Creative Education
2013. Vol.4, No.2, 143-148
Published Online February 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.42020
Creativity—Innovative Thinking—Tolerance in Uncertainty:
Views of Undergraduate Students in Greek Universities Based on
the Faculty of Their Studies
Yota Xanthacou1, Nektarios A. Stavrou2, Thomas Babalis2
1University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece
2University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Received September 30th, 2012; revised October 30th, 2012; accepted November 16th, 2012
Innovative-creative thinking and tolerance towards uncertain situations concern the field of the present
study. Through scenarios and alternative proposals that concern views about the presence (university) or
the future as well (professional career after the university), the research focuses on undergraduate students
in Greek universities. The research took place in 2011 in a sample of 836 students, using the questionnaire
as an instrument, in a difficult financially and socially conjuncture for the country, with the unemploy-
ment galloping especially in young people and graduates. The present study examines the extent to which
the type of student’s studies (social science and science) differentiates innovative-creative thinking and
tolerance towards the uncertainty of subjects. Results showed that undergraduates of Social Science Fac-
ulties make more “conservative” choices, both during their studies as well as during the selection of pro-
fessional perspectives. On the other hand, students of Sciences show higher tolerance in uncertainty, pur-
suing more challenging working conditions, as well as assessment conditions during their studies, in
comparison to students of Social Science Faculties.
Keywords: Creativity; Innovative Thinking
Introduction
In an era in which the crisis, the ineffective policies, the iso-
lationism in European Union create a reasonable skepticism
about countries that are full of problems, mainly economical,
especially in South European, and particularly in Greece, in our
country, the map of poverty deepens. Newly-poor people and
newly -homeless are increasing, households are drying, compa-
nies are putting a padlock, while the living standard is being
reduced by 20%. In the foresight of increasing unemployment,
at least 50% are young people, while two out of five homeless
includes persons under 45 years old that are graduates of uni-
versities.
Today, where the unpredictability prevails and where the so-
lutions to problems are not always assisted by past experiences
only, in which ways innovative-creative thinking is encouraged,
how designs and strategies are cultivated in universities in order
to find solutions to problems that will serve man and not only
profit and especially the short-term one? How tolerance to am-
biguity is encouraged in Universities and how people are as-
sisted to insist on goals and projects with perseverance and
without abandoning the effort, ideas, paths, when encountering
obstacles and resistances?
Innovation, as a successful completion of new ideas (Gross-
man & King, 1990; Xanthacou & Kaila, 2011; von Stamm,
2008), through improvements (innovation by improvement),
with extension and enrichment of products with new benefits
(innovation by extensions) and as a production with the adop-
tion of a paradigm (innovation through paradigms), constitutes
a process of creative-divergent thinking. The person who pos-
sesses and cultivates creative thinking experiments, takes risks,
manages the complex and incomplete, asks questions, is open
to new experience, offers flexibility in thinking and independ-
ent opinion, beyond the conventions, and is insistent on the
chosen objectives (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2007; Xan-
thacou & Kaila, 2011).
Innovation through creativity is a very important factor and
competitive advantage for modern societies, organizations,
universities, the economy under the dynamic environment
characterized by change and globalization. Literature refers to
many definitions and boundaries of creativity and innovation
concepts. Widely accepted definition is that creativity is the
production of new and useful ideas, while innovation is the
successful implementation of these ideas in an organization, a
business, an institution (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, &
Herron, 1996). According to surveys, European economies are
low in commercially successful innovations, while Japan comes
first at this level. Under this reasoning, the problem lies in the
attempt to reform the universities, in order to invest in new
knowledge and to promote the academic staff and researchers
to undertake new initiatives and risk for new scientific paths.
