Yan SHAO Student number

(1)

Linking Self-construal to Creativity: The Mediating Role of Approach

Motivation and Cognitive Flexibility

Yan SHAO

Student number S2584689 y.shao.1@student.rug.nl

June 26th, 2015

Master Thesis, HRM & OB

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business Supervisor: prof. dr. B.A. Nijstad

(2)

Linking Self-construal to Creativity: The Mediating Role of Approach Motivation and Cognitive Flexibility

1

Abstract

While some evidence has linked the way individuals define themselves in relation to others (independent versus interdependent self-construal) to creativity, little is known about the underlying mechanism in explaining why and how self-construal influences creativity. Integrating approach-avoidance motivation theory and the dual pathway to creativity model, this study focuses on the motivational and cognitive mechanism that may transfer the effects of self-construal on creativity. Specifically, we expect that independent self-construal is a driver of creativity because it facilitates individuals’ approach motivation, which in turn increases flexible information processing. To test the tree-stage mediation model, one experiment and one cross-national survey were conducted. In Study 1, in a sample of 236 Dutch students, self-construal was manipulated by a story-writing task; approach-avoidance motivation, cognitive flexibility and creativity were measured. Results of Study 1 showed that approach motivation and cognitive flexibility together mediated the effects of self-construal on creativity. In Study 2, self-construal, approach (and avoidance) motivation, cognitive flexibility and creativity were all measured in the Dutch (147 students) and Chinese samples (63 students). The results of Study 2 supported the three-stage mediation model in the Dutch sample but not the Chinese sample. Limitations and implications for future research were discussed.

(3)

2

Introduction

Since the intriguing publication of Markus and Kitayama (1991) on self-construal, research concerning the implications of individuals’ self-construal on cognition, emotion and motivation has grown rapidly (see review in this issue by Cross, Hardin & Gercek-Swing, 2010). Self-construal refers to how individuals see themselves in relation to others. Individuals differ in the extent to which they see themselves as autonomous, distinct and unique (independent self-construal) versus as dependent and integral part of larger social groups (interdependent self-construal) (Gardner, Gabriel & Lee, 1999; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto & Norasakkunkit, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

One of the important consequences of self-construal is that individuals with different self-construals vary in generating novel and potentially useful ideas (creativity；Amabile, 1983). Some studies have provided preliminary evidence showing that individuals high in independent self-construal relative to those low in independent self-construal or high in interdependent self-construal are more divergent and creative in their thinking (Goncalo & Staw, 2006; Ng, 2003; Wiekens & Stapel 2008). However, little is known about the mechanism underlying the linkage between self-construal and creativity. In the present research, we propose a motivational and cognitive mechanism in explaining the influence of self-construal on creativity by integrating approach-avoidance motivation theory (Carver, 2006; Elliot, 2006; Elliot & Thrash, 2002) and the dual pathway to creativity model (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel, & Baas, 2010).

(4)

3 independent self-construal can be linked to approach motivation whereas interdependent self-construal is related to avoidance motivation.

According to the dual pathway to creativity model (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel & Baas, 2010), creativity can be achieved through either enhanced cognitive flexibility (the use of many and broad cognitive categories or perspectives; Amabile, 1983) or cognitive persistence (the generation of ideas in a few cognitive categories or perspectives; Dietrich, 2004) and that personal traits or contextual variables may affect creativity either through the flexibility pathway, the persistence pathway, or both (Nijstad, et al., 2010). Research has suggested and shown that when approach motivation is activated, creativity can be achieved through the flexibility pathway, while when avoidance motivation is activated, creativity is achieved though systematic, persistent processing, but only under certain conditions (see Baas, Roskes, Sligte, Nijstad & De Dreu, 2013; Nijstad et al., 2010). Taken together, we expect that independent self-construal is linked to creativity because it is associated with approach motivation, which further promotes cognitive flexibility. Although we have some cues that interdependent self-construal is associated with avoidance motivation, the link between avoidance motivation and cognitive persistence is often weak or even negative without some conditional constraints (e.g., fulfillment of goals; Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2011; Friedman & Förster, 2002). Thus, we do not formulate explicit hypothesis about the effects of interdependent self-construal on creativity through avoidance motivation and persistence. The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Linking self-construal to creativity: a three-stage mediation model

To test the three-stage mediation model, two studies were conducted. First, a laboratory experiment was conducted, in which we manipulated self-construal using a story-writing task, and in which approach motivation, cognitive flexibility and creativity were measured. The experiment enabled us to show the causal effect of self-construal on approach motivation, cognitive flexibility and creativity. Second, a cross-national survey was conducted to fulfill three

(5)

4 goals. First, we aimed to replicate the lab finding of Study 1 and examine the cross-national generalizability of the conceptual model. Second, Ng (2003) proposed that differences in creativity across cultures can be explained by differences in self-construals (The Cultural Model of Creativity). Our cross-national dataset provides us an opportunity to replicate that model. Third, we explore the possibility that approach-avoidance motivation can explain cross-cultural differences in creativity by employing a merged sample analysis. With the two complimentary studies, we are able to examine the role of motivation and cognitive flexibility in explaining the effects of self-construal on creativity.

(6)

5

Theory and Conceptual Model

Self-construal and Creativity

Self-construal theory is built on the basic assumption that individuals differ in the way they define and make meaning of themselves in relation to others. Two distinguishable self-construals were first suggested by Markus and Kitayama (1991). Independent self-construal (InSC) refers to the conception of the self as an autonomous, independent unity while interdependent self-construal (InterSC) is defined as the extent to which an individual sees the self as part of an encompassing social relationship (Gardner, Gabriel & Lee, 1999; Kitayama et al., 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

(7)

6 self-construal. In sum, the two self-construals can manifest and coexist within cultures, which may in turn impact individuals’ psychological processes and behaviors.

