THE ROLE OF POWER IN CREATIVE PROBLEM
CONSTRUCTION
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January 29, 2017
VALENTINA PLAIA
Student number: 3014878 Van Speykstraat 32 B,
9726BM Groningen, The Netherlands Phone: +31683389382
E-mail: v.plaia@student.rug.nl
Supervisor:
Prof. Dr. Onne Janssen, University of Groningen
“Creativity is the power to connect the seemingly unconnected” William Plomer
ABSTRACT
The understudied domain of problem construction has been defined as a key process for creative problem solving. The study tested whether power influences how individuals interpret ambiguous ill-defined situations. In an online experimental study, 150 participants were manipulated in their perceived level of power (high vs. low). Results suggest that attention to promotion cues and eagerness do not mediate the relationship between power and creativity of problem restatements, assessed in terms of fluency and originality. Conversely, the same relationship was not mediated by attention to prevention cues and vigilance. However, this study bears two remarkable findings, the first supports the common consensus on the positive relationship between personal sense of power and attention to promotion cues. Secondly, it provided empirical evidence on how participants’ attention to prevention cues is positively related to problem construction ability, measured in terms of fluency and originality.
1. INTRODUCTION
Evolution can be perceived as a process by which people adapt to the ever changing external rather than internal environment. Doing so by creating and solving problems (Gabora & Kaufman, 2010). Many researchers focused on the second aspect, how to solve a problem in a creative way, however it is not yet understood how creativity applies to the step preceding finding a solution: the problem formulation. What are the drivers of a creative problem formulation?
Creativity is wildly investigated, however probably its most important stage, where the problem is constructed and defined is still underexplored in scientific research (Unsworth, 2001).
Problem formulation, reaching the awareness of a problem and formulating it, can be the step that determines either the success or the failure of a solution. “There may be many reasons why problem generation is understudied. Perhaps problem generation is simply not noted very often – that is, it may not be commonly undertaken in organizations. Or perhaps a majority of people are not even aware of the concept” (Basadur & Basadur, p.32, 2011). The essence of solving ill-defined problems is structuring them by setting the goals and restating the problem in questions that can guide and ignite the generation of solutions. As individuals differ in the type of goals they set and pursue in achieving a situation, these goal-related differences may influence individuals in how they structure and set goals for ill-defined problems.
The research in the field of creativity of problem identification and construction has primarily focused its attention on personality variables such as ambiguity, flexibility, and openness (Mumford, 2000; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Additionally, Reiter-Palmon et al. (1998) found how problem identification and construction would predict the fit of a solution to the personality, goals and values of the problem solver. Although the research gave meaningful insight for researchers in the field of creativity, it is still ambiguous how specific personality differences, such as power, may be at play when considering the problem construction ability.
study the approach/inhibition theory of power and core features of regulatory focus theory will be used in order to analyze the role of power in creative problem construction. Specifically, this study aims to investigate whether high-power individuals will attend to potential rewards in the problem situation, whereas low-power individuals will attend to potential threats and punishments in the problem situation. Furthermore, based on the Regulatory Focus Theory I analyze how potential rewards or threats in a problematic situation are perceived by the problem solver, and whether those cues trigger the adoption of a specific regulatory focus state in individuals in high or low power. Finally the mediating role of the regulatory focus on creativity will be analyzed.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Power and Attention to Promotion and Prevention Cues
Thus, in line with this theory, powerful individual will be more likely to attend to promotion cues when exposed to an ill-defined problem situation as promotion cues signal the presence of potential rewards in the environment. Hence, the presence of promotion cues could then trigger approach-related moods and emotions, typically experienced by powerful people, more prone to act in a disinhibited fashion, they will tend to have a more automatic and simplistic way of reasoning in approaching and analyzing events (Gruenfeld et al., 2003). In the opposite scenario, there are the low-power individuals instead, trying to cope with a situation, they will try to avoid punishments, rather than negative outcomes, tending to attend to prevention cues instead. In line with the Approach-Inhibition theory, low-power individual will experience increased inhibition (Gruenfeld et al., 2003), as a typical feature of powerless individual is their limited access to resources, either material rather than social or cultural (Domhoff, 1998). This condition will make them more sensitive to the external environment (e.g., S. T. Fiske, 1993; Steele & Aronson, 1995), which they will perceive rather as a risky one. Their condition will require them to be constantly aware of social constraints, thus exhibit inhibition-related behaviors (Keltner, Gruenfeld et al., 2003). This will let them see the environment as a hostile place, full of threats, shaping the way they perceive and scan it, constantly on the alert for relevant cues for their main goals: prevention ones. Prevention cues, especially in an ill-defined problematic situation, signal the presence of potential threats in the environment. This means that compared to powerful individuals, powerless people will be more likely to pay attention to prevention cues – such as threats– present in the environment. Hence, the following hypotheses are presented:
Hypothesis 1a: Individuals high in power will pay more attention to promotion cues in an ill-structured problem situation than individuals low in power.
