A PATH MODEL OF THE CREATIVITY PROCESS AND OF CULINARY PERFORMANCE

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266442229
A PATH MODEL OF THE CREATIVITY PROCESS
AND OF CULINARY PERFORMANCE
Article
CITATION
READS
1
106
3 authors:
Jeou-Shyan Horng
Meng-Lei Monica Hu
Jinwen University of Science and Technology
Jinwen University of Science and Technology
66 PUBLICATIONS 740 CITATIONS
26 PUBLICATIONS 245 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Lin Lin
I-Shou University
5 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,
letting you access and read them immediately.
Available from: Jeou-Shyan Horng
Retrieved on: 26 October 2016
A PATH MODEL OF THE CREATIVITY PROCESS AND OF CULINARY PERFORMANCE
Jeou-Shyan Horng
National Taiwan Normal University
Dept of Human Development & Family Studies
Division of Hospitality Management & Education
Taipei, Taiwan
e-mail: [email protected]
Meng-Lei Monica Hu
Jinwen University Science and Technology
Food and Beverage Management
Taipei, Taiwan
e-mail: [email protected]
Lin Lin
National Taiwan Normal University
Dept of Human Development & Family Studies
Taipei, Taiwan
e-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
A path model of both the creative culinary process and culinary performance was developed by means of a
qualitative study and self-administered questionnaires. This model conceptualizes the influence on culinary
performance—on the actual making of new dishes—of idea preparation, idea incubation, idea development, and
verification of the new work’s creativity. A structural equation was applied to the data obtained through the
questionnaire in order to test the proposed model. Direct relationships were found to exist between the four
phases of the culinary creative process and the creative performance of chefs. The results of this study have
clear implications for the promotion of creativity on the part of culinary artists, and therefore for educators and
managers in the culinary and hospitality (hotel and restaurant) fields.
Key Words: idea, creativity process, culinary performance.
INTRODUCTION
Many countries, among them Hong Kong, Turkey, and France, attract big-spending tourists with their
unique cuisine. The issue of culinary creativity has thus become increasingly important in the context of the
tourist industry and national economies. Culinary artists are now expected to assume the roles of laborer,
professional and businessperson as well as that of creative innovator. Nonetheless, creativity remains an
important factor, and in recent creativity research the creative process has been especially emphasized (Mace
and Ward, 2002). In fact, however, at least in the hospitality (hotel and restaurant) industry, the actual process of
creativity (the creation of new dishes, new culinary “works”) remains somewhat ambiguous.
Traditional research, particularly before the 20th century, tended to define creativity only as an outcome or
result, the finished product that results from the artist’s new idea(s). Yet clearly it is crucial to understand the
way in which individuals come to develop creative ideas. The creative process itself – the sequence of thoughts
and actions that lead to a novel production, one that is still adapted to the context and to certain pre-existing
conditions – became an important focus of creativity research in the 20th century.
Some theories have
suggested that the creative process involves several stages, including identifying a problem, gathering
information, generating ideas, and evaluating, modifying, and communicating ideas (Amabile, 1996; Mace and
Ward, 2002). Most research on the creativity process has focused on just a few cognitive processes, and on the
skills involved in creative problem-solving. Some recent empirical research focuses on employees’ engagement
in creative processes at work (Gilson and Shalley, 2004). Yet there has been little direct empirical analysis of the
content of creativity processes.
This study seeks, then, to explore the relationship between the culinary creativity process and the
“performance” of the culinary artist, where the latter refers to “what can be seen,” the artist’s actions and final
product. The only qualitative study to date of the process of culinary creativity (Horng and Hu, 2006) found that
this process includes four phases. Together, they form a dynamic cycle: preparing the idea, idea incubation, idea
development, and “verification” of the culinary creation. The present study expands upon Wallas’ (1926) and
Horng and Hu’s (2006) research to present a conceptual framework for both the culinary creativity process and
culinary performance. The phases of the culinary process are here taken to be, again, idea preparation, idea
incubation, idea development, and verification of the culinary artwork. Hypotheses are tested on the basis of
empirical data drawn from this four-phase process, a self-assessment questionnaire regarding the performance of
culinary artists, and culinary competition records.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The model presented in Figure 1 assumes that the process of culinary creativity positively influences
culinary performance in a cumulative fashion. Thus, for instance, “preparing the idea” subsequently impacts on
“idea incubation,” “idea development” and “verification,” and these have a cumulative influence on culinary
performance. A description of this model’s variables is presented below, along with a description of their
hypothetical inter-relationships.
