Influência de variáveis sociodemográficas no desempenho criativo: impacto no contexto educacional
The influence of sociodemographic variables on creative performance: educational impact
Influencia de variables sociodemográficas en el desempeño creativo: impacto educacional
Tatiana
de Cássia Nakano
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Campinas – SP, Brazil.
Received: January 06, 2026
Accepted: June 18, 2026
Published: June 24, 2026
RESUMO
Considerando que a literatura tem indicado que a criatividade sofre influência de variáveis sociodemográficas, o estudo avaliou a influência das variáveis gênero, escolaridade, região de moradia e faixa etária no potencial criativo de adolescentes, adultos e idosos. Participantes com idades entre 14 e 87 anos, de ambos os gêneros, provenientes da região Sudeste e Nordeste e diferentes níveis de escolaridade, em um total de 793, compuseram a amostra. Os participantes responderam ao Teste de Criatividade Figural versão adolescente e adultos (TCF-AA). Resultados do teste Mann-Whitney e Kruskall-Wallis indicaram a influência do gênero no fator enriquecimento de ideias e pontuação total, da região de moradia no fator emocional, sendo que escolaridade e faixa etária influenciaram, de forma significativa, os quatro fatores e pontuação total. Os resultados confirmam a necessidade de levar em consideração as características sociodemográficas específicas da população ao avaliar a criatividade. Esse resultado podem ajudar a proporcionar uma avaliação justa dessa habilidade, bem como uma base científica para estimulá-la em diferentes níveis educacionais.
Palavras-chave: Potencial Criativo; Avaliação; Educação.
ABSTRACT
Considering that the literature has indicated that creativity is influenced by sociodemographic variables, the study evaluated the influence of the variables gender, education level, region of residence, and age group on the creative potential of adolescents, adults, and older adults. A total of 793 participants, aged between 14 and 87 years, of both genders, from the Southeast and Northeast regions of Brazil, made up the sample. Participants completed the Figural Creativity Test – adolescent and adult version (TCF-AA). Results from the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests indicated the influence of gender on the idea enrichment factor and total score, and of region of residence on the emotional factor, whereas education level and age group significantly influenced all four factors and the total score. The results confirm the need to take the population’s specific sociodemographic characteristics into account when assessing creativity. This finding can help provide a fair assessment of this skill, as well as a scientific basis for fostering it at different educational levels.
Keywords: Creative Potential; Assessment; Education.
RESUMEN
Considerando que una literatura tem indica que a criatividade sofre influência de variáveis sociodemográficas, o estudo avaliou a influência das variáveis gênero, escolaridade, região de moradia e faixa etária no potencial criativo de adolescentes, adultos e idosos. Participantes con edades entre 14 y 87 años, de ambos géneros, provenientes de la región Sudeste y Nordeste y diferentes niveles de escolaridad, en un total de 793, compuseram a mostra. Los participantes respondieron al Teste de Criatividade Figural versión adolescente y adultos (TCF-AA). Los resultados de las pruebas de Mann-Whitney y Kruskall-Wallis indican que la influencia del género no es un factor de enriquecimiento de ideas y de pontuação total, la región de moradia no es un factor emocional, ya que la escolaridad y la faixa etária influyen, de forma significativa, en los cuatro factores y el pontuação total. Los resultados confirman la necesidad de tomar en consideración las características sociodemográficas específicas de la población para evaluar la criatividad. Este resultado puede ayudar a proporcionar una evaluación justa de sus habilidades, ya que es una base científica para estimular la educación en diferentes niveles.
Palabras clave: Potencial Criativo; Evaluación; Educacíon.
Introduction
Creativity has been valued, as never before, as an essential skill by researchers from different fields (Green et al., 2023), constituting a growing area of research. According to these authors, different sectors such as education, the arts, research, and industry have increasingly invested in understanding this construct, as well as its assessment and development. Together with critical thinking, communication, and collaboration, creativity has been highlighted as one of the essential skills of the 21st century (Grey; Morris, 2022).
Such is its importance that the assessment of this characteristic was included in the Programme for International Student Assessment in 2022, involving 140,000 15-year-old students from more than 60 countries (Kapoor; Kaufman, 2025). The assessment was conceived with the aim of providing policymakers with reliable data to guide evidence-based decisions applied to educational policies and innovative pedagogies, so as to foster creativity within educational systems and prepare individuals for future challenges (Cuesta-Hincapie; Salamanda, 2025).
Among the various definitions of creativity, it can be understood as the capacity to produce novel, unusual, and appropriate responses within a social context (Plucker et al., 2004). This skill has proven essential for the 21st century, as it allows individuals to expand their capacity to respond flexibly to new demands and situations (Domingues, 2024).
Unlike traditional conceptions that link creativity solely to major innovations or works of art, it is necessary to understand that creativity is a skill present in all individuals, at least as potential, and that it can even be developed and expanded under appropriate environmental conditions (Diawati; Ausat; Augustin, 2023). Consequently, educational policies in different countries have devoted attention to creativity, aiming to promote this skill in schools.
The development of creativity can occur through the direct and active teaching of personality characteristics associated with the creative person (e.g., tolerance of ambiguity, openness to experience, and mental flexibility) and creative techniques, as well as through indirect means, such as developing contexts that support creativity (Thornhill-Miller et al., 2023). It is also important to consider that creativity can manifest itself at different levels and in different domains (verbal, figural, musical, bodily, among others), such that one cannot think of a single type of creativity (Ivcevic; Kaufman, 2024).
Given the multidimensionality of creativity, the literature has shown that the environment can influence its expression, either positively or negatively. In other words, an individual's interactions within a social and cultural context are important aspects of creative expression (Andrade; Barros; Ramlackhan, 2024). In recent years, there has been growing recognition that creativity needs to be understood in light of the context in which it manifests itself (Beineke, 2011).
This is because creativity is jointly influenced by contextual and social factors, particularly the type of experiences lived, and exposure and stimuli for creative expression (Acar et al., 2023), with blocks to creativity potentially arising from individual characteristics, the sociocultural environment, and the school environment (Berg; Vestena; Costa-Lobo, 2020). In this sense, researchers from various countries have been pointing to the need to promote conditions favorable to creative expression, so that the creative potential present in each individual can develop more adequately (Kaufman et al., 2011).
In this way, creativity could be seen as a resource through which individuals can compensate for the social and cultural differences of the environment in which they live, enabling them to solve problems (Sierra et al., 2015). Moreover, it has shown an important relationship with life outcomes, including the maintenance of emotional well-being, coping with risks and challenges, and serving as a tool to help overcome difficulties (Oliveira et al., 2016).
