PSYCH OpenIR  > 社会与工程心理学研究室
认知动机与社会动机对团队创造过程的影响 ——基于动机性信息加工理论的实验研究
其他题名Epistemic Motivation, Social Motivation, and Team Creative Process: A Motivated Information Processing Perspective
林晓敏
学位类型硕士
导师白新文
2014-05
学位授予单位中国科学院研究生院
学位授予地点北京
学位专业心理学
关键词团队创造力 动机性信息加工理论 认知动机 社会动机 创意产生 创意选择
摘要现代组织越来越依赖团队进行创造与创新活动,团队创造力成为理论与实践共同关注的热点问题。已有的团队创造力研究大多都是遵循经典的输入-过程-输出理论模型的思路框架,重点探讨如何将团队层面的资源输入转化为创造性产出的行为机制。而新近De Dreu 及同事(2008)提出的动机性信息加工理论,则把团队看成一个信息加工者,从信息加工的角度阐述团队创造力,为探讨团队创造力的认知机制提供了新的视角和思路。
动机性信息加工理论的核心观点是,当团队作为一个基本单元从事创造活动时,认知动机(epistemic motivation) 决定团队信息加工的深度,社会动机(socialmotivation)决定信息加工的方向,两种动机共同作用影响团队创造力。通过考察两种动机的状态及其组合,可以预测团队的创造力表现。虽然该理论有助于理解团队创造力的认知过程,但仍存在一些不足,主要集中于两方面:一是目前基于动机性信息加工理论的团队创造力实证研究较少,需要开展更多的实证研究来检验理论是否成立;二是基于该理论开展的为数不多的几项实证研究通常把团队创造力视为一个结果,而非一个过程。但是,两种动机对团队创造力的影响不仅体现在最终的结果上,在创造的过程中也会产生重要的作用。创造过程包括创意选择和创意选择两个阶段。两个阶段关注的焦点不同,前者关注团队产生的点子数量和质量,后者对创意进行评估与选择,重点考虑如何从前一阶段的创意库中挑选出质量高的点子,以便进一步的优化和实施。认知动机和社会动机很可能在不同的阶段中扮演不同的角色。因此,有必要从过程的视角探讨两种动机对团队创造力的具体影响。
鉴于此,本论文以动机性信息加工理论为基础,通过一个实验研究来验证动机性信息加工理论的核心假设,并进一步探讨两种动机如何影响团队的创造过程,包括创意产生过程和创意选择过程,以及两种动机在团队创造的两个过程中分别起到什么不同的作用。本研究采用2×2 被试间设计,用组间竞争(高或低)操纵认知动机,用奖励结构(团队奖励或个体奖励)操纵社会动机。66 个3 人临时团队被随机分配到上述四个实验条件的任意一个。实验结果表明,在创意产生阶段,认知动机和社会动机对团队创造力共同起作用,认知动机高并且持亲社会动机的团队产生的创意库创造性表现最佳,包括流畅性和灵活性两个数量指标,也包括原创性和好点子数两个质量指标。而在创意选择阶段,社会动机影响团队选择创意的偏好。相比于利己动机的团队,亲社会动机的团队更倾向于从创意库中挑选出团队讨论后产生的完全全新点子。相反地,利己动机的团队更倾向于挑选出原封不动来源于个人点子库的点子。此外,从团队的整个创造过程来看,社会动机通
过创意整合(信息加工质量)影响创意产生的质量并最终影响创意选择的质量。
本研究通过开展实验研究,探讨了认知动机和社会动机对团队创造过程的影响。基本上验证了动机性信息加工理论的核心假设,即两种动机共同影响团队创造过程,并在创意产生和创意选择阶段起不同的作用。区别于其他少数几个基于该理论的实证研究,本研究开创性地将动机性信息加工理论与团队创造过程的阶段论结合起来,从动机的视角理解影响团队创造过程的因素,这为后续研究提供了一个新的思路和视角。本研究将团队视为一个信息加工者,从信息加工的角度探讨团队创造过程,揭示了团队创造力的认知机制,对动机性信息加工理论的进一步完善与验证有重要的作用。此外,本研究对团队创造力的管理实践也有一定的启发,比如组织管理者可以采用易于操作的外部奖励措施,设置组间竞争等方式来提高团队创造力。
其他摘要Modern organizations are increasingly turning to teams for creative work and innovation. Most research studying team creativity has been concentrating on the effects of team interaction behaviors on team creativity based on the classical Input- Process-Output framework. Although team creativity is known as the result of teamlevel cognitive processes through which information is searched, shared and integrated among team members, little has been done to reveal the cognitive mechanism underlying team creativity. The newly motivated information processing (MIP) model proposed by De Dreu and his colleagues views groups as information processors, and emphasizes that information processing and sharing depends on two types of motivations, epistemic motivation and social motivation, respectively. MIP model provides with a novel perspective to understand how teams produce creative ideas and products.
In the field of group creativity, MIP model assumes that epistemic motivation and social motivation will influence, alone and in combination, generating creative ideas, products or problem solutions. Although the MIP model helps to understand the cognitive process of team creativity, it remains a few critical issues need to be solved in future research. First, it needs more empirical studies to test the validity of MIP model in the field of group creativity. Second, research based on the MIP model generally views team creativity as a result rather than a process.
However, two types of motivations are expected to influence the creative process, and play different roles in idea generation process and idea selection process. Because epistemic motivation determines the depth of information processing which has more impact on idea generation process, while social motivation influences which information will be processed which shows greater influence on idea selection process. Taken together, the current study aimed to examine the effects of two types of motivations on team creativity. Epistemic motivation and social motivation were expected to contribute uniquely, as well as interact, to predict two team creative processes.
198 undergraduates composing 66 temporary teams engaged in a brand promotion task. Teams were randomly assigned to the conditions of a 2×2 between-groups design. Epistemic motivation was manipulated by intergroup competition. Social motivation was manipulated by reward structure. ANOVA results indicated that: a) in idea generation phase, two types of motivations had joint effects on team creativity. Teams produced more ideas and more different categories of ideas when members had high rather than low epistemic motivation, especially when members also had a prosocial rather than proself motivation. Likewise, epistemic motivation stimulated teams produce more good ideas, and these ideas were more original especially when prosocial rather than proself motives were present. b) in idea selection process, social motivation mainly affected idea selection preference. Compared to proself motive teams, prosocial motive teams were more inclined to pick out completely new ideas which were produced after team discussion from the pool of ideas generated in group. Conversely, proself motive teams were more inclined to pick out intact ideas which came from the initial pool of ideas generated by individual alone. Moreover, from the perspective of the whole team creative process, social motivation affected creative integration (information processing quality), thus enhancing idea generation quality, which, in turn, improved idea selection quality.
Finally, the author discussed the application of motivated information processing in team creative processes, and the theoretical as well as practical implications for both MIP model and team creativity.
学科领域应用心理学
语种中文
文献类型学位论文
条目标识符http://ir.psych.ac.cn/handle/311026/19622
专题社会与工程心理学研究室
作者单位中国科学院心理研究所
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
林晓敏. 认知动机与社会动机对团队创造过程的影响 ——基于动机性信息加工理论的实验研究[D]. 北京. 中国科学院研究生院,2014.
条目包含的文件
文件名称/大小 文献类型 版本类型 开放类型 使用许可
林晓敏-硕士学位论文.pdf(2570KB)学位论文 开放获取CC BY-NC-SA请求全文
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
查看访问统计
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[林晓敏]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[林晓敏]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[林晓敏]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享
所有评论 (0)
暂无评论
 

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。