Locus of Ill-defined Problems and Rewards:
Enhancing Creativity in Problem Construction
Master’s Thesis, Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January 29, 2017
N. Tan (s2020696)
Supervisor Prof. Dr. O. Janssen
2 ABSTRACT
Problem construction has been suggested to be crucial for restating ill-defined problems. The present study examines effects of locus (self-found vs other-imposed) of ill-defined problems on the creativity (i.e., fluency, originality, quality) of problem restatements. The results stemming from an experimental study of 365 undergraduates show that finding a problem by yourself indicates higher levels of creativity of problem restatements compared to a problem that is imposed on an individual by someone else (e.g., supervisor, teacher). Although otherwise hypothesized, creative intrinsic motivation is not found to explain this effect, nonetheless it shows to be an indicator for the creativity aspects originality and quality. Furthermore, rewards contingent on creativity are hypothesized to moderate the indirect effect of locus of ill-defined problems on creativity in problem restatements through enhanced intrinsic motivation such that this indirect effect is most pronounced in the absence rather than presence of rewards. In fact, this study shows that rewards contingent on creativity decline the generated creativity of the problem restatements. Implications of these results for theory and practice are discussed. Keywords: creativity, problem restating, locus of an ill-defined problem, rewards, creative intrinsic motivation
INTRODUCTION
Advanced economies like the Netherlands depend on high-skilled workers and top talent to grow (Acemoglu, 2002). The Global Innovation Index underpins this given since the Netherlands is rated at a third place of innovative countries in 2015 (Cornell University, 2015). Being innovative in turn requires a highly innovative workforce for long term corporate success. Especially since companies more frequently face new, unexplored and challenging problems stemming from their changing environment which requires adaptation and innovation (Amabile, 1997; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).
3 the parameters of that problem are defined (Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009). When individuals engage in the process of problem construction, they are found to generate more creative output than individuals who do not engage in this process (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004; Runco & Okuda, 1988). Accordingly, it is found that individuals who spend more time on constructing the best way to describe the problem generated more creative problem restatements (i.e., fluency, originality and quality) (Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, Boes, & Runco, 1997).
A commonly used way to let individuals engage in the problem construction process is by asking them to restate the problem. Problem restatements are viable redefinitions of problem statements and are a form of divergent thinking. This refers to the process of free-flowing thinking with the goal of generating numerous different ideas (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; McCrae, 1987). Runco (2004) and Reiter-Palmon et al. (1997) stated that applying divergent thinking was related to high degrees of creativity because of the need to think of original ideas instead of focusing on finding the correct problem definition. Moreover, Nijstad, deDreu, Rietzschel and Baas (2010) found that executing a divergent thinking task required persistence and flexibility of an individual. This suggests that engaging in the process of problem construction requires an individual to be creative.
4 creativity, this study will therefore exclusively focus on this end of the continuum.
Moreover, Redmond, Mumford and Teach (1993) mentioned that the individual is the ultimate source of any new idea or novel problem solution. It is therefore the individual who needs to spend time constructing the ill-defined problem (Morse, Morse, & Johns, 2001). In order to do so the individual first needs to be confronted with it. This generally occurs in two types of situations. First there is the condition in which the individual finds himself in a situation where he confronts a problem. The problem then is ill-defined and it is up to the individual to construct the problem before further steps toward solving the problem can be taken. Secondly, there is a comparable situation where someone else (e.g., teacher or supervisor) imposes an ill-defined problem on the individual, impelling the individual to construct the problem. In this case, it is the other person who was confronted with the problem, but assigned the construction of the problem to the individual.
This difference in locus of an ill-defined problem (self-found vs other-imposed) influences the creativity in the problem construction process (Amabile, 1983). This is explained by the self-determination theory (SDT), stating that an individual has three innate psychological needs, namely the need for competence, relatedness and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). The extent to which these needs are fulfilled affects the experience of choice in initiation and regulation of the individuals’ own actions (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). Ryan and Deci (2000a), subsequently, state that the fulfillment of these needs affects an individual’s motivation, personal development and well-being. This is in turn related to high levels of motivation and sequentially on creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b). With the locus of an ill-defined problem affecting the fulfillment of these needs (Bernstein, 1990; Oldham & Cummings, 1996), this study will concentrate on the levels of generated creativity in problem restatements for self-found versus other-imposed problems.
5 someone else besides the individual has control over the event, diminishing one’s sense of autonomy and competence (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). This results in a diminution of the individual’s intrinsic motivation and in turn of the generated creativity (Amabile et al., 1996; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). As this study focuses on creativity, intrinsic motivation will concentrate on creativity labeled as creative intrinsic motivation, the intrinsic motivation to perform creative work (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). From this perspective, the locus of an ill-defined problem is expected to influence the perception of autonomy and competence of an individual with regard to creative performance.
Simultaneously, this paper aims to investigate the role of rewards contingent on creativity. Rewards are a common use to motivate individuals within education and business. Students are rewarded with grades and within business bonuses or promotions are used as rewarding mechanisms. By focusing on the effects of rewards on the creative process, the learned industriousness theory (LIT) provides useful insights. LIT argues for the positive impact rewards contingent on creativity can have (Eisenberger, 1992). It is based on the assumption that individuals experience effort as an unattractive trait of work and are therefore effort-aversive. However, once a reward is contingent on a specified performance, the individual’s tendency to put effort into that specified performance will increase. Due to the presence of a reward, the aversiveness to generate effort will therefore decrease. Eisenberger and Armeli (1997) found that this learning effect also counts for creative performance, thus receiving rewards for creative performance will increase individuals’ tendency to produce creative work. It is the reward giver who presents the choice to the receiver to pursuit the reward or not (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012). This choice gives individuals a sense of control of their own behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2000c). Consequently, through the process of internalization an individual becomes intrinsically motivated to be creative.
