Creativity studies

ISSN 2345-0479 / eISSN 2345-0487

2022 Volume 15 Issue 1: 1–24
https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2022.13449

THE FAMILIAL CONTEXT OF CHILDREN’S CREATIVITY:

PARENTING STYLES AND THE CLIMATE FOR CREATIVITY IN
PARENT–CHILD RELATIONSHIP

Dorota Maria JANKOWSKA *, Jacek GRALEWSKI

Department of Educational Sciences, The Maria Grzegorzewska University,
40 Szczesliwicka St., 02-353 Warsaw, Poland

Received 27 August 2020; accepted 27 February 2021

Abstract. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between dimensions of a con-
structive parenting style, (i.e. parental acceptance and autonomy granting) factors of the climate
for creativity in parent–child relationships (encouragement to experience novelty and variety,
encouragement of nonconformism, support of perseverance in creative efforts, and encourage-
ment to fantasize), and parents’ visual mental imagery. 313 parents of children between 6 and
12 years of age participated in the study. The results indicated that (a) a constructive parenting
style was positively related to three of four factors of the climate for creativity in the parent–child
relationships, i.e. encouragement to experience novelty and variety, support of perseverance in
creative efforts, and encouragement to fantasize in the parent–child relationship; (b) parents’ level
of vividness of mental imagery was positively related with both parental acceptance of child and
autonomy support as well as components of climate for creativity in parent–child relationship; (c)
mothers scored significantly higher than fathers in exhibiting acceptance of a child; (d) parents’
gender played an important role in the relations between dimensions of constructive parenting
style and factors of climate for creativity in parent–child relationships. Findings were discussed
in terms of the implications for further research and theory development in the area of family
influences on the development of children’s creativity.

Keywords: climate for creativity in parent–child relationship, creative home environment, creativ-
ity, parenting styles, visual mental imagery.

Introduction
The family as a basic social institution plays a crucial role in child’s development, includ-
ing creativity (e.g. Jankowska & Karwowski, 2019; Koestner et al., 1999; Miller & Gerard,
1979; Pang et al., 2020). Many studies were conducted on the impact of family relations on
creativity (e.g. Green Gardner & Moran, 1990; Lebuda & Csikszentmihalyi, 2020; Michel &
Dudek, 1991), but there is still a lack of research on a specific climate for creativity in the
relationship between a parent and a child (Kwaśniewska & Lebuda, 2017). Most existing

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author
and source are credited.
2 D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...

studies on climate for creativity focused on an organizational setting (Ekvall, 1996; Hunter
et al., 2007) and school environment (e.g. Ekvall & Ryhammar, 1998; Furman, 1998; Kallestad
et al., 1998; Karwowski, 2011). It is proven that parents who support their child’s creativity
create a specific climate within the home, i.e. they encourage to experience novelty, variety,
and nonconformism, inspire to fantasize and creative thinking, and support for persever-
ance in creativity efforts (Kwaśniewska et al., 2018). On the other hand, it has also been
proved that the parenting style characterized by parental warmth, acceptance of child, and
autonomy support plays a vital role in a child’s creativity development (e.g. Fan & Zhang,
2014; Grolnick et al., 2002; Lim & Smith, 2008; Tennent & Berthelsen, 1997). In fact, both
in the case of research on parenting styles and research on the climate for creativity in the
family context, the analyses concern parental practices. The only difference between the two
cases is that in the first one the analyses are at a general-domain level, which means that they
relate to a wide range of behaviors related to parenthood, while analyses of the climate for
creativity are domain-specific, i.e. they are associated with parents’ behavior of supporting
their child’s creativity. Interestingly, the relationship between parenting styles and parental
behaviors that constitute the climate of creativity in a family context has not been examined
yet. However, in other areas of parental research (see e.g. parental self-efficacy: Wittkowski
et al., 2017), such levels of measurement and analysis have already been established. Ad-
ditionally, parental styles analysis was assigned to a broader category of research into the
climate in family life and the quality of home environment (Olszewski et al., 1987). To fill
this gap in empirical literature on creative home environment, the present study was designed
as likely the first attempt to investigate the link between constructive parental styles (more
specifically, parental acceptance and autonomy granting) and dimensions of the climate for
creativity in parent–child relationships, namely encouragement to experience novelty and
variety, encouragement of nonconformism, support of perseverance in creative efforts, and
encouragement to fantasize. It also takes into account vividness of visual mental imagery as
parents’ creative potential (e.g. González et al., 1997; Jankowska & Karwowski, 2020; Palm-
iero et al., 2011). Thus, through the findings of this study it is hoped that this might lead to
a better understanding of parental behaviors that build a creative home environment. It is
important because parents who value creativity and provide a creative home environment
are more likely to nurture children’s creativity (Pugsley & Acar, 2020).

1. Fostering creativity at home

Research on family factors related to the development of children’s talent and creativity can
be divided into four main categories: (1) family structural characteristics, such as socio-
economic status, family size, family structure, sibling constellations or number of siblings;
(2) family climate or environment that refers to the dimensions of atmosphere within the
home and includes parenting styles and attitudes, behaviors and practices, as well as emphasis
on structure, and rules for family life; (3) values espoused by parents regarding success and
achievement; and (4) values enacted/modelled, such as providing cultural experiences (see
e.g. Olszewski et al., 1987). Both analyses of parenting styles and family climate in parent–
child relationship refer to the second of these categories. These characteristics capture the
Creativity Studies, 2022, 15(1): 1–24 3

quality of home environment and cover parental behaviors and structures intended to realize
basic functions for optimal children’s development, including safety/sustenance, stimulation,
socioemotional support, structure, and surveillance (Bradley & Corwyn, 2013).
In the field of creativity, despite the long history of studies regarding the influence of fam-
ily factors on realization of children’s creative potential, research on the role of home (family)
environmental factors is still quite limited (e.g., Deng et al., 2016; Jankowska & Karwowski,
2019). Early theoretical perspectives on this subject emphasized that parents who encourage
their children to develop and express their own thoughts, feelings, and ideas (autonomy)
while maintaining secure attachment and positive emotional bonds (acceptance) create a
creative home environment (e.g., Erikson, 1950; Rogers, 1954). Rogers (1954) was likely the
first to try to define and describe a creativity-fostering environment, emphasizing the role
of psychological safety and freedom. When testing this theory, Harrington, J. H. Block and
J. Block (1987) found significant relationships between parenting behaviors suggested by
Rogers and creative potential at both preschool stage and seven years later in early adoles-
cence years. When controlled for the effects of sex, intelligence, and preschool creativity,
these results were still significant.
Further empirical studies that examined the influence of a family environment on chil-
dren’s creativity also revealed a relationship between creativity and parenting style, which is
conceptualized as a constellation of parents’ attitudes and behaviors toward children and an
emotional climate in which the parents’ behaviors are expressed (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
Baumrind (1967) and later Maccoby and Martin (1983) described two dimensions in parent-
ing styles, namely demandingness and responsiveness, identifying four types of parenting
styles: authoritative, permissive, authoritarian, and neglectful. More recent studies on parent-
ing styles more frequently focus on parental warmth, control, and structure, defined as “the
features, the qualities, the descriptive scheme used to capture the nature of parenting” (Skin-
ner et al., 2005, p. 184). Parenting style is also categorized as constructive (supportive–posi-
tive) and destructive (harsh–negative) in terms of these dimensions (e.g. Darling & Steinberg,
1993; Simons et al., 1990). This approach emphasizes a type of parenting that includes both
emotional (e.g. affection, warmth) and behavioral (e.g. monitoring and control) components.
Constructive parenting includes multiple aspects of parenting, such as parental warmth and
involvement, acceptance, autonomy granting, parental support, clear communication, appro-
priate monitoring and supervision, consistent discipline, and authoritative parenting. These
parenting behaviors might be labeled as constructive parenting, because they support and
contribute to positive child development. Destructive parenting refers to the behaviors that
involve hostility, rejection, coercion, punishments, inconsistent discipline, authoritarian par-
enting, and permissive parenting (e.g. Kawabata et al., 2011; Simons et al., 1990).
In this study, we categorize a parenting style into five dimensions: acceptance of child,
autonomy support, over-protecting, over-demanding, and lack of consequence (Plopa, 2008),
which express parental warmth and control. The dimensions of acceptance of child and au-
tonomy support create a constructive (desirable) parental style, which we assume will be asso-
ciated with the climate for creativity in parent–child relationship. The dimension of acceptance
stresses unconditional acceptance of a child as a person, which means respecting and loving
the child without regard for her or his positive or negative traits and its understructure of the
4 D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...

