THE PROMISE OF OPEN
INNOVATION FOR
SOCIAL VALUE
CREATION
The drivers of participation in open innovation contests
Annabel Lammers (6052592) Msc. in Business Administration Specialization: Strategy
Amsterdam Business School Supervisor: dr. C.V. Gelhard University of Amsterdam 29th of June 2015
Statement of originality
This document is written by Annabel Lammers who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents
.
Table of content
1. Introduction 5
2. Literature review 11
2.1. Traditional Business Strategy 11
2.2 Innovation 13
2.3 Open strategy 14
2.4 Open innovation practices 18
2.5 Social innovation 20 3. Theoretical Framework 21 3.1 Motivation 21 2.2 Altruism 24 2.3 Goal orientation 26 4. Method 28 4.1 Research design 28 4.2 Respondents 29 4.3 Operationalization of variables 30 4.4 Statistical procedure 33 5. Results 34 5.1 Correlation matrix 35 5.2 Direct effects 35
5.3. Two-way interaction effects 36
6. Discussion 45
6.1 Conclusion 45
Additional analysis: motivation as second-order construct 47
6.2. Theoretical contributions 50 6.3 Managerial implication 50 6.4 Limitations 52 6.5 Future research 53 References 57 Appendix A 66 Appendix B 69
Abstract
Organizations increasingly recognize the potential benefits of opening up their boundaries, thereby allowing inflows of knowledge and ideas to enhance their innovation capability. Firms can adapt this open innovation approach through many different practices, including so-called open innovation contests. In such a contest, an organization pitches a problem to a group of solvers and reaches out an award to the contestant that comes up with the best solution. Open innovation contests are not only useful to promote corporate goals through the creation of new business innovations but can also be implemented to foster social innovations aimed at supporting societal development. In order to generate the most useful ideas,
organizations need to consider contestants’ motivation behind participation. This study examines whether the motivational orientations of contestants to participate in a social innovation contest deviate of those that drive their decision to participate in corporate innovation contest. An online questionnaire is used to collect data of a sample of 151
respondents. The preliminary results of this research show that the intention to participate in a social innovation contest is solely driven by intrinsic motivation, whereas both intrinsic and extrinsic motives are significant predictors of participation in a corporate innovation contest. An additional analysis of a second-order model of motivation reveals a more in-depth explanation of the preliminary results. Recommendations are given for the design of both social and corporate innovation contests to attract and target the most promising contestants.
1. Introduction
Over the last years, the concept of open innovation gained ground in the strategic
management field. This new approach to innovation questionings some of the key tenets of traditional well-established theories of business strategy. More and more organizations recognize the potential benefits from opening up their boundaries and working closely together with external stakeholders to enhance their innovation capability (Grönroos, 2011; Terwiesch & Xu, 2006; Mahrs, Lievens & Blazevic, 2013). The idea that a firm should
promote openness is counter to the principles of prevailing views of strategy, that emphasize a firm’s need to develop strong barriers to competition to protect them against competitive forces and power in the value chain (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). In the past years, this traditional assumption where only the organization is capable of and responsible for the creation of value has become obsolete. To understand and make strategic sense of this
development, Chesbrough (2003) introduced the concept of open strategy. This new approach to strategy “strives to balance the tenets of traditional business strategy with the promise of open innovation. It embraces the benefits of openness as a means of expanding value creation for organizations” (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007, p. 58).
In the first instance, open strategy and the relating concept of open innovation were only of interest to a few scholars. Over the last years, however, the attention to the concept increased enormously and open innovation developed into a mainstream research area. Nowadays, open innovation is not solely examined in the light of technological or innovation management practices, but it is also frequently addressed in the field of strategy, general management and organization behaviour. The concept is to a great extent validated through research and scholars expanded the principles significantly (Gassmann, Enkel, & Chesbrough, 2010).
Open innovation can be considered as value co-creation with members outside the firm and refers to innovation processes that rely on external stakeholders to come up with ideas and select the best among these options to further develop (Chesbrough, 2003; Von Hippel, 2005). Firms can adopt open innovation and implement open innovation practices in many different ways. For example, by creating crowdsourcing platforms, establishing accelerator programs, building open source communities, generating feedback trough online polls etcetera.
Another manifestation of open innovation is a so-called open innovation contest. In such a contest, an organization pitches an innovation-related problem to a group of agents and reaches out an award to the agent that has the best solution (Terwiesch & Xu, 2006). Open innovation contests invite external innovators like customers, end users, or partners into the innovative activities of a firm (Neyer, Bullinger & Moeslein, 2009). Organizations can profit of these contests in several ways. By only selecting and developing the most successful innovative ideas, an organization not only saves costs by not paying for failed initiatives but also transfers the risk of failure to the contestants (Terwiesch & Xu, 2006). In addition, the open character of the contests enables organizations to take advantage of the innovative potential that is present all over the world. Posting a problem to multiple people increases the capacity of idea generation and provides access to those with the most relevant expertise (Haller, Bullinger, Möslein, 2011). The major information technologic developments in the past decades, such as the rise of the World Wide Web, made it only easier for organisations to tap into the knowledge of a worldwide crowd.
Already at the very beginning of the rise of open innovation practices, scholars began to wonder what caused the attraction of so many skilled people and what triggered them to share their knowledge and skills with companies (Lerner & Tirole, 2002). Hitherto, researchers validated a number of motives that instigate people to engage and contribute in
open innovation contests and other open innovation practices (Terwiesch & Xu, 2006; Wu, Gerlach & Young, 2007; Shah, 2006; Zheng, Li & Hou, 2011).
It must be noticed that a great part of the literature focuses on open innovation practices used by for-profit firms as a means of promoting corporate goals and creating economic value for the company through new business innovations. Open innovation contests with this strategic scoop are regarded as corporate innovation contests in this study.
However, open innovation contest are also deployed by both for-profit and non-profit firms to support goals on macro-economic level as the achievement of societal development (Haller et al., 2011). These contests are aimed at creating social value through the implementation of new social innovations. The current study refers to this kind of open innovation contests as social innovation contests. The rise of social innovation contests is consistent with the growing notion of social innovation, both as a widespread practice and as an emerging scientific discourse. Social innovation can be broadly described as the development of new ideas to meet social needs (Mulgan, Tucker, Ali & Sanders, 2007). The use of open
innovation practice, including open innovation contests, for the co-creation of social value is somehow neglected in the literature. This is remarkable because of the worldwide existence of social innovation contests nowadays.
