Running Head: SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS  

Relations between self-regulation, divergent thinking, and perceived stress in emerging adults

Haven Alexandria Wright

Honors College Thesis

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Examination Date: December 11, 2019

David E. Ferrier Kristen J. Black

Assistant Professor of Psychology Assistant Professor of Psychology
Thesis Director Department Examiner

 
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 2

This study investigated the relationships between self-regulation and stress, self-regulation and
creativity, and perceived stress as a mediator for the relationship between self-regulation and
creativity. Questionnaires were administered to undergraduate students to individually access
each construct. Creativity was measured through divergent thinking and self-regulation was
measured through the SRS and effortful control. Regression analyses were run to determine the
relationships between the constructs. A negative association was found between effortful control
and stress. Individual positive relationships were found between effortful control and all of the
creative thinking styles except convergent-unpleasant. Lastly, the indirect effect of effortful
control on the convergent-unpleasant thinking style as mediated by stress was significant. This is
a notable finding when considering previous research on the topic is contradictory.
 
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 3

Relations between self-regulation, divergent thinking, and perceived stress in emerging adults

Accompanying the influx of newfound responsibilities that come with enrolling in

college (Arnett, 1999), many undergraduate students experience an increasing level of stress in

response to heightened academic and social expectations (Olpin, 1996). In light of these

increasing demands, many students thrive within secondary education, finding innumerable

opportunities to hone skills and refine their interests. There are, however, an important set of

abilities that can either facilitate or impede knowledge and skill attainment and encompass a

myriad of capacities that can aid an individual in focusing on the task at hand, resisting

distractions, and not overreacting with violence or aggression when presented with undesirable

stimuli. Such abilities constitute our capacity to engage in self-regulation, an umbrella term

capturing a range of skills reflecting the volitional control of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in

the pursuit of a goal (e.g., Bridgett, Oddi, Laake, Murdock, & Bachmann, 2013; Friedman et al.,

2015; Nigg, 2017; Poon, 2018).

Research on Self-Regulation

A review of the literature on these important cognitive abilities highlights that such

capacities have been studied from multiple disciplines, most notably work investigating aspects

known as executive functions, effortful control, and executive control (e.g., Bridgett et al., 2013;

Liew, 2012; Nigg, 2017; Zhou, Chen, & Main, 2012). Although these different perspectives

contribute to both a rich, yet nebulous framework for the organization of self-regulatory abilities,

there remains an important theoretical overlap warranting a greater appreciation for the differing

(i.e., multifaceted) aspects of self-regulation (e.g., Liew, 2012; Nigg, 2017). From within the

clinical and neuroscience literatures, the executive functioning perspective of cognitive self-

regulation has largely been typified by three component abilities: inhibitory control, working
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 4

memory, and cognitive flexibility (e.g., Best & Miller, 2010). Inhibitory control allows for

focusing in on the target stimuli by blocking out irrelevant stimuli and prevents one from

depending solely on impulsive responses (Roos et al., 2017). Working memory is responsible for

updating information and suppressing content that is not relevant to the task at hand (Carriedo et

al., 2016). Finally, cognitive flexibility is the extent to which behavioral adaptation is possible in

the face of a changing environment, for instance, changing how a task is carried out in light of

new rules or demands (Marko & Riečanský, 2018) while effortful control deals with the focusing

of attention or inhibition of behavior (Bridgett et al., 2013). Together, these capacities more often

reflect a more clinical orientation and are collectively grouped as executive functions, however,

there is merit in viewing the different perspectives of self-regulation within a complementary,

rather than competitive framework (e.g., Nigg, 2017).

Although effortful control has been predominantly researched within the field of

temperament, it is an important aspect of self-regulation, as it reflects processes related to the

control of a variety of systems that are useful in understanding the inhibition of one dominant

response for another (e.g., Evans & Rothbart, 2006; Rothbart, Ellis, Rueda, & Posner, 2003).

Furthermore, these self-regulatory abilities, regardless of originating discipline, support both

concurrent and enduring success across the lifespan (e.g., McClelland, Acock, Piccinin, Rhea, &

Stallings, 2013) and given the conceptual overlap between these similar skills, the current study

investigates self-regulation using indices that embody both temperamental and clinical (i.e.,

executive functioning) perspectives, as there is value in taking a multidisciplinary approach to

the cognitive abilities and processes behind adapting one’s mindset and meeting increasingly

complicated demands, a reflection of the increased novel experiences in college.

SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 5

Additionally, recent research on the association between divergent thinking—a thinking

style typified by solving problems with new frameworks (Soroa, Balluerka, Hommel, & Aritzeta,

2015)—and effortful control has been conflicting. For instance, individuals who engage in

greater divergent thinking might experience lower effortful control due to previous research that

suggested negative correlations between cognitive inhibition and creativity were often measured

through divergent thinking instruments (Lin, Hsu, Chen, & Chang, 2013). However, Zabelina &

Ganis (2018) found that those who engaged in greater divergent thinking exhibited greater

cognitive control, not less. Moreover, cognitive self-regulation, inclusive of the EF and EC

literatures, has been increasingly investigated due to its ties to various aspects of social and

academic success across the lifespan (e.g., Best & Miller, 2010; Best, Miller, & Jones, 2009).

Furthermore, prior research has found relations between aspects of creativity and the role

it can have on cognitive flexibility, another self-regulatory ability (Best & Miller, 2010; Zabelina

& Ganis, 2018). It could be that creativity makes use of divergent thinking through the process of

generating several ideas that could then be used to solve a problem in an innovative or unique

way. However, this generation of ideas can be hindered by high levels of perceived stress

(Seehagen, Schneider, Rudolph, Ernst, & Zmyj, 2015). Stress is an inevitable experience and

while it does have evolutionary benefits such as providing and boosting energy, too much stress

can have detrimental effects on health (Ganster & Rosen, 2013). Perceived stress, like objective

stress, can vary from person to person depending on how they process environmental stressors

(Burger & Samuel, 2017).

Research on Creativity

Creativity is an important part of intelligence, but the scientific community has struggled

to clearly define it. Creativity is often associated with divergent thinking because it utilizes the
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 6

idea generating process to create novel ideas. A positive correlation was found to exist between

divergent thinking and creativity (Batey, Furnham, & Safiullina, 2010). Divergent thinkers prefer

to work with new frameworks through creativity to solve problems (Soroa, Balluerka, Hommel,

& Aritzeta, 2015). Since students who align themselves with the fine arts are thought to be more

creative, important research was done on whether or not creativity was more prevalent in

students based on their area of study. In what follows, an overview of studies investigating the

association between area of study and facets of creativity is provided.

Art students are not inherently more creative; art education is designed to foster creative

thinking skills through the use of a sensory anchor, being engaging, and encouraging rich

connections (Moga, Burger, Hetland, & Winner, 2000). Experimental studies found that a

modest relationship existed between creativity and art education if the type of creativity was

figural—in relation to hypothetical situations and stimuli (Dӑu-Gaşpar, 2013). However, no

relationship existed if the type of creativity was verbal or conceptual. It could be that creative

students are naturally drawn to more creative areas of study (Eisenman, 1969). Creativity was

tested in English versus Business majors and found that the participants who studied English

were far superior. These studies demonstrate a correlation between higher creativity levels in

english and art majors.

Individuals engage in a variety of artistic areas of study. Contrary to Moga and his

colleagues (2000) and Eisenman (1969), Woodward and Sikes (2015) did not find higher

creativity in an area of study deemed creative. When individuals trained in music were tested to

see if they could respond more divergently (i.e., creatively) than nonmusicians by creating

original meanings for the abstract sounds, no significant difference was found between the

groups’ visual and written creativity. In addition, students’ high school major did not make a
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 7

significant difference on their level of creativity (Dӑu-Gaşpar, 2013). Thus providing further

evidence for an area of study’s lack of impact on level of creativity.

Study Aims

The goal of the present study is to investigate whether there is a connection between an

individual’s self-regulatory ability and perceived stress and how this relates to their ability to

engage in more original problem-solving (i.e., divergent thinking). In turn, being able to shift

one’s perspective to allow for one to reach a solution any number of ways is theorized to be an

important predictor of less perceived stress (Seehagen, Schneider, Rudolph, Ernst, & Zmyj,

2015). In light of this, the aims of the current study are to elucidate these connections. The

conceptual mediation diagram can be found in Figure 1.

