What Is Creative Agency?

Scholars have conceptualized creative agency in various ways outside of psychology. Daniel X. Harris, director of the Creative Agency Lab, for instance, views creative agency from a socio-cultural perspective informed by posthumanist, new materialist, and affective theories (Harris, Reference Harris2021), emphasizing an active, responsive, relational, and ethically engaged way of being in the world (Harris, Reference Harris2023). Oliver Bown and Jon McCormack apply the concept to artificial life (i.e., non-human and computational systems), defining creative agency as “the degree to which [a system] is responsible for a creative output” (p. 255).

We define creative agency from the psychology of human creativity as:

This definition encompasses two key elements. First, the “creative” aspect addresses both novelty and meaningfulness, aligning with standard definitions of creativity (Plucker et al., Reference Plucker, Beghetto and Dow2004; Runco & Jaeger, Reference Runco and Jaeger2012). Second, the “agentic” aspect emphasizes the intentionality of choices and the self-directed nature of actions, consistent with Bandura’s (Reference Bandura2001) conception of agentic action.

We also recognize that agentic action occurs within physical, sociocultural, and psychological constraints of a given context (Bandura, Reference Bandura2001; List, Reference List2023). The central issue is not whether people can exercise creative agency, but rather what factors facilitate or impede it. Indeed, just because people have the capacity to exercise creative agency does not mean that they will.

Exercising creative agency is resource-intensive. As Baumeister (Reference Baumeister2008) has argued, exercising intentional choice and control over thoughts and actions requires expending psychological resources. Indeed, there is evidence that making choices and exercising control over one’s thoughts and behaviors in one task can deplete performance on subsequent tasks (Baumeister et al., Reference Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven and Tice1998; Muraven & Baumeister, Reference Muraven and Baumeister2000; Vohs et al., Reference Vohs, Baumeister and Schmeichel2008). Although the assertion that exercising agency can deplete subsequent performance makes sense, recent work (Forestier et al., Reference Forestier, de Chanaleilles, Boisgontier and Chalabaev2022; Hagger et al., Reference Hagger, Chatzisarantis and Alberts2016) has cautioned against describing this in simple or singular terms, such as “ego depletion.”

Rather, researchers recommend taking a more nuanced, multifaceted, and dynamic view. Forestier and colleagues (Reference Forestier, de Chanaleilles, Boisgontier and Chalabaev2022) have, for instance, recommended describing the costs of exercising agency as “self-control fatigue,” which can impair people’s capacity, resources, and willingness to exert effort. They define self-control fatigue as “a temporary impaired effortful self-control act caused by an initial effortful self-control act that aimed to resolve a motivational conflict and decreased self-control resources, willingness and/or capacity” (p. 25).

Indeed, there are various personal factors, social pressures, and restrictions that can impede creative agency (Brehm, Reference Brehm1966). Consequently, people will likely exercise creative agency only when they believe the benefits outweigh the potential physical, psychological, and social costs. Put simply, creative self-beliefs matter when it comes to exercising creative agency.

Creative Agency Beliefs

Understanding how people exercise creative agency requires examining the key decisions they encounter when considering creative action. In 2019, we introduced a model of CBAA (Karwowski & Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019). The CBAA model presented an empirically testable set of assertions derived from our own earlier work (Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2006; Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017; Karwowski, Reference Karwowski2011) as well as the contributions of others (e.g., Bandura, Reference Bandura1997; Tierney, Reference Tierney1997; Tierney & Farmer, Reference Tierney and Farmer2002) on creativity and self-beliefs.

As this research program evolved, we recognized the need to expand this model to offer a more holistic, unified, and empirically testable theoretical account of creative agency. In our expanded model, creative agency is conceptualized as a series of interrelated decisions informed by four core self-beliefs:

• Creative confidence: Belief in one’s ability to think and act creatively.

• Creative centrality: Belief that creativity is a central aspect of one’s identity and personal values.

• Creative risk-taking: Belief that the benefits of engaging in creative actions outweigh potential costs or risks.

• Creative self-regulation: One’s ability to use strategies and skills necessary for engaging with ill-defined creative tasks and overcoming challenges encountered along the path to creative solutions.

We also identified the need for a refined model to address lingering conceptual and methodological issues that have led to inconsistent findings across studies on these self-beliefs (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Beghetto and Corazza2019). Updating our model thus provides an opportunity to clarify and better align these concepts with the design of future studies, enhancing the field’s understanding of how creative agency beliefs facilitate the translation of creative potential into action.

Our updated model of CBAA (building on Karwowski & Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019; explored fully in Section 6) identifies four critical decisions that shape whether and how individuals convert creative potential into creative action (see Figure 1):

1. 1. Can I do this creatively? (Creative Confidence) This first decision is informed by people’s creative confidence beliefs (fully described in Section 2). Creative confidence encompasses whether people believe they can think and act creatively. This belief is comprised of two interrelated sub-beliefs:

   • A general, trait-like belief in one’s creative ability;

   • A specific, state-like confidence when facing creative challenges.

2. 2. Should I do this creatively? (Creative Centrality) This decision examines whether people value creativity and view it as central to their identity (detailed in Section 3), including:

   • Whether people believe there is inherent value in being creative;

   • How people assess the personal meaning of creative action;

   • How these value judgments influence creative behavior;

   • The role of sociocultural factors in shaping creative centrality beliefs.

3. 3. Will I do this creatively? (Creative Risk-taking) This decision focuses on risk assessment (discussed in Section 4), specifically:

   • Weighing benefits against potential costs of creative action;

   • Willingness to embrace uncertainty;

   • Ability to face potential setbacks;

   • The role of prior experiences in risk-taking decisions;

   • The distinction between process-related and product-related risks;

   • The influence of contextual factors on risk assessment and decision-making.

4. 4. How will I do this creatively? (Creative Self-regulation) This final decision involves implementation strategies (described in Section 5), including:

   • Using cognitive and behavioral strategies;

   • Managing thoughts, emotions, and actions;

   • Operating across three phases:

     1. o Forethought (goal setting, strategy planning);

     2. o Performance (monitoring progress, adjusting strategies);

     3. o Self-reflection (evaluating outcomes, learning for future tasks).

These four components work together as an integrated system within the CBAA model. While each component can be examined independently (and are individually discussed in Sections 2–5), they function interdependently to influence how individuals assess and engage in creative action. Their combined influence determines whether and how creative potential is converted into meaningful creative behavior, as detailed in Section 6.

As illustrated in Figure 1, these decisions become activated when we encounter situations requiring new thought and action. This activation occurs in situations such as when our previous approaches no longer serve us effectively, when we identify opportunities to create something new, or when existing solutions prove insufficient.

Figure 1 Creative agentic decisions necessary for converting potential into action

Figure 1Long description

The flowchart traces the path from Creative Potential to action. Creative Potential leads to a Creative Expression Opportunity. This opportunity influences Creative Agency Decisions, which are shaped by Internal and External Constraints. Decisions involve assessing Creative Confidence (Can I do this creatively?), Creative Centrality (Should I do this creatively?), and Creative Risk-taking (Will I do this creatively?). A 'Yes' outcome leads to Take Action, influenced by Creative Self-Regulation (How can I do this creatively?). A 'No' leads to Defer Action. The chart shows how potential and opportunity, filtered through agency decisions based on internal factors and constraints, determine if creative action is taken or deferred, with self-regulation guiding execution.

These decisions are shaped by both internal factors (such as our agency beliefs) and external factors (such as social and environmental contexts). To illustrate how these four decision points and their associated beliefs operate in practice, we present two contrasting scenarios. These scenarios demonstrate how creative agency beliefs can either enable or constrain creative action in real-world settings.

Creative Agency Beliefs in Action: Two Scenarios

Why Does Creative Agency Matter?

As we have discussed, when people exercise their creative agency, they can convert their creative potential into creative actions and achievements. Creative agency is, therefore, crucial at the individual and societal level. At the individual level, exercising creative agency can help us more productively navigate the uncertainties we face in everyday life. It can contribute to a sense of purpose, give our lives meaning, and promote well-being (Kaufman, Reference Kaufman2023; Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda and Karwowski2023). It allows us to play a central role as the creative authors of our learning and lives – contributing to more positive and transformative futures for ourselves and others (Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2023).

On a broader scale, exercising our agency plays a central role in the coevolution of individuals and cultures, simultaneously shaping our environment and influencing our development (Bandura, Reference Bandura2001). Exercising our creative agency can also contribute to societal progress and innovation. It helps in addressing complex societal issues and longstanding inequities, promoting economic growth, and bringing about positive social change (Sternberg & Karami, Reference Sternberg and Karami2024).

In this way, developing healthy beliefs in our ability to exercise creative agency is not simply an additive luxury. Rather, it is necessary for healthy human flourishing and societal progress. Prior research on whether people believe they have choices and control over their own lives (Baumeister, Reference Baumeister2008; Vohs & Schooler, Reference Vohs and Schooler2008) suggests that people who lack such beliefs may exhibit decreased prosocial behavior and increased antisocial behavior, thereby hindering the motivation necessary for individual and societal progress.

Therefore, understanding creative agency and how it can be supported is a critically important goal for the social sciences, as agency plays a central role in individual and societal growth and survival. This issue takes on added importance in the age of GenAI, as such technological advancements present both positive possibilities for enhancing human agency (using GenAI to extend creative capabilities) and potential threats to people’s willingness to exercise their agency (e.g., people deferring their creative thinking and actions to machines) (Faiella et al., Reference Faiella, Zielińska, Karwowski and Corazza2025; Reich & Teeny, Reference Reich and Teeny2025).

Overview of the Remaining Sections of This Element

In the remainder of this volume, we take a much closer and more detailed look at the theory and research on the four creative agency beliefs: creative confidence, creative centrality, creative risk-taking, and creative self-regulation. We discuss the early, contemporary, and future directions of theory and research on each of these beliefs.

We then offer theoretical assertions to guide researchers in exploring how these beliefs work together to convert creative potential into creative action (Section 6). Finally, we conclude with practical questions and strategies for cultivating creative agency (Section 7). Having introduced the nature and importance of creative agency, the remaining sections examine each component in detail, beginning with creative confidence in Section 2.

Historical Roots

Interest in human creativity dates back to ancient civilizations (Glăveanu & Kaufman, Reference Glăveanu, Kaufman, Kaufman and Sternberg2019) and extends beyond the field of psychology. For instance, Alfred North Whitehead’s philosophical work Process and Reality (Reference Whitehead, Griffin and Sherburne1929) is often credited with popularizing the concept of creativity in scholarly discourse. Whitehead viewed creativity not as a psychological trait but as a metaphysical principle of novelty, emergence, and the continual process of becoming.

Within the psychology of creativity, Joy Paul Guilford’s Reference Guilford1950 presidential address to the American Psychological Association is widely regarded as a pivotal moment, marking the beginning of systematic psychological research on human creativity. Importantly, we argue that Guilford’s address also laid the foundation for research into creative confidence. Guilford explicitly emphasized the role of individual differences in creative expression, stating:

Guilford further discussed a “creative pattern” characteristic of individuals who make creative contributions. This pattern represents a set of enabling factors that facilitate the expression of creative behavior. Some of these factors are more deterministic (biology, environment), and others are more dynamic and personally determined. One of the personal determining factors that Guilford mentioned was self-confidence (Guilford, Reference Guilford1950, p. 444).

Although Guilford did not provide further elaboration on the role self-confidence plays in creative behavior, this recognition is reflected in much contemporary work on creative agency beliefs. As we noted in our introduction, contemporary work on creative agency beliefs examines the role those self-beliefs, such as creative confidence, play in converting creative potential into creative actions and achievements.

Tracing Creative Confidence from Guilford to Bandura

Although shades of Guilford’s assertions can be recognized in contemporary work on creative confidence beliefs, Albert Bandura’s work has had the clearest and most direct influence on the development of related theory and research within the field of creativity studies. This is not too surprising given that Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, Reference Bandura2001) provides extensive theoretical assertions grounded in empirical work, that explain how confidence beliefs influence agentic action.

Bandura asserted that no factor is more central to exercising personal agency than people’s confidence in their ability to exercise control in their lives:

Bandura’s emphasis on the central role of confidence beliefs in human agency provided a strong foundation for creativity researchers. This foundation helped researchers understand how creative confidence plays a role in determining whether individuals will take creative action and contribute to their own lives and the world around them.

Bandura specifically conceptualized this phenomenon not as “confidence” but as “perceived self-efficacy.” Bandura (Reference Bandura1997) defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, Reference Bandura1997, p. 3). It is thereby not surprising that creativity researchers borrowed this concept and adapted it to the field of creativity studies by calling it “creative self-efficacy.” In what follows, we briefly trace how this borrowed and adapted concept of creative self-efficacy served as a starting point for work on creative agency beliefs and why we recommend incorporating it into the broader concept of creative confidence beliefs.

Borrowing and Adapting the Concept of “Self-Efficacy”Footnote ¹

Early mentions of CSE appeared in the literature in the mid-1990s. Ford (Reference Ford1996) specifically referred to “capability beliefs,” highlighting both self-confidence and creative self-image as elements within the “expectations and emotions that facilitate creative actions” (p. 1123, table 2). Plucker and Runco (Reference Plucker and Runco1998) directly referenced “creative self-efficacy” in their call for creativity researchers to examine both task-specific and task-general aspects of creative production “during each creative moment” (p. 37).

Tierney (Reference Tierney1997) and Tierney and Farmer (Reference Tierney and Farmer2002) were among the first to empirically examine the role of CSE in workplace creativity. They defined CSE as “the belief one can produce creative outcomes” (Tierney & Farmer, Reference Tierney and Farmer2002, p. 1138) and developed brief, trait-like measures to assess it.

