UC Berkeley

Creativity (idea generation) and innovation (idea execution) have been defined as two consecutive parts of the same process. While creativity and innovation are undeniably related, there are likely distinct nuances in the traits and attributes associated with each part. However, the bulk of the empirical research on creativity and innovation studies them as siloed processes, rather than interrelated attributions. Across 7 studies (N = 2,558), I untangle perceptions of creativity and innovation, teasing apart the nuances in how these two distinct phases are perceived, and examining implications of these perceptions within the workplace. Along with disentangling perceptions, I was particularly interested in any potential gender differences that may arise when determining exactly who is perceived as creative versus innovative. I found that creativity was associated more with stereotypically communal terms (e.g., warm, nurturing) while innovation was associated with more stereotypically agentic terms (e.g., competitive, decisive) (Study 1). While creativity was correlated with communality, both innovation and creativity are more highly correlated with agency (Study 2). I expanded upon these perceptions by exploring how specific domains are perceived in terms of creativity and innovation. I found that more arts-centric domains (e.g., photography, cooking) are more highly correlated with creativity while more technology/science-centric domains (e.g., life science, physical science) are more highly correlated with innovation (Studies 3A and 3B). However, I did not find a correlation between domains perceived to be more creative with domains perceived to be more communal nor did I find a correlation between domains perceived to be more innovative with domains perceived to be more agentic (Study 4). I then investigated how creativity and innovation are perceived and valued in workplace settings. I found that innovation-framed job descriptions were seen as more desirable and requiring more agency to be successful when compared to creativity-framed job descriptions (Study 5). Taking this finding, I then manipulated levels of agency within the same job descriptions. I found that participants who read low-agency job descriptions were more interested in, felt a higher sense of belongingness, and felt a higher sense of perceived success towards the job compared to participants who read high-agency job descriptions (Study 6). Implications for potential bias in the wording of job descriptions and in perceptions of hiring committees are discussed. Specifically, I provide insight into how gendered bias in creative or innovative ability can affect job applicants’ willingness to apply to certain jobs.