Paradoxical self-construal and creativity
THE MODERATING ROLE OF INTRINSIC MOTIVATION
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Author:
Elisa Annechien Waker S2010593
e.a.waker@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: Yan Shao
ABSTRACT
While some evidence has linked paradoxical thinking to creativity, most research has focused on originality of ideas rather than creativity. Drawing on self-construal theory and simultaneous goal pursuit literature, this research focuses on how the two dimensions of creativity; originality and appropriateness can be attended to simultaneously. We expect that paradoxical self-construal, a self-construal that emphasizes independence and interdependence of the self simultaneously, has the potential to influence both dimensions of creativity simultaneously. However, paradoxical self-construal can be depleting because it demands juggling contradicting goals. We believe that this depletion effect can be attenuated when an individual is intrinsically motivated. Specifically, we believe that paradoxical self-construal will enhance creativity and intrinsic motivation will strengthen this effect. We conducted two experiments in which we manipulated paradoxical self-construal. Although no significant results for our hypothesis were found, we did find some interesting results. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, organizations operate in increasingly complex and uncertain environments. To be able to succeed in rapidly changing environments, organizations require their employees to think creatively and integrate conflicting demands to solve complex problems (Miron-Spektor, Gino & Argote, 2011). Creativity, defined as those insights, ideas, problem solutions or products that are both novel and appropriate, is essential for professional success but also for personal success (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks & Lee, 2008). In this definition, novelty refers to the degree in which the insight, idea or product is uncommon, statistically infrequent and original. Appropriateness means if the insight, idea or product fits the problem, makes sense and is useful to solve the focal problem (Amabile, 1996).
Research has suggested that originality and appropriateness are motivated by distinct and sometimes even opposite conditions (Miron-Spektor & Beenen, 2015). Novel solutions will be generated when individuals feel safe to take risks and are eager to learn and explore new domains (Hirst, van Knippenberg & Zhou, 2009), while useful solutions will be generated when the individual considers the requirements of others (Grant & Berry, 2011). Individuals have the propensity to focus on only one of the contradicting demands, at the expense of the other one (Lewis, 2000). Focusing on one demand might lead to short-term performance, but long-term sustainability requires meeting contradicting demands (Smith & Lewis, 2011).
Paradox studies focus on exploring how individuals can attend to the competing demands simultaneously. Miron-Spektor and colleagues (2011) found that the adoption of paradoxical frames increases creativity. They defined these paradoxical frames as mental templates that motivate individuals to recognize and embrace contradictions. Also Lewis (2000), Smith & Tushman (2005) suggested that adopting paradoxical frames could facilitate the integration of conflicting agendas. Additionally, Rothenberg (1980) found that the genius of highly creative individuals was the result of the capacity to juxtapose opposing ideas.
self simultaneously, has the potential to promote the two dimensions of creativity simultaneously, resulting in higher creativity.
Self-construal considers how people see themselves in relation to others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). An individual who sees himself as autonomous, distinct and unique is considered to have an independent self-construal. In contrast, an individual who sees himself as an integral part of larger social groups is considered to have an interdependent self-construal. Bechtoldt, de Dreu, Nijstad & Choi (2010) found indirect support for the relationship between self-construal and the dimensions of creativity. They found that Dutch people, considered to being independent, focused on the originality of ideas whereas Korean people, considered to being interdependent, focused on the appropriateness of ideas.
Existing research has shown independent and interdependent self-construal as two independent dimensions that can exist within one person (Gardner, Gabriel & Lee, 1999; Singelis, 1994), but limited attention has been paid to the coexistence of independent and interdependent self-contrual. Drawing on self-construal theory (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and the simultaneous goal pursuit literature (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Miron-Spektor & Beenen; 2015), we propose that the contradicting goals of creativity might be attained if an individual has a paradoxical self-contrual.
Besides the direct effect of paradoxical self-construal on overall creativity, we propose that intrinsic motivation might play as moderator in the link between paradoxical self-construal and creativity. Paradoxical self-construal can be depleting for individuals because it requires individuals to juggle different, contradicting goals (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012). Studies have shown that increased task motivation can attenuate the depletion effect (Muraven & Slessareva, 2003). The depletion will be less serious if the person enjoys the task itself, compared with people who do not like the task (Muraven & Slessareva, 2003). People enjoying the task will experience more self-control, thus mitigating the potential negative effects of paradoxical self-construal on creativity, as research has shown that self-control is central for creativity (Chiu, 2014).
We propose that when intrinsic motivation is high, paradoxical self-construal is more positively related to creativity because the depletion effect will be less serious.
how individuals can manage this paradox (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Prior work has identified several variables that significantly enhance or inhibit creative performance, such as job complexity (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Oldham & Cummings, 1996) and prior experience (Gino, Argote, Miron-Spektor, & Todorova, 2010) but paradoxical self-construal has not been considered before as a driver of overall creativity. Addressing this gap will enable managers to enhance the individual’s creativity by focusing on the individual’s independency and interdependency simultaneously.
Second, it will show under which circumstances (intrinsic motivation) the link between paradoxical self-contrual and creativity will be weakened/strengthened. This is important because it will make managers aware of how important intrinsic motivation is for individuals having a paradoxical self-construal. In this way, managers can use tools for enhancing individual’s intrinsic motivation and therefore, enhance creativity. With the current study, we aim to understand the antecedents of creativity and uncover the conditions that can enhance facilitating the production of creative ideas. The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.