These scales typically employed items reflecting general creative confidence, such as “I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas” and “I have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively” (Tierney, Reference Tierney1997; Tierney & Farmer, Reference Tierney and Farmer2002), rated on Likert-type scales. Tierney and Farmer’s (Reference Tierney and Farmer2002) influential study, demonstrating CSE as a significant predictor of creative performance, became highly cited and prompted further research.

Subsequent research often adopted this trait-like approach to measuring CSE. For instance, similar three-item scales were developed using trait-like self-assessments such as “I am good at coming up with new ideas” (Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2006) or “I think I am creative” (Karwowski, Reference Karwowski2011). In response to calls for more nuanced measures, later efforts included multi-item scales like the Short Scale of the Creative Self (SSCS), which expanded the number of items that assessed trait-like CSE and included items measuring creative centrality (Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Lebuda and Wiśniewska2018).

Research using these types of CSE measures expanded significantly, examining correlates, antecedents, mediating/moderating roles, and use across various domains (e.g., business, psychology, and education). A central concern has been the relationship between measured CSE and creative outcomes. Meta-analyses (Haase et al., Reference Haase, Hoff, Hanel and Innes-Ker2018) indicate that such CSE measures account for approximately 8% to 20% of the variance in nonself-reported creative outcomes and a higher percentage (20% to 53%) in self-reported outcomes (Farmer & Tierney, Reference Farmer, Tierney, Karwowski and Kaufman2017, p. 37).

However, the relationship between CSE and creative outcomes has yielded variable results, ranging from negligible to moderate effects (see Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017, for a discussion). While many factors contribute to this variability, one significant reason relates to how the concept of self-efficacy was borrowed and adapted, particularly regarding the conceptualization and measurement practices, which we discuss in the following section.

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Conceptual Borrowing “Self-Efficacy”

Borrowing and adapting concepts from related fields comes with both strengths and limitations, some of which need to be addressed and corrected to ensure that research on creative agency beliefs contributes to knowledge and practice.

Conceptual borrowing from related (or distinct) fields can help to grow the conceptual foundations of a field (Ambrose, Reference Ambrose2015). Indeed, work on CSE is one of the most widely discussed and studied of creative agentic beliefs. As of this writing, a simple Google Scholar search on “creative self-efficacy” returns more than 20,000 results. That said, conceptual borrowing also comes with its share of challenges and drawbacks (Berkovich, Reference Berkovich2020), including distorted understandings, negative views of how the borrowed concept is used, and negative outside opinions of the work based on the borrowed concepts.

Consequently, scholars working with borrowed concepts often need to address and correct issues through retrofitting, renaming, and further specification of the measurement of these concepts to ensure that they are relevant and meaningful for research and practice (Ambrose, Reference Ambrose2015; Berkovich, Reference Berkovich2020). These retrospective “conceptual retractions” and corrections for borrowed concepts are both beneficial and necessary to promote better communication and indicate the positive growth of a field of study.

The same can be said of CSE. As we have discussed in detail elsewhere (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017), initial scales used to measure CSE have resulted in some conceptual distortions of Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy. These distortions diminish the accuracy and predictive power of CSE in relation to creative action. Therefore, some corrective action is required both in how the borrowed concept is described and measured.

Limitations of Traditional CSE Measures

While initial CSE scales offer potentially valuable insights into creative ideational confidence, they often fail to capture the performance-based nature of self-efficacy beliefs that Bandura originally conceptualized. This stems from the tendency for these early scales to use global and trait-like items, rather than dynamic states that fluctuate depending on the specific task, context, and the individual’s psychological state (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017). This static approach obscures the nature of self-efficacy, which is influenced by various factors like prior experiences, feedback, and the perceived difficulty of the task.

Another limitation of global measures of CSE scales is that they use “indefinite” items that “do not specify the activities to be performed, at what level of attainment, the nature of the goals they are striving for, and what those ‘valued outcomes’ and ‘challenges’ are” (Bandura, Reference Bandura2012, p. 16). It is therefore not surprising that more global, trait-like CSE measures tend to yield weak to modest relationships with actual performance (Haase et al., Reference Haase, Hoff, Hanel and Innes-Ker2018). These measures can also introduce potential confounds between self-efficacy beliefs about creative capabilities and the effects of those beliefs (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017). As Bandura (Reference Bandura2012) has cautioned:

Figure 2 contrasts the traditional, global approach with a CSE measure aligned with Bandura’s (Reference Bandura, Pajares and Urdan2006, Reference Bandura2012) recommendations, highlighting the difference in specificity.

Figure 2 Difference between global and conceptually aligned measures

Figure 2Long description

The image shows two panels, A and B, comparing different ways to measure creative self-efficacy. Panel A, titled Global Measures, presents two scales. The first is Creative Self-Efficacy (Beghetto, 2006), with items like I am good at coming up with new ideas, I have a lot of good ideas, and I have a good imagination, with a rating scale of 1 through 5, ranging from Not True to Very True. The second scale in Panel A is Creative Self-Efficacy Items (Karwowski et al. 2011), with items such as "I know I can efficiently solve even complicated problems, I trust my creative abilities, My imagination and ingenuity distinguish me from my friends, Many times, I have proved that I can cope with difficult situations, I am sure I can deal with problems requiring creative thinking, and I am good at proposing original solutions to problems, with a rating scale of 1 through 5, ranging from Definitely not to Definitely yes.

Panel B, titled Conceptually Aligned Measure, presents a scale titled Creative Self-Efficacy: Creative Idea Development Science. It reads: Please rate how certain you are that you can come up with, share, and develop a creative idea into a science project that others recognize as creative. Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using the scale given below. The scale from 0 to 100 ranges from Cannot do it at all to Highly certain can do. The tasks are: Come up with a creative idea in science class, Share my creative idea with only my teacher, Share my creative idea with the entire class, Develop my idea into a creative science project, Develop a project that peers and teachers think is creative, and Develop a project that science fair judges think is creative.

As illustrated in Figure 2, the difference between traditional measures of CSE and a more conceptually aligned CSE measure is apparent. The global measures speak to more trait-like and general appraisals of creative confidence, whereas the more aligned measure focuses on confidence tailored to a particular domain of activity (e.g., idea development in science).

Moreover, the aligned measure assesses confidence in different types and levels of performance. Logically (and likely empirically), this measure would be a stronger predictor of a student’s demonstrated ability to develop a creative idea into a creative science project that external audiences would recognize as creative.

Again, this is not to say one measure is necessarily better than the other. Instead, it highlights that creativity researchers should carefully consider what questions they seek to address when determining how to measure this creative agency belief. In some cases, researchers may decide to use one type over the other (e.g., use tailored measures when the question pertains to actual performance). In other cases, researchers may choose to use both types of measures (e.g., when attempting to understand how more trait-like measures work in conjunction with more tailored measures).

From a theoretical perspective, individuals with high general creative confidence (e.g., those who strongly endorse statements like “I can come up with creative solutions to problems”) would likely demonstrate higher confidence in creative performance in specific activity domains (e.g., “I can come up with a creative solution to this type of interpersonal problem”). This contrasts with those who have lower general creative confidence. However, because specific knowledge and experience within domains play a role in actual creative performance (Baer, Reference Baer2015), we expect that more tailored measures of creative confidence would be a more robust predictor of performance in specific spheres of creative activity (Bandura, Reference Bandura2012).

Empirical evidence supports this theoretical assertion. Karwowski et al. (Reference Karwowski, Han and Beghetto2019a) demonstrated that global measures of creative confidence predict domain-specific creative confidence, which in turn more strongly predicts creative task performance than global measures alone. This hierarchical relationship highlights the advantage of combining broad, trait-like measures and tailored, domain- or task-specific measures to better understand the relationship between creative confidence and performance.

Our goal in discussing the limitations of borrowing the self-efficacy concept for creativity research does not negate the value of global CSE scales. Rather, it highlights the need for more precise conceptual and measurement approaches while acknowledging the contributions of existing measures.

As research on creative agency beliefs continues to develop, it is essential that researchers further specify how creative confidence is described and measured. Doing so will require corrections to how it is conceptually defined and measured. We discuss these corrections and recommendations next.

Corrections and Recommendations

A key issue in creativity studies is that the borrowed concept of “self-efficacy” has been used to describe two distinct facets of creative confidence: trait-like creative confidence and state-like creative confidence. This approach is not aligned with Bandura’s (Reference Bandura2012) recommendations on clearly defining and measuring self-efficacy and potentially leads to a lack of clarity in understanding creative confidence within the field. Therefore, we have recommended (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Reiter-Palmon and Hunter2023; Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Han and Beghetto2019a) that creativity researchers adopt the broader concept of creative confidence and clearly distinguish between its trait-like and state-like aspects.

Trait-like Creative Confidence. Trait-like creative confidence is a global belief that aligns with and incorporates existing measurement scales (described earlier). This is because it represents a more holistic judgment of one’s confidence to perform creatively in general or within a particular domain (e.g., science, business, sports, education, and the arts).

Trait-like creative confidence is more aligned with a person’s creative self-concept (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017; see also Marsh et al., Reference Marsh, Pekrun and Parker2019). It reflects general feelings and relatively stable judgments about one’s confidence to perform creatively. These judgments are based on the totality of past creative performances (e.g., “I am good at coming up with new ideas”) and comparative judgments (e.g., “My imagination and ingenuity distinguishes me from my friends”). As can be seen from these examples, our and others’ traditional measures fit nicely under this conceptual correction and therefore can still be used when studying creative agency beliefs.

This conceptual correction also allows creativity researchers to explore the nature of more global, trait-like beliefs – both on their own and in relation to more state-like beliefs. For example, Zandi and colleagues (Zandi et al., Reference Zandi, Karwowski, Forthmann and Holling2025) examined the stability of these beliefs. They found that trait-like creative confidence is generally stable in the short and moderate term, but it can change over the long term. Other researchers have examined the factors that influence these beliefs. Their findings show that creative confidence can be shaped by individual abilities (Lebuda et al., Reference Lebuda, Zielińska and Karwowski2021), personality traits (Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Lebuda, Wisniewska and Gralewski2013; Karwowski & Lebuda, Reference Karwowski, Lebuda, Feist, Reiter-Palmon and Kaufman2017), and social influences (e.g., Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Gralewski and Szumski2015).

Concerning measurement practices, we recommend that researchers use existing CSE scales or develop new ones when their goal is to understand the role of trait-like creative confidence. This includes examining how it contributes to a person’s broader creative identity, how it interacts with other creative agency beliefs in shaping creative performance, or when addressing questions related to this more stable and holistic form of creative confidence.

We also recommend that creativity researchers clearly acknowledge the trait-like nature of these measures when describing their methods and findings. Doing so will help advance the field’s knowledge and understanding of this important aspect of creative confidence.

State-like Creative Confidence. State-like creative confidence represents a more dynamic and performance-based judgment about one’s ability to attain various creative goals within a domain of creative activity. In this way, state-like creative confidence is more aligned with a person’s CSE (Beghetto, Reference Beghetto, Runco and Pritzker2020; Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017). State-like creative confidence, much like self-efficacy (Bandura, Reference Bandura2001), is influenced by individual (psychological and physiological state, past performance), social (relatable models, social supports, social persuasion), and contextual factors (nature and ambiguity of the specific task).

As we have discussed, this is a more situationally dynamic creative confidence belief, which likely will be a more accurate predictor of within- and between-group differences in engagement, persistence, and performance on specific activities (Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Lebuda, Beghetto, Kaufman and Sternberg2019b). One way to think about state-like creative confidence is that it becomes activated when researchers ask people to report on different types of creative activities and when they encounter those activities.

Moreover, state-like creative confidence will likely fluctuate when people engage with ill-defined (divergent thinking) problems. Such tasks lack predetermined solutions or single answers, creating increased ambiguity. As Bandura (Reference Bandura2012) noted, such ambiguity can challenge and potentially lower self-efficacy beliefs. Consequently, individuals’ confidence may rise and fall dynamically throughout the problem-solving process as they generate, evaluate, and abandon ideas without clear external criteria for success. Capturing these fluctuations is important because it offers insights into how individuals navigate uncertainty and manage the ambiguity of ill-defined problems.

This dynamic becomes even more pronounced in information-rich contexts. The amount and nature of information available during problem-solving can influence confidence. Although access to resources like the internet, collaborators, or AI tools might help resolve ambiguity and enhance confidence compared to working with limited information (see Faiella et al., Reference Faiella, Zielińska, Karwowski and Corazza2025), it can also introduce added complexity.

Individuals must sift through, evaluate, and integrate varied and conflicting information, which can influence confidence as they encounter challenges or breakthroughs. Therefore, documenting these real-time shifts in state-like creative confidence is essential for developing a deeper conceptual understanding of how individuals sustain effort and adapt their strategies while engaging with ambiguous creative challenges.

We recommend that creativity researchers continue to develop studies and measures of state-like creative confidence. This includes developing measures that are more aligned with Bandura’s (Reference Bandura, Pajares and Urdan2006, Reference Bandura2012) guidelines, like the example presented in Panel B of Figure 2. We also recommend building on Bandura’s guidelines to advance theory and research on creative confidence beliefs.

Rather than simply borrowing the concept and measures of self-efficacy, we recommend developing original research and knowledge that address questions unique to creativity studies. This approach will help foster growth in the field (Ambrose, Reference Ambrose2015; Berkovich, Reference Berkovich2020). We encourage researchers to develop more dynamic measures that can be used in conjunction with existing trait-like and state-like measures, like those displayed in Figure 2. These new measures could also complement other relevant tools, like those assessing other creative agency beliefs, physiological and emotional states, and perceptions of social support and pressures.