A good example is the Postcode Lottery Green Challenge, which is sponsored by the Dutch Postcode Lottery. This is an annual competition that challenges entrepreneurs all over the world to come up with green business plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The winner of the contest receives €500.000 to bring his or her plan to market (Green Challenge, 2015). In this case, the Postcode Lottery, which is a for-profit firm, makes use of an
innovation contest to seek for the solution of a social issue. This open innovation practice is therefore aimed at the creation of social value, as it will not directly provide the Postcode Lottery with economic value through a new business innovation. An example of a social
innovation contest in the non-profit sector is the HIVOS Social Innovation Award. HIVOS is an international organization oriented at searching for new solutions to intractable global problems. Their annual competition calls for innovative ideas and proposals that extend and protect freedom or build fruitful ecosystems that support human progress. The contest is open for individuals but also for both for-profit and non-profit organizations located in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The winners are awarded with a prize of €15.000 to invest in their
innovation (HIVOS, 2014)
In order to gain a deeper understanding of these kinds of open innovation contests, the goal of this study is to examine the co-creation of social value in a social innovation contest and to investigate whether the principles differ from the co-creation of economic value in a corporate innovation contest. In general, innovation theories indicate financial incentives or need-based incentives as the key drivers of innovative activity (Shah, 2006). In addition, different researchers pointed out the importance of rewards as a driver for participation in open innovation practices (Archak, 2010; DiPalantino & Vojnoviv; Fullerton & MacAfee, 1999). However, understanding the motivation beyond extrinsic motivation is important, as clearly not all open innovation contest are focused on winning money. What motivates people to participate in a social innovation contest where there is no direct monetary incentive for the contestant itself? Contestants of social innovation contest are asked to come up with ideas to create value for the society as a whole. The reward is not meant for the personal purpose of the winner but for the implementation of his or her social innovation. Participants of a corporate innovation contest on the other hand, formulate ideas for business innovations that are of economic value for a specific firm. Hereby the winner is in most cases rewarded with a (financial) compensation for him or herself. To examine the motivation behind the
participation in different types of open innovation contests, the following research question is addressed:
RQ: Which motivations drive contestants’ intention to participate in respectively a social innovation contest and a corporate innovation contest?
This study attempts to contribute to the existing literature in at least two ways. First of all, by addressing the existing gap in the literature regarding the underlying principles of social innovation contests. The importance of social innovation has been recognized by social scientists but the field is still nascent and emerging (Dacin, Dacin & Tracy, 2011). Hitherto, little empirical research is conducted about the establishment of social innovations and potential ways to foster it (Mumford, 2002). More research is desirable because of the widespread existence of social innovation practices and the entry of the concept in the policy mainstream (Baglioni & Sinclair, 2014). At the moment, there exist no empirical foundation of the promotion of social innovation by means of open innovation contests. Subsequently, there are no validated constructs that explain why people take part in social innovation contests and which motives play a key role in their decision to participate. This study aims at gaining more knowledge about this subject matter, by investigating whether the motivational orientations to engage in open innovation practices, that are so widely discussed in the context of economic value creation, deviate of those that drive participation in social innovation contest.
The second gap that the current study attempts to address is the scarcity of literature about the phenomenon of open innovation contests. While other manifestations of open innovation like crowdsourcing (e.g. Archack, 2010; DiPalantion & Vojnovic, 2009;
Leimeister et al., 2009), or open source software projects (e.g. Lakhani & Wolf, 2003; Lerner & Tirole, 2002) are widely discussed, there is a remarkable dearth of research on the
principles of open innovation contests. This study endeavours to provide some insights about the initial phase of open innovation contests by examining the motivation behind contestants’ responds to calls for submission.
The results yielded by this study can also be of value for organizations. Based on the successful solutions of open innovation contests in the past and the promise of open
innovation practices described in the literature, it is reasonable to assume that open innovation contests have a great strategic potential. In practice, the search to the best ways of tapping into the wisdom of the crowd is mostly done through trial and error methods (Haller et al., 2011). Therefore, empirical research is needed to identify the most optimal and effective design of innovation contest to generate the most useful ideas. A starting point is to investigate the attraction and targeting of promising contestants. Firms have to attract the participation of contributors and sustain this participation during the whole contest. Contestants can be seen as external resources that are not owned or regulated by the firm. It is therefore important that the firm persuades them to spend their time and talent on the firm’s behalf. In addition, as the supply of participants is not infinite, a firm has to make sure that there are enough
contributors and deal with the competition of other open innovation projects (Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007). In order to do so, firms need to consider the motivational orientation of contestants to participate in the co-creation process (Zheng et al., 2011).
Not only can these insights be useful for firms that want to benefit from corporate innovation contest. More importantly, they can also be of value for the use of social
innovation contests as a way to foster social innovation. Both private and public organizations increasingly become aware of their responsibility in the solving of social problems, which not can be solved by conventional approaches (Lettice & Parekh, 2010). Furthermore, there exist a growing gap between the widespread existence of social problems and the scale of the solutions on offer (Mulgan et al., 2007). Social innovation contests can play a promising role in narrowing this gap.
2. Literature review
This chapter contains a review of the literature that serves as the theoretical foundation of this thesis. Through a thoroughly exanimation of existing research building blocks are formed, that provide a deep understanding of the concepts and theories that are relevant for this study. Firstly, light is shed on traditional business strategy and the long-established theories of competitive strategy. Secondly, emphasize is put on the notion of innovation as a key concept in the field of strategic management and today’s society. Subsequently, the rise of new innovation models is discussed and the forthcoming need for revising the traditional view on innovation. Thirdly, the concept of open strategy and open innovation is introduced, followed by a discussion of the inadequacy of traditional theories to explain the concept op openness in innovation. The fourth paragraph outlines different manifestation of open innovation, thereby focusing on one type in particular: open innovation contests. In addition, a distinction is made between corporate innovation contests and social innovation contests. The latter will be linked more extensively to the phenomenon of social innovation in the last paragraph.