2.3 Promotion and Prevention Cues and Eagerness and Vigilance
Individuals tend to react to the environment using both approach and inhibition instincts, which are fundamental for the survival (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier, 2000; Elliot & Covington, 2001; Higgins, 1997). The Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997) offers us a clarification of these two instincts. According to this theory, which originated from the hedonistic principle, people are motivated to approach pleasure and avoid pain. Specifically, one’s behavioral preferences would be regulated by the regulatory focus, composed by both approach and inhibition systems, present at all times (Crowe & Higgins, 1997) influence our behavior by either stimulating approach related tendencies or, conversely, prevention ones. On the one hand there is the promotion focus, which emphasize one’s eagerness towards reaching a goal or a desired end state, by highlighting the possible gains, which would satisfy one’s need for achievement, growth and success, also at the cost of failing (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Wu, McMullen, Neubert & Yi, 2008). On the other, there is the need for security, which influences our behavior by emphasizing on possible losses, thus highlighting the importance of stability, duties and tells us to prevent failures, be vigilant in preventing mistakes and avoid risks. Both foci refer to the attempts of an individual to align his/her behaviors or moves with those necessary for reaching their desired - rather than avoiding their undesired - end state (Higgins, 1997; Kark and Van Dijk 2007).
when a person is exposed to prevention cues, a prevention focus will be developed. This will cause people to adopt prevention goals instead, triggering vigilance as a regulatory focus state, to avert negative outcomes, and prevent failure, losses. Hence, the following hypotheses are presented:
Hypothesis 2a: Attention to promotion cues is positively related to eagerness to pursue positive outcomes.
Hypothesis 2b: Attention to prevention cues is positively related to vigilance to avert negative outcomes.
2.4 Eagerness and Vigilance and Creativity in Problem Formulation
problem restatement, originality refers to a novel response, which was not structured by the stimulus context (Reiter-Palmon et al., 1997), while fluency is defined as the number of non-repetitive problem restatements. Fluency and Originality may be correlated (Diehll & Stroebe, 1987; Osborn, 1953), but it does not necessarily need to be. Fluency may be an expression of several perceptions of problems, but those problem definitions do not necessarily have novel or unordinary features (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008; Forster, Friedman & Lieberman, 2004). The higher originality and fluency, the higher the problem construction ability and thus, the creativity in a problem restatement.
promote originality and fluency in problem restatements. For complementary reasons, vigilance as a regulatory focus would favor repetition over novelty (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999), thus it would directly hinder fluency and originality of the problem restatements. Specifically, the following hypothesis are presented:
Hypothesis 3a: Eagerness is positively related to creativity in problem definition, indicated by higher originality of problem restatements, and higher quality of problem restatements.
Hypothesis 3b: Vigilance is negatively related to creativity in problem definition, indicated by the formulation of lower originality of problem restatement and lower quantity of problem restatements.
may be the key role in triggering the creative process, specifically its first step, problem formulation. Hence the main hypothesis is the following:
Hypothesis 4: The indirect and positive relationship between power and creativity (fluency and originality) in problem restatements is sequentially mediated by stronger attention to promotion and weaker attention to prevention cues (first-stage mediators) and stronger eagerness and weaker vigilance (second-stage mediators).
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data and sample
Participants and design. One hundred and fifty United States residents (with a high school diploma or higher, of whom 59.2% were male and 40.8 were female; Mage = 35.8, SDage = 10.4) were
recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk1. Participants were told that the study was investigating how individuals perceive complex and problematic events in daily life and how these events would be defined. They were compensated with $4 for their participation. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three power conditions (high-power vs. low-power vs. control group) of the between-subjects design. All participants who started the experiment also finished it. The design was balanced and participants were equally divided across the conditions.
Procedure. Before the questionnaire started, all participants read a general introduction about the questionnaire and the data privacy. After reading and agreeing (by clicking on ‘next’) the study started. One-third of the participants were primed with high-power (32.4%), one-third with a condition of low-power (31%) and the other third with a neutral “prime” for the control group (36.6%) as they had to describe what they did the previous day. After completing this power prime manipulation, participants were presented with an ill-defined problem (adapted from Mumford et al., 1996). After being exposed to this ill-defined problem, attention to either promotion or prevention cues was measured by letting participants select some words reflecting promotion or prevention cues in the problem situation. Following participants’ regulatory motivational inclination of eagerness and vigilance was measured.
In the scenario, participants were told that they, as students, were assigned to work on a team
project, worth 50% of their class grade. Nevertheless, a member of the same team skipped meetings showing no interest on the project. Furthermore, the participant was told that he had troubles in getting in touch with the problematic team member and that the project was due in two weeks.
In the last section of the experimental task, participants were required to restate the initial ill-defined problem reflecting varied levels of fluency and originality. Finally a demographic section was presented.
Power manipulation. The first task participants completed was the power manipulation, similar to the procedure used by Galinsky et al. (2003). Participants were asked to recall and write about a particular situation in their lives and were provided with an essay box of 300 words to complete this task.
Those participants assigned to the high-power condition were instructed,
Please recall a situation in which you had power over someone else (e.g. student, colleague, friend...) and you used this power to get that person to do what you want in order to get something valuable you wanted from that person.
