THE MODERATING EFFECT OF EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION ON THE
RELATION BETWEEN POSITIVE FEEDBACK AND AN INDIVIDUAL‟S
CREATIVE PERFORMANCE THROUGH EFFORT
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
[2] TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT ... 3 INTRODUCTION ... 5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 7 Creativity ... 7
Positive feedback and creativity ... 8
Motivation ... 9
Extrinsic motivation as moderator ... 10
Effort ... 11
Effort as mediator ... 11
Positive feedback, effort as mediator, extrinsic motivation as moderator and creativity ... 12
METHOD ... 14
Design and Participants ... 14
Task and Procedure ... 14
Measures ... 15
Manipulation checks ... 17
Analytical procedures ... 18
RESULTS ... 18
Descriptive statistics ... 18
The relationship of positive feedback on creativity (H1) ... 20
The moderating role of extrinsic motivation (H2) ... 22
The mediating role of effort (H3) ... 22
Tests of moderated mediation (H4) ... 24
Tests of alternative models ... 25
DISCUSSION ... 27
Findings ... 27
Limitations and future research ... 29
Conclusion and implications ... 31
REFERENCES ... 32
[3]
ABSTRACT
Many scholars have studied the effects of feedback and rewards on an individual‘s task performance; however the effect of simultaneously offering feedback and rewards has received little research attention so far. This study therefore focuses on the moderating effect of extrinsic motivation on the relationship between positive feedback and creativity (fluency and originality) through effort. Hypothesis 1 is rejected, since positive feedback was not directly associated with fluency or originality. Hypothesis 2 is also rejected; extrinsic motivation does not moderate the relationship between positive feedback and creativity. Furthermore, positive feedback is significantly and positively related to effort, but effort is not related to fluency or to originality. Mediation effect did not emerge, and hypothesis 3 is therefore also rejected. However, this study shows that extrinsic motivation does not outperform any intrinsic motivation participants have.
Keywords: Positive feedback, extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, creativity and effort.
Acknowledgements
[4]
[5]
INTRODUCTION
Being creative is becoming more and more important; when typing in ‗creativity‘ in the search engine Google almost 2 billion hits appear. Most of these hits are creative consultancies arguing that they could help organizations with teaching techniques and tools to help to unharness employees‘ creativity. Employee creativity is become more and more important since creative ideas allow firms to adjust to shifting market competition, respond to new (technological) opportunities and thereby to adapt, grow and compete (Nonaka, 1991; Oldham, 2002). More specifically, Caves (2002) showed that the informational economy passed the industrial economy. This means that the success of firms depends more on employee creativity than purely on traditional material assets (Amabile, 1996). In other words, organizations use employee creativity as a potential resource for change in order to reach a competitive advantage and guarantee organizational survival (Bharadwaj & Menon, 2000; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Thus, creativity should be contagious among employees nowadays in order to survive in the informational economy.
[6]
against (Amabile, 1985, 1997; Amabile Hill, Hennessey & Tighe, 1994) and in favor of the effects of extrinsic rewards (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001). In this study the provision of both receiving feedback and receiving rewards are believed to cause an interpretive shift in a person‘s reason for engaging in the activity. More specifically, it is expected that an individuals‘ effort shifts from being put forth out of sheer interest to being supplied strictly as a trade for receiving positive feedback and rewards. This study therefore examines whether individuals regulate their cognitive effort in response to performance feedback in order to reach high creative performance. In addition, I examine whether the effect of positive feedback on creative performance through effort is dependent upon whether they are extrinsically motivated or not. The following research question is therefore defined: ‗How do individuals regulate their effort in response to performance feedback in order to be creative, and does their reaction depend on whether they are extrinsically motivated?’A few studies examined the influence of individuals attributes (such as age) on effort levels (Stine-Morrow, Noh, & Shake, 2010), but no study so far examined how feedback and rewards motivate changes in someone‘s effort allocation. And increases in effort are important since this increases performance on tasks (Lawler, 1973; Northcraft, Schmidt & Ashford, 2011).
Given this gap in literature, this study makes several important contributions. First of all, because this study manipulates both extrinsic motivation and positive feedback, it is possible to differentiate effects that positive feedback and extrinsic motivation may have on effort and the creative performance of individuals. Secondly, given the contradictory findings of extrinsic motivation, I will test whether the relationship between positive feedback and creativity is dependent upon receiving rewards. Thirdly, the results of my research aim to provide researchers and practitioners with empirically supported suggestions that will refine feedback possibilities and reward management systems within firms in order to stimulate creativity.
[7]
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
CreativityEmpirical research examines creativity as a broad and unitary construct (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Resulting in the general definition of creativity being the production of ideas, products or procedures that are novel or original and potentially useful or practical (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Shalley, 1991; Feist 1998). Translating this definition to organizations, one describes creative employees, as employees who produce novel and potentially useful ideas about organizational products, practices, services or procedures (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Ideas are considered as novel or original if they are unique relative to other ideas currently available in the organization. And ideas are considered as useful if they have the potential to directly or indirectly add value to the organization, in either the short- or long-term (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). Given this definition, creativity could range from incremental adaptations to radical major breakthroughs (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988) and creative ideas may be generated in any job and at any level of the organization (Madjar, Oldham & Pratt, 2002).
Creativity is often operationalized with measures as originality and fluency (Guilford, 1967; Torrance, 1966). Originality (novelty) is the defining characteristic of creative behavior (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008; Rietzschel, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2007) and refers to the ability to approach a problem or situation in a new manner, without relying on routine thought (Rietzschel, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2007). Fluency is a measure of creative production and is defined as generating as many ideas or solutions as possible (Rietzschel, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2007). The underlying assumption is that it is extremely important to generate as many creative ideas as possible, since this increases the probability that at least one of these ideas is extremely good (‗quantity leads to quality‘; Osborn, 1953). Given the widely used and scientific accepted operationalizion of creativity, this study incorporates originality and fluency as measures of creativity.
