Understanding the Mediation Effect of Motivation

7/28/2019 Understanding the Mediation Effect of Motivation

1/15

Creativity and Certain Personality Traits: Understanding theMediating Effect of Intrinsic Motivation

Veena Prabhu, Charlotte Sutton, and William Sauser

Auburn University

Creativity is a topic of ever-increasing interest, given its importance and applicability toliterally every field. Personality traits have been frequently and predictably related tocreative achievement. Amabile (1983) pointed out that individuals may have certaintraits and abilities that are favorable for creativity, but whether these will actually result

in achieving creative results depends on their intrinsic motivation. Additionally, undercertain circumstances extrinsic motivation has been found to have a positive effect oncreativity. We hypothesized a conceptual model and tested the mediating and moderat-ing role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation respectively in the relationship between 3personality traits (openness to experience, self-efficacy, and perseverance) and creativ-ity. This study, conducted in a university setting, found support for the potential med-iating role of intrinsic motivation between creativity=openness to experience as intrinsicmotivation partially mediated this relationship. Self-efficacy was closely related tocreativity, with intrinsic motivation completely mediating this relationship. Extrinsicmotivation moderated the relationship between self-efficacy=creativity and perseverance=creativity and had a negative association with creativity.

Psychologists have shown an interest in creativity

since the time of Galton (1883). In fact, research in thedomain of creativity over the last 4 decades has gener-ated more than 9,000 published works (Runco, Nemiro,& Walberg, 1998). It has been suggested that some levelof creativity is required in almost every job (Shalley,Gilson, & Blum, 2000; Unsworth, 2001). Sternberg(1985) found that the implicit theories of creativity ofprofessors of art, business, philosophy, and physicsoverlapped significantly, as did the implicit theories ofcreativity of laypersons. Thus, creativity is not restrictedto arts, science, or philosophy, but is also a part of oureveryday lives (Runco & Richards, 1997). The words ofAnderson (1992) seem quite appropriate:

Creativity is the gift and discipline that provides thecompetitive edgein marketing, production, finance,

and all of the other aspects in an organization. Firms

and managers crave it. Awards are given for it. Incen-tives encourage and cajole it. But its still the mostelusive weapon in an executives arsenal. (p. 40)

Simonton (1999) noted that defining creativity was avery difficult task, especially given the diverseapproaches used in varied fields. Cognitive psycholo-gists prefer to define creativity in terms of a mental pro-cess (Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995); psychologists inexperimental aesthetics define creativity as a product(Martindale, 1990; Simonton, 1989). Personality psycho-logists prefer to treat creativity as a trait (F. X. Barron,1969; Eysenck, 1993). However, there has been a

growing consensus among creativity researchers regard-ing the appropriateness of defining creativity in termsof an outcome (Amabile, 1983) such as a novel idea(Amabile, 1988; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).Martindale (1989) stated, A creative idea is markedby three attributes: it must be original, it must be usefulor appropriate for the situation in which it occurs, and itmust actually be put to some use (p. 211). Consistentwith prior theory and research, we defined creativity

We express our appreciation to Howard Clayton for valuable com-ments and suggestions regarding this article.

Correspondence should be sent to Veena Prabhu, Department ofManagement, College of Business and Economics, California StateUniversity, Los Angeles, CA. E-mail: [email protected]

CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 20(1), 5366, 2008

Copyright# Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online

DOI: 10.1080/10400410701841955


2/15

as the generation of novel, original, and unique ideasconcerning procedures and processes that can be usedat work and are appropriate and significant to theproblem or opportunity presented (Amabile, 1988,1997; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1991).

The relationship between personality traits and crea-tivity has been well documented in the literature (George

& Zhou, 2001; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Feist(1998) aptly described the relation between the twofields of personality and creativity:

The disciplines of personality psychology and creativityshare an essential commonality: They both emphasizethe uniqueness of the individual. The essence of a cre-ative person is the uniqueness of his or her ideas andbehavior, whereas personality psychology is the studyof what makes a person unique from others (i.e., individ-ual differences). Both disciplines also focus on theconsistency and stabilityor lack thereofof suchuniqueness. (p. 290)

The bulk of research on creativity over the years hasemphasized various characteristics of individuals suc-cessful in creative endeavors (e.g., F. X. Barron &Harrington, 1981; Oldham & Cummings, 1996) suggest-ing a profile for creative individuals (Eysenck, 1997).Describing in his meta-analysis, Feist (1998) stated:

Empirical research over the last 45 years makes a ratherconvincing case that creative people behave consistentlyover time and situation and in ways that distinguishthem from others. It is safe to say that in general a cre-ative personality does exist and personality dispositionsdo regularly and predictably relate to creative achieve-ment. (p. 304)

A major source of evidence for the consistency andgenerality of creative personality is the fact that samplesof creative individuals varying in age and working indifferent fields have been found to share commoncharacteristics (e.g., F. X. Barron, 1965; Cattell &Butcher, 1970).