The link between self-construal and creativity has received some preliminary support. At the individual level, Ng’s (2003) survey study showed that independent self-construal had a positive relationship with creative behavior as measured by the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1974), while interdependent self-construal was negatively related to creativity. Besides, Wiekens and Stapel (2008) argued that self-construal, as a “state of mind”, will not only influence social-information processing, but also non-social information processing. In the first experiment, they demonstrated that their manipulation of independent self-construal led to a higher motivation to be independent/different and lower motivation to be accepted/to conform; the activation of an interdependent self-construal resulted in a higher motivation to be accepted/to conform, and a lower motivation to be independent/different. Their second study extended the influences of self-construal to divergent thinking. It was found that participants primed with independent self-construal, relative to those primed with interdependent self-construal, generated more novel, unusual ideas in an idea generation task.

(8)

7

Self-Construal, Approach-Avoidance Motivation and Creativity

Motivated information processing theory suggests that to be creative in generating ideas, individuals need to have a desire to do so (Kunda, 1990). We argue that self-construal can influence creativity because it affects motivations that facilitate creativity. Approach-avoidance motivation theory distinguishes between motivation systems that focus on approach and avoidance goals and goal pursuit strategies (Carver, 2006; Elliot, 2006; Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Approach and avoidance motivation can be viewed either as stable personal differences acquired during socialization, or as situational variables that can be temporarily activated (Elliot, 2006; Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2008). Approach motivation is conceptualized as the invigoration by or the direction of behaviors toward positive stimuli or possibilities, whereas avoidance motivation refers to the instigation by or the direction of behaviors away from negative stimuli or possibilities (Roskes, Elliot, Nijstad & De Dreu, 2013).

Self-construal and Approach-Avoidance Motivation

The differences in self-construal have consequences on individuals’ goal pursuits. Individuals high in independent self-construal primarily aim to enhance self-esteem, to achieve and to be distinct in a positive way. Individuals high in interdependent self-construal generally attempt to defer, to be similar to others, to affiliate and to maintain harmony in social settings (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Because individuals with discrete self-construals pursue different goals, we suspect distinct motivation systems that direct goal pursuit behaviors will be depending on their self-construals.

(9)

8 some evidence for this argument. For instance, Lee et al (2000) has demonstrated that individuals high in independent self-construal, primed with independent situations, or with a Western cultural background emphasized approach-related information (achieving success) and showed more affective responses (happiness) associated with approach motivation. In contrast, individuals high in interdependent self-construal, primed with interdependent situations, or with an Eastern cultural background emphasized avoidance-related information (avoiding failure) and showed more affective responses (anxiety) associated with avoidance motivation.

Second, personal value theory can be another approach to relate self-construal with approach-avoidance motivation. It has been suggested that personal values, defined as beliefs about what is desirable (Schwartz, 1992), are associated with different motivations (Leikas, Lönnqvist, Verkasalo & Lindeman, 2009). For instance, Leikas et al (2009) has suggested that the motivation to pursue idealized goals develops concerns for achievement and openness to change, which are positively associated with Achievement, Power, Self-Direction, and Stimulation values (APSS values). In contrast, a motivation to prevent negative stimuli gives rise to the need for safety and stability, which is positively related to Security, Benevolence, Universalism, Conformity and Tradition values (SBUCT values) (Schwartz, 1992). Because independent self-construal is closely related to the APSS values while interdependent self-construal is closely linked to the SBUCT values (Leikas et al., 2009), we expect that independent self-construal is related to approach motivation while interdependent self-construal is linked to avoidance motivation.

(10)

9 collectivistic cultures nurture a dominant interdependent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), we suspect that independent self-construal is linked to approach motivation and interdependent self-construal is associated with avoidance motivation.

Approach-Avoidance Motivation and Creativity

Approach-avoidance motivation is associated with creativity because different motivations affect cognitive processing. According to the cognitive tuning theory (Schwarz & Bless, 1991), when approach motivation or states associated with approach motivation are activated, individuals tend to judge the environment as benign. As a consequence, they are more likely to take risks and adopt a relatively heuristic processing style, which in turn enhances creativity. In contrast, when avoidance motivation or states associated with avoidance motivation are activated, individuals tend to judge the environment as problematic and they are more likely to adopt a relatively risk-averse, systematic, and perseverant processing style, which in turn undermines creativity. A number of studies have supported the link between approach-avoidance motivation and creativity. For instance, Friedman and Förster (2002) demonstrated that bodily cues like arm flexor (associated with approach motivation) relative to arm extensor contraction (associated with avoidance motivation) led to a “riskier,” more heuristic processing style, which in turn boosts creativity in both a problem solving task and idea generation task. Relatedly, Friedman and Förster (2001) showed that cues associated with motivation of pursing idealized goals relative to cues associated with preventing negative outcomes resulted in higher creativity, because the motivation for achieving idealized goals triggered a risker, explorative processing style than the motivation for preventing negative outcomes. This pattern also held when motivations were measured with individual differences instead of priming. A more recent study by Roskes and colleagues (2012) showed that approach motivation generally led to higher creativity compared with avoidance motivation. Avoidance motivated individuals were as creative as approach motivated individuals only when participants were provided with extra motivations that could compensate their effortful processing style. In general, we expect that approach motivation has a positive effect on creativity while avoidance motivation might have a negative effect on creativity.

Approach-Avoidance Motivation, Cognitive Flexibility and Creativity

(11)

10 creativity can be achieved through either enhanced cognitive flexibility (the use of many broad cognitive categories or perspectives: Amabile, 1983) or cognitive persistence (the generation of ideas in a few cognitive categories or perspectives: Dietrich, 2004) and that personal traits or contextual variables may affect creativity either through the flexibility pathway, the persistence pathway, or both. Approach-avoidance motivation has been shown to influence creativity through affecting the pathway individuals adopt. For instance, De Dreu, Nijstad and Baas (2011) have explicitly examined the relationship between approach motivation and creativity. They found that when situations facilitated global, flexible processing, approach motivation potentiated creativity. However, when situations facilitated local, bottom-to-up processing, approach motivation led to lower creativity. This research highlighted that flexible processing plays an important role in the relationship between approach motivation and creativity. What is more, it has been argued and shown that approach motivation generally boosts creativity because it associates with enhanced activation and cognitive flexibility (Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2011).

