`! !
!
!
The$best$of$both$worlds:$the$positive(
effect%of%strong%boundary%spanning%
ties%on%creativity.!
!
!
By! ! Danai!Kostoula!! 10099808! !MSc!in!Business!Administration:!Strategy!Track! !Amsterdam!Business!School,!UvA!! Supervisor:!Nathan!E.!Betancourt!! 24/08/2015!!
!
!
!
Statement of originality
This document is written by Danai Kostoula 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!Contents!
Abstract!...!ii!
INTRODUCTION!...!1!
Research Gap!...!3!
THEORETICAL!FRAMEWORK!AND!HYPOTHESES!...!5!
Creativity and interpersonal ties!...!5!
Weak Ties!...!6!
Strong Ties!...!9!
Boundary Spanning Ties!...!13!
METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION!...!21!
Participants!...!24! Limitations!...!25! Survey Design!...!27! Measures!...!28! RESULTS!...!32! Statistical Analysis!...!32!
Social Network Analysis!...!38!
DISCUSSION!...!43!
Further Limitations!...!49!
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH!...!52!
REFERENCES!...!55! !
Table!of!Figures
Figure!1!...!21! Figure!2!...!42!List!of!Tables!!
Table!1!...!31! Table!2!...!40! !!
Abstract
This research looked into which strength of tie type has the larger, positive influence on creativity. Tie type is distinguished between boundary spanning and non-boundary spanning ties while strength between strong and weak. The majority of the research agues that it is weak ties that are most beneficial to creativity since they provide diverse, nonredundant information. It is the novel information received that makes one more creative as she can combine it with older ideas and in that way rethink products, services and solutions. Strong ties on the other hand, have not been seen in the same positive light as they provide the focal actor with redundant information since often one’s strong ties are connected with her other strong ties. In addition they encourage group conformity that curbs the exploration of new ideas, however, they also create an environment of trust were new ideas are accepted and complex knowledge can be transferred faster. Boundary spanning ties cross organizational boundaries in order to access pools of knowledge, non-existent in the organization. In that way the focal actor already receives novel and diverse information that aids her creativity. It is argued that strong boundary spanning ties have a positive effect on creativity and the findings match this hypothesis. The employees and freelancers of a Dutch film production company were send a questionnaire and the findings suggest that weak non-boundary spanning and strong boundary spanning ties had a stronger, positive effect on creativity. Weak boundary spanning ties also had a positive effect on creativity and strong non-boundary spanning ties had a negative effect on creativity. One consideration, however, would be the small sample size and the inability thus to generalize the findings.
INTRODUCTION
“Man is by nature a social animal”. These words, attributed to Socrates have created the foundations of our contemporary societies. The connection with other people and the relationships between them is what leads to acquiring new information and by synthesizing this information, people are able to reevaluate situations and create novel ideas that are often of aid to finding solutions for problems. Interpersonal ties can be separated in weak (acquaintances, colleagues, etc.) and strong ties (such as friends and close family) and can be seen as a function of the emotional closeness, the frequency and the longevity of the interaction (Granovetter, 1973). These separate ties with people allow the flow of information from one social or professional group to another and it is this collection of heterogeneous, nonredundant information that encourages creativity, the basis for problem-solving mindsets and out-of-the-box thinking. Creativity is defined by Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003) as a character trait and approach (specifically at work) that leads to new and suitable ideas, solutions or processes. Necessary in today’s constantly changing environment, creative thinking is the source of innovative products and services. It also, however, adds to the finer aspects of life, whether that is fashion, designer furniture, film or television. There exists thus, in the arts and sciences world but also in the daily life, the need to keep being creative and innovative when many ideas have already been materialized; the need to create something novel and unexpected that fulfills the desires of the consumer. This is when social relationships become even more important. Through one’s relationship with others, one can synthesize different ideas in a unique and innovative manner creating a new solution, a new design, or a new cinematic idea.
By collecting, reorganizing and implementing novel and seemingly unrelated ideas with older ones that have already been realized, organizational members can invent ways of looking at problems differently. Combining separate at first fields of knowledge by her interactions with people one can acquire new perspectives that help her in designing new products, processes or solve problems. Weak and strong ties provide different types of information that are necessary in the creative process. Weak ties tend to transmit information that is nonredundant because they are more likely to be connected to different social circles than the actor, while the ego’s strong ties are very probably linked between them and thus be a source of redundant information (Granovetter, 1973). For this reason, weak ties, with their offer of diverse information and perspectives, are considered more beneficial to creativity than strong ties (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). However, strong ties also affect creativity positively but in a different way; they create an environment of trust which is necessary when taking risk which happens when one is innovating (Dokko, Kane & Tortoriello, 2014) while also helps with the transfer and understanding of more complex knowledge (Tortoriello, Reagans & McEvily, 2012). This leads us to think that both weak and strong ties will have a positive effect on creativity.
Often, however, the intraorganizational network is not a sufficient pool of knowledge and thus the boundaries of the organization must be crossed in order to acquire the necessary information, knowledge and skills. Also known as boundary spanning, it creates a bridge over a structural hole between two separate network clusters (Long, Cunningham, Braithwaite, 2013). Boundary spanning ties thus span over the boundaries of their organization, project or department, in order to connect with people outside of those. In relation to creativity, they can collect a larger variety of nonredundant information and through their connection with different departments
offer distinct perspectives that might be of aid to the actor and the organization as a whole (Manev & Stevenson, 2001). Boundary spanning ties offer thus in one way what weak ties offer as well: diversity of information. So will boundary spanning ties have, in combination with the advantages strong ties carry, such as trust and faster diffusion of complex knowledge, a stronger positive effect on creativity than boundary spanning weak ties? Or will they have no effect on creativity (indicating a source of redundant information)? This thesis research focuses on a Dutch film production company who collaborates on various projects with a diverse and large group of people, mainly consisting of freelance professionals or external specialists.
Research Gap
Substantive research has been done on the effect and importance of weak ties on subjects such as creativity and innovation, since these are traits a company seeks in order to succeed in the globalized competitive markets. Yet, the effect of strong ties has been looked at much less, especially in combination with boundary spanning ties. Because the researcher believes that with stronger ties the actor has the freedom to express his ideas more freely, in combination with the diversity of information provided by the boundary spanning ties, this combination will affect positively creativity. In addition to that, the majority of the research has been done on innovation and more pure organizational settings, while very few have looked at this effect in the creative industries. It is hypothesized thus that, in that setting, boundary spanning strong ties have a stronger positive effect on creativity than boundary spanning weak ties. In addition, the effect of strong and weak non-boundary spanning ties have on creativity is also researched.
