For the Love of Creation
The Impact of Loving-Kindness Meditation on Entrepreneurial Creativity.
-
Leonie Moraal University of Amsterdam
24th of June, 2016
Supervisor: Dr. Yuval Engel
Table of Contents
Statement of Originality ... 4
Abstract ... 5
Introduction ... 6
Theory and Hypotheses ... 9
LKM and Entrepreneurial Creativity ... 9
The Role of Prosocial Motivation ... 12
Methodology ... 15 Design ... 15 Participants ... 15 Procedure ... 15 Measures ... 16 Dependent Variables ... 16 Independent Variable ... 17 Mediation ... 18 Control Variables ... 18 Analytic strategy ... 19 Results ... 21 Preliminary analysis ... 21 Randomization Check ... 21
Manipulation Check ... 21
Analysis of general creativity effects of LKM ... 24
Analysis of Entrepreneurial Creativity and LKM ... 24
The Mediation Effect of Prosocial Motivation ... 25
Discussion ... 29
Theoretical Implications ... 29
Practical implications ... 31
Study Limitations and Future Research ... 31
Conclusion ... 33
References ... 35
Appendix ... 41
Appendix A: MAAS scale (short version) ... 41
Appendix B: Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (EC subscale) ... 42
Appendix C: Entrepreneurial Creativity task ... 43
Appendix D: Details on Experiment Locations ... 43
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Leonie Moraal 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 of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
Where individual characteristics important for creativity have been researched
extensively, research specifically on creativity in the entrepreneurial field is rare, just like clear evidence for what particular process could stimulate creative thinking. The present study focuses on how Loving Kindness meditation (LKM) could play a role in increasing entrepreneurial creativity, an important quality for entrepreneurial success. Expected is, based on the motivated information processing theory, that LKM will activate other focused processes leading to
prosocial motivation. Prosocial motivation will subsequently encourage better idea generation. In an on-site experiment participants were assigned to either a LKM group, listening to a LKM recording, or a control group and had to generate ideas for a described entrepreneurial dilemma. Hypothesized was that participants in the LKM would score higher on both general and
entrepreneurial creativity, novelty and usefulness. Results based on 65 entrepreneurs indicate that LKM enhances general creativity, but not in particular entrepreneurial creativity. Prosocial motivations are found to play a mediating role in the found relationship for creativity. The discussion highlights theoretical contributions and alternative explanations for the lack of evidence for the relationship between LKM and entrepreneurial creativity. Also some practical implications and suggestions for future research are considered.
Introduction
Entrepreneurial creativity – the capacity to identify novel and useful solutions to
problems in the form of new products or services (Amabile, 1996; Perry-Smith & Coff, 2011) – is often cited as one of the most important qualities entrepreneurs can possess and cultivate for entrepreneurial success (Fallon, 2014; (Nieuwenhuizen & Groenewald, 2002; Nieuwenhuizen & Kroon, 2003).
Still, while research shows clear evidence for the positive influence of creativity for those engaging with an entrepreneurial task, for example better information association for new combinations (Baron, 2006; Ward, 2004), firm innovation (Baron & Tang, 2011) and increased entrepreneurial alertness (Ding et al., 2014), less is known about the factors that contribute to the development of this entrepreneurial creativity. In other words, what makes one entrepreneur more creative than another entrepreneur?
Research on factors that can influence creativity have often showed that individual factors like positive affect (Baron & Tang, 2011; Perry-Smith & Coff, 2011), intrinsic motivation (Dayan, Zacca, & Di Benedetto, 2013; Grant & Berry, 2011), creative self-efficacy, expertise (Dayan, Zacca, & Di Benedetto, 2013; Shalley & Zhou, 2003; Zhou, 2008) and prosocial motivations like empathy and compassion (De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008; Grant & Berry, 2011; Humphrey, 2013) are strongly related to creativity.
The key takeaway from these studies is that creativity is a function of relatively stable individual characteristics. In the current, study, however, we choose a different pathway to argue for entrepreneurial creativity and suggest that useful insights can be provided by looking further than the individual factors that could drive entrepreneurial creativity, by focusing on a specific
tool or method that can stimulate and develop entrepreneurial creativity.
Meditation could be an interesting method to consider, due to its growing support and positive findings for cognitive processes (e.g. creative thinking) in the work field (Good et al., 2015). Prior research on the relationship between meditation and creativity is mainly executed in the mindfulness meditation field and shows mixed results (Colzato, Ozturk, & Hommel, 2012; Ostafin & Kassman, 2012). This is explained by the fact that not all elements of mindfulness meditation are important for creativity (Baas, Nevicka, & Ten Velden, 2014). The ability to carefully observe, notice and attend to others, seems the most influential aspect that accounts for enhancing creativity (Baas et al., 2014).
This particular aspect of Mindfulness meditation is the key element of Loving-Kindness Meditation (LKM), which could make this type of meditation of interest in relation to
(entrepreneurial) creativity. In LKM individuals contemplate positive feelings they have towards a person they care about (e.g., a family member), extending these feelings to themselves and a growing circle of others (Kang, Gray, & Dovidio, 2015; Logie & Frewen, 2015). It has been found that more compassion, empathy and social connection towards others is often reported as related to LKM (Hofmann, Grossman, & Hinton, 2011; Hutcherson, Seppala, & Gross, 2008; Kang et al., 2015).
Our objective of this study is to find out whether LKM influences entrepreneurial creativity and if so, how this can be explained. In order to this, we apply the motivated
information processing theory (De Dreu, 2006). The key point of this theory is that motivations are shaped by cognitive processing, meaning that individuals selectively notice, encode and retain information that is consistent with their desires. Motivations to find novel solutions, one aspect of entrepreneurial creativity, are for example activated by the desire to explore, achieve
and be independent (Shane, Locke, & Collins, 2003). Motivations for finding useful ideas, the other aspect of entrepreneurial creativity, is often based on desires to solve a problem for others (prosocial motivation) (Mohrman, Gibson, & Mohrman Jr., 2001). Based on this theory and the large focus of LKM on others, we suggest that prosocial motivation could likely be the mediator in the relationship between LKM and entrepreneurial creativity, which will be hypothesized in this study.