Research evidence is less consistent about the relationship between avoidance motivation and creativity. Some findings suggested that avoidance motivation promotes creativity and other findings showed no or even negative effects (Friedman & Förster, 2001, 2002; De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008). Although avoidance motivation has potential to boost creativity through persistent processing, research has suggested that avoidance motivation leads to enhanced persistence only when the goals or moods associated with avoidance motivation are activated (Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2011) or extra motivation is provided (Roskes, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2012). Furthermore, a meta-analysis revealed that creativity is facilitated most by positive activating mood states that are associated with approach motivation (e.g., happiness), rather than moods associated with avoidance motivation (e.g., relaxed, anxious; Bass, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008).

Based on the above arguments and evidence, we expect that approach motivation boosts creativity because it associates with enhanced cognitive flexibility. Given the inconsistent evidence about the link between avoidance motivation, persistence and creativity, we do not have clear expectations about their relationships.

Self-construal, Approach-Avoidance Motivation, Cognitive Flexibility and Creativity

(12)

11 increases cognitive flexibility. Specifically, we propose that individuals high in independent self-construal are more creative as they generally hold higher approach motivation, and this motivation facilitates creativity through enhanced cognitive flexibility, compared with individuals low in independent self-construal. This is the basic model which will be empirically tested in this study (see Figure 1). Although we expect that interdependent self-construal is associated with avoidance motivation, according to past research, the relationship between avoidance motivation, persistence and creativity is difficult to predict without specifying contextual conditions. We thus do not formulate specific hypothesis about the interdependent self-construal-avoidance motivation-persistence-creativity link.

Study 1

Study 1 was designed to examine whether independent self-construal has a causal effect on creativity through approach motivation and cognitive flexibility. We expected that priming independent self-construal (relative to interdependent self-construal) will temporarily increase individuals’ state approach motivation, which in turn promotes creative performance through enhanced cognitive flexibility. To achieve this goal, we manipulated self-construal using a story-writing task, and measured cognitive flexibility and creative performance with an idea generation task. State approach (and avoidance) motivation were measured with a 5-item scale.

Sample and Participants

A total of 266 Dutch students (age M = 20.65, SD = 2.67; 94 female, 168 male and 4 missing) participated the study for 4 euros or course credits. We randomly assigned all participants to either an interdependent self-construal or independent self-construal condition. In both conditions, participants completed some scales and performed an idea generation task. The study immediately followed another (unrelated) study, and the total session lasted for about 1 hour and 15 minutes.

Manipulation and Procedure

(13)

12 This was the manipulation of self-construal, which was adopted from Trafimow, Triandis, and Goto (1991). In the independent self-construal condition, participants were instructed to think about and write down what makes them different from their family and friends and what they expect themselves to do. In the interdependent self-construal condition, participants were asked to think and write down what they have in common with their family and friends and what their family and friends expect them to do. Following that, the idea generation task was administered. Specifically, participants were instructed to think and write down as many different and creative uses of newspaper as possible for 6 minutes, and the ideas generated had to be neither typical nor virtually impossible. After that, we measured participants’ state approach motivation. Subsequently, we collected demographical information, thanked and debriefed all participants1.

Measures

State Approach/Avoidance Motivation. We measured state approach motivation using 5 items on a 7-point Likert scale (1= not at all, 7 = very much). Items of state approach motivation included ‘‘In the problem solving task, I enthusiastically embraced all opportunities to generate solutions’’ and ‘‘In the problem solving task, I was eager to use all possible ways to find solutions or ideas’’. Sample items of state avoidance motivation included “In the problem solving task, I was concerned with making mistakes’’ and ‘‘In the problem solving task, I was cautious about going down the wrong way’’(r = 0.68, M = 4.51, SD = 1.22 for state approach motivation (2 items), Cronbach’s α = 0.75, M = 3.08, SD= 1.23 for state avoidance motivation (3 items)).

Cognitive flexibility and Creativity. The responses in the newspaper idea generation task were coded for fluency, flexibility and originality. Fluency is the number of non-redundant ideas generated by each participant. Flexibility refers to the number of categories that the ideas can be grouped in. Two independent raters coded a subset of responses (30 ideas) for flexibility. The inter-rater agreement (Cohen’s Kappa) was .86. Given the good inter-rater agreement, one rater continued to code all ideas. Originality was operationalized as the statistical rarity of a given

1_{We included the shortened twenty statements test by Kuhn and McPartland (1954)}_{as the manipulation check}_{, in}

(14)

13 response in a particular sample of subjects, which serves as the indicator of creativity in the present study. Specifically, following Baas and colleagues (2011), for each idea, an originality score was computed: 1-(percentage participants who generated the same idea/100). The scale thus ranged from 0 (low originality) to 1 (high originality). For each participant, the final originality score was the average originality score across all non-redundant ideas.

Results

Data Inspection

As many participants reported that they were tired and bored, we carefully checked their engagement by examining the content of participants’ stories to see whether the manipulation was successful. This examination showed that there were 30 participants who did not follow the instruction correctly. They either wrote down similarities when instructed to write down differences or wrote down differences when instructed to write down similarities. We excluded these 30 participants, resulting in 236 participants in the final sample.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations

InSC InterSC t-test correlations

M(SD) M(SD) t (df) p 2 3 4 5 6 1.Self-construal1 _-.15* _-.09 _.08 _.12 _.08 2 SAPROM 4.68(1.27) 4.31(1.19) 2.27(234) p <.05 r = .68 .00 .17** _.19** _.18** 3 SAVOIM 3.22(1.21) 3.01(1.26) 1.31(234) ns α = .75 -.25** _-.19** _-.10 4 Flexibility 5.57(2.44) 5.92(2.24) -1.15(234) ns .85** _.59** 5 Fluency 7.57(4.27) 8.55(3.85) -1.85(234) ns .60** 6 Originality 0.61(0.15) 0.63(0.09) -1.19(192) ns

*. p < .05; ** p < .01. SAPROM = State approach motivation; SAVOIM = State avoidance motivation; InSC = Independent self-construal; InterSC = Interdependent self-construal.

