How is regulatory focus related to creativity?

How is regulatory focus related to creativity?

The mediating roles of willingness to take risks, diverse information

seeking and conformity to supervisor.

2 ABSTRACT

3 INTRODUCTION

The need to be creative in companies in the current environment is ever growing. It has been argued that creativity – defined as “the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain” (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996: p. 1155) – has become an important goal for organizations as it has a potential powerful influence on organizational performance, effectiveness and survival (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis & Strange, 2002). Given the importance of creativity, a creative workforce is necessary for (continuous) incremental improvements as well as radical breakthroughs (Amabile, 1983; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). However, apart from intrinsic motivation (e.g. Hennessey & Amabile, 2010) relatively little is known about the motivations and processes by which employees become creative.

It has been argued that regulatory focus may have an important influence on people’s creativity (Baas, de Dreu & Nijstad, 2011; Friedman & Förster, 2001; Higgins, 1997). Regulatory focus theory has first been introduced by Higgins (1997). In the regulatory focus theory there are two fundamental motivational systems that regulate people’s goals, emotions and behavior: promotion focus and prevention focus. According to Higgins (1997), promotion focus is characterized by nurturance needs, strong ideals (e.g. hopes, wishes, aspirations) and sensitivity to positive outcomes (i.e. gain – non-gain), whereas a prevention focus is characterized by security needs (e.g. protection), strong oughts (e.g. duties obligations and responsibilities) and sensitivity to negative outcomes (i.e. non-loss – loss). In this study we will focus on state regulatory focus (Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko & Roberts, 2008; Wallace, Johnson & Frazier, 2009), since we are specifically interested in creativity in the workplace.

4 willingness to take risks, diverse information seeking, and conformity to supervisor – and examine how these act as mediating mechanisms between regulatory focus and creativity. Willingness to take risks specifically addresses a willingness to engage in potential risks at work in an effort to produce positive organizationally relevant outcomes such that one is open to the possibility of negative personal outcomes as a result (Dewett, 2006). Diverse information seeking addresses the diversity of sources and how often one uses those sources to find information (Zimmer, Henry & Butler, 2007). Lastly, conformity to the supervisor means one imitates the supervisor, follows the trends set by the supervisor, relies on the supervisor’s advice and suggestions, or is easily persuaded. Together these attributes imply a person’s willingness to be controlled by one’s supervisor (Mehrabian & Stefl, 1995).

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Regulatory Focus and Creativity

5 provided by Friedman & Förster (2001), who performed multiple studies in which they manipulated either a promotion or prevention focus. In these studies Friedman and Förster (2001) found proof for their general hypothesis that regulatory focus cues influence creative thought. Based on their results and the results of other studies (e.g. Crowe & Higgins, 1997), Friedman and Förster (2001) argue that individuals with a promotion focus elicit a risky, explorative processing style that can result in creative responses. Individuals with a prevention focus however, elicit a more risk averse and conventional processing style which can result in less creative responses. Previous research has also shown that individuals with a promotion focus have greater fluency (Lam & Chiu, 2002) and originality (Herman & Reiter-Palmon, 2011) in idea generation tasks. Additionally, in a recent meta-analysis, Lanaj, Chang and Johnson (2012) also found evidence that promotion focus is significantly positively related to innovation performance, this relation was stronger than the significant relationship between prevention focus and innovative performance. Lastly, a meta-analysis on personality and its relation to creativity in scientists and artists (Feist, 1998), has shown that traits related to promotion focus, such as independency, non-conformity, flexibility and openness to experience are salient traits of creative people (Higgins, 1997; Lanaj et al. 2012). These traits have been theoretically (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Friedman & Förster, 2001; Higgins, 1997) and recently empirically (Lanaj et al., 2012) linked to a promotion focus. Thus, we argue that promotion focus is positively related to organizational creativity whereas we expect a prevention focus to be negatively related to organizational creativity.

Willingness to Take Risks as Mediator

6 their effort to complete their work or reach their goals in an improved manner. Several scholars have noted the role of WTR in order to promote creative behavior (e.g. Amabile, 1983; Dewett, 2006; Mumford et al., 2002).

