Creative utterances about person-centered care among future health care professionals are related to reward dependence rather than to a creative personality profile. Issue 3 (March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Garcia, Danilo; Jedel, Izabella; Rapp-Ricciardi, Max; Lindskär, Erik; Molander-Söderholm, Kristian; Fagerström, Cecilia; Sikström, Sverker
• Is Part Of: Heliyon. Volume 5:Issue 3(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-03
• Subjects: Psychology -- Nursing -- Health profession; Research -- Periodicals; Medical sciences -- Periodicals; Natural history -- Periodicals; Social sciences -- Periodicals; Earth sciences -- Periodicals; Physical sciences -- Periodicals; 507.2
• DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01389
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2405-8440

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Creativity can be defined as the creation of something that is novel, useful, and valuable for society (i.e., high-level creativity) and/or everyday life. In this context, people have implicit theories of creativity as being either non-malleable (i.e., a fixed creative mindset) or malleable (i.e., a growth creative mindset). Our aim was twofold: (1) to test an improved creative mindset priming paradigm (i.e., adding high-level/everyday creativity perspectives and using an organizational important task) by assessing if participants used different ways to answer to the prime and (2) to analyse the relationship between personality and creative utterances regarding an important topic in participants' future professions. Method: Students ( N = 73) from different health care professions were randomly assigned to the non-malleable or malleable creative mindset priming paradigm (i.e., fixed vs. growth) and then asked to write about (a) their own creativity, (b) person-centered care in their professions (i.e., unusual use test), and to (c) self-rate their personality (Temperament and Character Inventory). We used natural language processing methods (i.e., Latent Semantic Algorithm) to analyse participants' responses in the different conditions and also responses in relation to self-reported personality. Results: The fixed versus growth condition was predicted ( r = .55, p < 0.0001), following Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons by participants' descriptions about creativity. Although the condition was not predicted ( r = .07, p < 0.2755) by participants' utterances about person-centered care, a t-test suggested that participants used words that were semantically different depending on the condition they were randomly assigned to ( t (2371) = 5.82, p = .0000). For instance, participants in the growth condition used verbs more frequently, while those in the fixed condition used the personal pronoun I more often. Finally, only the temperament trait of reward dependence ( r = .32, p < 0.01) predicted the person-centered care utterances. Conclusion: We argue that the paradigm successfully primed participants to write about creativity and person-centered care using narratives with different semantic content. However, individuals' ambition to be socially accepted, rather than creative personality traits, elicited the utterances about person-centered care. The creative mindset priming paradigm presented here along language processing methods might be useful for measuring creative potential at work. We suggest that if health care personnel's notions of the activities related to care are generated from their drive to be socially accepted and not from a truly creative profile, the activities might be self-serving and not person-centered.