1_{independent self-construal = 0; interdependent self-construal = 1}

(15)

14 approach motivation, and state approach motivation was significantly and positively correlated with fluency, flexibility and originality. State avoidance motivation was significantly and negatively correlated with flexibility and fluency but not originality. Fluency, flexibility and originality were highly correlated (r > .60).

Self-construal, State Approach motivation, Cognitive Flexibility and Originality

To test the three-stage mediation model, we used Model 6 of the PROCESS procedure described by Hayes (2013), which allowed us to test the indirect effect of self-construal on creativity through state approach motivation and flexibility. We generated 95% bootstrap bias-corrected confidence intervals (Bc CIs) for the indirect effect on the basis of 1000 bootstrap samples. The indirect effect is significant when the confidence intervals does not include zero. The results were shown in Table 2. The results demonstrated that the indirect effect of self-construal on originality through state approach motivation and cognitive flexibility was significant (β = -0.004, BootSE = 0.003, BootLLCI = -0.01 and BootULCI = -0.001). The three-stage mediation model was thus confirmed by the results.

Table 2 Regression results

Predictors Originality

State approach

motivation Flexibility Originality

Constant 0.61** _4.68** _3.92_** _0.40**

Self-construal 0.02 -0.36* _0.48 _0.01

State approach motivation 0.35** _0.01

Flexibility 0.03**

R2 _0.01 _0.02* _0.04**

Indirect effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

Indirect relation -0.004 0.003 -0.01 -0.001

*. p < .05; ** p < .01.

Indirect relation = Self-construal-State approach motivation-Cognitive flexibility-Originality

(16)

15

Discussion of Study 1

Study 1 demonstrated that state approach motivation and cognitive flexibility together mediated the relationship between self-construal and creativity. However, there were several issues that need to be noted before we draw a conclusion about the conceptual model. First, although we found that priming self-construal temporarily enhanced individuals’ approach motivation, we failed to detect the effects of priming on the manipulation check items. One possible reason responsible for this failure is that the time lag (about 15 minutes) between the priming and manipulation check was too long, so that the effects of priming had vanished at the time we administrated the manipulation check task. Besides, because the manipulation check was the last task of a long experiment, the lack of expected effects may due to fatigue. Second, we did not find a significant direct effect of self-construal on creativity. One possible reason is that the manipulation was not strong enough to produce such an effect as the relation between self-construal and creativity is more distal than that between self-construal and motivation. Despite the lack of direct effect of self-construal on creativity, the effects of self-construal on state approach motivation is still suggestive and interesting given the well-established link between approach motivation and creativity.

Study 2

In Study 1, we found some preliminary evidence to support the independent self-construal-approach motivation-cognitive flexibility-creativity link by priming self-construal in the lab. The second study with a cross-national design was used to fulfill three goals. First, we aimed to replicate the lab findings of Study 1 and examine the cross-national generalizability of the conceptual model. Second, Ng (2003) proposed that self-construal explains the effects of culture on creativity. Our cross-national dataset provides us an opportunity to replicate that model. Third, we explore the possibility that approach-avoidance motivation can explain cross-cultural differences in creativity by employing a merged sample analysis.

Participants

(17)

16 them in the report of the results. The study was conducted in Chinese in China and in English in Netherlands. We translated the instruction text from English to Chinese and included the corresponding Chinese version of self-construal scale (Wang, Yuan & Xu, 2008) and approach-avoidance motivation scale (Li et al., 2008) that have been validated in empirical studies. The survey consisted of three parts. In the first part, each participant responded to various psychological scales. Following that, they were asked to perform the idea generation task to measure their cognitive flexibility and creativity. Finally, they answered several demographical questions.

Measures

Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System scale. The Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS) scale (Carver & White, 1994), including a 7-item BIS and a 13-item BAS subscale, was used to measure approach-avoidance motivation. Sample items of the BIS subscale included ‘‘I worry about making mistakes’’ and ‘‘I have very few fears compared to my friends’’ (reverse scored). Sample items of the BAS subscale included ‘‘I go out of my way to get things I want’’ and ‘‘I crave excitement and new sensations’’. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which the statements reflect themselves on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (not true at all of me) to 7 (very much true of me).

(18)

17 coded a subset of responses (30 ideas) for flexibility. The inter-rater agreement (Cohen’s Kappa) was .75. Given the good inter-rater agreement, one rater subsequently coded all ideas. The same as Study 1, Originality was operationalized as the statistical rarity of a given response in a particular sample of subjects. Because the statistical frequency of certain ideas may depend on culture, we computed the originality score both across the two samples and within each sample. However, we found that two originality scores were highly correlated (r > .90), and that results of analysis were highly similar when we used different originality scores. We therefore only reported results using the originality score computed in separate samples. Ng (2003) formed an overall creativity score by summing up flexibility, originality and fluency. However, this method attached more weights to fluency than flexibility and originality and resulted an unbalanced score. In the present study, we summed the Z scores for fluency, flexibility and originality to form an overall creativity score when we replicate the cultural model of creativity.

Results

Measurement Invariance

Measurement invariance issue has been suggested as a key concern in cross-cultural studies (Chen, 2008; Milfont & Fischer, 2010). We examined whether the measurements of self-construal and BIS/BAS were equivalent across two cultures. We followed Milfont and Fischer’s (2010) procedure to assess invariance of the measurements used in the current study. Before we performed any CFA, we followed Ng’s (2003) way to randomly package items to a small number of groups. Specifically, we randomly assigned the 12 items to 3 parcels for both independent self-construal (InP1, InP2 and InP3) and interdependent self-construal (InterP1, InterP2 and InterP3). We randomly assigned the 7 items to form 3 indicators (BIS1, BIS2 and BIS3) for BIS and the 13 items to form 3 indicators (BAS1, BAS2 and BAS3) for BAS. We did so because item parceling can enhance model parsimony by reducing the number of indicators and because a parceled indicator often displays an approximated normality distribution, which better meets the assumption of maximum likelihood estimation procedure used in the structural equation modeling (Finch & West, 1997).