parental warmth dimension. An accepting parent creates the atmosphere of a free exchange
of feelings and thoughts, trust towards the world and people, safety, and providing a sense of
support. Parents who display an attitude of autonomy act in a flexible way and adapt to their
children’s developmental needs. Parents evaluated as excessively intervening in a children’s
life (with excessive protection) are interested in each, even the smallest, manifestation of a
child’s activity. They interfere in children’s personal affairs, want to know everything about
them, and try to surround them with constant care. Excessive demands are associated with
demanding unconditional obedience. Such parents limit their children’s autonomy through
numerous bans, orders, and punishments. They have a vision of their children’s future and rig-
idly demand its imposition. The attitude of inconsistency means that the relationship between
a parent and a child is variable, depending on temporary mood, mood and other personal
matters, but not necessarily related to family life (Fijałkowska & Bielawska-Batorowicz, 2020;
Plopa, 2008; Puchalska-Wasyl & Jankowski, 2020; Skinner et al., 2005).
Our conceptualization of the climate for creativity in parent–child relationship is de-
fined as “parents’ overall relatively constant behavioral pattern that helps the child acquire a
mindset, attitudes, personal qualities, and skills necessary for creativity” (Kwaśniewska et al.,
2018, p. 14). The climate for creativity in parent–child relationship focuses on empirically
derived factors, namely encouragement to experience novelty, variety, and nonconformism,
inspiration to fantasize and creative thinking, and support for perseverance in creativity ef-
forts (Kwaśniewska et al., 2018; Kwaśniewska & Lebuda, 2017). The factors identified in this
concept primarily encompass an attitude that promotes children’s autonomy and acceptance
for their creative endeavors. Encouragement to experience novelty and variety means par-
ents’ willingness to put their children in new situations and encouraging them to think and
act out of the box. Encouragement of nonconformism is about allowing parents to follow
their children’s own paths, including breaking established social norms and crossing their
boundaries. Support of perseverance in creative efforts is associated with parents’ willingness
to support their children in their creative activity, appreciation of their children’s ideas, and
motivating them to continue to act even if they fail. Encouragement to Fantasize is about
encouraging children to think creatively and use their imagination (Kwaśniewska et al., 2018;
Kwaśniewska & Lebuda, 2017).

2. Association between dimensions of parenting styles and factors of climate

for creativity in parent–child relationship
The concept of creativity is a broad construct that has been defined and operationalized in
numerous ways in various studies. Developmental psychologists, who focus in their work
on opportunities for developing creative potential, emphasize the role of children’s experi-
ence of novelty and variety in the development of little-c and mini-c creativity (Beghetto &
Kaufman, 2007; Runco, 2003). Undoubtedly, children’s autonomy in action is the basis for
such impacts. Wide knowledge of the world and a variety of information from different fields
constitute a cultural capital, which is important for the development of children’s creativity
(Kwaśniewska et al., 2018). Allowing children to experiment, to search creatively, to solve
problems on their own, seems to be the best way to support the development of creative
Creativity Studies, 2022, 15(1): 1–24 5

(divergent) thinking, with several important characteristics, namely: (1) fluency, understood
as the ability to come up with many ideas; (2) flexibility, or the ability to create solutions that
are qualitatively diverse; (3) originality, responsible for producing rare and untypical ideas;
and (4) elaboration – the ability to develop ideas (Guilford, 1967). Moreover, it has been
proven that creative people grew up in families that encouraged their children to experi-
ence novelty and variety (Tennent & Berthelsen, 1997). Thus, promoting the development of
children’s creativity is linked to allowing them to be independent and take risks in new and
unfamiliar ideas (Michel & Dudek, 1991). Also, families of eminent and professional creators
provided them with intellectual stimulation, encouraged exploration of the environment,
strengthened the autonomy of thinking, supported new interests, and granted their children
the right to make autonomic choices (e.g. Goertzel & Hansen, 2004; Gute et al., 2008). Based
on these reports, we formulated the following hypotheses:
H1a and H1b: It is assumed that in the parent–child relationship, a constructive parenting
style [i.e. parental acceptance of child (H1a) and autonomy granting (H1b)] would be positively
related to the encouragement to experience novelty and variety.
Many researchers view the concept of creativity through the prism of personality traits
that include independence (e.g. Batey & Furnham, 2006; Nickerson, 2002; Stavridou & Furn-
ham, 1996). Autonomy and independence have also been tied to creative potential in early
developmental and personality literature (e.g. Albert & Runco, 1988; Cropley, 1971; Rejskind,
1982; Torrance, 1965; Treffinger, 1980). For instance, Ch. A. Wright and S. D. Wright (1986)
defined creative family environment and stressed three main components, i.e. (1) acceptance
and respect for the child, (2) stimulation of independence, and (3) enriched learning environ-
ment. Currently, independence with regard to children is defined as a personality dimension
marked by nonconformism and low agreeableness as well as readiness to oppose the situ-
ationally evoked influence of the group and external factors (Karwowski & Jankowska, 2016).
It has been shown that children’s creativity is fostered in a home environment that provides a
balance of independence, self-expression, and risk-taking in a safe environment (Harrington,
1999). Literature on creativity, also suggested the significance of the combination of parental
stimulation and support. It turns out that children who feel supported by their parents and
challenged to develop their independence and individuality (autonomy) develop better than
those who only receive support or challenge (Howe, 2002; Rathunde, 1996). Also, it has
been shown that parental support characterized by acceptance is associated with children’s
high levels of creativity, autonomy, and low levels of conformity (Fan & Zhang, 2014). In
research on parenting styles, we found that the authoritative parenting style (characterized
by high levels of warmth and autonomy encouragement toward the children) is associated
with close ties, adaptive control techniques, and appropriate independence. Authoritative
parents who encourage their children’s autonomy and freedom of thought, interests, and
ideas while maintaining positive emotional bonds (acceptance), are more likely to provide
environments that actively encourage independence and exploration of ideas (Lim & Smith,
2008; Mehrinejad et al., 2015). This encouragement demonstrates to children their parents’
high priority for independence and stimulates efforts along these lines. On the other hand,
authoritarian mothers (contrary in terms of warmth and responsiveness) establish restrictive
environments that inhibit growing their children’s independence by using physical means of
6 D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...

discipline and expecting their children not to make mistakes (Tennent & Berthelsen, 1997).
Therefore, the next hypotheses of the present study were:
H2a and H2b: It is assumed that in the parent–child relationship, a constructive parenting
style [i.e. parental acceptance of child (H2a) and autonomy granting (H2b)] would be positively
related to encouragement of nonconformism.
A persistent attitude is defined as continuously striving and committing to goals regard-
less of immediate rewards. It is proved that it is one of the most critical creative characteris-
tics of the greatest innovators; one that helped them overcome the lack of resources and all
another barriers (Kim, 2016). Also, a longitudinal study of professional creativity points to
the importance of persistence for creativity (Helson et al., 1995). Moreover, most recognized
creativity theories include personality traits related to persistence (see e.g. Teresa M. Ama-
bile’s componential theory of creativity: 1983, 2012) and point, for example, to the value of
perseverance in the face of obstacles (Rank et al., 2004). However, in relation to children, it is
difficult to talk about a persistent attitude in creative work, which is why emphasis is placed
on perseverance in creative efforts, involvement in creative activity in the face of difficulty,
challenge or uncertainty, and willingness to take risks and learn from mistakes (Robson &
Rowe, 2012). Creativity researchers provide support for the notion that parents play an im-
portant role in facilitating their children’s creative efforts, which can help lay the foundation
for their future creative achievements (Craft, 2005). For instance, Karnes et al. (1984) found
that parents of gifted children more often encouraged their children to be more independent
and support their autonomous efforts. In many guides for parents who want to create a cre-
ative home environment, one can find suggestions for supporting children’s experimentation
and creative effort. Examples of such guidance include “encourage your child to get out and
explore, to exercise body and mind, to find something new to learn and then really learn it,
to be a maverick, to ask questions to be persistent, and to enjoy the process” (Foster, 2015,
p. 143). Research on highly creative individuals proved the role of modeling perseverance
and achievement-producing work habits (Gute et al., 2008). Parental support of children’s
creative effort seems to be particularly promising and important because mature persever-
ance is associated with higher creative achievements (Abuhassàn & Bates, 2015). Based on
these studies, we formulated following the hypotheses:
H3a and H3b: It is assumed that in the parent–child relationship, a constructive parenting
style [i.e. parental acceptance of child (H3a) and autonomy granting (H3b)] would be positively
related to the support of perseverance in creative efforts.
When creativity is understood as a multi-faceted phenomenon, it is also important to
stress that creative imagination is one of the key creative abilities (Karwowski & Jankowska,
2016). It is therefore not surprising that in the development of childhood creativity, research-
ers point to the importance of supporting fantasy, i.e. creative imagination (Glăveanu et al.,
2018). According to Vygotsky (2004), imagination helps children to understand the world
around them. Operation of imagination depends on the quantity and diversity of experience,
so parents should encourage their children to use their creative imagination e.g. through
symbolic play, in which children not only reproduce previous experiences but also, with the
help of creative (combinatorial) imagination, create new situations and behaviors. Imagina-
tive play is a natural way of supporting children’s creative, autonomous expression and a key
Creativity Studies, 2022, 15(1): 1–24 7