State-like creative confidence can, for instance, be assessed through dynamic measures administered at three critical points: immediately before, during, and again following task engagement. This temporal approach captures the dynamic nature of creative confidence across the creative process (see also Section 5 on creative self-regulation).

Dynamic measures are central to micro-longitudinal designs (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Beghetto and Corazza2019), which examine whether and how state-like creative confidence beliefs change throughout creative task engagement. These designs involve developing brief, minimally intrusive measures taken at various points – initially, during, and after task engagement. Such measurements provide more nuanced insights into the nature of creative confidence.

Micro-longitudinal approaches offer several advantages for understanding creative confidence:

1. 1. Revealing why individuals with similar state-like “creative profiles” may demonstrate different creative performance outcomes;

2. 2. Capturing temporal dynamics of creative confidence;

3. 3. Allowing for examination of within-person variations across different contexts and tasks; and

4. 4. Including behavioral assessmentsFootnote ² to provide a more complete understanding of whether and how self-beliefs support actual creative performance.

This approach enables researchers to uncover subtle patterns of creative development that might otherwise go unnoticed (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Beghetto and Corazza2019). Its value lies in capturing the nuanced variations in creative confidence and in examining how confidence interacts with performance over time.

It also supports the view that creative confidence includes both trait-like and state-like elements. This allows researchers to observe how different aspects of confidence appear in real-world creative tasks. Finally, because there can be a disconnect between what people believe or value and how they actually perform, behavioral assessments can provide additional insight into the factors that influence people’s decisions to express and act on their creative agency.

Concluding Thoughts

This section has traced the conceptual evolution of creative confidence beliefs from early theoretical foundations through contemporary empirical approaches. We have discussed both the value and limitations of borrowed concepts while suggesting future directions for more precise measurement and conceptualization. These insights inform our discussion of creative centrality beliefs in Section 3, particularly regarding how creative confidence and centrality beliefs work in concert to shape creative agency.

Creative Centrality

While the concept of creative centrality is generally understood, researchers vary somewhat in their specific definitions. Zielińska et al. (Reference Zielińska, Lebuda, Gop and Karwowski2024), for instance, define it as people viewing creativity as being vital to their self-perception and identity (including both personal and professional role identities; see also Huang et al., Reference Huang, Chi-Kin Lee and Yang2019). In contrast, Thomson and Jaque (Reference Thomson and Jaque2023) define it as whether people view the creative process as being essential for their personal meaning-making and well-being.

What is common to these different definitions of creative centrality is that they speak to the perceived value of creativity in people’s lives. Moreover, empirical work has demonstrated that indicators of these two conceptualizations of creative centrality are significantly related (see Thomson & Jaque, Reference Thomson and Jaque2023). Although there are nuances in how researchers have described the centrality of creativity, they all tend to agree that it serves as an essential aspect of how we view ourselves, our identity, goals, and actions (Dollinger et al., Reference Dollinger, Burke and Gump2007; Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Lebuda, Beghetto, Kaufman and Sternberg2019b).

Should I Do This Creatively?

Creative centrality beliefs influence whether people choose to be creative when presented with the opportunity to do so. When individuals face an opportunity for creative action, they implicitly or explicitly ask themselves, “Should I do this creatively?” This question is not necessarily about external obligation or a universally “correct” approach. Rather, it represents a critical decision point rooted in creative centrality (i.e., the personal value and importance an individual places on creativity as part of their identity).

Because values serve as guiding principles (Schwartz, Reference Schwartz1994), this question reflects an internal decision: “Is acting creatively aligned with my core values and sense of self in this context?” It is a question of personal congruence and determines whether the individual will exercise their creative agency. Although creative centrality beliefs are essential to how people view themselves, they work in conjunction with creative confidence beliefs and other individual and socio-cultural factors when deciding whether to take creative action.

These assertions require further explanation and are briefly discussed in the sections that follow. A more elaborate discussion of the complex links between creative centrality, confidence, and the remaining elements of the creative agency puzzle is provided in Section 6, which offers a detailed overview of the CBAA model (see also Karwowski & Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019).

The Relationship with Confidence Beliefs

Creative centrality beliefs have been conceptualized as more stable or trait-like than creative confidence beliefs (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017). Therefore, they can be thought of as being “transsituational” (Schwartz, Reference Schwartz1994), meaning they transcend specific situations (Hitlin, Reference Hitlin2003). Indeed, if we view being creative as so central to who we are, then we would be more likely to exercise our creative agency in and across situations that afford us opportunities to demonstrate our creativity.

However, this does not mean that people who highly value creativity will choose to be creative in every situation. As Ford (Reference Ford1996) explained, simply valuing creativity is not enough. Other factors can override this belief when it comes to taking creative action. Before deciding to exercise their agency, people need to see an alignment among the situation, their self-beliefs, and their relevant knowledge and abilities.

Indeed, deciding whether to act creatively is influenced by creative confidence beliefs, along with individual and sociocultural constraints and affordances present in each situation (Glăveanu, Reference Glăveanu2013). For example, an engineer may value innovative design. However, if they are facing a tight deadline, believe their manager prefers to avoid risk, and feel unsure about applying a new technique, they may choose a more standard, routine approach instead.

Creative centrality beliefs and creative confidence beliefs work together to establish a threshold for creative action (Karwowski & Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019). When viewed through the lens of Expectancy × Value Theory (Eccles & Wigfield, Reference Eccles and Wigfield2002), people are most likely to exercise their creative agency when two conditions are met. They need to expect success (reflecting creative confidence) and value engaging creatively with the task. If either condition is missing, creative action becomes less likely. For example, if people do not believe they can be creative in a particular situation (regardless of the reason), they are unlikely to act creatively, even if they highly value creativity.

Conversely, even if people have confidence in performing a task creatively, they likely will not exercise their creative agency unless it aligns with their personal values (i.e., “Being creative is not important to me”). In this way, creative centrality beliefs moderate people’s decisions to exercise their creative agency, even when they have confidence in their ability to perform creatively. Our empirical work has provided support for this assertion.

In a series of studies (Karwowski & Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019), we examined the role that creative confidence and creative centrality beliefs play in exercising creative agency (i.e., transforming creative potential into creative behavior). We found that although creative confidence beliefs mediated the link between creative potential and behavior, this link was not observed unless people also valued creativity above a certain threshold. These findings support our claim that for people to exercise their creative agency, they need to both believe they can act creatively (creative confidence beliefs) and believe they should (creative centrality beliefs).

Individual and Socio-Cultural Factors

Beyond creative confidence beliefs, various individual and socio-cultural factors can influence people’s decisions about exercising their creative agency on a project or task. Although valuing creativity represents a core aspect of our creative identity, people’s decisions about whether they should take creative action do not occur in a vacuum.

At the individual level, certain facets of personal identity complement creative centrality beliefs and the exercise of creative agency. These include openness to experience (Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Lebuda, Wisniewska and Gralewski2013), curiosity (Karwowski, Reference Karwowski2012; Karwowski & Zielińska, Reference Karwowski and Zielińska2024), and valuing individual differences (Anderson, Reference Anderson2024; Dollinger et al., 2017). Other facets of personal identity may conflict with valuing creativity and exercising agency, such as valuing conformity, tradition, and security (Anderson, Reference Anderson2024; Dollinger et al., 2017). The relative strength of these competing facets plays a role in whether a person chooses to act creatively when given the opportunity to do so.

At the sociocultural level, complementary and conflicting messages and pressures about what is valued in a particular situation or setting can also influence whether people decide to exercise their creative agency. Motivation researchers (Ames, Reference Ames1992; Maehr & Midgley, Reference Maehr and Midgley1991) and ecological psychologists (Schoggen, Reference Schoggen1989) have long recognized the impact of both tacit and overt motivational messages and socio-psychological pressures in different environments. These factors shape people’s behaviors, including their decisions about whether they should act creatively (Amabile et al., Reference Amabile, Hennessey and Grossman1986).

If these motivational messages and behavioral pressures are highly salient and conflict with valuing creativity, then individuals who generally value creativity may still decide against exercising their creative agency in those situations or settings. This can happen when there is not sufficient support for creative action. Consequently, we assert that for people to decide they should exercise their creative agency in a given setting, one of two conditions likely needs to be met. Either their creative centrality beliefs must be more personally persuasive than the conflicting messages they receive, or the messages must be supportive of taking creative action.

These individual and social factors speak to the importance of people knowing when and when not to take creative risks, which involves assessing whether the benefits to themselves and others outweigh the potential costs. In other words, these factors influence people’s decisions about whether they will take creative action, which is the focus of the next section. Taken together, these theoretical assertions outline our view on how creative centrality beliefs, creative confidence, and individual and socio-cultural factors influence people’s decisions about acting creatively.

Although these assertions have a basis in theoretical and empirical work, much additional work is needed to test and refine them. For this work to continue to develop, it is important for creativity researchers to understand how to assess creative centrality beliefs and include those measures in their studies on creative agentic behavior.

Studying Creative Centrality Beliefs

Historically, creativity researchers recognized the importance of valuing creativity (Guilford, Reference Guilford1950) and asserted that creative people view it as a core value (Barron, Reference Barron1969; Dollinger et al., Reference Dollinger, Burke and Gump2007; Helson, Reference Helson1996). However, creativity researchers’ interest in assessing whether personally valuing creativity impacts creative performance is a relatively new area of focus. Although this is an emerging area of research, there are notable examples of creativity researchers studying the relationship between valuing creativity and creative performance.

Given that creative centrality beliefs constitute part of one’s personal identity, researchers have operationalized them as relatively stable and somewhat global. This is because our beliefs about the value of creativity are based on past experiences and socialization (Dollinger et al., 2017) in relation to one’s broader sense of self (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Reiter-Palmon and Hunter2023). Consequently, researchers tend to use more general measures when studying creative centrality beliefs.

Dollinger et al. (Reference Dollinger, Burke and Gump2007), for instance, used an existing values survey (Schwartz Values Survey; Schwartz, Reference Schwartz and Zanna1992) to measure university students’ value priorities. This survey includes an item asking participants to rate the importance of “Creativity (uniqueness, imagination).”

They also had participants complete a self-assessment of creative accomplishments (Hocevar’s, Reference Hocevar1979, Creative Behavior Inventory). A portion of the sample completed three scored creative products: a drawing product, a story product, and a photo essay. The creative centrality item was the best individual item predictor of self-reported creative accomplishments and a significant predictor of the composite rating for all creative products.

One of the most common ways creativity researchers assess creative centrality beliefs is through self-report items on the Short Scale of the Creative Self (SSCS, Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Lebuda and Wiśniewska2018). Five items (e.g., “I think I am a creative person,” “My creativity is important for who I am”) from the scale assess the domain-general and trait-like nature of creative centrality.

Empirical work based on the SSCS indicates that people’s creative centrality beliefs tend to be relatively stable. While generally stable, this does not mean these beliefs cannot change over time or respond to interventions designed to help people recognize the value of creativity in their lives. Evidence suggests that these centrality beliefs tend to be stable in the short term but change as people age.

Karwowski (Reference Karwowski2016), for example, found that although these beliefs tend to be stable when measured in the short term, creative centrality beliefs grow from late adolescence to early adulthood and then decline in older adults. These results make sense, given that the centrality of creativity likely grows as people have more opportunities to exercise their creative agency during their transition to adulthood. Then, over time, the centrality of creativity may become more calibrated in later adulthood for people who do not view it as essential to their lives.

Regarding changes resulting from interventions, McVeigh et al. (Reference McVeigh, Valquaresma and Karwowski2023) examined the impact of an intervention focused on teaching about creativity and the creative process in an undergraduate screenwriting course. They found that the intervention significantly improved participants’ creative centrality beliefs (as assessed with the SSCS) and their creative performance. This finding makes sense, as the intervention likely helped students recognize the importance of creativity in relation to their screenwriting identity and goals. If participants initially lacked this connection, a course that clearly linked creativity to their chosen field would be expected to enhance their creative centrality beliefs.

We would therefore assert that although creative centrality beliefs are relatively stable, it is essential for researchers and practitioners to continue exploring the extent to which such beliefs vary and change because of life experiences and interventions. We would also recommend that additional work focus on how creative centrality beliefs vary across situations and tasks.

Given that prior research (Baer, Reference Baer2015) demonstrated that different levels of creative achievement tend to be contingent on different domains, it is plausible that creative centrality beliefs also vary in relation to specific performance domains. Indeed, highly accomplished creative teachers likely value creativity in teaching because teaching is so central to their identity. Those creative teachers, however, may not value creativity in activities other than teaching.

Future research could explore whether and how creative centrality beliefs vary in and across performance domains by using a combination of existing measures domain-general items (e.g., SSCS) as well as items tailored to specific domains (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Reiter-Palmon and Hunter2023), such as “Creativity is central to my identity as a [domain specific role].”

Concluding Thoughts

Valuing creativity and seeing it as central to an one’s identity are key factors in the decision to take creative action. As discussed, creative centrality beliefs are essential to creative identity and work with creative confidence beliefs and supportive environments to influence creative behavior. Understanding these beliefs helps clarify how personal identity and sociocultural factors shape creative action across everyday life, education, the workplace, and broader society.

Consequently, it is important that creativity researchers continue to develop research programs that contribute to our understanding of the role creative centrality beliefs play in supporting creative action. Creativity researchers can, for instance, study the conditions that help teachers and students recognize the value of exercising their creative agency in schools and classrooms. This includes examining the individual and socio-environmental factors that support the development of teachers’ and students’ creative identities, and identifying the conditions underwhich they choose to exercise their creative agency. Additional research in organizations and everyday life is also needed.

