How do personality traits affect the effectiveness of a performance-contingent reward in order to enhance an individual’s intrinsic motivation for a creativity task?

(1)

How do personality traits affect the effectiveness of a

performance-contingent reward in order to enhance an

individual’s intrinsic motivation for a creativity task?

Master thesis

Sven Hamers (10592830) Supervisor: dhr. B. Szatmari

M.Sc. Business Administration: Entrepreneurship & Innovation University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School

(2)

2 Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Sven Hamers 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.

(3)

3

Abstract

Motivated individuals are important for organizations. They are expected to perform better which is essential for schools and companies. One of the factors affecting performance is intrinsic motivation. It is the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to explore and to learn. This study focuses on the intrinsic motivation for a creativity task. It is of value for managers to understand the most effective way to encourage employees.

This study examines two main effects, the relationship between extrinsic performance-contingent rewards and intrinsic creative motivation, and extrinsic performance-performance-contingent rewards and creative performance. The main focus of this study is to examine the moderation effect of personality traits on the relationships. Do personality traits alter the relationships, and if so, in which direction?

To answer this question an online experiment was conducted. Participants were randomly allocated to three groups: a zero rewards, one dollar reward and ten dollar rewards group. They had to generate three most creative titles for two short stories. Afterwards they had to fill out a questionnaire related to the task interest and personality traits. The personality traits were measured based on the five-factor model. The results indicated no significant main effects. Results further indicated a significant negative interaction effect of extraversion and neuroticism for intrinsic creative motivation. The interaction effect was existent in the small reward condition, when extraversion was high and neuroticism was low. In addition, the findings presented a significant negative interaction effect of openness to experience with both reward conditions for creative performance.

Based on the results it is advisable for managers to create groups with different performance-management systems based on the personality traits of employees. Whether other type of rewards have an effect is an interesting direction for future research.

(6)

6

1. Introduction

If a child who is very passionate about painting starts receiving a payment for this activity, what will happen to his intrinsic motivation for performing this task? Or, if a student enjoys writing essays and receives a reward in form of a high grade, what will happen to his intrinsic motivation for writing? The answer to these questions are still unclear.

The relationship between extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation is one of the key topics in psychological research. There is a long-going debate about the effect of the first on the latter, and it is understandable that people would like to have an answer to this question. For all types of organizations, it is essential to have motivated individuals. For example, in schools or universities it is important because motivated students are likely perform better and achieve higher grades. People working in education therefore want to understand how they can motivate children in the best way. Also within companies it is expected that motivated employees perform better. This is important, as good performing employees are essential for the company to reach its goals. Although a variety of factors may affect performance, one of the substantial factors influencing performance is the intrinsic motivation for a job (Van Knippenberg, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is described by Ryan and Deci (2000a) as the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than from some separable consequence. The results of this type of motivation is an experience of interest and enjoyment and a situation where people feel competent and self-determining. This behaviour results in creativity and spontaneity (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Mumford (2003) confirms this and explains that intrinsic motivation is strongly related to creativity.

In this study the focus will be on a particular form of intrinsic motivation, namely at the intrinsic motivation for engaging in a creative activity. Creativity is essential in current times where, regardless of the industry, innovation has become a crucial driver for long-term

(7)

7 organizational success (Hon, 2012). While innovation requires creative employees, the

abundance of human capital is not sufficient to create an innovation climate. Organizations need intrinsically motivated employees that are willing to engage in innovation efforts. Creativity is also valuable in education. The ability to approach assignments flexibly and innovatively helps make students self-directed learners (Torrance, 1965). To encourage creative behaviour, managers and teachers often use extrinsic rewards. Students receive a high grade for creative projects and employees receive monetary rewards for innovative solutions. However, the effect of rewards on motivation and performance and whether it is positive has remained unclear despite much prior research.

Several studies have showed that rewards may have detrimental effects on an individual’s intrinsic motivation. For example, if a student who loves to play music is externally rewarded for that activity, the student may play less music once the rewards stop. This illustrates the possible undermining effect of rewards on intrinsic interest in an activity. Kohn (1993) agrees and advised organizations and schools to stop using rewards as means for enhancing creativity. He stated that it is not possible to bribe people to be creative. Tegano, Moran and Sawyers (1991) explained that students are less likely to take risks or approach tasks in an experimental way when there is an expected reward. Contradictory, Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) concluded that rewards can have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation and creative performance when these are dependent on the performance of the task. This stresses the disagreement between researchers about the consequences of providing rewards.

When determining this effect, some researchers suggest that it is dependent on the individual’s personality (Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski, 2002). It is understandable that personality traits could have an influence on this relationship as it is a psychological process. Individuals react differently to everyday situations because of the difference in personality. For example, an extraverted person will feel more comfortable with speaking to a stranger at

(8)

8 the bus stop than an individual low on extraversion. Therefore, the main focus of this study will be to look at the influence of personality traits on the relationships between promised rewards, intrinsic creative motivation and creative performance. To the best of this author’s knowledge, the moderating effect of personality traits on this relationship has not been examined before. This study aims to find an answer to the question: “Do personality traits alter the relationships between extrinsic rewards, intrinsic creative motivation and creative performance, and if so, in which direction?”. This will be researched by conducting an online experiment among a diverse sample of participants.

First, the theories behind the possible explanations for the relationship between rewards and intrinsic motivation will be discussed. Additionally, contributing earlier research will be reviewed and the different variables and their roles will be explained. By doing this, the literature gap will be assessed and it will be made clear why this paper has contributing value to the existing literature. Afterwards, the hypotheses will be created and the conceptual model will be discussed. Subsequently, the method and research design will be explained and the results of the study will be presented and discussed. Lastly, there will be a discussion about the implications of the results and future directions for related studies.

2. Literature review

In this section, prior relevant research will be discussed. Supported by these studies hypotheses will be explained and the conceptual model will be presented.

2.1 CET and attributional theory

For almost 50 years, studies have focused on the effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Ryan and Deci (2000b) define intrinsic motivation as the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to explore and to learn. From the moment of

(9)

9 birth, people have a natural inclination toward spontaneous interest and exploration that represents a principal source of enjoyment and vitality through life (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). For example, the motivation a child has for playing football in the absence of specific reward.

