University researchers play a crucial role in driving academic and social progress. For these individuals, innovative thinking is the key to achieving scientific breakthroughs, especially in today’s complex and highly competitive research environment (Hawke et al., 2022; Xu, 2022). Therefore, cultivating and supporting the innovative capabilities of university researchers not only promotes their professional development, but also has far-reaching implications for the innovation and progress of the global academic community and society.

 

In this context, research on innovative work behavior, which is multifaceted behavior involving the generation, promotion, and realization of new ideas, is particularly crucial (Alfy & Naithani, 2021; Buarod, 2023). While there has been substantial research on enhancing innovative work behavior, there remain several gaps in the literature that require further exploration (Hosseini & Haghighi Shirazi, 2021). One such gap is the limited focus on the impact of creative inspiration on innovative work behavior, and the underexplored application of this concept among researchers. Inspiration is a particular type of intrinsic motivational state that is characterized by a strong epistemic component (Oleynick et al., 2014). Creative inspiration is a specific form of intrinsic motivation evoked by an external source and connected to the realization of new ideas (Thrash & Elliot, 2003). It involves imagining familiar things in a new light to find previously undetected patterns, and finding connections among unrelated phenomena (Rosen et al., 2020). Research has indicated that individuals who experience creative inspiration are more inclined to explore new methods and challenge conventional thinking (Bychkova, 2022). For instance, in fields like art and design, creative inspiration is considered a critical factor driving innovation and the creation of unique works (An & Youn, 2018). In technology and engineering, inspiration often guides engineers and scientists to break through conventional thinking and propose innovative solutions (Bychkova, 2022).

 

Additionally, regarding the relationship between creative self-efficacy and innovative work behavior, most previous studies have emphasized the impact of general self-efficacy on behavior or performance, while there has been limited research on the effect of creative self-efficacy on researchers’ innovative work behavior. Creative self-efficacy, as an extension of self-efficacy, is defined as the belief in one’s ability to produce creative outcomes (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Existing studies have indicated that high levels of creative self-efficacy not only enhance employees’ confidence when facing challenges but also motivate them to explore new methods and solutions (Torner, 2023). In the educational field, teachers’ creative self-efficacy levels have been found to be significantly correlated with their teaching innovation and the quality of the education they provide (Puozzo & Audrin, 2021). Teachers with high creative self-efficacy are more likely to adopt innovative teaching methods, thereby improving student learning outcomes.

 

Although creative inspiration and creative self-efficacy play important roles in the work process, managers in Chinese universities often neglect these aspects among researchers (Dai et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2019; Weder, 2022). Currently, the main methods for motivating innovative work behavior rely on performance evaluations and a competitive workplace environment among colleagues, which are external stimuli. However, according to social cognitive theory, humans are self-regulating agents, and relying solely on external evaluation pressures is insufficient for achieving sustained innovative output (Bandura, 2018). Therefore, more effective strategies should be employed that focus on internal factors, including enhancing researchers’ creative self-efficacy and creative inspiration to promote their innovative work behavior.

 

Mindfulness as a psychological intervention has garnered widespread attention in recent years for its role in helping individual focus, emotional regulation, and self-awareness (Corti & Gelati, 2020; Henriksen et al., 2020; Weder, 2022). Mindfulness practice encourages individuals to maintain present-moment awareness, reducing their reaction to external pressures and increasing psychological flexibility, thereby helping to enhance their creative self-efficacy and creative inspiration (Feldman et al., 2007). For example, existing research has shown that mindfulness practice can help individuals cope with challenges and difficulties experienced during flow states, boosting their confidence in facing challenges and thus improving their self-efficacy (Koppenborg et al., 2022). Immersion in the present moment can reduce worries about the past or future (Ngo et al., 2020) and promote attention on the current task, which is crucial for fostering creativity. Furthermore, mindfulness practice allows individuals to more keenly perceive novelty and possibilities in their surroundings, thereby stimulating the generation of creative inspiration (Henriksen et al., 2020). Therefore, the logic behind the beneficial relationship between mindfulness training and the enhancement of creative self-efficacy and creative inspiration lies in its cultivation of focus, awareness, and confidence in facing challenges, facilitating the elevation of creative self-efficacy and the emergence of creative inspiration, thus providing robust support for individual innovation behavior.

 

According to social cognitive theory and existing research, individuals’ innovative work behavior is influenced by their self-regulation and cognitive processes. Mindfulness can help researchers maintain composure and focus when encountering challenges at work, thereby effectively stimulating and utilizing creative inspiration and self-efficacy. Additionally, mindfulness practice fosters inner balance and emotional stability, which enhances individuals’ confidence in their creative abilities, thus improving creative self-efficacy. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Mindfulness will be positively correlated with creative self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 2: Mindfulness will be positively correlated with creative inspiration.