Creativity process
Preparing
Idea
Idea
Verification of
Culinary
new ideas
incubation
development
culinary work
performance
Figure 1 Model of culinary creativity process and performance
Although culinary artists (chefs) and educators have long understood the importance of culinary creativity,
there was still a mystery to it (Horng and Lee, 2006). Professional cooks seem to have been ignored for a long
time because of the culturally-influenced approach proposed by Amabile (1996). In the French culinary tradition,
creativity is the refinement of classical or traditional culinary arts, and the “professional” or “business” side of
the culinary arts is de-emphasized. However, clearly culinary arts have a professional (in the sense of
money-making) as well as purely artistic side to them. Furthermore, while top chefs do need to know classical
arts in order to refine them, in fact top chefs are also always exploring radically new ideas, not only those based
on tradition. These new ideas come in part from the everyday world around us and from constant
experimentation.
Therefore, the key problem is to understand the various ways in which the chef’s or culinary artist’s new
(creative) idea may be generate (Drazin et al., 1999). Several researchers have focused on the central role of
having a “problem” to solve; for instance, on the process of “identifying” and then “considering” and finally
“redefining” that problem (Lubart, 2001). In fact Wallas (1926) was the first to propose the four phases of the
creativity process: preparation phase, incubation phase, inspiration phase, and evaluation phase. Although many
researchers have lent support to this four-stage model, it has also received much criticism. Guilford (1950, p.
451), for example, while noting that there was “a considerable agreement that the complete creative act involves
four important steps,” was not satisfied with Wallas’ four-stage description of the creative process. He thought
that “such an analysis was very superficial from the psychological point of view. It tells us almost nothing about
the mental operations that actually occur.” Nonetheless, this four-stage model is still considered the basic
framework for analyzing creativity in cognitive and organizational psychology. Amabile (1996) proposed the
following four stages based on Wallas (1926) research: (1) identifying a problem; (2) collecting and filtering
usable information and resources; (3) creating feedback; (4) effective feedback and communication: reviewing
possible feedback. In this cyclic model each stage can be indefinitely repeated.
Before Amabile, Finke et al. (1992) had already proposed the Geneplore model, which provided a basic
structure for the cognitive process and explained the phenomena of creative cognition. This model consisted of
two distinct processing components: generative processes, followed by exploratory ones. In the generative phase,
one constructs mental representations called pre-inventive structures with various properties that promote
creative discovery. Generative processes, such as retrieval, association, mental synthesis, mental transformation,
and analogical transfer, give rise to pre-inventive structures; the latter may consist of mental images, verbal
combinations, category exemplars or purely mental models. These structures are then explored in order to assess
their creative possibilities. These pre-inventive structures can be thought of as internal precursors to the final,
externalized creative products and may be generated, regenerated, and modified throughout the course of an
artist’s creative exploration. These exploratory processes include attribute finding, conceptual interpretation,
functional inference, hypothesis testing, and searching for limitations. Once these exploratory processes are
completed, the pre-inventive structure can be refined or regenerated, depending on what one discovers during
the exploratory phase.
This cycle, moving as it does through the phases of generation and exploration, typically occurs when
people engage in creative thinking. For example, a person may retrieve two mental images and combine them in
the generation phase to produce a visually interesting form, and then interpret this form in terms of new ideas.
The cycle can then be repeated until the structure has been developed to the desired extent. Further examination
of the form may lead to the conclusion that it is incomplete in some respects. A modified form is then generated
by retrieving yet another image and mentally combining it with the already existing one. The Geneplore model
also considers constraints on the creative product and how they affect the underlying cognitive processes.
After a consideration of the various models briefly summarized above, this researcher has decided to keep
the “classical” model of Wallas, as modified by Amabile, Finke et al. Thus the present study assumes that:
Hypothesis 1:
There are four phases in the culinary creativity process: an idea preparation phase, idea
incubation phase, inspiration phase and product evaluation phase.