This issue first appeared in an article of Deci (1971) where he argued that some activities provide their own reward, so motivation for these activities is not dependent on external rewards. He also raised the question of how extrinsic rewards would affect intrinsic motivation. Later studies showed that tangible rewards could undermine students’ intrinsic motivation for an activity (Rummel & Feinberg, 1988; Wiersma, 1992, Deci, Koestner & Ryan 1999). In addition, studies by Kruglanski, Friedman and Zeevi (1971) and Lepper, Greene and Nisbett (1973) found evidence, revealing that other material and symbolic rewards could also undermine the intrinsic motivation of students. They focused on various types of rewards such as the effect of verbal rewards or positive feedback. Despite the type of reward, it is important to understand the different theories that are used to describe the

psychological process behind this effect. Self-determination theory (SDT) is an approach to human motivation that highlights the importance of human inner tendencies for personality development and innate psychological needs (Ryan, Kuhl & Deci, 1977). Three needs appear to be essential for optimal functioning of the propensities for growth and integration: the needs for relatedness, competence and autonomy. A few years later, Deci and Ryan (1980, 1985) presented the cognitive evaluation theory (CET), which is a sub-theory within SDT. CET explains the effect of external consequences on intrinsic motivation. This theory became well known and is relevant for this study as it specifies factors which explain variability in intrinsic motivation.

CET claims that underlying intrinsic motivation are the psychological needs for autonomy and competence, so the effect of rewards depends on how it affects perceived self-determination and perceived competence. Furthermore, CET proposes that rewards can be

(10)

10 interpreted by recipients either as controlling of their behaviour, or as informational in which the rewards are an indicator of their competence (Deci et al. 1999). When rewards are

controlling they are predicted to prevent satisfaction of the need for autonomy which results in a more external perceived locus of causality and consequently undermining of intrinsic motivation (Deci et al. 1999). In the case that rewards are interpreted as informational, they are predicted to provide satisfaction for the need of competence and as a result enhance intrinsic motivation. In most cases, rewards can have conflicting effects, being experienced as controlling and to some extent as informational at the same time. These two processes work against each other so additional factors must be taken into account such as reward

contingencies. This will be elaborated on later in this study.

Besides CET, additional theories have been used to interpret findings from related studies such as the attributional theory. This theory deals with how the social perceiver uses information to arrive at causal explanations for events. It examines what information is

gathered and how it is combined to form a causal judgment (Fiske, & Taylor, 1991). Lepper et al. (1973) tested the “overjustification” hypothesis suggested by Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory. It proposes that a person’s intrinsic interest in an activity may be decreased by

encouraging him to engage in that activity as a means to some extrinsic goal. It is only existent if the person is already intrinsically motivated to participate in the activity. For example, if a person is passionate about painting, once he receives a reward for the previously unrewarded painting activity, this will possibly undermine his intrinsic motivation because he attributes the motivation as coming from the reward. To test this hypothesis, Lepper et al. (1973) asked preschool children to engage in a drawing activity in which they showed initial intrinsic interest before the experiment. The subjects were assigned randomly to three groups: an expected-reward condition, an unexpected-reward condition and a no-reward control condition. Measures of intrinsic motivation were obtained by observation of the classrooms

(11)

11 behind a one-way mirror. The results showed that it is possible to create an “overjustification” effect. The subjects in the expected-award condition showed decreasing intrinsic interest in the drawing activity compared to the unexpected-award condition. However, the results do not suggest that engaging in an activity for an extrinsic reward will always result in a decrease in intrinsic interest (Lepper et al. 1973). In later study, Lepper (1981) proposed that the more salient the instrumentality between an activity and a reward, the higher the probability it will undermine intrinsic motivation. In a situation where the reward conveys positive competence information, the information will offset some of the negative instrumentality effect so it will be less detrimental on intrinsic motivation.

As Deci et al. (1999) explain, there is similarity in the CET and the overjustification theory, as both predict that salient rewards contingent on doing a behaviour undermine intrinsic motivation for that behaviour. However, there is also a difference between these two theories. While the overjustification theory focuses on the instrumentality, the CET focuses more on the experience of feeling controlled. This suggests that also other factors play a role, such as the interpersonal context.

In short, earlier studies found a negative effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. The two theories described above can possibly explain this relationship. CET suggests that rewards can be perceived by recipients as controlling which negatively affects the need for autonomy and results in an undermining of intrinsic motivation. The attributional theory proposes that rewards can have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation in situations where the person is already intrinsically motivated for an activity. These two theories are relevant for understanding the psychological process behind the examined effect.

(12)

12 In order to validate the aforementioned theories, multiple meta-analyses have been conducted related to this topic. Results from the study of Rumel and Feinberg (1988) supported both CET and the validity of an undermining effect. Later research (Wiersma, 1992) also found support for the two theories based on results from the 16 studies used in his research. Tang and Hall (1995) found the same regarding performance-contingent rewards, that they undermine intrinsic motivation. However, results showed that unexpected rewards did not have an influence on intrinsic motivation. The last meta-analysis was done by

Cameron and Pierce (1994) and their study showed different results than earlier studies. They concluded that there was no evidence for not using reward systems and abandoned the CET. However, after they published this article they were criticised by various researchers for methodological inadequacies which led to these surprising results (Ryan & Deci, 1996). Ryan and Deci (1996) explained that Cameron and Pierce (1994) incorrectly claimed that their findings contradicted CET. Furthermore, they excluded relevant studies in which strong undermining effects were found and called them outliers. Therefore, this meta-analysis cannot be seen as a valid and reliable study.

Four years after this study, Deci et al. (1999) conducted the most recent and elaborate meta-analysis in which they used 128 studies to examine the effect of extrinsic reward on intrinsic motivation. As expected, they found an undermining effect of all tangible rewards on both measure for intrinsic motivation, free choice and self-report. In addition, the results suggested that tangible rewards tend to be more detrimental for children than for college students. They also found evidence for a positive relationship, the positive effect of positive feedback on both free choice and self-report motivation.

As mentioned before, various types of rewards are expected to have different effects on intrinsic motivation. CET uses these different reward-contingencies to determine to which extent they undermine intrinsic motivation. Ryan, Mims and Koestner (1983) introduced the

(13)

13 following reward contingencies: task-noncontingent rewards, task contingent rewards and performance-contingent rewards. The first type of rewards are received by participants for something different than engaging in the target activity, for example just by participating in the study. Task-contingent rewards are given for engaging in or completing the target activity. This study will focus on the last one, performance-contingent rewards, which are given

specifically for performing the activity well. For example, subjects in an experiment have to solve a hidden figure puzzle and they will receive a reward if they find at least 4 hidden figures. If the subject receives the reward it implies that the subject did well. The fact that people have to meet some standard in order to maximize rewards means there is control and a tendency that this undermines intrinsic motivation. However, performance-contingent reward can also have a positive effect if the person does well enough to receive a level of reward which conveys positive competence information. The tendency for these rewards to affirm competence offsets some of the negative effects of control.