Specifically, the following research questions guided the present study. First, I sought to

investigate the association between an individual’s self-regulation abilities and their perceived

level of stress. As an individual progresses through adolescence and emerging adulthood, the

expectation to make autonomous decisions increases commensurate with age (Arnett, 2007). In

the context of college, as one progresses through their program of study, the requirements

become increasingly complex, requiring solutions to novel problems. As such, the greater an

individual’s ability to have effortful control, the less perceived stress they should experience.

I also wanted to evaluate the association between an individual’s self-regulatory abilities

and their ability to engage in divergent thinking. It was hypothesized that a positive relationship

would be found between effortful control and divergent thinking, aligning with previous research

supporting that divergent thinking relies on executive control (Zabelina & Ganis, 2018).
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 8

For the third research question, I sought to examine the relation between an individual's

self-regulatory abilities and their ability to engage in divergent thinking to see if they are

partially explained through levels of perceived stress. As divergent thinking reflects novel

approaches to problem solving, it was hypothesized that the relationship between effortful

control and perceived stress would be partially mediated by divergent thinking due to the

diversion from a more rigid thought process.

The last research question guiding the present study was more exploratory in nature and

sought to examine whether any indirect effects of cognitive self-regulation on divergent thinking

through perceived stress was moderated by academic major (i.e., moderated mediation). Despite

some students demonstrating greater creative abilities than their peers, it was hypothesized that

any indirect effects of self-regulation on divergent thinking through perceived stress will not be

dependent on academic major (Dӑu-Gaşpar, 2013).

Method

To answer these research questions, this study utilized questionnaires to individually

assess the constructs of creativity (through divergent thinking), perceived stress, and self-

regulation. Self-regulation was measured with both the Self-Regulation Scale and effortful

control due to the theoretical overlap across disciplines. Students were recruited through the

Psychology Department’s subject pool coordination system and Qualtrics was utilized in order to

deliver the questionnaires.

Participants

The study was composed of approximately 327 undergraduate students between the ages

of 18 and 51 (M=20.09, SD=3.781) who identified as either female (74%), male (13.1%),
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 9

transgender (less than 1%). My sample was predominantly White (69.7%); followed by Black

(9.8%), Two or more races which do not include Hispanic or Latino (4.6%), Asian (2.4%),

American Indian or Alaska Native (<1%), and less than 1% decided not to answer.

Procedures

All measures were administered through the SONA subject pool coordination system,

where all study materials, including informed consent were contained. Participants were offered

SONA credit for their involvement in the project, which some professors in the psychology

department accept as extra credit in their courses as a way to encourage students to participate in

research throughout the semester.

Measures

Self-Regulation

The Self-Regulation Scale (SRS; Diehl, Semegon, & Schwarzer, 2006) is a 10-item

questionnaire rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1: not at all true and 4: completely true). The SRS

assesses one’s abilities to accomplish their goals over time while circumstances change and asks

questions such as “When I worry about something, I cannot concentrate on an activity” and “If

an activity arouses my feelings too much, I can calm myself down so that I can continue with the

activity soon.” The reliability for the SRS in the current study was good with internal consistency

of ⍺ = .802. Diehl, Semegon, and Schwarzer (2006) demonstrated validity with the SRS when

positive correlations were found with positive affect and negative correlations with depressive

symptoms.

The Adult Temperament Questionnaire-Short Form (ATQ-SF; Evans & Rothbart, 2007)

is a shortened version of the original ATQ (Evans & Rothbart, 2007) which is a self-report

temperament questionnaire that has four constructs: effortful control, negative affect,
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 10

extraversion/surgency, and orienting sensitivity. In the present study, effortful control items were

administered to assess cognitive self-regulation and yielded values for three indices: attentional

control, activation control, and inhibitory control. Attentional control refers to one’s ability to

choose what they want to concentrate on. For example, a questionnaire item for attentional

control reads “When I am trying to focus my attention, I am easily distracted.” Activation

Control refers to one’s ability to perform a task despite a strong desire to avoid it. A

questionnaire item for this construct is “I can make myself work on a difficult task even when I

don’t feel like trying.” Finally, inhibitory control refers to one’s ability to withhold inappropriate

behavior. One of the items reads “I can easily resist talking out of turn, even when I’m excited

and want to express an idea.” In the current sample, internal consistency estimates for the three

effortful control variables ranged from .504 to .705 [INH: .504; ATT: .705; ACQ: .679]. The

ATQ-SF has been found to show convergence with the Big Five.