Please write what happened in this situation, what you thought and did, and how you felt. Use approximately 150-200 words.
Those participants assigned to the low-power condition were instructed,
Please recall a situation in which someone else (e.g. student, colleague, friend...) had power over you and this person used this power to get you to do what he or she wanted or to get something valuable from you that he or she wanted.
Please write what happened in this situation, what you thought and did, and how you felt. Use approximately 150-200 words.
The control group was instead asked to recall the previous day.
Please describe in a few sentences how you spent your day yesterday. (e.g. Yesterday I did..., Yesterday I went...). Use approximately 150-200 words.
3.2 Measurements
First stage mediators: Attention to Promotion/Prevention Cues. Participants were asked to rate to which extent the 12 proposed words were representative of the situation (5 point scale, from extremely inappropriate (1) to extremely appropriate (5)). The words included prevention and promotion cues, randomly presented. Specifically, the six promotion words (α = .91) were: Progress, Success, Opportunity, Freedom, Advancement, Forward, whereas the six prevention words (α = .74) were: Failure, Stress, Burden, Threat, Backward, Danger.
Second stage mediators: Eagerness and Vigilance. Participants were asked to complete the regulatory focus questionnaire. The eagerness scale and the vigilance scale had 3 items each, specifically participants had to rate to which extent they would agree to the proposed approaches, using a 5 points scale, ranging from extremely disagree (1) to extremely agree (5). Furthermore, the eagerness items α = .747 (...I would enthusiastically embrace all opportunities; ...I would be eager to use all possible ways or means; ...I would be eager to take all necessary actions) and the vigilance items α = .663 (...I would be cautious about going down the wrong road; ...I would be concerned with making mistakes; ...I would be vigilant and play it safe) were randomly presented.
3.3 Checks
Manipulation check. Following participants were asked to indicate to which extent they perceived themselves as powerful individuals. The scale was a one-item scale, ranging from 1 (not powerful at all) to 5 (extremely powerful). Furthermore, participants were then probed for the manipulation. They had to indicate to which of the three manipulation condition they were assigned. Only 13 participants failed to indicate the correct prime (11% of the participants).
Attention check. Additionally, an attention check was administered. Hidden in a long text, there was a specific indication of how to answer to the question. A failure in making the attention check means that the participant response won’t be taken into consideration for further analysis. Thus, 2 participant’s responses were not taken into account during the analysis of the collected data.
3.4 Control variables
Personal sense of power. Given that the personal level of power could have influenced our analysis, a sense of power scale was administered. The scale used was an adapted version of the one used in other studies (for reference see Anderson et al., 2012), an eight-item scale, α = .94, in which participants had to select to which extent they agree/disagree to the proposed sentences. The proposed statements were I could get others to listen to what I say; I could get others to do what I wanted; I think I had a great deal of power; If I wanted to, I got to make the decisions; My wishes did not carry much weight (reversed); Even if I voiced them, my views had little sway (reversed); My ideas and opinions were often ignored (reversed); Even when I tried, I was not able to get my way (reversed). The rating was ranging from 1 (extremely disagree) to 5 (extremely agree) and the statements were administered in random order.
did not affect the results, I did not include them in the analysis. This is line with Becker´s recommendations (2005).
3.5 Data analysis
Handling of missing data. 8 participants were excluded from the analysis. Specifically two participants failed the attention check. Additionally, three participants did not restate the given problem but the example instead. Thus reliable evaluations of those restatement would have been impossible. Other two participants did not restate the problem, thus there was no data available for the dependent variable and one participant restated completely unrelated sentences.
Analysis. First of all, some items were reverse coded (see appendix for sense of power scale), and new variables were created, in order to be able to further analyze the collected data. Then the reliability coefficients of all scales were tested by calculating the Cronbach Alpha (α)2. When Cronbach´s alphas were above .70, the scales were considered as reliable. Also the inter-rater reliability test was performed, calculating the inter-class correlation coefficient, using the two-way mixed model for the absolute agreement. After that, the mean and standard deviation for each variable and control variable were presented. Correlation between every variable and control variable was also examined using Pearson analysis. Only control variables with a significant correlation with the dependent variable (creativity) will be incorporated in the hypothesis testing, controlling for them when the analysis of the whole model was performed. In order to test the hypothesis developed in this research, MANOVA and double mediation analyzes were conducted using PROCESS (model 4) on SPSS3 developed by Hayes (2013).
4. RESULTS
4.1 Descriptive statistic
Table 1 reports means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations of the examined variables. As expected, attention to promotion cues is negatively correlated with attention to prevention cues (r = -.36, p < .01). Surprisingly, promotion cues are not related to eagerness, whereas prevention cues are (r = .20, p < .05). With respect to creativity, the dependent variable, correlations were found between prevention cues and fluency (r = .28, p < .01) and between prevention cues and originality (r = .24, p < .01). Furthermore, promotion cues are negatively correlated with fluency (r = -.17, p < .05). In addition, fluency and originality are also correlated (r = .80, p < .01). Personal sense of power positively correlates with attention to promotion cues (r = .29, p < .01).
