Today it is increasingly important that students leave university with the necessary skills and ability to demonstrate that they are competitive as this will enable them to achieve greater success when entering the workplace. Creativity and life satisfaction contribute to this skill, as they help nurture both personal and social development, and are positively related to academic performance (Figueiredo-Ferraz et al., 2009; Anwar et al., 2012; Belmonte, 2013; Saremi and Bahdori, 2015; Bernabé et al., 2017; Peña García et al., 2017), productivity, excellence at work (De Ávila et al., 2019) and the ability to be innovative.

The European reference framework focuses on the need for creativity to be a key aspect on which the rest of the competencies be based and emphasizes its importance in university students’ overall learning processes (Álvarez-Santullano and De Prada Creo, 2018). It has even stated that creativity is one of the educational focal points of the XXI century (Carnero Sánchez et al., 2020). Since 1996, The Cotec Foundation (Cotec Fundation, 2020) has highlighted Spain’s potential in research, development and innovation, and the prospect of this becoming Spain’s best weapon in fighting against future global shocks and achieving a balance between social well-being, prosperity and environmental sustainability.

However, it is surprising to still see the lack of inclusion of these generic or transversal competencies within the educational system (Hernández Arteaga et al., 2015), their inadequate presence in the curriculum of Spanish universities (Porto, 2008) and in teaching approaches used nowadays (Caballero-García and Sánchez, 2018; Caballero-García et al., 2019). As we move into higher education and professional life, creativity is lost, to find an orientation toward productivity (Limiñana-Gras and Javier, 2010). Cotec’s 2010 report highlighted lower levels in creativity and innovation in young Spanish university students when compared to European students (Pérez-Díaz and Rodríguez, 2010; cited by Secanella, 2016). In the same vein, studies such as those of Álvarez-Santullano and De Prada Creo (2018) evaluated the professional competencies of university students and concluded that the average across all the competencies such as technical ability, organizational skills, oral and written communication skills, initiative, motivation, and teamwork were high. The exception was creativity, hence our interest in the analysis of the lack of creativity in our university students.

Creativity is multidimensional, polysemic, and a concept that is difficult to understand (Amabile, 1983; De La Torre, 1991; Garaigordobil, 2003; Serrano, 2004). There doesn’t seem to be any single definition or single method of measurement (Elisondo and Donolo, 2011). This has resulted in the construction of different tools to assess creative capabilities, design, and creative achievements in a real context and in everyday life situations. The Creative Intelligence Test (CREA) by Corbalán et al. (2003) “is one of these valuable initiatives” (p. 78), it measures capability to be creative, divergent production, originality, and fluency and stands out for its technical and practical properties (Elisondo, 2015). As for the explanatory models of creativity, the taxonomy by antonomasia is one that focuses on creativity as a cognitive process (Tristán López and Mendoza González, 2016). Hence, our research is based on the analysis of this perspective, and the CREA test used as our measurement tool.

CREA test is theoretically based on the classic factors of creativity (divergent production, flexibility, fluency, and originality) and on the approaches of problem formulation, lateral thinking, and the study of cognitive styles (Corbalán and Limiñana Gras, 2010). It is cataloged as a cognitive measure of individual creativity according to the indicator of question generation, in the theoretical context of problem finding and problem solving, and the concept of creativity of Amabile (1983) and other authors such as Sternberg (1988) and Weisberg (1988) who define the creativity as a production of novel, useful ideas or problem solutions.

Studies by Corbalán et al. (2009) show that the CREA test is a creativity assessment instrument that shows predictive ability with statistical significance. Its statistical justification is supported, both by the size of its normative sample, close to 2,500 cases, the convergent and divergent validity indices, reliability, and other descriptive and inferential indicators; and by the adaptation of the variable’s behavior to theoretical predictions and research precedents, with respect to what is expected in relation to different classical measures of creativity. Another motive to choose this tool is due to the numerous empirical studies in which it has been used, as well as in interventions in different fields, which show its good psychometric characteristics, and the reliability and validity of its data on the creativity of the subject (see Corbalán and Limiñana Gras, 2010).

All these reasons that make the CREA test a statistically reliable and conceptually valid measure of creativity are what led us to use it as a measure of creativity in our study, in addition to its simplicity and ease of administration to the subjects in the sample.