(19)

(20)

19

(21)

20 In the second step, we moved from single-group CFA to multi-group CFA. The configural invariance model assessed whether the two groups have a similar factor structure. The fit of the configural invariance model was satisfactory. Although the chi-square was significant (χ² (90) = 135.79, p < .01), the RMSEA of .07 indicated an acceptable fit, and the two other practical fit indices were also above the commonly recommended .90 level (CFI = .91, IFI = .91). All factor loadings were highly significant in the two samples except one, and 17 out of 24 standardized factor loadings exceeded .60 (the minimum loading was .49). Thus, it can be concluded that the self-construal and BIS/BAS measure exhibited configural invariance across the Dutch and Chinese sample.

In the third step, we tested the full metric invariance model. The hypothesis of full metric invariance was tested by constraining the matrix of factor loadings to be invariant across two groups. From Table 3, it can be seen that there was a significant increase in chi-square between the configural model and the full metric model (delta χ² (11) = 134.27, p < .01), however the model fit did not decrease much in terms of the alternative fit indexes (e.g., CFI, IFI and RMSEA). The overall results suggested the viability of constraining the factor loadings to be the same across groups.

In the fourth step, we tested the full scalar model. The hypothesis of full scalar invariance was tested by constraining the item intercepts to be the same across two groups, which assumes that the same score on one item has the same meaning in the two groups. The results showed that there was a significant increase in Chi-square between the full metric model and the scalar model (delta χ² (9) = 44.13, p <.001), and the alternative fit indexes also dropped to below the recommend level of .90, which suggested that constraining the item intercepts to be the same across groups was not acceptable.

Table 3 Model comparison of measurement invariance assessment

χ² df Delta χ² p for Delta χ² RMSEA CAIC CFI IFI

Configural model 135.79 90 0.07 552.37 0.91 0.91

Full metric model 170.06 101 34.27(11) p < 0.001 0.08 518.89 0.93 0.93

(22)

21 Taken together, we found that the measurements demonstrated some degree of invariance across the Dutch and Chinese group regarding factor structure and factor loadings. However, assuming the same item intercepts across two groups resulted in an unacceptable model fit in the multi-group CFA analysis. Overall, the results suggested the feasibility to test relationship between variables in separate samples or across two samples but it might be problematic to compare means between two groups because the same score on the measurement items had a different meaning in two groups.

Testing the Conceptual Model in Separate Samples

Means, Standard Deviations, T-tests and Internal Reliabilities

The means, standard deviations and internal reliabilities for the used scales for the Dutch and Chinese sample were shown in Table 4. All internal reliabilities fell near to or were above the recommended value of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978), which indicated adequate internal consistency. The table also reports t-tests, in which the two samples were compared on their scores on various measures.

With regard to creativity criteria, Dutch participants scored significantly higher in number of ideas generated (M = 8.66, SD = 3.92) than did Chinese participants (M = 7.54, SD = 2.70), t (166.94) = 2.39, p < .05. However, the data suggested that Chinese participants on average were more original and novel in idea generation (M = 0.69, SD = 0.10) than Dutch participants (M = 0.62, SD = 0.12), t (207) = -4.22, p < .001. No significant differences were detected in cognitive flexibility between Dutch and Chinese participants.

For individual differences, in accordance with our expectations, Chinese participants scored higher in interdependent self-construal (M = 5.24, SD = 0.56) than Dutch participants (M = 4.45, SD = 0.60), t (208) = -8.90, p < .001. Chinese participants reported higher avoidance motivation (M = 5.13, SD = 0.83) than did Dutch participants (M = 4.63, SD = 0.99), t (208) = -3.51, p < .01. However, in contrast with our expectations, Chinese participants showed more approach motivation (M = 5.13, SD = 0.83) than Dutch participants (M = 4.63, SD = 0.99), t (208) = -3.51, p < .01. There were no significant differences in independent self-construal between Chinese (M = 4.66, SD = 0.71) and Dutch participants (M = 4.76, SD = 0.69), t (208) = 0.98, p > .05.

(23)

22 Chinese and Dutch participants in the process and outcomes of creative ideation. The significant differences between Chinese and Dutch participants were also found for self-construal and their motivations of goal pursuit. However, we need to interpret the t-test results of personality variables with cautions because of the measurement invariance problem indicated before.

Correlations

Because our major goal in the present study is to replicate the findings from Study 1 in separate samples, correlation analyses were performed in the Dutch and Chinese sample separately. For creativity criteria, in the both samples, we found that fluency, cognitive flexibility and originality were significantly and positively correlated, which is consistent with previous findings (e.g., De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008). With regard to individual difference variables, in the Dutch sample, independent self-construal was significantly and positively correlated with BAS but negatively correlated with BIS. In contrast, interdependent self-construal was significantly and positively correlated with BIS. Interdependent self-construal and independent self-construal were not significantly correlated. However, in the Chinese sample, the correlations between variables were quite different from those in the Dutch sample. We found that independent self-construal was positively correlated with BAS and negatively correlated with BIS, however, interdependent self-construal was significantly and positively correlated with BAS but not with BIS, which was strikingly different from the pattern found in the Dutch sample. Moreover, interdependent self-construal was positively and significantly correlated with independent self-construal. When it comes to the correlations between predictors and criteria, we found that BAS was strongly correlated with fluency, flexibility and originality in the Dutch sample but not in the Chinese sample. Similar pattern was found for independent self-construal.

