Next Article in Journal
Ability and Nonability Predictors of Real-World Skill Acquisition: The Case of Rubik’s Cube Solving
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Analytic Processing on Divergent and Convergent Thinking Tasks: The Role of Rational and Experiential Thinking Styles
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing Metacognitive Regulation during Problem Solving: A Comparison of Three Measures
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Positive Association between Working Memory Capacity and Human Creativity: A Meta-Analytic Evidence
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
J. Intell.
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/jintelligence11010017
jintelligence-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Emotional Intelligence and Creative Self-Efficacy among Gifted Children: Mediating Effect of Self-Esteem and Moderating Effect of Gender

by
Xiaoyu Chen
1 and
Li Cheng
1,2,*
1
Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
2
Educational and Developmental Research Center of Children’s Creativity, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Intell. 2023, 11(1), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11010017
Submission received: 18 October 2022 / Revised: 27 December 2022 / Accepted: 8 January 2023 / Published: 15 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Understanding Creativity and Stimulating Creativity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Creative self-efficacy is a type of individual creative self-belief, which is an important predictor of creative activities and achievements. For gifted children who have high creative potential, the influencing factors of their creative self-efficacy need to be further explored. This study aimed to explore the relationship between gender, emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and creative self-efficacy in gifted children, with special attention on the mediating role of self-esteem and the moderating role of gender in the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy. Participants in this study included 226 gifted students aged 10–13 (135 boys and 91 girls) from experimental classrooms designed for gifted students in North China. The creative self-efficacy scale (CSE), the emotional intelligence scale (EIS), and the self-esteem scale (SES) were tested. The statistical results indicate that: (1) emotional intelligence significantly positively predicted creative self-efficacy in gifted children; (2) self-esteem partially mediated the link between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy; and (3) gender acted as a moderator for the mediation model, in which self-esteem played a complete mediating role in gifted boys, while the mediating role of self-esteem in gifted girls was not significant. The results of this study reveal the influential mechanism of creative self-efficacy in gifted children of different genders and may provide further implications for promoting the creative potential of gifted children.

1. Introduction

With the rapid development of the third industrial revolution and knowledge economy in the 21st century, creativity has become an indispensable ability of high-quality human resources (Jauk et al. 2015). One of the most influential international student assessment programs, the Program for International Student Assessment Program (PISA) organized by the OECD, planned to add a new domain, which is a test of creative thinking in 2022, to call on the importance of the cultivation of students’ innovative literacy (OECD 2019). As an important predictor of creativity, creative self-efficacy is a type of creative self-belief, which is an individual’s confidence and belief in one’s own creative ability and is a key factor affecting an individual’s creative output (Karwowski and Lebuda 2013; Mathisen and Bronnick 2009; Stolz et al. 2022; Du et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2021a). A recent meta-analysis showed that the overall mean relation between creativity and creative self-efficacy was of medium size (r = 0.39), which indicated that the creative behavior relied in some part on individuals’ self-belief of their creative potential (Haase et al. 2018).
Gifted children are children with high IQs, and are superior to normal children in cognitive ability. They usually have high creative potential (Karwowski et al. 2016; Angela and Caterina 2020), but some of them do not show a high creative achievement level (Jauk et al. 2013). This might be because some of them do not have enough creative self-efficacy. Especially in China, most of the gifted children studied in the experimental classroom only for the gifted, and there was greater peer pressure than in regular classrooms, which might lead to a decline in the self-concept of some gifted children, and in turn lead to the lack of self-confidence and a low sense of creative self-efficacy (Duan et al. 2022; Fang et al. 2018). In addition, the gifted education in China focused on students’ academic performance, which might lead to a lack of experience in solving creative problems, resulting in a lower sense of creative self-efficacy (Zhang 2017). However, since the macro education environment is difficult to change in a short period of time, it is necessary to analyze the internal factors affecting the creative self-efficacy of Chinese gifted children from the perspective of individuals, to further provide inspiration for improving their creative self-efficacy.
According to the creative self-belief model constructed by Karwowski et al. (2019), creative self-efficacy is affected by many factors. As a domain-specific self-belief, creative self-efficacy arises from the general self-concept of individuals. Self-esteem is “the evaluative component of the self-concept”, and is considered as the final conclusion of self-evaluation (Chiu 1988), which is closely related to the domain-specific self-concept (Karwowski 2012). Furthermore, the self-concept seems more open to contextual changes and is described as a surface characteristic (Karwowski and Lebuda 2016). As a type of surface characteristic, self-concept is more changeable and influenced by both social and psychological environments during development, which is also suggested by socio-cognitive theories (Bandura 1986). Emotional intelligence is an important psychological construct for the individual’s development, which affects the perception of the emotional environment (Ogurlu 2021). As a unique personal characteristic, emotional intelligence overlaps with an individual’s personality, which seems like a hard-core trait, and would cause the change of the surface self-concept (Karwowski et al. 2013). Hence, emotional intelligence is a key factor in self-esteem and creative self-efficacy. Moreover, gender plays a vital role in the development of creative self-belief, because of the different personality traits in different genders, such as the so-called “male-hubris-female-humility bias” (Karwowski et al. 2015). Hence, gender might influence the relationship between emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and creative self-efficacy.
Therefore, this study aimed to focus on the influencing factors of creative self-efficacy in Chinese gifted children and to examine the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy, including the mediating effect of self-esteem and the moderating effect of gender, to provide inspiration for improving the creative self-efficacy of gifted children and promoting their creativity.

1.1. Emotional Intelligence and Creative Self-Efficacy in Gifted Children

As an individuals’ self-evaluation of their ability to complete creative tasks, creative self-efficacy is the result of the combined action of the individual and environmental factors, as well as cognitive and noncognitive factors (Lei and Lei 2022; Tierney and Farmer 2011; Puente-Díaz and Cavazos-Arroyo 2017). From the perspective of the individual, emotional intelligence is an outcome of the combinatory relationship of the cognitive and emotional domains, which is closely related to an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and actions (Ciarrochi et al. 2000; Qualter et al. 2012). Salovey and Mayer (1990) first described emotional intelligence as a type of cognitive ability, and used performance-type tests to evaluate these specific skills, including perceiving emotions, assimilating emotions, understanding emotions, and managing emotions (Mayer et al. 1999). However, some scholars suggested that emotional intelligence is different from traditional intelligence, and viewed it as a mixture of cognitive and non-cognitive attributes based on self-perception (Bar-On 2006; Petrides 2009). This type of framework was named trait emotional intelligence, which emphasizes the correlation between emotional intelligence and personality traits. The trait model depends on self-report inventories, and is investigated as a predictor of well-being and adaption actions (Greenberg 2002; Petrides et al. 2007). The trait emotional intelligence can help individuals tap the emotional information of others and express their own emotions in the process of interpersonal communication, which is important in building a harmonious social atmosphere for themselves (Metaj-Macula 2017) and this will influence the generation of their self-concept, such as creative self-efficacy.
Recent studies have indicated a significant prediction of emotional intelligence on creative self-efficacy (Sánchez-Ruiz et al. 2011; Ferdowsi and Razmi 2022). Xu et al. (2019) used a meta-analysis that summarized 75 studies with a total sample of 18,130 to assess the relationship between emotional intelligence and creativity, and the results showed that there was a statistically significant moderate correlation (r = 0.32, p < .01) between these two constructs, and the link was stronger when emotional intelligence and creativity were measured using subjective reports, such as trait emotional intelligence and creative personality. In addition, some studies have found that emotional intelligence significantly predicted general self-efficacy (Chan 2004; Yang et al. 2022), and general self-efficacy is close to creative self-efficacy. Meantime, some studies showed that openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness of the big five personality traits had a significant association with creative self-efficacy (Fino and Sun 2022; Karwowski and Lebuda 2016), and that personality is highly correlated with emotional intelligence (Van der Linden et al. 2012). All of these results suggest that emotional intelligence is positively related to creative self-efficacy.
In the field of gifted education, researchers are increasingly recognizing the importance of social and emotional well-being for gifted children (Mammadov et al. 2018; Lubinski and Benbow 2000). Some studies revealed that gifted children faced more emotional challenges, and had more intense feeling than their peers due to the asynchronous development (Winkler and Voight 2016). With the characteristics of intense emotionality, intense empathy, and strong affective expression, emotional intelligence directly affects whether the gifted individual can effectively cope with emotional challenges and achieve self-development (Bar-On 2007). Therefore, emotional intelligence may have a more important impact on the creative self-efficacy of gifted children. However, the present studies on the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy still lack attention to gifted children. Previous studies only pointed out that the emotional intelligence and creativity of gifted children are better than those of nongifted children (Karwowski et al. 2017; Abdulla Alabbasi et al. 2020, 2021), which made it necessary to further verify the relationship between these two variables in the gifted group. Based on previous studies, we developed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1.
Emotional intelligence will be positively related to creative self-efficacy in gifted children.

