Exploring the roles of paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, and team psychological capital on the creativity of engineering university students

Exploring the roles of paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, and team psychological capital on the creativity of engineering university students | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Exploring the roles of paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, and team psychological capital on the creativity of engineering university students huifen guo, zhen zhou, fengqi ma This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4133793/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 12 Feb, 2025 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background The multifaceted challenges encountered by engineering university students generate paradoxical tensions, which serve as catalysts for fostering creativity. Engaging in paradoxical thinking during academic pursuits enhances the ability of students to solve complex engineering problems. Despite this, the intricate interconnections among paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, and the creativity of engineering university students remain ambiguous. Methods This study sought to address this gap by surveying 1410 engineering university students in China, delving into how paradoxical thinking mediates the link between paradoxical tensions and creativity. Additionally, it investigated the moderating impact of team psychological capital on the associations between paradoxical tensions and both paradoxical thinking and creativity. SPSS 24.0 was initially used to convert the cleaned data into a “.csv” format, and Smart PLS (v.4.0.9.5) was then employed to assess the model. Results The findings of the study reveal a positive influence of paradoxical tensions on both creativity and paradoxical thinking. Notably, paradoxical thinking emerges as a significant contributor to enhancing the creativity of engineering university students. Furthermore, the findings show that paradoxical tensions enhance creativity by influencing paradoxical thinking. While team psychological capital emerged as a significant factor in moderating the link between paradoxical tension and creativity, its role in moderating the association between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking was not statistically significant. Conclusions This study revealed how paradoxical tensions among engineering university students influence creativity through paradoxical thinking, moderated by team psychological capital. The findings not only provide new insights for researchers to better understand paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, team psychological capital and the underlying psychological mechanism for engineering university students' creativity, but also have practical implications for education administrators. Paradoxical tensions Paradoxical thinking Creativity Team psychological capital 1. Introduction Creativity stands as an indispensable trait for engineering students, exerting a profound influence on competitiveness and the economic trajectory of the nation. In industries driven by innovation, engineers endowed with creative prowess are invaluable, contributing to developing cutting-edge technologies and strengthening key sectors. Creatively inclined engineers offer immeasurable societal benefits, thinking beyond conventional boundaries to enhance community life and address global challenges. Within the organizational landscape, several scholars have undertaken analyses related to the creativity of corporate employees and teams. Nguyen et al. [1] examined the impact of digital workplace changes on employee creativity and job satisfaction. The findings revealed that perceptions of power, information, rewards, and knowledge significantly influence creativity. Duan et al. [2] examined the effects of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations on employee creativity through meaningful work. The findings showed that benevolence and morality have a positive impact on creativity, whereas authoritarianism has a negative effect. Biemans & Huizingh [3] shed light on the positive impact of humor on creativity in innovation, emphasizing induced humor and its effects on both customers and innovation teams. Baird et al. [4] studied 332 Australian accountants, discovering that organizational learning affects strategic management accounting practices through both direct and indirect channels, including employee empowerment and creativity. A few scholars have conducted research on creativity within the context of neural mechanisms. Händel et al. [5] examined brain activity during a creativity test with restricted movement. Their findings indicated that limiting movement increased specific creativity-related brain activity but led to lower overall creativity scores. Kimura et al. [6] found that outdoor exercise boosts creativity, enhancing neuronal activity and positive experiences compared to indoor exercise. Huang & Chang [7] found that virtual reality significantly improves creativity and emotions, reducing brainwave activity in tenth-grade students, suggesting that virtual reality enhances the creative process. Yin et al. [8] used electroencephalography to examine brain activity during various creativity-related cognitive tasks. The study identified the interplay between brain involvement and cognitive factors, aiding designers and researchers in understanding the cognitive processes underlying creativity. A number of scholars have also explored the creativity of students within the educational environment. Getachew [9] found that Socratic dialogue boosts creativity in business students, especially when combined with feedback received through dialogue with classmates. Groeneveld et al. [10] interviewed 33 professionals and ten students, shedding light on differences between the two groups regarding the creative environment, application of techniques, collaboration, the debate of nature vs. nurture, and the perceived value of creativity in the field. González Moreno and Molero Jurado [11] explored the link between creativity, academic performance, self-esteem, and stress among 743 adolescents. The findings revealed a positive correlation between creativity and self-esteem, with students repeating a year showing differences in creativity levels. Besides, researchers have explored creativity in various domains, including art [12-14] and science [15, 16]. The existing literature underscores a noticeable gap in scholarly attention to creativity in engineering, particularly among engineering students. Few studies have delved into the realm of engineering creativity, and limited research employs quantitative data to investigate the factors influencing the creative capabilities of engineering students. Drawing insights from the literature, it becomes apparent that understanding the link between paradoxical tensions and paradoxical thinking is crucial for unlocking creativity among individuals [17, 18]. Furthermore, the literature highlights the significant role of team psychological capital in enhancing creativity within engineering teams. Cultivating a supportive and resilient environment is crucial for the flourishing of creative ideas. Expanding upon this groundwork, the current study aims to analyze the link between paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, and the creativity of engineering students. Additionally, it seeks to investigate the role played by team psychological capital in this dynamic interplay. The research questions posed are as follows: 1) What is the impact of paradoxical tensions and paradoxical thinking on the creativity of engineering students? 2) What role does paradoxical thinking play in the correlation between paradoxical tensions and creativity in engineering students? 3) What role does team psychological capital play in positively or negatively moderating the influence between paradoxical tensions and creativity in engineering students? In summary, this study introduces a moderated mediation model wherein paradoxical tensions and paradoxical thinking synergistically stimulate creativity. Specifically, paradoxical thinking functions as a mediator in the relationship between paradoxical tensions and creativity. The study also highlights the positive moderating role of team psychological capital in cultivating creativity, thereby enriching our understanding of factors influencing the creativity of engineering university students. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Creativity in Engineering University Students Engineering creativity, characterized by purposeful innovation, emphasizes the creation of products encompassing physical objects, intricate systems, and processes [ 19 ]. These products effectively perform tasks or solve problems, thereby possessing inherent utility and functionality [ 20 ]. Engineering creativity entails the generation of novel and efficient solutions to complex real-world problems, extending beyond mere artistic expression. In the context of engineering creativity, this study posits that the creativity of an engineering university student refers to their ability to engage in creative thinking [ 21 , 22 ], generate original ideas [ 23 ], and apply creative problem-solving skills [ 24 , 25 ] within the context of engineering disciplines. It encompasses the capacity to approach challenges with originality, devise inventive solutions, and contribute to the development of new technologies, systems, or processes. Paradoxical tensions encourage students to acknowledge the continuous presence of conflicting tensions and embrace a paradoxical way of thinking [ 26 ]. In engineering, challenges often manifest as conflicting requirements, limited resources, or contradictory goals, creating paradoxical tensions when individuals must navigate these contradictions and strike a balance between competing factors. Paradoxical thinking empowers university students to proactively recognize tensions and embrace conflicting yet interlinked issues instead of seeking their elimination [ 27 ]. It involves holding opposing ideas in mind and perceiving the potential for synergy or innovation within apparent contradictions. In this context, creativity and paradoxical tension establish a symbiotic relationship [ 28 ]. Creativity enables students to explore diverse perspectives and generate various ideas, while paradoxical tension provides a challenging context that stimulates creative thinking. By embracing paradoxical thinking, individuals can transform apparent conflicts into creativity, ultimately leading to breakthroughs and advancements in the field of engineering. 2.2 Paradoxical Tension The notion of paradox emerged in the late 1980s as a promising framework for exploring organizational phenomena [ 29 ]. Smith and Lewis [ 27 ] synthesized diverse traditions, presenting a more inclusive conceptualization of paradox theory as “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (p.382). Paradoxical tensions involve opposing, conflicting, or competitive elements [ 30 , 31 ]. Instead of being straightforward either/or choices, these tensions are intricately connected via their inherent links. Importantly, paradoxical tensions can mutually reinforce each other, indicating a complex interplay [ 32 , 31 ]. Previous research underscores the infeasibility of eradicating paradoxes [ 27 ]. Paradoxical thinking, demonstrating the capacity to acknowledge and embrace inherent tensions within interrelated relationships and pinpoint potential synergies, is linked with adaptability, cognitive flexibility, and diverse perspectives in decision-making [ 27 ]. Individuals proficient in paradoxical thinking often demonstrate curiosity, openness to various perspectives, and a willingness to confront challenging and uncomfortable situations [ 27 ]. However, the exploration of the creativity of students through the lens of paradoxical tensions has been inadequately addressed in the literature [ 33 , 28 ]. 2.3 Paradoxical Thinking Paradoxical thinking serves as a cognitive mechanism empowering collegiate individuals to critically reassess prevailing perspectives on complex issues [ 34 ]. This cognitive approach facilitates an active embracement and acceptance of tensions by mentally aligning contradictory yet interconnected elements [ 35 – 37 ]. Empirical investigations underscore the affirmative influence of paradoxical cognition on personal creativity and innovative conduct [ 38 – 40 ]. As university students grapple with conflicting challenges, they develop a paradoxical mindset and corresponding cognitive attitude, ultimately enhancing their creative abilities. Previous research has explored how paradoxical thinking moderates the link between paradoxical tension and innovative behaviors [ 40 , 41 ]. Nevertheless, there exists a gap in understanding the connection between paradoxical tension, paradoxical thinking, and creativity [ 41 ], particularly regarding the role of paradoxical thinking as a mediator in the relationship between paradoxical tension and creativity. 3. Research Framework and Hypotheses 3.1 Paradoxical Tension and Paradoxical Thinking Paradoxical tensions impact the mental sense-making processes of university students [ 26 , 27 , 42 ]. While these tensions may evoke feelings of unease and doubt among students [ 43 ], potentially leading to a confrontational approach, they can also motivate students to cognitively acknowledge the persistent existence of paradoxical tensions and adopt a receptive stance toward opposing elements or issues. This fosters the development of a cognitive framework and thinking style characterized by paradox. Nevertheless, individual thinking styles are shaped and embedded within the broader cultural context [ 44 ]. Due to prolonged exposure to traditional Chinese culture, Chinese university students are inclined to be significantly impacted by Zhong-Yong thinking and the cognitive framework of Yin-Yang balancing [ 45 – 47 ]. Smith et al. [ 48 ] observed that individuals in China are more prone to adopting a paradoxical frame and thinking style when facing paradoxical situations than individuals in the United States. Prashantham and Eranova [ 49 ] noted that individuals from the East, such as those from China, more readily embrace a paradoxical frame and welcome tensions than individuals from the West. When confronting conflicting yet interconnected challenges in engineering projects, university students tend to rely on their previous frames of reference to manage and resolve issues due to cognitive path dependency. However, the shifts in external environmental conditions may render former frames of reference obsolete, necessitating the reevaluation of paradoxical tensions through the cultivation of new frames of reference [ 50 ]. In situations where existing cognitive frameworks fail to align with environmental changes, experiencing tensions could act as a catalyst for students to learn through paradox, recognizing, transcending, and addressing contradictions [ 51 ]. Consequently, engineering university students can perceive paradoxical tensions as educational instruments [ 52 ], enhancing their ability to progressively comprehend and handle intricate tensions through the learning process [ 53 ]. This enhanced capacity to navigate paradoxical tensions contributes to further establishing paradoxical thinking among students, fostering a mindset that embraces and effectively manages conflicting elements. As a result, the subsequent hypothesis was postulated: H1: Paradoxical tensions positively impact paradoxical thinking. 3.2 Paradoxical Thinking and Creativity Paradoxical thinking empowers individuals to proactively embrace tensions and welcome contradictory yet interconnected issues, as opposed to seeking their elimination [ 27 ]. The integration of two or more conflicting elements or matters is intrinsic to creativity [ 54 ]. Studies indicate that organizations and teams are progressively adopting frames characterized by a paradox in response to paradoxical situations, thereby influencing team and organizational performance [ 55 , 40 , 35 ]. The capacity of paradoxical thinking to stimulate university students’ “both/and” cognition, as opposed to “either/or” thinking, empowers them to connect opposing elements or issues and uncover new solutions [ 42 ]. This cognitive shift also fosters the development of creative thinking skills [ 56 ] and the capacity to identify problems [ 57 ]. Paradoxical cognition diminishes the inertial risk associated with established cognitive frames, allowing students to be receptive to alternative information [ 58 ] and consequently enhancing creativity [ 59 ]. Numerous studies have underscored the favorable impact of “both/and” thinking [ 60 , 31 ]. When undertaking tasks that demand creativity or addressing problems innovatively, students equipped with frames of paradoxical thinking can rearrange pertinent elements or issues to generate fresh solutions or ideas. Paradoxical thinking also disrupts traditional straight-line reasoning, prompting students to blend conflicting elements or issues into new ideas and solutions. Research provides solid evidence to substantiate this claim. Individuals with paradoxical frameworks demonstrate greater creativity compared to those with alternative cognitive frameworks [ 61 , 62 ]. Ingram et al. [ 41 ] discovered a notably positive impact of paradoxical thinking on innovative behavior. Similarly, later research has indicated that paradoxical mindsets have favorable effects on individual job performance and innovative behavior [ 39 , 40 ]. Consequently, the following hypothesis was developed: H2: Paradoxical thinking positively impacts the creativity of engineering university students. 3.3 Paradoxical Tension and Creativity Paradoxical tensions and responses have the potential to propel learning and innovation, enhance adaptability, and unleash individuals’ potential [ 35 ]. Initial studies perceived tension merely as an indicator of anxiety, concentrating on how participants effectively navigate choices between conflicting elements under specific conditions [ 63 ]. In contrast to the dilemma perspective that separates conflicting elements, the paradox perspective highlights the competitive yet interconnected associations within tension. Activating the “both-and” mindset in this situation helps individuals discover the positive possibilities of tension over an extended period [ 27 ]. Nevertheless, the impact of tension on creative performance remains ambiguous [ 55 , 31 , 64 ]. Moreover, existing studies in this context have predominantly concentrated on the business organization environment [ 31 , 65 , 66 ], with limited investigations in the realm of higher education. The impact of paradoxical tensions on the creativity and innovative behavior of university students is not well-explored, and there is a scarcity of empirical studies examining their experiences with tensions and the resulting implications. Despite existing literature exploring the correlation between paradoxical tensions and innovation (e.g., Ingram et al. [ 41 ]; Miron-Spektor et al. [ 40 ]), the underlying mechanisms through which paradoxical tensions influence the creativity of engineering university students remain undisclosed. Therefore, the subsequent hypothesis was framed: H3: Paradoxical tension positively impacts the creativity of engineering university students. 3.4 Mediating Role of Paradoxical Thinking Personal encounters with paradoxical tensions reflect individuals’ emotional responses, subsequently influencing the frames and processing of their paradoxical cognition, thus impacting their creativity [ 27 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 55 ]. In simpler terms, when facing tension, students can prompt paradoxical cognition and conscious reasoning, allowing them to establish a paradoxical mindset and cognitive approach [ 35 ], ultimately fueling their creativity. Hence, these studies implicitly suggest that paradoxical thinking can mediate the link between experiencing tension and the creativity of university students. In their 2022 study, Wilson and colleagues demonstrated that teams have the potential to enhance innovative ideas by effectively navigating and blending opposing tensions [ 67 ]. Moreover, how university students respond to paradoxical tensions significantly influences whether the tension impedes or enhances creativity, as evidenced by studies conducted by Ingram et al. [ 41 ], Jay [ 68 ], and Smith & Tushman [ 35 ]. Paradoxical thinking mirrors the cognitive frameworks and cognitive activities of university students, along with their cognitive reactions to paradoxical tensions [ 27 , 35 ]. When students actively welcome and acknowledge enduring paradoxical tensions during the meaning-making process [ 26 , 27 ], they engage in paradoxical thinking. Consequently, paradoxical thinking can reconfigure and surpass the borders of conflicting matters [ 45 , 51 , 59 ], stimulating the creativity of university students [ 41 , 40 , 27 ]. Hence, the subsequent hypothesis was formulated: H4: Paradoxical thinking plays a mediating role in the relationship between paradoxical tension and the creativity of engineering university students. 