The current research was designed to make several contributions in the entrepreneurial creativity field. First by bringing the application of meditation to the entrepreneurship field. Secondly, by focusing on more than just the individual factors that could account for
entrepreneurial creativity. Finally we want to be able to support our viewpoint that prosocial motivation is a key mechanism in the relationship between LKM and entrepreneurial creativity (De Dreu, 2006).
This article is organized as follows. First, the findings of basic research on LKM is briefly reviewed, with special attention to the aspects that are related to both general creativity and more importantly entrepreneurial creativity (Baas et al., 2014; Perry-Smith & Coff, 2011). Next, we will discuss the potential for an indirect relationship between LKM and entrepreneurial creativity, by introducing prosocial motivation. Thirdly, the hypotheses based on these findings are tested. Finally the results of the study will be presented and implications will be discussed.
Theory and Hypotheses
The main focus of this study is to explain how LKM could influence entrepreneurial creativity. In the following sections we begin by introducing the construct of LKM and argue for its positive relationship with both general creativity and entrepreneurial creativity. Next, we offer an indirect explanation for the effect for both creativity and entrepreneurial creativity by
prosocial motivation (De Dreu, 2006; Grant & Berry, 2011) as an important mechanism by which LMK is driving creative thinking (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
LKM and Entrepreneurial Creativity
Loving-kindness meditation (LKM) falls within a larger category of meditation
techniques, which in general focus on training attention and awareness to bring mental processes under greater voluntary control (Weibel, 2007). LKM involves using silent mental phrases that
Loving-Kindness Meditation
Prosocial Motivation
Entrepreneurial Creativity
focus on the importance of the desire to be happy and free from suffering to cultivate attitudes, intentions, and feelings of love, kindness, and compassion, first for oneself and then mainly towards others including a loved one, a friend, a neutral person, a person with whom one has difficulties, all people, or all beings (Salzberg, 2004). Practicing LKM leads to more self-acceptance, received social support, positive relations with others and positive feelings which broaden attentional focus, cognition, and behavioral action functions for mental health and wellbeing (Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel, 2008). The main effect of LKM is that more positive emotions and cognitions are not only experienced for the self, but also for others around you (Hofmann et al., 2011; Hutcherson et al., 2008; Kang et al., 2015). Importantly, such positive effects have been shown to be maintained for 15 months after a full seven week LKM course (Fredrickson et al., 2008).
Yet, we are interested in why LKM could be relevant for creativity and even more importantly entrepreneurial creativity. Drawing back to the earlier described motivated information processing theory, described is that individuals have the tendency to selectively perceive, encode, and retain information that is congruent with one’s desires (De Dreu, 2006). With LKM strongly focusing on the observation of others and cultivating attitudes and feelings to these others, we could suggest that the individual will develop more desires that are focused on others. These desires activate the need to generate positive results for others, therefore stimulating creativity (Grant & Berry, 2011; Polman & Emich, 2011).
Research on mindfulness meditation (MM) and creativity provide support for this assumption. Baas et al. (2014) reviewed research on MM in relation to creativity and concluded that no clear direction of evidence for this relationship exists. Both positive effects of MM on creativity (Ostafin & Kassman, 2012 ) and the lack of effects (Colzato et al., 2012) have been
found. In their study, Baas et al. (2014) try to explain these mixed results by researching the different components of MM in relation to creativity: the ability to observe self and others, act with awareness, ability to describe observed phenomena and act without judgment. They find that mainly one of the components is responsible for increased creativity, namely the ability to observe the self and others carefully. This is supporting the expectation for LKM as a suitable method to increase creativity. This is in line with what Fredrickson et al. (2008) suggest in their research on LKM and positive emotions.
Comparing literature on LKM and MM, it was found, that the ability to observe and focus on others is stronger linked to LKM than to MM (Boellinghaus, Jones, & Hutton, 2014; Logie & Frewen, 2015). Boellinghaus et al. (2014) explain that MM has a wider array of functions with a larger focus on the self than LKM. Where the ability to observe both the self and others is also a relevant aspect of MM, the emphasis on others is more present in LKM. This makes LKM a very interesting predictor found general creativity. Introducing the first
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1a: Loving-kindness meditation positively affects creativity.
However, as the main objective of this study is to explain how LKM could affect entrepreneurial creativity, it is important to look further than general creativity.
Where general creativity measures often focus on the novelty, uniqueness and originality aspects of ideas (Ford & Gioia, 2000), the usefulness aspect is less often emphasized.
Entrepreneurial creativity, however, consists of generating ideas for problems in the form of new products or services that are both novel (unusual and unique) and useful (feasible)(Perry-Smith
& Coff, 2011). Staying closely to the motivated information processing theory (De Dreu, 2006), we especially expect that the usefulness aspect will benefit from LKM. As described before something is seen as most useful, when it solves problems for other people (Mohrman et al., 2001). With its strong focus on observing others, we expect that LKM stimulates entrepreneurs to more carefully consider the usefulness aspect of an idea. Novelty, also an aspect of general creativity (Amabile, 1996) is also expected to be positively influenced by LKM as mentioned in hypothesis 1 . Entrepreneurial creativity is expected to be positively affected by LKM especially for the element of usefulness. Where novelty and usefulness are often measured in one measure, they are unrelated dimensions of ideas (Ford & Gioia, 2000) and therefore we will consider both aspects separately when measuring entrepreneurial creativity. We introduce the following
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1b: Loving-kindness meditation positively affects entrepreneurial creativity.