For example, what role do organizational leaders and environmental conditions play in reinforcing the value of creativity and encouraging employees to approach their work more creatively (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Reiter-Palmon and Hunter2023)? In the context of everyday life, researchers can continue to explore how engaging in creative activities can promote meaning (Kaufman, Reference Kaufman2023) and well-being (Putney et al., Reference Putney, Silver, Silvia, Christensen and Cotter2024). Indeed, deepening our understanding of creative centrality beliefs across various domains may help unlock people’s collective creative potential in their learning, work, lives, and society.

Ultimately, recognizing the importance of creative centrality beliefs underscores the idea that creativity is not just about ability but also about personal identity. By helping people see creativity as central to who they are, we can expect them to be more likely to take the risks necessary for creative action, which is the focus of the next section.

Conceptualizing and Studying Creative Risk-Taking

Despite extensive discussion in the creativity studies literature regarding the relationship between risk-taking and creative behavior, the field lacks a coherent framework for understanding this connection. Some researchers, for example, conceptualize risk as a predictor of creativity, whereas others view creativity as predicting risk-taking (Crepaldi et al., Reference Crepaldi, Fusi, Cancer, Iannello and Rusconi2024).

These inconsistencies are also reflected in mixed empirical findings. Some studies (Beghetto et al., Reference Beghetto, Karwowski and Reiter-Palmon2021; Charyton et al., Reference Charyton, Snelbecker, Rahman and Elliott2013; Harada, Reference Harada2020; Shen et al., Reference Shen, Hommel, Yuan, Chang and Zhang2018) have demonstrated links between indicators of creative risk-taking (e.g., willingness to take risks, risk tolerance, and risk-seeking) and creativity measures (e.g., creative activities and divergent thinking). Other research suggests more complex relationships. For instance, some studies found no significant correlation or only task- and domain-specific relationships between risk-taking and creativity (Jose, Reference Jose1970; Pankove & Kogan, Reference Pankove and Kogan1968; Tyagi et al., Reference Tyagi, Hanoch, Hall, Runco and Denham2017).

In their systematic review of fifteen studies, Crepaldi and colleagues (Reference Crepaldi, Fusi, Cancer, Iannello and Rusconi2024) attribute these conflicting results to three key factors:

1. 1. Inconsistent definitions of creativity and creative risk-taking;

2. 2. Methodological variations in measurement approaches (e.g., self-report vs. behavioral tasks); and

3. 3. Unaccounted for sociocultural influences.

These findings underscore the need for a more robust theoretical framework to conceptualize and study the relationship between creative risk-taking and creative behavior.

Our updated CBAA framework (detailed in Section 6) offers a systematic approach to understanding the relationship between creative risk-taking beliefs and creative behavior. It addresses the theoretical gaps identified by Crepaldi et al. (Reference Crepaldi, Fusi, Cancer, Iannello and Rusconi2024). Building on previous sections, the CBAA framework incorporates precise definitions of:

• Creative risk-taking beliefs: The willingness to act creatively when perceived benefits outweigh potential costs.

• Creative agentic behavior: The intentional and self-directed capacity to enact creative actions within contextual constraints.

In the sections that follow, we build on those definitions and describe empirically testable factors that inform people’s beliefs and decisions to take creative risks (i.e., Will I do this creatively?). We also discuss theoretically aligned approaches for systematically investigating creative risk-taking within and across settings.

Will I Do This Creatively?

Our CBAA model positions creative risk-taking as a pivotal belief in determining whether people will try to do something creatively. However, the relationship between creative risk-taking beliefs and creative behavior is more dynamic and multifaceted than a simple, direct link.

Like the creative confidence and centrality beliefs discussed in Sections 2 and 3, creative risk-taking beliefs demonstrate both stability and situational variability. This dual nature – combining both trait-like stability and state-like contextual responsiveness – aligns with other agentic beliefs in our framework. We posit that the more trait-like features of creative risk-taking are informed by prior experiences with creative risk-taking and related agentic beliefs (e.g., creative confidence and viewing creativity as central to one’s identity).

Empirical evidence supports this assertion (Beghetto et al., Reference Beghetto, Karwowski and Reiter-Palmon2021). Findings from the study (N = 803) demonstrated that a general (trait-like) creative risk-taking orientation moderates the relationship between creative confidence beliefs and creative behavior. Risk-taking was measured using a self-report scale, with items such as “I like doing new things, even if I’m not very good at them” and “I try to learn new things even if I might make mistakes.” Creative confidence was measured using six global, trait-like items from the Short Scale of the Creative Self (Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Lebuda and Wiśniewska2018). Creative behavior was assessed with the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (Carson et al., Reference Carson, Peterson and Higgins2005) and a modified version of the Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (Diedrich et al., Reference Diedrich, Jauk and Silvia2018).

The findings indicate that even when people have high levels of general creative confidence, they also need to be willing to take creative risks for their confidence to translate into creative behavior. This finding aligns with our observations on creative centrality beliefs (discussed in Section 3), which moderate the relationship between creative confidence and creative behavior (Karwowski & Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019).

Based on these findings, we posit that three trait-like creative agency beliefs (confidence, centrality, and risk-taking) are necessary for converting creative potential into action. We further posit that domain- and task-specific agency beliefs may predict creative performance more accurately than global beliefs across different situations (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017; Tyagi et al., Reference Tyagi, Hanoch, Hall, Runco and Denham2017). These assertions underscore the need for a theoretical framework that incorporates global and domain-specific aspects of creative risk-taking.

The updated CBAA model addresses this need by providing an integrated framework encompassing multiple analysis levels. Specifically, the model identifies three key determinants of creative risk-taking decisions:

1. 1. Prior experiences with creative risk-taking,

2. 2. Global and situational creative risk appraisal, and

3. 3. Context-specific influences.

The following sections examine each factor in detail, demonstrating how they influence creative risk-taking.

Prior Experiences with Creative Risk-Taking

Theoretically speaking, prior experiences likely will have an impact on creative risk-taking. For example, if a person has experienced negative performance outcomes, particularly those involving shame and perceived inability to improve, their willingness to pursue similar creative aspirations likely diminishes (Beghetto, 2013; Reference Beghetto2014). We therefore assert that prior experiences with creative risk-taking, particularly those with negative outcomes, can stifle the willingness to take future creative action (see also Beghetto & Dilley, Reference Beghetto and Dilley2016 and Section 5).

Although this assertion makes intuitive sense, understanding creative risk-taking more systematically requires examining actual prior experiences and testing how those experiences influence the willingness to take risks. Much research on creative risk-taking, including ours, has not sufficiently investigated prior experiences with risk-taking. Moreover, this research often neglects key aspects of those experiences, such as their frequency, domain, and emotional valence, and how these relate to future creative risks.

Consequently, more robust theoretical and methodological specifications are needed to examine how prior risk-taking experiences influence willingness to take creative action. In the following sections, we outline theoretical assertions related to prior risk-taking and propose methods for assessing these experiences.

Prior experiences may influence future risk-taking behavior through two primary mechanisms that operate in opposing directions. Positive experiences with creative risk-taking tend to increase the willingness to engage in future creative risks (Denrell, Reference Denrell2007). These experiences likely build confidence in one’s risk-taking abilities and establish positive outcome expectations, creating a reinforcing cycle that supports continued creative risk-taking behavior.

In contrast, negative or limited experiences with creative risk-taking can have inhibitory effects, as negative experiences are often more salient than positive ones (Baumeister et al., Reference Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer and Vohs2001). Such experiences can reduce the willingness to engage in future creative risk-taking and heighten sensitivity to potential negative outcomes. This heightened sensitivity often generates risk-avoidant behaviors that can persist over time (Beghetto & Dilley, Reference Beghetto and Dilley2016).

This tendency toward risk aversion (Blair & Mumford, Reference Blair and Mumford2007) carries two important implications for understanding creative agency. First, most individuals require external support and encouragement to overcome their reluctance to engage in creative risk-taking (Dewett, Reference Dewett2006). Second, the willingness to take creative risks likely varies across domains (Baer, Reference Baer2015), such as the arts, sciences, and business.

We encourage researchers to design studies examining the role that key features of past risk-taking experiences play in people’s willingness to take creative risks on a given task, including:

• the frequency of prior creative risk-taking,

• past risk-taking experiences within specific domains or tasks, and

• the extent to which people judge their prior risk-taking experiences as positive, negative, or neutral.

Assessing Prior Risk-Taking Experiences

Assessing prior risk-taking experiences should, at a minimum, account for the frequency, domain, or task and the emotional valence of those earlier experiences. To implement this approach, researchers can use various methods to capture these dimensions systematically.

For instance, studies might use quantitative items asking participants to rate the frequency of their past creative risk-taking in relevant domains (e.g., using scales ranging from “never” to “very often or always”). To assess domain or task specificity, participants could respond to checklists or open-ended questions identifying the areas in which they have previously taken creative risks. The subjective evaluation of these experiences could be measured using Likert-type scales that ask participants to rate the overall outcome of their past risks (e.g., from “very negative” to “very positive”).

In addition, researchers could incorporate qualitative methods, such as brief written prompts inviting participants to describe a significant experience involving creative risk-taking. These prompts might encourage participants to explain the risks they took, the reasoning behind them (including perceived costs and benefits), the context of the experience, the outcome (positive, negative, or neutral), and how the experience influenced their subsequent willingness to take similar risks.

These qualitative responses can provide rich insight into the nuances of individuals’ prior risk-taking experiences. This general approach can be adapted to fit various domains and tasks relevant to specific research questions (e.g., lesson planning or teaching, product development, artistic creation, research design, or other domain-specific creative endeavors).

Systematically assessing prior creative risk-taking in these ways can help researchers examine how often participants engage in such risks, the emotional valence they associate with those experiences, and contextual factors that may predict their willingness to take future domain- or task-specific creative risks.

Global and Situational Creative Risk Assessments

When people decide whether to try to do something creatively, they can be thought of as performing a cost-benefit analysis. For example, they might weigh a potential benefit (e.g., If I share this unusual idea, it might help the group solve this problem) against a potential cost (e.g., People might also dismiss me or think I’m weird). As discussed, taking creative action requires a willingness to take creative risks, which is contingent on believing that the potential benefits to ourselves and others outweigh the possible costs. These risks, costs, and benefits vary across domains and situations.

In highly competitive environments, such as entrepreneurship, the situation often resembles a zero-sum game where one start-up succeeds while others fail. The risks these companies face include market rejection, failure to generate profit, and lacking distinctiveness or being easily copied by competitors. Avoiding risk entirely can result in not sufficiently differentiating from established businesses. A key task of successful entrepreneurs is to actively engage with risks so they can be reduced and managed. Consequently, successful entrepreneurs often possess broad business and start-up experience, ambitious goals, and clear yet adaptable business ideas (backed by long hours, personal investment, and strong communication) enabling them to tackle risk head-on and navigate external threats (Duchesneau & Gartner, 1990).

In less competitive domains or situations, the perceived risks might be lower, often centering on social acceptance or reputation. The potential benefits may also differ, including successful problem-solving, personal fulfillment, and contributing to others. This is not to say that less competitive domains necessarily diminish the experience or contribution of taking creative risks. Depending on the situation, creative contributions can range from personal and everyday to professional and more lasting (Kaufman & Beghetto, Reference Kaufman and Beghetto2009).

We’ve already discussed how prior experiences with creative risk-taking and related creative agency beliefs (creative confidence and centrality) influence decisions to take creative risks. In addition, the CBAA model posits that a person’s general orientation toward risk-taking and their situationally specific appraisals of the perceived costs and benefits will also play a key role in deciding whether people will try to do something creatively.

Assessing Global Creative Risk-Taking

Global self-report measures are the most widely used by researchers to assess creative risk-taking (see Crepaldi et al., Reference Crepaldi, Fusi, Cancer, Iannello and Rusconi2024). These measures can be used to evaluate people’s general orientation toward creative risk-taking. Consider, for example, the scale we have used in our work (Beghetto et al., Reference Beghetto, Karwowski and Reiter-Palmon2021) depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3 General intellectual risk-taking scale.

Note: benefit and cost have been added to illustrate how the items are written to induce a cost-benefit appraisal.

Figure 3Long description

The text is titled Intellectual Risk Taking (IRT), (adapted from Beghetto et al. 2021). The scale uses a 1-5 point Likert scale: (1 is definitely not, 5 is definitely yes). The scale consists of six items, each phrased as a statement about taking intellectual risks during learning, noting the perceived benefit and cost for each action. Example items include: I like doing new things when learning [benefit], even if I am not very good at them [cost]. I share my ideas when learning [benefit], even if I am not sure they are correct [cost]. I will try to do new things when learning [benefit], even if I am not sure how [cost]. I try to find new ways of doing things when learning [benefit], even if they might not work out [cost]. It try to learn new things when learning [benefit], even if I might make mistakes[cost]. I ask questions when learning [benefit], even if other people will think I am not as smart as them [cost]. The image also states that the IRT scale score is calculated by averaging students' responses across these items.

The scale in Figure 3 uses items written to prompt respondents to engage in a cost-benefit analysis when assessing their global willingness to take creative risks in learning. It can also be used to assess specific learning domains (e.g., “…when learning [topic or subject area]”).

The Intellectual Risk Taking (IRT) scale aligns with several dimensions of our definition of creative risk-taking beliefs, particularly the willingness to engage in new and meaningful behaviors within a learning context. However, global measures, like the IRT scale, can fall short when assessing a broader range of domain-specific tasks and contexts, thereby limiting their potential to serve as meaningful predictors of cost-benefit appraisals on specific creative tasks (e.g., developing a creative marketing campaign for a product, designing a creative experiment, and creatively performing a poem for a public audience).

Moreover, prior work on willingness to take creative risks often does not sufficiently distinguish between perceived risks involved in the creative process and the creative product or outcome. Making this distinction is important (Lubart, Reference Lubart2018; O’Quin & Besemer, Reference O’Quin, Besemer, Runco and Pritzker1999) because failing to do so can yield mixed results and inaccuracies in inferences about people’s willingness to take creative risks.