Promotion focused individuals have a more risky, explorative processing style to ensure hits and avoid misses (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997). WTR focuses on positive outcomes in the face of potential negative personal outcomes (Dewett, 2006). Therefore we argue that promotion focus, elicited by eagerness to attain advancement and gains even when this may result in a loss of accomplishment (Bryant & Dunford, 2008; Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997), is positively related to WTR. In contrast, prevention focused individuals, triggered by security needs, will be more careful, cautious and oriented towards avoiding losses as negative outcomes (Grant & Higgins, 2003; Higgins, 1997; Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). Prevention focus is elicited by vigilance which will result in an inclination to avoid losses and attaining correct rejections and thus avoiding making mistakes (Bryant & Dunford, 2008; Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997). Therefore we argue that prevention focus is negatively related to WTR.

Creative behavior and the creative effort carry certain risks because the outcome is uncertain; it may not deliver positive results (George & Zhou, 2001; Mumford et al., 2002). In other words, the outcome of the creative effort is uncertain, implying risk (Dewett, 2006; Sitkin & Pablo, 1992). Moreover, George and Zhou (2001) state that creativity entails a departure from the status quo, traditional approaches, and habitual behaviors that are embedded in organizational systems and practices. Therefore, creative activities can be risky and, if they fail, initiators of such activities may face negative consequences (Mumford et al., 2002). Since the definition of WTR is the willingness to engage in potential risks in order to attain advancement in the organizational context with possible negative personal outcomes, we pose that WTR is positively related to creativity. Hence the first hypotheses are:

7 Hypothesis 1b: A prevention focus is negatively related to employees’ willingness to take risks which will then lead to lower levels of creativity.

Diverse Information Seeking as Mediator

The second mediating variable is diverse information seeking. Promotion focused individuals will try to seek matches to a desired end state and are open to change (Liberman, Idson, Camacho & Higgins, 1999), and are therefore open to look for new sources and elicit eagerness to search for diverse information to get the best possible match. In addition, promotion focused individuals will be more explorative in their processing style (Higgins, 1997), and are therefore more likely to search for more (diverse) information. We therefore argue that a promotion focus is positively related to diverse information seeking.

Prevention focused individuals will try to avoid mismatches to a desired end state (Higgins, 1997), and have a preference for stability (Liberman et al., 1999). We therefore argue that prevention focused individuals will not actively search for more diverse information but rather delve into known and proven information even further to avoid making mistakes. Moreover a prevention focus will result in employees having a narrower, vigilant look and stick to existing concepts and thus not actively look for diverse information (Ward, Smith & Vaid, 1997). Old concepts (i.e. knowledge) are also used to assess the relevancy of new (diverse) information for the situation at hand (Ward et al., 1997). A vigilant processing style will result in sticking to old (known) concepts and will therefore restrict the domain in which one can assess the relevancy of diverse information. In other words, a vigilant processing style may limit the amount of available diverse information but instead deepen the knowledge on existing information, thereby hindering possible new insights and hence creative thought.

8 situations, diverse and sometimes even inconsistent and contradictory information leads to increased creativity (Reiter-Palmon and Illies, 2004; Simon, 1978). It has been shown that employees who have more information show a higher level of creativity than when information is scarce (Levin & Brody, 1974). In addition, Levin and Brody (1974) suggest that individuals who actively look for information show higher levels of creativity then people who do not actively look for information. Therefore, the second hypotheses are:

Hypothesis 2a: A promotion focus is positively related to employees’ information seeking which will then lead to higher levels of creativity.

Hypothesis 2b: A prevention focus is negatively related to employees’ information seeking which will then lead to lower levels of creativity.

Conformity to Supervisor as Mediator

The third mediating variable is conformity to the supervisor. Individuals high on promotion focus are more concerned with success and accomplishments (Higgins, 2002), and the underlying personal values which are linked to the promotion focus are achievement, self-direction, and stimulation values (i.e. excitement, novelty and challenge in life) (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Leikas, Lönnqvist, Verkasalo & Lindeman, 2008). Because promotion focused individuals seek means to reach desired end states (i.e. fulfill their values), they are likely to diverge from social conventions when these conventions suppress those values. Moreover, promotion focused individuals will be more explorative and show more eagerness in their processing style (Higgins, 1997) compared to their prevention focused counterparts. Therefore they will diverge from their supervisor in order to find the best possible fit to their end state. We therefore argue that a promotion focus is negatively related to conformity to the supervisor.