[8] Positive feedback and creativity
Feedback is an often studied, used and valued concept. It is frequently defined as information about the effects of one‘s actions on some criterion of interest (Herold & Greller, 1977) relative to some normative criteria (Sansone, 1986). Employees‘ responses towards feedback may vary with specific factors, such as task characteristics and the valence of feedback (Love, Love & Northcraft, 2010). Waples and Friedrich (2011) argue for instance that feedback is essential in creative problem solving, since these tasks have a unique nature and are complex to solve. More specifically, Van Dijk and Kluger (2011) argue that especially positive feedback is important in reaching higher fluency and originality. Vancouver and Tischner (2004) argue that when lots of cognitive resources were needed to perform a task, which is the case with creativity tasks, positive feedback is positively correlated with performance. Whereas when cognitive resources were of less importance (i.e. simple tasks), positive feedback did not improve performance. In other words, positive feedback determines the surfacing of employee motivation and creative performance (Zhou, 2008). This study therefore focuses on positive feedback, which is defined as the communication of the positive outcome of the comparison between an individual's performance and some normative criteria.
[9]
and thereby increases fluency and originality. However when no feedback is received participants might be unable to strengthen correct responses. These employees might try out a variety of different strategies and may accordingly adopt the wrong strategies for improving performance (Anseel, Lievens & Schollaert, 2009). This subsequently will result in a decrease in creative performance. Given the positive reinforcing effects of feedback and the negative effects of providing no feedback, the following hypothesis is stated:
Motivation
Many managers see motivating employees as one of the biggest challenges of their job (Shalley et al. 2000). Motivation can be defined as ‗the contemporary (immediate) influence on direction, vigor, and persistence of action‘ (Atkinson, 1964). Employees can be motivated intrinsically and extrinsically (Amabile, 1993; Frey, 1997). Intrinsic motivation is defined as ‗an inner-directed interest in a task‘ (Amabile, 1997); the individual is excited about an activity and engages in it for the sake of the activity itself (Amabile, 1996; Shalley & Oldham, 1997). Alternatively, extrinsic motivation can be defined as ‗a cognitive state reflecting the extent to which an individual factors the force of his or her task behavior to some extrinsic outcome‘ (Brief and Aldag, 1977). This is a more indirect way of motivation, because the received reward is the source of the need satisfaction, and not the activity itself (as it is with intrinsic motivation). Moreover, extrinsic motivation is often conceptualized as financial rewards (Cameron & Pierce, 2002; Kuratko, Hornsby & Naffziger, 1997) and this study therefore uses the terms extrinsic motivation and rewards interchangeably.
Several earlier studies found that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation interact with each other; they for instance may drive each other out (Amabile 1996; Deci, Koestner & Ryan 1999; Eisenberger, 1999). Rewards might shifts an employee‘s emphasis; individuals place an emphasis on the extrinsic reward as opposed to any intrinsic interest they might have had (Amabile, Hennessey & Grossman, 1986; Deci, Koestner & Ryan 1999; James, 2005). And since several studies confirmed the direct positive effect of intrinsic motivation on creativity (Amabile, 1997; Baer & Frese, 2003; Conti, Collins, Picariello, 2001; Hennessey & Amabile, 1998; Martins & Terblanche, 2003), rewards directed to motivate employees, can be seen as just a waste of money because performance will not be enhanced (Amabile, 1985, 1997; Amabile, Hill,
[10]
Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994). However, literature also shows that rewards can stimulate performance (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001); since employees that receive rewards learn which dimensions are appropriate for reaching an optimal performance (see Industriousness theory; Eisenberger, Mitchell, Mc Dermitt & Masterson, 1984). Thus, the effects of rewards on performance are not clear; this study therefore focuses on the moderating effect of extrinsically motivated employees on the relationship between positive feedback and creative performance.
Extrinsic motivation as moderator
James (2005) argued that factors as performance contingent rewards may enhance, depress, but definitely interact with the relationship between feedback and an individual‘s level of performance. This study uses performance contingent rewards, since this is the most influential way of rewarding employees (research from PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2001). These rewards are given specifically for performing the activity well, matching some standard of excellence, or surpassing some specified criterion (e.g., doing better than 80% of the other participants; Deci, Ryan & Koestner, 1999).
[11]
rewards are offered. Considering these findings, the following hypothesis is stated:
Effort
Individuals are able to make decisions concerning the allocation of effort toward performance goals (Deshon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner and Wiechmann, 2004), this study therefore determines the effects of positive feedback and performance contingent rewards on an individual‘s effort allocation. According to the Cambridge dictionary; effort is about a physical or mental activity needed to achieve something. This study will focus on the allocation of mental activities needed to achieve higher creative performance on a task. This allocation of effort is seen as a key component to organizational success (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001). This is because it is expected that an increase in effort is an important determinant of an increase in performance on tasks (Lawler, 1973; Northcraft, Schmidt & Ashford, 2011). It is therefore interesting for firms to understand how employees make choices regarding their effort in tasks (Love, Love, & Northcraft, 2010) in order to ensure high creative performance (Waples & Friedrich, 2011).
Effort as mediator
In line with other studies, this study suggests that providing feedback on the effectiveness on an individual‘s performance should act as potent levers for affecting effort allocation decisions (Deshon et al. 2004; Love, Love, & Northcraft, 2010). This is because the primary benefit of feedback is that it allows individuals to monitor progress toward task completion so that necessary adjustments in the amount of effort and the direction of that effort can be made (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Locke & Latham, 1990). More specifically, when feedback shows a discrepancy between actual performance and ultimate goals, individuals will try to reduce that difference in order to ensure that goals are still met (Bandura, 1986). To reduce goal-performance discrepancies individuals change their effort levels (Mikulincer, 1994; Pittman & Pittman, 1980). Since these individuals should come up with a more effective and accordingly more effortful strategy compared to a condition in which no feedback is provided (Kulhavy and
H2: The relationship between positive feedback and fluency and originality is
[12]
Wager, 1993; Love, Love & Northcraft, 2010). Thus, providing employees with performance feedback focused their attention and effort more on their tasks (Northcraft, Schmidt & Ashford, 2011), which accordingly is expected to result in higher scores on fluency and originality (Deshon, et al. 2004). But when no feedback is provided, individuals will not be aware of goal discrepancies and will therefore not change their effort allocation.