Because no correlation was found for gender, age or education, they will not be controlled for in further analysis.
Furthermore, a one-way ANOVA was run, in order to verify whether the power inducement influenced the scores of the one-item scale manipulation check, ranging from 1 (not powerful at all) to 5 (extremely powerful). The results were not significant (F = .13, p = .88) and means of the three groups did not significantly differ (MHighPower = 2.41, SDHighPower = .96; MLowPower = 2.34, SDLowPower =
1.01; MControl = 2.44, SDControl = .98). Thus this serves as a further clarification on the inefficacy of the
TABLE 1.
Means, Standard Deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlations for variables.
Variable Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12
.
1. Age 35.85 10.41 -
2. Gender -.18 .99 .20* -
3. Education 1.73 .66 .01 -.10 -
4. Personal sense of power 2.83 .98 -.10 -.12 .20* -
5. Power 2.04 .83 .02 -.03 .03 -.11 -
6. Attention to promotion cues 2.23 .81 .05 -.09 .05 .29** .05 -
7. Attention to prevention cues 3.80 .63 .11 .06 -.04 -.11 -.07 -.36** -
8. Eagerness 3.89 .77 .16 .09 -.09 .08 .05 .04 .20* -
9. Vigilance 3.64 .87 -.01 -.03 .05 -.00 .05 .11 .06 -.11 -
10. Fluency 7.30 3.67 -.07 .15 .10 -.05 -.06 -.17* .28** .00 -.02 -
11. Originality 2.66 .76 .07 .13 .14 .03 -.02 -.11 .24** .07 .15 .80** -
12. Prime check 2.40 .98 -.08 -.11 .07 .32** .01 .09 -.11 .08 -.14 -.09 -.17* - N = 142; *. p < 0.05; **. p < 0.0; gender was coded -1 for males and 1 for females; the prime condition was coded 1 for high power, 2 for low
TABLE 2.
Multivariate, Univariate F’s, ɳ2, Means, Standard Deviations of Measures of Dependent Variables as a Function of Power (N = 142).
*. p < 0.05; **. p < 0.01
Note. Higher values of means indicate higher attention to promotion and prevention cues, higher level of engagement in promotion and prevention as a regulatory focus state, higher fluency and higher originality.
Power
High Low Control
(n=46) (n=44) (n=52)
Multivariate Univariate
F (18,262) F(2,141) Partial ɳ2 M SD M SD M SD
Responses .71 1. Attention to promotion cues 0.42 0.01 2.21 0.69 2.14 0.85 2.30 0.88
2. Attention to prevention cues 0.47 0.01 3.87 0.58 3.78 0.60 3.76 0.69
3. Eagerness 0.20 0.00 3.83 0.91 3.92 0.68 3.92 0.72
4. Vigilance 0.20 0.00 3.58 0.97 3.64 0.82 3.69 0.82
5. Fluency 0.34 0.00 7.50 4.28 7.48 3.77 6.96 2.97
4.2 Testing of direct effects
To examine the direct effect of power (high power vs low power vs control) on the mediating variables of attention to promotion and prevention cues and eagerness and vigilance, and the dependent variable of problem restatement in terms of fluency and originality, a one-way MANOVA was conducted. Table 2 shows that the analysis revealed non-significant results at the multivariate level, F (18, 262) = .71. At the univariate level, the results were non-significant for attention to promotion cues, F (2, 141) = .42, and attention to prevention cues, F (2, 141) = .47. Thus, no support was found for Hypothesis 1a and 1b. Furthermore, no effects at the univariate level were found for Eagerness F (2, 141) = .20, Vigilance F (2, 141) = .20, fluency F (2, 141) = .34, and originality F (2, 141) = 1.16. As a result, the power inducement proved not to be effective, as no significant differences for any of the study variables were found between the abovementioned three conditions (high-power vs. low-power vs. control group).
4.3 Testing of mediating effects
I subsequently tested the hypothesized relationships of promotion and prevention cues with eagerness and vigilance (Hypothesis 2a and 2b), and whether eagerness and vigilance did mediate the effects of promotion and prevention cues on fluency and originality of problem restatements (Hypotheses 3a and 3b). I used Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) bootstrapping procedure (10000 resamples) for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models As Shrout and Bolger (2002) suggest, using bootstrap method is recommended especially when the analysis is performed in small/moderate samples. Furthermore, confidence intervals (CI) were computed in order to analyze and test indirect effects through the mediators. If the zero value falls outside the CI, then we can say that the indirect effect is significant, thus a mediation is assumed.
stronger attention to promotion and weaker attention to prevention cues (first-stage mediators) and stronger eagerness and weaker vigilance (second-stage mediators). However, power was excluded from the analysis, as the results of the one-way MANOVA analysis reported above showed that power did not have a significant effect on any of the mediating and dependent variables. Thus, four distinct PROCESS analysis were run, one for the indirect effect of attention to promotion cues on fluency through eagerness, controlled for prevention cues and vigilance (Table 3), one for the indirect effect of attention to promotion cues on originality through eagerness, controlled for prevention cues and vigilance (Table 4), one for the indirect effect of attention to prevention cues on fluency through vigilance, controlled for promotion cues and eagerness (Table 5) and one for the indirect effect of prevention cues on originality through vigilance, controlled for promotion cues and eagerness (Table 6).