THEORY Paradoxical self-construal and creativity
Self-construal theory is based on the idea that individuals differ in the way they define and make meaning of themselves in relation to others. Markus and Kitayama (1991) made a distinction between having an independent self-construal and an interdependent self-construal. Independent self-construal is conceptualized as seeing the self as an autonomous and independent individual primarily aiming to enhance self-esteem and to be different in a positive way. Contradicting, individuals with an interdependent self-construal see themselves as part of an encompassing social relationship and attempt to defer, being similar to others and maintain harmony in social settings (Gardner et al., 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Initially, self-construal theory was used to explain the cross-cultural differences in individuals’ representation of the self. American culture focuses on the independence from others by attending to the self and by discovering and expressing their unique inner attributes, and Asian people are considered to insist on the fundamental relatedness of individuals to each other and thereby being interdependent (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Dutch and Korean backgrounds are associated with high independent self-construal and high interdependent self-construal, respectively. Bechtoldt and colleagues (2010) found that individuals with a Korean background have a tendency to focus on appropriateness and that the Dutch have a tendency to focus on originality, both dimensions of overall creativity. Originality and appropriateness are influenced by contrasting individual characteristics (Miron-Spektor & Beenen, 2015; Miron-Spektor et al., 2011).
2003). Focusing on one demand might aid short-term performance, but for long-term performance attending to competing demands simultaneously is required (Cameron, 1986; Lewis, 2000).
Research has started to investigate effective approaches to tackle the challenge of contradicting demands (Smith & Lewis, 2011). For instance, it has been suggested that paradoxical frames might be effective in helping people perform creative tasks (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011) through the encouragement of cognitive juxtaposition of inconsistent elements resulting in an increase in attention and the accessibility of knowledge related to the different elements (Miron-Spektor & Beenen, 2015). Paradoxical frames will increase the available resources for individuals. The more cognitive elements relevant to the task and activated during the generation of ideas, the higher the likelihood that unusual solutions will be generated and the brighter the pool of available novel ideas (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller & Staw, 2005; Simonton, 1999).
Extending previous research, the current study aims to examine the effects of paradoxical self-construal on creativity. Existing research considers independent and interdependent self-construals as two independent, unrelated dimensions that can exist within one person (Gardner et al., 1999; Singelis, 1994), but limited research has paid attention to the coexistence of two self-construals, adopting a contingency perspective by which it is assumed that individuals can either be independent or interdependent in a certain situation. We conceptualize paradoxical self-construal as the extent to which individuals simultaneously see themselves as both independent of others and interdependent with others in an integrated matter. Individuals with a paradoxical self-construal have the two self-self-construals organized within a global structure in that way that they are simultaneously and equally important to the overall self. Therefore, motivations, behaviors and cognitions related to two self-construals are simultaneously accessible for the individual.
interdependent self who wants to keep harmony. However, conflict is not necessary problematic (Singelis, 1994) and conflicting elements can be productively synergized and integrated (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011). Moreover, a sense of conflict is seen as a crucial trigger for perspective taking and exploration of novel associations (Huang & Galinsky, 2010).
Paradoxical frames might increase integrative complexity, which is conceptualized by Tetlock, Peterson & Berry (1993) as the willingness and capacity to tolerate different perspectives (differentiation) and to integrate these perspectives by generating new linkages among them (integration). Adopting paradoxical frames increases sensitivity to contradictory elements in the environment and makes an individual more capable to understand and combine these elements. Concepts will be deeper explored and opposing elements will be integrated, both enhancing creativity (Rietzschel, Nijstad & Stroebe, 2007; Simonton, 1999). To explore paradoxical self-construal further, the level of an individual’s integrative complexity will be considered.
Combining self-construal theory and paradoxical frames, we believe that both originality and appropriateness of ideas can be addressed if individuals have a paradoxical self-construal. A paradoxical self-construal will therefore be beneficial for achieving overall creativity rather than a non-paradoxical self-construal. Individuals adopting an interdependent self-construal might generate ideas, which are preferred by others, but that could be at the expense of the originality of the ideas. Contrastingly, having an independent self-construal might result in original ideas but may decrease its worth to others. A combined independent and interdependent self-construal may benefit from each self-construal enhancing both originality and appropriateness. We conceptualize the first hypothesis as:
H1: Higher paradoxical self-construal is associated with higher overall creativity.
Paradoxical self-construal, intrinsic motivation and creativity
of diminished self-control strength (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven & Tice, 1998; Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012).
Depletion can be attenuated if individuals experience increased task motivation. The depletion will be less serious if the person enjoys the task itself (Muraven & Slessareva, 2003). Muraven and Slessareva (2003) have shown that depleted individuals who worked on a frustrating task persisted longer when they thought that the task could help others than the depleted individuals who thought the task could not help others. Additionally, they showed that depleted individuals who thought that the task could benefit them, worked longer on the task than depleted individuals who thought that the task was unlikely to benefit them.
As mentioned before, individuals adopting paradoxical self-construals have access to more resources than individuals with one dominant self-construal. Intrinsic motivation enables these individuals to manage the variety of available resources by making more connections among stimuli and integrating these resources, therefore increasing overall creativity (Isen, 1999). This is facilitated by the experience of more positive states such as excitement and enthusiasm, which is the result of increased intrinsic motivation (Amabile, Goldfarb & Brackfield, 1990).