Positive feedback, effort as mediator, extrinsic motivation as moderator and creativity But what will happen to the above stated mediation effect when individuals are extrinsically motivated? First of all, as already shown, feelings of accomplishment and/or achievement will rise when both positive feedback and rewards are provided (Guzzo, 1979). And lower levels of intrinsic motivation will therefore be exerted (Deci, Koestner, and Ryan, 1999; James, 2005). Moreover literature shows that when an individual is extrinsically motivated, this individual will have a more narrow, structured and persistent way of thinking in which effort should be intensified in order generate as much ideas and to generate original ideas (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). In other words, being extrinsically motivated taxes the allocation of cognitive resources and energy (Evans, 2003). And since feelings of accomplishments will rise (Guzzo, 1979), it is expected that being extrinsically motivated and receiving positive feedback results in exerting lower levels of effort into a task. And since effort is an important determinant of performance on tasks (Northcraft, Schmidt & Ashford, 2011), it is expected that the creative performance also will lower. This means that individuals will have lower creative performance when they receive positive feedback and when they are extrinsically motivated compared to individuals that are not extrinsically motivated. It is expected that individuals who only receive positive feedback, will increase their effort allocation and will therefore generate more and more original ideas because of the reinforcement effect (Skinner, 1954). When individuals are only extrinsically motivated and not receiving positive feedback, the allocation of cognitive resources and energy will be taxed (Evans, 2003) and creative performance will therefore be low. When individuals are not extrinsically motivated and do not receive feedback, feelings of accomplishment and or achievement are not activated (Guzzo, 1979). The level of effort
H3: Effort mediates the relationship between positive feedback and fluency and originality, in
[13]
individuals are regulating will therefore be the same, and creative performance will be moderate. These conceptualizations result in the following hypothesis:
The effects of this hypothesis are shown below; in table 1. It is expected that all individuals are somehow intrinsically motivated and that feelings of accomplishment caused by rewards will influence an individual‘s motivation to perform on a task. Since the shift in emphasis (i.e. reasons of why participants join in the study) it is expected that extrinsic motivated participants will have lower performance since their focus is on the reward. Moreover when also positive feedback is provided, feelings of accomplishments are generated, and effort and creativity will be much more lower. The lowest creative performance will therefore be in the condition in which participants receive both positive feedback and rewards. The highest creative performance will be in the condition in which participants are not extrinsically motivated but do receive positive feedback since this increases reinforcement and subsequently effort.
TABLE 1 Hypothesized results
The first three hypotheses are graphically depicted on the next page in the conceptual model, Figure 1. The fourth hypothesis tests the whole model.
Extrinsic motivation high Extrinsic motivation low
Positive feedback Effort Lowering Increase
Creativity Low High
No feedback Effort Keep op Keep up
Creativity Low Moderate
H4: The diminishing effect of positive feedback on fluency and originality, when extrinsic
[14]
METHOD
Design and ParticipantsOne hundred and twenty two students, mainly from the Economics and Business faculty of the University of Groningen were randomly assigned to the 2 (positive feedback vs. no feedback) x 2 (extrinsic motivation: low vs. high) conditions. More specific, 63 participants were extrinsically motivated and 61 participants received positive feedback. The experiment was conducted at the Research Lab from the Economics and Business faculty, and participants received money for their participation. Participants also had the chance of winning an ‗Ipod Shuffle‘ in order to manipulate extrinsic motivation. The age of the participants was ranging from 17-27 years old (M = 20.51, SD = 2.27). The percentage of men was 45.1 % and 97.5% had the Dutch nationality, but all participants showed that they understood the Dutch language.
Task and Procedure
The experiment was introduced as ‗Decision making and task performance‘, participants worked in separate cubicles and instructions and materials were delivered in Dutch via a computer. The task used in this study was the „Pasta task‘, in which participants were asked to generate new names for pastas (Marsh, Ward & Landau, 1999; Sassenberg, Kessler & Mummendey, 2005; Dijksterhuis & Meurs, 2006). In accordance with Amabile (1996) this creative task (a) was open ended, with multiple issues and few constraints on solutions, (b) results were a visual report, and (c) the task was feasible in the administrative information
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model Creativity: Originality H3 Positive feedback
Extrinsic motivational state
Fluency Effort
[15]
system. In the instruction of the task, five examples ending with the letter ‗i‘ of non-existing names were listed. After participants read the instructions, they were randomly allocated to one of the four conditions (extrinsic motivation: low vs. high and positive feedback vs. no positive feedback). In all four conditions participants were asked to list new pasta names. Participants had up five minutes in total to finish the task and could not stop earlier. After 2.5 minutes all participants were asked to pause with the ‗Pasta‘ task, it was told that the computer had to process the generated pasta names. In this break participants began with a no-depletion task; participants had to cross out every occurrence of the letter ‗e‘ in a small story. After this monotonous task, participants went back on the computer screen and participants in the positive feedback condition received a false normative positive feedback message on the screen, and thereafter continued with the Pasta task. Participants in the no feedback condition did not receive this false normative message, they were just asked to continue with the ‗Pasta‘ task. More information about this or other manipulations can be found underneath. After completing the pasta task, participants received several control questions including intrinsic motivation and satisfaction. After completing the experiment the subjects were thoroughly debriefed, thanked for their participation, were paid and dismissed.
Measures
This study included measures of creativity, positive feedback, extrinsic motivation, effort and a control variable satisfaction; which were all answered on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from ‗strongly disagree‘ (represented by 1) to ‗strongly agree‘ (represented by 7).
Creativity: The dependent variable was creativity, which was coded into originality and
fluency. The number of unique and novel names (i.e. names not ending on an ‗i‘) was coded as original. The total number of names was coded as fluency. To make more complete judgments the fluency and originality of ideas before and after feedback were administered. And to see the overall effect the sum of the ideas before and after feedback were also calculated.
Positive feedback: The independent variable used was feedback (positive feedback vs. no
[16]
Kluger, 2010).’ You did excellent work and you now belong to the top performers of this research. The researcher is very pleased with your performance‘ (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009). This false normative feedback was not given in the no feedback condition.