1.2. Emotional Intelligence, Creative Self-Efficacy, and Self-Esteem in Gifted Children

Self-esteem refers to a basic need in the process of individual growth. It is the individual’s perception of the difference between the actual self-positioning and the ideal self-positioning, which is an evaluative and emotional experience of one’s self (Seeman 1976).
The two-factor theory of self-esteem states that self-esteem is composed of a sense of competence and a sense of worth (Mruk 1995). As a process of social construction, the sense of worth of self-esteem is formed by the individual’s continuous internalization of external evaluations in contact with important others, and thus social factors have a significant impact on the development of individual self-esteem (Pan 2015; San Martín and Barra 2013). Previous studies have shown that support and companionship from parents, peers, and teachers are beneficial to the development of self-esteem among junior high school students, while peer conflict and selfish behavior hinder the development of self-esteem (Doi et al. 2020; Zuffianò et al. 2016). These results indicate that an individual’s self-esteem is affected by the individual’s willingness to communicate with others, as well as the trait to understand and perceive others. This reveals that there is a certain internal connection between emotional intelligence and individual self-esteem (Villanueva et al. 2022; Casino-García et al. 2021). Cheung et al. (2015) conducted a quantitative study by using the Emotional Intelligence Scale and Self-esteem Scale to test 405 students in Hong Kong, China. The results showed that emotional intelligence significantly predicted self-esteem and that emotional intelligence appeared to be a strong determinant of self-esteem. Therefore, we might conclude that emotional intelligence and self-esteem have a positive correlation in gifted children.
Moreover, based on the investment theory of creativity constructed by Sternberg and Lubart (1991), thinking style and personality traits are important individual factors that affect creativity. Self-esteem, as a noncognitive factor that cannot be ignored, has an important impact on creative performance (Sternberg and Lubart 1991; Zhang et al. 2018). Although fewer studies have explored the relationship between self-esteem and creative self-efficacy directly, many empirical studies have shown the predictive effect of self-esteem on creativity, as well as on self-efficacy. A meta-analysis summarized 24 studies with 3956 participants and pointed out that there was a positive correlation between self-esteem and creativity, and especially a significant positive correlation between self-esteem and creative personality (Deng and Zhang 2011). In addition, there have also been many empirical studies supporting that self-esteem can predict an individual’s self-efficacy (Luo et al. 2022; Yang et al. 2019). Marcionetti and Rossier (2021) conducted a longitudinal study to examine the relationship between self-esteem and self-efficacy by using cross-lagged analysis. The results showed that students’ self-esteem significantly predicted their future general self-efficacy. There is a high correlation between creative self-efficacy and creativity, as well as creative self-efficacy and general self-efficacy. The creative self-efficacy derives from general self-efficacy and further predicts individual creativity (Karwowski et al. 2019; Beghetto 2006). According to this, the relationship between self-esteem and creative self-efficacy can be inferred, that is, self-esteem will positively predict an individual’s creative self-efficacy.
Self-esteem is of great significance to the healthy development of gifted children and affects how individuals view their own abilities, generate behavioral motivation, and regulate their emotions (Sowislo and Orth 2013; Li et al. 2021; Papadopoulos 2021). Compared with nongifted children, gifted children had a higher level of self-concept (Litster and Roberts 2011) and had higher achievement expectations for themselves. Based on the importance of self-esteem to gifted children and the differences between gifted children and nongifted children, it is necessary to further explore the influence mechanism of self-esteem in the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative efficacy of gifted children. According to previous studies, we concluded that self-esteem has a predictive effect on creative self-efficacy in gifted children. Therefore, we developed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2.
Self-esteem will play a mediating role in the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy in gifted children.

1.3. Gender Differences among Emotional Intelligence, Creative Self-Efficacy, and Self-Esteem in Gifted Children

Gender differences have always been a primary topic of concern for researchers focused on gifted children. Previous studies have found that gifted girls have significantly higher scores in emotional intelligence than gifted boys (Schwean et al. 2006; Ogurlu 2021), while the self-efficacy and self-esteem of gifted boys are significantly higher than those of gifted girls (Sarouphim 2011; Su et al. 2010; Junge and Dretzke 1995). However, some studies have reached different conclusions, arguing that there are no significant gender differences in these three variables among gifted children (Singh and Kaur 2012; Topçu and Leana-Taşcılar 2018; Chan 2005). Based on this, we will further explore the gender differences of gifted children’s creative self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and self-esteem.
These uncertain gender differences in the three variables might further affect the specific performance of the pathways of emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and creative self-efficacy in different genders and make gender moderate the mediation model of self-esteem. In addition, previous studies have shown that different gender expectation would affect individuals’ behavior. Society prefers to accept gifted boys’ individualism and independence while expecting girls to be rather cooperative and show empathy in interpersonal relationships (Bianco et al. 2011). Due to the influence of gender expectations, gifted girls are more likely to be dependent on the external environment and more sensitive to emotional changes, and their self-concept is more easily affected by external evaluations, while boys tend to obtain resources internally and tend to solve problems independently (Milfont and Sibley 2016). This might also lead to differences in the mediating effect of self-esteem between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy between gifted boys and girls.
According to the above, the moderation effect of gender in the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative efficacy, emotional intelligence and self-esteem, and self-esteem and creative self-efficacy in gifted children cannot be accurately inferred according to previous studies, so this study used an exploratory approach to analyze the moderating role of gender in these three pathways at the same time, so as to analyze the gender difference in the mediating effect of self-esteem. Therefore, we developed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3.
Gender will play a moderating role in the mediating model of self-esteem in the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy in gifted children.
Creative self-efficacy is of great significance to the development of the creative potential of gifted children, so it is necessary to focus on the influencing factors of creative self-efficacy on it. In conclusion, emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and gender are key influencing factors of creative self-efficacy of gifted children.
This study focused on the construction of creative self-efficacy among gifted children in the Chinese context, so we also considered the specificities of creative self-efficacy in the Chinese context (Zhang et al. 2021b), and found that the effects of emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and gender on the creative self-efficacy of gifted children in the Chinese context may be more important. Studies have shown that the Chinese unique cultural environment, made up of elements such as the Confucian tradition, the one-child policy, and son preference, affects individual creativity (Guo et al. 2018). Creative self-efficacy, as an individual’s perception of their own creative ability, is also influenced by the Chinese cultural environment. First, China pursues the concept of collectivism and emphasizes the integration of the collective, which makes the individual’s self-efficacy more derived from the perception of external support (Lin et al. 2017). As an important trait of individuals dealing with emotional states, emotional intelligence plays an important role in the interaction between individuals and the outside world, so it is necessary to emphasize the unique impact of emotional intelligence on creative self-efficacy in the Chinese context. Second, since ancient times, China has focused on self-reflection, emphasizing the personal virtue of humbleness, requiring individuals to have a clear understanding of themselves and not to be arrogant and boastful. As a type of self-evaluation, self-esteem is regarded by Chinese as one of the most important characteristics, which profoundly affects the thinking and behavior of individuals (Li et al. 2015), so considering self-esteem is one of the important factors affecting Chinese creative self-efficacy. Finally, the traditional gender stereotypes and gender expectations of Chinese society profoundly affect the development of children (Zhao et al. 2022; Ju et al. 2015). Chinese parents generally believe that “boys are smart, girls are diligent”, “boys should be independent, girls should rely on others”, which will subtly affect individual development, resulting in different development trajectories and influence mechanisms for children’s creative efficacy of different genders. Therefore, the moderating role of gender also needs to be considered in the Chinese context.
Combined with the analysis of the developmental environment of gifted children in the Chinese context, this study aimed to explore the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy in Chinese gifted children. Furthermore, we hypothesized that this relationship would be mediated by self-esteem and that gender would moderate this mediation model (Figure 1). To test these hypotheses, we first conducted a bivariate analysis of emotional intelligence, self-esteem, creative self-efficacy, and gender. Then, we investigated the mediating effect of self-esteem and the moderating effect of gender by using structure equation modeling.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The participants for this study were recruited from experimental classrooms for gifted students in North China. Children in these classrooms were identified as gifted through a three-step strategy, including preliminary testing, retesting, and dynamic evaluation. A comprehensive evaluation of students’ cognitive ability, academic level, learning ability, development potential and other aspects was used to identify gifted children based on the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness proposed by Renzulli (1978) and the WICS model proposed by Sternberg (2003).
A total of 231 gifted children aged 10–13 years were enrolled in this study and completed the questionnaire. After eliminating the unqualified forms (those with obvious false answers and those with contradictory answers to forward and backwards scoring items), 226 valid questionnaires were finally obtained, which were 97.84% effective. The final participants were comprised of 135 boys (59.73%) and 91 girls (40.27%). The average age of all participants was 11.44 years (SD = 0.71), of which boys’ average age was 11.40 years (SD = 0.73) and girls’ average age was 11.49 years (SD = 0.66).