By conducting this research, I aim to contribute to the knowledge of the effects the locus of an ill-defined problem can have on creativity (i.e., fluency, originality, quality) in problem restatements. Prior research found different effects of well-defined and ill-defined problems on creativity, however a compounding study into differences within ill-defined problems has not yet been conducted. Moreover, this study will look into the effects rewards contingent on creativity have on these relationship. In doing so, the following research question will be answered: What is the effect of the locus of an ill-defined problem (self-found vs other-imposed) on creativity (i.e., fluency, originality, quality) of problem restatements and do rewards contingent on creativity moderate this effect?
6 will be explained and eventually a conceptual model will be presented. Subsequent, an experiment will be conducted in order to test the hypotheses, followed by a discussion of the results and its implications.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Preliminary research regarding creativity aimed to better understand organizational creativity. While early research concentrated on the organization as one entity, more recent research focused on the individual exhibition of creativity (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). As a consequence many models regarding the creative problem solving process have arisen, all suggesting that problem construction is required to generate creativity. Such as Wallas, who started his four-stage model of the creative process with preparation, the preliminary analysis of the problem and the process of defining and setting up the problem (Amabile, 1983; Lubart, 2000). Amabile (1988) implemented a comparable phase in the componential model of creativity, holding that once a task is presented, by an internal or external source, the individual first gathers information to construct the problem and generates ideas. Accordingly, Basadur, Runco and Vega (2000) have described in their circular three-phase process that individuals continuously and deliberately need to discover and formulate the problem in order to be solved. Based on this model other, more extensive models are developed all starting with problem construction (Basadur, Runco, & Vega, 2000; Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003). This indicates the crucial phase of constructing a problem in the creative process.
Nevertheless, in order to construct a problem, the problem has to be ill-defined. If the problem is well-defined, it is clear what the goals, path to solution, and obstacles to the solution are (Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003). However, an ill-defined problem is not yet solvable due to the multiple possibilities of goals, ways of solving the problem and solutions (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). This ambiguity enables and encourages an individual to create novel and useful ideas and thus stimulates the individual to become creative (Reiter-Palmon et al., 1997). Since the creative process begins with constructing the problem in order to generate creativity, ill-defined problems are thus inevitable for the creative process.
7 solving process. The goal of idea generation is to create a set of alternative ideas for further evaluation and, ultimately, implementation (Garfield, Taylor, Dennis, & Satzinger, 2001). Besides, finding alternative ideas to solve a problem is found to be linked to creativity (Litchfield, Fan, & Brown, 2011; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2010). It is therefore that finding alternative problem restatements likewise is an indicator of creativity (Reiter-Palmon et al., 1997).
In order to determine creativity, Reiter Palmon et al. (1997) assessed problem restatements for fluency, originality and quality. Fluency is the number of given, nonrepetitive problem restatements, indicating that a high score is related to a high degree of creativity (Vernon & Hocking, 2014). Originality is defined as the extent to which the problem restatements diverged from the presented situation and went beyond it, yet stayed within the scope of the problem. Further, the novelty and uniqueness are taken into account based on the novelty that creative performance defines (Arreola & Reiter-Palmon, 2016). Finally, quality refers to the degree to which the problem restatements are feasible or possible and whether they completely represented the context. Moreover, quality covers the extent to which problem restatements are detailed as well as the degree to which it includes multiple different views of the problem (Arreola & Reiter-Palmon, 2016). Because engaging in the process of problem construction and specifically by restating a problem is an indicator for creativity, in this study, the creativity of problem restatements will be assessed based on these three elements (i.e., fluency, originality, quality).
Locus of an ill-defined problem and creative intrinsic motivation
8 creative intrinsic motivation. SDT here, focused on the social and environmental factors, holding that the intrinsic motivation will be enhanced in meeting the innate psychological needs, that is the need for competence, relatedness and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). The need for competence concerns the propensity to have an effect on the environment as well as to attain valued outcomes within it (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Secondly, the need for relatedness refers to the desire to feel connected to others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Finally, the need for autonomy concerns the sense of integration and freedom (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Individuals experiencing a sense of autonomy see themselves as originators of their own behavior (deCharms, 1972). So when individuals experience their behavior as being impelled by an external source, their sense of autonomy will decline. Deci, Connell and Ryan (1989) support this by classifying the input that affects the initiation and regulation of intentional behavior as either informational or controlling. Experiencing input as informational supports the experience of autonomy and promotes competence whereas experiencing input as controlling is experienced as a pressure to think, feel, or behave in a specific way. This classification consequently assumes informational input to foster, and controlling input to diminish self-determination. Accordingly, individuals experiencing their behavior as self-determined will be more creative (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). An individual who finds a problem on its own will therefore experience his behavior as more self-determined compared to an individual facing an other-imposed problem. This, consequently, leads to self-found problems being associated with more creative problem restatements compared to other-imposed problems.