We propose that intrinsic motivation will lessen the depletion effect of individuals with a paradoxical self-construal, which enhances self-control and thus creativity. Moreover, individuals with a paradoxical self-construal will be able to integrate and connect the different resources more easily, also resulting in more creativity. Taken this together, we formulated the hypotheses as follows:
H2: Intrinsic motivation moderates the relationship between paradoxical self-construal and creativity. The link between paradoxical self-construal and creativity is more positive when intrinsic motivation is high rather than low.
Introduction methods Study 1 and 2
studies. In Study 1, paradoxical construal was operationalized as having two construals simultaneously. In Study 2 we investigated the underlying structure of self-construals, containing the differentiation and integration of self-construals.
In Study 1 we expected that priming paradoxical self-construal (relative to interdependent and independent self-construal) would address both dimensions of creativity; novelty and appropriateness, and therefore, lead to a higher overall creativity. Moreover, we expected that intrinsic motivation would strengthen this link. In Study 2 we presumed that people high on differentiation and high on integration would show a higher overall creativity compared to people who were manipulated with a low differentiation and/or low integration. Also, we expected a strengthened effect of paradoxical self-construal on creativity when intrinsic motivation was high.
The measurement of creativity was different in both studies. In Study 1, creativity was measured through an idea generation task. Study 2 measures creativity through the designing of a product.
METHODS STUDY 1 Sample and participants
generation task, and therefore their creativity could not be estimated. Thus, these participants were also deleted. This resulted in a database of 180 participants (M = 21.62 years old, SD = 2.67, 51.1% female).
Manipulation and procedure
After arrival in the laboratory and filling in the consent agreement, each participant was seated in a cubicle in front of a computer with keyboard. All instructions and measures were given on the computer. Participants were told that the session consisted of several separate parts. First, the participants were asked to finish some personality questionnaires. Thereafter, they were instructed to perform a story-writing task, which was intended to manipulate self-construal. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. The participant had to think and write about a situation in which the individual fitted in (N = 45, interdependent self-construal), in which the person stood out (N = 48, independent-self-construal), or in which the participant stood out and fitted in at the same time (N = 32, paradoxical self-construal). In the control condition (N = 55) the participant was asked to think and write about a situation in which it was good for him make a plan. The participant had three minutes to finish the story-writing task. Appendix A displays the full instruction per condition. This manipulation of two self-construals was adopted and adapted from Trafimow, Triandis and Goto (1991). We manually checked whether the participants had followed the instructions1
. We found that twenty participants did not finish the task, thirty participants misunderstood the task and four participants did not fill in anything. In all four conditions participants completed some scales. Thereafter, the idea generation task followed. Subsequently, demographical information was asked. After that, intrinsic motivation was measured. Our experiment was taken first, immediately followed by the other unrelated experiment. After finishing both studies, the participants were thanked, paid and debriefed.
Measures
Creativity. The participants’ creativity was assessed through an idea generation
task. We gave the participants two minutes to write down as many different ideas as possible on what to do with a tin can. The ideas should be both uncommon (different
1 A manipulation check was performed. Since the manipulation check did not show a significant result, the stories were checked
from its original uses) and practical/useful. In total, 906 ideas were generated which were recoded into 98 unique ideas. These ideas were coded for originality and appropriateness. The measurement of originality was derived from the work of Baas, De Dreu and Nijstadt (2011). It shows the statistical rarity of an idea in our sample. Which was calculated as following. First, the idea’s originality score on a scale ranging from 0 (low originality) to 1 (high originality) was generated (1-total participants with this idea/total participants in the sample). The participant’s originality score was calculated by averaging the originality scores across all non-redundant ideas. Appropriateness was measured through a 1-5 scale in which ideas rated with 1 are not feasible and impossible to realize, such as a time machine and ideas rated with 5 are very feasible and easy to implement (container). Two persons, showing an ICC (intra-rater agreement) of 0.90 rated the ideas. Appropriateness was measured using the average scores of these two individuals. Since we are testing the effects of paradoxical self-construal on creativity, based on both originality and appropriateness, we made a new variable called creativity by multiplying originality and appropriateness.
Moderator
Intrinsic motivation. The measurement of intrinsic motivation (α = 0.74) was
adopted from the work of Tierney, Farmer & Green (1999). It consists of a 5-item measurement on a 7-point likert scale. One sample item is “I enjoy finding solutions to complex problems.”
Control variables
Previous research has shown that the background of individuals might influence someone’s creativity (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Tsai, 2013). Therefore, we included multiple control variables in our research. The results of gender on creativity are mixed or not significant and very often influenced by context (Kemmelmeier & Walton, 2016). To gain more insights about the effects of gender, this variable was included in our research.
variable into our research.
Furthermore, the individual’s country of origin was considered as a control variable since culture might influence an individual’s self-construal personality (Bechtoldt and colleagues, 2010). Cross-cultural experiences might also affect someone’s self-construal personality and their creativity (Ng, 2003) and therefore, we included the measure whether someone had stayed abroad. More variables were considered. Since these variables were not correlated with originality, appropriateness or creativity, we did not include them in the reported analysis.
RESULTS STUDY 1
Descriptive Statistics
To be able to analyze the collected data, first, the means, standard deviations and the correlations were calculated. Therefore, a correlation analysis was performed. Appendix B displays the means and standard deviations of creativity, originality and appropriateness, the dummy variables of the conditions, the moderator and the control variables, as well as the correlations among those variables. The results from the correlation analysis show that there was a significant positive correlation effect between creativity and originality (r = .71, p < .001) and appropriateness (r = .43, p < .001), respectively, which makes sense since multiplying originality and appropriateness created the variable creativity. Moreover, a negative significant correlation effect was found between originality and appropriateness (r = -.32, p < .001) implying that higher originality comes at the cost of appropriateness and vice versa. Since the conditions do not correlate with any of the creativity dimensions, we can conclude that there is no effect of self-construal on creativity. Additionally, gender shows significant negative correlations with overall creativity (r = -.17, p < .05) and originality (r = -.19, p < .01) implying that male participants were more original in coming up with ideas of using a tin can.