2.2. Materials

2.2.1. Creative Self-Efficacy Scale (CSE)

The Creative Self-Efficacy Scale (CSE) compiled by Beghetto (2006) was used to measure the creative self-efficacy of gifted children. The scale consists of three items and is a one-dimensional scale (e.g., “I have a lot of good ideas.”). We first translated the items into Chinese and then invited a postgraduate student majoring in special education to reverse-translate the Chinese items back to English with no prior knowledge of the original statements. The back-translation items were compared with the original scale one by one, and it was found that the back-translation items were basically consistent with the original items, indicating that the Chinese translation items were basically accurate. Participants were asked to rate these items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Then, the average score of all items was calculated, with higher scores representing higher levels of creative self-efficacy. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the Chinese version scale was 0.87, with high internal consistency.

2.2.2. Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS)

The Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS) was first compiled by Schutte et al. (1998), and the Chinese version was compiled by Wang and He (2002). We used the Chinese version to examine the emotional intelligence of the participants. It is a self-report scale with a total of 33 items divided into 4 dimensions, including emotion perception (10 items, e.g., “I am aware of my emotions as I experience them”), managing self-relevant emotions (9 items, e.g., “I seek out activities that make me happy”), managing others’ emotions (8 items, e.g., “I arrange events others enjoy”), and emotion utilization (6 items, e.g., “When I feel a change in emotions, I tend to come up with new ideas”). Participants were asked to rate these items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Three items were scored backwards (e.g., “I find it hard to understand the nonverbal messages of other people”), and the average score of each dimension and the total scale were then calculated, with higher scores representing higher levels of emotional intelligence. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the total scale was 0.93, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the four dimensions of emotion perception, managing self-relevant emotions, managing others’ emotions, and emotion utilization were 0.86, 0.86, 0.67, and 0.83, respectively.

2.2.3. Self-Esteem Scale (SES)

The Self-esteem Scale (SES) was first developed by Rosenberg et al. (1978), and we used its Chinese version (Peng et al. 2021) to measure the self-esteem of the participants. It is a self-reported single-dimensional scale, with a total of 10 items, of which 5 items are forward-scoring items and five are backwards-scoring. Participants were asked to rate these items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and the average score of all items was calculated, with higher scores representing higher levels of self-esteem. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the Chinese version scale was 0.84, with high internal consistency.

2.3. Procedures

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University (protocol code: BNU202106100016). The measures were administered by postgraduate students majoring in special education, and all of them were well-trained by the researchers before the data collection. The test administration steps were clarified for experimenters and each was provided with detailed instructions. We adopted an offline paper-and-pencil group test, and all participants were asked to complete the questionnaire independently. At the beginning of the questionnaire, a written informed consent form was provided to all participants and their guardians. The purpose of the study was stated in the form, and participants were informed that the study was confidential and that they may opt out at any time. After signing the informed consent form, the participants were invited to complete all questionnaires, which took approximately 25 min.

2.4. Data Analysis

This study aimed to explore the role of self-esteem and gender in the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy. Accordingly, Pearson’s correlation analysis and the independent sample t test were first conducted in SPSS 26.0 to analyze the correlations between emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and creative self-efficacy and the gender differences in these three characteristics. Then, structure equation modeling was performed in Mplus 8.3 to test the mediating effect of self-esteem on the association between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy. Finally, a multigroup model comparison was performed in Mplus 8.3 to test the moderating effect of gender in the mediation model of self-esteem.
When performing the structure equation modeling, the following criteria were used to determine whether the data fit the hypothesized model well: (1) χ2/df < 3.00; (2) CFI > 0.90; (3) TLI > 0.90; (4) RMSEA < 0.08; (5) SRMR < 0.08 (Hu and Bentler 1999; Li et al. 2022).
Additionally, the bootstrapping method was applied to test the significance of the mediation effects to obtain robust standard errors for parameter estimation (Chen et al. 2022a). This method produced 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) for these effects from 2000 resamples of the data. CIs that do not contain zero indicate significant effects.

3. Results

3.1. Bivarite Analysis

The means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables are presented in Table 1. The total score of emotional intelligence and its four dimensions scores of gifted children were significantly positively correlated with creative self-efficacy and self-esteem at the 0.001 significance level, and self-esteem was also positively correlated with creative self-efficacy at the 0.001 significance level. In addition, age had a significant negative correlation with creative self-efficacy (r = −0.17, p < .01), indicating that age should be used as a control variable in further mediation model testing.
Furthermore, an independent sample t test showed that the creative self-efficacy of gifted boys (M = 3.98, SD = 0.93) was significantly higher than that of girls (M = 3.62, SD = 0.81), t(224/2) = 3.07, p < .01, Cohen’s d = 0.41. There were no significant gender differences in the emotional intelligence and self-esteem scores of gifted children.

3.2. The Mediating Effect of Self-Esteem on the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Creative Self-Efficacy

The four dimensions of emotional intelligence had significant positive correlations with creative self-efficacy and self-esteem. According to the requirement of mediating effect testing suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986), which was that the correlation among variables was the premise to test the mediating effect, we took the observed variable creative self-efficacy as the dependent variable, the latent variable emotional intelligence as the independent variable, the observed variable self-esteem as the mediating variable, and the observed variable age as the control variable. Then, the mediation model was constructed using Mplus8.1.
Based on the mediation effect test strategy proposed by Wen and Ye (2014), we first conducted a non-mediating model to test the total effect of emotional intelligence on creative self-efficacy. The results of the model fit indices show that the data fit the hypothetical model (χ2/df = 2.55, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.03), and all of the normalized path coefficients in the model reached the 0.001 significance level. After controlling for age, emotional intelligence significantly positively predicted gifted children’s creative self-efficacy (β = 0.52, p < .001), which showed that the total effect was significant.
Then, we constructed the mediating model to test the mediating effect of self-esteem on the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy. The results of the model fit indices show that the data fit the hypothetical model (χ2/df = 2.29, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.03), and all of the normalized path coefficients in the model reached the 0.01 significance level (see Figure 2). After controlling for age, emotional intelligence still significantly positively predicted gifted children’s creative self-efficacy (β = 0.33, p < .01), which showed that the direct effect of the mediating model was significant. Furthermore, emotional intelligence significantly positively predicted gifted children’s self-esteem (β = 0.30, p < .001), and self-esteem significantly positively predicted their creative self-efficacy (β = 0.63, p < .001). The bootstrapping method was used to test the mediating effect of self-esteem, and the result shows that the mediating effect of self-esteem between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy was significant (95% CI [0.10, 0.31], excluding 0). The mediating effect value was 0.19, accounting for 36.54% of the total effect, indicating that self-esteem played a partial mediating role between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy.

3.3. Moderating Effect of Gender in the Mediation Model of Self-Esteem

To explore the moderating role of gender in the mediating model of emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and creative self-efficacy in gifted children, we used the multigroup model comparison in Mplus 8.1 to analyze whether there was a gender difference in the mediating effect of self-esteem between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy of gifted children.
Based on the above mediation model, we first constructed the boy model (Model 1) and girl model (Model 2) independently. The results of both models’ fit indices show that the data fit the hypothetical model (see Table 2), which indicated that it was possible to further construct the model comparison. Second, we constructed the unrestricted mediation model of self-esteem in the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy (Model 3), and on this basis, we constructed the restrictive model with equal regression coefficients across groups (Model 4). The results of the model fit indices show that the data fit the hypothetical model in both Models 3 and 4 (see Table 2). Furthermore, according to Δχ2 and Δdf, to judge the significance of the model difference, we found that there was a significant difference between the unrestricted model and the restricted model (Δχ2 (1) = 5.51, p < .05), which showed that the restrictive model was better, indicating that there was a significant gender difference in the mediating effect of self-esteem between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy in gifted children. This result suggests that the moderating effect of gender was significant in the mediation model of self-esteem.
Then, we constructed a specific analysis of the path coefficients of the boy model and the girl model (see Figure 3). Emotional intelligence positively predicted self-esteem in both the boy and girl groups of gifted children (boy: β = 0.69, p < .001; girl: β = 0.50, p < .001). Self-esteem significantly positively predicted creative self-efficacy in the boy group but had no significant predictive effect in the girl group (boy: β = 0.45, p < .001; girl: β = 0.13, p > .05). Emotional intelligence had no significant predictive effect on creative self-efficacy in the boy group but had a significant positive predictive effect in the girl group (boy: β = 0.23, p > .05; girl: β = 0.42, p < .001). The bootstrapping method was used to test the mediating effect of the self-esteem of gifted children of different genders, and the results show that the mediating effect of self-esteem between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy was 0.31 in gifted boys, which was significant (95% CI [0.18, 0.48], excluding 0), accounting for 57.41% of the total effect. Meanwhile, the mediating effect of self-esteem between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy was 0.07 in gifted girls, which was not significant (95% CI [−0.02, 0.20], including 0), accounting for 14.29% of the total effect. The results indicate that self-esteem plays a complete mediating role between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy in gifted boys, while the mediating effect did not exist in gifted girls.

