Gender and Group Preference Differentiation: Impacts on Problem Finding and Solving

Gender and Group Preference Differentiation: Impacts on Problem Finding and Solving | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Gender and Group Preference Differentiation: Impacts on Problem Finding and Solving Motlaq Abuhadeeda, Amthal Alaifan, Eid Abo Hamza This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5237017/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 Purpose: This study examines the impact of gender on the ability to solve creative problems among intellectually gifted secondary students in Kuwait. Methodology: The study includes a sample of 98 individuals. The study used the Realistic Problem Generation and Realistic Presented Problems evaluations, in conjunction with the Collectivism/Individualism Creativity Preference Scale, to measure students' problem-solving and creative aptitudes. Statistical analysis was conducted using cluster analysis and the Point-Biserial correlation coefficient. Findings: The findings suggest that the correlation between individual creativity and problem-solving skills is stronger than the correlation between group creativity and problem-solving skills. This challenges the idea that gender has a substantial influence on creative problem-solving abilities. Originality: The results highlight the importance of personalized educational strategies that provide to the unique talents of gifted students, advocating for equal opportunities regardless of gender to enhance academic achievement. creativity gender problem-finding group problem-solving individual-collective creativity giftedness gifted secondary students Figures Figure 1 Introduction Creativity is a component of the twenty-first-century skills that students must learn, which also includes critical thinking, communication, and collaboration (Framework for 21st Century Learning, 2015). In this study, we considered the individual - the collective as individual or collective creativity, as the process of revealing creativity was carried out on all students in the Sabah Al-Ahmad Center for Giftedness and Creativity, so when we say collective, it means a group of creative students who preferred teamwork. Yesterday’s creativity is not today’s creativity through the attention it received on the level of many fields. There were many approaches that dealt with creativity, each according to the culture or environment that consider creativity, and this is a sufficient reason for researchers and scholars to disagree on a comprehensive definition of creativity. in the early1960's the conceptual (4P's) model of creativity was proposed and developed “creative person", "creative process", "creative product", "creative press (environment). Nevertheless, these four aspects of creativity are particularly significant as the primary characteristic of this phenomenon. Diedrich, et al. (2015) mentioned that creative result is perceptible and may be assessed by a suitable cohort of colleagues, peers, judges, or specialists. When considering creativity from a "personality" standpoint, it can be described as the capacity to generate novel and suitable (useful, applicable) output or products. When considering creativity as a 'creative process', the associated definitions also include a reference to a final output. Researchers have widely agreed that creativity is defined as the generation of novel and valuable concepts or solutions that are both original and beneficial (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Dewett, 2004; Amabile et al., 2005; van Woerkum et al., 2007). For instance, Ai (1999) examined the relation between creativity and academic achievement among Spanish secondary students and found that creativity, when operationalized by teachers' ratings, was related to academic achievement for both males and females. Individuals possessing extraordinary intellectual or creative capacities frequently flourish when given devoted times of concentrated seclusion. In these circumstances, undisturbed focus enables their thoughts to flow effortlessly and evolve naturally. Nevertheless, social disturbances have the potential to break this fragile continuity, hence posing difficulties in re-establishing the complex cognitive patterns (Clark, 2008; Unsworth & Gaspelin, 2009). The necessity for seclusion is substantiated by the research conducted by Treadway (2019). A study conducted in 2019 by Treadway and his colleagues discovered that periods of being alone stimulate the default mode network in the brain. This network plays a crucial role in introspection, creativity, and creative problem-solving (Treadway & Lazarov, 2019). Nevertheless, a total cessation of social connection may not be optimal. According to psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky's research, there is evidence to imply that having strong social connections has a good effect on both creativity and general well-being (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). This underscores the significance of achieving equilibrium between concentrated seclusion and purposeful social engagement. Moreover, the notion that total seclusion promotes profound understanding may be antiquated. Contemporary study highlights the significance of collaboration and varied viewpoints in stimulating invention (Burt, 2022; Sosa, 2011). Although periods of concentrated isolation are still crucial, creative persons may also get advantages from interacting with specialists from many domains and cultivating collaborative problem-solving. Hence, the most effective method may not include full isolation, but rather a deliberate and purposeful withdrawal from others, allowing individuals to dedicate time to certain tasks while still fostering significant social bonds and capitalising on collaboration prospects to get varied viewpoints. This equilibrium can cultivate profound self-reflection and the abundance of collective concepts, perhaps resulting in even more significant innovative advancements. Literature Review The traditional framework of creativity has experienced various significant expansions. In 1999, Simonton presented the concept of 'Persuasion' as a crucial element, enhancing the conventional comprehension of creativity. In 2007, Runco advocated a major reorganisation of the current paradigm, advocating for a hierarchical structure that includes 'Potential' as a crucial component. In addition, Reid and Petocz (2004) emphasised the many interpretations of creativity in different disciplines. According to their perspective, creativity is expressed as 'innovation' in education, 'entrepreneurship' in business, 'problem-solving' in mathematics, and 'performance or composition' in music. The inclusion of 'Persuasion' by Simonton has expanded our understanding of creativity's diverse functions, highlighting its importance in leadership. In this research individual creativity and collective creativity will be defined in general without mentioning in any field or any specialty. One of the first scientists who was interested in creativity was Barron (1955), who stated that creativity is required by two criteria; The first criteria is originality and the second that this thinking must be adapted to some extent from reality, and the intention of this requirement is to exclude random thoughts that are unfamiliar or stem from ignorance or delusion (Runco, & Jaeger 2012). Runco mentioned creativity as a complex compound or as a syndrome (Abdulla & Cramond, 2017; Ayoub et al., 2022). However, there is no complete agreement on what creativity is. Researchers widely concur that creativity is defined as the generation of novel and valuable concepts or solutions that are both original and beneficial (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Dewett, 2004; Amabile et al., 2005; van Woerkum et al., 2007). According to the Public Authority for Civil Information (PACI, 2018), the population of the State of Kuwait shows that females make up 51% of the country's population, while males make up 49%. This statistic highlights the importance of considering gender differences in scientific research. This study aimed to investigate the following questions:What are the differences in the profiles of problem-finding, problem-solving, and individual-collective creativity among gifted students? Is there a correlation between the type of creativity (individual or group), problem-finding, and problem-solving? What are the direct effects of problem-finding and problem-solving on individual and group creativity? By addressing these questions, this study contributes to a better understanding of gender differences in scientific research among gifted students in Kuwait. This knowledge can inform educational practices and policies to ensure that all gifted students have the opportunity to thrive in science. Multiple studies have established a clear correlation between specific personality traits and creativity (Li et al., 2022; Elsantil, 2021; Hornberg, & Reiter-Palmon, 2017). These attributes include the inclination to overcome challenges, embrace risk-taking, and exhibit tolerance towards ambiguity (Sternberg, 2006). At a more specific level, the observations of individuals deemed creative are marked by traits such as shyness, dominance, seriousness, and a lack of interest or disregard for rules, as well as sensitivity and independence (Guastello 2009; Runco, 2007). Creative individuals exhibit a range of personality traits, including curiosity, openness, high energy, confidence, unreliability, rebelliousness, and a propensity to fully engage in projects they are passionate about, often at the expense of other commitments (Feist, 1998). However, individual creativity, often known as individualism, refers to a cultural mindset that recognises the self as distinct and apart from the surrounding social context. It places importance on self-sufficiency and personal success. (Hofstede, 1994; Chan & Cheung, 2016; Rinne et al., 2013), when talking about individual creativity or Collective, it means the individual who is within the group, but how can a coherent and interconnected group be created, from here the individual creativity and collective creativity are addressed, and the differentiation between them, as many important creative contributions included high isolation, in some artistic fields, most contributions depend on efforts individual. The areas in which individual efforts dominate are usually those in which a person possesses the required skills and thinks they do not need the group, a clear creative focus, and a powerful drive to contribute creatively. Individuals in these areas often seek solitude to achieve their goals with long periods of solitary time, allowing them to build on the uninterrupted flow of their thoughts (Ochse, 1990; Simonton, 2004; Baer & Kaufman, 2011). Empirical evidence suggests that a liking for being alone is linked to emotional creativity (Long et al., 2003). However, negative emotions arising from feelings of loneliness during periods of isolation can also enhance creativity by promoting perseverance in finding innovative solutions (Baas et al., 2013). Einstein, Edison, Currie, and Jobs are notable individuals known to have a degree of solitude and a strong preference for solitary times of thought (Schilling et al., 2017). Teachers should take into account the importance of individual and self-directed learning. They should provide opportunities for students to work independently and encourage them to persist in their efforts. This is crucial in order to prevent boredom, which can lead to frustration or failure. Research has shown that adolescents who are unable to tolerate solitude may have their creative talents hindered (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Research has shown that highly creative persons possess characteristics such as the ability to make independent judgements, a sense of autonomy, and self-confidence. These traits enable them to separate themselves from their social and professional circles in order to propose innovative ideas that may not be immediately embraced by others (Baron & Harrington, 1981). Due to the tendency for innovative ideas to be distorted, individuals often hesitate to share them out of concern for obtaining unfavourable assessments from fellow group members. Gifted individuals, who exhibit unique creativity, typically share certain traits including diverse interests, cognitive agility, adaptability, and autonomy (Simonton, 1988). However, in many instances, one of the primary reasons contributing to their success is diligent effort (Simonton, 2004). Individualism and the drive for achievement are positively correlated, while collectivists prioritise cooperation, participation, and communal aims over personal ones (Spence, 1985). Individualism is linked to values such as autonomy and the pursuit of personal gratification, whereas collectivism is linked to ideals of conformity and safety (Triandis, 1995). Ogihara and Uchida (2014) found that there is a negative correlation between individuality and the number of close friends. Lei (2005) discovered a strong correlation between a rise in individualism and a rise in selfishness. When examining creativity at both the individual and social levels, it becomes evident that idea generation, which mainly relies on brainstorming, is the most commonly employed and potentially valuable strategy for producing creative ideas. Extensive study on brainstorming has consistently shown that group brainstorming tends to result in lower performance compared to individual brainstorming, This effect is further amplified in large teams, under close supervision, and when focusing on oral rather than written ideas (Mullen et al., 1991; Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Brainstorming ineffectiveness is attributed to social loafing (reduced individual effort in teams), social anxiety (fear of judgment), regression to the mean (talented members performing at lower levels to match less skilled peers), and production blocking (limited idea expression in larger groups due to communication constraints). These dynamics collectively hinder optimal group performance (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2015). According to Agnoli et al. (2018), two cognitive processes that seem to play a significant role in individual creativity are mind wandering and mindfulness. Mindfulness entails a heightened concentration on tasks and the minimization of distractions, which has been demonstrated to be crucial for the efficient execution of various tasks. Conversely, mind wandering refers to the diversion of an individual's attention from the present situation to an unrelated one. Adverse outcomes can also arise from social circumstances. Exposure to the ideas of others prior to engaging in one's own cognitive explorations can limit one's creativity (Mrazek et al., 2012). East Asian peoples (collective cultures) describe themselves as being less open to experiences, a personality trait closely related to creativity in multiple areas (Schmitt et al., 2007). Orienting people empirically toward individualism or collectivism (Oyserman & Lee, 2008). The orientation of individuals towards the group can also impact the creativity of individuals working on a group job. Within distinct cultural contexts, individuals are perceived as autonomous entities, each exhibiting a distinct configuration of characteristics that sets them apart from others (Markus & Kitayama, 1994). Foster et al. (2003) discovered that individuals in individualistic societies exhibit greater levels of selfishness compared to those in more collectivist societies. Collectivism emphasises interdependence, cooperation, and harmony within the collective, and is inversely correlated with selfishness (Le, 2005). Individuals may be motivated to resist societal influence when it contradicts their personal values and preferences. Consequently, individuals in individualistic societies are likely to exhibit consistency in their opinions and uphold them despite opposition. On the other hand, individuals in collectivist societies may perceive a lack of flexibility or generosity towards others as impolite and thoughtless (Schmitt et al., 2007). Humans are social by nature and don’t prefer to live in social isolation without interacting and communicating with others. Rather, their existence is linked to others, and therefore the difficulties that an individual may face require the participation of group members, whether within the family or society. To bring about the required change in the attitudes that stand in the way of the individual in achieving his goals, each deal with the situation according to his preference for work and problem solving, whether individually or collectively, hence the talk about the preferences of creative people at work as learning programs focus on the individual learner, but in fact, individuals are part of a group. So the focus may shift from the individual learner to collective learning in the team, the organization, and the broader environment (Meijer, 2014), and decisions should include these levels when developing curricula and learning programs. Orientation towards team creativity. As many of the modern innovations have yielded their efforts from teamwork and work with peers or group, and that working with them has benefits, and one of the most supportive scholars for peer work with some of them was Vygotsky, his focus was the social nature of learning and development, and he considered that the ability to teach others and learn from Others is a characteristic of humans (Moll, 1990). Biographical translators and some scholars and researchers have always demonstrated the importance of individual genius and the importance of the group was often overlooked or neglected. Several variables impact the creative output of individuals within a group. The literature review on collective creativity has identified three primary domains of psychology research: the examination of collective creativity within specific contexts; the exploration of creative synergy at the group level; and the investigation of strategies for fostering group creativity (Zhou & Luo, 2012). Enhancing team or group creativity can be achieved by the implementation of demanding objectives, planned and purposeful group interactions, a level of autonomy within the group, and the provision of supportive settings. However, on occasion, groups may not reach their full potential due to certain members exhibiting laziness (group loafing), prematurely evaluating ideas, exerting excessive control over the group process, or diverting attention away from the primary objectives (Paulus, 2000). Although collective creativity remained for a long time rejected and unknown because of the individual concepts that exist in a capitalist society, and according to these concepts, creativity was seen as being in its essence the production of individuals and not the group, but at the end of the last century Gustave Le Bon published his book “The Crowd “In which he isolates the mentality of the individual from the mentality of the group, and he believes that the group thwarts the distinct individual abilities, yet the concept of “unique creativity” is accepted by many researchers. Creativity is the product of an individual spirit, as well as the discoveries and innovations made in the past and the present also, have been associated with the name of a person or one individual” (Abdul Hamid, 2015, p. 49) With collectivism in creativity, we mean collective creativity. Despite the potential instability and disruptive nature of groups, numerous creative endeavours take place inside a collective setting. There is a significant body of literature that highlights the crucial significance of team innovation in organisations (Reiter-Palmon, 2018). Additionally, there is an increasing emphasis on utilising multidisciplinary teams to address challenges or achieve novel findings. Intercession by individuals possessing diverse expertise or information. Both in academic and work settings, there has been a strong emphasis on the necessity of multidisciplinary teams (Derry et al., 2014). The varied abilities and expertise that team members possess might enhance one another in attaining particular objectives (Saavedra et al., 1993). The interaction among team members can stimulate cognitive processes, enabling groups to discover innovative ideas that might not arise otherwise (Baruah & Paulus, 2009). Due to the increasing demand for collaboration and teamwork in various industries, most US organisations prioritise collaboration, teamwork, and team-based innovation to effectively accomplish organisational goals and activities (Anderson et al., 2014; Sawyer, 2017). The study included a total of 131 individuals, consisting of 89 females and 42 males. The study recruited adult participants through online advertising. The Wallach and Kogan test was employed, specifically utilising the instances test. The study revealed that age, rather than gender, may accurately forecast the creative process in many measures of cognitive thinking. Implicit beliefs regarding the changeable characteristics and abilities of humans appear to be influenced by task performance. More precisely, individuals who hold the belief that creative abilities are permanent and cannot be altered tend to achieve worse scores on various thinking tests. This is particularly evident in adults with divergent thinking, where a larger belief in the fixed nature of creativity is associated with poorer performance. Some findings, as noted by Land & Jarman (1993), suggest a slump in creativity with development throughout childhood. Remarkably, 98% of 5-year-old minors score in the creative range, yet only 30% maintain this level after five years, with a mere 2% being deemed as maturely creative. This decline underscores the precarious nature of creative development, which, according to some researchers, occurs in a discontinuous manner across different stages. Kapoor (2019) emphasizes the need to nurture creativity due to distinct, negative gender-based patterns. Highlighting the importance of steering creativity constructively, these findings stress the need to consider the nuanced differences in creative expression between genders. Building on this understanding, Kaufman (2018) believes that if creativity is not fostered in schools, it will become significantly less prevalent as individuals age. Further supporting this viewpoint, Beghetto's (2019) call for cultivating creative competence in education aligns with recent scholarship, which emphasizes creative learning as a dynamic process of individual and collective endeavors encompassing classrooms and broader contexts (e.g., Beghetto, 2019; Williams et al., 2022). This holistic approach, integrating student, teacher, and curricular interactions, reflects a broader commitment to fostering innovation and resilience in students, aligning with the global recognition of essential creative skills across industries (Collard, 2015). Notably, Williams et al. (2022) highlight the need for tailored policies and practices within educational frameworks to nurture creativity effectively, preparing students for future challenges and opportunities. These evolving educational strategies reinforce the pivotal role of developing creative competencies for future-ready individuals (Beghetto, 2021).This shift towards nurturing creative competencies necessitates a fundamental transition from the conventional individualistic mindset prevalent in work environments to a more collective approach that prioritizes the group's interests over individual