Different studies have focused their research on performance-contingent rewards and its effect on intrinsic motivation. Ryan et al. (1983) created a performance-contingent reward group where all subjects received three dollars for having done well at the activity. In the experiment of Harackiewicz, Manderlink and Sansone (1984), participants received a reward if they performed better than 80 percent of the other participants. As Deci et al. (1999) mentioned, earlier studies used different experimental designs to test their hypotheses, which lead to an important complications. The issue is that some studies gave less than maximum rewards to participants who performed less than optimally. In this situation, the reward conveyed less than maximum positive feedback because participants believed that a larger reward was possible if they performed better. For example, in the study of Daniel and Esser (1980), participants were told they could receive two dollars but only received one dollar, implying that their performance was less than optimal. This complication was taken into

(14)

14 account while conducting this research.

As Deci et al. (1999) stated, CET suggests that various other factors affecting the salience of the informational and controlling aspects need to be taken into account in making predictions about the performance-contingent reward effects on intrinsic motivation. The study by Harackiewicz (1979) introduced such an additional factor, the concept of cue value. Cue value is said to emphasize the positive informational effect and to decrease the

controlling effect. Harackiewicz et al. (1984) explain that rewards may differ in their cue value as a function of the competence information they provide. Rewards symbolizing higher levels of achievement should have more cue value and thus enhance interest to a greater degree than those symbolizing low competence (Harackiewicz et al. 1984). For example, a reward symbolizing a top 10% performance is expected to have higher cue value than receiving rewards for being above the mean. This was also considered and will be discussed in the method section.

Furthermore, Deci et al. (1999) explained in their study that little research has been done on the mediating effects of different variables in the relationship between extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation. In the same year, research by Eisenberger, Rhoades and Cameron (1999) was published which investigated the effect of performance-contingent rewards on perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation. This research is line with the basis of CET, because it is about how factors affecting perceived autonomy and

competence influence intrinsic motivation. However, the results of this study are in contradiction with CET. Eisenberger, Rhoades and Cameron (1999) conducted three

experiments with different samples. In the first study, the participants were college students who had to find detailed differences between cartoon drawings. They used a questionnaire to measure the variable self-determination. Intrinsic motivation consisted of two dependent variables, task enjoyment and free time. Task enjoyment was measured by a question and free

(15)

15 time was the time participants spent looking at the drawings within a 5-minute time-frame after the experiment. The results showed that perceived self-determination mediated the effect of reward on task enjoyment. In contrast, self-determination did not mediate the effect of reward on free time. Eisenberger et al. (1999) explained that this could be the case because of one drawback, namely that only a single-item indicator had been used to measure

self-determination which cannot assess the reliability of that measure. Therefore, the relationship between self-determination and free time measure of intrinsic motivation could be larger than observed. In their other relevant study, the sample consisted of employees of several

organizations. The results showed that perceived self-determination mediated a positive relationship of performance-reward expectancy with organizational support, mood at work and job performance. This is in contrast with CET, which supposes that reward for meeting a performance criterion is a form of control that reduces intrinsic motivation. However,

Eisenberger et al. (1999) understand that this depends on the arbitrariness of the performance standard. An imposed performance standard may have a bigger negative effect on self-determination than a performance standard in consultation with the participant. In later research, Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) reaffirm that performance-contingent reward increases perceived self-determination, which positively affects intrinsic motivation.

This section highlighted the difference in findings between studies which examined the effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Two important factors were introduced which are relevant for this study. Firstly, the focus on performance-contingent rewards, which are rewards dependent on the performance of the recipient. In addition, the concept of cue value was introduced. A high cue value is expected to enhance intrinsic motivation to a greater degree.

(16)

16 So far, the effect of all types of rewards on intrinsic motivation in general has been discussed. As mentioned, this study will focus specifically on the intrinsic motivation for engaging in a creative activity and the creative performance. Therefore, it is essential that related studies will be reviewed.

Firstly, the term creativity needs to be explained. Psychologists have a long history of disagreement about the concept of creativity. The earliest definitions focused on creativity as a process such as the definition provided by Koestler (1964). He explained that creativity involves a “bisociative process”, which is the connecting of two previously unrelated matrixes of thought to produce a new insight or invention. Guilford (1950) defined creativity in terms of the person. He proposed that creativity refers to the personal characteristics of creative people. Currently, most definitions focus on the outcome, also called creative product, as the signs of creativity. Barron (1955) introduced two criteria to evaluate if the product can be defined as creative. The product “should have a certain stated uncommonness in the particular group being studied” and it must be to some extent adaptive to reality. These product criteria of novelty and appropriateness are common in most definitions of creativity (Amabile, 1983). As Amabile (1983) noticed, the current definitions are rather conceptual, which makes it hard to assess the product based on the criteria. It can be argued that objective criteria for

identifying products as creative will never exist. She also explained that creativity is something that people can recognize and often agree on, even when they are not given a guiding definition. In her earlier work (Amabile, 1982), she explained that a product is creative if all appropriate observers independently agree it is creative. Appropriate observers are people who are familiar with the domain in which the creative product was created.

Thus, creative performance is the creativity level of a creative product which is assessed by judges who are familiar with the domain. Intrinsic creative motivation is the intrinsic motivation of an individual for a particular activity which involves creativity. For

(17)

17 example, in a situation where a company asks employees to think of an inventive idea in order to enhance their marketing strategy.