2.1. Traditional Business Strategy
The field of strategic management found its inception in the 1980s. Prior to that time, the predominant view on business strategy came from the perspective of economists. They believed in the power of the neoclassical model, where perfect competition forms the main principle. The assumptions of this model are based on the idea that welfare for the entire society is maximized when markets are perfectly competitive. In this ideal scenario abnormal profit, i.e. all profit earned by a firm in excess of its cost of capital, should be at the expense of the consumers (Bowman & Ambrosini, 2000). From this perspective, business strategy is supposed to focus on actions that lead to the maximal amount of consumer surplus.
The economist of the Industrial Organization approach build on the neoclassical-assertion that allocative efficiency across society was achieved in a situation where price
equalled marginal costs (Bowman & Ambrosini, 2000; Nelson, Rumelt, Schendel & Teece, 1991). These economists believed that government should be used to stimulate competition and reduce barriers to competitions, in order to maximize overall welfare.
Competitive strategy
Porter (1979) took a complete opposite view and focused on pursuing abnormal profits on behalf of the firm through actions that would lead to the maximization of producer surplus. His work elaborates on the principles that underlie the Industrial Organization approach. Instead of applying these principles in order to reduce barriers of competition, Porter used them to create barriers of competition. He introduced a model of five competitive forces that would help organizations to understand their strength in a given industry. Based on Porter’s Five Forces (Porter, 1979) organizations could analyse their competitive positions in a market and identify managerial actions that could enhance the firms’ competitive strategy.
Porter’s seminal work about competitive strategy had an enormous influence on both the theory as the practice in the field of business strategy. Consultancy companies started to use the Porterian-model in their practices to advise organisations which strategy they had to pursue. In the research field of strategic business, many academics reacted to Porter’s new competitive strategy, like Rumelt (1991) who took Porter’s model to examine competition on firm level. In addition, the Resource Based View (Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993) argued that firms could earn abnormal profits by creating a competitive advantage through the ownership of key resources.
Porter’s view and the different theories that other researchers have derived of his models are part of the traditional view of business strategy. The one principle that all these theories have in common is their belief that value is created within the boundaries of the firm.
Traditional theories of competitive strategy identify ownership and control as the key determinants in gaining a competitive advantage.
2.2 Innovation
An integral part of business strategy is the creation, implementation and establishment of business innovations, which can be distinguished in two kinds. Where organizational innovations seek profit by making changes to a firm’s strategy, structures and routines, are technological innovations concerned with creating new or improved products and processes (Pol & Ville, 2009). Scholars have recognized the great importance of technological
innovation for economic growth and widespread welfare a long time ago (Schumpeter, 1934; Solow, 1956). The technological improvements derived from technological innovation replaced existing economic systems and formed the basis for new economic forces and opportunities. Therefore technological innovations can be seen as one of the key elements of economic development (Tomic, 2014). The challenges in society and the deriving need for innovative solutions, reflects to the creative destructive model (Schumpeter, 1950), where old approaches that lack success, encourages the motivation for change and shape the future.
New innovation models
In the 1990’s the first signs of a new innovation model arose in the software industry. Open source software projects like Linux, Apache and Gnome lent on the input of a group of volunteer software users and developers instead of paid employees (Shah, 2006). This shift in reliance to a community of innovators has led to a new business model of innovation,
described as community-based innovation (Franke & Shah, 2003). The model did not remain limited to the software industry but soon entered the field of astronomy, cars, sports
the importance of communities in the external environment of the firm and their potential to create, form and disperse both technological and social innovations (West & Lakhani, 2008) Simultaneously with the increasing attention of scholars to the role of communities in innovation practices, another parallel body of literature addressed the notion of open
innovation. Chesbrough (2003) was the first to address the significance of open innovation as a new approach to innovation in the field of business strategy. The concept of openness in innovation practices had led to the development of new empirical phenomena that were in conflict with the principles of traditional theories of competitive strategy.
2.3 Open strategy
Chesbrough (2003) addressed the need for a rethinking of strategy, whereby the focus from ownership that was central in traditional business strategy had to shift to the concept of
openness. The importance of openness in this new view of strategy becomes clear in the name he gave to it: open strategy. According to this strategy, a firm could benefit of value creating forces that exist outside the firm, in the form of creative individuals, innovation communities and collaborative initiatives (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). The deriving concept of open innovation refers to the active engagement of external stakeholders in a firm’s innovation process whereby these stakeholders take over innovation activities that are traditionally performed by a firm’s own employees (Mahrs et al., 2013).
Closed Innovation paradigm
According to Chesbrough (2003), the principles of open innovation deviated in such a fundamental way of the traditional view on innovation, that a paradigm-shift was required. He described the old paradigm as Closed Innovation, wherein research and development processes completely take place within the confines of the firm. Key in this paradigm in is the belief that a firm has to be strongly self-reliant as the reliance on external sources, from which
the quality, availability and capability cannot be guaranteed, brings too much risk (Chesbrough, 2003). This reflects to the assumptions of traditional theories of business strategy where ownership and control are regarded as drivers of competitive advantage.
The Closed Innovation paradigm can be regarded as a fully vertically integrated model of innovation, as each step in the innovation process takes places within the firm where the initial idea was originated (Gassmann, et al. 2010) (see figure 1). Due to the impermeable boundaries of the firm, no ideas from outside the firm can flow into the firm’s innovation activities and vice versa. Hence, companies that rely on closed innovation lean solely on their own internal knowledge base to develop products and services that are then distributed only by the firm itself (Chesbrough, 2012)
Figure 1. Closed Innovation paradigm
The Closed Innovation paradigm was sustainable for the great part of the twentieth century. Toward the end of the century however, different factors led to the erosion of some of the underlying principles of closed innovation and undercut the logic of this innovation model (Chesbrough, 2013). Erosion factors included: the increasing availability and mobility of highly educated individuals; the growing number of private venture capitals, which focused on building new firms that commercialized external research and transforming them into highly valuable start-ups; the increasingly shorter shelf life of products and technologies; and
the firms’ awareness of the potential of tapping from the knowledge of suppliers and customers (Chesbrough, 2003). An additional erosion factor that increasingly became important was the upcoming of internet and social media, which fostered the knowledge access and sharing capabilities of firms on the World Wide Web (Chesbrough, 2013).