When process and product are confounded and not sufficiently accounted for, it becomes impossible to answer key questions such as, “Do people lack the willingness to take creative risks because they view the process as being too costly to themselves or because they view the product as being too hazardous to themselves or others?” To enhance the consistency and accuracy of study results, we encourage researchers to distinguish between process-related and product-related factors when evaluating creative risk-taking.

Indeed, a person may be willing to take creative risks in generating ideas for a product (e.g., a wearable AI-powered assistant), but because they view the product as being potentially harmful (e.g., infringing on privacy rights), they decide not to launch the product. Separating these factors allows for more precise assessments of people’s willingness to take creative risks.

Therefore, advancing research on creative risk-taking beliefs requires not only global measures but also situationally specific cost-benefit analyses – assessing risks involved in the creative process and the creative product or outcome.

Assessing Situationally Specific Creative Risk-Taking

Researchers can assess creative risk-taking beliefs specific to a given situation or task to gain a more fine-grained understanding beyond global measures. This involves prompting individuals to engage in a cost-benefit analysis tailored to the immediate context, ideally just before they begin a creative task.

Such assessments should distinguish between the creative process and the creative product or outcome. For the process, the assessment can examine perceived personal costs (e.g., fear of criticism, time investment, and risk of rejection) and personal benefits (e.g., professional recognition, skill development, and opportunity for advancement) associated with engaging in the creative activity. Participants can be asked to identify and rate the importance of these perceived costs and benefits.

For the product, the assessment could focus on the perceived potential costs to oneself and others (e.g., negative impacts, ethical concerns, and societal disadvantages) and potential benefits to oneself and others (e.g., solving a problem, societal contribution, and user value) resulting from the potential creative outcome. Again, participants can identify and rate the significance of these factors.

Following this two-part cost-benefit analysis, researchers can then assess the individual’s willingness to take creative risks in relation to their cost-benefit analysis. This willingness could be measured specifically for the perceived process and separately for the perceived product. Capturing willingness in this way can provide a deeper understanding of the kinds of considerations influencing people’s decision to act creatively in a given context.

As this approach illustrates, researchers can add more situationally specific assessments of people’s willingness to take creative risks. Collecting these types of data can help avoid confounds between process and product considerations and provide more nuanced insights compared to using global measures alone.

Sociocultural and Contextual Factors

The final consideration for researchers interested in studying people’s willingness to take creative risks pertains to examining and accounting for potential sociocultural and contextual influences. As Crepaldi et al. (Reference Crepaldi, Fusi, Cancer, Iannello and Rusconi2024) note in their review of research on creative risk-taking, this factor is often overlooked and results in inconsistent findings and an incomplete understanding of the role risk-taking plays in creative behaviors.

As with any creative agency belief, the willingness to take creative risks can vary across tasks, contexts, and cultures. These influences can be thought of as nested (cultures > contexts > tasks) and should be considered accordingly in the design of studies and analysis of data from such studies. At the broadest level of influence, researchers have noted that cultural influences and values may impact how people perceive risk and their willingness to engage in creative risks (Crepaldi et al., Reference Crepaldi, Fusi, Cancer, Iannello and Rusconi2024).

Researchers have, for instance, discussed how views on creativity may be shaped by cultural differences between societies that emphasize individualism and those that place greater value on collectivism (Lubart & Sternberg, Reference Lubart and Sternberg1998; Niu & Kaufman, Reference Niu and Kaufman2013; Tang et al., Reference Tang, Werner and Karwowski2016). Whether and how societal values influence beliefs about creative risk-taking requires further empirical exploration. Consequently, research programs should examine how the willingness to take creative risks varies within and across cultural settings.

In terms of context, factors such as organizational culture, leadership styles, peer influence, and the availability of encouragement and support are also likely to influence people’s willingness to take creative risks. Regarding the development of creative potential in young people, Anderson (Reference Anderson2024) has demonstrated that contextual factors – such as the learning environment and instructional approaches – play a significant role in fostering young people’s creative, agentic engagement.

In this way, whether creative risk-taking is valued and supported (rather than punished or suppressed) can significantly impact people’s willingness to take creative risks and exercise their creative agency (Amabile, Reference Amabile1996; Edmondson, Reference Edmondson1999; Zhou & George, Reference Zhou and George2001). This support includes encouragement to take small risks, which can help build experience and foster a greater willingness to take future risks (Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019).

Indeed, small wins can play a pivotal role in enabling people to continually reassess and adjust their willingness to take creative risks in new situations (Amabile & Kramer, Reference Amabile and Kramer2011). Advancing research on creative risk-taking will require studies that examine these broader contextual influences.

Finally, different creative tasks also play a role in determining whether people are willing to engage with them creatively. High-stakes tasks (perceived cost of failure or loss > benefits of creative experimentation) will likely increase risk aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, Reference Kahneman and Tversky1979; Mumford & Gustafson, Reference Mumford and Gustafson1988). Even lower-stakes tasks can result in risk aversion, particularly when people experience constant monitoring and evaluative pressures to perform in expected ways (Amabile et al., Reference Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby and Herron1996).

We assert that people are more likely to engage in creative efforts when they have sufficient creative confidence, recognize the value of completing the task creatively, and possess adequate prior knowledge and experience. Depending on the task, choosing not to approach it creatively can be a sound decision. For example, a student taking a final exam in high school algebra who spends time drawing anime characters instead of solving the test problems would be making a poor choice, as the potential hazards of this creative diversion outweigh its benefits.

Conversely, avoiding creative risks can also be a missed opportunity. Take, for instance, a musician who, fearing rejection, decides not to perform original music for a live audience or on social media. This choice may prevent them from sharing their creative work, connecting with audiences, and building a successful career in music.

Knowing when and when not to take creative risks (Kaufman & Beghetto, Reference Kaufman and Beghetto2013), as well as how to regulate creative behaviors and emotions throughout task performance (Zielińska & Karwowski, Reference Zielińska, Karwowski, Beghetto and Jaeger2022; Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda and Karwowski2023), is essential for developing and exercising creative agency. These self-regulatory decisions, which include understanding when and how to apply creativity effectively, are integral to achieving successful creative outcomes and fostering a willingness to take further creative risks. This topic is the focus of the next section.

Concluding Thoughts

Exercising creative agency requires a willingness to take creative risks. As we’ve discussed, this is not a simple decision. Creative risk-taking is shaped by multiple factors, including past experiences, creative confidence, agency beliefs, situational risk assessments, and cultural and contextual influences.

While creative risk-taking is generally associated with enhanced creative performance, research findings on this relationship have been somewhat mixed (Crepaldi et al., Reference Crepaldi, Fusi, Cancer, Iannello and Rusconi2024). To address these complexities, we need robust theoretical frameworks and research programs. Our CBAA model provides a comprehensive approach to understanding and studying creative risk-taking through the lens of agentic action.

Though initial results are promising, further research is needed to validate these findings across diverse populations, refine theoretical models, and develop interventions to support creative risk-taking. We encourage creativity researchers to expand on and test our theoretical assertions and recommendations, advancing our understanding of how creative risk-taking can be developed and sustained.

Understanding Creative Self-Regulation

Self-regulation helps individuals manage and guide their activities to achieve specific goals (Karoly, Reference Karoly1993). It is generally understood as a set of cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and motivational steps that help individuals monitor and adjust their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (Malanchini et al., Reference Malanchini, Engelhardt, Grotzinger, Harden and Tucker-Drob2019). Importantly, self-regulation is not only cognition-driven (i.e., related to the cognitive strategies applied); it also relies heavily on emotions and strategies for dealing with challenges.

Given this foundation, how should creative self-regulation be understood? In its broadest sense, creative self-regulation refers to consciously managing and adjusting cognitive and emotional processes required to achieve creative goals. This broad conceptualization naturally grounds creative self-regulation in general self-regulation theories (Bandura, Reference Bandura1997; Karoly, Reference Karoly1993) while also bringing a unique focus stemming from the challenges and dynamics of creativity as opposed to routine tasks.

While general self-regulation often focuses on controlling behavior to achieve a desired, well-defined goal (e.g., healthy eating or achieving a sport-related milestone), creative self-regulation requires flexibility in approach, tolerance for uncertainty, and the ability to revise strategies as new challenges emerge (Rubenstein et al., Reference Rubenstein, Callan and Ridgley2018, Reference Rubenstein, Callan, Speirs Neumeister, Ridgley and Hernández Finch2020). Like other forms of self-regulation, creative self-regulation involves goal setting, strategic planning, emotion regulation, monitoring progress, and revising approaches to meet creative objectives.

Cold or Hot Self-Regulation: How Metacognition Differs from Self-Regulation

Creative thinking is often associated with spontaneous processes (Sawyer, Reference Sawyer2012), such as mind-wandering (Baird et al., Reference Baird, Smallwood and Mrazek2012; Christoff et al., Reference Christoff, Irving, Fox, Spreng and Andrews-Hanna2016), intuition (Raidl & Lubart, Reference Raidl and Lubart2001), or flashes of insight (Vallée-Tourangeau & March, Reference Vallée‐Tourangeau and March2020; Weiss et al., Reference Weiss, Steger and Kaur2021). However, spontaneity represents only part of the story behind creativity.

It is well established that creativity requires not only idea generation but also idea selection (Bink & Marsh, Reference Bink and Marsh2000; Fürst et al., Reference Fürst, Ghisletta and Lubart2017). While exploration is undoubtedly important, so is systematic evaluation of various possibilities (Tromp, Reference Tromp2024). There is a scholarly consensus that executive mechanisms must supplement associative processes (Silvia, Reference Silvia, Sternberg and Kaufman2018) and that bottom-up (spontaneous) and top-down (controllable) processes interact in creative thought (Benedek & Jauk, Reference Benedek, Jauk, Kaufman and Sternberg2019).

Even short-term creative thinking, like providing original uses for a brick, requires both spontaneity and control. Specifically, generating original responses in any divergent thinking task depends on recognizing and inhibiting obvious ideas that come to mind first, and such recognition and inhibition are examples of top-down executive mechanisms.

Recent research has focused on controllable aspects of cognition being analyzed within models of creative metacognition (Benedek & Lebuda, Reference Benedek and Lebuda2024; Lebuda & Benedek, Reference Lebuda and Benedek2023, Reference Lebuda and Benedek2025). Creative self-regulation, while related to metacognition (Kaufman & Beghetto, Reference Kaufman and Beghetto2013), is broader in nature, as it also touches upon emotional, motivational, and behavioral mechanisms beyond pure cold cognition (Beghetto & Mangion, Reference Beghetto and Mangion2023; Kaplan, Reference Kaplan2008). It applies to prolonged creative actions (Ivcevic & Nusbaum, Reference Ivcevic, Nusbaum, Karwowski and Kaufman2017) rather than short-term creativity tasks, which mostly rely on creative metacognition. Managing creative actions requires both metacognition and the engagement of emotional and motivational mechanisms.

How to Theorize Creative Self-Regulation?

Although creative self-regulation has only recently come to the creativity stage, several conceptual approaches have emerged in recent years. An initial framework for systematizing creative self-regulation (Ivcevic & Nusbaum, Reference Ivcevic, Nusbaum, Karwowski and Kaufman2017) focuses on two interrelated processes. The first involves revising and re-strategizing goals and actions. The second emphasizes the role of mechanisms responsible for supporting and sustaining creativity.

Defining and revising goals is particularly important, given that creative tasks are often poorly defined and not entirely understood. This is precisely why creativity researchers underscore the role of problem-finding and defining goals before any attempts to solve them (Reiter-Palmon & Murugavel, Reference Reiter-Palmon and Murugavel2018). Indeed, as illustrated by in-depth observations of creative actions across various domains (Glaveanu et al., Reference Glaveanu, Lubart and Bonnardel2013), creators often start with a vague idea of the goal they wish to attain and refine it while acting (Sawyer, Reference Sawyer2025).

Such adjustments require balancing the exploration of various possible action directions while channeling efforts to turn an initial idea into an outcome. While revising and re-strategizing the activity, people must manage their goals, which are often ambiguous, particularly at the beginning of the process. This includes redefining and making the goal more precise and disengaging from goals that prove unfeasible.

Supporting and sustaining processes enable creators to persevere despite obstacles, uncertainties, and failures. Such persistence is driven by creative confidence and centrality (Beghetto & Dilley, Reference Beghetto and Dilley2016; Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017; Karwowski & Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019), but it also benefits from effective emotion management (Ivcevic & Hoffmann, Reference Ivcevic, Hoffmann, Kaufman and Sternberg2019). Certain personality traits, most notably conscientiousness and its facet grit (Grohman et al., Reference Grohman, Ivcevic, Silvia and Kaufman2017; Rojas & Tyler, Reference Rojas and Tyler2018), also play a role in this process.

The broad conceptual model proposed by Ivcevic and Nusbaum has recently been extended and operationalized in works by Aleksandra Zielińska and her colleagues (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic and Karwowski2022, Reference Zielińska, Forthmann, Lebuda and Karwowski2025a). Specifically, Zielińska and colleagues built a theoretical bridge between Ivcevic and Nusbaum’s theorizing and self-regulated learning (SRL) models proposed in educational psychology (see Rubenstein et al., Reference Rubenstein, Callan and Ridgley2018, for applications to the creativity literature). This research program has proved fruitful by delivering new findings related to creative self-regulation, which are summarized in the next section.

An Empirical Decalogue of Research on Creative Self-Regulation

1. Creative Self-Regulation Is (Mostly) Domain-General. Creative self-regulation appears to be largely domain-general, meaning that various creative domains rely on similar structures and self-regulation mechanisms. However, different domains may vary in the intensity of self-regulation mechanisms needed to ensure creative achievement.

