افراد در ذهن، مات در قلب: جهت گیری ارزشی خودتفسیری فردباورانه و جمعی به عنوان پیش بینی کننده خلاقیت گروهی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|32103||2012||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 48, Issue 4, July 2012, Pages 838–844
It has been argued that groups with individualistic norms are more creative than groups with collectivistic norms (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). This conclusion, however, may be too unspecific, as individualism–collectivism denotes a multidimensional continuum and may affect people's self-construal and values. This study analyzed to what extent these dimensions differentially impact upon group creativity. After manipulating self-construal and value orientation, 58 triads engaged in a brainstorming task. Groups with collectivistic value orientation generated more ideas than groups with individualistic value orientation. Furthermore, there was an interaction between value orientation and self-construal on originality: ideas were more original when group members combined collectivistic value orientation with individualistic self-construal. Thus, groups should integrate elements of both individualism and collectivism to ensure high creativity.
Creativity – the generation of ideas that are both original and appropriate (see Amabile, 1996 and Sternberg and Lubart, 1999) – is often the result of a fruitful collaboration among several people, as examples such as The Beatles, the discovery of the structure of the DNA by Watson and Crick, or the collaboration among the French impressionists suggest (see e.g., Farrell, 2003). Indeed, groups are often used to generate ideas, be it business solutions (e.g., West & Anderson, 1996), research hypotheses (e.g., Dunbar, 1995), or new designs (e.g., Sutton & Hargadon, 1996). For this reason, the study of which factors facilitate or hinder group creativity is important, and recent years have seen an increase in empirical studies examining creativity in groups. One of the more important findings that emerged in this field is that high levels of group harmony and collaboration may not always be beneficial for creativity. For example, Beersma and De Dreu (2005) found that groups were more creative after completing a hostile negotiation than after completing a more cooperative negotiation. Nemeth and Ormiston (2007) reported that a change in group membership (replacing an “old” group member with a newcomer) reduced levels of harmony and cohesion in groups, but increased their creativity. Goncalo and Kim (2010) discovered that group members primed with individualism and approving of reward systems based on equity (instead of equality) generated more and more novel ideas. Most notably is perhaps the finding reported by Goncalo and Staw (2006): They found that groups primed with individualism were more creative than those primed with collectivism. All these authors argue that harmony, cohesion, and collectivistic values may harm creativity because they lead to conformity. Competition, lack of comfort, and individualism are supposed to stimulate creativity because they lead to differentiation and unique (and thus more original) contributions. While this line of reasoning is plausible, we suggest that it is too simplistic. Indeed, other evidence indicates that group members collaborating closely to achieve common goals are more creative than groups that do not (e.g., Bechtoldt et al., 2010 and Taggar, 2002). To solve this apparent contradiction in research outcomes, we focus on the individualism–collectivism (I–C) dimension that seems to be at the core of the underlying mechanism. We argue that I–C denotes a multidimensional continuum, comprising both a dimension of self-construal and values. We present evidence that it is the combination of individualistic self-construal and collectivistic values that is highly beneficial in terms of group creativity.