SCARCITY IN CREATIVITY
An examination of the effects of scarcity on creativity in individuals with an approach and avoidance motivation
Master thesis, MSc Marketing, specialisation Marketing Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Submitted: June 16, 2016
Author: Supervisor/University
JASPER HIDDING Prof. Dr. B.M. Fennis
Studentnumber: 2737035 University of Groningen
Akeleistraat 15
9945 VD Wagenborgen Second supervisor
Tel.: +31 (0)6-10114392 Dr. Y. Joye
e-mail: j.j.hidding@student.rug.nl University of Groningen
Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you anywhere. - Albert Einstein
SCARCITY IN CREATIVITY
An examination of the effects of scarcity on creativity in individuals with an approach and avoidance motivation
ABSTRACT
Does scarcity cause people to become more creative? Researchers have long suggested that scarcity and constraints may facilitate creativity, by forcing the individual to approach a problem or issue in a new way. This research aims to test the hypothesis that individuals experiencing scarcity are more creative than those who are not. This is tested by having respondents complete a Remote Associates Task (RAT) as a measure of creativity, with more correct answers indicating higher creativity. Furthermore, it is hypothesised that individuals who report higher Behavioral Activation System (BAS) levels are more susceptible to scarcity and therefore perform even better at the Remote
Associates Task than low BAS individuals when experiencing scarcity. After dividing participants in either high and low BAS, Remote Associate Task scores were examined in one-hundred-and-four participants using an Analysis of Variance. No significant effects of a scarcity prime or high BAS trait were found. Contrary to the hypotheses, Analysis of Covariance results showed that Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) had an effect on RAT scores with high BIS individuals performing better at the convergent thinking task. The findings bridge several lines of research and link these to a
hemispheric connection.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BAS……… Behavioral Activation System
BIS………. Behavioral Inhibition System DV……….. Dependent Variable
IV………… Independent Variable RAT……… Remote Associates Task ATL……… Anterior Temporal Lobe M…………. Mean (statistical)
INTRODUCTION
It is a familiar sight in poor countries; despite having next to nothing, people always find a way to manage with the few things they have. Plastic bottles are worn as shoes, used to collect water, store food, and used in many other, often unimaginable ways. Forced by scarcity, people have to use their creativity to make sure they do not throw away anything that could have been used to make life a little easier or, worse, live to see another day. Take a giant leap to the Western capitalist world and most people buy a product, use it, dispose of it, and buy a new product the next time a need arises. Could it be that scarcity prompts people to become more creative, forcing them to be more thoughtful of alternative uses? This exact question lies at the core of this research paper, which aims to identify the causal relationship between scarcity and creativity. Past research has provided some first steps in researching this causal relationship (e.g. Cunha, Rego, Oliveira, Rosado, & Habib, 2014; Scopelliti, Cillo, Busacca, & Mazurski, 2014; Moreau, & Dahl, 2005), but these past studies lack a clear and direct examination that indicates whether or not scarcity leads to more creativity in individuals. In addition, there has already been a plethora of studies examining the personality traits that foster creativity, while ignoring the possibility of contextual influences affecting creativity. Building on this existing work, this research will bring together personality traits and contextual influences by
examining how susceptibility to scarcity affects creativity under scarcity and control conditions. This focus on susceptibility to scarcity, creativity, and perceived scarcity culminates in the following research question: ‘how does experienced scarcity influence creativity, and how is this relation affected by susceptibility to scarcity?’.
In the next section, the theoretical basis for understanding the relationship between scarcity,
CHAPTER 1 – THEORY
Many people are familiar with the experience of scarcity. Be it through macro-economic events such as a recession or, on a more personal level, through the encounter with cues that emphasise the limited nature of products and resources (Roux, Goldsmith, & Bonezzi, 2015). More specifically, consumers often report feeling as though resources in their life are lacking (Fernbach, Kan, & Lynch, 2015). One can experience a lack of time when facing a deadline, a lack of money when eager to buy a desired product, or even something as simple as a lack of ingredients to cook a meal on Sunday night when the shops are closed. While these are all examples of a temporary, and relatively harmless lack of resources, there are also more grief experiences of scarcity. Take for example children living in poverty in the outskirts of African cities, or even closer to home; people living on welfare in large European cities. Hence, scarcity is a ubiquitous phenomenon (Roux, Goldsmith, & Bonezzi, 2015), which also makes it an issue that is researchable even in relatively prosperous cities in Europe. Before taking a deeper plunge into this subject, let us first define the concept of scarcity. Cunha et al. (2014) describe scarcity as ‘the quality of something that is unavailable, insufficient, or not plentiful’. Roux et al. (2015) add to this concept by explaining that ‘even people who live in relative abundance often feel that certain resources are insufficient to meet their needs’.