Measurement invariance analyses of the Creative Self-Regulation Questionnaire (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Forthmann, Lebuda and Karwowski2025a) across three broad creative super-domains – arts, science, and everyday creativity – have shown that the structure of creative self-regulation is virtually the same across domains. This finding indicates that measuring self-regulatory mechanisms across different domains is possible and allows for valid comparisons, as required by measurement invariance methodology. More importantly, it suggests that the ways people self-regulate during creative activity are essentially universal, regardless of the domain.

However, this does not rule out differences in the intensity of specific self-regulatory mechanisms involved in creative actions within different domains. On the contrary, an extensive study (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Forthmann, Lebuda and Karwowski2025a) found that creative activity within science relied more heavily on nearly all self-regulatory mechanisms compared to those in the arts or everyday settings. The differences between the arts and everyday creativity were smaller and more nuanced.

While these findings do not preclude the possibility of additional, domain-specific self-regulatory strategies, they emphasize the foundational and broadly applicable role of the seven mechanisms outlined in Zielińska and her colleagues’ model.

2. Self-Regulation Makes Activity Effective. The second finding highlights that self-regulation moderates the relationship between creative activity and achievement. While this relationship is generally positive and robust (e.g., Lebuda et al., Reference Lebuda, Zielińska and Karwowski2021), recent research (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda and Karwowski2023) shows that self-regulation plays a distinct role in translating creative activity into achievement. Specifically, the link between activity and achievement was stronger among individuals who effectively self-regulate compared to those who struggle with self-regulation.

Thus, although creative activity is essential for creative achievement, not all forms of activity are equally effective. Self-regulation enhances the creative process, increasing the likelihood of producing creative outcomes. These findings further support the idea that creative self-regulation is a key component of creative agency, providing the “how to create” knowledge and skills needed for success.

3. Self-Regulation Drives (and Is Driven by) Activity. The third empirical observation shows that creative self-regulation is positively associated with creative activity. This relationship has been demonstrated in studies on adolescents (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic and Karwowski2022), adults engaged in various domains (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Forthmann, Lebuda and Karwowski2025a), and creative professionals (Ivcevic et al., Reference Ivcevic, Grossman, Cotter and Nusbaum2024). Although most of the studies rely on correlational designs, the nature of these links appears to be reciprocal.

This reciprocal relationship manifests in two ways. First, individuals who have experienced success in prior creative endeavors are more likely to develop self-regulation skills. These successes reinforce the belief that effort and regulation lead to positive outcomes, motivating continued growth and the use of self-regulatory strategies.

Observations of how creative professionals work (Glaveanu et al., Reference Glaveanu, Lubart and Bonnardel2013; Sawyer, Reference Sawyer2025) typically portray them, contrary to popular myths (Benedek et al., Reference Benedek, Karstendiek and Ceh2021), as well-organized and self-disciplined, relying on specific, often idiosyncratic strategies they have developed and refined through practice. In this way, prior creative activity provides the foundation for building and sustaining creative self-regulation.

Second, creative self-regulation also predicts creative achievement. Research by Zielińska and colleagues (Reference Zielińska, Lebuda and Karwowski2023) demonstrated that individuals who use effective self-regulation strategies are more likely to produce high-quality creative work and succeed in creative fields. This finding is supported by various studies showing that using self-regulation strategies predicts performance in different creativity tasks.

For instance, Mawang et al. (Reference Mawang, Kigen and Mutweleli2020) asked music students to complete a creative composition task. They found that higher levels of musical creativity in the compositions, as rated by expert judges, were associated with the use of self-regulatory strategies such as organization, elaboration, and critical thinking.

In another study, Jankowska et al. (Reference Jankowska, Czerwonka, Lebuda and Karwowski2018), had participants complete a drawing creativity test while wearing eye-tracking glasses and providing spontaneous think-aloud comments. Those who scored the highest on the test took a distinctive approach: not only did they explore many possible solutions, but they also worked strategically, exercising continuous control over their process through planning, self-reporting, correcting, and elaborating.

Interestingly, self-regulatory skills can be learned through observation. Students who watched videos of peers engaging in creative design tasks – while simultaneously commenting on the process, such as explaining how participants explored the task, addressed problems, tried different solutions, and selected or combined ideas – produced more creative designs afterward compared to students who received instruction on how to do so (Groenendijk et al., Reference Groenendijk, Janssen, Rijlaarsdam and Van Den Bergh2013).

In sum, there is convincing evidence for a bidirectional relationship: activity drives self-regulation, while self-regulation enhances the effectiveness of activity and supports the transfer of effort into creative achievement.

4. Confidence and Self-Regulation Are Necessary for Creative Performance. Not only are there systematic and positive links between creative self-regulation and activity or achievement, but there is also convincing evidence for treating agency-related factors as “a must-have” for effective performance.

Consider a recent study (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda, Gop and Karwowski2024), which examined teachers’ creativity alongside their creative confidence and self-regulation. This study found that creative self-regulation mediates the relationship between creative confidence and creative performance.

Higher creative confidence was positively associated with creative self-regulation (as discussed in the following) and further enhanced teachers’ creativity in their professional tasks. Notably, this study demonstrated that both confidence and self-regulation were necessary for strong creative performance.

In other words, creative outcomes were highly unlikely when either confidence or self-regulation was lacking. Although strong confidence or well-developed self-regulatory skills do not ensure creative achievement, their absence virtually guarantees creative failure.

5. Creative Self-Regulation Stems from Confidence. Creative Self-Regulation Builds Confidence. Another consistent finding across multiple studies (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic and Karwowski2022, Reference Zielińska and Karwowski2024, Reference Zielińska, Forthmann, Lebuda and Karwowski2025a) is the relationship between creative self-regulation and creative confidence. Across these studies, the associations between these agentic beliefs were consistently positive and typically moderate in strength. But what are the mechanisms behind these associations?

According to classic social cognitive theory (Bandura, Reference Bandura1997), self-efficacy plays a causal role in shaping self-regulation. Applied to creativity, this suggests that creative confidence should likewise play a causal role in the development of creative self-regulation. Why might that be? There are at least three plausible mechanisms.

The first pertains to experience and success. Creatively confident individuals tend to have more mastery experiences (past creative successes), which serve as the foundation for developing creative self-regulation. This aligns with our earlier discussion of the reciprocal relationship between creativity activity (or achievement) and self-regulation. In short, creative confidence often grows out of experiencing success with creative endeavors. Through these experiences, people learn what works and what does not, making creative self-regulation a natural byproduct of creative confidence.

The second mechanism pertains to the nature of the goals that more creatively confident people formulate. Creative confidence is positively associated with more ambitious and far-reaching goals, which require more complex planning and strategies to navigate the creative process effectively. The nature of these goals likely drives creatively confident individuals to approach challenges differently and apply a broader range of strategies.

The third mechanism explains how more creatively confident individuals, due to their experience and ambitious goals, also possess a greater repertoire of strategies and are more open to experimenting with them. They tend to be less rigid and more adaptable, often having a “plan B” when initial approaches fail. However, there is also evidence suggesting that this posited causal link can operate in the other direction: self-regulation can strengthen creative confidence.

Consider an intervention study (Zielińska & Karwowski, Reference Zielińska and Karwowskiunder review) in which students’ self-regulation was either activated (experimental group) or not (control group) during a three-week creative writing study. The activation of self-regulation translated into increased creative confidence. When students were given simple prompts to anticipate and address potential challenges, they felt more confident and creative in handling the task. Thus, the relationship between creative confidence and self-regulation is reciprocal, with each reinforcing the other.

6. Creative Self-Regulation Is Not Just an Epiphenomenon of Personality or Beliefs about Creativity. Personality traits are important for creative self-regulation, but their role should not be overstated. Research shows (Lebuda et al., Reference Lebuda, Zielińska and Karwowski2021) that individuals high in traits such as openness to experience, conscientiousness, and emotional stability (i.e., low in neuroticism) are more likely to engage in effective self-regulation strategies during creative tasks.

Openness to experience is particularly linked to greater creativity, as individuals high in this trait tend to be more curious, imaginative, and open to new ideas. These qualities enable them to explore novel approaches to problems, tolerate uncertainty, and regulate their emotional responses to setbacks.

Conscientiousness, by contrast, is associated with greater persistence and goal-directed behavior, making it important for regulating effort in long-term creative projects. While creativity often requires the flexibility to explore new possibilities, it also demands discipline and self-control to refine and implement ideas. Individuals high in conscientiousness are particularly skilled in these areas, which supports persistent and effective engagement with creative work.

Emotional stability (or low neuroticism) supports the emotional regulation aspect of creativity. Those who are more emotionally stable can cope more effectively with the frustrations and uncertainties of creative work, allowing them to persevere where others might give up.

Yet, studies show that the links between personality factors and creative self-regulation are typically modest in strength (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic and Karwowski2022, Reference Zielińska, Forthmann, Lebuda and Karwowski2025a). While specific traits might play a more substantial role in specific strategies – such as openness for uncertainty acceptance or emotional stability for managing emotions – creative self-regulation should not be reduced to a combination of personality traits.

This assertion is supported by findings that creative self-regulation explains a unique portion of the variance in creative activity and achievement, even when personality factors are statistically controlled in multivariate models (Ivcevic et al., Reference Ivcevic, Grossman, Cotter and Nusbaum2024; Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Forthmann, Lebuda and Karwowski2025a).

Beyond personality, another important correlate (and theoretically, an antecedent) of creative self-regulation is an individual’s creative mindset, which refers to their belief about whether creativity is a fixed trait or a malleable skill that can develop over time (Karwowski, Reference Karwowski2014; Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Royston and Reiter-Palmon2019c). Research shows (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda, Ivcevic and Karwowski2022, Reference Zielińska, Forthmann, Lebuda and Karwowski2025a) that individuals who believe that creativity can improve through effort and practice (a growth mindset) are more likely to activate and use self-regulatory behaviors relevant to their creative performance.

A growth mindset fosters resilience in the face of setbacks, encouraging individuals to view obstacles as opportunities for learning rather than as indicators of failure. This mindset is crucial for self-regulation, as it helps individuals maintain motivation, adjust their strategies, and persist in their creative efforts.

7. Self-Regulation Prompts Make People More Creative. Research on creative self-regulation has increasingly focused on identifying causal links, such as how self-regulation influences creative outcomes through experimental designs. A recent experiment by Zielińska et al. (Reference Zielińska, Lebuda, Czerwonka and Karwowski2025b) tested the effectiveness of brief self-regulation prompts in enhancing creative performance.

Participants were asked to complete tasks involving logo design, short story writing, or greeting card creation. Half received prompts encouraging self-regulation strategies. Those who received the prompts produced more creative outcomes than participants in the control group. These results suggest that even simple interventions can enhance creative performance by promoting strategic and controlled task engagement.

Moreover, the study demonstrated that the effect of the prompts was fully mediated by participants’ engagement (measured by the time spent on the task) and their positive active emotions during the activity. In other words, self-regulatory prompts primarily influenced emotional (positive active emotions) and motivational (task engagement) aspects of the creative process, rather than only cognitive or metacognitive effects.

8. Stimulating Creative Self-Regulation Strengthens Creativity Outside the Laboratory. Interventions centered on self-regulation and implementation intentions build creative confidence, translate into various creative activities, and enhance creative outcomes. As demonstrated by Zielińska and Karwowski (in press a), students who received self-regulation prompts during a three-week creative writing project reported higher creative confidence and greater engagement in creative activities compared to the control group.

In addition, their stories were assessed as significantly more creative by independent judges who were blind to the experimental conditions. The positive effects of self-regulatory prompts were particularly evident in the early stages of the creative process, helping students to organize their approach and lay a stronger foundation for subsequent steps of the process.

9. There Are (at least) Three Distinct Types of Self-Regulators. Creative self-regulation is a process, yet individuals tend to have particular preferences regarding how they manage creative tasks. As such, creative self-regulation can be analyzed as an individual difference variable that varies across and within individuals.

A mixed-method study (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda, Gop and Karwowski2024) identified three distinct profiles (or types) of people with different creative self-regulation styles. The three types are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1Creative self-regulation types

Type	Definition & characteristics	Example	Support techniques & strategies
Dysregulated Type: Struggling with Control	Difficulty managing creative processes. Overwhelmed by complexity; struggles with planning, monitoring, and adjusting actions. Anticipates obstacles but fails to devise solutions, leading to paralysis and negative emotions. Reactive rather than proactive, often abandoning projects. Low-quality output.	A teacher envisions challenges in designing a new curriculum module but becomes overwhelmed and indecisive, failing to complete multiple started ideas.	Structure and Guidance: Clear frameworks, deadlines, and scaffolding. Strategy Training: Techniques for managing frustration and uncertainty (e.g., cognitive reframing, time management). Chunking: Breaking down tasks into smaller, manageable steps with frequent check-ins. Process over Perfection: Encouraging a focus on progress rather than flawless outcomes. Incremental Feedback: Providing feedback on small steps rather than waiting for project completion.
Plan-and-Execute Type: The Methodical Creators	Highly structured, goal-oriented approach. Excels at setting objectives and following plans. Efficient, organized, and disciplined. Less likely to revise work once initial goals are met. High creativity when tasks align with the initial plan.	A teacher meticulously plans and adheres to a timeline for designing a project-based learning module, considering it complete once initial objectives are met without exploring alternative ideas.	Encourage Flexibility: Exploring new ideas, creative risks, and iterative processes. Value of Revision: Highlighting the benefits of revisiting and refining work. Opportunities for Experimentation: Introducing scenarios that encourage deviation from the plan (e.g., design sprints, rapid prototyping). Collaborative Feedback: Pairing with individuals who excel at risk-taking and improvisation. Reflection on Collaboration: Encouraging reflection on how collaboration and feedback can enhance their approach.
Draft-and-Revise Type: The Flexible Iterators	Dynamic and adaptive approach. Comfortable with uncertainty and expects obstacles. Open to multiple revisions, viewing them as opportunities for improvement. Persistent, experimental, and comfortable with risk-taking. May be slower to declare a project finished, often leading to highly original outcomes.	A teacher developing an interdisciplinary project continually refines their approach, testing ideas, seeking feedback, and revisiting the project until it feels complete, potentially struggling to finalize it due to a belief in continuous improvement.	Guided Deadlines: Providing structured timelines to avoid overworking or over-refining. Balance Iteration and Completion: Encouraging a balance between refining and finalizing. Support for Risk-Taking: Creating environments that encourage and celebrate experimentation without fear of failure. Structured Reflection: Encouraging reflection after revisions to understand when changes are sufficient (e.g., reflection journals, collaborative review sessions). Reflective Checkpoints: Periodic evaluations of progress with peers or mentors to assess revisions and determine when to move forward.