However, according to Amabile (1983), individualsmay have certain traits and abilities that are favorablefor creativity, but whether these will actually result inachieving creative results depends on their intrinsicmotivation. Steiner (1965) also argued that in order tobe creative, an individual has to be inherently interestedin the issue or problem and motivated to find a solution.Thus, one of the important sources of creativity is anindividuals intrinsic task interest, which leads to a vol-untary investigation of new alternatives and ideas(Rogers, 1954).

In their review article, Ambrose and Kulik (1999)stated, Individual-level creativity is closely linked tothe motivational process and research on creativity has

either implicitly or explicitly used motivation as an invis-ible, internal, hypothetical construct directing employeebehavior (p. 266). Thus, in spite of the vast amount ofresearch carried out in the field of creativity relating tothe personality and motivation of the creative individual(Amabile, 1996; Feist, 1998), there is still inadequateempirical support to explain the mechanism by which

personality traits are linked to creativity, particularlyby way of motivational factors. Runco (2004), in hisexhaustive review, aptly stated, Sadly, investigationsof correlates of creativity do not necessarily take usany closer to understanding the actual mechanisms thatunderlie creative capacities (p. 679). This article drawsattention to this silence in the creativity literature.

Further, we are aware that an individuals motivationto perform a task can be intrinsic or extrinsic (Deci &Ryan, 1985). Although past research centered on intrin-sic motivation as the key ingredient in creativity(Amabile, 1988), extrinsic motivation also has an incre-mental effect on creativity, especially when the reward

is contingent on creativity (Eisenberger & Rhoades,2001; Eisenberger, Rhoades, & Cameron, 1999).

The importance of intrinsic motivation in creativityhas long been suggested (Crutchfield, 1962), and Choi(2004) provided evidence that both intrinsic and extrin-sic motivation under certain conditions contributes tocreativity. This study adds to the existing literature byexploring the mediating role of intrinsic motivationand the moderating role of extrinsic motivation in therelationship between personality traits=creativity (seeFigure 1).

Several traits have been suggested to be related tocreativity (see Feist, 1998). However, we chose three

traits for which there was theoretical=empirical supportthat the trait predicted both (a) creative performanceand (b) intrinsic motivation. These conditions were inaccordance to the characteristics of a mediator variable(see R. M. Barron & Kenny, 1986). After a careful

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model.

54 PRABHU, SUTTON, SAUSER


3/15

literature review, we chose the following three person-ality traitsopenness to experience, self-efficacy, andperseverance.

Since the early work of Mackinnon (1960), one of thetraits closely related to creativity is openness to experi-ence (Dollinger, Urban, & James, 2004; George & Zhou,2001). In fact, of the Five Factor Model dimensions,

openness to experience has the most empirical supportas being closely related to creativity (Feist, 1998).

Bandura (1997) suggested that strong self-efficacywas also an important requirement for creativity. Self-efficacy is defined as beliefs in ones capabilities toorganize and execute the courses of action required toproduce given attainments (p. 3). General self-efficacyhas been used recently as another dimension of self-efficacy in empirical research (e.g., Eden & Aviram, 1993;Eden & Kinnar, 1991; Eden & Zuk, 1995). However,theory and research to date have indicated that task-and-situation specific self-efficacy and general self-efficacy represent separate constructs (e.g., Cervone,

1997; Sherer & Adams, 1983). Bandura (1986, 1997)argued that specific self-efficacy represents task andsituation (domain) specific cognition. On the otherhand, general self-efficacy is defined as a generalizedtrait consisting of ones overall estimate of ones abilityto effect requisite performances in achievement situa-tions (Eden & Zuk, 1995, p. 629, italics added). Thus,in contrast to specific self-efficacy, which represents adynamic, multifaceted belief system that operates selec-tively across different activity domains and underdifferent situational demands, rather than being a de-contextualized conglomerate (Bandura, 1997, p. 42),general self-efficacy consists of trait-like characteristics

that are not tied to specific situations or behaviorbut that generalize to a variety of situations (Shereret al., 1982, p. 664). It is important for a creative per-son to have faith in his or her capabilities not just for atemporary phase (belief) but over a stable time period(trait), hence in this study self-efficacy was referredto as a trait (see also Lennings, 1994; Tipton &Worthington, 1984).