Open Innovation paradigm
These developments led to the emergence of a new view on innovation: the Open Innovation paradigm. This paradigm acknowledges the existence of large amounts of knowledge outside the R&D-department of a firm. It assumes that firms “can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as they look to advance their technology” (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke & West, 2006, p. 1).
In the Open Innovation paradigm (see figure 2) firms open up their boundaries, thereby allowing both inflows and outflows of knowledge and idea. Two different kinds of open innovation can be distinguished: inside-out and out-side in. The inside-out part refers to the outflow of unused ideas to other firms in the form of spin-off ventures, out-licensing etcetera (Chesbrough, 2012). Outside-in open innovation relates to the external input of knowledge into the innovation activities of a firm. In both academic and industry practice this outside-in approach is predominantly used when referring to open innovation (Chesbrough, 2012). In line with this dominant approach, the current study also considers open innovation from an outside-in perspective and uses the term to refer to all innovation activities whereby an organizations leans on external members for the creation of value.
Figure 2. Open Innovation paradigm
Shortcomings traditional view
The open strategy approach has lead to the questioning of some of the key principles of traditional views of business strategy. All these theories identify ownership and control as the key determinants in gaining competitive advantage, thereby neglecting the potential value that can be created by resources that are not possessed by the firm itself (Chesbrough &
Appleyard, 2007). The basic tenets on which established competitive strategic theories are build like threats of new entries, switching cost and intra-industry rivalry become less significant in the view of open innovation. Furthermore, traditional theories emphasize the importance of valuable tangible and intangible resources that are at a firm’s disposal (Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993) to achieve a competitive advantage. Contrary to this belief, the open innovation approach addresses external resources that are not possessed by a firm as a potential value-creating source (Neyer et al., 2009).
The idea of firm’s opening up their boundaries to profit from external resources is not only addressed by the open innovation paradigm. Many scholars extended the Resource Based View (Peteraf, 1993; Barney, 1991) by moving away from the conventional view that key resources have to be housed within the firm to gain a competitive advantage. This
Extended Resource Based View or Relational View argues that the key resources might extend beyond firm boundaries and are nestled in inter-firm relationships (Dyer & Sing, 1998). Hereby, the potential value of inter alia, collaboration networks between firms (Arya & Lin, 2007), resource exchange and resource leverage relations that link firms in value-chains (Mathews, 2000) and shared resources in alliance networks (Lavie, 2006) are taken into consideration.
2.4 Open innovation practices
Firms can implement open innovation through many different practices. An example is value co-creation with customers by generating feedback or ideas through surveys, polls or by providing tools to customize products. Another example is crowdsourcing, what refers to a collaborative online activity in which a firm makes use of an open call to ask a heterogeneous group of individuals to voluntary undertake a task (Arolas & Guevera, 2012). Crowdsourcing shows many similarities with the concept of open innovation contest. The latter, however, is based on the principle of competition to increase both the quantity and quality of applications (Bullinger et al., 2011). In the literature, innovation contests are also described in terms of idea competitions or design contests (Leimeister, Huber, Bretschneider & Krcmar, 2009; Piller & Walcher, 2006). Although the concepts are strongly related, open innovation contests can be seen as the overarching term that describes the whole innovation process from idea generation, idea selection and idea implementation (Haller et al., 2011)
Open innovation contests
In an open innovation contest, an organization that has difficulties with the solving of an innovation-related problem, pitches this problem to a pool of independent agents and
promises an award to the agent that comes up with the best solution (Terwiesch & Xu, 2006). The topics that are addressed differ in their levels of specificity and elaboration. Organizers
may challenge the innovators to come up with a rough sketch or just a textual description. However, they might also call for a detailed concept, prototypes or fully functional solutions. (Smith, Banzaert & Suniwitz, 2003; Ebner, Leimeister & Krcmar, 2010). The agents take on the role of innovators who apply their skills, experience and creativity to tackle the innovation challenge defined by the organizer (Bullinger, Neyer, Rass & Möslein, 2010).
Benefits open innovation contests
Open innovation contests provide organizations with several advantages. Calls for
submissions enable organizations to take benefit of the innovative potential that is present all over the world. Moreover, the examination and evaluation of the submissions allow firms to assemble valuable first-hand customer insights. In addition, firms can use innovation contests as a marketing tool because participants are likely to engage in worth of mouth and talk to others about the firm (Haller et al., 2011). Also, by only selecting and developing the most successful innovation ideas, an organization saves costs by not paying for failed initiatives and transfers the risk of failure to the agents. In addition, by posting the problem to multiple agents the capacity of the idea generation increases and the organization gets access to agents with the most relevant expertise (Terwiesch & Xu, 2006). All together, innovation contests have the potential to involve external talent into the innovative activities of a firm (Neyer et al., 2009).
Strategic scoop innovation contests
Haller et al. (2011) distinguish two strategic application areas concerning the scope of innovation contests: corporate challenges and greater good. In the domain of corporate challenges, open innovations contests are used as solutions to corporate problems. For-profit organizations use them to promote goals on corporate level by generating new business
innovations. In the current study this kind of contest will be referred to as corporate innovation contest.
In contrast, innovation contests with the scoop of greater good are organized to promote goals on macro-economic level. This type of innovation contest is mostly used by non-governmental organizations or public firms and is focused on gaining advancement of societal development (Haller et al., 2011). The term social innovation contest will be used to describe such contest in this study. Social innovation contest have the potential to address social needs, by generating initiatives to enhance and improve social welfare (Haller, et al. 2011). The use of open innovation contest for the co-creation of social value is aligned to the growing notion and awareness of social innovation.
2.5 Social innovation
Over the last years a new type of innovation has arisen that cannot be identified as a typical profit-oriented business innovation. Social innovation refers to the development and
implementation of innovative activities and services aimed at meeting social needs (Mulgan et al., 2007). This type of innovation is aimed at developing solutions (in the form of products, services and models) to existing social, cultural, economic and environmental challenges that are both beneficial for society and boost society’s capacity to act (Murray, Calier-Grice & Mulgan, 2010). Where business innovations are mainly concerned with the creation of economic value, are social innovations focused on creating social value that is beneficial for the society as a whole.