Extrinsic motivation: Extrinsic motivation is often manipulated directly by offering
rewards (Amabile, 1986; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001). This study used lottery tickets in order to win an iPod ‗Shuffle‘ to manipulate extrinsic motivation. The manipulation was based and adjusted from research of Brockner and Vasta (1981). Participants in the high extrinsic motivation condition were told the following; ‗You have the opportunity to win an iPod through a lottery system, depending upon your performance at the following task. In fact, for each five original names that you create you will earn a lottery ticket, which accordingly increases your likelihood of winning the iPod ‘Shuffle’. Participants in the low extrinsic motivation condition were told the following; ‘You have the opportunity to win an iPod ‘Shuffle’ in this study through a lottery system. But you do not have to do anything special for these lottery tickets’. To make the manipulation stronger, participants in the high extrinsic motivation condition were constantly aware of the possibility of winning the iPod by creating as much pasta names as possible. Participants in both conditions were told that the researcher will contact the participants who won the iPod within two weeks, and a message will appear on the internal University website.
Effort: Six items based on previous research were used to measure effort (Cronbach‘s
alpha: = .909). All questions were measured after receiving feedback regardless of the condition, but prior to the second part of the Pasta task. Five questions measured time efforts and work intensity and were based on the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory scale used in several experiments from Deci and Ryan (see Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Ryan, Connell, & Plant, 1990; Ryan, Koestner & Deci, 1991;). I only used the questions from the subscale about effort and an exemplary recoded question was ‗In the next part of the pasta task I will not put much energy’. Participants responded to these statements on a scale ranging from strongly disagree‘ (represented by 1) to ‗strongly agree‘ (represented by 7). The sixth question was about the intention to exert effort and is based on research of Van Dijk and Kluger (2010). This question was formulated as: ‘Relative to your effort on the Pasta task thus far, how much effort do you intend to exert next?’.
Control variable: As suggested by previous research, this study controlled for task
[17]
questions (Cronbach‘s alpha: = .872) and an exemplary statement was ‗While creating new pasta names, I was very pleased with the pasta names I found’. Satisfaction is used as a control variable since the causal relationship between satisfaction and performance is confirmed by research (Edwards, Bell, Arthur & Decuir, 2008). This is because task satisfaction might influence behaviours on the task (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
Additional measure: Given the interplay between extrinsic motivation and intrinsic
motivation (Amabile, 1993; Frey, 1997), intrinsic motivation is also measured. The first measure of intrinsic motivation was before any manipulation (Cronbach‘s alpha: = .841). An exemplary question was; ‘I join this research since I like it’ Moreover intrinsic motivation was also measured at the end of the experiment based on the WPI scale from Amabile (1995) (Cronbach‘s alpha: = .918), an exemplary statement was ‗During the brainstorm session I liked coming up with new pasta names’.
Manipulation checks
Two manipulation checks were conducted as is shown in Appendix A. Participants responded to the manipulation check statements on a scale of 1 to 7 with ―1= strongly disagree‖, to ―7= strongly agree‖. ANOVA‘s were used to test the manipulations.
Extrinsic motivation: This manipulation check is based on research of Guay, Vallerand and Blanchard (2000) from which I only used the four external regulation questions in this study (Cronbach alpha; = .801). ANOVA‘s were used to test the effects of the extrinsic manipulation. Although checked for outliers, the manipulation did not work out well. Participants in the high extrinsic motivation condition (M= 2.48, SD= 1.41) and low condition (M= 2.43, SD= 1.40, F (1.120) 0.112, p .738) showed about the same feelings that they had to participate in the study because of the chance of winning an iPod. Moreover participants in the high extrinsic motivation condition argued slightly higher that they participate because they did not have any choice (M= 1.62, SD = 1.60) compared to participants in the low extrinsic motivation condition (M= 1.49, SD= 0.79, F (1,120) = 0.564, p .454). But these differences are not in the right direction and also not significant.
[18]
question (Cronbach‘s alpha of the four questions: = .922) measured whether positive feedback was perceived as positive feedback. An exemplary question was: ‘During the former brainstorm task, I conducted more original names compared to other participants’. Participants receiving positive feedback reported that they are more satisfied with their performance (M= 5.00, SD= 1.24) compared to participants not receiving feedback (M= 4.51, SD= 1.238, F (1,120) = 3.862, p <.05). Although checked for outliers and the fact that the scores were in the right direction, no significant findings from the manipulation check were found. It can therefore be concluded that the manipulation only worked for the above stated satisfaction question.
Analytical procedures
Effects of the independent variable (positive feedback), the moderator (extrinsic motivation), the mediator (effort) and the control variable (task satisfaction) were tested by Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis. The last hypothesis, moderated mediation, was tested by means of an SPSS macro by Preacher, Rucker and Hayes (2007), which provides bootstrapping confidence intervals for the indirect effect of effort at various pre-specified levels of extrinsic motivation. Since this macro provides bootstrapped confidence intervals, this analytical procedure is considered to be superior to the estimates from standard tests. This is because the intervals of Preacher et al. (2007) make no assumptions about the distribution of the indirect effect and, therefore, provide greater accuracy (Edwards & Lambert, 2007).
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
[19]
Furthermore, table 2 presents means, standard deviations, correlations and Cronbach alpha‘s among all study variables. As expected, based on previous research (Osborn, 1953), fluency and originality are positively correlated. However, the association between positive feedback and creativity is weak and not significant (r= .09, p= n.s.). The same weak relationship holds between positive feedback and originality after the feedback was given (r= .13, p= n.s.). This means, that positive feedback is not directly correlated with fluency or with originality. Moreover, the correlation between extrinsic motivation and creativity also was not found. Another interesting finding, is the positive and significant correlation between positive feedback and effort (r= .24, p = <.01.), but no significant correlation between effort and any dependent creativity variable arises. Additionally, positive feedback is positive related towards satisfaction (r= .51, p= <.01) and intrinsic motivation (r= .34, p= <.01), and effort has several significant other correlations towards satisfaction (r=.56, p= <.01), intrinsic motivation (r= .21, p= <.05). Another appealing result is the correlation between intrinsic motivation and satisfaction (r= .46, p= <.01). At last, an interesting finding is that intrinsic motivation is not significantly correlated towards effort (r = -.13, p= >.05).
FIGURE 2
Means and standard deviations of fluency and originality
Note. N = 122. M = mean, SD = standard deviation.