It should be noted that sociocultural factors influence creative potential, such that research on this topic has reinforced the importance of the social, historical, and cultural context in the creative process (Nakano et al., 2014). From this perspective, creativity cannot be understood by isolating the individual from their context. It is thus recognized that creativity is socially defined through the interaction between contextual factors (available resources, beliefs, values, traditions, and socioeconomic, social, political, educational, cultural, and family factors) and personal factors (personality, intelligence, knowledge, and experience) specific to the environment, which can exert a considerable influence on an individual's creative potential (Kharkhurin, 2010; Meintjes; Grosser, 2010).
Furthermore, it is necessary to understand that creativity is a multidimensional construct, influenced by both intrinsic and environmental factors, and thus has a complex relationship with culture (Shao et al., 2019). The present study investigates differences in creative performance arising from the variables of gender, age, education level, and region of residence.
Influence of gender on creativity
Gender differences in creativity have proven to be a controversial and complex issue that has been intensively investigated for at least four decades without any consensus being reached (Nakano; Oliveira; Zaia, 2021). Different developmental trends according to gender have been reported (Alfonso-Benlliure; Santos, 2016; Lau; Cheung, 2010), explained by differences in socioenvironmental factors, including socialization practices and differentiated educational expectations and opportunities (Said-Metwaly et al., 2021a).
In general, the literature has highlighted the absence of consistent differences favoring one gender or the other (Baer, 1999; Baer; Kaufman, 2006; Reese et al., 2001; Kaufman et al., 2010). A review of 194 studies conducted by Taylor et al. (2024) demonstrated the existence of minimal and inconsistent differences between the creative achievements of men and women, varying according to creative domain, task type, scoring type, and study region. However, differences were also found in the review conducted by Nakano et al. (2021), since the analysis of 133 studies indicated that most of them reported gender differences, most commonly favoring women. Finally, a review by Kim et al. (2024) showed that men and women differ in creativity in terms of the type of support for its expression; after a meta-analysis of 753 samples, they found that women are more creative due to empathy, while men are more creative due to greater risk-taking. Based on these studies, it can be seen that literature reviews also fail to reach consensus.
Although most studies do not indicate differences between men and women in creative potential, women show fewer creative achievements (Taylor; Barbot, 2021). That is, when awards or creative recognition in different fields are analyzed, a predominance of men can be observed (Stoutzfus et al., 2011), such that women are more often not recognized and face gender inequality at the professional, personal, and sociocultural levels, namely, barriers to opportunities, attaining prominent positions, and earning potential compared to men (Ginis; Stewart; Kronborg, 2023). In other words, although women show creative potential at a level equal to that of men, their output is less valued and recognized (Nakano; Wechsler, 2025). This situation can be understood if we consider that, in most cultures, traits associated with the male gender are more strongly associated with creative performance (Li et al., 2024).
Various reasons have been found, ranging from the historical predominance of creativity research on male individuals (Eisler; Montuori, 2007), lack of environmental support, differing societal demands and expectations, and gatekeeping in many fields by men, which has hindered women's achievements in almost all domains (Baer; Kaufman, 2006). Furthermore, Matud et al. (2007) argue that research seems to indicate that the explanation for gender differences in creative performance appears to result mainly from a combination of environmental factors: (1) historical gender differences in access to education and resources, (2) different expectations for men and women, and (3) different standards in judging creative products developed by each gender.
Thus, studies on gender differences in creativity remain limited, and it is not exactly known whether educational and sociodemographic factors exert an equal influence on the creative thinking of men and women, so this issue deserves further investigation (Matud et al., 2007). This kind of finding gives rise to the need to encourage the development of a broader model that considers the creative traits and domains present in both genders (Kaufman et al., 2010).
Influence of age on creativity
The investigation of the relationship between age and creativity has proven to be a topic of great interest to researchers (Amabile, 1996). However, despite decades of research on this issue, doubts remain about the developmental trajectory of creativity across the lifespan (Barbot et al., 2016; Lau; Cheng, 2010).
In general, it might be expected that children and adolescents would increase their creativity as they age, since cognitive maturation and educational and social experiences become richer (Said-Metwaly et al., 2021a). However, the literature has indicated that periods of creative slumps and jumps would occur during childhood and adult life, indicating moments of progress and regression (Gralewscki et al., 2016), although there is no consensus regarding the number, magnitude, duration, and timing of these moments.
Three important slumps are commonly reported, occurring around 5–6 years of age (Torrance, 1968), 9–10 years of age (Darwish; Pakdaman, 2012), and 12 years of age (Said-Metwaly et al., 2021a). The first would result from entry into formal education (Krampen, 2012) and the need to respect authority, follow rules, the limitation of spontaneous play, the demands of school discipline, and the stimulation of convergent thinking (Gralewscki et al., 2016). The second would be even more pronounced, resulting from expectations of passive classroom conduct, the encouragement of correct answers, and the pursuit of social approval, such that children become afraid of engaging in creative activities that might result in rejection (Gralewscki et al., 2016). Conformity comes to be valued over divergence and novelty (Saggar et al., 2019). Finally, the slump around age 12 would result from the strengthening of logical thinking, conflict between conformity and individuality, the pursuit of acceptance by significant others, physiological changes stemming from adolescence, and the development of independence and personal identity, conditions that can lead to a decrease in creativity (Gralewscki et al., 2016).
Studies focused on investigating the relationship between age and creativity in adult life have, in most cases, found no evidence (Madjar et al., 2002) or even a negative relationship between these variables (Zhou, 2003) characterizing a decline due to aging. There appears to be a disadvantage for older adults with regard to creativity (Alpaugh et al., 1981), given the decrease in information-processing speed and lower willingness to risk original solutions (Ruth; Birren, 1985). Moreover, there is evidence of social judgment related to age stereotyping, as people persistently rate the creativity of an older person more negatively compared to that of a younger person (Oh et al., 2023). This commonly involves the negative notion that older adults have limited judgment capacity, as well as difficulties in establishing strategies for carrying out processes and low motivation for dealing with uncertainty (Chan; Cheng; Ng, 2013). In this context, Shimonaka and Nakazato (2007) report that quantitative creativity, as measured by performance tests, declines with age, but creativity assessed qualitatively does not.
The literature has shown changes in creativity with age, especially related to changes in personal characteristics associated with creativity (Abra, 1989), with substantial variation across domains. When analyzing Nobel Prize winners, for example, Jones and Weinberg (2011) found that physicists made important contributions at earlier ages than chemists or medical scientists. In the same vein, developmental trends have been found to vary according to the aspect of creativity being assessed (Barbot et al., 2019). For example, when comparing sixth-grade elementary school students and university students, performance varies according to domain. University students perform better on real-life problems, while the former perform better on figural tasks, with no difference found for verbal creativity.
