高校科研人员长期结果考量与双元创新行为：性别的调节作用

doi:10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2023.01.006

心理研究

2023, Vol. 16

Issue (1): 52-63 DOI: 10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2023.01.006

应用研究

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

高校科研人员长期结果考量与双元创新行为：性别的调节作用

刘丽丹¹, 王忠军²

1 湖北中医药大学人文学院,武汉 430065;
2 华中师范大学心理学院,武汉 430079

The impact of consideration of future consequences on exploration behaviors and exploitation behaviors： The moderated role of gender

LIU Lidan¹, WANG Zhongjun²

1 School of Humanities, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan 430065;
2 School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (0)

全文: PDF (1145 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要基于解释水平理论和性别社会角色视角,利用高校科研人员样本和问卷调查法,探讨长期结果考量与双元创新行为的关系以及性别差异。研究表明：（1）长期结果考量与科研人员的探索性创新行为正相关,与利用性创新行为负相关;（2）性别在长期结果考量与不同创新行为的关系中起着调节作用,长期结果考量与探索性创新行为的相关关系仅在男性科研人员样本中显著,而长期结果考量与利用性创新行为的相关关系仅在女性科研人员样本中显著。研究拓展了长期结果考量的效果研究,为探究高水平创新行为提供了一个崭新视角,也对如何基于性别差异进行创新管理具有重要启示。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	刘丽丹
	王忠军

关键词 ：科研人员, 长期结果考量, 探索性创新行为, 利用性创新行为

基金资助:教育部人文社科青年基金项目（18YJC630098）、青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室（华中师范大学）开放课题（2019B03）

通讯作者: 刘丽丹,女,副教授。Email：59331455@qq.com

引用本文:

刘丽丹, 王忠军. 高校科研人员长期结果考量与双元创新行为：性别的调节作用[J]. 心理研究, 2023, 16(1): 52-63.
LIU Lidan, WANG Zhongjun. The impact of consideration of future consequences on exploration behaviors and exploitation behaviors： The moderated role of gender. Psychological Research, 2023, 16(1): 52-63.

链接本文:

http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/CN/10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2023.01.006 或 http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/CN/Y2023/V16/I1/52

