Paradoxical self-construal and
Creativity
The role of activated positive mood
Master Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
Creativity is regarded as a key factor to organizational success and survival. To stay competitive, organizations must foster conditions that motivate individuals to develop novel and useful solutions. Researchers recognize the importance of balancing the two dimensions of creativity, however little attention has been paid on how this so-called paradox can be managed. This study examines the effects of paradoxical self-construal on creativity. This study aims to answer this relation by investigating how a paradoxical self-construal motivates individuals in ways that foster both novelty and appropriateness. Since reaching a paradoxical state is complex and demanding, we argue that a positive activating mood moderates this effect on creativity. Two experiments were conducted. We found no significant results on our hypothesis, but did find some interesting results. Implications and limitations are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Organizations operate in increasingly complex and uncertain environments. To succeed in these rapidly changing environments, organizations require their employees to think creatively and integrate conflicting demands to solve complex problems (Miron-Spektor, Gino & Argote, 2011). Creativity, defined as solutions or products that are both novel and appropriate, is essential for organizational and personal success (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks & Lee, 2008). In this study, novelty refers to the degree in which the idea or product is uncommon, statistically infrequent and original, and appropriateness refers to the degree in which the idea or product fits the problem, makes sense and serves its goal (Amabile, 1996). Creativity is regarded as a key factor to organizational success and survival (Amabile, 1996; George & Zhou, 2002; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Zhou & Shalley, 2008). To stay competitive, organizations must foster conditions that motivate individuals to develop novel and appropriate solutions (Amabile, 1983). The history of creativity research is broad; many studies have been performed to explore the concept and to explore what factors promote/inhibit creativity.
Researchers recognize the importance of balancing the two dimensions of creativity, however little attention has been paid on how this so-called paradox can be managed (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Smith & Lewis, 2011). An important question is how can individuals reach a state where they can develop ideas and solutions that are both novel and appropriate? Research on how and when these components are present at the same time remain sparse (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Smith & Lewis, 2011). This study aims to answer these questions by investigating how a paradoxical self-construal motivates individuals in ways that foster both the novelty and usefulness component of creativity and how an activated positive mood moderates this effect.
To facilitate the integration of the conflicting demands of creativity, individuals should adopt paradoxical frames. Throughout this paper, we define paradox with the definition of Miron-Spektor, Gino & Argote (2011: 229): “mental templates individuals use to embrace seemingly
contradictory statements or dimensions of a task or situation. When embracing the paradox, individuals recognize the contradictions inherent in the dimensions or statements, yet understand their potential relationship as complementary or reinforcing.” If a paradoxical
Based on the self-construal theory (Markus, & Kitayama, 1991) and mood-creativity literature (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Davis, 2009; George & Zhou, 2002, 2007; Kaufmann, 2003), we propose that a paradoxical self-construal (that emphasizes independence and interdependence of the self at the same time) has the potential to manage the conflicting dimensions of creativity. We define paradoxical self-construal as the extent to which individuals simultaneously see themselves as both independent of others and interdependent of others. Individuals hold a paradoxical self-construal when their two self-construals are important to the overall self-concept. Thus, cognitions, motivations, and behaviors related to two self-construals are simultaneously accessible. Although some research has proposed that the coexistence of two self-construals can be beneficial when individuals have to adapt to different norms (Singelis, 1994), limited empirical research has been conducted to understand the antecedents and consequences of paradoxical self-construal.
positively cope with the challenges raised by competing demands of novelty and appropriateness because activated positive mood will enhance individuals’ cognitive flexibility, so that they can handle conflicting demands from novelty and appropriateness more easily. In contrast, low activated positive mood lacks such an effect. Thus, we propose that the link between paradoxical self-construe and creativity is more positive when activated positive mood is high rather than low. To test our model, we use the following conceptual model as shown in figure 1.
The following section will elaborate more on the definitions that we use in this study and the relationships between them to answer our research question. Followed by the method section where we will explain how our research will be measured and analysed.
THEORY SECTION AND HYPOTHESIS Self-Construal
We start this section by describing the basic definition of self-construal. Markus and Kitayama (1991) first introduced the term self-construal by describing the ways different cultures define the self. The authors identified two such self-construals; independent and interdependent self-construal which refers to how individuals define and make meaning of the self.
The differences between the self-construals can be best described by an example. Markus and Kitayama (1991) proposed that Europeans and Americans construe the self as fundamentally individual and separate from others, and they labelled this the independent self-construal. For persons with high independent self-construal, references to the self are internal traits that are stable across situations (e.g., outgoing, shy, intelligent, ambitious) or that set one apart from others (e.g., especially creative, a straight-A student). The opposite self-construal pointed out that Japanese tend to construe the self as fundamentally connected to others and defined by relationships with others, which they labelled the interdependent self-construal. For persons with high interdependent self-construe, references to the self are bound to important
relationships (e.g., daughter, friend, co-worker) or group memberships (fraternity member, Asian American).
Markus and Kitayama (1991) and others (e.g., Singelis, 1994; Triandis, 1989) have argued that individuals possess both independent construal and interdependent construal but that (cultural) context typically promotes the development of one or the other self-construal more strongly.
