Journal of Digital Convergence (디지털융복합연구)

The Society of Digital Policy and Management (한국디지털정책학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Moderating Effects of 'Irrelevance Processing' (IRP) on the Relationship between Decision-maker's Openness and Business Problem Solving Creativity

'문제해결과 무관한 정보처리 과정'(IRP)이 의사결정자의 개방성과 비즈니스 문제 해결 창의성 관계에 대해서 갖는 조절효과에 관한 실증연구

  • Won, Jong Yoon (SKK Business School, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • Lee, Kun Chang (Global Business Administration/Department of Health Sciences & & Technology, SAIHST(Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology) Sungkyunkwan University)
  • 원종윤 (성균관대학교 경영대학) ;
  • 이건창 (성균관대학교 글로벌경영학과/삼성융합의과학원 융합의과학과)
  • Received : 2020.08.03
  • Accepted : 2020.10.20
  • Published : 2020.10.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to confirm the moderating effect of the 'IRrelevance Processing'(IRP) on the relationship between decision maker's openness and business problem solving creativity (BPSC). In order to confirm the psychological mechanism of BPSC and openness, we developed the irrelevance processing. In particular, the creativity in this study is different from the general creativity studied in psychology. BPSC is a study with practical value applied in the management environment. The results showed that openness of the decision maker was correlated with the BPSC, and that the irrelevance processing was a psychological mechanism to moderating effects relationship between openness of decision makers and BPSC. This paper proved the correlation between the propensity of decision makers and BPSC, and contributed to the study of corporate creativity by identifying the psychological mechanisms.

