Innovative Potential in University Students: Differential Psychological Analysis

Innovative potential is a personal quality that develops during professional education. Its studies may help to design innovation development programs for higher education. This study on the innovative potential of university students featured the effect of gender and attitudes to innovations on the value, cognitive, cognitiveregulatory, metacognitive, and personal characteristics. A total of 331 university students in Tomsk were recruited for this empirical study (28% male, 72% female; Mage 21.2 years). They were subjected to the following techniques: The Self-Assessment of Personality’s Innovative Qualities Scale (Lebedeva & Tatarko); The Self-Organization of Activity Questionnaire (Mandrikova); The Revised Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ-R, Schwartz); The Big Five Questionnaire (Caprara et al., adaptation by Osin et al.); The Questionnaire of Metacognitive Resources of Human Behavior Regulation in Adverse Circumstances (Filenko & Bogomaz). Path analysis and the Mann–Whitney U test revealed the following structural features of innovative potential components and gender-based intergroup differences. For the male respondents, the main positive effect on the innovativeness index belonged to selfcontrol (standardized regression weight = 0.429) and self-direction (0.175). In the female students, the general effects on the innovativeness index depended on self-control (0.263) and stimulation (0.443). The male respondents demonstrated significantly higher indicators for the innovativeness index, creativity, taking risk for achievement, orientation to the future, openness to knowledge, and self-control. Female students received more points for such indicators as planning and tradition. K-means cluster analysis identified four distinct groups among the participants, significantly differing in their levels of innovativeness and associated psychological determinants: Proactive Innovators (20.2%), Adaptive Innovators (38.7%), Conservatives (21.5%), and Non-Adaptive Conservatives (19.6%). The regression analysis and the non-parametric criteria of difference (the Mann–Whitney U test; Kruskal–Wallis H test) made it possible to obtain specific quantitative and qualitative characteristics for each type. The study results can be used to develop personalized psychological and pedagogical programs for innovative activity in various groups of university students.

1. Baturin N. A., Kim T. D., Naumenko A. S. Multilevel model of innovative professional potential and methods of its operationalization. Vestnik IuUrGU. Seriia: Psihologiia, 2010, (8): 48–57. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/mehhjz

2. Buravleva N. A., Bogomaz S. A. Personal characteristics of students as predictors of their readiness to innovate. Sibirskiy Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal, 2020, (76): 155–180. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/17267080/76/10

3. Bykova E. S., Zubareva N. S., Kapustina V. A., Matyushina M. A. Features of viability of youth with different levels of innovative potential of the person. Mir pedagogiki i psikhologii, 2019, (11): 100–108. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qmctoj

4. Vlasenko Yu. A. Psychological analysis of personal innovative potential. Cand. Psychol. Sci. Diss. Simferopol, 2003, 187. (In Russ.)

5. Ilyin E. P. Psychology of individual differences. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2011, 700. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/uynehl

6. Kapustina V. A., Bykova E. S. Typological approach in the analysis of the structure of personal innovative potential. Psychologist, 2019, (4): 14–26. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8701.2019.4.30548

7. Klochko V. E., Galazhinsky E. V. Innovative potential of an individual: System anthropological context. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2009, (325): 146–151. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/lhqtzl

8. Konovalova V. G. Digital technologies as a factor of techno-stress: Problems and possibilities for their solution. Management of the personnel and intellectual resources in Russia, 2022, (3): 17–21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.12737/2305-7807-2022-11-3-17-21

9. Lebedeva N. M., Bushina E. V. Influence of personal values and motivation with creative behavior and attitude to innovations. Psikhologiia v ekonomike i upravlenii, 2015, 7(1): 26–35. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/tziuxj

10. Lebedeva N. M., Tatarko A. N. Methodology for studying individual attitude towards innovations. Almanakh sovremennoi nauki i obrazovaniia, 2009, (4-2): 89–96. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/owdvwh

11. Litvina S. A., Muravyeva O. I., Atamanova I. V., Bogomaz S. A. Psychological predictors of innovativeness as an integral personal characteristic. Sibirskiy Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal, 2021, (79): 74–88. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/17267080/79/5

12. Mandrikova E. Yu. Development of the self-organization of activity questionnaire (SOA). Psikhologicheskaia diagnostika, 2010, (2): 87–111. (In Russ.)

13. Osin E. N., Rasskazova E. I., Neyaskina Yu. Yu., Dorfman L. Ya., Aleksandrova L. A. Operationalization of the five-factor model of personality traits in a Russian sample. Psikhologicheskaia diagnostika, 2015, (3): 80–104. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/xwzznr

14. Sergeeva I. A. Innovative qualities and hardiness of students of the engineering university. Mir nauki, kul'tury, obrazovaniya, 2020, (4): 159–161. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/wrsmoa

15. Soldatova G. U., Nestik T. A. Internet users’ attitudes towards the among Internet: Technophobes and technophiles. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriia: Psikhologicheskie nauki, 2016, (1): 54–61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-7235-2016-1-54-61

16. Suroedova E. A. Thinking styles as predictors of psychological readiness of students for innovative activities. Vestnik of Samara State Technical University. Series: Psychological and Pedagogical Sciences, 2021, 18(2): 19–30. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17673/vsgtu-pps.2021.2.2

17. Tashcheva A. I., Gridneva S. V., Arpentieva M. R. Stress of innovation and psychological and pedagogical support for subjects of higher education in an innovative educational environment. Review of Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanitarian Research, 2023, (2): 210–215. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36809/2309-9380-2023-39-210-215

18. Terekhova T. A. Personal innovative potential as a socio-psychological phenomenon. Human innovative potential as a resource for the socio-economic regional development: Proc. Interregional Sci.-Prac. Conf. Chita: ChitSU, 2009, 6–14. (In Russ.)