Below, we first elaborate on how paradoxical frames influence creativity followed by describing specifically how a paradoxical self-construal can lead to a higher creativity.
Paradoxical Self-Construal and Creativity
Since little research has been performed on paradoxical self-construal, our definition will be partly based on research performed on paradoxical frames. According to Smith & Tushman (2005), paradoxical frames provide individuals with a structure of assumptions and boundaries that influence the way they make sense of a situation, seek information, and make decisions. Instead of thinking “either/or”, paradoxical frames stimulate “both/and” thinking that can result in the discovery of opposing forces and the generation of new ideas, that was not possible without this frame (Lewis, 2000; Luscher & Lewis, 2008). These elements are defined as differentiation and integration. Differentiation entails the recognition of contradictions and clarifying the distinctions, whereas integration refers to the ability of individuals to identify linkages between these distinctions (Smith & Tushman, 2005). High levels of differentiation and integration means that an individual is able to place contradictory elements next to each other, understand their sources, and search for ways to merge them (Tetlock, Armor, & Peterson, 1994). Thus, we propose that individuals who adopt a paradoxical self-construal will understand the tension between the opposing elements, yet understands that combining these elements will lead to new solutions (Gebert, Boerner & Kearney, 2010; Lewis, 2000). These frames may be especially effective in creative tasks. As mentioned before, creativity is generally defined as the generation of novel and appropriate ideas or solutions (Amabile, 1983; Amabile 1996). The available cognitive elements that individuals bring to the process will guide them in creating novel and appropriate ideas (Finke, Ward & Smith, 1992).
of self, accumulated research has suggested that individuals within each culture are able to see themselves as more or less independent (or interdependent) according to certain situational cues (Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999; Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). From a functional perspective, simultaneously possessing two conflicting, distinct self-construals can be superior over a dominant construal when cognitions, motivations, and behaviours related to both self-construals are both important for successful task completion. In the domain of creativity, which requires individuals to be novel and appropriate simultaneously, a paradoxical self-construal can be particularly beneficial for achieving higher overall creativity than a non-paradoxical self-construal. Specifically, individuals who adopt an independent self-construal may achieve high novelty, but independence may decrease the chance that their ideas will be valued and accepted by others. Contrastingly, individuals may benefit from an interdependent self-construal to generate ideas that are favoured by others, but this may go at the expense of novelty.
By possessing the contradictory and distinct self-construals, individuals can reinforce the reconciliation of elements that are assumed to be contradictory. Goldenberg, Mazursky, & Solomon (1999) showed that when individuals activate uncommon mental templates, they channel the ideation process and thus enhance the novelty and appropriateness of generated ideas. In a similar vein, we suggest that a paradoxical self-construe channels an individuals’ creativity and encourages them to integrate the opposing elements into new ideas. Specifically, we propose that individuals that possess a paradoxical self-construal are more likely to generate ideas that are both novel and appropriate than individuals that adopt only one self-construal. Thus, we propose that:
H1: Paradoxical self-construal is positively related to overall creativity (as a combination of novelty and appropriateness).
We suspect, however, that the relationship between paradoxical self-construal and creativity is contingent on an individual’s activated positive mood. The motivational momentum arising from paradoxical self-construal does not necessarily lead to superior creative performance if individuals lack the cognitive flexibility to achieve a paradoxical state. In the next paragraph, we will explain mood states and argue why a higher activated positive mood will moderate our main effect.
Mood states
sadness, and depression). In addition to that, positive and negative moods can differ in the extent to which they activate or deactivate (Barett & Russell, 1998; Gray, 1982; Green, Goldman & Salovey, 1993; Posner, Russell, & Peterson, 2005; Thayer, 1989; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Mood states can be positive and activating (happy, elated), whereas others are positive and deactivating (calm, relaxed). Likewise, mood states can be negative in tone and activating (angry, fearful), whereas others are negative and deactivating (sad, depressed).
To elaborate our moderating effect, we use the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model (DPCM) to explain how an activated positive mood will strengthen the effect of paradoxical self-construal on creativity. According to the DPCM (Baas et al., 2008; De Dreu et al., 2008; Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel, & Baas, 2010), creativity can be achieved through (a) cognitive flexibility (flexible processing of information), (b) persistence, and (c) a combination of cognitive flexibility and persistence.
Whether mood states are activating or deactivating may have important effects on cognitive flexibility. An individual’s capacity for complex thinking is higher as activation increases. (Carnevale & Probst, 1998; Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981; Broadbent, 1972; Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). Thus, activating moods are more likely than deactivating mood states to increase cognitive flexibility. Apart from a simple motivating effect of activation, the above indicates that activating mood states come together with greater working memory capacity. Working memory capacity is often taken as a condition for cognitive flexibility, abstract thinking, strategic planning, processing speed, access to long-term memory, and sentience (Baddeley, 2000; Damasio, 2001; Dietrich, 2004). In terms of the DPCM, it thus appears that both for the cognitive flexibility route and for the persistence route, working memory capacity is required and beneficial. Activating rather than deactivating moods increase working memory capacity, thereby facilitating cognitive flexibility and restructuring, as well as more deliberate, analytical, and focused processing and combining of information. Referring to mood valence, a study by Ashby, Isen & Turken (1999) proposed that a positive mood allows individuals to be inclusive in their thinking, to switch cognitive categories, and to explore uncommon perspectives; which will also lead to an increase in an individuals’ cognitive flexibility.
effect of paradoxical self-construal on creativity. Specifically, we propose that a higher positive activating mood leads to a higher cognitive ability to focus on the competing demands of a paradoxical self-construal, which will strengthen the effect of a paradoxical self-construal on creativity.