element of their healthy development (Russ, 2004). In this type of play, children manipulate
symbols and representations of objects, recombining ideas and visual mental images accord-
ing to your own ideas, which is important for their creative exploration. But assumption that
children are able to think and act autonomously forms the basis for such support (Jankowska
& Omelańczuk, 2018). Moreover, it has been empirically demonstrated that play combined
with the use of fantasy is one of the predictors of adult creativity (Russ et al., 1999). That is
why it is so important to encourage fantasizing and creating a climate conducive to imagi-
native play from an early age. Likewise, Tennent and Berthelsen (1997) found that mothers
who provide the environment that nurtures children’s creativity, also value their curiosity and
creative imagination. Accordingly, we hypothesized that:
H4a and H4b: It is assumed that in the parent–child relationship, a constructive parenting
style [i.e. parental acceptance of child (H4a) and autonomy granting (H4b)] would be positively
related to the encouragement to fantasize.
In literature, the meaning of “visual mental imagery” is explained by the quality of an
individual’s visual mental imagery, which is measured in terms of the abilities to generate
it, control of the mental images, preference, as well as by the vividness of mental repre-
sentations (McAvinue & Robertson, 2007). Vividness of visual mental imagery, defined as
clarity, liveliness of a mental image, and degree of similarity between subjective experience
of visual imagery and corresponding perceptual experience (D’Angiulli & Reeves, 2007), is
the most commonly measured dimension of imagery ability (Kihlstrom et al., 1991), also in
creativity literature (e.g. LeBoutillier & Marks, 2003). There is plenty of empirical evidence
to show that vividness of images and creativity (mainly creative thinking) are interconnected
(Jankowska & Karwowski, 2020), which is confirmed by a meta-analysis that sums up these
studies (r = .2–.4) (LeBoutillier & Marks, 2003). There are many examples of creators and
designers who used their imagery to create (Miller, 2000). Thus, it might be speculated that
vivid visual imagery are also helpful in parental creativity. Classic studies have demonstrated
that mental imagery is related to creative behavior (Morrison & Wallace, 2001). Based on the
above, we assume that vividness of mental images, defined as a parents’ creative potential,
can help parents understand, visualize, and ultimately create opportunities for creativity in
the home environment.
Although literature on creativity suggests existence of relationships between parents’ be-
haviors and climate for creativity in the home environment, most of such studies exclusively
examined maternal parenting characteristics (e.g. Kwaśniewska et al., 2018; Michel & Dudek,
1991; Tennent & Berthelsen, 1997). Thus, fathers continue to be clearly underrepresented in
this research. Moreover, even if mothers and fathers are involved in the study, the researchers
do not analyze gender differences within the indicated range (see e.g. Lim & Smith, 2008).
Meanwhile, studies on the content of parental interactions show that both parents report
behaviors connected to the parental warmth (acceptance) dimension, but these behavioral
expressions are more frequent in mother–child than in father–child dyads (G. Russell &
A. Russell, 1987). And although today fathers are caring for their children more than in
the past (Sayer et al., 2004), mothers still spend a greater share of time taking care of chil-
dren than fathers (e.g. Craig, 2006; McBride & Mills, 1993; Greving Mehall et al., 2009).
Mothers tend to guide, teach, and engage in empathic conversations when interacting with
8 D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...

their children (John et al., 2013). Fathers are more likely to involve in physical and outdoor
play interactions, educational and recreational activities more than any other kinds of caring
(e.g. Craig, 2006; Craig & Mullan, 2011; Greving Mehall et al., 2009). Importantly, during play
fathers are more likely than mothers to encourage their children to take risks and initiative
in unfamiliar situations, overcome obstacles, and explore unconventional play (John et al.,
2013; Kromelow et al., 1990). Supporting this idea, Grossman et al. (2002) made the point
that the role of the father as play partner and a gently challenging companion during creative
exploration of the world may be particularly important in supporting the child’s autonomy,
especially in preschool and early school years. In this paper, we analyze maternal as well as
paternal parenting styles in terms of differential impacts of parents’ gender in creating climate
for creativity in home environment.

3. The present study

The principal purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between dimen-
sions of constructive parenting styles, (i.e. parental acceptance and autonomy granting), and
factors of the climate for creativity in parent–child relationships, namely encouragement to
experience novelty and variety, encouragement of nonconformism, support of perseverance
in creative efforts, and encouragement to fantasize, as well as parents’ vividness of mental im-
agery. Based on the literature review, we formulated eight detailed research hypotheses (H1a,
H1b, H2a, H2b, H3a, H3b, H4a, H4b), which we presented in the theoretical introduction.
Moreover, we formulated the following two research questions:
1. Is there a relationship between parents’ level of vividness of mental imagery, defined
as a parent’s creative potential and climate for creativity in parent–child relationship?
2. Does parents’ gender differentiate the structure of the relationships between dimen-
sions of constructive parenting style and factors of the climate for creativity in par-
ent–child relationship?
To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first research on associations be-
tween dimensions of parenting style and factors of climate for creativity in the family context.

4. Method
4.1. Participants
Data from 313 parents (49.8% of whom were mothers and 50.2% of fathers) were analyzed.
Respondents had between 1 and 4 children (M = 1.89; SD = 0.66), of which 33.5% had one,
47.6% two, 15% three, and 3.8% four. The respondents were between 26 and 54 years of
age, with an average of M = 38.97 and SD = 6.37, whereas fathers were significantly older
(M = 41.11; SD = 6.30) than mothers (M = 36.81; SD = 5.69) F (1, 311) = 40.03; p < .001;
d = 0.72. All participants were Polish. 36.4% of them came from cities with a population of
over 100,000; 27.5% from cities with a population between 20 000 and 100 000; 10.9% from
cities with a population under 20 000; and 25.2% lived in rural areas. Most mothers had high-
er (58.4%) or secondary education (35.8%), and only 4.8% of them held vocational and 1%
Creativity Studies, 2022, 15(1): 1–24 9

elementary education. Fathers’ level of education was slightly lower than that of the mothers,
as 43.5% held higher, 38.4% secondary, 15.5% vocational, and 2.6% elementary education.
The majority of participants (58.3% mothers and 56.7% fathers) declared very good financial
situation, which allows them to satisfy all their needs without sacrifices. 31.4% mothers and
29.3% fathers claimed that they live frugally to satisfy all their needs, while 10.3% mothers
and 14% fathers claimed that their financial situation allows them to satisfy only basic needs
and requires constant saving.