Effect of scarcity on creativity
While scarcity has already received a lot of academic attention (Griskevicius et al., 2013; Rodeheffer, Hill, & Lord, 2012; Roux, Goldsmith, & Bonezzi, 2015), direct examinations of the causal
thinking, or the quest for a single solution through an analytical process or the experience of insight (Zmigrod, Colzato, & Hommel, 2015). Moreover, Cunha et al. (2014) found that scarcity within organisations may lead to improvisation, which in turn makes companies draw on available resources to generate solutions. Improvisation in itself is the process of creating ideas spontaneously, leading to an emerging product that embodies the original thought process, and as such is considered to be the raw creative process (Sowden, Clements, Redlich, & Lewis, 2015). This may illustrate the same process that takes place in human beings who encounter scarcity. Scarcity as a concept is fairly broad, and covers different types of scarcity. In this case it can be anything from time constraints (Andrews, & Farris, 1972, and Baer, & Oldham, 2006) to scarcity of resources (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, and Shalley, & Gilson, 2004). Although many studies have examined the effects of the aforementioned specific types of scarcity – e.g. time, resources – there is not a lot of research into the effects of general scarcity. That is, whether there is an overall effect of a mix of various types of scarcity in one population on creativity. Based on the literature and the aforementioned absence of research into the effects of general scarcity, the following main effect hypothesis is formulated:
H1: People who experience general scarcity will perform better in a creativity task than do people who do not experience general scarcity.
Susceptibility to scarcity
scarcity are likely to appeal to the sensitivity to rewards in high BAS persons. Taken together, this leads to the assumption that high BAS individuals are more susceptible to scarcity than those who score low on BAS.
Susceptibility to scarcity and creativity
While the main focus in this research lies in finding out how susceptibility to scarcity influences creativity under perceived scarcity, the expected effect of susceptibility to scarcity on creativity will be discussed first. This is important because it allows for a clear comparison of effects between the scarcity and control situation. Behavioral Activation (BA) has been shown to potentiate creative performance through cognitive flexibility (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Baas, 2011). Pham and Chang (2010) add to this that promotion focused consumers (which exhibit BA) tend to process information more globally. In global processing mode, individuals use broad mental categories and represent
knowledge in more abstract terms – they focus on the forest, rather than the trees. This is relevant to this research because global processing and cognitive flexibility are found to enhance creative performance (De Dreu, Baas, & Giacomantonio, 2010; Ritter et al., 2012). These findings lead to the second main effect hypothesis of this study:
H2: People who are susceptible to scarcity (high BAS) will perform better in a creativity task than do people who are not susceptible to scarcity (low BAS).
Scarcity, susceptibility to scarcity, and creativity
The main focus of this research is the influence of susceptibility to scarcity on creativity under perceived scarcity. From the literature that has been discussed so far, it can be inferred that perceived scarcity should lead to more creativity, and that individuals who are susceptible to scarcity – as measured by BAS – should be more creative (compared to those low in susceptibility to scarcity). The main question that still remains is what will happen if these two concepts are combined. That is; how will individuals who are susceptible to scarcity perform on a creativity task when they
experience scarcity? Addressing this relationship requires a deeper examination of the different forces at work. Earlier it was mentioned that BA – an approach or promotion motivation – potentiates
creativity. There is a requirement for this though, and that is that the situation affords flexible and global processing. A situation with local processing and a narrow scope of attention would actually impede creativity (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Baas, 2011). Since scarcity-related cues may trigger
resulting in local processing and a narrow scope of attention (Mittal, & Griskevicius, 2013). In their study, Mittal and Griskevicius (2013) do propose a nuance in the case of scarcity in resource-rich environments. Indeed, when individuals in a resource-rich environment encounter scarcity-related cues, they tend to interpret the scarcity cue not as a threat, but rather as an interference. Hence, the scarcity-related cue is not continuous fact of life; instead it is a temporary state that interferes with the daily life process. This interference causes the individual to take a step back and process the
information from a more distant and abstract perspective. Hence, the effect of scarcity on individuals who are susceptible to scarcity depends on the overall state of the environment. For people who are raised/put in an environment where resources are scarce, on the other hand, a scarcity-related cue will be perceived as a threat and subsequently leads to local processing/narrow scope of attention. Local processing and narrow scope of attention have been shown to impede creative performance in high BAS individuals, possibly because of a lack of ‘fit’ between the natural inclinations of high trait BAS and the situational affordances of resource-rich environments (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Baas, 2011). The opposite is true for high BAS individuals who are raised/put in an environment with an abundance of resources: they tend to see scarcity as an interference, rather than a threat, and subsequently become more creative. This is relevant for this research because the places where the research is conducted (a village, a city, and a university in a prosperous country – namely the Netherlands) are characterised by an abundance of resources. This means that to the respondents in this research, scarcity cues are likely to lead to global processing, and subsequently enhanced creative performance. The so called ‘fit’ between the natural inclinations of high trait Behavioral Activation System and the situational affordance of a resource-rich environment are proposed to lead to stronger engagement and better performance (Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003). Based on these findings, the third and final hypothesis is:
H3: +
Conceptual model
The aforementioned hypotheses can be summarised in the following conceptual model:
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Scarcity Creativity
Susceptibility to scarcity H1: +
CHAPTER 2 – METHOD
Participants and design
For this study, a 2 (general scarcity: yes versus no) x 2 (susceptibility to scarcity? Yes/no: high BAS versus low BAS) between-subjects experimental design was used. One hundred and four participants (46 male, 58 female; Mage = 34 years, SD = 13.91) completed the experiment on a voluntary basis. Four participants were not included in the final ANCOVA as they failed to answer all mood items in the survey, they were however included in the first ANOVA analyses. Participants were approached at a university (University of Groningen), a couple of villages on the countryside (Wagenborgen, Heiligerlee, and Delfzijl), and a medium-sized city (Groningen). The general scarcity variable was manipulated by either priming the respondent with general scarcity (see appendix 2b) or by not priming them (control condition, see appendix 2a). In order to measure susceptibility to scarcity, a Dutch version (Franken, Muris, & Rassin, 2005) of Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS test was used. The dependent variable – creativity – was measured using a Dutch Remote Associates Test (Chermahini, Hickendorff, Hommel, 2012).
