同伴压力作为一种重要的社会环境因素会影响创意生成,但其对个体创意选择的作用及机制尚待探究。研究从决策的双参照点效应出发,使用问卷调查和行为实验方法,以“18选5”任务作为创意选择测评工具,分别从个体认同感与环境两方面入手考察了同伴压力对处于成年早期个体创意选择的影响作用及其机制。结果发现同伴压力认同感会促使大学生做出高实用的创意选择,冲动性在其中起调节作用,具体来说,对低冲动性个体,较高的同伴压力认同感会带来偏向高实用性的创意选择,而高冲动性则缓冲了同伴压力认同感的影响;而操纵真实同伴在场时,会促使其规避高新颖性的创意选择,而高冲动性人格同样会减少这一规避效应。
Abstract
Creativity can be categorized into two primary stages: the generation of creative ideas and the selection of creative ideas. The generation of creative ideas pertains to the intellectual quality of products that are novel, unique, and valuable. Conversely, the selection of creative ideas involves the process of choosing among potential creative ideas. The cultivation of creative thinking and the enhancement of performance in creative ideas generation have garnered increasing attention; equally important is the process of selecting creative ideas. Prior research indicates that various factors—such as environmental influences, personality traits, emotional states, and social-cultural contexts—significantly impact individuals' capabilities in making creative choices. Among these factors, peer pressure emerges as a critical social environmental influence with profound effects on individuals. It heightens the likelihood of adolescents engaging in smoking, drinking, and drug use while potentially affecting students' creativity levels as well. Furthermore, certain personality characteristics may also modulate the relationship between peer pressure identification, peer pressure environments, and the selection of creative ideas. The creative selection process is a decision-making process involving creativity, where risks are assessed, and the optimal solution is selected. When faced with multiple choices, decision-makers not only rely on their own judgments (personal reference points) but also consider the perspectives of others and society (social reference points). This suggests that when exploring the factors influencing creative selection, it is important to focus not only on individual factors but also on external social environmental factors. Therefore, this study aims to explore peer pressure from both the individual's perception of peer pressure and the actual peer environment.
This study investigates how peer pressure affects college students’ performance in selecting creative ideas through questionnaires (N = 299) and behavioral experiments (N = 70). Peer pressure was examined from two perspectives: perceived peer pressure by individuals—termed peer pressure identification—and actual behavioral responses within a peer-pressure environment. In the first study, we concentrated on exploring the correlation between peer pressure identification and college students’ performance in selecting creative ideas while assessing the role played by impulsive personality traits. Both peer pressure identification and impulsive personality were evaluated using questionnaires; meanwhile, performance in selecting creative ideas was assessed via a task titled “top 5 out of 18.” The second study aimed to determine whether participants' performances in selecting creative ideas differed when compared to those operating within a stress-free environment devoid of peers. An experimental control method was employed to evaluate how a peer-pressure context impacts college students’ performance in selecting creative ideas.
The results showed that peer pressure identification and peer environment significantly influenced college students' creative choice performance, and impulsivity played a moderating role in this process. For individuals with low impulsivity, a higher level of peer pressure identification was associated with a tendency toward more pragmatic creative choices. Conversely, high impulsivity buffered the influence of peer pressure identification. When manipulating the presence of real peers, individuals would avoid selecting high-novelty creative ideas, and high impulsivity personality would reduce this avoidance effect. Overall, this study found that both peer pressure identification and peer pressure environment significantly influence college students' creative choice performance, with impulsive personality playing a moderating role. When they perceived high peer pressure or in the presence of peers, individuals were more likely to favor highly appropriate ideas over highly novel ones when making creative choices. This effect is more pronounced in individuals with low impulsivity, while it diminishes in those with high impulsivity.
This study examines the interaction between peer pressure and individual cognitive styles on creative choices from the perspective of dual reference points in the decision-making cognitive process, which more closely reflects creative choices in real-world situations. Whether it’s leaders making innovative decisions in organizational management or consumers accepting innovative products in the economic field, they are inevitably influenced by a combination of individual styles and social environment factors. The introduction of dual reference points will help provide more theoretical evidence for understanding the creative choices of leaders and consumers. These findings provide theoretical evidence and inspiration for the influence of peer pressure on creative idea selection in school education contexts and organizational behavior and consumer behavior.
关键词
创意选择 /
同伴压力认同感 /
同伴压力环境 /
冲动性 /
大学生
Key words
creative idea selection /
peer pressure identification /
peer environment /
impulsive personality /
college students
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 安安静, 孙莹, 王熙, 祖萍, 麦锦城, & 梁健平等. (2013). 同伴影响、风险决策与青少年健康危害行为的相关性. 中华预防医学杂志, 47(3), 238-244.
[2] 贡喆, 彭杨, 王贤, & 刘昌. (2017). 高恶意创造力者的注意偏向和冲动控制特征. 中国临床心理学杂志, 25(4), 613-617.
[3] 谷传华, 周宗奎, & 种明慧. (2009). 小学儿童社会创造性与其同伴关系、学业成绩的关系. 心理发展与教育, 25(3), 20-25.