The results of the first mediation model is reported in Table 3 and shown in Figure 2. Promotion cues did not significantly relate to eagerness (Table 3), whereas, surprisingly, prevention cues had a positive relationship with eagerness. Thus, there is no support for Hypothesis 2a. Furthermore, eagerness did not significantly relate to fluency and originality of restatements (Table 3 and 4; Figure 3 and 4). Hence, Hypothesis 3a is not supported. Furthermore, promotion cues did not have an indirect relationships with fluency and originality. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is not supported.
TABLE 3.
Indirect Effects of the Attention to Promotion Cues on Fluency through Eagerness.
Model B SE t R2
Mediation variable model: Eagerness 0.07*
Constant 0.00 0.08 0.00
Attention to Promotion Cues 0.15 0.09 1.68
Attention to Prevention Cues 0.26** 0.09 2.92
Vigilance -0.14 0.08 -1.69
Dependent variable model: Fluency 0.09*
Constant 0.00 0.08 0.00
Eagerness -0.06 0.09 -0.66
Attention to Promotion Cues -0.06 0.09 -0.69
Attention to Prevention Cues 0.28 0.09 3.04
Vigilance -0.04 0.08 -0.44
Indirect effects Bootstrap
indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI
Attention to Promotion Cues -0.008 0.017 -0.612 0.013 Note. N = 142. Bootstrap sample size = 10,000. Standardized coefficients are presented. Attention to Prevention Cues and Vigilance were controlled for.
TABLE 4.
Indirect Effects of the Attention to Promotion Cues on Originality through Eagerness.
Model B SE t R2
Mediation variable model: Eagerness 0.07*
Constant 0.00 0.08 0.00
Attention to Promotion Cues 0.15 0.09 1.68
Attention to Prevention Cues 0.26** 0.09 2.92
Vigilance -0.14 0.08 -1.69
Dependent variable model: Originality 0.08*
Constant 0.00 0.08 0.00
Eagerness 0.04 0.09 0.52
Attention to Promotion Cues -0.06 0.09 -0.63 Attention to Prevention Cues 0.20* 0.09 2.21
Vigilance 0.14 0.08 1.71
Indirect effects Bootstrap
indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI
Attention to Promotion Cues 0.007 0.016 -0.020 0.048
Note. N = 142. Bootstrap sample size = 10,000. Standardized coefficients are presented. Attention to Prevention Cues and Vigilance were controlled for.
TABLE 5.
Indirect Effects of the Attention to Prevention Cues on Fluency through Vigilance.
Model B SE t R2
Mediation variable model: Vigilance 0.04
Constant 0.00 0.08 0.00
Attention to Prevention Cues 0.15 0.09 1.66
Attention to Promotion Cues 0.17 0.09 1.89
Eagerness -0.15 0.09 -1.69
Dependent variable model: Fluency 0.09*
Constant 0.00 0.08 0.00
Vigilance -0.04 0.08 -0.44
Attention to Prevention Cues 0.28 0.09 3.04
Attention to Promotion Cues -0.06 0.09 -0.69
Eagerness -0.06 0.09 -0.66
Indirect effects Bootstrap
indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI
Attention to Promotion Cues -0.006 0.015 -0.047 0.016 Note. N = 142. Bootstrap sample size = 10,000. Standardized coefficients are presented. Attention to Promotion Cues and Eagerness were controlled for.
TABLE 6.
Indirect Effects of the Attention to Prevention Cues on Originality through attention to Vigilance.
Model B SE t R2
Mediation variable model: Vigilance 0.04
Constant 0.00 0.08 0.00
Attention to Prevention Cues 0.15 0.09 1.66
Attention to Promotion Cues 0.17 0.09 1.89
Eagerness -0.15 0.09 -1.69
Dependent variable model: Originality 0.08*
Constant 0.00 0.08 0.00
Vigilance 0.14 0.08 1.71
Attention to Prevention Cues 0.20* 0.09 2.21
Attention to Promotion Cues -0.06 0.09 -0.63
Eagerness 0.04 0.09 0.52
Indirect effects Bootstrap
indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI
Attention to Promotion Cues 0.022 0.022 -0.003 0.089
Note. N = 142. Bootstrap sample size = 10,000. Standardized coefficients are presented. Attention to Promotion Cues and Eagerness were controlled for.