Hypotheses testing
effect on creativity (F3,176 = .57, p = .63), no significant effect on originality (F3,176 = .61
p = .61), and no significant effect on appropriateness F3,176 = .43, p = .73). Hereby, we can conclude that there are no significant differences on the dimensions of creativity among all conditions. However, there might be significant differences between two groups. Therefore, we performed a post-hoc test in which two groups were compared. Since variances are quite equal and sample sizes differ substantially, we used the post-hoc test Hochberg’s GT2 (Field, 2013). Since there were no significant results, the analysis was not reported. We can reject hypothesis 1.
To test whether intrinsic motivation influences the effects of paradoxical self-construal on creativity, a regression analysis for testing moderation (model 1) was performed with a multicategorical independent variable (PROCESS: Hayes, 2013; Hayes & preacher, 2014). We created three dummy variables (interdependent self-construal, independent self-construal and control) with paradoxical self-construal as baseline. In this way, the paradoxical self-construal condition was tested against the other conditions. Hereby, nine regression analysis (three dummies x three dependent variables) were performed. The dummy variable was coded 1 when meeting the condition; otherwise it was coded as zero.
METHODS STUDY 2 Sample and participants 2
187 participants subscribed for this study, but only 149 participants (N = 149, M = 22.21 years old, SD = 2.51, 56.4% female) were taken into consideration. The data of 38 participants was excluded based on different criteria. Thirty participants did not correctly follow the instructions of the story-writing task, five participants did not make a product design and two participants did not correctly follow the instructions of making the design. Furthermore we checked for finishing within an acceptable time period. We combined our study with a different unrelated study. The studies together took approximately 50-60 minutes. Therefore, we decided that finishing within forty to ninety minutes would be acceptable. We only had to exclude one more participant since the other participants, who did not finish within this time, were already excluded based on the other criteria.
Manipulation and procedure
After arrival in the laboratory and filling in the consent agreement, each participant was seated in a cubicle in front of a computer. For conducting and running the experiment Qualtrics was used. The computer displayed all of the instructions and measures. The participants were told that the session consisted of several parts. First, participants were asked to finish some demographical questions. Thereafter, the participant needed to finish some personality questionnaires. Subsequently, the participant was instructed to perform an autobiographical memory task within five minutes that intended to manipulate self-construal and the level of integrative complexity. This manipulation was also a recalling task, but it differs from Study 1 in the following aspects. We had a two (differentiation: high versus low) by two (integration: high versus low) design. In the low differentiation and low integration condition, we further distinguish independent self-construal (N = 22) and interdependent self-construal (N = 28) as dominant self-construal. To further investigate paradoxical self-construal, it was divided into three conditions. One condition represented being low on differentiation and high on integration (N = 20), one condition considered being high on differentiation and low on integration (N = 23) and the last represented a high differentiation and a high integration (N = 30). In addition, we have one control
condition in which self-construal was not manipulated. In Appendix A the exact instructions are shown. After finishing the story-writing task, the participant was asked to indicate to what extend the person felt good or bad. Thereafter, the participant was given 15 minutes to design a decoration object. The participant was asked to design a product, which should be novel as well as appropriate. After the product was finished, the participant was thanked, paid and debriefed.
Measures
Creativity. The concept of the product design task was adopted and adapted
from the work of Miron-Spektor and Beenen (2015). To measure the participant’s creativity, the participant was given fifteen minutes to design an object that can be used as a (wall) decoration at home or at the office. Participants were offered an additional twenty euros as a reward for developing one of the five most creative products. The task was the same across conditions. The developed object should be novel, meaning as unique as possible, and appropriate, meaning that people would value, appreciate and use it as decoration at home or in the office. A small box contained all the craft materials the participant could use. To minimalize distraction during the other tasks we used a cloth to cover the box and located it under the desk. The participants were allowed to use all materials in the box for their design. The content in every box was exactly the same3
, leaving no room for bias. After finishing the product a picture was made of that particular product from several angles, making it easy to evaluate the product afterwards. Following Miron-Spektor and Beenen (2015), consensual assessment was used to measure product creativity (Amabile, 1983). Two independent judges blind to experimental conditions rated novelty and usefulness of each product (1= low to 5 = high). The novelty measure consisted of four items assessing the product’s originality (α = .71). One sample item was ‘‘novelty – the extent to which the product is novel.’’ The
usefulness measure included 4 items assessing how appropriate and useful the product is
(α = .84) (Amabile, 1983). One sample item was ‘‘display – the extent you would like to
use the product in your home or office.’’ Inter-rater reliability was sufficient (ICCnovelty
= .76, ICCusefulness = .73). The novelty and usefulness measure was calculated
averaging the scores of both assessors. The variable creativity was calculated by
3 The box contains: 1 pair of scissors, 1 full roll of double-sided tape, 1 full roll of transparent sticky tape, 1 white lollipop stick, 2
multiplying novelty and usefulness.
Moderator
Intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation (α = 0.76) was measured on the same 7-point
likert scale on 5 items as in Study 1.