needs (Locke et al., 2001). It's a delicate balance to maintain, as research by Wagner (1995) has shown that group values decrease social self-indulgence and promote collaboration. However, there are potential drawbacks to this shift towards collectivism. While group values can enhance feelings of unity and collaboration, they may also stifle creativity.Therefore, the challenge lies in fostering an educational environment that encourages individual creative endeavors while simultaneously promoting a collective ethos that enhances collaboration and group learning. Considering the delicate balance between individual creativity and collaboration, understanding the mechanisms of idea generation becomes crucial. Within this context, brainstorming emerges as a central technique, widely recognized as a valuable method for fostering creative thought. This process, emphasizing both individual contributions and collective synthesis, aligns with the pursuit of nurturing creative competencies in a way that harmonizes individual potential with group dynamics. Additionally, the interaction among team members can epistemologically foster motivation, enabling groups to develop innovative solutions that would not have emerged otherwise (Baruah & Paulus, 2009). This aligns with a recent creativity theory that draws heavily from economics. Economic theories provide testable hypotheses regarding creative endeavours, suggesting that individuals with extensive expertise are less inclined to consider alternative viewpoints that challenge their own, compared to those who have invested less in their career or a specific theory or method (Kozbelt et al., 2010). This is in contrast to systems theory. It should be noted that creativity is a social construct that arises from the convergence of three distinct sources: (Domain); (Individuals) are the catalysts for introducing novel developments in the field. A panel of specialists then evaluates and either approves or dismisses these advancements in (field) (Csikszentmihalyi, 2015). The process of creativity involves multiple steps in order to provide a concrete or intangible outcome, such as problem-solving. This phase is referred to as the creative process stage, which necessitates brainstorming to generate innovative ideas. A significant portion of the literature on brainstorming research indicates that group brainstorming tends to have lower performance compared to individual brainstorming (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). This demonstrates that when individuals work in groups, they produce a lower quantity of ideas compared to when they work alone. Conceptually, a collective group is expected to exhibit superior performance compared to an equivalent number of individuals operating alone. The varied abilities and experiences that team members possess can synergistically enhance the attainment of specified objectives. The reference is from Saavedra et al. in 1993. Various models of collective creativity propose that the act of sharing and expanding upon the ideas of others within a social context should lead to cognitive stimulation (Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006). The Cognitive-Motivational Social Model of Group Creativity proposed by Paulus & Brown (2007) posits that group creativity is the result of a combination of cognitive processing, where members actively participate in the exploration of ideas, and social exchange. Group members depend on one another's ideas to produce more and superior ideas. The Nijstad & Stroebe model (2006) explores the retrieval of ideas from associative memory (SIAM) by emphasising the activation of ideas through cue-based search. It suggests that cues in memory might prompt the generation of additional ideas by recalling the thoughts of individuals who were there. Nevertheless, SIAM also states that in a collective setting when individuals are taking turns to talk or answer, there are delays between the development of ideas and their expression, which might result in forgetting (Nijstad et al., 2003). Engaging in the act of sharing with others can prove advantageous in various aspects, as it allows for the incorporation of external ideas that can enhance the scope and complexity of one's thoughts regarding a certain matter or subject (Deuja et al., 2014). Group creativity fosters the generation of a greater quantity and quality of ideas, and performance is typically assessed through participatory exchange using the brainstorming method. While verbal brainstorming is the conventional approach, other methods have been devised and discussed in (Baruah & Paulus, 2019) such as brainstorming, brain sketching and its variations, electronic Brainstorming, asynchronous Brainstorming, and hybrid brainstorming. When mentioning creativity either in groups or individuals the first unofficial step toward creativity is the problem finding, It should be clarified that problem-finding differs from problem-solving, perhaps that problem-discovery represents a set of related skills (e.g., but not limited to, problem identification, problem definition, problem articulation, problem construction, problem generation Problem posing, and problem discovery), each of which seems to be influenced by cognitive and non-cognitive factors. The most important thing in great discoveries is to find a particular question. The concept of asking a fruitful question is often more important and often more achievable than the solution (Getzels, 1985). Problem discovery is an initial stage that is not included in Wallace’s problem-solving model, which is the first complete model for the creative process stages, and can be seen in other models for solving the problem (Howard et al., 2008). The first stage of the creative process is problem identification, which aims to understand the problem or opportunity at hand (Amabile, 1997). The problem can also be discovered by reframing an existing situation, and reframing has the potential to turn difficult problems into exciting opportunities (Dutton, 1993). This confirms the importance of developing or asking appropriate questions. An example of this is Jeopardy, an American television program that was established in (1964) and is shown to this day. The show is characterized by the presentation of quizzes in which general knowledge evidence is presented for the contestants as answers; they have to put the appropriate question (Griffin, 2021). Runco (1994 ) stated that the stage of preparation parallels what is now called problem creation and formal and informal theoretical studies have recognized for years that something happens before the problem is solved. Einstein stated that the formulation of the problem is often more important than its solution (Getzels, 1982), Ochse explained that the discovery of the problem was defined in terms of the discovery of some gaps or inconsistencies in current knowledge enabling patterns, arrangement, and structures based on current knowledge in individuals to build mental models for reality (Kim, 2009). The topic of problem Finding has not received as much attention as problem-solving (or the creative process), This is reminiscent of Guilford's 1950 address, in which he highlighted the low proportion of studies related to creativity compared to studies in various other fields. Moreover, investigating problem-finding in relation to other creativity topics and within the context of Arabic studies is crucial to develop a more coherent and cohesive understanding of the field.. Abdulla et al. (2020) studied a meta-analysis, and the researchers found that studies of problem-solving and divergent thinking were studied more than problem-finding by six to 100, and with this big difference in the studies, there is a lack of interest in the theoretical aspect of this situation can be explained by many names for finding the problem, which led to the difficulty of showing it in the research's title when searching for studies related to finding the problem. There exist numerous definitions of problem-finding, reflecting the abundance of scholars and individuals deeply interested in this field. Arlin (1975, 1977) characterised the problem as being expressed through the inquiries that individuals make and emphasised that it is a crucial process that connects processes to the generation of creative solutions, which involves both problem-solving and formulation. Some individuals characterised the process of identifying the problem as a divergent one, involving the generation of creative ideas and the capacity to articulate the problem (Cropper et al., 1977). Finding the problem must mean conceiving, defining, or formulating a problem to be solved (Barber, 1981). Dillon (1988) mentioned that problem finding is a process that occurs in a problem that must be solved and problems can be conceivable at different levels of completeness and each level entails a different activity to find the problem. In the late 80s and early 90s, some new terms appeared to describe problem-finding, including Ranko and Akuda, who stated that problem-finding is an important component of the creative process because it occurs first and the quality of the problem may partly determine the quality of the solutions (Runco & Okuda, 1988) He also added that problem-finding requires that individuals identify and defines worthwhile tasks (Runco & Vega, 1990). Problem building refers to constructing or understanding an undefined or ambiguous problem (Arreola, 2012). Problem-finding is recognizing or discovering the discrepancy between the expected or desired outcome and the current outcome (Ambrosio, 1994). Problem discovery is a process in which an individual find, defines, or discovers an idea or problem not previously defined by a situation or task (Kay, 1991). Cognitive theories of creativity mostly centre around the problem-solving process. Divergent thinking, as defined by Guilford (1957), is the practice of thinking in order to solve creative problems and serves as a strong sign of creativity. The existing theoretical literature on problem identification is limited and sparse. Problem discovery and problem solution are interconnected, with problem identification being the initial stage in the problem-solving process. The identification of innovative challenges and the process of finding solutions to those challenges are inherently interconnected. Problem-discovery involves the capacity to envision and explore evident contradictions and produce novel theories on existing difficulties, or invent completely new questions or problems (Runco, 1994). Problem-solving is the act of discovering a resolution to a particular issue, as defined by Kay (1991). Some scholars consider creative thinking and problem-solving to be closely related, if not indistinguishable, processes. This is because both result in practical solutions to either familiar or novel problems, as noted by Edwards and Sproull (1984). Creative problem solving frequently entails cognitive processes such as preparation, concentration, contemplation, insight, and confirmation (Abo Hamza et al.,2020). Positive mental health can be associated with problem-solving capabilities. Nevertheless, those with a high level of problem identification but limited problem-solving skills experience more significant interpersonal challenges (Cropley, 1990; Mraz & Runco, 1994; Richards, 1990). There are many questions that a person can think of when it comes to solving creative problems, including whether the problem-solving processes of the expert person and the novice person differ. According to Sheridan, and Reingold (2014) the process of solving problems in chess varies in both quantity and quality between expert and novice players. The efficiency of the task is determined by variables that measure the speed (latency) and accuracy of performance. Variations exist in the nature or calibre of the methodologies employed in problem-solving. Various methodologies or tactics may be required to resolve distinct categories of issues in diverse domains (e.g., visual arts, music, academic pursuits, or the natural world), and these tactics may not be universally applicable across different scenarios (Runco, 1994). Students may employ distinct approaches when tackling difficulties that they have discovered as opposed to problems that have been given to them. Additionally, they are likely to possess familiarity with various problem types, such as those that are ambiguous or well defined, or those that are communicated through words or visuals (Runco, 1994; Wallach & Kogan, 1965). Basadur (1991) argues that creativity is contingent upon the act of problem-solving, and that creative endeavours only come to fruition after action is taken. Furthermore, Basadur suggests that the problem to be solved should be deliberately formulated in order to stimulate creativity. In his book "Creativity: The Magic Formula," Arieti discussed the categorization of models of creative processes that occurred between 1908 and 1964. These models are a representation of theories on creativity, explaining how creative thinking occurs and how creative ideas emerge over time. Nevertheless, according to Torrance (1968), Wallace's model serves as the foundation for the majority of creative thinking training programmes. The incorporation of incubation and subsequent enlightenment in this widely accepted model may account for the perception of creative thinking as an unconscious cognitive process that cannot be consciously controlled. This gives the recent study more importance in exposing the creativity preferences related to problem-finding and problem-solving among different gender students as this can help one to know the creative potential the students got and helps us shifting it from potential to production. Also, it provides significant space for more studies about the culture-gender difference among younger students. Methods A descriptive survey research design was employed to gather the data and to answer the posed questions. Participants The research sample consisted of (98) male and female students from the secondary stage enrolled in the gifted program at the Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah Center for Giftedness and Creativity. The sample was divided according to gender (male students, n = 51; female students, n = 47). Students were from grades 10, 11, and 12. All participants gave informed consent prior to taking part in the study, which received ethical approval from the Al Ain University Review Board (IRB) under reference number COP/AAU/AD/65. This cohort study involved both male and female university students, with data collection occurring between January and Sep 2022. Instruments Realistic Problem Generation (PG) The Realistic Problem Generation (PG) scale is a problem-generation test aimed at measuring students' idea fluency, originality, and flexibility. Developed by Runco and Okuda in 1988 and later translated into Arabic study by Runco et al., (2016). it was applied across eight Arab countries including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Iraq, with a sample size of 611 males and females. The scale evaluates three dimensions: fluency, originality, and flexibility. The psychometric properties The psychometric properties of the scale include validity indicators in its original form, applied to a sample of 77 fourth, fifth, and sixth-grade students aged 9-12 years in private schools. Discriminant validity between the problem generation test and a general abilities test ranged from 0.18 to -0.23, indicating these tests measure different processes. The reliability coefficient for fluency was 0.92, achieved through a retest method on the same sample, demonstrating high stability for this dimension of the scale. The Realistic Presented Problems (RPP) Assessment The Realistic Presented Problems (RPP) test, designed by Runco and Okuda (1988) and translated into Arabic by Runco et al., (2016) aims to assess students' fluency, originality, and flexibility in idea generation. This scale, applied across eight Arab countries, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Iraq, with a sample of 611 participants, involves solving real-life problems from the domains of home and school, requiring participants to propose as many solutions as possible. The psychometric properties The psychometric properties of the scale reveal both validity and reliability in its original and Arabic versions. Initially applied to a sample of 77 students aged 9-12, it showed discriminant validity. Reliability was confirmed with retest methods, showing a fluency reliability coefficient of 0.76 and originality at 0.84. For the Arabic version, after translation and expert review, the scale was applied to a larger sample of 611 students, achieving a reliability coefficient of 0.64 for both fluency and originality dimensions. The Collectivism/Individualism Creativity Preference Scale The Collectivism-Individualism (Creativity Type) scale, developed by Shaw et al. (2000) and later translated into Arabic, assesses individuals' preferences for teamwork versus independent work, reflecting the extent to which they value collective interests over personal ones. This measure indicates that those with a preference for collective work find satisfaction in teamwork, while those inclined towards independence may not enjoy group tasks as much. Validated through face and construct validity by presenting it to experts for review, modifications were made to align with the Kuwaiti context, achieving a high agreement rate of 90% among reviewers. The measure of preferences, specifically the type of creativity, regarding teamwork and individualism pertains to the extent to which individuals possess a strong inclination towards teamwork as opposed to autonomy. It also encompasses the relative significance that individuals attribute to collective interests in comparison to personal interests, such as teamwork, family, and friends (Wagner, 1995). The fundamental concept of group work preference posits that individuals who possess these qualities will get satisfaction from engaging in group work, while those who choose solo work would experience dissatisfaction when working in groups (Wagner & Moch, 1986). The scale was first developed by Shaw et al. (Shaw et al., 2000) and subsequently translated into Arabic by the researcher. The translation he produced underwent a thorough examination and further modifications before being submitted to a panel of English language specialists who specialize in arbitration. The validity of the study was established via the use of face validity and construct validity. The scale was submitted to six arbitrators with expertise in education and psychology at the Arabian Gulf University and the Kingdom of Bahrain; their task was to review the scale items and make necessary revisions or modifications to paragraphs that needed it. They were also responsible for removing or combining any inappropriate items and ensuring that the scale aligns with the dimensions it measures, while also verifying its linguistic integrity. The agreement rate reached 90%, and upon reviewing the arbitrators' remarks, the scale was authorized with linguistic modifications made to 7 sentences in order to better align with the Kuwaiti setting. The scale measures two dimensions: the individualism dimension and the collectivism dimension. How to apply the scale: Participants scored responses to all statements using a five-point Likert scale. The scale consists of (22) statements with opposite or negative statements, such that a high score indicates stronger collectivism, as an example of individualism (I prefer to do my work and leave the work of others to them), and as an example of collectivism or negative statements (I enjoy doing projects with others). Giving them some guidance, such as: Think about the groups you currently belong to, and have belonged to in the past. Below is a set of statements that express your relationship with these particular groups and your thoughts about them. Respond to the following questions, as honestly as possible using the response scales provided (1 “strongly disagree, 5” strongly agree). Scale correction method The scale is corrected in the collectivism dimension by summing the subject’s responses, and giving him a score for each response consisting of (1-5). The student who answers the statement by choosing (5) in this dimension is considered to strongly agree. As for the individualism dimension, by summing the subject’s responses, and giving him A score for each response, and the questions of this dimension are considered negative questions and they are the statements (5-7-9-11-13-15). The student who chooses a score of (5) for the statement is considered to disagree with this dimension and is automatically counted for the collectivism dimension. Psychometric properties of the scale Implications of the scale's validity in its original form To extract indications of the validity of the scale in its original form, it was applied to a sample of (566) university students enrolled in a large university in the southern United States. The sample was 39 percent female, with an average age of 22 years. Implications of the stability of the scale in its original form To extract the reliability coefficient, the reliability coefficient method (0.88) was applied. Preference for the teamwork dimension emerged as a very strong factor (latent root = 5.94, explained variance = 27%). Higher values indicate a stronger preference for teamwork. Implications of validity and reliability of the scale in the current research The researcher conducted a study where they gave a scale to a randomly chosen exploratory sample of tenth and eleventh grade students, including both males and females, from schools in the Farwaniya and Jahra Educational Governorates. This was done during the first semester of the 2019/2020 academic year. This sample consisted of 97 students, ranging in age from 15 to 17 years. They were specifically chosen to assess the scale's validity for wider use and to collect data supporting its construct validity. The Pearson correlation coefficients for two dimensions within a preference scale, specifically focusing on individualism and collectivism. For the individualism dimension, the correlation coefficient is .756, and for the collectivism dimension, it is .942, both statistically significant at the α = 0.01 level. It further lists correlation coefficients for individual statements related to these dimensions, with values ranging from .538 to .839, indicating varying degrees of correlation with the respective dimension of preference. In order to validate the scale, we measured its internal consistency by examining the Pearson correlation coefficient between individuals' responses to specific phrases on the scale and their overall scores on selected dimensions. We also analysed the correlation between these dimensions and the scale's total score. The study demonstrated a robust statistical significance at the 0.01 level, with correlations ranging from 0.538 to 0.839, showing a high degree of consistency across the scale items and dimensions. In addition, the dependability of the scale was shown by dimensional reliability coefficients ranging from .605 to .899, and an overall scale reliability coefficient of 0.87, emphasising its statistical strength and suitability for contemporary research. The internal consistency The internal consistency of the job preference scale was assessed by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficients. The coefficient for the individual dimension, which consists of six items, was found to be .605, suggesting a