4. Discussion

In this study, we investigated the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy in Chinese gifted children and further focused on the mediation effect of self-esteem and the moderation effect of gender. The results indicate that emotional intelligence significantly positively predicted creative self-efficacy in gifted children, and this relationship was partially mediated by self-esteem. In addition, the mediating effect of self-esteem had a significant gender difference, which shows that gender played a moderating role in the mediation model.

4.1. The Effect of Emotional Intelligence on Creative Self-Efficacy

The results show that emotional intelligence significantly positively predicted creative self-efficacy in gifted children, which supports Hypothesis 1.
As an individual psychological trait, emotional intelligence affects the individual’s self-construction in the interaction with the external environment (Petrides and Furnham 2001; Schutte et al. 2002), which in turn affects the individual’s creative self-efficacy. The result of this study validates social cognitive theories (Bandura 1986) and supports previous findings that individual personality traits are significantly associated with creative self-efficacy (Fino and Sun 2022; Karwowski and Lebuda 2016). Emotional intelligence, as an individual’s trait to interact emotionally with others, profoundly affects an individual’s perception and integration of the external environment (Herland 2022). Previous studies have shown that emotional intelligence has a significant predictive effect on interpersonal relationships. Individuals with high emotional intelligence had higher social skills and were more able to establish high-quality interpersonal relationships (Chen et al. 2017), which was beneficial for them to obtain support and encouragement from their family, peers, and society. This type of supportive environment could make individuals more confident in their creative activities and enhance their creative self-efficacy (Capron Puozzo and Audrin 2021).
This study also enriched the researches on emotional intelligence and creativity. Studies have found the predictive effect of emotional intelligence on creativity (Sánchez-Ruiz et al. 2011; Ferdowsi and Razmi 2022; Xu et al. 2019), and this study further named the importance of emotional intelligence for creative self-efficacy, revealing the close relationship between creative self-efficacy and creativity (Karwowski 2012; Pretz and McCollum 2014). According to the systems model of creativity, creativity is influenced by person factors, field factors, and domain factors (Csikszentmihalyi 1997). Creative self-efficacy, as an individuals’ belief in their ability to solve creative problems, belongs to the person factor and plays an important role in the creative process of individuals.
Based on the exploration of the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy, this study especially focused on the group of gifted children. The predictive effect of emotional intelligence on creative self-efficacy in gifted children suggests that emotional intelligence is of great significance to the healthy development of gifted children (Eklund et al. 2015). In the past few decades, the large amount of studies on the cognitive abilities of gifted children has far surpassed the studies on the emotional domains, which has led to the neglect of the emotional characteristics of gifted children (Ogurlu 2020). In recent years, researchers have pointed out that in addition to cognitive factors, social and psychological factors can also influence the dynamic growth path of gifted children (Zeidner 2017). As a trait that generates, recognizes, perceives, and expresses emotions, emotional intelligence affects whether gifted children can accurately understand themselves and the environment, and determine whether they can become a person who contributes to society (Pfeiffer 2001). According to the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent constructed by Gagné (2004), whether an individual’s giftedness translates into talent depends on a variety of factors, including the environment and internal catalysts. Emotional intelligence is an important internal factor that influences the interaction of gifted children with the external environment. Higher emotional intelligence can help gifted children grasp the support and opportunities in the environment, thereby promoting the transformation of talents and achieving individual development. In the process of development, gifted individuals will continue to accumulate the confidence brought by successful experience, thereby improving their sense of confidence. Therefore, emotional intelligence has a significant predictive effect on the creative self-efficacy of supernormal children.
In addition, this study also focused on the important role of emotional intelligence on the creative self-efficacy of gifted children in the Chinese context. Under the influence of Chinese collectivism and Confucianism, individuals need to observe etiquette, treat others kindly, and seek ideological and emotional consistency with the collective (Oyserman et al. 2002). Especially when solving creative problems, Chinese are likely to discuss and negotiate in a group (Niu and Kaufman 2013). In this context, individuals with high emotional intelligence can better interact with others, better understand others’ views, and express their own opinions. This helps them to better participate in collective decision-making and gain confidence in solving creative problems, thus enhancing their creative efficacy.
Thus, we can enhance the creative self-efficacy of Chinese gifted children by developing their emotional intelligence. We can use group counselling, club activities, sand play therapy, and other strategies to improve the ability of gifted children’s emotional perception, emotional reasoning, and emotional expression, helping them create good interpersonal relationships and emotional environments, thereby enhancing their creative self-efficacy.

4.2. The Mediating Effect of Self-Esteem

This study further showed that the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy in gifted children was partially mediated by self-esteem, which supports Hypothesis 2. Emotional intelligence, as a hard-core trait, affects the surface general self-concept characteristics, which in turn affects specific-domain self-concepts, such as creative self-efficacy, validating the creative self-belief model constructed by Karwowski et al. (2019).
First, we found that self-esteem was affected by individual emotional intelligence, which was similar to previous studies (Villanueva et al. 2022; Cheung et al. 2015). The self-verification theory of self-esteem states that self-esteem is closely related to the social environment and information processing preferences. Driven by the need for consistency in self-verification, when the evaluative information obtained from the external environment is consistent with self-expectation, the individual’s self-esteem is enhanced (He et al. 2005; Swann 1999). Emotional intelligence, as an important psychological resource for individuals to process emotional information, has a significant impact on individuals’ acquisition and understanding of external evaluation information. Individuals with higher emotional intelligence had more resources to manage and process other people’s and their own emotions and could use their own advantages in emotional perception to seek more positive communication experience and interactive feedback. This could help them obtain more evaluation information consistent with self-expectation from the external environment, thereby improving their self-esteem level (Gao et al. 2021; Feng et al. 2012).
We also found that self-esteem had a significant predictive effect on individual creative self-efficacy, which was also similar to previous findings (Barbot 2020; Chen et al. 2022b; Deng and Zhang 2011). Individuals with high self-esteem viewed their abilities more positively, which helped them better affirm their self-worth and have more confidence in completing difficult creative tasks (Luo et al. 2022; Christy and Mythili 2020). Based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, esteem need was the basis of self-fulfillment needs, and creative self-efficacy was one of the forms of self-fulfillment needs (Healy 2016). With the improvement of self-esteem level, the individual’s esteem need was constantly being satisfied, and then the need for self-fulfillment was gradually generated. In the process of pursuing self-fulfillment, individuals can constantly stimulate their creative potential, experience success in challenging creative tasks, and then have a higher sense of creative self-efficacy.
The results of this study reveal the important mediator role of self-esteem in the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy in gifted children. First, gifted children were more sensitive than their nongifted peers, and their self-construction mostly depended on external evaluation (Gere et al. 2009). Emotional intelligence helps gifted individuals to understand others’ emotions and express their own emotional experience, and affects the unity of self-evaluation and others’ evaluation of gifted children, which also affects their self-esteem level (Casino-García et al. 2021). In addition, previous studies showed that gifted children have a stronger ability to understand and a more accurate self-concept (Litster and Roberts 2011; Duan et al. 2022). As a core aspect of self-concept, the high self-esteem of gifted children makes them have high performance expectations for themselves (Olton-Weber et al. 2020; Mofield and Peters 2019). Those with high self-esteem believed that they can achieve their goals and then face challenges and difficulties with a more positive attitude, and have higher confidence in their ability to complete creative tasks (Topçu and Leana-Taşcılar 2018). Those with low self-esteem thought that they could not meet their expectations and then developed feelings of depression and loss and gradually lost confidence and courage to challenge creative tasks. Thus, self-esteem plays a mediating role in the relationship of emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy of gifted children.
In addition, the results of this study also support the key role of self-esteem in the construction of individual creative self-efficacy in the Chinese context. In traditional Chinese culture, individuals are required to have a clear assessment of themselves and to continuously improve themselves through self-reflection (Huang and Li 2006). As a product of individual self-evaluation, self-esteem comes from the perception of external environmental information, is affected by the psychological characteristics, and then has an important impact on the self-development and self-fulfillment of Chinese people. Based on this, self-esteem plays an important mediating role in the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy in the Chinese context.
Therefore, we need to continuously improve the self-cognition of Chinese gifted children, help them experience a greater sense of achievement and value, promote their self-esteem, and finally achieve the purpose of improving their creative self-efficacy.