[20]
TABLE 2
Construct means, standard deviations and correlations among study variables
Note. N = 122. * p< .05. ** p < .01. Cronbach alpha‘s are presented in parentheses of the diagonal. For positive
feedback only one question was used, so no Cronbach alpha. Fluency & originality total are the accumulated values of fluency or originality before and after feedback.
Test of hypotheses
To test for possible main and interaction effects multiple regression analyses were conducted. As recommended by De Vries and Huisman (2008), data was checked for linearity, homoscedasticity and multicollinearity by analyzing residual scatter plots and by examining the variance inflation factor and tolerance values. Furthermore, the existence of outliers was identified by using discrepancy, leverage and influence characteristics (De Vries & Huisman, 2008); but no extreme outliners were identified and no participants were therefore excluded.
It was expected that participants have a certain degree of intrinsic motivation before they started with the experiment. Measures of intrinsic motivation showed that participants scored relatively high, a mean of 4.4 on a scale from 1 to 7 (M = 4.37, SD= 1.25). This means that participants indeed were intrinsically motivated before doing the experiment.
The feedback and mediation hypotheses were tested on fluency and originality after feedback is given. The moderating effect of extrinsic motivation was tested on the accumulated amounts of fluency and originality (i.e. fluency and originality before and after manipulation).
The relationship of positive feedback on creativity (H1)
Figure 3 shows the means and standard deviations for receiving feedback versus not receiving feedback on fluency and originality. Although differences are small, figure 3 shows that participants in the ‗feedback‘ condition produced only slightly more pasta names (M= 19.5, SD= 9.9) compared to participants that received no feedback (M= 18.9, SD= 14.4). The scores on originality are almost the same between the conditions; receiving feedback (M= 9.4, SD= 8.5)
[21]
versus not receiving feedback (M= 9.4, SD= 10.1). To test hypothesis 1, regression analysis were conducted as shown in table 3. The control variable satisfaction is entered in step 1 and standardized effects of positive feedback are entered in step 2. From these regressions one can conclude that positive feedback is not significantly related to fluency (B= 0.87, p= n.s.); nor with originality (B= 1.08, p= n.s). Hypothesis 1 is therefore rejected; positive feedback is not directly related towards the creative performance of individuals.
FIGURE 3
The relationship of positive feedback on creativity
TABLE 3
Regression Analysis: Effect of positive feedback on fluency and originality Creativity: Fluency Creativity: Originality
B S.E. p B S.E. p Constant 19.23 1.023 0.000 9.47 0.848 0.000 Satisfaction 0.871 1.027 0.398 0.174 0.852 0.838 R² 0.006 0.000 Satisfaction 0.419 1.208 0.729 -0.388 0.999 0.699 Positive feedback 0.869 1.275 0.476 1.081 1.006 0.285 R² 0.100 0.02 Note. N = 122.
Note. N = 122. M = mean, SD = standard deviation.
[22] The moderating role of extrinsic motivation (H2)
As could be seen in figure 2, participants only receiving positive feedback generated the most names and the most original names in the pasta task. But in order to confirm hypothesis 2, regression analyses were used as shown in table 4. Standardized variables were used to diminish multicollinearity (Siero, Huisman, & Kiers, 2007). No moderating effect was found on both fluency and originality (respectively, B= -3.23, p= n.s., B= -3.91, p= n.s.). Since no moderating effect was found, H2 is rejected; extrinsic motivation does not moderate the relationship between positive feedback and fluency, in a way that positive feedback increases creativity, also not when extrinsic motivation is low.
TABLE 4
Moderation effect of extrinsic motivation
The mediating role of effort (H3)
To assess the proposed mediation effects of effort among the relationship between positive feedback and creative performance (hypothesis 3) regression analysis were conducted as can be seen in table 5. Participants that received positive feedback reported that they exert only slightly more effort (M= 5.1, SD = 1.12) compared to participants receiving no feedback (M= 4.9, SD= 1.10). To test for mediation effect, the control variable was entered in step 1, the standardized independent variable in step 2, and the standardized mediator was entered in step 3. The mediation effect of effort was not established. There was no significant effect of effort on
Creativity: Fluency Total Creativity: Originality Total
[23]
fluency (B = 0.64, p= n.s) and originality (B = 0.26, p = n.s). To be more complete, I also tested the relationship between positive feedback as an antecedent on effort, table 6 shows that effort is the unstandardized dependent variable. The relationship between positive feedback and effort can significantly be confirmed (B = 0.26, p = <.01).
TABLE 5
Regression Analysis: Mediation of effort
TABLE 6
Regression Analysis: Positive feedback on effort
In addition, the mediation effect of effort was also tested using Baron and Kenny‘s (1986) four mediation steps model. The first step of this model was not met, since positive feedback is uncorrelated neither with fluency nor with originality. The second step is met, positive feedback affects the mediator effort (B = 0.26, p < .01). But my model does not met requirements of step 3 and step 4. The mediator effort does not affect the outcome variable creativity (B = 0.64, p= n.s.) and effort does not mediate the relationship between positive
Creativity: Fluency Creativity: Originality
B S.E. p B S.E. p Constant 19.23 1.023 0.000 9.47 0.848 0.000 Satisfaction 0.871 1.027 0.398 0.174 0.852 0.838 R² 0.006 0.000 0 Satisfaction 0.419 1.208 0.729 -0.388 0.999 0.699 Positive feedback 0.869 1.216 0.476 1.081 1.006 0.285 R² 0.010 0.010 Satisfaction 0.033 1.427 0.982 -0.543 1.181 0.647 Positive feedback 0.916 1.224 0.456 1.100 1.013 0.280 Effort 0.641 1.251 0.610 0.257 1.035 0.804 R² 0.012 0.011 Effort B S.E. p Constant 4.973 0.098 0.000 Positive feedback 0.260 0.098 0.006 R² 0.062 Note. N = 122.
[24]
feedback and creativity, the effect of positive feedback on creativity controlling for effort is not zero. In sum, from here one can conclude that using ordinary OLS regression analysis and Baron and Kenny‘s 4 step model, effort does not mediate the relationship between positive feedback and the creative performance of individuals; hypothesis 3 is therefore rejected.