9 Amabile (1988) explains this by the difference between what an individual can do or will do. An individual willing to be creative will generate higher levels of creativity compared to individuals who will not. In fact, being intrinsically motivated to be creative involves the liking-aspect. Individuals who like to perform a creative task are found to be more creative (Amabile, 1988). Tierney, Farmer and Graen (1999) confirmed this, indicating that individuals enjoying a creative task generate high levels of creative output. In turn, when an individual is bored by the domain and thus not intrinsically motivated, it will be difficult to become interested enough to make a creative contribution. As the fluency of problem restatements also indicates, producing as many restatements an individual can think of requires a certain commitment to the problem (Reiter-Palmon et al., 1997). That asks for an internal motivation in order to be able to generate problem restatements. Accordingly, the componential theory of creativity argues that if an individual is intrinsically motivated, the motivation to perform the creative task will therefore be strengthened (Amabile, 1983). So individuals being intrinsically motivated to be creative, will generate more creative problem restatements. I therefore argue that higher levels of creative intrinsic motivation result in more creative problem restatements. Hence, this study will examine the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. Self-found ill-defined problems result in higher levels of fluency, originality, and quality of problem restatements than other-imposed ill-defined problems.
Hypothesis 2. Self-found ill-defined problems result in higher levels of creative intrinsic motivation than other-imposed ill-defined problems.
Hypothesis 3. There is a positive relationship between creative intrinsic motivation and creativity (i.e., fluency, originality, quality) of problem restatements.
Hypothesis 4. The positive relationship between the locus of an ill-defined problem and the creativity (i.e., fluency, originality, quality) of problem restatements is mediated by creative intrinsic motivation.
Rewards
Rewards are extrinsic forms of reinforcement like money, prizes, desirable activities or outcomes, praise, or recognition (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012). By offering rewards, a reward giver can acquire some control over the desired outcome by influencing the behavior of the receiver.
10 autonomy and in turn decreases intrinsic motivation (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012). As a consequence, the individual no longer performs for the inherent satisfaction of the activity itself, but for a separable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). In this way the attention from the task itself is being diverted toward the reward (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997).
On the other hand, there is also evidence that rewards increase intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger, 1992; Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997). This evidence is based on Eisenberger’s (1992) learned industriousness theory (LIT) which characterizes effort as an unpleasant sensation of the execution of an activity. LIT assumes that if individuals learn which performance is rewarded, they accordingly put effort into that specified performance. Thus when there is the possibility to choose, an individual will put effort in the performance that will be best rewarded (Eisenberger, 1992).
11 individuals the choice to take in the regulation and making it their own (Ryan & Deci, 2000c). This indicates that an individual choosing to generate creative output and acquire the reward contingent on creativity will become internally driven to be creative. In this way, individuals have control over their own behavior. It even provides control over the situation because having the choice to decline the reward, makes the individual in charge of the desired outcome of the reward-giver (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). As the internalization of the rewards focuses the intrinsic motivation on creativity, the impact of the reward contingent on creativity will be strong (Ryan & Deci, 2000c). Accordingly, since the pressure and control of an other-imposed problem is internalized, individuals perceive theirbehavior to be self-controlled (Eisenberger, Rhoades, & Cameron, 1999). I therefore argue that the effect of the locus of an ill-defined problem on creative intrinsic motivation will be moderated by the presence of rewards contingent on creativity.
Hypothesis 5. Rewards contingent on creativity moderate the positive relationship between the locus of an ill-defined problem and creative intrinsic motivation such that this relationship is more pronounced when rewards are absent than present.
Hypothesis 6. The indirect relationship between the locus of an ill-defined problem and the creativity (i.e., fluency, originality, quality) of problem restatements is moderated by the presence of rewards contingent on creativity.
In regard of the previously discussed literature, the following model will be investigated.
12 METHODS
Participants and design. The sample consisted of 365 undergraduate students from the University of Groningen. Of the participants, 191 were male and 173 female (one participant did not indicate his or her gender); Mage = 21.99, SDage = 2.59. Most participants were in their
first year at the university (52,2%) or just started their pre-master (26,3%). In return for their participation the students received research points or a financial compensation of €8.00. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four manipulated conditions of the 2 (self-found problem vs other-imposed problem) x 2 (rewards vs no rewards) design. All conditions resulted in nearly equal numbers in each group. Gender had no effects and is not discussed further.
Procedure. The experiment took place at the FEB Research Lab where each participant was allocated in an individual cubicle equipped with a laptop. By starting the experiment, participants were first presented with a scenario (Appendix). In this scenario, the participants worked in a call center of a medium-sized company where they had to respond to questions and complaints raised by customers. They worked in a team of 25 members and a supervisor. Even though everything was running rather smoothly, the participants were told that the service performance of the call center could be substantially improved. Therefore, the participants were asked to give as many problem restatements they could think of what might be a probable issue in this given scenario.
Manipulations.
Locus of an ill-defined problem manipulation. In order to test the hypothesized effects
13
Rewards contingent on creativity manipulation. Participants that were assigned to the
reward condition received information about a reward contingent on creativity. Specifically, they were told the following: “Within the company, all creative ideas and output are rewarded with a monetary bonus.” Participants in the no reward-condition did not receive any information regarding a monetary reward.
Manipulation checks. At the end of the experiment, the participants were asked to indicate which of the four conditions was presented to them during the experiment. They could choose between (1) “I wanted to explore the current situation by myself, with no reward offered” (self-found and no rewards condition), (2) “I wanted to explore the current situation by myself, with a reward for creativity offered by the company” (self-found and rewards condition), (3) “My supervisor wanted me to explore the current situation, with no reward offered” (other-imposed and no rewards condition) and (4) “My supervisor wanted me to explore the current situation, with a reward for creativity offered by the company” (other-imposed and rewards condition).
Mediating and dependent variables.