H2: Positive activated moderates the relationship between paradoxical self-construal and creativity. The link between paradoxical self-construal and creativity is more positive when positive activated mood is high rather than low.
METHODS AND RESULTS Study 1 and 2
For this study, two different experiments were conducted which will be referred to as Study 1 and Study 2. With Study 1, we test whether interdependent self-construal promotes feasibility/appropriateness while independent self-construal promotes novelty/originality. Besides, we aim to test whether manipulating both self-construals will result in higher novelty and appropriateness than single dominant self-construals. Moreover, we attempt to examine whether activated positive mood moderates the effects of self-construal on creativity. To achieve these goals, paradoxical self-construal was manipulated with a story-writing task and creativity was measured with an idea generation. With Study 2, we further examined the effects of the dimensions (differentiation and integration) of paradoxical self-construal on creativity. In Study 2, we also manipulated self-construal with a story-writing task. We measured creativity by asking the participants to design a product with given craft items. The questions were asked in English and the participants had to be university or international students to assure that the participants would understand the language properly.
Study 1
Sample and participants
To test our hypothesis, we collected data from university students. The participants enrolled in the study for either four euros or two course credits. For this research 245 participants (N = 245) enrolled. After the manipulation check was performed manually1, and because of the complex manipulation, 65 participants were removed from the study. From which twenty participants who did not finish the manipulation task, thirty participants who misunderstood the manipulation task, four participants who had no input in the writing task, one participant who got a computer error, one participant who finished within thirty minutes, four participants who took longer than ninety minutes, and five participants who generated zero
ideas. The valid participants (N = 185) consisted of 48,6% male (N = 90), and 51,4% female (N = 95) with an average age of 21.62 years (SD = 2.67). The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions (Table 2, Appendix A), being interdependent self-construal (N = 47), independent self-self-construal (N = 50), paradoxical self-self-construal (N = 32) and a control condition (N = 57). The study consisted of scales, a writing task (manipulation), an idea selection task, an idea generation task, a manipulation check, and demographic questions (Table 1, Appendix A). The study was conducted together with another unrelated experiment, which followed immediately after this study and took about one hour in total. The study was performed anonymously and participation was voluntary to protect confidentiality.
Manipulation and procedure
After arrival in the laboratory, the participants were asked to read and sign a consent form. Afterwards, each participant was seated in a cubicle in front of a computer. All instructions, and the experiment were given on the computer. The participants were asked to fill in some personality questions about how they think and act in general. Next, the participant’s mood was measured with the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson et al., 1988). Afterwards, they were asked to perform a story-writing task to manipulate their self-construal. This manipulation task was adopted from Trafimow, Triandis, and Goto (1991). Table 2 (Appendix A) shows a part of the descriptions that was shown to the participants for every condition. Afterwards, the idea generation task followed which will be explained in the next section. And finally, demographical questions were asked and the participants were thanked, paid and debriefed.
Measures
Creativity. To measure the participants’ creativity, an idea generation task was used. We
scores across all non-redundant ideas. The next measurement of creativity is appropriateness, which was measured by rating each unique idea on a scale of 1-5. Ideas that are rated with 1 are not feasible and impossible to realize (time machine), and ideas that are rated with 5 are very feasible and easy to implement (container). The ideas were rated by two persons and eventually combined after a reliability analysis was performed on the ratings. The ICC (intra-ratter agreement) is .90. Eventually, the mean of both ratings is taken and used as the appropriateness measurement. And finally, to get a creativity score we multiplied originality with appropriateness.
Positive Activated Mood. To measure mood states, we adapted items from the Positive
Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson et al., 1988). The four adjectives measuring activating positive mood are “excited,” “enthusiastic,” “interested,” and “inspired” (α = .78). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they are feeling each adjective in connection with their current task using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (1 = strongly disagree), to 7 (7 = strongly agree).
Control variables. For this study, we used “gender”, “age”, and “country of origin” as
control variables. Besides these variables, we asked the participants if they have lived in another country for longer than six months and subsequently we asked to specify how long they have lived abroad. This information is relevant because cross-cultural experiences might affect self-construal personality and their creativity (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Tsai, 2013).
Results Study 1
Descriptive Statistics. Table 3 (Appendix A) displays the means, standard deviations
and correlations among main measures. The correlation matrix showed that gender was significantly correlated with originality (r = -.19, p < .01) and creativity (r = -.17, p < .05), which means that males are more original and creative than females. The table also shows that originality was significantly and negatively correlated with appropriateness (r = -.32, p = < .001), and that creativity was significantly and positively correlated with originality (r = .71, p < .001) and appropriateness (r = .43, p < .001). No correlations were found between the manipulation condition and creativity dimensions.