Furthermore, this study assumes that after first collecting various forms of information as preparation for
the new “idea,” the culinary artist enters the stage of idea incubation, which includes idea selection, analogical
transfer and categorical reduction, as well as synthesis and transformation. The third phase is then the idea
development phase, which includes finding attributes, conceptual interpretation, functional inference, context
shifting, discussion and compromise, and illumination. The final phase is the “verification” of the culinary work.
In this phase, the culinary artist may evaluate and conduct hypothesis testing with regard to the culinary product
he has created. Influenced by Amabile and Finke among others, this study also assumes that:
Hypothesis 2: There will be positive relationships and effects between and among the sub-processes (the four
phases) of the culinary creativity process.
And finally, of course, it also assumes that:
Hypothesis 3: The entire creative culinary process has a positive impact on the performance of the culinary
artist.
METHOD
The research is mainly divided into two sections. First, using a qualitative research method, including
in-depth interviews with creative culinary artists, the phases and structure of the culinary process model design
were developed. Second, quantitative data were collected by questionnaires in order to perform a cross-sectional
study of the culinary artist sample.
Section one: By employing a qualitative approach, the researcher interviewed 17 award-wining culinary
artists, analyzed their interview transcripts as well as other relevant documents, and used grounded theory to
interpret their creative process. The core elements of the creative culinary process were then specified through
the techniques of repetitive reading, conceptualization, coding and reduction. These essential elements include
idea preparation, idea incubation, idea development and verification of the artwork.
Section two: Base on the results of qualitative study, a questionnaire containing 47 criteria was created for
the pretest. In addition, participants were requested to specify their gender, age, educational background, job,
specialty, working experience, and evaluation of their own creativity (“self-evaluation”). We used 3 items that
were self-developed to measure self-reported culinary creativity performance. For each criterion on the
questionnaire, respondents assessed the degree of their agreement with statements on a 6-point Likert-type scale.
The participants selected by the pre-test and final survey through purpose sampling were chefs and students who
have not only had experience as contestants in culinary competitions but have been very successful in those
competitions. Creativity has indeed become an important criterion in major competitions, so award-winners
must be able to be as creative as possible, even when relying on their standard techniques. Those taking the
pre-test and final survey included both Chinese- and Western-cuisine chefs and students with hands-on cooking
experience, and they could be divided into two categories: award-winners in international culinary contests
within the last 10 years, and winners in both international and domestic culinary competitions. The international
competitions include those held in Singapore and Taipei, the Work Skills Competition and the Bocuse d'Or
World Cuisine Competition.
A pre-test was administered to select the most creative and successful chefs, to whom we then distribute
questionnaires. Respondents were volunteers and were required to give consent to the interview in writing. One
hundred and thirty questionnaires were distributed and 102 were returned. The response rate after deducting the
unusable questionnaires was 78.40%. Items were revised for the final survey after taking into account the
feedback from the preliminary data analysis results of the pilot questionnaire. The survey was subsequently
distributed to 1,000 participants. In total, 669 usable responses were collected; the response rate after deducting
the unusable questionnaires was 66.90%.
RESULTS
Result of the qualitative method showed that the creative culinary process was analyzed into 4-stage
creative process model. We developed 47 items and after conducting an item analysis, we deleted 7 items from
the original instrument as a result of the qualitative study of section one. Factor analysis of the 40 items
composing the five scales rated by the participants was conducted using principal-component analysis. This
procedure produced five factors, and almost every item was loaded with a factor loading of between .61 and .92
and always within the 61.9% explained variance. This structure indicated that the four scales derived from the
responses of the culinary artists were empirically distinct, and that the mixing due to common method variance
was not significant in the context of our research goals.
Of the 669 participants, over half (69.9%) were male and 29.6% were female; 43.3% were between the ages
of 21 and 30; 35.9% of them had a high school degree, and 31.8 % had a college degree; half of the participants
were chefs: 56.2% of these were Chinese cuisine chefs, and 20.8% were western cuisine chefs. 62.9% of the
participants had less than 10 years of working experience, 15.8% had more than 41 years of working experience,
and 14.2% had from 11 to 20 years of working experience. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and
inter-correlations between and among the variables. All predictors and outcome variables in this study were
based on self-reported data. To examine whether common method variance was a substantial threat to the
present study, Harman’s one-factor test was performed (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).