As China that emphasizes innovation, encouraging new people
to be adventurous and develop innovative products in the in-
dustry (OECD, 2006; Phelps, 2007; Shahid, 2009). It seems
that the percentage of creative people in a society increases,
when three conditions are satisfied: 1) significant value is at-
tributed to learning in a stable home environment from early
childhood to qualification and training and after college; 2)
value is attributed to the health and happiness, to the quality of
life of people in society. Lewis Thomas observed that every

Y. XANTHACOU ET AL.
time he passed through a lab and was listening to laughter from
the group, that was evidence that achievement-stunning results
would emerge from the laboratory; 3) value is assigned on
knowledge and its growth, so that students and researchers can
specialize more and more to move certain objects thoroughly.
Conversely, Di Tella and MacCulloch (2006) research found
that unemployment and inflation reduce happiness of individu-
als, with unemployment having the highest percentage.
Beneath these facts, what is the basic innovative-creative
thinking and tolerance towards uncertain situations of graduate
students of Greek universities and how much do they vary de-
pending on the faculty they are studying that is how the social
sciences graduate diverse of those of sciences, are the basic
research questions of the present study. In short, factors “crea-
tivity-innovative thinking” and “perseverance-tolerance of un-
certainty” are the main pillars of the present study.
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the differ-
ences between graduate students of different studies on the
creativity, the innovative thinking and the perseverance/toler-
ance towards uncertainty. Particularly, the research objectives
of the study are the followings: 1) the faculty differentiates
creativity and innovative thinking of students; 2) studies in-
fluence perseverance/tolerance towards the uncertainty of stu-
dents.
Methodology
Participants
The participants of the research were eight hundred thirty six
(836) graduating students of Higher Education Institutions.
More specifically, two hundred forty (240, 28.7%) were boys
and five hundred ninety six (596, 71.3%) were women. Re-
garding their studies, four hundred seventy two (472, 58.8%)
students enrolled in departments of Social Sciences, while three
hundred thirty one (331, 41.2%) students enrolled in depart-
ments of Sciences. Of all the students surveyed, seven hundred
ninety nine (799, 95.6%) report that they speak foreign lan-
guages, and seven hundred and ten (710, 84.9%) students de-
clare that they know how to handle a computer.
Measuring Instruments—Questionnaire
The instrument, which was used in this study, is the ques-
tionnaire composed of two parts. The first part consists of stu-
dents’ demographic information and the second part contains
questions, which were formed based on research purpose and
objectives of the research. Especially, the following questions
were used based on the research purpose of the study:
1) Characterization of the method as mentioned by Woody
Allen when he said: “I took lessons on fast reading, learning to
read directly in the middle of the page and I managed to read
“War and Peace” in 20 minutes. It talks about Russia...” Spe-
cifically under the above so-called, students were asked to
characterize this method of study as 1) fast and effective; 2) fast
and ineffective; and 3) fast and creative (creativity).
2) Interpretation of the words of Louis Pasteur, which was
asked “How did you manage to do all these discoveries? Did
luck help you?” He replied: “Luck helps pre-prepared thought.”
Students were given two alternative responses, which were the
following: 1) The great discoveries are made accidentally and
unexpectedly. Hence Archimedes shouted with surprise “Eure-
ka!” and 2) Luck is an effort product.
3) The students’ views on the key element of creative pro-
duction and completion of an original artistic or scientific
product between alternative responses: 1) a unique talent which
has inherent charisma; and 2) culture and learning (creativity).
4) The desired workplace after completing their studies (pri-
vate sector, public sector, personal business, family business)
(persistence—tolerance for uncertainty).
5) Criteria for selecting students between two tasks, where
the first option refers to a funded program for his/her own
business venture and the second option in a steady job, which
will have a salary and stamps (persistence—tolerance for un-
certainty).
6) Students’ criteria selection of a scientific job based on 1)
the degree of challenge and 2) the certainty that they can han-
dle the demands of work (persistence—tolerance for uncer-
tainty).
Procedure
Instrument completion was accomplished during the educa-
tional program of students in their department and in particular
during the spring semester of the academic year 2010-2011.