Together hypothesis 1a and 1b provide us a full understanding of LKM on the entrepreneurial creativity.
The Role of Prosocial Motivation
Thus far, we have considered the potential of LKM in directly influencing entrepreneurial creativity. However, drawing back to the motivated processing information theory, we could suggest that the focus on others in LKM stimulates prosocial motivation, the desire to benefit others (De Dreu, 2006), including for example compassion and empathy (Grimes, Mcmullen, & Miller, 2015). Instead of just considering the direct relationship, another possibility is that LKM
may first impact prosocial motivation (De Dreu, 2006; Grant & Berry, 2011), which, in turn, is related to creativity (Grant & Berry, 2011). Thus, while we acknowledge the evidence supporting a direct relationship between LKM and (entrepreneurial) creativity, we suggest that prosocial motivation mediates this relationship. We now focus on this complementary explanation and analyze it in more detail.
To shed light on the potential of prosocial motivation as the process underlying the relationship between LKM and (entrepreneurial) creativity, we will first briefly highlight the relationship between LKM and prosocial motivation.
Prosocial motivation is defined as the effort based on a concern for helping or contributing to other people (Grant & Berry, 2011). This includes for example sympathy, empathy, distress about other people’s suffering and compassion (Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010; Simon-Thomas, McGarty, & Mavor, 2009). To be able to experience prosocial motivation individuals need the precondition of having awareness of others (Thomas et al., 2009). LKM, with the high focus on observing and considering others, activates this awareness (Fredrickson et al., 2008), making it a predictor of such prosocial motivation.
Research on LKM supports this assumption convincingly and provides evidence for LKM enhancing prosocial motivations like compassion(Kang et al., 2015; Logie & Frewen, 2015; Weibel, 2007), but also empathy and sympathy (Fredrickson et al., 2008; Hofmann et al., 2011).
We further propose that prosocial motivation, in turn, will influence general creativity and probably also entrepreneurial creativity. De Dreu (2006) explains that prosocial motivation leads to “consider information from multiple perspectives to a greater extent and stimulates the processing of social information—information from and about relevant others”, with a greater
ability to be creative. Polman and Emich (2011) confirm this by finding prosocial motivations lead to more abstract thinking more (Liberman & Trope, 1998). Abstract thinking is subsequently related to better creative decisions (Liberman & Trope, 1998). This leads to the following
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2a. Prosocial motivation will mediate the positive relationship between loving-kindness meditation and creativity.
In case of entrepreneurial creativity with the knowledge we have on the motivated information processing theory we could assume prosocial motivation being activated through other focus and therefore driving the entrepreneurs’ to think more thoroughly on the usefulness of a solution or idea. Research supports that prosocial motivation encourages both novelty, but especially usefulness of creativity (Grant & Berry, 2011). And that it encourages decisions to be made from a desire to get the best result for a problem experienced by others (Lu et al., 2013).
In summary, the evidence supporting the relationship between LKM and prosocial motivation and between prosocial motivation and creativity, together predict that prosocial motivation mediates the effect between LKM and entrepreneurial creativity, providing the following two hypotheses.
Hypothesis 2b. Prosocial motivation will mediate the positive relationship between loving-kindness meditation and entrepreneurial creativity.
Methodology
Design
The hypotheses of this study were explored using an experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned to the conditions of a between subjects design (LKM condition vs. control condition).
Participants
A total of 81 entrepreneurs voluntarily participated in the study. Entrepreneurs in this case were defined as currently the owner, alone or with others, of a business they help manage, including self-employment or selling any goods or services to others (Reynolds et al., 2005). Sixteen entrepreneurs were excluded from the final sample based on five exclusion criteria: three participants meditated regularly, seven participants failed the attention check question, two participants were not the founder of the business and ten did not complete the meditation and/or creativity task. This led to a final sample of 65 entrepreneurs (35 in the meditation condition and 30 in the control condition). The entrepreneurs differed in the industry they worked in, ranging between 21 different industries. The Internet and food service industries were most frequently mentioned (both 7 percent). The mean firm age 3,63 (SD = 4.84) years, with an average of 2,53 employees (SD = 1.10). The demographic characteristics of the
entrepreneurs show that participants were mainly men (61,5%), had a mean age of 27,60 (SD = 7,41), ranged in 10 nationalities with 67,7 % being Dutch and 78,5 % had an education level of a bachelor degree or higher.
Procedure
An on-site experiment was conducted at several co-working locations in a large city in the Netherlands and, in some cases, entrepreneurs were invited to take the experiment at a
university facility (exact locations and details about them can be found in Appendix D). A quite room was used to minimize unplanned interruptions. On most locations groups of two to three entrepreneurs were scheduled during work hours for 30 minutes to join the experiment. In one particular case we tested a group of 18 students from an entrepreneurship course.
All entrepreneurs that participated in the experiment used a laptop and headphones. Through an online link the entrepreneurs were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions and could move through the entire experiment individually. The experiment was divided in three parts: the first part included details on the entrepreneurs’ ventures and some control variables. The second part included the LKM manipulation (dependent on the assigned condition, the entrepreneur would listen to a LKM recording or an informative meditation recording)
manipulation check, self-ratings on prosocial motivation and the entrepreneurial creativity task. The third part included some general demographic questions. Three yoga mats were raffled between the participating entrepreneurs as an incentive. Upon completion of the study, participants were thanked and debriefed.