After an extensive literature review on creativity, the effects of the strength of ties and of boundary spanning ties, the data, which was collected via questionnaires, will be analyzed, relating it as well to the analysis of the social network. Following that, a far-reaching discussion of the results will be presented.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
!
Creativity and interpersonal ties
There has been substantial research on whether weak ties or strong ties contribute to a more creative mindset and generally creativity, which is a cornerstone for innovation and necessary in problem solving. Klijn and Tomic (2009) argue there are two main definitions of creativity. The first one describes creativity as the creation of new ideas and solutions. The second one defines it as the mental process that allows people to think of those novel ideas. As such processes are hard to measure, the research will follow the first definition of creativity. Creativity has been researched through various perspectives, from psychology to sociology to management sciences, since it stimulates out-of the-box thinking, providing the work environment and daily life with the advantage of the unexpected thought process. Zhou, Sin, Brass, Choi & Zhang (2009) have come to the conclusion that creativity is ignited by the interaction of people with different backgrounds and various connections and can be defined as the combination of different, novel ideas and perspectives that is facilitated by different areas of knowledge coming together. Being able to experience different ideas and ways of thinking gives one the advantage to create a tangible idea or innovation that encompasses these differences and that instead of existing in juxtaposition, one can be an answer or a solution for the other one. Being creative at work is seen therefore as being able to produce new solutions and generate new processes and ideas while also changing already set and placed approaches (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). It is the contact with another party that provides this novel information and thus the existence of ties between people that stimulate creativity.
In 1973, Granovetter introduced the concept of the strength of ties. Intuitively he saw the strength of social ties as a combination of the time, intimacy and intensity, as well as reciprocity. Time refers to the total amount of time spent together while intensity and intimacy refer to how emotionally close people are to each other. Reciprocity is quite self-explanatory since the emotional intimacy has to come from both sides in order to concretize the tie. It is thus as a function of the frequency of the interaction, the duration, as well as the emotional intensity and mutuality. However, since Granovetter’s work, social network research has flourished and continuously increasing interest has been shown from the scientific community towards tie strength and its effect on an array of subjects. With this, several different opinions have been voiced concerning what constitutes tie strength as a concept. Some (Cross et al, 2009; Friedkin, 1990) claim that contrary to Granovetter’s (1973) idea of a somewhat linear relationship between the attributes of time, intimacy, intensity and reciprocity, the relationship has a more cumulative nature, while others introduce attributes such as durability (Shi et al., 2009) and robustness (Haythornthwaite, 2002).
Weak Ties
Stepping for a bit away from creativity, the strength of ties will be discussed. Due to Granovetter’s (1973) work, the most common knowledge about social ties is that through weak rather than strong ties one can find a house or acquire a job. Granovetter (1973) argued that information that is dispersed via weak ties can travel a much larger social and geographical distance through weak ties. Hence, weak ties allow for a greater diffusion of information because the information that is being received is more often nonredundant due to the acquaintances moving in different circles than the focal actor. This leads to information that is new for the focal actor
(ego) and also most probably will not repeat itself- even when coming from a different source (Grannovetter, 1973).
Weak ties however were not always seen as a positive asset. Wirth’s (1938) work about urbanism claims that weak social ties led to the breakdown of the informal social control since in cities where populations were large and people did not know each other and thus would also not care about each other, thereby leading to alienation. Granovetter (1973) opposed that argument claiming that weak ties constitute bridges between dense social groups and play therefore an important role in one’s integration with society, transmitting and carrying information that otherwise might have not been heard. Granovetter (1983) claims that an actor with few weak ties not only lacks the advantage of experiencing new ideas and hearing novel thoughts but will also miss labor opportunities and will not be able to organize any political movement since all actions will circle around themselves and not spread further. A social network that lacks weak ties will be, according to Granovetter (1983), “fragmented and incoherent” (p. 202). That stems from the incapability of diffusing ideas and information to a great length as well as that it will circle back within the strong ties and become (or will be from the beginning) redundant. Having friends or acquaintances- or in other words strong or weak ties- creates a network of knowledge, information and interactive idea formation.
Since weak ties allow for a greater diffusion of information, they are better sources of new beliefs, bridging separate territories of knowledge, allowing in turn the exploration of more novel ideas and various perspectives and in general are a source of nonredundant information (Zhou et al., 2009), which constitute as said the basis for creativity (Perry-Smith and Shalley, 2003). This is due to the fact that the information that derives from strong ties of a social network is often redundant since one’s strong
ties are usually strongly connected with each other and so the information circles the network and no new information is received by the ego (Granovetter, 1973). Weak ties connect people to the variety of different perspectives and experiences that are essential to creativity and are also positively related to creativity (Perry-Smith, 2006; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003) and so is the heterogeneity of information provided. This access to more heterogeneous information and the contact with different frames of knowledge enhance the skills that are associated with creativity: the creation of alternative propositions, and flexible and open thinking (Zhou et al., 2009; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003).
In addition to the diversity of information provided, weak ties encourage and aid autonomy since it is not likely to feel strongly connected to certain groups, avoiding thus conformity with the group (Perry-Smith and Shalley, 2003). Also the emotional quality of a tie can affect creativity since research (Perry-Smith, 2008) has shown that positive affect can influence creativity. Nooteboom & Gilsing (2004) have argued that during exploitation of a product or idea, ties are generally weaker, however that stage offers the safety of an already existing product, service or concept. Many researchers also have claimed that weak ties are beneficial to creativity until they reach an optimal level that is represented as an inverted U-shaped pattern. Both Baer (2010) and Zhou et al. (2009) have shown that creativity reaches a peak when one’s weak ties are not too many or too few, reaching in that way the abovementioned optimal level; too many weak ties have a negative effect on creativity, as do too few. Additionally, while Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003) support the claim that weak ties correspond with higher creativity, they also recognize that too many may constrain it and have a negative effect on it. The placement of the ego in the network is also of importance in combination with the ties she creates since weak ties are seen as
beneficial when the concerning actor is placed in a more central network position and not holding a peripheral one (Rost, 2011).