4.3. The Moderating Effect of Gender

Furthermore, this study found that there were differences in the mechanism of emotional intelligence on creative self-efficacy in gifted children of different genders, illustrating that gender played a moderating role in the mediation model, supporting Hypothesis 3.
The independent sample t test indicated that the creative self-efficacy of gifted boys was significantly higher than that of girls, which is consistent with the findings of previous studies (Pajares 1996; Junge and Dretzke 1995). Gifted boys had higher self-confidence and a stronger sense of identity in their ability to complete creative tasks and solve creative problems. This might be related to the fact that gifted boys can often experience a sense of success in completing difficult learning tasks. Especially in the Chinese context, gifted students studied in the experimental classrooms, where more attention was given to the study of mathematics and physics, emphasizing the deepening of learning difficulty in these subjects. Gifted children were asked to finish challenging learning tasks, conduct divergent thinking, and put forward their own creative ideas (Liu 2022). Gifted boys who had stronger mathematical thinking ability than girls were often more able to solve difficult learning problems, had a more positive learning attitude in these subjects, and thus had better performance (Deringöl 2018). During this process, Chinese gifted boys continued to receive positive feedback and experienced their own abilities and a sense of control over tasks. This accumulation of confidence and belief might help them have higher creative self-efficacy than girls. Therefore, we should pay more attention to the creative self-efficacy of Chinese gifted girls, provide opportunities for them to display their advantages, and continuously make them accumulate successful experience by improving the curriculum system and expanding teaching methods to improve their self-confidence in completing creative tasks.
Additionally, the results of the multigroup model comparison showed that self-esteem played a complete mediating role between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy in gifted boys, and the mediating effect of self-esteem was not significant in gifted girls. This might be caused by traditional cultural concepts and social expectations (Li et al. 2022; Liu 2021). Especially in the Chinese context, there is a proverb called “Boys should be self-reliant”, that is, boys are expected to become more independent. At the same time, under the son preference, boys are usually put to higher demands (Chu et al. 2007). Under this gender expectation, boys are more independent and tend to solve problems by themselves compared with girls (Nie et al. 2017; Milfont and Sibley 2016). In particular, gifted boys had higher requirements for themselves, emphasized the mobilization of internal psychological resources, and rarely sought external support (French et al. 2011). This made the self-awareness of gifted boys play a more important role in their psychological behaviors. Gifted boys with high self-esteem had good self-regulation ability and had strong motivation and willingness to approach high-difficulty creative tasks and were much more confident in their own creative ability. Gifted boys with low self-esteem lack effective psychological resource support, which leads to lower creative self-efficacy. Compared with boys, the society’s expectation of girls in the Chinese context is to be considerate and caring for others, believing that girls are better able to handle interpersonal relationships and can profit from interpersonal interactions. Hence, girls tend to pay more attention to interpersonal communication and are more sensitive to emotional changes in others and themselves (Ciarrochi et al. 2005; Zhang and Liu 2021). Similar to nongifted girls, gifted girls were also highly dependent on social relationships and had a strong sensitivity to changes in the external environment (Kao 2011). If gifted girls could obtain sufficient emotional support and create a good emotional environment for themselves, their perception of ability and related behavioral performance would be directly enhanced. Therefore, emotional intelligence, as the ability to perceive and process emotional information, had a significant and direct predictive effect on the creative self-efficacy of gifted girls, and the mediating effect of self-esteem was not significant.
Therefore, based on their different influence mechanisms of creative self-efficacy, we should provide differentiated support to Chinese gifted children of different genders. For gifted boys, we should support them to continuously improve their positive self-concept and improve their self-esteem. Meanwhile, we should help them experience the fun of cooperation and interpersonal communication and encourage them to use external resources to support and solve problems to increase their confidence. For Chinese gifted girls, we should develop their emotional intelligence level so that they can better benefit from emotional communication and interpersonal dependence. Additionally, we should encourage their interest in independent exploration and help them obtain support from their own psychological resources to improve their self-esteem and self-confidence. By providing a targeted and differentiated teaching strategy for gifted boys and girls, the goal of improving creative self-efficacy for both boys and girls can be achieved through multiple channels. Finally, we also need to fight gender stereotypes. Especially in China, which is developing rapidly, we should further promote the development of gender equality, view the development of gifted children from a more inclusive perspective, encourage gifted children to choose their own development path, and then help to construct their creative self-efficacy.

