Cooperation goals, regulatory focus, and their combined effects on creativity

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Thinking

Skills

and

Creativity

jou rn al h om ep a ge :ht t p : / / w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / t s c

Cooperation

goals,

regulatory

focus,

and

their

combined

effects

on

creativity

Jenny

V.

Bittner

_,

_Mareen

_Bruena

_,

_Eric

_F.

_Rietzschel

a_{BielefeldUniversity,Bielefeld,Germany} b_{UniversityofTwente,Enschede,TheNetherlands} c_{UniversityofGroningen,TheNetherlands}

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received10November2014

Receivedinrevisedform27October2015 Accepted21December2015

Availableonline28December2015 Keywords: Originality Cooperation Competition Goals Regulatoryfocus Creativity

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thisstudyexaminedtheco-activationofcooperationversuscompetitiongoalswith regula-toryfocus,andtestedwhetherthecombinedeffectsoncreativityareinteractiveoradditive. Anexperimentwith192adultsshowedtwomaineffects,suchthatparticipantswitha coop-erationgoalandapromotionfocus(i.e.,focusonideals)demonstratedthehighestlevels oforiginalityofideas,whereasthecombinationofacompetitiongoalandaprevention focus(i.e.,focusonduties)ledtothelowestoriginality.Thesefindingsindicatethatthe twomotivationalconstructshaveadditiveeffectswhichleadtothehighestoriginalityifa promotionfocusandacooperationgoalareco-activated,whereasapreventionfocusand acompetitiongoalmaydiminishoriginality.Inconclusion,theconcurrentactivationof multiplemotivationalconstructsshouldbeconsideredwheninvestigatingthesituational effectsofcooperative/competitivesettingsoncreativity.

©2015ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.

1. Introduction

Muchresearchhasinvestigatedtheconsequencesofcooperativeandcompetitivesettingsonperformanceandcreativity. Whileonelineofresearchhasfoundapositiveeffectofcooperationgoalsonachievement(seeJohnson,Maruyama,Johnson, Skon,&Nelson,1981;Roseth,Johnson,&Johnson,2008),anotherlineofresearchhaslookedatcreativity,reportingboth positiveandnegativeeffectsofcooperationoncreativity(seeAmabile,1996).Severalstudiesfoundcompetitiontobe detrimentalfor creativity(e.g.,Amabile,1982;Deci,Betley,Kahle,Abrams,&Porac,1981;McGlynn,Gibbs, &Roberts, 1982),butbesidesthesenegativeeffects,afewstudiesfoundcompetitiontobebeneficialforcreativity(e.g.,Amabile& Gryskiewicz,1987;Cummings&Oldham,1997;Raina,1968).Whileresearchaimedtoshedsomelightonpossiblereasons forthesecontradictoryeffects(e.g.,Bechtoldt,Choi,&Nijstad,2012;Goncalo&Duguid,2012),thesestudiestypicallydid notcontrolforadditionalmotivationalfactors,suchasregulatoryfocus.Insomesituations,itispossiblethatregulatory focusandcooperationorcompetitionareactivatedatthesametime,andmaychangesubsequentcreativity.Forexample, inaneducationalsettingwherecompetitionprevails,afurthereffectcanbeexpectedofthemotivationalregulatoryfocus thatpeopleexperiencesimultaneously.Bycontrast,insituationswhereregulatoryfocusisnotco-activated,cooperationor competitionmayinducefewerchangesincreativity.

∗ Correspondingauthorat:BielefeldUniversity,SchoolofPublicHealth,POBox100131,33501Bielefeld,Germany.Fax:+49521106153834. E-mailaddress:jenny.bittner@uni-bielefeld.de(J.V.Bittner).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.12.002

Thepresentstudytakesacloserlookatthemotivationalprocessesthatmayboostcreativitytogetherwithcooperation goals.Inthiscontext,cooperationgoalsrefertosocialsettingswherepeoplestriveforthesuccessofthegroup,whereas competitiongoalsrepresentstrivingforone’spersonalsuccessandtryingtobesuccessfulbyoutperformingothers(De Dreu,Nijstad,&VanKnippenberg,2008;Deutsch,1949,1962;Johnson,Johnson,&Maruyama,1983;Simmons,Wehner, Tucker,&King,1988).Forcreativity,ithasbeenshownthatthepresenceofotherscanbedetrimentalinsituationswhere co-actingothersareassociatedwithevaluationexpectancy(Amabile,1979;Amabile,Goldfarb,&Brackfleld,1990).Apossible explanationforthiseffectcouldbethatevaluationexpectancyleadspeopletoholdbacktheircreativeideasinsocialsettings. Althoughpriorresearchhasaddressedtheroleofmotivationaleffectsforcreativeperformance,theseeffectswereusually studiedinisolation.Therefore,thecurrentstudyaimedtoaddressthecombinedeffects oftwoactivatedmotivational orientations:cooperation/competitiongoals,andregulatoryfocus.Bothconceptshavepreviouslybeenstudiedasindividual predictors ofcreativebehavior,butlittleisknownabouttheireffectsiftheyareco-activatedinanorthogonaldesign. Specifically,wewereinterestedtodrawconclusionsaboutthequestionwhethertheircombinedeffectsareinteractiveor additiveinenhancingoriginality.

1.1. Assessmentoforiginality

Creativityhasbeenconceptualizedtoconsistofseveraldifferentfacets:fluency,originality,andcognitiveflexibility (Guilford,1967).Fluencyisoftenassessedindivergentthinkingteststhatmeasurepeople’sabilityandproductivityin generatingnonredundantideas(Amabile,1996;Baas,DeDreu,&Nijstad,2008).Inaddition,ideagenerationtaskscanbe employedtoexamineoriginality,anotherfacetofcreativity,whichconsistsoftheabilitytocomeupwithnew,unusual ideasthatgobeyondcommonknowledge(Guilford,1967).Originalityisconsideredtobeoneofthemostcharacteristic dimensionsofcreativity,andtendstobecorrelatedwithotherfacets,suchasfluencyandflexibility(Amabile,1996;Baas etal.,2008;Sternberg&Lubart,1999;Storme&Lubart,2012).Inthepresentstudy,wechosetofurtherinvestigateoriginality, becausethisfacetofcreativitywasnotincludedinpriorstudiesoncooperation(Carnevale&Probst,1998),orregulatory focusandcreativity(Amabile,1982;Higgins,1997).Moreover,separatestudieshaveshownthatoriginalityrelatestoboth, regulatoryfocus(Baas,deDreu,&Nijstad,2011),andcooperation/competitiongoals(Bechtoldt,DeDreu,Nijstad,&Choi, 2010).