moderate level of reliability. The collective dimension, consisting of nine items, has a coefficient of .899, indicating a good level of dependability. Overall, the scale, including all 15 questions, has a coefficient of .870, indicating excellent reliability in assessing job preferences across various dimensions. Results The study topic seeks to investigate the disparities among talented kids in their strategies for issue identification, problem-solving, and creative expression, both at an individual and collective level. The first research question does the study aim to investigate the disparities among talented children in their strategies for issue identification, problem-solving, and creative expression, both at an individual and collective level? In order to do this, the results of the students were standardised to Z-scores across different scales. This was done to address any differences in vocabulary, dimensions, and total scale scores. The K-means method of cluster analysis was subsequently utilised to analyse the sample data on independent variables, with the differentiation between solo and group work preferences serving as the criterion for classifying student profiles. Table I shows the possibility of distinguishing three clusters of students, whose sizes were, in order (25, 22, 51) at a Percentage rate of (25.51%, 22.44%, 52%) of the total number of the sample, and the third cluster included the largest number, followed by the first cluster, then the second cluster and Table II shows the distances between the centres of the final clusters. Figure I Cluster Analysis of Gifted Students: Differentiating Performance in Problem-Finding and Solving Figure I displays the characteristics of three separate groups of students, categorised according to their strengths in identifying and resolving problems. The first cluster, renowned for its exceptional performance, highlights children who possess remarkable ingenuity and proficiency in both identifying and resolving problems. It emphasises a preference for collaborative creativity rather than individual innovation, despite having average scores in collective-individual creativity. The second performance cluster, known as the intermediate cluster, consists of children who possess average levels of originality and fluency. These students tend to prefer expressing their creativity individually and have varying scores in terms of their collective vs individual creative ability. Finally, the third cluster represents children who have low performance. These kids have lower scores in both issue identification and problem solution. They have a combination of scores in collective and individual creativity elements, with certain aspects performing better than those in the second cluster. The third cluster has moderate individual and group creativity levels, leading to modest achievements in problem-finding and problem-solving. Highly creative individuals possess autonomous judgment, self-reliance, and self-assurance (Baron & Harrington, 1981), allowing them to detach from social and professional groups to present novel ideas. However, since creative concepts often deviate from the norm, individuals may be hesitant to express them due to the fear of unfavorable evaluations from fellow group members (Diehl & Strobe, 1987). This explains the factors that foster or impede creative behavior within communities and groups. Creative individuals must take risks when sharing innovative ideas, advocating, persuading, and defending them. Simonton’s extension of the 4P model posits that creativity is a form of leadership, which aligns with the first cluster of high creativity. Students in this group demonstrated elevated problem-finding and problem-solving levels and strong correlations between collective creativity and the three clusters. To achieve their goals, creative individuals often require solitude to refine and build upon their continuous stream of thoughts. Examining prodigious individuals reveals common characteristics such as expansive interests, intellectual agility, and independence (Simonton, 1988). Highly creative individuals require dedicated time to develop and promote their ideas and products (Ochse, 1990; Simonton, 2004). Personal attributes and beliefs mold creative potential, including the cognitive processes and personality traits inherent to both the creative process and the creative individual. Collectivist cultures, such as certain Arab societies, prioritize harmony and conformity, which may diminish individuals’ perceived appropriateness of free expression, leading to less originality and group performance. These social values are significant during developmental stages when peer groups gain importance. The second question reported that what is the variation in problem-finding, problem-solving, and individual-group creativity according to gender (male-female) among the gifted students? Table 3 shows the results of the independent sample t-test, which shows no significant differences in the dimensions of finding the problem (originality and fluency); problem-solving (originality and fluency); Type of creativity (individual and group); (and the total score between males and females, where t-values ranged between (0.828) - (-1.887), which are not significant. The third research question reported that Is there a correlation between the type of creativity (individual-group) and the research sample’s responses to problem-finding and problem-solving variables? To answer the third research question, the researchers employed the Point-Biserial correlation coefficient. This measure was used to assess the correlation between the type of creativity (individual/group) and the student’s responses to problem-finding (fluency and originality) and problem-solving (fluency and originality). Table (4) presents the results of the Point-Biserial correlation coefficient. The results indicated that the Point-Biserial correlation coefficient values measuring the relationship between the type of creativity (individual/group) and students’ responses to the problem-finding variable (originality and fluency) ranged between (-0.045) and (-0.046), and for the problem-solving dimension (fluency and originality), it was (-0.046). Despite all these values being statistically non-significant at the level of (p ≤ 0.05). Discussion The research findings indicate a stronger relationship between research variables and individual creativity compared to group creativity, which can be attributed to the need for contemplation and isolation associated with individuality in the creative process. Brainstorming studies show lower group performance efficiency compared to individual work (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Social distancing resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to the enhancement of individual work among students. The research also reveals a variance in students' individual abilities regarding problem identification and solving (Runco, 2011). The analyses do not show significant differences between the individual and group categories in other dimensions, indicating a convergence of research sample characteristics in the field of creativity. This aligns with societal developments where teamwork and collaborative learning have become important and effective components in educational institutions. Creative students possess the ability to work individually or collectively thanks to their discovered or hidden capabilities. Individual characteristics, personal beliefs, and creative potential influence all forms of creativity, with these potentials relying on cognitive abilities and thinking styles (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; Torrance, 1968, Abo Hamza, et al., 2020). Students differ in their interactions and perceptions of various life situations, whether educational or social. Gifted students can achieve greater success if assigned tasks that suit their individual or collective abilities and thinking. Classification of Profiles in Problem-Finding, Problem-Solving, and Creativity: The categorization of profiles corresponds to Simonton's (1995) focus on 'Persuasion' and Runco's (2007) hierarchical restructuring involving 'Potential'. The findings of this study highlight the intricate nature of creativity, which is characterised by several facets. These facets mirror the various interpretations of creativity across different fields, as addressed by Reid and Petocz (2004). The diverse manifestations of creativity in gifted kids align with the literature's portrayal of creativity as a combination of innovative and beneficial solutions, in accordance with the definitions provided by Sternberg & Lubart (1991) and Amabile et al. (2005). Gender Diversity in Creative and Problem-Solving Aptitudes: The lack of substantial gender disparities in creativity and problem-solving abilities among gifted students corroborates the idea that creativity surpasses gender prejudices, in accordance with the broader viewpoints on creativity and personality traits presented by Sternberg (2006), Guastello (2009), and Feist (1998). This discovery undermines conventional notions of gender-based creativity and emphasises the significance of personal characteristics in fostering innovation, rather than relying on society preconceptions. The correlation between individual and group creativity and problem-solving can be understood by considering the concepts of collective versus individual creativity, as discussed by Hofstede (1994), and the contributions of creativity in both solitary and group settings, as explored by Ochse & Ochse (1990) and Simonton (2004). The study's results demonstrate a heightened preference for solo creation, aligning with existing research that explores the social and solitary dimensions of the creative process. This literature also examines the circumstances in which creativity thrives in isolation compared to collaborative settings. This enlarged debate incorporates contemporary study findings with the larger academic discourse on creativity, problem-solving, and the impact of cultural and individual characteristics, by utilising core ideas and recent studies from the literature review. This method not only places the study within the existing theoretical framework but also emphasises its contributions to comprehending the intricacies of creativity among talented students. The results show that all gifted students in the research sample possess creativity skills, including originality and fluency in problem-finding and problem-solving, as well as individual and group creativity, without gender bias. The findings suggest no relationship between gender and the dimensions of research variables, leading to the development of two models: one focusing on individual creativity encompassing the entire sample, and another examining the direct effects of the sample on collective creativity. The sample size may have contributed to this outcome, as larger studies provide a clearer picture of research results (Kotrlik & Higgins, 2001) Contrasting studies comparing gifted and non-gifted individuals, which typically show significant differences favouring the gifted (Milgram & Milgram, 1976). Abdullah et al. (2020) found significant differences between divergent thinking and problem finding among gifted and non-gifted students, with a large effect size (η2 = 0.359). The results confirm the findings of Ibn Nasser's (2015) study, which showed no significant differences between males and females in problem-solving ability. In conclusion, male and female students exhibit equal levels of creativity, attributed to equitable educational and teaching services free from discrimination. This promotes the learning and development of gifted students, enabling them to join diverse professions and international universities, and upholds the principle of equal opportunities for both male and female students. Recent findings align with Hardy and Gibson (2015), demonstrating a discernible gender disparity in creativity, where females predominantly display superior performance in creative quality, originality, and elegance, reaffirming the nuanced gender differences in creative expression and problem-solving proficiencies.These findings may reflect a convergence of creative characteristics within the research sample, mirroring broader societal changes regarding gender perceptions. The evolution of societies, exemplified by the development in Kuwait, has led to heightened awareness and an enhanced role for women across various levels and fields. Women are becoming increasingly independent and, in some cases, surpassing men in specific domains. Jenan Shehab, an engineer who has earned patent awards and gold medals at international forums, exemplifies the potential for women to overcome traditionally faced obstacles, especially those with higher educational degrees. This progress is further underscored by the increase in Nobel Prizes awarded to women in the last two decades (22 females from 2001 to 2018) compared to the early 20th century (4 females from 1901 to 1920), highlighting a significant shift in the recognition of women's contributions across different fields.Moreover, this shift in perspectives and reduced barriers is consistent with the observations of Abdulla et al. (2018), who noted that women with higher education often face more challenges related to shame and repression compared to those with lower educational qualifications. The reduction of barriers and evolving perspectives over recent years suggest a societal shift towards a more equitable recognition of creativity across genders, aligning with the findings of Hardy and Gibson (2015), which highlight the importance of nurturing and valuing creative expression in all its diverse forms. Limitation One potential limitation of the research study is related to the method of data collection, specifically the reliance on online measurement tools for assessing the students' typing skills in both schools. This may have introduced a limitation in the sense that the online tools used for data collection may not have been as reliable or accurate as other methods of assessment, potentially influencing the results of the study. Additionally, factors such as differences in internet connectivity or technology access may have impacted the quality of the data collected, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. Conclusion The study's findings about gender differences in problem-finding and problem-solving among talented secondary students in Kuwait concluded that there were no notable changes depending on gender in these domains, as well as in group preferences. Although three separate clusters were identified within the sample, gender did not have a significant impact on these features. The study emphasised the need of studying both individual and group creativity, demonstrating direct impacts on creative behaviour with statistically significant correlation coefficients. Although the study made valuable contributions to the understanding of creativity in gifted education, it acknowledged certain limitations, including a small sample size and reliance on self-reported data. This indicates the necessity for additional research with larger samples and diverse assessment methods to gain a more profound understanding of the relationship between creativity and gender dynamics among gifted students. Future Research Future research has the potential to expand our understanding of the influence of gender and group preference differential on problem-finding and solution among talented students in Kuwait. This may be achieved by doing a comprehensive analysis and examining the findings of the study. Examine how these processes manifest in various cultural contexts through cross-cultural comparisons. An examination of gender variations in creativity among talented kids, conducted across nations with different educational systems and cultural norms, might provide valuable insights into the presence of universal or culture-specific factors. Longitudinal studies aim to examine the extended-term progression of issue identification and resolution skills in intellectually gifted adolescents. Such studies can facilitate the identification of the temporal evolution of these skills and the influence of different educational interventions. Enhance Demographic Inclusivity: Broaden the research's demographic coverage to encompass students from a more extensive array of socio-economic backgrounds, age groups, and educational environments. This might unveil more intricate insights about how different elements interplay with gender to impact creativity. Utilise interdisciplinary approaches by integrating insights from psychology, sociology, and neuroscience to enhance comprehension of the mechanisms that underlie gender disparities in creative problem-solving and discovery. Investigate the impact of technology on the ability of talented pupils to engage in creative problem-solving. Examples of potential research topics may encompass investigations into digital educational resources, virtual teamwork platforms, and the influence of social media. Analyse the consequences of your results for educational policy and practice. Research might focus on optimising educational programmes in schools to enhance the creative growth of brilliant kids, while considering gender disparities. Qualitative studies serve as a valuable addition to quantitative research by delving into the subjective experiences, motives, and obstacles faced by talented individuals in terms of their gender and creativity. By following these potential research approaches, researchers may expand upon the groundwork of your study to enhance understanding of the intricate relationship between gender, creativity, and education among brilliant individuals. Declarations Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Funding: Not applicable. Data availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. A sentence confirming that informed consents (Consent to Participate and Consent to Publish) were obtained from all participants. References Abdul-Hamid, S. (2015). Talent, Creativity, Innovation, and Invention: Relationships and Issues. In Musa Al-Nabhan (Ed.), Key Topics in the Education of the Gifted (pp. 18-66). Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Award for Outstanding Educational Performance. Ayoub A. E. A.; Aljughaiman A. M.; Alabbasi A. M. A. & Abo Hamza E. G. (2022). Do Different Types of Intelligence and Its Implicit Theories Vary Based on Gender and Grade Level? Frontiers in Psychology. 12:712330. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712330 Abdulla, A. M., & Cramond, B. (2017). After six decades of systematic study of creativity: What do teachers need to know about what it is and how it is measured. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 39 (1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1247398 Abdulla, A. M., Paek, S. H., Cramond, B., & Runco, M. A. (2020). Problem finding and creativity: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000194 Abdulla, A. M., Runco, M. A., Alsuwaidi, H. N., & Alhindal, H. S. (2018). Obstacles to personal creativity among Arab women from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications, 5(1), 41-54. DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2018-0003 Abo Hamza, E., Mohamed, E., & Elsantil, Y. (2020). A systemic review-based study of gifted and talented. Journal of Talent Development and Excellence , 12(2), 2888-2897. Agnoli, S., Vanucci, M., Pelagatti, C., & Corazza, G. E. (2018). Exploring the link between mind wandering, mindfulness, and creativity: A multidimensional approach. Creativity Research Journal, 30 (1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1411423 Ai, X. (1999). Creativity and academic achievement: An investigation of gender differences. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1204_11 Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational Synergy: Toward New Conceptualizations of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in the Workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3, 185-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(93)90012-S Amabile, T. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial creativity through motivational synergy. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1997.tb00778.x Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and Creativity at Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (3), 367-403. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367 Ambrosio, A. L. (1994). Social problem finding: A cognitive-developmental perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences , 54(10-A), 3700. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40 (5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128 Arlin, P. K. (1977). Piagetian operations in problem finding. Developmental Psychology, 13(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.13.3.297 Arreola, N. J. (2012). The influence of personality on problem construction and creative problem solving . University of Nebraska at Omaha. Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Personality and creativity: The Dual Pathway to Creativity model and a research agenda. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(10), 732–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12062 Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2011). Gender differences in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23 (2), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01289.x Barber, L. J. (1981). Children’s problem finding and creative responses in and between reading and art (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia). Baron, F., & Harrington, M. (1981). Creativity, Intelligence and Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32 (439-476). doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255 Barron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 478–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048073 Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2009). Enhancing group creativity: The search for synergy. In Creativity in groups . Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Baruah, J., & Paulus, P.B. (2018). Collaborative Creativity and Innovation in Education. Creativity Under Duress in Education? . (155-177). Springer, Cham. Basadur, M. (1994). Managing the creative process in organizations. In M. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving and creativity. Creativity research (237-268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp. Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Creativity in classrooms. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 587–606). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839.029 Beghetto, R.A. (2021). Creative Learning in Education. The Palgrave Handbook of Positive Education. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787 Chamoro-Pemuzic, T. (2015). Why group brainstorming is a waste of Time . Harvard Business Review March 2015. Retrieved on Feb 2024 from https://hbr.org/2015/03/why-group-brainstorming-is-a-waste-of-time Chan, A. W., & Cheung, H. Y. (2016). Extraversion, individualism and M&A activities. International Business Review , 25 (1), 356-369. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.05.011 Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodied cognition and the problem of meaning in the natural world. Oxford University Press. Collard, P. (2015). Skills for the creative industries: Report of the UNESCO-UNEVOC virtual conference, 29 September to 10 October 2014. UNESCO International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training. Arthur J. Cropley (1990). Creativity and mental health in everyday life. Creativity Research Journal, 3:3, 167-178, DOI: 10.1080/10400419009534351 Cropper, D. A., Meck, D. S., & Ash, M. J. (1977). The relation between formal operations and a possible fifth stage of cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 13 (5), 517–518. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.13.5.517 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial. Derry, S. J., Schunn, C. D., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.). (2014). Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science . Psychology Press. Deuja, A., Kohn, N. W., Paulus, P. B., & Korde, R. M. (2014). Taking a broad perspective before brainstorming. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18 (3), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000008 Dewett, T. (2004). Employee creativity and the role of risk. European journal of innovation management . 7, (4), 257-266. DOI:10.1108/14601060410565010 Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of Aesthetics. Creativity, and the Arts, 9 (1), 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038688 Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of personality and social psychology , 53 (3), 497. Dillon, J. T. (1988). Levels of problem finding vs. problem solving . Questioning Exchange, 2(2), 105-115. Dutton, Jane E. (1993). The Making of Organizational Opportunity: An Interpretive Pathway to Organizational Change. In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (vol. 15) (pp. 195–226.). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Edwards, M.R., & Sproull, J.R. (1984). Creativity: Productivity gold mine? The Journal of Creative Behavior , 185, 175-184. Elsantil, Y. (2021). Antecedents of Green Purchasing Behavior in the Arabic Gulf. Social Marketing Quarterly, 27 (2), 133–149. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/15245004211013467. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and social psychology review , 2 (4), 290-309. Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. Journal of Research in Personality, 37 (6), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00026-6 Framework for 21st Century Learning. (2015). Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21). https://thejournal.com/articles/2015/09/02/p21-research-series-offers-advice-on-21st-century-4cs.aspx. Accessed February 5, 2024. Getzels, J. W. (1982). The problem of the problem. New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Question framing and response consistency , 11 , 37-49. Getzels, J. W. (1985). Problem Finding and the Enhancement of Creativity. NASSP Bulletin, 69(482), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658506948208 Griffin, M. (2021). About the Show | Jeopardy.com. Retrieved 20 May 2021, from https://www.jeopardy.com/about Guastello, S. J. (2009). Creativity and personality. In T. Rickards, M. A. Runco & S. Moger (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Creativity (267–278). New York, NY: Routledge/ Taylor & Francis Group. Guilford, J. P. (1957). Creative abilities in the arts. Psychological review , 64(2), 110.‏ Hardy, J. H., & Gibson, C. (2015). Gender differences in the measurement of creative problem-solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(2), 153-162. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.92 Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management science , 40 (1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.1.4 Hornberg, J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2017). Creativity and the Big Five Personality Traits: Is the Relationship Dependent on the Creativity Measure? In G. J. Feist, R. Reiter-Palmon, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity and Personality Research (pp. 275–293), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design studies , 29 (2), 160-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001 Ibn Nasser, Farhan. (2015). The Relationship Between Thinking Styles and Problem-Solving Ability Among a Sample of Second-Year High School Students. [Unpublished master's thesis]. Kasdi Merbah University. Kapoor, H. (2019). Sex differences and similarities in negative creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 238-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.043 Kaufman J. (2018). Creativity as a Stepping Stone toward a Brighter Future. Journal of Intelligence, 6(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6020021 Kay, S. (1991). The figural problem solving and problem finding of professional and semi- professional artists and nonartists. Creativity Research Journal, 4 (3), 233-252. Kim, K. (2009). Problem finding. Encyclopedia Of Giftedness, Creativity, And Talent, 47 (04), 188-190. doi: 10.5860/choice.47-1781 Kotrlik, J. W. K. J. W., & Higgins, C. C. H. C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. Information technology, learning, and performance journal , 19 (1), 43. Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R., & Runco, M. (2010). Theories of Creativity. In J. Kaufman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology , pp. 20-47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511763205.004 Land, G. T. A., & Jarman, B. (1992). Breakpoint and beyond: Mastering the future--today. Harper Business. Le, T. N. (2005). Narcissism and immature love as mediators of vertical individualism and ludic love style. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(4), 543-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505054522 Li, L. N., Huang, J. H., & Gao, S. Y. (2022). The relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intention among college students: The mediating role of creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 822206. Locke, E.A., Tirnauer, D., Roberson, Q., Goldman, B., Latham, M.E., & Weldon, E. (2001). The importance of the individual in an age of groupism. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research (501-528). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Long, C. R., Seburn, M., Averill, J. R., & More, T. A. (2003). Solitude experiences: Varieties, settings, and individual differences . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 578–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005003 Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success? Psychological Bulletin, 131 (6), 803–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success? Psychological Bulletin, 131 (6), 803–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (5), 568–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205013 Meijer, A. J. (2014). From Hero-Innovators to Distributed Heroism: An in-depth analysis of the role of individuals in public sector innovation. Public Management Review , 16 (2), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806575 Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. A. (1976). Group versus individual administration in the measurement of creative thinking in gifted and nongifted children. Child Development, 47 (2), 563–565. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128823 Moll, L. C. (1990). Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorial Psychology . New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173674. Mraz, W., & Runco, M.A. (1994). Suicide ideation and creative problem solving. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 24 , 38-47. Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Mindfulness and mind-wandering: Finding convergence through opposing constructs. Emotion, 12 , 442–448. doi:10.1037/a0026678 Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1 Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (3), 186–213. Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00040-4 Ochse, R., & Ochse, S. (1990). An introspective look at giftedness: An exploration into the unique needs of gifted children . Reclam USA. Ogihara, Y., & Uchida, Y. (2014). Does individualism bring happiness? Negative effects of individualism on interpersonal relationships and happiness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 , 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00135 Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological bulletin, 134(2), 311–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311 PACI. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.paci.gov.kw/Default.aspx Paulus, P. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea‐generating groups. Applied psychology, 49 (2), 237-262.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00013 Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1 (1), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2004). Learning domains and the process of creativity. The Australian Educational Researcher , 31 (2), 45-62.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03249519 Reiter-Palmon, R. (Ed.). (2018). Team Creativity and Innovation . New York: Oxford University Press. Richards, R. (1990). Everyday creativity, eminent creativity, and health: "Afterview" for CRJ issues on creativity and health. Creativity Research Journal, 3 (4), 300–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419009534363 Rinne, T., Steel, G. D., & Fairweather, J. (2013). The Role of Hofstede's Individualism in National-Level Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.752293 Runco, M. A. (2007). A hierarchical framework for the study of creativity. New Horizons in Education , 55(3). Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Greenwood Publishing Group Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092 Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. (1988). Problem discovery, divergent thinking, and the creative process. Journal of youth and adolescence, 17 (3), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01538162 Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. (1990). Evaluating the creativity of children's ideas. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 5(5), 439-452. Acar, S., Runco, M. A., & Park, H. (2020). What should people be told when they take a divergent thinking test? A meta-analytic review of explicit instructions for divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14 (1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000256 Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.61 Sawyer, K. (2017). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration . New York, NY: Basic Books Schilling, Melissa A. (2017). S erial Breakthrough Innovation: The Roles of Separateness, Self-Efficacy, and Idealism (December 17, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3190195 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3190195 Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The Geographic Distribution of Big Five Personality Traits: Patterns and Profiles of Human Self-Description Across 56 Nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38 (2), 173-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297299 Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Stark, E. M. (2000). Interdependence and preference for group work: Main and congruence effects on the satisfaction and performance of group members . Journal of Management, 26 (2), 259-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600205 Sheridan, H., & Reingold, E. M. (2014). Expert vs. novice differences in the detection of relevant information during a chess game: evidence from eye movements. Frontiers in psychology, 5 , 941. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00941 Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science . Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as Blind Variation and Selective Retention: Is the Creative Process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10(4), 309–328. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449455 Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist . Cambridge University Press. Sosa, G. (2011). Complexity and knowledge dynamics: Implications for R&D management. Oxford University Press. Spence, J. T. (1985). Achievement American style: The rewards and costs of in- dividualism. American Psychologist, 40 (12), 1285–1295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.40.12.1285 Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Creating a vision of creativity: The first 25 years . Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, S (1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.S.1.2 Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human development , Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly , 12(4), 195-199. doi:10.1177/001698626801200401 Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 12 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862680120040 Treadway, M. T., & Lazarov, A. (2019). Solitude and mental health: Can silence be golden? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14 (6), 659-667. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism . Boulder, CO:Westview. Unsworth, N., & Gaspelin, N. (2009). Distractibility in everyday life: Everyday cognitive failures and their consequences . Psychology Press. Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism–collectivism: Concept and measure. Group & Organization Studies, 11 (3), 280–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960118601100309 Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.2307/256731 Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Williams, J., Pollard, E., Cook, J., Byford, M. (2022) Enhancing Creative Education. Multiple: Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre and the Institute for Employment Studies. Available from: https://www.pec.ac.uk/research-reports/enhancing-creative-education van Woerkum, C. M. J., Aarts, M. N. C., & de Grip, K. (2007). Creativity, planning and organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(6), 847-865. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810710831055 Zhou, C., & Luo, L. (2012). Group creativity in learning context: Understanding in a social-cultural framework and methodology. Creative Education, 3 (04), 392. DOI: 10.4236/ce.2012.34062 Tables Tables 1 to 4 are available in the Supplementary Files section Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Tables.docx 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-5237017","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":382139390,"identity":"4ee0fbd8-6066-4d14-ba80-fe2215a4b1f8","order_by":0,"name":"Motlaq Abuhadeeda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kuwait Ministry of Education (MOE)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Motlaq","middleName":"","lastName":"Abuhadeeda","suffix":""},{"id":382139391,"identity":"6916b101-8af4-4867-ad73-d53986fd314e","order_by":1,"name":"Amthal Alaifan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kuwait Ministry of Education (MOE)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amthal","middleName":"","lastName":"Alaifan","suffix":""},{"id":382139393,"identity":"68291a74-da11-4257-bf56-e55c9ba80685","order_by":2,"name":"Eid Abo Hamza","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Al Ain University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eid","middleName":"Abo","lastName":"Hamza","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-10-10 06:38:29","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5237017/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5237017/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":72132387,"identity":"5ccf4bb6-c502-461a-b9e6-f85f7c8841fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-23 04:31:58","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":211237,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figures.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5237017/v1/23fe16b8dfe30beee1125880.png"},{"id":79459310,"identity":"a2eb84f2-975c-40aa-96b3-10a56312971c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-28 16:46:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":879451,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5237017/v1/da3af8d4-d701-4e3d-b74a-b83ab91a310a.pdf"},{"id":72132386,"identity":"1bb057d9-1393-4676-8f2e-623d3226dbe6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-23 04:31:58","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":20930,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5237017/v1/7dcdcbb980d4f974b8c694e1.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Gender and Group Preference Differentiation: Impacts on Problem Finding and Solving","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCreativity is a component of the twenty-first-century skills that students must learn, which also includes critical thinking, communication, and collaboration (Framework for 21st Century Learning, 2015). In this study, we considered the individual - the collective as individual or collective creativity, as the process of revealing creativity was carried out on all students in the Sabah Al-Ahmad Center for Giftedness and Creativity, so when we say collective, it means a group of creative students who preferred teamwork. Yesterday’s creativity is not today’s creativity through the attention it received on the level of many fields. There were many approaches that dealt with creativity, each according to the culture or environment that consider creativity, and this is a sufficient reason for researchers and scholars to disagree on a comprehensive definition of creativity. in the early1960's the conceptual (4P's) model of creativity was proposed and developed “creative person\", \"creative process\", \"creative product\", \"creative press (environment). Nevertheless, these four aspects of creativity are particularly significant as the primary characteristic of this phenomenon. Diedrich, et al. (2015) mentioned that creative result is perceptible and may be assessed by a suitable cohort of colleagues, peers, judges, or specialists. When considering creativity from a \"personality\" standpoint, it can be described as the capacity to generate novel and suitable (useful, applicable) output or products. When considering creativity as a 'creative process', the associated definitions also include a reference to a final output. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearchers have widely agreed that creativity is defined as the generation of novel and valuable concepts or solutions that are both original and beneficial (Sternberg \u0026amp; Lubart, 1991; Dewett, 2004; Amabile et al., 2005; van Woerkum et al., 2007). For instance, Ai (1999) examined the relation between creativity and academic achievement among Spanish secondary students and found that creativity, when operationalized by teachers' ratings, was related to academic achievement for both males and females.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndividuals possessing extraordinary intellectual or creative capacities frequently flourish when given devoted times of concentrated seclusion. In these circumstances, undisturbed focus enables their thoughts to flow effortlessly and evolve naturally. Nevertheless, social disturbances have the potential to break this fragile continuity, hence posing difficulties in re-establishing the complex cognitive patterns (Clark, 2008; Unsworth \u0026amp; Gaspelin, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe necessity for seclusion is substantiated by the research conducted by Treadway (2019). A study conducted in 2019 by Treadway and his colleagues discovered that periods of being alone stimulate the default mode network in the brain. This network plays a crucial role in introspection, creativity, and creative problem-solving (Treadway \u0026amp; Lazarov, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, a total cessation of social connection may not be optimal. According to psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky's research, there is evidence to imply that having strong social connections has a good effect on both creativity and general well-being (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). This underscores the significance of achieving equilibrium between concentrated seclusion and purposeful social engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the notion that total seclusion promotes profound understanding may be antiquated. Contemporary study highlights the significance of collaboration and varied viewpoints in stimulating invention (Burt, 2022; Sosa, 2011). Although periods of concentrated isolation are still crucial, creative persons may also get advantages from interacting with specialists from many domains and cultivating collaborative problem-solving.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHence, the most effective method may not include full isolation, but rather a deliberate and purposeful withdrawal from others, allowing individuals to dedicate time to certain tasks while still fostering significant social bonds and capitalising on collaboration prospects to get varied viewpoints. This equilibrium can cultivate profound self-reflection and the abundance of collective concepts, perhaps resulting in even more significant innovative advancements.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe traditional framework of creativity has experienced various significant expansions. In 1999, Simonton presented the concept of 'Persuasion' as a crucial element, enhancing the conventional comprehension of creativity. In 2007, Runco advocated a major reorganisation of the current paradigm, advocating for a hierarchical structure that includes 'Potential' as a crucial component. In addition, Reid and Petocz (2004) emphasised the many interpretations of creativity in different disciplines. According to their perspective, creativity is expressed as 'innovation' in education, 'entrepreneurship' in business, 'problem-solving' in mathematics, and 'performance or composition' in music. The inclusion of 'Persuasion' by Simonton has expanded our understanding of creativity's diverse functions, highlighting its importance in leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this research individual creativity and collective creativity will be defined in general without mentioning in any field or any specialty. One of the first scientists who was interested in creativity was Barron (1955), who stated that creativity is required by two criteria; The first criteria is originality and the second that this thinking must be adapted to some extent from reality, and the intention of this requirement is to exclude random thoughts that are unfamiliar or stem from ignorance or delusion (Runco, \u0026amp; Jaeger 2012). Runco mentioned creativity as a complex compound or as a syndrome (Abdulla \u0026amp; Cramond, 2017; Ayoub et al., 2022). However, there is no complete agreement on what creativity is. Researchers widely concur that creativity is defined as the generation of novel and valuable concepts or solutions that are both original and beneficial (Sternberg \u0026amp; Lubart, 1991; Dewett, 2004; Amabile et al., 2005; van Woerkum et al., 2007). According to the Public Authority for Civil Information (PACI, 2018), the population of the State of Kuwait shows that females make up 51% of the country's population, while males make up 49%. This statistic highlights the importance of considering gender differences in scientific research. This study aimed to investigate the following questions:What are the differences in the profiles of problem-finding, problem-solving, and individual-collective creativity among gifted students? Is there a correlation between the type of creativity (individual or group), problem-finding, and problem-solving? What are the direct effects of problem-finding and problem-solving on individual and group creativity?