Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, No.5, pp.73-90

Social responsibility and personal innovativeness of working and non-working students

Artemeva V. A. 1 (Saint-Petersburg , Russian Federation), Veselova E. K. 2 (Saint-Petersburg , Russian Federation), Dvoretskaya M. Y. 2 (Saint-Petersburg , Russian Federation), Korjova E. Y. 3 (Saint-Petersburg , Russian Federation)
1 Saint-Petersburg State University of Architecture & Civil Engineering, Russia
2 Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia
3 The Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia

Introduction. The article focuses on the relationship between social responsibility and various indicators of personal innovativeness as components of innovative activity. The research objective of the article is to study the influence of professional experience on the style of innovative activity.
Materials and Methods. The study involved 528 people. In order to measure personal innovativeness, the authors relied on the following methodological approaches: M. Kirton’s concept of differentiating people according to their attitude to new ideas and technologies; M. Basadur’s concept to build a creative personality profiles and V. A. Artemeva’s approach considering social responsibility as a separate component of personal innovativeness. The methodical complex included M. Kirton, M. Basadur, and V.A. Artemeva’s techniques and the J. Rotter’s locus of control technique.
Results. Methodological and methodical approaches to description and evaluation of the future specialists’ innovative activity are analyzed and compared. The results show that working students have a higher level of social responsibility than non-working students. Significant differences in indicators of personal innovativeness between the groups of working and non-working students are obtained. The M. Kirton’s general indicator of innovation and some indicators of the M. Basadur’s innovative style (research, generation of ideas, reflection, evaluation) are higher among the non-working students. At the same time, working students demonstrate higher rates of innovation by the V. A. Artemeva’s technique. Moreover, they have a higher level of the J. Rotter general internality.
Conclusions. The results show that work experience contributes to increasing students’ social responsibility but slightly reduces the level of personal innovativeness.


Social responsibility; Personal innovativeness; Innovative thinking; Style of innovative activity; Decision-Making Style; Innovative personality; Locus of control.

  1. Artemeva V. A. Formation of innovative outlook of students of architectural professions. Innovation in Education, 2013, no. 12, pp. 91–96. (In Russian) URL:
  2. Artem'eva V. A. Psychological aspects of innovative projects` introduction. Bulletin of Civil Engineers, 2013, no. 6 (41), pp. 252–258. (In Russian) URL:  
  3. Veselova E. K., Artem'eva V. A. Innovative personality": moral and psychological aspects. Bulletin of Civil Engineers, 2014, no. 4 (45), pp. 128–133. (In Russian) URL:  
  4. Pavlova N. S., Sergienko E. A. Subject and personal regulation of behavior as a manifestation of man’s individuality. Psychological Journal, 2016, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 43–56. (In Russian) URL:
  5. Saenko L. A. Social responsibility in students - study outcomes. Bulletin of the North Caucasus Federal University, 2015, no. 1 (46), pp. 267–271. (In Russian) URL:  
  6. Sidorenkov A. V., Sidorenkova I. I., Ulyanova N. Yu. Trust and identity as factors of work groups' effectiveness. Psychological Journal, 2016, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 29–42. (In Russian) URL:  
  7. Bratuhina E. V. Responsibility, social responsibility and socio-professional responsibilities of the student: A retrospective analysis. Problems of Modern Pedagogical Education, 2017, no. 57-12, pp. 52–58. (In Russian) URL:
  8. Ganaba S. A. Innovative person as a goal of modern educational discourse. Sociosphere, 2013, no. 3, pp. 134–140. (In Russian) URL:
  9. Poznyakov V. P., Nikulo E. A. Value orientations of businessmen with various level of responsible attitude to participants of business interaction. Psychological Journal, 2016, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 79–88. (In Russian) URL:  
  10. Artemeva V. A., Dvoretskaya M. Y., Veselova E. K., Korjova E. Y., Esikova T. V. Student innovativeness as manifestation of subjectivity. Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 2017, vol. 12 (5b), pp. 813–821. DOI:
  11. Cadsby C. B., Du N., Song F. In-group favoritism and moral decision-making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2016, vol. 128, pp. 59–71. DOI:
  12. Newman D. B., Schug J., Yuki M., Yamada J., Nezlek J. B. The negative consequences of maximizing in friendship selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2018, vol. 114 (5), pp. 804–824. DOI:  
  13. Ward S. J., King L. A. Individual differences in reliance on intuition predict harsher moral judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2018, vol. 114 (5), pp. 825–849. DOI:
  14. Halevy N., Chou E. Y. How decisions happen: Focal points and blind spots in interdependent decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2014, vol. 106 (3), pp. 398–417. DOI:  
  15. Cameron C. D., Harris L. T., Payne B. K. The emotional cost of humanity anticipated exhaustion motivates dehumanization of stigmatized targets. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2016, vol. 7, issue 2, pp. 105–112. DOI:  
  16.  Staines D., Formosa P., Ryan M. A model for developing games of moral expertise. Games and Culture, 2017, onlinefirst. DOI:
  17. Cooley E., Payne B. K., Cipolli W., Cameron C. D., Berger A., Gray K. The paradox of group mind: “People in a group” have more mind than “a group of people”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2017, vol. 146 (5), pp. 691–699. DOI:
  18. Dorfman L. Ya. Creative field, divergence and variation. Psychological Journal, 2016, vol 37, no. 1, pp. 26–34. (In Russian) URL:
  19. Keller R. T., Holland W. E. A cross-validation study of the kirton adaption-innovation inventory in three research and development organisations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1978, vol. 2 (4), pp. 563–570. URL:  
  20. Vladimiriov I. Yu., Korovkin S. Yu., Lebed' A. A., Savinova A. D., Chistopolskaya A. V. Executive control and intuition: interaction at different stages of creative decision. Psychological Journal, 2016, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 48–60. (In Russian) URL:
  21. Prokhorova M. V., Teregulova A. D. Diagnostics of adaptive-innovative cognitive style. Bulletin of Lobachevsky University of Nizhni Novgorod, 2014, no. 2-1, pp. 400–406. (In Russian) URL:

22. Basadur M. S., Runco M. A., Vega L. A. Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors work together: A causal process model. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2000, vol. 34 (2), pp. 77–100. DOI:  

23. Basadur M., Taggar S., Pringle P. Improving the measurement of divergent thinking attitudes in organizations. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1999, vol. 33 (2), pp. 75–111. DOI: 

24. Artemeva V. A. Research of style features of the innovative personality. Bulletin of Civil Engineers, 2015, vol. 2, pp. 207–213. (In Russian) URL:

Date of the publication 31.10.2018