Úkol 1. Zadání: V úvodní a diskusní části článku vyhledejte a vyznačte primární, sekundární a terciární informace. Pokud to půjde, dohledejte u sekundárních a terciárních informací původní zdroje Primární červeně, sekundární zeleně, terciární oranžově Researchers across disciplines have become increasingly interested in understanding why even people who care about morality predictably cross ethical boundaries. This heightened interest in unethical behavior, defined as acts that violate widely held moral rules or norms of appropriate conduct (Treviño, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006), is easily understood. Unethical behavior creates trillions of dollars in financial losses every year and is becoming increasingly commonplace (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2011). One form of unethical behavior, dishonesty, seems especially pervasive (Bazerman & Gino, 2012). Like other forms of unethical behavior, dishonesty involves breaking a rule—the social principle that people should tell the truth. Much of the scholarly attention devoted to understanding why individuals behave unethically has therefore focused on the factors that lead people to break rules. Although rule breaking carries a negative connotation in the domain of ethics, it carries a positive connotation in another well-researched domain: creativity. To be creative, it is often said, one must “think outside the box” and use divergent thinking (Guilford, 1967; Runco, 2010; Simonton, 1999). Divergent thinking requires that people break some (but not all) rules within a domain to construct associations between previously unassociated cognitive elements (Bailin, 1987; Guilford, 1950). The resulting unusual mental associations serve as the basis for novel ideas (Langley & Jones, 1988; Sternberg, 1988). The creative process therefore involves rule breaking, as one must break rules to take advantage of existing opportunities or to create new ones (Brenkert, 2009). Thus, scholars have asserted that organizations may foster creativity by hiring people slow to learn the organizational code (Sutton, 2001, 2002) and by encouraging people to break from accepted practices (Winslow & Solomon, 1993) or to break rules (Baucus, Norton, Baucus, & Human, 2008; Kelley & Littman, 2001). Given that both dishonesty and creativity involve rule breaking, the individuals most likely to behave dishonestly and the individuals most likely to be creative may be one and the same. Indeed, highly creative people are more likely than less creative people to bend rules or break laws (Cropley, Kaufman, & Cropley, 2003; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; Sulloway, 1996). Popular tales are replete with images of “evil geniuses,” such as Rotwang in Metropolis and “Lex” Luthor in Superman, who are both creative and nefarious in their attempts to ruin humanity. Similarly, news articles have applied the “evil genius” moniker to Bernard Madoff, who made $20 billion disappear using a creative Ponzi scheme. The causal relationship between creativity and unethical behavior may take two possible forms: The creative process may trigger dishonesty; alternatively, acting unethically may enhance creativity. Research has demonstrated that enhancing the motivation to think outside the box can drive people toward more dishonest decisions (Beaussart, Andrews, & Kaufman, 2013; Gino & Ariely, 2012). But could acting dishonestly enhance creativity in subsequent tasks? In five experiments, we obtained the first empirical evidence that behaving dishonestly can spur creativity and examined the psychological mechanism explaining this link. We suggest that after behaving dishonestly, people feel less constrained by rules, and are thus more likely to act creatively by constructing associations between previously unassociated cognitive elements. Diskuse: There is little doubt that dishonesty creates costs for society. It is less clear whether it produces any positive consequences. This research identified one such positive consequence, demonstrating that people may become more creative after behaving dishonestly because acting dishonestly leaves them feeling less constrained by rules. By identifying potential consequences of acting dishonestly, these findings complement existing research on behavioral ethics and moral psychology, which has focused primarily on identifying the antecedents to unethical behavior (Bazerman & Gino, 2012). These findings also advance understanding of creative behavior by showing that feeling unconstrained by rules enhances creative sparks. More speculatively, our research raises the possibility that one of the reasons why dishonesty is so widespread in today’s society is that by acting dishonestly, people become more creative, which allows them to come up with more creative justifications for their immoral behavior and therefore makes them more likely to behave dishonestly (Gino & Ariely, 2012), which may make them more creative, and so on. In sum, this research shows that the sentiment expressed in the common saying “rules are meant to be broken” is at the root of both creative performance and dishonest behavior. It also provides new evidence that dishonesty may therefore lead people to become more creative in their subsequent endeavors. Informace v článku: The creative process therefore involves rule breaking, as one must break rules to take advantage of existing opportunities or to create new ones. Původní informace: The ethical questions entrepreneurs face cannot be viewed in a static context. The decisions or judgments