Measures
Dependent Variables
Entrepreneurial Creativity. Participants in both conditions completed a self-designed entrepreneurial creativity task based on methods used in Perry-Smith and Coff (2011) and Prandelli, Pasquini, and Verona (2016). This task contained an entrepreneurial scenario
describing an entrepreneurial dilemma for which the participant was asked to think of novel and useful solutions (see Appendix C for the complete scenario). Three independent raters were used to rate the generated ideas. The raters all had relevant business experience and/or operated in a
creative industry. Raters were instructed to read the entrepreneurial scenario and the following definition of entrepreneurial creativity: the capacity to identify novel and useful solutions to problems in the form of new products and services. All ideas were rated on three items that capture both novelty and success of an idea. The items, rated on a 7 point Likert scale (1 = poor to 7 = excellent), were likelihood of success (1), profit potential (2) and novelty (3), with the first two items measuring usefulness and the third item novelty (Perry-Smith & Coff, 2011). The interrater reliability for the ratings of creativity was calculated using rwg(2) (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), with a mean of rwg(2) = .82 for novelty and a mean rwg(2) = .88 for usefulness.
Creativity. A measure combining the number of unique ideas and the uniqueness of these
ideas was used (Perry-Smith & Coff, 2011). Based on a categorization approach all participants’
ideas were examined and similar ideas were categorized. Within the list of ideas of every participant, ideas in the same category (duplicates) were eliminated, leading to a measure of distinct number of ideas generated (fluency and flexibility). The ideas were assigned a
uniqueness index based on how frequently it was mentioned in the sample. Ideas in more unique categories we assigned higher uniqueness scores than ideas in often mentioned categories. A total uniqueness score of the ideas per participant was calculated.
In sum, these two measures capture both general creativity and specific entrepreneurial creativity. This way a broad and complete picture of the effects on the creativity of the
participated entrepreneurs can be collected.
Independent Variable
Loving-kindness meditation. In this study LKM meditation was operationalized by a LKM manipulation. Participants in the treatment condition listened to an 11.44 min guided LKM
recording used and validated in Logie & Frewen (2015):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz7cpV7ERsM. Participants in the control condition listened to a 10.37 min sound recording of an informative TED talk on meditation
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzR62JJCMBQ).
Manipulation Check. As a manipulation check participants reported the extent to which they were focused on their breathing, felt in touch with their body and were focused on the physical sensations of their breathing (Hafenbrack, Kinias, & Barsade, 2014). Answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all to 5 = Extremely; α = .84). The average of all three answers was used.
Mediation
Prosocial Motivation. Prosocial motivation was measured using the Empathic Concern subscale of the interpersonal reactivity Index (Davis, 1980). This is a 28-item measure with seven items per subscale. Participants respond to the items on a 5-point likert scale (1 = Does not describe me well to 5 = Describes me very well). The Empathic Concern scale measures
tendencies to experience feelings of warmth, compassion and concern for others, described as prosocial motivations (Davis, 1983; Miller, Grimes, Mcmullen, & Vogus, 2012). The internal reliability of the subscale was in α = .82.
An attention check item was added to this scale, asking participant to select “Does not describe me well” as an answer.
From a demographic standpoint we controlled for age and education. Experience and knowledge, higher in older people, have been theorized to affect creativity positively (e.g., Amabile, 1985) Also creativity is strongly related to education level. The higher the level of education, the more intelligent and creative (Amabile, 1983; Barron & Harrington, 1981; Perry-Smith & Coff, 2011).
For firm level characteristics, we controlled for firm size and industry. In smaller firms more direct and personal contact is possible (less layers) with less distractions and inertia, encouraging more creative thinking within a company (Gong, Zhou, & Chang, 2013). Also the need for creativity differs among industries. More competitive industries require more creative thinking to differentiate themselves from their competitors (Acs & Audretsch, 1987). Also more specific industries in the creative sector (e.g. film, music, theater) will have a larger focus on creativity (Amabile, Hadley, & Kramer, 2002).
Finally to provide a more robust test of the role of LKM we controlled for trait
mindfulness. Individuals scoring high on trait mindfulness are naturally more prosocial (Lim, Condon, & Desteno, 2015), which could interfere with the creativity outcomes. The 6-item short version Mindful Attention Awareness Scale was used (Black, Sussman, Johnson, & Milam, 2012; Van Dam, Earleywine, & Borders, 2010). A sample item is “I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present”. Responds were given on a 6-point likert scale (1 = almost always to 6 = almost never; α = .67 (medium scale).
Analytic strategy
To test hypothesis 1a, an ANOVA is conducted to allow comparing the means of general creativity. Next, hypothesis 1b will be tested by conducting a MANOVA to test the differences in
means for novelty and usefulness, the two aspects of entrepreneurial creativity. Testing the mediating effect described in hypothesis 2a and b, the Process macro written by Andrew F. Hayes for SPSS was used (Hayes, 2012). A simple mediation model (model 4) was used to conduct the analysis and show the potential role of prosocial motivation in the relationship between LKM and creativity and LKM and entrepreneurial creativity.
Results
Preliminary analysis
The means and standard deviations per group, as well as all correlations, can be found in Table 1. In line with our confirmed randomization (see below), the lack of correlation between the control variables and the mediating and dependent variables, indicates that including the proposed controls in subsequent analyses is not necessary, that is – they will not remove any error variance if included (Field et al, 2014). Accordingly, these control variables were only used to check whether the randomization procedure was successful.
Randomization Check
A multivariate analysis of variance (using Pilai's trace), with condition as the independent variable and age, firm size and trait mindfulness as the dependent variables, showed no
significant effects, V = .03, F (3,60) = .59, p > .05. Looking into the univariate analyses regressing age, firm size and trait mindfulness on condition revealed no significant difference between groups for the three variables. A Chi-square test was conducted to compare groups on industry and education (categorical variables) No significant differences were found χ² (20) = 30.27, p > .05 for industry and χ² (4) = 2.10, p > .05.