Creativityisincreasinglyinvestigated asagoal-directed,andeven strategic,activity.Thus, ratherthanapproaching creativityasapersonalitycharacteristic,creativityisbeingstudiedasafunctionofthespecificgoalspeoplepursueina givensituation,andthestrategicchoicespeoplemakeduringgoalpursuit(e.g.,Baasetal.,2011;Litchfield,2008;Litchfield, Fan,&Brown,2011;Shalley,1991,1995).Moreover,creativeideascanbeenhancedinsocialsettings(Amabile,1996)that mayprovideinstructionsandsituationswhicharebeneficialforcreativity.

1.2. Multiplegoals

Goalsrepresentdesirableendstatesthatgivedirectiontopeoples’behaviors.Forexample,consciousandnonconscious cooperationgoalshavebeenfoundtoincreasesubsequentcooperativeactions(Bargh,Gollwitzer,Lee-Chai,Barndollar,& Trötschel,2001).Accordingtogoalsystemstheory,motivationistheresultofadynamicsystemofmultiplegoalsandmeans thatleadtoaction(Kruglanskietal.,2002).Becausegoalsandmeansareconnected,goalactivationresultsinactionplans andtheexecutionofcorrespondingbehaviorsthataimtocompletetheactivatedgoal(Chun,Kruglanski,Sleeth-Keppler,& Friedman,2011;Kopetz,Kruglanski,Arens,Etkin,&Johnson,2012;Kruglanskietal.,2002).

However,researchhasshownthattherearedifferenttypesofgoals:personalandsocial goals(Shah,2003a,b).For instance,parentshavepersonalgoalsforthemselves,butalsohaveeducationalgoalsfortheirchildren.Childrenaresupposed tolearntoactcooperativelyandbeateamplayer,buttheyarealsoexpectedtooutperformothersandbebetterthan theircompetitors.Thepresentstudyfocusedontheseconflictinggoalsbecausetheirconsequencesoncreativityarehighly relevantforgroupsettingsineducationandtheworkplace.Thesesettingscanevenactivatespecificgoalsinindividuals, suchthatworkenvironmentswherecompetitionprevailsmayactivatecompetitiongoalsinworkers.Forthisreason,itis crucialtoknowwhichsituationsarebeneficialforcreativity.Ifcompaniesaimtosupporttheirworkersinbeingcreative andinnovative,itwouldbenecessarytoprovidemotivatingenvironmentsthatenhancecreativity.Thisisanimportant strategy,becausecompaniesnowadaysstrivetoraisethecreativityoftheirworkersinordertobeinnovativeandsuccessful (Anderson,DeDreu,&Nijstad,2004).

1.3. Creativityandcooperation

Severalstudies provide evidenceof a positive relationship betweencreativity and cooperation. In a classic paper,

CarnevaleandProbst(1998)showedthatparticipantswhoexpectedacooperativeinteractionperformedmorecreatively (Study1)andformedbroadermentalcategories(Study2)thanparticipantswhoexpectedaconflictsituation.These dif-ferenceswereduetochangesincognitiveinformationprocessing,suchthattheparticipantsinthecooperationcondition groupedthingstogetherandintegratedinformationtoahigherdegreethantheparticipantsintheconflictcondition. There-fore,itwasconcludedthatcooperationisassociatedwithmoreholisticinformationprocessing,whereasconflictisrelated tolocalprocessing.

Morerecently,BittnerandHeidemeier(2013,Study2)showedthatparticipantsexpectingacompetitivegroupsetting performedlesscreativelythanparticipantsexpectingacooperativesetting.Inthisexperiment,thenegativeeffectofa competitivesettingoncreativeperformancewaspartiallymediatedbyparticipants’preventionfocus.Therefore,thepresent researchaimedtoinvestigateinmoredetailthediminishingroleofcompetitionandapreventionfocusforcreativity.

Arecentstudyongroupcreativityfoundthatgroupmembershighinpro-socialmotivation(i.e.,orientedtoward col-lectivisticvalues)weremorelikelytobuildagroupclimatebasedonconstructivecontroversy(Bechtoldtetal.,2010).This orientationincreasedfluencyandoriginalityofcreativeideas,presumablybecauseofincreasedsharingofideasbetween collectivisticteammembers.Toshedfurtherlightonthesepriorfindings,theoperationalizationofcooperation/competition goalsinthepresentstudywasquitesimilartothedefinitionofindividualisticversuscollectivisticvalues,i.e.,strivingtoward goodoutcomesforoneselforthegroup(Bechtoldtetal.,2012).Collectivisticvalueswereincludedinouroperationalization ofcooperationgoalsand,subsequently,wereexpectedtoleadtohighercreativitythanindividualisticvalues.

Interestingly,studiesconductedindifferentsettingsindicatedthatcreativeperformancecansometimesbenefitfroma lesscooperativeorientation.Forexample,BeersmaandDeDreu(2005)foundthatgroupmemberswhonegotiatedwitha pro-self(asopposedtopro-social)orientationperformedmorecreativelyonasubsequenttask.Furthermore,Goncaloand Staw(2006)demonstratedthatgroupswithanindividualisticself-construalperformedmorecreativelythangroupswitha collectivisticself-construal.Arecentstudysuggeststhattheseresultscanbebestexplainedbyself-construal,i.e.,bypeople perceivingthemselvesprimarilyasindividuals,ratherthanmembersofagroup(Bechtoldtetal.,2012).

Insum,thesestudiespointoutthatanindividualisticself-construalwithcollectivisticvalues(i.e.,pro-socialmotivation) canbehypothesizedtoleadtomorecreativity,whereasacollectivisticself-construalwithindividualisticvaluesshouldlead tolesscreativity.Besidescooperationandcompetition,thepresentstudyinvestigatedtheroleofco-activatedmotivational orientations.Researchhasbeguntouncovertheeffectsofdifferentself-regulatorystrategiesoncreativeperformance(Chiu, 2014).Mostnotableinthisareaistheworkonregulatoryfocustheory(Higgins,1997).