Procedure
Candidates were approached at the University of Groningen and in a couple of villages. In addition, participants were recruited in a study on vegetarians and ‘undercover morality’. Participants recruited via the latter way were offered a reward of €4,00 for their participation in the entire session
(approximately thirty minutes). All participants recruited via the study on vegetarians were vegetarian or vegan. To control for possible confounds or other effects, the participants that were recruited via the vegetarian studies were marked in the dataset. Of the total number of one hundred and four participants, a total of thirteen participants came from the vegetarian studies. Sessions lasted
approximately fifteen minutes and were administered on a computer using Qualtrics (see appendix 8 for a screenshot of the setting). All experiments were completed on a voluntary basis (except for the ones who were paid for their participation in the vegetarian studies). Participants were explained that they would have to write two short pieces of text about something they experienced and that some questions would be asked after they finished writing. First of all, participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions in which the manipulated factor was the activation of the concept of scarcity (versus a neutral prime condition). All participants started the experiment by completing an episodic recall task, which was adapted from Roux, Goldsmith, and Bonezzi (2015). Participants in the scarcity condition had to complete a recall task on scarce times, whereas
grocery store. Research by Roux, Goldsmith, and Bonezzi (2015) has provided evidence that these manipulations (both the scarcity prime and the supermarket control condition) are effective, and that the episodic recall task is an effective way of evoking a feeling of scarcity. After finishing this episodic recall task, participants in both conditions were asked to complete a Dutch Remote
Associates Test (RAT) which measures creativity. The experimenter explained to the participants that this test was used to control for their basic levels of analytical insight. Participants were given four minutes to identify as many words (connecting the other three words) as possible. After completing the RAT, the participants were told that they finished the second part of the study, and that they would now be asked to fill out a short personality survey. This personality survey was actually the Dutch BIS/BAS scale, which measured whether an individual scored high or low on BAS and BIS. The BIS/BAS scale existed of seven BIS and thirteen BAS items. Items two and seven of the BIS scale had to be reverse coded in the final dataset. Subsequently, participants to the study were
presented with Mayer and Gaschke’s (1988) Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS), which was used to measure the mood of the individuals. Finally, participants were asked to answer questions about gender and age, and were thanked for their participation and dismissed.
Independent Variables
Perceived scarcity
Susceptibility to scarcity
The susceptibility of scarcity was determined by using a Dutch version (Franken, Muris, & Rassin, 2005) of Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS scale. The BIS/BAS is a means of determining whether an individual scores high on Behavioral Activation System (BAS) or Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS). People with a high score on BAS are more likely to have an approach motivation and, as discussed in the theory section, are likely to be more susceptible to scarcity. The opposite of BAS is the Behavioral Inhibition System, which is characterised by an avoidance motivation and is likely to be linked to low susceptibility to scarcity. The BIS/BAS scale that was used in this experiment (α = .63), consisted of twenty-four items that could be rated on a four-point Likert-scale (1 = totally disagree, 4 = totally agree). Items two, eight, thirteen, sixteen, nineteen, twenty-two, and twenty-four measured BIS (α = .85). Items three, nine, twelve, and twenty-one measured BAS Drive. Items five, ten, fifteen, and twenty measured BAS Fun Seeking. Items four, seven, fourteen, eighteen, and twenty-three measured BAS Reward Responsiveness. These three subtypes of BAS were taken together in order to determine total BAS (α = .65). Finally, items one, six, eleven, and seventeen functioned as fillers. In addition, items two and twenty-two had to be reverse coded. After the data collection, a median split was performed in order to divide the participants between low and high BAS (low vs high susceptibility to scarcity). The median was found to be 3.08, which means that all participants who scored 3.08 or below were labelled low BAS and all participants who scored above 3.08 were labelled high BAS. This division allowed for a dichotomous distribution of the
participants, assigning them either a 0 (low BAS) or a 1 (high BAS) in the dataset.