Hypothesis 3: Creative self-efficacy will be positively correlated with creative inspiration.

Hypothesis 4: Creative self-efficacy will be positively correlated with innovative work behavior.

Hypothesis 5: Creative inspiration will be positively correlated with innovative work behavior.

Hypothesis 6: Creative self-efficacy and creative inspiration will mediate the relationship between mindfulness and innovative work behavior.

 

The research model is illustrated in Figure 1.

We used snowball and purposive sampling methods to recruit university researchers from Guangdong, Hunan, and Yunnan Provinces in China, then explained the purpose and significance of the study and asked them to help distribute the questionnaire among their colleagues. The survey was conducted between July and August 2023. Respondents’ anonymity was assured. Of 342 online questionnaires we collected from university researchers across various disciplines, including humanities, social sciences, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, 37 invalid questionnaires (e.g., identical answers given to every question, forms filled in too quickly) were discarded; thus, there were 305 valid questionnaires remaining, yielding an effective response rate of 89%. Table 1 presents the participants’ demographic characteristics.

Items were rated on a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The survey was distributed to participants in both English and Chinese. The Chinese version was translated from English by a professional translator, and then another professional translated it back into English to ensure the accuracy of the content. We also pilot tested the scale with 50 university researchers, who completed the revised scale and gave feedback on clarity, relevance, and overall assessment. Results showed good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = .85) and content validity.

 

Mindfulness was measured using the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale developed by Feldman et al. (2007). The original 12-item scale consists of four dimensions, each of which comprises three items: attention, present focus, awareness, and acceptance. However, considering that in Feldman et al.’s study some items had low factor loadings and others were highly similar, we streamlined the measure by retaining one item per facet: “It is easy for me to concentrate on what I am doing” (attention), “I am able to focus on the present moment” (present focus), “It’s easy for me to keep track of my thoughts and feelings” (awareness), and “I am able to accept the thoughts and feelings I have” (acceptance).

 

Creative self-efficacy was assessed using three items from a scale developed by Tierney and Farmer (2002). A sample item is “I have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively.”

 

Creative inspiration was measured using a scale by Böttger et al. (2017), which consists of four items. Although originally designed to assess consumer inspiration, this scale provides a multidimensional measurement approach that encompasses various aspects of the creative process, such as stimulating imagination, generating new ideas, and broadening perspectives. The items are theoretically applicable to capturing creative experiences among academic researchers during their work. A sample item is “My imagination was stimulated [during the research process].”

 

Innovative work behavior was gauged using a scale by Scott and Bruce (1994). The original scale comprised six items, but we utilized three specific items: “Generates creative ideas,” “Promotes and champions ideas to others,” and “Develops adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas.” These items comprehensively evaluate the innovative work behavior of university researchers, encompassing both technical innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, and their creativity and influence dissemination in humanities and social sciences fields. This selection maintains the simplicity of the scale while ensuring its applicability and effectiveness as an assessment tool.

The proposed model in this study was analyzed using Amos 26.0 software. We applied structural equation modeling, which is a common approach for both evaluating latent variables within measurement models and for hypothesis testing involving latent variables in structural models.

Table 2 reveals that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all variables ranged between .81 and .91, signifying good internal consistency. Additionally, the factor loadings presented in Table 2 ranged from .69 to .94 for all variables, confirming their convergent validity.

Convergent and discriminant validity were further substantiated by average variance extracted (AVE) values greater than .50, and the square roots of AVE being greater than each factor’s correlations with other variables (see Table 3).

The analysis showed significant correlations among variables, supporting the six hypotheses, as detailed in Table 3. The model had a good fit to the data, χ²/df = 2.77, goodness-of-fit index = .92, normed fit index = .91, comparative fit index = .94, Tucker–Lewis index = .93, root-mean-square error of approximation < .08.

 

The structural path model (see Figure 2) shows that mindfulness was significantly and positively correlated with both creative self-efficacy (β = .50, p < .001) and creative inspiration (β = .46, p < .001), supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2. Moreover, creative self-efficacy was significantly and positively correlated with both creative inspiration (β = .21, p < .01) and innovative work behavior (β = .40, p < .001), supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4. Furthermore, creative inspiration was significantly and positively correlated with innovative work behavior (β = .46, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 5.