Importantly, these types are not necessarily fixed. Rather, they reflect how individuals regulate their creative processes, anticipate challenges, and adjust their actions to produce creative outcomes (Anderson, Reference Anderson2025).

10. Creative Self-Regulation Brings Hope for Future Creativity. Effective creative self-regulation is not only associated with creative activity and achievement (in what appears to be a reciprocal relationship), but it also increases individual’s eagerness to pursue future creative endeavors.

At least three distinct findings support this hopeful outlook. First, in a correlational study by Zielińska and colleagues (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Forthmann, Lebuda and Karwowski2025a), participants reported on their anticipated future engagement and creative achievement. Multivariate models demonstrated that certain self-regulation factors – most consistently emotion regulation and readiness for sharing – were positively associated with expected future creativity, even after controlling for personality traits, creative mindsets, and the other agency factors (e.g., confidence and centrality).

Second, findings from Zielińska and Karwowski (in press a) showed that participants who received self-regulatory prompts wrote more creative stories. One month later, they were also more likely to believe they would publish a novel someday, compared to participants in the control group or those who did not participate in the intervention.

Third, a study conducted by Zielińska & Karwowski (Reference Zielińska and Karwowski2023) examined “possibility thinking” related to future creative endeavors. Participants imagined themselves as authors who published a novel and described some details of this imagined book. They then rated the likelihood of actually writing such a book and responded to the Creative Self-Regulation Questionnaire with respect to this imagined task.

Perceived likelihood was positively associated with openness, creative confidence, and creative self-regulation, particularly in areas such as managing goals, emotion regulation, and readiness for sharing. Notably, individuals with low creative self-regulation were far less convinced that they could write novel someday.

Similar to the mixed-method study on teachers (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda, Gop and Karwowski2024), three types of “creative self-regulators” emerged. Participants who envisioned their future actions in terms of a “dysregulated approach” were significantly less creatively confident and perceived their chances of writing a book as much lower than those who adopted  a “plan-execute approach” or “draft-revise approach.”

In sum, effective self-regulation increases both the likelihood that people will experiment with creative tasks and their optimism about engaging in such tasks in the future.

Conclusion

As discussed in this section, creative self-regulation helps to transform perceived creative agency into actual creative action. To behave creatively, individuals need the belief that they can do it (confidence), that it’s worth doing (centrality), and that the risk is justified (creative risk-taking). But they also need knowledge, skills, and practical strategies. Creative self-regulation provides these strategies, enabling individuals to navigate the creative process effectively.

Creativity inherently involves uncertainty, which arises at every stage of the process, from idea generation to refining the final product (Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2021b). This uncertainty serves as both a challenge and a catalyst for creativity. Creative self-regulation helps individuals manage uncertainty by reframing challenges as opportunities and sustaining motivation over time (Zielińska & Karwowski, Reference Zielińska, Karwowski, Beghetto and Jaeger2022).

This often requires emotional regulation strategies such as tolerating ambiguity, maintaining resilience in the face of setbacks, and reframing negative experiences in a positive light. For example, a self-regulated individual might view the ambiguity of an open-ended task not as a source of anxiety but as an opportunity for exploration.

Creative self-regulation draws on several key mechanisms: planning (setting goals and breaking tasks into manageable steps), monitoring (assessing progress and adapting strategies), emotional regulation (managing emotions like frustration and anxiety), and reflection (reviewing outcomes to guide future efforts).

Supporting these mechanisms through targeted interventions (e.g., self-regulation prompts) can significantly enhance creative performance. Educators and managers, for example, can introduce goal setting, strategic planning, and self-reflection techniques to help students and employees regulate their creative processes more effectively. Providing constructive feedback and opportunities for reflection further fosters creative self-regulation, motivating individuals to refine their strategies and persist through challenges.

Ten CBAA-Related Propositions

Proposition 1. Creative Potential Is Not Sufficient for Creative Action and Achievement. The first proposition critical to the CBAA model is based on the observation that the links between creative potential and creative activity or achievement tend to be inconsistent and modest at best (Karwowski & Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019). Creative potential includes processes such as divergent thinking, remote associations, metaphorical and analogical thinking, and other cognitive processes relevant to creative thought.

Although foundational studies show that creative abilities can translate into achievement (Plucker, Reference Plucker1999), this translation is neither automatic nor straightforward (Benedek, Reference Benedek2024). A recent meta-analysis (Said-Metwaly et al., Reference Said-Metwaly, Taylor, Camarda and Barbot2024), for example, found that the relationship between measures of potential and achievement is statistically significant but weak (r = 0.18).

Beyond simple linear, average-based relationships, there is still merit to the claim that creative potential plays a key role in creative achievement. Specifically, creative potential seems to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for successful creative outcomes. When potential is low, creative achievement is unlikely (though not impossible). Conversely, high potential alone does not guarantee success.

This reasoning has been empirically supported in the case of intelligence (Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Dul and Gralewski2016, Reference Karwowski, Kaufman, Lebuda, Szumski and Firkowska-Mankiewicz2017), and creative potential appears to follow a similar logic. The key question, however, is: What factors help to convert creative potential into creative action? The CBAA model posits that creative confidence and centrality play crucial roles in this process. Creative confidence is theorized to mediate the link between potential and behavior, while creative centrality is proposed to moderate it. We explain the reasoning behind these mechanisms in Propositions 2 and 3.

Proposition 2. Creative Confidence Mediates the “Potential-Action” Link. Creative confidence is theorized as a mediator in the potential-action chain. In other words, the CBAA model posits that people’s creative potential influences their level of confidence, which in turn supports creative activity and achievement.

The theorized “path a” of the mediation model assumes that potential shapes confidence. That is, individuals with higher creative abilities and skills tend to develop higher creative confidence. Why might this be the case? At least three mechanisms help explain how higher potential contributes to greater confidence.

The first mechanism is metacognitive. There is a positive, albeit weak-to-moderate, relationship between creative abilities and the ability to recognize creativity in one’s own and others’ ideas (Guo et al., Reference Guo, Lin and Acar2022). More creative people tend to be more aware of their creative strengths. Although this relationship is far from perfect (recall the Dunning–Kruger effect, which is less pronounced in the case of creativity, Lebuda et al., Reference Lebuda, Hofer, Rominger and Benedek2024), creative people, overall and on average, may be considered “doubly skilled” (Silvia, Reference Silvia2008): they can effectively generate creative ideas and accurately recognize the creativity of their ideas. This metacognitive awareness may be one reason why potential shapes confidence.

The second mechanism is experiential. As Bandura (Reference Bandura1997) explained, mastery experiences (past successes) build self-efficacy. More creatively skilled individuals are more likely to work through setbacks, solve problems, and succeed in creative tasks. These experiences build confidence, as they demonstrate to people that they are capable of creative achievement.

The third mechanism is social in origin. Bandura’s theory highlights that self-efficacy is shaped by social persuasion, such as the messages individuals receive from significant others. More creative people are more likely to receive positive feedback from their peers (McKay et al., Reference McKay, Grygiel and Karwowski2017), parents (Jankowska et al., Reference Jankowska, Lebuda and Gralewski2024; Jankowska & Karwowski, Reference Jankowska and Karwowski2019), and teachers (Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Gralewski and Szumski2015), which can help bolster their creative confidence.

These three factors – metacognitive (awareness of one’s own creativity), experiential (successes in the past), and social (positive feedback) – do not form an exhaustive list of all potential mechanisms of linking potential and confidence. They are also not mutually exclusive. In fact, they likely interact and reinforce one another to build creative confidence.

What empirical evidence supports this relationship? Meta-analytical estimates show significant, albeit somewhat weak, correlations between creative potential and confidence (Haase et al., Reference Haase, Hoff, Hanel and Innes-Ker2018). Demonstrating causal links is challenging, as creative potential is difficult to manipulate directly. However, one recent study (Wiśniewska & Karwowski, Reference Wiśniewska and Karwowskiin press) used a unique design to examine the effects of creativity training.

Participants’ creative abilities and confidence were measured twice in experimental and control groups before and after the training. The training was highly effective. Participants in the experimental group showed substantial gains in creative ability, while the control group did not. Creative confidence also increased in the experimental group, though the effect was smaller.

A more complex effect was also observed, which is particularly relevant to the present discussion. A mediation model revealed that the change in creative confidence was fully mediated by the change in creative potential. In other words, training strengthened participants’ creative abilities, and this improvement in abilities (in the experimental group) fully accounted for the rise in their creative confidence. Although preliminary, this Abilities-Shape-Confidence Effect aligns with the causal logic proposed in the CBAA.

Further indirect support for a causal relationship between potential and confidence comes from two preregistered experiments. These experiments tested people’s divergent thinking and confidence by manipulating the instructions given to participants (Wojtycka et al., under review).

The classic “be creative” effect in the creativity literature (Harrington, Reference Harrington1975) has been shown to increase creativity compared to other prompts like “be fluent.” While this effect may be partly metacognitive, this manipulation can be viewed as a way of activating creative thinking. The key question is not only whether this activation improves creativity, as many studies have shown (e.g., Wei et al., Reference Wei, Shen, Long and Lu2024), but whether it also boosts creative confidence.

In both preregistered experiments, the “be creative” instruction was highly effective in strengthening participants’ creative ideas (Cohen’s ds > 1) and also increased their creative confidence. This effect was moderated by participants’ metacognitive accuracy. In other words, confidence gains were stronger among participants who were better at judging how creative their own ideas were. These experimental findings provide further support for the posited causal link between creative potential and confidence.

There is also a second mediational path (the “b”) in the potential-confidence-behavior chain. This path posits a causal relationship between confidence and creative action. Indeed, individuals’ creative confidence can change the likelihood of creative outcomes (e.g., Haase et al., Reference Haase, Hoff, Hanel and Innes-Ker2018), but most of this evidence comes from correlational, between-person studies.

Causal studies remain rare but informative. For instance, a daily diary intervention that used simple motivational prompts to support students’ confidence increased their engagement in creative activities (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda and Karwowski2022b). Similarly, a recent two-year longitudinal study with Japanese adolescents (Ishiguro et al., Reference Ishiguro, Matsumoto, Akata and Okada2025) demonstrated higher levels of creative behavior led to higher creative confidence, which then predicted creative behavior six months later.

Taken together, these findings suggest that creative confidence is both a cause and effect of creative activity and achievements, in line with social cognitive theory (Bandura, Reference Bandura1982). However, the level of analysis matters. Most studies have examined confidence-action relationships at between-person level, correlating trait-level creative confidence with activity, or achievement in large samples of participants (Lebuda et al., Reference Lebuda, Zielińska and Karwowski2021). Far fewer have tested within-person effects (Sitzmann & Yeo, Reference Sitzmann and Yeo2013), and the results of such analytical approaches are mixed.

Specifically, the path from activity to confidence seems to be largely independent of the design and level of analysis (i.e., between or within-person). However, the confidence-performance associations at the within-person level (see, e.g., Beattie et al., Reference Beattie, Woodman, Fakehy and Dempsey2016), vary greatly, with results showing positive, null, or even negative associations (see Sitzmann & Yeo, Reference Sitzmann and Yeo2013, for a meta-analysis).

Notably, these studies rarely explore creative confidence and creative performance. Rather, most focus on people’s general or job-specific self-efficacy in relationship to their organizational performance. Studies directly exploring within-person effects or both between- and within-person associations are rare (Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Han and Beghetto2019a). A recent diary study (Zielińska & Karwowski, Reference Zielińska and Karwowskiunder review), however, is an exception.

Results from the diary study demonstrated robust correlations between confidence and activity at both between- and within-person levels. Lagged effects revealed that creative activity on one day predicted next-day confidence, but the reverse effect was not observed.

The initial CBAA model was theorized as a between-person framework (but see Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Karwowski and Kaufman2017). However, we recognize that to further develop our understanding and model of creative agency, it is necessary to study the confidence-action links at both within- and between-person levels. Within-person analyses can untangle more dynamic, intraindividual processes that unfold over time, “unfreezing” creativity (Beghetto & Karwowski, Reference Beghetto, Karwowski, Beghetto and Corazza2019) and capturing the more fluid (rather than fixed) nature of self-beliefs (Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Han and Beghetto2019a).

Some researchers have offered explanations for the mixed findings regarding the within-person links between confidence and performance. When negative relationships were observed, Vancouver et al. (Reference Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner and Putka2002) offered an important explanation: As a person’s confidence increases during a task, they may reduce their effort because they believe the task is easier than it actually is. While it might seem logical to reduce effort on an “easy” task to conserve resources, this overconfidence can lead to poorer performance on complex tasks. This is why Bandura and Locke (Reference Bandura and Locke2003) emphasized that proper within-person tests are needed to test the causal links between confidence and performance on realistic tasks of increasing difficulty.