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy addressing these questions, this study contributes to a better understanding of gender differences in scientific research among gifted students in Kuwait. This knowledge can inform educational practices and policies to ensure that all gifted students have the opportunity to thrive in science. Multiple studies have established a clear correlation between specific personality traits and creativity (Li et al., 2022; Elsantil, 2021; Hornberg, \u0026amp; Reiter-Palmon, 2017). These attributes include the inclination to overcome challenges, embrace risk-taking, and exhibit tolerance towards ambiguity (Sternberg, 2006). At a more specific level, the observations of individuals deemed creative are marked by traits such as shyness, dominance, seriousness, and a lack of interest or disregard for rules, as well as sensitivity and independence (Guastello 2009; Runco, 2007). Creative individuals exhibit a range of personality traits, including curiosity, openness, high energy, confidence, unreliability, rebelliousness, and a propensity to fully engage in projects they are passionate about, often at the expense of other commitments (Feist, 1998). However, individual creativity, often known as individualism, refers to a cultural mindset that recognises the self as distinct and apart from the surrounding social context. It places importance on self-sufficiency and personal success. (Hofstede, 1994; Chan \u0026amp; Cheung, 2016; Rinne et al., 2013), when talking about individual creativity or Collective, it means the individual who is within the group, but how can a coherent and interconnected group be created, from here the individual creativity and collective creativity are addressed, and the differentiation between them, as many important creative contributions included high isolation, in some artistic fields, most contributions depend on efforts individual. The areas in which individual efforts dominate are usually those in which a person possesses the required skills and thinks they do not need the group, a clear creative focus, and a powerful drive to contribute creatively. Individuals in these areas often seek solitude to achieve their goals with long periods of solitary time, allowing them to build on the uninterrupted flow of their thoughts (Ochse, 1990; Simonton, 2004;\u0026nbsp;Baer \u0026amp; Kaufman, 2011).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence suggests that a liking for being alone is linked to emotional creativity (Long et al., 2003). However, negative emotions arising from feelings of loneliness during periods of isolation can also enhance creativity by promoting perseverance in finding innovative solutions (Baas et al., 2013). Einstein, Edison, Currie, and Jobs are notable individuals known to have a degree of solitude and a strong preference for solitary times of thought (Schilling et al., 2017). Teachers should take into account the importance of individual and self-directed learning. They should provide opportunities for students to work independently and encourage them to persist in their efforts. This is crucial in order to prevent boredom, which can lead to frustration or failure. Research has shown that adolescents who are unable to tolerate solitude may have their creative talents hindered (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Research has shown that highly creative persons possess characteristics such as the ability to make independent judgements, a sense of autonomy, and self-confidence. These traits enable them to separate themselves from their social and professional circles in order to propose innovative ideas that may not be immediately embraced by others (Baron \u0026amp; Harrington, 1981). Due to the tendency for innovative ideas to be distorted, individuals often hesitate to share them out of concern for obtaining unfavourable assessments from fellow group members.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Gifted individuals, who exhibit unique creativity, typically share certain traits including diverse interests, cognitive agility, adaptability, and autonomy (Simonton, 1988). However, in many instances, one of the primary reasons contributing to their success is diligent effort (Simonton, 2004). \u0026nbsp;Individualism and the drive for achievement are positively correlated, while collectivists prioritise cooperation, participation, and communal aims over personal ones (Spence, 1985). Individualism is linked to values such as autonomy and the pursuit of personal gratification, whereas collectivism is linked to ideals of conformity and safety (Triandis, 1995). Ogihara and Uchida (2014) found that there is a negative correlation between individuality and the number of close friends. Lei (2005) discovered a strong correlation between a rise in individualism and a rise in selfishness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen examining creativity at both the individual and social levels, it becomes evident that idea generation, which mainly relies on brainstorming, is the most commonly employed and potentially valuable strategy for producing creative ideas. Extensive study on brainstorming has consistently shown that group brainstorming tends to result in lower performance compared to individual brainstorming, This effect is further amplified in large teams, under close supervision, and when focusing on oral rather than written ideas (Mullen et al., 1991; Diehl \u0026amp; Stroebe, 1987). Brainstorming ineffectiveness is attributed to social loafing (reduced individual effort in teams), social anxiety (fear of judgment), regression to the mean (talented members performing at lower levels to match less skilled peers), and production blocking (limited idea expression in larger groups due to communication constraints). These dynamics collectively hinder optimal group performance (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2015). According to Agnoli et al. (2018), two cognitive processes that seem to play a significant role in individual creativity are mind wandering and mindfulness. Mindfulness entails a heightened concentration on tasks and the minimization of distractions, which has been demonstrated to be crucial for the efficient execution of various tasks. Conversely, mind wandering refers to the diversion of an individual's attention from the present situation to an unrelated one. Adverse outcomes can also arise from social circumstances. Exposure to the ideas of others prior to engaging in one's own cognitive explorations can limit one's creativity (Mrazek et al., 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEast Asian peoples (collective cultures) describe themselves as being less open to experiences, a personality trait closely related to creativity in multiple areas (Schmitt et al., 2007). Orienting people empirically toward individualism or collectivism (Oyserman \u0026amp; Lee, 2008). The orientation of individuals towards the group can also impact the creativity of individuals working on a group job. Within distinct cultural contexts, individuals are perceived as autonomous entities, each exhibiting a distinct configuration of characteristics that sets them apart from others (Markus \u0026amp; Kitayama, 1994). Foster et al. (2003) discovered that individuals in individualistic societies exhibit greater levels of selfishness compared to those in more collectivist societies. Collectivism emphasises interdependence, cooperation, and harmony within the collective, and is inversely correlated with selfishness (Le, 2005). Individuals may be motivated to resist societal influence when it contradicts their personal values and preferences. Consequently, individuals in individualistic societies are likely to exhibit consistency in their opinions and uphold them despite opposition. On the other hand, individuals in collectivist societies may perceive a lack of flexibility or generosity towards others as impolite and thoughtless (Schmitt et al., 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHumans are social by nature and don’t prefer to live in social isolation without interacting and communicating with others. Rather, their existence is linked to others, and therefore the difficulties that an individual may face require the participation of group members, whether within the family or society.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo bring about the required change in the attitudes that stand in the way of the individual in achieving his goals, each deal with the situation according to his preference for work and problem solving, whether individually or collectively, hence the talk about the preferences of creative people at work as learning programs focus on the individual learner, but in fact, individuals are part of a group. So the focus may shift from the individual learner to collective learning in the team, the organization, and the broader environment (Meijer, 2014), and decisions should include these levels when developing curricula and learning programs. Orientation towards team creativity. As many of the modern innovations have yielded their efforts from teamwork and work with peers or group, and that working with them has benefits, and one of the most supportive scholars for peer work with some of them was Vygotsky, his focus was the social nature of learning and development, and he considered that the ability to teach others and learn from Others is a characteristic of humans (Moll, 1990). Biographical translators and some scholars and researchers have always demonstrated the importance of individual genius and the importance of the group was often overlooked or neglected. Several variables impact the creative output of individuals within a group. The literature review on collective creativity has identified three primary domains of psychology research: the examination of collective creativity within specific contexts; the exploration of creative synergy at the group level; and the investigation of strategies for fostering group creativity (Zhou \u0026amp; Luo, 2012). Enhancing team or group creativity can be achieved by the implementation of demanding objectives, planned and purposeful group interactions, a level of autonomy within the group, and the provision of supportive settings. However, on occasion, groups may not reach their full potential due to certain members exhibiting laziness (group loafing), prematurely evaluating ideas, exerting excessive control over the group process, or diverting attention away from the primary objectives (Paulus, 2000).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough collective creativity remained for a long time rejected and unknown because of the individual concepts that exist in a capitalist society, and according to these concepts, creativity was seen as being in its essence the production of individuals and not the group, but at the end of the last century Gustave Le Bon published his book “The \u0026nbsp;Crowd “In which he isolates the mentality of the individual from the mentality of the group, and he believes that the group thwarts the distinct individual abilities, yet the concept of “unique creativity” is accepted by many researchers. Creativity is the product of an individual spirit, as well as the discoveries and innovations made in the past and the present also, have been associated with the name of a person or one individual” (Abdul Hamid, 2015, p. 49) With collectivism in creativity, we mean collective creativity. Despite the potential instability and disruptive nature of groups, numerous creative endeavours take place inside a collective setting. There is a significant body of literature that highlights the crucial significance of team innovation in organisations (Reiter-Palmon, 2018). Additionally, there is an increasing emphasis on utilising multidisciplinary teams to address challenges or achieve novel findings. Intercession by individuals possessing diverse expertise or information. Both in academic and work settings, there has been a strong emphasis on the necessity of multidisciplinary teams (Derry et al., 2014). The varied abilities and expertise that team members possess might enhance one another in attaining particular objectives (Saavedra et al., 1993). The interaction among team members can stimulate cognitive processes, enabling groups to discover innovative ideas that might not arise otherwise (Baruah \u0026amp; Paulus, 2009). Due to the increasing demand for collaboration and teamwork in various industries, most US organisations prioritise collaboration, teamwork, and team-based innovation to effectively accomplish organisational goals and activities (Anderson et al., 2014; Sawyer, 2017). The study included a total of 131 individuals, consisting of 89 females and 42 males. The study recruited adult participants through online advertising. The Wallach and Kogan test was employed, specifically utilising the instances test. The study revealed that age, rather than gender, may accurately forecast the creative process in many measures of cognitive thinking. Implicit beliefs regarding the changeable characteristics and abilities of humans appear to be influenced by task performance. More precisely, individuals who hold the belief that creative abilities are permanent and cannot be altered tend to achieve worse scores on various thinking tests. This is particularly evident in adults with divergent thinking, where a larger belief in the fixed nature of creativity is associated with poorer performance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome findings, as noted by Land \u0026amp; Jarman (1993), suggest a slump in creativity with development throughout childhood. Remarkably, 98% of 5-year-old minors score in the creative range, yet only 30% maintain this level after five years, with a mere 2% being deemed as maturely creative. This decline underscores the precarious nature of creative development, which, according to some researchers, occurs in a discontinuous manner across different stages. Kapoor (2019) emphasizes the need to nurture creativity due to distinct, negative gender-based patterns. Highlighting the importance of steering creativity constructively, these findings stress the need to consider the nuanced differences in creative expression between genders. Building on this understanding, Kaufman (2018) believes that if creativity is not fostered in schools, it will become significantly less prevalent as individuals age. Further supporting this viewpoint, Beghetto's (2019) call for cultivating creative competence in education aligns with recent scholarship, which emphasizes creative learning as a dynamic process of individual and collective endeavors encompassing classrooms and broader contexts (e.g., Beghetto, 2019; Williams et al., 2022). This holistic approach, integrating student, teacher, and curricular interactions, reflects a broader commitment to fostering innovation and resilience in students, aligning with the global recognition of essential creative skills across industries (Collard, 2015). Notably, Williams et al. (2022) highlight the need for tailored policies and practices within educational frameworks to nurture creativity effectively, preparing students for future challenges and opportunities. These evolving educational strategies reinforce the pivotal role of developing creative competencies for future-ready individuals (Beghetto, 2021).This shift towards nurturing creative competencies necessitates a fundamental transition from the conventional individualistic mindset prevalent in work environments to a more collective approach that prioritizes the group's interests over individual needs (Locke et al., 2001). It's a delicate balance to maintain, as research by Wagner (1995) has shown that group values decrease social self-indulgence and promote collaboration. However, there are potential drawbacks to this shift towards collectivism. While group values can enhance feelings of unity and collaboration, they may also stifle creativity.Therefore, the challenge lies in fostering an educational environment that encourages individual creative endeavors while simultaneously promoting a collective ethos that enhances collaboration and group learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsidering the delicate balance between individual creativity and collaboration, understanding the mechanisms of idea generation becomes crucial. Within this context, brainstorming emerges as a central technique, widely recognized as a valuable method for fostering creative thought. This process, emphasizing both individual contributions and collective synthesis, aligns with the pursuit of nurturing creative competencies in a way that harmonizes individual potential with group dynamics. Additionally, the interaction among team members can epistemologically foster motivation, enabling groups to develop innovative solutions that would not have emerged otherwise (Baruah \u0026amp; Paulus, 2009). This aligns with a recent creativity theory that draws heavily from economics. Economic theories provide testable hypotheses regarding creative endeavours, suggesting that individuals with extensive expertise are less inclined to consider alternative viewpoints that challenge their own, compared to those who have invested less in their career or a specific theory or method (Kozbelt et al., 2010). This is in contrast to systems theory. It should be noted that creativity is a social construct that arises from the convergence of three distinct sources: (Domain); (Individuals) are the catalysts for introducing novel developments in the field. A panel of specialists then evaluates and either approves or dismisses these advancements in (field) (Csikszentmihalyi, 2015). The process of creativity involves multiple steps in order to provide a concrete or intangible outcome, such as problem-solving. This phase is referred to as the creative process stage, which necessitates brainstorming to generate innovative ideas. A significant portion of the literature on brainstorming research indicates that group brainstorming tends to have lower performance compared to individual brainstorming (Diehl \u0026amp; Stroebe, 1987). This demonstrates that when individuals work in groups, they produce a lower quantity of ideas compared to when they work alone. Conceptually, a collective group is expected to exhibit superior performance compared to an equivalent number of individuals operating alone. The varied abilities and experiences that team members possess can synergistically enhance the attainment of specified objectives. The reference is from Saavedra et al. in 1993.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVarious models of collective creativity propose that the act of sharing and expanding upon the ideas of others within a social context should lead to cognitive stimulation (Nijstad \u0026amp; Stroebe, 2006). The Cognitive-Motivational Social Model of Group Creativity proposed by Paulus \u0026amp; Brown (2007) posits that group creativity is the result of a combination of cognitive processing, where members actively participate in the exploration of ideas, and social exchange. Group members depend on one another's ideas to produce more and superior ideas. The Nijstad \u0026amp; Stroebe model (2006) explores the retrieval of ideas from associative memory (SIAM) by emphasising the activation of ideas through cue-based search. It suggests that cues in memory might prompt the generation of additional ideas by recalling the thoughts of individuals who were there. Nevertheless, SIAM also states that in a collective setting when individuals are taking turns to talk or answer, there are delays between the development of ideas and their expression, which might result in forgetting (Nijstad et al., 2003).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEngaging in the act of sharing with others can prove advantageous in various aspects, as it allows for the incorporation of external ideas that can enhance the scope and complexity of one's thoughts regarding a certain matter or subject (Deuja et al., 2014). \u0026nbsp;Group creativity fosters the generation of a greater quantity and quality of ideas, and performance is typically assessed through participatory exchange using the brainstorming method. While verbal brainstorming is the conventional approach, other methods have been devised and discussed in (Baruah \u0026amp; Paulus, 2019) such as brainstorming, brain sketching and its variations, electronic Brainstorming, asynchronous Brainstorming, and hybrid brainstorming.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen mentioning creativity either in groups or individuals the first unofficial step toward creativity is the problem finding, It should be clarified that problem-finding differs from problem-solving, perhaps that problem-discovery represents a set of related skills (e.g., but not limited to, problem identification, problem definition, problem articulation, problem construction, problem generation Problem posing, and problem discovery), each of which seems to be influenced by cognitive and non-cognitive factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most important thing in great discoveries is to find a particular question. The concept of asking a fruitful question is often more important and often more achievable than the solution (Getzels, 1985). Problem discovery is an initial stage that is not included in Wallace’s problem-solving model, which is the first complete model for the creative process stages, and can be seen in other models for solving the problem (Howard et al., 2008). The first stage of the creative process is problem identification, which aims to understand the problem or opportunity at hand (Amabile, 1997). The problem can also be discovered by reframing an existing situation, and reframing has the potential to turn difficult problems into exciting opportunities (Dutton, 1993). This confirms the importance of developing or asking appropriate questions. An example of this is Jeopardy, an American television program that was established in (1964) and is shown to this day. The show is characterized by the presentation of quizzes in which general knowledge evidence is presented for the contestants as answers; they have to put the appropriate question (Griffin, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRunco (1994 ) stated that the stage of preparation parallels what is now called problem creation and formal and informal theoretical studies have recognized for years that something happens before the problem is solved. Einstein stated that the formulation of the problem is often more important than its solution (Getzels, 1982), Ochse explained that the discovery of the problem was defined in terms of the discovery of some gaps or inconsistencies in current knowledge enabling patterns, arrangement, and structures based on current knowledge in individuals to build mental models for reality (Kim, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe topic of problem Finding has not received as much attention as problem-solving (or the creative process), This is reminiscent of Guilford's 1950 address, in which he highlighted the low proportion of studies related to creativity compared to studies in various other fields. Moreover, investigating problem-finding in relation to other creativity topics and within the context of Arabic studies is crucial to develop a more coherent and cohesive understanding of the field.. Abdulla et al. (2020) studied a meta-analysis, and the researchers found that studies of problem-solving and divergent thinking were studied more than problem-finding by six to 100, and with this big difference in the studies, there is a lack of interest in the theoretical aspect of this situation can be explained by many names for finding the problem, which led to the difficulty of showing it in the research's title when searching for studies related to finding the problem.