The Three-Stage Mediation Model

(24)

(25)

24

Table 4 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Dutch Chinese t-test Correlations

Variables M SD M SD t(df) p 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.Age 21.13 2.21 22.48 2.09 -4.12(208) .000 -- .12 -.00 -.12 -.15 -.04 .12 .01 .01 -.38** 2.Gender 0.54 0.50 0.38 0.49 2.20(119.62) .030 -.15 -- -.01 .01 .19 -.15 .16 .12 .22 -.11 3.Fluency 8.66 3.92 7.54 2,70 2.39(166.94) .018 .23** -.10 -- .80** .50** .22 .04 -.13 -.06 -.03 4.Flexibility 5.77 2.63 5.43 1.73 1.10(173.38) .273 .18* -.11 .90** -- .51** .14 .05 -.12 -.07 .09 5.Originality 0.62 0.12 0.69 0.10 -4.22(207) .000 .09 .02 .66** _.67** _-- _-.01 _.17 _-.12 _.11 _-.14 6.NOC 0.18 0.35 0.31 0.41 -2.41(205) .017 .05 -.05 .01 .11 .14 -- .02 -.24 -.11 -.09 7.InSC 4.76 0.69 4.66 0.71 0.98(208) .335 .10 .20* .23** .25** .27** .02 .68; .75 .36** .36** -.32* 8.InterSC 4.45 0.60 5.24 0.56 -8.90(208) .000 -.30** -.11 -.10 -.10 -.14 -.01 -.13 .63;.72 .45** _.04 9.BAS 5.20 0.61 5.45 0.56 -2.75(208) .006 .02 -.02 .26** _.27** _.20* _.17* _.43** _{.08 .81;.77} _-.06 10.BIS 4.63 0.99 5.13 0.83 -3.51(208) .001 .03 -.25** .08 .06 .12 -.13 -.26** .16* .00 .78;.76 *. p < .05; ** p < .01.

NOC = correlation between idea sequence number and originality scores; InSC=independent self-construal; InterSC=interdependent self-construal. Note 1: in the correlation matrix, numbers above the diagonal are correlations between variables in the Chinese sample, and numbers below the diagonal are correlations between variables in the Dutch sample.

(26)

Testing the Cultural Model of Creativity in the Merged Sample

The cultural model of creativity (Ng, 2003) suggests that individualistic culture is associated with independent self-construal, which in turn is positively linked to creativity and negatively linked to conformity. In contrast, collectivistic culture fosters interdependent self-construal, which further promotes conformity and decreases creativity. Our cross-national survey provides us an opportunity to partially replicate the cultural model of creativity by performing analysis in the merged sample. Besides, we also explored whether approach-avoidance motivation can explain the cultural differences in creativity. In particular, we suspect that approach motivation and/or avoidance motivation can transfer the effects of culture and self-construal on creativity (ECMC: extended cultural model of creativity; see Figure 5). To achieve the two goals, we first performed a CFA to determine the adequacy of the measurement in the merged sample and then employed the structural equation model method using LISREL 8.0 to examine the cultural model of creativity and ECMC.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The confirmatory factor analysis was performed to exam whether items have high loadings to the expected factors in the merged sample. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), a

Table 5 Three-stage mediation model in the Dutch and Chinese sample

Dutch Chinese

Originality BAS Flexibility Originality Originality BAS Flexibility Originality

Constant 0.62** _-0.09 _0.05 _0.62** _0.71** _0.20 _-0.12 _0.71** Age 0.00 -0.01 0.19* _-0.00 _-0.01 _-0.01 _-0.33 _-0.01 InSC 0.05** _0.38** _0.54 _0.02 _0.03 _0.28** _0.24 _0.02 BAS 0.87* _-0.01 _-0.11 _0.02 Flexibility 0.03** _0.03** R2 _0.07** _0.18** _0.12** _0.46** _0.06 _0.13* _0.03 _0.30**

Indirect effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Indirect effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

Indirect

Relation 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 -0.003 0.004 -0.02 0.003

*. p < .05; ** p < .01.

(27)

26 standardized factor loading of around 0.30 is acceptable. As we can see from Figure 4, all standardized parameters from the latent variables to the measurement items were above 0.44. The significance test showed that the t values for all standardized factor loadings were above 2.56, which indicates that all factor loadings were significantly different from 0 at 0.01 level. Although the chi-square of the model was significant (χ² (49) = 108.05, p < .05), other fit indexes (CFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.93; GFI = 0.92; RMSEA= 0.078; Std. RMR = 0.07) indicated the measurement model was satisfactory.

Figure 4 CFA in the combined sample

Structural Equation Modeling

(28)

27 unacceptable fit of the model (χ² (73) = 230.65, p < .05; RMSEA= 0.10; CFI = 0.85; IFI = 0.86; GFI = 0.86; Std.RMR = 0.11). As we can see from Figure 5, neither interdependent self-construal and BIS nor independent self-construal and BAS mediated the effects of culture on creativity.

Figure 5 The extended cultural model of creativity

(29)

28

Conclusion and Discussion

Some preliminary evidence has highlighted the role of self-construal as an important source of creativity, but existing literature is unclear about how and why self-construal is linked to creativity. Our current research was designed to clarify the mechanism underlying the self-construal-creativity link. Specifically, we proposed that approach-avoidance motivation, a motivation system that direct individuals’ goals and goal pursuit behaviors, may serve as a motivational mechanism in explaining the effects of self-construal on creativity. Drawing on the dual pathway to creativity model, we argued that self-construal affects creativity because it can enhance individuals’ approach motivation, which in turn facilitates flexible information processing in ideation (the three-stage mediation model).

The three-stage mediation model was supported in both Study 1 and Study 2. In Study 1, we found that individuals primed with independent self-construal relative to those primed with interdependent self-construal were higher in state approach motivation, and state approach motivation was significantly and positively linked to flexibility and originality (as the indicator of creativity). The three-stage mediation test showed a significant three-stage indirect effect. In other words, the finding of Study 1 supported that self-construal influences creativity through state approach motivation and cognitive flexibility. However, several issues in Study 1 need to be noted. First, although we found that priming self-construal temporarily enhanced individuals’ approach motivation, we did not find a significant direct effect of self-construal on creativity. One possible reason is that the manipulation was not strong enough to produce such an effect as the relation between self-construal and creativity is more distal than that between self-construal and motivation. Besides, we only found weak evidence for the three-stage mediation model. To address the limitations of Study 1, we decided to replicate the finding in the field and in different samples.