1.4. Regulatoryfocusandcreativity

Regulatoryfocusconsistsoftwodimensionsthatarecommonlyusedtocategorizepeopleaseitherpromotionor preven-tionoriented(Higgins,1997).Individualswithapromotionfocusstrivetoachieveanidealself,usingstrategiestopursue gainsandsuccesses,whereasindividualswithapreventionfocusstrivetoachieveanoughtselfand,thus,usestrategiesto avoidlossesandfailures(Higgins,1997).Forinstance,differencesinregulatoryfocushavebeenshowntoextendto individ-uals’choicesinsocialsituations(Higgins,Roney,Crowe,&Hymes,1994).Whenchoosingbetweenalternativestrategiesfor friendship,peoplewithapromotionfocuspreferredstrategiesgearedtowardpromotingpositiveoutcomes,whereaspeople withapreventionfocusaimedtopreventfailureandlossesand,therefore,preferredstrategiesgearedtowardpreventing negativeoutcomes.

Althoughpreventionandpromotionfocusareoftenoperationalizedasindividualpersonalitycharacteristics,theyare alsosituation-dependentandcanbetemporarilyinduced,therebyinfluencingbehavioratthestatelevel(Higgins,1997). Thisinductionwasemployedinthepresentexperiment,suchthatinstructionstofocusonidealsanddevelopmentalgoals activatedasituationalpromotionfocus,whereasafocusondutiesandresponsibilitiesactivatedasituationalprevention focus(Higginsetal.,1994).Thesedifferentsituationscanpresumablyalsobefoundineducationalorworksettingsthatmay activatethesemotivationalorientationsinindividualsasastate(cf.Heidemeier&Bittner,2012).

Withregardtocreativity,apromotionfocushasbeenassociatedwithhigherlevelsofcreativitythanapreventionfocus (Friedman&Forster,2001).Thesefindingswereexplainedbyanunderlyingprocessthat relatesapromotionfocusto arisky,explorativeinformationprocessingstylethatfosterscreativegenerationandcreativeinsighttoagreaterextent thanpreventioncuesandarisk-averse,perseverantprocessingstyle.Ameta-analysisconfirmedthisrelationship(Baas etal.,2008),andconcludedthatcreativityisenhancedbypositivemoodsthatarepromotionfocused(e.g.,happiness,joy), whereascreativityisdiminishedbynegative,preventionfocusedmoods(e.g.,fear,sadness).Thiseffectwasstrongestwhen creativitywasmeasuredascognitiveflexibility,whichindicatesthattheremightbedifferencesdependingonthefacetsof creativitythatareassessedinatask(Baasetal.,2008).

2. Currentresearch

Anexperimentwasconductedwherecooperation/competitiongoalsandpromotion/preventionfociweresituationally manipulatedandparticipants(individually)generatedcreativeideas.Incontrasttostudiesongroupcreativity,we investi-gatedindividualcreativitywithinasocialsituation,becausethiswasexpectedtoinduceanindividualisticself-construalthat shouldbebeneficialforcreativity(Bechtoldtetal.,2012).Goalsweremanipulatedbydescribingthepresentsocialsetting ascooperativeversuscompetitive,andasecondtaskwasusedtoactivatethesituationalregulatoryfocus(Higginsetal., 1994).Subsequently,theparticipantsperformedindividualideagenerationtasks.Thisdesignwaschosenbecauseprior studieshaveshownthatcreativityingroupsettingsmaybenefitfromtheintegrationofacollectivisticvalueorientation withindividualisticself-construal(Bechtoldtetal.,2012).

Theaimofthisstudywastoexaminethecombinedeffectsofregulatoryfocusandcooperation/competitiongoalson creativity.Inpreviousresearch,goalsrelatedtocooperation/competitionandregulatoryfocuswereusuallyinvestigated separatelyandnottogetherinonedesign.OnepaperthataddressedtherelationbetweentheseconstructsisBittnerand

Heidemeier(2013).Thisstudy,however,didnotmanipulatethetwoconstructsorthogonally,sonothingcanasyetbe concludedregardingthecombinedeffects.Theaimthereforewastoclarifywhethertheeffectsoncreativitychangeiftwo constructsareco-activated,andwhethertheseeffectsareinteractiveoradditive.Thiswouldofferimportantconclusionsfor interventionsandcampaignsthataimatincreasingcreativityineducationalandworksettings.Giventhattheorganizational contextcanexertvarious,andsometimesconflictinginfluencesonpeople’sgoalsandperformance(Heidemeier&Bittner, 2012),itisimportanttoknowhowcreativebehaviorisaffectedbythesimultaneousactivationofvariousmotivationsin competitivesettings.

2.1. Hypotheses

Wederivedtwocompetinghypothesesfortheinfluenceofthetwoco-activatedconstructsoncreativity.Ontheone hand,itispossiblethatregulatoryfocusandcooperation/competitiongoalswillshowaninteractiveeffect.Thiscould,for example,betheresultofaprocessofregulatoryfit.Regulatoryfitexistswhenthestrategiespeopleuse(orarerequiredto use)arealignedwiththeirownstrategicinclinations(Higgins,2000).Forexample,aprevention-focusedindividualwould experienceregulatoryfitwhenworkingundertaskconditionsthatrequirevigilance,whichinturnwouldleadtoafeeling of‘rightness’and,therefore,couldleadtoincreasedperformance(e.g.,Camacho,Higgins,&Luger,2003;Spiegel, Grant-Pillow,&Higgins,2004).TakingintoaccounttheresultsbyBittnerandHeidemeier(2013),anexpectationcouldbethat acooperationgoalwithapromotionfocusmayleadtotheperceptionofregulatoryfit,andthatthisfitmaystrengthen theeffectoncreativity.Thecombinationofacompetitiongoalwithapreventionfocuswouldthenleadtolesscreativity, becausetheindividual’sinclinationtowardcreativeperformancewouldbediminishedbyalackofregulatoryfit.

Ontheotherhand,itispossiblethatregulatoryfocusandcooperation/competitiongoalsexertindependenteffects, leadingtoanadditive,ratherthananinteractiveinfluence.Thetwoconstructsmayactivateseparateandindependent moti-vationalprocessesthatdonotaffecteachother’srelationwithcreativity.Ifthesemotivationalgoalsareco-activated,they maytriggerunderlyingprocessesthatareofseparateorigin,butultimatelyareadditiveintheirfinalimpactoncreativity.This findingwouldprovideuswithknowledgeabouthowcreativitycanbefacilitatediftwomotivationalconceptsareactivated atthesametime.Aresultcouldbethatthehighestcreativitywouldbedisplayedbypeopleinthecooperation-promotion condition,becauseboth,cooperationgoalsandapromotionfocusmaystimulatecreativeperformancesimultaneously.