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere exist numerous definitions of problem-finding, reflecting the abundance of scholars and individuals deeply interested in this field. Arlin (1975, 1977) characterised the problem as being expressed through the inquiries that individuals make and emphasised that it is a crucial process that connects processes to the generation of creative solutions, which involves both problem-solving and formulation. Some individuals characterised the process of identifying the problem as a divergent one, involving the generation of creative ideas and the capacity to articulate the problem (Cropper et al., 1977). Finding the problem must mean conceiving, defining, or formulating a problem to be solved (Barber, 1981). Dillon (1988) mentioned that problem finding is a process that occurs in a problem that must be solved and problems can be conceivable at different levels of completeness and each level entails a different activity to find the problem. In the late 80s and early 90s, some new terms appeared to describe problem-finding, including Ranko and Akuda, who stated that problem-finding is an important component of the creative process because it occurs first and the quality of the problem may partly determine the quality of the solutions (Runco \u0026amp; Okuda, 1988) He also added that problem-finding requires that individuals identify and defines worthwhile tasks (Runco \u0026amp; Vega, 1990). Problem building refers to constructing or understanding an undefined or ambiguous problem (Arreola, 2012). Problem-finding is recognizing or discovering the discrepancy between the expected or desired outcome and the current outcome (Ambrosio, 1994). Problem discovery is a process in which an individual find, defines, or discovers an idea or problem not previously defined by a situation or task (Kay, 1991).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCognitive theories of creativity mostly centre around the problem-solving process. Divergent thinking, as defined by Guilford (1957), is the practice of thinking in order to solve creative problems and serves as a strong sign of creativity. The existing theoretical literature on problem identification is limited and sparse. Problem discovery and problem solution are interconnected, with problem identification being the initial stage in the problem-solving process. The identification of innovative challenges and the process of finding solutions to those challenges are inherently interconnected. Problem-discovery involves the capacity to envision and explore evident contradictions and produce novel theories on existing difficulties, or invent completely new questions or problems (Runco, 1994). Problem-solving is the act of discovering a resolution to a particular issue, as defined by Kay (1991). Some scholars consider creative thinking and problem-solving to be closely related, if not indistinguishable, processes. This is because both result in practical solutions to either familiar or novel problems, as noted by Edwards and Sproull (1984). Creative problem solving frequently entails cognitive processes such as preparation, concentration, contemplation, insight, and confirmation (Abo Hamza et al.,2020). Positive mental health can be associated with problem-solving capabilities. Nevertheless, those with a high level of problem identification but limited problem-solving skills experience more significant interpersonal challenges (Cropley, 1990; Mraz \u0026amp; Runco, 1994; Richards, 1990).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are many questions that a person can think of when it comes to solving creative problems, including whether the problem-solving processes of the expert person and the novice person differ. According to Sheridan, and Reingold (2014) the process of solving problems in chess varies in both quantity and quality between expert and novice players. The efficiency of the task is determined by variables that measure the speed (latency) and accuracy of performance. Variations exist in the nature or calibre of the methodologies employed in problem-solving.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVarious methodologies or tactics may be required to resolve distinct categories of issues in diverse domains (e.g., visual arts, music, academic pursuits, or the natural world), and these tactics may not be universally applicable across different scenarios (Runco, 1994). Students may employ distinct approaches when tackling difficulties that they have discovered as opposed to problems that have been given to them. Additionally, they are likely to possess familiarity with various problem types, such as those that are ambiguous or well defined, or those that are communicated through words or visuals (Runco, 1994; Wallach \u0026amp; Kogan, 1965). Basadur (1991) argues that creativity is contingent upon the act of problem-solving, and that creative endeavours only come to fruition after action is taken. Furthermore, Basadur suggests that the problem to be solved should be deliberately formulated in order to stimulate creativity. In his book \"Creativity: The Magic Formula,\" Arieti discussed the categorization of models of creative processes that occurred between 1908 and 1964. These models are a representation of theories on creativity, explaining how creative thinking occurs and how creative ideas emerge over time. Nevertheless, according to Torrance (1968), Wallace's model serves as the foundation for the majority of creative thinking training programmes. The incorporation of incubation and subsequent enlightenment in this widely accepted model may account for the perception of creative thinking as an unconscious cognitive process that cannot be consciously controlled.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis gives the recent study more importance in exposing the creativity preferences related to problem-finding and problem-solving among different gender students as this can help one to know the creative potential the students got and helps us shifting it from potential to production. Also, it provides significant space for more studies about the culture-gender difference among younger students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eA descriptive survey research design was employed to gather the data and to answer the posed questions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research sample consisted of (98) male and female students from the secondary stage enrolled in the gifted program at the Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah Center for Giftedness and Creativity. The sample was divided according to gender (male students, n = 51; female students, n = 47). Students were from grades 10, 11, and 12.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants gave informed consent prior to taking part in the study, which received ethical approval from the Al Ain University Review Board (IRB) under reference number COP/AAU/AD/65. This cohort study involved both male and female university students, with data collection occurring between January and Sep 2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInstruments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRealistic Problem Generation (PG)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Realistic Problem Generation (PG) scale is a problem-generation test aimed at measuring students' idea fluency, originality, and flexibility. Developed by Runco and Okuda in 1988 and later translated into Arabic study by Runco et al., (2016). it was applied across eight Arab countries including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Iraq, with a sample size of 611 males and females. The scale evaluates three dimensions: fluency, originality, and flexibility.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe psychometric properties\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe psychometric properties of the scale include validity indicators in its original form, applied to a sample of 77 fourth, fifth, and sixth-grade students aged 9-12 years in private schools. Discriminant validity between the problem generation test and a general abilities test ranged from 0.18 to -0.23, indicating these tests measure different processes. The reliability coefficient for fluency was 0.92, achieved through a retest method on the same sample, demonstrating high stability for this dimension of the scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Realistic Presented Problems (RPP) Assessment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Realistic Presented Problems (RPP) test, designed by Runco and Okuda (1988) and translated into Arabic by Runco et al., (2016) aims to assess students' fluency, originality, and flexibility in idea generation. This scale, applied across eight Arab countries, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Iraq, with a sample of 611 participants, involves solving real-life problems from the domains of home and school, requiring participants to propose as many solutions as possible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe psychometric properties\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe psychometric properties of the scale reveal both validity and reliability in its original and Arabic versions. Initially applied to a sample of 77 students aged 9-12, it showed discriminant validity. Reliability was confirmed with retest methods, showing a fluency reliability coefficient of 0.76 and originality at 0.84. For the Arabic version, after translation and expert review, the scale was applied to a larger sample of 611 students, achieving a reliability coefficient of 0.64 for both fluency and originality dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Collectivism/Individualism Creativity Preference Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Collectivism-Individualism (Creativity Type) scale, developed by Shaw et al. (2000) and later translated into Arabic, assesses individuals' preferences for teamwork versus independent work, reflecting the extent to which they value collective interests over personal ones. This measure indicates that those with a preference for collective work find satisfaction in teamwork, while those inclined towards independence may not enjoy group tasks as much. Validated through face and construct validity by presenting it to experts for review, modifications were made to align with the Kuwaiti context, achieving a high agreement rate of 90% among reviewers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe measure of preferences, specifically the type of creativity, regarding teamwork and individualism pertains to the extent to which individuals possess a strong inclination towards teamwork as opposed to autonomy. It also encompasses the relative significance that individuals attribute to collective interests in comparison to personal interests, such as teamwork, family, and friends (Wagner, 1995). The fundamental concept of group work preference posits that individuals who possess these qualities will get satisfaction from engaging in group work, while those who choose solo work would experience dissatisfaction when working in groups (Wagner \u0026amp; Moch, 1986). The scale was first developed by Shaw et al. (Shaw et al., 2000) and subsequently translated into Arabic by the researcher. The translation he produced underwent a thorough examination and further modifications before being submitted to a panel of English language specialists who specialize in arbitration. The validity of the study was established via the use of face validity and construct validity. The scale was submitted to six arbitrators with expertise in education and psychology at the Arabian Gulf University and the Kingdom of Bahrain; their task was to review the scale items and make necessary revisions or modifications to paragraphs that needed it. They were also responsible for removing or combining any inappropriate items and ensuring that the scale aligns with the dimensions it measures, while also verifying its linguistic integrity. The agreement rate reached 90%, and upon reviewing the arbitrators' remarks, the scale was authorized with linguistic modifications made to 7 sentences in order to better align with the Kuwaiti setting. The scale measures two dimensions: the individualism dimension and the collectivism dimension.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHow to apply the scale:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants scored responses to all statements using a five-point Likert scale. The scale consists of (22) statements with opposite or negative statements, such that a high score indicates stronger collectivism, as an example of individualism (I prefer to do my work and leave the work of others to them), and as an example of collectivism or negative statements (I enjoy doing projects with others). Giving them some guidance, such as: Think about the groups you currently belong to, and have belonged to in the past. Below is a set of statements that express your relationship with these particular groups and your thoughts about them. Respond to the following questions, as honestly as possible using the response scales provided (1 “strongly disagree, 5” strongly agree).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScale correction method\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe scale is corrected in the collectivism dimension by summing the subject’s responses, and giving him a score for each response consisting of (1-5). The student who answers the statement by choosing (5) in this dimension is considered to strongly agree. As for the individualism dimension, by summing the subject’s responses, and giving him A score for each response, and the questions of this dimension are considered negative questions and they are the statements (5-7-9-11-13-15). The student who chooses a score of (5) for the statement is considered to disagree with this dimension and is automatically counted for the collectivism dimension.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePsychometric properties of the scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eImplications of the scale's validity in its original form\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo extract indications of the validity of the scale in its original form, it was applied to a sample of (566) university students enrolled in a large university in the southern United States. The sample was 39 percent female, with an average age of 22 years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Implications of the stability of the scale in its original form\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo extract the reliability coefficient, the reliability coefficient method (0.88) was applied. Preference for the teamwork dimension emerged as a very strong factor (latent root = 5.94, explained variance = 27%). Higher values indicate a stronger preference for teamwork.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eImplications of validity and reliability of the scale in the current research\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe researcher conducted a study where they gave a scale to a randomly chosen exploratory sample of tenth and eleventh grade students, including both males and females, from schools in the Farwaniya and Jahra Educational Governorates. This was done during the first semester of the 2019/2020 academic year. This sample consisted of 97 students, ranging in age from 15 to 17 years. They were specifically chosen to assess the scale's validity for wider use and to collect data supporting its construct validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Pearson correlation coefficients for two dimensions within a preference scale, specifically focusing on individualism and collectivism. For the individualism dimension, the correlation coefficient is .756, and for the collectivism dimension, it is .942, both statistically significant at the α = 0.01 level. It further lists correlation coefficients for individual statements related to these dimensions, with values ranging from .538 to .839, indicating varying degrees of correlation with the respective dimension of preference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to validate the scale, we measured its internal consistency by examining the Pearson correlation coefficient between individuals' responses to specific phrases on the scale and their overall scores on selected dimensions. We also analysed the correlation between these dimensions and the scale's total score. The study demonstrated a robust statistical significance at the 0.01 level, with correlations ranging from 0.538 to 0.839, showing a high degree of consistency across the scale items and dimensions. In addition, the dependability of the scale was shown by dimensional reliability coefficients ranging from .605 to .899, and an overall scale reliability coefficient of 0.87, emphasising its statistical strength and suitability for contemporary research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe internal consistency\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe internal consistency of the job preference scale was assessed by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficients. The coefficient for the individual dimension, which consists of six items, was found to be .605, suggesting a moderate level of reliability. The collective dimension, consisting of nine items, has a coefficient of .899, indicating a good level of dependability. Overall, the scale, including all 15 questions, has a coefficient of .870, indicating excellent reliability in assessing job preferences across various dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study topic seeks to investigate the disparities among talented kids in their strategies for issue identification, problem-solving, and creative expression, both at an individual and collective level.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first research question does the study aim to investigate the disparities among talented children in their strategies for issue identification, problem-solving, and creative expression, both at an individual and collective level?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to do this, the results of the students were standardised to Z-scores across different scales. This was done to address any differences in vocabulary, dimensions, and total scale scores. The K-means method of cluster analysis was subsequently utilised to analyse the sample data on independent variables, with the differentiation between solo and group work preferences serving as the criterion for classifying student profiles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table I shows the possibility of distinguishing three clusters of students, whose sizes were, in order (25, 22, 51) at a Percentage rate of (25.51%, 22.44%, 52%) of the total number of the sample, and the third cluster included the largest number, followed by the first cluster, then the second cluster and Table II shows the distances between the centres of the final clusters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigure I\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCluster Analysis of Gifted Students: Differentiating Performance in Problem-Finding and Solving\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure I displays the characteristics of three separate groups of students, categorised according to their strengths in identifying and resolving problems. The first cluster, renowned for its exceptional performance, highlights children who possess remarkable ingenuity and proficiency in both identifying and resolving problems. It emphasises a preference for collaborative creativity rather than individual innovation, despite having average scores in collective-individual creativity. The second performance cluster, known as the intermediate cluster, consists of children who possess average levels of originality and fluency. These students tend to prefer expressing their creativity individually and have varying scores in terms of their collective vs individual creative ability. Finally, the third cluster represents children who have low performance. These kids have lower scores in both issue identification and problem solution. They have a combination of scores in collective and individual creativity elements, with certain aspects performing better than those in the second cluster.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe third cluster has moderate individual and group creativity levels, leading to modest achievements in problem-finding and problem-solving. Highly creative individuals possess autonomous judgment, self-reliance, and self-assurance (Baron \u0026amp; Harrington, 1981), allowing them to detach from social and professional groups to present novel ideas. However, since creative concepts often deviate from the norm, individuals may be hesitant to express them due to the fear of unfavorable evaluations from fellow group members (Diehl \u0026amp; Strobe, 1987). This explains the factors that foster or impede creative behavior within communities and groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCreative individuals must take risks when sharing innovative ideas, advocating, persuading, and defending them. Simonton’s extension of the 4P model posits that creativity is a form of leadership, which aligns with the first cluster of high creativity. Students in this group demonstrated elevated problem-finding and problem-solving levels and strong correlations between collective creativity and the three clusters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo achieve their goals, creative individuals often require solitude to refine and build upon their continuous stream of thoughts. Examining prodigious individuals reveals common characteristics such as expansive interests, intellectual agility, and independence (Simonton, 1988). Highly creative individuals require dedicated time to develop and promote their ideas and products (Ochse, 1990; Simonton, 2004). Personal attributes and beliefs mold creative potential, including the cognitive processes and personality traits inherent to both the creative process and the creative individual. Collectivist cultures, such as certain Arab societies, prioritize harmony and conformity, which may diminish individuals’ perceived appropriateness of free expression, leading to less originality and group performance. These social values are significant during developmental stages when peer groups gain importance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second question reported that what is the variation in problem-finding, problem-solving, and individual-group creativity according to gender (male-female) among the gifted students?