These findings, however, are not universally accepted, and studies have also been reported that found no relationship between age and creativity (Amabile et al., 2005; Eder; Sawyer, 2007; Madjar et al., 2002) or even a negative relationship (Zhou, 2003). A meta-analytic review conducted by Eder and Sawyer (2007) showed that results vary widely across studies and that this relationship can be moderated by other factors (Binnewies; Ohly; Niessen, 2008).
Influence of education level on creativity
Similarly, education level can influence creativity (Acar et al., 2023). Some studies have indicated a continuous upward trajectory in creativity across all levels of education (Hong; Milgram, 2010; Said-Metwaly et al., 2021a). Other studies indicate an irregular trajectory, marked by significant slumps at certain periods (Kim, 2011), especially in the 4th grade (Darvishi; Pakdaman, 2012; Lubart; Georgsdottir, 2004; Torrance, 1967), and it is important to note that inconsistencies regarding the existence and timing of these slumps characterize this issue.
Some of the possible causes for these slumps include the possibility that they occur during periods of school transition (e.g., when children move from elementary school to high school), when children and adolescents have to deal with the stress and demands imposed by the new school system (Torrance, 1967). The need to adjust to the new reality, along with a greater need for awareness of social rules and of the need for acceptance, would lead children to provide appropriate responses that meet social norms or expectations, rather than providing unique or unusual responses, thereby exerting pressure toward conformity that runs counter to creativity (Gralewski et al., 2016; Kim, 2011).
Other explanations relate to a cognitive shift. Between the ages of 9 and 10, creativity would decline due to the need for more intensive use of logical thinking and the effect of hormonal changes, changes in brain structures, and identity development (Said-Metwaly et al., 2021a). Such decreases would be temporary and followed by recovery. However, a review study conducted by the authors indicated that no evidence of a 4th-grade slump was found in the studies analyzed, with such a slump instead being observed in the 7th grade. Similar results have been reported by other researchers (Jastrzębska; Limont, 2017; Lau; Cheung, 2010), explained by neurobiological changes stemming from puberty and the emergence of hypothetical and abstract reasoning. Periods of decline in creative performance are commonly observed, especially in the fourth grade of elementary school (Acar et al., 2023).
Influence of region of residence on creativity
According to Shao et al. (2019), creativity is present in all cultures, although its definition and attributes vary depending on a set of existing representations, concepts, symbols, rules, and notions, such that culture can be understood as an important factor that determines and recognizes the creativity of individuals or groups in various settings.
However, despite this observation, a still limited number of studies have investigated the influence of sociocultural factors on creativity. Tsai (2012) argues that most studies are based on comparisons between cultural groups, notably Western and Eastern groups, noting that another type of study, still little explored, focuses on the analysis of subgroups. This observation is grounded in the recognition that nations are not homogeneous, with cultural variations between groups within the same country standing out as an important point to be examined.
On this issue, Wechsler (2001) highlights the need to identify and promote creativity while respecting the specific characteristics of each nation. Thinking specifically about the case of Brazil, one of the most striking features of our society concerns its great cultural richness. In a country of continental dimensions, differences are numerous, whether historical, cultural, or economic, which is why it becomes a challenge to grasp the degree of diversity present in the country's various regions (Fernandes, 2001). For this reason, multiculturalism has been brought to the fore in more recent debates, given the need to understand society as constituted by plural identities based on the diversity of races, genders, social classes, cultural and linguistic patterns, abilities, and other markers (Canen; Oliveira, 2002), with the regional differences present in Brazil standing out. Differences due to cultural aspects are commonly reported in the scientific literature, most often comparing Western and Eastern countries. The results show that countries that value collectivism and conformity (usually Eastern countries) exhibit lower creativity than those marked by individualism and autonomy (Western countries).
Given the recommendations of the scientific literature, according to which researchers have reinforced the importance of not disregarding the impact of cultural differences and educational systems on creativity (Kapoor; Tagat, 2025), and given the differences in creative expression pointed out in the theoretical review conducted, the present study aimed to evaluate the influence of sociodemographic variables on the creative performance of adolescents, adults, and older adults. More specifically, it sought to investigate the influence of gender, age group, education level, and region of residence.
Method
Participants
The sample was composed of 793 participants, aged between 14 and 87 years (M = 29.8; SD = 20.51), from two Brazilian regions: Southeast (n = 438) and Northeast (n = 355). Of these, 52.7% were female. Participants had different levels of education, namely: elementary education (ensino fundamental – EF)[1] (n = 124), high school (ensino médio – EM) (n = 452), and higher education (ensino superior – ES) (n = 217).
Instrument
Figural Creativity Test – adolescent and adult version (Teste de Criatividade Figural – versão adolescentes e adultos – TCF-AA) (Nakano, 2024).
The instrument consists of two activities in which incomplete stimuli are provided that must be completed in the form of drawings. In the first activity, participants are asked to complete a series of ten different stimuli, and in the second, to produce as many drawings as possible from the same stimulus (repeated 30 times).
The test enables the assessment of figural creativity by scoring 12 creative characteristics based on the drawings produced: fluency (number of relevant ideas offered by the subject), flexibility (diversity of types or categories of ideas), elaboration (addition of details to the basic drawing), originality (unusual ideas), expression of emotion (expression of feelings in the drawings or titles), fantasy (presence of imaginary beings, fairy tales, or science fiction), movement (expression of movement in the drawings or titles), unusual perspective (drawings made from unusual angles), internal perspective (an internal view of objects in the form of transparency), use of context (creation of a setting for the drawing), extending boundaries (extending the stimuli before completing the drawings), and expressive titles (going beyond the obvious description of the drawing, abstracting it).
These characteristics are grouped into four factors: F1 = idea enrichment; F2 = external aspects; F3 = cognitive aspects; and F4 = emotional aspects, in addition to a total score (Nakano; Batagin; Fusaro, 2022). These factors make it possible to identify the strongest and weakest areas of an individual's creative potential.
Procedures
The present study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the host institution. All participants signed the Free and Informed Consent Form (Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido – TCLE) as a requirement for participation in the research. For participants under 18 years of age, the TCLE was signed by their parents/guardians, who also signed the Assent Form (Termo de Assentimento).