9 focused is concerned with duties and obligations and is therefore focused on authority. Conforming to the supervisor can thus also be seen in the light of fulfilling one’s duties and obligations. We therefore argue that a prevention focus is positively related to conformity to the supervisor.

With regard to creativity it has been argued that conformity is detrimental to its process (e.g. Crutchfield, 1955). In the search for the best idea, new ideas and solutions must first be generated. In this divergent process, idea quantity and an open minded approach are helpful and valuable (Campbell, 1960; Chirumbolo et al, 2004; Simonton, 1999; Staw, 1990). In this stage, conformity to the supervisor will lead to less (diverse) ideas, because it will lead to less ideas and open-mindedness. In the next stage, ideas and solutions must be evaluated in order to select the best options among them (Chirumbolo et al., 2004). This is a convergent process in which a constructive debate amongst group members should lead to better decisions and increased creativity (Nijstad & Paulus, 2003). Conforming behavior is detrimental to constructive debate, since conformity implies that one imitates a dominant other (e.g. the supervisor), relies on other’s advice and suggestions and is easily persuaded (Mehrabian & Stefl, 1995). Moreover, previous research argues that everyone possesses creativity to some extent (e.g. Amabile 1983; Kaufman & Beghetto 2009) and the diversity and quantity of information of several people combined (Hemminger, Lu, Vaughan & Adams, 2007), will produce more (diverse and original) ideas compared to one individual. Therefore, we argue that when individuals conform to the supervisor, and thus limit their ideas and networks to that of one person, creativity will suffer. These arguments suggest that conformity to the supervisor will lead to a low level of creativity, therefore the third hypotheses are:

Hypothesis 3a: A promotion focus is negatively related to conformity to the supervisor which will then lead to higher levels of creativity.

Hypothesis 3b: A prevention focus is positively related to conformity to the supervisor which will then lead to lower levels of creativity.

10 Data and Sample

Participants were recruited from several organizations in the Netherlands, 6.8% of the organizations worked in the industrial sector, 60.2% in the commercial services sector and 33% in the non-commercial services sector. The final sample consisted out of 112 employees, working under 30 supervisors in 12 organizations. Of the employees, 48.2% were male, and the average age was 35.69 years. Most held either a vocational (38.4%) or bachelor degree (38.4%), had an average work experience of 15.02 years and tenure of 7.43 years at their current organization. Of the supervisors 63.1% were male, and the average age was 38.96 years old. Most held a bachelor degree (61.2%), had an average work experience of 18.65 years and tenure at their current organization of 9.47 years. Supervisors rated a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 10 employees with an average of 3.5 employees. We told participants that their responses to the questionnaire would be kept strictly confidential. Two separate paper-and-pencil questionnaires were sent, one was filled out by the employees and the other by the supervisor.

Measures

Unless otherwise indicated, all the variables were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The specific measures are described below, along with the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the various measures. Items were reverse coded where necessary and averaged into an overall score. All measures were completed by employees, except for the creativity measure, which was completed by supervisors.

Regulatory focus. We have chosen to measure state regulatory focus because the chronic

regulatory focus captures one’s developmental history and thus cannot fully measure the extent to which people differ in their prevention and promotion focus at work (Higgins, 1997; Wallace et al., 2009). We measured state regulatory focus using a scale based on the Regulatory Focus at Work scale (RFW) developed by Wallace et al. (2009). Items were adjusted to fit the context of this research. Sample items include: “I focus on rules and regulations at work” (prevention focus) and “I focus on maximizing my goals for advancement” (promotion focus). The internal consistency was α = 0.83 for prevention focus and α = 0.81 for promotion focus.

Willingness to take risks. The scale consists of eight items designed by Dewett (2006)

11 work and the employee accepts that this could lead to a potential negative outcome. Sample items include: “When I think of a good way to improve the way I accomplish my work, I will risk potential failure to try it out” and “I will take a risk and try something new if I have an idea that might improve my work, regardless of how I might be evaluated”. The internal consistency was α = 0.90.