Manipulation Check
As a Manipulation check, participants self-rated focus on breathing and physical
sensations of the body were measured. Results revealed that, participants in the LKM condition were more focused on the physical sensations of the body and their breathing (M = 3.41, SE
= .80) compared to the participants in the control condition (M = 2.49, SE = .88), t (63) = -4.43, p < .01. These results confirm the success of the manipulation.
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations. Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Age 27.60 7.41 2. Gender 1.38 .49 -.01 3. Education 6.89 1.48 .08 .23 4. Firm Age 3.63 4.84 .76** .17 .09 5. Firm Size 2.53 1.10 .10 -.18 .10 .01 6. Industry 17.97 10.90 .00 -.06 .11 .03 .06 7. Creativity 2.38 1.17 .03 -.14 .07 -.07 .11 -.06 8. Novelty 3.74 .64 .02 -.17 .12 .04 .20 .00 .50** 9. Usefulness 3.27 .44 -.02 -.08 .17 -.08 .17 .02 .11 .66** 10. LKM .53 .50 .02 .07 .08 -.14 .03 .26* .28* .03 -.10 11. Prosocial Motivation 3.43 .66 -.13 .04 -.11 -.29* -.14 .18 .36** .20 -.02 .45** (.82) 12. Trait Mindfulness 3.58 .67 .10 -.12 -.08 .16 -.20 .03 -.24 -.12 .01 -.18 -.20 (.67) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Analysis of general creativity effects of LKM
A One-way ANOVA was performed to test hypothesis 1 and investigate differences between the loving-kindness meditation condition and the control condition on general creativity. With one assumption violation in normality, a logarithmic transformation was conducted to transform the data into a normal distribution. There was a significant effect of LKM on general creativity F(1,63) = 5.12, p < .05, = 5.35, in support of hypothesis 1a. Table 2 reveals the means, standard deviations and p scores.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations and p-values of the two groups on Creativity.
Analysis of Entrepreneurial Creativity and LKM
A MANOVA was performed to test hypothesis 1b and investigate differences between the loving-kindness meditation condition and the control condition on novelty and usefulness scores. Using Pillai’s trace, there was no significant effect of LKM on both usefulness and novelty, V = 0.03, F (2, 62) = .82 , p = .45, not supporting hypothesis 1b. This means we do find significant higher scores for both novelty and usefulness (entrepreneurial creativity) in the LKM condition compared to the control condition. Table 3 reveals the means, standard deviations and p scores.
Measure/Group LKM Control
M (SE) M (SE) P values
Table 3. Means, standard deviations and p-values of the two groups on entrepreneurial creativity (novelty and usefulness).
The Mediation Effect of Prosocial Motivation
First, we tested hypothesis 2a, the mediating effect of prosocial motivation on general creativity. A mediating effect was found for prosocial motivation between LKM and creativity (.30
with a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval between .02 and .73). A significant effect was found between LKM and prosocial motivation (t = 3.95, p < .01) and between prosocial motivation and creativity (t = 2.19, p < .05). No significant result was found between LKM and creativity (t = 1.16, p > .05) (see figure 2 and table 4). This means hypothesis 2a was supported.
Figure 2. Statistics for the relationships between LKM, Prosocial Motivation and Creativity.
Measure/Group LKM Control
M (SE) M (SE) P values
Usefulness 3.23 (.08) 3.33 (.08) p = .42
Table 4. Indirect, direct and total effects of prosocial motivation in the relationship between LKM and Creativity.
Next we tested the mediating effect of prosocial motivation on the relationship between LKM and entrepreneurial creativity (usefulness and novelty) hypothesis 2b. No mediating effect was found
for prosocial motivation between LKM and usefulness (.13 with a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval between -.08 and .16). A significant effect was found between LKM and prosocial
motivation (t = 3.95, p < .05). No significant results were found between prosocial motivation and usefulness (t = 3.95, p > .05) and between LKM and usefulness (t = -.84, p > .05) (figure 3 and table 5).
Figure 3. Statistics for the relationships between LKM, Prosocial Motivation and Usefulness.
Effects on Creativity BC 95 % CI
B (c) SE P Lower Upper
Indirect effect of LKM on Creativity .30 .17 - .04 .78
Direct effect of LKM on Creativity .35 .31 .25 -.26 .96
Total effect of LKM on Creativity .65 .28 .02 .09 1.21
Table 5. Indirect, direct and total effects of prosocial motivation in the relationship between LKM and Usefulness.
Also for novelty no mediating effect was found for prosocial motivation between LKM and novelty (.01 with a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval between -.01 and .36). A significant effect was found between LKM and prosocial motivation (t = 3.95, p > .05). No significant results were found between prosocial motivation and novelty (t = 1.67, p > .05) and between LKM and novelty (t = -.56, p > .05) (See figure 4 and table 6).
Figure 4. Statistics for the relationships between LKM, Prosocial Motivation and Novelty.
Effects on Usefulness BC 95 % CI
B (c) SE P Lower Upper
Indirect effect of LKM on Usefulness .01 .06 - -.08 .16
Direct effect of LKM on Usefulness -.10 .12 .40 -.35 .14
Total effect of LKM on Usefulness -.09 .11 .42 -.31 .13
Table 6. Indirect, direct and total effects of prosocial motivation in the relationship between LKM and Novelty.
In summary, the interaction effect is not significant for both novelty and usefulness, so there is no evidence of a mediating effect of prosocial motivation in the relation between LKM and entrepreneurial creativity, not supporting hypothesis 2b. However, looking at the effects of LKM on the prosocial motivation, we do see that LKM significantly influences prosocial motivation positively supporting the shown correlation in table 1.
