmentation of answers, which resulted in
the final number of units of analysis being different from the number of participants who
answered the question. The fragmentation of the answers allowed for complexity analysis,
whereby the answers were categorized as one dimensional (comprising one category) or
multidimensional (comprising two or more categories). Quantification (frequencies and
percentages) was used in the study in order to make the analytic process more transparent
and grounded in data. The coding process and quantification were used as the basis for
 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY 263

articulation of implicit theories, themes, and subthemes pertaining to how participants viewed
creativity and its development.

RESULTS

The analysis of participants’ answers to the questions about the definition of creativity and its
manifestation in students and adults are shown in Table 4. The majority of the responses were
one dimensional based on a single category from the 4Ps model when it comes to the concept
of creativity (73.9%) and its manifestation in university students (63.0%) and adults (69.6%).
The majority of the participants (63%) expressed the belief that creativity could be devel-
oped to a great extent or fully during university studies. This compared to 17.4% of partici-
pants who felt that creativity could be only partly developed at university. Notably, 19.6% of
participants did not answer this question. More than half of the participants (54.3%) gave
one-dimensional answers to the question about how university studies can contribute to the
development of creativity. Table 5 shows the participants’ answers to the question about how
university studies can contribute to the development of creativity. The qualitative analysis
resulted in five types of implicit theories of creativity and its development: individualistic
theories, activity theories, result-oriented theories, relational theories, and growth theories,
together with elaboration of the themes and subthemes within each type of implicit theory
(Table 6).

Individualistic Theories

The construal of creativity in terms of the creative person from the 4Ps model in the partic-
ipants’ theories can be described as implicit individualism (Examples 1–2). This type of
implicit theory is defined as theory about the key role of characteristics that can clearly be
individualized and assigned to the creative person. The dominant themes within implicit indi-
vidualism included personality themes, ability themes, and motivational themes.

Table 4
The Frequencies and Percentages of Participants’ Views on Various Concepts of
Creativity (CC) and Its Manifestation in Students (SC) and Adults (AC)

CC SC AC
Categories f (%) of responses f (%) of responses f (%) of responses

Creative person 32 (69.6) 18 (39.1) 12 (26.1)

Creative process 17 (37.0) 30 (65.2) 17 (36.9)
Creative product 9 (19.6) 10 (21.7) 16 (34.8)
Creative press 2 (4.3) 1 (2.2) 7 (15.2)
Total 60 59 52
Not categorized 0 (0.0) 2 (4.3) 2 (4.3)
No answer 0 (0.0) 1 (2.2) 2 (4.3)

Note: The percentages are based on the number of participants (N ¼ 46) and add up to
more than 100, as the participants expressed multiple conceptions.
264  AND S. MAKSIC
J. PAVLOVIC 

Table 5
The Frequencies and Percentages of Participants’ Views on the
Contribution of University Studies to the Development of Creativity

Contribution of university studies to the

development of creativity f of responses %

Teaching activities 23 50.0

Educational climate 11 23.9
Extracurricular activities 1 2.2
Study program 7 15.2
Teachers 12 26.1
Managing creativity 9 19.6
Partnership for creativity 3 6.5
Total 66
Not categorized 4 8.7
No answer 0 0.0

Note: The percentages are based on the number of participants (N ¼ 46) and
add up to more than 100, as the participants expressed multiple conceptions.

Example 1. [What in your opinion is the meaning of creativity?] There is no creativity

without the creative individual. In other words, it is the individual or the creator that is essen-
tial to creativity.
Example 2. [What in your opinion is the meaning of creativity?] When someone loves their
job, has a certain level of knowledge of the field, and is intelligent.
Implicit individualism is typically represented in answers that pointed to personality
themes, such as being open minded, imaginative, independent, and authentic. The creative
personality is construed as belonging to a social context. On one hand, the construction of the
creative personality included positive attributes such as social dominance and eminence, and
on the other, it was described as not adjusted to the social context, misunderstood, disap-
pointed, cynical, unsuccessful in business, and pushed aside in politics. Ability themes in
implicit individualism correspond to some of the established psychological phenomena, such
as general cognitive ability, cognitive styles, and social intelligence. A more idiosyncratic
construal refers to the ability to create, which was defined as the ability to produce new
ideas, solutions, or changes across domains. The motivation themes included a range of
responses that could be joined together in a full cycle starting from curiosity and the develop-
ment of interests, followed by falling in love with a particular domain, leading to the urge to
create and perseverance in achieving goals. Characteristics that were assigned to the creative
person also included level of knowledge as well as talent as a given.

