Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
SUSS PSY 355 CREATIVE PSYCH SU 2a From Individual to Group Creativity…
SUSS PSY 355 CREATIVE PSYCH SU 2a From Individual to Group Creativity
Individual creativity – Dynamics of CPS
Creative problem-solving
What are the two
styles of CPS?
The creative problem-solver who
can switch flexibly
between these two styles of creativity – (innovative style and adaptive style) – is said to possess a
good blend of creativity
.
Adaptors
Adaptors create by “
doing things better
”, for example, improving the way something is done.
The adaptor follows SOPs and comes up with practical and sensible idea
Convergent thinking
Innovators
Innovators create by “d
oing things differently
”, for example, changing the way something is done.
the innovator is visionary and dares to take risks but he is not systematic and lacks a sharp eye for details
Divergent thinking
What are the five stages of creative problem-solving (CPS)
Stage 3 -
Choose
appropriate solution
Stage 4
Implement
chosen solution
Stage 2 -
Generate
alternative solutions
Stage 5 -
Evaluate
result/outcome
Stage 1 -
Define
the problem
Features of CPS
Switch between divergent
and convergent thinking
Creative process requires divergent ideation to produce as many different ideas as possible, alternating with periods of convergent evaluation to identify the right idea to work on.
Generally, the
first two stages
employes divergent thinking. The
remaining three stages are convergent thinking.
Distinction between problem-finding and problem-solving
Problem-finding
occurs in the earlier phase of CPS when the issues associated with the problem are vague.
At this stage, the
goal
of CPS is to develop a better
understanding of the problem
Problem-solving occurs
in the later phase of CPS when the problematic issues have been grasped.
At this stage, the goal of CPS is to
work out an effective solution
to the well-defined problem
relationship between
:
the creative process,
creative product and
creative style
Earlier phase of CPS
In the earlier phase of CPS (Stages 1 & 2), the problem is vague, and the
emphasis is on problem-finding.
Here, the creator should
adopt an innovative style
of creativity.
This enables him to think in a
divergent way
, to analyse the problem from different angles, as well as to generate alternative solutions to solve the problem.
Later phase of CPS
In the later phase of CPS (Stages 3 to 5), the problem is clear, and the
emphasis is on problem-solving
.
Here, the creator should
adopt an adaptive style
of creativity.
This enables him to think in a
convergent way
, to identify a suitable solution to the problem from competing ones, as well as to implement this solution effectively
What is the relationship between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and CPS?
Intrinsic motivation
In their study, Amabile and her colleagues found that
intrinsic motivation was conducive to creativity.
Overjustification effect
extrinsic motivation
– i.e. rewards- had a detrimental effect on creativity because it
narrows the attentional focus
of the individual by fixing his attention on the extrinsic reward to be obtained rather than the actual execution of the task.
This phenomenon, in which **intrinsic motivation is
undermined by extrinsic reward**, is known as the overjustification effect
Componential model of creativity
According to Amabile's model, There are three essential components of creative performance in this model., namely:
domain-relevant knowledge & skills,
creativity-relevant knowledge & skills as well as
intrinsic motivation.
The interactions of which, lead to creative performance.
Extrinsic Motivation
Eisenberger (1992) contended that creativity can be increased via extrinsic rewards.
He based this assertion on
learned industriousness theory.
learned industriousness theory.
when an individual was rewarded for doing a task, he
learned which dimension
of performance was
crucial for obtaining the reward
and is motivated to repeat that aspect.
two types of extrinsic motivators
In light of this insightful proposition findings, Amabile (1993) re-examined her position and discovered that extrinsic motivations can be sub-categorised into two types
Synergetic extrinsic motivations
Extrinsic motivators that are
informational based
and rewards are
performance-contingent
These operate in harmony with intrinsic motivators.
For example, studying to get recognition from a team of experts from that field of study.
Non-synergetic motivations
Extrinsic motivators that are
controlling
in nature and rewards are
task-contingent
These do not operate in harmony with intrinsic motivators.
For example, studying to earn a high-paying job unrelated to the field of study.
What is the foundational versus tension view of knowledge in CPS?
Tension view of knowledge and creativity
Purports that a
certain amount of knowledge is necessary
for creative work, but
too much
of it becomes an
impediment to creative
problem-solving.
Studies and critique on the tension view of knowledge
Puzzle solving study
In a study involving solving puzzle, it was discovered that
expert participants
could easily be induced to
perform inefficiently
in this problem-solving task as a result of success with one specific solution.