4.2. Measures
The climate for creativity in parent–child relationship. The Climate for Creativity in Par-
ent–Child Relationship Questionnaire (CCP-CRQ) (Kwaśniewska et al., 2018) is a 24-item,
self-administered instrument measuring four dimensions of parental behaviors that promote
the climate for creativity in parent–child relationships: encouragement to experience nov-
elty and variety (e.g. “I try to suggest to my child unconventional ways to solve problems”),
encouragement of nonconformism (e.g. “It is important to me that my child is always be-
ing polite”), support of perseverance in creative efforts (e.g. “I always value my child’s ideas
even if they are far from perfection”), and encouragement to fantasize (e.g. “I encourage
my child to fantasize”). Each scale consists of six items. Using a seven-point response scale
(1 – “entirely disagree”, 4 – “neither agree nor disagree”, 7 – “entirely agree”), participants
rate the degree of their agreement with each item. Each scale of the CCP-CRQ has accept-
able reliability. The values of internal consistency determined by the conservative method of
Cronbach’s alpha range in this study were acceptable: encouragement to experience novelty
and variety α = .81, encouragement of nonconformism α = .77, support of perseverance in
creative efforts α = .89, and encouragement to fantasize α = .75.
Parenting styles. The Parental Attitudes Scale (KPR) (Plopa, 2008) characterize parenting
styles towards children according to five dimensions: acceptance of a child (e.g. “I often try
to make it clear to my child that I love him”), autonomy granting (e.g. “I agree that my child
may make different choices depending on his age”), excessive protecting (e.g. “I always want
to know where my child is and what my child is doing”), excessive requirements (e.g. “I de-
mand absolute obedience from the child”), and inconsistency (e.g. “When I’m nervous, it’s
hard to predict how I’ll behave towards my child”). Each dimension has 10 statements. For
all dimensions, a 5-point response scale is used (1 – “I am definitely not like that and I don’t
act like that”; 3 – “I have doubts if I am like that and I behave like that”; 5 – “I’m definitely
like that and I behave like that”). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the KPR in this study
were average: acceptance α = .91, excessive requirements α = .89, autonomy α = .79, incon-
sistency α = 91, and excessive protecting α = .85.
Vividness of mental imagery. Participants solved the Polish version of the Vividness
of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) that allows for valid and reliable measurement of
vividness of mental imagery (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2020). The VVIQ (Marks 1973) is
the questionnaire that provides a global assessment of the vividness of mental imagery. The
VVIQ consists of 16 items in four groups of 4. The participant is invited to consider the
mental image about specific scenes and situations (e.g. “Visualize a rising sun. Consider care-
10 D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...

fully the picture that comes before your mind’s eye”). For each image, participants indicate
how vivid the four items relating to that image are (e.g. “The sun rising above the horizon
into a hazy sky”) by providing a rating on a scale from one (“Perfectly clear and vivid as real
seeing”) to five (“No image at all, you only “know” that you are thinking of the object”). In-
ternal consistency reliability of the VVIQ is high, usually with alpha coefficients around .90
(e.g. Burton, 2003; Campos & José Pérez-Fabello, 2009), in this study α = .96.

4.3. Procedure
Research was conducted with the use of the Computer Assisted Web Interviewing method
based on original questionnaires in an electronic form. Sample selection was random. Partici-
pants were members of the on-line panel called Pollster Poland research company (including
211 000 Poles altogether, a representative nationwide sample). Participants were randomly
selected from the panel based on three criteria: (1) having children aged 6–12, (2) locality
size, as well as (3) parents’ gender (with the assumption that a half of the sample will be made
up of fathers). Participants were not remunerated for participating in the study. In this study,
only one parent per family contributed data and all participants had one or more children
between 6 and 12 years of age. If the household had more than one child at that age, only
the youngest child was selected as the target child for the study. Mean age of children quali-
fied for the study, meaning those whose parents made statements about with the use of the
CCP-CRQ, amounted to M = 8.89 and SD = 2.04. Children’s gender distribution was almost
proportional, with 53% of girls and 47% of boys. All parents who agreed to participate in
the survey were included were also informed about data confidentiality and they provided
consent to process personal data. Protocol and procedure of the study were accepted by the
Institutional Review Board of one of the author of this article – Dorota Maria Jankowska’s –
university.

4.4. Data analysis

In first step, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were computed. The goal of these
analyses was to perform initial verification of the hypotheses we formulated and first research
question. Next – due to the special role of parents’ gender in further analyses – a multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine whether and to what extent the
measured characteristics differed for mothers and fathers. In order to respond to the research
question no. 2, in the last step we performed a series of hierarchical regression analyses for
the entire sample, and separately among mothers and fathers, to test the moderating effects
of parents gender.

4.5. Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between individual variables controlled in the
study are presented in Table 1.
The structure of relations between individual scales and the KPR (Plopa, 2008) con-
firms the anticipated division into constructive (supportive-positive) and destructive (harsh-
Creativity Studies, 2022, 15(1): 1–24 11

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between study variables (source: created by authors)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Acceptance of a 1
child
2 Excessive re- .03 1
quirements
3 Autonomy .64* –.03 1
granting
4 Inconsistency –.29* .70* –.08 1
5 Excessive pro- .24* .55* .09 .42* 1
tecting
6 Vividness of .37* .01 .26* –.13* –.01 1
Visual Imagery
Questionnaire
7 Encouragement .40* –.16* .33* –.27* –.06 .32* 1
to experience
novelty and
variety
8 Encouragement .05 .30* –.07 .05 .25* .19* .38* 1
of noncon-
formism
9 Support of .49* –.22* .39* –.38* –.01 .28* .76* .42* 1
perseverance in
creative efforts
10 Encouragement .28* –.13* .28* –.18* –.04 .27* .79* .35* .69* 1
to fantasize
11 Child’s age –.05 –.07 .001 –.10 –.01 .01 –.07 .001 –.02 –.09 1
M 4.24 3.03 3.74 2.54 3.19 119.57 5.33 5.10 5.76 5.26 8.89
SD 0.65 0.75 0.55 0.87 0.74 21.33 0.85 0.87 0.80 0.83 2.04
Note: *p < .05.

negative) parenting styles. Consistently, the constructive parenting style is made up of the
dimensions of acceptance and autonomy, which remain in a strong and positive correlation
(r = .64). At the same time, the dimension of acceptance remains in a weak and negative
correlation with the dimension of inconsistency (r = –.29) as well as a weak but positive cor-
relation with the dimension of excessive protecting (r = .24). In turn, destructive parenting
style is made up of the dimensions of excessive requirements, inconsistency and excessive
protecting, which are strongly and positively correlated. The dimension of excessive require-
ments strongly correlated with the dimension of inconsistency (r = .70) as well as excessive
protecting (r = .55). In turn, the dimension of inconsistency was averagely correlated with
the dimension of excessive protecting (r = .42). Characteristically, none of the dimensions
significantly correlated with the attitude of autonomy.
Also, individual dimensions of parental behaviors that promote the climate for creativ-
ity in the parent–child relationships remained in positive correlations that fell between r =
.35 and r = .79, whereby the weakest correlation was observed between encouragement of
12 D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...

nonconformism and encouragement to fantasize, and the strongest between encouragement

to fantasize and encouragement to experience novelty and variety.
Bivarite correlations confirmed that hypotheses H1a, H3a and H4a were right. Accord-
ing to those hypotheses, parental acceptance of a child would be positively related to the
encouragement to experience novelty and variety (r = .40; p < .05), support of perseverance
in creative efforts (r = .49; p < .05), and encouragement to fantasize in the parent–child rela-
tionship (r = .28; p < .05). However, hypothesis H2a, which assumed a correlation between
parental acceptance of child and encouragement of nonconformism (r = .05; p > .05), did
not find its confirmation.
Hypotheses H1b, H3b and H4b were also confirmed. According to them, parental au-
tonomy granting would be positively related to the encouragement to experience novelty and
variety (r = .33; p < .05), support of perseverance in creative efforts (r = .39; p < .05), and
encouragement to fantasize in the parent–child relationship (r = .28; p < .05). However, hy-
pothesis H2b, which anticipated a positive correlation between parental autonomy of a child
and encouragement of nonconformism in the parent–child relationship (r = –.07; p > .05)
did not find its confirmation.
Additionally, we noted weak and negative correlations between parental excessive re-
quirements and the encouragement to experience novelty and variety (r = –.16; p < .05),
support of perseverance in creative efforts (r = –.22; p < .05), and encouragement to fantasize
in the parent–child relationship (r = –.13; p < .05), as well as a weak but positive correlation
of this dimension with encouragement of nonconformism (r = .30; p < .05). In turn, parental
inconsistency strongly and negatively correlated with support of perseverance in creative
efforts (r = –.38; p < .05), as well as weakly and negatively correlated with encouragement
to experience novelty and variety (r = –.27; p < .05), and encouragement to fantasize in the
parent–child relationship (r = –.18; p < .05), while parental excessive protecting weakly but
positively correlated with encouragement of nonconformism in the parent–child relationship
(r = .25; p < .05).
Parents’ level of vividness of mental imagery remained in weak and positive, but statisti-
cally significant relations (p < .05) with individual components of the climate for creativity
in parent–child relationship, which amounted to: r = .32 for encouragement to experience
novelty and variety, r = .19 for encouragement of nonconformism, r = .28 for support of
perseverance in creative efforts and r = .27 for encouragement to fantasize. This confirms
our suppositions that creative potential can help parents create opportunities for creativity in
the home environment. Moreover, parents’ level of vividness of mental imagery remained in
positive and statistically significant correlations with parental acceptance of a child (r = .37;
p < .05) and parental autonomy granting (r = .26; p < .05), while weakly and negatively cor-
relating with parental inconsistency (r = –.13; p < .05). The dimensions of parental excessive
requirements (r = .01; p > .05) as well as excessive protecting (r = –.01; p > .05) did not cor-
relate with parents’ creative potential (i.e. vividness of mental imagery).
The age of children whose parents made statements about did not correlate with any
variables controlled in the study. Likewise, children’s age did not differentiate any of them
either. The MANOVA did not reveal any significant differences [F (10, 300) = 1.34; p > .05]
Creativity Studies, 2022, 15(1): 1–24 13