Activity Theories

The participants’ theories in which creativity was construed using the creative process category
from the 4Ps model can be described as implicit activity theories (Example 3 and 4). The par-
ticipants pointed to those characteristics referring to activities that could not be individualized
 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY 265

Table 6
University Teachers’ Implicit Theories of Creativity with Defining Themes and Subthemes

Theories Themes Subthemes

Individualistic theories Personality themes Open minded, imaginative, independent, authentic,

Ability themes
Motivational themes
Activity theories Cognitive activities
Expressive activities
Practical activities
Imaginative activities
Result-oriented theories Original products
Appropriate products
Relational theories Supporting interactions
Inhibiting interactions
Growth theories Supportive teaching
Teachers as key agents
Appreciative school climate
Managing creativity
Creative study programs
Partnership for creativity
socially adapted vs. socially unadapted
Intelligence, social intelligence, ability to create
Curiosity, interests, urge to create, perseverance
Critical thinking, hypothetic–deductive thinking,
domain-specific activities
Freedom of expression, personal style of expression
Using tools, finding optimal ways to complete a task
Play, experimenting
Novel works in arts or science, new personal meaning
Successful application, improvements in the efficiency
of execution, improvements of quality of everyday
life and work
Allowing freedom of expression, absence of
“normalization”
Lack of time, competition at work, hierarchical struc-
tures in organizations, favoring execution
over creation
Promoting active learning and learning how to learn,
productive mix of theory and practice, supporting
divergent thinking and imagination, supporting mul-
tiperspectivism through appropriate assessment
Creative teachers as role models, teachers as
agile learners
Valuing creativity and freedom of expression, promot-
ing self-confidence, promoting diversity of thinking
and doing
Recognizing creativity, motivating creativity, reward-
ing creativity
Flexible, students’ participation in study program
development, supporting the polymath development
Providing resources, cross-institutional cooperation

and that did not explicitly lead to results. The dominant themes within activity theory included
cognitive activities, expressive activities, practical activities, and imaginative activities.
Example 3. [How is creativity manifested during university studies?] Through a focused,
concrete, and more structured process of creating, although there may be overspecialization.
Example 4. [How is creativity manifested in adulthood?] The way we carry out business
activities, bring up children, and organize everyday activities, such as nutrition or
home decoration.
The processual views of creativity are grounded in different aspects of the cognitive proc-
esses—such as critical thinking or hypothetical–deductive thinking—which are mainly recog-
nized in the activities of teaching and learning. Creativity as a cognitive process depends on
the domain and may vary in different fields. The creative process is also recognized in
266  AND S. MAKSIC
J. PAVLOVIC 

expressive activities that are based on the freedom and originality of expression in all aspects
of one’s personal and professional life. More idiosyncratic views of creative activities are
reflected in the practical process subcategory, which included a variety of activities involving
coping with practical situations, using tools in effective ways, and finding optimal ways to
complete tasks across domains. The activities of imagination and experimental play were also
recognized in the processual theories, pointing to play as an important aspect of creativity.