Problem restatements were measured by rating the problem restatements participants
gave for fluency, originality and quality (Arreola & Reiter-Palmon, 2016). These ratings were given by three undergraduate students in HRM all familiar with the concepts of creativity and problem finding. Interrater agreement across all raters was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC). An ICC of .60 or above was considered to be an acceptable rating for research purposes (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). First, fluency was measured as the total number of nonrepetitive alternatives generated for every individual. Secondly the restatements were scored for originality, meaning the novelty of answers that were not structured by the context and went beyond the scope of the problem. Scores were given on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (very low originality) to 5 (very high originality). Finally the quality was scored indicating that the restatements provided were plausible, viable and did take the whole context into account. For quality, a 1 (very low quality) to 5 (very high quality) scale was used. For the ratings of originality and quality, all restatements provided per participant were rated as a whole, as opposed to each restatement individually (Arreola & Reiter-Palmon, 2016).
Creative Intrinsic Motivation was measured using a five-item questionnaire developed
14 creative on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The items were as follows: (1) I enjoyed generating restatements of the problem; (2) I enjoyed coming up with new ideas; (3) I enjoyed engaging in the process of finding problems; (4) I enjoyed creating new ideas; (5) I enjoyed improving the existing situation. The internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach alpha) was satisfactory (α = .88).
RESULTS
Manipulation checks. Participants indicated which of the following characteristics did represent the problem scenario accurately: a self-found problem with rewards, a self-found problem without rewards, an other-imposed problem with rewards and an other-imposed problem without rewards. The percentages of the participants that indicated correctly the condition were respectively 63%, 60%, 49% and 71% (χ2 (9, N = 365) = 284.58, p < .001).
Descriptive statistics. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations for all variables. The locus of an ill-defined problem (self-found vs other-imposed) correlated positively with fluency (r = .15, p < .01), originality (r = .13, p < .05) and quality (r = .14, p < .01) such that self-found problems went together with higher levels of fluency, originality and quality than other-imposed problems. There was, however, no significant correlation between the locus of an ill-defined problem and creative intrinsic motivation (r = .05, p < ns). In contrast to the expectations based on previous research, rewards contingent on creativity correlated negatively with creative intrinsic motivation (r = -.10, p < .05), fluency (r = -.15, p < .01), originality (r = -.13, p < .05) and quality (r = -.13, p < .05) such that rewards resulted in lower levels of these creativity indicators than no rewards.
Regarding ICC scores for fluency (ICC = .99), originality (ICC = .65) and quality (ICC = .74), the agreement of the ratings from all three raters were acceptable (ICC > .60). Subsequently, fluency correlated significantly with both originality (r = .61, p < .01) and quality (r = .66, p < .01). Furthermore, the originality and quality of problem restatements were strongly correlated (r = .81, p < .01). Apparently for the raters, the aspects originality and quality of problem restatements had more commonalities than differences, however were not perceived as exchangeable (Reiter-Palmon et al., 1997). In conclusion, age and gender were measured, merely showing a significant correlation between age and creative intrinsic motivation (r = -.11, p < .05) such that younger individuals showed higher levels of creative intrinsic motivation.
15 conducted to examine differences between the four conditions with regard to the mediating variable of creative intrinsic motivation and the dependent variables of fluency, originality, and quality of problem restatements. At the multivariate level, a main effect was found for the locus of an ill-defined problem, F(4, 358) = 2.51, p < .05, p2 = .03, and also for rewards contingent
on creativity, F(4, 358) = 2.95, p < .05, p2 = .03. However, there was no interaction effects of
locus of an ill-defined problem and rewards contingent on creativity at the multivariate level, F(4, 358) = 2.14, ns. The means and standard deviations of the mediator variable of creative intrinsic motivation and the dependent variables of fluency, originality, and quality are presented in Table 2.
At the univariate level, compared to problems imposed by others, self-found problems resulted in higher levels of fluency (M = 9.43, SD = 4.04 vs M = 8.29, SD = 3.52; F(1, 361) = 8.49, p < .01, p2 = .02), higher levels of originality (M = 3.18, SD = .70 vs M = 3.00, SD =
.71 ; F(1, 361) = 6.20, p < .05, p2 = .02), and higher levels of quality (M = 3.27, SD = .72 vs
M = 3.06, SD = .74; F(1, 361) = 7.63, p < .01, p2 = .02). These results provide support to
Hypothesis 1. In contrast to Hypothesis 2, the levels of intrinsic motivation did not significantly differ across self-found (M = 4.53, SD = .81) and other-imposed problems (M = 4.45, SD = .86; F(1, 361) = .73, p < .50, ns).
Concurrently, this analysis shows that compared to the presence of rewards contingent on creativity, the absence of rewards contingent on creativity resulted in higher levels of fluency (M = 9.43, SD = 3.96 vs M = 8.30, SD = 3.62; F(1, 361) = 8.33, p < .01, p2 = .02),
higher levels of originality (M = 3.18, SD = .68 vs M = 3.00, SD = .73; F(1, 361) = 5.96, p < .05, p2 = .02), and higher levels of quality (M = 3.26, SD = .71 vs M = 3.07, SD = .76; F(1,
361) = 6.20, p < .05, p2 = .01). In contrast, the levels of intrinsic motivation did not
significantly differ across the presence (M = 4.41, SD = .81) and the absence (M = 4.58, SD = .87; F(1, 361) = 3.83, p < .10, ns) of rewards contingent on creativity.
