Creative achievements are the basis for progress in our world. Although creative achievement is influenced by many variables, the basis for creativity is held to lie in the generation of high‐quality, original, and elegant solutions to complex, novel, ill‐defined problems. In the present effort, we examine the cognitive capacities that make creative problem‐solving possible. We argue that creative problem‐solving depends on the effective execution of a set of complex cognitive processes. Effective execution of these processes is, in turn, held to depend on the strategies employed in process execution and the knowledge being used in problem‐solving. The implications of these observations for improving creative thinking are discussed.

Although, traditionally, constraints are held to inhibit creative thinking, more recent research indicates that constraints can, at times, prove beneficial. Constraints, however, come in many forms. In the present study, 318 undergraduates were asked to develop advertising campaigns for a new product, a high-energy root beer, where campaigns were evaluated for quality, originality, and elegance. Prior to starting work on these campaigns different constraints were, or were not imposed, with constraints being established based on fundamentals in marketing, themes in marketing, environmental information, and task objectives. It was found that task objective constraints resulted in better creative problem solving when participants were motivated. However, imposition of multiple constraints led to poorer creative problem solving. Thus the number and nature of the constraints imposed on creative problems must be balanced. The implications of these observations for understatiding creative problem solving are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

Traditional whistleblowing theories have purported that whistleblowers engage in a rational process in determining whether or not to blow the whistle on misconduct. However, stressors inherent to whistleblowing often impede rational thinking and act as a barrier to effective whistleblowing. The negative impact of these stressors on whistleblowing may be made worse depending on who engages in the misconduct: a peer or advisor. In the present study, participants are presented with an ethical scenario where either a peer or advisor engages in misconduct, and positive and the negative consequences of whistleblowing are either directed to the wrongdoer, department, or university. Participant responses to case questions were evaluated for whistleblowing intentions, moral intensity, metacognitive reasoning strategies, and positive and negative, active and passive emotions. Findings indicate that participants were less likely to report the observed misconduct of an advisor compared to a peer. Furthermore, the findings also suggest that when an advisor is the source of misconduct, greater negative affect results. Post-hoc analyses were also conducted examining the differences between those who did and did not intend to blow the whistle under the circumstances of either having to report an advisor or peer. The implications of these findings for understanding the complexities involved in whistleblowing are discussed.