Creativity

The Emotion/Motivation Related Divergent and Convergent Thinking Styles Scale

(EDICOS; Soroa, Balluerka, Hommel, & Aritzeta, 2015) is a 30-item questionnaire rated on a 6-

point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree and 6: strongly agree). The EDICOS assesses 4 distinct

thinking styles of creativity: convergent-unpleasant, convergent-preventative, divergent-

proactive, and divergent-pleasant. The scales are distinguished by divergent vs. convergent

(thinking styles), pleasant vs. unpleasant (affective styles), and proactive vs. preventative

(motivational systems) to account for dynamic individual differences. An example item for

convergent-unpleasant reads “While working on a complex problem I feel a certain level of

anxiety” while a convergent-preventative item example would read “I like to anticipate the

consequences that my decisions will have.” Additionally, an example item for divergent-
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 11

proactive was “I am motivated to change ideas until finding the most innovative one” in

comparison to a divergent-pleasant example item which stated “When I get involved in projects

that require creativity I feel joy” (Soroa, Balluerka, Hommel, & Aritzeta, 2015). The reliability

for the EDICOS in the current study was acceptable with internal consistency values ranging

from .703 to .844. Construct validity with the EDICOS has been demonstrated with the creative

thinking styles relating positively to measures of motivational and emotional creativity (Soroa,

Balluerka, Hommel, & Aritzeta, 2015).

Perceived Stress

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein, 1983) is a 14-item

questionnaire that is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0: never and 4: very often). The PSS assesses

one’s level of self-reported stress and asks questions such as “In the last month, how often have

you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems?” and “In the last month,

how often have you found that you could not cope with all the things you had to do?” Cohen,

Kamarck, and Mermelstein (1983) found that the PSS was both reliable and correlated with

physical symptomatology. The reliability for the PSS in the current study was good with an

internal consistency estimate of = .861.

Data Analytic Plan

Multiple regression analyses were used within a path analytic framework to answer my

first three research questions: R1 investigating the association between an individual’s self-

regulation abilities and the amount of stress perceived in college, R2 evaluating the association

between an individual’s self-regulation abilities and their ability to engage in divergent thinking

and R3, examining the relation between an individual's self-regulatory abilities and their ability

to engage in divergent thinking to see if they can be partially explained through levels of
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 12

perceived stress. In the case of missing values on the ATQ, any missing data was replaced with

the item mean from the sample as recommended by the ATQ test authors (Evans & Rothbart,

2007).

Results

Initial means and correlations can be found in Table 1. In the present study, my first

research question investigated the relation between an individual’s cognitive self-regulatory

abilities and the amount of perceived stress experienced in a sample of college students. To

assess this, multiple regression analyses were performed utilizing the PROCESS macro for SPSS

(Hayes, 2012). Results of the regression analyses revealed that there were significant direct

effects between each facet of self-regulation and perceived stress. Specifically, INH (ß= -.17),

ACV (ß= -.19), ATT (ß= -.19), and SRS (ß= -.76) each significantly predicted perceived stress.

The second research question sought to find the association between an individual’s self-

regulatory abilities and their ability to engage in divergent thinking. When predicting

convergent-preventative thinking styles, each of the self-regulation scales were each significant

predictors (ATT (β = .11), ACV (β = .11), INH (β = .18), and SRS (β = .44). For both divergent-

proactive and divergent-unpleasant thinking styles, both ACV (β = 0.12 & 0.15, respectively)

and SRS (β = 0.36 & 0.42, respectively) were significant predictors. Convergent-unpleasant

thinking styles were not significantly predicted by any of the measured self-regulatory abilities.

Results of parameter estimates can be found in Table 2.

For my third research question, I wanted to see if the relationship between an individual's

self-regulatory abilities and their ability to engage in divergent thinking could be partially

explained through levels of perceived stress. There was a significant indirect effect of the

convergent-unpleasant thinking style on the ATT through stress: ATT (95%CI: -.09, -.03), ACV
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 13

(95%CI: -.11, -.04), INH (95%CI: -.10, -.03), and SRS (95%CI: -.40, -.18). There was no

significant indirect effect of stress on the association between the convergent-preventative

thinking style and the ATT (ACV, INH, SRS), divergent-proactive and the ATT (ACV, INH,

SRS), nor divergent-pleasant and the ATT (ACV, INH, SRS).