Dependent Variables
Creativity
The dependent variable – creativity – was measured using a Dutch version of Mednick and Mednick’s (1967) Remote Associates Test. The Dutch translation was developed, tested, and validated by Chermahini, Hickendorff, and Hommel (2012). Respondents were given three minutes to try and identify as many words as they could in one trial. They were not allowed a second chance after the first trial. They had to identify the word that connected three seemingly unrelated words. The solution for each word could refer to synonymy, formation of a compound word, or semantic
(Chermahini, Hickendorff, & Hommel, 2012). The creativity score was determined by the number of correct answers the respondents could provide in four minutes time. The more correct answers they provided, the more creative they were.
Mood
Mood was also added as a dependent variable (albeit a control variable) and was measured using a Dutch translation of the Brief Mood Introspection Scale (Mayer, & Gaschke, 1988). For the BMIS, participants were asked to rate themselves on sixteen adjectives (i.e. lively, happy, sad, tired, etc.). The adjectives were to be applied to their mood at the time of the questionnaire and could be
CHAPTER 3 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results
A 2 (general scarcity: yes versus no) x 2 (susceptibility to scarcity? Yes/no: high BIS/BAS versus low BIS/BAS) ANOVA on the number of correct answers to a Remote Associates Task has produced results that are not in line with the earlier proposed hypotheses. The scarcity prime did not provide a significant main effect with regard to creativity (F(1,100) = 1.54, p = .217), and the same was found to be true for high BAS and low BAS as indicators of susceptibility to scarcity, which did not lead to a significant effect either (F < 1). In addition, the interaction effect of
Susceptibility_to_scarcity*Scarcity_prime failed to reach significance as well (F < 1). Something interesting happened when Behavioural Inhibition System was used to measure susceptibility to scarcity instead of Behavioural Activation System however. Using BIS, instead of BAS, as an indicator of susceptibility to scarcity did provide a significant effect of susceptibility to scarcity on creativity (F(1,100) = 5.00, p = .028). First, like was done with the BAS, a median split was
performed in order to divide the participants in low and high BIS. The median was found to be 2.93, leading to all participants with a BIS score of 2.93 or lower to be labelled low BIS and all participants with a score higher than 2.93 to be labelled high BIS. The main effect of susceptibility to scarcity indicated that individuals that are high in BIS perform better at a convergent creativity task (M = 4.94, SD = 2.697) than individuals that are low in BIS (M = 3.69, SD = 3.065). Replacing BAS by BIS did not lead to a significant main effect of the scarcity prime (F(1,100) = 2.07, p = .153) or interaction effect of Susceptibility_to_scarcity*Scarcity_prime (F < 1) however. Inspection of the means revealed that individuals with high BIS scores perform better at a convergent creativity task than do individuals with low BIS scores. The exact values for the different variables can be found in tables 1 and 2.
Table 1: Susceptibility to scarcity measured by BAS
df Source SS MS F p
1 Susceptibility to scarcity 6.398 6.398 0.739 .392
1 Scarcity prime 13.366 13.366 1.544 .217
Table 2: Susceptibility to scarcity measured by BIS df Source SS MS F p 1 Susceptibility to scarcity 41.400 41.400 5.004 .028 1 Scarcity prime 17.142 17.142 2.072 .153 1 Susceptibility_to_scarcity*Scarcity_prime 5.391 5.391 0.652 .421
Current state of scarcity
Another interesting finding was that self-reported current state (scarcity versus no scarcity) and Remote Associates Task scores were negatively correlated (r = -.20, p = .047). This means that the more people felt they experienced a lack of resources (scarcity), the worse they performed on the RAT. Also, current state of scarcity was found to correlate positively with the scarcity prime (r = .23, p = .021), meaning that participants in the scarcity condition felt more like they currently experienced scarcity.
Correlation of Mood
The variable ‘mood’, as measured by the outcome of the positive mood scores minus the negative mood scores, was found to correlate with a number of variables. First of all, the correlation of mood with the scarcity prime was negative (r = -.20, p = .043), meaning that respondents who were primed with scarcity reported a more negative mood. Second, mood was negatively correlated with
susceptibility to scarcity based on BIS (r = -.33, p = .001), meaning that the higher people scored on BIS, the more negatively they rated their mood. Next, mood was found to positively correlate with age (r = .27, p = .006), which indicates that the older the participants were, the more positive they rated their mood. Finally, mood was found to negatively correlate with the perceived current state of scarcity (r = -.41, p = .000), meaning that the more people felt they are currently lacking resources, the more negative they rated their mood.