2.4 Effect of reward on creativity

Already three decades of research has failed to produce agreement concerning the effects of reward on creativity (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). According to Eisenberger and Shanock (2003), despite the complexity of research findings, the explanation for these

different results is the different worldviews concerning human nature of the researchers. They make the distinction between the romantic and the behaviourism view. Behaviourists and romantics each have their own procedure that usually produces the desired result (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). For romanticists, the nonspecific promise of rewards often decreased intrinsic creative motivation and creativity. This leads to the hasty conclusion that reward induces a diminishing intrinsic motivation and creativity. Hennessey and Amabile (1988) discussed that a reward promised for completing a task reduces creative performance. Rewards are assumed to reduce creativity by causing tasks to be defined more simply as a means to an end rather than as an opportunity for exploration (Amabile & Cheeck, 1988). Kruglanski et al. (1971) also found that rewards diminished individuals’ creativity. They asked college students to produce titles for a short story. Half the participants were told that they would be rewarded for producing paragraph titles, but no indication was given about the nature of titles that would be preferred. The findings showed that student with the nonspecific promise of reward generated less creative titles than students not given the promise. These results have been interpreted to imply that rewards decrease intrinsic motivation and creative performance by reducing perceived self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

In contrast, studies from behaviourists showed that rewards increased novel

performance, leading to the conclusion that creativity could be reinforced by rewards. This was most likely the case because they used informational cues, which means the participants

(18)

18 knew they were rewarded for being creative. Most research from behaviourists found that rewards have a positive effect on creativity. For example, Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli and Linch (1997), which examined divergent thinking, an important component of creative performance involving the production of varied responses to a question that has multiple solutions. In the first part of this experiment children in the high-divergent group were asked to give a novel use for 18 common physical objects, or a usual use for each of the objects if they were in the low-divergent group. Children were also divided into groups based on reward size ranging from nothing, one cent or five cent reward. The children were told immediately by the experimenter if the answer was “correct” or “incorrect.” This was based on the judgement of the experimenter. In the other test, children were given a sheet with circles. They were asked to make drawings from these circles in which the circle was the main part of the drawing. For this test, the children were again divided into three groups based on reward size. These drawings were judged on originality by two independent judges. Results from both tests indicated that when the requirement of creative performance was made explicit, children who received a large reward developed greater creative performance than with small or no reward. Hennessey and Amabile (1998) challenged the validity of the measure of creativity for the second test. They maintained that the assessment of creativity by judges familiar with the domain of the creative product is a more valid measurement. As a response, later research by Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) used the same test as Kruglanski et al. (1971) by asking college students to generate creative titles for a short story. The difference is that the participants in this test were informed that they would be judged on the creativity of the titles. The level of creativity was assessed by judges who rated the story titles based on novelty and quality. The results showed that students in the reward group generated more creative story titles based on the opinion of the judges. Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) suggested that making rewards explicitly dependent on creativity performance increases

(19)

19 creativity. The same as for intrinsic motivation this relationship is mediated by perceived self-determination. The promise of a reward dependent on high performance indicates freedom concerning how to accomplish the task, which enhances intrinsic task interest and

performance (Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001).

Furthermore, they propose that creativity is only reduced when task instructions suggest that reward is based on aspects of performance unrelated to creativity, because the nonspecific promise of reward often increases conventional performance at the expense of creativity. The reason is that conventional performance is rewarded more often in life than creativity, therefore the recipients of a nonspecific promise of reward may believe that conventional performance is required (Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001).

In summary, researchers found contrasting results when examining the effect of extrinsic rewards on creativity. Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) explained that this is the result of different worldviews of the researchers. Research from romanticists used rewards that were not performance-contingent or promised rewards without making clear to the participants what was expected from them. This resulted in findings indicating that promised rewards undermine creativity. In contrast, behaviourists used informational cues which makes it understandable for participants that they were rewarded for being creative. As a result, research of behaviourists suggests that performance-contingent rewards positively affect creativity. This study used the same method as the behaviourists. Participants were told that they received rewards based on their creative performance. Additionally, the rewards had high cue value which was expected to enhance the informational aspect (Harackiewicz et al., 1984). As Deci et al. (1999) explained, when rewards are perceived as informational they are predicted to provide satisfaction for the need of competence and enhance intrinsic motivation as a result.

(20)

20 Thus, based on the literature reviewed above there were two predictions:

H1a: The promise of a performance-contingent reward is expected to have a positive effect on

intrinsic creative motivation.

H1b: The promise of a performance-contingent reward is expected to have a positive effect

on creative performance.

2.5 Effect of personality traits

Much research has been done to study the relationship between rewards and creative performance. Taking in account the study of Eisenberger and Shannock (2003), stating that the inconsistent results can presumably be explained by different views of the researchers, it is time to look at this relationship differently. Instead of studying the effect itself, this study focused primarily on when this relationship is existent and if this effect is enhanced or

diminished by introducing a moderating variable. To the best of the author’s knowledge, there is little to no research for this type for this particular topic. As the relationship described is a psychological process, it is interesting to look at the moderation effect of personality traits.

Goldberg (1990) explained that all personality measures can be categorized in 5 factors of personality. He labelled these the “Big-five” factors. The five-factor model is a widely accepted framework which many researchers in personality and organizational psychology have used while examining the effect of personality traits (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Salgado, 1997). The five factors involved are: extraversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In the following paragraphs these personality traits will be explained and the possible moderation effects will be discussed.

(21)

21

2.5.1 Effect of extraversion

The first personality trait which is expected to have an effect on the described relationship is extraversion. Costa and Mccrae (1985), two experts in this field, describe extraversion as the following: “In addition to liking people and preferring large groups and gatherings, extraverts are also assertive, active and talkative; they like excitement and

stimulation and tend to be cheerful in disposition. They are upbeat, energetic and optimistic.” In their model they define six subcategories of extraversion: warmth, gregariousness,

assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, positive emotions. An example of extraverted individuals’ behaviour is that they prefer to discuss issues and options with others when they face a problem.

Stewart (1996) investigated sales representatives to research the moderation effect of reward structure in the relationship between extraversion and sales performance. He found that extravert sales representatives performed better if that performance was rewarded.

Barrick et al. (2002) identified that the desire to excel and obtain rewards is a basic motivation for extraverts. In accordance, results from Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh and Sao (2000) suggests that extraverts have a higher sensitivity to rewards. In this study college and university students from 39 nations had to fill out a questionnaire. The results indicated that reward sensitivity is the main aspect that holds the six facets of extraversion together. Rewards are usually obtained by excelling relative to others, and therefore extraverts are expected to be motivated by a desire to get ahead of others (Barrick et al., 2002). To go a bit more in depth, according to Gray (1970), the Behavioral Activation System (BAS), is the biologically based motivational system in the brain which regulates reactions to signals of conditioned reward and non-punishment. Individuals with a high BAS show higher levels of positive emotions such as happiness and excitement in response to environments where rewards are present. Gray (1970) affirms that extraverts react more easily to rewards while introverts respond

(22)

22 largely to punishment. According to Depue and Collins (1999), the reason behind this, is that extraverts are characterized by a strong BAS, therefore extraversion can be interpreted as reward sensitivity. Smits and Boeck (2006) found empirical evidence for this statement by researching the correlation between all factors of the five-factor model and the BAS. They made a distinction between three different subfactors of the BAS, all of them related to the response on rewards. The results from their research asserts that extraversion is positively related to all three items of the BAS scale. This proposes that extraverted individuals are high on reward sensitivity.