Fortheseparateeffectofonlycooperationorcompetition,weassumedthatindividualswithacooperationgoalwould bemorecreativethanindividualswithacompetitiongoal.Thiswasexpected,firstly,becauseouroperationalizationof cooperationgoalsinessenceentailedBechtoldtetal.’s(2012)definitionofcollectivisticvalues,which shouldincrease creativity.Secondly,peopleinourexperimentworkedindividually,whichislikelytoactivateanindividualisticself-construal thatshouldleadtohighercreativitycomparedtoacollectivisticone.

Fortheseparateeffectofregulatoryfocus,weexpectedfrompreviousresearchthatapromotionfocuswouldbebeneficial forcreativity,whereasapreventionfocuswouldbedetrimental(Baasetal.,2008).Thiseffectwaspreviouslyfoundfor originalityasthedependentvariable,butnotforfluency(Friedman&Forster,2001).Ifourorthogonaldesignresultedin separatemaineffects,ourfindingswouldconfirmpreviouseffectsofregulatoryfocusonoriginality,becausetheywould occurevenifcombinedwithaninductionofcooperation/competitiongoals.

3. Method

3.1. Participantsanddesign

Theparticipantswererecruitedfromapanelformarketing-relatedonline-studies.TheyweregivenD3ascompensation. Thesampleconsistedof192adultsinGermany,and53.1%werefemale.Theywere37.6yearsoldonaverage(SD=7.6),and 30.2%hadcompletedauniversitydegree.Onaverage,therespondentshad2.1children;57.3%hadafull-timejob,21.4% workedpart-time,and21.4%didnothaveajob.

Thestudyhada2(goals:cooperationversuscompetition)×2(regulatoryfocus:promotionversusprevention)factorial design;withn1=50,n2=48,n3=47,n4=47.Thedependentvariablewascreativity,measuredasperformanceonanidea generationtask.

3.2. Procedure

MembersofaGermanonline-panelwerecontactedbyphoneandinvitedtoparticipateinastudyoncreativity. Partic-ipantswhoreportedtobeinterestedtocompleteanonlinequestionnaireaboutcreativitywerecontactedasecondtime andrandomlyassignedtooneofthefourexperimentalconditions.Allthequestionswereprovidedelectronicallyandwith standardizedinstructions.Thefirsttaskwasabriefaffectquestionnaireabouthowtheparticipantsfeltatthemoment(see Section3.3).Theaimwastocontrolforthepossibleinfluenceofaffectonthedependentvariable.

Toactivatecooperationorcompetitiongoals,theparticipantsreceivedascenariodescribinggoalpursuitinsocialsettings (Bittner&Heidemeier,2013).Thecooperationgroupreadascenariothatstressedtheimportanceofbeingcooperativeinlife, beingateamplayer,andtakingthewishesofothersintoconsideration.Thecompetitiongoalgroupreadthatitisimportant toconsiderone’sownwishes,tocompetewithothers,andtoenforceone’sdesires.Todeterminewhethertheparticipants

Table1

Descriptivesandzero-ordercorrelations.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1.Regulatoryfocusa _{n.a. n.a. – .01 −.00 .15}* _{.00 .07}

2.Competition/cooperationgoalsb _{n.a. n.a. – .04 .17}* _{−.02 −.06}

3.Fluency 5.64 2.98 – .29** _{.04 −.12} 4.Originality 3.23 1.27 – −.07 −.07 5.Mood,pre-measurement 2.96 1.07 – .40** 6.Mood,post-measurement 2.76 .99 – Note:N=192participants. * _p<.05. ** _p<.01.

a_{Codedasprevention=0,promotion=1.} b _{Codedascompetition=0,cooperation=1.}

readthetextcarefully,theywereaskedtodescribeinafewwordswhatthetextwasabout.Dependingonthecondition, theparticipantswrotedownphrasessuchaschildrenshouldbehavecooperatively,orelbowothersaside.Participantswith unrelatedornonsenseanswers(e.g.,fghg)wereexcludedfromallanalyses.

Inthenexttask,asituationalpromotionorpreventionfocuswasinducedinparticipants.Similartopreviousstudies (Higginsetal.,1994),participantsinthepromotionconditionwereaskedtonametheircurrentidealsanddevelopmental goals,whereasparticipantsinthepreventionconditionwereaskedtowritedowntheirdutiesandresponsibilities.After receivingtheseinstructions,theparticipantsperformedthecreativitytask.Thiswasatypicalideagenerationtaskthatgave therespondentstwominutestogenerateasmanyideasaspossibleabouttheuseofayellowstickynote.

Afterwards,theparticipantswereaskedagainabouttheirpresentaffectivestatesasapost-test,andweregiventhree manipulationcheckquestionsabouttheircommitmenttowardthecooperationgoal.Inaddition,weaskedparticipants duringthedebriefingwhattheythoughttheexperimentwasabout,andwhethertheysawanyrelationbetweenthedifferent questionnaires.Noneoftheiranswersgaverisetoconcernsregardingtheexperimentalmanipulations.Thiswasexpected becauseweusedanadultsamplewithoutmuchexperienceinpsychologicalresearch.Intheend,theparticipantsproceeded tocompleteadditionalquestionsaboutproductadvertisinginmarketing.

3.3. Measures 3.3.1. Affect

Pre-andpost-testaffectweremeasuredwith16itemssimilartoHiggins,Shah,&Friedman(1997)onaseven-point scale(1=totallyagreeto7=totallydisagree).Fouritemswererelatedtoeitherdejection(e.g.,disappointed)oragitation(e.g., uncomfortable),whereastwoitemswererelatedtocheerfulness(e.g.,satisfied)orquiescence(e.g.,relaxed).Weaddedtwo itemsrelatedtocheerfulness(glad)andquiescence(stable)toenhancethereliabilityofthescale,whichhadatotal˛=.93 forthepre-,andthepost-testmeasureofaffect.

3.3.2. Goalcommitment

Goalcommitmentwasmeasuredbyaskingtheparticipantstoindicateonaseven-pointscale(1=totallyagreeto7=totally disagree)howimportantcooperationisforthem,howmuchtheystrivetowardcooperation,andhowlikelytheyconsider reachingacooperationgoal(Kopetzetal.,2012;Kruglanskietal.,2002).Thethreeitemsappearedinrandomorderandhad areliabilityof˛=.80.