미래의 불확실성이 높을수록 회사의 경영자의 고민은 커지는데, 이러한 불확실성을 해소할 수 있는 핵심 열쇠로 창의성을 꼽을 수 있다. 본 연구는 비즈니스 문제 해결 창의성(Business Problem Solving Creativity, BPSC)과 기업 의사결정자의 개방적 성향 간의 관계에 대해 확인하고, 주의력이 BPSC와 개방적 성향 간의 조절 효과를 갖는지 아이트래킹 기법으로 확인한다. 주의력 측정을 위해 '문제 해결과 무관한 정보처리 과정'(IRP)을 개발하였다. 연구결과, 의사결정자의 개방적 성향과 BPSC는 양의 상관관계가 있음을 입증하였으며, 기존의 창의성 연구와는 달리 주의력은 개방적 성향과 BPSC 간의 부의 조절 효과가 있음을 입증하였다. 본 연구는 BPSC는 빠르게 변화하는 경영 환경에서 문제를 해결하는 의사결정자의 창의적 능력이나 성과를 측정하는 행동과학 연구로 실무적 가치가 높다. 또한, 기업 의사결정자의 성향과 BPSC와의 상관성을 입증하여, BPSC 발현의 심리적 메커니즘을 규명함으로써 경영학 창의성 연구에 기여하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. J. Chan, P. Siangliulue, D. Qori McDonald, R. Liu, R. Moradinezhad, S. Aman, E. Y. Solovey, K. Z. Gajos & S. P. Dow. (2017). Semantically far inspirations considered harmful? accounting for cognitive states in collaborative ideation. ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, 93-105. DOI : 10.1145/3059454.3059455
  2. I. Goller & J. Bessant. (2017). Creativity for Innovation Management. Taylor & Francis.
  3. R. Mehta & M. Zhu. (2016). Creating when you have less: The impact of resource scarcity on product use creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 767-782. DOI : 10.1093/jcr/ucv051
  4. S. L. de Vasconcellos, I. L. Garrido & R. C. Parente. (2019). Organizational creativity as a crucial resource for building international business competence. International Business Review, 28(3), 438-449. DOI : 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.11.003
  5. J. K. Ryu & K. C. Lee. (2018). Neuroscience-based Exploratory Approach to Measuring the Business Problem-solving Creativity from the Perspective of SIAM(Search for Ideas Associative Memory) Model: Emphasis on fNIRS(functional near-infrared spectroscopy) Method. Korean Management Review, 47(5), 1111-1137. DOI : 10.17287/kmr.2018.47.5.1111
  6. S. Agnoli, G. E. Corazza & M. A. Runco. (2016). Estimating creativity with a multiple-measurement approach within scientific and artistic domains. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 171-176. DOI : 10.1080/10400419.2016.1162475
  7. N. Boot, M. Baas, S. van Gaal, R. Cools & C. K. De Dreu. (2017). Creative cognition and dopaminergic modulation of fronto-striatal networks: Integrative review and research agenda. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 78, 13-23. DOI : 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.007
  8. G. T. Dow & R. E. Mayer. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 389-398. DOI : 10.1080/10400410409534550
  9. E. L. Moorman & D. B. Samuel. (2018). Representing schizotypal thinking with dimensional traits: A case for the Five Factor Schizotypal Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 30(1), 19-30. DOI : 10.1037/pas0000497
  10. M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert. (1985). The reliability and validity of ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(3), 483-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448504500306
  11. M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: An empirical test with gifted and nongifted children. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 11(4), 212-218.
  12. S. H. Carson, J. B. Peterson & D. M. Higgins. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37-50. DOI : 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4
  13. R. M. Milgram & E. Hong. (1999). Creative out-of-school activities in intellectually gifted adolescents as predictors of their life accomplishment in young adults: A longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1202_1
  14. P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae. (1992). Professional manual: revised NEO personality inventory and NEO five-factor inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 61.
  15. T. M. Amabile, K. G. Hill, B. A. Hennessey & E. M. Tighe. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.950
  16. Y. Gong, J. C. Huang & J. L. Farh. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765-778. DOI : 10.5465/amj.2009.43670890
  17. R. R. McCrae & P. T. Costa Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509
  18. M. A. Runco, G. Dow & W. R. Smith. (2006). Information, experience, and divergent thinking: An empirical test. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 269-277. DOI : 10.1207/s15326934crj1803_4
  19. J. Zhou & J. M. George. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-696 https://doi.org/10.2307/3069410
  20. D. K. Simonton. (2012). Quantifying creativity: can measures span the spectrum?. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 14(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2012.14.1/dsimonton
  21. M. A. Runco & G. J. Jaeger. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96. DOI : 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
  22. S. Carson (2014). Leveraging the "mad genius" debate: Why we need a neuroscience of creativity and psychopathology. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 771. DOI : 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00771
  23. J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
  24. M. L. Dixon, K. C. Fox & K. Christoff. (2014). A framework for understanding the relationship between externally and internally directed cognition. Neuropsychologia, 62, 321-330. DOI : 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.024
  25. M. S. Adil, M. N. Khan, I. Khan & M. A. Qureshi. (2018). Impact of leader creativity expectations on employee creativity: assessing the mediating and moderating role of creative self-efficacy. International Journal of Management Practice, 11(2), 171-189 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMP.2018.10010565
  26. D. Bridges & H. E. Schendan. (2019). Sensitive individuals are more creative. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 186-195. DOI : 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.015
  27. M. Batey & A. Furnham. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355-429. https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430
  28. J. Kasof. (1997). Creativity and breadth of attention. Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 303-315. DOI : 10.1207/s15326934crj1004_2
  29. S. H. Carson, J. B. Peterson & D. M. Higgins. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.499
  30. N. C. Byrom, R. M. Msetfi & R. A. Murphy. (2018). Human latent inhibition: Problems with the stimulus exposure effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6), 2102-2118. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1455-4
  31. S. B. Kaufman, L. C. Quilty, R. G. Grazioplene, J. B. Hirsh, J. R. Gray, J. B. Peterson & C. G. DeYoung. (2016). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 248-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156
  32. A. Abraham, B. Rutter, T. Bantin & C. Hermann. (2018). Creative conceptual expansion: A combined fMRI replication and extension study to examine individual differences in creativity. Neuropsychologia, 118, 29-39. DOI : 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.05.004
  33. A. Fink, C. Rominger, M. Benedek, C. M. Perchtold, I. Papousek, E. M. Weiss, A. Seidel & D. Memmert. (2018). EEG alpha activity during imagining creative moves in soccer decision-making situations. Neuropsychologia, 114, 118-124. DOI : 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.04.025
  34. X. Yang, L. Lin, P. Y. Cheng, X. Yang & Y. Ren. (2019). Which EEG Feedback Works Better for Creativity Performance in Immersive Virtual Reality: The Reminder or Encouraging Feedback?. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 345-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.002
  35. D. Y. Choi & K. C. Lee. (2016). Neuroscience Analysis Approach to Investigating the Effect of Positive and Negative Emotion on Decision-Maker's Business Problem-Solving Creativity under Uncertainty. Korean Management Review, 45(4), 1147-1172. DOI : 10.17287/kmr.2016.45.4.1147
  36. J. Chan, P. Siangliulue, D. Qori McDonald, R. Liu, R. Moradinezhad. S. Aman, E. T. Solovey, Z. G. Krzysztof & S. P. Dow. (2017). Semantically Far Inspirations Considered Harmful?: Accounting for Cognitive States in Collaborative Ideation. ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 93-105).
  37. G. Saucier. (1994). Separating description and evaluation in the structure of personality attributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.141
  38. S. Agnoli, L. Franchin, E. Rubaltelli & G. E. Corazz. (2015). An eye-tracking analysis of irrelevance processing as moderator of openness and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 125-132. DOI : 10.1080/10400419.2015.1030304
  39. N. Gupta, Y. Jang, S. C. Mednick & D. E. Huber. (2012). The road not taken: Creative solutions require avoidance of high-frequency responses. Psychological Science, 23(3), 288-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611429710
  40. W. L. Lin & Y. W. Lien. (2013). The different role of working memory in open-ended versus closed-ended creative problem solving: a dual-process theory account. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 85-96. DOI : 10.1080/10400419.2013.752249
  41. K. H. Kim. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14. DOI : 10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2