The Social “Cost” of Working in Groups and Impact on Values and Creativity

Abstract

Creative things are always original, but they must be more than just original. They must also have some utility, effectiveness, or value. The present research tested the psychoeconomic definition of "value" and examined how value ratings fluctuated when individuals worked in groups or alone. This psychoeconomic definition of value is very different from that found in previous studies. It was based on ratings obtained after the students participating had been told that their grades depended on their teamwork. Previous studies have used hypothetical ratings of value, but here the ratings were meaningful: there was a contingency placed on making a good decision, and that decision focused on creative teamwork. This investigation also tested the idea that originality and value are both required for creativity. Psychoeconomic theory not only offers an objective and behavioural index of value. It also offers predictions about the "social costs" of working in groups. To test these ideas individuals received two tests of divergent thinking, either while alone (no social cost), working in a small group (low cost), or working in a larger group (high cost). Social preferences were controlled, as was extraversion. Results indicate that fluency did not diminish when the social costs were present. Moreover, originality increased when participants worked in groups. Findings also demonstrated that value judgments can be reliably assessed and that the interaction of value and originality accounted for a significant amount of the variability in creativity ratings.

Social Media Use and Creativity: Exploring the Influences on Ideational Behavior and Creative Activity

“…Moreover, the presence of an audience might elicit the motivation to be creative. This is consistent with the psycho‐economic theory of creativity (Rubenson & Runco, 1992) in that social settings serve as a market for ideas, and behaviors and quality of the ideas or products will naturally increase (Runco et al, 2016). Parallel to the investment theory of creativity (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996) that describes creative individuals as those who buy low and sell high, the psycho‐economic theory of creativity argues that a good market for creative ideas and behaviors is one that maximizes benefits and minimizes costs.…”

“…The short version of Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (RIBS‐Short; Runco, Hao, Acar, Yang, & Tang, 2016) had 19 items with five response options: 0—Never, 1—Rarely, 2—Sometimes, 3—Often, and 4—Frequently. Sample items included “I have ideas for arranging or rearranging the furniture at home” and “I have ideas about what I will be doing in the future.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .85 in the present data.…”

“…This alternative interpretation of the psychoeconomic theory emphasizes that the presence of an audience does not imply pressure. It can motivate people to create and improve the quality of the ideas and products posted (Runco, Hao, Acar, Yang, & Tang, 2016). Those with a creative idea or project know that some people will see, read, watch or test out their work; and this is good enough reason to be creative.…”

Reading As a Democratic Value and Resource for the Formation of the Communicative and Cultural Memory of a Nation

“…4th СTPE 2019 continuous improvement in subjects and the general development of creativity and the skills of productive creative activity [5], [6,[229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243]. Problems of effective functioning of the subsystem "texts --reading --literacy" in the age of postgraduate study was analyzed by Gudova M. Y.…”

Creativity in Adulthood

“…If creative abilities alone are unable to explain the likelihood of creative achievement in adulthood, what other elements should be considered here? Over the years, creativity literature reported a confluence of different factors, including personality (Feist & Barron, 2003), identity (Helson & Pals, 2000), but also interests (Feinstein, 2006), values (Runco et al, 2016), all the way to environmental (Richardson & Mishra, 2018) and socio-political factors (Lebuda, 2016).…”