Big Five, Regulatory focus and the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model

Big Five, Regulatory focus and the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model

Masterthesis Denise Groeneveld Student number: 1637991

Supervisor: B. A. Nijstad University of Groningen Faculty of Business & Economics Department Human Resource Management

Word count (abstract and text): 8385

Abstract

This study focuses on whether chronic regulatory focus, with regard to creativity, exhibits incremental predictive value over and above the Big Five. A second question that is addressed is how personality and regulatory focus are related to creativity. Building on The Dual Pathway to Creativity Model it was predicted extraversion, openness to experience and promotion focus would influence creativity because of their association with cognitive flexibility, and conscientiousness and prevention focus because of their association with cognitive persistence (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Baas, 2011). A field study was conducted to measure creativity through self-reports and team leader rating. The results showed that the personality dimension openness to experience was the strongest predictor of creativity. However, more important was that promotion and prevention focus had additional predictive value over and beyond the relationship between the Big Five and creativity. The results of how personality and regulatory focused are related to creativity showed that the relationship between promotion focus and creativity was mediated by cognitive flexibility. No support was found for the mediating role of cognitive persistence between the relationship of the Big Five, regulatory focus and creativity. Noticeable was a negative moderating effect of work motivation and commitment on the relationship between cognitive persistence and creativity. These results imply that a lack of flexibility undermines creativity.

Keywords: Big Five, Regulatory focus and the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model

Big Five, Regulatory focus and the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model

Creativity has become an important phenomenon in the contemporary economy and has been emphasized as a key factor for success in organizations (e.g., Jeanes, 2006;

Prichard, 2002; Rehn, 2009). The importance of creativity derives from the more rapid, flexible and adaptive responses required of modern organizations and their employees to the ever fast changing market. Despite some inconsistencies in definition, creativity is often defined as the generation of ideas, insights or problem solutions that are new and meant to be useful (Amabile, 1983; Paulus & Nijstad, 2003; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).

Research has consistently demonstrated that there are individual differences in creativity. Among many variables that have been shown to predict creativity, the Big Five personality measure is one that is often used. Results indicate that that several personality dimensions, such as openness to experience and extraversion are positively related to creativity. In contrast, conscientiousness seems to be negatively related to creativity (e.g., Batey & Furnham, 2006; Feist, 1998; Furnham, Batey, Anand, &

Manfield, 2008; King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001).

A different theory that can be used to explain individual differences in creativity is regulatory focus theory of Higgins (1997). This theory explains differences in goal- directed behavior through two self-regulation systems, promotion and prevention focus.

Research has repeatedly showed that when people who focus on achieving positive

outcomes (promotion focus) as compared to people who focus on avoiding negative

outcomes (prevention focus) tend to score higher on creativity (Friedman & Förster,

2002, 2005).

Furthermore, other studies have found moderate associations between some of the Big Five dimensions and regulatory focus (Vaughn, Baumann & Kleman, 2008; Wallace

& Chen, 2006). This raises the question whether these constructs have unique predictive value for creativity when both are taken into account, considering the partial overlap there seem to be.

More important, this study will not only focus on the predictive value of the Big Five and regulatory focus but will also examine through which mechanism those constructs are related to creativity. According to the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model, creativity is a function of cognitive flexibility and cognitive persistence, which in turn are influenced by certain traits or states (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008). There is some support that under certain conditions approach orientation (promotion focus) is related to the cognitive flexibility pathway and avoidance orientation (prevention focus) is related to the cognitive persistence pathway (Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2011). Despite the

evidence that engaging in the cognitive flexible or cognitive persistence pathway can lead to creative output, it has never been investigated which traits or states actually influence these pathways.

This reasoning leads to the goals of the current study, which are twofold. First,

although the Big Five and regulatory both have predictive value for creativity, it has

never been tested whether they have unique predictive value when both are taken into

account. Therefore, this study will investigate whether regulatory focus has incremental

validity beyond and above the Big Five. Secondly, since the dual pathway to creativity

model assumes that certain traits or states influence cognitive flexibility and other traits

or states influence cognitive persistence, this study will investigate whether the effects of

the Big Five and regulatory focus on creativity are mediated by cognitive flexibility and cognitive persistence.

Big Five

The Big Five consist of five independent personality dimensions: extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience (Costa &

McCrae, 1994; DeRaad, 2000; Digman, 1990). A high score on extraversion

characterizes people that are social, assertive, talkative and energetic. People who score high on neuroticism are constantly worrying, often feel anxious, emotionally unstable and uncertain about themselves. Agreeableness is characterized by honesty, trustworthiness, cooperation and friendliness. Conscientious individuals are characterized by having a great sense of responsibility and self-control, work persistently and systematically and they are often practical and performance oriented. The last dimension, openness to experience, is characterized by curiosity, intelligence, imagination and independence.

Big Five and Creativity

Creativity is a multi-faceted construct and although consistent relationships have been found with creativity, it also depends on what cognitive functions, such as the capability of learning and problem solving ability are measured (e.g., Amabile, 1983;

Runco, 2004). However, different studies of creative personality using the Big Five have repeatedly found significant relationships between some Big Five factors and creativity (e.g., Batey & Furnham, 2006; Furnham, Batey, Anand, & Manfield, 2008; Wolfradt &

Pretz, 2001). The most robust and consistent positive predictors of the Big Five

personality dimensions for creativity are openness to experience and extraversion.

Openness to experience has been the most frequently investigated of the Big Five dimensions and has received consistent empirical support as a positive moderate

predictor of creativity (George & Zhou, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1997). This personality dimension represents the extent to which individuals are imaginative, broad-minded, curious and nontraditional (Mount & Barrick, 1995). Individuals with high openness to experience are more flexible in embracing novel ideas even though these may be untested or fanciful. Open minded people have strong tendencies to seek out unfamiliar situations that allow for greater access to new experiences and perspectives (Goldberg, 1990). They are willing to expose themselves to a variety of feelings, perspectives and ideas. This enables them to move away from traditional beliefs and conventions and engage in novel and unique ways of thinking. On the other hand, individuals with low openness to

experience tend to be more conservative and cautious. They find more comfort in the status quo and prefer ideas and things that are familiar rather than novel and unique, because these reduce uncertainty (Choi, 2004; George & Zhou, 2001).