Nevertheless, it would not be possible for all the actors in one’s network to be connected- so not everyone is connected to each other individually but very possibly connected through a third person. The empty space between social structures is called structural hole and it separates groups, not allowing nonredundant information to move across (Burt, 2005). Under these circumstances a bridge is needed which as Granovetter (1973,1983) argued are usually the weak ties, since they are easier to establish. In addition, they enable a faster collection of nonredundant, new information (Crowell, 2004). So, even though brokerage is concerned with the position of the actor in his social network, it is the position that is facilitated by the weak ties that allows the transfer of novel information between the separate clusters and its complete exploitation.
Hence, weak ties offer nonredundant information, diverse perspectives and experiences while also encourage autonomy within the group, avoiding in that way conformity and constant recycling of old ideas, stimulating the creative thought process, especially in combination with advantageous network positions. All the above lead us to the first hypothesis which is the following:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Weak ties will have a positive effect on creativity.
Strong Ties
Although the benefits of having many weak ties have been discussed extensively, this does not take away from the strength of strong ties. Instead of diffusing information and resources beyond social circles (which is the main task of
weak ties that act as bridges), strong ties provide the intrinsic motivation to help and are naturally more accessible for the actor (Granovetter, 1983). In addition, strong ties aid to the flow of information concerning the way it travels and the time it takes. Strong ties diffuse information faster and when it moves from a strong tie to a strong tie it carries much more credibility with it, since the source of this information is verified and known (Rost, 2011). Furthermore, the influence strong ties carry also play a very important role, particularly in decision-making (Kijkuit & van den Ende, 2007). So although strong ties are not the best way to expose one to different ideas, it creates trust among the people of the network, trust that is usually created by repetitive previous experiences (Burt, 2005). This in turn allows thus more complex and often uncertain projects to flourish (Burt, 2005; Rost, 2011). Nooteboom and Gilsing (2004) also found that in exploration stages ties were strong in most areas, which is also explained when taken into consideration that strong ties usually support the transfer of complex knowledge (Nooteboom & Gilsing, 2004), instead of the simple knowledge weak ties tend to transfer. Rost (2011) claimed that strong ties always lead to action even if it does not contain any new information, giving them thus an advantage concerning creativity.
Nevertheless, strong ties are not believed to allow this heterogeneity of information (which is necessary in creativity) since it is assumed that the people that are close have usually the same knowledge about things or are closely related in their fields as well, providing redundant information (Granovetter, 1973, Zhou et al., 2009; Perry-Smith, 2006). Nevertheless, this is not always the case. When strong ties provide nonredundant framing, when for example they connect two separate social groups or work areas, they ignite creativity more than when providing only nonredundant information, placing a lot of weight on the content of the ties and
information (Perry-Smith, 2014). Zaheer & Soda (2009) also argued that even when the content of the information the ties provide are homogeneous, the quality is improved, since it is easier to share routines, skills and knowledge to the main actor (or group) because of the content similarity between the main actor’s creative output and the other’s.
A plethora of the research on the strength of ties has been focused on innovation, which is defined broadly as the generation and implementation of new ideas, products, services and processes (Thompson, 1965) that benefit both the organization and the stakeholders (West & Anderson, 1996). In dynamic work environments of today, innovative actions are seen as a necessity in order to survive in a globalized and competitive market. Creativity however lies at the basis of innovation since it is, as defined by Zhou et al. (2009), the generation of novel ideas while innovation is the implementation of those. The research on innovation and strength of ties has shown that the effect of strong ties with partners on innovation is often a U-shaped relationship that indicates that strong ties are beneficial up to a point, since they offer an environment where trust and routines allow a rapid implementation of new knowledge and the possibility of learning from past experiences (Rost, 2011). The strong ties facilitate the creation of routines and trust that allow for a faster and better flow of information, making it easier and more efficient to combine the information and ignite creative thinking and thus creativity as a whole. Research has also shown that to absorb diverse and new knowledge and generate new ideas from it becomes easier when the source and the recipient share a knowledge base that is common to both (Tortoriello & Krackhardt, 2010). Existing strong ties are better transmitters of complex information, and have a stronger effect on implementing new ideas (Tortoriello & Krackhardt, 2010).), allowing probably for
a more unrestricted thinking process. Zaheer and Soda (2009) similarly argue that past, familiar networks offer power, access to knowledge and previous experiences that can create a valuable social structure that establishes ties that become increasingly stronger over time, creating trust, norms, reciprocity and obligations, which, as discussed, can be useful for the generation and selection of valuable information as well as easier access to it.
The increasing strength of the ties however, might lead to group conformity that restricts and halts diverse thinking within the group and its members (Zaheer & Soda, 2009). Lowik, van Rossum, Kraaijenbrink & Groen (2012) also researched the effect of strong ties on innovation and knowledge acquisition in alliances between SMEs and found that even though they use both strong and weak ties to maintain a dual network, strong ties still offer a significant amount of new information. Not all strong ties lead to increasing innovation, but the ones that are connected with external companies that are innovative in their nature and their tasks do (Lowik et al., 2012). It can be said that innovative and creative activity is more likely when the actor relies on information given by acquaintances but still within those a preexisting interaction has occurred. In addition, the existence of strong ties in the social network increase idea development and idea acceptance since they support the actual transfer of knowledge (Fleming, Mingo & Chen, 2007; Kijkuit & Van den Ende, 2007). Furthermore, dense groups where the actors are connected with strong ties are not counterproductive for innovation and thus creativity (Rost, 2011).
Strong ties thus offer relationships through which complex knowledge can be diffused faster and norms can be developed that make the access to the information easier as there exists a common knowledge base and routines. In addition, they create
an environment of trust that is essential when taking risks. This leads us to the second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Strong ties will have a positive effect on creativity.
In general, weak ties are the key to the diffusion and promotion of novel ideas and information while strong ties are essential to the integration and implementation of those in one’s life. It is unmistakable that both weak and strong ties have certain advantages and disadvantages, both essential for creative thought and innovative production. The most important element of these relations though is the existence of some established bridging relations with outside partners (Lowik et al., 2012; Rost, 2011).