In line with other types of innovation, the results of social innovation differ in their width spread and impact. Results range from the establishment of new kinds of social institutions, new social movement or new forms of government to the creation of new business practices and initiating new social practices (Mumford, 2002). Examples of results
yielded by social innovation are microcredit, neighbourhood wardens, systems that reduce greenhouse gas emission, Wikipedia, fair trade movement, community courts etcetera.
In contrast to innovation in business and technology, there is scarcity of literature about social innovation. The field lacks widely shared concept and theories, rigorous histories and comparative or quantitative analyses. In addition, little empirical research is conducted about the establishment of social innovation and potential ways or instruments to foster it (Mumford, 2002).
3. Theoretical Framework
In this chapter a conceptual framework is sketched to examine the drivers behind the intention to participate in different types of open innovation contests. Findings from prior research are evaluated in order to formulate hypotheses. First of all, the motivation theory is used to explain the direct influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on the intention to
participate in a social/corporate contest. Furthermore, to develop a deeper understanding of the proposed relationships light is shed on the potential moderating effect of altruism and goal orientation on some of the proposed relationships. The chapter ends with a conceptual model, including all the formulated hypotheses.
3.1 Motivation
Several studies approached the concept of open innovation practices from a behavioural perspective. Hereby the motives of participants to engage in open innovation practices were investigated. The differences in motives are explained on the basis of motivation theory, which states that an individual’s behaviour is determined by his or her intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Ryan, 2000). The importance and significance of this theory is acknowledged in multiple academic disciplines (Amabile, Hill, Hennessy & Tighe, 1994). Several studies emphasize the great importance of a candidate’s motivation for the
decision to participate in an idea or innovation contest (Zheng et al., 2011; Füller, 2010; Lakhani, Jeppesen, Lohse & Panetta, 2007).
Extrinsic motives
Innovation theories generally consider extrinsic motives like financial incentives or need-based incentives as the key drivers of innovation activity (Shah, 2006). Extrinsic motivation refers to the motivation to engage in a task primarily in response to something separable from the task itself (Amabile et al., 1994). In such as case, someone is doing a task because he or she is motivated by something external to the task itself, like a (monetary) reward or to improve his or her reputation. Several empirical studies systematically investigated the effect of extrinsic motivation on the participation in open innovation contests (Brabham, 2012; Leimeister et al., 2009; Morgan & Wang, 2010; Zheng et al., 2011). Thereby, the importance of a proper reward mechanism to encourage people to participate is underlined. In general, it was found that the higher the rewards, the higher the number of submissions (Archak, 2010; DiPalantino & Vojnociv, 2009). Open innovation contests in which the winner receives a monetary reward offer candidates a financial motive to participate (Terwiesch & Xu, 2006). Next to the motivation to gain monetary awards, open innovation contests’ candidates may also decide to participate because of their motivation to improve their reputation or gain recognition (Zheng et al., 2011). Kelleher, Céilleachair and Peppard (2012) refer to these reputational concerns as the desire to gain peer-recognition or status within a group. Winning or even just participating in an open innovation contest gives a candidate the opportunity to build a reputation in his or her group of solvers. In addition, it provides a candidate with the chance to gain recognition from others by receiving credits for his or her ideas or drawing the attention of the organizer of the contest (Zheng et al., 2011).
participation in a contest. They are therefore less likely to consider participation in a social innovation contest as there is no incentive to gain. We therefore predict no significant relationship between extrinsic motivations and intention to participate in a social innovation contest. On the other hand, corporate innovation contests explicitly respond to the
participant’s need of a gaining a reward. This led us to the following hypotheses:
H1: Extrinsic motivation is positively related to the intention to participate in corporate innovation contest
Intrinsic motives
Strong evidence is found that it is not only extrinsic motivation what drives people to engage in innovative activities (Shah, 2006). Intrinsic motivation refers to “the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequences” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 56). People who are intrinsically motivated are engaging in a task primarily because they found the task itself enjoyable, interesting or challenging (Amabile et al., 1994). A number of authors appointed the satisfaction of a contributor’s own needs as the key motive to engage in open innovation practices (Franke & Von Hippel, 2003; Lakhani & Von Hippel, 2003). Also in the presence of a significant award, intrinsic motivation plays a substantial role in participating behavior (Lakhani et al. 2003) and some authors even argue that this type of motivation overrules extrinsic motivation (Zheng et al., 2011).
Shah (2006) examined the reasons for participation of individuals in community-based software development projects. He indicated deriving of enjoyment and challenge behind the activity as key motives of continuous contributing. People engaged in the open source
community because of the lack of creativity and challenge in their own work activity. By participating in the open source community they were able to fill these shortcomings. Other authors that found significant relations between intrinsic motivation and the decision to participate in open innovation practices are Zheng et al. (2011). They formulated a research
model to clarify the participation in crowdsourcing contests. Intrinsic motivations as self-determination, self-challenge, enjoyment, curiosity and gaining new experience showed significant relations with the intention of participants to enter the crowdsourcing contest (Zheng et al., 2011).
Based on these findings, we propose that intrinsic motivation plays a significant role in participant’s decision to enter a social innovation contest. Intrinsic motivated people will be also prepared to participate in a contest that provides no direct reward for themselves. In addition, we also believe that intrinsic motivation leads to the engagement in a corporate innovation contest. Research proved that intrinsic motivation is salient, also in a contest whereby a substantial award is given away to the winner (Lakhani et al. 2003). This results in the following set of hypotheses:
H2a: Intrinsic motivation is positively related to the intention to participate in a corporate innovation contest
H2b: Intrinsic motivation is positively related to the intention to participate in a social innovation contest.