4.4 Additional analysis
As previously mentioned, the power inducement did not prove its efficacy. Thus, it was not possible to run analysis which would include power as independent variable. Nevertheless, having included a measure of personal sense of power, defined as a general sense of power across situation, allowed me to run additional analyses, in order to understand whether personal sense of power could play a role in influencing attention to either promotion or prevention cues, and in turn affect one’s creativity, measured in terms of fluency and originality. As eagerness and vigilance did not have any effects on fluency and originality of problem restatement, I left these motivational inclinations out of further consideration. Again, Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) bootstrapping procedure (10000 resamples) was used for assessing and comparing indirect effects of mediator models. Thus, four additional distinct PROCESS analysis were run, one for the indirect effect of the personal sense of power on fluency mediated by attention to promotion cues and controlled for attention to prevention cues (see appendix, Table A1), one for the indirect effect of personal sense of power on originality mediated by attention to promotion cues and controlled for attention to prevention cues (see appendix, Table A2), one for the indirect effect of personal sense of power on fluency mediated by attention to prevention cues and controlled for attention to promotion cues (see appendix, Table A3) and one for the indirect effect of personal sense of power on originality mediated by attention to prevention cues and controlled for attention to promotion cues (see appendix, Table A4).
sense of power and attention to promotion cues (B = 0.253, p < 0.01) serves as a support for Hypothesis 1a, which in this case can be supported.
The second mediation model is shown in Figure 7. Personal sense of power was found to be positively related to attention to promotion cues (B =.253, p < 0.01). However, as attention to promotion cues did not significantly relate to originality (B = -.05, ns), attention to promotion cues was not a significant mediator in the relationship between personal sense of power and originality (indirect effect = -.013, SE = .022, 95% CI: [-.067, .025]).
The third mediation model is shown in Figure 8. Personal sense of power did not relate to attention to prevention cues (B = -.008, ns). Thus, the relationship between power and fluency is not mediated by attention to prevention cues, even if attention to prevention cues, opposite to what was predicted, surprisingly strongly relate to fluency (B = .258, p < 0.01), (indirect effect = -.002, SE = .020, 95% CI: [-.043, .040]).
5. CONCLUSION AND GENERAL DISCUSSION
Research in the field of creativity only recently started paying attention to the problem formulation phase (Reiter-Palmon, 1998; Mumford et al., 1996; Basadur & Basadur, 2011; Choo, 2014; Chand & Runco, 1995; Reiter-Palmon, Mumford & Threlfall, 1998) leaving ample room for further investigation in this field. For this reason I investigated whether power influences how people approach, define and restate ill-defined problematic situations. After manipulating the situational level of power of the participants, I exposed them to both promotion and prevention cues. I predicted that people in a high power condition would attend to promotion cues. Additionally I expected that paying more attention to promotion cues would lead participants to engage in eagerness as a regulatory focus state. Following, I expected that eagerness would lead to higher creativity in problem restatements, in terms of originality and fluency. I also expected that the relationship between high power and creativity would be positively mediated by attention to promotion cues and then eagerness. On the other hand, I expected that people in a low power condition would attend to prevention cues instead. Following, I presumed that attention to prevention cues would then create a favorable condition for participants to engage in vigilance as a regulatory focus state. Finally, I predicted that vigilance would mediate the relationship between attention to prevention cues and creativity. Specifically I expected that people in a low power condition would pay more attention to prevention cues and engage in a vigilance state and that this would relate to lower creativity in problem restatement, in terms of lower fluency and lower originality of restatements.
paying more attention to prevention cues are more attentive and careful in restating a given problem, thus, more creative. Another enticing and yet not expected finding, confirms how people paying more attention to prevention cues, rather than promotion ones, tend to engage in eagerness as a regulatory focus state.
To sum up, (i) high power influences attention to promotion cues, (ii) attention to prevention cues relates to eagerness as a regulatory focus state and (iii) attention to prevention cues leads to higher creativity, both in terms of fluency and originality.
5.1 Theoretical implications
The present study implements the current research in the field of creativity and problem construction for multiple reasons. Firstly, in line with prior research (Gruenfeld et al., 2003; Higgins, 1997) that found how power influences attention to rewards, positive emotions, cognition and behavior, a positive linear relationship was found between high sense of power and attention to promotion cues. However, this study is an initial empirical evidence of how attention to either promotion or promotion cues, do not mediate the relationship with power and creativity of restatements, in terms of fluency and originality. Another interesting, and yet not expected finding, is that people attending to prevention cues are more likely to engage in eagerness as a regulatory focus state. This is nevertheless a puzzling outcome as it contradicts previous research (Higgins et al., 1997).
on the other it created loopholes in the implementation, as some variables were no longer possible to be controlled for. For instance, the environment in which the experiment was carried out differed among participants, therefore external factor may have influenced not only their level of engagement, but also the effectiveness of the power inducement. Thus, it would be interesting to assess whether possible differences are to be found if the experiment is to be repeated in a controlled environment, e.g. in the cubicles of an experiment laboratory.