3.5 Moderating Role of Team Psychological Capital Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio [ 69 ] articulate psychological capital as the positive psychological developmental state of an individual. This state is characterized by the possession of confidence to confront and invest the necessary effort in excelling at challenging tasks. It involves persisting toward goals and, when necessary, adjusting paths to achieve them. Furthermore, it encompasses maintaining resilience when confronted with problems and adversity, rebounding, and even surpassing them to achieve success. Finally, it involves maintaining a positive outlook on achieving success in both the current and future contexts. Psychological capital, similar to a state-like variable, is quantifiable, deployable, and subject to cultivation through external interventions like on-the-job training, positive feedback, or group support [ 70 ]. While past research on behavior has predominantly focused on how psychological capital influences individual behavior, there has been limited attention given to its impact on teams. Tension can lead to negative outcomes, perpetuating a cycle of paradoxical tensions [ 27 ]. Team members’ ability to persist despite tension from setbacks will determine their overall success or failure. Team psychological capital promotes a proactive approach to dealing with these paradoxical tensions, fostering active coping and paradoxical thinking [ 71 ]. The potential of paradoxical tensions and responses to stimulate intellectual growth and inventive progress, improve adjustability, and tap into human capabilities is evident [ 27 ]. Paradoxical thinking empowers engineering university students to actively embrace tensions and wrestle with contradictory yet interconnected issues [ 27 ]. Team psychological capital helps alleviate the adverse effects of members’ frustration [ 72 ]. Integrating paradoxical elements is crucial in addressing the inherent tensions in innovative efforts within engineering project research and development. Accordingly, the subsequent hypotheses were formulated: H5: Team psychological capital plays a moderating role in the link between paradoxical tension and the creativity of engineering university students. H6: Team psychological capital plays a moderating role in the link between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking. 4. Methods 4.1 PLS-SEM Structural equation modeling (SEM) comprises two primary methods: covariance-based (CB) SEM and partial least squares (PLS) SEM. CB-SEM is designed for common factor models and theory testing, whereas PLS-SEM is employed in exploratory and explanatory studies, emphasizing prediction over covariance. PLS-SEM exhibits superior capability in handling reflective and composite-based models than CB-SEM. Given that this study incorporated both moderated and mediated models, PLS-SEM was selected for analyses. Smart PLS (v.4.0.9.5) was utilized to conduct PLS-SEM, taking into account the intricate and diverse nature of this investigation. The process followed a two-step approach, evaluating both the measurement and structural models. Rigorous assessments were conducted on the reliability and validity of the measurement model, as well as the explanatory power of the structural model [ 73 ]. 4.2 Instrumentation The measurement scales utilized in this research were derived from established literature, validated, and previously employed in similar studies. Additionally, certain items were adjusted to align with our research context (see Appendix A). All items underwent evaluation utilizing a five-point Likert-type scale (1= “Strongly disagree”, 5= “Strongly disagree”). Before the main survey, a pilot test involving 150 participants was conducted to minimize potential ambiguity in survey items and integrate necessary modifications that capture creativity among engineering university students and its influencing factors. The survey instrument comprised two primary sections. The first section collected demographic data of the participants (gender, academic major, class level) utilizing fixed nominal scales. The second section encompassed four latent constructs, incorporating 14 indicator items to measure the influencing factors impacting the creativity of engineering university students. The scale was developed based on previous studies. Creativity was measured by four items adapted from [ 74 – 76 ]. The Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) for the scale were 0.937, 0.938, and 0.841, respectively. Paradoxical tension was evaluated utilizing the three-item scale adapted from Miron-Spektor et al. [ 40 ], Bengtsson et al. [ 77 ], and Wang & Liu [ 33 ]. The Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and AVE for the scale were 0.837, 0.866, and 0.761, respectively. Paradoxical thinking was measured based on a three-item scale adapted from Miron-Spektor et al. [ 40 ] and Ingram et al. [ 41 ]. The Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and AVE for the scale were 0.943, 0.944, and 0.898, respectively. Psychological capital was evaluated using a four-item scale adapted from Avey et al. [ 78 ] and Luthans et al. [ 69 ]. The Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and AVE for the scale were 0.929, 0.930, and 0.826, respectively. To avoid redundancy and intercorrelation among indicators, the validity of the questionnaire was analyzed, focusing on examining and refining the questionnaire measures to ensure its operational feasibility. The study employed the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test in SPSS 24.0 to measure the validity of the questionnaire. A KMO above 0.7 and a significance level of P 0.7), and the P-value was 0.000 (< 0.05), demonstrating the high validity of the questionnaire. These results affirm the effectiveness of the questionnaire in measuring the factors under investigation. 4.3 Target Population and Data Collection For the comprehensive data collection, the distribution of a modified online questionnaire via WeChat was facilitated using Wenjuanxing ( https://www.wjx.cn/ ). Participants had the option to opt-out if they perceived that their creativity might be adversely affected by participation. Following “10 times” rule, a minimum sample size of 140 was is recommended for models with a maximum of 14 constructs. The questionnaire surveys were distributed to students across eight universities during the spring semester, from June 5 to July 30, 2023. The self-administered surveys were distributed to students in the following universities, along with the corresponding number of participants in parentheses: South China University of Technology (141), Dongguan University of Technology (158), Southern University Science and Technology (135), Shenzhen Technology University (121), Guangdong University of Technology (161), Foshan University (198), Wuyi University (132), Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology (194), and Guangzhou University (236). In total, 1476 questionnaires were distributed. After excluding 189 questionnaires due to numerous missing values, the analysis focused on 1287 usable questionnaires, resulting in a response rate of 87%. The demographic details of the respondents are shared in Table 1 . Table 1 Respondents Details Demographic Variable N % Demographic Variable N % Gender Academic Major Male 973 66% Mechanical Engineering Technology 177 12% Female 503 34% Robotics and Automation Engineering 168 11% Class Level Electrical Engineering and Automation 267 18% 1st Year 443 30% Manufacturing Engineering 189 13% 2nd Year 421 29% Automotive Engineering 254 17% 3rd Year 345 23% Measurement and Control Engineering 288 20% 4th Year 267 18% IoT Systems Engineering 133 9% 5. Results 5.1 Evaluation of Measurement Model The study initially converted the cleaned data into a “.csv” format using SPSS 24.0 and imported it into Smart PLS (v.4.0.9.5) to assess the effectiveness of the measurement model. The evaluation of the measurement model within the proposed framework aimed to scrutinize the reliability and validity of the variable measures during the primary data collection phase. Urbach and Ahlemann [ 79 ] have recommended threshold values for exploratory research: CA > 0.8, CR > 0.8, AVE > 0.5, indicator weight > 0.1, and factor loadings (greater than 0.7) > cross-loadings. In this study, the factor-loading values exceeded the cross-loading values, indicating discriminant validity among constructs. Detailed information on all measurement model values is shared in Table 2 , where CA surpassed 0.8, CR exceeded 0.8 for all constructs, AVE surpassed 0.5 for all constructs, indicator weight exceeded the threshold value of 0.1, and factor loadings were greater than all cross-loadings, satisfying the criterion for discriminant validity. In summary, these values meet all the criteria for determining validity and reliability. Table 2 Indicator Weight, Loadings, CA, CR, and AVE Paradoxical thinking (CA = 0.943, CR = 0.944, AVE = 0.898) Construct / Item Indicator Weight Factor Loadings / Cross Loadings PTK CRE PT TPC PTK1 0.354 0.938 0.741 0.631 0.683 PTK2 0.361 0.955 0.759 0.660 0.682 PTK3 0.340 0.950 0.709 0.630 0.648 Creativity (CA = 0.937, CR = 0.938, AVE = 0.841) CRE1 0.267 0.676 0.905 0.715 0.725 CRE2 0.277 0.729 0.911 0.750 0.718 CRE3 0.269 0.713 0.918 0.694 0.728 CRE4 0.277 0.734 0.935 0.714 0.748 Paradoxical tension (CA = 0.837, CR = 0.866, AVE = 0.761) PT1 0.406 0.616 0.734 0.930 0.722 PT2 0.419 0.644 0.750 0.944 0.731 PT3 0.314 0.500 0.547 0.726 0.517 Team psychological capital (CA = 0.929, CR = 0.930, AVE = 0.826) TPC1 0.282 0.668 0.734 0.688 0.938 TPC2 0.263 0.609 0.698 0.734 0.887 TPC3 0.276 0.662 0.708 0.681 0.932 TPC4 0.279 0.634 0.750 0.666 0.875 Note: The factor loadings are indicated by bold and italic values. PTK = Paradoxical Thinking, CRE = Creativity, PT = Paradoxical Tension, TPC = Team Psychological Capital, CA = Cronbach’s alpha, CR = Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted. Roemer et al. [ 80 ] advocate that the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) proves advantageous in appraising discriminant validity when dealing with measurement models. Our assessment of discriminant validity aligns with the criteria set forth by Henseler et al. [ 81 ]. It is imperative for the values to remain below 0.900. Fornell and Larcker [ 82 ] suggest that the square root of the AVE should be greater than the correlation between the construct and other constructs. This study fulfills this criterion. The findings have been tabulated in Table 3 . Table 3 Results of Fornell-Larcker and HTMT Analyses PTK CRE PT TPC PTK 0.948 0.826 0.760 0.756 CRE 0.777 0.917 0.880 0.852 PT 0.676 0.783 0.872 0.859 TPC 0.709 0.796 0.761 0.909 Note: The lower triangle represents the Pearson correlation coefficients between constructs, while the diagonal contains the square roots of the AVE. The upper triangle represents the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) analysis. PTK = Paradoxical Thinking, CRE = Creativity, PT = Paradoxical Tension, TPC = Team Psychological Capital, AVE = Average Variance Extracted. 5.2 Evaluation of Structural Model The R 2 serves as a metric for gauging the precision of the model, quantifying the extent to which the explanatory power of the model accounts for variance in each dependent variable. R 2 values range from 0 to 1, where higher values signify increased predictive accuracy (0.750 as substantial, 0.500 as moderate, and 0.250 as weak). In the current research, all values exceeded 0.500 (moderate); creativity exhibited the highest R 2 (0.762), while paradoxical thinking had the least robust R 2 (0.549). The predictive relevance (Q 2 ) of the model was determined, with appropriate Q 2 values considered crucial for accurate predictions of indicator points. A Q 2 value > 0 indicates successful predictive relevance for the variable (0.020 as small, 0.150 as medium, and 0.350 as large). A blindfolding process within the Smart PLS (v.4.0.9.5) tool was employed to determine Q 2 values for the dependent variables. In this study, all Q 2 values for the variables exceeded 0, indicating robust support for the predictive relevance of the model across all dependent variables. The goodness-of-fit (GOF) reflects the extent to which the independent variables in a structural model accurately estimate the model, with a higher value indicating a better fit. GOF requires manual calculation using the formula \(GOF=\sqrt {AV{E^2}*{R^2}}\) , where a standard of 0.10 signifies a poor fit, 0.25 indicates an acceptable fit, and 0.36 indicates a good fit. In this study, the calculated model fit was 2.021, surpassing 0.36, indicating a generally high overall fit for the model. 5.3 Hypotheses Assessment Table 4 presents the findings from hypotheses testing. The first hypothesis suggests a positive connection between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking. The outcomes suggested a positive association (t = 14.098, P < 0.001) between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking, providing support for H1. Effect sizes (f 2 ) gauge the magnitude of a variable’s influence on the dependent variable. The recommended benchmarks for interpretation are as follows: 0.02 to 0.15 (small), 0.15 to 0.35 (medium), and > 0.35 (large). The actual impact of paradoxical tension on paradoxical thinking is considered small (f 2 = 0.099). The second hypothesis suggests a positive relationship between paradoxical thinking and the creativity of engineering university students. The outcomes suggested a positive association (t = 4.536, P < 0.001) between paradoxical thinking and creativity, providing support for H2. The actual impact of paradoxical thinking on creativity is considered medium (f 2 = 0.224). The third hypothesis posits a positive connection between creativity in engineering university students and paradoxical tension. The findings revealed a significant positive association (t = 11.861, P < 0.001) between paradoxical tension and creativity, supporting H3. The observed impact of paradoxical tension on creativity is assessed as medium (f 2 = 0.154). The fourth hypothesis suggests that paradoxical thinking mediates the connection between paradoxical tension and creativity in engineering university students. The findings indicated that the impact of paradoxical tension on creativity is channeled through the mediating effects of paradoxical thinking, thereby supporting the hypothesis. The fifth hypothesis suggests that team psychological capital, within the context of engineering university students, assumes a moderating role between paradoxical tension and creativity. The outcomes revealed that moderating effects of team psychological capital amplify the influence of paradoxical tension on creativity, providing support for H5. The real impact of team psychological capital on both paradoxical tension and creativity falls within the medium range (f 2 = 0.146). The sixth hypothesis posits that the moderating influence of team psychological capital will enhance the impact of paradoxical tension on paradoxical thinking. However, the findings indicated that team psychological capital does not amplify the effect of paradoxical tension on paradoxical thinking, thereby not supporting H6. The impact of team psychological capital on both paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking is of medium magnitude (f 2 = 0.181). Table 4 Hypotheses Assessment Hypothesis Original Sample (O) Standard Deviation (STDEV) T Statistics (t-value) Confidence Intervals 2.5%: 97.5% Effect Size (f 2 ) Support Total Effects H1: PT → PTK 0.634 0.045 14.098*** 0.551, 0.724 0.099 small YES H2: PTK → CRE 0.236 0.052 4.536*** 0.151, 0.349 0.224 medium YES H3: PT → CRE 0.572 0.048 11.861*** 0.473, 0.660 0.154 medium YES Mediation Effect of Paradoxical Thinking H4: PT → PTK → CRE 0.150 0.036 4.101*** 0.090, 0.230 YES Moderation Effect of Team Psychological Capital H5: TPC × (PT → CRE) -0.069 0.009 7.263*** -0.088, -0.051 0.146 medium YES H6: TPC × (PT → PTK) -0.016 0.008 2.025 -0.032, -0.001 0.181 medium NO Note: T >1.96 at P 2.576 at P 3.29 at P < 0.001 (***). PTK = Paradoxical Thinking, CRE = Creativity, PT = Paradoxical Tension, TPC = Team Psychological Capital. 6. Discussion and Conclusion 6.1 Discussion This research explores the correlation between paradoxical tension, paradoxical thinking, and the creativity of university engineering students. Additionally, the study examines the moderating effect of team psychological capital in this context. The results reveal that both paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking significantly impact the creativity of engineering university students. Furthermore, paradoxical tension has a significant influence on paradoxical thinking. Simultaneously, paradoxical tension impacts creativity through the mediation of paradoxical thinking, indicating a significant mediating role of paradoxical thinking. Team psychological capital emerges as a significant moderator between paradoxical tension and creativity, while its moderating effect is not significant in the link between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking. The observed significant influence of paradoxical tension on paradoxical thinking aligns with the findings of Smith et al. [ 83 ] and Wang & Liu [ 33 ]. The creative process in engineering necessitates a careful balance between seemingly opposing factors. This equilibrium arises from the tension created by conflicting design goals, resource limitations, and shifts in technological approaches, serving as a crucial driver for inventive issue resolution. This study posits that deliberately cultivating a state of paradoxical tension among engineering students can serve as a catalyst, inspiring engineers to skillfully address and harmonize conflicting requirements, ultimately nurturing inventive solutions. The significant impact of paradoxical thinking on the creativity of engineering university students aligns with the outcomes of Yang et al. [ 84 ] and Litchfield et al. [ 85 ]. Paradoxical thinking entails the ability to embrace contradictory elements, creating a unique cognitive framework that encourages adaptability and innovative ideation. This outcome underscores the potentially transformative impact of incorporating paradoxical thinking into teaching methods within engineering programs. Amidst an era shaped by complex technological challenges, developing a thinking that adeptly handles uncertainty and intricacy becomes crucial. Recognizing and appreciating the contradictions inherent in engineering problems not only expands the intellectual perspectives of the students but also cultivates resilience essential for tackling diverse real-world challenges. The significant impact of paradoxical tension on the creativity of engineering university students aligns with the findings of Miron-Spektor et al. [ 86 ] and Gaim & Wåhlin [ 87 ]. Exploring how paradoxical tension affects creativity in engineering students delves deep into the heart of thinking processes, challenging traditional ways of thinking. Paradoxical tension, with its conflicting elements, acts as a mental crucible that promotes transformative thinking. It compels students to navigate contradictions, resulting in innovative solutions beyond conventional methods. Embracing this tension as essential to engineering creativity redefines education, highlighting the importance of an environment that nurtures conflicting thoughts. Acknowledging and harnessing this creative potential enables students to address complex challenges, preparing them as flexible and forward-thinking engineers in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. The pivotal role of paradoxical thinking in linking paradoxical tension with engineering creativity is evident, a conclusion supported by Ingram et al. [ 41 ] and Jay [ 68 ]. The combination of paradoxical tension and engineering creativity creates a back-and-forth interaction where seemingly conflicting elements converge, fostering an environment conducive to transformative insights. This interdependent relationship suggests that paradoxical thinking acts as the crucible wherein tensions inherent in engineering challenges are not only recognized but actively used to drive creative thinking. The essence of paradoxical thinking lies in its ability to navigate the delicate balance between opposing forces, serving as a catalyst for blending diverse perspectives. It emerges as the key cognitive element that resolves apparent contradictions in engineering pursuits, surpassing traditional thought boundaries. Paradoxical thinking infuses the creative process with increased resilience through its mediation, enabling engineers to move beyond binary oppositions and embrace the collaborative potential within paradoxical tensions. The impact of team psychological capital is crucial when examining the moderation between paradoxical tension and creativity. It does not exert a considerable moderating influence on the link between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking. The substantial impact of team psychological capital on the connection between paradoxical tension and creativity implies that psychological resources at the team level are vital in utilizing the positive aspects of paradoxical tension within a team setting. This underscores the capacity of the team to use collectively shared positive psychological resources to manage and capitalize on the inherent tensions in paradoxical situations, ultimately creating a favorable environment for creative results. However, the non-significant moderating effect between team psychological capital and paradoxical thinking implies that, while team-level positive psychological capital may facilitate the creative potential arising from tension, its impact may not extend to the cognitive strategies associated with navigating paradoxical thinking at the team level. 