(30)

29 In contrast, the data from the Chinese sample did not support the three-stage mediation model, because the BAS-cognitive flexibility link was absent. In sum, it seems that independent self-construal influences creativity through approach motivation and cognitive flexibility, but this relationship mainly holds in the Dutch sample.

There are several potential reasons for the lack of support for the three-stage mediation model in the Chinese sample. First, the results of measurement invariance assessment showed that although the items of self-construal and motivation measure had similar factor structure and factor loadings between two groups, the item intercepts were not equivalent, which means that the measurement items might have a different meaning in different cultures. If the measurement items have a different meaning in Chinese culture, it is possible the variables have different relationships with each other in the Chinese sample. Second, we found that in the Chinese sample, interdependent self-construal was significantly and positively correlated with independent self-construal and BAS, whereas this correlation was not significant in the Dutch sample. The high correlation between interdependent self-construal and independent self-construal and BAS may constrain the potential of independent self-construal and BAS to promote creativity. In other words, although independent self-construal may give the momentum for Chinese participants to adopt an approach-motivated strategy and flexible information processing, their fundamental concern for avoiding negative outcomes (e.g., generating bad ideas), associated with interdependent self-construal, prevents them from actually adopting the risky and intuition based approach to perform the creative task. As a consequence, both independent self-construal and approach motivation were not related to cognitive flexibility and creativity in the Chinese sample. In addition, we only had a selective Chinese sample with a small number of participants, which may lead to unstable statistical results in the regression analysis and constrain the generalizability of the findings.

(31)

30 In addition, we failed to replicate Ng’s (2003) cultural model of creativity in which he proposed that self-construal mediates the relationship between culture and creativity. Different from Ng’s (2003) study, instead of independent self-construal, we found that there was a significant difference in interdependent self-construal between Dutch and Chinese. This pattern emerged maybe due to China’s dramatic social and economic changes. The significant improvement in China’s economic condition empowers people with more freedom and opportunities to make their own life choices, which may further fundamentally change the way people see themselves. As a result, they have become as independent in their self-construal as Dutch people. This pattern may be especially relevant for our current Chinese sample, which consisted of 63 students who study in one of the top 3 universities located in a fast developing area in China. Their high-status education background and intense exposure to market economy environment provide them more freedom in making their career and life choices, which may further increase their feelings of autonomy and independence. Despite the change in independent self-construal, Chinese participants’ culturally rooted interdependent self-construal remains prominent. Besides, we found that the indirect effects of culture on creativity through self-construal were not significant. In sum, our results did not support the claim that self-construal mediates the effects of culture on creativity.

Finally, we explored whether self-construal and the motivational mechanism together mediate the effects of culture on creativity. There are two pathways that culture can be linked to creativity. First, culture influences creativity because culture is linked to independent self-construal and approach motivation successively. However, this pathway was not supported because the link between culture and independent self-construal was not significant. Second, culture may affect creativity because culture influences interdependent self-construal and avoidance motivation successively. However, we failed to find support for this link as well because the relationship between avoidance motivation and creativity was not significant. In sum, we failed to replicate Ng’s (2003) cultural model of creativity and the extended cultural model of creativity with the motivational mechanism.

Theoretical Implications

(32)

31 between self-construal and creativity. We proposed and found that this relationship is mediated by approach motivation and cognitive flexibility. Previous studies have begun to identify that independent self-construal is linked to motivation to be independent/different whereas interdependent self-construal induces motivation to be accepted/to conform (Wiekens & Stapel, 2008). However, little research has addressed the possibility that the motivation resulting from self-construal can mediate the effects of self-construal on creativity. Besides, despite that some studies have found a positive link between approach motivation and creativity because of flexibility (e.g., Roskes et al., 2012), little attention has been paid to reveal the source of approach motivation. The three-stage mediation model suggested by the current research nicely addressed the issues mentioned above by demonstrating that approach motivation and cognitive flexibility mediate the relationship between independent self-construal and creativity.

Second, the mediators being tested in the present research have strong implications for helping uncover future moderators of the relationship between self-construal and creativity. As we know from the present study that self-construal influences creativity because of approach motivation and cognitive flexibility, we can expect that under some conditions, the positive relationship between independent self-construal and creativity may not hold because the conditions do not afford approach motivation and/or flexible information processing. For example, past research suggested that approach motivation has a positive link with creativity only when and because the situation affords flexible and global processing (De Dreu, Nijstad & Baas, 2011). In a similar vein, we may expect that independent self-construal leads to creativity only when and because the situation makes approach motivation and/or flexibility feasible. This study evokes future research to investigate contextual factors which moderate the relationship between independent self-construal and creativity.

(33)

32 individuals from different countries do not demonstrate the expected differences in self-construal. For instance, Matsumoto (1999) found that there were no significant differences in both independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal between North Americans and East Asians. Similarly, the meta-analysis by Levine and colleagues (2003) showed that North Americans do not have a lower interdependent self-construal than East Asians, and East Asians do not have a dominant interdependent self-construal. It might be premature to conclude the self-construal theory is fundamentally flawed, but it is obvious that the stereotypes of cultural differences have been overemphasized in the existing literature and the conceptualization and measurement of self-construal need more research attention.