3.3.3. Creativity

Creativitywasmeasuredintwoways.Firstly,weassessedfluencybycountingthenumberofideasgeneratedbyeach participant.Secondly,weinstructedfourindependentjudgestoratetheoriginality(i.e.,novelty,uniqueness;Caroff& Besanc¸on,2008)byratingeachideaonanine-pointscale(1=notoriginalatallto9=veryoriginal).Countingandcoding oftheideaswasdoneinsuchawaythatthecoderswerenotawareoftheexperimentalconditionsthattheparticipants werein.Thejudgesweretrainedtoratetheoriginalitybyconsideringthenoveltyanduniquenessofeachanswer.Afterthe initialinstructions,thejudgesformedindependentratings.Inlinewithothercreativityresearch(e.g.,Rietzschel,Nijstad,& Stroebe,2006),afinaloriginalityscorewascalculatedforeachparticipantbyaveragingtheoriginalityratingsofthefour raters.Theinterraterreliabilityofthefourraterswascalculatedwithanintraclasscorrelationandwassufficientforthe singlemeasure,ICC=.69.

3.4. Results

3.4.1. Correlationsanddescriptives

CorrelationsanddescriptivesforthemainvariablesinthisstudyarepresentedinTable1.Fluencyandoriginalitywere positivelycorrelated(r=.29,p<.01),whichisinlinewithotherfindings(cf.Baasetal.,2008).Neitherofourmanipulations

2 3 4

goals and regulatory focus

originali ty of ideas cooperation/promotion competition/promotion cooperation/prevention competition/prevention

Fig.1. Effectsofcooperation/competitiongoalstogetherwithregulatoryfocusonoriginality.

displayedazero-orderrelationwithfluency,butbothwererelatedtooriginality(rs≥.15,ps<.05).Further,moodwas unrelatedtoeitherourmanipulationsorthedependentvariables(rs≤.12,ps>.05).

3.4.2. Affect

Toruleouttheinfluenceofaffectoncreativity(Hirt,Melton,McDonald,&Harackiewicz,1996;Hirt,Levine,McDonald, Melton,&Martin,1997),severalanalyseswereconducted.ANOVAsconfirmedthatthere wasnosignificantdifference betweentheexperimentalconditionsinparticipants’pre-orpost-affect(Fs<1).Furthermore,aregressionfoundnoinfluence ofaffectonthedependentvariables,whichpointsoutthataffectdidnotfacilitatetheeffectoncreativity.Insertingmood asacovariateintothemainANOVA(3.4.5)didnotyieldaneffectandalsoconfirmedthataffectdidnotdrivetheeffectsof theindependentvariables.

3.4.3. Goalcommitment

AnANOVAconfirmedthattheregulatoryfocusmanipulationdidnotaffectgoalcommitment(F<1).Asexpected,the manipulationcheckrevealedthatcommitmenttocooperationdifferedsignificantlybetweenthecooperationand com-petitioncondition,F(1,188)=306.31,p<.001.Participantsinthecooperationconditionreportedmorecommitmenttothe cooperationgoal(M=2.37)thanparticipantsinthecompetitioncondition(M=4.91).Thisillustratesthatcommitmentto thecooperationgoalwashigherinthecooperationcomparedtothecompetitioncondition(Simmonsetal.,1988).

3.4.4. Creativefluency

Inlinewithourexpectationfromearlierresults(Friedman&Forster,2001),anANOVAwiththenumberofcreativeideas asthedependentmeasureyieldednosignificanteffects(allFs<1).

3.4.5. Ideaoriginality

A2(goals:cooperationversuscompetition)×2(regulatoryfocus:promotionversusprevention)ANOVAwasconducted withtheoriginalityscoreasthedependentvariable.Itshowedasignificantmaineffectofregulatoryfocus,F(1,188)=4.36, p=.038,d=.301,withthepromotionfocusconditionleadingtomoreoriginalideas(M=3.42,SD=1.21)thantheprevention focuscondition(M=3.04,SD=1.31).Inaddition,themaineffectofgoalsonoriginalitywassignificant,F(1,188)=5.82,p=.017, d=.351.Theparticipantswithacooperationgoalgeneratedmoreoriginalideas(M=3.45,SD=1.36)thantheparticipants withacompetitiongoal(M=3.01,SD=1.14).

Therewasnosignificantinteractionbetweenregulatoryfocusandgoals(F<1),implyingthattheseeffectswere indepen-dentandadditive.AscanbeseeninFig.1,participantswithapromotionfocusandacooperationgoalgeneratedsignificantly moreoriginalideas(M=2.64)thanparticipantswithapreventionfocusanda competitiongoal(M=1.83),t(95)=3.41, p=.001.

4. Discussion

Thisstudyinvestigatedthecombinedeffectsofregulatoryfocusandcooperation/competitiongoalsonsubsequent cre-ativity.Toadvanceprior studiesthatexaminedcompetitionandcame topositive(e.g.,Amabile &Gryskiewicz,1987; Cummings&Oldham,1997;Raina,1968),aswellasnegativeeffectsoncreativity(e.g.,Amabile,1982;Decietal.,1981; McGlynnetal.,1982),thepresentresearchincludedregulatoryfocusasanothermotivationalconceptthatcanbeco-activated

withcooperationinspecificsituations.Weinvestigatedwhetherthesefactorsinfluencecreativityinteractively(consistent witharegulatoryfitperspective),oradditively(suggestingindependentinfluences).Inourexperiment,twomaineffectson originalityofideaswerefound.Peoplewithanactivatedpromotionfocusandacooperationgoalweremoreoriginalthan peoplewithapreventionfocusandacompetitiongoal.Theseresultsconfirmtheperspectivestatingadditiveinfluencesof twoindependentconstructs.

Asapossibleexplanation,itisworthconsideringthatthetwoeffectsinthepresentstudymayoriginatefromafacilitation oftheexpressionoforiginalideas.First,anexplanationfortheincreaseinoriginalitycouldbethatinsettingswheregoalsare cooperativeinsteadofcompetitive,peopledonothesitatetoexpressveryoriginalideasand,thus,aremorelikelytobringup extremelyunusualideas(Bechtoldtetal.,2010;Tjosvold,1998).Thiswouldleadtomoreoriginalityincooperativesettings becausepeoplemightbelessafraidtoreportveryoriginalideascomparedtocompetitivesettings.Second,apromotionfocus hasbeenassociatedwithincreasedcreativityandisusuallyassociatedwithmoreholisticinformationprocessing.Peoplein apromotionfocushaveamorerisky,explorativeprocessingstylethatenablesthemtoseekfornovelalternatives(Higgins, 1997).Consequently,theco-activationofapromotionfocusincooperativesituationshasadditionaleffects,leadingtothe highestoriginality.