In addition, existing literature showed how environmental variables can affect a person’s adoption of a specific regulatory focus, as if a person is exposed to cues that recall a promotion focus, then the promotion focus will be induced (Higgins et al., 1997). However, the results of my study do not support this relationship. Nevertheless, this is a remarkable finding and a reason for this discrepancy can be found in the way participants were simultaneously exposed to both promotion and prevention cues. As previous research suggests (Parducci, Perrett, & Marsh, 1969; Schwarz & Bless, 1992, 2007), when an individual is exposed to two different stimuli at the same time, the perceiver may assimilate them both. If exposed to both stimuli separately, individuals would then perceive them as more distinct from each other. This may clarify why participants in this experiment, which were exposed to both promotion and prevention cues at the same time, when asked to rate to which extent they engaged in either eagerness or vigilance as a regulatory focus state, were not consistent with their previous attention to specific cues. Meaning that people rating higher promotion cues, subsequentially did not engage in eagerness as regulatory focus state. Similarly, participants who rated prevention cues higher, did not engage in vigilance as a regulatory focus state. Hence, the reason for this inconsistency could be found in the way participants were exposed to both stimuli, doing so may have hindered the effectiveness of the cues in inducing a specific regulatory focus state.
were actively asked to restate the proposed ill-defined problem. It would have been very hard to measure problem restatements if participants were not explicitly provided with information on how to do so (How can I…). This may have triggered specific conditions in participants that influenced and enhanced their restatements, in terms of fluency and originality, but also in terms of reaching the restatement stage, which can be considered the beginning of the creative thought.
Contextual factors, additionally, may also directly or indirectly have an effect on the motivation of people in engaging in creative tasks (Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001). As Kobe et al. (2001) previously highlighted, environmental aspects such as goal setting, rewards, and personal discretion, rather than the big five could have both a bolstering and hindering effects on one’s creativity (Amabile, 1983; Shalley, 1991; Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2000; Shalley & Oldham, 1997; Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001). More specifically to the big five it has been shown how they do influence creative self-efficacy and one’s creative personal identity, which could in turn be either effects of creative achievements but also as moderators (Tierney & Farmer, 2002) or mediators (Choi, 2004) of the relations between creative potential and achievements (Karwowski, Lebuda, Wisniewska & Gralewski, 2013). Thus, the role of the big five on the creative process should be taken into consideration as it may have played a role by influencing participants’ creativity. Specifically, some traits such as extraversion and neuroticism are both activating states (Cropanzano, Weiss, Hale & Reb, 2003), which could have enhanced participants’ creativity by influencing their task engagement, as cognitive activation is a necessary ingredient in the creative performance (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008).
5.3 Study limitations and suggestions for future research
for capturing and analyzing problem formulation. Furthermore, it would be interesting to study how, if and under which circumstances, individuals engage in problem restatements, especially when specific directions won’t be provided and the focus on the goal won’t be emphasized. Additionally, it has been proven that a focus on directions and restrictions may be detrimental for creativity (Reiter-Palmon, Herman & Yammarino, 2008). The way participants perceived the directions given throughout the study was not controlled for. However, it is highly possible that the creative thought may have been hindered in some participants, especially those susceptible to directions, perceiving them as constraints.
Given that the research tried to investigate one’s level of power, assessing it before and after the prime, as well as before and after the measurement of the dependent variable, could have given us meaningful data on how power perceptions vary within the experiment. Nevertheless, participants were told that the aim of the study was to investigate how individuals perceive complex and problematic events in daily life and how these events would be defined. Emphasizing the role of power, by continuously assessing it, would have given participants cues about how power was a focal variable in my investigation. This could have been a big source of bias for the data collection, thus the situational level of power was assessed only once throughout the stydy, so its possible variations were not controlled for during the experiment.
researcher in analyzing the cultural background, rather than participant’s personality and values, in order to see how and whether they play a role in the creative process of restating an ill-defined problem.
Furthermore, additional investigation is needed in order to gain a better understanding of how differences in one’s perception of power could influence the efficacy of a power priming, which could vary across groups (e.g. a high power individual primed with low power may be less sensitive to the prime rather than a low power individual primed with high power).
Future research could also try to repeat the study by taking in consideration different measures of creativity, not only the problem restatement but also – eventually – by creating new measurements for this still understudied field. Moreover, as suggested by Reiter-Palmon and Robinson (2009), it would be interesting to deepen the knowlege of the how people engage in the problem formulation not only individually but a group level. Thus, studying the perceived sense of belonging, of perceived personal power as well as the perceived power of the group as a whole, could lead researchers to gain meaningful insight on how the process of problem formulation is carried out in groups.
5.4 Conclusions
6. REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), 357.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of personality, 80(2), 313-344.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(1), 116.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). When prevention promotes creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100, 794–809.
Baer Jr, J. M. (1988). Long-term effects of creativity training with middle school students. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 8(2), 183-193.
Basadur, M., & Basadur, T. (2011). Where are the generators?. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 29.
Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & VEGAxy, L. U. I. S. (2000). Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors work together: A causal process model. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 77-100.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: An analysis with recommendations. Organizational research methods, 8, 274-289. Bless, H., Mackie, D. M., & Schwarz, N. (1992). Mood effects on attitude judgments:
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1981). The act frequency analysis of interpersonal dispositions: Aloofness, gregariousness, dominance and submissiveness. Journal of Personality, 49(2), 175-192.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 26(6), 741-751.
Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16(2-3), 187-199.