Result-Oriented Theories

The construal of creativity in terms of the creative product from the 4Ps model could be
described as result-oriented theories (Examples 5 and 6). This type of implicit theory refers
to those characteristics that explicitly point to the materialization of a product. The dominant
themes within result-oriented theories included originality of products and appropriateness
of products.
Example 5. [What, in your opinion, is the meaning of creativity?] What unites different
approaches to creativity is producing novelty and originality in a certain area of human
endeavor (something that is new for the individual, not in a historical sense). Creativity can
be recognized in creating original work and products, but also in raising new questions and
issues (e.g., in mathematics, the existence of “open problems,” unproven mathematical theo-
rems). We have to take into account not only “solved” problems and proven theorems but
also posing new questions and theorems that are yet to be proven.
Example 6. [How is creativity manifested in adulthood?] Finding business solutions in
unusual ways with a level of risk taking. Having a conversation about what may occur.
Creating new products, especially technical and artistic ones. Improvisation.
Original products were constructed as novel works in the fields of art and science, which are
socially or historically significant. The construal of original products also included personal
innovations, defined as the products of creating new personal meanings in one’s personal and
professional life. Product originality was recognized both in solutions as a whole and in prod-
ucts that were part of a larger puzzle. Appropriateness referred to products that introduced suc-
cessful applications and improvements in the efficiency of execution or the quality of everyday
life or work. In the participants’ theories, some fields of human endeavor were recognized as
being more or less supportive of the production of appropriate products, such as administrative
and repetitive activities. However, even in such areas the creation of appropriate products was
perceived as possible. Destructive products, such the arms industry, were also construed as cre-
ative products, raising a question about the ethical dimensions in creativity.

Relational Theories

The construal of creativity in terms of the creative press from the 4Ps model was defined as
implicit relationalism (Examples 7 and 8). In this type of implicit theory, creativity was con-
strued as the interaction between the individual and the environment. The main components
of this type of implicit theory refer to supporting interactions and inhibiting interactions.
 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY 267

Example 7. [What, in your opinion, is the meaning of creativity?] Attention should also be
paid to the environment in which the individual creates, because it is the environment and the
context that define what will be seen as creative or uncreative. The creative individual has an
impact on the environment, but the environment also has an impact on the creator.
Example 8. [How is creativity manifested in adulthood?] For the majority of professional
contexts (except for arts), employees are not expected to be creative. What matters is to fol-
low the established procedures and respect the rules of an efficient system.
The relational theories of creativity referred to the formative role of the environment in
shaping creative individuals, processes, and products. This type of implicit theory stresses the
key role of the audience, which recognizes and defines what is creative. In the participants’
theories, the environment may support creativity by allowing freedom of choice or suppress
it by placing constraints and restrictions on creative ideas and actions. Relational aspects
were elaborated in terms of restrictive conditions, such as lack of time, competition at work,
an organization’s hierarchical structure or leadership style, and the overall organizational cul-
ture. Finally, the relational and social context may inhibit creativity by favoring execution
over creation.

Growth Theories

The belief held by the majority that creativity could be developed to a great extent during
university studies points to a developmental or growth type of implicit theory (Examples 9
and 10). Growth theories construe creativity as a phenomenon that is a potential that could be
developed during university studies through a variety of educational interventions. Key
themes within the growth theories include supportive teaching, teachers as key agents, appre-
ciative climate, creative study programs, managing creativity, and partnership for creativity.
Example 9. [How could university studies support students’ creativity?] Through delivering
interesting content and interactive teaching, and by respecting students’ personalities and their
opinions.
Example 10. [How could university studies support students’ creativity?] By recognizing
individual creativity and promoting it in all available ways (such as recommendations, stimu-
lation, consultations with parents and experts, supporting participation in competitions, by
pointing out the appropriate resources); by efforts to awaken students’ hidden creativity (big
and small); by having teachers who share their own creativity with their students in a way
that is appropriate for them; by teachers expressing an interest in students’ personalities and
the versatility of their talents, as opposed to restricting themselves to the basic role of teach-
ing; by respecting students’ creativity and showing understanding for their immersion in cre-
ative activities, even if the teachers themselves are not so creative; and by teachers investing
continuous efforts to make their own educational work more creative.
Teaching activities that support creativity were construed as general activities that make
students think, such as active learning, problem- and project-based learning, autonomous
problem solving, and learning how to study. Making teaching relevant for students is another
aspect of supportive teaching activities and includes a productive match of theory and
268  AND S. MAKSIC
J. PAVLOVIC 