Boundary Spanning Ties
Having discussed the effect of ties, whether weak or strong, on creativity, the next step is to look at boundary spanning ties. Boundary spanning activity occurs when a member of the organization, or the organization as a whole reaches outside of the set boundaries of the organization for information or knowledge (Tushman, 1977). Aldrich and Herker (1977) talked about organizational boundaries that can be set around the organization- everyone who is included in the organization (an employee) is inside the boundaries while all others that are ‘excluded’ (p. 217) are outside. Boundary spanning can thus be seen as the broadening or breaking of the organizational boundaries in order to reach better and more diverse pools of information and knowledge. Boundary spanning ties are the ties between the boundary spanners, the actors who hold bridging positions in the network, with the
people external to the organization (Tushman, 1977) while their boundary spanning activities usually include communication and cooperation between internal employees and departments and external bodies (Tushman, 1977).
Facilitating cross-boundary communication, the task of boundary spanners is to collect information, through their ties, from units or people, either internal or external to the organization- often having to cross cultural boundaries as well (Long, Cunningham, Braithwaite, 2013) and successfully communicate it and disseminate it to the unit or department in question (Fleming & Waguespack, 2007; Tushman, 1977). These boundary spanning ties they form with external actors aid creativity since they bring a greater variety of information, knowledge and capabilities that constitute the basis for creative thinking (Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001). In addition, reaching outside one’s boundaries has a significant effect on individual or collective performance (Tortoriello & Krackhardt, 2010) and even if the effect is not direct, it still affects creativity indirectly through this cross-boundary exchange of knowledge (Teigland & Wasko, 2003). This flow of knowledge and information aids all actors to the understanding of an ever-changing environment and when responding to it, facilitating innovation but first igniting creativity (Manev & Stevenson, 2001).
Often literature discussed about bridging ties and boundary spanning ties simultaneously (Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001). The reason for this lies in their definitions. To begin with, bridging ties are defined as the ties that act as bridges between disconnected individuals or social and professional groups -structural holes- that would not be in contact if the broker, the person who holds that bridging position in the network, would not connect them (Fleming & Waguespack, 2007). Boundary spanning ties on the other hand, connect groups that are inside the organizational and social boundaries with groups external to those (Tushman, 1977). Both tie types thus
act as a connection between isolated groups; however, bridging ties do not always connect internal groups to external ones. Boundary spanners are often seen as brokers due to these attributes, yet brokers can also be boundary spanners, whereas boundary spanners are not always brokers (Fleming & Waguespack, 2007), which keeps these two concepts separate and distinct. This lies in the fact that a person is a broker when she is the only one who connects disconnected groups while many can be boundary spanners- this has as implication though that if there exists only one boundary spanner in the organization, that person becomes a broker (Fleming & Waguespack, 2007).
The existence of structural holes makes the acceptance of novel ways of thinking and seeing the world easier since the brokers who span over those are already used to the continuous influx of new information, ideas and perspectives (Burt, 2005). In that way, brokers can implement and internalize this knowledge faster and consequently construct faster their own independent thoughts – which would be an amalgam of their own preexisting knowledge and the newly acquired one- and creative ideas. Perry- Smith (2008), yet, argues that it is not the bridging that matters the most nor is it the need to connect with for-now disconnected individuals but the existence of new and diverse perspectives- returning again to the nonredundant information offering and availability argument. The more diverse the knowledge is, the more it enriches the broker, providing her with such information that new, unthought-of connections are made, making innovation possible and a reality (Zhou et al., 2009). Brokers are often used in creative environments since they hold a very important position (Long Lingo & O’Mahony, 2010) as they stand on the edge of social or professional groups (Burt, 2005), and connected to this diversity of groups with weak ties, they are more likely to see the connections between these groups.
Being on the brink of these various social worlds, the broker is exposed to heterogeneous ways of thinking and opinions and acquires a “vision advantage” (p.359, Burt, 2005), which allows her to synthesize those different views and generate novel ideas, since she is the only one who connects these previously unconnected groups (Burt, 2005). In this advantageous position and in combination with the existence of multiple weak ties which allow even less redundant information flow, the broker can either be seen as the one who gains of this separation and preserves this type of isolation for her own benefit or, at the same time, she can also be seen as the one who joins unconnected parties aiding to collaboration and coordination, with a focus on pursuing the common goal (Burt, 2005; Long Lingo & O’Mahony, 2010). The broker thus can be the one who connects separate social groups and helps them with his ‘peripheral’ view to achieve and create something fresh and innovative. The strength of the bridging ties the broker has is also of great importance since weak ties are generally easier to establish and facilitate a faster collection of novel information (Crowell, 2004). So although brokerage focuses on one’s position in the overall social network, it is also the combination with the weak ties that enable the transfer of nonredundant information between the separate groups and their full utilization that provides the broker with that advantage.
Being connected thus to completely different social or professional worlds provides a great advantage and opportunities for the people that are bridging those structural holes. One can say thus that many similarities exist between brokering and boundary spanning since both positions connect, in one way or another, two separate parties, having thus first access to knowledge and information and are responsible for its diffusion (Fleming & Waguespack, 2007; Teigland & McLure Wasko, 2003), especially concerning the respective ties they create. Boundary spanners and the
boundary spanning activities and ties they form moderate in this way the risk of obsolescence, by collecting, analyzing and spreading information acquired across boundaries. In that way, they stimulate the innovation process and therefore a certain creativity and resourcefulness is part of their attributes in order to succeed (Fleming & Waguespack, 2007). Hsiao, Tsai and Lee (2012), argue that boundary spanning helps in finding solutions for more complex problems since it divides the work between parties. When multidisciplinary experts are gathered to collaborate and share their separate domain expertise they create a source of nonredundant information that allows the exploration of new, unthought-of of paths (Hsiao, Tsai & Lee, 2012).
There have been many positives related to being strongly tied with people in your work environment. Several studies demonstrated that greater numbers of stronger ties- in this case friendship - lead to a higher performance (Mehra, Kilduff & Brass, 2001), especially if the people they socialized with came from diverse social groups. Boundary spanning occurs usually when the necessary information and knowledge cannot be found within the organization self (Tushman, 1977); suggesting that if they socialize with people outside the organization, there is a very large probability that they will come from a diverse social setting and draw from very different sources than the people within the organization (Mehra, Kilduff & Brass, 2001). Consistent norms, values and the sense of reciprocity among the individuals that are part of a cohesive network with overlapping relationships, build trust (Granovetter, 1973). Tiwana (2008) similarly argued that strong ties act in a complementary manner with bridging ties, improving the incorporation of novel knowledge. The new information and knowledge was made accessible by the bridging ties while the strong ties allowed for a faster integration of that knowledge through reciprocity, trust and close interaction they endorsed (Tiwana, 2008). In addition, the
strong ties provide the necessary mechanisms to integrate the complex knowledge and to convey it more effectively to diverse social pools. Even though, as discussed, bridging and boundary spanning ties are slightly different, they both still provide access to new sources of information and so new opportunities (Tiwana, 2008), since they mainly differ at the power they obtain with that specific network position. Nevertheless, their effect is pretty similar as they bridge across holes or boundaries, allowing so the influx of new information (Fleming & Waguespack, 2007).