Choo, A. S. (2014). Defining Problems Fast and Slow: The U‐shaped Effect of Problem Definition Time on Project Duration. Production and Operations Management, 23(8), 1462-1479.
Coats, E. J., & Feldman, R. S. (1996). Gender differences in nonverbal correlates of social status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(10), 1014-1022.
Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. M., Hale, J. M., & Reb, J. (2003). The structure of affect: Reconsidering the relationship between negative and positive affectivity. Journal of management, 29(6), 831-857.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(2), 117-132.
De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(5), 739.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(3), 497.
Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. The journal of creative behavior, 16(2), 97-111. Domhoff, G. W. (1998). Who rules America. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(5), 968. Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across
cultures. Journal of applied psychology, 72(4), 658.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618-630.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American psychologist, 48(6), 621.
Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(2), 177.
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. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(6), 1001.
Gabora, L., & Kaufman, S. B. (2010). Evolutionary approaches to creativity. The Cambridge handbook of creativity, 279-300.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(6), 1450.
Getzels, J. W. (1964). Creative thinking, problem-solving, and instruction. Theories of learning and instruction, 63.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Keltner, D., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological review, 110(2), 265.
Hamstra, M. 2013. Self-regulation in a social environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford press.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52 (12), 1280.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(2), 276.
Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma.
Holyoak, K. J., Junn, E. N., & Billman, D. O. (1984). Development of analogical problem-solving skill. Child development, 2042-2055.
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self- regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-528. Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Big Five Personality Traits as
the Predictors of Creative Self‐Efficacy and Creative Personal Identity: Does Gender Matter?. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(3), 215-232.
Kobe, L. M., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Rickers, J. D. (2001). Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. Current Psychology, 20(2), 154-163.
Lam, T. W. H., & Chiu, C. Y. (2002). The motivational function of regulatory focus in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(2), 138-150.
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(6), 1135. Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research
Megargee, E. I. (1969). Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(5), 377.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human resource management review, 10(3), 313-351.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological bulletin, 103(1), 27.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P., & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 63-76.
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Reiter‐Palmon, R., Uhlman, C. E., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 91-122.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination, principles and procedures of creative thinking.
Parducci, A., Perrett, D. S., & Marsh, H. W. (1969). Assimilation and contrast as range- frequency effects of anchors. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(2), 281.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of applied psychology, 82(5), 792-802.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 55(1), 120-151.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55-77.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Herman, A. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2008). Creativity and cognitive processes: Multi-level linkages between individual and team cognition. In Multi-level issues in creativity and innovation (pp. 203-267). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., & Threlfall, K. V. (1998). Solving everyday problems creatively: The role of problem construction and personality type. Creativity Research Journal, 11(3), 187-197.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., O'Connor Boes, J., & Runco, M. A. (1997). Problem construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 9-23.
Roskes, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2012). Necessity is the mother of invention: avoidance motivation stimulates creativity through cognitive effort. Journal of personality and social psychology, 103(2), 242.
Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational psychology review, 7(3), 243-267.
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well‐defined and ill‐ defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(6), 523-538.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (2007). Mental construal processes: The inclusion/exclusion model. Assimilation and contrast in social psychology, 119-141.
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied psychology, 76(2), 179.
Shalley, C. E., & Oldham, G. R. (1997). Competition and creative performance: Effects of competitor presence and visibility. Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 337-345.
Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors on creative performance: The role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experience. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 84(1), 1-22.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological methods, 7(4), 422.
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (1995). The creative cognition approach. MIT Press. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African
Americans. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(5), 797.
Thompson, J. D., & McEwen, W. J. (1958). Organizational goals and environment: Goal-setting as an interaction process. American Sociological Review, 23(1), 23-31.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.
Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of management review, 26 (2), 289-297. Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory
focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5), 587-602.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of management journal, 53(1), 107-128.
Online resources:
Keltner, D., the power paradox December 1, 2007; accessed on the 25th August 2016
APPENDIX
The following section reports the questionnaire used in the experimental setting. Attention to cues:
All of the items in this scale were rated ranging from extremely inappropriate (1) to extremely appropriate (5). Promotion items: - Progress - Success - Opportunity - Freedom - Advancement - Forward Prevention items: - Failure - Stress - Burden - Threat - Backward - Danger
Regulatory Focus Scale, (Hamstra, 2013):
All of the items in this scale were rated ranging from extremely disagree (1) to extremely agree (5). Promotion focus items:
- ...I enthusiastically embrace all opportunities. - ...I am eager to use all possible ways or means. - ...I am eager to take all necessary actions. Prevention focus items:
- ...I am concerned with making mistakes.
- ...I am cautious about going down the wrong road. - ...I am vigilant and play it safe.
Personal Sense of Power Scale, (Anderson et al., 2012):
All of the items in this scale were rated ranging from extremely disagree (1) to extremely agree (5). (r) Stands for reverse coded items.
- I could get others to listen to what I say. - I could get others to do what I wanted. - I think I had a great deal of power.
- If I wanted to, I got to make the decisions.
- My wishes did not carry much weight. (reversed)