The framework in Figure 1 and the hypotheses advanced here were tested by confirmatory structural
equation modeling (SEM) analysis using the LISREL program. SEM analysis can measure the appropriate
relative impact of multiple predictors on multiple outcomes that are linked by more than two causal steps,
controlling for measurement error. We first present the measurement model and then the structural model.
Because the creativity process measures used in the present study were newly developed, it was necessary
to first investigate if the items measure the hypothesized dimensions and if the hypothesized dimensions are
empirically differentiable. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to test the unidimensionality of the
scales, using the LISREL 8.5 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996). The CFA model was developed in several steps,
with the purposes of testing whether the hypothesized latent variables could be identified empirically, of
investigating the measurement characteristics of single items, and of reducing the total number of items. Having
established an adequate measurement model, the next step of the procedure involved testing the hypotheses of
the study through fitting path models for the relations among the latent variables. These tests involved
comparison with the unconstrained CFA model, to test whether models with a hypothesized causal ordering
among the latent variable reproduced the unconstrained covariance matrix for the latent variable. Alternative
models were also evaluated with respect to model fit and interpretability. For the final structural model, the total
effect of each latent independent variable on each latent-dependent variable was decomposed into direct and
indirect effects. This is because interpretations that only focus on direct effects expressed by the parameter
estimates of the relations between variables in a path model will typically produce incorrect conclusions.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among variables
Variable
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
1.Idea preparation
4.343
0.792
( 0.889)
2.Idea incubation
4.490
0.705
0.710***
(0.848 )
3.Idea development
4.427
0.691
0.763***
0.855***
(0.940 )
4.Verification of culinary
4.525
0.745
0.693***
0.828***
0.845***
(0.831 )
5.Self-reported creativity
3.905
0.745
0.254***
0.246***
0.261***
0.222***
5
(0.944 )
N=669. Values in parentheses are Cronbach α’s
The CFA model was developed in several steps, in order to (1) test whether the hypothesized latent
variables could be identified empirically; (2) investigate the measurement characteristics of single items; and (3)
reduce the total number of items. Through successive testing and modification of different models for the same
data, different sets of variables were combined into the final model. The final CFA model, then, had an χ2 value
of 945.32, df = 737 (P = 0.00). The RMSEA index was 0.049 for this model, with a 90% confidence interval
between 0.047 and 0.063; this indicates an acceptable fit of model to data. Other indices of fit also showed it to
be acceptable (χ2/df = 1.28, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.81, CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.94). Out of the 47 items
in the instrument, 40 items were included in the final model, which comprised 4 latent variables: these were
labeled as idea preparation, idea incubation, idea development, and verification of the creative culinary artwork.
Standardized factor loadings, along with descriptive data for each item, are reported in Table 2.
Eight items measured the idea preparation factor. Eight items with the loadings (0.63-0.91) asked about
“preparing information” and “idea finding’’. The highest loadings (0.91) were observed for the items that asked
“I use new ways to connect old ideas or experience to create new work.” The lowest loading (0.63) was asked
about “I will photograph or record successful artworks for analysis.“ The idea incubation factor was related to
nine items. The highest loadings (0.72) were observed for the items that asked “A decision is made with
thorough consideration.” The lowest loading (0.59) was asked about “When an idea can’t be implemented, I will
put it aside while keep seeking other possibilities.“ Eighteen items with the loadings (0.58-0.75) measured the
idea development factor; ten items that asked about “inspiration;” five items that asked “concretization;” and
three items that asked “discussion & compromise.” Five items measured the idea evaluation factor; all item had
substantial loadings (0.61-0.72) on the factor. The item with the highest loading was asked about “When an idea
is generated, I will implement it after thorough evaluation,” and the lowest loadings were asked: ”I will find the
most plausible idea among others.”