19. Terekhova T. A., Shishkina A. O. Psychometric analysis of special semantic differential for individual innovative personal assessment. Psikhologiia v ekonomike i upravlenii, 2013, (1): 66–73. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/sfbvil

20. Trushevskaya A. A., Logun K. A. Factor model and typology of innovative behavior of young entrepreneurs (Russia, St. petersburg). Problems of Modern Economics, 2018, (2): 151–156. (In Russ.)

21. Ushenkov E. E. Innovative potential of boys and girls in modern Russian society. Woman in Russian Society, 2022, (S1): 42–49. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21064/WinRS.2022.0.4

22. Fedotova V. A. Values and attitudes towards innovation among different generations of Russian people. Social Psychology and Society, 2016, 7(2): 82–92. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2016070206

23. Filenko I. A., Atamanova I. V., Bogomaz S. A. Innovativeness, regulation of life activity and value orientations in young men and women: The COVID-19 pandemic effect. Russian Psychological Journal, 2022, 19(3): 178–201. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21702/rpj.2022.3.12

24. Filenko I. A., Bogomaz S. A. Standardizing a questionnaire of metacognitive resources of human behavior regulation in difficult circumstances. SibScript, 2024, 26(5): 685–700. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2024-26-5-685-700

25. Khromova A. O., Bukhtayarova E. Yu., Klimova A. A., Kurnosova M. A., Druzhinina M. V. Research on motivational, creative, communicative and organizational components of future educators’ readiness to use innovative technologies. Science for Education Today, 2022, 12(4): 7–25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2204.01

26. Schwab K. The fourth industrial revolution. Moscow: Eksmo, 2016, 138. (In Russ.)

27. Schwartz S., Butenko T. P., Sedova D. S., Lipatova A. S. Theory of basic personal values: Validation in Russia. Psychology, Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2012, 9(2): 43–70. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qyxaeh

28. Arieli S., Tenne-Gazit O. Values and behavior in a work environment: Taking a multi-level perspective. Values and behavior, eds. Roccas S., Sagiv L. Springer International Publishing AG, 2017, 115–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56352-7_6

29. Brown T. A. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press, 2015, 462.

30. Caprara G. V., Barbaranelli C., Borgogni L., Perugini M. The "Big Five Questionnaire": A new questionnaire to assess the Five Factor Model. Personality and Individual Differences, 1993, 15(3): 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90218-R

31. Dangmei J., Sing A. P., Choudari D. Impacts of Big Five personality traits on innovative behaviour among business students: An empirical study. International Journal of Research in Management & Business Studies, 2020, 7(4): 23–27.

32. Hamdy A., Fazida K., Rashidah I., Asyraf A., Ahmad M. B. S., Mohd H. H., Mahadzirah M. Connecting the dots between the Big Five and innovative work behaviour: Maslow and Maqasid Al-Shari’a Perspectives. Revista Espacios, 2019, 40(27): 1–12.

33. Hsieh H.-L., Hsieh J.-R., Wang I.-L. Linking personality and innovation: The role of knowledge management. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 2011, 9(1): 38–44.

34. Jirásek M., Sudzina F. Big Five personality traits and creativity. Quality innovation prosperity, 2020, 24(3): 90–105. https://doi.org/10.12776/qip.v24i3.1509

35. Khasawneh O. Y. Technophobia: Examining its hidden factors and defining it. Technology in Society, 2018, 54(1): 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.03.008

36. Mustafa M., Coetzer A., Ramos H. M., Fuhrer J. Exploring the effects of small- and medium-sized enterprise employees’ job satisfaction on their innovative work behaviours: The moderating effects of personality. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, 2021, 8(2): 228–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-07-2020-0133

37. Olakitan O. O. An examination of the impact of selected personality traits on the innovative behaviour of entrepreneurs in Nigeria. International Business and Management, 2011, 3(2): 112–121.

38. Pirkkalainen H., Salo M., Tarafdar M., Makkonen M. Deliberate or instinctive? Proactive and reactive coping for technostress. Journal of Management Informational Systems, 2019, 36(4): 1179–1212. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1661092

39. Rogers E. M. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003, 576.

40. Rohwer E., Flöther J.-C., Harth V., Mache S. Overcoming the "Dark Side" of technology – a scoping review on preventing and coping with work-related technostress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, 19(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063625

41. Scholkmann A. B. Resistance to (digital) change: Individual, systemic and learning-related perspectives. Digital Transformation of Learning Organizations, eds. Ifenthaler D., Hofhues S., Egloffstein M. Helbig C. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2021, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55878-9_13

42. Sousa C. M. P., Coelho F. From personal values to creativity: Evidence from frontline service employees. European Journal of Marketing, 2011, 45(7-8): 1029–1050. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111137598

43. Talke K., Heidenreich S. How to overcome pro-change Bias: Incorporating passive and active innovation resistance in innovation decision models. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2014, 31(5): 894–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12130

44. Zhu H., Jia F., Zhang Y., Wang R. The relationship between the big five personality model and innovation behavior: A three-level meta-analysis. Behavioral Sciences, 2025, 15(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091143