The indication based on various studies, that extraverts are reward-sensitive and motivated by competition, suggests that extraversion alters the relationships between extrinsic rewards, intrinsic creative motivation and creative performance. Findings of Stewart (1996) proposed that extraverted individuals performed better if that performance was rewarded, which applies to the rewards used in this study. Also, extraverted individuals have a high BAS thus are expected to show positive emotions such as enthusiasm and energy in situations that involve rewards. Therefore, it was the prediction that extraversion positively affects these relationships.

Thus, based on the literature reviewed above, the predictions were:

H2a: The relationship between extrinsic performance-contingent rewards and intrinsic

creative motivation is moderated by extraversion. This relationship is stronger among individuals high in extraversion.

H2b: The relationship between extrinsic performance-contingent rewards and creative

performance is moderated by extraversion. This relationship is stronger among individuals high in extraversion.

(23)

23

2.5.2 Effect of conscientiousness

Conscientiousness measures the extent to which individuals are hardworking, organized and dependable (Salgado, 1997). Costa and McCrae (1992) describe

conscientiousness people as reliable, determined and achievement oriented. They have the desire to exercise self-control and seek to fulfil their obligations, for example task

accomplishments in work contexts (Barrick et al., 2002). For instance, conscientious people are more likely to continue working on a problem after work time rather than going home.

Barrick, Mount and Strauss (1993) did research among sales employees to assess the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance. They found that sales

representatives high in conscientiousness are more likely to set goals and to be committed to these goals, which results in higher job performance. In addition, Barrick et al. (2002) found support for the hypothesis that individuals scoring high in conscientiousness report stronger intentions regarding accomplishment strivings. Komarraju and Kaura (2005) did research on the effect of personality traits on academic performance. Their findings showed that

conscientiousness people are more likely to be competitive. Conscientiousness was only in some situations correlated with the different factors of the BAS (Smits & Boeck, 2006).

The competitiveness and determination of conscientious individuals was expected to influence the relationships between extrinsic rewards, intrinsic creative motivation and creative performance. It was the expectation that conscientious people see the possibility to earn a reward in case of high performance as part of a competition against the other

participants. In addition, it was expected that, because conscientious individuals are goal oriented, they are more likely to engage in situations that involve rewards because it concerns setting goals. Therefore, it is expected that conscientiousness positively affects the

(24)

24 Thus, based on the literature reviewed above, the predictions were:

H3a: The relationship between extrinsic performance-contingent rewards and intrinsic

creative motivation is moderated by conscientiousness. This relationship is stronger among individuals high in conscientiousness.

H3b: The relationship between extrinsic performance-contingent rewards and creative

performance is moderated by conscientiousness. This relationship is stronger among individuals high in conscientiousness.

2.5.3 Effect of agreeableness

Agreeableness is another factor of the five-factor model. Costa and McCrae (1992) describe agreeable people as altruistic, sympathetic and eager to help others. Furthermore, agreeable people are expected to strive for communion rather than competition. Mount, Barrick & Stewart (1998) found evidence for a positive relationship between agreeableness and performance for team-oriented jobs and proposed that this relationship is stronger when jobs involve teamwork. Furthermore, Barrick et al. (2002) found a significant relationship between agreeableness and communion striving. This is in accordance with findings from Komarraju and Karau (2005) which suggested that agreeableness is negatively correlated with competing. This implies that agreeable individuals are not positively influenced by having an opportunity to compete.

Limited research has studied the response of agreeableness individuals in situations involving rewards. Corresponding with prior research, Smits and Boeck (2006) found a significant negative correlation between the BAS and agreeableness. This suggests that agreeable individuals are less sensitive to rewards. In addition, Ashton, Lee and Paunonen

(25)

25 (2002) explained that people who are high in reward sensitivity are likely motivated to behave in ways that attract social attention. As described, agreeable individuals prefer cooperating and are defined as altruistic suggesting that they do not have the desire to attract social attention. Therefore, it was expected that agreeable individuals are low in reward sensitivity. Low reward sensitivity indicates that rewards have none or little effect on agreeable people’s behaviour. Beersma et al. (2003) examined the reaction of agreeable individuals when placed in a reward structure that contradicted their natural proclivities. For agreeable people this means a competitive reward structure. The results showed no significant difference in

performance when agreeable individuals had the opportunity to earn a competitive reward. It is possible that agreeable individuals are negatively affected by rewards, because the

competition aspect is in contradiction to their desire for communion. However, there was not sufficient evidence from prior literature to expect that agreeableness affects the relationships between extrinsic rewards, intrinsic creative motivation and creative performance.

H₀ 4a: The relationship between extrinsic performance-contingent rewards and intrinsic

creative motivation is not moderated by agreeableness.

Hₐ 4a: The relationship between extrinsic performance-contingent rewards and intrinsic

creative motivation is moderated by agreeableness.

H₀ 4b: The relationship between extrinsic performance-contingent rewards and creative

(26)

26 Hₐ 4b: The relationship between extrinsic performance-contingent rewards and creative

performance is moderated by agreeableness.

2.5.4 Effect of Neuroticism

Neuroticism is the tendency to show poor emotional adjustment in the form of stress, anxiety and depression (Judge & Ilies, 2002). Bono and Judge (2004) explain that neurotic individuals tend to view the world through a negative lens. They are prone to dissatisfaction regardless of their life situation. Findings indicate that neurotic individuals are less likely to be goal-oriented (Malouff, Schutte, Bauer, & Mantelli, 1990). Furthermore, Komarru and Kamau (2005) found that neurotic individuals on average scored higher on performance. However, as Barrick et al. (2002) explain, characteristics such as anxiety and depression are not expected to link to the motivational goals.