either when it comes to dimensions of parenting styles, dimensions of climate for creativity
in the parent–child relationships, or parents’ level of vividness of mental imagery.
The MANOVA revealed existence of two statistically significant differences between
mothers’ and fathers’ characteristics [F (10, 302) = 3838.91; p < .001]. According to them,
mothers are characterized by a significantly higher intensity of acceptance of a child than
are fathers [mothers: M = 4.35, SD = 0.66, fathers: M = 4.13; SD = 0.61, F (1, 311) = 9.30;
p < .001; d = .34] and excessive protecting [mothers: M = 3.30; SD = 0.78, fathers: M = 3.08;
SD = 0.67, F (1, 311) = 7.72; p < .001; d = .31]. However, no statistically significant differences
were noted between mothers and fathers in the remaining variables controlled in this study,
namely parental excessive requirements [mothers: M = 3.00; SD = 0.81, fathers: M = 3.06;
SD = 0.69, F (1, 311) = 0.55; p > .05; d = .08], autonomy [mothers: M = 3.74; SD = 0.59,
fathers: M = 3.74; SD = 0.51, F (1, 311) = 0.02 ; p > .05; d = .02], inconsistency [mothers:
M = 2.57; SD = 0.92, fathers: M = 2.50; SD = 0.81 F (1, 311) = 0.66; p > .05; d = .09], level
of vividness of mental imagery [mothers: M = 118.96; SD = 23.35, fathers: M = 120.18;
SD = 19.17, F (1, 311) = 0.26; p > .05; d = .06], encouragement to experience novelty and
variety [mothers: M = 5.30; SD = 0.82, fathers: M = 5.37; SD = 0.87, F (1, 311) = 0.54;
p > .05; d = .08], encouragement of nonconformism [mothers: M = 5.06; SD = 0.88, fathers:
M = 5.14; SD = 0.86, F (1, 311) = 0.67; p > .05; d = .09], support of perseverance in creative
efforts [mothers: M = 5.81; SD = 0.79, fathers: M = 5.71; SD = 0.82, F (1, 311) = 1.23; p > .05;
d = .12] and encouragement to fantasize [mothers: M = 5.24; SD = 0.84, fathers: M = 5.28;
SD = 0.81, F (1, 311) = 0.18; p > .05; d = .05].
In the next step, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses (Table 2). In
each of them, we predicted consecutive dimensions of the climate for creativity in parent–
child relationships. We introduced independent variables in two stages; the first variable was
dimensions of a constructive parenting style, and the second was dimensions of destructive
parenting style. Such a solution made it possible for us to determine percentages of explained
variance (R2) of individual dimensions of the climate for creativity shared by the construc-
tive and destructive parenting style components, thanks to which it then became possible
to identify the one that plays a key role in shaping conditions for parents to support their
children’s creativity. Because a number of variables correlated, we controlled the level of mul-
ticollinearity (see Aiken & West, 1991) for each model. In each model we tested, the variance
inflation factors were below 2.9, which showed that the level of multicollinearity (Hair et al.,
2018) was permissible.
Results of regression analyses for the entire sample confirmed validity of hypotheses H1a,
H1b, H3a, H3b, H4a, and H4b. According to them, a constructive parenting style, made up
of the dimensions of acceptance of a child and autonomy granting, positively correlated with
three of four components of the climate for creativity in parent–child relationships, namely:
(1) encouragement to experience novelty and variety, (2) support of perseverance in creative
efforts, and (3) encouragement to fantasize. However, hypotheses H2a and H2b were rejected,
because components of the constructive parenting style were not statistically significantly
related to encouragement of nonconformism.
 14

Table 2. Regression analyses (source: created by authors)

Encouragement to experience Encouragement Support of perseverance Encouragement

novelty and variety of nonconformism in creative efforts to fantasize
Predictors Whole Whole Whole Whole
Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers
sample sample sample sample
b b b b b b b b
b b b b
Step 1: Dimensions of constructive parenting style
Acceptance of a child .28** .47*** .21* .08 .09 –.02 .32*** .39*** .35*** .17* .23* .14
Autonomy granting .14* .05 .26* .05 .09 –.01 .16* .02 .26* .18* .06 .28**
R2corrected .16*** .19*** .19*** .02* .03* .01 .25*** .22*** .29*** .09*** .06** .131***
Step 2: Dimensions of destructive parenting style
Excessive requirements –.04 –.12 –.06 .48*** .53*** .40** –.08 –.14 –.04 –.09 –.10 –.15
Inconsistency –.10 –.05 –.05 –.39*** –.49*** –.23* –.23** –.28* –.13 –.04 –.05 .04
Excessive protecting –.07 –.10 –.02 .17* .14 .21* .04 .02 .05 –.02 –.03 –.002
R2corrected .18*** .23*** .20*** .16*** .16*** .16*** .31** .35*** .30*** 10*** .07** .134***
Δ R2 .02* .04* .01 .14*** .13*** .15*** .06** .13*** .01 .10 .01 .003
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...
Creativity Studies, 2022, 15(1): 1–24 15

In this model, what significantly and positively predicted encouragement of nonconform-

ism were the dimensions of excessive requirements (b = .48; p < 0.001) and excessive pro-
tecting (b = .17; p < 0.05), while inconsistency predicted it negatively (b = -.39; p < 0.001).
Overall, the destructive parenting style was explained by the total of 14% of the variance of
results on this scale, whereas the constructive parenting style was explained by as little as 2%.
The structure of relations between the components of parenting style and encourage-
ment to experience novelty and variety was different for mothers and fathers. In the case of
mothers, the dimension of acceptance (b = .47; p < 0.001) was the only significant predic-
tor, whereas in the case of fathers, it was both acceptance (b = .21; p < 0.05) and autonomy
(b = .26; p < 0.05). For both mothers and fathers, constructive parenting style was explained
by 19% of the variance of encouragement to experience novelty.
Relations between the components of parenting style and encouragement of nonconform-
ism also differed slightly per parents’ gender. In the case of mothers, the dimensions of exces-
sive requirements (b = .53; p < 0.001) and inconsistency (b = -.49; p < 0.001) proved to be
significant predictors of encouragement of nonconformism, whereas in the case of fathers, it
was excessive requirements (b = .40; p < 0.001), inconsistency (b = -.23; p < 0.05), as well as
excessive protecting (b = .21; p < 0.05). Components of the destructive parenting style made
it possible to explain the total of 14% of the variance of encouragement of nonconformism
in the case of mothers and 15% in the case of fathers.
Parents’ gender differences also appeared in the structure of relations between parenting
style and support of perseverance in creative efforts in the parent–child relationships. For
mothers, the dimensions of acceptance (b = .39; p < 0.001) as well as inconsistency (b = -.28;
p < 0.05) proved to be significant predictors of this type of behavior, while in the case of
fathers, these were the dimensions of acceptance (b = .35; p < 0.001) as well as autonomy
(b = .26; p < 0.05). The tested models explained the total of 35% of the variance of support
of perseverance in creative efforts among mothers and 29% among fathers.
In the case of mothers, the dimension of acceptance (b = .23; p < 0.05) proved to be the
only predictor only predictor of encouragement to fantasize, while in the case of fathers, it
was the dimension of autonomy (b = .28; p < 0.01). Whereas in the group of mothers, the
constructive parenting style explained the total of 6% of the variance of encouragement to
fantasize, in the case of fathers, the percentage of explained variance was almost twice higher
and reached 13%.