Effects on Novelty BC 95 % CI
B(c) se p Lower Upper
Indirect effect of LKM on Novelty .13 .10 - -.01 .36
Direct effect of LKM on Novelty -.10 .18 .58 -.45 .25
Total effect of LKM on Novelty .03 .16 .84 -.29 .35
Discussion
With the growing importance of entrepreneurs being creative to succeed, a “tool”,
Loving-Kindness Meditation (LKM) has been introduced to stimulate creativity of entrepreneurs. In this controlled experiment with a sample of entrepreneurs we tested if LKM would influence general creativity and more importantly entrepreneurial creativity. Assumed was a mediating role of prosocial motivation. We found a positive relationship between LKM and general creativity, mediated by prosocial motivation. For entrepreneurial creativity, novelty and usefulness, no effect was found for LKM and the mediating role of prosocial motivation.
Theoretical Implications
Our research takes a step forward in looking for ways to encourage creativity and contributes to both the creativity literature as the meditation literature. Where Mindfulness meditation was found to benefit creativity when it was focused on the ability to observe others this study shows similar effects for LKM. Therefore LKM, with its specific focus on focusing on and observing others, provides valuable evidence on what particular process in meditation is important for encouraging creativity.
Also the effects predicted by the motivated information processing theory were found, supporting the important role of motivation in the creative thinking process and the easiness of stimulating motivations that can have direct effect on a person’s creative ability (in this case through LKM). This means that everybody if stimulated with the right desires could develop motivations leading them to be more creative. Proposing a learnable aspect of creativity, interesting for future research.
We did not find any effects for the novelty and usefulness aspects of entrepreneurial creativity, which was expected based on the motivated information processing theory. With novelty being very closely related to general creativity measures and a positive effect found for general creativity, we would have expected a result for novelty as well. With the same task showing different results for a similar kind of creativity measure, we could question the differences in how it was measured as explaining these unexpected outcomes. This will be further discussed in the limitations of this study. Also another explanation could come from an interesting finding in several other studies (e.g. Goncalo and Staw, 2006) suggesting that
thinking of useful and novel ideas can also be constrained by prosocial motivation by fostering a focus on conformity. Through conformity an individual can lose its capability to think of novel and useful ideas, because expected is to think in a particular direction (conforming others). The described dilemma was strongly environmentally ethical focused and could have caused
conformity feelings for doing well for the environment, inhibiting their entrepreneurial creativity. The likeliness of this explanation is not to high, finding positive results for general creativity, which is closely linked to the novelty aspect of entrepreneurial creativity. Humphrey (2013) offers a third explanation. Perhaps LKM doe not immediately improve entrepreneurial creativity through prosocial motivation, but indirectly cause entrepreneurs to be more attuned to their competitors’ and customers’ wants and needs. This may help them to identify trends and business opportunities in the future, generating novel and useful ideas. This would mean that entrepreneurial creativity is influenced more on the longer term, as insights of “others” are gained.
Practical implications
Creativity, the lifeblood of entrepreneurs, is essential for recognizing opportunities and developing interesting new businesses (Nieuwenhuizen & Kroon, 2003). Even though we don’t find evidence for LKM specifically stimulating entrepreneurial creativity, we do have support for increased general creativity in the participating entrepreneurs. Based on these findings we could suggest some practical implications.
For example, co-working spaces, often the starting point for start-ups, could offer LKM courses as part of the space rent for entrepreneurs. At the starting point uncertainty is high (source) and creativity could help making successful decisions. If people don’t want to join a course, meditation applications like Headspace and Buddhify, could work together with such co-working spaces and offer discounted prescriptions for entrepreneurs using the co-co-working space. In later stages cofounders could further introduce LKM into their entire company to not only him/herself, but also the other employees.
Further, entrepreneurship courses at universities could highlight the potential benefits and introduce a mandatory course while working on a business project.
Study Limitations and Future Research
Although this study shows some interesting results and methodological strengths it also shows some less convincing results and some study limitations that deserve specific mention.
First, the not supporting effects for entrepreneurial creativity could have, besides theoretical explanations, several methodological explanations. Where we do find the expected effects on prosocial motivation, we could assume the problem to be between prosocial
motivation and entrepreneurial creativity. In measuring entrepreneurial creativity, we used an idea generation task. Amabile (1996) proposed that in early stages of the creative process, the ability to generate as many ideas as possible is more important. Later in the creative process, when selecting a particular idea as the “best” idea, the generated ideas will be judged on how useful they are, used as a selection criterion. This would mean that in our idea generation experiment the process of thinking of usefulness has not been activated yet. For future research we would suggest the addition of idea selection as a part for measuring entrepreneurial creativity. With one creativity measure finding very good effects and with a different creativity measure finding no effects, we could try and find an explanation for this difference, leading to the second methodological explanation. General creativity, being measured in an objective way (counting and categorizing ideas), does not take the quality of ideas in consideration. Novelty and usefulness, subjectively rated, are more quality based and show more insights into the generated ideas. Feedback, perceived from the raters, confirms this assumption. They observed that generated ideas often were just first steps that needed to be undertaken to get a better understanding of the actual problem (e.g. I would research if indeed the information given by Terry is true). Additional information in the scenario could have encouraged entrepreneurs to think a couple of steps further, generating more novel and useful ideas. This highlights the importance of carefully considering a suitable scenario. In a future study it could be useful to use multiple scenario’s to test entrepreneurial creativity and have several pilot tests to see if the scenario will lead to the expected responses.
There could also be argued that more thorough results could be gathered when
researching the relationship in a longitudinal design (Baas et al., 2014). Often LKM is given in a multiple-week course or by providing a guided self-meditation course with several sessions a
week (Logie & Frewen, 2015). A more stable meditation state can be reached with a longitudinal design (Logie & Frewen, 2015). This kind of design could take long-term effects, like gathering insights from competitor and customer, in consideration and see how this will affect
entrepreneurial creativity, like suggested by Humphrey (2013). This would be a suggestion for future research.