Finally, the assertion that confidence builds performance is supported by empirical studies that manipulate people’s agentic factors and assess how such manipulation translates into their creative performance. Across several preregistered experiments, Zielińska and Karwowski (Reference Zielińska and Karwowski2024) activated individuals’ confidence and centrality by, for example, manipulating the order of instruments. The experimental group was first provided with items measuring confidence and centrality, and then, after such activation, presented with performance tasks. The control group started with performance tasks or asked participants to reflect on why creativity matters for them (centrality condition), what makes them creative (confidence condition), or a combination of various activations.

The results of these experiments showed significant effects that ranged from d = 0.13 when participants’ creativity was measured with a story task to d = 0.60 when the alternate uses task was applied. The meta-analytically obtained average was d = 0.34 (95% CI: 0.21–0.48), a small-to-medium effect (Cohen, Reference Cohen1992). This is comparable to the average meta-analytically obtained effects of creativity training on participants’ creativity (Sio & Lortie-Forgues, Reference Sio and Lortie-Forgues2024), which ranged from d = 0.29 to d = 0.32 (when corrected for statistical artifacts).

In other words, the brief and subtle activation of participants’ creative agency factors resulted in gains similar to those achieved through more prolonged and intensive creativity programs. Thus, not only does activation of confidence and centrality have practical consequences for creative action, but it also supports the CBAA model’s claim: agency factors, particularly creative confidence, play a causal role in shaping creative performance.

The next three propositions (3, 4, and 5) are related to the role of creative centrality in the CBAA model and the relationships between confidence and centrality. More specifically, although the links between confidence and centrality are usually quite strong, it is hypothesized that they play complementary yet distinctive roles in activating and sustaining creative action. We turn now to that reasoning.

Proposition 3.Creative Centrality Moderates the “Potential-Action” Link. As the CBAA model posited and research demonstrates (Karwowski & Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019), creative centrality plays a peculiar role in the agentic system. On the one hand, centrality is a robust and consistent predictor of behavior. Even more importantly, however, the level of centrality qualifies the links between potential and behavior.

This moderation effect was consistently observed in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, with virtually null links between potential and performance among people who do not value creativity or do not consider it essential for their identity (low centrality) and positive, significant relationships among those who treat creativity as a vital part of themselves.

More detailed analyses have shown that this moderation effect might not be linear, that is, what particularly matters is the situation when creative centrality is low or very low (e.g., Karwowski and Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019, found that creative centrality at or below the 30th percentile is particularly problematic) because people with such low centrality do not fulfill their potential.

As illustrated in Figure 4, even very high cognitive potential is fruitless if not accompanied by at least moderate (or preferably high) valuing of creativity. In a sense, therefore, creative centrality might be considered a necessary condition of performance. When it is low, the chances that potential will be fulfilled are negligible.

Figure 4 Moderating effects of creative centrality in potential-achievement

Figure 4Long description

The line graph shows Creative Achievement along the y-axis, ranging from negative 0.3 to 0.4 in increments of 0.1, versus Creative Potential, split by Centrality along the x-axis, ranging from Very low to Very High. The grey line shows Low Centrality, staying flat at negative 0.1 achievement. The black line for Moderate or High Centrality rises sharply from Very low potential to Very High. A shaded area, “The Gap - Untapped Potential Due to Low Centrality”, highlights how low centrality limits achievement, especially at high potential. High centrality is key to realizing creative potential.

Proposition 4. Centrality Moderates the “Potential-Confidence-Behavior” Mediation. The vital role of creative centrality is further strengthened by the fact that it not only qualifies the “potential-behavior” links (Proposition 3) but also moderates the “b” path, that is, the causal relationship between confidence and behavior. This second moderation role is, in fact, two-fold. On the one hand, centrality strengthens the links between confidence and behavior (see Karwowski & Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019, Study 2).

On the other hand, the CBAA model hypothesizes what is technically called a “moderated mediation,” that is, centrality moderates the whole “potential-confidence-behavior” mediational chain. In other words, what we discussed in detail under “Proposition 2” is further qualified by people’s creative centrality.

This moderated mediation was consistently replicated across two cross-sectional and one longitudinal study (Karwowski & Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2019), showing that the indirect effect of potential on behavior as mediated by confidence is stronger among people with solid creative centrality, and this mediation did not occur among those whose centrality was low. This again emphasizes the vital role centrality plays as the trigger of the whole agency loop.

Proposition 5. Confidence and Centrality Are Reciprocally and Dynamically Intertwined. The fifth proposition highlights the dynamic links between confidence and centrality, two initial elements of the CBAA model.

Although they are usually quite strongly correlated, this correlation might be caused – at least partly – by the common method variance issue, since both confidence and centrality are typically measured by different items of the same instrument (most often the Short Scale of Creative Self; Karwowski et al., Reference Karwowski, Lebuda and Wiśniewska2018; Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda and Karwowski2022a). However, there are also empirical and theoretical arguments to consider their interrelations at the more dynamic level.

Theoretically, there are reasons to consider centrality a cause of confidence, but the reverse is also true.

First, since centrality strongly relates to a person’s identity and creativity’s place in self-perception, it generalizes into broad spheres of a person’s functioning. Therefore, those who care about creativity and consider it essential are more likely to develop the conviction (accurate or not) that they can function creatively (Tierney & Farmer, Reference Tierney and Farmer2011).

However, the reverse is also true. Perhaps the links from confidence to centrality are even stronger (Karwowski, Reference Karwowski2016) than those from centrality to confidence. Indeed, two longitudinal studies demonstrated that confidence might boost centrality, so people start valuing those spheres of their functioning in which they feel competent (Karwowski, Reference Karwowski2016). Therefore, the reciprocal loop between these two elements of creative agency seems well-corroborated.

Creative risk-taking and creative self-regulation were not included in the original CBAA model. However, the growing number of studies summarized in this Element, and the theoretical role of those two factors for agentic functioning, calls for their inclusion in a more elaborated version of the model. We see at least two findings that inform the following propositions (6 and 7).

Proposition 6. Creative Risk-Taking Predicts Behavior and Moderates the “Confidence-Behavior” Links. Although the specific role played by creative risk-taking requires further research (see also Section 4), one investigation (Beghetto et al., Reference Beghetto, Karwowski and Reiter-Palmon2021) provides a compelling case to consider risk-taking as both an independent predictor of creative behavior and a factor that moderates the relationship between confidence and activity and achievement in various domains.

As previously discussed with centrality (see Proposition 3), a very low proclivity toward risk-taking (about 2 standard deviations below the mean) had two effects. First, it eliminated the link between confidence and creative activity/achievement in arts and science. Second, when examining overall creative achievement, these individuals with very low risk-taking showed a negative, rather than positive, relationship between their creative confidence and achievement.

Thus, although the role played by risk-taking in creative behavior warrants future investigations, what we have learned so far highlights this factor’s importance for activating creative activity.

Proposition 7. Creative Self-Regulation Is Driven by and Drives Confidence. As we explained in Section 5, research shows that not only does confidence shape self-regulation, but the reverse is also true.

Confidence as a prerequisite for self-regulation is among the foundational axioms of social cognitive theory (Bandura, Reference Bandura1982, Reference Bandura1997). More confident people self-regulate better because of what they have learned, thanks to a richer repertoire of more advanced mental strategies, and the bolder goals they posit.

As demonstrated elsewhere (Zielińska & Karwowski, Reference Zielińska and Karwowskiunder review), supporting students’ creative self-regulation not only results in more creative effects but also builds students’ creative confidence. Therefore, confidence shapes self-regulation, but self-regulation also results in stronger confidence.

Moreover, there are some arguments to expect that confidence built by self-regulation might be (although this is a hypothesis to be tested) more accurate and closely aligned with performance. As we already discussed, sometimes confidence, especially overestimation, demobilizes personal resources rather than increasing motivation (Vancouver et al., Reference Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner and Putka2002).

However, when confidence is self-regulated and activity-driven (rather than self-enhanced from ego motives), it is expected to be more closely related to the task and activity context, resulting in appropriate reactions. When confidence increases thanks to improved self-regulation, it might result in more enduring, long-lasting creative engagement.

Proposition 8. Creative Self-Regulation Makes Behavior Effective. The eighth proposition, the final one among those that have been at least partially confirmed in empirical studies, posits that creative self-regulation not only predicts the intensity of engaging in creative activity but also the degree to which that activity translates into achievement.

As illustrated elsewhere (Zielińska et al., Reference Zielińska, Lebuda and Karwowski2023, see also Section 5), although activity is necessary for accomplishments, effective self-regulation strengthens the links between activity and achievement. Two additional CBAA-related propositions regarding risk-taking and creative self-regulation propositions await empirical testing and validation. We briefly discuss them next.

Proposition 9. Confidence Shapes Risk-Taking. Although risk-taking was demonstrated to moderate the relationship between confidence and creative activity, there are also arguments for considering confidence as a factor that shapes risk-taking tendencies.

Based on what we know about creatively self-efficacious people, chances are that they will exercise their confidence by examining nonobvious ways of behavior and testing unsafe routes. Indeed, it seems that creative risk-taking requires substantial creative confidence. Correlations between these constructs are robust (r = 0.42, Beghetto et al., Reference Beghetto, Karwowski and Reiter-Palmon2021), yet causal links remain to be established. Both experimental and longitudinal investigations with measures going beyond static self-report instruments are particularly welcome to uncover these associations.

Proposition 10. Self-Regulation Empowers Potential. The tenth and final CBAA-related proposition relates to what could be considered an apparent yet overlooked relationship. We posit that creative self-regulation – like creative centrality – is the factor that unlocks creative potential and transfers it into observable outcomes.

Therefore, we expect a moderation-like relationship (interaction) between potential and self-regulation to strengthen the chances for effective creative behavior. Again, however, details matter, and new investigations are not only necessary to test if this hypothesized moderation occurs at all but also to determine its character. For example, do more creatively skilled people additionally benefit when their self-regulation is high (synergy between potential and self-regulation), or perhaps does creative self-regulation instead counterbalance lower levels of creative potential? These and other questions have yet to be answered.

The overview we presented, with a particular focus on two new categories absent in the initial CBAA model, creative risk-taking and creative self-regulation, led to the extended incarnation of the CBAA (Figure 5). Categories in gray boxes are original factors covered by the initial version of the model.

Figure 5 The revised creative behavior as agentic action model

Figure 5Long description

The diagram presents an extended version of the Creative Behavior as Agentic Action (CBAA) model. Rectangular boxes represent Creative Potential, Creative Confidence, Creative Centrality, and Creative Behavior are shown in grey boxes, indicating they are original factors from the initial CBAA model. Creative Self-Regulation and Creative Risk-Taking are in white boxes. Arrows depict relationships between these factors. Black arrows show relationships established and confirmed in the early stages of the CBAA model. Grey arrows represent links theorized based on recent empirical results. Dotted grey lines indicate hypothetical effects that require further empirical testing.

Black arrows denote relationships postulated and confirmed at the early stages of the CBAA model’s development (although often more robust empirical tests were obtained afterward). Gray arrows demonstrate the links theorized based on empirical results discussed in this section. Finally, the dotted gray lines are related to the hypothetical effects that await empirical tests.Footnote ³

Conclusion

The CBAA model focuses on the intentional, agent-driven nature of creative acts. Moving away from traditional views of creativity as either spontaneous or purely cognitive, the CBAA framework asserts that creative behaviors result from goal-directed behaviors shaped by individuals’ motivations, perceptions, and the broader context. Inspired by Bandura’s human agency theory, the model views individuals as active actors influencing their creative outcomes, positioning creativity as an agentic action.

The original CBAA model was built upon four key pillars: creative potential, creative confidence, creative centrality, and creative behavior. Together, these elements provided a framework to understand how creative actions are initiated and sustained. However, as research on creative agency evolved, two additional factors – creative risk-taking and creative self-regulation – were identified as vital additions to the model. Creative risk-taking, for instance, moderates the relationship between confidence and creative achievement. Creative self-regulation, meanwhile, influences the effectiveness of creative behaviors and helps sustain them.

Among the most critical aspects for the future development of the CBAA model is the consideration of creative goals. Understanding how individuals formulate creative goals, the boldness of these goals, and the role of agency in goal setting are key areas for refinement. Creative goals are not simply aspirations; they reflect an individual’s agency and capacity to act creatively. Investigating how factors like creative confidence and self-regulation influence the boldness and complexity of goal formulation will provide valuable insights into the creative process.

Another promising extension of the CBAA model involves explorations in collaborative agency. This includes group dynamics, where teams work creatively, and collaborative interactions between humans and GenAI. As GenAI becomes more integrated into creative processes, understanding how individuals or groups co-create with AI systems and how agency is distributed in such collaborations will be critical to further expanding the CBAA framework (Faiella et al., Reference Faiella, Zielińska, Karwowski and Corazza2025; Reich & Teeny, Reference Reich and Teeny2025; Zielińska & Karwowski, Reference Zielińska, Karwowski, Worwood and Kaufmanin press).

In conclusion, the CBAA model offers a dynamic and evolving view of creativity, emphasizing the agentic nature of creative behaviors. By incorporating insights on creative goal setting and exploring the nuances of collaborative agency, the model is well-positioned to further our understanding of creativity in both individual and collective contexts. These future directions will refine the theoretical foundations of the CBAA model and open new avenues for empirical investigation, especially considering technological advancements in GenAI.

Creative Confidence

Creative Centrality

Creative Risk-Taking

Creative Self-Regulation