 

We investigated the mediating effects using the bootstrapping method, with results based on 5,000 resamples within a 95% confidence interval (see Table 4). Creative self-efficacy and creative inspiration fully mediated the relationship between mindfulness and innovative work behavior (standardized indirect effect = .46, p < .01), thereby supporting Hypothesis 6.

This study fills a previously unaddressed gap in the literature by exploring the relationship between mindfulness practices and innovative work behavior among higher education researchers, with a particular focus on the mediating effects of creative self-efficacy and creative inspiration. Our results advance prior research by suggesting that mindfulness is not only crucial for emotional regulation and self-awareness but also significantly influences researchers’ innovative output through enhanced creative self-efficacy and creative inspiration.

 

These findings build upon prior work highlighting the benefits of mindfulness in enhancing flow and reducing anxiety (Hensley, 2020; Ngo et al., 2020). Furthermore, this study has shown that mindfulness can enhance researchers’ confidence and focus, thereby positively impacting their creative self-efficacy and creative inspiration, which are critical for innovative work behavior. This research also extends theoretical understanding by illustrating that mindfulness practices can help researchers maintain composure and focus in challenging research environments, thus effectively stimulating and utilizing their creative capabilities.

 

In addition, this study contributes to existing knowledge by elucidating the mechanisms through which mindfulness enhances creative self-efficacy and creative inspiration, providing new insights into how these internal factors mediate the relationship between mindfulness and innovative work behavior. By integrating social cognitive theory with mindfulness research, this study offers a novel perspective on the self-regulatory processes that underpin innovative behaviors in academic settings. Our findings highlight the greater importance of internal psychological factors over external performance pressures, suggesting that fostering mindfulness and creative self-efficacy can lead to more sustainable innovative outcomes. In summary, this pioneering research provides evidence supporting the role of mindfulness in promoting innovative work behavior through creative self-efficacy and creative inspiration, offering valuable theoretical contributions for enhancing innovation in higher education research environments.

This research has yielded several recommendations for fostering an environment conducive to sustained innovative work behavior among researchers, from both individual and institutional perspectives. Our findings indicate that researchers who integrated mindfulness practices into their daily routines reported higher levels of creative self-efficacy and inspiration, and also exhibited sustained innovative work behavior. This suggests that mindfulness practice can serve as an effective personal strategy for enhancing creative self-efficacy and continuous innovation. As previous studies have shown, mindfulness practices (e.g., meditation and deep breathing exercises) can enhance cognitive flexibility and reduce cognitive rigidity, which are crucial for creative thinking (Baas et al., 2014). These practices also help reduce stress and improve overall well-being, thereby creating a mental state conducive to creativity (Carmody & Baer, 2008). Further, researchers can document inspiration gained from mindfulness practices in creativity journals, which can promote the structured development of ideas (Hensley, 2020). By incorporating these individual strategies into their daily routines, researchers can enhance their creative self-efficacy and inspiration, thereby driving innovative work behavior.

 

From the institutional perspective, universities and research institutions should implement strategic measures to foster a supportive environment for innovation. Integrating mindfulness practices into professional development programs through workshops, courses, and related initiatives can enhance researchers’ focus, emotional regulation, and self-awareness. Developing tailored training programs to bolster creative self-efficacy and inspiration is essential (Liu et al., 2021). These programs should equip researchers with strategies to maintain high levels of creative inspiration, thereby enhancing their innovative work behavior. Furthermore, institutions should prioritize researchers’ psychological well-being and intrinsic motivation over external performance pressures by providing resources and opportunities for regular mindfulness practice.

 

Finally, institutions must consider the broader impact of their policies on creating a culture of innovation. This involves promoting an environment that values and rewards creativity, encourages interdisciplinary collaboration, and provides platforms for researchers to share and develop their ideas. By creating an institutional culture that supports continuous learning and innovation, universities and research institutions can ensure that researchers remain motivated and engaged in their work (Kezar & Eckel, 2002). These combined efforts, both at the individual and institutional levels, provide a comprehensive approach to promoting sustained innovative work behavior among researchers.

First, this study relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to response bias and social desirability bias. Furthermore, using a single source for all variables (independent, mediating, and dependent) may limit the validity of the study findings. As such, we cannot ascertain whether innovative work behavior merely reflects respondents’ personal images and values expressed in creative self-efficacy and creative inspiration, thus representing their internal psychological consistency rather than actual innovative behavior. Second, the cross-sectional design of this study limits our ability to establish causality between variables. Longitudinal or experimental studies are needed to explore the causal effects of mindfulness interventions on the variables of innovative work behavior. Third, the study sample comprised university researchers from specific academic disciplines and institutions, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations or contexts. Future research could replicate this study with more diverse samples to ensure the robustness and generalizability of the findings across different academic settings.