The effect of neuroticism in situations involving rewards has not been studied much. Empirical evidence by Smits and Boeck (2006) presented a negative correlation with two of the BAS factors. This finding indicates that neurotic individuals are less sensitive to rewards. Furthermore, Bono and Judge (2004) discussed that neurotic individuals are less likely to take the lead and that neuroticism is strongly associated with low self-esteem. According to

Ashton et al. (2002), this suggests that individuals high in neuroticism are low in reward sensitivity. In addition, Wallace and Newman (1990) examined the effect of reward on performance for anxious individuals, which is related to individuals high in neuroticism. In this study participants had to perform a circle-tracing task. There were three conditions, a rewarded, punishment and control condition. The findings suggest that neurotic individuals perform better in a punishment condition but there was no positive effect on performance for neurotic people in the rewarded condition. A possible explanation for an effect is that the

(27)

27 possibility to earn rewards increases stress of the individual. Because neurotic people are less capable in controlling these emotions of stress and anxiety, this could have a negative

influence on their intrinsic motivation and performance. Gallagher (1990) supports this by explaining that neurotic individuals tend to perceive conditions involving rewards as stressful, resulting in negative outcomes. However, there was not sufficient existing research to support the expectation that the relationships between extrinsic rewards, intrinsic creative motivation and creative performance is affected by neuroticism.

creative motivation is not moderated by neuroticism.

creative motivation is moderated by neuroticism.

performance is not moderated by neuroticism.

Hₐ 5b: The relationship between extrinsic performance-contingent rewards and creative

performance is moderated by neuroticism.

2.5.5 Effect of openness to experience

Openness to experience measures the creativity, curiosity and flexibility of an

individual (Salgado, 1997; Judge & Ilies, 2002). Individuals high in openness are imaginative, emotionally responsive and intellectually curious. They prefer to generate insights

(28)

28 independently and control their own work (Burke & Witt, 2002). This personality trait does not appear to be correlated with the sensitivity of rewards (Barrick et al., 2002). Results showed that openness to experience was negatively correlated to only one of the factors of BAS and only in one particular situation (Smits & Boeck, 2006). As Smits and Boeck (2006) explain, this was not a consistent finding and would need replication to draw conclusions.

There was little relevant literature to support the expectation of a moderation effect. Open individuals prefer independence and autonomy, and for this reason, they are possibly more sensitive to the controlling aspects of a reward. This would suggest that openness to experience negatively affects the relationship between extrinsic rewards, intrinsic motivation and performance. Nonetheless, this is a theoretical explanation without any evidence from prior research.

creative motivation is not moderated by openness to experience.

creative motivation is moderated by openness to experience.

performance is not moderated by openness to experience.

Hₐ 6b: The relationship between extrinsic performance-contingent rewards and creative

(29)

29 2.6 Conceptual model

Figure 1. Conceptual model

3. Method

In this section, the design of the experiment and the procedure will be explained. Furthermore, the sample will be discussed and it will be explained how the relating variables were measured.

3.1 Procedure

The experiment in this study was designed in Qualtrics, which is an online survey or experiment software. The experiment was conducted online via the platform Amazon Mechanical Turk. Members of this platform are paid by researchers to participate in studies such as experiments. Conducting an online experiment is cost-efficient and provides the

(30)

30 opportunity to have a diverse sample of participants in terms of nationality, education, age, work experience and industry type. The limitation of this choice will be explained in the discussion. The experiment is displayed in Appendix A.

This research has a one-way between-subjects factorial design with three levels. The three levels of the independent variable are no reward, one dollar reward and ten dollar reward. Three groups were created, one group without the promise of a reward in case of high performance related to creativity, one group with the promise of a one dollar reward and one group with the promise of a ten dollar reward. Participants were randomly allocated to one of the three groups. For the zero rewards group, the instructions were:

“You are about to read two short stories on the next pages. Please read this story carefully. When you are finished reading, in the spaces provided, write down three possible creative titles that fit the short story. It is important that you try to come up with the most creative relevant titles possible.”

For the other two reward groups, there was extra text added to the instructions.

“Important! If your titles are judged among the top 10% of all participants in terms of

creativity, you will receive a financial reward of $1 (or $10) for you to keep.

After these instructions, the participants were provided with two short stories displayed in appendix A. Participants had to generate three titles per story. Afterwards, the participants had to answer some questions related to their enjoyment of the creativity task and their

demographics. After the titles were judged on creativity, the participants who generated the most creative titles were contacted via email to transfer them the promised reward. The statistical software program Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to

(31)

31 analyse the data.

3.2 Sample

The group of participants (N=124) consisted of 63 females (50,8%) and 61 males (49,2%). The most common age group was 31-35 years old, where 30 participants (24,2%) belonged to. As for the educational background of the sample: 12 participants (9,7%) had a high school degree, 31 participants (25%) had no degree but went to college, 15 participants (12,1%) had an associate degree, 53 participants (42,7%) a Bachelor’s degree and the

remaining 13 participants (10,5%) had a Master’s degree. The most common industries where the participants were employed were manufacturing (16,1 %), communications (12,9%) and finance (12,1%). 11 participants (8.9%) were employed in a creative industry. This will be explained in paragraph 3.3.5. The average work experience of the participants was

approximately 11 years.

3.3 Measurement of variables

All measurements were collected from prior research. The choice for these measurements will be explained in this paragraph.

3.3.1 Independent variable, reward condition

The independent variable was not measured but consisted of three levels, zero reward, one dollar reward and ten dollar reward condition.

3.3.2 Moderating variable, personality traits

The moderating variable was measured by a short survey. All five personality traits were measured by using 20 items derived from the 20-item scale. Donnelan, Oswald, Baird

(32)

32 and Lucas (2006) developed a short questionnaire to measure the five factors. This was

designed to replace the longer existing 50-item scale. Participants are often faced with the task of completing a long series of questionnaires. In order to keep the focus of the participants, this study used the 20-item scale. Donnelan et al. (2006) conducted five studies to validate the new measurement and all studies had respectable internal consistencies. The alphas were above 0.6 across all five studies. The 20 items per personality traits are displayed below.

Table 1.

Items of extraversion

Extraversion Am the life of the party

Keep in the background. Don’t talk a lot.

Talk to a lot of different people at parties (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70)

Table 2.

Items of conscientiousness

Conscientiousness Often forget to put things back in their proper place.

like order.

make a mess of things. Get chores done right away. (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75)

(33)

33 Table 3.

Items of agreeableness

Agreeableness Sympathize with others’ feelings.

am not interested in other people’s problems.

feel others’ emotions.

am not really interested in others. ( Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75)

Table 4.