ANCOVA
(F < 1), which already did not show an effect in the first Analysis of Variance. The effects on the F value and p value of incorporating the covariates are shown in the table below:
Table 3: changes after adding mood and current state as covariates
F value ANOVA F value ANCOVA p value ANOVA p value ANCOVA
Prime 2.07 0.48 .153 .490
Interaction
prime*susceptibility
0.65 0.04 .421 .846
Controlling for current state and mood, the adjusted mean difference in correct answers on the RAT between low BIS and high BIS is -1.509. Table 4 shows the different means of the control condition, scarcity prime, low BIS and high BIS.
Table 4: means in the 2x2 design
Low BIS High BIS Mean
Control condition 3.89 5.48 4.65
Scarcity prime 3.50 4.38 3.94
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine how susceptibility to scarcity influences the effect of scarcity on creativity. In order to measure this, respondents were either primed with scarcity or not, before they were asked to complete a Remote Associates Task. It was expected that those respondents who were primed with scarcity would perform better at a creativity task. However, the analysis showed no such significant main effect of scarcity on creativity. The second proposed main effect was a positive effect of high BAS on creativity, but again, no such significant effect was found. Initially, these two proposed relations were combined into an expected interaction effect indicating that those
respondents who scored high on Behavioural Activation System would be more susceptible to scarcity than those respondents who scored low on Behavioural Activation System. In line with the previous results though, no significant interaction effect was found. Based on these findings, we did not find enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis in favour of the proposed hypotheses.
Since no significant relations were found using BAS as the indicator of susceptibility to scarcity, another two-way ANOVA was run using BIS instead of BAS. Since the BIS scale was also part of the experiment, it was relatively easy to compare the effects of BIS and BAS on creativity. Since Gray viewed BIS and BAS as oppositional, meaning that high BIS is the opposite of high BAS, it should be possible to substitute high BAS with low BIS and low BAS with high BIS (Hood, Greenberg, & Tobach, 1995). Using BIS as an indicator of susceptibility to scarcity led to a
significant result indeed: respondents that scored high on BIS also performed significantly better at the creativity task. This finding contrasts the second hypothesis, which stated that individuals high in BAS should perform better at the creativity task because they are more susceptible to scarcity. Instead, individuals high in BIS (which should be the opposite of high BAS) were actually found to perform significantly better at the creativity task. Although replacing BAS by BIS as an indicator of susceptibility to scarcity did lead to one significant main effect, it still did not provide a significant main effect of scarcity on creativity. Also, it did not lead to a significant interaction effect of
performance on insight problem-solving tasks. Interestingly, the Dutch RAT correlated significantly with insight problem-solving, and the original RAT by Mednick is also known to correlate with performance on classic insight problems (Chermahini, Hickendorff, & Hommel, 2012). Furthermore, a study by Goldstein, Revivo, Kreitler, and Metuki (2010) concluded that participants who contracted their left hands performed better at the RAT than participants who did not. They found that
participants could stimulate their right brain hemisphere by contracting their left hand, and because the right hemisphere is associated with creative thinking, this increased creative performance. All of this is relevant since it could be possible that the right hemisphere of high BIS individuals is more stimulated and, as a result, leads to better convergent thinking.
In addition to the main effect of BIS, a correlation table showed several correlations. The score on the RAT was found to negatively correlate with current state (extent of perceived scarcity). It showed that the more scarcity people experienced at the time they were taking part in the experiment, the worse they performed at the creativity task. So although the priming task did not have a significant effect on creativity, there was a correlation with current state of scarcity. This is very interesting, because it relates back to the notion in the literature review that for most people in a resource-rich environment scarcity is not interpreted as a threat, but rather as an interference (Mittal, &
Griskevicius, 2013). This seems to confirm that those people who felt like they experience scarcity on a daily basis are impeded in their creativity as measured by convergent thinking. The negative
Although this research did not find a causal relationship between the scarcity prime and current state, it is interesting to notice the correlation between the scarcity condition, current state, and mood. The aforementioned research by Chemin, De Laat, and Haushofer (2013) actually found that individuals who suffered from poverty were more susceptible to scarcity/constraining cues and therefor
experienced more stress. One could argue that the correlation found in this study indicates that participants in the scarcity condition respond more strongly to the scarcity cue, leading to a stronger feeling of perceived scarcity and consequently more stress, leading to a more negative mood. After running an ANCOVA with current state of scarcity and mood as covariates, current state and mood appeared to be suppressor variables that resulted in a purer effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. Hence, there is an even purer significant effect of BIS on number of correct answers to the RAT after controlling for current state and mood of the participant.