practice, providing know-how, and illustrating the application of knowledge in real life situa-
tions. In addition to the general conditions of successful learning in higher education, the partic-
ipants’ descriptions also included teaching activities that were directly focused on supporting
creativity. Focus on creativity was referred to as supporting divergent thinking, students’ inter-
ests, imagination, adoption of multiple perspectives, and appropriate assessment.
The type of educational climate that contributes to the growth of creativity was defined as
the creation of a supportive atmosphere in the educational process, which values creativity
and supports freedom of expression, appreciates students’ personalities and opinions, and
encourages students’ self-confidence and diversity. Supporting the educational climate is
defined as the opposite of exerting pressure and control and the “normalization” of students,
which suppresses students’ motivation and individuality.
Extracurricular activities were defined as additional classes that meet individual interests
and various types of creativity development in areas of art, science and sport.
Study programs could support creativity to a greater extent by becoming more flexible, by
changing the assessment practices in order to make valuing creativity more explicit, and by
allowing students to participate in developing the study programs. The current study pro-
grams were perceived as restricting creativity development, because of information overload
and a focus on theory, which forces students to memorize facts, failing to connect students
with real life and practice. Another suggestion concerning supportive study programs referred
to overcoming too much specialization in higher education by including elective courses that
are focused on educating the polymath personality (e.g. philosophy, arts, psychology).
Teachers were recognized as the key agents in nurturing creativity in students. Teachers as
the agents of creativity development in higher education were construed as good teachers,
who are motivated and creative. Teachers’ competence includes subject expertise and teach-
ing skills. Teachers are efficient in supporting creativity as mentors and role models who
teach students how to be creative and convey the value of creativity. Continuous professional
training in the field of recognizing and supporting creativity is a condition for teachers to
become the agents of growing creativity in their students.
Managing creativity included activities of recognizing, motivating, stimulating, and
rewarding creativity as the main goal of working with students. It occurs as part of the regu-
lar activities in educational institutions or in specialized institutions for gifted students.
Partnership for creativity referred to the resources for supporting creativity in students in
the higher education process. Effective partnership included cross-institutional cooperation in
order to provide the best resources for students in their learning endeavors.

DISCUSSION

This study adopted a qualitative constructivist approach with the aim of unpacking the mean-
ing university teachers assign to creativity and its development. The choice to use open-ended
questions about creativity in students and adults, inductive coding schemes and an emergent
research orientation, enabled the defining of different types of implicit theories, underlying
themes, and subthemes. As a result of this study, two previously developed frameworks (4Ps
and Expert model) for the study of implicit theories of creativity were merged and further
articulated, as a step toward a less reductionist approach to research into implicit theories
of creativity.
 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY 269