A final limitation stems from the study’s sample, which was not completely randomly selected. Most of our participants were gathered by promoting our research at the different co-working spaces and within our own networks, leading to entrepreneurs voluntarily joining the study. Often these participants brought us in contact with other entrepreneurs who also joined our study. This is called snowball sampling. Where this way of sampling made the difficulty of finding entrepreneurs for the study more easy, it could be questioned if this sample is
representative of the population being studied (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).
Conclusion
This study took an interesting and new approach in investigating how entrepreneurs could improve their creativity. Earlier research has found individual factors influencing creativity, but research on the use of a specific tool, to stimulate creativity, and more specifically
entrepreneurial creativity, is rare. In particular, Loving-Kindness meditation is shown to be a good tool to influence general creativity. With its high focus on observing and focusing on others it stimulates prosocial motivations that account for becoming more creative. Where the objective was specifically on entrepreneurial creativity, concerning novelty and usefulness of ideas, the effect of LKM was not confirmed. This does not mean that the relation does not exist, and might be caused by more methodological causes. Therefore this study offers a variety of interesting
possibilities for future research to get better insights how LKM could benefit entrepreneurial creativity, and see how love could lead to creation.
References
Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. 1987. Innovation, Market Structure, and Firm Size. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(4): 567–574.
Amabile, T. 1996. Creativity in context. Westview press.
Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2): 357–376.
Amabile, T. M. 1985. Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2): 393.
Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. 2002. Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review.
Baas, M., Nevicka, B., & Ten Velden, F. S. 2014. Specific Mindfulness Skills Differentially Predict Creative Performance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 1–15. Baron, R. A. 2006. Opportunity Recognition as Pattern Recognition: How Entrepreneurs
“Connect the Dots” to Identify New Business Opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectivesagement Perspectives, 20(1): 104–119.
Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. 2011. The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1): 49–60.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. 1981. Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1): 439–476.
Black, D. S., Sussman, S., Johnson, C. A., & Milam, J. 2012. Psychometric assessment of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) among Chinese adolescents. Assessment, 19(1): 42–52.
Boellinghaus, I., Jones, F. W., & Hutton, J. 2014. The Role of Mindfulness and Loving-Kindness Meditation in Cultivating Self-Compassion and Other-Focused Concern in Health Care Professionals. Mindfulness, 5(2): 129–138.
Colzato, L. S., Ozturk, A., & Hommel, B. 2012. Meditate to create: The impact of focused-attention and open-monitoring training on convergent and divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(APR): 1–5.
Condon, P., Desbordes, G., Miller, W. B., & DeSteno, D. 2013. Meditation increases compassionate responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24(10): 2125–2127.
Davis, M. H. 1980. A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empahty. Catalog of Selected Document in Psychology, 40(7): 3480.
Davis, M. H. 1983. The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51(2): 167–184.
Dayan, M., Zacca, R., & Di Benedetto, A. 2013. An exploratory study of entrepreneurial creativity: Its antecedents and mediators in the context of UAE firms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(3): 223–240.
De Dreu, C. K. W. 2006. Rational self-interest and other orientation in organizational behavior: A critical appraisal and extension of Meglino and Korsgaard (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1245–1252.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. 2008. Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5): 739.
Ding, X., Tang, Y.-Y., Cao, C., Deng, Y., Wang, Y., et al. 2014. Short-term meditation modulates brain activity of insight evoked with solution cue. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 2: 1–7.
Ford, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. 2000. Factors Influencing Creativity in the Domain of Managerial Decision Making. Journal of Management, 26(4): 705–732.
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. a, Coffey, K. a, Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. 2008. Open hearts build lives: positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5): 1045–1062. Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. 2010. Compassion: An Evolutionary Analysis and
Empirical Review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3): 351–374.
Gong, Y., Zhou, J., & Chang, S. 2013. Core Knowledge Employee Creativity and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Riskiness Orientation, Firm Size, and Realized Absorptive Capacity. Personnel Psychology, 66(2): 443–482.
Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., et al. 2015. Contemplating Mindfulness at Work: An Integrative Review . Journal of Management , 42(1): 114–142. Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic
and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1): 73–96.
Grimes, M., Mcmullen, J. S., & Miller, T. L. 2015. Venturing for Others with Heart and Head : How Compassion Encourages Social Entrepreneurship HEAD : HOW COMPASSION ENCOURAGES, 37(July): 616–633.
Hafenbrack, A. C., Kinias, Z., & Barsade, S. G. 2014. Debiasing the mind through meditation: mindfulness and the sunk-cost bias. Psychol Sci, 25(2): 369–376.
Hayes, A. F. 2012. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. White Paper, 1–39.
Hofmann, S. G., Grossman, P., & Hinton, D. E. 2011. Loving-kindness and compassion meditation: Potential for psychological interventions. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(7): 1126–1132.
Humphrey, R. H. 2013. The benefits of emotional intelligence and empathy to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3(3): 287–294.
Hutcherson, C. a, Seppala, E. M., & Gross, J. J. 2008. Loving-kindness meditation increases social connectedness. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 8(5): 720–724.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1): 85–98.
Kang, Y., Gray, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. 2015. The Head and the Heart: Effects of Understanding and Experiencing Lovingkindness on Attitudes Toward the Self and Others. Mindfulness, 6(5): 1063–1070.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. 1998. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1): 5–18.
Lim, D., Condon, P., & Desteno, D. 2015. Mindfulness and Compassion: An Examination of Mechanism and Scalability. PloS One, 1–8.
Logie, K., & Frewen, P. 2015. Self/Other Referential Processing Following Mindfulness and Loving-Kindness Meditation. Mindfulness, 6(4): 778–787.
Lu, J., Xie, X., & Xu, J. 2013. Desirability or Feasibility: Self-Other Decision-Making Differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2): 144–155.