Limitations and future research
Although the scarcity prime has been shown to be an effective way of eliciting a temporary scarcity mind-set, it is nearly impossible to control individual thought processes and measure the extent to which respondents really thought deeply about a time when they experienced scarcity, as well as the accompanying thoughts and feelings. Unlike the scarcity prime, current state did have a significant, negative correlation with the number of correct answers on the Remote Associates Task. This indicates that, in line with past research by Mittal and Griskevicius (2013) among others, an environment of scarcity impedes creativity. To examine the effects of scarcity as an interference, rather than a continuous state, future research could adopt a method of testing creativity under certain time or resource constraints – as these may be a more measurable way of priming scarcity. Another partial limitation to this research was the use of the Remote Associates Task, because it is a task that specifically measures convergent creativity. De Dreu, Nijstad, and Baas (2011) mention that
Conclusions and general discussion
This research set out to examine the effects of both circumstantial factors and personality traits on creativity. Although no significant effect of circumstantial factors on creativity was found, the study did find a negative correlation between perceived current state of scarcity and the number of correct answers on the Remote Associates Task. This clearly shows that participants who feel like they experience scarcity perform worse on a convergent thinking task than do participants who feel like they do not experience scarcity. However, this experiment did not provide evidence for a causal relationship between perceived current state of scarcity and number of correct answers to the RAT. More interestingly, the main effect of Behavioral Inhibition System on number of correct answers to the RAT provides evidence for a causal relationship of BIS on convergent thinking. Although convergent thinking is only one piece of the puzzle that is creativity, the findings of this experiment are perfectly in line with current research into brain lateralisation. As past research has shown, convergent thinking occurs mainly in the right brain hemisphere, which also happens to be the dominant brain area that is activated in high BIS individuals. Furthermore, stimulating the right brain hemisphere improves convergent thinking and leads to better performance on insight tasks. All of this appears to – at least partially – explain the causal relation between BIS and RAT score.
Past research shows that depressed individuals are characterised by low BAS and high BIS functioning, and that high BIS and low BAS are stable markers of a tendency to develop or experience depression. This could explain the negative correlation found between mood and BIS. The negative correlation of mood with current state of scarcity and the scarcity prime, as well as the correlation between current state and the scarcity prime, can be explained by the idea that people suffering from scarcity/poverty respond more strongly to scarcity cues, reinforcing feelings of stress and thus leading to a lower score on mood.
REFERENCES
Andrews, F.M., & Farris, G.F. (1972). Time pressure and performance of scientists and engineers: a five-year panel study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, p. 185-200.
Baer, M., & Oldham, G.R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), p. 963-970
Balconi, M., & Mazza, G. (2009). Brain oscillations and BIS/BAS (behavioral inhibition/activation system) effects on processing masked emotional cues: ERS/ERD and coherence measures of alpha band. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 74(2), p. 158-165.
Baltes, P.B., & Smith, J. (2003). New frontiers in the future of aging: from successful aging of the young old to the dilemmas of the fourth age. Gerontology, 49, p. 123-135.
Carstensen, L.L., Fung, H.H., & Charles, S.T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), p. 103-123.
Carver, C.S., & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), p. 319-333.
Chemin, M., De Laat, J., & Haushofer, J. (2013). Negative rainfall shocks increase levels of the stress hormone cortisol among poor farmers in Kenya. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
Chermahini, S.A., Hickendorff, M., & Hommel, B. (2012). Development and validity of a Dutch version of the Remote Associates Task: an item-response theory approach, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, p. 177-186.
Chi, R.P., & Snyder, A.W. (2011). Facilitate insight by non-invasive brain stimulation. PLoS ONE, 6(2), p. 1-7.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins.
Cunha, M.P. e., Rego, A., Oliveira, P., Rosado, P., & Habib, N. (2014). Product innovation in resource-poor environments: three research streams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), p. 202-210.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., & Baas, M. (2011). Behavioral activation links to creativity because of increased cognitive flexibility. Social Psychology And Personality Science, 2(1), p. 72-80.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Baas, M., & Giacomantonio, M. (2010). Processing modes and creativity: why (not)? Psychological Inquiry, 21, p. 203-208.
Fernbach, P.M., Kan, C., & Lynch, J.G. (2015). Squeezed: coping with constraint through efficiency and prioritization. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), p. 1204-1227.
Franken, I.H.A., Muris, P., & Rassin, E. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Dutch BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(1), p. 25-30.
Goldstein, A., Revivo, K., Kreitler, M., & Metuki, N. (2010). Unilateral muscle contractions enhance creative thinking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(6), p. 895-899.
Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J.M., Cantú, S.M., Delton, A.W., Robertson, T.E., Simpson, J.A., Thompson, M.E., & Tybur, J.M. (2013). When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments. Psychological Science, 24(2), p. 197-205.
Halberstadt, J.B., Niedenthal, P.M., & Kushner, J. (1995). Resolution of lexical ambiguity by emotional state. Psychological Science, 6(5), p. 278-282.
Hood, K.E., Greenberg, G., & Tobach, E. (1995). Behavioral Development: Concepts of Approach/Withdrawal and Integrative Levels. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Kasch, K.L., Rottenberg, J., Arnow, B.A., & Gotlib, I.H. (2002). Behavioral
activation and inhibition systems and the severity and course of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(4), p. 589-597.