Apparently, past success had trapped the expert participants into a
habitual mode of thought
, and the knowledge which they had acquired from successfully dealing with the problem became an
impediment to solving new problems
.
But novice participants did not display the same negative tendency
Empirical critique
Critique on puzzle solving study
Weisberg argued that this experimental finding
lacked external validity
. This is because
creative problem-solving
in the real world is
more complicated than solving puzzles.
In short, the experimental finding on problem-solving set, though robust, in no way refuted the foundational view of knowledge and creativity.
On the contrary, to be a creative problem-solver of the first-rank, one
must be deeply immersed in domain-specific knowledge.
Simonton inverted-u Graph
In his study, Simonton (1999b) found that the amount of formal education and accomplishments as a creator was
characterised by an inverted U-shaped graph
.
That is,
formal education first increases
one’s probability of attaining creative success.
But
once an optimal point is reached, additional formal education may lower
one’s odds of becoming an eminent creator
Empirical critique
Critique on the Inverted-U shaped relationship between formal education and creative accomplishment.
Weisberg argued that
formal education need not be directly related to knowledge.
For example, Darwin only had a bachelor’s degree, but by the time he returned from his voyage around the world, he (Darwin) had more first-hand knowledge about the development of species than anyone else in the world.
Additionally,
a lot of eminent creators
were invariably
self-taught
and guided by creative mentors. So even if they received little formal education, they would have acquired a lot of domain-specific knowledge.
Foundational view of knowledge and creativity
proposes that
knowledge is positively related to creativity
.
That is, rather than breaking out of the old to produce the new, creative thinking
builds on existing knowledge.
The foundational view is less popular in comparison with the tension view, but the empirical evidence supporting it is much stronger.
Ten-year-rule of creativity
a variety of researchers who examined the career trajectory of acknowledged masters in different domains of creative endeavour had found that a
large amount of time was needed
for the eminent creator
to make a significant contribution
to the domain; this is the so-called ten-year-rule of creativity.
The creator would be using this time to
acquire a strong foundation in domain-specific skills and knowledge
, so as to be able to make a creative contribution in the mature years.
Group creativity – Innovation via teamwork
Workgroup diversity and creativity
To analyse the impact of workgroup diversity on creative performance in the group,
Milliken, Bartel and Kurtzberg
(2003) developed a multi-stage model of group functioning.
Multi-stage model of group functioning
Group diversity
This model made a distinction between
two types
of group diversity:
salient differences
in
detectable
attributes
e.g., race, ethnicity, language, gender and
nonsalient differences
in
underlying
attributes
e.g., educational background, disciplinary orientation, cognitive style.
Phases in group functioning
This model also identifies two phases in group functioning:
formative phase
operations phase.
1. Formative phase
In the formative phase when a workgroup comes together for the first time.
social identity theory
states that members assess their social environment by
forming in-group/out-group distinction
(i.e. categorising themselves and others according to a variety of salient attributes like race, gender and age).
This
can lead to ingroup bias and outgroup prejudice
and result in
emotional conflict
in the group, as different factions argue and fight over a variety of issues and resources
Salient/non-salient differences
Milliken and colleagues suggested that both salient and non-salient differences can encourage group
creativity in the form of divergent thinking
i.e. cognitive diversity would increase task conflict and enhance divergent thinking within the group
2. Operations phase
The initial patterns of thoughts and behaviours persist in subsequent group interactions (Kelly, 1988).
Negative
If members experience
high emotional conflict
and low group satisfaction during the formative phase because of a divisive “us-versus-them” mentality, a
negative mood is likely to develop
in the workgroup and carry over into its operations phase.
Self-monitoring
Such a workgroup can benefit from
examining its inner dynamics
to develop possible ideas as to why these negative feelings exist.
This form of group self-monitoring can help individual members to
re-evaluate their animosity towards one another as well as to remove the negative stereotypes
or attributions that they have developed within the group.
Positive
When team members experience a
high level of group identification
and psychological safety in the formative phase, this translates into personal feelings of
emotional engagement during the operations phase
Characteristics of successful work group diversity
A diverse workgroup which
enhances its affective and cognitive processes
in the formative and operations phases is
likely to display successful performanc
e as a group.
Such a successful workgroup displays three sets of characteristics.