The study pointed to five types of university teachers’ implicit theories of the concept and
development of creativity: individualistic, activity, result-oriented, relational, and growth the-
ories. Implicit individualism corresponds to the early stage of research into implicit theories
of creativity (Glaveanu, 2010; Pavlovic et al., 2013; Runco, 1989; Runco & Bahleda, 1986;
Runco et al., 1993; Sternberg, 1985). It can be argued that university teachers hold implicit
individualistic attitudes when it comes to the general definition of creativity, and they move
to activity theories when they focus on manifestations of creativity in students, expecting
adult creativity to be more result-oriented. The finding that university teachers move from
individualistic to activist conceptions when they focus on the student population seems
encouraging. University teachers hold growth theories about creativity, pointing to a number
of educational interventions that may contribute to the development of students’ creativity.
However, relational theories were underdeveloped in the university teachers’ construal of
both of student and adult creativity, despite some inconsistencies in university teachers’
beliefs; results in general point to the belief that creativity could and should be developed.
The findings are in line with results of the majority of other studies about creativity nature
and nurture during the lifespan (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Fleith, 2000; Glaveanu, 2011;
Maksic & Pavlovic, 2011; 2015; Pavlovic & Maksic, 2014; Runco et al., 1993). The univer-
sity teachers’ theories oscillate between the view that creativity is a separate construct and
the view that it is equal to learning and teaching. Fragments of the participants’ implicit theo-
ries point to the opinion that creativity is basically the same as the learning process, and that
it can be best supported by those teaching activities that are seen as supportive of learning in
general, which is in line with constructivist assumptions about creativity (Bleaky, 2004; Butt,
2008; Kampylis et al., 2009; Kelly, 1955; Sharma Sen & Sharma, 2011; Viney, 1992).
It can be argued that the early stage individualism in the research on implicit theories of
creativity was at least partially a result of the methodological choices of the person-centered
quantitative approach, which originated from a highly individualistic culture like the United
States (Hofstede at al., 2010). References to implicit individualism were found in previous
studies conducted in India, as an example of intermediate individualistic and collectivistic
culture (Sharma Sen & Sharma, 2011). It may come as a surprise that implicit individualism
was also found in Serbia, which is classified as a collectivist society on a global cultural map
(Hofstede, 2009; What About Serbia, n.d.). These findings point to the need for new types of
studies that are more sensitive to relational conceptions of creativity. Additionally, further
refinement of the concept of collectivism as the contextual framework for creativity develop-
ment is necessary.
The choice of Serbia as a case of Eastern and Central European contributed to the multi-
plicity of voices that are currently represented in the body of cross-cultural research on the
topic of implicit theories of creativity (Chan & Chan, 1999; Kankaras, 2009; Paletz, Peng, &
Li, 2011; Runco & Johnson, 2002; Seng et al., 2008). In combination with a qualitative
research orientation, this type of cultural positioning of the study further contributed to the
polyphony in the field of implicit theories of creativity, beyond the typical divide between
Eastern and Western conceptions (Glaveanu & Karwowski, 2013).
The practical implications of the study are rooted in a general belief about the formative
role of the higher education context in developing student creativity. In this study, the univer-
sity teachers perceived themselves as the agents of the development of their students’ creativ-
ity, which was not found in previous studies with primary and secondary school teachers
(Dinca, 1999; Kampylis et al., 2009; Maksic & Pavlovic, 2015; Pavlovic & Maksic, 2014).
270  AND S. MAKSIC
J. PAVLOVIC 

The barriers to supporting creativity found in the university teachers’ theories included pres-
sure, control and the normalization of students, information overload, focus on theory, and
too much specialization in higher education. The dominance of one-dimensional answers in
the university teachers’ theories may point to a biased view of creativity (Seo, Lee, & Kim,
2005) and the need to develop a balanced view with more awareness of the importance of
relational theories of creativity. In general, making explicit university teachers’ theories about
creativity has a potential to serve as a means of supporting teachers in their professional
experimentation with new types of assumptions about creativity, in line with the constructiv-
ist views of professional development (Pope & Denicolo, 2015).
Some of the limitations of the present study refer to general issues related to qualitative
research, such as the generalizability of the results and the descriptive nature of qualitative
studies. Although the results cannot be generalized and differences between students and
adult conceptions of creativity were not explored, they provide a deeper understanding of the
multiplicity of views held about creativity. Other limitations stem from assumptions about the
biased sample of the research participants, who were personally and professionally motivated
to take part in the study. We may have come across a different view of creativity had we
reached university teachers who had a different motivation to participate in the study. Finally,
through the application of a combination of deductive and inductive approaches in the study,
we may have reproduced some of the dualistic oppositions in the usual way of thinking about
creativity, such as process versus product, or individual versus environment. However, as
researchers we believe that we are always part of the study we carry out with the research
participants and that we can never put our research constructs fully “in brackets.”
This study confirms the importance and effectiveness of a constructivist view of implicit
theories in the study of creativity at the conceptual level. This approach goes beyond the psy-
chometric approach that is focused on the individual and the quantification of isolated beliefs,
opening new ways of looking at implicit theories as broader clusters of meaning held about
creativity in context (Glaveanu, 2010, 2017). The study introduced a qualitative approach,
allowing open forms of answers to the questions about creativity, emergent design in the exe-
cution of the study, and an interpretative approach to the data analysis at the methodological
level. As a result, the study provided a deeper look into the meaning of creativity from the
perspective of university teachers as research participants. Further qualitative research in this
field is recommended in the direction of using interviews and exploring the personal relation-
ship of university teachers regarding their own creativity.