Life satisfaction, on the other hand, is a variable characterized by its subjectivity. In our research it has been considered as a cognitive process of subjective well-being (Diener, 2000). It can be defined as a global cognitive judgment of one’s life. The evaluation carried out is not an evaluation based on objective parameters. It implies the person’s own global interpretation of his or her own happiness and life satisfaction. And, to understand it, it is necessary to consider indirect variables of a contextual or personal nature that may influence this judgment (Diener, 1994). This makes it difficult to measure, which is why it is necessary to use a method that evaluates satisfaction orientated to specific contexts and populations (Okun et al., 1984) or more than a single evaluation measure which has adequate validity and reliability (retest and convergent test). For this, our study uses the Satisfaction with Life Scale of Diener et al. (1985) and the Overall Life Satisfaction of Campbell et al. (1976), two of the most used in this area.

The Manifesto for Adult Learning in the 21st century of the European Association for The Education of Adults (European Association for the Education of Adults [EAEA], 2019) presents nine challenges to transform adult education in Europe. These include health and well-being (in which life satisfaction is highlighted for its contribution to personal development and the construction of healthier societies), people’s life skills; employment and work (where creativity is a competence that offers new employment opportunities and increases innovation and productivity at work); and social cohesion, equity, and equality; all of which are linked to the variables of our study.

Studies show that students with greater life satisfaction, are more likely to successfully complete their university studies (Figueiredo-Ferraz et al., 2009). This well-being is also linked to employability (Lantarón, 2012), as the personal skills acquired by the student are reflected favorably when presenting themselves as candidates in the labor market. Authors such as Graen (1976) and Diener and Biswas-Diener (2002) show that students with greater well-being end up performing jobs with greater responsibility and better pay. These results justify the need for an education in socio-emotional competence within a university education (Lantarón, 2014).

The implementation of initiatives to develop creativity and life satisfaction in an educational environment can be seen in action plans, programs, and initiatives, both at international and national level and show satisfactory results (Sánchez Ruiz, 2020). In relation to intervention programs carried out in university classrooms with the aim of stimulating creative thinking, there are some examples at international level such as: the “Edmodo” program, developed with students a Tabuk University, to teach mathematics (MATLAB) by developing creative, cognitive and affective skills (Goda, 2019); the program by Vally et al. (2019), which trained the creative production skills of resident students in the Arab Emirates; the “ADAPT” program developed in 1980 by Moshman, Johnston, Tomlinson-Keasey, Williams, and Eisert at Lincoln University of Nebraska; the “DOORS” program, developed in 1977 at Central Illinois University; the “COMPAS” program, carried out in seven universities by Schermerhorn, Williams and Dyckison (between 1979 and 1982); the “SOAR” program, developed at Xavier University in Louisiana (between 1977 and 1978); and the “DORIS” program (development of reasoning in science) carried out at California State University (1980). At national level, we can see examples such as The Botín Foundation (Botín Fundation, 2012) which enhance the development of creativity through art and emotions, and Allueva (2004) whose participants were students of psychopedagogy from the University of Zaragoza, where 142 interventions of creativity were carried out, obtaining medium to high differences in the pre-test/post-test results.

Programs aimed at working on life satisfaction with university students have also been shown to be effective in improving well-being and decreasing symptoms of depression, which can be deduced from the results of meta-analyses such as those of Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009). Even though the programs showed slightly improved well-being and depression, the results stabilized over a period of time (Bolier et al., 2013; Ovejero et al., 2015). Other examples of these are: the program by Remor et al. (2010); the positive psychology program by Ovejero et al. (2015); the program by Arroyo-Resino and Carrasco-Temiño (2017); and the program by Montenegro et al. (2017) amongst others.

The positive emotional and creative intervention program (EPOCREU) was implemented in this study based on a systematic review of the paper (Sánchez Ruiz, 2020). It is based on the EI ability model of Salovey and Mayer (1990); the theoretical approaches of Diener et al. (1999), Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999), Limiñana Gras et al. (2010), and the recommendations for the development of creative thinking by authors such as Martín and Martín (2012) and Ramírez and Fuentes (2013). The intervention was designed in an ad hoc way, with its goal being to work on positive emotions and develop creative thinking in an integrated way in a normal classroom environment, improve the performance and competencies of emotional intelligence, improve creativity and happiness, and enhance life satisfaction of the university students who were part of the experimental group as well as to find empirical arguments to promote strategies of methodological change at the university.