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 shows the results of the independent sample t-test, which shows no significant differences in the dimensions of finding the problem (originality and fluency); problem-solving (originality and fluency); Type of creativity (individual and group); (and the total score between males and females, where t-values ranged between (0.828) - (-1.887), which are not significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe third research question reported that Is there a correlation between the type of creativity (individual-group) and the research sample’s responses to problem-finding and problem-solving variables?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo answer the third research question, the researchers employed the Point-Biserial correlation coefficient. This measure was used to assess the correlation between the type of creativity (individual/group) and the student’s responses to problem-finding (fluency and originality) and problem-solving (fluency and originality). Table (4) presents the results of the Point-Biserial correlation coefficient.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results indicated that the Point-Biserial correlation coefficient values measuring the relationship between the type of creativity (individual/group) and students’ responses to the problem-finding variable (originality and fluency) ranged between (-0.045) and (-0.046), and for the problem-solving dimension (fluency and originality), it was (-0.046). Despite all these values being statistically non-significant at the level of (p ≤ 0.05).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe research findings indicate a stronger relationship between research variables and individual creativity compared to group creativity, which can be attributed to the need for contemplation and isolation associated with individuality in the creative process. Brainstorming studies show lower group performance efficiency compared to individual work (Diehl \u0026amp; Stroebe, 1987). Social distancing resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to the enhancement of individual work among students. The research also reveals a variance in students' individual abilities regarding problem identification and solving (Runco, 2011). The analyses do not show significant differences between the individual and group categories in other dimensions, indicating a convergence of research sample characteristics in the field of creativity. This aligns with societal developments where teamwork and collaborative learning have become important and effective components in educational institutions. Creative students possess the ability to work individually or collectively thanks to their discovered or hidden capabilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndividual characteristics, personal beliefs, and creative potential influence all forms of creativity, with these potentials relying on cognitive abilities and thinking styles (Sternberg \u0026amp; Lubart, 1995; Torrance, 1968, Abo Hamza, et al., 2020). Students differ in their interactions and perceptions of various life situations, whether educational or social. Gifted students can achieve greater success if assigned tasks that suit their individual or collective abilities and thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClassification of Profiles in Problem-Finding, Problem-Solving, and Creativity:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe categorization of profiles corresponds to Simonton's (1995) focus on 'Persuasion' and Runco's (2007) hierarchical restructuring involving 'Potential'. The findings of this study highlight the intricate nature of creativity, which is characterised by several facets. These facets mirror the various interpretations of creativity across different fields, as addressed by Reid and Petocz (2004). The diverse manifestations of creativity in gifted kids align with the literature's portrayal of creativity as a combination of innovative and beneficial solutions, in accordance with the definitions provided by Sternberg \u0026amp; Lubart (1991) and Amabile et al. (2005).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender Diversity in Creative and Problem-Solving Aptitudes:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe lack of substantial gender disparities in creativity and problem-solving abilities among gifted students corroborates the idea that creativity surpasses gender prejudices, in accordance with the broader viewpoints on creativity and personality traits presented by Sternberg (2006), Guastello (2009), and Feist (1998). This discovery undermines conventional notions of gender-based creativity and emphasises the significance of personal characteristics in fostering innovation, rather than relying on society preconceptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe correlation between individual and group creativity and problem-solving can be understood by considering the concepts of collective versus individual creativity, as discussed by Hofstede (1994), and the contributions of creativity in both solitary and group settings, as explored by Ochse \u0026amp; Ochse (1990) and Simonton (2004). The study's results demonstrate a heightened preference for solo creation, aligning with existing research that explores the social and solitary dimensions of the creative process. This literature also examines the circumstances in which creativity thrives in isolation compared to collaborative settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis enlarged debate incorporates contemporary study findings with the larger academic discourse on creativity, problem-solving, and the impact of cultural and individual characteristics, by utilising core ideas and recent studies from the literature review. This method not only places the study within the existing theoretical framework but also emphasises its contributions to comprehending the intricacies of creativity among talented students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results show that all gifted students in the research sample possess creativity skills, including originality and fluency in problem-finding and problem-solving, as well as individual and group creativity, without gender bias. The findings suggest no relationship between gender and the dimensions of research variables, leading to the development of two models: one focusing on individual creativity encompassing the entire sample, and another examining the direct effects of the sample on collective creativity. The sample size may have contributed to this outcome, as larger studies provide a clearer picture of research results (Kotrlik \u0026amp; Higgins, 2001) Contrasting studies comparing gifted and non-gifted individuals, which typically show significant differences favouring the gifted (Milgram \u0026amp; Milgram, 1976). Abdullah et al. (2020) found significant differences between divergent thinking and problem finding among gifted and non-gifted students, with a large effect size (η2 = 0.359). The results confirm the findings of Ibn Nasser's (2015) study, which showed no significant differences between males and females in problem-solving ability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, male and female students exhibit equal levels of creativity, attributed to equitable educational and teaching services free from discrimination. This promotes the learning and development of gifted students, enabling them to join diverse professions and international universities, and upholds the principle of equal opportunities for both male and female students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent findings align with Hardy and Gibson (2015), demonstrating a discernible gender disparity in creativity, where females predominantly display superior performance in creative quality, originality, and elegance, reaffirming the nuanced gender differences in creative expression and problem-solving proficiencies.These findings may reflect a convergence of creative characteristics within the research sample, mirroring broader societal changes regarding gender perceptions. The evolution of societies, exemplified by the development in Kuwait, has led to heightened awareness and an enhanced role for women across various levels and fields. Women are becoming increasingly independent and, in some cases, surpassing men in specific domains. Jenan Shehab, an engineer who has earned patent awards and gold medals at international forums, exemplifies the potential for women to overcome traditionally faced obstacles, especially those with higher educational degrees. This progress is further underscored by the increase in Nobel Prizes awarded to women in the last two decades (22 females from 2001 to 2018) compared to the early 20th century (4 females from 1901 to 1920), highlighting a significant shift in the recognition of women's contributions across different fields.Moreover, this shift in perspectives and reduced barriers is consistent with the observations of Abdulla et al. (2018), who noted that women with higher education often face more challenges related to shame and repression compared to those with lower educational qualifications. The reduction of barriers and evolving perspectives over recent years suggest a societal shift towards a more equitable recognition of creativity across genders, aligning with the findings of Hardy and Gibson (2015), which highlight the importance of nurturing and valuing creative expression in all its diverse forms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne potential limitation of the research study is related to the method of data collection, specifically the reliance on online measurement tools for assessing the students' typing skills in both schools. This may have introduced a limitation in the sense that the online tools used for data collection may not have been as reliable or accurate as other methods of assessment, potentially influencing the results of the study. Additionally, factors such as differences in internet connectivity or technology access may have impacted the quality of the data collected, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study's findings about gender differences in problem-finding and problem-solving among talented secondary students in Kuwait concluded that there were no notable changes depending on gender in these domains, as well as in group preferences. Although three separate clusters were identified within the sample, gender did not have a significant impact on these features. The study emphasised the need of studying both individual and group creativity, demonstrating direct impacts on creative behaviour with statistically significant correlation coefficients. Although the study made valuable contributions to the understanding of creativity in gifted education, it acknowledged certain limitations, including a small sample size and reliance on self-reported data. This indicates the necessity for additional research with larger samples and diverse assessment methods to gain a more profound understanding of the relationship between creativity and gender dynamics among gifted students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFuture Research\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research has the potential to expand our understanding of the influence of gender and group preference differential on problem-finding and solution among talented students in Kuwait. This may be achieved by doing a comprehensive analysis and examining the findings of the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExamine how these processes manifest in various cultural contexts through cross-cultural comparisons. An examination of gender variations in creativity among talented kids, conducted across nations with different educational systems and cultural norms, might provide valuable insights into the presence of universal or culture-specific factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal studies aim to examine the extended-term progression of issue identification and resolution skills in intellectually gifted adolescents. Such studies can facilitate the identification of the temporal evolution of these skills and the influence of different educational interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnhance Demographic Inclusivity: Broaden the research's demographic coverage to encompass students from a more extensive array of socio-economic backgrounds, age groups, and educational environments. This might unveil more intricate insights about how different elements interplay with gender to impact creativity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUtilise interdisciplinary approaches by integrating insights from psychology, sociology, and neuroscience to enhance comprehension of the mechanisms that underlie gender disparities in creative problem-solving and discovery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigate the impact of technology on the ability of talented pupils to engage in creative problem-solving. Examples of potential research topics may encompass investigations into digital educational resources, virtual teamwork platforms, and the influence of social media.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalyse the consequences of your results for educational policy and practice. Research might focus on optimising educational programmes in schools to enhance the creative growth of brilliant kids, while considering gender disparities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQualitative studies serve as a valuable addition to quantitative research by delving into the subjective experiences, motives, and obstacles faced by talented individuals in terms of their gender and creativity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy following these potential research approaches, researchers may expand upon the groundwork of your study to enhance understanding of the intricate relationship between gender, creativity, and education among brilliant individuals.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability:\u003c/strong\u003e The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA sentence confirming that informed consents (Consent to Participate and Consent to Publish) were obtained from all participants.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbdul-Hamid, S. (2015). Talent, Creativity, Innovation, and Invention: Relationships and Issues. In Musa Al-Nabhan (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eKey Topics in the Education of the Gifted\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 18-66). Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Award for Outstanding Educational Performance.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAyoub A. E. A.; Aljughaiman A. M.; Alabbasi A. M. A. \u0026amp; Abo Hamza E. G. (2022). Do Different Types of Intelligence and Its Implicit Theories Vary Based on Gender and Grade Level? \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology.\u003c/em\u003e 12:712330. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712330\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbdulla, A. M., \u0026amp; Cramond, B. (2017). After six decades of systematic study of creativity: What do teachers need to know about what it is and how it is measured. \u003cem\u003eRoeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 39\u003c/em\u003e(1), 9\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1247398\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbdulla, A. M., Paek, S. H., Cramond, B., \u0026amp; Runco, M. A. (2020). Problem finding and creativity: A meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,\u003c/em\u003e 14(1), 3\u0026ndash;14. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000194\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbdulla, A. M., Runco, M. A., Alsuwaidi, H. N., \u0026amp; Alhindal, H. S. (2018). Obstacles to personal creativity among Arab women from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Creativity. \u003cem\u003eTheories\u0026ndash;Research-Applications,\u003c/em\u003e 5(1), 41-54. DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2018-0003\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbo Hamza, E., Mohamed, E., \u0026amp; Elsantil, Y. (2020). A systemic review-based study of gifted and talented. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Talent Development and Excellence\u003c/em\u003e, 12(2), 2888-2897.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAgnoli, S., Vanucci, M., Pelagatti, C., \u0026amp; Corazza, G. E. (2018). Exploring the link between mind wandering, mindfulness, and creativity: A multidimensional approach. \u003cem\u003eCreativity Research Journal, 30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 41\u0026ndash;53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1411423\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAi, X. (1999). Creativity and academic achievement: An investigation of gender differences. \u003cem\u003eCreativity Research Journal,\u003c/em\u003e 12, 329\u0026ndash;337. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1204_11\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational Synergy: Toward New Conceptualizations of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in the Workplace. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review,\u003c/em\u003e 3, 185-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(93)90012-S\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmabile, T. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial creativity through motivational synergy.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;The Journal of Creative Behavior,\u003c/em\u003e 31(1), 18\u0026ndash;26. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1997.tb00778.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., \u0026amp; Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and Creativity at Work. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Science Quarterly, 50\u003c/em\u003e(3), 367-403. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmbrosio, A. L. (1994). \u003cem\u003eSocial problem finding: A cognitive-developmental perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 54(10-A), 3700.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnderson, N., Potočnik, K., \u0026amp; Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 40\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1297\u0026ndash;1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArlin, P. K. (1977). Piagetian operations in problem finding. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e 13(3), 297\u0026ndash;298. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.13.3.297\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArreola, N. J. (2012). \u003cem\u003eThe influence of personality on problem construction and creative problem solving\u003c/em\u003e. University of Nebraska at Omaha.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D., Nijstad, B. A., \u0026amp; De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Personality and creativity: The Dual Pathway to Creativity model and a research agenda. \u003cem\u003eSocial and Personality Psychology Compass,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e7(10), 732\u0026ndash;748. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12062\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaer, J., \u0026amp; Kaufman, J. C. (2011). Gender differences in creativity. \u003cem\u003eCreativity Research Journal, 23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01289.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarber, L. J. (1981). \u003cem\u003eChildren\u0026rsquo;s problem finding and creative responses in and between reading and art\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaron, F., \u0026amp; Harrington, M. (1981). Creativity, Intelligence and Personality. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology, 32\u003c/em\u003e(439-476). doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e 51(3), 478\u0026ndash;485. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048073\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaruah, J., \u0026amp; Paulus, P. B. (2009). Enhancing group creativity: The search for synergy. In \u003cem\u003eCreativity in groups\u003c/em\u003e. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaruah, J., \u0026amp; Paulus, P.B. (2018). Collaborative Creativity and Innovation in Education. \u003cem\u003eCreativity Under Duress in Education?\u003c/em\u003e. (155-177). Springer, Cham.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBasadur, M. (1994). Managing the creative process in organizations. In M. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving and creativity. \u003cem\u003eCreativity research\u003c/em\u003e (237-268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeghetto, R. A. (2019). Creativity in classrooms. In J. C. Kaufman \u0026amp; R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Cambridge handbook of creativity\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed., pp. 587\u0026ndash;606). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839.029\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeghetto, R.A. (2021). \u003cem\u003eCreative Learning in Education.\u003c/em\u003e The Palgrave Handbook of Positive Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBurt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChamoro-Pemuzic, T. (2015). \u003cem\u003eWhy group brainstorming is a waste of Time\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard Business Review March 2015. Retrieved on Feb 2024 from https://hbr.org/2015/03/why-group-brainstorming-is-a-waste-of-time\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChan, A. W., \u0026amp; Cheung, H. Y. (2016). Extraversion, individualism and M\u0026amp;A activities. \u003cem\u003eInternational Business Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 356-369. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.05.011\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClark, A. (2008). \u003cem\u003eSupersizing the mind: Embodied cognition and the problem of meaning in the natural world.\u003c/em\u003e Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCollard, P. (2015). \u003cem\u003eSkills for the creative industries: Report of the UNESCO-UNEVOC virtual conference,\u003c/em\u003e 29 September to 10 October 2014. UNESCO International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArthur J. Cropley (1990). Creativity and mental health in everyday life. \u003cem\u003eCreativity Research Journal,\u003c/em\u003e 3:3, 167-178, DOI: 10.1080/10400419009534351\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCropper, D. A., Meck, D. S., \u0026amp; Ash, M. J. (1977). The relation between formal operations and a possible fifth stage of cognitive development. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology, 13\u003c/em\u003e(5), 517\u0026ndash;518. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.13.5.517\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCsikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). \u003cem\u003eCreativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eNew York: Harper Perennial.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDerry, S. J., Schunn, C. D., \u0026amp; Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.). (2014). \u003cem\u003eInterdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science\u003c/em\u003e. Psychology Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDeuja, A., Kohn, N. W., Paulus, P. B., \u0026amp; Korde, R. M. (2014). Taking a broad perspective before brainstorming. \u003cem\u003eGroup Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 222\u0026ndash;236. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000008\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDewett, T. (2004). Employee creativity and the role of risk. \u003cem\u003eEuropean journal of innovation management\u003c/em\u003e. 7, (4), 257-266. DOI:10.1108/14601060410565010\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDiedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., \u0026amp; Neubauer, A. C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of Aesthetics. \u003cem\u003eCreativity, and the Arts, 9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038688\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDiehl, M., \u0026amp; Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. \u003cem\u003eJournal of personality and social psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(3), 497.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDillon, J. T. (1988). \u003cem\u003eLevels of problem finding vs. problem solving\u003c/em\u003e. Questioning Exchange, 2(2), 105-115.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDutton, Jane E. (1993). The Making of Organizational Opportunity: An Interpretive Pathway to Organizational Change. In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.), \u003cem\u003eResearch in Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e (vol. 15) (pp. 195\u0026ndash;226.). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEdwards, M.R., \u0026amp; Sproull, J.R. (1984). Creativity: Productivity gold mine? The \u003cem\u003eJournal of Creative Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, 185, 175-184.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElsantil, Y. (2021). Antecedents of Green Purchasing Behavior in the Arabic Gulf. Social Marketing Quarterly, 27 (2), 133\u0026ndash;149. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/15245004211013467.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFeist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and social psychology review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(4), 290-309.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFoster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., \u0026amp; Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Personality, 37\u003c/em\u003e(6), 469\u0026ndash;486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00026-6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFramework for 21st Century Learning. (2015). Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21). https://thejournal.com/articles/2015/09/02/p21-research-series-offers-advice-on-21st-century-4cs.aspx. Accessed February 5, 2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGetzels, J. W. (1982). The problem of the problem. \u003cem\u003eNew directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Question framing and response consistency\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, 37-49.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGetzels, J. W. (1985). Problem Finding and the Enhancement of Creativity. \u003cem\u003eNASSP Bulletin,\u003c/em\u003e 69(482), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658506948208\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGriffin, M. (2021). \u003cem\u003eAbout the Show\u003c/em\u003e | Jeopardy.com. Retrieved 20 May 2021, from https://www.jeopardy.com/about\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGuastello, S. J. (2009). Creativity and personality. In T. Rickards, M. A. Runco \u0026amp; S. Moger (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge Companion to Creativity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(267\u0026ndash;278). New York, NY: Routledge/ Taylor \u0026amp; Francis Group.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGuilford, J. P. (1957). Creative abilities in the arts. \u003cem\u003ePsychological review\u003c/em\u003e, 64(2), 110.\u0026rlm;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHardy, J. H., \u0026amp; Gibson, C. (2015). Gender differences in the measurement of creative problem-solving. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Creative Behavior,\u003c/em\u003e 51(2), 153-162. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.92\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. \u003cem\u003eManagement science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.1.4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHornberg, J., \u0026amp; Reiter-Palmon, R. (2017). Creativity and the Big Five Personality Traits: Is the Relationship Dependent on the Creativity Measure? In G. J. Feist, R. Reiter-Palmon, \u0026amp; J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Cambridge Handbook of Creativity and Personality Research\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 275\u0026ndash;293), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHoward, T. J., Culley, S. J., \u0026amp; Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. \u003cem\u003eDesign studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(2), 160-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIbn Nasser, Farhan. (2015). The Relationship Between Thinking Styles and Problem-Solving Ability Among a Sample of Second-Year High School Students. [Unpublished master\u0026apos;s thesis]. Kasdi Merbah University.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKapoor, H. (2019). Sex differences and similarities in negative creativity. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e142, 238-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.043\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKaufman J. (2018). Creativity as a Stepping Stone toward a Brighter Future. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Intelligence,\u003c/em\u003e 6(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6020021\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKay, S. (1991). The figural problem solving and problem finding of professional and semi- professional artists and nonartists. \u003cem\u003eCreativity Research Journal, 4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 233-252.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKim, K. (2009). Problem finding. \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia Of Giftedness, Creativity, And Talent, 47\u003c/em\u003e(04), 188-190. doi: 10.5860/choice.47-1781\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKotrlik, J. W. K. J. W., \u0026amp; Higgins, C. C. H. C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. \u003cem\u003eInformation technology, learning, and performance journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 43.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKozbelt, A., Beghetto, R., \u0026amp; Runco, M. (2010). Theories of Creativity. In J. Kaufman \u0026amp; R. Sternberg (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, pp. 20-47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511763205.004\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLand, G. T. A., \u0026amp; Jarman, B. (1992). \u003cem\u003eBreakpoint and beyond: Mastering the future--today.\u003c/em\u003e Harper Business.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLe, T. N. (2005). Narcissism and immature love as mediators of vertical individualism and ludic love style. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(4), 543-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505054522\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, L. N., Huang, J. H., \u0026amp; Gao, S. Y. (2022). The relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intention among college students: \u003cem\u003eThe mediating role of creativity. Frontiers in Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e 13, 822206.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLocke, E.A., Tirnauer, D., Roberson, Q., Goldman, B., Latham, M.E., \u0026amp; Weldon, E. (2001). The importance of the individual in an age of groupism. In M. Turner (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eGroups at Work: Theory and Research\u003c/em\u003e (501-528). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLong, C. R., Seburn, M., Averill, J. R., \u0026amp; More, T. A. (2003). Solitude experiences: Varieties, settings, and individual differences\u003cem\u003e. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,\u003c/em\u003e 29(5), 578\u0026ndash;583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005003\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLyubomirsky, S., King, L., \u0026amp; Diener, E. (2005). The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success? \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin, 131\u003c/em\u003e(6), 803\u0026ndash;855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLyubomirsky, S., King, L., \u0026amp; Diener, E. (2005). The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success? \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin, 131\u003c/em\u003e(6), 803\u0026ndash;855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMarkus, H. R., \u0026amp; Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20\u003c/em\u003e(5), 568\u0026ndash;579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205013\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeijer, A. J. (2014). From Hero-Innovators to Distributed Heroism: An in-depth analysis of the role of individuals in public sector innovation. \u003cem\u003ePublic Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806575\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMilgram, R. M., \u0026amp; Milgram, N. A. (1976). Group versus individual administration in the measurement of creative thinking in gifted and nongifted children. \u003cem\u003eChild Development, 47\u003c/em\u003e(2), 563\u0026ndash;565. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128823\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMoll, L. C. (1990). \u003cem\u003eVygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorial Psychology\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173674.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMraz, W., \u0026amp; Runco, M.A. (1994). Suicide ideation and creative problem solving. \u003cem\u003eSuicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 24\u003c/em\u003e, 38-47.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., \u0026amp; Schooler, J. W. (2012). Mindfulness and mind-wandering: Finding convergence through opposing constructs. \u003cem\u003eEmotion, 12\u003c/em\u003e, 442\u0026ndash;448. doi:10.1037/a0026678\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMullen, B., Johnson, C., \u0026amp; Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. \u003cem\u003eBasic and Applied Social Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e 12(1), 3\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNijstad, B. A., \u0026amp; Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Review, 10\u003c/em\u003e(3), 186\u0026ndash;213.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., \u0026amp; Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Social Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e 39(6), 531\u0026ndash;548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00040-4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOchse, R., \u0026amp; Ochse, S. (1990). \u003cem\u003eAn introspective look at giftedness: An exploration into the unique needs of gifted children\u003c/em\u003e. Reclam USA.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOgihara, Y., \u0026amp; Uchida, Y. (2014). Does individualism bring happiness? Negative effects of individualism on interpersonal relationships and happiness. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 5\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00135\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOyserman, D., \u0026amp; Lee, S. W. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological bulletin, 134(2), 311\u0026ndash;342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePACI. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.paci.gov.kw/Default.aspx\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaulus, P. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea‐generating groups. \u003cem\u003eApplied psychology, 49\u003c/em\u003e(2), 237-262.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00013\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaulus, P. B., \u0026amp; Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. \u003cem\u003eSocial and Personality Psychology Compass, 1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 248\u0026ndash;265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReid, A., \u0026amp; Petocz, P. (2004). Learning domains and the process of creativity. \u003cem\u003eThe Australian Educational Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(2), 45-62.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03249519\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReiter-Palmon, R. (Ed.). (2018). \u003cem\u003eTeam Creativity and Innovation\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRichards, R. (1990). Everyday creativity, eminent creativity, and health: \u0026quot;Afterview\u0026quot; for CRJ issues on creativity and health. \u003cem\u003eCreativity Research Journal, 3\u003c/em\u003e(4), 300\u0026ndash;326. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419009534363\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRinne, T., Steel, G. D., \u0026amp; Fairweather, J. (2013). The Role of Hofstede\u0026apos;s Individualism in National-Level Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.752293\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRunco, M. A. (2007). A hierarchical framework for the study of creativity. \u003cem\u003eNew Horizons in Education\u003c/em\u003e, 55(3).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRunco, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Greenwood Publishing Group\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRunco, M. A., \u0026amp; Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. \u003cem\u003eCreativity Research Journal,\u003c/em\u003e 24(1), 92-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRunco, M. A., \u0026amp; Okuda, S. M. (1988). Problem discovery, divergent thinking, and the creative process. \u003cem\u003eJournal of youth and adolescence, 17\u003c/em\u003e(3), 211\u0026ndash;220. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01538162\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRunco, M. A., \u0026amp; Vega, L. (1990). Evaluating the creativity of children\u0026apos;s ideas. Journal of Social Behavior \u0026amp; Personality, 5(5), 439-452.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAcar, S., Runco, M. A., \u0026amp; Park, H. (2020). What should people be told when they take a divergent thinking test? A meta-analytic review of explicit instructions for divergent thinking. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Aesthetics,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eCreativity, and the Arts, 14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 39\u0026ndash;49. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000256\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaavedra, R., Earley, P. C., \u0026amp; Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 78\u003c/em\u003e(1), 61\u0026ndash;72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.61\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSawyer, K. (2017). \u003cem\u003eGroup genius: The creative power of collaboration\u003c/em\u003e. New York, NY: Basic Books\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchilling, Melissa A. (2017). S\u003cem\u003eerial Breakthrough Innovation: The Roles of Separateness, Self-Efficacy, and Idealism\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(December 17, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3190195 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3190195\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., \u0026amp; Benet-Mart\u0026iacute;nez, V. (2007). The Geographic Distribution of Big Five Personality Traits: Patterns and Profiles of Human Self-Description Across 56 Nations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(2), 173-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297299\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., \u0026amp; Stark, E. M. (2000). Interdependence and preference for group work: Main and congruence effects on the satisfaction and performance of group members\u003cem\u003e. Journal of Management, 26\u003c/em\u003e(2), 259-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600205\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSheridan, H., \u0026amp; Reingold, E. M. (2014). Expert vs. novice differences in the detection of relevant information during a chess game: evidence from eye movements. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in psychology, 5\u003c/em\u003e, 941. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00941\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSimonton, D. K. (1988). \u003cem\u003eScientific genius: A psychology of science\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSimonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as Blind Variation and Selective Retention: Is the Creative Process Darwinian? \u003cem\u003ePsychological Inquiry,\u003c/em\u003e 10(4), 309\u0026ndash;328. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449455\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSimonton, D. K. (2004). \u003cem\u003eCreativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSosa, G. (2011). \u003cem\u003eComplexity and knowledge dynamics: Implications for R\u0026amp;D management.\u003c/em\u003e Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSpence, J. T. (1985). Achievement American style: The rewards and costs of in- dividualism. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist, 40\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1285\u0026ndash;1295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.40.12.1285\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSternberg, R. J. (2006). Creating a vision of creativity: The first 25 years\u003cem\u003e. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, S\u003c/em\u003e (1), 2\u0026ndash;12. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.S.1.2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSternberg, R. J., \u0026amp; Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. \u003cem\u003eHuman development\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTorrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. \u003cem\u003eGifted Child Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, 12(4), 195-199. doi:10.1177/001698626801200401\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTorrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. \u003cem\u003eEducational and Psychological Measurement, 12\u003c/em\u003e(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862680120040\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTreadway, M. T., \u0026amp; Lazarov, A. (2019). Solitude and mental health: Can silence be golden? \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Psychological Science, 14\u003c/em\u003e(6), 659-667.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTriandis, H. C. (1995). \u003cem\u003eIndividualism and collectivism\u003c/em\u003e. Boulder, CO:Westview.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUnsworth, N., \u0026amp; Gaspelin, N. (2009). \u003cem\u003eDistractibility in everyday life: Everyday cognitive failures and their consequences\u003c/em\u003e. Psychology Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWagner, J. A., \u0026amp; Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism\u0026ndash;collectivism: Concept and measure. \u003cem\u003eGroup \u0026amp; Organization Studies, 11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 280\u0026ndash;304. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960118601100309\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 152\u0026ndash;172. https://doi.org/10.2307/256731\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWallach, M. A., \u0026amp; Kogan, N. (1965). \u003cem\u003eModes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction.\u003c/em\u003e New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilliams, J., Pollard, E., Cook, J., Byford, M. (2022) \u003cem\u003eEnhancing Creative Education. Multiple: Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre and the Institute for Employment Studies.\u003c/em\u003e Available from: https://www.pec.ac.uk/research-reports/enhancing-creative-education\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003evan Woerkum, C. M. J., Aarts, M. N. C., \u0026amp; de Grip, K. (2007). Creativity, planning and organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(6), 847-865. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810710831055\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhou, C., \u0026amp; Luo, L. (2012). Group creativity in learning context: Understanding in a social-cultural framework and methodology. \u003cem\u003eCreative Education, 3\u003c/em\u003e(04), 392. DOI: 10.4236/ce.2012.34062\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 4 are available in the Supplementary Files section\u003c/p\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":"creativity, gender, problem-finding, group problem-solving, individual-collective creativity, giftedness, gifted secondary students","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5237017/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5237017/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose:\u003c/strong\u003e This study examines the impact of gender on the ability to solve creative problems among intellectually gifted secondary students in Kuwait.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethodology:\u003c/strong\u003e The study includes a sample of 98 individuals. The study used the Realistic Problem Generation and Realistic Presented Problems evaluations, in conjunction with the Collectivism/Individualism Creativity Preference Scale, to measure students' problem-solving and creative aptitudes. Statistical analysis was conducted using cluster analysis and the Point-Biserial correlation coefficient.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings:\u003c/strong\u003e The findings suggest that the correlation between individual creativity and problem-solving skills is stronger than the correlation between group creativity and problem-solving skills. This challenges the idea that gender has a substantial influence on creative problem-solving abilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginality:\u003c/strong\u003e The results highlight the importance of personalized educational strategies that provide to the unique talents of gifted students, advocating for equal opportunities regardless of gender to enhance academic achievement.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Gender and Group Preference Differentiation: Impacts on Problem Finding and Solving","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-12-23 04:31:53","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5237017/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":"3fee9e0b-d986-4ad3-b07e-b262a166a581","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 23rd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-03-28T16:38:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-12-23 04:31:53","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5237017","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5237017","identity":"rs-5237017","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}