CONCLUSION

The diversity of university teachers’ implicit theories of creativity is rooted in a growth mind-
set that almost all manifestations of creativity in students and adults are prone to develop-
ment. This constructivist inspired study contributes to the current body of research by
allowing a deeper look into the multiplicity of meaning around the concept of creativity. By
including a new theoretical position, target group, and a methodological framework, the study
broadens the dialogue about creativity and its development in higher education. Further con-
structivist research on the topic of implicit theories is recommended in order to unravel how
university teachers as educators, scientists, and artists construe their own understanding of
creativity as the fuel of innovation and creative contributions in contemporary societies.
 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY 271

REFERENCES
Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of creativity and creative students. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 17–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01247.x
Bleaky, A. (2004). ‘Your creativity or mine?’: A typology of creativities in higher education and the value of a plur-
alistic approach. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(4), 463–475. doi:10.1080/1356251042000252390.
Bodroza, B., Maksic, S., & Pavlovic, J. (2013). Ispoljavanje i podsticanje kreativnosti u osnovnoj skoli iz perspektive
nastavnika [Manifestation and encouragement of creativity in primary school from the teachers’ perspective].
Zbornik Instituta za pedagoska istrazivanja, 45(1), 108–130. doi:10.2298/ZIPI1301108B.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Butt, T. (2008). Personal construct therapy and its history in pragmatism. In P. Caputi, H. Foster, & L. Viney
(Eds.), Personal construct psychology: New ideas (pp. 17–26). West Sussex, England: John Wiley &
Sons.
Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. K. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers’ perceptions of students’ characteristics
in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 185–195. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1203_3.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY:
Harper Collins.
Diakidoy, I. A., & Phtiaka, H. (2001). Teachers’beliefs about creativity. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Handbook of policy
creativity: Creativity from diverse perspectives (pp. 13–32). Huntingtom, NY: Nova Science.
Dinca, M. (1999). Creative children in Romanian society. Childhood Education, 75(6), 355–358. doi:10.1080/
00094056.1999.10522057.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C.-Y., & Hong, Y.-Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A
world from two perspectives. Psychology Inquiry, 6, 267–285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1.
Ellis, A. (1990). Rational and irrational beliefs in counselling psychology. Journal of Rational-Emotive and
Cognitive-Behavior Therapy 8(4), 221–233. doi:10.1007/BF01065806.
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd Ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Fleith, D. S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review,
22(3), 148–153. doi:10.1080/02783190009554022.
Glaveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology.
New ideas in psychology, 28(1), 79–93. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.007.
Glaveanu, V. P. (2011). Children and creativity: A most (un)likely pair? Thinking skills and creativity, 6(2),
122–131. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2011.03.002.
Glaveanu, V. P. (2017). Creativity in perspective: A socio-cultural and critical account. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 31(2), 118–129. doi:10.1080/10720537.2016.1271376.
Glaveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A’s framework. Review of General
Psychology, 17(1), 69–81. doi:10.1037/a0029528.
Glaveanu, V. P., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Joining the debate: Creativity seen from Eastern and Central Europe.
International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 23(1), 5–11.
Hofstede, G. (2009). Cultural dimensions. Retrieved from http://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Justyna, E. (2016). Creativity in higher education curriculum: A qualitative case study of pedagogical processes and
practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. Retrieved from https://ttu-ir.
tdl.org/ttu-ir/handle/2346/67036
Kampylis, P., Berki, E., & Saariluama, P. (2009). In-service and prospective teachers’ conceptions of creativity.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 15–29. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2008.10.001.
Kankaras, M. (2009). Implicitne teorije kreativnosti: Kros-kulturna studija [Implicit creativity: A cross-cultural
study]. Psihologija, 42 (2), 187–202.
Karwowski, M. (2010). Are creative students really welcome in the classroom? Implicit theories of “good” and
“creative” student’ personality among Polish teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal, 2,
1233–1237. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.179.
272  AND S. MAKSIC
J. PAVLOVIC 