2.2 Altruism
The literature shows no clear consensus about the role of altruism in open innovation
practices. Altruism refers to “unselfish concerns of community member for the well-being of other members of the community” (Kelleher et al., 2012, p.11). In case of open source software projects, altruism is often indicated as the key motive that drives participation (Wu et al., 2007). This suggests that participants engage in this kind of open innovation because they are eager to help others. This assumption is supported by Ghosh, Glott, Krieger and Robles (2002) who found that a big part of the participants in open source software projects initially start because they are eager to share their knowledge and skills with other software
developers. Gerlach, Wu and Young (2007) describe the presence of a gift culture in lieu of an exchange culture in open software source communities. In such a culture, altruism and reciprocity form the key drivers of an individual’s behavior, who is rewarded in terms of psychological benefit as the satisfaction of helping another or to strive for moral commitment (Gerlach et al., 2007).
This assumption of the presence of a gift culture must be questioned however, because research indicated that the altruism and reciprocity are of low importance in other industries (Schmidt & Schnitzer, 2003). It is questionable if altruism is such an important driver for participation in other open innovation practices that are not specifically related to the software industry.
Corporate innovation contests are focused on the co-creation of economic value for the company and an additionally reward for the winner of the contest. As altruism very clearly refers to actions that result in the well-being of other members of a community (Kelleher, et al., 2013) we predict that there exist no relationship of any sort with intention to participate in corporate innovation contest. Social innovation contests however have a societal goal that relates to the principles of altruism. We therefore predict that altruism has a positive influence on the relationship between intrinsic motivations and intention to participate in social
innovation contests. An effect of altruism on extrinsic motivation and intention to participate in social innovation contests is excluded, because extrinsic people are assumed to be driven by the possibility to gain a personal award or recognition and not to benefit others.
H3. Altruism will moderate the relationship between intrinsic motivation and the intention to participate in social innovation contest, so that altruistic individuals will experience a stronger intention to participate in a social innovation contest as a consequence of intrinsic motivation than selfish individuals.
2.3 Goal orientation
Individuals are different in the way they approach, engage in and respond to achievement situations (Wolters, Yu & Pintrich, 1996). Goal orientation refers to the dispositions of a person toward showing capability in an achievement setting (Dweck, 1986). Previous studies validated the effect of goal orientation on affective, behavioural and cognitive reactions of individuals in situations of achievement (Butler, 1992; Sujan, Weitz & Kumarm, 1994; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Vandewalle (1997) subdivided goal orientation in a threesome dimensions. The first, learning goal orientation, refers to the longing for self-development by acquiring new skills, becoming proficient in new situations and improving one’s capabilities. The second dimension and third dimension are both responding to performance goal
orientation. Prove goal orientation corresponds to someone’s desire to prove his or her competences and to gain recognition about it in the form of favourable comments. Avoid goal orientation on the other hand, is referring to someone’s urge to avoid any disapproval of his or her competences and to avoid negative judgments about it (Vandewalle, 1997).
Where the first dimension of goal orientation shows communalities with intrinsic motivations, have the second and third dimension elements in common with extrinsic motivation. Goal orientation can therefore be considered as connected to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In addition, both corporate innovation contests and social innovation contests can be perceived as achievement situations as contestants have to demonstrate their capabilities by solving an innovation-related problem. Because of the importance of goal orientation in achievement situations, we believe that individuals with a higher level of goal orientation will be more motivated to participate in open innovation contests. This led us to the following hypotheses:
H4a: Goal orientation will moderate the relationship between intrinsic motivation and the intention to participate in a social innovation contest, so that individuals with a high
goal orientation will have a stronger intention to participate in social innovation contests as a consequence of intrinsic motives than individuals who have a low goal orientation.
H4b: Goal orientation will moderate the relationship between intrinsic motivation and the intention to participate in a corporate innovation contest, so that individuals with a high goal orientation will have a stronger intention to participate in corporate
innovation contests as a consequence of intrinsic motives than individuals who have a low goal orientation.
H4c: Goal orientation will moderate the relationship between extrinsic motivation and the intention to participate in a corporate innovation contest, so that individuals with a high goal orientation will have a stronger intention to participate in corporate
innovation contests as a consequence of intrinsic motives than individuals who have a low goal orientation.
Figure 3. Conceptual model
Intention to participate in a corporate innovation contest Intention to participate in a social innovation contest Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Altruism H3 H1 H2b H2a Goal orientation H4a H4b H4c
4. Method
This section forms the start of the empirical part of this study. Firstly, a description is given of the research design and the used research instrument. Secondly, the recruitment of the respondents and the most evident characteristics of the collected sample are outlined. Thirdly, a detailed operationalization of the variables is given, including a discussion of the reliability and validity of each construct. The chapter concludes with a brief description of the statistical approach that was taken to test for the hypotheses as discussed in the previous chapter.
4.1 Research design
In this study a quantitative research design is applied to examine the relationship between individuals’ motives and their intention to participate in an open innovation contest. The data is obtained by the conduction of an online survey. First of all, participants were shown an introductive text in which the researcher’s appreciation was given for their time and effort to fill out the survey. It also stated that the research was linked to the Master in Business Administration at the University of Amsterdam and that the collected data would be used to examine the phenomenon of open innovation contests. In addition, a statement was given about the confidentiality with which the results would be treated is given and the guaranteed anonymity of the respondent. After the introduction the respondent are forwarded to the survey.
Research instrument
The survey started with a description of the key principles of both a social innovation contest and corporate innovation contest, to provide a clear differentiation between the two concepts. Participants were asked to read the descriptions and keep those in mind when answering the first question. This question concerned their former participation in a social/corporate innovation contest. The respondent could also indicate that he/she participated in both or in
neither one of the types. All respondent who did participate in a past innovation contest were asked for the name of the contest and the name of the company that organized the contest.
The rest of the survey consisted of questions to collect data on the intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, altruism and goal orientation. The questionnaire ended with questions about the personal characteristics and background of the respondents.
4.2 Respondents
Recruitment
The respondents were recruited in different ways. First of all, a message is post on the personal Facebook-page of the researchers with a call for respondents that would fill out the survey. In addition, the researchers requested a number of acquaintances to invite people in their surroundings to fill out the survey. Also, past contestants of several open innovations contest were approached via mail to participate in the study.