The tests were administered in person, either individually or collectively, in a single session with an estimated duration of 30 minutes. The tests were scored by undergraduate research, master's, and doctoral students after training. Each participant's results were estimated for the four factors and the total score, and were entered into a single spreadsheet.
Data analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using JASP software, version 0.16.3. Results with p ≤ 0.05 were considered significant. Data were first analyzed to verify their normality. The Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that the distribution was not normal (p < 0.001) for all factors and the total score. Non-parametric analyses were therefore used.
Descriptive statistics for the four creativity factors and the total score were estimated (mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum), and the influence of the variables gender and region was subsequently investigated using the Mann-Whitney test. In these cases, effect size was also calculated. The variables education level and age group were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and in cases that proved significant, a post hoc test was applied to identify between which groups the differences were significant.
In addition, the effect size of the mean differences between groups was calculated using Cohen's d. The reference values used for interpretation follow those presented by Espírito-Santo and Daniel (2015): values below 0.19 are considered negligible, values between 0.20 and 0.49 indicate a small effect, between 0.50 and 0.79 a medium effect, between 0.80 and 1.29 a large effect, and values above 1.30 represent a very large effect.
Results
Descriptive statistics by gender were first estimated, together with the Mann-Whitney test, to verify whether the means showed significant differences between groups. The results, presented in Table 1, indicated that differences were found for Factor 1 (Idea Enrichment) and the total score.
Table 1 - Descriptive statistics, mean difference test, and effect size by gender
|
Measure |
Group |
Mean |
SD |
U |
p |
Effect size |
|
F1 |
F |
37.90 |
23.78 |
9981.50 |
< 0.001 |
0.274 |
|
M |
27.27 |
19.01 |
||||
|
F2 |
F |
6.61 |
7.30 |
73326.50 |
0.116 |
-0.064 |
|
M |
7.11 |
6.35 |
||||
|
F3 |
F |
43.69 |
16.85 |
82613.50 |
0.188 |
0.054 |
|
M |
42.12 |
16.24 |
||||
|
F4 |
F |
2.48 |
17.62 |
82408.50 |
0.118 |
0.051 |
|
M |
1.58 |
10.44 |
||||
|
Total |
F |
88.96 |
39.83 |
92161.00 |
< 0.001 |
0.176 |
|
M |
77.06 |
34.74 |
Source: prepared by the author. Note: F = female (n = 418); M = male (n = 375); F1 = idea enrichment, F2 = external aspects, F3 = cognitive aspects, and F4 = emotional aspects.
The results for Factor 1 and the total creativity score are significantly different between female and male participants. In both cases, female participants showed higher means, with negligible and small effect sizes, respectively.
Next, the influence of region of residence was investigated. The sample was divided between Southeast (n = 438) and Northeast (n = 355). The Mann-Whitney test was applied again. The results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 - Descriptive statistics, mean difference test, and effect size by region of residence
|
Measure |
Group |
M |
SD |
U |
p |
Effect size |
|
F1 |
Northeast |
33.49 |
19.72 |
83993.000 |
0.051 |
0.080 |
|
Southeast |
32.38 |
24.18 |
||||
|
F2 |
Northeast |
7.17 |
7.12 |
84586.500 |
0.032 |
0.052 |
|
Southeast |
6.58 |
6.65 |
||||
|
F3 |
Northeast |
44.04 |
16.24 |
81803.000 |
0.206 |
0.052 |
|
Southeast |
42.06 |
16.80 |
||||
|
F4 |
Northeast |
2.97 |
18.76 |
79125.000 |
0.592 |
0.018 |
|
Southeast |
1.32 |
10.18 |
||||
|
Total |
Northeast |
85.38 |
34.98 |
82891.500 |
0.109 |
0.066 |
|
Southeast |
81.68 |
40.17 |
Source: prepared by the author. Note: F1 = idea enrichment, F2 = external aspects, F3 = cognitive aspects, and F4 = emotional aspects.
The results indicated significant mean differences in Factor 2 (external aspects), favoring the group from the Northeast, with a negligible effect size. No significant differences were found in the other factors or in the total score.
Next, the influence of education level was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Three groups were compared: elementary education (EF) (n = 124), high school (EM) (n = 452), and higher education (ES) (n = 217). For classification purposes, both those currently enrolled in each level and those who had already completed it were considered. The results can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3 - Descriptive statistics, mean difference test, and effect size by education level
|
Measure |
Group |
Mean |
SD |
X2 |
df |
p |
|
F1 |
EF |
14.04 |
11.53 |
160.824 |
2 |
< 0.001 |
|
EM |
33.59 |
20.28 |
||||
|
ES |
42.15 |
24.40 |
||||
|
F2 |
EF |
4.06 |
5.57 |
50.927 |
2 |
< 0.001 |
|
EM |
7.47 |
7.27 |
||||
|
ES |
7.13 |
6.29 |
||||
|
F3 |
EF |
33.76 |
16.09 |
42.720 |
2 |
< 0.001 |
|
EM |
44.52 |
16.73 |
||||
|
ES |
44.93 |
14.76 |
||||
|
F4 |
EF |
0.13 |
0.53 |
33.096 |
2 |
< 0.001 |
|
EM |
2.76 |
17.82 |
||||
|
ES |
1.69 |
11.07 |
||||
|
Total |
EF |
52.00 |
26.13 |
119.715 |
2 |
< 0.001 |
|
EM |
86.27 |
36.15 |
||||
|
ES |
95.14 |
37.98 |
Source: prepared by the author. Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; df = degrees of freedom; F1 = idea enrichment, F2 = external aspects, F3 = cognitive aspects, and F4 = emotional aspects.
The results indicated significant differences in all factors and in the total score in relation to education level. Higher means varied between groups: in F1, F3, and the total score, they were significantly higher for higher education (ES), whereas in F2 and F4 they were higher for high school (EM).
A more in-depth analysis showed, in the Tukey post hoc test, that in F1 the differences between all groups were significant. In F2, only between EF and EM (t = -4.967; p < 0.001) and between EF and ES (t = -4.030; p < 0.001). In F3, between EF and EM (t = -6.592; p < 0.001) and between EF and ES (t = -6.157; p < 0.001). In F4, none of the pairwise comparisons were significant. In the total score, between EF and EM (t = -9.573; p < 0.001), between EF and ES (t = -10.853; p < 0.001), and between EM and ES (t = -3.043; p = 0.007).
Finally, the influence of age group was also investigated. Participants were grouped into four age brackets: adolescents up to 18 years old (n = 324), young adults between 19 and 30 years old (n = 269), adults between 31 and 59 years old (n = 38), and older adults above 60 years old (n = 161). The Kruskal-Wallis test was applied (Table 4).