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs: Vol. 1. A theory of personality. New York, NY:
Norton.
Lim, W., & Plucker, J. A. (2001). Creativity through a lens of social responsibility: Implicit theories of
creativity with Korean samples. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(2), 115–130. doi:10.1002/j.2162-
6057.2001.tb01225.x.
Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Creativity across time and place: Life span and cross-cultural perspectives.
High Ability Studies, 9(1), 59–74. doi:10.1080/1359813980090105.
Maksic, S. (2013). Kako vaspitaci i ucitelji vide kreativnost: briga za roditelje? [Preschool and classroom teachers’
beliefs about creativity: A reason for parents to be concerned]. In S. Gasic- Pavisic & S. Josic (Eds.), 4. naucna
konferencija Kontinuitet inkluzivnog obrazovanja i vaspitanja u predskolskoj ustanovi i osnovnoj skoli: zbornik
rezimea [Continuity of inclusive education in preschool and elementary school: Book of abstracts] (pp. 51–52).
Beograd: Institut za pedagoska istrazivanja; Sremska Mitrovica: Visoka skola strukovnih studija za obrazovanje
vaspitaca.
Maksic, S. (2015). Darovitost, talenti i kreativnost: Od merenja do implicitnih teorija [Giftedness, talent, and creativ-
ity: From measurement to implicit theories]. In N. Milicevic, I. Ristic, V. Nesic, & S. Vidanovic (Eds.),
O kreativnosti i umetnosti – savremena psiholoska istrazivanja (pp. 11–27). Nis: Izdavacki centar Filozofskog
fakulteta u Nisu.
Maksic, S., & Bodroza, B. (2012). Misljenja nastavnika o podsticanju kreativnosti u skoli [Teachers’ beliefs about
developing creativity at school]. Paper presented at the 18. naucni skup Empirijska istrazivanja u psihologiji (pp.
51–52). Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu.
Maksic, S., & D - urisic-Bojanovic, M. (2013). Pregled istrazivanja o implicitnim teorijama kreativnosti [A review of
research studies about implicit theories of creativity]. In G. Gojkov & A. Stojanovic (Eds.), Metodoloski problemi
istrazivanja darovitosti: zbornik 18 [Methodology issues in giftedness research: Proceedings 18] (pp. 227–236).
Vrsac: Visoka skola strukovnih studija za obrazovanje vaspitaca “Mihailo Palov”; Arad: Universitatea de Vest
“Aurel Vlaicu”.
Maksic, S., & Pavlovic, J. (2009). Ekspertski model za podsticanje kreativnosti u skoli [An Expert model for foster-
ing creativity in schools]. In D - . Komlenovic, D. Malinic, & S. Gasic Pavisic (Eds.), Kvalitet i efikasnost nastave
[Quality and efficiency of teaching] (pp. 281–293). Beograd: Institut za pedagoska istrazivanja & Volgogradski
drzavni pedagoska univerzitet.
Maksic, S., & Pavlovic, J. (2011). Educational researchers' personal explicit theories of creativity and its develop-
ment: A qualitative study. High Ability Studies, 22(2), 219–231. doi:10.1080/13598139.2011.628850.
Maksic, S., & Pavlovic, J. (2013). Nastava koja podrzava kreativnost [Teaching for creativity]. In R. Nikolic (Ed.),
Nastava i ucenje, Kvalitet vaspitno-obrazovnog procesa [Teaching and learning: Quality of educational process]
(pp. 53–64). Uzice: Uciteljski fakultet.
Maksic, S., & Pavlovic, J. (2015). Srednja skola kao kontekst za ispoljavanje i razvoja kreativnosti [Secondary
school as a context for expressing and developing creativity]. Nastava i vaspitanje, 64(1), 71–85. doi:10.5937/
NASVAS1501071M.
Maksic,
. (2016). aÅdbnbe b djcgbnaybe rheanbdyjcnb d rkaccyjv rjkkernbde [Development of and support
to creativity in the classroom]. In d. U. hßylar (Ed.) rkaccyß½ rjkkernbd d cjdheveyyj½ yaere b
gharnbre j,haÅjdaybz: venjljkjUbz bcckeljdaybz, heakbb b gehcgernbdß haÅdbnbz, ve;leyahjlyaz
yaexyj-gharnbxecraz rjyaeheyçbz;, jhey,ehU, 18—20 vaz 2016 Ujla (pp. 92–96). Orenburg: OGPU.
Paletz, S. B.F., & Peng, K. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity across cultures: Novelty and appropriateness in two
product domains. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 39(3), 286–302. doi:10.1177/0022022108315112.
Paletz, S.B.F., Peng, K. & Li, S. (2011). In the world or in the head: External and internal implicit theories of cre-
ativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 83–98. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2011.571181.
Pavlovic, J. (2011). Personal construct psychology and social constructionism are not incompatible: Implications of a
reframing. Theory and Psychology, 21(3), 396–411. doi:10.1177/0959354310380302.
Pavlovic, J. (2015). Imagining possible futures: Scenarios for constructivist psychology. In J. D. Raskin, S. K.
Bridges, J. S. Kahn, J. D. Raskin, S. K. Bridges, & J. S. Kahn (Eds.), Studies in meaning 5: Perturbing the status
quo in constructivist psychology (pp. 221–245). New York, NY: Pace University Press.
Pavlovic, J., & Maksic, S. (2014). Implicitne teorije kreativnosti nastavnika osnovne skole: Studija slucaja [Primary
school teachers’ implicit theories of creativity: A case study]. Psihologija, 47(4), 465–483. doi: 10.2298/
PSI1404465P.
 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CREATIVITY 273