Practical Implications

The central implication for management practices from this study is the challenge to realize the potential of independent self-construal for creative production within cultures. The current research demonstrated the importance of approach motivation and cognitive flexibility in transferring the influences of independent self-construal on creativity. This provides insights into manageable interventions that can be used to promote individual creativity. For instance, because self-construal is often stable and difficult to change, for employees low in independent self-construal, it might be more effective for managers to provide and emphasize rewards, achievements and train the employees with approach orientated strategies (e.g., the use of intuition, reduce systematic thinking and question the use of routines) to achieve creativity than to change employee’s self-definition. In addition, creating conditions that facilitate cognitive flexibility is critical to increase employees’ creativity. For instance, research has shown that individuals with activated positive mood (e.g., happy) are more creative than those with deactivated positive mood (e.g., relaxed) because of differences in cognitive flexibility (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008). Therefore, creating a work environment that helps employees be happy is beneficial for cognitive flexibility, which in turn boosts creativity.

(34)

33 this scope because it determines whether expected effectiveness can be achieved or not. For example, according to the results from this study, the belief that employees with higher independent self-construal are more creative tends to be problematic in Chinese culture. If managers recruit employees with high independent self-construal in the hope of high creativity in China, they might fail to achieve their goals. This logic also applies to approach motivation. We found no evidence showing that more approach motivated Chinese are more creative. With the current research, managers can better understand and make decisions about effective interventions to increase employees’ creativity in different cultures.

Moreover, the results from this research disconfirmed the stereotype of cultural differences. One prominent stereotype is that Chinese participants have higher interdependent self-construal and lower independent self-construal than Dutch participants. The present research indeed showed that Chinese participants were as independent in their self-construal as Dutch participants. For managers working in a culturally diverse setting, the use of nationalities or cultural backgrounds as a cue to judge individuals’ self-definition and motivation might be inaccurate, which may further result in incorrect management practices. Realizing the dynamics of culture and placing more emphasis on individual level self-construal and motivation are particularly important for managers working in international environments over a long period of time. However, because our Chinese sample only included students with particular high education backgrounds studying in a very fast developing area in China and because of our failure to demonstrate the expected measurement validity in the Chinese sample, we need to be cautious when we apply interventions based on our results.

Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

(35)

34 am late for my next course, seriously” and “I am wondering why this experiment takes so long time”. Future research can examine whether the fatigue of the participants interfered with the manipulation. Besides, we only adopted one cognitive manipulation of self-construal. We are not certain whether the effects we observed in our experiment are immune to different manipulations such as the word search task (Brewer & Gardner, 1996), Sumerian warrior task (Trafimow et al., 1991) and a different version of story-writing task (Utz, 2004). Moreover, we used a single measure of creativity in the present research. Although the idea generation task is widely used to assess creativity, the effect we observed for the idea generation task may not hold for other creative tasks. For instance, Future research can employ the Remote Associates Test (RAT: Mednick & Mednick, 1967) or other brainstorming tasks to investigate the effects of self-construal on creativity. What is more, in our survey study, we had only 63 students in the Chinese sample, which may influence statistical power and constrain the generalizability of our results. Future research can address this limitation by increasing sample size and employing a random sampling procedure.

(36)

35 able to gauge how Chinese define themselves. The modification indices of the CFA in the Chinese sample suggested that some items of approach-avoidance motivation scale had high loadings on self-construal factors, which may indicate that for Chinese participants, self-construal includes both self-definition and some motivational elements. Future research can investigate the measurement issue more deeply. What is more, although it is well established that approach motivation and independent self-construal are drivers of creativity (Friedman & Förster, 2001, 2002; Ng, 2003; Roskes et al., 2012; Wiekens & Stapel, 2008), it is very interesting that independent self-construal and approach motivation were not related to creativity in the Chinese sample. It seems that the Chinese participants did not simply rely on their independent self-construal and approach motivation in performing the creative task as the Dutch participants did. We indeed found that there was a positive correlation between the idea sequence number and originality score of ideas in the Chinese sample (see Table 4). This positive correlation was absent in the Dutch sample. This pattern suggested that Chinese participants used different strategies (start with less original ideas and end up with more original ideas) from that used by the Dutch participants. As mentioned before, it is likely that independent self-construal gives the momentum for Chinese participants to adopt an approach motivated goal pursuit strategy and flexible information processing, but their fundamental concern for avoiding negative outcomes, (e.g., generating bad ideas) associated with interdependent self-construal, prevents them from really adopting the risky and intuition-based approach to perform the creative task. The co-occurrence of the “push” and “pull” factors results in a very different pattern for the Chinese participants to be creative. Future research can disentangle the puzzle by, for example, investigating the role of fear of invalidity in moderating the link between independent self-construal, approach motivation, cognitive flexibility and creativity.

Conclusion

(37)

(38)

37

References

[1] Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), 357-376.

[2] Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?. Psychological bulletin, 134(6), 779-806.

[3] Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). When prevention promotes creativity: the role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(5), 794-809.

[4] Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2013). Personality and creativity: the dual pathway to creativity model and a research agenda. Social and personality psychology compass, 7(10), 732-748.

[5] Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H. S. (2010). Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 99(4), 622-637.

[6] Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this" We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(1), 83-93.

[7] Caruso, E., Epley, N., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). The costs and benefits of undoing egocentric responsibility assessments in groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(5), 857-871.

[8] Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect and action. Motivation and emotion, 30(2), 105-110.

[9] Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(2), 319-333.

(39)

38 [11] Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2010). The what, how, why, and where

of self-construal. Personality and social psychology review, xx(x), 1-38.

[12] De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(5), 739-756.

[13] De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., & Baas, M. (2011). Behavioral activation links to creativity because of increased cognitive flexibility. Social psychological and personality science, 2(1), 72-80.

[14] Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 11(6), 1011-1026.

[15] Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and emotion, 30(2), 111-116.

[16] Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V. I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. M. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological science, 12(6), 505-510. [17] Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality:

approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(5), 804-818.

[18] Finch, J. F., & West, S. G. (1997). The investigation of personality structure: Statistical models. Journal of research in personality, 31(4), 439-485.

[19] Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(6), 1001-1013.

[20] Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2002). The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on creative cognition. Journal of experimental social psychology, 38(1), 41-55. [21] Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). Approach-motivated positive affect reduces

breadth of attention. Psychological science, 19(5), 476-482.

[22] 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.