The researchers administered the questionnaire during the
course in consultation with the head teacher. During the com-
pletion of the questionnaire, all the necessary clarifications
have been given, contributing thus to a better understanding of
the questions. It was also referred to the participants that their
responses are anonymous, confidential and will be used only
for research purposes. The duration of completion of the ques-
tionnaire was about fifteen (15) minutes.
Statistical Analysis
Before conducting the main statistical analyses the degree of
reliability of the questionnaire was tested. The results of apply-
ing reliability methods of the questionnaire factors (covariance
and correlation of the questions, Cronbach α) met the criteria
for acceptable reliability. Specifically, the internal consistency
index (Cronbach α), for the questionnaire was .87, a value con-
sidered as fully satisfactory. The reliability of the questionnaire
scales was also tested through test-retest reliability. The results
supported the existence of acceptable values ranging from .73
to .91, providing further support to the reliability of the meas-
uring instrument.
In the present study and according to the purpose and the re-
search questions of this study descriptive statistics indicators
were used, such as mean (M), standard deviation (SD), per-
centage frequency and cumulative percentage frequency. Also,
cross-tabulation was used in order to examine the purpose and
the research questions of the present study (Pearson χ2, df,
p-value), as well as, Mann Whitney test.
Results
Basic Knowledge of Creativity—Innovative Thinking:
Differences between Students of Sciences and Social
Sciences Faculties
Table 1 presents the cross-tabulation results between stu-
dents of Social Sciences and Sciences Faculties and the method
of studying as was presented from the words of Woody Allen.
This particular actor once said: “I took lessons on the fast read-
ing, learning to read directly in the middle of the page and I
144

Y. XANTHACOU ET AL.
managed to read “War and Peace” in 20 minutes. It talks about
Russia…”
The results of the cross-tabulation analysis did not reveal the
existence of statistically significant differences (Pearson Chi-
square χ2 = .102, df 2, ns) between students of different studies.
In particular, based on participants’ answers it seems that they
evaluate and characterize the specific method as fast and ineffec-
tive and in a smaller percentage as fast and effective or creative.
In Table 2 the results of the cross-tabulation between stu-
dents of Social Sciences and Sciences Faculties and Louis Pas-
teur’s answer about the concept of discovery are presenting.
Specifically Louis Pasteur was asked: “How did you manage to
do all these discoveries? Did luck help you?” And he replied:
“Luck helps pre-prepared thought”.
The results did not reveal the existence of statistically sig-
nificant differences (Pearson Chi-square χ2 = 2.260, df 1, ns)
between students of different Faculty. In particular, based on
participants’ answers it seems that students of both Social as
well as Scientific Faculty, support, at a higher percentage, that
from the words of Pasteur appears that luck is an effort product,
while few students state the opinion that great discoveries hap-
pen randomly and unexpectedly.
Table 3 presents the results of cross- tabulation between the
views of students in Departments of Social and Scientific Fac-
ulty and the conditions of creative production, completion of an
original artistic or scientific product. The results of the cross-
tabulation did not reveal the existence of statistically significant
differences (Pearson Chi-square χ2 = 2.624, df 1, ns) between
Table 1.
Cross-tabulation between students of social sciences and sciences faculties and the method of studying: number, percentage frequency and statistical
significance.
Students
Study method Social scienc es SciencesTotal
Number 100 74 174
% Method 57.5% 42.5% 100.0% Fast & effective
% Direction 20.8% 21.6% 21.1%
Number 271 190 461
% Method 58.8% 41.2% 100.0% Fast & ineffective
% Direction 56.5% 55.4% 56.0%
Number 109 79 188
% Method 58.0% 42.0% 100.0%
Fast & creative
% Direction 22.7% 23.0% 22.8%
Total Number 480 343 823
% Method 58.3% 41.7% 100.0%
% Direction 100.0% 100.0%100.0%
Statistical significance index
Note: Pearson Chi-square χ2 = .102, df 2, ns.
Table 2.
