Impact of Age Stereotypes on Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-efficacy and Work Engagement

Impact of Age Stereotypes on Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-efficacy and Work Engagement | 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 Article Impact of Age Stereotypes on Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-efficacy and Work Engagement Ruiying Gao, Dirk Gootjes This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002684/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Innovative work behavior is not only an important indicator of innovation and work performance for employees, but is also an important driving force to cultivate innovative talents for the organization. This study developed structural equation models to explore the mediating effects of employees' creative self-efficacy and work engagement on the influence of positive or negative age stereotypes on IWB among the younger and older employees. The results showed that: (1) Age stereotypes predict IWB. In the older adult group, positive age stereotypes positively influenced IWB, while negative age stereotypes negatively influenced IWB. In younger employee groups, both positive and negative age stereotypes positively influenced IWB. (2) In the younger adult group, work engagement played a partial mediating role between positive stereotype and IWB, and a partial mediating role between negative stereotype and IWB. In the older adult group, creative self-efficacy and work engagement played a partial mediating role between negative age stereotypes and IWB, and also played a partial mediating role between positive age stereotypes and IWB. (3) Negative age stereotypes of older employees negatively affected creative self-efficacy and thus had a negative impact on IWB, but positively affected work engagement through a masking effect that counteracted the negative impact of reduced creative self-efficacy, ultimately resulting in a positive influence on IWB. Biological sciences/Neuroscience Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology innovative work behavior age stereotypes creative self-efficacy work engagement mediating effect masking effect Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction The convergence of intensifying global competition, digital transformation, and demographic aging has positioned innovation as the cornerstone of national economic resilience and organizational survival. Governments worldwide have institutionalized innovation through landmark policies: the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 prioritizes cross-sector R&D ecosystems (Taylor, 2023 ), while the EU’s Horizon Europe program set up special innovation funds to support small and medium-sized enterprises’ innovation (Ricciardiello et al., 2021 ). China’s 14th Five-Year Plan explicitly links independent innovation capacity to GDP growth targets (Poo, 2021 ). All of these strategic measures reflect a global consensus that innovation transcends technological advancement to become a geopolitical imperative. Innovative work behavior (IWB) refers to the behavioral activities that employees spontaneously generate to obtain new ideas or ideas related to work that are beneficial to the organization and apply them in the workplace (Scott & Bruce, 1994 ). It is a key driver of organizational competitiveness and serves as the microfoundation of corporate innovation (Maqbool et al., 2019 ; Hirst et al., 2009 ). Meta-analytic evidence confirms the critical role of IWB and its antecedents (Hülsheger et al., 2009 ). However, the psychological antecedents of IWB remain underexplored, particularly in the context of workforce aging—a demographic shift accelerated by rising retirement ages (Pak et al., 2019 ; Pinto et al., 2014 ; Wong & Tetrick, 2017 ) that creates multigenerational workplaces fraught with problems caused by age differences. Stereotypes about older and younger workers permeate organizational cognition (Posthuma & Campion, 2009 ). Schmidt and Boland ( 1986 ) looked at age-based stereotypes and defined them as cognitive structures of perception and expectations of different age groups. Grounded in Stereotype Embodiment Theory (Levy, 2009 ), the activation of positive and negative age stereotypes can influence self-definition through assimilation, which can have a corresponding effect on a variety of individual perceptions and behaviors. The interaction theory of IWB posits that the individual variables and environmental variables jointly predict individual IWB (Woodman et al., 1993 ). Age stereotypes, an important individual variable that may affect IWB, has already gotten scholarly attention. There have been some previous studies on the relationship between age stereotypes and IWB among older adults, which focused more on negative age stereotypes: such as unwillingness to change, lack of learning ability, declining intelligence and memory, poor health, higher organizational costs, and reduced motivation (Appelbaum et al., 2016 ; Cappelli & Novelli, 2010 ; Dordoni & Argentero, 2015 ; Ory et al., 2003 ). While few of these age stereotypes are about innovativeness, and even when they involve innovation, they are usually summarized as an indicator and labeled low innovativeness. Hypotheses Development Age Stereotype and IWB Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) is a multi-stage process, many researchers believe that IWB has two stages: the generation and execution of innovative ideas (Borasi & Finnigin, 2010; Farr et al., 2003; Mumford & Gustafso, 1988). The effect of age stereotypes on IWB has also been explored in various studies (e.g., Corrigan, 2022; Rietzschel & Zacher, 2015; Smedley, 2017). Age stereotype refers to the preconceived, often oversimplified perceptions people hold about different age groups (Levy, 2009; North & Fiske, 2012; Wurm et al., 2017). Posthuma and Campion (2009) noted that such stereotypes can lead to workplace discrimination, particularly affecting the career development of older workers. Negative stereotypes about older adults can influence hiring decisions (Krings et al., 2011; Neumark et al., 2019; Sousa-Ribeiro et al., 2018; Watermann et al., 2023). This study explores two forms of age stereotypes: those that young workers hold about older adult workers, and self-stereotypes among older adult workers (Fernández-Ballesteros et al., 2017). Conservation of Resources Theory (COR) suggests that self-pressure occurs when an individual is faced with the potential loss of resources, at which point the individual takes action to minimize the loss of resources to preserve existing resources (Hobfoll, 1989). For younger employees who hold age stereotypes, perceptions of older colleagues’ rigidity (out-group stereotypes) activate competitive signaling, driving them to overperform in innovation tasks to assert competence. At the same time, researchers are increasingly turning their attention from younger people who hold age stereotypes to older people who are targeted by said stereotypes (Levy, 2009). Recent research has increasingly focused on how stereotype activation affects behavior. Stereotype Embodiment Theory (SET) shows that activating stereotypes can lead individuals to behave in ways that conform to those stereotypes (Gupta et al., 2013; Levy, 2009; Wheeler & Petty, 2001). Drawing on COR and SET theory, we propose a dual-path framework where both positive and negative age stereotypes enhance IWB across age groups, albeit through distinct psychological mechanisms. Work Engagement as a Mediating Role Work engagement refers to how employees invest energy, attention, and time in their work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Schaufeli et al.’s model defined it through three dimensions: vigor (refers to having a high level of energy and resilience in work, being willing to put in effort, and feeling physically and mentally full rather than exhausted in the workplace), dedication (refers to devoting oneself to the work, having the courage to accept the challenge of the work, and having a strong sense of meaning, pride, and enthusiasm for the work), and absorption (refers to the enjoyment and concentration of one’s attention at work, the feeling that time passes quickly, and the unwillingness to withdraw from it). Employees with high engagement invest energy, overcome challenges, and improve job performance (Schaufeli, 2012b). Studies have also shown that work engagement boosts overall performance and positively affects innovation and routine performance (Kim et al., 2013; Rafiq et al., 2023). Research has found a positive link between work engagement and Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) (Ariyani & Hidayati, 2018; Kwon & Kim, 2020). Work engagement can indirectly influence IWB, with leadership behaviors enhancing innovation through engagement (Gupta et al., 2017; Zhang & Su, 2020), and traits like autonomy promoting IWB via engagement (De Spiegelaere et al., 2015). While direct research on age stereotypes and work engagement is limited, some studies suggest a connection. Kooij et al. (2008) found that "old" self-perceptions harm motivation and performance. Age stereotypes affect older workers' engagement, with evidence showing that these stereotypes influence work performance and engagement (Posthuma & Campion, 2009; von Hippel et al., 2013). Roberson and Kulik (2007) showed that stereotypes influence leaders' expectations and employee engagement, with both direct and indirect effects. Building on the dual-path influence of age stereotypes on IWB, we posit that work engagement serves as a universal mediating mechanism across age groups, though its activation pathways differ between younger and older employees. As a behavior of the individual, work engagement can be used as a strategic resource regulator in different contexts. Under the resource conservation perspective, work engagement can be used as a competitive behavior in response to competitive threats (Lee et al., 2022). The purpose of proving one’s work competence can also be reached through enhanced work engagement (Mustaqim et al., 2024; Pranitasari et al., 2022). For younger employees, negative stereotypes about older colleagues (e.g., "hardly pay attention to innovative work") trigger upward social comparisons (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007), motivating them to engage intensely in innovation tasks to symbolically distance themselves from perceived out-group limitations. Concurrently, positive stereotypes (e.g., "older employees have more experience and resources") foster protective engagement—young employees invest extra effort to preemptively claim innovation ownership before their senior colleagues "appropriate" the opportunities. Both pathways align with COR’s tenet that threat perceptions mobilize resources to safeguard self-concept (Halbesleben et al., 2014). For older employees, corresponding to the stereotype embodiment theory, work engagement may be a product of the influence of positive stereotypes. It can also be a vehicle for compensatory efforts by individuals under the influence of negative stereotypes. When internalizing negative self-stereotypes (e.g., innovation decline), older employees exhibit compensatory over engagement—redirecting preserved resources (e.g., experience) toward innovations to counteract competence doubts (von Hippel et al., 2013). Positive stereotypes (e.g., stable innovation), however, induce work engagement—older employees selectively pursue incremental innovations that align with their identity, avoiding disruptive ideas that might violate age-role expectations (North & Fiske, 2012). Creative Self-Efficacy as a Mediating Role Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their ability to succeed in a specific task (Bandura, 1986). It is typically divided into general self-efficacy, which assesses overall ability, and specific self-efficacy, which relates to abilities in a particular area. Tierney and Farmer (2002) introduced creative self-efficacy, which includes two dimensions that measure confidence in innovation tasks: innovation ability self-efficacy and innovation response self-efficacy. Research on Stereotype Threat Theory and stereotype activation suggests a link between stereotypes and self-efficacy. Steele and Aronson’s (1995) Stereotype Threat Theory suggests that fear of being stereotyped can negatively affect job performance. Steele and Aronson also found that activating negative stereotypes can cause anxiety, increase psychological burden, and create cognitive interference, all of which negatively affect task performance. Other researchers have also found that negative self-stereotypes can trigger stress and fear, ultimately reducing task completion (Weiss and Lang, 2012; Manzi et al., 2019). Bandura’s self-efficacy model identifies five influencing factors: personal experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, emotional arousal, and situational factors. More recent studies have shown that self-efficacy plays a critical role in the activation of stereotypes, with negative emotional responses like anxiety reducing self-efficacy (Shin et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2017). Creative self-efficacy has been recognized as a key mediating variable that affects IWB. Much research has explored the mediating role of creative self-efficacy in the influencing mechanism of IWB (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Akbari et al., 2021; Chen & Leung, 2016; Gong et al., 2009; Kumar et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021). The aforementioned studies discovered that creative self-efficacy plays an important mediating role in the process of influencing IWB, and the improvement of creative self-efficacy may be an effective means to improve employees' IWB. Despite this, research on self-efficacy as a mediator in innovation remains limited, with no studies that address how age stereotypes influence IWB found in the literature search. Because we focus on creative self-efficacy as a mediator within the older adult group’s perspective, aligning with the in-group view, this study specifically examines the role of creative self-efficacy in the older adult group rather than in younger adults. Research Gaps Three important gaps in the literature were found that justify this study. Firstly, most studies focus on negative stereotypes (Dionigi, 2015), ignoring how age stereotypes constrain IWB. Secondly, prior research conflates out-group stereotypes (younger workers’ views of older colleagues) with in-group stereotypes (older workers’ identity internalization), obfuscating distinct mediation pathways. Thirdly, while work engagement and creative self-efficacy are recognized as IWB antecedents (Hassan et al., 2024; Uppathampracha & Liu, 2022), their role in transmitting stereotype effects remains underexamined. Addressing these gaps, we employed a bidirectional age-group comparison to investigate the influence of positive and negative age stereotypes of younger and older adult groups on IWB, as well as the role of creative self-efficacy and work engagement in this process. By integrating Stereotype Embodiment Theory with Conservation of Resources Theory , this research redefines age stereotypes not merely as barriers, but as dynamic forces that organizations can harness through targeted interventions—a timely contribution given the global productivity risk posed by aging workforces (Bloom et al., 2015; Harris et al., 2018; Pit et al., 2021). This study aims to explore the relationships between age stereotypes, creative self-efficacy, work engagement, and IWB to uncover potential causal links among these variables. To compare the impact of age stereotypes on IWB across age groups, two models were created. The model for the younger adult group (out-group) includes work engagement as the sole mediating variable, while the model for the older adult group (in-group) includes both creative self-efficacy and work engagement as mediators. The proposed mediation model is shown in Figure 1. Based on the purpose of this study, we formulated the following hypotheses: H 1a: Positive and negative age stereotypes will positively predict IWB among the younger adult group. H 1b: Positive and negative age stereotypes will positively predict IWB among the older adult group. H 2a: Work engagement will play a mediating role between positive age stereotypes and IWB among the younger adult group. H 2b: Work engagement will play a mediating role between negative age stereotypes and IWB among the younger adult group. H 3 a : Work engagement and creative self-efficacy will play mediating roles between positive age stereotypes and IWB among the older adult group. H 3 b : Work engagement and creative self-efficacy will play mediating roles between negative age stereotypes and IWB among the older adult group. Research Methodology Participant Selection and Sampling This study attempted to analyze the performance of workers of different age groups and occupational types on variables such as IWB, which determined the sample characteristics of this study. In terms of participant selection, based on a rough estimate of the required sample, the researchers decided to recruit 1000 participants from different enterprises in China. In terms of sampling method selection, snowball sampling was used for sample collection in the pilot test, and purposive sampling was used for the main survey through the Sojump (Wen Juan Xing, www.sojump.com) survey website. When creating the survey on Sojump, the researchers set a parameter that allowed a maximum of 1000 participants. In this way, when the number of surveys collected reached 1000, Sojump automatically stopped recruiting and returned the 1000 surveys to the researchers. To expand the recruitment of participants and improve the representativeness of the results, the survey was distributed online without limiting the source province, and the final survey responses were randomly sourced to 23 of the 35 provinces in China. Measures The instrument used in this study was a structured quantitative survey consisting of 35 items: three items of demographic information, three items of creative self-efficacy, nine items of work engagement, eight items of age stereotypes, and 12 items of IWB. Creative Self-Efficacy The items of the Creative Self-Efficacy Instrument developed by Tierney and Farmer (2002) were used to measure employees' creative self-efficacy. This section of the survey consisted of three items that measured an individual's creative self-efficacy at work. The Cronbach’s alpha of the creative self-efficacy section of the survey was 0.74. Work Engagement In the survey, work engagement was measured using the items from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002). This section of the survey includes three dimensions (vitality, dedication, and focus) with a total of nine items. Vitality was defined as having a high level of energy and mental toughness at work, a willingness to put effort into work, and feeling energized at work rather than exhausted. Dedication was defined as having a strong sense of attraction and engagement to work, being willing to put in the work, and continuing to work hard even in the face of difficulties. Focus was defined as putting a lot of effort and time into work while feeling that time passes quickly and having a high level of confidence in ability at work. The Cronbach’s alpha of the work engagement section of the survey was 0.93. A ge stereotypes Age stereotypes were measured by researcher-developed Work Innovative Age Stereotype Scale items for the fourth section of the survey. It was developed through a systematic four-phase process: Phase 1 (Item Generation): Grounded in the Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, 2018), 20 initial items were created to assess competence and warmth dimensions in innovation contexts, and contain both positive and negative aspects. Phase 2 (Content Validation): Items were refined via expert reviews and focus group discussions with 15 experts, leading to revisions for clarity and contextual relevance. Phase 3 (Pretesting): A pilot test ( N = 154) using snowball sampling analyzed item performance. Item analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) reduced the survey items from 20 to 12. Phase 4 (Final Validation): The age stereotype section was finalized through EFA ( n = 465) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA, n = 454), confirming a two-factor structure (positive/negative stereotypes) with eight items (four per subscale). The age stereotype part of the final survey had a total of eight items that exhibited good reliability and validity. The internal consistency was strong for both subscales (Cronbach’s α = .89 for negative stereotypes, α = .88 for positive stereotypes) and the total scale (α = .87). Test-retest reliability over four weeks showed high stability ( r = 0.82–0.91). EFA explained 68.07% variance (KMO = .87, Bartlett’s p .73 on their respective factors. The CFA confirmed model fit (CFI = .983, RMSEA = .06), outperforming a single-factor model. The two dimensions showed moderate correlation ( r = .55, p < .05), indicating distinct yet related constructs. Innovative Work Behavior The Individual Innovative Work Behavior Scale compiled by Scott and Bruce (1994) and the Innovative Work Behavior Scale compiled by Li et al. (2017) in the context of China were combined and modified to measure employees' IWB. There were initially 15 items, divided into two dimensions of innovation generation and innovation execution. Due to the heterogeneity of the research participants, screening and adjustments were made according to the research needs after the pilot test, and 12 items remained in the final iteration of this part of the survey. The reliability and validity of the revised Employee Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) section of the survey were assessed to verify its quality. Homogeneity reliability was analyzed, with results showing Cronbach's α = .91 for Factor 1, α = .89 for Factor 2, and an overall α = .94 ( p < .05), indicating strong internal consistency. Test-retest reliability over four weeks showed high stability (r = 0.72–0.88, p < .05). Structural validity was tested using CFA and factor correlation analysis. The CFA confirmed the model fit (CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.07). The two factors showed moderate correlation ( r = .65, p < .05). Additionally, the two dimensions ( r = 0.79/0.80, p < .05) and the total score ( r = 0.83, p < .05) were significantly correlated with the total score of Scott and Bruce’s (1994) Individual IWB Scale, demonstrating strong criterion correlation validity for the IWB section of the final survey. Data Collection Procedures First, a pilot test was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the survey items, including both researcher-developed and modified items. Using snowball sampling, 154 participants completed the pilot test, which helped identify and refine unreliable or invalid survey items. Next, once the final survey items were confirmed, the survey was created using Sojump, a professional survey tool. The survey was carefully crafted to improve clarity, ease of understanding, and logical structure. A link and QR code were generated so participants could access the survey. Sojump’s online survey platform was used to distribute the survey to working employees aged 20–65 from six occupational categories in China. The survey was offered with a small monetary incentive (5 Yuan, China’s currency), and participation was voluntary with confidentiality assured. The researchers paid necessary fees, including platform and participant compensation costs, and set a target of 1,000 completed surveys. Sojump managed the distribution, and responses were collected and stored in real-time, with automatic descriptive statistics. The researchers regularly monitored survey progress, checking for completion rates, speed, and any outliers or anomalies in the data. For example, surveys completed in under 30 seconds were considered invalid and excluded. After four weeks, 1,000 responses were collected, but 81 were excluded due to short completion times. The remaining 919 surveys had no missing values or outliers, as all questions had fixed options and were mandatory to answer before submission of the completed survey. Table 1 shows the participants’ demographic characteristics. Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants Item Frequency % Gender Male 470 51.1% Female 449 48.9% Age 20–30 162 17.6% 31–40 292 31.8% 41–50 155 16.9% 51–65 310 33.7% Occupation Public officials (employees of state agencies or institutions) 145 15.8% Professional technical personnel (doctors, lawyers, and IT technicians) 188 20.5% Teaching or research staff (teachers and researchers) 156 17.0% Service workers (food servers, restaurant workers, hotel workers, and drivers) 96 10.4% Art/media design 87 9.5% Private enterprise managers 162 17.6% Self-employed 56 6.1% Other 29 3.2% Note. N = 919. Data Analyses and Processing After data collection, including the data from the pilot test surveys and the formal survey for the study, SPSS 24.0 and AMOS 24.0 software programs were used to analyze the data. Hypothesis testing and analysis of variance were used to search for any differences in the means among the demographic variables. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to investigate the mediating effects of employee creative self-efficacy and work engagement on IWB considering age-based stereotype threats. All the study data will be saved for five years and then destroyed. Common Method Variance Test Common Method Variance (CMV) refers to the potential bias or contamination in data that arises from the shared method of measurement rather than from the constructs being measured (Eichhorn, 2014). Five factors were extracted from the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which explained 65.43% of the total variance, among which the first factor explained 44.39% of the total variance, less than 50%. As a result, there was no significant common method variance among the study variables (Baumgartner & Weijters, 2021). Research Results and Findings Correlation Test The data collected from the survey participants ( N = 919) were utilized to conduct correlation analyses on five variables (see Table 2). Pearson's correlation statistics showed a significant positive correlation between PAS and creative self-efficacy ( r = 0.70, p < .01), work engagement ( r = 0.78, p < .01), and IWB ( r = 0.82, p < .01). NAS were significantly and positively correlated with creative self-efficacy ( r = 0.22, p < .05), work engagement ( r = 0.39, p < .01), and IWB ( r = 0.36, p < .01). In addition, creative self-efficacy was positively correlated with work engagement ( r = 0.77, p < .01) and IWB ( r = 0.78, p < .01). Work engagement was positively correlated with IWB ( r = 0.81, p < .01). However, the perspectives of participants from different age groups in the assessment of PAS and NAS may have affected the effects produced for other variables. In an abundance of caution, SEM was used for further analysis of the possible effects of the PAS and NAS on the other variables. Table 2 Correlation Analysis Between Variables Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 1. Positive age stereotype 3.41 0.95 1 2. Negative age stereotype 3.42 0.98 0.30 ** 1 3. Creative self-efficacy 3.55 1.01 0.70 ** 0.22 * 1 4. Work engagement 3.61 0.93 0.78 ** 0.39 ** 0.77 ** 1 5. IWB 3.40 0.90 0.82 ** 0.36 ** 0.78 ** 0.81 ** Note . * p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed). Mediation Test Structural Equation Modeling in the Younger Adult Group A structural equation model was conducted to examine the mediating role of creative self-efficacy and work engagement in the relationship between age stereotypes and IWB of younger employees ( n = 454). According to the two-step procedure of Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the researchers first used the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method to check the fit of the measurement model. A structural model with four latent variables was established, which were PAS, NAS, work engagement, and IWB. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that all the fitting indexes of the measurement model were good: χ 2 = 145.93, χ 2 /df = 2.52, GFI = .95, AGFI = .93, CFI = .98, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .058, SRMR = .056. The second step was a structural model analysis. The results showed that the direct effect model of PAS on IWB fit well (χ 2 = 23.50, χ 2 /df = 2.94, GFI = .98, AGFI = .96, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .065, SRMR = .021). The direct effect model of the influence of NAS on IWB also fit (χ 2 = 22.22, χ 2 / df = 2.78, GFI = .98, AGFI = .96, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .063, SRMR = .039). The standardized path coefficients of PAS → IWB (β = .87, t = 18.27, p < .01) and NAS → IWB (β = .28, t = 5.13, p < .001) reached significant levels. Thus, Hypothesis 1 a was supported. Then, the mediating variable (work engagement) was introduced to establish the mediating effect model. Statistical analysis showed that the key fitting indexes of the mediating effect model were good: χ 2 = 145.93, χ 2 /df = 2.52, GFI = .95, AGFI = .93, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, χ 2 = 145.93. RMSEA = .058, SRMR = .056. In the mediation model, the direct effect of PAS on IWB (β = .44, t = 6.33, p < .01) was reduced, suggesting that work engagement played a partial mediating role in the influence of PAS on IWB, and Hypothesis 2 a was supported. However, the direct effect of NAS on IWB (β = .04, t = 1.43, p = .15) was no longer significant, indicating that work engagement played a mediating role in the influence process of NAS on IWB, and the direct effect was not significant, only the intermediary effect was, and Hypothesis 2 b was supported. The standardized path coefficients are shown in Figure 2. After testing bootstrap standard error, the results (see Table 3) showed that the direct and indirect paths were significant, except for the insignificant correlation between NAS and IWB (β = .54, 95% CI = [-0.02, 0.13]). Table 3 Bootstrap Analysis for the Mediation Effect Tests (Younger Adult Group) Parameter Effect of standardization 95% CI Effect size ratio Lower Upper PAS→WE→IWB 0.374 *** .249 .498 40.5% NAS→WE→IWB 0.087 ** .033 .166 9.5% Total 0.924 *** .838 1.010 100% Note. PAS: Positive Age Stereotype; NAS: Negative Age Stereotype; WE: Work Engagement; IWB: Innovative Work Behavior. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. According to the results of the bootstrap test, the direct effect of PAS on IWB was significant. This result indicates that work engagement played a partial mediating role between PAS and IWB, and the mediating effect size was 40.5%. The direct effect of NAS on IWB was not significant, so work engagement played a mediating role between NAS and IWB, accounting for 9.5% of the total effect. Structural Equation Modeling in the Older Adult Group An SEM was conducted to examine the mediating role of creative self-efficacy and work engagement in the relationship between age stereotypes and IWB of older workers ( n = 465). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that all the fitting indexes of the measurement model were good: χ 2 = 273.91, χ 2 /df = 2.91, GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .064, SRMR = .064. Then the direct effect model and the intermediary effect model were constructed. Statistics showed that the direct effect model of the influence of PAS on IWB fit well (χ 2 = 18.02, χ 2 /df = 2.25, GFI = .98, AGFI = .96, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .052, SRMR = .03), the direct effect model of the influence of NAS on IWB also fit well (χ 2 = 11.89, χ 2 /df = 1.48, GFI = .99, AGFI = .97, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .032, SRMR = .03). The standardized path coefficients for PAS → IWB (β = .13, t = 2.03, p < .05) and NAS → IWB" (β = .31, t = -6.42, p < .001) reached the significance level. Thus, Hypothesis 1 b was supported. The intermediary variables (Creative Self-efficacy and Work Engagement) were introduced into the direct effect model to establish the mediating effect model. The statistical analysis showed that the key fitting indicators of the mediating effect model were good: χ 2 = 273.14, χ 2 /df = 2.91, GFI = .93, AGFI = .9, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .064, SRMR = .055. In the mediation model, the direct effect of NAS with IWB (β = .05, t = 1.80, p = .072) was no longer significant, while the direct effect of PAS with IWB (β = .65, t = 7.73, p < .001) decreased. This suggested that creative self-efficacy and work engagement mediate the effect of NAS on IWB and partially mediate the effect of PAS on IWB in the older adult group. Thus, Hypotheses 3 a and 3 b were supported. The standardized path coefficients are shown in Figure 3. The results of bootstrap standard error (see Table 4) showed that all paths were significant except the direct effect of NAS on IWB, which was not significant. Table 4 Bootstrap Analysis for the Mediation Effect Tests (Older Adult Group) Parameter Effect of standardization 95% CI Effect size ratio Lower Upper PAS→CS→IWB 0.033 * .004 .074 0.03% PAS→WE→IWB 0.209 * .032 .327 21.7% Total PAS 0.863 *** .762 .977 89.6% NAS→CS→IWB -0.012 * -.038 -.002 0.01% NAS→WE→IWB 0.049 * .007 .108 0.05% Total NAS 0.100 * .024 .187 10.4% Total 0.963 *** .875 1.061 100% Note. PAS: Positive Age Stereotype; NAS: Negative Age Stereotype; CS: Creative Self-efficacy; WE: Work Engagement; IWB: Innovative Work Behavior. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. According to the results of the bootstrap test in Table 4, the total effect of PAS on IWB accounted for 89.6% of the total effect, and the total effect of NAS on IWB accounted for 10.4% of the total effect in the older adult group. The direct effect of PAS on IWB was significant. Therefore, creative self-efficacy and work engagement played a partial mediating role between PAS and IWB, and the mediating effect size accounts for 22% (0.03% + 21.7%) of the total effect. The mediating effect size of creative self-efficacy was 5.3% (0.033/0.621), and that of work engagement was 33.7% (0.209/0.621). In addition, the direct effect of NAS on IWB was significant, so creative self-efficacy and work engagement played a partial mediating role between NAS and IWB in the older adult group. The mediating effect size of creative self-efficacy was 18.8% (0.012/0.064), and that of work engagement was 76.6% (0.049/0.064). The direct effect value of NAS → IWB in the direct effect model was positive (β = .31, p < .001), the addition of CS and WE resulted in a positive and significant effect value for the pathway NAS → WE → IWB (β = .049, p < .05), the effect value for the pathway NAS → CS → IWB was negative and significant (β = -.012, p .05). Therefore, the mediating effect and the masking effect suggest that a masking effect occurs in the older adult group (MacKinnon, 2012; Mrosovsky, 1999; Wen & Ye, 2014). Negative age stereotypes had a negative effect on IWB through creative self-efficacy, which means that negative age stereotypes of older employees reduce employees' creative self-efficacy and IWB. On the other hand, the effect of negative stereotypes on IWB through work engagement (NAS → WE → IWB) was positive, and its effect was larger than the effect on IWB through creative self-efficacy (NAS → CS → IWB), so the effect of work engagement canceled out the negative effect of reduced creative self-efficacy on IWB, and eventually IWB was still enhanced in the older adult group. The mediating and masking effects are shown in Figure 4. Discussion The Mediating Role of Work Engagement Among Younger Adults From the perspective of the younger adults, the study assessed age stereotypes from their views of older employees, not the younger adults’ self-perceptions. Thus, when analyzing IWB in younger employees, the self-cognitive factor of self-efficacy is omitted from the model. The mediation model (see Figure 2) shows work engagement partially mediates between age stereotypes and IWB, with positive stereotypes having a significantly higher effect size. Positive age stereotypes did not reduce work engagement, instead, they played a positive role in both positive and negative cases. Conservation of resources theory states that when an individual is faced with the possibility of losing resources or losing them, self-pressure occurs and the individual will act to minimize the loss of resources to preserve existing resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Analyzing the scores of positive age stereotypes in the younger adults revealed that a positive view of older employees' resources creates a resource crisis, pushing younger employees to work harder. High scores on positive stereotypes may also mean they see older employees as more competitive, spurring their work engagement, which is consistent with some prior research results (Jones et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2022). On the other hand, when younger employees hold negative age stereotypes of older employees, their work engagement increases, benefiting the younger group's IWB. Believing older employees' innovation declines with age creates urgency, driving younger employees to focus on work and innovation. Self-Validation Theory (SVT) states individuals seek evidence to match others' views of them concerning their self-concept (Briñol & Petty, 2022). Younger employees who hold negative age stereotypes about older employees may work and innovate more to prove youth's advantage, forming a negative feedback loop that could affect their future self-concept. However, the results of this study suggest that negative age stereotypes about others do not always have a positive impact on IWB. Negative age stereotypes had a significant but smaller effect on work engagement than positive age stereotypes among younger adults (see Table 3). The literature bears out that long-term exposure to negative age stereotypes or evaluations by coworkers or leaders can seriously undermine employees' self-esteem and self-identity, leading to reduced motivation and engagement, unhealthy competition, and poor coworker relations (Cohen & Steele, 2002; Lewis & Sherman, 2003). Therefore, we posit that stimulating the promotion of positive age stereotypes, promoting healthy competition, and creating a harmonious work environment should be encouraged, all of which could have a long-term and beneficial impact on the company. The Mediating Role of Work Engagement and Creative Self-Efficacy on Positive Age Stereotype and IWB in Older Adults In the older adult group, the mediation model (see Figure 3) showed that creative self-efficacy and work engagement played a partial mediating role between positive age stereotypes and IWB. The results showed that work engagement exerted a larger mediating effect than creative self-efficacy. In addition, positive age stereotypes of older employees strengthened their creative self-efficacy, which is when individuals retain a high level of positive mindset and self-confidence about themselves, and they derive energy and motivation from positive self-evaluations or in-group evaluations (Chiesa et al., 2016; Groeppel-Klein et al., 2017). Self-determination theory asserts that the extent people engage in activities is largely determined by their intrinsic motivation. This is viewed as an individual's internally driven desire to accomplish a task or activity, which usually stems from the individual's interest, curiosity, or satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 1985). If individuals can feel self-determined, then their intrinsic motivation will be stronger and they will be more engaged in the activities they do (Chua & Ayoko, 2021; Losier & Vallerand, 1994). And competence, as an important source of people's sense of self-determination, plays an important role in influencing behavior. In the age stereotype survey section of innovative work behavior, there are two dimensions, competence and enthusiasm, in addition to the positive and negative dimensions, on which the questions of the survey were designed. The survey measures people's positive or negative evaluations of themselves or others in terms of creative competence and enthusiasm. When the evaluation is directed to the in-group or the self, it will represent a subjective feeling about the participant's ability to perform the innovative work; that is, the survey responds to people's sense of competence. Enthusiasm, on the other hand, is related to autonomy, another source of self-determined feelings. When people are enthusiastic about doing something, their autonomy increases, as does their corresponding engagement (Reeve et al., 2004). From this, it can be inferred from the results that positive evaluations of age stereotypes also influence older adults’ work engagement and that this effect may be direct or indirect through changes in people's internal motivation. Some studies have found that work engagement can stimulate employees' interest and motivation in innovation (Ariyani & Hidayati, 2018; Jason & Geetha, 2021), which support the findings of this study. It is posited that when employees are passionate and engaged in their work, they are more likely to pursue new ideas and solutions, demonstrate willingness and interest in innovative work, and also promote more innovative choices in the organization, all of which drive IWB. In addition, work engagement can provide employees with the resources and capabilities they need to promote their IWB. When employees are more invested in their work, they are likely to pay more attention to learning and development and actively acquire new knowledge and skills (Bakker et al., 2012; Maden, 2015). These resources and capabilities can provide support and conditions for employees' IWB, all of which could possibly explain the effect of age stereotypes on IWB found in the results of this study. The Masking Role of Work Engagement and the Mediating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy on Negative Age Stereotypes and IWB in Older Adults The mediation model (see Figure 3) showed that creative self-efficacy and work engagement also mediated the influence of negative age stereotypes on IWB among older adults. Compared to their mediating role in the positive age stereotype—although the effect size was much less than that in the positive age stereotype as shown by the effect magnitude of the path in the SEM model—the mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement was still significant because the effect of the positive age stereotypes on IWB remained significant after adding the two mediating models; only their effect value was significantly reduced. In contrast, the direct effect of negative age stereotypes on IWB changed from significant in the direct effect model to insignificant in the mediation model, and its effect value also decreased. This suggests that creative self-efficacy and work engagement played a mediating role between negative age stereotypes and IWB among older adults. Some studies in the literature call it a full mediating role (e.g., Alshahrani & Salam, 2024; Tiwari et al., 2022), but in an abundance of caution, this term will not be used as it could suggest a stronger mediating role than the results of this study bear out. Analysis of the two paths from negative age stereotypes to IWB in the older adult group showed that the impact of negative age stereotypes on IWB through the sense of creative self-efficacy is negative. That is, the negative age stereotypes of older employees reduced their sense of creative self-efficacy, thus reducing their IWB. For the older adult group, as a result of higher identification with negative age stereotypes, these negative beliefs led to lower self-evaluations in terms of their innovative ability, enthusiasm, and resources, thereby lowering their self-efficacy. This finding is consistent with some previous research (Goguen, 2016). Finally, self-determination theory could have also played a role in