Items of neuroticism

Neuroticism Seldom feel depressed.

Am relaxed most of the time. Get upset easily.

Have frequent mood swings. (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70)

Table 5.

Items of openness to experience

Openness to experience Don’t have a good imagination Have a vivid imagination.

Am not interested in abstract ideas. Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas.

(34)

34 For all statements above, a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5

(Strongly agree) was used.

3.3.3 Dependent variable, creative performance

The dependent variable creative performance was measured by scores of the creativity task. For assessing creative performance, the same creativity task as applied by Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) was used. The study from Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) showed no difference in results between the condition where participants were free to generate as many titles as they wished or where they were asked to generate a fixed number of responses, To maintain the participant’s concentration they had to generate a maximum of three titles. To determine the originality of participants’ drawings, two judges employed in the creative industry independently rated the story titles based on novelty and quality in terms of how well responses dealt with the question. One judge was employed as a writer in the advertising industry. The other judge was a digital designer in a tech company. They were asked to assign scores a creativity score from 1 (little or no creativity) to 5 (highly creative) for each

participant’s titles. The judges were unaware of the participants’ conditions. In order to have a high cue value, the participants were told they received a reward if they generated more creative titles than 90% of the participants. These scores were used to assess creative performance.

3.3.4 Dependent variable, intrinsic creative motivation

The participants had to answer three questions after the creativity task about the enjoyment of the activity to measure the level of intrinsic motivation. This measurement was also used by Eisenberger et al. (1999). Due to resource constraints, it was not possible to

(35)

35 measure motivation by using free time measurement. Several studies report correlations of approximately 0.4 between similar self-report scales and free time and found comparable patterns of effects on the two measures of intrinsic motivation (Harackiewicz, 1979; Ryan et al. 1983; Harackiewicz et al., 1984). Therefore, it is not a substantial limitation to only focus on self-report as a measure of intrinsic motivation. The following statements were used to assess intrinsic motivation.

These statements were derived from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) and were also used in earlier experiments related to intrinsic motivation (Ryan, 1982; Ryan, Koestner & Deci, 1991).

3.3.5 Control variables

At the end of the experiment, five demographic questions were asked to measure the control variables in this study which were age, gender, the highest level of education, work experience and if the participant was employed in a creative industry. Based on research of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2015), industry types which were classified as creative were: arts, design, technology, film and TV, IT and advertising.

Table 6.

Items of intrinsic creative motivation

Intrinsic creative motivation “I enjoyed this creativity task very much” “I would describe this task as very interesting” “The creativity task did not hold my attention at all.”

(36)

36

4. Results

In this section, all results will be presented. First, the correlation between the variables used in the model will be displayed. Subsequently, the results of the ANOVA test and

PROCESS macro test will be presented and explained.

4.1 Missing values and recoding

First of all, the data was checked for errors and missing values. The questions in the online experiment were set on forced answering mode, thus no missing values were found. Only the participants who did not complete the experiment were excluded from the sample. Of the 175 participants, 124 completed the experiment and were used for the analyses.

In addition, various items of the personality trait variables had to be recoded. The answers to questions 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 were reversed before analysing.

4.2 Factor analysis.

A principal axis factoring analysis (PAF) was conducted on the items of the

personality traits. This method was used to verify scale construction. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .70. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. Five component had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 61.48% of the variance. Thus, five factors were retained and rotated with an Omblin with Kaiser normalization rotation. Table B1 in Appendix B displays the factor loadings after rotation. The items that cluster on the same factors suggest that factor 1 represents extraversion, factor 2 conscientiousness, factor 3 agreeableness, factor 4 neuroticism and factor 5 openness to experience. As the results

suggest, various items showed high-cross loadings on other factors. Two items of agreeableness presented high-cross loading on the factor of neuroticism. One item of

(37)

37 conscientiousness indicated high-cross loadings on the factor of neuroticism as well. This is as expected because it is evident that aspects of personality traits are related (Costa and McCrae, 1992). However, Costa and McCrae (1992) also state that the higher loading will always be seen on the factor which the item should load theoretically. In contrast with that statement, the results indicated that five items have a higher factor loading on a different factor than they should. This suggests that the relative importance of those items for

measuring the specific personality trait is low. More importantly, the items explained a higher percentage of variance of a different personality trait than they should theoretically. It

indicated that the score of those items was used to measure the incorrect personality trait. This was not consistent with the results of the factor analysis in the research of Donnelan et al. (2006) and was unexpected because the same items were used in this study. Before deciding to delete various items to solve this issue, the effect on the Cronbach’s alpha of each

personality trait was tested. Deleting two items of openness which have a higher factor loading on neuroticism resulted in a change in Cronbach’s alpha of 0.68 to 0.75 for openness to experience. In addition, deleting the two items of neuroticism resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76 instead of 0.65 for neuroticism. The particular items possibly had confusing content which was perceived in a different way by the participants and therefore measured the incorrect personality traits. Because the Cronbach’s alpha of the personality traits remained above 0.7, the decision was made to delete these items. Item 14, 15, 20, 24 displayed in Appendix B were deleted. Reducing conscientiousness to three items had a substantial negative effect on Cronbach’s alpha which would be reduced from 0.65 to 0.57. Therefore, the choice was made to retain this item.

(38)

38 The constructs were tested on their internal consistency by means of a reliability analysis. Table 7 shows the Cronbach alpha of the 7 constructs. At first, the dependent variable intrinsic creative motivation showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.65. As Table B2 in Appendix B displays, this would change to 0.88 if one item was deleted. The item “The creativity task did not hold my attention at all” was possibly perceived as confusing because it is a reversed statement. Results indicated that the scores of this item are not consistent with the other two. Therefore, this item was deleted to enhance reliability.

In addition, some of the Cronbach’s alpha of personality traits were lower than stated in the research of Donnelan et al. (2006). However, they were all 0.65 or above which shows a sufficient reliability. Also, the results showed that the Cronbach’s alpha would not increase when deleting specific items.

4.4 Scale means

Subsequently, the four items of extraversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness were used for computing a new variable which consisted of the mean of those items. For neuroticism and openness to experience, the two remaining items were used for computing the mean. These new variables were used for further analysis.