Diverse information seeking. Diverse information seeking is measured on an eight item

scale developed by Zimmer, Henry and Butler (2007). We used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very seldom) to 5 (very often). Sample items include: “How often do you use the following source to find information: Printed media” and “How often you use the following source to find information: Coworkers within your department”. The internal consistency was α = 0.64.

Conformity to supervisor. An 11 item scale adopted from Mehrabian & Stefl (1995) was

used to measure conformity to supervisor. Example items include “In my work, I often rely on, and act upon, the advice of my supervisor”, and “I would be the last to change my opinion in an argument, only because my supervisor wants me to” (reverse coded). The internal consistency was α = 0.62.

Creativity. Creativity is measured using supervisor ratings adopted from Tierney, Farmer

& Graen (1999). The scale consists of 9 items including: “This employee demonstrated originality in his/her work” and “This employee took risks in terms of producing new ideas in doing his/her job”. The internal consistency was α = 0.87.

RESULTS

12 N M s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Gender 112 1.52 2. Age 112 35.69 10.55 -0.11 3. Tenure 112 7.43 7.65 0.16 0.68** 4. Prevention Focus 112 4.08 0.60 -0.32** 0.07 -0.01 5. Promotion Focus 112 3.71 0.76 -0.17 0.05 0.00 0.56** 6. Willingness to take risks 112 3.37 0.76 -0.04 -0.22* -0.10 0.03 0.40** 7. Diverse information seeking 112 3.09 0.55 0.19* 0.16 0.27** -0.15 0.14 0.23* 8. Conformity to supervisor 112 3.20 0.41 0.23* -0.16 -0.12 -0.04 -0.15 0.03 -0.17 9. Creativity 103 3.29 0.65 -0.07 -0.10 -0.09 -0.05 0.18 0.28** 0.12 -0.01

DESCRIPTIVES & CORRELATIONS TABLE 1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

In order to test the hypotheses of this study, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. According to Baron and Kenny (1986) three steps have to be taken in order to prove mediation. First, the mediator should be predicted by the independent variable; second, the dependent variable should be predicted by the mediator and by the independent variable; last, the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable should become non-significant when controlling for the mediator. When this is not the case there is a partial mediation effect.

13 hypothesis 1b there was no effect of prevention focus on WTR, therefore hypothesis 1b is not supported.

TABLE 2

Results of regression analysis on WTR

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Creativity WTR Creativity Mediation

β Sig. β Sig. β Sig.

Promotion Focus 0.18 0.07 0.40 0.00 0.10 0.35

WTR 0.24 0.04 0.22 0.02

Prevention Focus -0.05 0.62 0.00 0.98 -0.05 0.66

WTR 0.24 0.04 0.24 0.00

Note. N = 112 for Regulatory focus measures and WTR, 103 for creativity.

The second regression analyses were conducted to test whether the effect of promotion and prevention focus on creativity were mediated by diverse information seeking (table 3). For hypothesis 2a, promotion focus did not significantly predict diverse information seeking (β = 0.12; t = 1.428, n.s.; model 2). Therefore hypothesis 2a is not supported. For hypothesis 2b, prevention focus showed a slight negative, however non-significant result on diverse information seeking (β = -0.14; t = -1.592, n.s.; model 2), as a result hypothesis 2b is not supported.

TABLE 3

Results of regression analysis on Diverse Information Seeking

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Creativity _Diverse information

seeking

Creativity Mediation

β Sig β Sig. β Sig.

Promotion Focus 0.18 0.07 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.09

Diverse information seeking 0.14 0.22 0.11 0.32

Prevention Focus -0.05 0.62 -0.14 0.11 -0.03 0.76

Diverse information seeking 0.14 0.22 0.14 0.25

Note. N = 112 for Regulatory focus measures and diverse information seeking, 103 for creativity.

14 hypothesis 3a promotion focus yielded a slight negative but non-significant result (β = -0.10; t = -1.571, n.s.; model 2), therefore hypothesis 3a is not supported. Lastly, prevention focus did not significantly predict conformity to the supervisor (β = -0.03; t = -0.452, n.s.; model 2) and thus hypothesis 3b is not supported.

TABLE 4

Results of regression analysis on Conformity to Supervisor

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Creativity Conformity to supervisor

Creativity Mediation

β Sig β Sig. β Sig.