lowering the older adults’ IWB. It was discovered that positive perceptions of self-determination in the older adult group changed their behavior. Similarly, if their perceptions are not positive but negative, they could react with diminished action and lower IWB. On the other hand, the impact of negative stereotypes on innovative work behavior through the mediating variable of work engagement is positive, and its effect size is greater than the negative impact generated by the mediating variable of creative self-efficacy. At the same time, the direct effect of negative stereotypes on innovative work behavior is also positive. Therefore, it can be stated that a masking effect occurs, which refers to a stronger mediating variable concealing the influence of other weaker mediating variables when explaining the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable (Wen & Ye, 2014). Examining the issue of masking effects requires exploring the question of how the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is masked (Baron & Kenny, 1986). According to the mediating effect test procedure proposed by Wen et al. (2014), when the main effect is significant, the direct and indirect effects are heteroscedastic (i.e., having different variances) and mask or conceal the effect in the results. In this study, the main effect of negative age stereotypes on IWB was significant with a positive effect size (see Table 4), while the indirect effect size of negative age stereotypes affecting IWB through the sense of creative self-efficacy was negative, with direct and indirect effects being heteroscedastic. These findings indicate that the sense of creative self-efficacy acts as a partial masking effect variable between negative age stereotypes and IWB among the older adult group. The final findings of this study appear to explain why negative age stereotypes and the mediating role of self-efficacy had a positive impact on IWB among the older adult group. The results showed that creative self-efficacy is a variable related to self-perception. The NAS → CS pathway in the SEM model (see Figure 3) indicated that negative age stereotypes among older employees significantly influenced their creative self-efficacy. In other words, when older employees held negative perceptions regarding the innovative capabilities of their age group, their sense of creative self-efficacy was diminished. This decrease in creative self-efficacy has been shown to result in a reduction in IWB (Akbari et al., 2021; Javed et al., 2021), as shown by the effect size of the CS → IWB pathway. However, due to the mediating presence of the work engagement variable, this negative impact was masked, manifesting in a positive effect of negative age stereotypes on IWB at the surface level in the older adult group. The indirect effect of work engagement masked the negative impact of reduced creative self-efficacy on IWB, which ultimately remained enhanced, in the older adult group. Some previous research (Kornadt et al., 2023; Weiss & Kornadt, 2018) has suggested that high relevance to the group may lead to the internalization of age stereotypes, resulting in an assimilation effect. This means individuals identify themselves as belonging to a certain group, accept outsiders’ evaluation of the group, integrate outside evaluations into their cognitive structure to make it part of their self-perception, and act in accordance with them. When individuals use the strategy of internalization (i.e., recognizing and accepting certain stereotypes and classifying themselves as part of this group) they are more likely to act in line with the age stereotypes. On the contrary, in situations where age stereotypes pose a threat to self-concept, older adults may also avoid the negative effects of age stereotypes by using an age-group separation strategy, which leads to a contrast effect (Weiss & Freund, 2012), producing behaviors that do not correspond to the expected behaviors in the negative age stereotypes. When individuals are using a strategy of separation, they tend to be reluctant to acknowledge certain negative age stereotypes and therefore tend to behave contrary to these perceptions in an attempt to separate themselves from their original group, and thus get rid of the stereotype. Specifically, older employees, although group identification occurs to a certain extent and reduces self-efficacy, seem to put more effort into proving themselves through their actions due to the fear that others will evaluate them in terms of such negative age stereotypes, which supports the occurrence of stereotype threat (Seibt & Förster, 2004; Wout et al., 2008) seen in the literature. Finally, negative perceptions of self-competitiveness tend to trigger more motivation to change when people are in a competitive situation (de Vries & Balazs, 1998). As the old Chinese saying goes, “Diligence makes up for clumsiness.” When people are at a disadvantage (or perceive themselves to be at a disadvantage), they tend to make up for their perceived psychological disadvantage with more effort to improve their competitiveness. This provides another possible reason why older employees in China have increased work engagement while experiencing decreased self-efficacy. Limitations of the Study Upon completion of this study and reflection, the researchers found three limitations. First, the scope of the study and sampling procedures are a limitation. The target population wasn't narrowed to a specific region or occupation in China, reducing the representativeness and generalizability of the results. Future research should narrow the scope of the study to one province or region. In addition, focusing on variables like age, gender, or a specific occupation/region would boost the representativeness and generalizability of future results from similar studies. Second, the study focused on the stereotypes of younger and older adult groups but did not make more distinctions and discuss the differences in group identity caused by self-perception of age. These differences could have led to some variations in the division of internal and external evaluations. Future research should delve more deeply into employees' self-perception of age, using age perception as a new grouping basis. Third, the lack of consideration for cultural background is also a limitation of this study. This study was conducted in China and no transnational or cross-cultural aspects were considered in the research design. Future studies could validate this study in different cultural contexts and explore more cross-cultural factors. Declarations Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank all participants of this study and the organizations that helped us collect data. Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Gao and Gootjes. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Gao. Commentary on the revised manuscript and language polish were carried out by Gootjes. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding This work was supported by the Initiation Funds for High-level Talents Program of Xi’an International University (grant no. XAIU202535). Data Availability The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Code Availability Not applicable. Ethics Approval Statement Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Woosong University (Approval number:EAL-WS/1695/6DEC/2023) on December 6, 2023, prior to participant recruitment and any data collection activities. All research procedures were conducted in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the national data protection regulations of the study location (China), including the Personal Information Protection Law, the Data Security Law, and the Cybersecurity Law, as well as relevant local data protection regulations and guidelines in the provinces where the participants were located. The scope of this approval covers: The research project titled "Impact of Age Stereotypes on Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-efficacy and Work Engagement"; The recruitment of employees from various organizations through professional online platforms; The administration of a comprehensive online survey that collected data on participants' perceptions of age stereotypes, creative self-efficacy, work engagement, and innovative work behavior, alongside basic demographic information (e.g., age, gender, occupation); The collection and analysis of completely anonymous data. The survey was designed to ensure that no personally identifiable information was collected at any point, and responses were treated with strict confidentiality; The process of informed consent, which was obtained electronically from all individual participants included in the study. A detailed information sheet was presented on the first page of the online survey, explaining the study's purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and the anonymous nature of participation. Participants indicated their consent by proceeding to the questionnaire. Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants prior to their involvement in the study. The consent process clearly outlined the study's purpose, procedures, confidentiality measures, and the right to withdraw at any time. Participants indicated their agreement by selecting a checkbox before proceeding to the online survey. This consent was obtained during the data collection period from January 1 to February 29, 2024. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Conflict of Interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. References Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin , 103 (3), 411. Afsar, B., & Masood, M. (2018). Transformational leadership, creative self-efficacy, trust in supervisor, uncertainty avoidance, and innovative work behavior of nurses. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 54 (1), 36–61. Akbari, M., Bagheri, A., Imani, S., & Asadnezhad, M. (2021). Does entrepreneurial leadership encourage innovation work behavior? The mediating role of creative self-efficacy and support for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24 (1), 1–22. Alshahrani, M. A., & Salam, M. A. (2024). Entrepreneurial orientation and SMEs performance in an emerging economy: The mediating role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship , 26 (1), 1–24. Appelbaum, S. H., Wenger, R., Pachon Buitrago, C., & Kaur, R. (2016). The effects of old-age stereotypes on organizational productivity (part one). Industrial and Commercial Training , 48 (4), 181–188. Ariyani, N., & Hidayati, S. (2018). Influence of transformational leadership and work engagement on innovative behavior. Etikonomi , 17 (2), 275–284. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & ten Brummelhuis, L. L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 80 (2), 555–564. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51 (6), 1173. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs , 1986 (23–28), 2. Baumgartner, H., & Weijters, B. (2021). Dealing with common method variance in international marketing research. Journal of International Marketing , 29 (3), 7–22. Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., & Lubet, A. (2015). Global population aging: Facts, challenges, solutions & perspectives. Daedalus , 144 (2), 80–92. Borasi, R., & Finnigan, K. (2010). Entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors that can help prepare successful change agents in education. The New Educator, 6 (1), 1–29. Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Self-validation theory: An integrative framework for understanding when thoughts become consequential. Psychological Review , 129 (2), 340–367. Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 102 (1), 3–21. Cappelli, P., & Novelli, B. (2010). Managing the older worker: How to prepare for the new organizational order. Harvard Business Press. Chen, T., Li, F., & Leung, K. (2016). When does supervisor support encourage innovative behavior? Opposite moderating effects of general self‐efficacy and internal locus of control. Personnel Psychology , 69 (1), 123–158. Chiesa, R., Toderi, S., Dordoni, P., Henkens, K., Fiabane, E. M., & Setti, I. (2016). Older workers: Stereotypes and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 31 (7), 1152–1166. Chua, J., & Ayoko, O. B. (2021). Employees’ self-determined motivation, transformational leadership and work engagement. Journal of Management & Organization , 27 (3), 523–543. Cohen, G. L., & Steele, C. M. (2002). A barrier of mistrust: How negative stereotypes affect cross-race mentoring. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving Academic Achievement: Impact of Psychological Factors on Education (pp. 303–327). Academic Press. Corrigan, T. (2022). The realisation of human rights issues of older people in contemporary Ireland to ensure equal life opportunities. In T. Corrigan (Ed.), Human Rights in the Contemporary World , 1 , 1–14. De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., De Witte, H., & Van Hootegem, G. (2015). Job design, work engagement, and innovative work behavior: A multi-level study on Karasek's learning hypothesis. Management Revue , 123–137. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality , 19 (2), 109–134. de Vries, M. F. K., & Balazs, K. (1998). Beyond the quick fix: The psychodynamics of organizational transformation and change. European Management Journal , 16 (5), 611–622. Dionigi, R. A. (2015). Stereotypes of aging: Their effects on the health of older adults. Journal of Geriatrics , 2015 (1), 954027. Dordoni, P., & Argentero, P. (2015). When age stereotypes are employment barriers: A conceptual analysis and a literature review on older workers stereotypes. Ageing International , 40 , 393–412. Eichhorn, B. R. (2014). Common method variance techniques. Cleveland State University, Department of Operations & Supply Chain Management. Cleveland, OH: SAS Institute Inc , 1 (11). Farr, F. (2003). Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse: The case of student–tutor meetings. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 (1), 67–85. Fernández-Ballesteros, R., Olmos, R., Santacreu, M., Bustillos, A., Schettini, R., Huici, C., & Rivera, J. M. (2017). Assessing aging stereotypes: Personal stereotypes, self-stereotypes and self-perception of aging. Psicothema , 29 (4), 482–489. Fiske, S. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 27 (2), 67–73. Goguen, S. (2016). Stereotype threat, epistemic injustice, and rationality. Implicit Bias and Philosophy , 1 , 216–237. Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal , 52 (4), 765–778. Groeppel-Klein, A., Helfgen, J., Spilski, A., & Schreiber, L. (2017). The impact of age stereotypes on elderly consumers’ self-efficacy and cognitive performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing , 25 (3), 211–225. Gupta, V., Singh, S., & Bhattacharya, A. (2017). The relationships between leadership, work engagement, and employee innovative performance: Empirical evidence from the Indian R&D context. International Journal of Innovation Management , 21 (07), 1750055. Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., & Pareek, A. (2013). Differences between men and women in opportunity evaluation as a function of gender stereotypes and stereotype activation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 37 (4), 771–788. Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management , 40 (5), 1334–1364. Harris, K., Kimson, A., & Schwedel, A. (2018). Labor 2030: The collision of demographics, automation and inequality. Bain & Company , 7 (63), 1–37. Hassan, Q., Viktor, P., Al-Musawi, T. J., Ali, B. M., Algburi, S., Alzoubi, H. M., ... & Jaszczur, M. (2024). The renewable energy role in the global energy Transformations. Renewable Energy Focus , 48 , 100545. Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal , 52 (2), 280–293. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist , 44 (3), 513. Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 (5), 1128. Jason, V., & Geetha, S.N. (2021). Regulatory focus and innovative work behavior: The role of work engagement. Current Psychology , 40 , 2791–2803. Javed, B., Fatima, T., Khan, A. K., & Bashir, S. (2021). Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of creative self‐efficacy. The Journal of Creative Behavior , 55 (3), 769–782. Jones, J. L., Davis, W. D., & Thomas, C. H. (2017). Is competition engaging? Examining the interactive effects of goal orientation and competitive work environment on engagement. Human Resource Management , 56 (3), 389–405. Kim, W., Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review , 12 (3), 248–276. Kooij, D., De Lange, A., Jansen, P., & Dikkers, J. (2008). Older workers' motivation to continue to work: Five meanings of age: A conceptual review. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 23 (4), 364–394. Kornadt, A. E., Weiss, D., de Paula Couto, M. C., & Rothermund, K. (2023). Internalization or dissociation? Negative age stereotypes make you feel younger now but make you feel older later. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B , 78 (8), 1341–1348. Krings, F., Sczesny, S., & Kluge, A. (2011). Stereotypical inferences as mediators of age discrimination: The role of competence and warmth. British Journal of Management , 22 (2), 187–201. Kumar, D., Upadhyay, Y., Yadav, R., & Goyal, A. K. (2022). Psychological capital and innovative work behaviour: The role of mastery orientation and creative self-efficacy. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 102 , 103157. Kwon, K., & Kim, T. (2020). An integrative literature review of employee engagement and innovative behavior: Revisiting the JD-R model. Human Resource Management Review , 30 (2), 100704. Lee, W. J. T., Sok, P., & Mao, S. (2022). When and why does competitive psychological climate affect employee engagement and burnout? Journal of Vocational Behavior , 139 , 103810. Levy, B. (2009). Stereotype embodiment: A psychosocial approach to aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 18 (6), 332–336. Lewis, A. C., & Sherman, S. J. (2003). Hiring you makes me look bad: Social-identity based reversals of the ingroup favoritism effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 90 (2), 262–276. Li, M., Liu, Y., Liu, L., & Wang, Z. (2017). Proactive personality and innovative work behavior: The mediating effects of affective states and creative self-efficacy in teachers. Current Psychology , 36 , 697–706. Liu, Y., Vriend, T., & Janssen, O. (2021). To be (creative), or not to be (creative)? A sensemaking perspective to creative role expectations. Journal of Business and Psychology , 36 , 139–153. Losier, G. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1994). Self-Determined Motivation. The Journal of Social Psychology , 134 (6), 793–801. MacKinnon, D. (Eds.). (2012). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis . Routledge. Maden, C. (2015). Linking high involvement human resource practices to employee proactivity: The role of work engagement and learning goal orientation. Personnel Review , 44 (5), 720–738. Manzi, C., Paderi, F., Benet‐Martínez, V., & Coen, S. (2019). Age-based stereotype threat and negative outcomes in the workplace: Exploring the role of identity integration. European Journal of Social Psychology , 49 (4), 705–716. Maqbool, S., Černe, M., & Bortoluzzi, G. (2019). Micro-foundations of innovation: Employee silence, perceived time pressure, flow, and innovative work behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management , 22 (1), 125–145. Mrosovsky, N. (1999). Masking: history, definitions, and measurement. Chronobiology International , 16 (4), 415–429. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological B ulletin, 103 (1), 27. Mustaqim, H., Alhempi, R. R., Siregar, B. A., & Shaddiq, S. (2024). The relationship between employee engagement and goal orientation towards competence and employee performance. Calitatea , 25 (198), 211–221. Neumark, D., Burn, I., & Button, P. (2019). Is it harder for older workers to find jobs? New and improved evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Political Economy , 127 (2), 922–970. North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. Psychological Bulletin , 138 (5), 982–997. Ory, M., Hoffman, M. K., Hawkins, M., Sanner, B., & Mockenhaupt, R. (2003). Challenging aging stereotypes: Strategies for creating a more active society. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 25 (3), 164–171. Pak, K., Kooij, D. T., De Lange, A. H., & Van Veldhoven, M. J. (2019). Human Resource Management and the ability, motivation and opportunity to continue working: A review of quantitative studies. Human Resource Management Review , 29 (3), 336–352. Pinto, A. M. G. L. R. S., da Silva Ramos, S. C. M., & Nunes, S. M. M. D. (2014). Managing an aging workforce: What is the value of human resource management practices for different age groups of workers? Tékhne , 12 , 58–68. Pit, S., Fisk, M., Freihaut, W., Akintunde, F., Aloko, B., Berge, B., ... & Yap, J. C. (2021). COVID-19 and the aging workforce: Global perspectives on needs and solutions across 15 countries. International Journal for Equity in Health , 20 , 1–22. Poo, M. M. (2021). Innovation and reform: China's 14th five-year plan unfolds. National Science Review , 8 (1), nwaa294. Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2009). Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of Management , 35 (1), 158–188. Pranitasari, D., Said, M., & Nugroho, S. H. (2022). The mediating effect of work engagement on competence, work environment and job satisfaction. Jurnal Manajemen , 13 (3), 365–380. Rafiq, M., Farrukh, M., Attiq, S., Shahzad, F., & Khan, I. (2023). Linking job crafting, innovation performance, and career satisfaction: The mediating role of work engagement. Work , 75 (3), 877–886. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion , 28 , 147–169. Ricciardiello, L., Leja, M., & Ollivier, M. (2021). Horizon Europe, the new programme for research & innovation: Which opportunities for GI research in the years to come? United European Gastroenterology Journal , 9 (3), 407. Rietzschel, E. F., & Zacher, H. (2015). Workplace creativity, innovation, and age. Encyclopedia of Geropsychology , 40 , 1–8. Roberson, L., & Kulik, C. T. (2007). Stereotype threat at work. Academy of Management Perspectives , 21 (2), 24–40. Schaufeli, W. B. (2012b). Work engagement: What do we know and where do we go? Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology , 14 (1), 3–10. Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology , 33 (5), 464–481. Schmidt, D. F., & Boland, S. M. (1986). Structure of perceptions of older adults: Evidence for multiple stereotypes. Psychology and A ging, 1 (3), 255. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal , 37 (3), 580–607. Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 (1), 38–56. Shin, Y. J., Lee, E. S., & Seo, Y. (2019). Does traditional stereotyping of career as male affect college women’s, but not college men’s, career decision self-efficacy and ultimately their career adaptability? Sex Roles , 81 , 74–86. Smedley, K. (2017). Age matters: Employing, motivating, and managing older employees . Routledge. Sousa-Ribeiro, M., Sverke, M., & Coimbra, J. L. (2018). Too old for work? Mediated associations between perceived age discrimination and job search among older unemployed people. In 13th European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology Conference 2018, Lisbon, Portugal, September 5–7, 2018 (pp. 75–75). European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69 (5), 797–811. Taylor, M. (2023). The US CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. MRS Bulletin , 48 (9), 874–879. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journa l, 45 (6), 1137–1148. Tiwari, P., Bhat, A. K., & Tikoria, J. (2022). Mediating role of prosocial motivation in predicting social entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship , 13 (1), 118–141. Uppathampracha, R., & Liu, G. (2022). Leading for innovation: Self-efficacy and work engagement as sequential mediation relating ethical leadership and innovative work behavior. Behavioral Sciences , 12 (8), 266. von Hippel, C., Kalokerinos, E. K., & Henry, J. D. (2013). Stereotype threat among older employees: Relationship with job attitudes and turnover intentions. Psychology and Aging , 28 (1), 17–27. Wang, P., Zhou, P., Tan, C.H. and Zhang, P.C. (2017). Effect of self-efficacy in stereotype activation. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal , 45 (3), 469–476. Watermann, H., Fasbender, U., & Klehe, U. C. (2023). Withdrawing from job search: The effect of age discrimination on occupational future time perspective, career exploration, and retirement intentions. Acta Psychologica , 234 , 1–11. Weiss, D., & Freund, A. M. (2012). Still young at heart: Negative age-related information motivates distancing from same-aged people. Psychology and Aging , 27 (1), 173. Weiss, D., & Kornadt, A. E. (2018). Age-stereotype internalization and dissociation: Contradictory processes or two sides of the same coin? Current Directions in Psychological Science , 27 (6), 477–483. Weiss, D., & Lang, F. R. (2012). “They” are old but “I” feel younger: Age-group dissociation as a self-protective strategy in old age. Psychology and Aging , 27 (1), 153. Wen, Z., & Ye, B. (2014). Analyses of mediating effects: The development of methods and models. Advances in Psychological Science , 22 (5), 731. Wen, Z., Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Wu, Y., Liu, H., & Morin, A. J. (2014). Interaction effects in latent growth models: Evaluation of alternative estimation approaches. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 21 (3), 361–374. Wheeler, S. C., & Petty, R. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin , 127 (6), 797–826. Wong, C. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (2017). Job crafting: Older workers’ mechanism for maintaining person-job fit. Frontiers in Psychology , 8 , 277–313. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review , 18 (2), 293–321. Wout, D., Danso, H., Jackson, J., & Spencer, S. (2008). The many faces of stereotype threat: Group-and self-threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44 (3), 792–799. Wurm, S., Diehl, M., Kornadt, A. E., Westerhof, G. J., & Wahl, H. W. (2017). How do views on aging affect health outcomes in adulthood and late life? Explanations for an established connection. Developmental Review , 46 , 27–43. Zhang, J., & Su, W. (2020). Linking leader humor to employee innovative behavior: The roles of work engagement and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Frontiers in Psychology , 11 , 1–11. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files TotalData.sav Supplymentaryfile.doc Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-7002684","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":522851121,"identity":"b37b5976-0013-41fc-8d1a-ed474c43b12f","order_by":0,"name":"Ruiying Gao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Xi’an International University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ruiying","middleName":"","lastName":"Gao","suffix":""},{"id":522851122,"identity":"78f59dd3-2399-4af3-ad84-6a0e7931871c","order_by":1,"name":"Dirk Gootjes","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Woosong University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dirk","middleName":"","lastName":"Gootjes","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-29 12:38:09","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002684/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002684/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92657857,"identity":"69782284-bbec-4606-8627-750fed8e6f4c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:03:52","extension":"doc","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1634375,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ManuscriptofGao.doc","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/599e7a0f84400e66067ea86d.doc"},{"id":92658576,"identity":"33257435-ed2b-45bc-86f5-1888d66edd3d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:11:51","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4584,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"e8ac4c3a87b24c41b30f4d5858a245cf.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/56d6cd6228d1c89ae3c926a9.json"},{"id":92657858,"identity":"2c2294d0-0cdc-4856-ae67-02a654aeb0ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:03:52","extension":"doc","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1421085,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplymentaryfile.doc","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/6525fee31bb6afe022db2f97.doc"},{"id":92657475,"identity":"58e26eb7-0920-4761-9797-8d7139471e3a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:52","extension":"sav","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":137158,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TotalData.sav","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/aa30174376c8ca82f7572c59.sav"},{"id":92658577,"identity":"c7357e2b-74bd-4d9e-970e-2e6f473d03f8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:11:52","extension":"xml","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":206550,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"e8ac4c3a87b24c41b30f4d5858a245cf1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/d5f743f7fc00664c956d05a0.xml"},{"id":92657470,"identity":"f75f5a78-1c37-4c03-8c86-2c84153281a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:52","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":528225,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/b0fd86231d24f7ad5779c8a4.jpeg"},{"id":92657465,"identity":"f860b2b1-b3ed-4cbd-bacc-d0d343678702","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:52","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":400869,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/824e0c09d3538440f91f321f.jpeg"},{"id":92657466,"identity":"65937852-a4d9-4ee8-8b70-aeb4ce72cad6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:52","extension":"jpeg","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":392005,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/568d41e89b55f1c97d9d74aa.jpeg"},{"id":92657471,"identity":"5099e496-b52a-4bb7-ba6c-882841b6391c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:52","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17959,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"groupimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/eaf1906428e904e4fcb8d166.jpeg"},{"id":92657859,"identity":"c22b7728-bc0d-4556-b639-04883a737c61","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:03:52","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":82007,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/5e8d6aa606b2ae8effb48fa3.png"},{"id":92657860,"identity":"0624ce6a-7757-44d4-956f-836a85a18a64","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:03:52","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":73169,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/de5e98284561d070af05ee3f.png"},{"id":92657862,"identity":"b1e682bf-860c-4f6b-99f8-6427a54027ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:03:52","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":78799,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/43644b6363e6366fab335fb4.png"},{"id":92657473,"identity":"ee9ba60a-fc9d-4c99-b2ac-69589f31eeae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:52","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":10338,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinegroupimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/9520641d184401ac147e54b1.png"},{"id":92657477,"identity":"90777872-4ef3-499a-9dd0-3ce37ed045bc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:52","extension":"xml","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":204407,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"e8ac4c3a87b24c41b30f4d5858a245cf1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/fb6baf7d1492378519b4c77e.xml"},{"id":92657468,"identity":"537edee3-6e45-4601-b006-30589977ea0a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:52","extension":"html","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":211529,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/f8f8646de81250d784731bca.html"},{"id":92657457,"identity":"a70c0cde-ead0-4189-9503-ad8406069757","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:51","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":312396,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProposed Mediation Model\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/090d32d9b1de4d1c47a029fc.png"},{"id":92657463,"identity":"f8665163-f1ca-41ac-b15b-a9d7a6f20bd7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:52","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":179570,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Mediating Role of Work Engagement in the Influence of Age Stereotype on IWB (Younger Adult Group)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01, \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/69775165016b9d35bd929a3b.png"},{"id":92657458,"identity":"39556708-7021-4d93-a5ad-534270d075fa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:51","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":248283,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Mediating Role of Creative Self-efficacy and Work Engagement in the Influence of Age Stereotype on IWB (Older Adult Group)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01, \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/52a8c505b63758bd94b80f53.png"},{"id":92657855,"identity":"ed9f6379-03d4-440e-b797-64a76029221a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:03:51","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33459,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMediating and Masking Effects of Creative Self-Efficacy and Work Engagement Between Negative Age Stereotype and IWB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. *\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05, **\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01, ***\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/6a8cb24ddd01a7c003ddfa28.png"},{"id":93225288,"identity":"d5b00767-8945-4102-ac13-2f03a7ebee8a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 12:20:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1872766,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/27bc7392-3319-497b-8413-502448532a5a.pdf"},{"id":92657461,"identity":"c4bf152e-921e-49e6-84f4-03cfa70114f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:52","extension":"sav","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":137158,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TotalData.sav","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/94a6f0884c26304195fc12e1.sav"},{"id":92657464,"identity":"e2ce87c9-76ac-4d02-9be8-0e5ee9092431","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:55:52","extension":"doc","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1421085,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplymentaryfile.doc","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002684/v1/a62c431c707b9c3c8d77cf9c.doc"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Impact of Age Stereotypes on Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-efficacy and Work Engagement","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe convergence of intensifying global competition, digital transformation, and demographic aging has positioned innovation as the cornerstone of national economic resilience and organizational survival. Governments worldwide have institutionalized innovation through landmark policies: the \u003cem\u003eU.S. CHIPS and Science Act\u003c/em\u003e of 2022 prioritizes cross-sector R\u0026amp;D ecosystems (Taylor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), while the EU\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eHorizon Europe\u003c/em\u003e program set up special innovation funds to support small and medium-sized enterprises\u0026rsquo; innovation (Ricciardiello et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). China\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003e14th Five-Year Plan\u003c/em\u003e explicitly links independent innovation capacity to GDP growth targets (Poo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). All of these strategic measures reflect a global consensus that innovation transcends technological advancement to become a geopolitical imperative.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative work behavior (IWB) refers to the behavioral activities that employees spontaneously generate to obtain new ideas or ideas related to work that are beneficial to the organization and apply them in the workplace (Scott \u0026amp; Bruce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). It is a key driver of organizational competitiveness and serves as the microfoundation of corporate innovation (Maqbool et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Hirst et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Meta-analytic evidence confirms the critical role of IWB and its antecedents (H\u0026uuml;lsheger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). However, the psychological antecedents of IWB remain underexplored, particularly in the context of workforce aging\u0026mdash;a demographic shift accelerated by rising retirement ages (Pak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Pinto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Wong \u0026amp; Tetrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) that creates multigenerational workplaces fraught with problems caused by age differences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStereotypes about older and younger workers permeate organizational cognition (Posthuma \u0026amp; Campion, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Schmidt and Boland (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e) looked at \u003cb\u003eage-based stereotypes\u003c/b\u003e and defined them as cognitive structures of perception and expectations of different age groups. Grounded in Stereotype Embodiment Theory (Levy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), the activation of positive and negative age stereotypes can influence self-definition through assimilation, which can have a corresponding effect on a variety of individual perceptions and behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe interaction theory of IWB posits that the individual variables and environmental variables jointly predict individual IWB (Woodman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Age stereotypes, an important individual variable that may affect IWB, has already gotten scholarly attention. There have been some previous studies on the relationship between age stereotypes and IWB among older adults, which focused more on negative age stereotypes: such as unwillingness to change, lack of learning ability, declining intelligence and memory, poor health, higher organizational costs, and reduced motivation (Appelbaum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Cappelli \u0026amp; Novelli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Dordoni \u0026amp; Argentero, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Ory et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). While few of these age stereotypes are about innovativeness, and even when they involve innovation, they are usually summarized as an indicator and labeled low innovativeness.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Hypotheses Development","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge Stereotype and IWB\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInnovative Work Behavior (IWB) is a multi-stage process, many researchers believe that IWB has two stages: the generation and execution of innovative ideas (Borasi \u0026amp; Finnigin, 2010; Farr et al., 2003; Mumford \u0026amp; Gustafso, 1988). The effect of age stereotypes on IWB has also been explored in various studies (e.g., Corrigan, 2022; Rietzschel \u0026amp; Zacher, 2015; Smedley, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAge stereotype refers to the preconceived, often oversimplified perceptions people hold about different age groups (Levy, 2009; North \u0026amp; Fiske, 2012; Wurm et al., 2017). Posthuma and Campion (2009) noted that such stereotypes can lead to workplace discrimination, particularly affecting the career development of older workers. Negative stereotypes about older adults can influence hiring decisions (Krings et al., 2011; Neumark et al., 2019; Sousa-Ribeiro et al., 2018; Watermann et al., 2023). This study explores two forms of age stereotypes: those that young workers hold about older adult workers, and self-stereotypes among older adult workers (Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Ballesteros et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConservation of Resources Theory\u003c/strong\u003e (COR) suggests that self-pressure occurs when an individual is faced with the potential loss of resources, at which point the individual takes action to minimize the loss of resources to preserve existing resources (Hobfoll, 1989). For younger employees who hold age stereotypes, perceptions of older colleagues\u0026rsquo; rigidity (out-group stereotypes) activate competitive signaling, driving them to overperform in innovation tasks to assert competence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, researchers are increasingly turning their attention from younger people who hold age stereotypes to older people who are targeted by said stereotypes (Levy, 2009). Recent research has increasingly focused on how stereotype activation affects behavior. \u003cstrong\u003eStereotype Embodiment Theory\u003c/strong\u003e (SET) shows that activating stereotypes can lead individuals to behave in ways that conform to those stereotypes (Gupta et al., 2013; Levy, 2009; Wheeler \u0026amp; Petty, 2001).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrawing on COR and SET theory, we propose a dual-path framework where both positive and negative age stereotypes enhance IWB across age groups, albeit through distinct psychological mechanisms.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWork Engagement as a Mediating Role\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWork engagement refers to how employees invest energy, attention, and time in their work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Schaufeli et al.