One-Way ANOVA. Table 4 (Appendix A) displays the means and standard deviations
showed no significant differences between the conditions. Thus, we can reject hypothesis 1. Figures 1, 2 and 3 (Appendix B) show a graphical representation of the means.
Moderator. Hypothesis 2 predicted that a positive activated mood moderates the
relationship between paradoxical self-construal and creativity, where the link between paradoxical self-construal and creativity is more positive when positive activated mood is high rather than low. We controlled gender when taking novelty and creativity as an outcome since gender negatively correlated with these variables. Table 5 (Appendix A) shows the outcomes of the regression. We found no significant evidence for our moderation effect.
Study 2
Sample and participants
The second study was similar to the first study. Differences in the execution will be
mentioned in this section. To measure creativity, the participants were asked to design a product and the best five products that are both novel and appropriate would be rewarded an extra twenty euros on top of the money or research points that they have already received for participation. For this research 187 participants (N = 187) enrolled. After the manipulation check was performed manually, 38 participants were removed from the study from which thirty participants misunderstood the manipulation task, five participants who did not design a product, two participants who did not follow the product design instructions (for example, using other materials than was allowed), and finally one participant was deleted who took longer than ninety minutes to finish the study. The valid participants (N = 149) consisted of 43.6% male (N = 65), and 56.4% female (N = 84) with an average age of 22.21 years (SD = 2.51). The participants were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions based on differentiation and integration (Table 7, Appendix A). The study consisted of scales, a writing task (manipulation), a product design task, and demographic questions (Table 6, Appendix A). The study was conducted together with another unrelated experiment, which followed immediately after this study and took about one hour in total. The study was performed anonymously and participation was voluntary to protect confidentiality.
Manipulation and procedure
for every condition. Next, the participants were asked to design a product which will be explained in the next section. Finally, the participants were debriefed, paid and thanked. Measures
Creativity. To measure the participants’ creativity, the participants were asked to design
a decoration object that can be hung on the wall at home or at the office. The participants had fifteen minutes to complete this task. The next description was shown: “The developed object
should be novel, meaning as unique as possible, and appropriate, meaning that people would value, appreciate and use it as decoration at home or in the office.” Every cubicle had a small
box located under their desk which was covered with a cloth. The participants were only allowed to use materials for their decorations that were inside the box2. Every participant got a full set of not-used items. To measure the creativity of all the products (N = 149), a set of pictures was taken of the product directly after the participant completed the study. Two independent judges, blind to the experimental conditions, rated the products based on eight items that were divided into two different categories. This scale was adopted from Miron-Spektor and Beenen (2015). Novelty was measured with 4 items, which specified the uniqueness, novel use of materials, and variation of materials used for every product. The ICC of the novelty items was .76 (α = .71). Appropriateness was also measured with 4 items, which captured to what degree the product could be displayed at home or in the office, the neatness, and the overall aesthetic appeal of the product. The ICC of the appropriateness items was .74 (α = .84). The means of the ratings represented the score for every product.
Positive Activated Mood. Positive activated mood was measured using the same scale
as in Study 1 (α = .86).
Control Variables. In this study, we also used “gender”, “age”, and “country of origin”
as control variables. Besides these variables, we asked the participants if they have lived in another country for longer than six months and subsequently we asked to specify how long they have lived abroad. This information was relevant to see whether gender, age, country (culture), having lived in another country or someone’s self-construal personality could influence their creativity.
2 The content of every box was: 1 pair of scissors, 1 full roll of double-sided tape, 1 full roll of transparent sticky
Polychronicity was measured intentionally with four items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree). A sample item is “I like to juggle several activities at
the same time.” Item 2 and 4 were reverse-coded. This measurement was adopted from
Kaufman-Scarborough & Lindquis (1999) and measured to what extent people like to conduct several activities at the same time. To increase reliability (Cronbach’s α was .64) item 3 was deleted. (Cronbach’s α = .67).
Results Study 2
Descriptive Statistics. Table 8 (Appendix A) displays the means, standard deviations
and correlations among main measures. The correlation showed that gender significantly correlates with appropriateness (r = .22, p < .01), which means that females create more appropriate ideas than men. Country of origin significantly correlates with novelty (r = -.16, p < .05) and creativity (r = -.18, p < .05). Novelty and appropriateness significantly and positively correlate with each other (r = .44, p < .01), which contradicts the negative correlation of the first study. Creativity significantly and positively correlates with novelty (r = .81, p < .01) and appropriateness (r = .87, p < .01), and finally polychronicity significantly and positively correlates with novelty (r = .17, p < .05), which means that people who like to or believe that individuals should work on several projects at a time are more novel than others. Since the conditions did not correlate with any of the creativity dimensions, we can say that there is no direct effect of self-construal on creativity.
One-Way Anova. Table 9 (Appendix A) displays the means and standard deviations of
study variables by condition. ANOVA tests revealed that the experimental manipulation had no significant effect on novelty (F5,143 = .85, p = .52), appropriateness (F5,143 = .97, p = .44), and creativity (F5,143 = 1.21, p = .31). The Hochberg post-hoc test also showed no significant differences within the conditions. Thus, we can reject hypothesis 1. Figures 4, 5 and 6 (Appendix B) show a graphical representation of the means.