Promotion Focus 0.18 0.07 -0.10 0.12 0.18 0.07

Conformity to Supervisor -0.01 0.95 0.030 0.84

Prevention Focus -0.05 0.62 -0.03 0.65 -0.05 0.62

Conformity to Supervisor -0.01 0.95 -0.01 0.95

Note. N = 112 for Regulatory focus measures and conformity to supervisor, 103 for creativity.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study examined three processes under which regulatory focus may lead to creativity. In literature, promotion focus, rather than prevention focus, has been linked to creativity; however the processes explaining this link to creativity remained vague (e.g. Friedman & Förster, 2001; Lanaj et al., 2012). In an attempt to bridge this gap in literature, we have set out to test three theoretically feasible processes – willingness to take risks (WTR), diverse information seeking and conformity to supervisor – that could explain this relationship in more detail. The results yielded from this field study provided support for the promotion focus – WTR – creativity link, but not for the other mediating processes between regulatory focus and creativity. We used self-ratings to measure employee regulatory focus and the mediating processes; creativity was measured using supervisory ratings.

Summary of results

15 paper, promotion focused individuals have a more explorative processing style and are eager to insure advancement and gains, which may lead to increased creativity; whereas prevention focused individuals have a more vigilant processing style and are focused on attaining non-losses and safety which may hinder creativity.

In line with previous research (e.g. Neubert et al., 2008; Wallace et al., 2009) we found a positive correlation between the two foci. Although not explicitly hypothesized in this study, previous research (e.g. Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Friedman & Förster, 2001; Higgins, 1997; Lanaj et al., 2012) has pointed out that promotion and prevention focus are orthogonal constructs, meaning that they two different strategies rather than opposite ends of a single continuum. Therefore it is possible for individuals to score high on both foci, low on both foci or high on one focus and low on the other.

Second, consistent with our first hypothesis, WTR fully mediates the relationship between promotion focus and creativity. Thus indicating that promotion focused individuals are willing to take risks to ensure advancement and gains, even in the face of potential failure and that the more employees were willing to take risk the more they were creative in their work. Thus our study contributes to the literature providing empirical evidence for this proposed relationship (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Friedman & Förster, 2001). On the other side, the results show a null-effect of prevention focus on WTR. This is somewhat surprising since individuals in prevention focus elicit vigilance in an attempt to avoid losses and attain correct rejections. Therefore a willingness to take risks, in the face of potential negative outcomes for the self, was expected to be negatively related to prevention focus.

16 Theoretical implications

Our results show that the relationship between regulatory focus and creativity is not clear-cut. The most important implication of our study is that WTR is indeed related to both promotion focus and creativity, and that it mediates this relationship. This is an important contribution to literature because it amends and connects previous research on the underlying processes of regulatory focus and creativity research. Previous research on regulatory focus has argued that promotion focused individuals elicit a “risky” explorative processing style which would lead to increased creativity (e.g. Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Friedman & Förster, 2001). However, this “risky” explorative processing style that could mediate between promotion focus and creativity has not been empirically examined in previous research. In addition, risk taking has been argued to be an important antecedent to creativity because the outcome of the creative effort is uncertain; an individual might face negative outcomes when failing (e.g. George & Zhou, 2001; Mumford et al., 2002). In the field of organizational creativity, WTR has been shown to be a predictor of employee creativity (Dewett, 2006), but WTR has not been linked to self-regulation. Our results provide the first empirical evidence that WTR is related to both promotion focus and creativity and indeed does mediate this relationship. Therefore we contribute to both the creativity and regulatory focus theory in providing the first converging evidence of WTR as a mediating process between promotion focus and creativity.

17 perspective/semantic category may also be very creative (Stroebe, Nijstad & Rietzschel, 2010). Thus diverse information seeking, (reflecting flexibility), might not be sufficient for employees to be creative. The amount, the novelty and the usefulness of the sources used might be of equal or even greater importance for increasing employee creativity.