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., Mcmullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. 2012. Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of
Management Review, 37(4): 616–640.
Mohrman, S. A., Gibson, C. B., & Mohrman Jr., A. M. 2001. Doing research that is useful to practice: A model and empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 357–375.
Nieuwenhuizen, C., & Kroon, J. 2003. The relationship between financing criteria and the success factors of entrepreneurs in small and medium enterprises. Development Southern Africa, 20(1): 129–142.
Ostafin, B. D., & Kassman, K. T. 2012. Stepping out of history: Mindfulness improves insight problem solving. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(2): 1031–1036.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Coff, R. W. 2011. In the mood for entrepreneurial creativity? How optimal group affect differs for generating and selecting ideas for new ventures. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(3): 247–268.
Polman, E., & Emich, K. J. 2011. Decisions for Others Are More Creative Than Decisions for the Self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4): 492–501.
Prandelli, E., Pasquini, M., & Verona, G. 2016. In user’s shoes: An experimental design on the role of perspective taking in discovering entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(3): 287–301.
Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., et al. 2005. Global entrepreneurship monitor: Data collection design and implementation 1998-2003. Small Business
Economics, 24(3): 205–231.
Salzberg, B. S. 2004. Loving-kindness: The Revolutionary Art of Happiness. Loving-kindness: The Revolutionary Art of Happiness. Shambhala Publications.
Guide to Planning Your Project. Pearson Education Limited. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Shalley, C. E., & Zhou, J. 2003. ZhouShalley 2003.pdf.
Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. 2003. Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2): 257–279.
Thomas, E. F., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. I. 2009. Transforming “Apathy Into Movement”:The Role of Prosocial Emotions in Motivating Action for Social Change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4): 310–333.
Van Dam, N. T., Earleywine, M., & Borders, A. 2010. Measuring mindfulness? An Item Response Theory analysis of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7): 805–810.
Ward, T. B. 2004. Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2): 173–188.
Weibel, D. T. 2007. A Loving-Kindness Intervention: Boosting Compassion for Self and Others. Dissertation, (November).
Zhou, J. 2008. New look at creativity in the entrepreneurial process. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1): 1–5.
Used Recordings
Loving Kindness Meditation [Video]. (2011, 23 December). Assessed from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz7cpV7ERsM
Puddicombe, A. (2013, 11 January). Andy Puddicombe: All it takes is 10 mindful minutes [Video]. Assessed from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzR62JJCMBQ
Appendix
Appendix A: MAAS scale (short version)
Instructions: Using the 0-6 scale shown, please indicate to what degree were you having each experience described below when you were paged. Please answer according to what really reflected your experience rather than what you think your experience should have been. (0 = not at all to 6 = very much).
1. I find it difficult to stay focused on what was 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 happening in the present.
2. I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 without paying attention to what I experience
along the way.
3. I find myself preoccupied with the future or 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 the past.
4. I find myself doing things without paying 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 attention.
5. I rush through activities without being really 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 attentive to them.
6. I forget a person’s name almost as soon as 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I’ve been told it for the first time
7. I break or spill things because of 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking
of something else
MAAS Scoring
To have high scores reflect higher state mindfulness, reverse score all items then average all 7 values.
Appendix B: Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (EC subscale)
The following statements inquire about your thoughts and feelings in a variety of situations. For each item, indicate how well it describes you by choosing the appropriate letter on the scale at the top of the page: A, B, C, D, or E. When you have decided on your answer, fill in the letter on the answer sheet next to the item number. READ EACH ITEM CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. Answer as honestly as you can. Note: EC = empathic concern scale.
ANSWER SCALE:
A B C D E
DOES NOT DESCRIBES ME DESCRIBE ME VERY WELL WELL
1. I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. (EC)
2. Sometimes I don't feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems. (EC) (-)
3. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them. (EC)
4. Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal. (EC) (-)
5. When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don't feel very much pity for them. (EC) (-)
6. I am often quite touched by things that I see happen. (EC)
7. I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person. (EC)
Appendix C: Entrepreneurial Creativity task
Below, you are presented with an entrepreneurial scenario. Please read it carefully. Put yourself in the role of the entrepreneur making the decision and answer the provided questions.
You have started a new business with an important supplier who operates an offshore plant. The plant fully conforms to local requirements for maximum emission of toxic substances, as established 10 years ago. The facility is inspected annually, and toxic emissions have always been at an acceptable level. Relying on recently published research, however, Terry Bakker – another entrepreneur working with the same supplier – argues that the cumulative effects of the pollution from the plant can cause environmental degradation. Terry, who's opinion you value, claims that public officials would agree if they knew of these findings. Thus, he urges you to reconsider your business relationship with this supplier and the plant in question. However, changing the manufacturing process or finding a new supplier would delay your business operation substantially and might cause bankruptcy.
Use your imagination, put yourself in the role of the entrepreneur facing this situation. You will get about 10 minutes to answer the question below.
Think of as many alternative solutions for the dilemma above. Write short and clear answers. Your ideas will be evaluated in terms of novelty and usefulness (is it a realistic idea?). You can name as many ideas as you want.
(15 boxes to write down solutions are provided).
Appendix D: Details on Experiment Locations
B. Amsterdam
Johan Huizingalaan 763A, 1066 VH Amsterdam WeWork
Weesperstraat 61, 1018 VN Amsterdam De Ceuvel
Korte Papaverweg 4, 1032 KB Amsterdam University of Amsterdam
Roetersstraat 11, 1012 WX Amsterdam
Appendix E: Details Raters
Martin Moraal: + 31 6 28 78 74 03 , moraal.goote@ziggo.nl
Anouk Bikkel: + 31 6 50 52 88 00, anouk@amsterdamcapitalweek.com Clarels van Zwetselaar + 31 6 47 13 61 82, clarelss@gmail.com