Cohesiveness
The ability of team members to gel and work together as a group in future is enhanced
Growth
Individual members experience a heightened
sense of well-being and professional growth
through their involvement in the workgroup
Outputs
the
output
of the workgroup meets or
exceeds the standards
which are expected
Minority dissent and group creativity
Majority influence
According to Nemeth and Nemeth-Brown (2003) majority influence can give rise to groupthink and tunnel vision
Group think
This term refers to a strong desire by a closely-knit group to
achieve consensus
in decision-making in an extreme situation
Conformity
The power of the majority vis-à-vis the individual member in the group is illustrated by Asch.
It is found that individuals who are in the minority prefer to conform as opposed to taking a stance. This may be due to
social acceptance and security.
Tunnel Vision
In tunnel vision, individuals
fail to see things from the perspective of the majority.
This is the extreme opposite of Asch’s conformity hypothesis.
Welcoming minority
Nemeth and Nemeth-Brown (2003) suggested that instead of utilising role-playing techniques like the devil’s advocate to achieve this goal, the organisation should focus on how to “
welcome and not fear” the voices of dissent.
This promote a diversity of views in the group
Enhancing productivity in a brainstorming group
In a brainstorming group, members are instructed to
(1)
generate as many ideas
as possible and build on one another’s ideas
(2)
refrain from evaluating
these ideas on the spot but instead defer judgment to a later stage of the creative process
Nominal groups
Nominal groups produce more ideas
and more original ideas
than
the same number of people who
brainstorm in a group.
it consists of people working separately and whose relevant ideas are pooled
Three explanations to Loss of productivity in brainstorming groups
Production blocking
an idea cannot always be verbalised the moment it occurs as a group member must await a chance to express the idea.
This
delay
in the articulation of a novel idea may c
ause the individual to forget or suppress
the idea
Evaluation apprehension
(High-self monitoring individuals)
The group member may be
concerned with how others view
his creative ideas.
Due to this evaluation apprehension, he may
fail to mention eccentric ideas.
Lack of accountability
in group brainstorming, members cannot be held personally accountable as individual contribution of new ideas is hard to isolate.
This
may result in free-riding
in the group.
7 Strategies to improve the performance of a brainstorming group
Removing production blocking.
This can be achieved by using brainstorming
procedures that do not require turn-taking
among group members,
such as brainwriting and electronic brainstorming
Appoint a facilitator
To deal with over dominating/inactive individuals in a brainstorming group, a facilitator can be appointed to guide the brainstorming process so that the group can avoid these potential pitfalls
Set rules
Additional rules of brainstorming can be implemented,
e.g., avoid telling a long story or elaborating on an idea; restate the problem and motivate group members to think of more ideas;
Diversity
cognitive stimulation
can be enhanced in a brainstorming group if it consists of a
diverse range
of individuals with different backgrounds.
When group members possess divergent life experiences, they can develop multiple perspectives on the problem and
generate more unique ideas.
Scheduling break
Scheduling breaks during a brainstorming session could provide a stimulus to take a different approach to the problem upon resumption of the activity.
For example, the brainstormer might switch his ideation to a new domain or category from those previously considered and, in the process, overcome the cognitive fixation on a limited range of categories.
Two-part brainstorming
brainstorming in a group prior to brainstorming alone can produce more ideas over the course of the two sessions than did brainstorming alone followed by brainstorming in a group.
Leadership styles
adopt appropriate styles of leadership at different phases of brainstorming.
In the
first phase
that involved the generation of ideas,
transformational leadership
is most effective in increasing ideational productivity.
In the
second phase
that involved writing a group report on the ideas generated,
transactional leadership
is most effective in enhancing the quality of the report.
Transactional leaders focus on performance, promote success with rewards and punishments, and maintain compliance with organisational norms. Bureaucratic. Convergent.
Transformational leaders exhibit individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence. Divergent.
illusion of group effectivity.
The illusion that brainstorming group is effective when, empirically, it is ineffective and inefficient in producing ideas.
There are
two possible explanations
for this phenomenon
Idea misconstruction
According to one line of reasoning, it is
hard for group members to differentiate between the ideas
they have generated themselves and the ideas suggested by other group members.
As a result, members would claim to have come up with ideas that were really generated by another member
False sense of content
According to a second line of reasoning, individual members of a brainstorming group have the opportunity to compare their ability in generating ideas with that of fellow members in the group.
Typically members find their
performance to be quite similar
which results in a
high level of satisfaction
with one’s performance