Control variables
Similar as in Study 1 the control variables used were “gender”, “age”, “country of origin” and whether someone has stayed abroad for over six months. In this study “polychronicity” was also considered as a control variable since it showed a significant correlation with novelty. No other control variables were considered since no other significant correlations with creativity, novelty or usefulness were discovered.
Polychronicity. Polychronicity is the extent to which people prefer to engage in
two or more tasks simultaneously (Bluedorn, Kaufman & Lane, 1992; Kaufman, Lane & Lindquist, 1991; Slocombe and Bluedorn, 1999). We believe that participants high on polychronicity have more capacity to focus on novelty and usefulness simultaneously. And therefore, are more able to create higher creativity. The scale was adopted from Kaufman-Scarborough and Lindquist (1999) and consisted of four items on a 7-point likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree). A sample item is “I like to juggle
several activities at the same time.” Item 2 and 4 were reverse-coded.
Kaufman-Scarborough and Lindquist (1999) deleted item 3 since it is very situation-specific and a higher cronbach’s alpha was found when this item was deleted. To increase reliability (α was 0.64) and come to a sufficient cronbach’s alpha we also deleted item 3 (α = 0.67).
RESULTS STUDY 2
Descriptive Statistics
correlations with appropriateness (r = .22, p < .01) implying that female participants create a more useful product. Furthermore, country of origin is negatively correlated with overall creativity (r = -.18, p < .05) and originality (r = -.16, p < .05), which suggests that country of origin, is an important factor to consider when considering creativity and originality. Moreover, originality shows a significant correlation relationship with polychronicity (r = .17, p < .05) meaning that people who prefer engaging in more tasks simultaneously show higher novelty.
After performing a correlation analysis, ANOVA tests were performed. Appendix C shows that the experimental manipulation had no significant effect on creativity (F5,143= 1.21, p = .31), novelty (F5,143 = .85, p = .52), and appropriateness (F5,143 = .57, p = .44). Also, post-hoc tests were performed which did not show a significant effect either. Therefore, hypothesis 1 can be rejected.
To test whether intrinsic motivation plays a role in the effects of the manipulated conditions on creativity, model 1 with a multicategorical independent variable was performed in Study 2 (PROCESS: Hayes, 2013; Hayes & preacher, 2014) in a similar way as in Study 1. Just as with Study 1, dummies of the conditions were calculated. Here, the ‘‘high differentiation x high integration’’ condition was taken as baseline. In PROCESS one dummy was taken as an independent variable and the others were used as covariates. Based on the correlation analyses we decided which control variables to use as covariates in the analyses. In the analyses where creativity was taken as outcome the country of origin was taken as covariate. Country of origin and polychronicity were used as covariates in the analyses where novelty was the outcome and in the appropriateness analyses gender was used as covariate. In table 6 the results of the regression analyses are shown. As displayed in Appendix D no significant moderation effects were found and therefore, hypothesis 2 can be rejected.
DISCUSSION
with paradoxical self-construal might become depleted due to these contradicting demands, which might result in a lack of self-control and therefore reduced creativity. We argued that intrinsic motivation will make this depletion less serious, and therefore enhances creativity. Specifically, we predicted that intrinsic motivation moderated the relation between paradoxical self-construal and creativity. To test our hypotheses, two different studies were conducted in which self-construal was primed and the effects on creativity were measured. In the first study a distinction was made between interdependent self-construal, dependent self-construal and paradoxical self-construal. In the second study paradoxical self-construal was examined in greater depth by investigating its dimensions: differentiation and integration.
The results of Study 1 and Study 2 indicate that paradoxical self-construal is not directly related to creativity, originality and appropriateness. However, the results of Study 1 show that individuals primed with paradoxical self-construal were more original and more creative, although this difference was not significant. One possible solution is that our manipulation was too complex. Moreover, we did not find significant manipulation checks effects on the manipulation check items. Also, the insignificant results can be the result of the measurement of creativity not being representative, because originality is more demonstrated than appropriateness. We encourage further research to explore the relationship between paradoxical self-construal and creativity and to investigate the possible constraints of a too complex manipulation and the unrepresentativeness of the creativity measurement. Furthermore, in both studies no significant results were found for the moderating effect of intrinsic motivation. However, we did not investigate whether people primed with paradoxical self-construal experienced more ego-depletion. Further research could explore the relationship between paradoxical self-construal and ego-depletion thoroughly and investigate intrinsic motivation as moderator.
appropriateness were quite different between both studies, measuring it through an idea generation task and a product design task, respectively.
Secondly, in the paradoxical self-construal condition, individuals were also not able to meet the contradicting demands, which is not in line with what we expected. This might be because being paradoxical is quite challenging, since it requires a lot of motivational and cognitive resources. Intrinsic motivation might not be the right moderator to overcome these challenges. Inzlicht & Schmeichel (2012) believe that the depletion effect can also be attenuated through attention. Therefore, we stimulate future researchers to investigate these as moderators of the relationship between paradoxical self-construal and creativity.
Thirdly, we found that gender differences significantly influences creativity. Whereas in Study 1 it was shown that male outperformed female on originality, in Study 2 we found that female outperformed male in the appropriateness of their product design. This suggests that male and female have a bias towards different dimensions of creativity. This finding suggests that a team composed of male and female has the potential to attend to the contracting demands of creativity and thereby helping an organization succeed in rapidly changing environments. Because our research is not primarily focused on the effect of gender on creativity we encourage future researchers to explore the link between gender and originality and appropriateness of ideas more thoroughly. Since previous research (Baer & Kaufman, 2008; Kemmelmeier & Walton, 2016) has shown that gender influences on creativity are contingent on situational aspects we promote to further investigate environmental aspects such as time pressure and stress. This will provide insights into the generalizability of the effects of gender differences on creativity.
stimulate future researchers to explore the link between polychronicity and originality and appropriateness.