Tests of moderated mediation (H4)
Table 7 summarizes the test of the moderating role of extrinsic motivation for the conditional indirect relationship between positive feedback and creative performance, through effort (Hypothesis 4). For this analysis I made use of a downloaded SPSS macro, provided by Preacher and Hayers (2007). In line with previous stated results; extrinsic motivation did not moderate the relationship between positive feedback and fluency (B= -2.43, p= >.05) or originality (B= -3.41, p= >.05). Moreover there were no indirect relationships with effort as mediator neither when extrinsic motivation is high (+1 SD; 95% CI = -1.35, 1.10 and -1.21, 0.62) on average (M; 95% CI= -1.78, 1.42 and -1.58, 1.12) or low (-1 SD; 95% CI = -1.35, 1.10 and -1.21, 0.62). Thus, hypothesis 4, which stated that effort will only mediate the indirect relationship between positive feedback and creative performance at high (rather than at low) values of extrinsic motivation is rejected, more specifically effort does not mediate the relationship at any level of extrinsic motivation.
TABLE 7
Regression results for conditional indirect effect
Predictors B S.E. P B S.E. P B S.E. p B S.E. p
Fluency 2 Originality 2 Fluency Total Originality Total
Constant 19.25 1.01 .00 9.49 0.83 .00 35.74 2.56 .00 16.30 1.42 .00 Effort 0.85 1.24 .50 0.50 1.03 .63 1.55 2.26 .50 0.50 1.03 .63 Positive feedback -0.73 1.22 .43 1.50 1.01 .34 -1.46 2.50 .25 2.35 1.83 .25 Extrinsic motivation -0.39 1.03 .54 0.03 0.85 .57 -1.02 4.03 .34 -2.86 2.96 .38 Positive feedback x extrinsic motivation -1.89 1.00 .61 1.42 0.83 .52 -2.43 4.68 .58 -3.41 3.98 .24 Covariate Satisfaction 0.79 1.47 .13 -1.47 1.21 .22 0.79 1.47 .13 -1.14 1.72 .52 Effort CI 95
Bootstrapped confidence intervals for the mediating mechanism of effort, conditional on values of extrinsic motivation
F1 O1 F2 O2
LL UL LL UL LL UL LL UL
[25] Tests of alternative models
Participants reported almost the same scores on intrinsic motivation measures before (M= 4.4, SD= 1.3) and after the study (M= 4.0, SD= 0.6). And as is shown in figure 4 extrinsically motivated participants reported almost the same means on the intrinsic motivation scale (B= 4.1, SD=0.57), compared to participants who received no rewards (M= 4.0, SD= 0.62). This means that extrinsic motivation did not ruled out intrinsic motivation in this study.
FIGURE 4
Scores on intrinsically motivated scale based on receiving versus not receiving rewards
Moreover, as Table 8 indicates intrinsic motivation is related positively and significantly to fluency (B= 3.95, p= <.05), but this relationship does not hold for originality (B= 0.17, p= n.s.). Thus, intrinsically motivated employees were not per definition more original. Moreover, moderation effects of intrinsic motivation are also tested as shown in Table 9. But no moderation effect of intrinsic motivation between positive feedback and fluency (B= 1.06, p= n.s.) and originality (B= 1.68, p= n.s.) was found. Mediation effects of intrinsic motivation on fluency and originality were also not found (respectively B= 1.87, p= n.s. and B= 1.67, p= n.s.).
Average value of extrinsic motivation -1.00 0.68 -0.35 0.52 -1.50 0.80 -0.99 0.64
+1 SD Extrinsic motivation -1.38 1.29 -0.72 0.98 -2.00 1.2 -1.28 0.89
Note: N= 122. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Fluency 2 and originality 2 are after the
feedback manipulation. Fluency total and Originality total are the accumulated scores of before and after feedback. Reported confidence intervals with bootstrap sample size = 5,000. LL = Lower limit; CI = Confidence interval; UL = Upper limit.
Note. N = 122. M = mean, SD = standard deviation.
[26]
TABLE 8
Regression results for alternative models; intrinsic motivation
TABLE 9
Regression results for alternative models; Moderation effect of intrinsic motivation
The effect of extrinsic motivation on one‘s effort allocation is also tested as shown in table 10. Results showed that extrinsic motivation does not have any influence on one‘s effort allocation. Moreover I controlled for satisfaction during regression analysis. It is argued that satisfaction must be constant because it affects positive feedback, and subsequently affects an individual‘s creativity. But satisfaction did not moderate the relationship between positive feedback and fluency and originality (respectively B= -0.04, p= n.s. and B= 0.09, p= n.s.). Furthermore, satisfaction did also not mediate the relationship between positive feedback and fluency and originality (respectively B= 0.35, p= n.s. and B= -0.88, p= n.s.).
Creativity: Fluency Creativity: Originality
B S.E. p B S.E. P Constant 35.69 1.791 0.000 16.197 1.400 0.000 Intrinsic Motivation 3.953 1.799 0.030 0.174 1.406 0.178 R² 0.04 0.02
Creativity: Fluency Creativity: Originality
[27]
DISCUSSION
FindingsThe aim of this study was to clarify the effect of positive feedback and extrinsic motivation on an individual‘s creative performance. I investigated the moderating role of extrinsic motivation on the relationship between positive feedback and creativity, through the mediating mechanism of effort. In other words, this research provides an answer on the question ‘How do individuals regulate their effort in response to performance feedback in order to be creative, and does their reaction depend on whether they are extrinsically motivated?’.