Finally, my last research question, assessing whether any indirect effects between self-

regulatory abilities and the ability to engage in divergent thinking through levels of perceived

stress were dependent upon major (i.e., moderation mediation) was not able to be determined due

to an insufficient number of non-psychology majors. More specifically, less than 2% of

participants self-identified as working towards one of UTC’s creative majors, including Art

Education, Painting and Drawing, Creative Writing, Music, Photography and Media, and

Theatre.

Discussion

In regard to research question 1, I hypothesized that there would be a negative association

between self-regulation and stress. That turned out to be correct on all four measures as a

negative association was found between the two constructs. For research question 2, I predicted

that a positive relationship would be found between self-regulation and the ability to engage in

divergent thinking. This turned out to be correct for some factors of the creative thinking styles,

but not all. This could be in part because, conceptually, as one’s ability to understand a situation

and determine the appropriate response increases so does their control of the situation; therefore,

lessening one’s stress response. When predicting convergent-preventative thinking styles, ATT,

ACV, INH, and SRS were each significant predictors of self-regulation. ACV and SRS each

significantly predicted both divergent thinking styles. Convergent-unpleasant thinking styles

were not a significant across any factor. These findings were in line with previous research
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 14

suggesting that higher divergent thinking requires greater levels of cognitive control (Zabelina &

Ganis, 2018).

Research question 3 was hypothesized that there would be a partial mediation between

the self-regulatory abilities and the creative thinking styles through perceived stress. The results

indicated that there were significant indirect effects of stress between a few of the thinking styles

and the ATT. There was a significant indirect effect of stress on the association between the

convergent-unpleasant thinking style and the ATT, specifically: ACV, INH, and SRS. However,

there was no significant indirect effect of stress on the association between convergent-

preventative and the ATT, divergent-proactive and the ATT, nor the divergent-pleasant and the

ATT. While stress has a higher influence on certain mental abilities more than others, previous

research has shown stress to affect divergent thinking as opposed to convergent (Krop, Alegre, &

Williams, 1969). The difference in findings are important to note because it could be that stress

and the convergent-unpleasant thinking style are more closely linked than previously thought.

One of the limitations of this study was that the internal consistency for inhibitory control

was very low. Additionally, there were not enough participants to properly address the fourth

research question regarding the moderation of the indirect effect (i.e., moderated mediation) by

academic major. Future studies should make an effort to ensure more creative majors are

recruited as UTC’s subject pool coordination system (SONA) primarily serves psychology

majors. Perhaps the deficiency of creative majors was brought on by a lack of familiarity with

SONA when presented with the survey and the additional privation of potential incentive for

extra credit for a class outside of the psychology department led to a deterrence in participation.

In conclusion, I set out to find the relationship between self-regulation and stress. The

regression analysis revealed a negative association between the two which was in line with some
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 15

of the previous literature and adds further validity to the negative association between the two

constructs. In regards to the relationship between self-regulation and divergent thinking, a

positive relationship was found for both divergent thinking styles which goes along with

previous research demonstrating a positive relationship between the two, but does not explain the

positive correlation between effortful control and the convergent-preventative thinking style.

More research should be done to further investigate the relationship between the two. Lastly,

stress was shown to have significant indirect effects as a mediator between effortful control and

the convergent-unpleasant thinking style. This indirect effect is notable considering these

findings contradict previous research stating that stress affects divergent thinking.
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 16

References

Arnett, J. (2007). Emerging adulthood: What is it, and what is it good for? Child Development

Perspectives, 1(2), 68–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00016.x

Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intelligence, general knowledge and

personality as predictors of creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 532-

535. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.008

Best, J. & Miller, P. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child

Development, 81(6), 1641–1660. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x

Best, J., Miller, P., & Jones, L. (2009). Executive functions after age 5: Changes and correlates.

Developmental Review, 29(3), 180–200. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2009.05.002

Bridgett, D., Oddi, K., Laake, L., Murdock, K., & Bachmann, M. (2013). Integrating and

differentiating aspects of self-regulation: Effortful control, executive functioning, and

links to negative affectivity. Emotion, 13(1), 47–63. doi:10.1037/a0029536

Burger, K., & Samuel, R. (2017). The role of perceived stress and self-efficacy in young

people’s life satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(1),

78–90. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0608-x

Carriedo, N., Corral, A., Montoro, P., Herrero, L., & Rucián, M. (2016). Development of the

updating executive function: From 7-year-olds to young adults. Developmental

Psychology, 52(4), 666-678. doi:10.1037/dev0000091

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. doi: 10.2307/2136404

SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 17

Dӑu-Gaşpar, O. (2013). Verbal and figural creativity in contemporary high-school students.

Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 662-666.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.371

Diehl, M., Semegon, A., & Schwarzer, R., (2006). Assessing attention control in goal pursuit: A

component of dispositional self-regulation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(3),

306–317. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8603_06

Eisenman, R. (1969). Creativity and academic major: Business versus English majors. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 53(5), 392-395. doi: 10.1037/h0028075

Evans, D. & Rothbart, M. (2007). Developing a model for adult temperament. Journal of

Personality Psychology, 41, 868-888. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.11.002

Friedman, N., Miyake, A., Altamirano, L., Corley, R., Young, S., Rhea, S., & Hewitt, J. (2016).

Stability and change in executive function abilities from late adolescence to early

adulthood: A longitudinal twin study. Developmental Psychology, 52(2), 326–340. doi:

10.1037/dev0000075

Ganster, D. & Rosen, C. (2013). Work stress and employee health. Journal of Management,

39(5), 1085–1122. doi:10.1177/0149206313475815

Krop, H., Alegre, C., & Williams, C. (1969). Effect of induced stress on convergent and

divergent thinking. Psychological Reports, 24, 895. doi.org:10.2466/pr0.1969.24.3.895

Liew, J. (2012). Effortful control, executive functions, and education: Bringing self-regulatory

and social-emotional competencies to the table. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2),

105–111. doi.org: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00196.x

SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 18

Lin, W., Hsu, K., Chen, H., & Chang, W. (2013). Different attentional traits, different

creativities. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9(C), 96–106.

doi.org:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.10.002

Mcclelland, M., Acock, A., Piccinin, A., Rhea, S., & Stallings, M. (2013). Relations between

preschool attention span-persistence and age 25 educational outcomes. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 28(2), 314–324. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.008

Marko, M., & Riečanský, I. (2018). Sympathetic arousal, but not disturbed executive

functioning, mediates the impairment of cognitive flexibility under stress. Cognition, 174,

94–102. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.004

Moga, E., Burger, K., Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2000). Does studying the arts engender

creative thinking? Evidence for near but not far transfer. Journal of Aesthetic Education,

34(3), 91-104. doi:10.2307/3333639

Nigg, J. (2017). Review of annual research review: On the relations among self regulation,

self control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity,

risk taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(4), 361–383. doi.org: 10.1111/jcpp.12675

Olpin, M. N. (1997). Perceived stress levels and sources of stress among college students:

Methods, frequency, and effectiveness of managing stress by college students (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from PsycINFO. (619258620; 1997-95007-112). Retrieved from

https://proxy.lib.utc.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/619258620?acco

untid=14767. (Order No. AAM9708771).

SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 19

Poon, K. (2018). Hot and cool executive functions in adolescence: Development and

contributions to important developmental outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2311.

doi.org: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02311

Roos, L., Knight, E., Beauchamp, K., Berkman, E., Faraday, K., Hyslop, K., & Fisher, P. (2017).

Acute stress impairs inhibitory control based on individual differences in parasympathetic

nervous system activity. Biological Psychology, 125, 58–63.

doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.03.004

Rothbart, M., Ellis, L., Rueda, M., & Posner, M. (2003). Developing mechanisms of

temperamental effortful control. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1113–1144.

doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7106009

Seehagen, S., Schneider, S., Rudolph, J., Ernst, S., & Zmyj, N. (2015). Stress impairs cognitive

flexibility in infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America, 112(41), 12882-12886. doi:10.1073/pnas.1508345112

Soroa, G., Balluerka, N., Hommel, B., & Aritzeta, A. (2015). Assessing interactions between

cognition, emotion, and motivation in creativity: The construction and validation of

EDICOS. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 17, 45-58. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2015.05.002

Woodward, J. & Sikes, P. (2015). The creative thinking ability of musicians and nonmusicians.