Finally, studies that have analyzed gender differences in creativity offer contradictory data (Acevedo, 2012; Sánchez Ruiz, 2020). There are researchers such as Maccoby and Jacklin (1974), Wright and Stone (1998), De Zubiría et al. (2003), Chacón and Moncada (2006), Matud et al. (2007), Baer and Kaufman (2008), Limiñana-Gras and Javier (2010), Bermejo et al. (2013), and Ramírez et al. (2019) who conclude that creative potential is not influenced by the gender variable.

Other authors have found slight differences in the mean when measuring creativity by gender in favor of females, but these results have not proved to be significant (Naderi et al., 2009; Chiecher et al., 2018; Hidalgo Fuentes et al., 2018; Echegaray Antay, 2019; Barbachán Ruales et al., 2020). Finally, there are authors who have managed to confirm these differences in creativity in favor of women (Lee, 2005; Bindu and Thomas, 2006; Miranda, 2007; Limiñana-Gras and Javier, 2010; Krumm et al., 2015; Elisondo and Donolo, 2016; and Gamarra-Moscoso and Flores-Mamani, 2020, among others). Only a few research studies have found significant differences in creativity in favor of men (Zheng and Xiao, 1983; Tegano and Moran, 1989; Cox, 2003).

Some meta-analyses such as those of Baer and Kaufman (2008) or bibliographical reviews such as those of Villamizar Acevedo (2012) confirm the heterogeneity of the results obtained in gender differences in creativity research and highlight the importance of carrying out research with a sample of university students, given that studies with this type of student body in this area are scarce, hence our interest in exploring.

Regarding the gender differences in life satisfaction, as was the case with creativity, the research results are contradictory. Some authors have found significant differences in life satisfaction in favor of women in specific contexts or situations, such as in the educational field (Gilman et al., 2008; Casas et al., 2012; Cenkseven-Önder, 2012), in social relationships, the environment (Gilman et al., 2008; Chaplin, 2009; Cenkseven-Önder, 2012); and overall life satisfaction (Gilman et al., 2008; Cenkseven-Önder, 2012; Chen and Lin, 2014). Whereas men score higher on satisfaction with sport (Chaplin, 2009); health and fitness (Woynarowska et al., 2004; Bisegger et al., 2005). Nevertheless, the conclusion drawn is that the measurement of emotional aspects of life satisfaction are more sensitive to gender differences. Women show greater satisfaction when evaluated from an emotional dimension, and the results tend to be more contradictory when measured from a cognitive dimension (Costa et al., 1987; Azpiazu, 2016), which is why some authors have justified the varying range of results because of the differing methods used for measurement (Bedin and Sarriera, 2015).

Studies of gender differences in life satisfaction in university students also offer heterogeneous results, hence our interest in contrasting this circumstance in our students. For the most part, the results show the mean values in favor of women, however they do not find significant differences in life satisfaction according to gender (Cardona and Agudelo, 2007; Gavín-Chocano and Molero-López, 2019; Jurado Guillen, 2019; Motta Taminchi, 2019; Poquioma, 2019). There are few studies that corroborate the significance of such differences in favor of women (Arocena et al., 2005; Lalive et al., 2014; Al-Attiyah and Nasser, 2016; Rojas-Valverde and Fallas-Campos, 2017; Cañero et al., 2019). Some research using even smaller groups found differences in life satisfaction in favor of men (Pavot et al., 1991; Smith et al., 1999; Bernal et al., 2011; Lukaschek et al., 2017; Tomyn and Weinberg, 2018). Recent research has shown greater interest in studying this variable because of COVID-19. The results indicate that men possess greater life satisfaction than women (Vizoso, 2019; Lozano-Díaz et al., 2020).

On the basis of the foregoing, our objectives were: (1) to describe creativity and life satisfaction of our university students, (2) to analyze the changes produced in both creativity and life satisfaction by a positive emotional and creative intervention integrated into regular classroom and (3) explore individual differences by gender in these variables, in order to promote their development in both general educational system and particular university system, under conditions of equality and competence. This makes our research part of the studies that promote a change in university education toward higher quality training based on competencies for life.

Our research had as objectives to describe the levels of creativity and life satisfaction of the university students in our sample, to assess the effects of an emotionally positive and creative intervention program on these variables, and to analyze possible differences by gender as a result of treatment/non-treatment.