6.2 Conclusion 6.2.1 Theoretical Contributions The observed interaction between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking in engineering creativity constitutes substantial theoretical contributions, enhancing our understanding of the complex mechanisms at play. This conceptual framework highlights how purposeful engagement with paradoxes, as manifested in paradoxical tension, distinctly shapes creative thinking when combined with the cognitive processes of paradoxical thinking. These insights advance theoretical ideas and offer a conceptual perspective that provides broader insights into understanding creativity in paradoxical fields. The integration of paradoxical thinking into the theoretical framework addresses the cognitive aspects of engineering creativity. Given the frequent presentation of conflicting feedback or demands, the ability of engineers to employ paradoxical thinking becomes an invaluable asset. Theoretical advancements in this domain contribute to a deeper understanding of how students can be trained to approach design challenges with a mindset that embraces and synthesizes paradoxes, ultimately yielding innovative and original solutions. Moreover, the highlighted moderating effect of team psychological capital on the link between paradoxical tension and creativity emphasizes the complex interaction of socio-cognitive factors. This discovery adds to theoretical complexity by highlighting the significance of team-level psychological resources as crucial components in magnifying or diminishing the impact of tension caused by paradoxes on creative results. The integration of team psychological capital into the theoretical discourse not only enhances our understanding of paradoxical dynamics but also stimulates additional investigation of team-oriented psychological factors in the broader scope of creative processes. 6.2.2 Practical Implications The significant impact of paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking on engineering creativity underscores the importance of embracing conflicting thoughts and contradictions when addressing problems in engineering situations. The considerable influence of paradoxical tension, coupled with paradoxical thinking, highlights the necessity for engineering teams to adopt a mindset that values complexity and contradiction as catalysts for creative solutions. Embracing conflicting thoughts and accommodating contradictions is not merely a theoretical concept but a crucial practical approach with tangible benefits for innovation and problem-solving. Engineering teams should actively cultivate a mindset that recognizes and values complexity and contradiction, viewing them as catalysts for unlocking inventive solutions to real-world challenges. In essence, the practical implications of integrating paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking into the engineering paradigm are profound, promoting transformative solutions and enhancing the ability to effectively address complex issues in practical applications. Additionally, the role played by team psychological capital in the connection between paradoxical tension and creativity underscores the importance of cultivating a positive team psychological atmosphere. The strategic development of psychological capital within engineering teams can improve the ability of the team to handle paradoxes, ultimately nurturing a more creative and adaptable problem-solving culture. In practical terms, these findings imply that organizations in the engineering field should not only support the development of paradoxical thinking but also invest resources into strategies for establishing and maintaining positive team psychological capital. Recognizing and addressing paradoxes in engineering projects serve as a practical approach to stimulate creative problem-solving, thereby improving overall project outcomes. This emphasizes the necessity for leadership to foster a culture that values cognitive diversity, embraces contradictions, and invests in the psychological well-being of engineering teams to optimize their creative potential in tackling complex challenges. 7. Limitations This research has some limitations that might act as catalysts for further exploration of the subject. First, despite conducting a survey with a three-month gap, future studies could use experience sampling or other longitudinal methods to investigate the potential changes in work-related tensions over time. Second, the participants in this study are exclusively from China, suggesting the importance of subsequent investigations that involve cross-cultural comparisons to discern the potential impact of paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking on the engineering creativity of students across diverse geographical regions. Third, the data were collected through self-report measures, introducing the possibility of common method bias to the results. While students may possess insight into their feelings and choices, future studies should consider using alternative data sources, such as teachers or administrators, to obtain more objective data. Abbreviations PTK Paradoxical Thinking CRE Creativity PT Paradoxical Tension TPC Team Psychological Capital CA Cronbach’s alpha CR Composite Reliability AVE Average Variance Extracted Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This research project has been approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the School of Education, Guangzhou University, by the principle of ethics (GZHU202341). Informed consent was taken from all participants included in this study. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials The raw data supporting this study’s conclusions will be made available by the authors ( [email protected] or [email protected] ) without undue reservation. Competing interests None. Funding This work was supported by the 2023 Special Task Project of Humanities and Social Sciences Research by the Ministry of Education, China (Grant No. 23JDSZ3200). Author contributions H.F. wrote the manuscript and coordinated the project. Z. designed and conducted the experiments and provided funding for this research. H.F. and Z. contributed equally to this work and shared the first authorship. F.Q. supervised the entire research process and provided critical feedback. Acknowledgements We extend our heartfelt gratitude to Professor Ma for their invaluable assistance in this study’s data-collection process. We appreciate Mr. Zhou’s support and financial assistance during the manuscript-writing process. Their contributions have been invaluable to our research endeavor. Authors’ information HFG is a doctoral candidate at the School of Education, Guangzhou University. Her primary research focuses on higher education, encompassing student performance, fostering innovation capabilities, creativity training, and measurement. Additionally, she has a keen interest in comparing VR, XR, AIGC, and the Metaverse. ZZ serves as the teacher of the School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering at Guangzhou University. His primary research focus lies in educational management, covering aspects such as student performance, employment, psychological well-being, and further studies. He is particularly intrigued by leveraging intelligent technologies to enhance student learning performance. FQM is a professor, the Dean of the School of Education at Guangzhou University, and a doctoral supervisor. His primary research areas include principles of higher education, management of higher education institutions, and research on higher education curriculum and teaching. References Nguyen M, Pontes N, Malik A, Gupta J, Gugnani R. Impact of high involvement work systems in shaping power, knowledge sharing, rewards and knowledge perception of employees. J Knowl Manage. 2024; ahead-of-print:66-86. doi:10.1108/JKM-04-2023-0345 Duan J, Wang X, Liu Y, Han L. Linking paternalistic leadership to employee creativity: a meaning-based perspective. Leadership Organ Develop J. 2023;ahead-of-print. doi:10.1108/LODJ-11-2021-0497 Biemans WG, Huizingh EK. Why so serious? The effects of humour on creativity and innovation. Creat Innov Manage. 2023. doi:10.1111/caim.12587 Baird K, Su S, Nuhu N. The influence of organisational learning capability on the organisational use of SMA practices: The mediating role of employee creativity and empowerment. Account Finance. 2024. doi:10.1111/acfi.13217 Händel BF, Chen X, Murali S. Reduced occipital alpha power marks a movement induced state change that facilitates creative thinking. Neuropsychologia. 2024;193:108743. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2023.108743 Kimura T, Mizumoto T, Torii Y, Ohno M, Higashino T, Yagi Y. Comparison of the effects of indoor and outdoor exercise on creativity: an analysis of EEG alpha power. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1161533. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1161533 Huang HT, Chang YS. Effects of virtual reality on creative performance and emotions: A study of brainwaves. Comput Human Behav. 2023;146:107815. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107815 Yin Y, Wang P, Childs P. Understanding creativity process through electroencephalography measurement on creativity-related cognitive factors. Front Neurosci. 2022;16:951272. doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.951272 Getachew T. Fostering creativity in low-engagement students through socratic dialogue: An experiment in an operations class. Int J Manag Educ. 2024;22(1):100901. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100901 Groeneveld W, Luyten L, Vennekens J, Aerts K. Students’ and professionals' perceived creativity in software engineering: a comparative study. Eur J Eng Educ. 2023;48(6):1351-1368. doi:10.1080/03043797.2023.2294126 González Moreno A, Molero Jurado MDMD. Creativity as a Positive Factor in the Adolescence Stage: Relations with Academic Performance, Stress and Self-Esteem. Behav Sci. 2023;13(12):997. doi:10.3390/bs13120997 Wilson-Barnao C, Collie N. Art rocks: Atmospheres of connection and everyday creativity in hybrid public space. Int J Cult Stud. 2024;0(0). doi:10.1177/13678779231219016 Bertacchini F, Pantano PS, Bilotta E. From science to art forms: exploring design, creativity and innovation through chaos physicalization. Int J Des Creat Innov. 2023;12:1-38. doi:10.1080/21650349.2023.2285485 Morriss-Kay GM. The evolution of human artistic creativity. J Anat. 2010;216(2):158-176. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01160.x Daud AM, Omar J, Turiman P, Osman K. Creativity in science education. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;59:467-474. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.302 Hu W, Wu B, Jia X, Yi X, Duan C, Meyer W, Kaufman JC. Increasing students’ scientific creativity: The “learn to think” intervention program. J Creat Behav. 2013;47(1):3-21. doi:10.1002/jocb.20 Mannucci PV, Shalley CE. Embracing multicultural tensions: How team members’ multicultural paradox mindsets foster team information elaboration and creativity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2022;173:104191. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104191 Knight E, Harvey W. Managing exploration and exploitation paradoxes in creative organisations. Manag Decis. 2015;53(4):809-827. doi:10.1108/MD-03-2014-0124 Kaufman JC, Baer J, eds. Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Psychology Press; 2005. Horenstein MN. Design concepts for engineers. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2002. p. 2. Hirshfield LJ, Koretsky MD. Cultivating creative thinking in engineering student teams: Can a computer-mediated virtual laboratory help? J Comput Assist Learn. 2021;37(2):587-601. doi:10.1111/jcal.12509 Mursid R, Saragih AH, Hartono R. The Effect of the Blended Project-Based Learning Model and Creative Thinking Ability on Engineering Students’ Learning Outcomes. Int J Educ Math Sci Technol. 2022;10(1):218-235. doi:10.46328/ijemst.2244 Oguz Unver A, Okulu HZ. Encouraging Creative Ideas in the Engineering Design Process for Science Classes. Int J Res Educ Sci. 2022;8(3):486-501. doi:10.46328/ijres.2920 Pappas, J., & Pappas, E. (2003, June). Creative Thinking, Creative Problem Solving, And Inventive Design In The Engineering Curriculum: A Review. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. doi: 10.18260/1-2-12614. Valentine A, Belski I, Hamilton M. Developing creativity and problem-solving skills of engineering students: a comparison of web-and pen-and-paper-based approaches. Eur J Eng Educ. 2017;42(6):1309-1329. doi:10.1080/03043797.2017.1291584 Hargrave TJ, Van de Ven AH. Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organ Stud. 2017;38(3-4):319-339. doi:10.1177/01708406166408 Smith WK, Lewis MW. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management Review. 2011;36(2):381-403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223 Liu Z, Ouyang X, Pan X. Experiencing tensions, regulatory focus and employee creativity: the moderating role of hierarchical level. Chin Manage Stud. 2023;17(1):178-196. doi:10.1108/CMS-03-2021-0094 Carmine S, Smith WK. Organizational paradox. In: Oxford Bibliographies in Management. Oxford University Press; 2021. doi:10.1093/OBO/9780199846740-0201 Lewis MW. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad Manag Rev. 2000;25(4):760-776. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707712 Schad J, Lewis MW, Raisch S, Smith WK. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Acad Manag Ann. 2016;10(1):5-64. doi:10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422 Farjoun M. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Acad Manag Rev. 2010;35(2):202-225. doi:10.5465/amr.35.2.zok202 Wang J, Liu F. Experiencing tensions, paradoxical thinking and college students’ creativity. Asia Pac Educ Rev. 2023:1-13. doi:10.1007/s12564-023-09858-w Bar-Tal D, Hameiri B, Halperin E. Paradoxical thinking as a paradigm of attitude change in the context of intractable conflict. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol 63. Academic Press; 2021. pp. 129-187. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2020.11.003 Smith WK, Tushman ML. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science. 2005;16(5):522-536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134 Soderstrom SB, Heinze KL. From paradoxical thinking to practicing sustainable business: The role of a business collective organization in supporting entrepreneurs. Organ Environ. 2021;34(1):74-98. doi:10.1177/1086026619885108 Vedel JB, Geraldi J. How managers respond to paradoxical control‐trust dynamics in interorganizational relationships over time: A constitutive approach. J Manag Stud. 2023;60(8):2060-2090. doi:10.1111/joms.12846 Calic G, Hélie S, Bontis N, Mosakowski E. Creativity from paradoxical experience: a theory of how individuals achieve creativity while adopting paradoxical frames. J Knowl Manag. 2018;23(3):397-418. doi:10.1108/JKM-03-2018-0223 Liu Y, Xu S, Zhang B. Thriving at work: how a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior. J Appl Behav Sci. 2020;56(3):347-366. doi:10.1177/0021886319888267 Miron-Spektor E, Ingram A, Keller J, Smith WK, Lewis MW. Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Acad Manag J. 2018;61(1):26-45. doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0594 Ingram AE, Lewis MW, Barton S, Gartner WB. Paradoxes and innovation in family firms: The role of paradoxical thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2016;40(1):161-176. doi:10.1111/etap.12113 Lüscher LS, Lewis MW. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Acad Manag J. 2008;51(2):221-240. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.31767217 Fong CT. The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Acad Manag J. 2006;49(5):1016-1030. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22798182 Keller J, Loewenstein J. The cultural category of cooperation: A cultural consensus model analysis for China and the United States. Organ Sci. 2011;22(2):299-319. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0530 Chen MJ. Transcending Paradox: The Chinese “Middle Way” Perspective. Asia Pac J Manag. 2002;19:179–199. doi:10.1023/A:1016235517735 Fang T. Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Manage Organ Rev. 2012;8(1):25-50. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00221.x Li PP. The unique value of Yin-Yang balancing: A critical response. Manage Organ Rev. 2014;10(2):321-332. doi:10.1017/S1740877600004228 Smith KW, Erez M, Jarvenpaa S, Lewis MW, Tracey P. Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organ Stud. 2017;38(3-4):303-317. doi:10.1177/0170840617693560 Prashantham S, Eranova M. Cultural differences in paradoxical tensions in strategy episodes. Long Range Plann. 2020;53(6):101849. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2018.09.001 Shu EE. Paradoxical framing and coping process on sustainable new product development. Technovation. 2022;111:102392. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102392 Lewis MW, Dehler GE. Learning through paradox: A pedagogical strategy for exploring contradictions and complexity. J Manag Educ. 2000;24(6):708-725. doi:10.1177/105256290002400604 Bloodgood JM, Chae B. Organizational paradoxes: Dynamic shifting and integrative management. Manage Decis. 2010;48(1):85-104. doi:10.1108/00251741011014472 Raisch S, Hargrave TJ, Van De Ven AH. The learning spiral: A process perspective on paradox. J Manag Stud. 2018;55(8):1507-1526. doi:10.1111/joms.12397 Rothenberg A. The Emerging Goddess: The Creative Process in Art, Science, and Other Fields. University of Chicago Press; 1979. p. 212. Liu S, Wei H, Xin H, Cheng P. Task conflict and team creativity: The role of team mindfulness, experiencing tensions, and information elaboration. Asia Pac J Manag. 