[28]
interventions, so in further research it is wise to consider the broader psychological feedback context in which these feedback interventions take place (Ashford & Northcraft, 2003; Levy & Williams, 2004). Another possible explanation might be the task used (Vancouver and Tischner, 2004; Van Dijk & Kluger, 2011). As already argued, when only little cognitive resources are needed to perform a task, positive feedback did not improve performance (Vancouver and Tischner, 2004). Since, coming up with new pasta names does not per se asks for lots of cognitive effort; it is possible that this study did not find a relationship between positive feedback and increased performance. Moreover it becomes clear in the literature review provided earlier, that the common sense notion that positive feedback leads to higher creativity should not be assumed directly. Several major generalization problems became apparent as inaccurate definitions of feedback (e.g. use of corrective feedback instead of performance feedback; Latting, 1992), poor methodology (e.g. samples of four participants or less; Wright 1906), lack of attention to results (e.g. directly given feedback has a much bigger effect; Northcraft, Schmidt, & Ashford, 2011), different performance tasks (e.g. internal control task: Bryant, Murthy & Wheeler, 2009) and the use of different fields (e.g. educational; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Thus, the problem is that several authors just cited the inconsistent, poorly substantiated, uncritical and or misleading findings to support their own conclusions (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), which may lead to the common sense that positive feedback leads to higher fluency and originality.
[29]
Furthermore, individuals are able to adjust their effort allocation towards tasks (Deshon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner and Wiechmann, 2004). It was therefore hypothesized but not confirmed that positive feedback leads to creativity through the mediating effect of effort (i.e. hypothesis 3 is rejected). Results therefore show that the mediating role of effort is more multifaceted than suggested. Participants reported to exert higher levels of effort after feedback was given, but despite the common sense in literature; this increase in effort did not significantly resulted in higher fluency or originality. Other factors may therefore have an influence on the linkage between effort and performance; as for instance the availability of resources as time, the necessary skills and peer support. Future research should consider and test other influential factors between the relationship of effort on creativity.
In addition, as already expected by previous findings and explanations, the overall model also could not be confirmed. The moderating effect of extrinsic motivation on the relationship between positive feedback and creativity through effort was not found. But this study did found some other interesting finding. Participants scored rather high on the intrinsic motivation scale, and these intrinsic motivation scores almost kept constant when rewards were offered. It is therefore assumed that rewards do not outperform intrinsic motivation. This is in line with Arnold (1976) who argues that high intrinsic motivation appears to be a sufficiently stable cognitive state. Meaning that the introduction of extrinsic rewards does not initiate a process of cognitive re-evaluation of the reasons for or causes of one‘s behavior.
Limitations and future research
[30]
generalizability, future samples should turn this experimental situation into a real-life business setting, with a large sample of real employees in a real business environment.
Another limitation and an interesting point in further research is that when providing positive feedback and extrinsic rewards, these variables are really believed by participants. Although the scores on the positive feedback manipulation were in the right direction in this study, only one positive feedback manipulation check question was significant. Moreover, offering lottery tickets (to manipulate extrinsic motivaton) was not believed as real rewards. Another limitation concerns mono-source bias; all variables were answered by the same individual. The problem that may arise is that individuals may have certain tendencies to fill in the statements and that therefore the variables in general are highly correlated. Relationships thus may reflect answering tendencies and no actual relationships. But this problem is of minor influence, since the dependent variables are performance variables and participants can not influence that directly. Furthermore, mono-method bias may also occur. This is because all the variables were measured with a single instrument, in this case the computers in the research lab. With this method, I cannot be sure that the measures assess what I expect them to assess. To diminish this mono-method bias, all scales used in this study were reliable and validated by other studies. It is therefore advisable to use reliable and valid measures in future research using a single instrument.
Another major limitation might be the operationalization of creativity and the creative task used. Earlier research used more complicated measures to assess creativity in all its aspects, for example insight or eureka tasks (Simonton, 2003), flexibility tests (Lamm & Trommsdorff, 1973) and composite tests (Amabile, 1985). These tests make it possible to measure different aspects of creativity, not only the fluency and originality, which can give a more comprehensive understanding of the influence of feedback and extrinsic motivations on creativity. Furthermore, it also is interesting for future research to not only focus on creativity but also examine antecedents on the implementation of creative ideas (i.e. innovation).
[31]
A final direction for future research is the execution of longitudinal studies. These longitudinal studies should offer feedback and rewards multiple times to see whether effects on creativity might arise. It would for instance be interesting to study the effects of offering positive feedback multiple times on an individual‘s effort allocation and on an individual‘s creative performance. Moreover it would also be interesting to test the moderating effect of offering rewards multiple times on an individual‘s creative performance.
Conclusion and implications
The present research is one of a rising number of studies which consider the effects of feedback and extrinsic motivation on an individual‘s performance. As conceptualized by Rietzschel, De Dreu and Nijstad (2007); this study operationalized creativity as fluency and originality. As became clear from this study, the direct effect of positive feedback on an individual‘s creative performance is more complex than suggested by literature and practice. Positive feedback is not directly related to higher creative performance. Organizations should therefore not simply use positive feedback to improve employees‘ creative performance since causal relationships are much more complex.
Results showed that individuals had the highest means on fluency and originality when they received only positive feedback. But no interaction effect of extrinsic motivation is found. In other words; the relationship between positive feedback and creativity is not dependent upon rewards. Furthermore results showed that rewards not rule out an individual‘s intrinsic motivation. This means that firms can just reward employees without having the fear that any intrinsic motivation may decrease.
Additionally, although previous research argued that positive feedback leads to an increase in effort, and an increase in effort is expected to lead to higher creative performance this study could not confirm any mediation effect. A significant relationship between positive feedback and effort was found, but the relationship between effort and creativity could not be confirmed. But given the limitation of this study, it cannot be concluded that this mediation effect of effort does not exist, therefore more research on this topic is needed in the future. However, organizations should be aware that increases in effort not directly relate to increases in creative performance.
[32] REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Amabile, T. M. (1985) "Motivation and Creativity: Effects of Motivational Orientation on Creative Writers." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, 2, 393-399. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Amabile, T.M. (1997), ―Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do‖, California Management Review, 41, 39-58.
Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 50(1), 14-23.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal Of
Personality And Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967.
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 23-35.
Ashford, S.J.,& Cummings, L.L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: personal strategies of creating information. Organizational behavior and human performance, 32, 370-398. Ashford, S. J., & Northcraft, G. (2003). Robbing Peter to pay Paul: Feedback environments and
enacted priorities in response to competing task demands. Human Resource Management Review, 13(4), 537.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45-68.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement Goals and Optimal Motivation: Testing Multiple Goal Models. Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 80(5), 706-
722.
[33]
Feedback: The Impact on Emotions and Extra-Role Behaviors. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(2), 274-303.