Our data have indicated that the university students analyzed have moderate or medium creativity and high life satisfaction levels before condition treatment/no treatment, coinciding with another research results such as Reboredo-Santes et al. (2012), Velásquez (2015), Lavado Pantoja (2018) and De Ávila et al. (2019).

Without underestimating from the fact that these results are good, they indicate that there is still a long way to progress in the development of these competences. Much more if we already know from Álvarez-Santullano and De Prada Creo (2018) that university students lack high levels of professional skills such as creativity and that young Spanish university students, in comparison with Europeans, has a lower level of creativity and innovation (Secanella, 2016). Along this paper we have also discussed that life satisfaction is related to personal and social well-being, employability, and professional success. Therefore, to promote actions for the improvement of creativity and life satisfaction is, among others, a challenge for university and adult education (European Association for the Education of Adults [EAEA], 2019) in particular, and for the educational system and society in general.

We also wanted to analyze group and gender differences in creativity and life satisfaction, before and after the application of an emotionally positive and creative program integrated into regular university classroom. The results indicate relevant data with an impact on university educational practice.

On group analysis, we find that the emotionally positive and creative intervention program developed had a positive impact in favor of the experimental group in creativity (which went from medium in the pretest to high in the posttest) and life satisfaction when (which went from medium-high in the pretest to high in the posttest) compared to the control group.

There are many intervention programs that have been carried out in university classrooms with satisfactory results in creativity (Amabile, 1983; Allueva, 2004; Ma, 2006; Goda, 2019; Vally et al., 2019) and subjective well-being (Sin and Lyubomirsky, 2009; Bolier et al., 2013; Lorenzo and Matallanes, 2013; Párraga Gallardo, 2015; Marrero et al., 2016; Barrios et al., 2018) like ours. This allows us to affirm that creativity and life satisfaction skills can be learned, worked on, and be profitable for university classrooms.

In his review of the duration of these programs, Lorenzo Alegría (2017) indicated that there are short programs, from 10 to 12 h; of medium duration, from 20 to 30 h; and long programs, of two years’ duration, with heterogeneous results. Our program was developed during a semester and achieved positive results, in line with other interventions such as those carried out by Vally et al. (2019), who offered a group of students who lived in the United Arab Emirates a creativity training program that ranged over an entire semester. Following the intervention, students were able to produce a greater number of ideas of an original nature and creative products.

In our research, the effect size evidenced by pre-test and post-test differences of creativity was small. It differs from other studies pointed out by Ma (2006) in which the effect size ranged from 0.47-0.76, medium-high, and Vally et al. (2019), who achieved a medium effect size. In turn, the effect size by group achieved for life satisfaction it was also small. Our data coincide with the results of some meta-analyses such as those of Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) who analyzed 51 interventions with a total sample of 4,266 individuals. The effect sizes ranged from 0.31 to 0.84, with 96% of effect sizes in the predicted, positive direction. The meta-analysis by Bolier et al. (2013) also evidences improvements in a total of 39 interventions analyzed, 19 of them in college students, although the effect size tends to be small, but stable over time after several months (Sin and Lyubomirsky, 2009; Lyubomirsky et al., 2011; Davis and Zautra, 2013; Baños et al., 2014; Ovejero et al., 2015).

This result is modest but sufficiently relevant given the fact that life satisfaction is considered to be one essential aspect for the all-round education of citizens (European Commission, 2016), along with other skills such as innovation, entrepreneurship, and creativity. In addition, the studied variables are critical for work in a near future (Bouchard, 2014; Powell, 2018).

Regarding gender, we hypothesized that it would make significant differences in our dependent variables and that scores would be higher on the post-test. Our results show gender differences in creativity in favor of women at post-treatment moments, with an effect size small, in tune with the data of other studies that have been carried out with university students and whose evaluation test has been the CREA A as well (Bindu and Thomas, 2006; Kaufman, 2006; Miranda, 2007; Aranguren and Irazábal, 2012; Krumm et al., 2015; Elisondo and Donolo, 2016; Chiecher et al., 2018; Gamarra-Moscoso and Flores-Mamani, 2020). Other authors have also found significant differences in favor of women, like ours, but with other assessment measures and in more specific dimensions of creativity (Lee, 2005; Donolo and Elisondo, 2007; López-Martínez and Navarro-Lozano, 2008; Limiñana Gras et al., 2010).