they must make may alter the context so that what was wrong becomes right, what was false becomes true, and what was forbidden becomes forgiven. In acknowledged competitive situations (commercial or political), some forms of deception are permitted, though not required. The strict truth may not be obligatory. Even some forms of tricksterism are permitted. In this setting, the innovation and creative destruction associated with entrepreneurialism should be viewed as applying not only to products and services, but also to morality and the good life. Entrepreneurs are change agents in the former, as well as in the latter areas. Accordingly, traditional moral theory is analogous to neo-classical economic theory in not creating a space for moral change. The disruption or creative destruction that entrepreneurs introduce applies both to economics and to morality. Dle mého názoru autor výstižně zkrátil původní informaci ve článku. Původní informace mi pomohla lépe porozumět zmíněné myšlence. (Brenkert G. G. (2009). Innovation, rule breaking and the ethics of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 448–464.) Informace v článku: These findings also advance understanding of creative behavior by showing that feeling unconstrained by rules enhances creative sparks. More speculatively, our research raises the possibility that one of the reasons why dishonesty is so widespread in today’s society is that by acting dishonestly, people become more creative, which allows them to come up with more creative justifications for their immoral behavior and therefore makes them more likely to behave dishonestly, which may make them more creative, and so on. Původní informace: When individuals decide whether or not to engage in unethical behavior, they considertheir previous moral and immoral actions; they keep track of their moral balance between moral credits (past good deeds) and moral debits (pastbad deeds). Původní informace mi připadá mnohem složitější, než informace interpretovaná ve článku. Spíše mě zmátla, než pomohla. (Gino F. Ariely D. 2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 445–459. Informace v článku: Although rule breaking carries a negative connotation in the domain of ethics, it carries a positive connotation in another well-researched domain: creativity. To be creative, it is often said, one must “think outside the box” and use divergent thinking Původní informace: One final complication must be acknowledged as well: Different forms of creativity will require varying amounts of remote association and divergent thought. On the one hand, because artistic creativity tends to put more stress on origininality, the variation process must be much more free ( and might even includes alternative uses for a toothpick, as in surrealistic arts). On the other hand, scientific creativity places more emphasis oon satisfying certain theoretical and metodogical standarts, and thus the variation process operates under more a priori constraints. Moreover, within each of these two major forms of creative activity, contrasts will appear in relative blindness of variation. Autor dle mého názoru dost zkreslil původní informaci z článku, na druhou stranu jeho verze dává větší smysl. (Simonton D. K. 1999). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10, 309–328. Popularizační zpráva: V této zprávě bych čtenáře rád seznámil s výzkumem s velmi zajímavým názvem: Evil Genius? How dishonesty can lead to greater creativity. Výzkum provedlo duo výzkumníků jménem Francesca Ginnol a Scott S. Wiltermuth. Ve své práci předpokládají, že jedinci, kteří mají sklony podvádět, být neupřímní a nedodržovat pravdila jsou více kreativní než jedinci čestní a poslušní. Tato hypotéza by měla být platná také opačně, kreativní jedinci by tudíž měli mít větší sklony k porušování pravidel. Kreativita po jedinci požaduje určitou nesvázanost pravidly a zvyky, které by ji velmi potlačovali a uzavřeli jedince v určitě “kleci”, proto tato premisa. Výzkumníci tedy provedli pět experimentů, ve kterých se snaží vysvětlit případné příčiny těchto souvislostí. Každý experiment pracoval s poněkud odlišnou premisou. V prvním experimentu se pracovalo s předpokladem, že podvodníci jsou kreativní, experiment tuto premisu potvrdil. K podvádění měli všichni probandi stejné podmínky. Druhý experiment naznačil, že samotný akt podvádění zlepšuje kreativitu jedinců. Ti byli tentokrát rozdělení do dvou skupin, kde jedna měla mnohem lepší podmínky k podvádění než druhá (neměla potřebné informace). Předpoklad byl opět potvrzen, jedinci patříci do první skupiny prokázali v testu vyšší kreativitu než jedinci ze skupiny druhé. Třetí experiment do rozhodování zda podvádět či nepodvádět zahrnul také vliv etických norem na jedince. Ti, kteří byli pod větším etickým nátlakem podváděli minimálně, zvýšená kreativita se u tohoto malého množství opět projevila. Čtvrtý experiment zkoumal chován lidí, kteří měli pocit, že jsou příliš svázáni pravidly, tito lidé podváděli přibližně v polovině případů. Poslední experiment opět prokazuje,že lidé, kteří se cítí méně vázáni pravidly a se sklony k podvádění dosahují lepších kreativních výsledků. Ve všech experimentech byli probandi motivováni penězi. Studie tedy naznačuje pozitivní efekt neupřímnosti a podvádění, lidé kteří podváděli se stali kreativnějšími, neb toto chování jim narušilo autoritu k pravidlům. Jednou z myšlenek, kterou výzkumníci vyslovují je, že lidé, kteří jsou kreativnější si umí najít lepší opodstatnění svých neupřímných činů a podvodů, tudíž se vyhnout špatnému svědomí a podvadějí mnohem častěji.