Table 4 - Descriptive statistics, mean difference test, and effect size by age group
|
Measure |
Group |
M |
SD |
X2 |
df |
p |
|
F1 |
Up to 18 |
28.14 |
19.08 |
206.099 |
3 |
< 0.001 |
|
19–30 |
45.26 |
21.78 |
||||
|
31–50 |
46.47 |
28.18 |
||||
|
60+ |
18.48 |
13.75 |
||||
|
F2 |
Up to 18 |
8.00 |
7.27 |
197.124 |
3 |
< 0.001 |
|
19–30 |
8.17 |
6.00 |
||||
|
31–50 |
7.73 |
10.22 |
||||
|
60+ |
2.13 |
3.73 |
||||
|
F3 |
Up to 18 |
44.27 |
16.58 |
84.410 |
3 |
< 0.001 |
|
19–30 |
46.97 |
14.30 |
||||
|
31–50 |
46.13 |
20.16 |
||||
|
60+ |
32.82 |
15.21 |
||||
|
F4 |
Up to 18 |
3.00 |
18.45 |
68.776 |
3 |
< 0.001 |
|
19–30 |
1.34 |
9.37 |
||||
|
31–50 |
7.39 |
30.65 |
||||
|
60+ |
0.11 |
0.53 |
||||
|
Total |
Up to 18 |
81.15 |
34.79 |
191.653 |
3 |
< 0.001 |
|
19–30 |
101.20 |
34.16 |
||||
|
31–50 |
101.81 |
46.34 |
||||
|
60+ |
53.55 |
26.75 |
Source: prepared by the author. Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; df = degrees of freedom; F1 = idea enrichment, F2 = external aspects, F3 = cognitive aspects, and F4 = emotional aspects.
According to Table 4, it can be seen that differences between age groups are significant for all factors and the total test score. For most measures, with the exception of F1, means are higher in the group aged between 19 and 30 years. Only in F1 are they higher in the 31–50 age bracket.
Discussion
Considering that creativity is a potential present in all individuals (Berg et al., 2020), that it can manifest at different levels (Acar et al., 2020), and that its expression can be influenced by various factors, including sociodemographic factors, the present study was conducted with the aim of identifying the influence of the variables gender, age group, region of residence, and education level on a measure of figural creativity.
By recognizing its multidimensional nature (Hernández-Torrano; Ibrayeva, 2020), which includes, among other aspects, cognitive processes, personality traits, and environmental influences (Said-Metwaly et al., 2021b), the study sought to contribute scientific evidence regarding the factors that can influence creative expression. Among the main ones, the presence of a welcoming environment favorable to new ideas, which offers opportunities to raise questions and is marked by freedom of expression, regardless of the sociodemographic characteristics of those generating the ideas, tends to favor creative expression (Andrade; Barros; Ramlackhan, 2024).
Especially in the educational context, the need to develop creative individuals can be achieved by including this objective in educational plans, from basic education to the highest levels of higher education (Gontijo, 2007). By identifying the sociodemographic factors that influence creativity, it is hoped that this knowledge can be used, for example, to inform the development of strategies aimed at encouraging and developing creativity at all levels of education, taking into account the particularities of the target audience.
Before discussing these results, it is worth noting that figural creativity, as assessed in this study, has proven to be an appropriate measure for assessing a wide age range, levels of education, and different cultures (Jobirovna, 2023; Nakano et al., 2025).
Among the variables investigated, the results indicated that participant gender influences one of the factors (Factor 1 – idea enrichment) and the total creativity score. Female participants showed more elaborate responses than male participants, presenting more refined and well-planned ideas (Nakano, 2024). They also stood out on the instrument's total score, showing an ability to generate many ideas in response to a problem, working on ideas to improve and complement them in an original way and from a different point of view. Although the reported female superiority confirms the findings of several studies (Alencar, 1975; Dudek et al., 1993; Fleith; Alencar, 2006; Kaufman et al., 2010; Kim; Michael, 1995; Krumm; Lemos; Filippett, 2014; Lin; Wong, 2014; Nakano; Wechsler, 2006; Osborn, 1975; Rejskind; Rapagna; Gold, 1992; Rosa; Qualls; Ruth, 2014; Shimonaka; Nakazato, 2007; Wechsler et al., 2010), it is not universally accepted in the literature.
Considering region of residence, significant differences were observed only in F2, with higher means in the group from the Northeast. People who perform well on this factor find it easy to visualize their ideas in non-traditional ways, including different perspectives and points of view. They are able to use their imagination to perceive problems in different ways (Nakano, 2024). Moreover, they are also open to visualizing ideas beyond an external characteristic, paying attention to the internal workings and dynamics of things. The recognition of differences due to region of residence confirms Tsai's (2012) observation that variations in creativity due to cultural factors are found among groups within the same country. Especially in Brazil, these findings reinforce the need for the specific characteristics of each region and the country's diversity to be recognized (Fernandes, 2001; Wechsler, 2001).
With regard to education level, differences are found in all factors and in the total score. Interestingly, participants with elementary education did not stand out on any of the measures. Sometimes participants with high school education, sometimes those with higher education, showed higher means, a finding that confirms the literature indicating that education level can influence creativity (Acar et al., 2023). It is worth emphasizing, however, that most research with this aim focuses on investigating children's creativity across different grades, especially in elementary school, and that studies comparing different levels of education are scarce. This may be an important contribution of the present study.
Finally, the influence of age group showed that means were significantly higher in the group aged between 19 and 30 years. Interestingly, the oldest age bracket showed the lowest means on all measures. This pattern reinforces the notion of older adults' creative disadvantage and the stereotypes involved (Alpaugh et al., 1981; Chan et al., 2013; Oh et al., 2023).
When considering the realities and differences found due to sociodemographic characteristics, we can think about an environment that favors this skill, bearing in mind that it only manifests and develops through the integration of elements internal and external to the individual (Tavares; Suanno; De la Torre, 2024).
In the educational context, the assessment of creativity can help teachers get to know students' characteristics, promote an environment favorable to its expression in the classroom, help ensure that this skill is included in the school curriculum, and provide information that can be used to plan programs aimed at developing students' creativity (Long; Wang, 2022; Nakano; Wechsler, 2018; Puccio; Murdock, 1999). Knowledge of the aspects that impact creative expression can help researchers discover strengths and weaknesses in individuals and ways to stimulate these skills in people with particular profiles (Treffinger et al., 2013).