Sample
The survey was distributed in the time period of April 23th till May 30th. The initial target
sample of the study was 300 respondents. A total of 151 respondents (N = 151) fully completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 50.3%. The sample (Mage = 30.43, SDage = 11.2, age-range: 18-85) consisted for 42.4% of females. Regarding the
educational backgrounds of the respondents, the majority completed an education program at a university (42.4% achieved a bachelor’s degree, 27.8% achieved a master’s degree). 12,6% of the respondents had only finished a secondary education program and 10.8% ended an education program at a university of applied sciences (trade/technical/vocational training: 0.7%, associate degree: 12.6%). The remaining respondents achieved a professional degree (0.7%), a doctorate degree (2.6%) or did not complete any schooling (3.3%). From the
respondents 76.1% had a job, from which 34.4% on a full time basis and 41.7% on a part-time basis. With regards to the national background of the respondents, a majority had the Dutch
nationality 72.8%. From the remaining respondents 7.3% were EU-nationals and 19.9% were non-EU citizens. The respondents were also asked about their former participation in open innovation contests. The great part of the respondents never participated in an open
innovation contest (61.1%). From the remaining part, 13.5% had taken part in a social innovation contest, 10.3% in a corporate innovation challenge and 15.1% had participated in both social as corporate innovation contest.
4.3 Operationalization of variables
Intention to participate
The intention to participate in a social innovation contest is measured on a new constructed scale consisting of five items, based on an existing scale of Zheng et al. (2011). Examples of items are: “In the future, I intend to spend more time sharing information about my needs and opinions with organizations that are focused on social value creation” and “In the future, I will seek to share my thoughts and knowledge with companies that are focused on social value creation”. The respondents had to indicate the extent to which they agreed to the items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). To examine the validity of the new constructed scale, a principal component analysis with all the five items was conducted. One component was found with an eigenvalue greater than one, which covered 75.5% of the covariance in the original items (EV= 3.77, R² = .76). This result was confirmed by a visual examination of the screeplot. Table I (Appendix A) shows the
component matrix with the factor loadings of the five items that measure the underlying construct of intention to participate in social innovation contests. A reliability analysis pointed out the high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .92) of the scale that could not be improved by
deleting any items. The new scale is computed by taking the mean score of each item. A 7-point Likert scale was used, whereby a low score indicates a weak intention to participate in a social innovation contest and a high score refers to a strong intention to participate in a social
innovation contest.
The above outlined new construct scale is also used to measure the second dependent variable intention to participate in a corporate innovation contest. Contrary to the items of the first dependent variable that referred to social value creation, the items of this scale addressed economic value creation. A principal component analysis with all the five items showed one component with an eigenvalue greater than one (EV= 4.11, R² = .82). The reliability (Cronbach’s α = .95) was high enough to compute a new scale by taking the mean scores of each of the five items. An overview of the factor loadings is shown in table II (Appendix A).
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
The Work Preference Inventory (WPI) of Amabile et al. (1994) was used to assess both the intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation of the respondents. This instrument was designed as a measurement of individual differences in the degree to which persons see themselves as intrinsically and extrinsically motivated toward what they do. The WPI (Amabile et al., 1994) consists of two scales that can in turn be divided in four subscales: enjoyment and challenge (intrinsic motivation) and recognition/compensation (extrinsic motivation). In this study, motivation is measured on a two-factor-model as this matches the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as proposed in the hypotheses the best.
The scale of intrinsic motivation included fifteen items that together captured the major elements of the construct: self-determination, competence, task involvement, curiosity, enjoyment and interest (Amabile et al., 1994). Example items were ‘What matters most for me is enjoying what I do’ and ‘I enjoy trying to solve complex problems’. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with the items on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The results of a reliability analysis showed that the fifteen items formed a sufficiently reliable scale (Cronbach’s α = .70). However, deleting the
two recoded items (‘I enjoy relatively simple straightforward tasks’ and ‘I prefer tasks I know I can do well over tasks that stretches my abilities’) led to a significant increase in reliability (Cronbach’s α = .79). Therefore, the scale for intrinsic motivation was computed with the remaining thirteen items, by taking the mean scores of each item.
The measurement of extrinsic motivation was based on a scale of fourteen items that covered the following elements: competition, recognition, money or other tangible incentives and constraint by others (Amabile et al. 1994). Example items are ‘I am keenly aware of the income goals I have for myself’ and ‘I am strongly motivated by the recognition I can earn from other people’. A 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used to indicate each respondent’s level of agreement. The reliability of the fourteen-item scale was high enough (Cronbach’s α = .74) but could be improved when the two reversed items (‘I am not that concerned about what other people think of my work’ and ‘As long as I can do what I enjoy, I’m not that concerned about exactly what I’m paid’) were deleted (Cronbach’s α = .81). The extrinsic motivation scale is for this reason constructed by taking respondents’ mean scores on the remaining twelve items.
Altruism
The Self-report Altruism Scale of Rushton, Chrisjohn and Fekken (1981) was used to assess individual differences between the respondents regarding their altruistic personality. This scale was designed to assess altruism via self-report. The scale consisted of fourteen items in which different types of behavior were described. Respondents had to indicate the likelihood of exhibiting the behaviors in the future on 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Respondent’s mean scores were taking of all the fourteen items to create the altruism scale (Cronbach’s α = .87) of altruism.
Goal orientation
A three-dimensional construct of Vandewalle (1997) is used to assess goal orientation. The construct included eleven items that were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree; 7= strongly agree) and subdivided among three components: learning goal
orientation, prove performance goal orientation and avoid performance goal orientation. A principal component analysis confirmed the presence of these three dimensions. Three components were found with eigenvalues greater than one (EV1= 3.89, R²1 = .35; EV2= 2.16
R²2= .20, EV3= 1.16 R²3 = .11). The scree plot confirms this result. An overview of the factor
loadings is given in table III (Appendix A). The scale of goal orientation (Cronbach’s α = .80) was computed by taking the mean scores of each of the eleven items.
Control variables
The results of this study are controlled for a total of six control variables, including gender, age, nationality, education, employment status and former participation. The latter four were initially measured on a categorical and ordinal level and were therefore transformed into dichotomies to make them suitable for the analyses.
