Fun, Friends, and Creativity: A Social Capital Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although creativity research has devoted considerable effort toward identifying the antecedents of creativity, there remain important questions about how organizations can foster creativity through social processes. Drawing from social capital theory, we hypothesize a moderated mediation model that investigates the influence of employee participation in fun activities on individual creativity through workplace friendships. We further hypothesize that the strength of this positive indirect effect is weaker for managers compared with non‐managers. Our analysis of data collected from a multi‐source, three‐wave field study ( n = 163 employees) reveals a positive mediation between participation in fun activities and incremental creativity (but not radical creativity) via workplace friendships. The results further support our prediction that this positive indirect effect on incremental creativity is weaker for managers compared with non‐managers. Our findings not only highlight the practical and theoretical importance of fun activities in generating novel and useful ideas, but the results also reveal that the benefits derived from fun activities (i.e., strengthened friendships, incremental creativity) are particularly salient for non‐managers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it