5. Conclusions

The present study was designed to explore the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy in Chinese gifted children, especially focusing on the mediating effect of self-esteem and the moderating effect of gender. We found that emotional intelligence significantly positively predicted emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy, and self-esteem played a partial mediating role in this link. Meanwhile, a gender difference was found in the mediating effect of self-esteem, of which self-esteem played a complete mediating role in gifted boys, while the mediating role of self-esteem in gifted girls was not significant.
Gifted children possess unique advantages in both cognitive and affective elements, which give them high creative potential. The results of this study are of great significance for improving the creative self-efficacy of gifted children, stimulating their creative potential and promoting their creative achievements.
Additionally, there are several limitations in this study. The first and main limitation lies in the cross-sectional design and by solely relying on self-report. In future studies, we should conduct longitudinal studies to further identify causal associations between emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and creative self-efficacy. In addition, we can use various methods to collect data from different perspectives, combining subjective reports with objective tests, to obtain more comprehensive and reliable results. Another potential limitation is the sample characteristic. This study selected a unique sample group with a particular cultural context, so the cross-culture design needs to be conducted in future studies, as well as selecting nongifted children as participants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.C.; methodology, X.C.; software, X.C.; validation, L.C.; formal analysis, X.C.; investigation, X.C.; resources, L.C.; data curation, X.C. and L.C.; writing—original draft preparation, X.C.; writing—review and editing, L.C.; visualization, X.C.; supervision, L.C.; project administration, X.C. and L.C.; funding acquisition, L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the International Joint Research Project of Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, grant number ICER201904, and the General Program of NSFC: “Research on Cognition and Brain Mechanism of Students’ Mathematical Creative Thinking in Complex Situations”, grant number 62277003.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University (protocol code: BNU202106100016).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and their guardians involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are currently not publicly available due to participant privacy, but they are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jing He, Lihong Wang, Yi Wang, and all participants for their support in the process of data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdulla Alabbasi, Ahmed M., Alaa Eldin A. Ayoub, and Albert O. Ziegler. 2020. Are gifted students more emotionally intelligent than their non-gifted peers? A meta-analysis. High Ability Studies 32: 189–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abdulla Alabbasi, Ahmed M., Amnah S. M. Hafsyan, Mark A. Runco, and Aseel AlSaleh. 2021. Problem Finding, Divergent Thinking, and Evaluative Thinking Among Gifted and Nongifted Students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 44: 398–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Angela, Fabio Rosa, and Buzzai Caterina. 2020. Creativity, Emotional Intelligence and Coping Style in Intellectually Gifted Adults. Current Psychology 41: 1191–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  5. Barbot, Baptiste. 2020. Creativity and Self-esteem in Adolescence: A Study of Their Domain-Specific, Multivariate Relationships. The Journal of Creative Behavior 54: 279–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bar-On, Reuven. 2006. The Bar-On Model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). Psicothema 18: 13–25. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bar-On, Reuven. 2007. The impact of emotional intelligence on giftedness. Gifted Education International 23: 122–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Beghetto, Ronald A. 2006. Creative Self-Efficacy: Correlates in Middle and Secondary Students. Creativity Research Journal 18: 447–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bianco, Margarita, Bryn Harris, Dorothy Garrison-Wade, and Nancy Leech. 2011. Gifted girls: Gender bias in gifted referrals. Roeper Review 33: 170–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Capron Puozzo, Isabelle, and Catherine Audrin. 2021. Improving self-efficacy and creative self-efficacy to foster creativity and learning in schools. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42: 100966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Casino-García, Ana María, María José Llopis-Bueno, and Lucía Inmaculada Llinares-Insa. 2021. Emotional Intelligence Profiles and Self-Esteem/Self-Concept: An Analysis of Relationships in Gifted Students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chan, David W. 2004. Perceived Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy among Chinese Secondary School Teachers in Hong Kong. Personality and Individual Differences 36: 1781–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chan, David W. 2005. Self-perceived creativity, family hardiness, and emotional intelligence of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Journal of Advanced Academics 16: 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Chen, Outong, Xiaojing Zhao, Dongxing Ding, Yifan Zhang, Hongbo Zhou, and Ranran Liu. 2022a. Borderline Pathological Celebrity Worship and Impulsive Buying Intent: Mediating and Moderating Roles of Empathy and Gender. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 823478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Chen, Qingping, Duoduo Wu, and Jie Yan. 2017. Research on emotional intelligence, peer relationship and happiness Index of high school students from the perspective of positive psychology. Education Modernization 4: 158–59, 168. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen, Xinjie, Jinbo He, and Xitao Fan. 2022b. Relationships between openness to experience, cognitive flexibility, self-esteem, and creativity among bilingual college students in the U.S. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25: 342–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cheung, Chau-Kiu, Hoi Yan Cheung, and Ming-Tak Hue. 2015. Emotional intelligence as a basis for self-esteem in young adults. The Journal of Psychology 149: 63–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chiu, Lian-Hwang. 1988. Measures of Self-Esteem for School-Age Children. Journal of Counseling and Development 66: 298–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Christy, X. Ignatius, and T. Mythili. 2020. Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance Among Adolescents. Journal of Indian Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health 16: 123–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chu, Cyrus. Y. C., Yu Xie, and Ruoh-rong Yu. 2007. Effects of sibship structure revisited: Evidence from intrafamily resource transfer in Taiwan. Sociology of Education 80: 91–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ciarrochi, Joseph V., Amy Y. C. Chan, and Peter Caputi. 2000. A Critical Evaluation of the Emotional Intelligence Construct. Personality and Individual Differences 30: 539–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ciarrochi, Joseph, Keiren Hynes, and Nadia Crittenden. 2005. Can Men Do Better If They Try Harder: Sex and Motivational Effects on Emotional Awareness. Cognition and Emotion 19: 133–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1997. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  25. Deng, Xiaoping, and Xiangkui Zhang. 2011. Understanding the relationship between self-esteem and creativity: A meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science 19: 645–51. [Google Scholar]
  26. Deringöl, Yasemin. 2018. Mathematics Attitudes and Academic Self-Concepts of Gifted and Talented Students. Acta Didactica Napocensia 11: 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Doi, Satomi, Aya Isumi, and Takeo Fujiwara. 2020. The Association Between Parental Involvement Behavior and Self-Esteem Among Adolescents Living in Poverty: Results from the K-CHILD Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 6277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Du, Kaiye, Yan Wang, Xuran Ma, Zheng Luo, Ling Wang, and Baoguo Shi. 2020. Achievement Goals and Creativity: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy. Educational Psychology 40: 1249–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Duan, Dana, Li Cheng, Xioayu Chen, and Qinghua Yang. 2022. A Latent Transition Analysis of the Self-Concept of Gifted Children Aged 10–11 Years: A Longitudinal Study. Chinese Journal of Special Education 8: 78–87. [Google Scholar]
  30. Eklund, Katie, Nick Tanner, Katie Stoll, and Leslie Anway. 2015. Identifying emotional and behavioral risk among gifted and nongifted children: A multi-gate, multi-informant approach. School Psychology Quarterly 30: 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fang, Junyan, Xitong Huang, Minqiang Zhang, Feifei Huang, Zhe Li, and Qiting Yuan. 2018. The Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect on Academic Self-Concept: A Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1569–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Feng, Kong, Jingjing Zhao, and Xuqun You. 2012. Emotional Intelligence and Life Satisfaction in Chinese University Students: The Mediating Role of Self-Esteem and Social Support. Personality and Individual Differences 53: 1039–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ferdowsi, Sima, and Mohammad Hasan Razmi. 2022. Examining Associations Among Emotional Intelligence, Creativity, Self-Efficacy, and Simultaneous Interpreting Practice Through the Mediating Effect of Field Dependence/Independence: A Path Analysis Approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 51: 255–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fino, Emanuele, and Siyu Sun. 2022. “Let Us Create!”: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy Between Personality and Mental Well-Being in University Students. Personality and Individual Differences 188: 111444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. French, Lisa R., Cheryl L. Walker, and Bruce M. Shore. 2011. Do Gifted Students Really Prefer to Work Alone? Roeper Review 33: 145–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gagné, Françoys. 2004. Transforming Gifts into Talents: The DMGT as a Developmental Theory. High Ability Studies 15: 119–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gao, Fei, Xiaohui Chi, and Xiaofan Song. 2021. Relationship among college students’ emotional intelligence, meaning in life, and life satisfaction: Mediating role of self-esteem. Journal of Bio-Education 9: 347–52, 373. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gere, Douglas R., Steve C. Capps, D. Wayne Mitchell, and Erin Grubbs. 2009. Sensory Sensitivities of Gifted Children. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 63: 288–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Greenberg, Leslie S. 2002. Emotion-Focused Therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  40. Guo, Jiajun, Shengjie Lin, and Yawei Guo. 2018. Sex, birth order, and creativity in the context of China’s one-child policy and son preference. Creativity Research Journal 30: 361–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Haase, Jennifer, Eva V. Hoff, Paul H. P. Hanel, and Åse Innes-Ker. 2018. A Meta-Analysis of the Relation Between Creative Self-Efficacy and Different Creativity Measurements. Creativity Research Journal 30: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. He, Yayun, Feng Zhang, and Yanyan Zhou. 2005. Self-esteem and Self-verification: Theory, Research and Problems. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology 4: 368–74. [Google Scholar]