Pavlovic, J., Maksic, S., & Bodroza, B. (2013). Implicit individualism in teachers’ theories of creativity: Through the
“Four P’s” looking glass. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 23(1), 39–57.
Pope, M., & Denicolo, P. (2015). From periphery to core. In D. Winter & N. Reed (Eds.) The Wiley Handbook of
Personal Construct Psychology (pp. 331–351). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Raskin, J. D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social
constructionism. In J. D. Raskin & S. K. Bridges (Eds.), Studies in meaning: Exploring constructivist psychology
(pp. 1–25). New York, NY: Pace University Press.
Raskin, J. D. (2016). Personal construct psychology in relation to an integrative constructivism. In D. Winter &
N. Reed (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of personal construct psychology (pp. 34–44). London, UK: Wiley
Blackwell.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.
Richards, R. (1999). The four P’s of creativity. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp.
733–742). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A. (1989). Parents’ and teachers’ ratings of the creativity of children. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 4, 73–83.
Runco, M. (1999). Implicit theories. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 27–30). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A., & Johnson, D. (2002). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s creativity: A cross-cultural
perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 427–438. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1434_12.
Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and everyday creativity. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 20, 93–98. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1986.tb00423.x.
Runco, M. A., Johnson, D., & Bear, P. K. (1993). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s creativity.
Child Study Journal, 23(2), 91–113.
Seng, Q. K., Keung, H. K., & Cheng, S. K. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity: A comparison of student-teachers
in Hong Kong and Singapore. Compare, 38(1), 71–86. doi:10.1080/03057920701419959.
Seo, H., Lee, E., & Kim, K. (2005). Korean science teachers’ understanding of creativity in gifted education.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 16, 98–105.
Sharma Sen, R., & Sharma, N. (2011). Through multiple lenses: Implicit theories of creativity among Indian children
and adults. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(4), 273–302. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01431.x.
Spiel, C., & Korff, C. (1998). Implicit theories of creativity: The conceptions of politicians, scientists, artists and
school teachers. High Ability Studies, 9(1), 43–59.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49(3), 607–627. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607.
Viney, L. L. (1992). Can we see ourselves changing? Toward a personal construct model of adult development.
Human Development, 35(2), 65–75. doi:10.1159/000277134.
What About Serbia? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country/serbia/