Taken together, the findings point to sociodemographic variables that can influence the creative expression of individuals with different profiles. Thus, by verifying that differences are found in relation to participants' gender, education level, region of residence, and age group, these data can be used to inform the design of strategies for developing and stimulating creativity suited to people with different profiles.
Final Considerations
By investigating the influence of sociodemographic variables on creative expression, the present study sought to deepen discussions found in the scientific literature that, to date, have not reached consensus among researchers. In this sense, it is important to note that the data from the Brazilian sample reproduce international findings, thereby confirming that creativity depends not only on individual characteristics but also on environmental elements.
Despite the importance of the results reported here, caution is recommended in generalizing them, since some limitations were present. Among these, we can highlight, in particular, the composition of the sample. Participants from only two Brazilian regions made up the sample, so different results might be found if the remaining regions were included in future studies. Likewise, it should be noted that creativity is a domain-specific construct, and only figural creativity was assessed in this study. Other forms of creative expression may yield different results.
It is hoped that studies aimed at investigating the aspects that influence creative expression will increasingly be conducted in the country, so that their findings can guide practices better suited to the development of this skill, which is so highly valued nowadays in a wide range of contexts, especially considering the sociodemographic diversity found in Brazil.
References
ABRA, Jock. Changes in creativity with age: data, explanations, and further predictions. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, vol. 28, no. 2, p. 105–126, 1989. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2190/E0YT-K1YQ-3T2T-Y3EQ. Accessed on: Feb. 15, 2025.
ACAR, Selcuk; TADIK, Harun; UYSAL, Recep; MYERS, Danielle; INETAS, Betul. Socio-economic status and creativity: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 57, no. 1, p. 138-172, 2023. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.568. Accessed on: Nov. 11, 2025.
ALENCAR, Eunice Maria Lima Soriano de. Efeitos de um programa de treinamento de criatividade em alunos de 4a e 5a séries. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia Aplicada, vol. 27, no. 4, p. 3-15, 1975. Available at: https://periodicos.fgv.br/abpa/article/download/17533/16278. Accessed on: May 21, 2024.
ALPAUGH, Patricia Kay; PARHAM, Iris A.; COLE, Kenneth D.; BIRREN, J. E. Creativity in adulthood and old age: an exploratory study. Educational Gerontology, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 101–116, 1982. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0380127820080202. Accessed on: Jul. 10, 2025.
AMABILE, Teresa M. Creativity in Context: Update to ‘The Social Psychology of Creativity’. Westview Press, Boulder, 1996.
AMABILE, Teresa M.; BARSADE, Sigal G.; MUELLER, Jennifer S.; STAW, Barru M. Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 3, p. 367-403, 2005. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367. Accessed on: Feb. 23, 2025.
ANDRADE, Klesia Garcia; BARROS, Matheus Henrique da Fonseca.; RAMLACKHAN, Karen. Criatividade e Aprendizagem Baseada em Problemas: ressignificando a formação inicial de professores de música. Educação, Santa Maria,, vol. 49, no. 1, p. e8/1–28, 2024. Available at: https://periodicos.ufsm.br/reveducacao/article/view/74429. Accessed on: Nov. 17, 2025.
BARBOT, Baptiste; LUBART, Todd I.; BESANÇON, Maud. Peaks, slumps, and bumps: Individual differences in the development of creativity in children and adolescents. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, vol. 151, p. 33–45, 2016. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20152. Accessed on: Mar. 26, 2025.
BARBOT, Baptiste; KAUFMAN, James C. PISA 2022 creative thinking assessment: opportunities, challenges, and cautions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2025. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.70003. Accessed on: Nov. 11, 2025.
BEINEKE, Viviane. Aprendizagem criativa e educação musical: trajetórias de pesquisa e perspectivas educacionais. Educação, Santa Maria, vol. 37, no. 1, p. 45–60, 2011. Available at: https://periodicos.ufsm.br/reveducacao/article/view/3763. Accessed on: Nov. 17, 2025.
BERG, Juliana; VESTENA, Carla Luciane Blum; COSTA-LOBO, Cristina. Criatividade na educação: perspectiva complexa. Criar Educação, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 92-112, 2020.
BINNEWIES, Carmen; OHLY, Sandra; NIESSEN, Cornelia. Age and creativity at work: the interplay bewtten resources, age and idea creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 438-457, 2008. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810869042. Accessed on: Apr. 07, 2025.
CHAN, Kara; HUI, Anna; CHENG, Sheung-Tak; NG, Yu Leung. Perceptions of Age and Creativity in the Workforce. The Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 47, no. 4, p. 256-272, 2013. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.34. Accessed on: Jan. 11, 2025.
CUESTA-HINCAPIE, Carolina; SALAMANDA, Sandra Liliana Camargo. Evaluating the Alignment Between PISA 2022 Creative Thinking Scoring Rubric and Creativity Theory: A Validity Framework Perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2025. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.70065. Accessed on: Feb. 01, 2025.
DARVISHI, Zohreh; PAKDAMAN, Shahla. Fourth grade slump in creativity: development of creativity in primary school children. GSTF International Journal of Law and Social Sciences, vol. 1, p. 40–48, 2012. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/a338aa1034360a7ffa75897b9c5b7095/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1036391. Accessed on: Sep. 13, 2024.
DIAWATI, Prety; AUSAT, Abu Muna Almaududi; AUGUSTIN, Jeneva. Creativity: how to develop an entrepreneurial attitude of creativity. Journal on Education, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 11116-11122, 2023. Available at: https://jonedu.org/index.php/joe/article/view/2036/1691. Accessed on: Jun. 10, 2024.
DOMINGUES, Jonathan Machado. A conceituação da criatividade: uma análise do seminário ’O Processo Criativo’ (UNICAMP, 1987). Periferia, vol. 16, no. 1, p. e77124, 2024. Available at: https://doi.org/10.12957/periferia.2024.77124. Accessed on: May 14, 2025.
DUDEK, Stephanie Z.; STROBEL, M. G.; RUNCO, Mark A. Cumulative and proximal influences on the social environment and children ́s creative potential. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, vol. 154, no. 4, p. 487-499, 1993. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1993.9914747. Accessed on: Feb. 27, 2025.
EDER, Paul; SAWYER, John E. A meta-analytic examination of employee creativity. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference, Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). New York, NY, April, 2007.
FLEITH, Denise de Souza; ALENCAR, Eunice Maria Lima Soriano de. Percepção de alunos do ensino fundamental quanto ao clima de sala de aula para criatividade. Psicologia em Estudo, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 513-521, 2006. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-73722006000300007. Accessed on: Apr. 26, 2025.