Discussion
This study sheds new light on how dimensions of parenting style matter for climate for cre-
ativity in the parent–child relationship. Specifically, we examined how parental acceptance of
a child and autonomy granting (defined as a constructive style) are linked to encouragement
to experience novelty and variety, encouragement of nonconformism, support of persever-
ance in creative efforts, and encouragement to fantasize. We also examined whether the
level of parents’ vividness of mental imagery, which we operationalized as a parent’s creative
potential, is related to the factors of the climate for creativity in the parent–child relationship.
16 D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...

Finally, we examined parents’ gender differs in the explanation of relationships between the
parental style and the climate for creativity in the home environment.
Similar to previous research (e.g. Fan & Zhang, 2014; Rathunde, 1996; Tennent & Ber-
thelsen, 1997), the constructive parenting style characterized by acceptance and autonomy
granting was linked with creative home environment. The results revealed a positive relation-
ship between parental acceptance of a child and encouragement to experience novelty (H1a),
support of perseverance in creative efforts (H3a), and encouragement to fantasize (H4a) in
the parent–child relationship. Likewise, parental autonomy granting was positively related
to the encouragement to experience novelty and variety (H1b), support of perseverance in
creative efforts (H3b), and encouragement to fantasize (H4b) in the parent–child relation-
ship. Also, the constructive parenting style consisting of the dimensions of acceptance of
a child and autonomy granting explained much more of the variance than the destructive
parenting style in the case of three of four factors of the climate for creativity in the par-
ent–child relationships, i.e. (1) encouragement to experience novelty and variety, (2) support
of perseverance in creative efforts, and (3) encouragement to fantasize. These findings dem-
onstrate the important and powerful role of the family as a context of children’s creativity
development. It has been proven that parent–child relationship that manifest themselves
through creating a home environment where a child may be autonomous, unconventional,
curious, and open-minded are linked with nurturing children’s creativity (Pugsley & Acar,
2020). However, in our study, we did not examine the development of children’s creativity in
relation to parental behaviors that support their creative potential. Thus, more longitudinal
designs need to be done to examine the relationships between constructive parenting style
and climate for creativity in the parent–child relationships, as well as whether and to what
extent this type of parenting practice impacts on children’s creativity development. Moreover,
future research should also investigate broader analyses of the interactions among specific
factors in the ecological systems around children, such as family-school partnerships as an
essential and effective way to promote children’s development (Yamauchi et al., 2017), includ-
ing their creativity (Kemple & Nissenberg, 2000).
Contrary to predictions, no significant relationships were found between parental au-
tonomy of a child and encouragement of nonconformism as one of the factors of the climate
for creativity in the home environment (H2a), as well as parental autonomy granting and
encouragement of nonconformism (H2b). This may be due to the parents’ understanding of
nonconformism as an indicator of children’s creative potential or insufficient sensitivity of the
tool that was used to assess this personal trait in childhood. Children whose parents partici-
pated in this study and made statements about them were slightly under 9 years of age. This
is why we could potentially assume that the parents did not define their non-conformism
through the lens of existing norms, like Kwaśniewska et al. (2018) posit, but through the lens
of rebellious creativity, as Karwowski and Jankowska (2016) suggest, as the former is more
typical for children’s functioning in adolescence. For this reason, participants may have re-
sponded to questions in socially desirable ways. For this purpose, additional experimental or
observational studies should be carried out, but deepened by interviews with parents about
conventional social rules, including their understanding of and necessity for these rules by
their children. It should also be noted that not only the parents’ definition of nonconformity
Creativity Studies, 2022, 15(1): 1–24 17

may depend on the age of their children. Moreover, in the present study, only parental self-
report measures were used to assess parenting behavioral outcomes. Children’s perspective
on parenting practices may be quite different, although a significant convergence between
a child and parent reports on parenting dimensions (among others supporting) has been
established in middle childhood (Kuppens et al., 2009). Nonetheless, it would be beneficial
in future studies to include a multiple informant approach when identifying parenting be-
haviors, also in different age groups.
As for the creative potential of parents, the present study has found supporting evidence
for a positive (but weak) correlation both between the factors of climate for creativity in
parent–child relationships and the dimensions of constructive parenting style. It seems that
the high degree of vividness of mental imagery is not the most important for nurturing chil-
dren’s creativity, but the positive correlations between this variable and the dimensions of
constructive parenting style, (i.e. parental acceptance and autonomy granting), as well as all
factors of the climate for creativity in parent–child relationships suggest that parents’ creative
potential can be important for creating an environment that stimulates children’s creativity.
In this sense, our findings are somewhat in line with expectations we have of teachers. Ac-
cording to them, we assume that students’ creativity is developed best by creative teachers
(Rejskind, 2000). Perhaps it would be appropriate to analyze not only the creative potential
(e.g. level of creative abilities of parents or personality traits related to creativity), but also
creative achievement that refers to actual real-life creative accomplishments (Carson et al.,
2005) or parents’ creative mindsets, i.e. beliefs about the stable versus malleable character
and the nature of creativity (Karwowski, 2014), and their links with parents’ parenting styles
and fostering creativity at home. This would be an interesting question for future research
to address.
The role of parents’ gender in the structure of the relationships between the dimensions
of a constructive parenting style and factors of the climate for creativity in parent–child
relationship is more complex to interpret. More than fathers, the examined mothers were
characterized by significantly higher intensity of acceptance of a child, which is very often
used in defining the emotional warmth dimension (Skinner et al., 2005). Only this one sig-
nificant difference between fathers and mothers was found in the analyzed variables. This
result is consistent with previous findings (e.g. John et al., 2013; G. Russell & A. Russell, 1987)
and one explanation of this may be that mothers spend more time with their children than
fathers do (e.g. Craig, 2006; McBride & Mills, 1993; Greving Mehall et al., 2009) and thus
they build warmer, accepting relationships. An alternative explanation is that the father’s ac-
ceptance is more conditional than the mother’s (Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993) and for this
reason, we noted lower level of its occurrence. Importantly, the structure of the relationship
between the components of a constructive parenting style and factors of climate for creativity
in parent–child relationship was different for mothers and fathers. Perhaps one of the most
important findings was that fatherly autonomy, but not motherly, was a significant predic-
tor of three out of four factors of the climate for creativity in parent–child relationship, i.e.
encouragement to experience novelty and variety, support of perseverance in creative ef-
forts, and encouragement to fantasize. In the group of mothers, the dimension of acceptance
turned out to be predictive for these elements of the creative climate in the environment.
18 D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...

These findings suggest that autonomy granting may be a crucial aspect of fathers’ parenting
in the context of fostering children’s creativity, whereas acceptance in the case of mothers.
According to the gender schema theory (Bem, 1981), females tend to exhibit higher levels of
expressiveness, sensitivity, and affection, and males generally exhibit higher instrumentality
(Wood & Eagly, 2002). Consequently, it is possible that mothers may adopt a warmer, sup-
portive style to promote children’s creativity, whereas fathers a more goal-oriented style, that
focuses on posing challenges. These differences are likely due to gender-specific behaviors
and should be investigated in future research.

Limitations
Our study is not void of limitations. First, it is important to emphasize that it was conducted
solely on parents, whereas in their vast majority they are characterized by both higher educa-
tion and good financial situation. Because of this, we are not certain whether the dimensions
of parenting styles and factors of the climate for creativity in parent–child relationships we
controlled really exert positive influence on the development of children’s creativity. Because
in this study we did not control the level of children’s creativity, we can only predict that
parental behaviors we analyzed are conducive to children’s creativity, as previous studies in-
dicated (see Harrington et al., 1987). This is why we recommend that in future such studies
include children’s creativity levels and are longitudinal sample. It is only then that it will truly
be possible to indicate that the dimensions of parenting styles and factors of the climate for
creativity in parent–child relationships we analyzed do influence development of children’s
creative potential, or contribute to their mature creative achievements.
Secondly, unfortunately, we do not know how examined parents understand the notion
of creativity, which could be critical for the activities they undertake to support their chil-
dren’s creative potential. It applies both to their convictions about whether children’s creative
potential is invariable (fixed mindset) or possible to be stimulated (growth mindset) (see
Karwowski, 2014; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013) and to the personality characteristic of a cre-
ative child, which may be of significant importance for the results we obtained. For instance,
recent studies by Gralewski (2019) show that teachers include students’ independence among
personality traits of creative students, but we are not certain that this trait is of importance
also to parents and if yes then how they interpret it. Such analyses could help understand the
lack of relation between constructive parenting style and encouragement of nonconformism
as one of the factors of the climate for creativity in the home environment.
Finally, it is important to note that the dimensions of parenting styles we analyzed cor-
related. Even though in our study the level of multicollinearity was acceptable, it could po-
tentially influence estimation of standardized regression coefficients. This is why we tested
our hypotheses in two ways – by using bivariate correlations and hierarchical regression
analyses. Moreover, in consideration of mutual correlation of variables that form construc-
tive and destructive parenting styles, we conducted regression analyses in two blocks, which
made it possible for us to assess the percentage of explained variance (R2) for each of these
styles in relation to the factors of climate for creativity in the home environment, and hence
to indicate which of these styles is of greater importance to the parents.
Creativity Studies, 2022, 15(1): 1–24 19