Alternatively, when employees collaborate with distant, outside of the organization’s boundaries agents, mistrust can grow between them if they have not collaborated before. Those feelings of mistrust can be avoided if there are previous relations between them (Zaheer & Soda, 2009). As social ties strengthen, motivation is created to share a larger variety of resources (Oh, Chung & Labianca, 2004) which in turn leads to trust and routines that drive the collaboration to grow (Lowik et al., 2012; Tiwana, 2008), and so the individuals will more likely satisfy expectations and resolve conflicting goals as well as provide channels for the communication of cultural norms, understandings and perceptions, important attributes of teams that are occupied in the cultural industries (Fleming & Waguespack, 2007, Soda, Usai & Zaheer, 2004). A network of closely interconnected people is often addressed to as closure, a term discussed by Burt (2005), and comes with its own advantages since it provides the social structures and groups with trustworthiness that is important and a serious aid to the diffusion of expectations and obligations (Burt, 2005). Oh, Chung and Labianca (2004) also argue that strong connections create more solidarity among the members of the group, which in turn leads to the easier extension of favors. In addition, closure and strong ties provide emotional support for the members of the
group (Oh, Chung & Labianca, 2004), and that creates an environment were trust and support are a fact, allowing people to express themselves freely.
Hence, weak ties, when in combination with boundary spanning/ brokering positions facilitate the faster diffusion of information. Strong ties, however, are more efficient when integrating complex knowledge and conveying it to separate groups. In combination with boundary spanning activities, it creates an environment where trust exists while also receiving nonredundant information, constructing in that way the best environment for creative thought. Following all the above out final hypotheses will be:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Boundary spanning weak ties will have a positive effect on creativity.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Boundary-spanning strong ties will have a positive effect on creativity
Nevertheless, even though both, weak and strong, boundary spanning ties are hypothesized to have a positive effect on creativity, it is assumed that the non-redundancy of information offered through the boundary spanning ties, in combination with the routines and common knowledge base created by the strong ties and the trust that allows free expression and support. Since the individuals already come from different knowledge areas, or different expertise, the existence and utilization of stronger ties will come paired with more trust and understanding. Due to this stimulation of trust, various behaviors that facilitate creativity such as sharing ideas and open communication exist and assist in that way the faster diffusion of creative and innovative ideas as well as a more effective development and
implementation of those (Fleming & Marx, 2006). This will result in the fifth hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Boundary-spanning strong ties will have a stronger positive effect on creativity than boundary spanning weak ties
METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION
!
After examining what has been written about strong and weak, boundary spanning or not ties and creativity, the methodology followed will be discussed. The aim of this paper was to research the effects of strong boundary spanning ties on creativity. The conceptual model (Figure 1) includes only a dependent variable (DV) and an independent variable (IV). The DV is be Creativity while the IV Strength of Tie Type, which can be divided into strong boundary spanning ties, strong non-boundary spanning ties, weak non-boundary spanning ties, and weak non-non-boundary spanning types.
Figure 1
Conceptual Model
IV DV
Strength of tie type Creativity
The researcher had a specific interest in the film world and decided to focus her study on this industry. The reason underlying that decision is that in film and the majority of other forms of art there is a general feeling that all artistic boundary breaking projects have already been realized, leaving that way no other option than repetition that impedes on creativity (Lena & Pachucki, 2013). Yet, production companies still try to bring to the audience innovative concepts and ideas that excite them and turn them into dedicated followers of the show or movie. The initial interest was on which factors make people that are already placed in a creative setting more creative than their peers. However, in addition to that, cultural industries provide the
perfect setting for research on the effect of boundary spanning ties since film and TV production companies have steadily moved in the last decades towards working with freelancers rather than having a set team.
Boundary spanning activities are a characteristic of the culture industry under which film and TV production lies (Hirsch, 1972). The current movie industry has reshaped itself in the past years, working increasingly more with freelancers who work on a project basis. This gives them – the freelancers and the company- the freedom facilitating their different needs while also not being tied to one production company or project specifically. Lampel and Shamsie (2003) looked at the evolution of the organizational forms in the movie industry from the 1940s on and comment on the shift from integrated hierarchies in the studio era to a network of flexible resources that facilitates a “co-evolutionary process” (p.2189). Here routines are constantly changing and evolving, contributing significantly to the box office success. Furthermore, the flexibility of the resources offered by the freelancers gives the studios the opportunity to be more adaptable to environmental changes (Davenport, 2006). Davenport (2006) argues though that although project-based organizations usually come accompanied by diverse, integrated knowledge this is not the case in the UK film industry. It is apparent that project-base teams have different results in different countries although it is the main practice today in the film industries all over the world, since the freelancers employ specific, narrow skills yet informal information transmits through them quite rapid and efficiently (Davenport, 2006).
Lampel and Shamsie (2003) on the other hand, discuss the advantages that do come from a more flexible system in place in the American motion pictures industry. When boundaries are surpassed in order to create a team, the studio or production company combines all external resources and mobilizes them for the needs of the
project. Nowadays everyone works project base and that allows a further specialization of the external specialists (Lampel, Lant & Shamsie, 2000; Lampel & Shamsie, 2003). In addition to that, within the cultural industries a product is produced that has to have a “clear and consistent identity” (p.896, Soda et al., 2004) that is based on the understandings, codes and language the team shares through a collective mind, all resulting from a strongly interconnected network (Soda et al., 2004).
The existence of boundary spanning activity and ties is hence a fact in the film production world (Lampel & Shamsie, 2003), and when looked at in combination with the effect of tie strength on creativity, one can imagine that the cross-boundary communication, already a source of nonredundant information by its own, allows strong ties to play a more significant role. Concerning this research, those creative ideas must be translated into a production of a creative film or TV show that captivates its audience, which in turn necessitates good cooperation between the employees inside and outside the organizational boundaries.