The current research contributes to the growing research on paradox in creativity. By applying a paradox lens to creativity, we propose that a paradoxical self-construal might help individuals balancing the conflicting demands of creativity. Although we did not find supportive evidence, our results indeed suggest that attending to the paradoxical demands is very challenging, which is consistent with previous research (e.g. Lewis, 2000). Furthermore, the results suggest that task context can influence how individuals respond to originality and appropriateness. The first task motivates people to focus on originality while the second task motivates people to focus on both. Moreover, we have shown that intrinsic motivation might not be strong enough to counterbalance the negative effects of paradoxical self-construal. Additionally, we have shown that there is a gender bias in creativity and that polychronicity influences creativity.
Current research was done to provide more insights about the influence of paradoxical self-construal in attending to the competing dimensions of creativity. Paradoxical self-construal is a new concept which we believe could not only benefit balancing the contradicting demands of creativity but might also help in attending to conflicting demands in other aspects of business life. We encourage future research in paradoxical self-construal, eventually providing valuable insights for managers to enhance overall organizational performance.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential
conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), 357. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to" the social psychology of
creativity." Westview press.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work environment inventory. Creativity research journal, 2(4), 231-253.
Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfleld, S. C. (1990). Social influences on
creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity research journal, 3(1), 6-21.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 367-403. 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.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75-105.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: testing multiple goal models. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(5), 706.
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs, 132(4), 355-429.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of personality and social
psychology, 74(5), 1252.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current directions in psychological science, 16(6), 351-355. Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H. S. (2010). Motivated
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), 238-256.
Bluedorn, A. C., Kaufman, C. F., & Lane, P. M. (1992). How many things do you like to do at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time. The Executive, 6(4), 17-26.
Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in
conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management science, 32(5), 539-553.
Chan, K., Hui, A., Cheng, S. T., & Ng, Y. L. (2013). Perceptions of age and creativity in the workforce. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(4), 256-272.
Cheng, C. Y., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Connecting the dots within: Creative performance and identity integration. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1178-1184.
Chiu, F. C. (2014). The effects of exercising self-control on creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 20-31.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10(4), 321-326.
Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. (2010). First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 102-115.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of management journal, 54(1), 73-96.
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of management journal, 52(2), 280-293.
Inzlicht, M., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012). What is ego depletion? Toward a
mechanistic revision of the resource model of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 450-463.
Isen, A. M. (1999). On the relationship between affect and creative problem solving. Affect, creative experience, and psychological adjustment, 3, 3-17.
Kaufman, C. F., Lane, P. M., & Lindquist, J. D. (1991). Exploring more than 24 hours a day: A preliminary investigation of polychronic time use. Journal of
consumer research, 18(3), 392-401.
Kaufman-Scarborough, C., & Lindquist, J. D. (1999). Time management and polychronicity: Comparisons, contrasts, and insights for the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(3/4), 288-312.
Kayaalp, A. (2014). The octopus approach in time management: Polychronicity and creativity. Military Psychology, 26(2), 67.
Kemmelmeier, M., & Walton, A. P. (2016). Creativity in Men and Women: Threat, Other-Interest, and Self-Assessment. Creativity Research Journal, 28(1), 78-88.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management review, 25(4), 760-776.
Madjar, N., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). Task rotation and polychronicity: Effects on individuals' creativity. Human Performance, 19(2), 117-131.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review, 98(2), 224. Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative
sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229-240. Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. (2015). Motivating creativity: The effects of
sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 127, 53-65.
Muraven, M., & Slessareva, E. (2003). Mechanisms of self-control failure:
Ng, A. K. (2003). A cultural model of creative and conforming behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 223-233.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and
contextual factors at work. Academy of management journal, 39(3), 607-634. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and
organization theories. Academy of management review, 14(4), 562-578. Reed, I. C. (2005). Creativity: Self-perceptions over time. The International Journal
of Aging and Human Development, 60(1), 1-18.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 933-946.
Rothenberg, A. (1980). The emerging goddess: The creative process in art, science, and other fields.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. Psychological review, 106(3), 435.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 20(5), 580-591. Slocombe, T. E., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). Organizational behavior implications of
the congruence between preferred polychronicity and experienced work-unit polychronicity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 75-99.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522-536.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., & Berry, J. M. (1993). Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 500.
Tsai, K. C. (2013). Examining gender differences in creativity. The International Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 115-122.
APPENDIX A: Instructions participants Figure A1
Read instructions by conditions Study 1
Figure A2
Read instructions by conditions Study 2
Task instructions that were read
Interdependent self-construal – Please recall a situation in which it was good for you to fit in (e.g., agree with
peer’s ideas, conform to group rules, and support peers even at the expense of your self-interest, and withhold your ideas in avoid of conflict). Please write down a) how you fitted in in that situation b) what the results of your behavior were and c) why in general fitting in is a good thing.
Independent self-construal - Please recall a situation in which it was good for you to stand out (e.g., expressing a
different idea, performing a unique behavior, and being different from others). Please write down a) how you stood out in that situation b) what the results of your behavior were and c) why in general standing out is a good thing.