Mayer, J.D., & Gaschke, Y.N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (1), p. 102-111.
Mednick, S.A., & Mednick, M.T. (1967). Examiner’s manual, Remote Associates Test: College and adult forms 1 and 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Mittal, C., & Griskevicius, V. (2013). Planning under paucity: responses to resource scarcity threats depend on childhood environments. Advances in Consumer Research, 41, p. 110-114.
Moreau, C.P., & Dahl, D.W. (2005). Designing the solution: the impact of constraints on consumers’ creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, p. 13-22.
Pham, M.T, & Chang, H.H. (2010). Regulatory focus, regulatory fit, and the search and consideration of choice alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, p. 626-640.
Radel, R., Davranche, K., Fournier, M., & Dietrich, A. (2015). The role of (dis)inhibition in creativity: decreased inhibition improves idea generation. Cognition, 134, p.110-120.
Ritter, S.M., Damian, R.I., Simonton, D.K., van Baaren, R.B., Strick, M., Derks, J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), p. 961-964.
Roux, C., Goldsmith, K., & Bonezzi, A. (2015). On the psychology of scarcity: when reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, p. 615-631.
Scopelliti, I., Cillo, P., Busacca, B., & Mazursky, D. (2014). How do financial constraints affect creativity? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(5), p. 880-893.
Shalley, C.E., & Gilson, L.L. (2004). What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), p. 33-53.
Sowden, P.T., Clements, L., Redlich, C., & Lewis, C. (2015). Improvisation facilitates divergent thinking and creativity: realizing a benefit of primary school arts education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), p. 128-138.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Introduction and debriefing used in the survey
Introduction
Allereerst bedankt voor je deelname aan dit onderzoek! Het onderzoek bestaat uit een aantal
deelstudies naar taalkundige verbanden en de formulering van teksten, en maakt onderdeel uit van het onderzoeksprogramma van de Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde aan de Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen.
De gegevens zullen vertrouwelijk behandeld worden, alsmede anoniem verwerkt worden. Deelname is geheel vrijblijvend en je kunt op ieder moment besluiten om te stoppen met het onderzoek. Mocht je op een later moment een overzicht van de resultaten willen, geef dan na afloop van het onderzoek je e-mailadres, dan stuur ik e.e.a. toe zodra de resultaten bekend zijn.
Het onderzoek bestaat uit drie deelstudies en zal slechts enkele minuten duren.
Belangrijk: Vul de vragenlijst in één keer in, neem dus geen pauze tussendoor! Dit is erg belangrijk voor de betrouwbaarheid van de data.
End and thank you
Je bent nu aan het einde van dit onderzoek gekomen.
We willen je nogmaals vriendelijk bedanken voor je tijd en deelname!
Zodra de resultaten van het onderzoek bekend zijn, zullen we je hierover op de hoogte stellen per e-mail (indien gewenst). Klik nog één keer op ‘volgende’ om de data te versturen.
Debriefing
Respondents will receive a brief overview of the results some three to four weeks after the experiment was held, including the following description of the research:
De focus van dit onderzoek lag op creativiteit onder verschillende condities (schaarste versus normaal). Om jou als deelnemer zo min mogelijk te beïnvloeden en daarmee de kwaliteit van het onderzoek te waarborgen, hebben we vooraf zo min mogelijk over het doel van het onderzoek verteld.
Appendix 2a: Neutral priming task
Herinner je de laatste keer dat je een supermarkt bezocht hebt. Neem een moment de tijd om dit moment weer zo levendig mogelijk voor je te zien en beschrijf daarna in detail wat je je nog herinnert (gebruik hiervoor minimaal 80 en maximaal 150 woorden).
Probeer zo exact mogelijk te herinneren welke gevoelens en gedachten er door je heen gingen terwijl je in de supermarkt was (gebruik hiervoor minimaal 80 en maximaal 150 woorden).
Appendix 2b: Priming with general scarcity task
Herinner je een periode in je leven waarin je het gevoel had dat je helemaal niets had, of dat je een duidelijk tekort aan iets (bijvoorbeeld te weinig geld, te weinig tijd om te leren of werk klaar te krijgen, te weinig eten in huis, etc.) had. Neem een moment de tijd om dit moment weer zo levendig mogelijk voor je te zien en beschrijf daarna in detail wat je je nog herinnert (gebruik hiervoor minimaal 80 en maximaal 150 woorden).
Probeer zo exact mogelijk te herinneren welke gevoelens en gedachten er door je heen gingen terwijl je het gevoel had dat je helemaal niets had, of dat je een duidelijk tekort aan iets (bijvoorbeeld te weinig geld, te weinig tijd om te leren of werk klaar te krijgen, te weinig eten in huis, etc.) had, en beschrijf deze zo gedetailleerd mogelijk (gebruik hiervoor minimaal 80 en maximaal 150 woorden).