Both the US and UK film industries are rather large and extensively researched yet the Dutch film scene is still a relatively unchartered territory. Yet, in 2013 it had a 15.8% market share and 244.6 million total box office revenue (Film facts and figures of the Netherlands, 2013). This research paper tries to answer questions concerning the creativity of the film industry employees, specifically looking at the difference of the effect of boundary spanning weak and strong ties on creativity. It is assumed that since freelancers are involved in the production of films and shows, boundary spanning ties exist and their effect on creativity can be investigated.
The research was conducted via multiple questionnaires at a Dutch TV and Film production company, situated in Amsterdam. At the time of the study they had two projects in production; the first a recurring TV-show targeted at teenagers that carries a social message and focuses on the social issues they might face in their daily life, while the second project is a film adaptation of a book concerned with the religious crisis of a family man. The latter one is filmed in Belgium and thus the crew of freelancers includes many Belgians. The production company has a main staff of 18 employees that work exclusively for them and are mostly involved with administrative and production task. Yet, for all its projects the company hires freelancers. The TV-show employs 60 freelancers (actors excluded) and their tasks range from wardrobe, to lights, to production. Additionally, 56 freelancers work in the production of the movie. In total there were thus 134 to administer the survey.
Participants
The survey was administered via Qualtrics and 20 completed questionnaires came back of the 134 sent. This gave us a response rate of 15%. The age of those 20 respondents ranged from 23 to 56 with a mean of 41.15 years while 60% (12 out of 20) were males and 40% females. All respondents were of Dutch nationality except one participant who was Belgian. They have worked with and for the production company from 1 to 162 months with a mean of 58.40 months and the number of projects also ranges from 1 to 60 with a mean of 14.95 projects. The respondents held all various and distinct positions (except for two Producers and two executive producers, from Controller within the company to 1st Assistant Director.
Limitations
The small sample size unfortunately brings with it a number of limitations. To begin with, the reason for such a small sample is still unclear. Although the research and its questions were received positively from the company and had their full support, the respondents seemed to not share their feelings. After initial talks with a representative of the organization, she reassured the researcher that from their side all actions would be taken to receive as many responses as possible. When the survey was ready to be sent, a letter from the company was attached to the initial email that explained that the researcher had the organization’s approval while it also explained the general objectives of this research. In the first email, the researcher also explained the goal of the survey and the following research as precisely as possible, up to the point though that would not create a response bias, meaning the subjects giving answers they think (subconsciously) the researcher wants to obtain. That may be one of the first reasons of the low response rate, since maybe they did not fully understand what was asked from them and it looked like lot of work.
Another big obstacle was that the survey was designed in English while the native language of the respondents was Dutch. The researcher took that decision because she was not sure of the nationality of all employees, and did not wish to exclude any potential non-Dutch participants. In addition to that, the survey used basic English, asking about things that an elementary English speaker could understand. However, the language barrier did exist, since an email was received by one of the freelancers, complaining about the use of English instead of Dutch. Another large issue that is also connected to this language barrier was the anonymity clause. Although stated clearly and explicitly in the initial email, the survey and the follow-up emails that all the information given in the survey would remain
anonymous and be treated with confidentiality, many respondents halted at the sight of names, especially concerning with which they socialized. They were not very willing to phrase their opinion about their colleagues even though the information asked was mostly to define their degree of tie strength. Again the researcher received emails, enquiring how confidential it would be and all received replies, explaining in deeper detail what it meant. Sent from the Qualtrics mail service, the initial email might have landed in the promotions email folder, constituting another smaller reason for a small sample. Many also opened the survey yet never moved past the first question. Although the support from the organization existed, the importance of the matter might not have been communicated clearly to all the employees and freelancers.
Such a small sample suggests sampling bias. Because of its size, the sampling error is much larger while this research and subsequently this sample is focused on a very specific population, namely the film industry. The latter one can also be considered as a selection bias and both of the biases lead us to the inability of generalizing the results and so they cannot represent the totality of the cultural industries. The sampling bias undermines the external validity and does not allow for a generalization for the entire population while the selection bias threatens the internal validity, the extent to which one is certain that no other variables than the ones studied caused the result. In order to control for those, control variables were added such as age, gender, number of projects worked at and moths worked with the production company. In addition it is not possible to generalize about the findings, since the sample is not representative in any way of the Dutch film industry.
Survey Design
The survey was designed by using already tested items from previous studies that dealt with creativity and strength of ties. The items concerning social ties were taken from Cross and Levin (2004) with some modifications taken from Burt (1984), while the creativity questionnaire that the supervisors of each project had to answer was taken from Zhou and George (2001). Multiple yet identical questionnaires were created for the three networks. After consideration of the placement of the boundaries and in line with the literature, it was decided to place them around each project and the organization. This amounted to three separate networks: one for the organization, one for the film and one for the TV-show. Aldrich and Herker (1977) defined organizational boundaries in such a way that they span around the actors that are “included” (p. 217) and separates them from the ones that are “excluded” (p. 217). In this specific case, both projects are part of the organization, yet when the topic was discussed with the contact from within the organization, she informed us that the two crews do not interact with each other, and since they work on two very different projects it was decided to divide them and consider each crew as included to their own ‘organization’, while, in addition to that, the third organization was the actual organization. From that it was concluded that any communication between the two productions or between production and organization would be considered boundary spanning activity and the ties between members of these separate entities boundary spanning ties.
Initial conversations with the company showed strong willingness to cooperate and interest in the results. Since both projects were on location, the researcher decided to collect information electronically through the program Qualtrics, via a survey focusing on an egocentric network. An egocentric network (Marsden & Campbell,
2012) implies that instead of providing a list of all the names inside and outside the organizational and project boundaries to choose from, the respondents would have to fill in the names they socialized with. This choice was made in order to avoid respondent fatigue that might occur when they would have to read over 130 names. Within the survey a specification was made to also fill in names of people outside their respective boundaries if they did socialized with them. They had the possibility to fill in a total of ten (10) names and a minimum of five (5) (Burt, 1984). The limit of five names is in place in order to decrease the measurement bias that arises but also to increase measurement precision (Burt, 1984).