[1] 柏璐, 高耀明. (2018). 杰出女性科技工作者的教育背景和成长环境探析:以国家杰出青年科学基金女性获得者为例.高等教育研究, 278(4), 63-69.
[2] 丁琳, 席酉民. (2008). 变革型领导对员工创造力的作用机理研究. 管理科学, (6), 42-48.
[3] 付玉秀, 张洪石. (2004). 突破性创新: 概念界定与比较.数量经济技术经济研究, 3(6), 73-83.
[4] 黄海艳, 李乾文. (2011). 研发团队成员人格异质性与创新绩效:以交互记忆系统为中介变量.情报杂志, 30(4), 186-191.
[5] 黄园淅, 赵吝加. (2016). 我国科技人才政策恢复时期的特点分析:基于 1978 年至 1984 年政策外部特征的探索.技术与创新管理, (5), 502-508.
[6] 李慧敏, 陈晓瑜. (2017). 关于高校女教师职业发展的审视与思考:以社会性别为视角.南昌教育学院学报, (1), 38-41.
[7] 李睿婕, 赵延东, 马缨. (2018). 新时期女性科研人员面临的发展机遇和挑战.科技中国, (4), 81-82.
[8] 刘月平, 郭淑梅. (2012). 社会性别视角下高校女教师职业发展障碍调查研究.当代教师教育, (4), 77-81.
[9] 龙立荣, 王海庭, 朱颖俊. (2012). 研究型高校科研考核模式与创新的关系.高等工程教育研究, (1), 145-147. 龙立荣, 张海涛. (6), 87-92.
[10] 龙云安, 朱吉亮. (2011). 中国制造型企业的创新力研究.科学管理研究, (5), 22-25.
[11] 孙咏洁. (2012). 性别差异视角下高校女教师发展现状的审视与思考:基于教育部2010年教育统计数据. 文教资料, (18), 133-135.
[12] 王飞, 郝旭光, 赵春霞, 栾明乔.(2018). 中层管理者迈尔斯布里格斯(MBTI)人格类型对其创新行为的影响:一个被调节的中介模型.科技进步与对策, (5), 140-146.
[13] 王国弘, 赵涛, 王云霞. (2007). 我国科技事业中性别比例失衡问题透析.未来与发展, (6), 62-65.
[14] 王蕊, 叶龙. (2014). 基于人格特质的科技人才创新行为研究. 科学管理研究, (4), 100-103.
[15] 尹润锋. (2012). 绩效考核目标取向对员工创新行为的影响研究: 创新氛围的中介作用.科技管理研究, (1), 126-130.
[16] 尹润锋, 朱颖俊. (2013). 绩效考核目标取向与员工创新行为:差错管理文化的中介作用.科学学与科学技术管理, 34(2), 174-180.
[17] 张文慧, 王辉. (2009). 长期结果考量, 自我牺牲精神与领导授权赋能行为: 环境不确定性的调节作用.管理世界, (6), 115-123.
[18] 张勇, 龙立荣. (2013). 绩效薪酬对团队成员探索行为和利用行为的影响.管理科学, (3), 9-18.
[19] 张再生, 孙雪松, 张奕野. (2019). 基于多维视角的女性科技工作者工作-家庭冲突问题研究.天津大学学报(社会科学版), (1), 70-76.
[20] 张再生, 张奕野, 孙雪松. (2018). 女性科技工作者工作满意度与工作家庭平衡影响因素研究.天津大学学报(社会科学版), 105(3), 36-42.
[21] 张振刚, 李云健, 余传鹏. (2014). 员工的主动性人格与创新行为关系研究:心理安全感与知识分享能力的调节作用. 科技创新导报, (29), 9-12.
[22] 赵晓霞, 刘睿. (2012). 艾森克人格特质理论与企业员工个体创新绩效研究.科技管理研究, 32(7), 138-141.
[23] 朱依娜, 何光喜. (2014). 高校教师工作与科研时间的性别差异及其中介效应分析:基于全国科技工作者状况调查数据. 科学与社会, 4(3), 86-100.
[24] 朱依娜, 马缨. (2015). 性别: 时间分配与高校教师的科研产出.妇女研究论丛, (4), 24-31.
[25] Abraham, A. (2016). Gender and creativity: An overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature.Brain Imaging & Behavior, 10(2), 609-618.
[26] Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376.
[27] Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning.Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183.
[28] Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader-member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work.The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 264-275.
[29] Batey M., Chamorro-Premuzic T., & Furnham A. (2010). Individual differences in ideational behavior: Can the Big Five and psychometric intelligence predict creativity scores? Creativity Research Journal, 22, 90-97.
[30] Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2011). Gender differences in creativity.Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75-105.
[31] Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited.Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.
[32] Costa P. T., Jr., Terracciano A., & McCrae R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322-331.
[33] Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender.Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5-37.
[34] Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598.
[35] Gick, M. (2014). An exploration of interactions between conscientiousness and consideration of future consequences on healthy eating.Personality Individual Differences, 66, 181-187.
[36] Graso, M., & Probst, T. M. (2012). The effect of consideration of future consequences on quality and quantity aspects of job performanceJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1335-1352.
[37] Guastello, S. J. (2009). Creativity and personality. In T. Rickards, M. A. Runco, & S. Moger (Eds.), Routledge companion to creativity (pp. 256-266). Abington, England: Routledge.
[38] Joireman J., Anderson J., & Strathman A. (2003). The aggression paradox: Understanding links among aggression, sensation seeking, and the consideration of future consequences.Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 84(6), 1287-1302.
[39] Joireman J., Daniels D., George‐Falvy J., & Kamdar D. (2006). Organizational citizenship behaviors as a function of empathy, consideration of future consequences, and employee time horizon: An initial exploration using an In‐Basket Simulation of OCBs 1.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(9), 2266-2292.
[40] Joireman J., Balliet D., Sprott D., Spangerberg E. and Schultz J. (2008). Consideration of future consequences, ego-depletion, and self-control: Support for distinguishing between CFC-immediate and CFC-future sub-scales.Personality and Individual Differences, 45(1), 15-21.
[41] Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity.Psychological bulletin, 112(3), 527-535.
[42] Khachatryan H., Joireman J., & Casavant K. (2013). Relating values and consideration of future and immediate consequences to consumer preference for biofuels: A three-dimensional social dilemma analysis.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34(6), 97-108.