  43. Healy, Kevin. 2016. A Theory of Human Motivation by Abraham H. Maslow (1942). British Journal of Psychiatry 208: 313–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Herland, Mari D. 2022. Emotional Intelligence as a Part of Critical Reflection in Social Work Practice and Research. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice 21: 662–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huang, Shoujing, and Songlin Li. 2006. The Practical Significance of the Confucian “Self-example Education”. Journal of Yunnan Minzu University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 1: 23–26. [Google Scholar]
  47. Jauk, Emanuel, Aljoscha C. Neubauer, Beate Dunst, Andreas Fink, and Mathias Benedek. 2015. Gray Matter Correlates of Creative Potential: A Latent Variable Voxel-Based Morphometry Study. NeuroImage 111: 312–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Jauk, Emanuel, Mathias Benedek, Beate Dunst, and Aljoscha C. Neubauer. 2013. The Relationship Between Intelligence and Creativity: New Support for the Threshold Hypothesis by Means of Empirical Breakpoint Detection. Intelligence 41: 212–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Ju, Chengting, Fengqing Zhao, Baoshan Zhang, and Jingsong Deng. 2015. Effects of fathering style on social problem-solving among Chinese teenagers: The roles of masculine gender stereotypes and identity. Personality and Individual Differences 77: 124–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Junge, Michael E., and Beverly J. Dretzke. 1995. Mathematical self-efficacy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly 39: 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kao, Chenyao. 2011. The dilemmas of peer relationships confronting mathematically gifted female adolescents: Nine cases in Taiwan. The Gifted Child Quarterly 55: 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Karwowski, Maciej. 2012. Did Curiosity Kill the Cat? Relationship Between Trait Curiosity, Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Personal Identity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 8: 547–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Karwowski, Maciej, and Izabela Lebuda. 2013. Extending Climato-Economic Theory: When, How, and Why It Explains Differences in Nations’ Creativity. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36: 493–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Karwowski, Maciej, and Izabela Lebuda. 2016. The Big Five, the Huge Two, and Creative Self-Beliefs: A Meta-Analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 10: 214–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Karwowski, Maciej, Izabela Lebuda, and Ronald A. Beghetto. 2019. Creative Self-Beliefs. In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, 2nd ed. Edited by James C. Kaufman and Robert J. Sternberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 396–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Karwowski, Maciej, Jacek Gralewski, and Grzegorz Szumski. 2015. Teachers’ Effect on Students’ Creative Self-Concept is Moderated by Students’ Gender. Learning and Individual Differences 44: 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Karwowski, Maciej, James C. Kaufman, Izabela Lebuda, Grzegorz Szumski, and Anna Firkowska-Mankiewicz. 2017. Intelligence in Childhood and Creative Achievements in Middle-Age: The Necessary Condition Approach. Intelligence 64: 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Karwowski, Maciej, Jan Dul, Jacek Gralewski, Emanuel Jauk, Dorota M. Jankowska, Aleksandra Gajda, Michael H. Chruszczewski, and Mathias Benedek. 2016. Is Creativity Without Intelligence Possible? A Necessary Condition Analysis. Intelligence 57: 105–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Karwowski, Maciej, Izabela Lebuda, Ewa Wi’sniewska, and Jacek Gralewski. 2013. Big Five Personality Factors as the Predictors of Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Personal Identity: Does Gender Matter? The Journal of Creative Behavior 47: 215–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lei, Fei, and Lin Lei. 2022. How Does the Optimism of Students Learning a Foreign Language Affect Their Creative Self-Efficacy? The Mediating Effects of Hope and Empathy. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 831593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, Beilei, Ting Gao, Lili Zhang, Nan Zhou, and Linyuan Deng. 2022. Relationship between Student’s Perceived Teacher Bullying Attitude and Student Bullying Behavior: Mediating Effect of Student Bullying Attitude and Moderating Effect of Gender. Psychological Development and Education 38: 348–57. [Google Scholar]
  62. Li, Jian-Bin, Elisa Delvecchio, Daniela Di Riso, Silvia Salcuni, and Claudia Mazzeschi. 2015. Self-esteem and its association with depression among Chinese, Italian, and Costa Rican adolescents: A cross-cultural study. Personality and Individual Differences 82: 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Li, Xiaobao, Lanting Wu, and Houchao Lv. 2021. Relationships between self—Esteem, future time perspective, and academic performance: A longitudinal study. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology 27: 244–51, 261. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lin, Shengjie, Carlton J. Fong, and Yidan Wang. 2017. Chinese undergraduates’ sources of self-efficacy differ by sibling status, achievement, and fear of failure along two pathways. Social Psychology of Education 20: 361–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Litster, Kristin, and Jillian Roberts. 2011. The self-concepts and perceived competencies of gifted and non-gifted students: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 11: 130–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liu, Xiaoshi. 2021. Relationships Between Maternal Educational Attainment and Adolescents’ Academic Self-Esteem: The Mediating Role of Parenting Style and the Moderation Role of Gender. Studies of Psychology and Behavior 19: 59–65. [Google Scholar]
  67. Liu, Yujuan. 2022. Strengthening the Cultivation of Innovative Talents in Basic Disciplines—An Analysis of the Cultivation Path of Mathematically Gifted Children under the Background of “Double Reduction Policy”. Chinese Journal of Special Education 2: 3–9. [Google Scholar]
  68. Lubinski, David, and Camilla Persson Benbow. 2000. States of excellence. American Psychologist 55: 137–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Luo, Yunfeng, Wenjuan Gao, and Xinqiao Liu. 2022. Longitudinal Relationship Between Self-Esteem and Academic Self-Efficacy Among College Students in China: Evidence From a Cross-Lagged Model. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 877343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Mammadov, Sakhavat, Tracy L. Cross, and Thomas J. Ward. 2018. The Big Five Personality Predictors of Academic Achievement in Gifted Students: Mediation by Self-Regulatory Efficacy and Academic Motivation. High Ability Studies 29: 111–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Marcionetti, Jenny, and Jérôme Rossier. 2021. A Longitudinal Study of Relations Among Adolescents’ Self-Esteem, General Self-Efficacy, Career Adaptability, and Life Satisfaction. Journal of Career Development 48: 475–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mathisen, Gro Ellen, and Kolbjorn S. Bronnick. 2009. Creative Self-Efficacy: An Intervention Study. International Journal of Educational Research 48: 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mayer, John D., David R. Caruso, and Peter Salovey. 1999. Emotional Intelligence Meets Traditional Standards for an Intelligence. Intelligence 27: 267–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Metaj-Macula, Albulena. 2017. Emotional intelligence, its relation with social interaction and perceived social support. European Journal of Social Sciences Education & Research Articles 10: 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Milfont, Taciano L., and Chris G. Sibley. 2016. Empathic and Social Dominance Orientations Help Explain Gender Differences in Environmentalism: A One-Year Bayesian Mediation Analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 90: 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mofield, Emily, and Megan Parker Peters. 2019. Understanding underachievement: Mindset, perfectionism, and achievement attitudes among gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 42: 107–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mruk, Christopher J. 1995. Self-Esteem: Research, Theory and Practice. New York: Springer, p. 48. [Google Scholar]
  78. Nie, Ruihong, Nan Zhou, Yuchi Zhang, and Xiaoyi Fang. 2017. Associations among Interpersonal Relationships and High Students’ Internalizing and Externalizing Problems: The Mediating Roles of Self-Esteem and Gender Differences. Psychological Development and Education 33: 708–18. [Google Scholar]
  79. Niu, Weihua, and James C. Kaufman. 2013. Creativity of Chinese and American Cultures: A Synthetic Analysis. Journal of Creative Behavior 47: 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. OECD. 2019. PISA 2021: Creative thinking framework. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2021-Creative-Thinking-Framework.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2022).
  81. Ogurlu, Uzeyir. 2020. Giftedness. In Encyclopedia of Creativity, 3rd ed. Edited by Steven Pritzker and Mark Runco. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 546–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ogurlu, Uzeyir. 2021. A Meta-Analytic Review of Emotional Intelligence in Gifted Individuals: A Multilevel Analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 171: 110503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Olton-Weber, Sophia, Robyn Hess, and Jennifer A. Ritchotte. 2020. Reducing Levels of Perfectionism in Gifted and Talented Youth Through a Mindfulness Intervention. The Gifted Child Quarterly 64: 319–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Oyserman, Daphna, Heather M. Coon, and Markus Kemmelmeier. 2002. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 128: 3–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Pajares, F. 1996. Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research 66: 543–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Pan, Yingqiu. 2015. Development of young adolescents’ self-esteem and influencing factors: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica 47: 787–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Papadopoulos, Dimitrios. 2021. Examining the Relationships Among Cognitive Ability, Domain-Specific Self-Concept, and Behavioral Self-Esteem of Gifted Children Aged 5–6 Years: A Cross-Sectional Study. Behavioral Sciences 11: 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Peng, Biao, Hanshi Xiao, Zhuang He, Wei Xiang, Chunye Zhang, Zhendong Yao, and Huiying Yu. 2021. Effect of Parental Rejection on Depression in Middle School Students: The Chain Mediating Effect of Self-esteem and Psychological Inflexibility. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology 29: 773–77. [Google Scholar]
  89. Petrides, Konstantinos V. 2009. Psychometric Properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). In The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality. Assessing Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Research, and Applications. Edited by Con Stough, Donald H. Saklofske and James D. A. Parker. Berlin: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 85–101. [Google Scholar]