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 75-80. doi:10.1037/a0038177

Zabelina, D. & Ganis, G. (in press). Creativity and cognitive control: Behavioral and ERP

evidence that divergent thinking, but not real-life creative achievement, relates to better

cognitive control. Neuropsychologia, 1-44. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.02.014

Zhou, Q., Chen, S., & Main, A. (2012). Commonalities and differences in the research on

children’s effortful control and executive function: A call for an integrated model of
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 20

self regulation. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 112–121. doi.org:

10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00176.x
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 21

Figure 1: Conceptual Mediation Diagram

Perceived Stress

Self-Regulation Creativity
SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 22

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Convergent-Unpleasant 35.63 5.47
2. Convergent-Preventative 35.64 5.74 0.14
3. Divergent-Proactive 37.65 6.27 0.04 0.47
4. Divergent-Pleasant 21.74 3.97 0.43 0.41 0.61
5. Attentional Control (ATT) 19.16 4.9 -0.17 0.19 0.53 0.08
6. Activation Control (ACV) 33.81 5.76 -0.05 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.37
7. Inhibitory Control (INH) 30.15 5.39 -0.05 0.2 0.09 0.05 0.37 0.23
8. Self-Regulation Scale (SRS) 27.26 4.26 -0.16 0.24 0.16 0.19 0.63 0.41 0.36
9. Perceived Stress 19.7 6.1 0.32 -0.11 -0.01 -0.05 -0.35 -0.28 -0.24 -0.53
10. Age 20.09 3.78 0.04 0.22 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.02 0.15 0.19 -0.17
 SELF-REGULATION, CREATIVITY, & STRESS 23

Table 2: Parameter Estimates of Direct and Indirect Effects

Parameter Estimates
Convergent-Unpleasant Convergent-Preventative Divergent-Proactive Divergent-Pleasant
Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE

INH➔ Thinking Style (XY) 0.01 0.04 0.18*** 0.05 0.08† 0.05 0.04 0.06
*** ***
INH➔ Stress (XM) -0.17 0.04 -0.17 0.04 -0.17*** 0.04 -0.17 ***
0.04
Stress➔ Thinking Style (MY) 0.36 ***
0.06 -0.08 0.07 0.01 0.06 † 0.08
-0.05
Indirect effect ab = -0.06 [CI= -0.10, -0.03] ab = 0.01 [CI = -0.00, 0.04] ab = -0.00 [CI = -0.02, 0.02] ab = 0.00 [CI = -.017, 0.04]

ACV➔ Thinking Style (XY) 0.02 0.04 0.11* 0.05 0.12** 0.04 0.15** 0.05
*** *** *** ***
ACV➔ Stress (XM) -0.19 0.04 -0.19 0.04 -0.19 0.04 -0.19 0.04
Stress➔ Thinking Style (MY) 0.37 ***
0.06 -0.09 0.07 † 0.06 -0.00 0.08
0.04
Indirect effect ab = -0.07 [CI = -0.12, -0.04] ab = 0.01 [CI = -0.00, .05] ab = -0.00 [CI = -.03, 0.01] ab = 0.00 [CI = -.03, 0.03]

ATT➔ Thinking Style (XY) -0.04 0.03 0.11** 0.04 0.03* 0.03 0.05* 0.04
ATT➔ Stress (XM) -0.19*** 0.03 -0.19*** 0.03 -0.19*** 0.03 -0.19*** 0.03
***
Stress➔ Thinking Style (MY) 0.32 0.06 -0.06 0.07 0.01 0.07 -0.02 0.08
Indirect effect ab= -0.06 [CI= -0.09, -0.03] ab = 0.01 [CI= -0.01, 0.47] ab = -0.00 [CI= -0.03, 0.02] ab =0.00 [CI= -0.02, 0.04]

SRS➔ Thinking Style (XY) 0.03 0.10 0.44*** 0.11 0.36*** 0.11 0.42*** 0.12
*** *** *** ***
SRS➔ Stress (XM) -0.76 0.07 -0.76 0.07 -0.76 0.07 -0.76 0.07
*** *
Stress➔ Thinking Style (MY) 0.37 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.09
Indirect effect ab = -0.28 [CI= -0.41, -0.18] ab =-0.02 [CI= -0.14, 0.09] ab = -0.09 [CI= -0.22, 0.02] ab= -0.07 [CI= -0.20, 0.06]
Note: (†= p < .1, *= p < .05, **= p < .01, ***= p < .001)