Inter-independent self-construal – Please recall a situation in which it is good for you to both fit in (e.g., agree
with peer’s ideas, conforming to group rules, and support peer even at the expense of your self-interest, hold your ideas in avoid of conflict) and stand out (e.g., expressing a different idea, performing a unique behavior, and showing your superior competence). Please write down a) how you both stood out and fitted in that situation b) what the results of your behavior were and c) why doing both in general is a good thing.
No-prime-control - Please recall a situation in which t was good to make a action plan. Please write down a) how
you made that plan b) what the results of your planning behavior were and c) why in general making a plan in is a good thing.
Task instructions that were read
- General introduction manipulation conditions
When working in a group,some people believe that it is good to fit in (e.g., conforming to group rules, building harmonious relationships with other members, and care about others’ feelings and opinions about you). Also, some people believe that it is good to stand out (e.g., performing unique behaviors, expressing different ideas and doing things that single you out).
- Introduction control condition
When going to work/school, some people take the same path. Also, some people take different paths.
Low Differentiation Low Integration (standing out) - Please recall a situation it was good for you to stand out in a group, and write down a) how you behaved in that situation, b) what the results of your behavior were and c) why in general behaving in that way is a good thing.
Low Differentiation Low Integration (fitting in) - Please recall a situation it was good for you to fit in in a group, and write down a) how you behaved in that situation, b) what the results of your behavior were and c) why in general behaving in that way is a good thing.
High Differentiation Low Integration - Please recall a situation in which you felt the tension/conflict between
fitting in and standing out, and write down a) how you behaved in that situation, b) what the results of your
behavior were and c) why in general fitting in and standing out in a group may result in tensions.
Low Differentiation High integration - Please recall a situation in which fitting in and standing out could be combined and they reinforced each other, and write down a) how you behaved in that situation, b) what the results of your behavior were and c) why in general fitting in and standing can be combined and they can reinforce each other.
High Differentiation High Integration - Please recall a situation in which you felt the tension/conflict between
fitting in and standing out, but found they can be combined and they reinforced each other, and write down a)
how you behaved in that situation, b) what the results of your behavior were and c) why in general fitting in and standing can be combined, despite the tensions/conflicts between the two.
Control - Please recall a situation in which you decided to take a different path to work/school, and write down a)
APPENDIX B: Correlation tables
Table B1
Mean, Standard Deviation and Pearson Correlation Coefficient Study 1
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Creativity 3.62 .41 2. Originality .80 .08 .71*** 3. Appropriateness 4.54 .36 .43*** -.32*** 4. Interdependent SC .25 .43 -.01 -.06 .06 5. Independent SC .27 .44 -.07 -.01 -.07 -.35*** 6. Control .31 .46 .01 -.01 .02 -.38*** -.40*** 7. Intrinsic motivation 5.48 .87 .05 -.02 .10 .01 .13 -.15* 8. Gender 1.51 .50 -.17* -.19** .01 .15* -.09 -.03 -.14† 9. Age 21.62 2.66 -.07 -.09 .02 -.06 -.08 .09 .03 .16* 10. Country of origin4 111.96 33.82 -.06 -.02 -.04 .07 .00 -.15* -.06 -.13† -.20** 11. Lived abroad .49 .50 .09 .05 .07 -.10 .06 ,12 .09 -.02 .12† -.02 Notes. N = 180. Reliability coefficients displayed along the diagonal. SC = Self-construal † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001
Table B2
Mean, Standard Deviation and Pearson Correlation Coefficient Study 2
Notes. N = 149. Reliability coefficients displayed along the diagonal. † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001
1 Appendix E shows how the countries were coded
2 Compared to the baseline condition ‘Paradoxical Self-construal’
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Creativity 10.26 3.98
2. Novelty 3.17 .67 .81***
3. Usefulness 3.16 .83 .87*** .44*** 4. Low Differentiation Low Integration (so) .15 .36 .11 .08 .05
5. Low Differentiation Low Integration (fi) .19 .39 .12 .02 .15† -.20*
6. High Differentiation Low Integration .13 .34 -.06 -.03 -.06 -.16 -.19*
7. Low Differentiation High Integration .17 .38 .01 .11 -.04 -.19* -.22** -.18*
APPENDIX C: ANOVA tables Table C1
Means (and standard deviations) of main measures per condition Study 1
Table C2
Means (and standard deviations) of main measures per condition Study 2