Appendix 3: Remote Associates Test – Nederlands (Chermahini, Hickendorff, & Hommel, 2012).
Kijk naar de drie woorden en vind vervolgens een vierde woord dat gerelateerd is aan deze drie. Bijvoorbeeld; spons – graan – papier, welk vierde woord is gerelateerd aan deze drie woorden? Antwoord: schuur (want; schuurspons, graanschuur, en schuurpapier).
Je hoeft niet in een bepaalde volgorde te werken en mag ook een set overslaan om door te gaan naar een andere set van drie woorden. Je hebt vier minuten om zoveel mogelijk oplossingen te vinden. Als je het gevoel hebt dat je geen oplossingen meer kunt vinden, dan mag je stoppen met dit onderdeel en op ‘volgende’ klikken. Succes!
Let op! Zodra je naar de volgende pagina gaat, gaat de tijd lopen! Wat verbindt/associeert deze begrippen? 1. Bar – jurk – glas
2. Kaas – land – huis 3. Vlokken – ketting – pet 4. Val – meloen – lelie 5. Vis – mijn – geel 6. Achter – kruk – mat 7. Worm – kast – legger 8. Water – schoorsteen – lucht 9. Trommel – beleg – mes 10. Hond – druk – band
11. Controle – plaats – gewicht 12. Goot – kool – bak
13. Kolen – land – schacht 14. Schommel – klap – rol 15. Kamer – masker – explosie 16. Nacht – vet – licht
Appendix 4: Correct answers to Dutch Remote Associates Task (Chermahini, Hickendorff, & Hommel, 2012)
Wat verbindt/associeert deze begrippen? 1. Bar – jurk – glas Cocktail
Appendix 5: Susceptibility to scarcity – BIS/BAS scales (Franken, Muris, & Rassin, 2005). Geef bij de volgende stellingen aan in hoeverre deze van toepassing zijn op jou. Beoordeel jezelf op een schaal van 1 tot 4 (1 = helemaal niet mee eens, 2 = beetje mee oneens, 3 = beetje mee eens, 4 = helemaal mee eens). Let op; er is hierbij geen goed of fout antwoord! De toepasselijkheid van deze stellingen varieert per persoon.
Helemaal mee oneens Beetje mee oneens Beetje mee eens Helemaal mee eens 1. Familie is het belangrijkste
in iemands leven ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. Ik voel zelden angst of zenuwen, zelfs als me iets vervelends staat te wachten
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. Ik zal over mijn grenzen heen gaan om de dingen te krijgen die ik wil
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. Als ik iets goed doe, wil ik
er graag mee doorgaan ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. Ik ben altijd bereid iets nieuws te proberen als ik denk dat het leuk zal zijn
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. Kleren zijn belangrijk voor
me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7. Als ik krijg wat ik wil, voel
ik me opgewonden en energiek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. Kritiek of uitbranders raken
mij behoorlijk ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9. Als ik iets wil, zal ik er gewoonlijk alles aan doen om dit te krijgen
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. Vaak doe ik dingen alleen
voor de lol ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
11. Ik heb vaak weinig tijd om
dingen te doen ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
12. Als ik de kans zie iets te krijgen wat ik wil, zal ik die kans meteen grijpen
13. Ik voel me bezorgd of overstuur als ik denk of weet dat iemand boos op mij is
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
14. Als ik ergens een
buitenkansje zie dan word ik meteen enthousiast
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
15. Ik doe vaak dingen in een
vlaag van opwelling ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
16. Ik raak enigszins gestrest als ik denk dat er iets
vervelends staat te gebeuren
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17. Ik vraag me vaak af waarom mensen doen zoals ze doen
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
18. Als ik iets leuks meemaak heeft dat invloed op me
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
19. Ik voel me bezorgd als ik denk dat ik slecht heb
gepresteerd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
20. Ik verlang naar spanning en sensatie
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
21. Als ik iets van plan ben dan laat ik mij door niets weerhouden
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
22. Ik ervaar weinig angsten
vergeleken met mijn vrienden ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
23. Als ik een wedstrijd zou winnen, zou ik erg enthousiast zijn
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
24. Ik pieker wel eens over het
maken van fouten ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Appendix 6: Brief Mood Introspection Scale (Mayer, & Gaschke, 1988).
Omcirkel bij de onderstaande woorden in hoeverre ze je huidige gemoedstoestand beschrijven. Plaats een kruisje in het corresponderende vakje.
Dit voel ik zeker niet
Dit voel ik niet
Appendix 7: Finale questions
Geslacht ☐Man ☐Vrouw
Leeftijd (in jaren) ………
Ik heb het gevoel dat ik af en toe wel dingen tekort kom
(1 = helemaal mee oneens, 2 = mee oneens, 3 = deels mee oneens, 4 = geen mening, 5 = deels mee eens, 6 = mee eens, 7 = helemaal mee eens).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