Cross-tabulation between students of social sciences and sciences faculties and louis pasteur’s answer: number, percentage frequency and statistical
significance.
Students
Social sciences Sciences Total
Number 48 24 72
% Answer 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Discoveries happen randomly
% Direction 10.0% 7.0% 8.7%
Number 432 319 751
% Answer 57.5% 42.5% 100.0% Luck is an effort product
% Direction 90.0% 93.0% 91.3%
Number 480 343 823
% Answer 58.3% 41.7% 100.0% Total
% Direction 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Statistical significance index
Note: Pearson Chi-square χ2 = 2.260, df 1, ns.

Y. XANTHACOU ET AL.
Table 3.
Cross-tabulation between students of social sciences and sciences faculties and the conditions of completion of an original artistic or scientific product:
number, percentage frequency and statistical significance.
Students
Social sciences Sciences Total
Number 91 81 172
% Condition 52.9% 47.1% 100.0% Unique talent—inherent charisma
% Direction 19.0% 23.6% 20.9%
Number 389 262 651
% Condition 59.8% 40.2% 100.0%
Cultivation
& learning
% Direction 81.0% 76.4% 79.1%
Total Number 480 343 823
% Condition 58.3% 41.7% 100.0%
% Direction 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Statistical significance index
Note: Pearson Chi-square χ2 = 2.624, df 1, ns.
students of different Faculty, where it seems that they express
the opinion at a higher percentage that it is the outcome of cul-
tivation and learning and to a smaller degree that it is a unique
talent which features an inherent charisma.
Insistence-Tolerance in Uncertainty: Diffe rences
between Students of Sciences and Social Sciences
Faculties
Table 4 presents the differences in the answers of students of
Social Sciences and Sciences Faculties as far as the desirable
place of work after the completion of their studies. The results
revealed the existence of statistically significant differences
between students and they show that students who study in
Social Science Faculties wish to a greater degree to work after
the completion of their studies at the public sector, whilst on
the other side students of Sciences Faculties wish to a greater
extent to work at the private sector, in a personal and/or a fam-
ily business.
Table 5 presents the results of the cross- tabulation analysis
between students in Social Sciences and Sciences Faculties and
the selection criteria among different jobs. The results of the
cross-classification supported the existence of statistically sig-
nificant differences (Pearson Chi-square χ2 = 18.907, df 1, p
< .001) among students of different faculties. Specifically,
based on participants’ answers it seems that students of Science
Faculties prefer to a greater degree a funded program for their
own entrepreneurial task, whilst on the other side students of
Social Science Faculties prefer, to a greater degree, a steady job
with a salary and stamps.
The results of the cross- tabulation of the students of Social
Sciences and Sciences Faculties and the selection criterion of a
scientific job are being presented in Table 6. Specifically, the
results of the cross-classification supported the existence of
statistically significant differences (Pearson Chi-square χ2 =
10.651, df 1, p < .001) among students of different faculties. In
particular, participants’ answers indicated that students of Sci-
ence Facul- ties select to a greater extent scientific jobs that are
challenging, whilst on the other side students of Social Science
Faculties prefer jobs where they feel confident to cope suc-
cessfully with their demands and they can complete them.
Discussion
Variations are being observed between students of different
Faculties and the examined variables. More precisely, it appears
that undergraduate students of Social Science studies select a
more stable job with a salary and stamps, against a funded pro-
gram for a personal entrepreneurial endeavor, which is mostly
within the choices of students in Science Studies. The results
showed that the type and nature of studies, potentially the con-
tent of the study courses as well, affects and their choices re-
garding the type and nature of the job they wish to practice after
the graduation. Relevant to this appear the criteria that students
use to select a scientific job within the university. Confidence,
completion certainty plays an important role despite the attrac-
tiveness and the initiative possibility for the undergraduate
students of Social Science studies.
The more “conservative” views, as are being expressed from
the undergraduates of Social Science Faculties, are likely due to
the content of studies, but also to the lack of alternative chan-
nels of professional career relating to the desirable, for instance,
choice of the public sector and the confidence of a salary.