Mackinnon (1960) observed that another character-istic of creative people is a persistent high level of energyin their work. In spite of phases of disappointment anddepression, which blocked their creative striving, cre-ative people continued with perseverance in their cre-ative venture. Perkins (1994) drew attention to the factthat creative breakthroughs were usually the result ofstrenuous efforts that, in many cases, have been madeover several years. Torrence (1988) found perseveranceto be one of the main traits in creative individuals.

The purpose of this study was three-fold: (a) Wefirst examined the relationship between creativity andthe personality traits of self-efficacy and perseverance;(b) next we tested the mediational role of intrinsic

motivation between the three personality traits and crea-tivity, and finally, (c) we tested the moderating role ofextrinsic motivation (see Figure 2).

CREATIVITY AND SELF-EFFICACY

Self-efficacy is ones perceived capability for performinga specific task (Bandura, 1997). This capability has beenviewed as a generative capability. This ability influencesperformance through the adept use of sub-skills, inven-tiveness, and resourcefulness (Bandura, 1984, 1986). Theimportance of self-efficacy to creativity has receivedsome support (summarized in Lubart, 1994). Bandura(1997) strongly suggested that self-efficacy is essentialfor creative productivity. This leads to the hypothesisthat self-efficacy will augment creativity.

Hypothesis 1: The trait of self-efficacy will relate signifi-cantly and positively to creativity.

CREATIVITY AND PERSEVERANCE

Creative ideas are more likely to be implemented ifinitiative is high (Frese, 2000). Besides a range of self-started and proactive behaviors, initiative involvespersistent behavior (Frese & Fay, 2001) such as demon-strating perseverance in the face of obstacles (Rank,Pace, & Frese, 2004). Early creativity theorists Newell,Shaw, and Simon (1962) suggested that creative beha-vior was accompanied by persistence.

Torrence (1988) determined that perseverance wasone of the main traits in creative individuals. This wasclearly illustrated in the studies carried out byCsikszentmihalyi (1996), and later by Adelson (2003).Csikszentmihalyi (1996) interviewed 91 renowned cre-ative individuals and questioned them about their rela-tionships, priorities, habits, and insights. Perseverancestood out as a key characteristic of a creative individual.

FIGURE 2 Hypothesized model.

CREATIVITY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION 55


4/15

Adelson (2003) interviewed the 2002 Franklin InstituteLaureates in order to understand some basic issues relat-ing to scientific creativity, including the Ah Hahexperience and the relationship of that experience to per-severance, insight, and personal technique. Adelson con-cluded that perseverance, along with resulting analyticabilities, were prominent features of the interviews.

Thus, creativity requires individuals to be perseverant,especially in the face of challenges that are a part andparcel of creative work (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).

Hypothesis 2: Perseverance will be positively and signifi-cantly related to creativity.

MEDIATING ROLE OF INTRINSICMOTIVATION IN CREATIVITY=OPENNESS TO

EXPERIENCE

Deci (1971) suggested that there are two motivational

subsystems: extrinsic and intrinsic. An individual is saidto be intrinsically motivated when he or she performs atask due to the sheer fascination of the task itself, ratherthan simply because of its outcomes (Deci & Ryan,1985). That intrinsic motivation is needed for creativityis well illustrated in the literature (e.g., Amabile, 1983;Simon, 1985) and researchers have empirically verifiedthat there is a positive association between measuresof intrinsic motivation and creativity (Tierney, Farmer,& Graen, 1999). Further, intrinsic motivation was alsoclosely associated with both personality traits and crea-tivity (Amabile, 1988, 1996; Oldham & Cummings,1996; Shalley, 1995; Zhou 1998).

Openness to experience is a personality characteristicthat reflects characteristics such as imaginativeness,curiosity, originality, and broadmindedness (Costa &McCrae, 1992). It has revealed a robust association withcreativity (Dollinger, Urban, & James, 2004; Feist, 1998;George & Zhou, 2001). In fact McCrae and Costa(1997) stated that openness was the most relevant traitfor creativity.

One element of openness is attentiveness to inner feel-ings (McCrae & Costa, 1985). Entwistle (1988) foundthat students who were high in openness to experienceexhibited higher levels of intrinsic motivation. The abil-ity to see things from different perspectives has beenstressed in the creativity literature (Perkins, 1990;Sternberg & Lubart, 1992). Openness to experiencefacilitates multiple perspectives thereby building interestin the task itself.

Given the characteristics of a mediating variable (seeR. M. Barron & Kenny, 1986) the above discussion sug-gests that (a) openness to experience is closely associatedwith both intrinsic motivation and creativity, and (b)intrinsic motivation is strongly related to creativity.