Bharadwaj, S., & Menon, A. (2000). Making Innovation Happen in Organizations: Individual Creativity Mechanisms, Organizational Creativity Mechanisms or Both?. Journal Of Product Innovation Management, 17(6), 424-434.
Blair, C.S., & Mumford, M.D. (2007). Errors in idea evaluation: Preference for the unoriginal? Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(3): 197-222
Brief, A.P., Aldag, R.J., 1977. The intrinsic–extrinsic dichotomy: toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review 2 (3), 496.
Brockner, J. & Vasta, R. (1981). Do causal attributions mediate the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic interests'' Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 201-209.
Bryant, S., Murthy, U., & Wheeler, P. (2009). The Effects of Cognitive Style and Feedback Type on Performance in an Internal Control Task. Behavioral Research In Accounting, 21(1), 37-58.
Burroughs, J., Dahl, D., Moreau, C., Chattopadhyay, A., & Gorn, G. (2011). Facilitating and Rewarding Creativity During New Product Development. Journal Of Marketing, 75(4), 53-67.
Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 273–281.
Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition, 36, 604 – 616. Cameron, J. W., Pierce, D, (2002) Rewards and intrinsic motivation: resolving the controversy.
Bergin & Garvey.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press.
Conti, R., Collins, M. A., & Picariello, M. L. (2001). The impact of competition on intrinsic motivation and creativity: considering gender, gender segregation and gender role orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1237-1289.
Davidson, T., De Stobbeleir, K. 2011. "Shaping environments conducive to creativity: the role of feedback, autonomy, and self-concordance." Academy Of Management Annual Meeting
Proceedings 1-6.
[34]
De Dreu, C. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic Tone and Activation Level in the Mood-Creativity Link: Toward a Dual Pathway to Creativity Model.Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology 94, no. 5: 739-756.
De Vries, R. M. & Huisman, M. (2007). Regressieanalyse: Assumpties.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. & Koestner, R. (1999). A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125(6), 627
DeNisi, A. S.,& Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14, 129–139.
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035–1056.
Dewall, C., Baumeister, R., Gailliot, M., & Maner, J. (2008). Depletion makes the heart grow less helpful: helping as a function of self-regulatory energy and genetic relatedness. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1653-1662.
Dijksterhuis, A., & Meurs, T. (2006). Where creativity resides: The generative power of unconscious thought. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 135–146.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Edwards, J.R., & Lambert, L.S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22
Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99, 248–267.
Eisenberger, J. (1999). How Individualism- Collectivism Moderates the Effects of Rewards on Creativity and Innovation: A comparative review of Practices in Japan and the US. Creativity & Innovation Management, 8(4)251
[35]
Eisenberger, R., Mitchell, M., McDermitt, M., & Masterson, F. A. (1984). Accuracy versus speed in the generalized effort of learning-disabled children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42(1), 19-36.
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental Effects of Reward on Creativity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81(4), 728-741.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 2(4), 290 Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation Crowding Theory. Journal Of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589.
Goncalo, J. A., & Duguid, M. M. (2008). Hidden consequences of the group-serving bias: Causal attributions and the quality of group decision making. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 219-233.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation And
Emotion, 24 (3), 121-129
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Guzzo, R. A. (1979). Types of Rewards, Cognitions, And Work Motivation. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 75-86.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review Of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Hennessey B. A. & Amabile T. M. (1998). Reality, intrinsic motivation and creativity. American Psychology. 53: 674–75.
Herold, D. M., M. M. Greller. (1977), Feedback: Definition of a construct. Academic Management Journal. 20: 142–147.
James, H. r. (2005). Why Did You Do That? An Economic Examination of the Effect of
Extrinsic Compensation on Intrinsic Motivation and Performance. Journal Of Economic Psychology, 26 (4), 549-566.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4/5), 499.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
[36]
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback Interventions: Toward the Understanding of a Double- Edged Sword. Current Directions In Psychological Science
Blackwell), 7(3), 67-72.
Kulhavy, R. W., & Wager, W. (1993). Feedback in programmed instruction: Historical context and implications for practice. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.),
Interactive instruction and feedback (3–20). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Naffziger, D. W. (1997). An Examination of Owner's Goals in Sustaining Entrepreneurship. Journal Of Small Business Management, 35(1), 24-33.
Latting, J. (1992). Giving Corrective Feedback: A Decisional Analysis. Social Work, 37(5), 424- 430.
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future. Journal Of Management, 30(6), 881-905
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Love, E. G., Love, D. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2010). Is the end in sight? Student regulation of in- class and extra-credit effort in response to performance feedback. Academy of Management Learning and Education 9, 81–97.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. 2002. There‘s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees‘ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 757–767.
Martins, E.C. & Terblanche, F. (2003), ―Building organizational culture that stimulates
creativity and innovation‖, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-74.
Marsh, R. L., Ward, T. B., & Landau, J. D. (1999). The inadvertent use of prior knowledge in a generative cognitive task. Memory & Cognition, 27, 94–105.
Mikulincer, M. (1994). Human learned helplessness: A coping perspective. New York, NY US: Plenum Press.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 27–43.
[37]
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–104. Northcraft, G. B., Schmidt, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2011). Feedback and the Rationing of Time and Effort Among Competing Tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1076-1086.
Oldham, G. R. 2002. Stimulating and supporting creativity in organizations. In S. Jackson, M. Hitt, & DeNisi (Eds.), Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage: 243– 273. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner.
Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 3– 8.
Pittman, T S ,& Pittman, N L (1980) Deprivation of control and the attnbution process Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3 9, 377-389
Preacher, K.J & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior research methods, instruments & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc, 36(4), 717-731.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., & Hayes, A.F. (2007). Addressing mediated moderation
hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.
Rietzschel, E., De Dreu, C., & Nijstad, B. (2007). Personal need for structure and creative performance: the moderating influence of fear of invalidity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 855-866.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 657-687.
Robbins, S. P. 1996. Organizational Behavior, 7th Edition, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Sansone, C. (1986). A question of competence: The effects of competence and task feedback on intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 918-931. Sassenberg, K., Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2005). When creative means different: Activating creativity as a strategy to initiate the generation of original ideas. Manuscript under review.