Mediation analysis. Hypothesis 3 stated that there was a positive relationship between creative intrinsic motivation and creativity (i.e., fluency, originality, quality) of problem restatements. Subsequently, hypothesis 4 assumed that creative intrinsic motivation moderates the relationship between the locus of an ill-defined problem and creativity (i.e., fluency, originality, quality) of problem restatements.
16 the results of two multiple regression models: (1) the mediator variable model (with creative intrinsic motivation as the dependent variable), and (2) the dependent variable model (with resp. fluency, originality and quality as the dependent variable). These tables show that in the mediator variable model, the locus of an ill-defined problem was not significantly related with creative intrinsic motivation (mediator) (B = .04, p = ns). Therefore, this finding also does not support hypothesis 2.
Furthermore, the dependent variable model shows that creative intrinsic motivation (mediator) was not significantly associated with the dependent variable fluency (B = .41, p = ns), whereas it was significantly and positively associated with originality (B = .11 , p < .05) and quality of problem restatements (B = .13, p < .01). These results therefore only partially support Hypothesis 3, such that there is only a positive relationship of creative intrinsic motivation with the originality and quality of problem restatements, but not with the fluency of problem restatements.
Accordingly, as shown in Table 3, the indirect effect of an ill-defined problem on the fluency of problem restatements through intrinsic motivation was not significant (indirect effect = .02; 95% CI: [-0.013 to 0.083]). Table 4 shows also a nonsignificant indirect effect of an ill-defined problem on originality through intrinsic motivation (indirect effect = .01; 95% CI: [-0.004 to 0.018]). In line with these findings, Table 5 in conclusion shows a nonsignificant indirect effect of the locus of an ill-defined problem on the quality of problem restatements through intrinsic motivation (indirect effect = .01; 95% CI: [-0.006 to 0.019]). Hypothesis 4 is therefore not supported by these results.
ill-17 defined problem (other-imposed problem = -1, self-found problem = +1) on creativity of problem restatements (i.e. fluency, originality, quality) through intrinsic motivation for the two conditions of rewards contingent on creativity. As shown in the lower part of Table 6, the indirect effect of the locus of an ill-defined problem on the fluency of problem restatements was not significant, regardless whether there were rewards offered contingent on creativity (indirect effect = -.01; 95% CI: [-0.085 to 0.041]) or not (indirect effect = .04; 95% CI: [-0.008 to 0.145]). Table 7 also shows a nonsignificant indirect effect of the locus of an ill-defined problem on the originality of problem restatements through intrinsic motivation, whether there were rewards offered contingent on creativity (indirect effect = .00; 95% CI: [-0.019 to 0.011]) or not (indirect effect = .01; 95% CI: [-0.002 to 0.033]). Table 8 shows in conclusion a nonsignificant indirect effect of the locus of an ill-defined problem on the quality of problem restatements through intrinsic motivation whether rewards were offered contingent on creativity (indirect effect = .00; 95% CI: [-0.021 to 0.014]) or not (indirect effect = .01; 95% CI: [-0.002 to 0.034]). These results therefore do not support Hypotheses 5 and 6.
DISCUSSION
18 Theoretical implications
In the process of finding and redefining ill-defined problems, the goal is to generate creative ideas. Previous research found that once individuals engage in the process of problem construction, they are found to generate more creative output than individuals who do not engage in this process (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004; Runco & Okuda, 1988). Accordingly, being involved in the process of problem finding contributes to the intrinsic motivation to be creative (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Amabile (1988) and Amabile et al. (1994) found this to be conducive for creativity in problem restatements. Moreover, Eisenberger (1992), and Eisenberger and Armeli (1997) argued that this intrinsic motivation could be enhanced by rewards contingent on creativity. They assumed that once an individual knows which performance is rewarded, he accordingly will put effort into it. The important feature of this reward is the specificity of it, indicating that it should be evident which precise performance is being rewarded (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012; Eisenberger et al., 1984). Hence, the reward needs to focus on the creativity of the output to increase the creative intrinsic motivation. If this is not the case, the attention might be drawn from the creative task into gaining the reward which diminishes the creative intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger, 1992; Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997).
This study shows that individuals who find a problem by themselves generate more creative (i.e., fluency, originality, quality) problem restatements compared to individuals who are imposed by the problem by someone else. This can be explained by the extent of fulfillment of the needs for autonomy and competence (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). When a problem is self-found an individual will experience high levels of autonomy and competence which will result in higher levels of creativity because the individual becomes the psychological owner of the problem situation (Brown, Pierce, & Crossley, 2013; Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b). In contrast, when the problem is imposed by someone else, the other person is psychologically perceived as the owner of the problem resulting in lower feelings of autonomy and competence (Bernstein, 1990; Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
19 informational or controlling. In fact, the interpretation of a reward is dependent on the interpersonal context within which the experiment is administered by the individual (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). Therefore in this study, the rewards contingent on creativity can be perceived as either informational or controlling, depending on the personal experience of the situation. That might in turn have affected the levels of creative intrinsic motivation, such that the personal experienced effect of the rewards as informational compared to controlling resulted in higher creative intrinsic motivation. Besides, as expected, this study showed that creative intrinsic motivation is associated with the creativity aspects originality and quality. Finally, this study contributes to the knowledge on whether rewards could contribute to the creative intrinsic motivation and in turn on creativity (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997). First, assuming the learned industriousness theory (LIT), when rewards are contingent on creativity, an individual’s tendency to work hard to be creative will increase (Eisenberger, 1992; Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997). This diverts the focus on the external reward toward being creative, which in turn is assumed to increase the creative intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, self-determination theory (SDT) argues that a reward is perceived as an extrinsic motivator that controls one’s behavior and therefore limits the sense of autonomy (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). The presence of a reward would therefore decline the creative intrinsic motivation. The results of this study rather support the proposed effects of rewards from SDT than those of LIT, in the sense that rewards resulted in less intrinsic motivation for creativity and lower levels of fluency, originality and quality in problem restatements.