Asimilarinterpretationcanbegivenforthediminishingeffectofapreventionfocusonoriginalityincompetitivesettings. Apreventionfocusmayleadpeopletoholdbacktheiroriginalideasbecausetheyareconcernedaboutsafetyandthe possibilityoffailure(Higgins,1997).Competitivesettingsmayinducepeopletomentionideasthataremainlybasedon repetitionsinsteadofnoveltyandmay,thus,preventpeoplefromexpressingveryoriginalideas.Thiseffectwouldbe expectedincompetitivesituationswherepeopleholdbacktheiroriginalideasduetoconcernsabouttrust,andifuniqueness isnotaccepted(Goncalo&Staw,2006).

Becausethepresentresultsrevealedtwomaineffectsandnotanindicationforaninteraction,wecanconcludethatthe twoprocessesexplainedaboveareindependentfromeachotheranddonotinterferewitheachother,ifactivatedatthesame time.Forcreativeperformance,itisofpracticalrelevancethattheseeffectsseemtobeadditive,becausethecombinationof apromotionfocuswithcooperationgoalscouldbeasuitablemethodtoenhancecreativitytoahigherlevelthanwouldbe possiblewiththeactivationofonlyoneoftheseconstructs.Furtherstudiesshouldinvestigateinmoredetailhowmultiple factorscanbecombinedtoincreasecreativity.

Inlinewithourexpectations,wefoundaneffectofourmanipulationsonoriginality,andnotonfluency.Theseresults indicatethattherewasnodifferenceintheamountofeffortparticipantsputintothequantityofideageneration,because effortwouldhaveincreasedtheirfluency.Thus,ratherthanmerelyinvestingmoreeffortintotheideagenerationtask, participantsintheexperimentalconditionsseemtohavegeneratedideasthroughdifferentstrategies,whichledtochanges inoriginality.Interestingly,Bechtoldtetal.(2012)foundthatcollectivisticvaluesdidaffectgroupfluencyinadditionto originality.Theyarguedthatthesefluencyeffectswerelikelyduetodifferencesininvestedeffort,resulting,forexample, fromincreasedsocialloafingintheindividualisticgroups(cf.Karau&Williams,1993).Indeed,thismightexplainwhywe donotfindthesefluencyeffects:Inourstudy,participantsworkedindividuallyand,therefore,socialloafingcouldnotoccur andchangetheirinvestedefforts.Todrawfurtherconclusions,theunderlyingprocessesthatdeterminehowmotivational variablesdifferentiallyaffectmeasuresofcreativeperformance,wouldbeaninterestingavenueforfutureresearch(Baas etal.,2008).

4.1. Theoreticalandpracticalimplications

Creativityisamultifacetedconstructanddifferentassessmentsandoperationalizationsexistintheliterature.Because

Baasetal.(2008)showedintheirmeta-analysisthateffectsoncreativitymaydifferdependingontheassessmentofcreativity asfluency,originality,orflexibility,futureresearchisneededonthedifferencebetweenthevariousfacetsofcreativity(De Dreuetal.,2008).Thepresentstudyfocusedontheimplicationsfororiginality,becausetheexpressionofhighlyoriginal ideaswasexpectedtobefacilitatedinacooperativesocialsetting.Furthermore,itseemsthatfluencyisnotaffectedina socialsituationinwhichteammembersworkindividually.

Weassessedindividualcreativitywithinacooperativesettingtocomplementpreviousstudiesthatmainlyinvestigated creativeperformanceatthegrouplevel(Baasetal.,2008;Bechtoldtetal.,2010,2012;Beersma&DeDreu,2005;Goncalo &Staw,2006).Ourfindingsforcreativityattheindividuallevelsupporttheconclusionthatgreateroriginalityisachieved insettingsthatcombinecollectivisticvalueswithanindividualisticself-construal(Bechtoldtetal.,2012).Basedonthese previousresultsontheineffectivecombinationofcollectivisticvalueswithacollectivisticself-construalforgroupcreativity, wewouldnotexpectgreateroriginalityforacooperativesettinginwhichoriginalityisassessedatthegrouplevel.Agroup originalityscorewouldusuallynotallowgroupmemberstodemonstratetheiruniquenessiftheyareactingwithina coop-erativesetting(Goncalo&Staw,2006).Grouptasksassessinggroupcreativityinacooperativecontextmayevendiscourage individualstodevelopnovel,innovativeideas(e.g.,againstthegroupnorm),andmaypreventthemfromexpressingvery originalideas.Theseexpectations,however,mightchangeifintragroupcompetitionisinducedandtheteammembersaim tooutperformeachother(Beersma&DeDreu,2005).

Interestingly,studieshavealsospecifiedsituationsinwhichapreventionfocusmayleadtosimilarlevelsofcreativityas apromotionfocus;forinstance,insituationswherepeoplereflectonpreventiongoalsthathavenotbeenfulfilledyet(Baas etal.,2011).Moreover,underspecificconditions,apreventionfocusmayleadtomorecreativitythanapromotionfocus (Herman&Reiter-Palmon,2011;Lam&Chiu,2002).Forexample,inasituationwherethelikelihoodofbeingsuccessfulon

acreativetaskwassmall,preventionfocusedindividuals–tryingtoavoidthenegativeconsequencesoffailing–weremore persistentand,thus,generatedmoreideas(Lam&Chiu,2002).Inlinewiththisreasoning,Roskes,DeDreu,andNijstad (2012)foundthatanavoidancemotivationwasassociatedwithhighercreativityifcreativitywasfunctionalforachieving theavoidancegoal.Furthermore,DeDreuandNijstad(2008)showedthatparticipantsinaconflictmindsetperformedmore creatively(e.g.,generatedmoretactics)inconflict-relatedcategories.Clearly,therelationbetweenregulatoryfocusand creativitymaydifferdependingonthespecificsituationathand,and,thus,futurestudiesshouldaimtouncovermoredetails abouttheunderlyingprocesses.Totakeintoaccountsituationaldifferencesofmotivationalorientationsandpersonality characteristics,itwouldbeimportanttoexaminetheconsequencesofperson-situationinteractionsineducationalandwork settings(Chan&Yuen,2014;Goncalo&Duguid,2012;Heidemeier&Bittner,2012).