Although researchers have paid less attention to extraversion as a source of creativity, it has repeatedly been found that extraversion is also a positive predictor of creativity, however the predictive value is smaller than openness to experience (Costa &

McCrae, 1992; Zhao & Seibert, 2006). People with high extraversion are full of energy and enthusiasm, encouraging such behaviors as seeking stimulation and proactively addressing problems, which should enhance creative thinking and performance.

Individuals with high extraversion are more likely to seek stimulation (Zhao & Siebert, 2006), whereas those with low extraversion tend to be reserved and quiet (Costa &

McCrae, 1992). Creativity may result from a person’s proactive behavior, such as

actively engaging in a task, or trying out different ideas. For this reason, individuals who are passive and wait for someone to inspire and stimulate them are less likely to be creative. The enthusiasm of people with high extraversion may lead them to be curious about even routine events and to experiment with them. Extraverts tend to seek novel ways of doing tasks and to confront problems instead of avoiding them, which is likely to increase creative performance.

In contrast, research consistently shows small negative relationships between conscientiousness and creativity (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Feist, 1998; Furnham et al.,2008; King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996; Manfield, 2008; McRae, 1987; Wolfradt &

Pretz, 2001). Conscientiousness refers to the degree to which individuals are purposeful, hardworking, persistent, and strive for achievement (Goldberg, 1990). Research has shown that individuals high in conscientiousness tend to set clear goals to direct their efforts and to exert greater effort than less conscientious people (Mount & Barrick, 1995). In addition, conscientious people may be mostly oriented toward carrying out the given task in an efficient and organized way rather than introducing interruptions of the given task flow by coming up with new ideas (George & Zhou, 2001).

The personality dimensions agreeableness and neuroticism have not proven to be robust and consistent predictors and seem to be unrelated to creativity. However, in a few studies, small negative relationships have been found between agreeableness and

creativity and small positive relationships between neuroticism and creativity (eg., Batey,

2007; Esysenck, 1995; Gelade, 2002). Although some small effects are found, both

personality dimensions showed no relationships with creativity in a meta-analysis of Feist

(1998) (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Feist, 1998; Furnham et al.,; King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996; Manfield, 2008; McRae, 1987; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001).

Regulatory focus theory

A more recent approach that may be used to explain individual differences in creativity is self-regulation (Amabile, 1996; Runco, 2004). This is the process by which individuals coordinate their actions to achieve specific goals, ideals or standards

(Baumeister, Schmeichel & Vohs, 2007). One of the main theories in this area is regulatory focus theory, which attempts to explain goal-directed behavior (Higgins, 1997). This theory has increasingly been used over the last decade to explain individual differences in creativity. In regulatory focus theory, two self-regulation systems are distinguished, promotion and prevention focus (Higgins, 1997). These systems are presumed to be independent of each other, which means that a person can have a high score on both promotion and prevention focus.

Promotion focus. Individuals who have a promotion focus are aimed at

approaching pleasure and positive outcomes. The need for growth and development are paramount and these individuals pursue their ‘ideal self’ (hopes, wishes and aspirations).

Following an ‘ideal self’ entails adopting a regulatory state oriented toward

accomplishment and a heightened sensitivity to opportunities to advance goal attainment.

Accordingly, eagerness to approach matches to desired states is a natural means of goal attainment when one is in a regulatory state oriented toward accomplishment (Förster, Higgins & Bianco, 2003).

Prevention focus. The other self-regulation system is characterized by a

prevention focus. Individuals who score high on this are focused on avoiding negative

outcomes. The needs for safety and security are paramount and these people pursue their

‘ought self’ (obligations and responsibilities). Accordingly, vigilance to avoid mismatches to desired states is a natural means of goal attainment when one is in a regulatory state oriented toward responsibility (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Shah, Higgins,

& Friedman, 1998).

Regulatory focus and creativity

First evidence for the relationship between regulatory focus and creativity was found by Friedman and Förster (2001). Results of their study show that promotion focus cues bolstered both creative insight and creative idea generation relative to prevention cues. They also found that promotion focus, in contrast to prevention focus, produces a riskier response bias and bolster memory search for novel responses. Other research has shown that promotion focused individuals engage in more global, inclusive and flexible thinking and this leads to higher creative performance than individuals with a high score on prevention focus (e.g., Förster & Dannenberg, 2010; Friedman & Förster, 2001, 2002).

The positive relationship between promotion focus and creativity is often explained by suggesting that promotion focus activates a broad and global attentional scope and facilitate conceptual access to mental representations with lower a priori accessibility. In contrast, prevention focus activates a narrow attentional scope, a focus on local perceptual details, and undermines the conceptual access to mental

representations with lower a priori accessibility (Derryberry & Tucker, 1994; Förster,

Friedman, Özelsel, & Denzler, 2006; Förster & Higgins, 2005; Friedman & Förster,

2005). Creative processes, such as creative insight and ideation benefit from restructuring

of problem information and access to remotely associated cognitive material (Martindale, 1995; Mednick, 1962; Smith & Blankenship, 1991). Therefore, these processes are believed to benefit from a broader scope of attention at both perceptual and conceptual levels (Förster, Friedman, & Liberman, 2004; Rowe, Hirsh, & Anderson, 2007; Schooler, 2002).

Big Five and regulatory focus

Although self-regulatory focus is conceptualized at the level of motivational systems, it is closely associated with aspects of approach and avoidance behavior. Gray (1982) suggested that two motivational systems underlie behavior and affect: a

behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and a behavioral approach/activation system (BAS).

BIS is closely related to prevention focus as they are both avoidance related and BAS is related to promotion focus, as they are both focused on approach.

Moreover, individual differences in BIS/BAS scores have also been associated

with differences in personality. Research shows that neuroticism is strongly correlated to

BIS and conscientiousness is moderately linked with BIS (Smits & Boeck, 2006). Results

of other studies found evidence for a positive relationship between extraversion and BAS,

which is explained by the fact that extraversion primarily implies an approach tendency

(Depue & Collins, 1999; Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Furthermore, recent findings have also

found direct moderate relations between some personality dimensions of the Big Five and

regulatory focus (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2008; Wallace & Chen, 2006). Results showed that

openness to experience has a positive relationship with promotion focus (Vaughn et al.,

2008) and conscientiousness was positively linked to prevention focus (Wallace & Chen,

2006).

Taken together, personality traits and self-regulatory focus partly explain individual differences in creative performance. The partial overlap found between the constructs makes it interesting to test whether regulatory focus can explain additional variance in creativity beyond and above the Big five. As previous research has only focused on the independent effects of both constructs, this will be the first goal of the current study.

Derived from the above literature that has shown that promotion focus cues bolster creativity rather than prevention focus, the current study expects that promotion focus can serve as an extra motivator to generate creative output and has effects on creativity beyond the Big Five. The personality traits extraversion and openness to experience have been found as the most consistent positive predictors for creativity. This reasoning leads to the first hypothesis: “promotion focus has additional positive predictive value for creativity beyond and above extraversion and openness to experience”(hypothesis 1).

The Dual Pathway to Creativity model

A second question and one that has not been addressed in research, is how

personality and regulatory focus are related to creativity. The Dual Pathway to Creativity Model argues that creativity is a function of cognitive flexibility and cognitive

persistence (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Baas, 2011). More importantly, it argues that some traits

or states influence creativity because of their association with either cognitive flexibility

or cognitive persistence. This implies that certain traits or states activate individuals to

engage either in flexible or persistent processing and that through either flexibility or

persistence, high levels of creative output can be achieved.

Flexibility pathway. Cognitive flexibility is defined as the ease with which people can switch to a different approach or consider different perspectives. This pathway represents the possibility of achieving creative insights, problem solutions, or ideas through the use of broad and inclusive cognitive categories, through flexible switching among categories, approaches, and sets, and through the use of remote (rather than close) associations (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Eysenck, 1993; Mednick, 1962). This flexible cognitive style is associated with low effort, low resource demands, high speed and efficient processing (De Dreu et al., 2008). It manifests itself in flat associate hierarchies, in the use of multiple and relatively broad cognitive categories and in a global processing style (Förster, Epstude & Ozelsel, 2009).

Persistence pathway. Cognitive persistence is defined as the degree of sustained and focused task-directed cognitive effort. In contrast to cognitive flexibility, this

persistent cognitive style is associated with high effort, perseverance and a slower speed of operation (De Dreu et al., 2008; Evans, 2003; Winkielman, Schwarz, Fazendeiro &

Reber, 2003). This pathway represents the possibility of achieving creative ideas, insights, and problem solutions through hard work, the systematic and effortful exploration of possibilities, and in-depth exploration of only a few categories or perspectives. The systematic search processes employed in the persistence pathway require more executive control than the associative search processes employed in the flexibility pathway, which leads to the fact that it is more constrained by working memory capacity (e.g., De Dreu, Nijstad, Baas, Wolsink, & Roskes, in press; Evans, 2003).

Dual Pathways, Big Five, Regulatory Focus, and Creativity

Consistent with past findings, the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model predicts positive relationships between creativity and a focus on achieving positive outcomes (promotion/approach). Furthermore, this model suggests that approach- oriented

(promotion focus) people are more likely to engage the cognitive flexible pathway rather than the cognitive persistence pathway. This positive relation with creativity is explained by the explorative, flexible, and broad focus that enhances creativity and is evoked by approach motivation (Friedman & Förster, 2002, 2005). This reasoning implicates that promotion focus is positively related to the cognitive flexibility pathway, which in turns leads to creative output. Taken together with previous research that showed that

extraversion and openness to experience are positively related to promotion focus and both have an approach orientation, the second hypothesis is: “extraversion, openness to experience and promotion focus positively relate to cognitive flexibility, which in turn mediates the relationship with creativity” (hypothesis 2).

In contrast to past findings that only show positive relationships between

promotion focus and creativity, the Dual Pathway Model to Creativity assumes that both promotion and prevention focus can lead to creative outcomes, but through different processes. Roskes, De Dreu and Nijstad (in press) proposed that avoidance motivated people engage in a relatively persistent processing style and systematically and persistently explore a few categories and approaches in great depth. According to the Dual Pathway Model, such persistent processing may also lead to creativity, which raises the question why previous work has obtained no relationships between avoidance

motivation (prevention focus) and creativity. Roskes et al. (in press) assumed that it

would cost more effort for avoidance motivated people to reach high levels of creativity.

Their processing style is more persistent and systematic (in contrast to people who engage the flexible pathway), which makes it more exhausting to generate creative output. However, people with an avoidance motivation are not less able to be creative as long as they are motivated and committed to their goals and when creativity is functional to achieving these goals. In short, it seems that avoidance motivated people compensate their relatively inflexible processing style by putting more effort into generating creative ideas.

In several studies, Roskes et al. (in press) manipulated whether creative performance was functional towards achieving goals, and found that avoidance

motivation (as compared to approach motivation) only reduced creativity when creative performance was non-functional. These results suggest that people who focus on avoiding negative outcomes (prevention/avoidance) engage in the cognitive persistence pathway, which in turn leads to creative output under the condition that they are

motivated and committed to their goals (Elliot, Maier, Binser, Friedman, & Pekrun, 2009;

Mehta & Zhu, 2009; Cretenet & Dru, 2009; Friedman & Förster, 2002). Therefore, based on the above literature is in this study expected that: “conscientiousness and prevention focus positively relate to cognitive persistence”(hypothesis 3a), because prevention focus evokes a relatively persistent processing style.

Finally, the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model suggest that people who have a

prevention focus also can generate creative output, as long as they are motivated and

committed to their goals and when creativity is functional to achieving these goals. They

compensate their inflexible processing style by putting more effort into generating

creative ideas. Therefore the expectation in this study is that: “the indirect effect of

conscientiousness and prevention focus on creativity through cognitive persistence is

moderated by work motivation, affective commitment and goal commitment; this indirect

path is stronger when work motivation, affective commitment and goal commitment are

high”(hypotheses 3b).

Methods Participants

The participants of this study were 108 Dutch salespersons that worked for an event organization (Starbeach). All participants had the same job function, selling event tickets. The respondent group consisted of 43% male and 57% female. The age ranged from 18 to 28 and the mean was 22.69.

Procedure

Around 160 Dutch speaking employees that worked for Starbeach in 2010 and/or 2011 were approached by email to participate in a study about creativity at work. All participants were asked to fill out questionnaires measuring the constructs the Big Five, regulatory focus, cognitive flexibility, cognitive persistence, creativity, work motivation, affective commitment and goal commitment. To fill out the questionnaires the

participants could either go to a website of Qualtrics survey software or do it by pen and paper through an attached document. 87 participants filled out the questionnaire online and 21 by pen and paper.

The two team leaders of the organization that worked in 2010 and 2011 were asked to rate each participant on the creativity questionnaire. The team leaders in this organization knew every participant personally very well because of the intensive contact that they had during work. After data collection among salespersons was completed, both team leaders received a list with names to rate. All scores were linked to the original dataset and the names of the participants were deleted to protect the anonymity.

Measurement instruments

Existing questionnaires were used to measure the Big Five, regulatory focus, creativity, work motivation, affective commitment and goal commitment. Two

questionnaires were specifically developed to measure the constructs cognitive flexibility and cognitive persistence (see “factor analyses” for validity and reliability).

Control variables. These consisted of: gender, age and work experience for Starbeach.

Big Five. The five personality dimensions of the Big Five were measured on the basis of a questionnaire of Schafer (1999). The items of the questionnaire consisted of two adjectives which the participants had to indicate what the most applicable to them.

For each personality dimension were six items: neuroticism (α = .70; sample item:

"Confident vs. Uncertain"), extraversion (α = .79; e.g.: "Silent vs. Talkative"), openness

to experience (α = .66; e.g.: "Fasting vs. Imaginative"), agreeableness (α = .65; e.g.:

"Hostile vs. lenient") and conscientiousness (α = .78; e.g.: "Lazy vs. Hardworking").

Regulatory focus. A questionnaire of Lockwood, Jordan and Kunda (2002) was used to measure regulatory focus. Nine items measured promotion focus (α = .89; e.g.: “I typically focus on the success I hope to achieve in the future”) and nine items measured prevention focus (α = .85; e.g.: “In general, I am focused on preventing negative events in my life”). On a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), the participants could indicate whether the statements applied to them. For each participant a total score was calculated separately for promotion focus and prevention focus because they are independent of each other.

Work motivation. This construct is measured through a 3-item questionnaire of Van

Kippenberg and Van Schie (2000) (α = .69; e.g.:“ I am always willing to put effort into

my work”). On a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), the participants could indicate whether the statements applied to them.

Affective commitment. A questionnaire of Allen and Meyer (1990, 1996) was used that consisted of five items (α = .83; e.g.:“ I feel emotionally attached to this

organization”). On a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), the participants could indicate whether the statements applied to them.

Goal commitment. This construct is measured through a questionnaire of Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck & Wright (2001) which originally consisted of 9 items. 5 items were selected that were relevant for this study (α = .82; e.g.:“ It’s hard to take this goal

seriously.”). The questions were based on the goals that were set by the team leaders for the participants every day. The introduction of the questionnaire referred to these goals so the participants could answer the items based on that information. On a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), the participants could indicate whether the statements applied to them.

Dependent variable

Creativity. A questionnaire of Zhou and George (2001) was used that consisted of 13 items. One item was not suitable for this participant group and was dropped. In contrast to the other questionnaires, two supervisors were asked to indicate how

characteristic each of the twelve behaviors were of the participant they were rating (rater 1 α = .86; and rater 2 α = .84; e.g.:“ Employee comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performance”). The participants also filled out the same questionnaire to rate themselves (α = .73; e.g.: “ I Come up with new and practical ideas to improve

performance” ). The questionnaire had a five-point response format ranging from 1 “not

at all characteristic” to 5 “very characteristic”. For the current study the average score of the two raters on creativity was used because the inter-rater correlation was high (r = .79, p < .05). This means that both team leaders rated the participants quite similar.

Factor analyses

The questionnaires for cognitive flexibility and cognitive persistence were specifically designed for this study. Cognitive flexibility was defined as the ease with which people can switch to a different approach or consider different perspectives.

Cognitive persistence was defined as the degree of sustained and focused task-directed cognitive effort.

Through two pilot studies several items that either derived from existing

questionnaires or that were specifically designed for this study were tested. Results of the pilot studies indicated 5 factors, 3 for cognitive flexibility (task switching, social adapting and inflexibility) and 2 for cognitive persistence (focus and continuing effort). Based on statistical and theoretical grounds, 10 items for cognitive flexibility (table 1) and 11 items for cognitive persistence (table 2) were used for the current study.

Cognitive flexibility. The first three items were specifically designed for the current study. Item 4 to 8 were taken off the HEXACO Personality Inventory of Lee &

Ashton (2004). Item 9 and 10 were selected from the cognitive flexibility scale of Martin

& Rubin (1995). A factor analysis was performed to investigate the items before the data

analyses (table 1). The results showed two factors. The first factor included 6 items (1, 2,

3, 4, 9 and10) and measured the degree to which people can easily switch their attention

cognitively. Factor 2 included 4 items (5,6,7 and 8) and measured social adaption. Based

on statistical and theoretical grounds (cognitive flexibility was defined as “the ease with

which people can switch to a different approach or consider different perspectives”) the 6 items of the first factor were used for the final data analyses. The Cronbach alpha was .84 (item 1= I can easily switch my attention between tasks; 2 = I can focus well on different tasks at the same time; 3 = It doesn’t cost me a lot of effort to refocus when switching tasks; 4 = I adjust easily; 5 = I avoid new and unusual situation and 6 = I have the self-confidence necessary to try different ways of behaving).

Cognitive persistence. Item 1 to 4 were specifically designed for the current study.

Item 5, 6, 7 10 and 11 were derived from the IPIP-VIA scale of Peterson & Seligman (2004). Item 8 and 9 originates from the Grit Scale which measures the perseverance of effort (Duckworth and Quinn, 2009). A factor analysis was performed to analyze all items (table 2). The results showed three factors: factor 1 included 7 items (1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11), factor 2 included 2 items (3 and 4) and factor 3 also included 2 items (7 and 10).

On theoretical grounds we chose to use the items included in factor 1, because these items were clearly related to the definition of cognitive persistence (sustained and

focused task-direct effort). However, item 8 and 9 of factor 1 measured to a greater extent

the degree of ‘hard working’ and were dropped. The items of factor 2 seemed to mainly

measure cognitive inflexibility and item 7 and 10 (factor 3) seemed to measure the degree

of giving up. Therefore, based on the factor analysis and theoretical ground, 5 items of

factor 1 were selected for the final analysis of this study. The Cronbach alpha was .77

(item 1= If I run into a problem, I entirely focus on this; 2= If I run into a problem, I

continue until I have solved this; 3= I don’t get quick sidetracked when I work; 4= I don’t

quit a task before it is finished; 5= I finish things despite obstacles in the way).

Results Correlation analysis

Table 3 (see appendix) presents averages, standard deviations, Cronbach alpha’s (on the diagonal) and correlations between the constructs Big Five (neuroticism,

extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness), regulatory focus (promotion and prevention focus), cognitive flexibility, cognitive persistence, work motivation, affective commitment, goal commitment, self-rated creativity and the average creativity score rated by the two team leaders.

Table 3 showed a moderate positive relationship between extraversion and creativity (r = .22, p < .05) and openness to experience and creativity (r = .36, p < .01).

Promotion focus showed a strong positive relationship with creativity (r = .45, p < .01).

Noticeable is that cognitive flexibility showed the strongest positive relationship with creativity (r = .49, p < .01). Interesting is that prevention focus showed a negative relationship with creativity (r = -.40, p < .01).

Extraversion (r = .48, p < .01) and openness to experience (r = .43, p < .01) showed both a positive relationship with cognitive flexibility. Promotion focus showed the strongest positive relationship with cognitive flexibility (r = .72, p < .05) and noticeable is that prevention focus showed a strong negative relationship with cognitive flexibility (r = -.65, p < .01).

Conscientiousness was strong positively related to cognitive persistence (r = .62, p < .01). Surprisingly, prevention focus showed no relationship with cognitive

persistence.

Regression analyses

Hypothesis 1. A linear regression analysis was done to investigate if promotion focus has additional predictive value for creativity beyond and above the Big Five (table 4).

The analysis consisted of multiple steps; step 1 included the control variables, step 2 added the Big Five factors and step 3 added regulatory focus in the analysis.

Table 4 shows that of the Big Five factors only openness to experience had a positive relationship with creativity in step 2 (β = .27, p < .01). This effect disappeared when the regulatory focus was added to the analysis in step 3. Promotion focus showed a positive relationship with creativity (β = .29, p < .05) and prevention focus a negative and marginally significant relationship with creativity (β = -.19, p < .10). Adding regulatory focus to the regression increased the R

by .11 (p< .05), which shows that promotion focus explained additional variance in creativity. Therefore, the results showed support for hypothesis 1. It should be noted that extraversion was not significantly related to creativity when other Big Five factors were controlled for, and that the effect of openness to experience on creativity disappeared when regulatory focus was added, suggesting that the effect of openness may be due to its relation with regulatory focus (also see table 3).

Hypothesis 2. The expectation was that extraversion, openness to experience and promotion focus positively relate to cognitive flexibility, which in turn mediates the relationship with creativity. First, a linear regression analysis was done to test the effect of the predictors (extraversion, openness to experience and promotion focus) on the mediator (cognitive flexibility) (table 5). This analysis consisted again of multiple steps where in step 1 the control variables were added, step 2 added the Big Five factors and step 3 added regulatory focus to the analysis. Table 5 shows that extraversion (β = .41, p

< .01) and openness to experience (β = .23, p < .05) had a positive relationship with

cognitive flexibility in step 2. However, these effects disappeared when regulatory focus was added to the analysis in step 3. Promotion focus showed a strong positive

relationship with cognitive flexibility (β = .50, p < .01) and prevention focus a negative relationship with cognitive flexibility (β = -.35, p < .01).

A second linear regression analysis was performed to test the effects of the predictors on the dependent variable (creativity) (table 4, step 4). The results of previous analyses had shown that extraversion was not related to creativity. Openness to

experience showed a relationship with creativity, however when promotion focus was added to the analysis, this relationship disappeared and only promotion focus showed a relationship with creativity (β = .29, p < .05). Table 4 step 4 shows when cognitive flexibility was added to the analysis, the relationship between promotion focus and creativity disappeared. These results indicate that cognitive flexibility mediates the relationship between promotion focus and creativity and therefore supported hypothesis 2. To test if this mediating effect was significant a Sobel test was performed. The Sobel test statistic was 4.88 (p < .01) which means that the mediating effect was significant.

The relationship between openness to experience, when regulatory focus was added to the analyses disappeared. To test whether there is a mediating effect of cognitive flexibility between the relationship of openness to experience and creativity another linear regression analysis was performed, in which regulatory focus was not included.

Step 1 added the control variables, step 2 added the Big Five factors and step 3 added

cognitive flexibility to the analysis. The results showed in step 2 that the effect of

openness to experience on creativity (β = .27, p < .01) dropped in step 3 when cognitive

flexibility was added to the analyses (β = .17, p < .10). Again, a sobel test was performed

to test whether the mediating effect was significant. The Sobel test statistic was 2.08 (p <

.05) which means that the mediating effect was significant and supported the hypothesis.

No support was found for the hypothesis that the effect of extraversion would be mediated by flexibility, because extraversion was not significantly related to creativity.

Hypothesis 3a. The expectations were that conscientiousness and prevention focus were positively related to cognitive persistence. Table 6 showed the linear regression analysis of cognitive persistence on the control variables, Big Five and regulatory focus. The results indicate that conscientiousness showed a strong positive relationship with cognitive persistence (β = .58, p < .01) and prevention focus had no relationship with cognitive persistence. This means that the results only partially supported this hypothesis (for conscientiousness but not for prevention focus).

Hypothesis 3b. The expectations were that the indirect effect of

conscientiousness and prevention focus on creativity through cognitive persistence is moderated by work motivation, affective commitment and goal commitment and that this indirect path is stronger when work motivation, affective commitment and goal

commitment are high. To test this hypothesis, the mediating role of cognitive persistence between the relationship of conscientiousness, prevention focus and creativity was investigated first. The results of hypothesis 3a indicated that only conscientiousness was positively related to cognitive persistence (β = .58, p < .01). Further, results in table 4 show that cognitive persistence is positively related to creativity(β = .43, p < .01).

However, conscientiousness showed no relationship with creativity (table 4). These

results indicate that no support was found for the mediating effect of cognitive

persistence between the relationship of conscientiousness and creativity.

To test whether there was a moderating effect of work motivation, affective commitment and goal commitment on the relationship of cognitive persistence and creativity another series of multiple regression analyses were performed (table 7). Each regression analyses consisted of two step. In the first step the predictor (persistence) and moderator variable (work motivation, affective commitment or goal commitment) were added and in the second step the interaction effect between the two variables were added to the analyses.

The first analysis was done for the moderating role of work motivation on the relationship between cognitive persistence and creativity. The results showed that persistence was not related to creativity but work motivation showed a positive relationship with creativity (β = .29, p < .01). Surprising was the interaction effect between persistence and work motivation that showed a negative effect (β = -.38, p <

.01), see figure 1. Contrary to our hypothesis, this result indicates that persistence is not related to creativity when work motivation is low, but negatively related to creativity when work motivation is high. The second analysis was performed to test the moderating effect of affective commitment on the relationship between persistence and creativity.

Again, the results showed no effect of persistence on creativity but a positive and

marginally significant effect of affective commitment on creativity. The interaction effect

was also negative (β = -.32, p < .01) which implies a negative relationship between

persistence and creativity when affective commitment was high. The last analysis was to

test the moderating effect of goal commitment on the relationship between persistence

and creativity. The results were in line with the latter two analysis; no effect was found

for persistence and a positive effect was found of goal commitment on creativity (β = .31,

p < .01). The interaction effect between persistence and goal commitment was again negative (β = -.26, p < .01) indicating that the relationship between persistence and creativity became negative when goal commitment was high.

These results indicate that the combination of a high level of persistence and work motivation, affective commitment or goal commitment reduce creativity. A possible explanation of these effects is that this combination of persistence and high motivation or commitment produces rigidity and a lack of flexibility that undermines creativity. To see whether this lack of flexibility indeed undermines creativity another series of linear regression analyses were performed, in which cognitive flexibility was the dependent variable (table 8).

First, an analysis was done for the moderating role of work motivation on the relationship between cognitive persistence and cognitive flexibility. Persistence was negatively related (β = -.38, p < .01) and work motivation showed no relationship with flexibility. When the interaction effect was added in step 2 a negative relationship appeared (β = -.33, p < .01). This result indicates that persistence was negatively related to flexibility when work motivation is low, but became even more negatively related to flexibility when work motivation is high, see figure 2. The second analysis was

performed to test the moderating effect of affective commitment on the relationship between persistence and flexibility. Persistence showed again a negative effect on flexibility (β = -.35, p < .01) but affective commitment was positively related to flexibility (β = .19, p < .05). The interaction between persistence and affective

commitment was also negative (β = -.25, p < .01) which means that persistence became

more negatively related to flexibility when affective commitment was high. The last

analysis tested the moderating effect of goal commitment on the relationship between persistence and flexibility. Persistence showed a negative effect (β = -.41, p < .01) and goal commitment a positive effect (β = .21, p < .05) on flexibility. In step 2 the

interaction effect was added to the analysis and showed again a negative effect (β = -.32, p < .01).

Taken together, the results indicate that persistence is negatively related to

flexibility. More important is that this effect is even stronger when there are high levels

of work motivation, affective commitment or goal commitment and therefore confirm the

thought that a lack of flexibility undermines creativity.

Discussion

The current study focused in the first place on whether regulatory focus had incremental validity for creativity over and beyond the Big Five. Furthermore, building on the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model (De Dreu et al., 2008), this study investigated how personality and regulatory focus are related to creativity.

The results showed that the Big Five dimension openness to experience was the best predictor for creativity. Although extraversion correlated significantly with

creativity, it was unrelated to creativity when the other Big Five variables were controlled for. No relationship was found between conscientiousness and creativity, in contrast to previous research (e.g., Feist, 1998; Furnham, Batey, Anand, & Manfield, 2008; King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001; Batey & Furnham, 2006). The most important finding of the first part of this study was that when regulatory focus was added to the analysis it explained additional variance and,- the effect of openness to experience on creativity disappeared. These results indicate that promotion focus was a more

important predictor of creativity than the Big Five. Noticeable was that prevention focus showed a marginally significant negative effect on creativity. Previous research has found that promotion focus bolstered creativity in comparison to prevention focus (Friedman &

Förster, 2002, 2005). More research into this negative relationship between prevention focus and creativity is needed to see whether this finding is robust. Based on the present findings, it seems that both foci may be important in predicting creativity.

The results of the second part of this study, based on the Dual Pathway Model to Creativity, showed that both cognitive persistence and cognitive flexibility were

positively related to creativity. Clear evidence was also found for the mediating role of

cognitive flexibility between the relationship of openness to experience, promotion focus and creativity. Less clear was the mediating effect of cognitive persistence on the

relationship between conscientiousness, prevention focus and creativity.

Conscientiousness was not related to creativity, however it did show a strong positive relationship with cognitive persistence. This means that only an indirect effect of conscientiousness on creativity through cognitive persistence is found, but no direct effect. Interesting is the question why there is no direct effect of conscientiousness on creativity and future research may can give more insight in these underlying mechanisms.

In contrast, prevention focus showed a strong negative relationship with creativity but no relationship with cognitive persistence. Whereas Roskes et al. (in press) assumed that avoidance motivated people (cf. prevention focus) reach creativity through a persistent processing style, the current study shows that prevention focus is not related to cognitive persistence.

Another noticeable effect was the moderating role of work motivation, affective commitment and goal commitment on the relationship between cognitive persistence and creativity. Results indicated a negative effect of all moderating variables, which was contrary to the hypothesis which expected that a higher score on motivation or commitment would lead to higher creativity. However, the results showed that

persistence was not related to creativity when motivation or commitment were low, but negatively related to creativity when motivation or commitment was high. These results suggest that a lack of flexibility seems to undermine creativity by a high level of

motivation and or commitment. A plausible explanation for this effect can be that when

people are highly motivated and committed to reach a goal and at the same time they

have the tendency towards cognitive persistence, their attentional scope is rather narrow and only focused on the specific goal to reach. Perhaps this undermines the cognitive flexibility which is necessary for creativity performance. However, as far as known, no other research has investigated this effect and further research should be done to give more insight in this moderating role of work motivation, affective commitment and goal commitment on the relationship between cognitive persistence and creativity.

Theoretical implications

First of all, this study contributes to the literature of the Big Five in predicting creativity. Previous research showed that openness to experience was the most consistent and robust predictor of creativity (e.g., Batey & Furnham, 2006; Feist, 1998; Furnham, Batey, Anand, & Manfield, 2008; King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001). This study showed when promotion focus was added to the analysis, promotion focus explained variance in creativity that was before already predicted by openness to experience. This suggest that promotion focus seems to be a better predictor than openness to experience. Given the conclusion that regulatory focus explained additional variance over and beyond the Big Five for creativity, considerations can be made to use regulatory focus along with the often used Big Five measure when predicting creativity.

More research about the incremental validity of regulatory focus over and beyond the Big Five in predicting creativity is also recommended to test whether this finding is robust.

A second theoretical implication that can be made with regard to regulatory focus

theory is that the current study was a field study, in contrast to previous research that was

mostly experimental. Results of past studies on regulatory focus predicting creativity

showed that people who focus on achieving positive outcomes (cf. promotion focus) tend

to score higher on creativity as compared to people who focus on avoiding negative outcomes (cf. prevention focus) (Friedman & Förster, 2002, 2005). However, this study showed that prevention focus had a negative effect on creativity which implies that both foci might be important. More field studies may help to clarify new insights about the negative effect of prevention focus on creativity and test whether this effect is robust.

An last implication can refer to the Dual Pathway Model to Creativity. This study not only focused on what traits and states influence creative performance, but also addressed how personality traits and regulatory focus were related to creativity.

Therefore, it was the first study that investigated and provided an insight of the underlying processes of how personality traits and regulatory focus were related to creativity. The results indicate that the relationship between openness to experience, promotion focus and creativity is mediated by cognitive flexibility. Less clear were the results of the pathway cognitive persistence, which was assumed by the Dual Pathway Model to have a mediating role between avoidance motivation (prevention focus) and creativity (Roskes et al., in press). The results showed that prevention focus was not related to cognitive persistence and therefore question marks should be put on this side of the model. Future research should be done to give more insight is this pathway.

Nonetheless, consistent with the Dual Pathway Model, persistence and flexibility were both significantly related to employee creativity.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study made use of cross-sectional data through self-reports of personality

traits. Cognitive flexibility and cognitive persistence were also measured as traits. A

recommendation for future research can be to measure cognitive flexibility and cognitive

persistence as states. This is especially important for the cognitive persistence pathway as the results of the current study are not yet fully understood and contradict in some respect with the Dual Pathway Model. An example item for cognitive persistence being

measured as a state can be “At work when I run into a problem, I continue until this is solved” instead of measuring it as a trait “If I run into a problem, I entirely focus on

this”. Perhaps the cognitive processing of people might be different when they are focused on work-related problems in comparing to personal problems. Therefore, future research can investigate whether the same or different results can be found when

cognitive persistence and cognitive flexibility are measured as states. The same reasoning accounts for the negatively moderating effects of motivation and commitment on the relationship between cognitive persistence and creativity. It seems that the combination of persistence and high motivation and commitment produces rigidity and a lack of flexibility undermines creativity. However, these not fully understood results might be different when cognitive flexibility and cognitive persistence are measured as states.

Future research should be done to investigate this and provide more insight in these results that still unclear.

A second limitation is that there seems to be some overlap between certain constructs. Based on the results and theoretical grounds, openness to experience and cognitive flexibility seem to overlap in some ways. For example, the item “I can adapt easily” belongs to the cognitive flexibility questionnaire. However, this item could also

fit in the questionnaire of the Big Five measuring the factor openness to experience. The

same accounts for the constructs conscientiousness and cognitive flexibility who are

strongly related to each other. An item that was used to measure cognitive persistence is

“I don’t quit a task before it is finished”, however based on theoretical grounds this item

would also fit in the conscientiousness scale. The overlap between the constructs could have caused unwanted bias in the results. The question then is whether for example the high correlation between openness to experience and cognitive flexibility is caused by the overlap between the constructs, or whether the correlation between them indeed is

theoretically meaningful and the construct of cognitive flexibility and openness can theoretically and empirically be distinguished.

Another limitation of this study is that the questionnaires of cognitive flexibility and cognitive persistence were only validated and tested for this study. The current study was the first one to test the Dual Pathway Model to Creativity in the field and therefore had to develop new questionnaires to measure these constructs. Future research can test whether these questionnaires still can be applied in different studies or whether they have to be changed and or developed some more.

Conclusion

The increased attention over the last decade for regulatory focus in predicting creativity is justified. It seems that both foci may be important in predicting creativity.

Perhaps this theory can give new insights in predicting creativity. More important, this

study addressed a question that has not been addressed yet in previous research, the focus

was not only on what factors were related to creativity but also how these factors were

related to creativity. Future research can build on the current study to obtain more

knowledge about how certain traits and states are related to creativity. The ultimate goal

in predicting creativity is in the first place to find out what factors are related to creativity

but even more important is to understand why and how certain traits are related to

creativity and understand the underlying processes and mechanism.

References

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252–276.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential

conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376.

Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). When prevention promotes creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 749-809.

Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Intelligence and personality as predictors of divergent thinking: the role of general, fluid and crystallised intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 60−69.

Batey, M. D., & Furnham, A. F. (2006). Creativity, intelligence and personality: A

critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs.

Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation and the executive function: The self as controlling agent. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T.

Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2

edition,

516-539. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Choi, J. N. (2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 467-484.

Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI- R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1994). Stability and change in personality from adolescence through adulthood. In Halverson, C. F. Jr., Kohnstamm, G. A. Martin, R. P.

(Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood, 139-155. Hillsadale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cretenet, J., & Dru, V. (2009). Influence of peripheral and motivational cues on rigid- flexible functioning: Perceptual, behavioral, and cognitive aspects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 201-217.

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations:

Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117-132.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level

in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739-756.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Mental set and creative thought in social conflict: Threat rigidity versus motivated focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 648-661.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Baas, M. (2011). Behavioral activation links to creativity because of increased flexibility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 72-80.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., Baas, M., Wolsink, I., & Roskes, M. (in press).

Working memory benefits creative insight, musical improvisation and original ideation through maintained task-focused attention. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality:

Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 491–517.

DeRaad, B. (2002). The Big Five personality factors: The psycholexial approach to personality. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Motivating the focus of attention. In P. M.

Niedenthal & S. Kitayama (Eds.), The heart’s eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention (pp. 167–196). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five- factor model. Annual review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Duckworth, A. L., & Quin, P. D. (2009). Development and Validation of the Short Grit

Scale (Grit-S). Journal of Personality Assessment.

Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147–178.

Elliot, A. J., Maier, M. A., Binser, M. J., Friedman, R., & Pekrun, R. (2009). The effect of red on avoidance behavior in achievement contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 365-375.

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality:

Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804-818.

Evans, J. S. T. (2003). In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454-459.

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fodor, E. M., & Carver, R. A. (2000). Achievement and power motives, performance feedback, and creativity. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 380–396.

Förster, J., Epstude, K., & Ozelsel, A. (2009). Why love has wings and sex has not: How reminders of love and sex influence creative and analytic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1479-1491.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.

Förster, J., & Dannenberg, L. (2010). GLOMOsys: A systems account of global versus

local processing. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 175–197.

Förster, J., Friedman, R. S.,Özelsel, A., & Denzler, M. (2006). Enactment of approach and avoidance behavior influences the scope of perceptual and conceptual attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 133–146.

Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 177–189.

Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global vs. local processing fits regulatory focus.

Psychological Science, 16, 631–636.

Förster, J., Higgins, E., & Bianco, A. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148–164.

Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the "goal looms larger" effect.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1115-1131.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2000). The effects of approach and avoidance motor actions on the elements of creative insight. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 477–492.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2002). The influence of approach and avoidance motor

actions on creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 41-

55.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2005). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual

asymmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 263-275.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2005). The influence of approach and avoidance cues on attentional flexibility. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 69-81.

Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1060–

1069.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513-524.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

Gray, J. A. (1982). Precis of the neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 469–534.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002). Personality in work organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jeanes, E.L. (2006) Resisting Creativity, Creating the New. A Deleuzian Perspective on Creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 127– 34.

King, A., Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the Five-Factor Model.

Journal of research in personality, 30, 189–203.

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbecks, J. R., Wright, P. M., DeShon, R. P. ( 2001).

The Assessment of Goal Commitment and Human Decision Processes.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 32-55.

Liberman, N., Molden, D. C., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 5–18.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2010). Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329-358.

Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854-864.

Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility.

Psychological Reports, 76, 623-626.

Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R.

A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 249–268). Cambridge, MA:

Bradford.

McCrae, R. R., Jr., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825-847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232.

Mehta, R., & Zhu, R. (2009). Blue or red? Exploring the effect of color on cognitive task

performances. Science, 323, 1226-1229.