[43] Lee J., Yun S., & Kim S. (2017). Consideration of future consequence and task performance: The moderating effects of support.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(7), 497-512.
[44] Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory.Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18. Lin, W. L., Hsu, K. Y., Chen, H. C., & Wang, J. W.(2), 112-123.
[45] Luksyte A., Unsworth K. L., & Avery D. R. (2018). Innovative work behavior and sex‐based stereotypes: Examining sex differences in perceptions and evaluations of innovative work behavior.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 292-305.
[46] McClelland, D. C. (1975). A competency model for human resource management specialists to be used in the delivery of the human resource management cycle.Boston: McBer.
[47] Mom T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda H. W. (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top‐down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows.Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910-931.
[48] Nowack K., Milfont T. L., & van der Meer, E. (2013). Future versus present: Time perspective and pupillary response in a relatedness judgment task investigating temporal event knowledge.International Journal of Psychophysiology, 87(2), 173-182.
[49] Orbell, S., & Hagger, M. (2006). Temporal framing and the decision to take part in type 2 diabetes screening: Effects of individual differences in consideration of future consequences on persuasion.Health Psychology, 25(4), 537-548.
[50] Orbell S., Perugini M., & Rakow T. (2004). Individual differences in sensitivity to health communications: consideration of future consequences.Health Psychology, 23(4), 388-396.
[51] Peters B. R., Joireman J., & Ridgway R. L. (2005). Individual differences in the consideration of future consequences scale correlate with sleep habits, sleep quality, and GPA in university students.Psychological Reports, 96(3), 817-824.
[52] Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J.-Y., & Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
[53] Pozolotina, T., & Olsen, S. O.(2019). Consideration of immediate and future consequences, perceived change in the future self, and health behavior.Health Marketing Quarterly, 36(4), 1-19.
[54] Preacher K. J., Curran P. J., & Bauer D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis.Journal of Educational Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437-448.
[55] Proudfoot D., Kay A. C., & Koval C. Z. (2015). A gender bias in the attribution of creativity: Archival and experimental evidence for the perceived association between masculinity and creative thinking.Psychological Science, 26(11), 1751-1761.
[56] Runco M. A.(2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development and practice. London, England: Elsevier Academic Press.
[57] Schmitt D. P., Realo A., Voracek M., & Allik J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168-182.
[58] Shalley C. E., Zhou J., & Oldham G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 933-958.
[59] Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability.Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936-960.
[60] Strathman A., Gleicher F., Boninger D. S., & Edwards C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior.Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 66(4), 742-752.
[61] Taylor C., Ivcevic Z., Moeller J., & Brackett M.(2020). Gender and support for creativity at work.Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(3), 453-464.
[62] Taylor, C. L., & Barbot, B. (2021). Gender differences in creativity: Examining the greater male variability hypothesis in different domains and tasks.Personality and Individual Differences, 174(2), 1-9.
[63] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
[64] van Beek J., Antonides G., & Handgraaf M. J. (2013). Eat now, exercise later: The relation between consideration of immediate and future consequences and healthy behavior.Personality Individual Differences, 54(6), 785-791.
[65] Walton, A. P., & Kemmelmeiera, M. (2012). Creativity in its social context: The interplay of organizational norms, situational threat, and gender.Creativity Research Journal, 24(2-3), 208-219.
[66] Wang, T., & Bansal, P. (2012). Social responsibility in new ventures: Profiting from a long‐term orientation.Strategic Management Journal, 33(10), 1135-1153.
[67] Zhang W., Wang H., & Pearce C. L. (2014). Consideration for future consequences as an antecedent of transformational leadership behavior: The moderating effects of perceived dynamic work environment.The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 329-343.