Moderator. To test if positive activated mood moderated the effects of paradoxical
self-construal on creativity (hypothesis 2), we used the same method as in the first study. Results (table 10, Appendix A) showed no significant moderating effect. Thus, we can reject hypothesis 2.
DISCUSSION
would have on this relation. Moreover, we hypothesized that people with a paradoxical self-construal would embrace the conflicting demands of creativity and be more creative than people who possess only the interdependent or independent self-construal. People who are primed with paradoxical self-construal are able to facilitate the integration of the conflicting demands of creativity. Thus, people who adopt paradoxical frames should score higher on both originality and appropriateness. As being paradoxical is very challenging for cognitive and motivational resources, we also hypothesised that the relationship between paradoxical self-construal and creativity is moderated by mood. A person with a high activated positive mood will be able to cope with the challenges that are raised by a paradoxical frame more easily, because of enhanced cognitive flexibility. To test our hypothesis, we conducted two different studies. The studies manipulated the participants’ self-construal and measured the effect on creativity. The second study further examined the effects of the dimensions (differentiation and integration) of paradoxical self-construal on creativity. In this section, we will display and discuss our main findings, discuss its theoretical and practical implications followed by the limitations of this research, and finally provide some suggestions for future research.
Despite our arguments, a paradoxical self-construal did not significantly improve novelty, appropriateness nor creativity (creativity was operationalized by multiplying novelty and appropriateness). Results only showed a higher mean of paradoxical self-construal on creativity in the first study (figure 3, Appendix B). Our second study identified the paradoxical state in greater depth. However, the dimensions of paradoxicality also showed no significant effect on creativity. One possible explanation might be that the complex manipulation was not strong enough to produce a direct effect on creativity. These findings might be in line with prior creativity research (e.g., Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996), which suggests that people are more creative when focusing on only one creativity dimension than when focusing on both. Also, we did not find any moderating interaction effects of positive activating mood on creativity.
could examine the effects of cross-gender teams on the individual dimensions of creativity. Based on these findings managers can focus on gender compositions when assigning individuals to teams to generate both novel and appropriate ideas.
Next, we found competing results about the correlation of appropriateness and originality in the first and second study. We might relate this finding to the different creativity measures that we have used for our studies. We think that task context can influence how individuals respond to originality and appropriateness. Where our first study motivates people to focus on originality, the second study motivates people to focus on both. Our second conclusion would then be that different creative tasks pose different level of paradoxical demands on individuals. For instance, individuals tend to have more unbalanced responses to pure idea generation tasks than designing a real project that can be used in daily life. This implies that future research should examine where these differences come from and which method is best to describe an individuals’ creativity. In their study, Shelley and colleagues (2004) examined the effects of contextual characteristics on creativity and found that several contextual characteristics have consistent, significant effects on individuals’ creativity. However, no detailed research has been done on the task context, such as what effect task descriptions and goals (e.g. ideas, product) can have on the elements of creativity. We encourage future researchers to further examine the influence of task description on creativity.
In our second study, we also found that country of origin is correlated to novelty and creativity, which is in line with previous literature (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Tsai, 2013). To further examine this, we divided the countries into sub-regions, but we found no significant relation with region and creativity. Based on this, our third conclusion is that an individuals’ originality or overall creativity depends on the individuals’ country of origin. Where many researchers have studied the effects of culture and creativity (e.g., Moran & John-Steiner, 2003; Moran, 2010; Garrison, 1995), future research could further dig into this in relation to paradoxical frames, and find which countries effect creativity, and how these countries are related to each other. This implies that cross-cultural teams could enhance creativity in business environments.
focus on the different dimensions of creativity. Thus, our final conclusion would be that individuals that like to work on different tasks simultaneously are more able to think original than others. This implies that organizations which are operating in a competing environment and need innovation could benefit from teams that are capable of working on several projects simultaneously.
The main contributions of our research are the insights that we add to the creativity literature by introducing the importance of adopting a paradoxical self-construal to increase creativity. Prior studies have identified numerous variables that significantly enhance or deteriorate creativity. Here we introduced a new variable, namely paradoxical self-construal. Unlike previous work, we focused on how defining an individual can influence creative performance. Besides, the conclusions that we derived from our study could contribute on a strategic level. Managers can use them as guidelines to change team compositions and innovation practices to create both novel and appropriate ideas or products.
There are several limitations to this study. First, the study results are obtained from university students, thus any generalization of the findings should be treated with caution. Second, the sample size varied among condition. Since we performed a complex manipulation, many of the acquired data in the paradoxical condition had to be removed due to misunderstanding. Future researchers are encouraged to use a larger sample size and check the manipulation carefully. Third, the creativity ratings from the second study are based on pictures that are taken of the product. These ratings are thus based on two-dimensional pictures, which means that many aspects of the product could have been overlooked. Fourth, participants were not able to give explanations for their developed product. So, the developers’ idea behind the product is not taken into consideration in the rating. Future researchers are encouraged to reserve space to keep the products and ask for participant notes. Fifth, this study investigated the relationship between a paradoxical self-construal and creativity in combination with positive activating mood. Since achieving a paradoxical state is complex and demanding, we argued that a positive activating mood might moderate this effect. Many other moderators might influence this complex effect (Tierney et al., 1999 and Zhou, 2003), thus we encourage researchers to explore which variables strengthen or weaken this relation.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby J., Herron M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1184–1554.
Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529 –550.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood– creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806.
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, 794-809.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417– 423.
Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 967–984.
Batey, M. & Furnham, A. 2006. Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 132(4): 355–429. 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, 622-637.
Broadbent, D. E. (1972). Decision and stress. New York: Academic Press.
Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1300 –1309. Cheng, C. Y., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Connecting the dots within: Creative performance and identity integration. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1178-1184.
Damasio, A. R. (2001). Some notes on brain, imagination, and creativity. In K. Pfenninger & V. R. Shubik (Eds.), The origins of creativity (pp. 59 – 68). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Davis, M. A. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 25–38.
De Dreu, C. K. 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 and Social Psychology, 94(5), 739-756.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
Förster, J., & Dannenberg, L. (2010). GLOMOsys: A systems account of global versus local processing. Psychological Inquiry, 21(3), 175-197.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden thought-action repertoires: Evidence for the broaden-and-build model.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(6), 1001.
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.
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, 321-326.
Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 716-740.
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21(3), 593–608.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity and feeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687– 697.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contribution of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605– 622.
Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. (2010). First get your feet wet: When and why prior experience fosters team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 111, 102–115.
Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: A channeled ideation approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 200–210.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.
Gray, J. A. (1982). Precis of the neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 469 –534.
Green, D. P., Goldman, S. L., & Salovey, P. (1993). Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1029 –1041.
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451– 470.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.
Isen, A. (1999a). On the relationship between affect and creative problem solving. In S. W. Russ (Ed.), Affect, creative experience, and psychological adjustment (pp. 3–18). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Isen, A. M. (1999b). Positive affect. In T. Dagleish & M. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 521–539). New York, NY: Wiley.
Kaufmann, G. (2003). The effect of mood on creativity in the innovative process. In L.. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 191–203). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
Kaufman-Scarborough, C., & Lindquist, J. D. (1999). Time management and polychronicity: Comparisons, contrasts, and insights for the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(3/4), 288-312.
Kayaalp, A. (2014). The octopus approach in time management: Polychronicity and creativity. Military Psychology, 26(2), 67.
Kremer, S., & Erez, M. (2007). Goal specificity, personality and dual creativity and efficiency task performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122-1134.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.
Littleton, K., Wood, C. P., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). International handbook of psychology in education. Emerald Group Publishing.
Luscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success?. Psychological bulletin, 131(6), 803.
Madjar, N., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). Task rotation and polychronicity: Effects on individuals' creativity. Human Performance, 19(2), 117-131.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229-240.
Moran, S., John-Steiner, V., & Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Creativity in the making. Creativity and development, 61-90.
Murray, N., Sujan, H., Hirt, E. R., & Sujan, M. (1990). The influence of mood on categorization: A cognitive flexibility interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(3), 411. Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 34-77.
Poole, M. S., & Ven, van de, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578.
Posner, J., Russell, J. A., & Peterson, B. S. (2005). The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 715–734.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 489–505.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933– 958.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W., (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. (2005). Senior teams and managing contradictions: On the team dynamics of managing exploitation and exploration. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524.
Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., & Berry, J. M. (1993). Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 500.
Thayer, R. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and arousal. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148. Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel psychology, 52(3), 591-620.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
Tsai, K. C. 2013. Examining Gender differences in Creativity. The International Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1): 115–122.
Wang, Yuhao, Yuan, Qinghua, & Xu, Qinmei (2008). The preliminary trial of Chinese ver- sion of self-construal scale. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16, 602–604.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459 – 482.
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of applied psychology, 88(3), 413.
APPENDIX A. Tables
TABLE 1
Questionnaire elements Study 1 1. Introduction
2. Personality Questions 3. Mood Questions
4. Writing Task (Manipulation 5. Idea Generation Task 6. Manipulation Check 7. Demographic Questions 8. End
TABLE 2 Conditions Study 1
Condition Name Description N
1 Interdependent Self-Construal (…) recall a situation in which it was
good for you to fit in (…) why in general fitting in is a good thing.
47
2 Independent Self-Construal (…) recall a situation in which it was
good for you to stand out (…).
50
3 Paradoxical Self-Construal (…) recall a situation in which it was
good for you to both fit in (…) and stand out (…).