GINIS, K.; STEWART, S.E.; KRONBORG, L. Gender and Artistic Creativity: The Perspectives and Experiences of Eminent Female Visual Artists. Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 57, p. 622-649, 2023. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.605. Accessed on: Feb. 23, 2025.
GONTIJO, Cleyton Hércules. Criatividade em Matemática: identificação e promoção de talentos criativos. Educação, Santa Maria, vol. 32, no. 1, 2007. Available at: https://periodicos.ufsm.br/reveducacao/article/view/687. Accessed on: Nov. 17, 2025.
GRALEWSKI, Jacek; LEBUDA, Izabela; GAJDA, Aleksandra; JANKOWSKA, Dorota M.; WIŚNIEWSKA, Ewa. Slumps and jumps: another look at developmental changes in creative abilities. Creativity Theories–Research-Applications, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 152–177, 2016. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2016-0011. Accessed on: Aug. 21, 2025.
GREEN, Adam E.; BEATY, Roger E.; KENETT, Yoed N.; KAUFMAN, James C. The Process Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 36, no. 3, p. 544–572, 2023. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2254573. Accessed on: May 21, 2025.
GREY, S.; MORRIS, P. Capturing the spark: PISA, twenty-first century skills and the reconstruction of creativity. Globalisation, Societies and Education, vol. 22, no. 2, p. 156–171, 2022. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2022.2100981. Accessed on: Nov. 13, 2025.
HERNÁNDEZ-TORRANO, D.; IBRAYEVA, L. Creativity and education: A bibliometric mapping of the research literature (1975–2019). Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 35, e100625, 2020. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100625. Accessed on: Aug. 05, 2025.
IVCEVIC, Zorana; KAUFMAN, James C. Inside the box: Considering the role of appropriateness for creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2024. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000703. Accessed on: Feb. 13, 2025.
JASTRZĘBSKA, Dominika; LIMONT, Wieslawa. Not only jumps, slumps, but also mini plateau. Creative potential assessed by the Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production. A cross-sectional study of polish students aged from 7 to 18. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 29, no. 3, p. 337–342, 2017. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1360060. Accessed on: Nov. 25, 2024.
JOBIROVNA, J. A. How could you measure creativity and innovation? Why? Golden Brain, vol. 1, no. 10, p. 20-24, 2023. Available at: https://researchedu.org/index.php/goldenbrain/article/view/2996/3517. Accessed on: Jul. 27, 2025.
JONES, Benjamin F.; WEINBERG, Bruce A. Age dynamics in scientific literature. PNAS, vol. 108, no. 47, p. 18910-18914. Available at: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1102895108. Accessed on: Feb. 06, 2025.
KAPPOR, Hansika; TAGAT, Anirudh. The importance of context awareness in PISA creativity data. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2025. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.70066. Accessed on: Nov. 11, 2025.
KAUFMAN, James C.; NIU, Weihua, SEXTON, Janel D.; COLE, Jason C. In the eye of the beholder: Differences across ethnicity and gender in evaluating creative work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 40, no. 2, p. 496-511, 2010. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00584.x. Accessed on: Jun. 11, 2025.
KHARKHURIN, Anatoliy V. Sociocultural differences in the relationship between bilinguism and creative potential. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 41, no. 5/6, p. 776-783, 2010. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110361777. Accessed on: Aug. 22, 2024.
KIM, Junghee; MICHAEL, William B. The relationship of creativity measures to school achievement and to preferred learning and thinking style in a sample of Korean high school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 55, no. 1, p. 60-74, 1995. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055001006. Accessed on: Jan. 31, 2024.
KIM, Kyung Hee. The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 285–295, 2011. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805. Accessed on: Sep. 11, 2025.
KIM, J.; VAULONT, M. J.; ZHANG, Z.; BYRON, K. Looking inside the black box of gender differences in creativity: A dual-process model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 109, no. 12, p. 1861–1900, 2024. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001205. Accessed on: Oct. 25, 2025.
KRUMM, Gabriela; LEMOS, Viviana; FILIPPETTI, Vanessa Arán. Factor structure of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Figural Form B in Spanish-speaking children: Measurement invariance across gender. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, p. 72-81, 2014. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.843908. Accessed on: Jul. 24, 2025.
LAU, Sing; CHEUNG, Ping Chung. Developmental trends of creativity: What twists of turn do boys and girls take at different grades? Creativity Research Journal, vol. 22, no. 3, p. 329–336, 2010. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.503543. Accessed on: Feb. 16, 2025.
LI, P.; ZHANG, Z. S.; HOPP, M. D. S.; LUO, L.; WANG, C. Is stereotypical masculinity and femininity in women associated with their creativity? An examination of gender roles and creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2024. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000714. Accessed on: Nov. 17, 2024.
LIN, Shu-Ying; WONG, Chak-Keung Simon. The creativity level of Taiwan hospitality undergraduate students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 144, p. 54-59, 2014. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2014.07.273. Accessed on: Jun. 10, 2025.
LONG, H.; WANG, J. Dissecting Reliability and Validity Evidence of Subjective Creativity Assessment: A Literature Review. Educational Psychology Review, vol. 34, p. 1399–1443, 2022. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09679-0. Accessed on: Oct. 10, 2025.
LUBART, Todd I.; GEORGSDOTTIR, Asta. Creativity: development and cross-cultural issues. In LAU, Sing; HUI, Anna N. N.; NG, Grace Y. C. Creativity: when east meets west. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2004. p. 23-54.
MADJAR,
Nora; OLDHAM, Greg R.; PRATT, Michael G. There’s no place like home? The
contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 45, no. 4, p. 757-67,
2002. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/3069309. Accessed
on: Nov. 14, 2025.
MEINTJES, Hannetjie; GROSSER, Mary. Creative thinking in prospective teachers: the status quo and the impact of contextual factors. South African Journal of Education, vol. 30, p. 361-386, 2010. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC32245. Accessed on: Aug. 27, 2025.
NAKANO, Tatiana de Cassia; OLIVEIRA, Karina da Silva; ZAIA, Priscila. Gender Differences in Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review. Psicologia: teoria e pesquisa, vol. 37, e372116, p. 1-10, 2021. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e372116. Accessed on: Nov. 08, 2024.
NAKANO, Tatiana de Cassia; OLIVEIRA, Karina da Silva; COUTO, Victor Ceridono; ABREU, Isabel Cristina Camelo de. Figural Creativity Test – adolescente and adult version (TCF-AA): item analysis. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, vol. 3, no. 77, p. 65-76, 2025. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP77.3.06. Accessed on: Nov. 10, 2025.