2022;39(4):1367-1398. doi:10.1007/s10490-021-09771-z Şahin F. A study on developing creative thinking skills in students with intellectual disabilities using creative drama. Creativity Res J. 2022;34(1):85-92. doi:10.1080/10400419.2021.1997177 Han Q, Hu W, Liu J, Jia X, Adey P. The influence of peer interaction on students' creative problem-finding ability. Creativity Res J. 2013;25(3):248-258. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.813754 Hameiri B, Nabet E, Bar-Tal D, Halperin E. Paradoxical thinking as a conflict-resolution intervention: Comparison to alternative interventions and examination of psychological mechanisms. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2018;44(1):122-139. doi:10.1177/0146167217736048 Papachroni A, Heracleous L. Ambidexterity as practice: Individual ambidexterity through paradoxical practices. J Appl Behav Sci. 2020;56(2):143-165. doi:10.1177/0021886320913048 Lewis MW, Smith WK. Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. J Appl Behav Sci. 2014;50(2):127-149. doi:10.1177/0021886314522322 Miron-Spektor E, Gino F, Argote L. Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2011;116(2):229-240. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.006 Leung AKY, Liou S, Miron-Spektor E, Koh B, Chan D, Eisenberg R, Schneider I. Middle ground approach to paradox: Within-and between-culture examination of the creative benefits of paradoxical frames. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2018;114(3):443. doi:10.1037/pspp0000160 Pool SW. Organizational culture and its relationship between job tension in measuring outcomes among business executives. J Manag Dev. 2000;19(1):32-49. doi:10.1108/02621710010308144 Schneider A, Bullinger B, Brandl J. Resourcing under tensions: How frontline employees create resources to balance paradoxical tensions. Organ Stud. 2021;42(8):1291-1317. doi:10.1177/0170840620926825 Schad J, Lewis MW, Smith WK. Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strategic Organ. 2019;17(1):107-119. doi:10.1177/1476127018786218 Smith WK, Tracey P. Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organ. 2016;14(4):455-466. doi:10.1177/1476127016638565 Wilson SR, Barley WC, Ruge-Jones L, Poole MS. Tacking amid tensions: Using oscillation to enable creativity in diverse teams. J Appl Behav Sci. 2022;58(1):5-28. doi:10.1177/0021886320960245 Jay J. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Acad Manag J. 2013;56(1):137-159. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0772 Luthans F, Youssef CM, Avolio BJ. Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. Oxford University Press; 2007. Luthans F, Youssef CM. Emerging Positive Organizational Behavior. Leadership Institute Faculty Publications. 2007. Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/leadershipfacpub/8 Peng JC, Chen SW. Learning climate and innovative creative performance: Exploring the multi-level mediating mechanism of team psychological capital and work engagement. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(15):13114-13132. doi:10.1007/s12144-021-02617-3 Avey JB, Luthans F, Jensen SM. Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Hum Resour Manag. 2009;48(5):677-693. doi:10.1002/hrm.20294 Barclay D, Higgins C, Thompson R. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration. Technol Stud. 1995;2:285-309. Scott SG, Bruce RA. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad Manage J. 1994;37(3):580-607. doi:10.5465/256701 Zhou J, George JM. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Acad Manage J. 2001;44(4):682-696. doi:10.5465/3069410 Dost M, Qatiti KA. Leadership, stress and politics: influences on creativity and innovation in emerging markets. Manag Decis. 2023;61(9):2564-2581. doi:10.1108/MD-12-2021-1577 Bengtsson M, Raza-Ullah T, Vanyushyn V. The coopetition paradox and tension: The moderating role of coopetition capability. Ind Mark Manag. 2016;53:19-30. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.008 Avey JB, Avolio BJ, Luthans F. Experimentally analyzing the impact of leader positivity on follower positivity and performance. Leadersh Q. 2011;22(2):282-294. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.004 Urbach N, Ahlemann F. Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. J Inf Technol Theory Appl (JITTA). 2010;11(2):2. Available from: https://aisel.aisnet.org/jitta/vol11/iss2/2 Roemer E, Schuberth F, Henseler J. HTMT2–an improved criterion for assessing discriminant validity in structural equation modeling. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2021;121(12):2637-2650. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-2021-0082 Henseler J, Ringle CM. Assessing measurement invariance of composite models. Paper presented at: 2nd International Symposium on Partial Least Squares Path Modeling; 2015; Seville, Spain. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J Mark Res. 1981;18:382-388. doi:10.2307/3150980 Smith WK, Jarzabkowski P, Lewis MW, Langley A, editors. The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford University Press; 2017. P. 66-86. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198754428.013.7 Yang Y, Li Z, Liang L, Zhang X. Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impact employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Curr Psychol. 2021;40:1911-1922. doi:10.1007/s12144-018-0095-1 Litchfield, R. C., Lee, Y. S., & Gilson, L. L. (2021). Creativity and standardization: Tension, complementarity, and paradox. In E. Editor, Handbook of Research on Creativity and Innovation (pp. 67-80). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788977272.00012 Miron-Spektor E, Emich KJ, Argote L, Smith WK. Conceiving opposites together: Cultivating paradoxical frames and epistemic motivation fosters team creativity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2022;171:104153. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104153 Gaim M, Wåhlin N. In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions. Scand J Manage. 2016;32(1):33-44. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2015.12.002 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AppendixAMeasurementItemsofVariables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 12 Feb, 2025 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 29 Mar, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 28 Mar, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 28 Mar, 2024 First submitted to journal 19 Mar, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4133793","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":285364098,"identity":"a9d55eaa-a33e-43b4-8fd6-d0687ba7c619","order_by":0,"name":"huifen guo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guangzhou University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"huifen","middleName":"","lastName":"guo","suffix":""},{"id":285364099,"identity":"fa8b708f-1b64-4ace-97c2-69701365fd82","order_by":1,"name":"zhen zhou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guangzhou University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"zhen","middleName":"","lastName":"zhou","suffix":""},{"id":285364101,"identity":"6748d59b-7aa2-45f5-860a-42b318edccb7","order_by":2,"name":"fengqi ma","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guangzhou University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"fengqi","middleName":"","lastName":"ma","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-03-20 03:14:42","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4133793/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4133793/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02427-3","type":"published","date":"2025-02-12T15:56:58+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":76487678,"identity":"67f75897-506f-43f9-84b8-7406586fe125","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-17 16:11:06","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1249426,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4133793/v1/61eb4ca0-34f6-4798-a8fb-036175de4069.pdf"},{"id":53918777,"identity":"28ce8a33-d6ce-49e2-989f-327df3a77ce6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-02 08:29:26","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":14346,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixAMeasurementItemsofVariables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4133793/v1/32a9d48886cb494d6071428c.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Exploring the roles of paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, and team psychological capital on the creativity of engineering university students","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCreativity stands as an indispensable trait for engineering students, exerting a profound influence on competitiveness and the economic trajectory of the nation. In industries driven by innovation, engineers endowed with creative prowess are invaluable, contributing to developing cutting-edge technologies and strengthening key sectors. Creatively inclined engineers offer immeasurable societal benefits, thinking beyond conventional boundaries to enhance community life and address global challenges. Within the organizational landscape, several scholars have undertaken analyses related to the creativity of corporate employees and teams. Nguyen et al. [1] examined the impact of digital workplace changes on employee creativity and job satisfaction. The findings revealed that perceptions of power, information, rewards, and knowledge significantly influence creativity. Duan et al. [2] examined the effects of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations on employee creativity through meaningful work. The findings showed that benevolence and morality have a positive impact on creativity, whereas authoritarianism has a negative effect. Biemans \u0026amp; Huizingh [3] shed light on the positive impact of humor on creativity in innovation, emphasizing induced humor and its effects on both customers and innovation teams. Baird et al. [4] studied 332 Australian accountants, discovering that organizational learning affects strategic management accounting practices through both direct and indirect channels, including employee empowerment and creativity. A few scholars have conducted research on creativity within the context of neural mechanisms. H\u0026auml;ndel et al. [5] examined brain activity during a creativity test with restricted movement. Their findings indicated that limiting movement increased specific creativity-related brain activity but led to lower overall creativity scores. Kimura et al. [6] found that outdoor exercise boosts creativity, enhancing neuronal activity and positive experiences compared to indoor exercise. Huang \u0026amp; Chang [7] found that virtual reality significantly improves creativity and emotions, reducing brainwave activity in tenth-grade students, suggesting that virtual reality enhances the creative process. Yin\u0026nbsp;et al. [8] used electroencephalography to examine brain activity during various creativity-related cognitive tasks. The study identified the interplay between brain involvement and cognitive factors, aiding designers and researchers in understanding the cognitive processes underlying creativity. A number of scholars have also explored the creativity of students within the educational environment. Getachew [9] found that Socratic dialogue boosts creativity in business students, especially when combined with feedback received through dialogue with classmates. Groeneveld\u0026nbsp;et al. [10] interviewed 33 professionals and ten students, shedding light on differences between the two groups regarding the creative environment, application of techniques, collaboration, the debate of nature vs. nurture, and the perceived value of creativity in the field. Gonz\u0026aacute;lez Moreno and Molero Jurado [11] explored the link between creativity, academic performance, self-esteem, and stress among 743 adolescents. The findings revealed a positive correlation between creativity and self-esteem, with students repeating a year showing differences in creativity levels. Besides, researchers have explored creativity in various domains, including art [12-14] and science [15, 16].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe existing literature underscores a noticeable gap in scholarly attention to creativity in engineering, particularly among engineering students. Few studies have delved into the realm of engineering creativity, and limited\u0026nbsp;research employs quantitative data to investigate the factors influencing the creative capabilities of engineering students.\u0026nbsp;Drawing insights from the literature, it becomes apparent that understanding the link between paradoxical tensions and paradoxical thinking is crucial for unlocking creativity among individuals [17, 18].\u0026nbsp;Furthermore, the literature highlights the significant role of team psychological capital in enhancing creativity within engineering teams. Cultivating a supportive and resilient environment is crucial for the flourishing of creative ideas. Expanding upon this groundwork,\u0026nbsp;the current study aims to analyze the link between paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, and the creativity of engineering students. Additionally, it seeks to investigate the role played by team psychological capital in this dynamic interplay. The research questions posed are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1)\u0026nbsp;What is the impact of paradoxical tensions and paradoxical thinking on the creativity of engineering students?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) What role does paradoxical thinking play in the correlation between paradoxical tensions and creativity in engineering students?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3) What role does team psychological capital play in positively or negatively moderating the influence between paradoxical tensions and creativity in engineering students?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, this study introduces a moderated mediation model wherein paradoxical tensions and paradoxical thinking synergistically stimulate creativity. Specifically, paradoxical thinking functions as a mediator in the relationship between paradoxical tensions and creativity. The study also highlights the positive moderating role of team psychological capital in cultivating creativity, thereby enriching our understanding of factors influencing the creativity of engineering university students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Creativity in Engineering University Students\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngineering creativity, characterized by purposeful innovation, emphasizes the creation of products encompassing physical objects, intricate systems, and processes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. These products effectively perform tasks or solve problems, thereby possessing inherent utility and functionality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Engineering creativity entails the generation of novel and efficient solutions to complex real-world problems, extending beyond mere artistic expression. In the context of engineering creativity, this study posits that the creativity of an engineering university student refers to their ability to engage in creative thinking [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e], generate original ideas [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], and apply creative problem-solving skills [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e] within the context of engineering disciplines. It encompasses the capacity to approach challenges with originality, devise inventive solutions, and contribute to the development of new technologies, systems, or processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParadoxical tensions encourage students to acknowledge the continuous presence of conflicting tensions and embrace a paradoxical way of thinking [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. In engineering, challenges often manifest as conflicting requirements, limited resources, or contradictory goals, creating paradoxical tensions when individuals must navigate these contradictions and strike a balance between competing factors. Paradoxical thinking empowers university students to proactively recognize tensions and embrace conflicting yet interlinked issues instead of seeking their elimination [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. It involves holding opposing ideas in mind and perceiving the potential for synergy or innovation within apparent contradictions. In this context, creativity and paradoxical tension establish a symbiotic relationship [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Creativity enables students to explore diverse perspectives and generate various ideas, while paradoxical tension provides a challenging context that stimulates creative thinking. By embracing paradoxical thinking, individuals can transform apparent conflicts into creativity, ultimately leading to breakthroughs and advancements in the field of engineering.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Paradoxical Tension\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe notion of paradox emerged in the late 1980s as a promising framework for exploring organizational phenomena [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Smith and Lewis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e] synthesized diverse traditions, presenting a more inclusive conceptualization of paradox theory as \u0026ldquo;contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time\u0026rdquo; (p.382). Paradoxical tensions involve opposing, conflicting, or competitive elements [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Instead of being straightforward either/or choices, these tensions are intricately connected via their inherent links. Importantly, paradoxical tensions can mutually reinforce each other, indicating a complex interplay [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Previous research underscores the infeasibility of eradicating paradoxes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Paradoxical thinking, demonstrating the capacity to acknowledge and embrace inherent tensions within interrelated relationships and pinpoint potential synergies, is linked with adaptability, cognitive flexibility, and diverse perspectives in decision-making [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Individuals proficient in paradoxical thinking often demonstrate curiosity, openness to various perspectives, and a willingness to confront challenging and uncomfortable situations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the exploration of the creativity of students through the lens of paradoxical tensions has been inadequately addressed in the literature [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Paradoxical Thinking\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParadoxical thinking serves as a cognitive mechanism empowering collegiate individuals to critically reassess prevailing perspectives on complex issues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. This cognitive approach facilitates an active embracement and acceptance of tensions by mentally aligning contradictory yet interconnected elements [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR36\" citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. Empirical investigations underscore the affirmative influence of paradoxical cognition on personal creativity and innovative conduct [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR39\" citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. As university students grapple with conflicting challenges, they develop a paradoxical mindset and corresponding cognitive attitude, ultimately enhancing their creative abilities. Previous research has explored how paradoxical thinking moderates the link between paradoxical tension and innovative behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. Nevertheless, there exists a gap in understanding the connection between paradoxical tension, paradoxical thinking, and creativity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e], particularly regarding the role of paradoxical thinking as a mediator in the relationship between paradoxical tension and creativity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Research Framework and Hypotheses","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Paradoxical