32
4 Control (…) recall a situation where you had to
write an action plan (…)
TABLE 4
Means (and standard deviations) of main measures by condition
Condition 1. Interdependent 2. Independent 3. Paradoxical 4. Control ANOVA testing the effect of conditions on research variables
Research Variable Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F (df) p
Originality .79 (.07) .80 (.08) .82 (.08) .80 (.09) .61 (3,176) .61
Appropriateness 4.58 (.36) 4.50 (.44) 4.54 (.36) 4.55 (.30) .43 (3,176) .73
Creativity 3.61 (.34) 3.57 (.42) 3.69 (.42 3.62 (.44) .57 (3,176) .63
3 Appendix C shows how the countries were coded
TABLE 3
Descriptive statistics and correlations among the main measures
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Age 21.62 2.66 -
2. Gender 1.51 .50 .16* -
3. Country of origin3 111.96 33.82 -.20** -.13† -
4. Lived Abroad .59 .50 .12† -.02 -.02 -
5. Interdependent self-construal condition .25 .43 -.06 .15* .07 -.10 -
6. Independent self-construal condition .27 .44 -.08 -.09 .00 .06 -.35*** -
7. Paradoxical self-construal condition .18 .40 .06 -.04 .10 -.11 -.27** -.28** -
8. Originality .80 .08 -.09 -.19** -.02 .05 -.06 -.01 .10 -
9. Appropriateness 4.54 .36 .02 .01 -.04 .07 .06 -.07 -.01 -.32*** (.90) 10. Creativity (originality x appropriateness) 3.62 .41 -.07 -.17* -.06 .09 -.01 -.07 .09 .71*** .43*** -
11. Positive activating mood 5.18 .92 -.08 .02 .03 -.10 .10 .10 .09 -.05 .05 -.01 (.79)
Notes. N = 180. Reliability coefficients displayed along the diagonal. SC = Self-Construal
† p < .10.
4 Compared to the baseline condition (paradoxical self-construal)
TABLE 5
Regression Analysis Study 1
Conditions4
Originality Appropriateness Creativity
Interdependent Self-Construal Independent Self-Construal Control Interdependent Self-Construal Independent Self-Construal Control Interdependent Self-Construal Independent Self-Construal Control
B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) Gender -.03 (.01)* -.03 (.01)* -.03 (.01)* -.14 (.06)* -.15 (.07)* -.15 (.06)*
Interdependent Self-Construal -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) .04 (.09) .05 (.09) .04 (.09) -.08 (.09) -.07 (.09) -.07 (.09)
Independent Self-Construal -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.05 (.09) -.04 (.09) -.05 (.09) -.16 (.10) -.14 (.10) -.16 (.10)
Control -.03 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) .01 (.08) .02 (.08) .01 (.08) -.11 (.10) -.09 (.10) -.09 (.11)
Positive Activating Mood -.004 (.01) -.005 (.01) -.01 (.01) .02 (.03) .02 (.03) .02 (.03) .001 (.03) -.003 (.03) -.002 (.03)
Positive Activating Mood X Interdependent Self-Construal
.01 (.02) -.004 (.06) .03 (.06)
Positive Activating Mood X Independent Self-Construal
-.01 (.02) -.06 (.08) -.10 (.09)
TABLE 6
Questionnaire elements Study 2 1. Introduction
2. Demographic Questions 3. Personality Questions 4. Mood Questions
5. Writing Task (Manipulation) 6. Product Design Task
7. End
TABLE 7 Conditions Study 2
Condition Diversification Integration Stand Out/Fit In Description N 1 LOW LOW STAND OUT The participants were asked to recall a situation
where it was good for them to stand out in a group, and write down why in general behaving in that way is a good thing.
22
2 LOW LOW FIT IN The participants were asked to recall a situation where it was good for them to fit in in a group, and write down why in general behaving in that way is a good thing.
28
3 HIGH LOW The participants were asked to recall a situation
in which they felt the tension/conflict between fitting in and standing out, and write down why in general fitting in and standing out in a group may result in tensions.
20
4 LOW HIGH The participants were asked to recall a situation
in which fitting in and standing out could be combined and they reinforced each other, and write down why in general fitting in and standing can be combined and they can reinforce each other.
26
5 HIGH HIGH The participants were asked to recall a situation
in which they felt the tension/conflict between fitting in and standing out, but found they can be combined and they reinforced each other, and write down why in general fitting in and standing can be combined, despite the tensions/conflicts between the two.
23
6 CONTROL The participants were asked to recall a situation
in which they decided to take a different path to work/school.
TABLE 8
Descriptive statistics and correlations among the main measures
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Age 22.21 2.51 - 2. Gender 1.56 .50 .05 - 3. Country of origin 102.85 37.02 -.31** -.09 - 4. Lived abroad .62 .49 .50** .10 -.37** - 5. Polychronicity 4.01 1.12 .07 .09 .03 .01 (.67) 6. LOW LOW STAND OUT condition .15 .36 .06 -.09 -.08 .01 -.07 -
7. LOW LOW FIT IN condition .19 .39 -.07 -.03 .11 -.02 -.07 -.20* -
8. HIGH LOW condition .13 .34 -.06 .07 .04 -.14 .11 -.16* -.19* - 9. LOW HIGH condition .17 .38 .06 .12 -.11 .10 -.10 -.19* -.22** -.18* - 10. Control condition .20 .40 -.01 -.07 .03 -.06 .01 -.21* -.24** -.20* -.23** -
11. Novelty 3.17 .67 .01 .03 -.16* .08 .17* .08 .02 -.03 .11 -.11 (.76) 12. Appropriateness 3.16 .83 .05 .22** -.14 .06 .01 .05 .15 -.06 -.04 -.02 .44** (.74) 13. Creativity (novelty x appropriateness) 10.26 3.98 .05 .15 -.18* .09 .10 .11 .12 -.06 .01 -.08 .81** .87** -
14. Positive activating mood 4.45 1.09 -.01 -.06 -.13 .02 .08 .11 -.06 -.03 -.11 .11 .01 .05 .04 (.86)
Notes. N = 180. Reliability coefficients displayed along the diagonal.