  90. Petrides, Kostantinos V., and Adrian Furnham. 2001. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality 15: 425–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Petrides, Kostantinos V., Ria Pita, and Flora Kokkinaki. 2007. The Location of Trait Emotional Intelligence in Personality Factor Space. British Journal of Psychology 98: 273–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Pfeiffer, Steven I. 2001. Emotional intelligence: Popular but elusive construct. Roeper Review 23: 138–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Pretz, Jean E., and Victoria A. McCollum. 2014. Self-perceptions of creativity do not always reflect actual creative performance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2: 227–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Puente-Díaz, Rogelio, and Judith Cavazos-Arroyo. 2017. Creative Self-Efficacy: The Influence of Affective States and Social Persuasion as Antecedents and Imagination and Divergent Thinking as Consequences. Creativity Research Journal 29: 304–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Qualter, Pamela, Kathryn J. Gardner, Debbie J. Pope, Jane M. Hutchinson, and Helen E. Whiteley. 2012. Ability Emotional Intelligence, Trait Emotional Intelligence, and Academic Success in British Secondary Schools: A 5 Year Longitudinal Study. Learning and Individual Differences 22: 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Renzulli, Joseph S. 1978. What Makes Giftedness? Reexamining a Definition. Phi Delta Kappan 60: 180–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rosenberg, Florence R., Morris Rosenberg, and Joan McCord. 1978. Self-Esteem and Delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 7: 279–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Salovey, Peter, and John D. Mayer. 1990. Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9: 185–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. San Martín, Juan Luis, and Enrique Barra. 2013. Self esteem, social support and life satisfaction in adolescents. Terapia Psicológica 31: 287–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Sánchez-Ruiz, María José, Daniel Hernández-Torrano, Juan Carlos Pérez-González, Mark Batey, and Kostantinos V. Petrides. 2011. The Relationship Between Trait Emotional Intelligence and Creativity Across Subject Domains. Motivation and Emotion 35: 461–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sarouphim, Ketty M. 2011. Gifted and non-gifted Lebanese adolescents: Gender differences in self-concept, self-esteem and depression. International Education 41: 26–41. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/docview/911991596?pq-origsite=primo (accessed on 15 October 2022).
  102. Schutte, Nicola S., John M. Malouff, Lena E. Hall, Donald J. Haggerty, Joan T. Cooper, Charles J. Golden, and Liane Dornheim. 1998. Development and Validation of a Measure of Emotional Intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences 25: 167–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Schutte, Nicola S., John M. Malouff, Maureen Simunek, Jamie McKenley, and Sharon Hollander. 2002. Characteristic emotional intelligence and emotional well-being. Cognition and Emotion 16: 769–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Schwean, Vicki, Don Saklofske, Leslie Widdifield-Konkin, James D. A. Parker, and Patricia Kloosterman. 2006. Emotional intelligence and gifted children. E-Journal of Applied Psychology 2: 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Seeman, Melvin. 1976. Black and white self-esteem: The urban school child.by Morris Rosenberg; Roberta G. Simmons. American Journal of Sociology 81: 1232–33. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777578 (accessed on 15 October 2022).
  106. Singh, Agyajit, and Sukhdeep Kaur. 2012. A Comparative Study of Gifted and Non-Gifted Children on Emotional Intelligence. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology 3: 14–19. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/comparative-study-gifted-non-children-on/docview/1522708905/se-2 (accessed on 15 October 2022).
  107. Sowislo, Julia Friederike, and Ulrich Orth. 2013. Does Low Self-Esteem Predict Depression and Anxiety? A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies. Psychological Bulletin 139: 213–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Sternberg, Robert J. 2003. WICS: A Model of Leadership in Organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education 2: 386–401. [Google Scholar]
  109. Sternberg, Robert J., and Todd I. Lubart. 1991. An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development 34: 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Stolz, Robert C., Angelicque Tucker Blackmon, Kimarie Engerman, Leslyn Tonge, and Camille A. McKayle. 2022. Poised for creativity: Benefits of exposing undergraduate students to creative problem-solving to moderate change in creative self-efficacy and academic achievement. Journal of Creativity 32: 100024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Su, Xueyun, Heping Tan, and Junming Fang. 2010. A study on the self-concept of gifted students and its influencing factors. Journal of Psychological Science 33: 1248–50. [Google Scholar]
  112. Swann, William B. 1999. Resilient Identities: Self-Relationships and the Construction of Social Reality. New York: Basic Books, pp. 25–89. [Google Scholar]
  113. Tierney, Pamela, and Steven M. Farmer. 2011. Creative Self-Efficacy Development and Creative Performance Over Time. Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 277–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Topçu, Sevgi, and Marilena Z. Leana-Taşcılar. 2018. The Role of Motivation and Self-Esteem in the Academic Achievement of Turkish Gifted Students. Gifted Education International 34: 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Van der Linden, Dimitri, Ioannis Tsaousis, and Konstantinos V. Petrides. 2012. Overlap Between General Factors of Personality in the Big Five, Giant Three, and Trait Emotional Intelligence. Personality and Individu-al Differences 53: 175–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Villanueva, Lidón, Vicente Prado-Gascó, and Inmaculada Montoya-Castilla. 2022. Longitudinal Analysis of Subjective Well-Being in Preadolescents: The Role of Emotional Intelligence, Self-Esteem and Perceived Stress. Journal of Health Psychology 27: 278–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wang, Caikang, and Zhiwen He. 2002. The relationship between parental rearing styles with general self-efficacy and emotional intelligence in middle school students. Chinese Mental Health Journal 11: 781–82, 785. [Google Scholar]
  118. Wen, Zhonglin, and Baojuan Ye. 2014. Analyses of Mediating Effects: The Development of Methods and Models. Advances in Psychological Science 22: 731–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Winkler, Daniel, and Adam Voight. 2016. Giftedness and Overexcitability: Investigating the Relationship Using Meta-Analysis. The Gifted Child Quarterly 60: 243–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Xu, Xiaobo, Wenling Liu, and Weiguo Pang. 2019. Are Emotionally Intelligent People More Creative? A Meta-Analysis of the Emotional Intelligence–Creativity Link. Sustainability 11: 6123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Yang, Chunyu, You Zhou, Qilong Cao, Mengfan Xia, and Jing An. 2019. The Relationship Between Self-Control and Self-Efficacy Among Patients with Substance Use Disorders: Resilience and Self-Esteem as Mediators. Frontiers in Psychiatry 10: 388–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Yang, Hui, QingXiong Weng, JunYi Li, and Song Wu. 2022. Exploring the Relationship Between Trait Emotional Intelligence and Adaptive Performance: The Role of Situational Strength and Self-Efficacy. Personality and Individual Differences 196: 111711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Zeidner, Moshe. 2017. Tentative guidelines for the development of an ability-based emotional intelligence intervention program for gifted students. High Ability Studies 28: 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zhang, Yakun, Longan Chen, Xingli Zhang, and Jiannong Shi. 2018. An integrative perspective on western creativity theories. Advances in Psychological Science 26: 810–30. [Google Scholar]
  125. Zhang, Yanna, Pin Li, Zhitian Skylor Zhang, Xingli Zhang, and Jiannong Shi. 2021a. The Relationships of Parental Responsiveness, Teaching Responsiveness, and Creativity: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 748321–748321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Zhang, Yu, and Haiyan Liu. 2021. Relations of use intensity, self-esteem, and depression of the social website of college students and middle school students: The meditation function of the number of friends and the moderating function of genders. China Journal of Health Psychology 29: 1391–98. [Google Scholar]
  127. Zhang, Zhitian Skylor, Linda Hoxha, Abdullah Aljughaiman, Aliriza Arënliu, Maria P. Gomez-Arizaga, Sule Gucyeter, Irina Ponomareva, Jiannong Shi, Paula Irueste, Silke Rogl, and et al. 2021b. Social environmental factors and personal motivational factors associated with creative achievement: A cross-cultural perspective. The Journal of Creative Behavior 55: 410–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Zhang, Zhitian. 2017. Gifted education in China. Cogent Education 4: 1364881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zhao, Siqi, Peipei Setoh, Daniel Storage, and Andrei Cimpian. 2022. The acquisition of the gender-brilliance stereotype: Age trajectory, relation to parents’ stereotypes, and intersections with race/ethnicity. Child Development 93: e581–e97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Zuffianò, Antonio, Nancy Eisenberg, Guido Alessandri, Bernadette Paula Luengo Kanacri, Concetta Pastorelli, Michela Milioni, and Gian Vittorio Caprara. 2016. The Relation of Pro-Sociality to Self-Esteem: The Mediational Role of Quality of Friendships. Journal of Personality 84: 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jintelligence 11 00017 g001 550
Figure 1. The hypothesized model.
Figure 1. The hypothesized model.
Jintelligence 11 00017 g001
Jintelligence 11 00017 g002 550
Figure 2. The mediating effect of self-esteem on the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy. ** p < .01, *** p < .001; The numbers are standardized regression coefficients. The residuals variances and controlled variable (age) in the model are not displayed.
Figure 2. The mediating effect of self-esteem on the relationship between emotional intelligence and creative self-efficacy. ** p < .01, *** p < .001; The numbers are standardized regression coefficients. The residuals variances and controlled variable (age) in the model are not displayed.
Jintelligence 11 00017 g002
Jintelligence 11 00017 g003 550
Figure 3. A multigroup model comparison of the mediating effect of self-esteem. *** p < .001; The numbers are standardized regression coefficients, which boys’ coefficients are outside brackets, and girls’ coefficients are inside brackets. The residuals variances and controlled variable (age) in the model are not displayed.
Figure 3. A multigroup model comparison of the mediating effect of self-esteem. *** p < .001; The numbers are standardized regression coefficients, which boys’ coefficients are outside brackets, and girls’ coefficients are inside brackets. The residuals variances and controlled variable (age) in the model are not displayed.
Jintelligence 11 00017 g003
Table
Table 1. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and correlations among variables.
Table 1. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and correlations among variables.
ViriablesMSD123456
1 Creative self-efficacy3.830.90
2 Emotion perception3.690.730.42 ***
3 Managing self-relevant emotions3.880.710.47 ***0.76 ***
4 Managing others’ emotions3.850.880.39 ***0.70 ***0.77 ***
5 Emotion utilization3.860.700.52 ***0.66 ***0.83 ***0.73 ***
6 Emotional Intelligence3.820.670.50 ***0.90 ***0.92 ***0.87 ***0.88 ***
7 Self-esteem3.030.550.51 ***0.54 ***0.61 ***0.46 ***0.55 ***0.60 ***
8 Age11.440.71−0.17 **0.000.000.07−0.03−0.02
Note: ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Table
Table 2. Model fit indices in multigroup model comparison.
Table 2. Model fit indices in multigroup model comparison.
Modelχ2/dfCFITLIRMSEASRMR
Model 11.800.980.970.080.04
Model 21.300.990.980.060.07
Model 31.430.980.980.060.06
Model 41.550.980.970.070.06
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, X.; Cheng, L. Emotional Intelligence and Creative Self-Efficacy among Gifted Children: Mediating Effect of Self-Esteem and Moderating Effect of Gender. J. Intell. 2023, 11, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11010017

AMA Style

Chen X, Cheng L. Emotional Intelligence and Creative Self-Efficacy among Gifted Children: Mediating Effect of Self-Esteem and Moderating Effect of Gender. Journal of Intelligence. 2023; 11(1):17. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11010017

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Xiaoyu, and Li Cheng. 2023. "Emotional Intelligence and Creative Self-Efficacy among Gifted Children: Mediating Effect of Self-Esteem and Moderating Effect of Gender" Journal of Intelligence 11, no. 1: 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11010017

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop