Cues to Creativity -
The Effect of Regulatory Focus on Problem
Construction
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January 19, 2017
FABIAN KANNE
Studentnumber: 3048314
email: f.kanne@student.rug.nl
Supervisor:
Prof. Dr. Onne Janssen
ABSTRACT
I identified regulatory focus theory as an important factor that can clarify how ill-defined problems are constructed. In an experimental online study, 230 participants from the United States were manipulated in their regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) and then asked to restate an ill-defined problem. The results show that the trait component of the regulatory focus leads to an eager or vigilant situational state in ill-defined problem situations. As hypothesized, this regulatory focus state affects the perception of promotion (i.e. opportunities) or prevention (i.e. threats) cues in the environment of the ill-defined problem. It was found that the positive relationship of chronic prevention focus and creativity (shown in originality and quality) of problem restatements is mediated by vigilance and attention to prevention cues.
INTRODUCTION
The formulation of a problem is often more important than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires imagination and marks real advance in science.
- Einstein and Infeld (1938) We are living in a dynamic, globalized world and are frequently facing new challenges due to the technological change and the present economic uncertainty. Hence, we have to adapt our behavior and thinking in new ways and with this new input, creativity becomes more important as we need new solutions to existing as well as emerging problems.
There are two different classes of problems; those that are well-defined and those that are ill-defined (Pretz, Naples & Sternberg, 2003). Whereas well-defined problems have clear goals and paths to the solution, ill-defined problems lack this clarity (Pretz et al., 2003). Therefore, ill-defined problems require the imposing of structure and the active participation of the problem solver, before they can be solved (Mumford, 2000). The problem construction and its implied structure will then provide the framework for every further step in the process of problem solving, including the creativity of the solution (Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, Boes & Runco, 1997).
Dunkle & Bendixen, 1995), problem construction is required to impose the needed structure and lay the foundation for other creative processes. But what are the factors that guide people when they are constructing problems?
Models of problem construction emphasize experience and other personality variables in determining how a problem will be framed (Mumford, 2000; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Furthermore, a few studies have highlighted that personality variables like ambiguity tolerance, flexibility or openness, and adaptive coping (Carson & Runco, 1999) which are related to creativity in general, are also related to the construction of problems (e.g. Mumford, Constanza, Threlfall, Baughman & Reiter-Palmon, 1993). Although this has advanced our knowledge of the role of personality in problem construction, it still remains unclear how individual differences in terms of goal preferences may influence the individual that is engaged in constructing and defining ill-defined problems.
Research using regulatory focus theory might advance our knowledge in this regard as it describes the goal setting strategy and regulation of goal pursuits of individuals which implies a motivational inclination of how goals are set and achieved (Higgins, 1997). Furthermore, different studies have highlighted the effects of the regulatory focus on idea generation (e.g. Friedman & Förster, 2001; Wu, McMullen, Neubert & Yi, 2008). My basic notion is, that depending on their regulatory focus, individuals may view an ill-defined problem as an opportunity or as a threat, which will lead to very different ways of constructing a problem in terms of goals (Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009). Regulatory focus is therefore expected to play an influential role in the first step of the creative problem solving process, namely problem construction.
personality variable as well as induced by situational factors. Goals can be considered a situational factor to induce a regulatory focus. Because goal definition is a core feature of problem construction, it is likely that the regulation of goal pursuits of individuals has an effect on the problem-definer that is engaged in problem-solving efforts. Therefore, the regulatory focus as a situational state is expected to influence the goal preferences in terms of promotion or prevention goals and to overrule the individual chronic regulatory focus.
The two different foci entailed in the regulatory focus theory stem from the hedonistic principle (Higgins, 1997). The theory proposes that every effort that an individual makes to experience pleasure or avoid pain is expressed in either a promotion or a prevention focus (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998). Furthermore, a promotion focus is about ideal scenarios that seek pleasure and reward, whereas a prevention focus is aiming to avoid any pain or misconduct by inhibiting errors of commission (Higgins, 2000). Moreover, the two foci differ in terms of the goals that they try to achieve (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). In a promotion focus, people are eager to achieve those goals that are representing ideal states and will see those situations as opportunities. In a prevention focus, people aim to achieve security, which will trigger a more vigilant stance and the perceiving of the situation as a threat. This vigilance for threats and eagerness for opportunities lead to the adoption of specific behavior which implies the attention to specific cues, signaling a benign (promotion) or threatening (prevention) environment (Friedman & Förster, 2001).
Concluding, this study seeks to advance the knowledge of how ill-defined problems are constructed (1) by proving that a situational regulatory focus state affects the perception of specific cues in the environment of an ill-defined problem signaling either a benign or threatening problem situation; (2) by theorizing and testing how different goal pursuit strategies are effecting the creativity of problem restatements; (3) by showing that the attention to cues related to a promotion or prevention focus is mediating the indirect effect of a regulatory focus on quality, originality and fluency by which ill-defined problems are restated as a first step of the problem-solving efforts.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Nowadays, individuals often face problematic situations in which the goals and objectives are not clear. Therefore, a clear vision of the desired end state of the situation is missing. This lack of information can be considered a starting point for the problem-solving efforts of the problem definer. Problems that lack a clear path to the solution or well defined goals are omnipresent not only in the workplace, but also in everyday life. One example of an everyday life problem is the finding of a life partner (Pretz et al., 2003). To solve this problem, the problem solver has to define a “life partner”, set the traits that he or she has to possess and look for a place to find such a person (Pretz et al., 2003). And even after answering all these questions, the path to the solution or specific goals still remain vague. Examples of workplace problems are the allocation of assets as an employee of the investment department, or the identification of customer needs as a product manager engaged in the research and development department. Both examples show that workplace problems often possess conflicting goals and multiple solution methods. Actions and decisions are therefore required to achieve progress or solve problems such as the given examples.
and paths to the solution (Pretz et al., 2003), the imposing of structure in terms of goals, objectives or paths to the solution is needed to solve them (Mumford, 2000). This active participation of the problem solver emphasizes the importance of the problem construction as part of the underlying cognitive processes of creativity. In ill-defined problem situations where the goals and objectives as well as the path to the solution are unclear, hence ambiguity is at stake, the problem solver first has to impose structure into the situation. This structure will be based on the perception of the situation and the personality of the individual (Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009).
Research on the cognitive processes regarding the required actions and decisions to solve an ill-defined problem have led to different kind of models. Comprehensively, they all include a first step, in which the ill-defined problem is identified and constructed (Amabile, 1988; Mumford et al., 1991; Ward, Smith & Finke, 1999). This step of problem identification and construction implies recognizing, structuring and defining of the parameters of the problem and form the basis for the problem representation (Holyoak, 1984). Problem representations include 1) the information on the goals of the problem-solving effort, 2) the information and procedures used and 3) any constraints and restrictions placed on the solution (Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009). Based on the representations and the implied goals, the problem solver is able to induce structure into an ill-defined problem. As this structure is defining the context for other processes of creative problem-solving, it has a crucial impact on creativity and all later stages of the creative thought (Mumford et al., 1991; Runco & Okuda, 1988).
high problem construction ability were more likely to find a solution that would fit their values, personality and goals. In this regard, only a few studies have looked into the issue of the influence of different variables on general creativity as well as the specific creativity of problem construction (Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009). They found that personality variables that are related to creativity in general, for example openness or ambiguity tolerance, are also related to problem identification and construction (Mumford et al., 1993).
Research using regulatory focus theory might advance our knowledge in this regard as it describes the goal setting strategy and regulation of goal pursuits of individuals (Higgins, 1997). Furthermore, the regulatory focus has been shown to influence the emotional experience that is related to goals (Higgins, Shaw & Friedman, 1997) and to performance incentives (Higgins, 2000), which are also parts of the problem representation and therefore the problem construction. Therefore, the regulatory focus theory is an interesting theoretical framework for examining how people construct and define ill-structured problems. Furthermore, the regulatory focus theory is related to eagerness and risk taking (promotion focus) or vigilance and risk avoidance (prevention) (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007), which correlates to creativity in general and is therefore expected to relate to the first step of the creative process, the problem construction, as well.
outcomes are especially significant when people are prevention-focused (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). This distinction implies two different underlying motivations; the promotion focus is motivated to change, whereas the prevention focus is motivated to stabilize (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Hence, depending on the regulatory focus, a person may tend to perceive a situation as either an opportunity or a threat (Henker, Sonnentag & Unger, 2015). In other words, an opportunity is the perceived possibility of achieving an ideal state that is related to advancement, growth and accomplishment whereas a threat is the perceived possibility of achieving an undesired end-state that is related to endangering protection, security and safety (Higgins, 1998).
The regulatory focus theory entails two different components; a stable or trait-like component and a situational or state-like component (Stam et al., 2010a, 2010b). The general tendency to be promotion or prevention focused is implied in the trait-like component and is shaped by the influence of important others during the childhood (Higgins & Silberman, 1998). It therefore changes relatively little over time and situations (Keller & Bless, 2006). On the contrary, the situational regulatory focus state is induced into the individual by its environment and can change according to the situation at stake (Stam et al., 2010b). Because the situational regulatory focus state designates situationally induced differences, it can overrule the chronic regulatory focus trait (Stam et al., 2010b).
as the signaling of the environment that it is especially benign, whereas a prevention cue entails the signaling of the environment that it is rather threatening (Friedman & Förster, 2001). This leads to very distinct ways of the adaption of behavior. A benign environment allows the individual to adopt an explorative processing style and therefore creative behavior, whereas a threatening environment impairs creativity due to more risk-averse behavior. Therefore, either one of the two foci will be activated when an individual is presented with cues, offered by the environment. As ill-defined problems are ambiguous, they are likely to entail signals of both, opportunities (promotion cues) and threats (prevention cues). Hence, the problem solver is likely to pay greater attention to either one of the cues, depending on his or her regulatory focus state.
The risk taking and eagerness of a promotion focus has been shown to be beneficial for the creativity of an individual (Amabile, 1988; Friedman & Förster, 2001). People in a promotion focus should be more open to take the risk of failure, which will let them try out different creative approaches to solve the situation and let them be more eager to actually transfer those creative ideas into action, as they see an opportunity to change (Friedman & Förster, 2001). Different studies have shown that a promotion focus results in the fostering of idea generation and creative insight (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997) as well as creative behavior in general (Neubert, Kacmar, Carlos, Chonco & Roberts, 2008).
to those cues in the environment that will signal him or her threats. As threats are especially important for prevention-focused individuals, the cues signaling this environment can be considered prevention cues (Friedman & Förster, 2001). Thus, I hypothesize that being in a prevention focus state will lead to greater attention to prevention cues than being in a promotion focus state in ill-defined problem situations.
Hypothesis 1: A promotion focus state will result in stronger attention to promotion cues in ill-defined problem situations than a prevention focus state. Hypothesis 2: A prevention focus state will result in stronger attention to prevention cues in ill-defined problem situations than a promotion focus state.
Research has shown that problem construction is a significant component of creative thought (Mumford, Baughman, Threlfall, Supinski & Costanza, 1996). To structure ill-defined problems, the problem solver is using problem representations (Holyoak, 1984). As ill-defined problems are ambiguous and contain a number of diverse cues, several different problem representations will be activated (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon & Redmond, 1994). The registration and formulation of these different problem representation including the emphasis of different goals, information and constraints will result in a variety of problem restatements. By applying an individual strategy depending on the goal approach strategy of the problem solver, only the perceived most strongly activated and appropriate problem restatements will be retained for the further stages of the creative process of solving the ill-defined problem (Mumford et al., 1994). Hence, problem restatements function as draft manifestations of the different perceived elements of the problem representations.
of creativity of the end result of the problem-solving effort, namely the problem solution. Creativity in problem restatements can be defined in terms of originality, quality and fluency (Amabile, 1983). Different studies have used these constructs to assess the creativity of problem restatements (e.g. Arreola & Reiter-Palmon, 2016; Reiter-Palmon et al., 1997; Paletz & Peng, 2009). Fluency is the number of non-repetitive restatements of the ill-defined problem. Quality can be defined as the feasibility of the generated restatements as well as the representation of the context of the environment of the ill-defined problem. Originality is considered the clearest indication of the degree of creativity (Baas, de Dreu & Nijstad, 2011), as it implies a novel, infrequent or uncommon restatement of the ill-defined problem. It becomes clear that in order to achieve original problem restatements, the problem solver has to apply flexible, associative, and global thinking, because it facilitates accessibility of more information and the finding of new connections between constructs of the ill-defined problem and other categories (Förster & Dannenberg, 2010; Koestler, 1964). And indeed, broad, global and inclusive thinking has been linked to higher levels of originality by research (e.g. Eysenck, 1993; Förster, 2009; Hirt, Devers & McCrea, 2008).
Because many different diverging aspects of the problem representation will be considered, a global processing style will be applied. This widespread, global processing style may lead to superficial, immature and vague problem restatements that only partially cover the context of the ill-defined problem. However, at the same time, the global processing style will also lead to the definition of many different approaches that are aimed, in particular, to be transferred into action. This may result in workable and concise problem restatements. Therefore, the attention to promotion cues will have no distinct effect on the quality in problem restatements.
Hypothesis 3a: Attention to promotion cues is positively related to originality in problem restatements.
Hypothesis 3b: Attention to promotion cues is positively related to fluency in problem restatements.
The problem solver is only registering a modest number of threats implied in the problem representations because of his or her local processing style. At the stage of problem construction, the threats in problem representations can be considered unsolved. The prevention focused problem solver will be activated due to the unfulfilled prevention of an undesired end-state (Baas et al., 2011). As this is occurring on a local scale, the efforts will be concentrated on only a small number of problem representations. This concentrated, local threat-preventing focus will lead to clear, concise, and exact problem restatements. It is therefore expected that the attention to prevention cues results in highly feasible representations of the contexts of the ill-defined problem. Hence, the attention to prevention cues will lead to high quality in problem restatements.
Hypothesis 4a: Attention to prevention cues is negatively related to originality in problem restatements.
Hypothesis 4b: Attention to prevention cues is negatively related to fluency in problem restatements.
Hypothesis 4c: Attention to prevention cues is positively related to quality in problem restatements
goals in terms of threats and lower creativity in terms of originality and fluency and higher creativity in terms of quality.
Hypothesis 5: Attention to promotion cues mediates the indirect relationship between regulatory focus and creativity in problem restatements such that attention to promotion cues clarifies why promotion focus results in higher fluency and originality than prevention focus.
Hypothesis 6: Attention to prevention cues mediates the indirect relationship between regulatory focus and creativity in problem restatements such that attention to prevention cues clarifies why prevention focus results in lower fluency, lower originality, and higher quality than promotion focus.
The following figure illustrates the conceptual research model.
FIGURE 1
METHOD
Participants and designA sample of 230 participants currently residing in the United States of America (53% male, Mage = 36.36, SDage = 11.66) were recruited by the means of Mturk. The participants
received $3 for their participation and provided consent before the beginning of the study. The participants held different occupational (33% Management, 22% Sales and 17% Service) and educational (37% Bachelor’s degree, 27% some college but no degree) backgrounds. Due to the failing of an attention check1, 31 participants were excluded from the study.
Procedure
Participants assessed the study via the Internet using a provided hyperlink through the Mturk platform and started the experiment with a manipulation task. Hereby, the participants answered three questions that aimed to produce a regulatory focus state of promotion, prevention or intended to have no effect (control group). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions. After answering the questions, the participants were presented the following ill-defined problem scenario:
You are a student in your final semester. At the moment, you are conducting and writing your final project. In a meeting with your supervisor, your supervisor tells you that based on your project proposal, your final project is likely to be average. However, your supervisor is offering you the possibility to work on complex data collection. The outcome of this complex data collection will either result in an above average project that is highly innovative and increases your chances of landing you a job of your choosing, or a below average project that is not innovative and decreases your chances of landing a job of your choosing.
1For the attention check, participants were asked to read a short text which concludes their progress in the study
In the following task, the participants were given five minutes to restate the presented ill-defined problem starting with the preamble “How can I..?”. They were instructed to impose structure into the problem by thinking about different goals, objectives and paths to the solution. Furthermore, they were given an example of restatements to further explain the task.2 This approach of presenting participants a short ill-defined problem and then instruct them to list restatements has been used in previous research by Arreola and Reiter-Palmon (2016) and Baer (1988).
After restating the ill-defined problem, the participants were asked to fill out the manipulation check. By measuring the degrees of eagerness and vigilance, the effects of the manipulation could be tracked. The participants were then asked to rate different promotion and prevention cues with regard to their fit to the previously introduced scenario. To end the study, the participants were asked to fill out the chronic regulatory focus measure and to answer demographical questions. The participants were told to close the study after they were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Manipulation
Regulatory Focus State. The regulatory focus state of the participants was manipulated by
letting them elaborate on three essay questions. In the essay questions, they were asked to recall a situation in which they experienced success (situation 1), failure (situation 2) and again success (situation 3), whereas each situation was related to either a promotion focus, a prevention focus (Higgins et al., 2001) or random events for the control group. For the promotion focus group (n = 61), the questions consisted of “Please write about a situation in which you felt you made progress toward being successful in your life”, “…a situation in which
2Mice are in my basement.
Sample restatements:
you had the feeling that you failed to achieve progress towards the goal of being successful in life”, and “…a situation in which you, compared to others, were able to achieve a goal in life that you aimed for”. For the prevention focus group (n = 68), the questions consisted of “Please write about a situation in which being careful enough avoided you getting into trouble”, “…a situation in which you got blamed for something”, and “…a situation in which you acted in a way to avoid getting on somebody's nerves”. For the control group (n = 70), the questions consisted of the recalling of three random moments from the participant’s past.
Similar to the regulatory focus framing manipulation (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Shah, Higgins & Friedman, 1998), this manipulation is also rendered by including memories of success and failure, which can affect the underlying need of either a promotion or prevention focus (Hamstra, Sassenberg, van Yperen & Wisse, 2014).
Measures
Manipulation check. For the manipulation check, participants were asked to fill out a
questionnaire consisting of six questions in total that was measuring the degrees of eagerness and vigilance. The subscale for eagerness (α = .89) consisted of three questions, namely “In this task, I enthusiastically embraced all opportunities”, “In this task, I was eager to use all possible ways or means” and “In this task, I was eager to take all necessary actions”. The subscale for vigilance (α = .78) consisted of the three questions “In this task, I was concerned with making mistakes”, “In this task, I was cautious about going down the wrong road” and “In this task, I was vigilant and played it safe”. All items were measured on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The measure was developed and successfully used by Hamstra (2013).
Attention to promotion and prevention cues. To test the attention to promotion and prevention
as either promotion cues or prevention cues, thus signaling either a benign environment or a threatening environment (Friedman & Förster, 2001). The attention to promotion cues (α = .84) was assessed with the six items “Gain”, “Wealth”, “Pride”, “Opportunity”, “Aspiration” and “Reward”. The attention to prevention cues (α = .83) was assessed with the six items “Shame”, “Debt”, “Disappointment”, “Failure”, “Unemployment” and “Burden”. All items were rated in a random order on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 5 (extremely appropriate).
Creativity of the problem restatements. To assess the creativity in the problem restatement
task, a modified version of Amabile´s (1983) consensual assessment technique was used. This method to assess fluency, originality and quality in problem restatements was also used by previous research of Arreola and Reiter-Palmon (2016). Three different raters were used for each of the ratings. The raters consisted of graduate students in human resource management and received training prior to the ratings. This training was focused on creativity in general, creativity in restatements of everyday ill-defined problems, the rating scales used and a discussion about the specific ill-defined problem scenario of this study. To assess the interrater agreement across all raters, the interclass correlations (ICCs; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) were used. As a minimum rating of .60 (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) is considered acceptable for this research purpose, the ICC’s for originality ( .75), quality ( .76) and fluency ( .99) are sufficient.
Quality was defined as the feasibility and degree to which the problem restatements were workable, clear, concise and exact, and represented the problem context (Arreola & Reiter-Palmon, 2016). The raters assessed the overall quality across all restatements produced by the participants and the scale used was 1 (very low quality) to 5 (very high quality).
2016). The raters again assessed the overall originality across all restatements produced by the participants and the scale used was again 1 (very low originality) to 5 (very high originality).
Fluency was defined as the generation of multiple and diverse problem restatements. To assess this construct, the number of non-repetitive problem restatements was counted, a high degree of fluency being indicated by high counts.
Control Variables. As the motivational inclination to regulate the goal setting induced by
regulatory focus could also be based on the chronic promotion or prevention focus, the regulatory focus trait was included in this study as a control variable. It was assessed using the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire by Higgins (RFQ; Higgins et al., 2001). Five items (e.g., “I feel like I have made progress toward being successful in life”) measured the promotion focus subscale (α = .75) and six items (e.g. “Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times” [reversed item]) measured the prevention focus subscale (α = .85). The participants answered the questions on a scale ranging from 1 (Never or seldom) to 5 (Very often). Furthermore, as research has shown that age (e.g. Lockwood, Chasteen & Wong, 2005) and gender (e.g. Butler & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1994) have an effect on the self-regulation and regulatory focus, those variables will be controlled for.
RESULTS
DescriptiveTABLE 1
Means, standard deviations and correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Attention to promotion cues 5.34 1.08 -
2. Attention to prevention cues 3.40 1.29 -.24** -
3. Quality of restatements 3.23 .74 .11 .17* -
4. Originality of restatements 3.01 .76 .07 .17* .78** -
5. Fluency of restatements 8.43 3.33 .10 .08 .64** .59** -
6. Eagerness 5.65 1.12 .42** -.10 .03 -.06 .05 -
7. Vigilance 5.14 1.21 .07 .29** .08 .09 -.03 -.15* -
8. Promotion focus trait 3.60 .69 .34** -.27** .04 .05 .06 .36** -.17* -
9. Prevention focus trait 3.49 .87 .09 -.15* .05 .07 .17* .04 .11 .26** -
10. Gender a 1.48 .50 -.01 -.01 -.11 -.12 -.07 .02 .15* -.11 .09 -
11. Age 36.36 11.66 .26** .02 .15* .07 .02 .17* .05 .13 .19** .02 -
Manipulation check
A one way MANOVA was conducted to check for the effect of the manipulation. The results showed non-significant results at the multivariate level, F (4,392) = .12, ns, as well as on the univariate level for both eagerness, F (2, 196) = .22, ns, and vigilance, F (2,196) = .03, ns. Therefore, it can be concluded that the intended manipulation failed.
Testing of Hypotheses
Another one way MANOVA with the attention to promotion and prevention cues and the creativity of the problem restatements (measured as the fluency, quality and originality) as the dependent variables revealed non-significant results at the multivariate level, F (10,386) = .83, ns, as well as on the univariate level for all variables. The results are shown in Table 2 and did not show evidence for an effect of manipulated regulatory focus on attention to promotion or prevention cues and the three independent variables of creativity. Therefore, Hypothesis 1, stating that a promotion focus will result in stronger attention to promotion cues than a prevention focus state, cannot be confirmed. Furthermore, Hypothesis 2, stating that a prevention focus state will result in stronger attention to prevention cues than a promotion focus state, can also not be confirmed.
TABLE 2
Multivariate F, Univariate F’s, η2, Means, and Standard Deviations of Measures
of Dependent Variables as a Function of Regulatory Focus States
Note: N =199, *p < .05, **p < .01 Regulatory Focus Promotion (n = 61) Prevention (n = 68) Control (n = 70) Multivariate F (10, 386) Univariate F (2, 196) Partial η2 M SD M SD M SD
Responses .83 1. Attention to promotion cues .10 .00 5.30 1.07 5.37 1.08 5.34 1.10
2. Attention to prevention cues 1.35 .01 3.28 1.27 3.61 1.30 3.30 1.30
TABLE 3
Regression Coefficients Predicting Creativity of Problem Restatements
Note: N =199, † p < .10; *p < .05, **p < .01
Supplementary analysis
Because the conducted study also included a measure for the regulatory focus trait as a control variable, I conducted supplementary analyses to test whether chronic regulatory focus might be indirectly related to creativity (as indicated by fluency, originality, and quality) in problem restatements through the inducement of regulatory focus state and attention to promotion and prevention cues. Specifically, it is expected that the chronic regulatory focus induces a regulatory focus state that is assessed as eagerness and vigilance. This state, in turn, is expected to induce an attention to promotion and prevention cues, which ultimately influences the creativity in problem restatements. Thus, the following PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) analysis tested the effect of the chronic regulatory focus on creativity of problem restatement, sequentially mediated by eagerness and the attention to promotion cues (path 1) as well as vigilance and the attention to prevention cues (path 2). In the Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 path 1 is represented by the upper relationship consisting of the chronic promotion focus, eagerness and the attention to promotion cues, whereas path 2 is represented by the bottom relationship consisting of the chronic prevention focus, vigilance and the attention to prevention cues. The following figure shows the mediation model including indicators for both paths.
Ratings
Quality Originality Fluency
β t Sig. β t Sig. β t Sig.
Attention to Promotion cues .16 2.25 .03* .12 1.63 .10 .13 1.74 .08†
FIGURE 2
Mediation Model and Tested Paths 1 and 2
FIGURE 3
Chronic Regulatory Focus as a Predictor of Originality
Note: † p< .10; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
For path 1 of the model, the chronic promotion focus as a predictor of originality of problem restatements, there was no significant direct effect (direct effect = .06, SE = .08, 95% CI: [-.10, .23]). However, the chronic promotion focus significantly predicted eagerness, b = .35, t (192) = 4.85, p < .001 and the attention to promotion cues, b = .19, t (191) = 2.74, p < .001. Moreover, eagerness significantly predicted the attention to promotion cues, b = .33, t (191) = 5.02, p < .001, but attention to promotion cues did not predict originality, b = .13, t (190) = -1.40, ns. Furthermore, there was no significant indirect effect of chronic promotion focus on originality (indirect effect = -.01, SE = .04, 95% CI: [-.07, .09]) for any of the paths as the final relationship between the attention to promotion cues and originality was not significant.
(192) = 1.87, p < .1 and vigilance significantly predicted the attention to prevention cues, b = .32, t (191) = 4,63, p < .001. Also, the attention to prevention cues significantly predicted the originality of the problem restatements, b = .21, t (190) = 2.68, p < .01. This positive relationship found is opposite to the hypothesized negative relationship of Hypothesis 4a. Moreover, there was a significant indirect effect for the model including both mediators, vigilance and the attention to prevention cues (indirect effect = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI: [.00, .03]).
FIGURE 4
Chronic Regulatory Focus as a Predictor of Quality
Note: † p< .10; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
For the lower part of the model, path 2, the chronic prevention focus as a predictor of originality of problem restatements, there was no significant direct effect (direct effect = .05, SE = .08, 95% CI: [-.09, .20]). However, there was a significant indirect effect for the model including both mediators, vigilance and the attention to prevention cues (indirect effect = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI: [.00, .03]).
FIGURE 5
Chronic Regulatory Focus as a Predictor of Fluency
Note: † p< .10; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
For the chronic prevention focus as a predictor of fluency of problem restatements (path 2), there was a significant direct effect (direct effect = .21, SE = .08, 95% CI: [.06, .36]). Also, the attention to prevention cues significantly predicted the fluency of the problem restatements, b = .17, t (190) = 2.14, p < .05. However, there were no significant indirect effects for the model (indirect effect = -.03, SE = .02, 95% CI: [-.09, .00]).
DISCUSSION
The manipulation of the regulatory focus state failed. However, due to the fact that the manipulation check also represented a measure for the situational eagerness and vigilance of the participants, the basic assumptions of this study could still be tested for. The chronic regulatory focus was used as the regulatory focus antecedent, while eagerness and vigilance were the situational motivational inclinations induced by promotion and prevention.
Research has indicated that a promotion focus state results in greater creativity than a prevention focus state (Förster & Dannenberg, 2010; Friedman & Förster, 2001, 2002). The results of this study show that a chronic promotion focus induced eagerness and attention to promotion cues, which was marginally related to fluency, but unrelated to originality and quality. However, the findings of this study also show that a prevention focus can be beneficial for creativity. A chronic prevention focus induced vigilance and attention to prevention cues, which was related to fluency, originality and quality.
When the ill-defined problem at stake is signaling a threatening environment and the problem solver is in a state of vigilance, the attention to prevention cues will lead to higher creativity of the problem restatements. The mediating effect of a vigilant processing style and the attention to prevention cues contributes to earlier work on the role of the regulatory focus and creativity (e.g. Friedman & Förster, 2001, 2002) and implies important implications for the different interrelations between self-regulation, situational factors and creativity. Below, I will discuss these implications on a theoretical level and discuss possibilities for further research.
Theoretical implications
of what is at stake and what level of vigilance is the most appropriate to solve the situation. On the contrary, an individual with a promotion trait, driven by the eagerness to find opportunities and motivated to approach pleasure and desired end-states (Higgins, 1997) is only paying attention to such indicators that satisfy their needs for growth and achievement (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). This may lead to a limited perception of the ill-defined problem and the aversion of anything that could possibly be signaling limitations of the freedom and possibilities, although it may also be important to consider. An individual with a prevention trait, driven by the vigilance to find threats and to avoid pain and undesired end-states (Higgins, 1997) is considering the situation on a more holistic level, paying attention to the ill-defined problem as a whole. This may lead to the general consideration of lower levels of a vigilant state and the adaption of eagerness whenever it is suitable.
or vigilance in ambiguous problem situations motivating individuals to attend to promotion or prevention cues. The identifying of these respective cues reinforced eagerness and vigilance and therefore the motivational inclination.
A third finding of this study is the positive relation between attention to prevention cues and the measurements of creativity. Since the beginning of this century, researchers have connected self-regulation in goal pursuit to the human capacity of creativity (Baas, Roskes, Sligte, Nijstad & de Dreu, 2013; De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008). One of the main emphases of this research is the assumption that promotion-focused individuals tend to approach ill-defined problems in a more global and flexible way. Therefore, they are commonly assumed to be more creative than prevention-focused individuals (Förster & Dannenberg, 2010; Friedman & Förster, 2001, 2002) and these hypotheses have been proofed by several studies (e.g. Friedman & Förster, 2001). However, in line with the findings of Baas et al. (2011), this study suggests that prevention concerns, here the attention to prevention cues, can lead to increased creativity. A possible reason for this is given by Baas et al. (2011), who reasoned that prevention-focused states are activating when the avoidance of a negative outcome and unfulfilled goals are at stake. This activation will lead to higher effort, persistence and creativity. Hence, besides this motivational activation which implies that a prevention focus can facilitate creative behavior, the results of this study add another variable to the relationship between the regulatory focus and creativity, namely the attention to cues in the environment of the ill-defined problem.
to the awareness for specific cues in the environment that are signaling a threat. As the individual is activated by these cues, he or she will then put in high efforts and persistence to avoid a negative outcome and the unfulfilling of goals, which will then lead to the enhancement of creativity in restating the ill-defined problem in terms of fluency, originality and quality.
Limitations and further research
Thus, by including only one problematic scenario in this study, there are limitations to the generalizations in terms of how problem construction and the ability to construe problems influences the creativity of problem restatements.
Future research should examine more closely how the situational regulatory focus effects the creativity of problem restatements. This study showed that the attention to specific cues does mediate the relationship between the chronic regulatory focus and the creativity of problem restatements. However, it remains unclear how precisely the attention to environmental cues effects the creativity of problem restatements. Other personality variables, like the Big Five, could interact with the regulatory focus stance of the problem definer and therefore play an important role in the situational determinants of how ill-defined problems are constructed and restated. Research has found that a promotion focus is correlated to extraversion and neuroticism and that a prevention focus is predicted by conscientiousness (Gorman et al., 2012). Based on these findings, future research should aim to connect the regulatory focus and the Big Five personality variables as a moderator in the process of the definition of ill-defined problems. For example, individuals with high levels of extraversion are energetic, ambitious and enthusiastic to seek stimulation (Raja, Johns & Ntalianis, 2004). This pursue for stimulation could strengthen the attention to promotion cues, as they signal a benign and stimulating environment. Thus, extraversion might strengthen the positive relationship between promotion focus and attention to promotion cues.
individual to attend to promotion or prevention cues. The identification of promotion or prevention cues may lead to cognitive activation, as the problem-solver will increase the engagement towards the achieving of promotion or prevention goals (Baas et al., 2011). Hence, future research should examine cognitive activation as a mediator of the relationship between attention to promotion or prevention cues and creativity of problem restatements.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer.
Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10: 123-169.
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(3): 287-295.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. 2011. When prevention promotes creativity: the role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(5): 794-809.
Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. 2013. Personality and creativity: The dual pathway to creativity model and a research agenda. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 7(10): 732-748.
Baer, J. M. 1988. Long-term effects of creativity training with middle school students. The Journal
of Early Adolescence, 8(2): 183-193.
Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vegaxy, L. 2000. Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors work together: A causal process model. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2): 77-100.
Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. 1989. The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40: 109 –131.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. 2001. Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 86: 35-66.
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. 2010. The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 201–212.
Carson, D. K., & Runco, M. A. 1999. Creative problem solving and problem finding in young adults: Interconnections with stress, hassles, and coping abilities. The journal of creative behavior, 33(3): 167-188.
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. 2007. Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32: 761-773.
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., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. 2008. Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: toward a dual pathway to mood-creativity model. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 94(5): 739-756.
Einstein, A., & Infield, L. 1938. The evolution of physics. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Elliot, A. J. 1999. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34: 169 –189.
Eysenck, H. J. 1993. Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4: 147–178.
Förster, J. 2009. Relations between perceptual and conceptual scope: How global versus local processing fits a focus on similarity versus dissimilarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 138: 88– 111.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. 2001. The Effects of Promotion and Prevention Cues on Creativity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6): 1001-1013.
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.
Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. 2004. A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30: 453–470.
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., & Godbey, J. N. 2012. A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1): 160-172.
Hamstra, M. 2013. Self-regulation in a social environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Hamstra, M. R., Sassenberg, K., Van Yperen, N. W., & Wisse, B. 2014. Followers feel valued— When leaders' regulatory focus makes leaders exhibit behavior that fits followers' regulatory focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51: 34-40.
Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Henker, N., Sonnentag, S., & Unger, D. 2015. Transformational leadership and employee creativity: The mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 30(2): 235-247.
Herman, A., & Reiter-Palmon, R. 2011. The effect of regulatory focus on idea generation and idea evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1): 13-20.
Higgins, E. T., Shaw, J., & Friedman, R. S. 1997. Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 515-525.
Higgins, E. T. 1998. Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30: 1-46.
Higgins, E. T., & Silberman, I. 1998. Development of regulatory focus: Promotion and prevention as ways of living. In J. Heckhausen & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across
the life span: 78-113. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Higgins, E. T. 2000. Beyond pleasure and pain. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.),
Motivational Science: Social and Personality Perspectives: 231-255. New York: Psychology
Press.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. 2001. Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31: 3-23.
Hirt, E. R., Devers, E. E., & McCrea, S. M. 2008. I want to be creative: Exploring the role of hedonic contingency theory in the positive mood– cognitive flexibility link. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 94: 214–230.
Holyoak, K. J. 1984. Mental models in problem solving. In J. R. Anderson & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.),
Tutorials in learning and memory: Essays in honor of Gordon Bower: 193-218. San
Francisco: Freeman.
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. 2007. Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32: 500-528.
Keller, J., & Bless, H. 2006. Regulatory fit and cognitive performance: the interactive effect of chronic and situationally induced self-regulatory mechanisms on test performance. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 36(3): 393-405.
Lam, T. W. H., & Chiu, C. Y. 2002. The motivational function of regulatory focus in creativity. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(2): 138-150.
Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A. L., & Wong, C. 2005. Age and regulatory focus determine preferences for health-related role models. Psychology and aging, 20(3): 376-389.
Lubart, T. I. 2001. Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research
Journal, 13: 295-308.
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. M. 1991. Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4: 91-122.
Mumford, M. D., Costanza, D. P., Threlfall, K. V., Baughman, W. A., & Reiter-Palmon, R. 1993. Personality variables and problem construction: An exploratory investigation. Creativity
Research Journal, 6: 365-424.
Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. 1994. Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem
finding, problem solving, and creativity: 3-39. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
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(1): 63-76.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human
Resource Management Review, 10: 313-351.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlos, D. S., Chonko, L. B. & Roberts, J. A. 2008. Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1220-1233.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 879– 891.
Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. 2003. Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving: 3-30. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. 2004. The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3): 350-367.
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., Mumford, M. D., & Threlfall, K. V. 1998. Solving everyday problems creatively: The role of problem construction and personality type. Creativity Research Journal, 11: 187-197.
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(1): 43-47.
Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. 1988. Problem discovery, divergent thinking, and the creative process.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17: 213-222.
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. 1995. Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9: 523-538.
Shah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. S. 1998. Performance incentives and means: how regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(2): 285-293.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. 1979. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: 422–445.
Stam, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. 2010a. Focusing on followers: The role of regulatory focus and possible selves in visionary leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21: 457-468.
Stam, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. 2010b. The role of regulatory fit in visionary leadership.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 31: 499-518.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Toward a unified theory of human reasoning. Intelligence, 10: 281-314.
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. 1999. Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity: 189-213. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, C., McMullen, J., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. 2008. The influence of leader regulatory focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5): 587-602.
