社会动机与“自我-他人”对创造性表现的影响

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 以往研究发现个体为自己和为他人的创造表现存在差异，但研究结论不一致。另外，考虑到社会动机是影响“自我-他人”表现的重要因素，本研究采用2（社会动机：亲社会、利己）×2（“自我-他人”：自我、他人）混合实验设计，考察社会动机与“自我-他人”如何来影响创造性表现。结果发现，亲社会组创造性表现的新颖性、有效性和总分均高于利己组，支持了动机性信息加工理论。自我组在创造性表现的新颖性和总分上高于他人组，这与解释水平理论的观点不一致。矛盾的原因可能是在东方“紧”文化背景下，人们按照社会认可的价值体系来为他人创造时，人们对新颖性的态度是谨慎的，因此为自我创造比为他人创造更加新颖。

关键词: 自我-他人, 解释水平, 社会动机, 创造力

Abstract: Previous studies have found that the creative performance for oneself are different from the creative performance for others, but the findings are inconsistent. In addition, considering that the social motivation is an important factor for influencing self-others’ performance, this study used 2 (social motivation: prosocial, proself) × 2 (self-others: self, others) mixed design to investigate how social motivation and self-others influence creative performance. The results showed that individuals in prosocial motivation group got higher score in creative performance and its two dimensions (novelty and validity). These findings lend support to motivated information processing theory. And the participates who created for themselves got higher score in creative performance and its novelty dimension. The results were different with the perspective of construal level theory. The reason may be that under the background of “tight” culture in the oriental country, when people create for others based on the value system approved by the society, their attitude towards novelty is cautious, and they create more novel for themselves than for others.

Key words: self-other, construal level, social motivation, creativity

中图分类号:

B842.8

张克, 杜秀敏, 董晓飞. 社会动机与“自我-他人”对创造性表现的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(3): 414-420.

ZHANG Ke, DU Xiumin, DONG Xiaofei. The Impact of Social Motivation and Self-Others on Creative Performance[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2018, 16(3): 414-420.

参考文献

李阳, 白新文. (2015). 善心点亮创造力:内部动机和亲社会动机对创造力的影响. 心理科学进展, 23(2), 175-181.
刘永芳, 王鹏, 庄锦英, 钟俊, 孙庆洲, 刘毅. (2014). 自我-他人决策差异:问题、研究与思考. 心理科学进展, 22(4), 580-587.
徐惊蛰, 谢晓非. (2011). 解释水平视角下的自己——他人决策差异. 心理学报, 43(1), 11-20.
卢俊, 陈浩, 乐国安. (2017). 松-紧文化:跨文化心理学研究的新维度. 心理科学进展, 25(5), 887-902.
蒋美娥. (2011). 社会距离对创造性的影响(硕士学位论文). 西南大学, 重庆.
王欢. (2014). 社会距离对创造力影响的实验研究(硕士学位论文). 苏州大学.
Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H. S. (2010). Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 622-637.
Beisswanger, A. H., Stone, E. R., Hupp, J. M., & Allgaier, L. (2003). Risk taking in relationships:Differences in deciding for oneself versus for a friend. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 121-135.
Carmeli, A., McKay, A. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Emotional intelligence and creativity:The mediating role of generosity and vigor. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(4), 290-309.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Giebels, E., & van de Vliert, E. (1998). Social motives and trust in integrative negotiation:The disruptive effects of punitive capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 408-422.
De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Baas, M. (2011). Group creativity and innovation:A motivated information processing perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 81-89.
Ford, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making. Journal of Management, 26(4), 705-732.
Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking:Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 177-189.
Förster, J. (2009). Cognitive consequences of novelty and familiarity:How mere exposure influences level of construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 444-447.
Förster, J., Liberman, N., & Shapira, O. (2009). Preparing for novel versus familiar events:Shifts in global and local processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 138(3), 383-399.
Harrington, J. R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2014). Tightness-looseness across the 50 united states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(22), 7990-7995.
Hibbing, J. R., & Alford, J. R. (2005, September). Decision making on behalf of others. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC.
Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity:Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982-996.
Jia, L., Hirt, E. R., & Karpen, S. C. (2009). Lessons from a Faraway land:The effect of spatial distance on creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1127-1131.
Liberman, N., Polack, O., Hameiri, B., & Blumenfeld, M. (2012). Priming of spatial distance enhances children's creative performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(4), 663-670.
Polman, E., & Emich, K. J. (2011). Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 492-501.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations:Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420-428.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677-688.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity:Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). New York:Cambridge University Press.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance:Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83-95.
Uz, I. (2015). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 319-335.
Weingart, L. R., Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994-1009.
Wray, L. D., & Stone, E. R. (2005). The role of self-esteem and anxiety in decision making for self versus others in relationships. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(2), 125-144.
Zhbanova, K. S., & Rule, A. C. (2014). Construal level theory applied to sixth graders' creativity in craft constructions with integrated proximal or distal academic content. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 141-152.
Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2001). Enhancing creative performance:Effects of expected developmental assessment strategies and creative personality. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(3), 151-167.

[1]	李娇娇, 刘晓冰, 裴丹丹, 徐碧波, 尹锡杨. 情绪智力对大学生恶意创造力的影响：一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 563-569.
[2]	任亚萍, 孙岩, 赵雪松. 不同任务框架下自我损耗对自我-他人风险决策的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(6): 750-756.
[3]	王晓庄, 张皎霄, 赵嘉妍, 赵玥, 安晓镜, Ngure Mary Muthoni. 社会动机一致性与问责对群体决策的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(4): 528-534.
[4]	杜夏雨, 史从戎, 赵子仪, 薛婷. 情绪效价和动机情绪对创造力的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 160-165.
[5]	李永杰, 刘春晖, 金花. 高创造力个体的群体差异性研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(4): 440-445.
[6]	李昂, 张景焕. 亲子关系和移情对青少年社会创造力的预测：友谊质量的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(4): 496-502.
[7]	王战旗, 张兴利. 创造力成就问卷的中文修订[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(3): 390-397.
[8]	巩振兴, 张莹, 李新敏, 张甜甜. 求同方能存异：上下级学习目标导向契合对创造力的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 128-135.
[9]	李开云, 王思杰, 杨蕙菁, 毕艳, 张文君, 林丰勋. “己之所欲”还是“成人之美”？解释水平视角下个体赠送-接受礼物的偏好不对称性[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 136-144.
[10]	杨邵峰, 齐春辉, 张志超, 张振. 价值取向对自我他人决策时公平规范执行的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(6): 834-840.
[11]	尹奎, 邢璐, 王崇锋. 研究生科研经历、创造力与科研职业抱负的关系：学习目标导向的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(6): 799-806.
[12]	金童林, 陆桂芝, 张璐, 李肖肖, 张丽. 个人-组织契合与员工创造力的关系：有中介的调节模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(6): 846-852.
[13]	张鹏程, 丁梦夏, 王灿明. 积极情绪体验对创造力影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(5): 613-618.
[14]	庞维国，韩建涛，徐晓波，林崇德. “要有创造性”指导语效应及其对创造性教学的启示[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(5): 701-708.
[15]	蔺素琴,申超男,段海军,胡卫平. 创造力的领域性研究进展：从对立到融合的转向[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(3): 426-432.