NAKANO, Tatiana de Cassia; PINA, Tassia A.; ZAIA, Priscila; RODRIGUES, Leticia Molina; SILVA, Talita Fernanda; CAMPOS, Carolina Rosa. Desempenho criativo de crianças e adolescentes das cinco regiões do Brasil. Psicologia Teoria e Prática, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 125-142, 2014. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.15348/1980-6906/psicologia.v16n3p125-142. Accessed on: Oct. 20, 2025.
NAKANO, Tatiana de Cassia; WECHSLER, Solange Muglia. Teste Brasileiro de Criatividade Figural: Proposta de instrumento. Revista Interamericana de Psicologia, vol. 40, no. 1, p. 103-110, 2006. Available at: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/284/28440111.pdf. Accessed on: Jan. 16, 2024.
NAKANO, Tatiana de Cassia; WECHSLER, Solange Muglia. Creativity and innovation: Skills for the 21 Century. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), vol. 35, no. 3, p. 237-246, 2018. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982- 02752018000300002. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2025.
NAKANO, Tatiana de Cassia; WECHSLER, Solange Muglia. Brazilian creatively gifted adults: are there gender differences? Gifted Education International, vol. 0, no. 0, p. 1-15, 2025. Available at: https://doi/org/10.1177/02614294251381501. Accessed on: Nov. 12, 2025.
OH, Ga-Eun; JEONG, Inseong; WANG, Mo; NORTH, Michael S.; CHOI, Yeeun. Too old to be creative? An age bias in creativity judgment. Work, Aging and Retirement, 28, 2023. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waad028. Accessed on: Jun. 10, 2025.
OSBORN,
Albert F. O poder criador da mente: Princípios e processos do pensamento
criador e do brainstorming. Ibrasa, 1975.
PUCCIO, G. J.; MURDOCK, M. C. Creativity assessment: Readings and resources. Creative Education Foundation Press, 1999.
REJSKIND, F. Gillian; RAPAGNA, Socrates O.; GOLD, Dolores. Gender differences in children’s divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 165–174, 1992. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419209534430. Accessed on: Feb. 02, 2025.
ROSA, José Antonio; QUALLS, William J.; RUTH, Julie A. Consumer creativity: Effects of gender and variation in the richness of vision and touch inputs. Journal of Business Research, vol. 67, no. 3, p. 386-393, 2014. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.023. Accessed on: Feb. 14, 2025.
RUTH, Jan-Erik; BIRREN, James E. Creativity in Adulthood and Old Age: Relations to Intelligence, Sex and Mode of Testing. International Journal of Behavioral Development, vol. 8, no. 1. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548500800107. Accessed on: Mar. 11, 2025.
SAID-METWALY, Sameh; FERNÁNDEZ-CASTILLA, Belén; KYNDT, Eva, NOOTGATE, Wim Van den; BARBOT, Baptiste. Does the Fourth-Grade Slump in Creativity Actually Exist? A Meta-analysis of the Development of Divergent Thinking in School-Age Children and Adolescents. Educational Psychology Review, vol. 33, p. 275–298, 2021a. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09547-9. Accessed on: Nov. 11, 2024.
SAID-METWALY, S.; NOORTGATE, W. V.; BARBOT, B. Torrance test of creative thinking-verbal, Arabic version: Measurement invariance and latent mean differences across gender, year of study, and academic major. Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 39, e100768, 2021b. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100768. Accessed on: Aug. 26, 2025.
SHAO,
Yong; ZHANG, Chenchen; ZHOU, Jing; GU, Ting; YUAN, Yuan. How does culture shape
creativity: a mini review. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 10,
2019. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01219. Accessed
on: Oct. 14, 2025.
SHIMONAKA, Yoshiko; NAKAZATO, Katsuharu. Creativity and factors affecting creative ability in adulthood and old age. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 55, no. 2, p. 231–243, 2007. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5926/jjep1953.55.2_231. Accessed on: Feb. 20, 2025.
TAVARES, Rejane Gomes; SUANNO, João Henrique; DE
LA TORRE, Saturnino. Escolas criativas e criatividade integral. Debates em Educação, [S. l.], vol.
16, no. 38, p. e18578, 2024. Available at:
https://www.seer.ufal.br/index.php/debateseducacao/article/view/18578. Accessed on:
Nov. 13, 2025.
TAYLOR, C. L.; BARBOT, B. Gender differences in creativity: Examining the greater male variability hypothesis in different domains and tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 174, 110661. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886921000362. Accessed on: Oct. 27, 2025.
TAYLOR, C. L.; SAID-METWALY, S.; CAMARDA, A.; BARBOT, B. Gender differences and variability in creative ability: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the greater male variability hypothesis in creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 126, no. 6, p. 1161–1179, 2024. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000484. Accessed on: Mar. 25, 2025.
THORNHILL-MILLER, Branden; CAMARDA, Anaelle; MERCIER, Maxence; BURKHARDT, Jean-Marie; MORISSEAU, Tiffany; BOURGEOIS-BOUGRINE, Samira; VINCHON, Florent; EL HAYEK, Stephanie; AUGEREAU-LANDAIS, Myriam; MOUREY, Florence; FEYBESSE, Cyrille; SUNDQUIST, Daniel; LUBART, Todd. Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education. Journal of Intelligence, vol. 11, p, 54, 2023. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054. Accessed on: Feb. 15, 2025.
TORRANCE, Ellis Paul. Understanding the fourth-grade slump in creative thinking: final report. Athens: University of Georgia, 1967. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED018273. Accessed on: Jun. 13, 2024.
TREFFINGER, D. J.; SCHOONOVER, P. F.; SELBY, E. C. Educating for creativity & innovation. Prufrock, 2013.
WECHSLER, Solange Muglia; NUNES, Maiana Farias Oliveira; SCHELINI, Patricia Walts; FERREIRA, Adriana Aparecida; PEREIRA, Dejenane Aparecida Pascoal. Criatividade e Inteligência: Analisando semelhanças e discrepâncias no desenvolvimento. Estudos de Psicologia (Natal), vol. 15, no. 3, p. 243-250, 2010. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-294x2010000300003. Accessed on: Jun. 13, 2024.
WU, Chi Hang; CHENG, Yim; IP, Hoi Man; MCBRIDE-CHANG, Catherine. Age Differences in Creativity: Task Structure and Knowledge Base. Creativity Research Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, p. 321–326, 2005. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1704_3. Accessed on: Feb. 16, 2025.
ZHOU, Jing. When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, no. 3, p. 413-22, 2003. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.413. Accessed on: Feb. 26, 2025.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)