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and factor loadings for the items
Item
Idea preparation
1.I will categorize new ideas and data
2.I will photograph or otherwise record successful artworks for analysis
3. I will photograph/record unsuccessful artworks for analysis
4.When discovering an idea, I will collect more information
5.I will collect data through reading
6.Finding unique foods or recipes helps me discover new ideas
7.Watching culinary contests helps with idea generation
10.I use new ways to connect old ideas/experiences to create new works
Idea incubation
11. Different concepts come to me before an idea is generated
12. I look at the same thing from different perspectives
13. I combine different ideas for greater creativity
16. If an idea is not good enough, I will seek a new one instead
17. When an idea can’t be implemented, I will put it aside and keep seeking other
34. A decision is made only afte
Mean
SD
factor loading
4.239
4.123
3.992
4.351
4.494
4.468
4.583
4.494
1.133
1.066
1.119
1.014
1.054
1.034
1.072
0.971
.67
.63
.64
.64
.67
.74
.85
.91
4.549
4.460
4.527
4.464
4.370
1.472
0.922
0.948
0.984
1.004
.63
.69
.67
.61
.59
Table 3 Effect decomposition for the path model
Independent variable/dependent variables
Preparing the idea
/idea incubation
/idea development
/verification of culinary work
/creativity performance
idea incubation
/idea development
/verification of culinary work
/creativity performance
idea development
/verification of culinary work
/creativity performance
verification of culinary work
/creativity performance
Direct
Effect (β)
Indirect
Total
0.92**
----
-0.83**
0.77**
0.25*
0.92**
0.83**
0.77**
0.25*
0.90**
---
-0.84**
0.27*
0.90**
0.84**
0.27*
0.93**
__
-0.30*
0.93**
0.30*
0.32*
--
0.32*
Note: n = 669. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 level.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
The findings of this study suggested that there are four phases in the process of culinary creativity, which
as sub-processes have a direct positive effect on one another and on the over-all process, and which also have
(or at least the last of which has) a direct positive impact on the culinary artist’s creative performance. Theories
of the creative process will still need to specify in much greater detail how these phases or sub-processes can be
sequenced to yield optimal creative performances. Here we need to keep in mind the fact that while it may be
evaluation of the product which most directly influences performance, evaluation is closely bound up in a
pattern of cyclic interactions, as Finke et al’s Geneplore model makes clear, with the other three phases or
sub-process of the four-phase creative process model.
This path model of culinary creativity and creative performance is an empirical model, and as such can
provide an empirical analysis of the culinary creativity process. The model demonstrates that creativity takes
place over a period of time rather than being actualized at a single point in time. And this creative process moves
through a series of phases or sub-processes, each of which individually and all of which together, in their
cumulative interaction, contribute to the development or creation of the culinary artwork. The fact that there
may also be a repetition of the various phases is also significant, inasmuch as it implies that culinary artists may
modify works which they have created (as their “performance”) in the first run-through of the creative process,
by returning to earlier phases (idea preparation, incubation, inspiration) and coming up with new ideas that they
now can combine with the work being modified. This sort of creative “recycling”—through which we take what
we want and discard what we do not want—can in theory be repeated an indefinite number of times.
However, it was also found that the direct “effect” of the whole four-phase creative process on the artist’s
creative performance, even including the effect of the fourth phase (evaluation of the work being produced), was
limited to 32%. This suggests that there are other factors besides culinary creativity (or the process of culinary
creativity) which contribute to or impact on the culinary artist’s performance. Still, the creative process is clearly
an important factor; indeed, without this process culinary works could hardly be produced. Thus, once again, the
path model of the creative culinary process and performance will be a very useful one for chefs, educators,
managers and other professionals in the culinary and hospitality fields not just to keep in mind but to make use
of and to further explore and develop.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M., & Kazanjian, R. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A
sense-making perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24: 286-307.
Gazzoli, J. J. (1995). The recipe for “three star” management success. Trusts & Estates, 134(12): 8-14.
Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams' engagement
in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4): 453-470.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5: 444-454.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. NY: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Horng, J. S. and Hu, M. L. (2006).The Mystery in the kitchen: The developmental process of culinary creativity.
The R&D Management conference 2006, Taiwan.
Horng, J. S. & Lee, Y. C. (2006). What does it take to be a creative culinary artist？ Journal of Culinary
Science and Technology, 5(2/3), 5-22.
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, Present and Future. Creativity Research Journal,
13(3/4), 195-308.
Mace, M. A., & Ward, T. (2002). Modeling the creative process: A grounded theory analysis of creativity in the
domain of art making. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2): 179-192.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction. Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Fort Worth, TX.
Podsakoff, P. M. and Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.
Journal of Management, 12: 531-544.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: Freeman.