Conclusions and implications

In summary, present study provides new information about how parenting styles are linked
to the climate for creativity in families with children aged 6–12. Although future studies are
warranted to validate these findings, we found that constructive parenting style (i.e. parental
acceptance of a child and autonomy granting) predicted encouragement to experience nov-
elty and variety, support of perseverance in creative efforts, and encouragement to fantasize
in the parent–child relationship. Patterns of these relations were different for mothers and
fathers. Whereas in the case of mothers relations solely with child’s acceptance are important,
for fathers, the attitude of child’s acceptance as well as autonomy granting are the predictors
that are important for the climate for creativity in parent–child relationships. Explanation of
these differences is not obvious and requires further studies. However, we cannot rule out the
possibility that they are at least partially conditioned by stereotypical gender roles (Abele &
Wojciszke, 2007), which make mothers focus mainly on ensuring that the child feels safe and
accepted, while fathers also consider their independence and autonomy. Thus, our study may
be the first step in explaining the role of parental behavior for children’s creativity develop-
ment though creating a climate for creativity in the home environment. Especially, in-depth
studies on the role of parental gender in the relationship between the dimensions of construc-
tive parenting styles and the climate for the creativity in parent–child relationships may be
a promising direction. Moreover, future research could investigate the effectiveness of inter-
ventions to support parents in creating a climate for creativity in parent–child relationships.

Funding
This study was supported by the funding obtained from National Science Centre (Poland)
(UMO-2017/27/B/HS6/00592) for Jankowska.

References

Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751
Abuhassàn, A., & Bates, T. C. (2015). Grit: Distinguishing effortful persistence from conscientiousness.
Journal of Individual Differences, 36, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000175
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Pub-
lications, Inc.
Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1988). Independence and the creative potential of gifted and exceptionally
gifted boys. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18(3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02139037
Amabile, T. M. (2012). Componential theory of creativity. In Working Paper 12-096. Harvard Business
School. https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/12-096.pdf
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scat-
tered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355–429.
https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430
20 D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43–88.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for mini-C
creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review,
88(4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2013). “Family Process” investments that matter for child well-being.
In A. Kalil & Th. DeLeire (Eds.), Monographs in parenting. Family investments in children’s potential:
Resources and parenting behaviors that promote success (pp. 1–32). Psychology Press. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781410610874-1
Burton, L. J. (2003). Examining the relation between visual imagery and spatial ability tests. Interna-
tional Journal of Testing, 3(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0303_6
Campos, A., & José Pérez-Fabello, M. (2009). Psychometric quality of a revised version vividness of
visual imagery questionnaire. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 108(3), 798–802.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.108.3.798-802
Carson, Sh. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the
creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37–50.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity across the Primary Curriculum: Framing and developing practice. Routledge.
Craig, L. (2006). Does father care mean fathers share? A comparison of how mothers and fathers in
intact families spend time with children. Gender and Society, 20(2), 259–281.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205285212
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2011). How mothers and fathers share childcare: A cross-national time use com-
parison. American Sociological Review, 76(6), 834–861. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411427673
Cropley, A. J. (1971). Creativity. Longman.
D’Angiulli, A., & Reeves, A. (2007). The relationship between self-reported vividness and latency during
mental size scaling of everyday items: Phenomenological evidence of different types of imagery.
American Journal of Psychology, 120(4), 521–551. https://doi.org/10.2307/20445424
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bul-
letin, 113(3), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487
Deng, L., Wang, L., & Zhao, Y. (2016). How creativity was affected by environmental factors and indi-
vidual characteristics: A cross-cultural comparison perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3),
357–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195615
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414845
Ekvall, G., & Ryhammar, L. (1998). Leadership style, social climate and organizational outcomes:
A study of a Swedish university college. Creativity and Innovation Management, 7(3), 126–130.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00100
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. W. W. Norton & Co.
Fan, J., & Zhang, L. (2014). The role of perceived parenting styles in thinking styles. Learning and
Individual Differences, 32, 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.004
Fijałkowska, D., & Bielawska-Batorowicz, E. (2020.) A longitudinal study of parental attachment: Pre-
and postnatal study with couples. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 38(5), 509–522.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2019.1665172
Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal and paternal parenting: Critical dimensions in ado-
lescent functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2), 213–221.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.7.2.213
Creativity Studies, 2022, 15(1): 1–24 21

Foster, J. F. (2015). Not now, maybe later: Helping children overcome procrastination. Great Potential
Press, Inc.
Furman, A. (1998). Teacher and pupil characteristics in the perception of the creativity of classroom cli-
mate. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(4), 258–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00821.x
Glăveanu, V. P., Karwowski, M., Jankowska, D. M., & Saint-Laurent, de C. (2018). Creative imagination.
In T. Zittoun & V. Glăveanu (Eds.), Frontiers in culture and psychology. Handbook of imagination
and culture (pp. 61–86). Ch. Chiu, Y. Hong, & M. J. Gelfand (Series Eds.). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190468712.003.0004
Goertzel, T. G., & Hansen, A. M. W. (2004). Cradles of eminence: Childhoods of more than 700 famous
men and women. Great Potential Press, Inc.
González, M. A., Campos, A., & José Pérez, M. (1997). Mental imagery and creative thinking. The
Journal of Psychology, 131(4), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989709603521
Gralewski, J. (2019). Teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics: A qualitative study. Think-
ing Skills and Creativity, 31, 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.008
Green Gardner, K., & Moran, III J. D. (1990). Family adaptability, cohesion, and creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 3(4), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419009534361
Greving Mehall, K., Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., & Gaertner, B. M. (2009). Examining the relations of
infant temperament and couples’ marital satisfaction to mother and father involvement: A longitu-
dinal study. Fathering, 7(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0701.23
Grolnick, W. S., Gurland, S. T., DeCourcey, W., & Jacob, K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences
of mothers’ autonomy support: An experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology, 38(1),
143–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.143
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zim-
mermann, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child–father attachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive
and challenging play as the pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development,
11(3), 301–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00202
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
Gute, G., Gute, D. S., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). The early lives of highly creative
persons: The influence of the complex family. In M. Csikszentmihalyi, The systems model of creativ-
ity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 293–317). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1037/e591822009-001
Hair, Jr. J. F., Babin, B. J., Black, W. C., & Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate data analysis. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Harrington, D. M. (1999). Conditions and settings/environment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.-
in-Chief), Encyclopedia of creativity, Vol. 1 (pp. 323–340). Academic Press.
Harrington, D. M., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl Rogers’ theory of creative
environments: Child-Rearing antecedents of creative potential in young adolescents. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 851–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.851
Helson, R., Roberts, B., & Agronick, G. (1995). Enduringness and change in creative personality and the
prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1173–1183.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1173
Howe, M. J. A. (2002). Prodigies and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 431–
446). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807916.023
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review.
Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410709336883
Jankowska, D. M., & Karwowski, M. (2019). Family factors and development of creative thinking. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 142, 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.030
22 D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...