Tension and Paradoxical Thinking\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParadoxical tensions impact the mental sense-making processes of university students [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. While these tensions may evoke feelings of unease and doubt among students [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e], potentially leading to a confrontational approach, they can also motivate students to cognitively acknowledge the persistent existence of paradoxical tensions and adopt a receptive stance toward opposing elements or issues. This fosters the development of a cognitive framework and thinking style characterized by paradox. Nevertheless, individual thinking styles are shaped and embedded within the broader cultural context [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Due to prolonged exposure to traditional Chinese culture, Chinese university students are inclined to be significantly impacted by Zhong-Yong thinking and the cognitive framework of Yin-Yang balancing [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR46\" citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. Smith et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e] observed that individuals in China are more prone to adopting a paradoxical frame and thinking style when facing paradoxical situations than individuals in the United States. Prashantham and Eranova [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e] noted that individuals from the East, such as those from China, more readily embrace a paradoxical frame and welcome tensions than individuals from the West. When confronting conflicting yet interconnected challenges in engineering projects, university students tend to rely on their previous frames of reference to manage and resolve issues due to cognitive path dependency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the shifts in external environmental conditions may render former frames of reference obsolete, necessitating the reevaluation of paradoxical tensions through the cultivation of new frames of reference [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. In situations where existing cognitive frameworks fail to align with environmental changes, experiencing tensions could act as a catalyst for students to learn through paradox, recognizing, transcending, and addressing contradictions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, engineering university students can perceive paradoxical tensions as educational instruments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e], enhancing their ability to progressively comprehend and handle intricate tensions through the learning process [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. This enhanced capacity to navigate paradoxical tensions contributes to further establishing paradoxical thinking among students, fostering a mindset that embraces and effectively manages conflicting elements. As a result, the subsequent hypothesis was postulated:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1: Paradoxical tensions positively impact paradoxical thinking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Paradoxical Thinking and Creativity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParadoxical thinking empowers individuals to proactively embrace tensions and welcome contradictory yet interconnected issues, as opposed to seeking their elimination [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. The integration of two or more conflicting elements or matters is intrinsic to creativity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. Studies indicate that organizations and teams are progressively adopting frames characterized by a paradox in response to paradoxical situations, thereby influencing team and organizational performance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. The capacity of paradoxical thinking to stimulate university students\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;both/and\u0026rdquo; cognition, as opposed to \u0026ldquo;either/or\u0026rdquo; thinking, empowers them to connect opposing elements or issues and uncover new solutions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. This cognitive shift also fosters the development of creative thinking skills [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e] and the capacity to identify problems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e]. Paradoxical cognition diminishes the inertial risk associated with established cognitive frames, allowing students to be receptive to alternative information [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e] and consequently enhancing creativity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e]. Numerous studies have underscored the favorable impact of \u0026ldquo;both/and\u0026rdquo; thinking [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. When undertaking tasks that demand creativity or addressing problems innovatively, students equipped with frames of paradoxical thinking can rearrange pertinent elements or issues to generate fresh solutions or ideas. Paradoxical thinking also disrupts traditional straight-line reasoning, prompting students to blend conflicting elements or issues into new ideas and solutions. Research provides solid evidence to substantiate this claim. Individuals with paradoxical frameworks demonstrate greater creativity compared to those with alternative cognitive frameworks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. Ingram et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] discovered a notably positive impact of paradoxical thinking on innovative behavior. Similarly, later research has indicated that paradoxical mindsets have favorable effects on individual job performance and innovative behavior [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, the following hypothesis was developed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2: Paradoxical thinking positively impacts the creativity of engineering university students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Paradoxical Tension and Creativity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParadoxical tensions and responses have the potential to propel learning and innovation, enhance adaptability, and unleash individuals\u0026rsquo; potential [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Initial studies perceived tension merely as an indicator of anxiety, concentrating on how participants effectively navigate choices between conflicting elements under specific conditions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast to the dilemma perspective that separates conflicting elements, the paradox perspective highlights the competitive yet interconnected associations within tension. Activating the \u0026ldquo;both-and\u0026rdquo; mindset in this situation helps individuals discover the positive possibilities of tension over an extended period [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Nevertheless, the impact of tension on creative performance remains ambiguous [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, existing studies in this context have predominantly concentrated on the business organization environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e], with limited investigations in the realm of higher education. The impact of paradoxical tensions on the creativity and innovative behavior of university students is not well-explored, and there is a scarcity of empirical studies examining their experiences with tensions and the resulting implications. Despite existing literature exploring the correlation between paradoxical tensions and innovation (e.g., Ingram et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]; Miron-Spektor et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]), the underlying mechanisms through which paradoxical tensions influence the creativity of engineering university students remain undisclosed. Therefore, the subsequent hypothesis was framed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3: Paradoxical tension positively impacts the creativity of engineering university students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Mediating Role of Paradoxical Thinking\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePersonal encounters with paradoxical tensions reflect individuals\u0026rsquo; emotional responses, subsequently influencing the frames and processing of their paradoxical cognition, thus impacting their creativity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]. In simpler terms, when facing tension, students can prompt paradoxical cognition and conscious reasoning, allowing them to establish a paradoxical mindset and cognitive approach [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e], ultimately fueling their creativity. Hence, these studies implicitly suggest that paradoxical thinking can mediate the link between experiencing tension and the creativity of university students. In their 2022 study, Wilson and colleagues demonstrated that teams have the potential to enhance innovative ideas by effectively navigating and blending opposing tensions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, how university students respond to paradoxical tensions significantly influences whether the tension impedes or enhances creativity, as evidenced by studies conducted by Ingram et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e], Jay [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e], and Smith \u0026amp; Tushman [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParadoxical thinking mirrors the cognitive frameworks and cognitive activities of university students, along with their cognitive reactions to paradoxical tensions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. When students actively welcome and acknowledge enduring paradoxical tensions during the meaning-making process [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], they engage in paradoxical thinking. Consequently, paradoxical thinking can reconfigure and surpass the borders of conflicting matters [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e], stimulating the creativity of university students [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Hence, the subsequent hypothesis was formulated:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4: Paradoxical thinking plays a mediating role in the relationship between paradoxical tension and the creativity of engineering university students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Moderating Role of Team Psychological Capital\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLuthans, Youssef, and Avolio [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e] articulate psychological capital as the positive psychological developmental state of an individual. This state is characterized by the possession of confidence to confront and invest the necessary effort in excelling at challenging tasks. It involves persisting toward goals and, when necessary, adjusting paths to achieve them. Furthermore, it encompasses maintaining resilience when confronted with problems and adversity, rebounding, and even surpassing them to achieve success. Finally, it involves maintaining a positive outlook on achieving success in both the current and future contexts. Psychological capital, similar to a state-like variable, is quantifiable, deployable, and subject to cultivation through external interventions like on-the-job training, positive feedback, or group support [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e]. While past research on behavior has predominantly focused on how psychological capital influences individual behavior, there has been limited attention given to its impact on teams.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTension can lead to negative outcomes, perpetuating a cycle of paradoxical tensions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Team members\u0026rsquo; ability to persist despite tension from setbacks will determine their overall success or failure. Team psychological capital promotes a proactive approach to dealing with these paradoxical tensions, fostering active coping and paradoxical thinking [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e]. The potential of paradoxical tensions and responses to stimulate intellectual growth and inventive progress, improve adjustability, and tap into human capabilities is evident [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Paradoxical thinking empowers engineering university students to actively embrace tensions and wrestle with contradictory yet interconnected issues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Team psychological capital helps alleviate the adverse effects of members\u0026rsquo; frustration [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e]. Integrating paradoxical elements is crucial in addressing the inherent tensions in innovative efforts within engineering project research and development. Accordingly, the subsequent hypotheses were formulated:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH5: Team psychological capital plays a moderating role in the link between paradoxical tension and the creativity of engineering university students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH6: Team psychological capital plays a moderating role in the link between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 PLS-SEM\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural equation modeling (SEM) comprises two primary methods: covariance-based (CB) SEM and partial least squares (PLS) SEM. CB-SEM is designed for common factor models and theory testing, whereas PLS-SEM is employed in exploratory and explanatory studies, emphasizing prediction over covariance. PLS-SEM exhibits superior capability in handling reflective and composite-based models than CB-SEM. Given that this study incorporated both moderated and mediated models, PLS-SEM was selected for analyses. Smart PLS (v.4.0.9.5) was utilized to conduct PLS-SEM, taking into account the intricate and diverse nature of this investigation. The process followed a two-step approach, evaluating both the measurement and structural models. Rigorous assessments were conducted on the reliability and validity of the measurement model, as well as the explanatory power of the structural model [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Instrumentation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe measurement scales utilized in this research were derived from established literature, validated, and previously employed in similar studies. Additionally, certain items were adjusted to align with our research context (see Appendix A). All items underwent evaluation utilizing a five-point Likert-type scale (1= \u0026ldquo;Strongly disagree\u0026rdquo;, 5= \u0026ldquo;Strongly disagree\u0026rdquo;). Before the main survey, a pilot test involving 150 participants was conducted to minimize potential ambiguity in survey items and integrate necessary modifications that capture creativity among engineering university students and its influencing factors. The survey instrument comprised two primary sections. The first section collected demographic data of the participants (gender, academic major, class level) utilizing fixed nominal scales. The second section encompassed four latent constructs, incorporating 14 indicator items to measure the influencing factors impacting the creativity of engineering university students. The scale was developed based on previous studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCreativity was measured by four items adapted from [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR75\" citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e]. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) for the scale were 0.937, 0.938, and 0.841, respectively. Paradoxical tension was evaluated utilizing the three-item scale adapted from Miron-Spektor et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e], Bengtsson et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e], and Wang \u0026amp; Liu [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, CR, and AVE for the scale were 0.837, 0.866, and 0.761, respectively. Paradoxical thinking was measured based on a three-item scale adapted from Miron-Spektor et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e] and Ingram et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, CR, and AVE for the scale were 0.943, 0.944, and 0.898, respectively. Psychological capital was evaluated using a four-item scale adapted from Avey et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e] and Luthans et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e]. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, CR, and AVE for the scale were 0.929, 0.930, and 0.826, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo avoid redundancy and intercorrelation among indicators, the validity of the questionnaire was analyzed, focusing on examining and refining the questionnaire measures to ensure its operational feasibility. The study employed the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s test in SPSS 24.0 to measure the validity of the questionnaire. A KMO above 0.7 and a significance level of P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 in Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s test are indicative of high questionnaire validity, making it suitable for measuring the respective variables. In this study, the KMO was 0.857 (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.7), and the P-value was 0.000 (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), demonstrating the high validity of the questionnaire. These results affirm the effectiveness of the questionnaire in measuring the factors under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Target Population and Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the comprehensive data collection, the distribution of a modified online questionnaire via WeChat was facilitated using Wenjuanxing (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.wjx.cn/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.wjx.cn/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). Participants had the option to opt-out if they perceived that their creativity might be adversely affected by participation. Following \u0026ldquo;10 times\u0026rdquo; rule, a minimum sample size of 140 was is recommended for models with a maximum of 14 constructs. The questionnaire surveys were distributed to students across eight universities during the spring semester, from June 5 to July 30, 2023. The self-administered surveys were distributed to students in the following universities, along with the corresponding number of participants in parentheses: South China University of Technology (141), Dongguan University of Technology (158), Southern University Science and Technology (135), Shenzhen Technology University (121), Guangdong University of Technology (161), Foshan University (198), Wuyi University (132), Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology (194), and Guangzhou University (236). In total, 1476 questionnaires were distributed. After excluding 189 questionnaires due to numerous missing values, the analysis focused on 1287 usable questionnaires, resulting in a response rate of 87%. The demographic details of the respondents are shared in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondents Details\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographic Variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographic Variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcademic Major\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e973\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMechanical Engineering Technology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e177\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRobotics and Automation Engineering\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e168\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eClass Level\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElectrical Engineering and Automation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e267\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1st Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e443\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eManufacturing Engineering\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e189\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2nd Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e421\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAutomotive Engineering\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e254\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3rd Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e345\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasurement and Control Engineering\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e288\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4th Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e267\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIoT Systems Engineering\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e133\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Evaluation of Measurement Model\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe study initially converted the cleaned data into a \u0026ldquo;.csv\u0026rdquo; format using SPSS 24.0 and imported it into Smart PLS (v.4.0.9.5) to assess the effectiveness of the measurement model. The evaluation of the measurement model within the proposed framework aimed to scrutinize the reliability and validity of the variable measures during the primary data collection phase.