4.4 Statistical procedure
In order to examine the hypothesized direct relationships and moderation between the
variables, several regression analyses were conducted. Hereby, hierarchical regression is used to test the direct relations between the variables. These analyses were undertaken for each of the two dependent variables: intention to participate in social innovation contest (1) and the intention to participate in a corporate innovation contest (2). In the first step, the control variables gender, age, nationality, education, employment status and former participation were entered into the equation. In the second step altruism and goal orientation were included in the model and in step 3, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation entered the equation in the model.
To examine the moderating effect of altruism and goal orientation the PROCESS SPSS-macro of Hayes (2003) for probing two-way interaction effects was applied. This analysis tests the presence of two-way interaction effects by using a pick-a-point approach. Hereby different conditional effects of the independent variable on the dependent variables are estimated at three different values of the moderators: high (+1 SD), moderate (M) and low (-1 SD). In addition, a simple slope analysis is done to verify the significance of the
moderation effect. Hereby, the simple slope has to be significantly different from zero and the simple slopes have to be significantly dissimilar from each other. During this analysis the control variables are set to their sample mean. The proposed interaction effects of altruism and goal orientation can only be supported under these conditions.
In order to investigate the presence of three-way interaction effects, the PROCESS SPSS-macro of Hayes (2003) was used for probing two-way interactions across various levels of a third variable. The interaction could only be interpreted under the condition that the regression coefficient of the three-way interaction term was significant (Dawson & Richter, 2006).
5. Results
This chapter reports the results of this study. First, light is shed on findings that can be derived from the correlation matrix. In addition, the results from hierarchical regression analyses are discussed to examine the proposed direct relationships. Subsequently, the results of moderation analyses are presented to test the hypothesized the two-way interaction effects of altruism and goal orientation. An additional analysis is done in order to examine the presence of three-way interactions.
5.1 Correlation matrix
Table 1 presents an overview of the descriptive statistics, correlations and scale reliabilities of all the variables that are used in this study. With regard to the direct relationships, significant positive correlations are found between intrinsic motivations and both the intention to
participate in a social innovation contest (r = .31, p < .01) and corporate innovation contest (r = .28, p < .01). Extrinsic motivation on the other hand, only correlated significant with intention to participate in corporate innovation contests (r = .40, p < .01).
Altruism showed significant correlation with all the variables of the direct
relationships. As expected, the correlation between altruism and intrinsic motives (r = .37, p < .01) was significantly higher than the correlation between altruism and extrinsic motives (r = .19, p < .01). Surprisingly however, was the almost equal correlation between altruism and intention to participate in social innovation contests (r = .30, p < .01) and altruism and intention to participate in corporate innovation contests (r = .33, p < .01). Another
observation derived from the table is the significant correlations between goal orientation and intrinsic motivation (r= .48, p < .01) and extrinsic motivation (r = .64, p < .01). Where goal orientation correlated significantly with intention to participate in social innovation contest (r = .26, p < .01) no significant correlation was found with intention to participate in a corporate innovation contest.
5.2 Direct effects
Hierarchical regression analyses are conducted to test for the direct relationships between the variables. Table 2 shows the results of both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as predictors for each of the dependent variables. Hereby the control variables and the
moderators were also entered into the equation. Considering intention to participate in a corporate innovation contest as the dependent variable, a significant effect was found from former participation (β = .20, p < .05). Furthermore, extrinsic motivation (β = .34, p < .01)
appeared to be a significant predictor of the intention to participate in a corporate innovation contest. This finding supports H1.1
The results showed an additionally significant direct effect of intrinsic motivation on the intention to participate in a corporate innovation contest (β = .18, p >.10). H2a, in which a positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and intention to participation in a
corporate innovation contest was proposed, can therefore be verified.
With regard to the intention to participate in a social innovation contest as the dependent variable, nationality (β = -.19, p < .05) and employment status (β = .22, p < .01) were found as significant predictors. Also, a positive significant direct relation was found between intrinsic motivation and intention to participate in a social innovation contest (β = .20, p < .05). This means that hypothesis H2b is supported.
5.3. Two-way interaction effects
In order to test the presence of a moderation effect of altruism and goal orientation, analyses were conducted by using mean-centered independent variables. Hypotheses H3 proposed that the relationship between intrinsic motivation and intention to participate in a social innovation contest would be positively moderated by altruism. The results from the regression analysis confirmed this hypotheses (see table 3). The simple slope (B = 1.22, t = -2.22, p < .01) deviated significantly from zero and additionally the simple slopes also differed from each other (B = .47, t = 3.81, p < .01). Altruism moderated the relationship between intrinsic motives and intention to participate in a social innovation contest in such a way that more altruistic individuals have a higher intention to participate in a social innovation contest as a result of their intrinsic motivation. Therefore H3 is supported2.
1 No significant effect is found of extrinsic motivation on the intention to participate in a social innovation contest (β = .30, p
> .10).
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliabilities
Variables
Number
of items M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Gender (0= male, 1= female) 1 1.42 .50 −
2. Age 1 30.43 11.82 -.30** −
3. Nationality (0= non-Dutch, 1= Dutch 1 .73 .45 .13 −.49** − 4. Education (0= low, 1= high) 1 .85 .36 -.08 .20* -.26** − 5. Employment (0= unemployed, 1= employed) 1 .76 0.43 -.15 .18* -.06 .15 - 6. Former participation (0= no, 1= yes) 1 .40 .50 −.18* .44** -.54** .12 .17* - 7. Intrinsic motivation 13 5.22 .71 -.01 .20* -.18* .16 -.05 .15 ( .79) 8. Extrinsic motivation 12 4.27 .86 -.05 -.18 .72 .-04 -.13 .01 .31** .81) 9. Participation social innovation contest 5 4.11 1.45 -.01 .12 -.30** .14 .20* .28** .31** .16 (.92) 10. Participation Corporate innovation contest 5 3.84 1.49 -.18* .02 -.08 .14 .10 .23** .28** .40** .48** (.95) 11. Altruism 14 3.82 .63 -.01 .24** -.38** .20* .14 .25** .37** .19* .30** .33** (.87) 12. Goal orientation 11 4.60 .82 -.08 .04 -.13 .04 -.17* .17* .48** .64** .26** .09 .31** (.80) Note: N = 151. Reliabilities are reported along the diagonal.
* Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed) *** Correlation is significant at .10 level (two-tailed)