Jankowska, D. M., & Karwowski, M. (2020). Visual imagery and creativity: The Polish version of vividness
of visual imagery questionnaire and its links with creativity. https://psyarxiv.com/eyfxr
Jankowska, D. M., & Omelańczuk, I. (2018). Potential mechanisms underlying the impact of imagina-
tive play on socio-emotional development in childhood. Creativity: Theories – Research – Applica-
tions, 5(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2018-0006
John, A., Halliburton, A., & Humphrey, J. (2013). Child–mother and child–father play interaction pat-
terns with preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 183(3–4), 483–497.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.711595
Kallestad, J. H., Olweus, D., & Alsaker, F. (1998). School climate reports from Norweginan teachers:
A methodological and substantive study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An Internation-
al Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 9(1), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090104
Karnes, M. B., Shwedel, A. M., & Steinberg, D. (1984). Styles of parenting among parents of young
gifted children. Roeper Review, 6(4), 232–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198409552824
Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences, Psychology of Aes-
thetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034898
Karwowski, M. (2011). The creative mix? Teacher’s creative leadership, school creative climate, and
students’ creative self-efficacy. Chowanna, 1, 25–43.
Karwowski, M., & Jankowska, D. M. (2016). Four faces of creativity at school. In R. A. Beghetto &
J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 337–354). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316212899.019
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). In praise of Clark Kent: Creative metacognition and the im-
portance of teaching kids when (Not) to be creative. Roeper Review, 35(3), 155–165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.799413
Kawabata, Y., Alink, L. R. A., Tseng, W.-L., Ijzendoorn, van M. H., & Crick, N. R. (2011). Maternal
and paternal parenting styles associated with relational aggression in children and adolescents:
A conceptual analysis and meta-analytic review. Developmental Review, 31(4), 240–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.08.001
Kemple, K. M., & Nissenberg, Sh. A. (2000). Nurturing creativity in early childhood education: Families
are part of it. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(1), 67–71.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009555805909
Kihlstrom, J. F., Glisky, M. L., Peterson, M. A., Harvey, E. M., & Rose, P. M. (1991). Vividness and
control of mental imagery: A psychometric analysis. Journal of Mental Imagery, 15(3–4), 133–142.
Kim, K. H. (2016). The creativity challenge: How we can recapture American innovation. Prometheus
Books.
Koestner, R., Walker, M., & Fichman, L. (1999). Childhood parenting experiences and adult creativity.
Journal of Research in Personality, 33(1), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2240
Kromelow, S., Harding, C., & Touris, M. (1990). The role of the father in the development of stranger
sociability during the second year. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(4), 521–530.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079202
Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., & Michiels, D. (2009). Measuring parenting dimensions in
middle childhood: Multitrait-multimethod analysis of child, mother, and father ratings. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.133
Kwaśniewska, J. M., Gralewski, J., Witkowska, E. M., Kostrzewska, M., & Lebuda, I. (2018). Mothers’
personality traits and the climate for creativity they build with their children. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 27, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.002
Kwaśniewska, J. M., & Lebuda, I. (2017). Balancing between roles and duties – the creativity of mothers.
Creativity: Theories – Research – Applications, 4(1), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2017-0007
Creativity Studies, 2022, 15(1): 1–24 23

LeBoutillier, N., & Marks, D. F. (2003). Mental imagery and creativity: A meta-analytic review study.
British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603762842084
Lebuda, I., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2020). All you need is love: The importance of partner and family
relations to highly creative individuals’ well-being and success. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
54(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.348
Lim, S., & Smith, J. (2008). The structural relationships of parenting style, creative personality, and
loneliness. Creativity Research Journal, 20(4), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802391868
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction.
In E. M. Hetherington & P. H. Mussen, Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 4: Socialization, personal-
ity, and social development (pp. 1–101). Wiley.
Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences and eye movements in the recall of pictures. Perception
and Psychophysics, 14, 407–412. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211175
McAvinue, L. P., & Robertson, I. H. (2007). Measuring visual imagery ability: A review. Imagination,
Cognition and Personality, 26(3), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/3515-8169-24J8-7157
McBride, B. A., & Mills, G. (1993). A comparison of mother and father involvement with their pre-
school age children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(4), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0885-2006(05)80080-8
Mehrinejad, S. A., Rajabimoghadam, S., & Tarsafi, M. (2015). The relationship between parenting styles
and creativity and the predictability of creativity by parenting styles. Procedia – Social and Behav-
ioral Sciences, 205, 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.09.014
Michel, M., & Dudek, S. Z. (1991). Mother–child relationships and creativity. Creativity Research Jour-
nal, 4(3), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534400
Miller, A. I. (2000). Insights of genius: Imagery and creativity in science and art. MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3806.001.0001
Miller, B. C., & Gerard, D. (1979). Family influences on the development of creativity in children: An
integrative review. The Family Coordinator, 28(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.2307/581942
Morrison, R. G., & Wallace, B. (2001). Imagery vividness, creativity and the visual arts. Journal of
Mental Imagery, 25(3–4), 135–152.
Nickerson, R. S. (2002). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 392–
430). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807916.022
Olszewski, P., Kulieke, M., & Buescher, Th. (1987). The influence of the family environment on the
development of talent: A literature review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11(1), 6–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016235328701100102
Palmiero, M., Cardi, V., & Olivetti Belardinelli, M. (2011). The role of vividness of visual mental imag-
ery on different dimensions of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 372–375.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.621857
Pang, W., Lu, Y., Long, H., Wang, Q., & Lin, L. (2020). Three-generational families: Are they beneficial
to chinese children’s creativity? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100623
Plopa, M. (2008). Skala postaw rodzicielskich: wersja dla rodziców. Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych
Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
Puchalska-Wasyl, M. M., & Jankowski, T. (2020). Do internal dialogues in young adults depend on
mother-father incongruence in parental attitudes assessed retrospectively? Journal of Family Issues,
41(5), 667–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19881773
Pugsley, L., & Acar, S. (2020). Supporting creativity or conformity? Influence of home environment
and parental factors on the value of children’s creativity characteristics. Journal of Creative Behavior,
54(3), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.393
24 D. M. Jankowska, J. Gralewski. The familial context of children’s creativity: parenting styles...

Rank, J., Pace, V. L., & Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation,
and initiative. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 518–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00185.x
Rathunde, K. (1996). Family context and talented adolescents’ optimal experience in school-related
activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6(4), 605–628.
Rejskind, F. G. (1982). Autonomy and creativity in children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16(1), 58–67.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1982.tb00322.x
Rejskind, G. (2000). TAG teachers: Only the creative need apply. Roeper Review, 22(3), 153–157.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554023
Robson, S., & Rowe, V. (2012). Observing young children’s creative thinking: Engagement, involvement
and persistence. International Journal of Early Years Education, 20(4), 349–364.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2012.743098
Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11(4), 249–260.
Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
47(3), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830308598
Russ, S. W. (2004). Play in child development and psychotherapy: Toward empirically supported practice.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609397
Russ, S. W., Robins, A. L., & Christiano, B. A. (1999). Pretended play: Longitudinal prediction of cre-
ativity and affect in fantasy in children. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 129–139.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1202_5
Russell, G., & Russell, A. (1987). Mother–child and father–child relationships in middle childhood.
Child Development, 58(6), 1573–1585. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130696
Sayer, L. C., Bianchi, S. M., & Robinson, J. P. (2004). Are parents investing less in children? Trends in
mothers’ and fathers’ time with children. American Journal of Sociology, 110(1), 1–43.
https://doi.org/10.1086/386270
Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Melby, J. N. (1990). Husband and wife differences in
determinants of parenting: A social learning and exchange model of parental behavior. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 52(2), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.2307/353033
Skinner, E., Johnson, S., & Snyder, T. (2005). Six dimensions of parenting: A motivational model. Par-
enting: Science and Practice, 5(2), 175–235. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0502_3
Stavridou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). The relationship between psychoticism, trait-creativity and the at-
tentional mechanism of cognitive inhibition. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(1), 143–153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00030-X
Tennent, L., & Berthelsen, D. (1997). Creativity: What does it mean in the family context? Journal of
Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 91–104.
Torrance, E. P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior: Experiments in classroom creativity. Prentice Hall.
Treffinger, D. J. (1980). Encouraging creative learning for the gifted and talented: A handbook of methods
and techniques. Ventura County Superintendent of Schools/LTI Publications.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European
Psychology, 42(1), 7–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2004.11059210
Wittkowski, A., Garrett, Ch., Calam, R., & Weisberg, D. (2017). Self-report measures of parental self-
efficacy: A systematic review of the current literature. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26,
2960–2978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0830-5
Wright, C., & Wright, S. (1986). A conceptual framework for examining the family’s influence on cre-
ativity. Family Perspective, 20(2), 127–136.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implica-
tions for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699–727.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699
Yamauchi, L. A., Ponte, E., Ratliffe, K. T., & Traynor, K. (2017). Theoretical and conceptual frameworks
used in research on family–school partnerships. School Community Journal, 27(2), 9–34.
 © 2022. This work is published under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”).
Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you
may use this content in accordance with the terms of the
License.