Strengths, limitations, and future research
This study has several strengths, starting with a large dataset of participants to derive conclusions from and extent previous research. With regard to the locus of an ill-defined problem affecting the creativity (i.e., fluency, originality, quality) of problem restatements, the proposed theory was supported by the results of this study. Besides, these findings are not only consistent with this theory, but are also in line with more general conceptions of psychological ownership and motivation.
20 finding process because they have an interest in the outcome. This probable lack of engagement in the scenario might have affected the validity of the found effects. However, research has shown that there is a high correspondence between lab and field studies within the industrial-organizational psychology (Mitchell, 2012). This indicates that effects found in this research can be extended to the field.
Another restriction of this research is the way rewards contingent on creativity were manipulated. Roughly a third of the students took part in this study because they were financially compensated for participating in the experiment. As a consequence, the rewards for participation already made the extrinsic motivation more salient. Hence, the rewards contingent on creativity were not able to impel the creative intrinsic motivation and might even emphasized the extrinsic motivation. Furthermore, the bonus in the experiment only served as a scenario manipulator and was not really offered once the experiment was finished. Therefore, future research might indeed offer the rewards contingent on creativity to the participants to see whether the hypotheses might give significant effects. In addition, future research might construct a guideline for making rewards actually contingent on creativity. Such a guideline can be that there are some specifications a reward contingent on creativity should entail, for example the way it is made clear that creativity is valued and expected (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012).
Moreover, this research only used students as participants for the experiment which might affect the external validity of the found effects. Despite the fact that Greenberg (1987) argued that experiments with students as participants are externally valid, future research could investigate whether differences in educational background or age (Roskos-Ewoldsen, Black, & McCown, 2008) might result in different effects of the findings this research found. In addition, these studies should also take other types of problems into account. This study exclusively focused on one specific problem which does not make it generalizable to other types of problems. By testing this theory with other groups of participants and types of problems can contribute to the generalizability of this study.
Practical implications
21 therefore focused on explaining the difference in the locus of this ill-defined problem (self-found vs other-imposed). The findings suggest that when an ill-defined problem is self-(self-found, an individual is likely to come up with more creative (i.e., fluency, originality and quality) problem restatements compared to when an ill-defined problem is imposed by someone else. Being the psychological owner of the problem therefore matters with regard to the generated creativity (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2003). Ryan and Deci (2000a, 2000b) add that this would give the individual a feeling of autonomy and competence which will make the individual able to generate more creative problem restatements. An other-imposed problem should be presented in such a way that the individual who works on the problem considers the problem as his own. This might be achieved by enabling the individual to bring the problem within his sphere of control (Brown, Pierce, & Crossley, 2013). The individual should have a sense of creating the problem by himself. It is then important that the other person conveys the responsibility of the problem to the individual and not withdraw it anymore. This enables the problem to be owned by the individual and not be perceived as someone else’s.
Secondly, this research found evidence for the proposed positive relation between creative intrinsic motivation and creativity (Amabile, 1988; Amabile et al., 1994). Individuals who are more intrinsically motivated to be creative will create more creative problem restatements (i.e., originality, quality). Consequently, intrinsic motivation should be enhanced. This might be achieved by finding a match between the problem situation and interests of the individual. Once the individual is more enthusiastic about the subject, intrinsic motivation will be higher (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Furthermore, CET proposes that feelings of competence and autonomy are conducive to intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Thus by emphasizing that the individual is competent to elaborate the problem situation and is in charge of the whole process will also enhance these feelings and in turn intrinsic motivation.
22 motivation should be created. According to Byron and Khazanchi (2012), this means that it has to be clear that creative performance will be rewarded and what the reward-giver considers as creative. In line with LIT, this will make the individual intrinsically motivated to put effort into this task. However, if these specification cannot be reached it is better to remove the rewards because they will function as an external motivator and thus diminish intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Ryan & Deci, 2000a).
Conclusion
23 REFERENCES
Acemoglu, D. 2002. Technical change, inequality and labor market. Journal of Economic
Literature, 40: 7-72.
Amabile, T.M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 357-376.
Amabile, T.M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10: 123-167.
Amabile, T.M. 1997. Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40: 39-56.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1154-1184.
Amabile, T.M., Hill, K.G., Hennessey, B.A., & Tighe, E.M. 1994. The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 950-967.
Arreola, N.J., Reiter-Palmon, R. 2016. The effect of problem construction creativity on solution creativity across multiple everyday problems. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 10: 287-295.
Basadur, M., Runco, M.A., & Vega, L.A. 2000. Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors work together: a causal process model. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 34: 77-100.
Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497-529.
Bernstein, D.J. 1990. Of carrots and sticks: a review of Deci and Ryan’s intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 54: 323-332.
Brown, G., Pierce, J.L., & Crossley, C. 2013. Toward an understanding of the development of ownership feelings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35: 318-338.
Byron, K., & Khazanchi, S. 2012. Rewards and creative performance: a meta-analytic test of theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 138: 809-830.
Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. 2015. The Global Innovation Index 2015: Effective Innovation Policies for Development. Fontainebleau, Ithaca, and Geneva.
deCharms, R. 1972. Personal causation training in the schools. Journal of Applied
24 Deci, E.L, Connell, J.P., & Ryan, R.M. 1989. Self-determination in a work organization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 580-590.
Eisenberger, R. 1992. Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99:248-267.
Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. 1997. Can salient reward increase creative performance without reducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72:652-663.
Eisenberger, R., Mitchell, M., McDermitt, M., & Masterson, F.A. 1984. Accuracy versus speed in the generalized effort of learning-disabled children. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42: 19-36.
Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L., & Cameron, J. 1999. Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77:1026-1040.
Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. 2003. Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: a case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15: 121-130.
Garfield, M.J., Taylor, N.J., Dennis, A.R., & Satzinger, J.W. 2001. Research report: modifying paradigms individual differences, creativity techniques, and exposure to ideas in group idea generation. Information Systems Research, 12: 322-333.
Getzels, J.W. 1964. Creative thinking, problem-solving, and instruction. In Hilgard, E.R. (ed.)
Theories of learning and instruction, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Greenberg, J. 1987. The college sophomore as guinea pig: setting the record straight.
Academy of Management, 12: 157-159.
Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. 2010. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61: 569-598.
Litchfield, R.C., Fan, J., & Brown, V.R. 2011. Directing idea generation using brainstorming with specific novelty goals. Motivation and Emotion, 35: 135-143.
Lubart, T.I. 2000. Models of the creative process: past, presence and future. Creativity
Research Journal, 13: 295-308.
McCrae, R.R. 1987. Creativity, divergent thinking and openness to experience. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 1258-1265.
Mitchell, G. 2012. Revisiting truth or triviality: The external validity of research in the psychological laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7: 109-117.
25 Mumford, M.D., Baughman, W.A., Threlfall, K.V., Supinski, E.P., & Costanza, D.P. 1996. Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. problem construction.
Creativity Research Journal, 9:63-76.
Nijstad, B.A., deDreu, C.K.W., Rietzschel, E.F., & Baas, M. 2010. The dual path to creativity model: creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review
of Social Psychology, 21: 34-77.
Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 39: 607-634.
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K.T. 2003. The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7: 84-107.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., & Hayes, A.F. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypothesis: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 185-227,
Pretz, J.E., Naples, A.J., & Sternberg, R.J. 2003. Recognizing, defining and representing problems. In Davidson, J.E., & Sternberg, R.J. (ed.). The psychology of problem
solving, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D., & Teach, R. 1993. Putting creativity to work: effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 55: 120-151.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J.J. 2004. Leadership and creativity: understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15:55-77. Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M.D., Boes, J.O., & Runco, M.A. 1997. Problem construction
and creativity: the role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity
Research Journal, 10: 9-23.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Robinson, E.J. 2009. Problem identification and construction: what do we know, what is the future? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3: 43-47.
Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A., & Stroebe, W. 2010. The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of
Psychology, 101: 47-68.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., Black, S.R., & McCown, S.M. 2008. Age-related changes in creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42: 33-59.
Runco, M.A. 2004. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55: 657-587.
26 Runco, M.A., & Okuda, S.M. 1988. Problem-discovery, divergent thinking, and the creative
process. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17: 211-220.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. 2000a. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55: 68-78. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. 2000b. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25: 54-67.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. 2000c. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25: 54-67.
Ryan, R.M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. 1983. Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: a review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 736-750.
Shrout, P.E., & Fleiss, J.L. 1979. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychological Bulletin, 86: 420-428.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M., & Graen, G.B. 1999. An examination of leadership and employee creativity: the relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology. 52: 591-620.
Vernon, D., & Hocking, I. 2014. Thinking hats and good men: structured techniques in a problem construction task. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14: 41-46.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics
Correlations
N Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Locus of an ill-defined problem 365 0.010 1.001 1
2 Rewards contingent on creativity 365 -0.010 1.001 -0.003 1
3 Creative Intrinsic Motivation 365 4.493 0.842 0.045 -0.103* 1
4 Fluency 365 8.870 3.828 0.149** -0.147** 0.096 1
5 Originality 365 3.094 0.710 0.129* -0.126* 0.137** 0.607** 1
6 Quality 365 3.164 0.738 0.142** -0.130* 0.151** 0.655** 0.814** 1
7 Gender 364 1.480 0.500 -0.038 -0.033 -0.092 0.042 -0.043 -0.028 1
8 Age 362 21.99 2.594 0.001 0.022 -0.110* -0.007 0.025 0.011 -0.053 1
28 Table 2
Interaction effects of Locus of an Ill-defined problem (Self-found vs Other-imposed) and Rewards contingent on Creativity (Rewards vs No rewards) (N = 365) Locus of an ill-defined problem and Rewards contingent on creativity
Locus of an ill-defined problem
Self-found Other-imposed Average
1 (n = 91) 2 (n = 93) 1+2 (n = 184) 3 (n = 90) 4 (n = 91) 3+4 (n = 181) 1+3 (n = 181) 2+4 (n = 184) Rewards contingent
on creativity
Rewards No rewards Average Rewards No rewards Average Rewards No rewards
29 Table 3
Indirect Effects of Locus of an Ill-Defined Problem on Fluency through Creative Intrinsic Motivation
Model B SE t R2
Mediator variable model: Creative intrinsic motivation
0.002
Constant 4.49 0.04 101.94***
Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.04 0.04 0.87
Dependent variable model: Fluency 0.03**
Constant 7.04 1.0772 6.54***
Creative intrinsic motivation 0.41 0.2357 1.72 Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.55 0.20 2.79**
Indirect effect Bootstrap
indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI
Creative intrinsic motivation 0.02 0.02 -0.013 0.083
Note. N = 365. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. Unstandardized coefficients are presented.