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUrbach and Ahlemann [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e79\u003c/span\u003e] have recommended threshold values for exploratory research: CA\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.8, CR\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.8, AVE\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.5, indicator weight\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.1, and factor loadings (greater than 0.7)\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;cross-loadings. In this study, the factor-loading values exceeded the cross-loading values, indicating discriminant validity among constructs. Detailed information on all measurement model values is shared in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, where CA surpassed 0.8, CR exceeded 0.8 for all constructs, AVE surpassed 0.5 for all constructs, indicator weight exceeded the threshold value of 0.1, and factor loadings were greater than all cross-loadings, satisfying the criterion for discriminant validity. In summary, these values meet all the criteria for determining validity and reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndicator Weight, Loadings, CA, CR, and AVE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParadoxical thinking (CA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.943, CR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.944, AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.898)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstruct / Item\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndicator Weight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFactor Loadings / Cross Loadings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePTK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCRE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTPC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePTK1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.354\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.938\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.741\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.631\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.683\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePTK2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.361\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.955\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.759\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.660\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.682\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePTK3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.340\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.950\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.709\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.630\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.648\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCreativity (CA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.937, CR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.938, AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.841)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCRE1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.267\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.676\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.905\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.715\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.725\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCRE2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.277\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.729\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.911\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.750\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.718\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCRE3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.269\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.713\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.918\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.694\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.728\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCRE4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.277\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.734\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.935\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.714\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.748\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParadoxical tension (CA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.837, CR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.866, AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.761)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePT1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.406\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.616\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.734\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.930\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.722\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePT2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.419\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.644\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.750\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.944\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.731\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePT3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.314\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.547\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.726\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.517\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeam psychological capital (CA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.929, CR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.930, AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.826)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTPC1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.282\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.668\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.734\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.688\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.938\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTPC2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.263\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.609\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.698\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.734\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.887\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTPC3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.276\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.662\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.708\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.681\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.932\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTPC4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.279\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.634\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.750\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.666\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.875\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eNote: The factor loadings are indicated by bold and italic values. PTK\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Paradoxical Thinking, CRE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Creativity, PT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Paradoxical Tension, TPC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Team Psychological Capital, CA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, CR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Composite Reliability, AVE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Average Variance Extracted.\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRoemer et al. [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e] advocate that the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) proves advantageous in appraising discriminant validity when dealing with measurement models. Our assessment of discriminant validity aligns with the criteria set forth by Henseler et al. [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e]. It is imperative for the values to remain below 0.900. Fornell and Larcker [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e] suggest that the square root of the AVE should be greater than the correlation between the construct and other constructs. This study fulfills this criterion. The findings have been tabulated in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResults of Fornell-Larcker and HTMT Analyses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePTK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCRE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTPC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePTK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.948\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.826\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.760\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.756\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCRE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.777\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.917\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.880\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.852\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.676\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.783\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.872\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.859\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTPC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.709\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.796\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.761\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.909\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNote: The lower triangle represents the Pearson correlation coefficients between constructs, while the diagonal contains the square roots of the AVE.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe upper triangle represents the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePTK = Paradoxical Thinking, CRE = Creativity, PT = Paradoxical Tension, TPC = Team Psychological Capital, AVE = Average Variance Extracted.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Evaluation of Structural Model\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e serves as a metric for gauging the precision of the model, quantifying the extent to which the explanatory power of the model accounts for variance in each dependent variable. R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e values range from 0 to 1, where higher values signify increased predictive accuracy (0.750 as substantial, 0.500 as moderate, and 0.250 as weak). In the current research, all values exceeded 0.500 (moderate); creativity exhibited the highest R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (0.762), while paradoxical thinking had the least robust R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (0.549).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe predictive relevance (Q\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) of the model was determined, with appropriate Q\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e values considered crucial for accurate predictions of indicator points. A Q\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e value\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0 indicates successful predictive relevance for the variable (0.020 as small, 0.150 as medium, and 0.350 as large). A blindfolding process within the Smart PLS (v.4.0.9.5) tool was employed to determine Q\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e values for the dependent variables. In this study, all Q\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e values for the variables exceeded 0, indicating robust support for the predictive relevance of the model across all dependent variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe goodness-of-fit (GOF) reflects the extent to which the independent variables in a structural model accurately estimate the model, with a higher value indicating a better fit. GOF requires manual calculation using the formula \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(GOF=\\sqrt {AV{E^2}*{R^2}}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, where a standard of 0.10 signifies a poor fit, 0.25 indicates an acceptable fit, and 0.36 indicates a good fit. In this study, the calculated model fit was 2.021, surpassing 0.36, indicating a generally high overall fit for the model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Hypotheses Assessment\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents the findings from hypotheses testing. The first hypothesis suggests a positive connection between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking. The outcomes suggested a positive association (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.098, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking, providing support for H1. Effect sizes (f\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) gauge the magnitude of a variable\u0026rsquo;s influence on the dependent variable. The recommended benchmarks for interpretation are as follows: 0.02 to 0.15 (small), 0.15 to 0.35 (medium), and \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.35 (large). The actual impact of paradoxical tension on paradoxical thinking is considered small (f\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.099).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe second hypothesis suggests a positive relationship between paradoxical thinking and the creativity of engineering university students. The outcomes suggested a positive association (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.536, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) between paradoxical thinking and creativity, providing support for H2. The actual impact of paradoxical thinking on creativity is considered medium (f\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.224).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe third hypothesis posits a positive connection between creativity in engineering university students and paradoxical tension. The findings revealed a significant positive association (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.861, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) between paradoxical tension and creativity, supporting H3. The observed impact of paradoxical tension on creativity is assessed as medium (f\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.154).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe fourth hypothesis suggests that paradoxical thinking mediates the connection between paradoxical tension and creativity in engineering university students. The findings indicated that the impact of paradoxical tension on creativity is channeled through the mediating effects of paradoxical thinking, thereby supporting the hypothesis.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe fifth hypothesis suggests that team psychological capital, within the context of engineering university students, assumes a moderating role between paradoxical tension and creativity. The outcomes revealed that moderating effects of team psychological capital amplify the influence of paradoxical tension on creativity, providing support for H5. The real impact of team psychological capital on both paradoxical tension and creativity falls within the medium range (f\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.146).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe sixth hypothesis posits that the moderating influence of team psychological capital will enhance the impact of paradoxical tension on paradoxical thinking. However, the findings indicated that team psychological capital does not amplify the effect of paradoxical tension on paradoxical thinking, thereby not supporting H6. The impact of team psychological capital on both paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking is of medium magnitude (f\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.181).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypotheses Assessment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypothesis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOriginal Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(O)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard Deviation (STDEV)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT Statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(t-value)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConfidence Intervals\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.5%: 97.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect Size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(f\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal Effects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH1: PT \u0026rarr; PTK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.634\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.098***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.551, 0.724\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.099\u003csup\u003esmall\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH2: PTK \u0026rarr; CRE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.236\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.536***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.151, 0.349\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.224\u003csup\u003emedium\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH3: PT \u0026rarr; CRE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.572\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.861***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.473, 0.660\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.154\u003csup\u003emedium\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMediation Effect of Paradoxical Thinking\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH4: PT \u0026rarr; PTK \u0026rarr; CRE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.101***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.090, 0.230\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModeration Effect of Team Psychological Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH5: TPC \u0026times; (PT \u0026rarr; CRE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.069\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.263***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.088, -0.051\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.146\u003csup\u003emedium\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH6: TPC \u0026times; (PT \u0026rarr; PTK)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.032, -0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.181\u003csup\u003emedium\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNote: T \u0026gt;1.96 at P \u0026lt; 0.05 (*), T \u0026gt; 2.576 at P \u0026lt; 0.01 (**), and T \u0026gt; 3.29 at P \u0026lt; 0.001 (***).