Additionally, in line with previous research (e.g. Chirumbolo et al., 2004), we reasoned that conformity to the supervisor is negatively related to creativity. We argued that this is mainly due to the loss of diversity in ideas and the lack of constructive debate when choosing the best alternative. However, recent research has shown that conformity can facilitate group creativity when individuals lack creative talent (Goncalo & Duguid, 2012). When individuals do not lack creative talent, conformity hinders creativity. Thus, this research suggests that there is a moderating effect influencing the relationship between conformity to the supervisor and creativity and provides us with a possible explanation for our results.

Practical implications

Due to results found in this paper and the theoretical implications, there are a few practical implications. Given the need for creativity and innovation in organizations (e.g. Mumford et al., 2002), identifying processes by which managers can actively influence the creative behavior of their subordinates is an important step. Recent research has identified regulatory focus as an important motivational construct and has shown its relationship to creativity and innovation in organizations (e.g. Lanaj et al., 2012). Our results show that a promotion focus is positively related to creativity and that a prevention focus shows no effect to creativity. Thus in work environments where creativity is needed, promotion focused individuals will be more successful than their prevention focused counterparts. Thus selecting promotion focused employees rather than prevention focused employees for creative tasks may enhance overall creative performance.

18 benefit the organization with the possibility of negative personal outcomes as a result (Dewett, 2006). Thus employees high on WTR are willing to “go the extra mile” in effort to complete their work or reach their goals in an improved manner. The important practical implication is that employees must be actually willing to take risks. For example when employees are encouraged they are more willing to take experiment, take risks and therefore they are more creative (Dewett, 2006). Thus, WTR may be reduced in an organizational context where failure is not an option, whereas an encouraging environment may enhance WTR. In other words, where creativity is desired it is important that employees are willing to take risks. Although risk taking may not be the most popular phrase or activity in business right now, it has proven to be an antecedent to creativity and thus organizations may consider encouraging WTR when creativity is needed.

Additional processes which were investigated in this paper did not show similar relationships with creativity or regulatory focus. These results do not imply that diverse information seeking is not important since previous research has related this concept to creativity (e.g. Amabile, 1996; Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). It can, however, imply that the relationship is more complex than previously assumed. As argued in the theoretical implications, diverse information may not be the sole key to creativity. Creativity may also occur when working from a singular perspective/semantic category but delving deeply into the possibilities within this perspective generating many alternatives (Stroebe et al., 2010). Thus, the amount and diversity of sources does not mean one can be more creative; one (good) source can suffice. Therefore we suggest that diverse information seeking can help employees be creative, however, following our results, it is not essential in employee creativity. Thus, following our results, diverse information seeking does not need to be a point of attention for organizations when wanting to improve employee creativity.

19 Chirumbolo et al., 2004), however our results suggest that conformity to the supervisor does not, per definition, hamper creativity. Thus, following our results, conformity to the supervisor does not need to be a main concern for managers when wanting to improve employee creativity.

Directions for future research and limitations

Directly following the theme of this paper, we have identified various directions for future research. Apart from WTR, the processes by which regulatory focus is related to creativity remain largely unclear. In order to further our understanding of the relationship between regulatory focus and creative behavior it is important to explore beyond the concept of WTR. There might be additional variables that can complement the variables investigated in this study. When talking about diverse information seeking, the amount of information and/or the novelty of the information might be as important as the diversity of the information. Therefore, these factors may be investigated by future research, because information has proven to be an important ingredient for creativity (e.g. Amabile, 1996; Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). In addition, conformity to the supervisor is a process needing further attention. Previous research has shown that it can obstruct creativity (i.e. Chirumbolo et al., 2004) but also, when there is little creative talent, it can facilitate creativity (i.e. Goncalo & Diguid, 2012). Thus, future research may investigate what influence the presence (or absence) of creative talent has on the relationship between regulatory focus, conformity and creativity.

20 fluency and originality. Recent research on mood, regulatory focus and regulatory closure (i.e. fulfilling task vs. not fulfilling task) has provided additional evidence (Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2011), supporting the proposition that a combination of activation, mood and regulatory focus together explain creative performance better than these dimensions do alone. Thus an interesting avenue for future research may be investigating a combination of activation levels, mood and regulatory focus when investigating theoretically feasible mediating variables, such as investigated in this study, between regulatory focus and creativity.