Alfy, S. E., & Naithani, P. (2021). Antecedents of innovative work behaviour: A systematic review of the literature and future research agenda. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 17(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2021.112082

 

An, D., & Youn, N. (2018). The inspirational power of arts on creativity. Journal of Business Research, 85, 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.025

 

Baas, M., Nevicka, B., & Ten Velden, F. S. (2014). Specific mindfulness skills differentially predict creative performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(9), 1092–1106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214535813

 

Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280

 

Böttger, T., Rudolph, T., Evanschitzky, H., & Pfrang, T. (2017). Customer inspiration: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. Journal of Marketing, 81(6), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0007

 

Buarod, T. (2023). Factors enhancing innovative work behavior. St Theresa Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(2), 1–15.

 

Bychkova, O. (2022). Creativity vs commercialization: Russian engineers, their inspiration and innovation process. Engineering Studies, 14(1), 34–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2022.2042002

 

Carmody, J., & Baer, R. A. (2008). Relationships between mindfulness practice and levels of mindfulness, medical and psychological symptoms and well-being in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-007-9130-7

 

Corti, L., & Gelati, C. (2020). Mindfulness and coaching to improve learning abilities in university students: A pilot study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), Article 1935.

 

Dai, H. M., Ju, B., Teo, T., & Rappa, N. A. (2021). Understanding Chinese female university teachers’ intention to pursue a PhD degree: Some insights from a Chinese university. Higher Education, 81(6), 1347–1366.

 

Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8

 

Hawke, L. D., Sheikhan, N. Y., Jones, N., Slade, M., Soklaridis, S., Wells, S., & Castle, D. (2022). Embedding lived experience into mental health academic research organizations: Critical reflections. Health Expectations, 25(5), 2299–2305. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13586

 

Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Shack, K. (2020). Mindfulness and creativity: Implications for thinking and learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, Article 100689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100689

 

Hensley, N. (2020). Educating for sustainable development: Cultivating creativity through mindfulness. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, Article 118542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118542

 

Hosseini, S., & Haghighi Shirazi, Z. R. (2021). Towards teacher innovative work behavior: A conceptual model. Cogent Education, 8(1), Article 1869364. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1869364

 

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460.

 

Koppenborg, K. A., Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Ly, V. (2022). Academic stress, mindfulness-related skills and mental health in international university students. Journal of the American College of Health, 72(3), 787–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2022.2057193

 

Liu, T., Yu, X., Liu, M., Wang, M., Zhu, X., & Yang, X. (2021). A mixed method evaluation of an integrated course in improving critical thinking and creative self-efficacy among nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 106, Article 105067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105067

 

Ngo, L. V., Nguyen, N. P., Lee, J., & Andonopoulos, V. (2020). Mindfulness and job performance: Does creativity matter? Australasian Marketing Journal, 28(3), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.12.003 

 

Oleynick, V. C., Thrash, T. M., LeFew, M. C., Moldovan, E. G., & Kieffaber, P. D. (2014). The scientific study of inspiration in the creative process: Challenges and opportunities. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 436. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00436

 

Puozzo, I. C., & Audrin, C. (2021). Improving self-efficacy and creative self-efficacy to foster creativity and learning in schools. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100966

 

Rosen, Y., Stoeffler, K., & Simmering, V. (2020). Imagine: Design for creative thinking, learning, and assessment in schools. Journal of Intelligence, 8(2), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence8020016

 

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607. https://journals.aom.org/doi/full/10.5465/256701

 

Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 871–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.871

 

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. https://journals.aom.org/doi/full/10.5465/3069429

 

Torner, C. S. (2023). The influence of teleworking on creative performance by employees with high academic training: The mediating role of work autonomy, self-efficacy, and creative self-efficacy. Revista Galega de Economía, 32(1), 1–26.

 

Wang, X. Y., Wang, C., & Wang, J. (2019). Towards the contributing factors for stress confronting Chinese PhD students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 14(1), Article 1598722.

 

Weder, B. J. (2022). Mindfulness in the focus of the neurosciences – The contribution of neuroimaging to the understanding of mindfulness. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 16, Article 928522.

 

Xu, H. (2022). Open access publishing and university researchers’ agency towards reshaping the publishing habitus. Education as Change, 26(1), Article 11390. https://doi.org/10.25159/1947-9417/11390