Alimitationofourexperimentaldesigncouldbethatresultsmaydifferdependingonthesamplethatistested.The presentstudyextendsthescopeofpriorresearchbyemployinganadultsamplethatdifferedintermsofageandeducation fromothersamples.Althoughpriorexperimentsinvestigatedparticipantsofvariousnationalities,theytypicallyexamined studentsamples(e.g.,Baasetal.,2011;Bechtoldtetal.,2012).Severalscholarshavevoicedconcernsoverthenearexclusive useofstudentsamples,arguingthatthislimitsthegeneralizabilityoffindings(e.g.,Sears,1986).Ourresultsmaygosome waytowardalleviatingthisconcernbyexaminingtheoriginalityofideasinanadultsamplewithamorediverseeducational background.

4.2. Conclusionsandoutlook

Thepresentfindingsdemonstratethatcooperationgoalsandapromotionfocusshouldbeemphasizedwhenaimingto increaseoriginality.Ourresultssupporttheideathatcooperationgoalsenhanceoriginalityeveninsituationswherethey areactivatedtogetherwithfurthermotivationalconstructs,suchasapromotionfocus.Bycontrast,ifcompetitionprevails inorganizationaloreducationalsettings,andapreventionfocusisactivated,thetwoconstructsmayleadtosignificantly lowerlevelsoforiginalitythansettingsthatinduceacooperationgoalandapromotionfocus.Environmentalinfluencesin groupsettingsoftentimesactivatemultiplegoalsandmotivationsthatmayhaveconsequencesforsubsequentcreativity.In futurestudies,itwouldbeimportanttofurtherspecifythevarioussituationalcuesthatcanbeco-activatedtoboostpeople’s goalsandmotivations.

References

Amabile,T.M.(1979).Effectsofexternalevaluationonartisticcreativity.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,37(2),221–233.

Amabile,T.M.(1982).Children’sartisticcreativity:detrimentaleffectsofcompetitioninafieldsetting.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,8, 573–578.

Amabile,T.M.(1996).Creativityincontext:updatetothesocialpsychologyofcreativity.WestviewPress.

Amabile,T.M.,&Gryskiewicz,S.S.(1987).CreativityintheR&Dlaboratory.Technicalreportnumber30.Greensboro,NC:CenterforCreativeLeadership.

Amabile,T.M.,Goldfarb,P.,&Brackfleld,S.C.(1990).Socialinfluencesoncreativity:evaluation,coaction,andsurveillance.CreativityResearchJournal, 3(1),6–21.

Anderson,N.,DeDreu,C.K.W.,&Nijstad,B.A.(2004).Theroutinizationofinnovationresearch:aconstructivelycriticalreviewofthe state-of-the-science.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,25(2),147–173.

Baas,M.,DeDreu,C.K.W.,&Nijstad,B.A.(2008).Ameta-analysisof25yearsofmood-creativityresearch:hedonictone,activationorregulatoryfocus? PsychologicalBulletin,134(6),779–806.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012815

Baas,M.,DeDreu,C.K.W.,&Nijstad,B.A.(2011).Whenpreventionpromotescreativity:theroleofmood,regulatoryfocus,andregulatoryclosure. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,100(5),794–809.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022981

Bargh,J.A.,Gollwitzer,P.M.,Lee-Chai,A.,Barndollar,K.,&Trötschel,R.(2001).Theautomatedwill:nonconsciousactivationandpursuitofbehavioral goals.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,81(6),1014–1027.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1014

Bechtoldt,M.N.,Choi,H.-S.,&Nijstad,B.A.(2012).Individualsinmind,matesbyheart:individualisticself-construalandcollectivevalueorientationas predictorsofgroupcreativity.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,48,838–844.

Bechtoldt,M.N.,DeDreu,C.K.,Nijstad,B.A.,&Choi,H.S.(2010).Motivatedinformationprocessing,socialtuning,andgroupcreativity.Journalof PersonalityandSocialPsychology,99(4),622.

Beersma,B.,&DeDreu,C.K.(2005).Conflict’sconsequences:effectsofsocialmotivesonpostnegotiationcreativeandconvergentgroupfunctioningand performance.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,89(3),358.

Bittner,J.V.,&Heidemeier,H.(2013).Competitivemindsets,creativity,andtheroleofregulatoryfocus.ThinkingSkillsandCreativity,9,59–68.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.03.003

Camacho,C.J.,Higgins,E.T.,&Luger,L.(2003).Moralvaluetransferfromregulatoryfit:whatfeelsrightisrightandwhatfeelswrongiswrong.Journalof PersonalityandSocialPsychology,84(3),498–510.

Carnevale,P.J.,&Probst,T.M.(1998).Socialvaluesandsocialconflictincreativeproblemsolvingandcategorization.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,74,1300–1309.

Caroff,X.,&Besanc¸on,M.(2008).Variabilityofcreativityjudgements.LearningandIndividualDifferences,18,367–371.

Chan,S.,&Yuen,M.(2014).Personalandenvironmentalfactorsaffectingteachers’creativity-fosteringpracticesinHongKong.ThinkingSkillsand Creativity,12,69–77.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.003

Chiu,F.C.(2014).Theeffectsofexercisingself-controloncreativity.ThinkingSkillsandCreativity,14,20–31.

Chun,W.Y.,Kruglanski,A.W.,Sleeth-Keppler,D.,&Friedman,R.S.(2011).Multifinalityinimplicitchoice.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology, 101(5),1124–1137.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023778

Cummings,A.,&Oldham,G.R.(1997).Enhancingcreativity:managingworkcontextsforthehighpotentialemployee.CaliforniaManagementReview,40, 22–38.

Deci,E.L.,Betley,G.,Kahle,J.,Abrams,L.,&Porac,J.(1981).Whentryingtowin:competitionandintrinsicmotivation.PersonalityandSocialPsychology Bulletin,7,79–83.

DeDreu,C.K.,&Nijstad,B.A.(2008).Mentalsetandcreativethoughtinsocialconflict:threatrigidityversusmotivatedfocus.JournalofPersonalityand SocialPsychology,95(3),648–661.

DeDreu,C.K.,Nijstad,B.A.,&vanKnippenberg,D.(2008).Motivatedinformationprocessingingroupjudgmentanddecisionmaking.Personalityand SocialPsychologyReview,12(1),22–49.

Deutsch,M.(1949).Anexperimentalstudyoftheeffectsofcooperationandcompetitionupongroupprocess.HumanRelations,2,199–232.

Deutsch,M.(1962).Cooperationandtrust:sometheoreticalnotes.InM.R.Jones(Ed.),Nebraskasymposiumonmotivation(pp.275–319).Lincoln: UniversityofNebraskaPress.

Friedman,R.S.,&Forster,J.(2001).Theeffectsofpromotionandpreventioncuesoncreativity.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,81,1001–1013.