[4] 李献云, 费立鹏, 徐东, 张亚利, 杨少杰, & 童永胜等. (2011). Barratt冲动性量表中文修订版在社区和大学人群中应用的信效度. 中国心理卫生杂志, 25(8), 610-615.
[5] 谢晓非, & 陆静怡. (2014). 风险决策中的双参照点效应. 心理科学进展, 22(4), 571-579.
[6] 王玉洁, 窦凯, & 刘毅. (2013). 冲动性影响风险决策的实验研究. 心理学与创新能力提升——第十六届全国心理学学术会议论文集. 中国心理学会, 618-619.
[7] 薛靖华, 朱睿达, 刘超. (2024).从经济领域到社会领域:决策中的不确定性. 心理科学, 47(2): 384-392.
[8] 喻婧,饶俪琳,雷旭. (2019). 越老越风险规避吗?——年龄对冲动性预测决策行为的调节效应.心理科学. 42(6): 1382-1388.
[9] 张庆林. (2002). 创造性研究手册. 四川教育出版社..
[10] 周莉, 王宏霞, 耿靖宇, 雷雳. (2024). 大学生网络受欺负与抑郁的关系:心理资本和同伴支持的调节作用. 心理科学, 47(4): 981-989.
[11] Ajisuksmo, C. R. (2021). Why Some Adolescents Engage in Risk-Taking Behavior. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 10(2), 143-171.
[12] Budge K., Beale C., & Lynas E. (2013). A chaotic intervention: creativity and peer learning in design education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(2), 146-156.
[13] Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380-400.
[14] Chein J., Albert D., O'Brien L., Uckert K., & Steinberg L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain's reward circuitry. Developmental Science, 14(2), F1-F10.
[15] Cohen, S., & Przybycine, C. A. (1974). Some effects of sociometrically selected peer models on the cognitive styles of impulsive children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 124(2), 213-220.
[16] de Buisonjé D. R., Ritter S. M., de Bruin S., ter, Horst J. M.L., & Meeldijk A. (2017). Facilitating creative idea selection: The combined effects of self-affirmation, promotion focus and positive affect.Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 174-181.
[17] Dekkers L. M., Bexkens A., Hofman A. D., Boeck P. D., Collot d’Escury A. L., & Huizenga H. M. (2019). Formal modeling of the resistance to peer influence questionnaire: A comparison of adolescent boys and girls with and without mild-to-borderline intellectual disability. Assessment, 26(6), 1070-1083.
[18] Dewit, H. (2009). Impulsivity as a determinant and consequence of drug use: a review of underlying processes. Addiction Biology, 14(1), 22-31.
[19] Gómez P., Feijóo S., Braña T., Varela J., & Rial A. (2020). Minors and online gambling: Prevalence and related variables. Journal of gambling studies, 36, 735-745.
[20] González-Campo, C. H., & García-Vidales, M. (2022). Intrinsic motivation and creativity at work: Mediating effect of employees' commitment. Journal of Business Research, 142, 403-411.
[21] Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[22] Kahl, C. H., & Hansen, H. (2015). Simulating creativity from a systems perspective: CRESY. Journal of Artificial Societies & Social Simulation, 18(1), 1-22.
[23] Karwowski, M. (2015). Peer effect on students' creative self-concept. Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(3), 211-225.
[24] Liu D., Ji M., Zhuang K., Chen Q., Shi B., & Qiu J. (2022). Regional gray matter volume in posterior cingulate cortex predicts positive risk-taking: a moderation model. International Journal of Psychology, 58(1), 69-77.
[25] Ma, L., & Yao, K. (2023). Investigating young adults' use of internet credit services: a reflective-impulsive dual-process model. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47(4), 1434-1448.
[26] Rietzschel E. F., Nijstad B. A., & Stroebe W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244-251.
[27] Rietzschel E. F., Nijstad B. A., & Stroebe W. (2010). The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology, 101(1), 47-68.
[28] Runco, M. A. (2023). Updating the Standard Definition of Creativity to Account for the Artificial Creativity of AI. Creativity Research Journal , 37(1), 1-5.
[29] Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality & Individual differences, 15(5), 537-546.
[30] Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96.
[31] Simonton, D. K. (2015). On praising convergent thinking: Creativity as blind variation and selective retention. Creativity Research Journal, 27(3), 262-270.
[32] Simonton, D. K. (2010). Creative thought as blind-variation and selective-retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of life reviews, 7(2), 156-179.
[33] Steinberg, L. (2004). Risk taking in adolescence: what changes, and why?. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021(1), 51-58.
[34] Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1531-1543.
[35] Zhu Y., Ritter S. M., Müller Barbara C. N., & Dijksterhuis A. (2017). Creativity: intuitive processing outperforms deliberative processing in creative idea selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 180-188.
基金
*本研究得到国家自然科学基金项目（32471120; 32071080）,北京市社会科学基金项目和北京市教委社科计划重点项目（SZ202210028016）的资助
PDF(1287 KB)