\u0026rsquo;s model defined it through three dimensions: vigor (refers to having a high level of energy and resilience in work, being willing to put in effort, and feeling physically and mentally full rather than exhausted in the workplace), dedication (refers to devoting oneself to the work, having the courage to accept the challenge of the work, and having a strong sense of meaning, pride, and enthusiasm for the work), and absorption (refers to the enjoyment and concentration of one\u0026rsquo;s attention at work, the feeling that time passes quickly, and the unwillingness to withdraw from it). Employees with high engagement invest energy, overcome challenges, and improve job performance (Schaufeli, 2012b). Studies have also shown that work engagement boosts overall performance and positively affects innovation and routine performance (Kim et al., 2013; Rafiq et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch has found a positive link between work engagement and Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) (Ariyani \u0026amp; Hidayati, 2018; Kwon \u0026amp; Kim, 2020). Work engagement can indirectly influence IWB, with leadership behaviors enhancing innovation through engagement (Gupta et al., 2017; Zhang \u0026amp; Su, 2020), and traits like autonomy promoting IWB via engagement (De Spiegelaere et al., 2015). While direct research on age stereotypes and work engagement is limited, some studies suggest a connection. Kooij et al. (2008) found that \u0026quot;old\u0026quot; self-perceptions harm motivation and performance. Age stereotypes affect older workers\u0026apos; engagement, with evidence showing that these stereotypes influence work performance and engagement (Posthuma \u0026amp; Campion, 2009; von Hippel et al., 2013). Roberson and Kulik (2007) showed that stereotypes influence leaders\u0026apos; expectations and employee engagement, with both direct and indirect effects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on the dual-path influence of age stereotypes on IWB, we posit that work engagement serves as a universal mediating mechanism across age groups, though its activation pathways differ between younger and older employees. As a behavior of the individual, work engagement can be used as a strategic resource regulator in different contexts. Under the resource conservation perspective, work engagement can be used as a competitive behavior in response to competitive threats (Lee et al., 2022). The purpose of proving one\u0026rsquo;s work competence can also be reached through enhanced work engagement (Mustaqim et al., 2024; Pranitasari et al., 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor younger employees, negative stereotypes about older colleagues (e.g., \u0026quot;hardly pay attention to innovative work\u0026quot;) trigger upward social comparisons (Buunk \u0026amp; Gibbons, 2007), motivating them to engage intensely in innovation tasks to symbolically distance themselves from perceived out-group limitations. Concurrently, positive stereotypes (e.g., \u0026quot;older employees have more experience and resources\u0026quot;) foster protective engagement\u0026mdash;young employees invest extra effort to preemptively claim innovation ownership before their senior colleagues \u0026quot;appropriate\u0026quot; the opportunities. Both pathways align with COR\u0026rsquo;s tenet that threat perceptions mobilize resources to safeguard self-concept (Halbesleben et al., 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor older employees, corresponding to the stereotype embodiment theory, work engagement may be a product of the influence of positive stereotypes. It can also be a vehicle for compensatory efforts by individuals under the influence of negative stereotypes. When internalizing negative self-stereotypes (e.g., innovation decline), older employees exhibit compensatory over engagement\u0026mdash;redirecting preserved resources (e.g., experience) toward innovations to counteract competence doubts (von Hippel et al., 2013). Positive stereotypes (e.g., stable innovation), however, induce work engagement\u0026mdash;older employees selectively pursue incremental innovations that align with their identity, avoiding disruptive ideas that might violate age-role expectations (North \u0026amp; Fiske, 2012).\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCreative Self-Efficacy as a Mediating Role\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy refers to an individual\u0026apos;s belief in their ability to succeed in a specific task (Bandura, 1986). It is typically divided into general self-efficacy, which assesses overall ability, and specific self-efficacy, which relates to abilities in a particular area. Tierney and Farmer (2002) introduced creative self-efficacy, which includes two dimensions that measure confidence in innovation tasks: innovation ability self-efficacy and innovation response self-efficacy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch on Stereotype Threat Theory and stereotype activation suggests a link between stereotypes and self-efficacy. Steele and Aronson\u0026rsquo;s (1995) Stereotype Threat Theory suggests that fear of being stereotyped can negatively affect job performance. Steele and Aronson also found that activating negative stereotypes can cause anxiety, increase psychological burden, and create cognitive interference, all of which negatively affect task performance. Other researchers have also found that negative self-stereotypes can trigger stress and fear, ultimately reducing task completion (Weiss and Lang, 2012; Manzi et al., 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBandura\u0026rsquo;s self-efficacy model identifies five influencing factors: personal experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, emotional arousal, and situational factors. More recent studies have shown that self-efficacy plays a critical role in the activation of stereotypes, with negative emotional responses like anxiety reducing self-efficacy (Shin et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCreative self-efficacy has been recognized as a key mediating variable that affects IWB. Much research has explored the mediating role of creative self-efficacy in the influencing mechanism of IWB (Afsar \u0026amp; Masood, 2018; Akbari et al., 2021; Chen \u0026amp; Leung, 2016; Gong et al., 2009; Kumar et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021). The aforementioned studies discovered that creative self-efficacy plays an important mediating role in the process of influencing IWB, and the improvement of creative self-efficacy may be an effective means to improve employees\u0026apos; IWB. Despite this, research on self-efficacy as a mediator in innovation remains limited, with no studies that address how age stereotypes influence IWB found in the literature search.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBecause we focus on creative self-efficacy as a mediator within the older adult group\u0026rsquo;s perspective, aligning with the in-group view, this study specifically examines the role of creative self-efficacy in the older adult group rather than in younger adults. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Gaps\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree important gaps in the literature were found that justify this study. Firstly, most studies focus on negative stereotypes (Dionigi, 2015), ignoring how age stereotypes constrain IWB. Secondly, prior research conflates out-group stereotypes (younger workers\u0026rsquo; views of older colleagues) with in-group stereotypes (older workers\u0026rsquo; identity internalization), obfuscating distinct mediation pathways. Thirdly, while work engagement and creative self-efficacy are recognized as IWB antecedents (Hassan et al., 2024; Uppathampracha \u0026amp; Liu, 2022), their role in transmitting stereotype effects remains underexamined.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAddressing these gaps, we employed a bidirectional age-group comparison to investigate the influence of positive and negative age stereotypes of younger and older adult groups on IWB, as well as the role of creative self-efficacy and work engagement in this process. By integrating \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStereotype Embodiment Theory\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e with \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConservation of Resources Theory\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, this research redefines age stereotypes not merely as barriers, but as dynamic forces that organizations can harness through targeted interventions\u0026mdash;a timely contribution given the global productivity risk posed by aging workforces (Bloom et al., 2015; Harris et al., 2018; Pit et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to explore the relationships between age stereotypes, creative self-efficacy, work engagement, and IWB to uncover potential causal links among these variables. To compare the impact of age stereotypes on IWB across age groups, two models were created. The model for the younger adult group (out-group) includes work engagement as the sole mediating variable, while the model for the older adult group (in-group) includes both creative self-efficacy and work engagement as mediators. The proposed mediation model is shown in Figure 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the purpose of this study, we formulated the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e1a: Positive and negative age stereotypes will positively predict IWB among the younger adult group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e1b: Positive and negative age stereotypes will positively predict IWB among the older adult group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e2a: Work engagement will play a mediating role between positive age stereotypes and IWB among the younger adult group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e2b: Work engagement will play a mediating role between negative age stereotypes and IWB among the younger adult group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ea\u003c/sub\u003e: Work engagement and creative self-efficacy will play mediating roles between positive age stereotypes\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;IWB among the older adult group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eb\u003c/sub\u003e: Work engagement and creative self-efficacy will play mediating roles between negative age stereotypes and IWB among the older adult group.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipant Selection and Sampling\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study attempted to analyze the performance of workers of different age groups and occupational types on variables such as IWB, which determined the sample characteristics of this study. In terms of participant selection, based on a rough estimate of the required sample, the researchers decided to recruit 1000 participants from different enterprises in China. In terms of sampling method selection, snowball sampling was used for sample collection in the pilot test, and purposive sampling was used for the main survey through the Sojump (Wen Juan Xing, www.sojump.com) survey website. When creating the survey on Sojump, the researchers set a parameter that allowed a maximum of 1000 participants. In this way, when the number of surveys collected reached 1000, Sojump automatically stopped recruiting and returned the 1000 surveys to the researchers. To expand the recruitment of participants and improve the representativeness of the results, the survey was distributed online without limiting the source province, and the final survey responses were randomly sourced to 23 of the 35 provinces in China.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe instrument used in this study was a structured quantitative survey consisting of 35 items: three items of demographic information, three items of creative self-efficacy, nine items of work engagement, eight items of age stereotypes, and 12 items of IWB.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreative Self-Efficacy\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe items of the Creative Self-Efficacy Instrument developed by Tierney and Farmer (2002) were used to measure employees\u0026apos; creative self-efficacy. This section of the survey consisted of three items that measured an individual\u0026apos;s creative self-efficacy at work. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha of the creative self-efficacy section of the survey was 0.74.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWork Engagement\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the survey, work engagement was measured using the items from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002). This section of the survey includes three dimensions (vitality, dedication, and focus) with a total of nine items. Vitality was defined as having a high level of energy and mental toughness at work, a willingness to put effort into work, and feeling energized at work rather than exhausted. Dedication was defined as having a strong sense of attraction and engagement to work, being willing to put in the work, and continuing to work hard even in the face of difficulties. Focus was defined as putting a lot of effort and time into work while feeling that time passes quickly and having a high level of confidence in ability at work. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha of the work engagement section of the survey was 0.93.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ege stereotypes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAge stereotypes were measured by researcher-developed Work Innovative Age Stereotype Scale items for the fourth section of the survey. It was developed through a systematic four-phase process:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePhase 1 (Item Generation): Grounded in the Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, 2018), 20 initial items were created to assess competence and warmth dimensions in innovation contexts, and contain both positive and negative aspects.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePhase 2 (Content Validation): Items were refined via expert reviews and focus group discussions with 15 experts, leading to revisions for clarity and contextual relevance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePhase 3 (Pretesting): A pilot test (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 154) using snowball sampling analyzed item performance. Item analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) reduced the survey items from 20 to 12.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePhase 4 (Final Validation): The age stereotype section was finalized through EFA (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 465) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 454), confirming a two-factor structure (positive/negative stereotypes) with eight items (four per subscale).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe age stereotype part of the final survey had a total of eight items that exhibited good reliability and validity. The internal consistency was strong for both subscales (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; = .89 for negative stereotypes, \u0026alpha; = .88 for positive stereotypes) and the total scale (\u0026alpha;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .87). Test-retest reliability over four weeks showed high stability (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.82\u0026ndash;0.91). EFA explained 68.07% variance (KMO = .87, Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), with all items loading \u0026gt;.73 on their respective factors. The CFA confirmed model fit (CFI = .983, RMSEA = .06), outperforming a single-factor model. The two dimensions showed moderate correlation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .55, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05), indicating distinct yet related constructs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInnovative Work Behavior\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Individual Innovative Work Behavior Scale compiled by Scott and Bruce (1994) and the Innovative Work Behavior Scale compiled by Li et al. (2017) in the context of China were combined and modified to measure employees\u0026apos; IWB. There were initially 15 items, divided into two dimensions of innovation generation and innovation execution. Due to the heterogeneity of the research participants, screening and adjustments were made according to the research needs after the pilot test, and 12 items remained in the final iteration of this part of the survey.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reliability and validity of the revised Employee Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) section of the survey were assessed to verify its quality. Homogeneity reliability was analyzed, with results showing Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; = .91 for Factor 1, \u0026alpha; = .89 for Factor 2, and an overall \u0026alpha; = .94 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05), indicating strong internal consistency. Test-retest reliability over four weeks showed high stability (r = 0.72\u0026ndash;0.88, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05). Structural validity was tested using CFA and factor correlation analysis. The CFA confirmed the model fit (CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.07). The two factors showed moderate correlation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .65, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05).\u0026nbsp;Additionally, the two dimensions (\u003cem\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.79/0.80, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05) and the total score (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.83, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05) were significantly correlated with the total score of Scott and Bruce\u0026rsquo;s (1994) Individual IWB Scale, demonstrating strong criterion correlation validity for the IWB section of the final survey.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection Procedures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, a pilot test was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the survey items, including both researcher-developed and modified items. Using snowball sampling, 154 participants completed the pilot test, which helped identify and refine unreliable or invalid survey items. Next, once the final survey items were confirmed, the survey was created using Sojump, a professional survey tool. The survey was carefully crafted to improve clarity, ease of understanding, and logical structure. A link and QR code were generated so participants could access the survey.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSojump\u0026rsquo;s online survey platform was used to distribute the survey to working employees aged 20\u0026ndash;65 from six occupational categories in China. The survey was offered with a small monetary incentive (5 Yuan, China\u0026rsquo;s currency), and participation was voluntary with confidentiality assured. The researchers paid necessary fees, including platform and participant compensation costs, and set a target of 1,000 completed surveys. Sojump managed the distribution, and responses were collected and stored in real-time, with automatic descriptive statistics. The researchers regularly monitored survey progress, checking for completion rates, speed, and any outliers or anomalies in the data. For example, surveys completed in under 30 seconds were considered invalid and excluded. After four weeks, 1,000 responses were collected, but 81 were excluded due to short completion times. The remaining 919 surveys had no missing values or outliers, as all questions had fixed options and were mandatory to answer before submission of the completed survey. Table 1 shows the participants\u0026rsquo; demographic characteristics.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographic Characteristics of Participants\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 391px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eItem\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrequency\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; %\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e470\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e449\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e162\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e292\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51\u0026ndash;65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e310\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOccupation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic officials (employees of state agencies or institutions)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e145\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProfessional technical personnel (doctors, lawyers, and IT technicians)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e188\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeaching or research staff (teachers and researchers)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e156\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eService workers (food servers, restaurant workers, hotel workers, and drivers)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eArt/media design\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrivate enterprise managers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e162\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-employed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eN =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e919.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData Analyses and Processing\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter data collection, including the data from the pilot test surveys and the formal survey for the study, SPSS 24.0 and AMOS 24.0 software programs were used to analyze the data. Hypothesis testing and analysis of variance were used to search for any differences in the means among the demographic variables. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to investigate the mediating effects of employee creative self-efficacy and work engagement on IWB considering age-based stereotype threats. All the study data will be saved for five years and then destroyed. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommon Method Variance Test\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCommon Method Variance (CMV) refers to the potential bias or contamination in data that arises from the shared method of measurement rather than from the constructs being measured (Eichhorn, 2014). Five factors were extracted from the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which explained 65.43% of the total variance, among which the first factor explained 44.39% of the total variance, less than 50%. As a result, there was no significant common method variance among the study variables (Baumgartner \u0026amp; Weijters, 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Results and Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorrelation Test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data collected from the survey participants (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 919) were utilized to conduct correlation analyses on five variables (see Table 2). Pearson\u0026apos;s correlation statistics showed a significant positive correlation between PAS and creative self-efficacy (\u003cem\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.70, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01), work engagement (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.78, p \u0026lt; .01), and IWB (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.82, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01). NAS were significantly and positively correlated with creative self-efficacy (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05), work engagement (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01), and IWB (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.36, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01). In addition, creative self-efficacy was positively correlated with work engagement (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.77, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01) and IWB (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.78, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01). Work engagement was positively correlated with IWB (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.81, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01). However, the perspectives of participants from different age groups in the assessment of PAS and NAS may have affected the effects produced for other variables. In an abundance of caution, SEM was used for further analysis of the possible effects of the PAS and NAS on the other variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorrelation Analysis Between Variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Positive age stereotype\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Negative age stereotype\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Creative self-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Work engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 185px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. IWB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01 (two-tailed).\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediation Test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling in the Younger Adult Group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA structural equation model was conducted to examine the mediating role of creative self-efficacy and work engagement in the relationship between age stereotypes and IWB of younger employees (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 454). According to the two-step procedure of Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the researchers first used the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method to check the fit of the measurement model. A structural model with four latent variables was established, which were PAS, NAS, work engagement, and IWB. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that all the fitting indexes of the measurement model were good: \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 145.93, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e/df\u003c/em\u003e = 2.52, GFI = .95, AGFI = .93, CFI = .98, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .058, SRMR = .056.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second step was a structural model analysis. The results showed that the direct effect model of PAS on IWB fit well (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 23.50, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e/df\u003c/em\u003e = 2.94, GFI = .98, AGFI = .96, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .065, SRMR = .021). The direct effect model of the influence of NAS on IWB also fit (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 22.22, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e = 2.78, GFI = .98, AGFI = .96, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .063, SRMR = .039). The standardized path coefficients of PAS \u0026rarr; IWB (\u0026beta; = .87,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;t\u003c/em\u003e = 18.27, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01) and NAS \u0026rarr; IWB (\u0026beta; = .28,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;t\u003c/em\u003e = 5.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001) reached significant levels. Thus, Hypothesis 1\u003csub\u003ea\u003c/sub\u003e was supported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThen, the mediating variable (work engagement) was introduced to establish the mediating effect model. Statistical analysis showed that the key fitting indexes of the mediating effect model were good: \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 145.93,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e/df\u003c/em\u003e = 2.52, GFI = .95, AGFI = .93, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 145.93. RMSEA = .058, SRMR = .056. In the mediation model, the direct effect of PAS on IWB (\u0026beta; = .44, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 6.33, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01) was reduced, suggesting that work engagement played a partial mediating role in the influence of PAS on IWB, and Hypothesis 2\u003csub\u003ea\u003c/sub\u003e was supported. However, the direct effect of NAS on IWB (\u0026beta; = .04, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 1.43, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .15) was no longer significant, indicating that work engagement played a mediating role in the influence process of NAS on IWB, and the direct effect was not significant, only the intermediary effect was, and Hypothesis 2\u003csub\u003eb\u003c/sub\u003e was supported. The standardized path coefficients are shown in Figure 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter testing bootstrap standard error, the results (see Table 3) showed that the direct and indirect paths were significant, except for the insignificant correlation between NAS and IWB (\u0026beta; = .54, 95% CI = [-0.02, 0.13]).\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBootstrap Analysis for the Mediation Effect Tests\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(Younger Adult Group)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParameter\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003estandardization\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect size ratio\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLower\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUpper\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePAS\u0026rarr;WE\u0026rarr;IWB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.374\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.249\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.498\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNAS\u0026rarr;WE\u0026rarr;IWB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.087\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.033\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.924\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.838\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ePAS: Positive Age Stereotype; NAS: Negative Age Stereotype; WE: Work Engagement; IWB: Innovative Work Behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01, \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the results of the bootstrap test, the direct effect of PAS on IWB was significant. This result indicates that work engagement played a partial mediating role between PAS and IWB, and the mediating effect size was 40.5%. The direct effect of NAS on IWB was not significant, so work engagement played a mediating role between NAS and IWB, accounting for 9.5% of the total effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling in the Older Adult Group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn SEM was conducted to examine the mediating role of creative self-efficacy and work engagement in the relationship between age stereotypes and IWB of older workers (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 465). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that all the fitting indexes of the measurement model were good: \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 273.91, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e/df\u003c/em\u003e = 2.91, GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .064, SRMR = .064.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThen the direct effect model and the intermediary effect model were constructed. Statistics showed that the direct effect model of the influence of PAS on IWB fit well (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 18.02, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e/df\u003c/em\u003e = 2.25, GFI = .98, AGFI = .96, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .052, SRMR = .03), the direct effect model of the influence of NAS on IWB also fit well (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 11.89, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e/df\u003c/em\u003e = 1.48, GFI = .99, AGFI = .97, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .032, SRMR = .03). The standardized path coefficients for PAS \u0026rarr; IWB (\u0026beta; = .13,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;t\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 2.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05) and NAS \u0026rarr; IWB\u0026quot; (\u0026beta; = .31, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -6.42, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) reached the significance level. \u0026nbsp;Thus, Hypothesis 1\u003csub\u003eb\u003c/sub\u003e was supported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe intermediary variables (Creative Self-efficacy and Work Engagement) were introduced into the direct effect model to establish the mediating effect model. The statistical analysis showed that the key fitting indicators of the mediating effect model were good: \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 273.14, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e/df\u003c/em\u003e = 2.91, GFI = .93, AGFI = .9, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .064, SRMR = .055. In the mediation model, the direct effect of NAS with IWB (\u0026beta; = .05, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 1.80, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .072) was no longer significant, while the direct effect of PAS with IWB (\u0026beta; = .65,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;t\u003c/em\u003e = 7.73,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001) decreased. This suggested that creative self-efficacy and work engagement mediate the effect of NAS on IWB and partially mediate the effect of PAS on IWB in the older adult group. Thus, Hypotheses 3\u003csub\u003ea\u003c/sub\u003e and 3\u003csub\u003eb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003ewere supported. The standardized path coefficients are shown in Figure 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of bootstrap standard error (see Table 4) showed that all paths were significant except the direct effect of NAS on IWB, which was not significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBootstrap Analysis for the Mediation Effect Tests (Older Adult Group)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParameter\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003estandardization\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect size ratio\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLower\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUpper\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePAS\u0026rarr;CS\u0026rarr;IWB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.033\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.074\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePAS\u0026rarr;WE\u0026rarr;IWB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.209\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.327\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal PAS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.863\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.762\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.977\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNAS\u0026rarr;CS\u0026rarr;IWB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.012\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNAS\u0026rarr;WE\u0026rarr;IWB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.049\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.108\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.05%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal NAS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.100\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.187\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.963\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.875\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ePAS: Positive Age Stereotype; NAS: Negative Age Stereotype; CS: Creative Self-efficacy; WE: Work Engagement; IWB: Innovative Work Behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01, \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the results of the bootstrap test in Table 4, the total effect of PAS on IWB accounted for 89.6% of the total effect, and the total effect of NAS on IWB accounted for 10.4% of the total effect in the older adult group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe direct effect of PAS on IWB was significant. Therefore, creative self-efficacy and work engagement played a partial mediating role between PAS and IWB, and the mediating effect size accounts for 22% (0.03% + 21.7%) of the total effect. The mediating effect size of creative self-efficacy was 5.3% (0.033/0.621), and that of work engagement was 33.7% (0.209/0.621). In addition, the direct effect of NAS on IWB was significant, so creative self-efficacy and work engagement played a partial mediating role between NAS and IWB in the older adult group. The mediating effect size of creative self-efficacy was 18.8% (0.012/0.064), and that of work engagement was 76.6% (0.049/0.064).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe direct effect value of NAS \u0026rarr; IWB in the direct effect model was positive (\u0026beta; = .31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), the addition of CS and WE resulted in a positive and significant effect value for the pathway NAS \u0026rarr; WE \u0026rarr; IWB (\u0026beta; = .049, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05), the effect value for the pathway NAS \u0026rarr; CS \u0026rarr; IWB was negative and significant (\u0026beta; = -.012, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05), and the effect value of NAS \u0026rarr; IWB in the mediation model was positive (\u0026beta; = .05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; .05). Therefore, the mediating effect and the masking effect suggest that a masking effect occurs in the older adult group (MacKinnon, 2012; Mrosovsky, 1999; Wen \u0026amp; Ye, 2014). Negative age stereotypes had a negative effect on IWB through creative self-efficacy, which means that negative age stereotypes of older employees reduce employees\u0026apos; creative self-efficacy and IWB. On the other hand, the effect of negative stereotypes on IWB through work engagement (NAS \u0026rarr; WE \u0026rarr; IWB) was positive, and its effect was larger than the effect on IWB through creative self-efficacy (NAS \u0026rarr; CS \u0026rarr; IWB), so the effect of work engagement canceled out the negative effect of reduced creative self-efficacy on IWB, and eventually IWB was still enhanced in the older adult group. The mediating and masking effects are shown in Figure 4.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Mediating Role of Work Engagement Among Younger Adults\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the perspective of the younger adults, the study assessed age stereotypes from their views of older employees, not the younger adults\u0026rsquo; self-perceptions. Thus, when analyzing IWB in younger employees, the self-cognitive factor of self-efficacy is omitted from the model. The mediation model (see Figure 2) shows work engagement partially mediates between age stereotypes and IWB, with positive stereotypes having a significantly higher effect size.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePositive age stereotypes did not reduce work engagement, instead, they played a positive role in both positive and negative cases. Conservation of resources theory states that when an individual is faced with the possibility of losing resources or losing them, self-pressure occurs and the individual will act to minimize the loss of resources to preserve existing resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Analyzing the scores of positive age stereotypes in the younger adults revealed that a positive view of older employees\u0026apos; resources creates a resource crisis, pushing younger employees to work harder. High scores on positive stereotypes may also mean they see older employees as more competitive, spurring their work engagement, which is consistent with some prior research results (Jones et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, when younger employees hold negative age stereotypes of older employees, their work engagement increases, benefiting the younger group\u0026apos;s IWB. Believing older employees\u0026apos; innovation declines with age creates urgency, driving younger employees to focus on work and innovation. Self-Validation Theory (SVT) states individuals seek evidence to match others\u0026apos; views of them concerning their self-concept (Bri\u0026ntilde;ol \u0026amp; Petty, 2022). Younger employees who hold negative age stereotypes about older employees may work and innovate more to prove youth\u0026apos;s advantage, forming a negative feedback loop that could affect their future self-concept.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the results of this study suggest that negative age stereotypes about others do not always have a positive impact on IWB. Negative age stereotypes had a significant but smaller effect on work engagement than positive age stereotypes among younger adults (see Table 3). The literature bears out that long-term exposure to negative age stereotypes or evaluations by coworkers or leaders can seriously undermine employees\u0026apos; self-esteem and self-identity, leading to reduced motivation and engagement, unhealthy competition, and poor coworker relations (Cohen \u0026amp; Steele, 2002; Lewis \u0026amp; Sherman, 2003). Therefore, we posit that stimulating the promotion of positive age stereotypes, promoting healthy competition, and creating a harmonious work environment should be encouraged, all of which could have a long-term and beneficial impact on the company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Mediating Role of Work Engagement and Creative Self-Efficacy on Positive Age Stereotype and IWB in Older Adults\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the older adult group, the mediation model (see Figure 3) showed that creative self-efficacy and work engagement played a partial mediating role between positive age stereotypes and IWB. The results showed that work engagement exerted a larger mediating effect than creative self-efficacy. In addition, positive age stereotypes of older employees strengthened their creative self-efficacy, which is when individuals retain a high level of positive mindset and self-confidence about themselves, and they derive energy and motivation from positive self-evaluations or in-group evaluations (Chiesa et al., 2016; Groeppel-Klein et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-determination theory asserts that the extent people engage in activities is largely determined by their intrinsic motivation. This is viewed as an individual\u0026apos;s internally driven desire to accomplish a task or activity, which usually stems from the individual\u0026apos;s interest, curiosity, or satisfaction (Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, 1985). If individuals can feel self-determined, then their intrinsic motivation will be stronger and they will be more engaged in the activities they do (Chua \u0026amp; Ayoko, 2021; Losier \u0026amp; Vallerand, 1994). And competence, as an important source of people\u0026apos;s sense of self-determination, plays an important role in influencing behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the age stereotype survey section of innovative work behavior, there are two dimensions, competence and enthusiasm, in addition to the positive and negative dimensions, on which the questions of the survey were designed. The survey measures people\u0026apos;s positive or negative evaluations of themselves or others in terms of creative competence and enthusiasm. When the evaluation is directed to the in-group or the self, it will represent a subjective feeling about the participant\u0026apos;s ability to perform the innovative work; that is, the survey responds to people\u0026apos;s sense of competence. Enthusiasm, on the other hand, is related to autonomy, another source of self-determined feelings. When people are enthusiastic about doing something, their autonomy increases, as does their corresponding engagement (Reeve et al., 2004).