a Locus of an ill-defined problem was coded as -1 for other-imposed problems and +1 for
self-found problems.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
30 Table 4
Indirect Effects of Locus of an Ill-Defined Problem on Originality through Creative Intrinsic Motivation
Model B SE t R2
Mediator variable model: Creative intrinsic motivation
0.002
Constant 4.49 0.04 101.94***
Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.04 0.04 0.87
Dependent variable model: Originality
0.03**
Constant 2.60 0.20 13.04***
Creative intrinsic motivation 0.11 0.04 2.53* Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.09 0.04 2.38*
Indirect effect Bootstrap
indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI
Creative intrinsic motivation 0.01 0.001 -0.004 0.018
Note. N = 365. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. Unstandardized coefficients are presented.
a Locus of an ill-defined problem was coded as -1 for other-imposed problems and +1 for
self-found problems.
31 Table 5
Indirect Effects of Locus of an Ill-Defined Problem on Quality through Creative Intrinsic Motivation
Model B SE t R2
Mediator variable model: Creative intrinsic motivation
0.002
Constant 4.49 0.04 101.94***
Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.04 0.04 0.87
Dependent variable model: Quality 0.03**
Constant 2.59 0.21 12.57***
Creative intrinsic motivation 0.13 0.05 2.81** Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.10 0.04 2.63**
Indirect effect Bootstrap
indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI
Creative intrinsic motivation 0.01 0.01 -0.006 0.019
Note. N = 365. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. Unstandardized coefficients are presented.
a Locus of an ill-defined problem was coded as -1 for other-imposed problems and +1 for
self-found problems.
32 Table 6
Indirect Effects of Locus of an Ill-Defined Problem on Fluency through Creative Intrinsic Motivation
Model B SE t R2
Mediator variable model: Creative intrinsic motivation
0.02
Constant 4.49 0.04 102.39***
Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.04 0.04 0.86 Rewards contingent on creativity b -0.09 0.04 -1.97*
Locus * Rewards -0.05 0.04 -1.18
Dependent variable model: Fluency 0.03**
Constant 7.04 1.0772 6.54***
Creative intrinsic motivation 0.41 0.2357 1.72 Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.55 0.20 2.79**
Indirect effects Bootstrap
indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI Rewards (-1) no rewards 0.04 0.04 -0.008 0.145 (+1) rewards -0.01 0.03 -0.085 0.041
Note. N = 365. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. Unstandardized coefficients are presented.
a Locus of an ill-defined problem was coded as -1 for other-imposed problems and +1 for
self-found problems.
b Rewards contingent on creativity was coded as -1 for no rewards and +1 for rewards.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
33 Table 7
Indirect Effects of Locus of an Ill-Defined Problem on Originality through Creative Intrinsic Motivation
Model B SE t R2
Mediator variable model: Creative intrinsic motivation
0.02
Constant 4.49 0.04 102.39***
Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.04 0.04 0.86 Rewards contingent on creativity b -0.09 0.04 -1.97*
Locus * Rewards -0.05 0.04 -1.18
Dependent variable model: Originality 0.03**
Constant 2.60 0.20 13.04***
Creative intrinsic motivation 0.11 0.04 2.53* Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.09 0.04 2.38*
Indirect effects Bootstrap
indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI Rewards (-1) no rewards 0.01 0.01 -0.002 0.033 (+1) rewards 0.00 0.01 -0.019 0.011
Note. N = 365. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. Unstandardized coefficients are presented.
a Locus of an ill-defined problem was coded as -1 for other-imposed problems and +1 for
self-found problems.
b Rewards contingent on creativity was coded as -1 for no rewards and +1 for rewards.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
34 Table 8
Indirect Effects of Locus of an Ill-Defined Problem on Quality through Creative Intrinsic Motivation
Model B SE t R2
Mediator variable model: Creative intrinsic motivation
0.02
Constant 4.49 0.04 102.40***
Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.04 0.04 0.86 Rewards contingent on creativity b -0.09 0.04 -1.97*
Locus * Rewards -0.05 0.04 -1.18
Dependent variable model: Quality 0.04***
Constant 2.59 0.21 12.57***
Creative intrinsic motivation 0.13 0.05 2.81** Locus of an ill-defined problem a 0.10 0.04 2.63**
Indirect effects Bootstrap
indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI Rewards (-1) no rewards 0.01 0.01 -0.002 0.034 (+1) rewards 0.00 0.01 -0.021 0.014
Note. N = 365. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. Unstandardized coefficients are presented.
a Locus of an ill-defined problem was coded as -1 for other-imposed problems and +1 for
self-found problems.
b Rewards contingent on creativity was coded as -1 for no rewards and +1 for rewards.
35 APPENDIX
Problem scenario
Italic phrases were presented to participants in the self-found condition and bold phrases were presented to participants in the other-imposed condition. The underscored sentence was presented to those participants in a rewarded condition.
Imagine, you are employed in a call center of a medium-sized company where you need to respond to questions and complaints raised by customers. The call center consists of 25 team members and a supervisor. Although things seem to run rather smoothly and a recent survey revealed that customers are well satisfied with the service they receive from the center, you think / the supervisor thinks that the service performance of the call center can substantially be improved. Within the company, all creative ideas and output are rewarded with a monetary bonus.