This study is not without limitations. Future research may benefit from a larger sample size. For example Shin and Zhou (2003) have a sample 290 pairs (employees rated on creativity by their supervisor), Tierney et al. (1999) had 184 pairs, where we had only 103 pairs. In other words, increasing our sample size could have positively impacted the significance of our results.

A second limitation may lay in the diversity of organizations and industries in our sample. We have used a heterogeneous sample with the advantage the results can be more easily generalized, the disadvantage is that it can be the source of unexplained variance in the data. For example, the necessity to be creative can vary greatly between organizations, also the regulatory focus tendencies can vary as well as the measured mediators. Therefore it would be interesting to replicate this study within an industry or even within one organization.

Conclusion

22 REFERENCES

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

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

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1154- 1184.

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: 794-809.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.

Bryant, P., & Dunford, R. 2008. The influence of regulatory focus on risky decision-making.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57: 335-359

Campbell, D. T. 1960. Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67: 380–400.

23 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.

Crutchfield, R. S. 1955. Conformity and character. American Psychology, 51: 629-636.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M. & Nijstad, B. A. 2008. Hedonic tone an activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 5: 739-756.

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

Feist, G. J. 1998. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 2: 290-309.

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

Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. 2003. Optimism, promotion pride, and prevention pride as predictors of quality of life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 1521-1532.

Goncalo, J. A. & Duguid, M. M. 2012. Follow the crowd in a new direction: When conformity pressure facilitates group creativity (and when it does not). Organizational Behavior and

Human Processes, 118: 14-23.

Guilford, J. P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist, 5: 444-454.

Hemminger, B. M., Lu, D., Vaughan, K. T. L., & Adams, S. J. 2007. Information seeking behavior of academic scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science &

24 Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. 2010. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61: 569-598.

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: 13-20.

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

Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12: 177–191.

Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. 2007. Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Management of Academy Review, 32: 500-528.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. 2009. Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity.

Review of General Psychology, 13: 1-12.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition.

Psychological Review, 110: 265-284.

Lam, T. W. H., & Chiu, C. Y. (2002). The motivational function of regulatory focus on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36: 138 – 150.

Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H. “D.”, & Johnson, R. E. (2012, April 2). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, advance online publication.

25 Levin, J., & Brody, N. 1974. Information-deprivation and creativity. Psychological reports, 35: 231-237.

Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, T. E. 1999. Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77: 1135– 1145.

Mehrabian, A., & Stefl, C. A. 1995. Basic temperament components of loneliness, shyness, and conformity. Social Behavior and Personality, 23: 253-264.

Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. 1988. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 27-43.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. 2002. Leading creative people: orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13: 705–750.

Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, 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 behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1220-1233.

Nijstad, B. A., & Paulus, P. B. (2003). Group creativity: Common themes and future directions. In: P. B. Paulus, & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity. Innovation through collaboration: 326– 339. New York: Oxford University Press.

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. 2004. Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15: 55-77.

Rietzschel, E. F. 2011. Collective regulatory focus predicts specific effects of team innovation.

26 Rietzschel, E. F., De Dreu, C. K. W. & Nijstad, B. A. 2007. Personal need for structure and creative performance: The moderating influence of fear of invalidity. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 33: 855-866.

Shin, J. S., & Zhou, J. 2003. Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 703-714.

Simon, H. A. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes: Human information processes: 271–295. Oxford: Erlbaum.

Simonton, D. K. 1999. Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10: 309–328.

Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. 1992. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior.

Academy of Management Review, 17: 9-38.

Staw, B. M. 1990. An evolutionary approach to creativity and innovation. In M. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies: 287–308. New York: Wiley.

Stroebe, W., Nijstad, B. A., & Rietzschel, E. F. Beyond productivity loss in brainstorming groups: The evolution of a question. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43: 157-203

27 Wallace, J. G., Johnson, P. D., & Frazier, M. L. 2009. An examination of the factorial, construct and predictive validity and utility of the regulatory focus at work scale. Journal of

Organizational behavior, 30: 805-831.

Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (1997). Conceptual structures and processes in creative thought. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of

conceptual structures and processes: 1–27. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Zhou, Q., Hirst, G., & Shipton, H. 2011. Context matters: Combined influence of participation and intellectual stimulation on the promotion focus-employee creativity relationship. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, advance online publication.