4.5 Correlation analysis

Firstly, before testing the hypotheses, a correlation analysis was executed for the assigned scores of the two judges per participant. Table B3 in Appendix B presents a strong significant correlation, r(122) = .76, p < .01, between the two means of creativity per

participant. Therefore, it is reasonable to compute a new variable which consists of the mean of the two judges. This new variable is used as the dependent variable for further analysis.

(39)

39 between all the variables in the model. Pasta (2009) explained it is reasonable to treat ordinal variables as continuous even when the spacing is not equal across categories. The ordinal variables are control variables and not important predictors, thus it was acceptable. The variables of education, age, work experience were treated as continuous variables. The nominal variables gender and creative industry were dummy coded. Male and creative industry are presented by the higher values. Table 7 displays the correlation matrix in which the means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s alpha of all variables are presented.

The findings showed no significant correlation between intrinsic creative motivation and creative performance (r = .04, p > .05). This supports the decision to make a distinction between these dependent variables in the hypotheses. Furthermore, Table 7 presented a positive significant correlation between creative performance and work experience (r = .30, p < .01). This suggests that people are more creative when they have much work experience. Creative performance was also negatively correlated with neuroticism, r = -.21, p < .05, which implies that neurotic individuals tend to be less creative. As explained before, the relationship between neuroticism and performance has not been studied much. This is an interesting direction for future research which will be elaborated on later in the discussion section. The results indicated a significant positive correlation between intrinsic creative motivation and education ( r = .19, p < .05). This suggests that individuals are more intrinsically motivated for a creativity task when they have completed a high level of education. People who have completed a high level of education are expected to be more motivated for performing well in general because they acknowledge the importance of education. However, this is just an assumption and does not explain the specific intrinsic motivation for a creativity task. Additionally, intrinsic creative motivation was negative correlated with gender (r= -.20, p < .05). It implies that females are less intrinsically motivated for a creativity task than males.

(40)

40 Note. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female. Age: 1 = Below 18, 2 = 18 – 25, 3 = 26 – 30, 4 = 31 – 35, 5 = 36 – 40, 6 = 41 – 45, 7 = 46 – 50, 8 = 51 – 55, 9 = 56 – 60, 10 = 61 – 65, 11 = 66 and older. Education: 1 = Less than a high school diploma, 2 = High school degree or equivalent, 3 = Some college, no degree, 4 = Associate degree, 5 = Bachelor’s degree, 6 = Master’s degree, 7 = Doctoral degree. Work experience: 1 = 0 – 5, 2 = 6 – 10, 3 = 11 – 15, 4 = 16 – 20, 5 = 21 – 25, 6 = 26 – Table 7.

Means, standard deviations and correlations.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.Gender 1.49 .502 2. Age 4.44 2.25 .23 3. Education 4.19 1.21 .17 .46 4. Work experience 3.07 2.03 .16 .85 -0.18 5. Creative industry .10 .31 -.13 -.03 .12 .00

6. Extrinsic reward group 1.99 .83 .01 .05 -.03 .11 .04

7. Extraversion 2.75 .91 .26 .12 .23 .30 .12 .01 (.73) 8. Agreeableness 3.67 .76 .22** .05 .03 .12 .04 -.02 .07 (.73) 9. Conscientiousness 3.72 .75 .08 .23* -.23* .28* .00 -.08 -.09 .37* (.65) 10. Neuroticism 2.48 1.12 .07 -.21** .08 -.22** -.03 -.01 -.07* -.21 -.34** (.76) 11. Openness to experience 3.91 .90 -.03 -.05 -.06 .07 .04 -..13 .08 .25** .05 .03 (.75) 12. Intrin. creative motivation 3.97 .78 -.20* -.10 .19* -.10 .07 .04 .23** .06 -.15 .18* .17 (.88) 13. Creative performance 1.98 .57 -.13 .17 -.07 .30** .14 -.10 -.13 -.04 .15 -.21* -.03 .04 (.72)

(41)

41 30, 7 = 31 – 35, 8 = 36 – 40, 9 = 40 – 45, 10 = 45 and more. Creative industry: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Extrinsic reward group: 0 = no reward, 1 = one dollar reward, 2 = ten dollar reward. Cronbach’s alpha in brackets. *p < .05; **p <.01.

(42)

42 4.6 Main effect

In order to test the main effect between performance-contingent rewards and intrinsic creative motivation and the effect between performance-contingent rewards and creative performance, a univariate ANOVA test was executed. This test was used to determine whether there are significant differences between the means of the three independent reward groups while controlling for the five covariates. The expectations were as follows:

H1a: The promise of a performance-contingent reward is expected to have a positive effect on

intrinsic creative motivation.

H1b: The promise of a performance-contingent reward is expected to have a positive effect

on creative performance.

Firstly, as Table 8 displays, there was no statistically significant effect of reward on intrinsic creative motivation, F (2,116) = 1.04, p > .05, η² = .02. There was also no significant effect of the control variables. Furthermore, Table 9 shows there was no statistically significant effect of reward on creative performance, F (2,116) = 1.62, p > .05, η² = .03. This suggests that there is no significant difference in mean between the different reward groups for intrinsic creative motivation and creative performance. Therefore, there was no evidence to accept both parts of the first hypothesis. There was a significant effect of control variable work experience on creative performance, F (2,116) = 10.88, p < .01, η² = .09. Table B4 in Appendix B shows that the mean for intrinsic creative motivation was the highest in the ten dollar reward group. Table B5 presents that the mean for creative performance was the highest in the zero rewards group.

(43)

43 Table 8.

Results of the one-way ANOVA test for intrinsic creative motivation

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F η² p

Reward group 1.60 7 .80 1.04 .02 .36 Gender 1.65 1 1.65 2.13 .02 .15 Age .16 1 .16 .20 .00 .65 Education 2.46 1 2.46 3.18 .03 .08 Work experience .01 1 .01 .01 .00 .94 Creative industry .29 1 .29 .37 .00 .54 Error 89.70 116 .77 Total 2058.50 124 Table 9.

Results of the one-way ANOVA test for creative performance

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F η² p

Reward group .94 7 .47 1.62 .03 .20 Gender .86 1 .86 2.95 .03 .09 Age .69 1 .69 2.38 .02 .13 Education .01 1 .01 .05 .00 .83 Work experience 3.16 1 3.16 10.88 .09 .00 Creative industry .26 1 .26 .88 .01 .35 Error 33.66 116 .29 Total 527.75 124

How do personality traits affect the effectiveness of a performance-contingent reward in order to enhance an individual’s intrinsic motivation for a creativity task?