Russian Psychological Issues PsyJournals.ru
OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS
JournalsTopicsAuthorsEditor's Choice For AuthorsAbout PsyJournals.ruContact Us

  Previous issue (2020. Vol. 11, no. 2)

Included in Web of Science СС (ESCI)

Included in Scopus

Social Psychology and Society

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

ISSN (printed version): 2221-1527

ISSN (online): 2311-7052

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Started in 2010

Published quarterly

Free of fees
Open Access Journal

 

The Influence of Stress Factors on the Effectiveness of Passing the Assessment by Employees with Different Levels of Creativity 1148

Khachaturova M.R.
PhD in Psychology, associate professor, department of general and experimental psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
e-mail: mhachaturova@hse.ru

Fedorova A.A.
postgraduate, National research University " Higher school of Economics», Moscow, Russia
e-mail: anafedoroff@gmail.com

Abstract
The skills of non-standard thinking and creativity play an important role in stressful situations. We hypothesized that stress factors influence the effectiveness of passing the assessment by employees: high level of creativity increases the effectiveness of task execution. We conducted the experiment and used J. Guilford’s technique and tasks on creativity thinking, created by T. Lubart and G. Altshuller. The sample consisted of 200 examinees (92 females and 108 males), employees of different organizations (age — from 23 to 60). The results show that time limitation as a stressful factor decreases the effectiveness of passing the assessment by employees with both low and high levels of creativity (p≤0,01). Work in a pair does not influence the effectiveness of passing the assessment regardless of the level of creativity (p≥0,05). Multitasking is stressful for employees with a low level of creativity (p≤0,01). The results of our research can be taken as principles of psychological trainings for development of employees’ stress-resistance.

Keywords: creativity, stress, assessment

Column: Empirical study

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2018090108

For Reference

References
  1. Bogojavlenskaja D.B. Psihologija tvorcheskih sposobnostej [Psychology of creativity]. Moscow: Academia, 2002. 320 p.
  2. Bogojavlenskaja D.B., Susokolova I.A. Zarubezhnye issledovanija psihologii tvorchestva: Postgilfordovskij period (chast 1) [Foreign studies of the psychology of creativity: Postgilford period (part 1)]. Psihologicheskaja nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 2007, no 3, pp. 97—107.
  3. Bodrov V.A. Psihologicheskij stress: razvitie i preodolenie [Psychological stress ans coping]. Moscow: PERSE, 2006.
  4. Vodop’janova N.E. Psihodiagnostika stressa [Psychodiagnostics of stress]. Saint- Petersburg: Piter, 2009. 528 p.
  5. Meshkova N.V. Sovremennye zarubezhnye issledovanija kreativnosti: social’no-psihologicheskij aspekt [Modern foreign studies of creativity: the socio-psychological aspect]. Social’naja psihologija i obshhestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2015. Vol. 6, no 2, pp. 8—21. doi: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps
  6. Prjazhnikov N.S., Ozhogova E.G. Strategii preodolenija sindroma «jemocional’nogo vygoranija» v rabote pedagoga [Strategies of coping with the syndrome of «emotional burnout» in a teacher’ work]. Psihologicheskaja nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 2008, no. 2, pp. 87—95.
  7. Shherbatyh J.V. Psihologija stressa i metody korrekcii [Psychology of stress and correction methods]. Saint-Petersburg: Piter, 2006. 256 p.
  8. Benedek M., Muhlmann C. Assessment of divergent thinking by means of the subjective top-scoring method: effects of the number of top-ideas and time-on-task on reliability and validity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2013. Vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 341—349. doi: 10.1037/a0033644
  9. Binnewies C., Wörnlein S.C. What makes a creative day? A diary study on the interplay between affect, job stressors, and job control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2011. Vol. 32, pp. 589—607. doi: 10.1002/job.731
  10. Byron K., Khazanchi S., Nazarian D. The relationship between stressors and creativity: a meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2010. Vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 201—212.
  11. Choi J.N., Anderson T.A. Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations. Group and Organization Management, 2009. Vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 330—357.
  12. Cummings T.G., Cooper C.L. A cybernetic theory of organizational stress. In Cooper C.L. (ed.) Theories of organizational stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 101—121.
  13. DeCaro M.S., Wieth M. Methodologies for examining problem solving success and failure. Methods, 2007. Vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 58—67. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.006
  14. Eschleman K.J., Madsen J., Alarcon G., Barelka A. Benefiting from creative activity: the positive relationships between creative activity, recovery experiences, and performance-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2014. Vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 579—598.
  15. Hennessey B., Amabile T. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 2010. Vol. 61, pp. 569—598.
  16. Folkman S., Lazarus R.S. Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 1998. Vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 466—475. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.466
  17. Kaufmann G., Vosburg S.K. Paradoxical mood effects on creative problem-solving. Cognition and Emotion, 1997. Vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 151—170. doi: 10.1080/026999397379971
  18. Liu C., Liu Y. Job stressors, job performance, job dedication, and the moderating effect of conscientiousness: a mixed-method approach. International Journal of Stress Management, 2013. Vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 336—363. doi: 10.1037/a0034841
  19. Lubart T.I. Models of the creative process: past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 2001. Vol. 13, no. 3-4, pp. 295—308.
  20. Madjar N. The contributions of different groups of individuals to employees’ creativity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2005. Vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 182—206. doi: 10.1177/1523422305274525
  21. Malgorzata A., Goclowska M., Crisp R. Can counter-stereotypes boost flexible thinking? Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 2012. Vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 217—231. doi: 10.1177/1368430212445076
  22. Mann S., Cadman R. Does being bored make us more creative? Creativity Research Journal, 2014. Vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 165—173. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2014.901073
  23. Ohly S., Fritz C. Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: a multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 2010. Vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 543—565. doi: 10.1002/job.633
  24. Renner K.H., Beversdorf D.Q. Effects of naturalistic stressors on cognitive flexibility and working memory task performance. Neurocase: the neural basis of cognition, 2013. Vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 293—300. doi: 10.1080/13554790903463601
  25. Riolli L., Savicki V. Coping effectiveness and coping diversity under traumatic stress. International Journal of Stress Management, 2010. Vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 97—113. doi: 10.1037/ a0018041
  26. Rios K., Markman K.A. Schroeder J., Dyczewski E.A. A creative portrait of the uncertain individual: self-uncertainty and individualism enhance creative generation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2014. Vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1050—1062. doi: 10.1177/0146167214535640
  27. Sternberg R. The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 2010. Vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 87—98. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10
 
About PsyJournals.ru

© 2007–2020 Portal of Russian Psychological Publications. All rights reserved

PsyJournals.ru in Russian

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

Catalogue of academic journals in psychology & education MSUPE

Creative Commons License Open Access Repository     Webometrics Ranking of Repositories

RSS Psyjournals at facebook Psyjournals at Twitter Psyjournals at Youtube ??????.???????