Measures
Dependent Variable: Creativity. In order to measure creativity, previous research employed the supervisors of the projects the respondents were part of. However, the majority of the research has been done on innovation and thus supervisors were specifically on the respective projects (Zhou & George, 2001). Zhou and George (2001) used in their research 13 statements concerning creativity and its implementation and took their average to compute a creativity score. Since this study is concerned with film productions, the producers of each project were asked to rate the respondents’ creativity on a 5-point Likert scale for six statements, of which again the average was taken in order to appoint to each a creativity score. The statements were decreased to six in order to minimize as much as possible respondent fatigue and were chosen based on their relevance with this current study. The initial plan for this thesis was to focus on the freelancers only and their relations to the main staff of the production company. However, a total response rate of 15% and a sample consisting of 12 freelancers would be too small to extract valuable results, so the decision was made to also include the main staff of the organization into the analysis. This would
additionally allow to investigate which interactions add to their creativity, which was also of great interest with the organization.
Independent Variable: Tie Strength. As mentioned earlier, strength of ties is measured as construct of closeness, frequency and longevity and so the respondents had to answer three statements concerning these three attributes in relation to the names given. The statements were taken from Cross and Levin (2004). The responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale and from this the mean was taken to create the average strength of tie between the respondent (ego) and the names he filled in (alters). Distinguishing between boundary spanning and non-boundary spanning was also necessary, however it did not occur at the survey and the respondents did not indicate whether the mentioned relationships were inside or outside their boundaries since in order to minimize the bias not all information was fully disclosed concerning the research. A list of names of the two crews and the members of the organization were given to the researcher before the administration of the survey. Based on that list, the researcher, after cleaning the completed surveys and measuring tie strength, divide the ties between boundary spanning and non-boundary spanning and took the average of those respective ties that constituted the strength of boundary and non-boundary spanning ties generally. A few names were also reported that were not part of any given group and thus they were also considered boundary spanning ties and were coded as a separate group for the following social network analysis.
Control Variables: Age. In order to test for the actual effect of the independent variable, the tie strength type, two control variables were used, age and gender. The use of control variables, which are constant, reduce the effect of confounding variables and decrease the internal validity threats, discussed above. Age was
measured by allowing the respondents to fill it in in years, creating so a ratio variable that provides us with more accuracy.
Control Variables: Gender. The same holds for the control variable of gender and its use in the research. To measure gender, the respondents were given a choice from ‘Male’, ‘Female’, and ‘Other’. In the latter one there was a text box where they could specify. It was chosen over the traditional two choices to be more inclusive of all.
Control Variables: Number of Projects. The number of projects each of the respondents had worked on was requested, which ranged from 1 to 60. Naturally the organizational employees worked on more and from the freelancers the maximum was 15 projects.
Control Variables: Months worked with the Production Company. In the same manner the length of time they had worked with the production company was also requested. Because there are many freelancers and different projects take different time frames to be finished, the answer specified a reply in months, since years might have been to limiting and broad.
Multiple questionnaires were thus administered to 134 participants of which only 15% answered it. Separate questionnaires were created for the 3 supervisors of each project in order to calculate the creativity of the respondents. The boundaries were drawn around each project and questions concerning tie strength were answered. Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics of the research.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics
N Min. Max Mean S.E. S.D.
MEanCrea 20 1.50 5.00 3.9930 .24440 1.09299 BS_MSoT 20 .00 4.50 2.9635 .30813 1.37801 NBS_MSoT 20 .00 5.00 3.9050 .23466 1.04943 WNBS 20 .00 1.00 .0500 .05000 .22361 SNBS 20 .00 1.00 .9500 .05000 .22361 WBS 20 .00 1.00 .3000 .10513 .47016 SBS 20 .00 1.00 .7000 .10513 .47016 Age 20 23 56 41.15 2.012 8.999 Gender 20 1 2 1.40 .112 .503 Projects 20 1 60 14.95 3.935 17.599 MonthsEmpl 20 1 161 58.40 12.854 57.485 Valid N 20
RESULTS
Statistical Analysis
Due to the low response rate a total amount of 20 filled in questionnaires were cleaned out and were prepared for data analysis. For the statistical analysis the use of SPSS 22 was employed. The first step was to calculate the reliability of each of the measures that construct the strength of tie, which are closeness, frequency and longevity. However the Cronbach’s alpha for those three items could be considered by many as not sufficient. In specific, for Closeness the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.623 which is slightly lower than the overall accepted 0.7-0.8. The measure of Frequency gave a satisfying 0.765 while Longevity also produced a lower alpha of 0.663. Reliability refers to how consistent and stable the measures are if repeated- so the same results should occur if the survey was to be retaken. Although the general acceptance level is as mentioned 0.7-0.8 there has been a vivid discussion in the literature, with some claiming that lower values can also be accepted depending on the construct they measure (Field, 2013). Kline (2000) claimed that a cutoff point at 0.7 is more appropriate for psychological constructs. Although the measures here are not fully psychological they still could fall under these category, since they measure the attributes of the ego’s relationship with the alters. Relationships and ties are not constant since people tend to change their mind often about the people surrounding them- they are dynamic, susceptible to time, emotions and events (Holmlund & Törnroos, 1997). Because of this dynamic nature of relationships, a Cronbach’s alpha lower than 0.7 may be acceptable.
This is also the case when tested for the total Strength of Tie, which produced a value of 0.675, which is very close to the 0.7 cutoff value. The Strength of Tie
Longevity. The reliability analysis though for the creativity measures yielded solid results of 0.974 which indicates that the measures will produce very similar result if repeated. When it comes to the external validity of the overall measures, the questionnaire items were taken from a different published journal articles and cross-referenced with similar studies to this thesis and thus one could claim they fulfill the validity clause. For internal validity, control variables were used in order to reduce the effect of confounding variables on the independent variable.