Condition Interdependent Self-construal MEAN (SD) Independent Self-construal MEAN (SD) Paradoxical Self-construal MEAN (SD) Control MEAN (SD)
ANOVA testing the effects of manipulation conditions on research variables
F(df) p
Creativity 3.61 (.34) 3,57 (.42) 3.69 (.42) 3.62 (.44) .57 (3,176) .63 Originality .79 (.07) .80 (.08) .82 (.08) .80 (.09) .61 (3,176) .61 Appropriateness 4.58 (.36) 4.50 (.44) 4.54 (.36) 4.55 (.30) .43 (3,176) .73
Condition Low Differentiation Low Integration (so)
Low Differentiation Low Integration (fi)
High Differentiation Low Integration Low Differentiation High Integration High Differentiation High Integration
Control ANOVA testing the effects of manipulation conditions on research variables
MEAN (SD) MEAN (SD) MEAN (SD) MEAN (SD) MEAN (SD) MEAN (SD) F(df) p
APPENDIX D: PROCESS tables Table D1
Regression analysis testing moderation effect Study 1
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
2 Compared to the baseline condition ‘Paradoxical Self-construal’
Creativity Originality Appropriateness
Conditions2 Interdependent Self-construal Independent Self-construal Control Interdependent Self-construal Independent Self-construal Control Interdependent Self-construal Independent Self-construal Control
B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)
Gender -.14 (.06)* -.14 (.06)* -.13 (.07)* -.03 (.01)* -.03 (.01)* -.03 (.01)*
Interdependent self-construal -.06 (.09) -.06 (.09) -.06 (.09) -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) .04 (.09) .04 (.09) .04 (.09) Independent self-construal -.13 (.10) -.12 (.09) -.13 (.10) -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.05 (.09) -.04 (.09) -.05 (.09) Control -.06 (.09) -.06 (.09) -.07 (.09) -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) .02 (.08) .03 (.08) .02 (.08) Intrinsic motivation .01 (.03) .01 (.03) .01 (.03) -.00 (.01) -.00 (.01) -.00 (.01) .04 (.03) .04 (.03) .04 (.03) Intrinsic motivation x Interdependent self-construal -.02 (.07) -.02 (.01) -.01 (.06)
Intrinsic motivation x Independent self-construal -.05 (.07) .00 (.01) -.06 (.06)
Regression analysis testing moderation effect Study 2
Creativity Novelty
Conditions3 Lowlow(so) Lowlow(fi) Highlow Lowhigh Control Lowlow(so) Lowlow(fi) Highlow Lowhigh Control
B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE)
Gender Country of origin -.02 (.01)* -.02 (.01)* -.02 (.01)* -.02 (.01)* -.02 (.01)* -.00 (.00)† -.00 (.00) -.00 (.00)† -.00 (.00)† -.00 (.00) Polynchronity .13 (,05)* .12 (.05)* .12 (.05)* .12 (.00)* .13 (.05)* Lowlow(so) 1.80 (1.29) 1.94 (1.33) 1.94 (1.33) 1.90 (1.32) 1.94 (1.33) .26 (.21) .28 (.21) .28 (.21) .28 (.21) .28 (.21) Lowlow(fi) 1.76 (1.09) 1.77 (1.11) 1.77 (1.09) 1.79 (1.09) 1.78 (1.10) .22 (.18) .22 (.18) .22 (.18) .22 (.18) .21 (.18) Highlow .52 (1.18) .52 (1.18) .53 (1.20) .52 (1.19) .52 (1.18) .08 (.20) .08 (.20) .08 (.21) .08 (.20) .08 (.20) Lowhigh .89 (.99) .90 (1.01) .90 (1.01) .86 (1.01) .90 (1.00) .31 (.19) .31 (.19) .31 (.19) .30 (.20) .31 (.20) Control .47 (1.03) .45 (1.04) .45 (1.04) .42 (1.05) .44 (1.04) .02 (.18) .01 (.18) .01 (.18) .01 (.18) .02 (.18) Intrinsic motivation -.08 (.27) -.05 (.30) -.06 (.29) -.03 (.29) .21 (.64) -.01 (.05) -.00 (.05) -.01 (.05) -.01 (.05) -.02 (.05)
Intrinsic motivation x Lowlow(so) 1.90 (.96)† .31 (.16)†
Intrinsic motivation x Lowlow(fi) .21 (.94) .15 (.18)
Intrinsic motivation x Highlow .22 (.97) -.01 (.12)
Intrinsic motivation x Lowhigh -1.06 (.59)† -.10 (.13)
Intrinsic motivation x Control .21 (.63) -.08 (.11)
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
3 Compared to the baseline condition ‘Highhigh’
Usefulness
Lowlow(so) Lowlow(fi) Highlow Lowhigh Control
B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE)
Gender .45 (.14)*** .39 (.15)*** .39 (.15)*** .39 (.14)*** .40 (.14)*** Country of Origin Polynchronity Lowlow(so) .29 (.27) .31 (.28) .32 (.28) .31 (.28) .32 (.27) Lowlow(fi) .27 (.22) .28 (.22) .28 (.22) .28 (.22) .28 (.22) Highlow -.00 (.26) .00 (.26) .01 (.26) .00 (.26) .00 (.26) Lowhigh .03 (.22) .04 (.23) .04 (.23) .03 (.23) .04 (.22) Control .17 (.24) .16 (.24) .16 (.24) .15 (.24) .16 (.24) Intrinsic motivation .29 (.27) -.00 (.07) .00 (.07) .01 (.07) .01 (.07) Intrinsic motivation x Lowlow(so) .39 (.21)†
Intrinsic motivation x Lowlow(fi) -.08 (.19)
Intrinsic motivation x Highlow .07 (.24)
Intrinsic motivation x Lowhigh -.15 (.14)
APPENDIX E: Country codes
Figure E1
Country codes Study 1 and Study 2
Albania 2 Moldova 197
Armenia 8 New Zealand 123
Australia 9 Oman 128 Azerbaijan 11 Peru 134 Bonaire 196 Philippines 135 Bulgaria 26 Poland 136 Canada 32 Portugal 137 China 36 Romania 141 Colombia 37 Russia 142 Curacao 196 Singapore 155
Czech Republic 45 Slovakia 156
France 61 South-Africa 160
Germany 65 South-Korea 139
Greece 67 Spain 162
Hong Kong 195 Sweden 167
Hungary 75 Taiwan 194
India 77 Thailand 171
Indonesia 78 The Netherlands 122
Ireland 81 Ukraine 181
Italy 83 United Kingdom 183
Latvia 93 United States of America 185
Lithuania 99 Vietnam 190
Mexico 111