However, the differences by gender in creativity found, were not confirmed by the analysis of differences in percentage of change. In this sense, we are forced to affirm that, although the above is true, and we were able to verify that creativity improved in the posttest, preferably in women, our study could not confirm these differences in change by gender and their data is more aligned with those of others researchers such as Maccoby and Jacklin (1974), Wright and Stone (1998), De Zubiría et al. (2003), Chacón and Moncada (2006), Matud et al. (2007), Baer and Kaufman (2008), Limiñana Gras et al. (2010), Bermejo et al. (2013) and Ramírez et al. (2019), among others, who concluded that creative potential is not significantly influenced by the gender variable.

This situation accounts for the difficulty of finding conclusive data on gender differences in creativity and invites us to continue investigating possible explanations and determinants of the heterogeneity of these results.

Finally, in life satisfaction, we did not find significant differences by gender. The means result of life satisfaction increased in both genders from pre-test to post-test but did not reach statistical significance indicating that they were different in men and women, coinciding with the results of other previous studies such as those of Alarcón (2000), Martínez (2004) and Gadermann et al. (2012) and meta-analysis such as those of Batz-Barbarich et al. (2018).

As a conclusion, our study has shown that creativity and life satisfaction can be improved in university classrooms with intervention programs such as ours, taking into account that they are competencies demanded by companies (Bouchard, 2014) and that they can have a decisive character for achievement (Fernández-Berrocal and Ruiz Aranda, 2008; Figueiredo-Ferraz et al., 2009; Anwar et al., 2012; Belmonte, 2013; Saremi and Bahdori, 2015; Bernabé et al., 2017; Peña García et al., 2017) and, as we pointed out, to improve the employability of our students, productivity, and quality of work (Diener and Biswas-Diener, 2002; del Águila Ríos et al., 2019) and the capacity for innovation that today’s society demands of us (European Commission, 2008), in agreement with the improvement guidelines of the Bologna plan, included in the Europe 2030 strategy (Sánchez Ruiz, 2020). The review by Gilar-Corbi et al. (2018), attests to the growing interest in recent years of teaching these contents and intentions to our higher education students.

Although the results have been positive and we have been able to demonstrate that the students who received this emotionally positive and creative training program improved their creativity and satisfaction with life, regardless of gender, compared to those who were immersed in the traditional methodology, we are aware that this effect can benefit from improvement.

Its impact and strength can be increased with experimental research and larger and more representative samples; with systematized and longer duration interventions that combines creativity and life satisfaction with the development of happiness, emotional intelligence and critical thinking and promote educational changes and more consistent improvements.

Future lines of research may broaden the scope of this study and contrast their results with forms of measurement different from those employed, which consider more social and emotional aspects and not so much cognitive ones, which could deepen in differential aspects by gender, as suggested by authors such as Costa et al. (1987), Bedin and Sarriera (2015), Azpiazu (2016), considering the heterogeneity of results found in the literature.

Another line of research could analyze differences in the impact of this type of intervention by age or university degree; make comparative analyses in different academic environments, contexts, or specific situations, to deepen in the study of individual variations, and the influence of intercultural and social factors in the development of these variables, taking into account the moderating effect of culture in each of them, as mentioned by authors such as Diener and Diener (1995), Alarcón (2001), Fernández-Berrocal et al. (2001), Cuadros et al. (2008), among others, in the search for a more effective intervention.

For more than 16 years we have been defending the need for a paradigm shift in universities to work in an integrated way on social and emotional skills and employability skills such as the development of critical thinking, motivation for science, entrepreneurship, and creativity, and providing empirical evidence that this is possible and necessary for the benefits it brings.

We defend a differentiated and inclusive university education in competencies (Caballero-García, 2004, 2009) that ensures equality of opportunity, culture, and gender in the competency-based education (Caballero-García and Cifuentes, 2017; Caballero-García and Sánchez, 2018; Caballero-García et al., 2019) that people and societies need to ensure their well-being and progress. Just as we propose the generation of an educational culture and policy that involves the university curriculum in key competencies such as creativity and subjective and organizational well-being, and that transcends from the university classroom to personal, social, and working life.

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: https://repositorio.ucjc.edu/handle/20.500.12020/891.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Comité Permanente de Integridad Académica de la UCJC. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Both authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.