Since the main focus of this research was to see the effect of boundary spanning ties, and in specific, strong boundary spanning ties, the data was sorted based on the answers given by the respondents. The researcher split the reported ties into boundary spanning and non-boundary spanning ties based on the lists of names that were given by the organization. For example, names given by person X in project A that were part of project A were considered non-boundary spanning while names that were part of project B, C or neither (and thus put in project D) were considered boundary spanning, and so on. The average of those was taken and two new variables were created that represented the total strength of boundary spanning and non-boundary spanning ties for each respondent. Since Strength of Ties was measured on a 5-point Likert scale, the average was taken, constituting a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5. In order to distinguish between weak and strong ties, it was decided that all values until 3 (3 included) will be considered and treated as weak ties while all values above 3 as strong ties. The reasoning behind that is that on the Likert scale values 1 and 2 represented ‘negative’ answers while 3 was neutral and so after the neutral answer, 4 and 5 are more ‘positive’ and thus it was possible to draw a clear line between weak and strong ties. For example the item Frequency and its Likert value 4 was “More than once a week”, which is in line with Granovetter’s (1973)
“often= At least twice a week” (p.1371). The inclusion of the 3 allows a minimum bias that might have occurred during the completion of the questionnaire; in addition, as mentioned, value 3 represents the neutral clause and thus a ‘normal’ tie can be seen as a weak one. When it came to creativity the mean was taken as mentioned and the limit was again at 3 (and 3 included) - everything until 3 was considered low creativity and everything above three high creativity for reasons of clarity, again based on the relevance of the Likert scale answers. Furthermore, apart from the neutrality issue, since the research was placed in an already quite creative environment the bar could be set higher in order to balance the scores given.
After assigning to each respondent their respective strength of boundary and non-boundary spanning ties, a regression test was conducted to see the effect of boundary spanning and non- ties on creativity. Except for the two variables, the abovementioned control variables age and gender were also added. Running the analysis it was seen that, contrary to the hypothesis, there is no significant effect of boundary spanning nor non-boundary spanning ties on creativity since the p>0.5 (p=.176). The amount of variance explained in creativity by the predictors is 32,8 % (R2=0.328, p=.457), which is still quite low, however there is a difference between boundary (b=-0.019, t=-0.104, p=.918) and non-boundary (b= -0.325, t=-1.276, p=.221) spanning ties. Given the low R2 one could say that the fit between the model
and the data is not well, however, low R2 values are not always bad. This is specially
the case in fields that try to assess human behavior since humans are hard to predict. Because it was mainly hypothesized about the distinct effect between strong and weak ties, boundary spanning or not, there was a need to test for their separate results. Dummy variables were thus created in order to separate strong from weak and focus the tests on those. A distinction was made between the four before-mentioned
strength of tie types and regression analysis performed to check their separate effect on creativity.
Non-boundary spanning weak ties had a positive and non-significant effect on creativity (b=3.592, p=.056). These results are in line with the first hypothesis that, in line with the literature, argued that weak ties may have a positive effect on creativity. Non-boundary spanning strong ties had a negative and non-significant effect on creativity (b=-1.173, p=.291). These results are not in line with the second hypothesis since showed a negative relationship between strong non-boundary spanning ties and creativity. Boundary spanning weak ties had a positive and non-significant effect on creativity (b=0.177, p=.746), which again is in line with the third hypothesis stated in this thesis. Boundary spanning strong ties had positive and non-significant effect on creativity (b=3.127, p=.091). The main hypothesis and these results are thus also in line. Out fifth hypothesis is thus also supported since, comparatively, strong boundary spanning ties have a stronger positive effect on creativity than weak boundary spanning ties.
Although the regression analysis gave us non-significant results, conclusion can still be drawn. However, the non-significance of these results poses a problem since they lead to acceptance the null hypothesis, which in this paper would be that neither weak nor strong, boundary spanning or not, ties affect creativity. This is however a problematic statement since many other researchers have showed that this does not stand and the opposite holds. In addition to that, the very small sample of this research does not allow for the generation of significant results, especially in combination with the lack of a more complete network and the creativity of the strong and weak ties of the alters given by the ego. For those reasons the results will be treated as mentioned above.
Hence, it is evident that the stronger effect on creativity of the four strengths of tie type have the weak non-boundary spanning ties and the strong boundary spanning ties. In line with the theory, weak ties are the most significant (or in this case, closest to the accepted significance value). It is assumed that it is due to the influx of nonredundant information from people that are still related with the overall project and thus have more knowledge on matters that might be of interest and need to the ego. In comparison with the effect of boundary spanning weak ties on creativity one can observe a large difference, since that effect appears to be much lower. A reason for that might be that the nonredundant information acquired by the weak ties, in combination with the boundary spanning which in this specific case spans across projects, provides more unrelated information that does not aid the creativity of the ego but obstruct it. This possibility will be also discussed in the Discussion chapter.
Furthermore, strong boundary spanning ties also had the second most influence on creativity, which as said, supports the fourth and main hypothesis. It is believed that this is because the boundary spanning connection, and thus the ties across and between projects and organization allow for the transfer of nonredundant information that aids creativity yet those novel ideas and thoughts can be processed, analyzed and implemented due to the trust that exists between ego and alter. The results will be discussed in a larger extent in the discussion chapter- before that however, the social network must also be analyzed in order to relate the results better with the overall findings. Table 2 provides the correlations between the variables.
! 37 ! Ta ble 2 Bi va ria te Pe ar so n’ s C or re la tio ns a m on g t he M ain Va ria ble s o f th e S tu dy ! ! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9! 10 ! ! 1! ME an Cr ea ! 3! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2! BS _M SoT ! .0 58 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3! NB S_ M So T! 3.1 17 ! 3.0 88 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4! WN BS ! .2 17 ! .0 93 ! 3.8 76 ** ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5! SN BS ! 3.2 17 ! 3.0 93 ! .8 76 ** ! 31. 000** ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6! 6! WB S! 3.0 63 ! 3.7 95 ** ! .1 25 ! 3.1 50 ! .1 50 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7! SB S! .0 63 ! .7 95 ** ! 3.1 25 ! .1 50 ! 3.1 50 ! 31 .0 00 ** ! ! ! ! ! ! 8! Ag e! .4 55 *! .0 06 ! .4 01 ! 3.1 35 ! .1 35 ! 3.1 23 ! .1 23 ! ! ! ! ! 9! Ge nd er! 3.4 09 ! 3.3 37 ! .0 69 ! 3.1 87 ! .1 87 ! .3 56 ! 3.3 56 ! 3.4 79 *! ! ! ! 10! Pr ojec ts! 3.0 50 ! 3.2 63 ! 3.0 17 ! .0 01 ! 3.0 01 ! .2 44 ! 3.2 44 ! 3.1 99 ! .2 40 ! ! ! 11 Mo nth sE m pl! .3 39 ! 3.2 32 ! 3.2 03 ! .2 52 ! 3.2 52 ! .0 81 ! 3.0 81 ! .3 55 ! 3.2 72 ! .2 17 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! No te :!* p< .0 5,! ** p< .0 1,! ** *p <.0 01 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