† p < .10.
TABLE 9
Means (and standard deviations) of main measures by condition.
Condition 1. LowLowSO 2. LowLowFI 3. HighLow 4. LowHigh 5. HighHigh 6. Control ANOVA testing the effect of conditions on research variables
Research Variable
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F (df) p
5 Compared to the baseline condition (HighHigh).
TABLE 10
Regression Analysis Study 2
Conditions5
Novelty Appropriateness
LowLowSO LowLowFI HighLow LowHigh Control LowLowSO LowLowFI HighLow LowHigh Control
B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)
Gender .38 (.15)** .38 (.15)* .39 (.14)** .38 (.14)** .38 (.14)** Country of Origin -.003 (.002)† -.003 (.002) -.003 (.002) -.003 (.002) -.003 (.002) Polychronicity .12 (.05)* .12 (.05)* .12 (.05)* .13 (.05)* .13 (.05)* LowLowSO .26 (.23) .31 (.21) .29 (.21) .39 (.21) .30 (.21) .26 (.28) .28 (.27) .28 (.27) .28 (.27) .29 (.27) LowLowFI .23 (.20) .25 (.19) .23 (.20) .23 (.20) .23 (.20) .46 (.25)† .46 (.25)† .46 (.25)† .46 (.25)† .46 (.25)† HighLow .09 (.21) .08 (.21) .08 (.21) .09 (.21) .09 (.21) .01 (.27) .01 (.27) .002 (.28) .01 (.27) .01 (.27) LowHigh .30 (.21) .30 (.20) .31 (.21) .31 (.22) .32 (.21) .01 (.23) .02 (.23) .02 (.23) .01 (.23) .01 (.23) Control .03 (.18) .03 (.18) .02 (.18) .02 (.18) .03 (.18) .15 (.24) .15 (.24) .15 (.23) .15 (.24) .13 (.24) Positive Activating Mood -.01 (.06) .003 (.06) -.02 (.06) -.01 (,06) -.01 (.06) .03 (.07) .03 (.07) .02 (.07) .03 (.07) .02 (.07)
P.A.M x LowLowSO .17 (.24) .11 (.19)
P.A.M x LowLowFI .27 (.17) .003 (.21)
P.A.M x HighLow -.10 (.16) -.13 (.23)
P.A.M x LowHigh -.03 (.17) -.04 (.16)
P.A.M x Control -.04 (.12) .13 (.20)
Notes. P.A.M = Positive Activating Mood
† p < .10.
6 Compared to the baseline condition (HighHigh)
Creativity
Conditions6 LowLowSO LowLowFI HighLow LowHigh Control
B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)
Gender Country of Origin -.02 (.01)† -.02 (.01)† -.02 (.01)† -.02 (.01)† -.02 (.01)† Polychronicity LowLowSO 1.85 (1.42) 2.14 (1.37) 2.07 (1.37) 2.05 (1.37) 2.10 (1.37) LowLowFI 2.25 (1.19)† 2.35 (1.20)† 2.27 (1.20)† 2.25 (1.20)† 2.25 (1.19)† HighLow .46 (1.06) .43 (1.21) .41 (1.23) .46 (1.22) .46 (1.21) LowHigh .75 (1.06) .76 (1.06) .81 (1.08) .72 (1.08) .76 (1.07) Control .58 (1.04) .56 (1.04) .51 (1.06) .50 (1.04) .44 (1.04)
Positive Activating Mood .09 (.34) .15 (.34) .07 (.32) .09 (.33) .06 (.33) Positive Activating Mood x LowLowSO 1.11 (1.22)
Positive Activating Mood x LowLowFI 1.07 (1.10)
Positive Activating Mood x HighLow -1.04 (.73)
Positive Activating Mood x LowHigh -.34 (.82)
Positive Activating Mood x Control .48 (.79)
† p < .10.
B. Figures
FIGURE 1, 2 and 3
Means of Originality, Appropriateness and Creativity per condition
FIGURE 4, 5 and 6
Means of Novelty, Appropriateness and Creativity per condition
C. Country Codes.
Albania 2 Moldova 197
Armenia 8 New Zealand 123
Australia 9 Oman 128 Azerbaijan 11 Peru 134 Bonaire 196 Philippines 135 Bulgaria 26 Poland 136 Canada 32 Portugal 137 China 36 Romania 141 Colombia 37 Russia 142 Curacao 196 Singapore 155
Czech Republic 45 Slovakia 156
France 61 South-Africa 160
Germany 65 South-Korea 139
Greece 67 Spain 162
Hong Kong 195 Sweden 167
Hungary 75 Taiwan 194
India 77 Thailand 171
Indonesia 78 The Netherlands 122
Ireland 81 Ukraine 181
Italy 83 United Kingdom 183
Latvia 93 United States of America 185
Lithuania 99 Vietnam 190