However, the gender role must also be examined. It seems that
the woman population outweighs not only as far as the sample
concerns but mostly as far as the social orientations of the de-
partment are concerned, where the vast majority are women.
Regardless the faculty, students support the significance of the
effort, the preparation and the learning as important facts of
innovation and creative production.
Despite the equivalent professionalization of the women
population and their contribution to the family fund, men seem
to hold more the economy wheel within the Greek family, with
the consequence to be more adventurous, open to experience
and risk taking in business, with the aim to increase the family
planning. In today’s rough socio-economical circumstances that
the current research took place, the respondents, especially
women, express both the personal and the corporate uncertainty
146

Y. XANTHACOU ET AL.
Table 4.
Mean rank and differences (Mann Whitney, Z) in the answers of students of social sciences and sciences faculties who would wish to work after the
completion of their studies.
Students
Social sciences (mean rank) Sciences (mean rank) Mann-Whitney Ζ
Private sector 343.87 507.34 49617.000 −10.018***
Public sector 476.37 321.92 51421.000 −9.718***
Personal business 369.80 471.05 62066.000 −6.180***
Family business 366.01 476.36 60245.000 −6.822***
Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
Table 5.
Cross-tabulation among students of social sciences and sciences faculties and the selection among jobs: number, percentage frequency and statistical
significance.
Students
Social sciences Sciences Total
Number 142 152 294
% Choice 48.3% 51.7% 100.0% Funded pro gram for a personal entrepreneurial task
% Direction 29.6% 44.3% 35.7%
Number 338 191 529
% Choice 63.9% 36.1% 100.0% Steady job with a salary and stamps
% Direction 70.4% 55.7% 64.3%
Total Number 480 343 823
% Choice 58.3% 41.7% 100.0%
% Direction 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Statistical significance index
Note: Pearson Chi-square χ2 = 18.907, df 1, p < .001.
Table 6.
Cross-tabulation among students of social sciences and sciences faculties and the selection criterion of a scientific job: number, percentage frequency
and statistical significance.
Students
Selection criterion of a scientific job Social sciences Sciences Total
Number 142 139 281
% Choice 50.5% 49.5% 100.0%
Challenging job
% Direction 29.6% 40.5% 34.1%
Number 338 204 542
% Choice 62.4% 37.6% 100.0% Completion confidence
% Direction 70.4% 59.5% 65.9%
Total Number 480 343 823
% Choice 58.3% 41.7% 100.0%
% Direction 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Statistical significance index
N
ote: Pearson Chi-square χ2 = 10.651, df 1, p < .001.

Y. XANTHACOU ET AL.
with unemployment horizons, part-time work with a minimal
salary at best, get stuck in the tested path, the certain, the con-
ventional, the one that is not at all challenging and interesting.
Therefore, they nullify, despite their juvenile, the adventure, the
risk, the openness of prospects with individual accomplish-
ments. It is the generation of 400 and something euros.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996).
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 39, 1154-1184. doi:10.2307/256995
Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2006). Some uses of happiness data in
economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 25-46.
doi:10.1257/089533006776526111
Grossman, S., & King, M. (1990). Eagles, otters, and unicorns: An
Anatomy of innovation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 24, 75-98.
doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1990.tb00530.x
OECD (2006). Competitive cities in the global economy. Paris: OECD.
Phelps, E. (2007). Entrepreneurial culture: Why European economies
lag behind the US. Wall Street Journal.
Puccio, G., Murdock, M., & Mance, M. (2007). Creative leadership:
Skills that drive change. London: Sage Publications.
Shahid, Y. (2009). From creativity to innovation. Technology in Society,
31, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.10.007
Von Stamm, B. (2008). Managing innovation, design and creativity.
West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Xanthacou, Y., & Kaila, M. (2011). Creative problem solving. Haup-
pauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
148