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom this, it can be inferred from the results that positive evaluations of age stereotypes also influence older adults\u0026rsquo; work engagement and that this effect may be direct or indirect through changes in people\u0026apos;s internal motivation. Some studies have found that work engagement can stimulate employees\u0026apos; interest and motivation in innovation (Ariyani \u0026amp; Hidayati, 2018; Jason \u0026amp; Geetha, 2021), which support the findings of this study. It is posited that when employees are passionate and engaged in their work, they are more likely to pursue new ideas and solutions, demonstrate willingness and interest in innovative work, and also promote more innovative choices in the organization, all of which drive IWB. In addition, work engagement can provide employees with the resources and capabilities they need to promote their IWB. When employees are more invested in their work, they are likely to pay more attention to learning and development and actively acquire new knowledge and skills (Bakker et al., 2012; Maden, 2015). These resources and capabilities can provide support and conditions for employees\u0026apos; IWB, all of which could possibly explain the effect of age stereotypes on IWB found in the results of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Masking Role of Work Engagement and the Mediating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy on Negative Age Stereotypes and IWB in Older Adults\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mediation model (see Figure 3) showed that creative self-efficacy and work engagement also mediated the influence of negative age stereotypes on IWB among older adults. Compared to their mediating role in the positive age stereotype\u0026mdash;although the effect size was much less than that in the positive age stereotype as shown by the effect magnitude of the path in the SEM model\u0026mdash;the mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement was still significant because the effect of the positive age stereotypes on IWB remained significant after adding the two mediating models; only their effect value was significantly reduced. In contrast, the direct effect of negative age stereotypes on IWB changed from significant in the direct effect model to insignificant in the mediation model, and its effect value also decreased. This suggests that creative self-efficacy and work engagement played a mediating role between negative age stereotypes and IWB among older adults. Some studies in the literature call it a full mediating role (e.g., Alshahrani \u0026amp; Salam, 2024; Tiwari et al., 2022), but in an abundance of caution, this term will not be used as it could suggest a stronger mediating role than the results of this study bear out.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the two paths from negative age stereotypes to IWB in the older adult group showed that the impact of negative age stereotypes on IWB through the sense of creative self-efficacy is negative. That is, the negative age stereotypes of older employees reduced their sense of creative self-efficacy, thus reducing their IWB. For the older adult group, as a result of higher identification with negative age stereotypes, these negative beliefs led to lower self-evaluations in terms of their innovative ability, enthusiasm, and resources, thereby lowering their self-efficacy. This finding is consistent with some previous research (Goguen, 2016). Finally, self-determination theory could have also played a role in lowering the older adults\u0026rsquo; IWB. It was discovered that positive perceptions of self-determination in the older adult group changed their behavior. Similarly, if their perceptions are not positive but negative, they could react with diminished action and lower IWB.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, the impact of negative stereotypes on innovative work behavior through the mediating variable of work engagement is positive, and its effect size is greater than the negative impact generated by the mediating variable of creative self-efficacy. At the same time, the direct effect of negative stereotypes on innovative work behavior is also positive. Therefore, it can be stated that a \u003cem\u003emasking effect\u003c/em\u003e occurs, which refers to a stronger mediating variable concealing the influence of other weaker mediating variables when explaining the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable (Wen \u0026amp; Ye, 2014). Examining the issue of masking effects requires exploring the question of how the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is masked (Baron \u0026amp; Kenny, 1986). According to the mediating effect test procedure proposed by Wen et al. (2014), when the main effect is significant, the direct and indirect effects are heteroscedastic (i.e., having different variances) and mask or conceal the effect in the results. In this study, the main effect of negative age stereotypes on IWB was significant with a positive effect size (see Table 4), while the indirect effect size of negative age stereotypes affecting IWB through the sense of creative self-efficacy was negative, with direct and indirect effects being heteroscedastic. These findings indicate that the sense of creative self-efficacy acts as a partial masking effect variable between negative age stereotypes and IWB among the older adult group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final findings of this study appear to explain why negative age stereotypes and the mediating role of self-efficacy had a positive impact on IWB among the older adult group. The results showed that creative self-efficacy is a variable related to self-perception. The NAS \u0026rarr; CS pathway in the SEM model (see Figure 3) indicated that negative age stereotypes among older employees significantly influenced their creative self-efficacy. In other words, when older employees held negative perceptions regarding the innovative capabilities of their age group, their sense of creative self-efficacy was diminished. This decrease in creative self-efficacy has been shown to result in a reduction in IWB (Akbari et al., 2021; Javed et al., 2021), as shown by the effect size of the CS \u0026rarr; IWB pathway. However, due to the mediating presence of the work engagement variable, this negative impact was masked, manifesting in a positive effect of negative age stereotypes on IWB at the surface level in the older adult group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe indirect effect of work engagement masked the negative impact of reduced creative self-efficacy on IWB, which ultimately remained enhanced, in the older adult group. Some previous research (Kornadt et al., 2023; Weiss \u0026amp; Kornadt, 2018) has suggested that high relevance to the group may lead to the internalization of age stereotypes, resulting in an assimilation effect. This means individuals identify themselves as belonging to a certain group, accept outsiders\u0026rsquo; evaluation of the group, integrate outside evaluations into their cognitive structure to make it part of their self-perception, and act in accordance with them. When individuals use the strategy of internalization (i.e., recognizing and accepting certain stereotypes and classifying themselves as part of this group) they are more likely to act in line with the age stereotypes. On the contrary, in situations where age stereotypes pose a threat to self-concept, older adults may also avoid the negative effects of age stereotypes by using an age-group separation strategy, which leads to a contrast effect (Weiss \u0026amp; Freund, 2012), producing behaviors that do not correspond to the expected behaviors in the negative age stereotypes. When individuals are using a strategy of separation, they tend to be reluctant to acknowledge certain negative age stereotypes and therefore tend to behave contrary to these perceptions in an attempt to separate themselves from their original group, and thus get rid of the stereotype. Specifically, older employees, although group identification occurs to a certain extent and reduces self-efficacy, seem to put more effort into proving themselves through their actions due to the fear that others will evaluate them in terms of such negative age stereotypes, which supports the occurrence of stereotype threat (Seibt \u0026amp; F\u0026ouml;rster, 2004; Wout et al., 2008) seen in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, negative perceptions of self-competitiveness tend to trigger more motivation to change when people are in a competitive situation (de Vries \u0026amp; Balazs, 1998). As the old Chinese saying goes, \u0026ldquo;Diligence makes up for clumsiness.\u0026rdquo; When people are at a disadvantage (or perceive themselves to be at a disadvantage), they tend to make up for their perceived psychological disadvantage with more effort to improve their competitiveness. This provides another possible reason why older employees in China have increased work engagement while experiencing decreased self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations of the Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUpon completion of this study and reflection, the researchers found three limitations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, the scope of the study and sampling procedures are a limitation. The target population wasn\u0026apos;t narrowed to a specific region or occupation in China, reducing the representativeness and generalizability of the results. Future research should narrow the scope of the study to one province or region. In addition, focusing on variables like age, gender, or a specific occupation/region would boost the representativeness and generalizability of future results from similar studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, the study focused on the stereotypes of younger and older adult groups but did not make more distinctions and discuss the differences in group identity caused by self-perception of age. These differences could have led to some variations in the division of internal and external evaluations. Future research should delve more deeply into employees\u0026apos; self-perception of age, using age perception as a new grouping basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, the lack of consideration for cultural background is also a limitation of this study. This study was conducted in China and no transnational or cross-cultural aspects were considered in the research design. Future studies could validate this study in different cultural contexts and explore more cross-cultural factors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank all participants of this study and the organizations that helped us collect data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the study\u0026apos;s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Gao and Gootjes. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Gao. Commentary on the revised manuscript and language polish were carried out by Gootjes. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Initiation Funds for High-level Talents Program of Xi\u0026rsquo;an International University (grant no. XAIU202535).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCode Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval for this study was obtained from the\u0026nbsp;Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Woosong University (Approval number:EAL-WS/1695/6DEC/2023)\u0026nbsp;on\u0026nbsp;December 6, 2023, prior to participant recruitment and any data collection activities. All research procedures were conducted in accordance with the\u0026nbsp;1964 Declaration of Helsinki\u0026nbsp;and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the national data protection regulations of the study location (China), including the Personal Information Protection Law, the Data Security Law, and the Cybersecurity Law, as well as relevant local data protection regulations and guidelines in the provinces where the participants were located.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe scope of this approval covers:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research project titled \u0026quot;Impact of Age Stereotypes on Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-efficacy and Work Engagement\u0026quot;;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe recruitment of employees from various organizations through professional online platforms;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe administration of a comprehensive online survey that collected data on participants\u0026apos; perceptions of age stereotypes, creative self-efficacy, work engagement, and innovative work behavior, alongside basic demographic information (e.g., age, gender, occupation);\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe collection and analysis of completely anonymous data. The survey was designed to ensure that no personally identifiable information was collected at any point, and responses were treated with strict confidentiality;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe process of informed consent, which was obtained electronically from all individual participants included in the study. A detailed information sheet was presented on the first page of the online survey, explaining the study\u0026apos;s purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and the anonymous nature of participation. Participants indicated their consent by proceeding to the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained electronically from all participants prior to their involvement in the study. The consent process clearly outlined the study\u0026apos;s purpose, procedures, confidentiality measures, and the right to withdraw at any time. Participants indicated their agreement by selecting a checkbox before proceeding to the online survey.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis consent was obtained during the data collection period from January 1 to February 29, 2024. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, J. C., \u0026amp; Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e103\u003c/em\u003e(3), 411.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAfsar, B., \u0026amp; Masood, M. (2018). Transformational leadership, creative self-efficacy, trust in supervisor, uncertainty avoidance, and innovative work behavior of nurses. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Applied Behavioral Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(1), 36\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkbari, M., Bagheri, A., Imani, S., \u0026amp; Asadnezhad, M. (2021). Does entrepreneurial leadership encourage innovation work behavior? The mediating role of creative self-efficacy and support for innovation. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Innovation Management, 24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlshahrani, M. A., \u0026amp; Salam, M. A. (2024). Entrepreneurial orientation and SMEs performance in an emerging economy: The mediating role of absorptive capacity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAppelbaum, S. H., Wenger, R., Pachon Buitrago, C., \u0026amp; Kaur, R. (2016). The effects of old-age stereotypes on organizational productivity (part one). \u003cem\u003eIndustrial and Commercial Training\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(4), 181\u0026ndash;188.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAriyani, N., \u0026amp; Hidayati, S. (2018). Influence of transformational leadership and work engagement on innovative behavior. \u003cem\u003eEtikonomi\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 275\u0026ndash;284.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., \u0026amp; ten Brummelhuis, L. L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e80\u003c/em\u003e(2), 555\u0026ndash;564.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaron, R. M., \u0026amp; Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator\u0026ndash;mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1173.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. \u003cem\u003eEnglewood Cliffs\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1986\u003c/em\u003e(23\u0026ndash;28), 2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaumgartner, H., \u0026amp; Weijters, B. (2021). Dealing with common method variance in international marketing research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of International Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(3), 7\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBloom, D. E., Canning, D., \u0026amp; Lubet, A. (2015). Global population aging: Facts, challenges, solutions \u0026amp; perspectives. \u003cem\u003eDaedalus\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e144\u003c/em\u003e(2), 80\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorasi, R., \u0026amp; Finnigan, K. (2010). Entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors that can help prepare successful change agents in education. \u003cem\u003eThe New Educator, 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBri\u0026ntilde;ol, P., \u0026amp; Petty, R. E. (2022). Self-validation theory: An integrative framework for understanding when thoughts become consequential. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e129\u003c/em\u003e(2), 340\u0026ndash;367.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuunk, A. P., \u0026amp; Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e102\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCappelli, P., \u0026amp; Novelli, B. (2010). \u003cem\u003eManaging the older worker: How to prepare for the new organizational order.\u003c/em\u003e Harvard Business Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, T., Li, F., \u0026amp; Leung, K. (2016). When does supervisor support encourage innovative behavior? Opposite moderating effects of general self‐efficacy and internal locus of control. \u003cem\u003ePersonnel Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e(1), 123\u0026ndash;158.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChiesa, R., Toderi, S., Dordoni, P., Henkens, K., Fiabane, E. M., \u0026amp; Setti, I. (2016). Older workers: Stereotypes and occupational self-efficacy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Managerial Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1152\u0026ndash;1166.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChua, J., \u0026amp; Ayoko, O. B. (2021). Employees\u0026rsquo; self-determined motivation, transformational leadership and work engagement. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management \u0026amp; Organization\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(3), 523\u0026ndash;543.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, G. L., \u0026amp; Steele, C. M. (2002). A barrier of mistrust: How negative stereotypes affect cross-race mentoring. In J. Aronson (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eImproving Academic Achievement: Impact of Psychological Factors on Education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 303\u0026ndash;327). Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorrigan, T. (2022). The realisation of human rights issues of older people in contemporary Ireland to ensure equal life opportunities. In T. Corrigan (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eHuman Rights in the Contemporary World\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., De Witte, H., \u0026amp; Van Hootegem, G. (2015). Job design, work engagement, and innovative work behavior: A multi-level study on Karasek\u0026apos;s learning hypothesis. \u003cem\u003eManagement Revue\u003c/em\u003e, 123\u0026ndash;137.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci, E. L., \u0026amp; Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Research in Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(2), 109\u0026ndash;134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Vries, M. F. K., \u0026amp; Balazs, K. (1998). Beyond the quick fix: The psychodynamics of organizational transformation and change. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(5), 611\u0026ndash;622.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDionigi, R. A. (2015). Stereotypes of aging: Their effects on the health of older adults. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Geriatrics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2015\u003c/em\u003e(1), 954027.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDordoni, P., \u0026amp; Argentero, P. (2015). When age stereotypes are employment barriers: A conceptual analysis and a literature review on older workers stereotypes. \u003cem\u003eAgeing International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 393\u0026ndash;412.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEichhorn, B. R. (2014). Common method variance techniques. \u003cem\u003eCleveland State University, Department of Operations \u0026amp; Supply Chain Management. Cleveland, OH: SAS Institute Inc\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(11).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarr, F. (2003). Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse: The case of student\u0026ndash;tutor meetings. \u003cem\u003eJournal of English for Academic Purposes, 2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 67\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFern\u0026aacute;ndez-Ballesteros, R., Olmos, R., Santacreu, M., Bustillos, A., Schettini, R., Huici, C., \u0026amp; Rivera, J. M. (2017). Assessing aging stereotypes: Personal stereotypes, self-stereotypes and self-perception of aging. \u003cem\u003ePsicothema\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(4), 482\u0026ndash;489.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFiske, S. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(2), 67\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoguen, S. (2016). Stereotype threat, epistemic injustice, and rationality. \u003cem\u003eImplicit Bias and Philosophy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 216\u0026ndash;237.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGong, Y., Huang, J. C., \u0026amp; Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy.\u003cem\u003e Academy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(4), 765\u0026ndash;778.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGroeppel-Klein, A., Helfgen, J., Spilski, A., \u0026amp; Schreiber, L. (2017). The impact of age stereotypes on elderly consumers\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy and cognitive performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Strategic Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 211\u0026ndash;225.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGupta, V., Singh, S., \u0026amp; Bhattacharya, A. (2017). The relationships between leadership, work engagement, and employee innovative performance: Empirical evidence from the Indian R\u0026amp;D context. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Innovation Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(07), 1750055.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., \u0026amp; Pareek, A. (2013). Differences between men and women in opportunity evaluation as a function of gender stereotypes and stereotype activation. \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 37\u003c/em\u003e(4), 771\u0026ndash;788.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHalbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., \u0026amp; Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the \u0026ldquo;COR\u0026rdquo; understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1334\u0026ndash;1364.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris, K., Kimson, A., \u0026amp; Schwedel, A. (2018). Labor 2030: The collision of demographics, automation and inequality. \u003cem\u003eBain \u0026amp; Company\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(63), 1\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHassan, Q., Viktor, P., Al-Musawi, T. J., Ali, B. M., Algburi, S., Alzoubi, H. M., ... \u0026amp; Jaszczur, M. (2024). The renewable energy role in the global energy Transformations. \u003cem\u003eRenewable Energy Focus\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e, 100545.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., \u0026amp; Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(2), 280\u0026ndash;293.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 513.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH\u0026uuml;lsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., \u0026amp; Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e94\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJason, V., \u0026amp; Geetha, S.N. (2021). Regulatory focus and innovative work behavior: The role of work engagement. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 2791\u0026ndash;2803.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJaved, B., Fatima, T., Khan, A. K., \u0026amp; Bashir, S. (2021). Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of creative self‐efficacy. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Creative Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(3), 769\u0026ndash;782.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, J. L., Davis, W. D., \u0026amp; Thomas, C. H. (2017). Is competition engaging? Examining the interactive effects of goal orientation and competitive work environment on engagement. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(3), 389\u0026ndash;405.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, W., Kolb, J. A., \u0026amp; Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Development Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(3), 248\u0026ndash;276.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKooij, D., De Lange, A., Jansen, P., \u0026amp; Dikkers, J. (2008). Older workers\u0026apos; motivation to continue to work: Five meanings of age: A conceptual review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Managerial Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(4), 364\u0026ndash;394.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKornadt, A. E., Weiss, D., de Paula Couto, M. C., \u0026amp; Rothermund, K. (2023). Internalization or dissociation? Negative age stereotypes make you feel younger now but make you feel older later. \u003cem\u003eThe Journals of Gerontology: Series B\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1341\u0026ndash;1348.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrings, F., Sczesny, S., \u0026amp; Kluge, A. (2011). Stereotypical inferences as mediators of age discrimination: The role of competence and warmth. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(2), 187\u0026ndash;201.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumar, D., Upadhyay, Y., Yadav, R., \u0026amp; Goyal, A. K. (2022). Psychological capital and innovative work behaviour: The role of mastery orientation and creative self-efficacy. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Hospitality Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e102\u003c/em\u003e, 103157.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKwon, K., \u0026amp; Kim, T. (2020). An integrative literature review of employee engagement and innovative behavior: Revisiting the JD-R model. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 100704.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, W. J. T., Sok, P., \u0026amp; Mao, S. (2022). When and why does competitive psychological climate affect employee engagement and burnout?\u003cem\u003e Journal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e139\u003c/em\u003e, 103810.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevy, B. (2009). Stereotype embodiment: A psychosocial approach to aging. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(6), 332\u0026ndash;336.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis, A. C., \u0026amp; Sherman, S. J. (2003). Hiring you makes me look bad: Social-identity based reversals of the ingroup favoritism effect. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e90\u003c/em\u003e(2), 262\u0026ndash;276.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, M., Liu, Y., Liu, L., \u0026amp; Wang, Z. (2017). Proactive personality and innovative work behavior: The mediating effects of affective states and creative self-efficacy in teachers. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e, 697\u0026ndash;706.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, Y., Vriend, T., \u0026amp; Janssen, O. (2021). To be (creative), or not to be (creative)? A sensemaking perspective to creative role expectations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business and Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e, 139\u0026ndash;153.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLosier, G. F., \u0026amp; Vallerand, R. J. (1994). Self-Determined Motivation. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e134\u003c/em\u003e(6), 793\u0026ndash;801.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacKinnon, D. (Eds.). (2012).\u003cem\u003e Introduction to statistical mediation analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaden, C. (2015). Linking high involvement human resource practices to employee proactivity: The role of work engagement and learning goal orientation. \u003cem\u003ePersonnel Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(5), 720\u0026ndash;738.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManzi, C., Paderi, F., Benet‐Mart\u0026iacute;nez, V., \u0026amp; Coen, S. (2019). Age-based stereotype threat and negative outcomes in the workplace: Exploring the role of identity integration. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(4), 705\u0026ndash;716.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaqbool, S., Černe, M., \u0026amp; Bortoluzzi, G. (2019). Micro-foundations of innovation: Employee silence, perceived time pressure, flow, and innovative work behaviour. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Innovation Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 125\u0026ndash;145.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMrosovsky, N. (1999). Masking: history, definitions, and measurement. \u003cem\u003eChronobiology International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(4), 415\u0026ndash;429.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMumford, M. D., \u0026amp; Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. \u003cem\u003ePsychological \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eulletin, 103\u003c/em\u003e(1), 27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMustaqim, H., Alhempi, R. R., Siregar, B. A., \u0026amp; Shaddiq, S. (2024). The relationship between employee engagement and goal orientation towards competence and employee performance. \u003cem\u003eCalitatea\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(198), 211\u0026ndash;221.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeumark, D., Burn, I., \u0026amp; Button, P. (2019). Is it harder for older workers to find jobs? New and improved evidence from a field experiment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Political Economy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e127\u003c/em\u003e(2), 922\u0026ndash;970.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorth, M. S., \u0026amp; Fiske, S. T. (2012). An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e138\u003c/em\u003e(5), 982\u0026ndash;997.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOry, M., Hoffman, M. K., Hawkins, M., Sanner, B., \u0026amp; Mockenhaupt, R. (2003). Challenging aging stereotypes: Strategies for creating a more active society. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 164\u0026ndash;171.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePak, K., Kooij, D. T., De Lange, A. H., \u0026amp; Van Veldhoven, M. J. (2019). Human Resource Management and the ability, motivation and opportunity to continue working: A review of quantitative studies. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(3), 336\u0026ndash;352.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinto, A. M. G. L. R. S., da Silva Ramos, S. C. M., \u0026amp; Nunes, S. M. M. D. (2014). Managing an aging workforce: What is the value of human resource management practices for different age groups of workers? \u003cem\u003eT\u0026eacute;khne\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e, 58\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePit, S., Fisk, M., Freihaut, W., Akintunde, F., Aloko, B., Berge, B., ... \u0026amp; Yap, J. C. (2021). COVID-19 and the aging workforce: Global perspectives on needs and solutions across 15 countries. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Equity in Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePoo, M. M. (2021). Innovation and reform: China\u0026apos;s 14th five-year plan unfolds. \u003cem\u003eNational Science Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), nwaa294.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePosthuma, R. A., \u0026amp; Campion, M. A. (2009). Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 158\u0026ndash;188.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePranitasari, D., Said, M., \u0026amp; Nugroho, S. H. (2022). The mediating effect of work engagement on competence, work environment and job satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Manajemen\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 365\u0026ndash;380.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRafiq, M., Farrukh, M., Attiq, S., Shahzad, F., \u0026amp; Khan, I. (2023). Linking job crafting, innovation performance, and career satisfaction: The mediating role of work engagement. \u003cem\u003eWork\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(3), 877\u0026ndash;886.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., \u0026amp; Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students\u0026apos; engagement by increasing teachers\u0026apos; autonomy support. \u003cem\u003eMotivation and Emotion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e, 147\u0026ndash;169.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRicciardiello, L., Leja, M., \u0026amp; Ollivier, M. (2021). Horizon Europe, the new programme for research \u0026amp; innovation: Which opportunities for GI research in the years to come? \u003cem\u003eUnited European Gastroenterology Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 407.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRietzschel, E. F., \u0026amp; Zacher, H. (2015). Workplace creativity, innovation, and age. \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of Geropsychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoberson, L., \u0026amp; Kulik, C. T. (2007). Stereotype threat at work. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 24\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchaufeli, W. B. (2012b). Work engagement: What do we know and where do we go? \u003cem\u003eRomanian Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., \u0026amp; Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cross-cultural Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(5), 464\u0026ndash;481.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmidt, D. F., \u0026amp; Boland, S. M. (1986). Structure of perceptions of older adults: Evidence for multiple stereotypes. \u003cem\u003ePsychology and \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eging, 1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 255.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScott, S. G., \u0026amp; Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(3), 580\u0026ndash;607.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeibt, B., \u0026amp; F\u0026ouml;rster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e(1), 38\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShin, Y. J., Lee, E. S., \u0026amp; Seo, Y. (2019). Does traditional stereotyping of career as male affect college women\u0026rsquo;s, but not college men\u0026rsquo;s, career decision self-efficacy and ultimately their career adaptability? \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e, 74\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmedley, K. (2017). \u003cem\u003eAge matters: Employing, motivating, and managing older employees\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSousa-Ribeiro, M., Sverke, M., \u0026amp; Coimbra, J. L. (2018). Too old for work? Mediated associations between perceived age discrimination and job search among older unemployed people. In \u003cem\u003e13th European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology Conference 2018, Lisbon, Portugal, September 5\u0026ndash;7, 2018\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 75\u0026ndash;75). European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteele, C. M., \u0026amp; Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e(5), 797\u0026ndash;811.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, M. (2023). The US CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. \u003cem\u003eMRS Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(9), 874\u0026ndash;879.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTierney, P., \u0026amp; Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journa\u003c/em\u003el, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1137\u0026ndash;1148.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTiwari, P., Bhat, A. K., \u0026amp; Tikoria, J. (2022). Mediating role of prosocial motivation in predicting social entrepreneurial intentions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Entrepreneurship\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 118\u0026ndash;141.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUppathampracha, R., \u0026amp; Liu, G. (2022). Leading for innovation: Self-efficacy and work engagement as sequential mediation relating ethical leadership and innovative work behavior. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(8), 266.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evon Hippel, C., Kalokerinos, E. K., \u0026amp; Henry, J. D. (2013). Stereotype threat among older employees: Relationship with job attitudes and turnover intentions. \u003cem\u003ePsychology and Aging\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, P., Zhou, P., Tan, C.H. and Zhang, P.C. (2017). Effect of self-efficacy in stereotype activation. \u003cem\u003eSocial Behavior and Personality: An International Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 469\u0026ndash;476.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatermann, H., Fasbender, U., \u0026amp; Klehe, U. C. (2023). Withdrawing from job search: The effect of age discrimination on occupational future time perspective, career exploration, and retirement intentions. \u003cem\u003eActa Psychologica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e234\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeiss, D., \u0026amp; Freund, A. M. (2012). Still young at heart: Negative age-related information motivates distancing from same-aged people. \u003cem\u003ePsychology and Aging\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 173.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeiss, D., \u0026amp; Kornadt, A. E. (2018). Age-stereotype internalization and dissociation: Contradictory processes or two sides of the same coin? \u003cem\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 27\u003c/em\u003e(6), 477\u0026ndash;483.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeiss, D., \u0026amp; Lang, F. R. (2012). \u0026ldquo;They\u0026rdquo; are old but \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; feel younger: Age-group dissociation as a self-protective strategy in old age. \u003cem\u003ePsychology and Aging\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 153.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWen, Z., \u0026amp; Ye, B. (2014). Analyses of mediating effects: The development of methods and models. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(5), 731.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWen, Z., Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Wu, Y., Liu, H., \u0026amp; Morin, A. J. (2014). Interaction effects in latent growth models: Evaluation of alternative estimation approaches. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(3), 361\u0026ndash;374.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWheeler, S. C., \u0026amp; Petty, R. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e127\u003c/em\u003e(6), 797\u0026ndash;826.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWong, C. M., \u0026amp; Tetrick, L. E. (2017). Job crafting: Older workers\u0026rsquo; mechanism for maintaining person-job fit. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e, 277\u0026ndash;313.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., \u0026amp; Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(2), 293\u0026ndash;321.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWout, D., Danso, H., Jackson, J., \u0026amp; Spencer, S. (2008). The many faces of stereotype threat: Group-and self-threat. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 792\u0026ndash;799.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWurm, S., Diehl, M., Kornadt, A. E., Westerhof, G. J., \u0026amp; Wahl, H. W. (2017). How do views on aging affect health outcomes in adulthood and late life? Explanations for an established connection. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e, 27\u0026ndash;43.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, J., \u0026amp; Su, W. (2020). Linking leader humor to employee innovative behavior: The roles of work engagement and supervisor\u0026rsquo;s organizational embodiment. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"innovative work behavior, age stereotypes, creative self-efficacy, work engagement, mediating effect, masking effect","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002684/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002684/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eInnovative work behavior is not only an important indicator of innovation and work performance for employees, but is also an important driving force to cultivate innovative talents for the organization. This study developed structural equation models to explore the mediating effects of employees' creative self-efficacy and work engagement on the influence of positive or negative age stereotypes on IWB among the younger and older employees. The results showed that: (1) Age stereotypes predict IWB. In the older adult group, positive age stereotypes positively influenced IWB, while negative age stereotypes negatively influenced IWB. In younger employee groups, both positive and negative age stereotypes positively influenced IWB. (2) In the younger adult group, work engagement played a partial mediating role between positive stereotype and IWB, and a partial mediating role between negative stereotype and IWB. In the older adult group, creative self-efficacy and work engagement played a partial mediating role between negative age stereotypes and IWB, and also played a partial mediating role between positive age stereotypes and IWB. (3) Negative age stereotypes of older employees negatively affected creative self-efficacy and thus had a negative impact on IWB, but positively affected work engagement through a masking effect that counteracted the negative impact of reduced creative self-efficacy, ultimately resulting in a positive influence on IWB.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Impact of Age Stereotypes on Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-efficacy and Work Engagement","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-02 13:55:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002684/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a2407e1f-7f63-4a33-ad68-8bd6c697393b","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 2nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":55576813,"name":"Biological sciences/Neuroscience"},{"id":55576814,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":55576815,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-09T19:25:32+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-02 13:55:47","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7002684","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7002684","identity":"rs-7002684","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}