Goncalo,J.A.,&Duguid,M.M.(2012).Followthecrowdinanewdirection:whenconformitypressurefacilitatesgroupcreativity(andwhenitdoesnot). OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,118(1),14–23.

Goncalo,J.A.,&Staw,B.M.(2006).Individualism–collectivismandgroupcreativity.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,100(1),96–109.

Guilford,J.P.(1967).Thenatureofhumanintelligence.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

Heidemeier,H.,&Bittner,J.V.(2012).Competitionandachievementgoalsinworkteams.HumanPerformance,25(2),138–158.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2012.658929

Herman,A.,&Reiter-Palmon,R.(2011).Theeffectofregulatoryfocusonideagenerationandideaevaluation.PsychologyofAesthetics,Creativity,andthe Arts,5(1),13–20.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018587

Higgins,E.T.(1997).Beyondpleasureandpain.AmericanPsychologist,52,1280–1300.

Higgins,E.T.(2000).Makingagooddecision:valuefromfit.AmericanPsychologist,55,1217–1230.

Higgins,E.T.,Shah,J.,&Friedman,R.(1997).Emotionalresponsestogoalattainment:strengthofregulatoryfocusasmoderator.JournalofPersonalityand SocialPsychology,72(3),515–525.

Higgins,E.T.,Roney,C.,Crowe,E.,&Hymes,C.(1994).Idealversusoughtpredilectionsforapproachandavoidance:distinctself-regulatorysystems. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,66,276–286.

Hirt,E.R.,Melton,R.J.,McDonald,H.E.,&Harackiewicz,J.M.(1996).Processinggoals,taskinterest,andthemood-performancerelationship:a meditationalanalysis.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,71,245–261.

Hirt,E.R.,Levine,G.M.,McDonald,H.E.,Melton,R.J.,&Martin,L.L.(1997).Theroleofmoodinquantitativeandqualitativeaspectsofperformance: singleormultiplemechanisms?JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,33,602–629.

Johnson,D.W.,Johnson,R.T.,&Maruyama,G.(1983).Interdependenceandinterpersonalattractionamongheterogeneousandhomogeneous individuals:atheoreticalformulationandameta-analysisoftheresearch.ReviewofEducationalResearch,53,5–54.

Johnson,D.W.,Maruyama,G.,Johnson,R.,Skon,L.,&Nelson,D.(1981).Effectsofcooperation,competition,andindividualisticgoalstructureson achievement:ameta-analysis.PsychologicalBulletin,89,47–62.

Karau,S.J.,&Williams,K.D.(1993).Socialloafing:ameta-analyticreviewandtheoreticalintegration.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,65(4), 681–706.

Kopetz,C.E.,Kruglanski,A.W.,Arens,Z.G.,Etkin,J.,&Johnson,H.M.(2012).Thedynamicsofconsumerbehavior:agoalsystemicperspective.Journalof ConsumerPsychology,22,208–223.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.03.001

Kruglanski,A.W.,Shah,J.Y.,Fishbach,A.,Friedman,R.,Chun,W.Y.,&Sleeth-Keppler,D.(2002).Atheoryofgoalsystems.InM.P.Zanna(Ed.),Advancesin experimentalsocialpsychology(Vol.34)(pp.331–378).SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.

Lam,T.W.H.,&Chiu,C.Y.(2002).Themotivationalfunctionofregulatoryfocusoncreativity.JournalofCreativeBehavior,36,138–150.

Litchfield,R.C.(2008).Brainstormingreconsidered:agoal-basedview.AcademyofManagementReview,33(3),649–668.

Litchfield,R.C.,Fan,J.,&Brown,V.R.(2011).Directingideagenerationusingbrainstormingwithspecificnoveltygoals.MotivationandEmotion,35(2), 135–143.

McGlynn,R.P.,Gibbs,M.E.,&Roberts,S.J.(1982).Effectsofcooperativeversuscompetitivesetandcoactiononcreativeresponding.TheJournalofSocial Psychology,118,281–282.

Raina,M.K.(1968).Astudyintotheeffectofcompetitiononcreativity.GiftedChildQuarterly,12(4),217–220.

Rietzschel,E.F.,Nijstad,B.A.,&Stroebe,W.(2006).Productivityisnotenough:acomparisonofinteractiveandnominalbrainstorminggroupsonidea generationandselection.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,42(2),244–251.

Roseth,C.J.,Johnson,D.W.,&Johnson,R.T.(2008).Promotingearlyadolescents’achievementandpeerrelationships:theeffectsofcooperation, competition,andindividualisticgoalstructures.PsychologicalBulletin,134,223–246.

Roskes,M.,DeDreu,C.K.,&Nijstad,B.A.(2012).Necessityisthemotherofinvention:avoidancemotivationstimulatescreativitythroughcognitive effort.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,103(2),242–256.

Sears,D.O.(1986).Collegesophomoresinthelaboratory:influencesofanarrowdatabaseonsocialpsychology’sviewofhumannature.Journalof PersonalityandSocialPsychology,51(3),515–530.

Shah,J.(2003a).Automaticforthepeople:howrepresentationsofsignificantothersimplicitlyaffectgoalpursuit.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,84(4),661–681.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.661

Shah,J.(2003b).Themotivationallookingglass:howsignificantothersimplicitlyaffectgoalappraisals.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,85(3), 424–439.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.424

Shalley,C.E.(1991).Effectsofproductivitygoals,creativitygoals,andpersonaldiscretiononindividualcreativity.JournalofAppliedPsychology,76(2), 179–185.

Shalley,C.E.(1995).Effectsofcoaction,expectedevaluation,andgoalsettingoncreativityandproductivity.AcademyofManagementJournal,38(2), 483–503.

Simmons,C.H.,Wehner,E.A.,Tucker,S.S.,&King,C.S.(1988).Thecooperation/competitionstrategyscale:ameasureofmotivationtousecooperationor competitionstrategiesforsuccess.TheJournalofSocialPsychology,128,199–205.

Spiegel,S.,Grant-Pillow,H.,&Higgins,E.T.(2004).Howregulatoryfitenhancesmotivationalstrengthduringgoalpursuit.EuropeanJournalofSocial Psychology,34(1),39–54.

Sternberg,R.J.,&Lubart,T.I.(1999).Theconceptofcreativity:prospectsandparadigms.HandbookofCreativity,1,3–15.

Storme,M.,&Lubart,T.(2012).Conceptionsofcreativityandrelationswithjudges’intelligenceandpersonality.JournalofCreativeBehavior,46(2), 138–149.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jocb.10