A social cognitive model of significant other’s feedback, creative self-efficacy, internal motivation and external motivation on creative behavior: A structure equation modeling study

• Main Authors: Su-Ping Hung, 洪素蘋
• Other Authors: Sunny S. J. Lin
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2004
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/77468338285481605138

碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 教育研究所 === 92 === Previous research results show an individual when receiving negative feedback from environment often decreases the frequency of engaging in and quality of creative works. From my personal observation, I find some people, fortunately, survive from others’ attack or criticism and keep on working creatively. It seems that some people obtain greater mental strength to maintain passion about creative works, and it even leads them to confront with negative feedback from significant others. This critical variable is named as creative self-efficacy after a comprehensive review of two trends of research, one about the effects of social environment on creativity and the other, effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1996). Then, five variables were considered important in constructing a social cognitive model of creativity, that is, significant others’ feedback (about one’s creativity works), inner process (including intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and creative self-efficacy), and creative behavior. Descriptive statistics, hypothesis tests of differences, and cluster analysis were adopted in analyzing data. Besides, structural equation modeling was used to test the hypothetical models and alternative models, especially regarding various roles of creative self -efficacy in social cognitive model. Participants were 636 undergraduates selected from six universities in northern Taiwan. The results show, first of all, individual characters, e.g., gender, grade, and majors, affected one’s creativity. Moreover, grade and major show a two-way interaction that various fields needs more or less years of training to display higher degree of creative works. Second, a clustering analysis demonstrated that students could be grouped into three clusters along their frequencies of creative experiences. They were named as “frequent creators”, “occasionally creators”, and “rarely creators”. Third, compared with the model A- creative self-efficacy in front of the intrinsic, extrinsic motivation and model B- creative self-efficacy, intrinsic, extrinsic motivation was paralleled. Besides, the author also explores the model C- creative self-efficacy in back of the intrinsic, extrinsic motivation. The result indicated that the model A is better than the model B, it confirmed with the social cognitive theory. Fourth, a structural equation modeling for the examination of the modified model shows that positive feedback and negative feedback could directly predict creative self-efficacy and extrinsic motivation as the hypothesis suggested, yet they could not predict intrinsic motivation. In addition, positive feedback and negative feedback from significant others though could not directly predict creative behavior, they displayed indirect effect on creative behavior. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that when individual receive feedbacks, one often evaluate the task and feedback. Then the evaluation outcomes that we called creative self-efficacy will affect one’s motivation and in turns affect creative behavior. This result confirmed the importance of creative self-efficacy as Bandura (1997) has suggested. Based on the results, several suggestions for educational administrations, schools, teachers and future research were offered.