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePTK = Paradoxical Thinking, CRE = Creativity, PT = Paradoxical Tension, TPC = Team Psychological Capital.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Discussion and Conclusion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.1 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research explores the correlation between paradoxical tension, paradoxical thinking, and the creativity of university engineering students. Additionally, the study examines the moderating effect of team psychological capital in this context. The results reveal that both paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking significantly impact the creativity of engineering university students. Furthermore, paradoxical tension has a significant influence on paradoxical thinking. Simultaneously, paradoxical tension impacts creativity through the mediation of paradoxical thinking, indicating a significant mediating role of paradoxical thinking. Team psychological capital emerges as a significant moderator between paradoxical tension and creativity, while its moderating effect is not significant in the link between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe observed significant influence of paradoxical tension on paradoxical thinking aligns with the findings of Smith et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e] and Wang \u0026amp; Liu [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. The creative process in engineering necessitates a careful balance between seemingly opposing factors. This equilibrium arises from the tension created by conflicting design goals, resource limitations, and shifts in technological approaches, serving as a crucial driver for inventive issue resolution. This study posits that deliberately cultivating a state of paradoxical tension among engineering students can serve as a catalyst, inspiring engineers to skillfully address and harmonize conflicting requirements, ultimately nurturing inventive solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significant impact of paradoxical thinking on the creativity of engineering university students aligns with the outcomes of Yang et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e] and Litchfield et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e85\u003c/span\u003e]. Paradoxical thinking entails the ability to embrace contradictory elements, creating a unique cognitive framework that encourages adaptability and innovative ideation. This outcome underscores the potentially transformative impact of incorporating paradoxical thinking into teaching methods within engineering programs. Amidst an era shaped by complex technological challenges, developing a thinking that adeptly handles uncertainty and intricacy becomes crucial. Recognizing and appreciating the contradictions inherent in engineering problems not only expands the intellectual perspectives of the students but also cultivates resilience essential for tackling diverse real-world challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significant impact of paradoxical tension on the creativity of engineering university students aligns with the findings of Miron-Spektor et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e86\u003c/span\u003e] and Gaim \u0026amp; W\u0026aring;hlin [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e87\u003c/span\u003e]. Exploring how paradoxical tension affects creativity in engineering students delves deep into the heart of thinking processes, challenging traditional ways of thinking. Paradoxical tension, with its conflicting elements, acts as a mental crucible that promotes transformative thinking. It compels students to navigate contradictions, resulting in innovative solutions beyond conventional methods. Embracing this tension as essential to engineering creativity redefines education, highlighting the importance of an environment that nurtures conflicting thoughts. Acknowledging and harnessing this creative potential enables students to address complex challenges, preparing them as flexible and forward-thinking engineers in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pivotal role of paradoxical thinking in linking paradoxical tension with engineering creativity is evident, a conclusion supported by Ingram et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] and Jay [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e]. The combination of paradoxical tension and engineering creativity creates a back-and-forth interaction where seemingly conflicting elements converge, fostering an environment conducive to transformative insights. This interdependent relationship suggests that paradoxical thinking acts as the crucible wherein tensions inherent in engineering challenges are not only recognized but actively used to drive creative thinking. The essence of paradoxical thinking lies in its ability to navigate the delicate balance between opposing forces, serving as a catalyst for blending diverse perspectives. It emerges as the key cognitive element that resolves apparent contradictions in engineering pursuits, surpassing traditional thought boundaries. Paradoxical thinking infuses the creative process with increased resilience through its mediation, enabling engineers to move beyond binary oppositions and embrace the collaborative potential within paradoxical tensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe impact of team psychological capital is crucial when examining the moderation between paradoxical tension and creativity. It does not exert a considerable moderating influence on the link between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking. The substantial impact of team psychological capital on the connection between paradoxical tension and creativity implies that psychological resources at the team level are vital in utilizing the positive aspects of paradoxical tension within a team setting. This underscores the capacity of the team to use collectively shared positive psychological resources to manage and capitalize on the inherent tensions in paradoxical situations, ultimately creating a favorable environment for creative results. However, the non-significant moderating effect between team psychological capital and paradoxical thinking implies that, while team-level positive psychological capital may facilitate the creative potential arising from tension, its impact may not extend to the cognitive strategies associated with navigating paradoxical thinking at the team level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2 Conclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2.1 Theoretical Contributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe observed interaction between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking in engineering creativity constitutes substantial theoretical contributions, enhancing our understanding of the complex mechanisms at play. This conceptual framework highlights how purposeful engagement with paradoxes, as manifested in paradoxical tension, distinctly shapes creative thinking when combined with the cognitive processes of paradoxical thinking. These insights advance theoretical ideas and offer a conceptual perspective that provides broader insights into understanding creativity in paradoxical fields. The integration of paradoxical thinking into the theoretical framework addresses the cognitive aspects of engineering creativity. Given the frequent presentation of conflicting feedback or demands, the ability of engineers to employ paradoxical thinking becomes an invaluable asset. Theoretical advancements in this domain contribute to a deeper understanding of how students can be trained to approach design challenges with a mindset that embraces and synthesizes paradoxes, ultimately yielding innovative and original solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the highlighted moderating effect of team psychological capital on the link between paradoxical tension and creativity emphasizes the complex interaction of socio-cognitive factors. This discovery adds to theoretical complexity by highlighting the significance of team-level psychological resources as crucial components in magnifying or diminishing the impact of tension caused by paradoxes on creative results. The integration of team psychological capital into the theoretical discourse not only enhances our understanding of paradoxical dynamics but also stimulates additional investigation of team-oriented psychological factors in the broader scope of creative processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2.2 Practical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significant impact of paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking on engineering creativity underscores the importance of embracing conflicting thoughts and contradictions when addressing problems in engineering situations. The considerable influence of paradoxical tension, coupled with paradoxical thinking, highlights the necessity for engineering teams to adopt a mindset that values complexity and contradiction as catalysts for creative solutions. Embracing conflicting thoughts and accommodating contradictions is not merely a theoretical concept but a crucial practical approach with tangible benefits for innovation and problem-solving. Engineering teams should actively cultivate a mindset that recognizes and values complexity and contradiction, viewing them as catalysts for unlocking inventive solutions to real-world challenges. In essence, the practical implications of integrating paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking into the engineering paradigm are profound, promoting transformative solutions and enhancing the ability to effectively address complex issues in practical applications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the role played by team psychological capital in the connection between paradoxical tension and creativity underscores the importance of cultivating a positive team psychological atmosphere. The strategic development of psychological capital within engineering teams can improve the ability of the team to handle paradoxes, ultimately nurturing a more creative and adaptable problem-solving culture. In practical terms, these findings imply that organizations in the engineering field should not only support the development of paradoxical thinking but also invest resources into strategies for establishing and maintaining positive team psychological capital. Recognizing and addressing paradoxes in engineering projects serve as a practical approach to stimulate creative problem-solving, thereby improving overall project outcomes. This emphasizes the necessity for leadership to foster a culture that values cognitive diversity, embraces contradictions, and invests in the psychological well-being of engineering teams to optimize their creative potential in tackling complex challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. Limitations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research has some limitations that might act as catalysts for further exploration of the subject. First, despite conducting a survey with a three-month gap, future studies could use experience sampling or other longitudinal methods to investigate the potential changes in work-related tensions over time. Second, the participants in this study are exclusively from China, suggesting the importance of subsequent investigations that involve cross-cultural comparisons to discern the potential impact of paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking on the engineering creativity of students across diverse geographical regions. Third, the data were collected through self-report measures, introducing the possibility of common method bias to the results. While students may possess insight into their feelings and choices, future studies should consider using alternative data sources, such as teachers or administrators, to obtain more objective data.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003ePTK \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Paradoxical Thinking\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCRE \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Creativity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePT \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Paradoxical Tension\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTPC \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Team Psychological Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCA \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Cronbach’s alpha\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCR \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Composite Reliability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAVE \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Average Variance Extracted\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research project has been approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the School of Education, Guangzhou University, by the principle of ethics (GZHU202341). Informed consent was taken from all participants included in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe raw data supporting this study’s conclusions will be made available by the authors ([email protected] or [email protected]) without undue reservation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the 2023 Special Task Project of Humanities and Social Sciences Research by the Ministry of Education, China (Grant No. 23JDSZ3200).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH.F. wrote the manuscript and coordinated the project. Z. designed and conducted the experiments and provided funding for this research. H.F. and Z. contributed equally to this work and shared the first authorship. F.Q. supervised the entire research process and provided critical feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe extend our heartfelt gratitude to Professor Ma for their invaluable assistance in this study’s data-collection process. We appreciate Mr. Zhou’s support and financial assistance during the manuscript-writing process. Their contributions have been invaluable to our research endeavor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors’ information\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHFG is a doctoral candidate at the School of Education, Guangzhou University. Her primary research focuses on higher education, encompassing student performance, fostering innovation capabilities, creativity training, and measurement. Additionally, she has a keen interest in comparing VR, XR, AIGC, and the Metaverse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZZ serves as the teacher of the School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering at Guangzhou University. His primary research focus lies in educational management, covering aspects such as student performance, employment, psychological well-being, and further studies. He is particularly intrigued by leveraging intelligent technologies to enhance student learning performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFQM is a professor, the Dean of the School of Education at Guangzhou University, and a doctoral supervisor. His primary research areas include principles of higher education, management of higher education institutions, and research on higher education curriculum and teaching.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen M, Pontes N, Malik A, Gupta J, Gugnani R. Impact of high involvement work systems in shaping power, knowledge sharing, rewards and knowledge perception of employees. J Knowl Manage. 2024; ahead-of-print:66-86. doi:10.1108/JKM-04-2023-0345\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuan J, Wang X, Liu Y, Han L. Linking paternalistic leadership to employee creativity: a meaning-based perspective. Leadership Organ Develop J. 2023;ahead-of-print. doi:10.1108/LODJ-11-2021-0497\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBiemans WG, Huizingh EK. Why so serious? The effects of humour on creativity and innovation. Creat Innov Manage. 2023. doi:10.1111/caim.12587\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaird K, Su S, Nuhu N. The influence of organisational learning capability on the organisational use of SMA practices: The mediating role of employee creativity and empowerment. Account Finance. 2024. doi:10.1111/acfi.13217\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH\u0026auml;ndel BF, Chen X, Murali S. Reduced occipital alpha power marks a movement induced state change that facilitates creative thinking. Neuropsychologia. 2024;193:108743. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2023.108743\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKimura T, Mizumoto T, Torii Y, Ohno M, Higashino T, Yagi Y. Comparison of the effects of indoor and outdoor exercise on creativity: an analysis of EEG alpha power. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1161533. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1161533\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuang HT, Chang YS. Effects of virtual reality on creative performance and emotions: A study of brainwaves. Comput Human Behav. 2023;146:107815. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107815\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYin Y, Wang P, Childs P. Understanding creativity process through electroencephalography measurement on creativity-related cognitive factors. Front Neurosci. 2022;16:951272. doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.951272\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGetachew T. Fostering creativity in low-engagement students through socratic dialogue: An experiment in an operations class. Int J Manag Educ. 2024;22(1):100901. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100901\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGroeneveld W, Luyten L, Vennekens J, Aerts K. Students\u0026rsquo; and professionals\u0026apos; perceived creativity in software engineering: a comparative study. Eur J Eng Educ. 2023;48(6):1351-1368. doi:10.1080/03043797.2023.2294126\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGonz\u0026aacute;lez Moreno A, Molero Jurado MDMD. Creativity as a Positive Factor in the Adolescence Stage: Relations with Academic Performance, Stress and Self-Esteem. Behav Sci. 2023;13(12):997. doi:10.3390/bs13120997\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson-Barnao C, Collie N. Art rocks: Atmospheres of connection and everyday creativity in hybrid public space. Int J Cult Stud. 2024;0(0). doi:10.1177/13678779231219016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBertacchini F, Pantano PS, Bilotta E. From science to art forms: exploring design, creativity and innovation through chaos physicalization. Int J Des Creat Innov. 2023;12:1-38. doi:10.1080/21650349.2023.2285485\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorriss-Kay GM. The evolution of human artistic creativity. J Anat. 2010;216(2):158-176. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01160.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaud AM, Omar J, Turiman P, Osman K. Creativity in science education. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;59:467-474. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.302\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu W, Wu B, Jia X, Yi X, Duan C, Meyer W, Kaufman JC. Increasing students\u0026rsquo; scientific creativity: The \u0026ldquo;learn to think\u0026rdquo; intervention program. J Creat Behav. 2013;47(1):3-21. doi:10.1002/jocb.20\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMannucci PV, Shalley CE. Embracing multicultural tensions: How team members\u0026rsquo; multicultural paradox mindsets foster team information elaboration and creativity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2022;173:104191. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104191\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnight E, Harvey W. Managing exploration and exploitation paradoxes in creative organisations. Manag Decis. 2015;53(4):809-827. doi:10.1108/MD-03-2014-0124\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaufman JC, Baer J, eds. Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Psychology Press; 2005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHorenstein MN. Design concepts for engineers. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2002. p. 2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHirshfield LJ, Koretsky MD. Cultivating creative thinking in engineering student teams: Can a computer-mediated virtual laboratory help? J Comput Assist Learn. 2021;37(2):587-601. doi:10.1111/jcal.12509\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMursid R, Saragih AH, Hartono R. The Effect of the Blended Project-Based Learning Model and Creative Thinking Ability on Engineering Students\u0026rsquo; Learning Outcomes. Int J Educ Math Sci Technol. 2022;10(1):218-235. doi:10.46328/ijemst.2244\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOguz Unver A, Okulu HZ. Encouraging Creative Ideas in the Engineering Design Process for Science Classes. Int J Res Educ Sci. 2022;8(3):486-501. doi:10.46328/ijres.2920\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePappas, J., \u0026amp; Pappas, E. (2003, June). Creative Thinking, Creative Problem Solving, And Inventive Design In The Engineering Curriculum: A Review. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. doi: 10.18260/1-2-12614.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eValentine A, Belski I, Hamilton M. Developing creativity and problem-solving skills of engineering students: a comparison of web-and pen-and-paper-based approaches. Eur J Eng Educ. 2017;42(6):1309-1329. doi:10.1080/03043797.2017.1291584\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHargrave TJ, Van de Ven AH. Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organ Stud. 2017;38(3-4):319-339. doi:10.1177/01708406166408\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith WK, Lewis MW. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management Review. 2011;36(2):381-403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu Z, Ouyang X, Pan X. Experiencing tensions, regulatory focus and employee creativity: the moderating role of hierarchical level. Chin Manage Stud. 2023;17(1):178-196. doi:10.1108/CMS-03-2021-0094\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarmine S, Smith WK. Organizational paradox. In: Oxford Bibliographies in Management. Oxford University Press; 2021. doi:10.1093/OBO/9780199846740-0201\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis MW. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad Manag Rev. 2000;25(4):760-776. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707712\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchad J, Lewis MW, Raisch S, Smith WK. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Acad Manag Ann. 2016;10(1):5-64. doi:10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarjoun M. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Acad Manag Rev. 2010;35(2):202-225. doi:10.5465/amr.35.2.zok202\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang J, Liu F. Experiencing tensions, paradoxical thinking and college students\u0026rsquo; creativity. Asia Pac Educ Rev. 2023:1-13. doi:10.1007/s12564-023-09858-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBar-Tal D, Hameiri B, Halperin E. Paradoxical thinking as a paradigm of attitude change in the context of intractable conflict. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol 63. Academic Press; 2021. pp. 129-187. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2020.11.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith WK, Tushman ML. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science. 2005;16(5):522-536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoderstrom SB, Heinze KL. From paradoxical thinking to practicing sustainable business: The role of a business collective organization in supporting entrepreneurs. Organ Environ. 2021;34(1):74-98. doi:10.1177/1086026619885108\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVedel JB, Geraldi J. How managers respond to paradoxical control‐trust dynamics in interorganizational relationships over time: A constitutive approach. J Manag Stud. 2023;60(8):2060-2090. doi:10.1111/joms.12846\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCalic G, H\u0026eacute;lie S, Bontis N, Mosakowski E. Creativity from paradoxical experience: a theory of how individuals achieve creativity while adopting paradoxical frames. J Knowl Manag. 2018;23(3):397-418. doi:10.1108/JKM-03-2018-0223\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu Y, Xu S, Zhang B. Thriving at work: how a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior. J Appl Behav Sci. 2020;56(3):347-366. doi:10.1177/0021886319888267\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiron-Spektor E, Ingram A, Keller J, Smith WK, Lewis MW. Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Acad Manag J. 2018;61(1):26-45. doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0594\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIngram AE, Lewis MW, Barton S, Gartner WB. Paradoxes and innovation in family firms: The role of paradoxical thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2016;40(1):161-176. doi:10.1111/etap.12113\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL\u0026uuml;scher LS, Lewis MW. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Acad Manag J. 2008;51(2):221-240. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.31767217\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFong CT. The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Acad Manag J. 2006;49(5):1016-1030. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22798182\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeller J, Loewenstein J. The cultural category of cooperation: A cultural consensus model analysis for China and the United States. Organ Sci. 2011;22(2):299-319. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0530\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen MJ. Transcending Paradox: The Chinese \u0026ldquo;Middle Way\u0026rdquo; Perspective. Asia Pac J Manag. 2002;19:179\u0026ndash;199. doi:10.1023/A:1016235517735\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFang T. Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Manage Organ Rev. 2012;8(1):25-50. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00221.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi PP. The unique value of Yin-Yang balancing: A critical response. Manage Organ Rev. 2014;10(2):321-332. doi:10.1017/S1740877600004228\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith KW, Erez M, Jarvenpaa S, Lewis MW, Tracey P. Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organ Stud. 2017;38(3-4):303-317. doi:10.1177/0170840617693560\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrashantham S, Eranova M. Cultural differences in paradoxical tensions in strategy episodes. Long Range Plann. 2020;53(6):101849. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2018.09.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShu EE. Paradoxical framing and coping process on sustainable new product development. Technovation. 2022;111:102392. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102392\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis MW, Dehler GE. Learning through paradox: A pedagogical strategy for exploring contradictions and complexity. J Manag Educ. 2000;24(6):708-725. doi:10.1177/105256290002400604\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBloodgood JM, Chae B. Organizational paradoxes: Dynamic shifting and integrative management. Manage Decis. 2010;48(1):85-104. doi:10.1108/00251741011014472\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaisch S, Hargrave TJ, Van De Ven AH. The learning spiral: A process perspective on paradox. J Manag Stud. 2018;55(8):1507-1526. doi:10.1111/joms.12397\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRothenberg A. The Emerging Goddess: The Creative Process in Art, Science, and Other Fields. University of Chicago Press; 1979. p. 212.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu S, Wei H, Xin H, Cheng P. Task conflict and team creativity: The role of team mindfulness, experiencing tensions, and information elaboration. Asia Pac J Manag. 2022;39(4):1367-1398. doi:10.1007/s10490-021-09771-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eŞahin F. A study on developing creative thinking skills in students with intellectual disabilities using creative drama. Creativity Res J. 2022;34(1):85-92. doi:10.1080/10400419.2021.1997177\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHan Q, Hu W, Liu J, Jia X, Adey P. The influence of peer interaction on students\u0026apos; creative problem-finding ability. Creativity Res J. 2013;25(3):248-258. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.813754\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHameiri B, Nabet E, Bar-Tal D, Halperin E. Paradoxical thinking as a conflict-resolution intervention: Comparison to alternative interventions and examination of psychological mechanisms. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2018;44(1):122-139. doi:10.1177/0146167217736048\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePapachroni A, Heracleous L. Ambidexterity as practice: Individual ambidexterity through paradoxical practices. J Appl Behav Sci. 2020;56(2):143-165. doi:10.1177/0021886320913048\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis MW, Smith WK. Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. J Appl Behav Sci. 2014;50(2):127-149. doi:10.1177/0021886314522322\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiron-Spektor E, Gino F, Argote L. Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2011;116(2):229-240. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeung AKY, Liou S, Miron-Spektor E, Koh B, Chan D, Eisenberg R, Schneider I. Middle ground approach to paradox: Within-and between-culture examination of the creative benefits of paradoxical frames. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2018;114(3):443. doi:10.1037/pspp0000160\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePool SW. Organizational culture and its relationship between job tension in measuring outcomes among business executives. J Manag Dev. 2000;19(1):32-49. doi:10.1108/02621710010308144\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchneider A, Bullinger B, Brandl J. Resourcing under tensions: How frontline employees create resources to balance paradoxical tensions. Organ Stud. 2021;42(8):1291-1317. doi:10.1177/0170840620926825\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchad J, Lewis MW, Smith WK. Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strategic Organ. 2019;17(1):107-119. doi:10.1177/1476127018786218\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith WK, Tracey P. Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organ. 2016;14(4):455-466. doi:10.1177/1476127016638565\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson SR, Barley WC, Ruge-Jones L, Poole MS. Tacking amid tensions: Using oscillation to enable creativity in diverse teams. J Appl Behav Sci. 2022;58(1):5-28. doi:10.1177/0021886320960245\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJay J. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Acad Manag J. 2013;56(1):137-159. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0772\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuthans F, Youssef CM, Avolio BJ. Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. Oxford University Press; 2007.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuthans F, Youssef CM. Emerging Positive Organizational Behavior. Leadership Institute Faculty Publications. 2007. Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/leadershipfacpub/8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeng JC, Chen SW. Learning climate and innovative creative performance: Exploring the multi-level mediating mechanism of team psychological capital and work engagement. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(15):13114-13132. doi:10.1007/s12144-021-02617-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAvey JB, Luthans F, Jensen SM. Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Hum Resour Manag. 2009;48(5):677-693. doi:10.1002/hrm.20294\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarclay D, Higgins C, Thompson R. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration. Technol Stud. 1995;2:285-309.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScott SG, Bruce RA. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad Manage J. 1994;37(3):580-607. doi:10.5465/256701\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou J, George JM. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Acad Manage J. 2001;44(4):682-696. doi:10.5465/3069410\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDost M, Qatiti KA. Leadership, stress and politics: influences on creativity and innovation in emerging markets. Manag Decis. 2023;61(9):2564-2581. doi:10.1108/MD-12-2021-1577\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBengtsson M, Raza-Ullah T, Vanyushyn V. The coopetition paradox and tension: The moderating role of coopetition capability. Ind Mark Manag. 2016;53:19-30. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAvey JB, Avolio BJ, Luthans F. Experimentally analyzing the impact of leader positivity on follower positivity and performance. Leadersh Q. 2011;22(2):282-294. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUrbach N, Ahlemann F. Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. J Inf Technol Theory Appl (JITTA). 2010;11(2):2. Available from: https://aisel.aisnet.org/jitta/vol11/iss2/2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoemer E, Schuberth F, Henseler J. HTMT2\u0026ndash;an improved criterion for assessing discriminant validity in structural equation modeling. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2021;121(12):2637-2650. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-2021-0082\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHenseler J, Ringle CM. Assessing measurement invariance of composite models. Paper presented at: 2nd International Symposium on Partial Least Squares Path Modeling; 2015; Seville, Spain.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFornell C, Larcker DF. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J Mark Res. 1981;18:382-388. doi:10.2307/3150980\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith WK, Jarzabkowski P, Lewis MW, Langley A, editors. The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford University Press; 2017. P. 66-86. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198754428.013.7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang Y, Li Z, Liang L, Zhang X. Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impact employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Curr Psychol. 2021;40:1911-1922. doi:10.1007/s12144-018-0095-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLitchfield, R. C., Lee, Y. S., \u0026amp; Gilson, L. L. (2021). Creativity and standardization: Tension, complementarity, and paradox. In E. Editor, Handbook of Research on Creativity and Innovation (pp. 67-80). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788977272.00012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiron-Spektor E, Emich KJ, Argote L, Smith WK. Conceiving opposites together: Cultivating paradoxical frames and epistemic motivation fosters team creativity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2022;171:104153. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104153\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaim M, W\u0026aring;hlin N. In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions. Scand J Manage. 2016;32(1):33-44. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2015.12.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Paradoxical tensions, Paradoxical thinking, Creativity, Team psychological capital","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4133793/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4133793/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003e The multifaceted challenges encountered by engineering university students generate paradoxical tensions, which serve as catalysts for fostering creativity. Engaging in paradoxical thinking during academic pursuits enhances the ability of students to solve complex engineering problems. Despite this, the intricate interconnections among paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, and the creativity of engineering university students remain ambiguous.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e This study sought to address this gap by surveying 1410 engineering university students in China, delving into how paradoxical thinking mediates the link between paradoxical tensions and creativity. Additionally, it investigated the moderating impact of team psychological capital on the associations between paradoxical tensions and both paradoxical thinking and creativity. SPSS 24.0 was initially used to convert the cleaned data into a “.csv” format, and Smart PLS (v.4.0.9.5) was then employed to assess the model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e The findings of the study reveal a positive influence of paradoxical tensions on both creativity and paradoxical thinking. Notably, paradoxical thinking emerges as a significant contributor to enhancing the creativity of engineering university students. Furthermore, the findings show that paradoxical tensions enhance creativity by influencing paradoxical thinking. While team psychological capital emerged as a significant factor in moderating the link between paradoxical tension and creativity, its role in moderating the association between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking was not statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions \u003c/strong\u003eThis study revealed how paradoxical tensions among engineering university students influence creativity through paradoxical thinking, moderated by team psychological capital. The findings not only provide new insights for researchers to better understand paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, team psychological capital and the underlying psychological mechanism for engineering university students' creativity, but also have practical implications for education administrators.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring the roles of paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, and team psychological capital on the creativity of engineering university students","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-04-02 08:29:21","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4133793/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-03-29T11:51:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-03-28T11:32:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-03-28T11:32:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2024-03-20T03:13:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e64bfe8d-db9f-4476-93a2-37c0066da1f3","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 2nd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-02-17T16:05:43+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4133793","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02427-3","journal":{"identity":"bmc-psychology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Psychology"},"publishedOn":"2025-02-12 15:56:58","publishedOnDateReadable":"February 12th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-04-02 08:29:21","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s40359-025-02427-3","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02427-3","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4133793","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4133793","identity":"rs-4133793","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}