Hence the mediating role of intrinsic motivation ishypothesized:

Hypothesis 3: Intrinsic motivation will mediate therelationship between openness to experience andcreativity.

MEDIATING ROLE OF INTRINSICMOTIVATION IN CREATIVITY=

SELF-EFFICACY

Ford (1996) proposed that self-efficacy perceptionsinfluence employee creativity; this was later reaffirmedby Bandura (1997). In fact, Bandura (1986) cited strongself-efficacy as a necessary condition for creativeproductivity and also suggested that it is inherent inmotivational processes.

Self-efficacy has also been identified as a key motiva-tional construct within organizations (Gist & Mitchell,1992). Ford (1996) identified self-efficacy beliefs as akey motivational component in his model of individualcreative action. Wood and Bandura (1989) stated,Self-efficacy refers to beliefs in ones capabilities tomobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, andcourses of action needed to meet given situationaldemands (p. 408). An individuals belief in his or hercapability mobilizes his or her motivation, especiallyintrinsic motivation. For example, consider two indivi-duals who are low and high in self-efficacy respectively.The one who is low on self-efficacy may lose interest inthe job even before he has begun doing it because he orshe has little or no confidence in himself or herself of

performing the job to begin with. On the other hand,there is a higher probability that the one who has faithin his or her capability to do the job (high self-efficacy),will find the job doable and, therefore, much more inter-esting. This suggests that self-efficacy may have a posi-tive impact on intrinsic motivation.

From the above discussion, and in the light of the factthat intrinsic motivation is also related to creativity, wehypothesize the mediating role of intrinsic motivation inthe relationship between self-efficacy and creativity.

Hypothesis 4: Intrinsic motivation will mediate therelationship between self-efficacy and creativity.

MEDIATING ROLE OF INTRINSIC

MOTIVATION INCREATIVITY=PERSEVERANCE

Persistence is the other side of the creativity coin(Adelson, 2003, p. 171). Simonton (1999) stated, Cre-ative individuals do not give up easily (p. 635). Creative



5/15

individuals are especially persistent when they meet withadversities and disappointments (Chambers, 1964). Thiswas supported by Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1989),who concluded that creative individuals approach aproblem with greater persistence.

Keynes (1942=1956) suggested that Newtons extra-ordinary gift may have resulted from the ability to delib-

erate intensely on a problem for hours, days, or weeks, ifnecessary, until he had solved it. That hard work isrequired for creativity has long been stressed (Golann,1963). The following example illustrates that persever-ance does have an effect on intrinsic motivation: Asone develops greater expertise and talent in a specificdomain due to his or her perseverance, one is likely tofind domain-relevant activities to be more positivelyreinforcing, thereby facilitating intrinsic motivation.However, one must note that the initial reason for devel-oping the expertise may be due to either intrinsic orextrinsic motivation, but on developing the expertise aperson is more likely to enjoy the task. The above dis-

cussion leads us to the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 5: Intrinsic motivation mediates the relation-ship between perseverance and creativity.

MODERATING ROLE OF EXTRINSIC

MOTIVATION IN CREATIVITY

Although Crutchfield (1962) suggested that both intrin-sic and extrinsic motivation stimulate creative activity,intrinsic motivation is said to be more effective withrespect to the creativity of the individual (Amabile,

1983;Hennessey&Amabile,1988).Someresearchersevenclaimed that, under certain conditions, extrinsic motiv-ation may have a negative impact on intrinsic motiv-ation (Deci, 1971). More recent studies have not onlynegated some of the prior research about the negativeimpact of extrinsic motivation on creativity but, on thecontrary, have found that, under certain circumstances,extrinsic motivation was positively related to creativity(Amabile, 1996; Collins & Amabile, 1999; Eisenberger &Cameron, 1996;Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001;Mumford,Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002; Nickerson, 1999).

Basadur (1997) analyzed a Japanese firm that used astructural approach in order to motivate creative prob-lem solving by way of monetary incentives, training,and careful alignment with organizational strategy.Monetary rewards were given for all ideas that couldbe practically applied, irrespective of whether the ideawas small or large. The program was a huge success,with the firm receiving as many as 140 suggestionsper person per year. Basadur pointed out that the pro-gram was successful because it was highly motivating.The fact that is noteworthy in this study is that the

motivational factors were largely from extrinsic sources,including rewards, recognition, and training, suggestingthat the importance of extrinsic motivation in creativity,especially in work-related activities, should not be mini-mized. Some work activities may be challenging andinteresting (intrinsically motivating), but there may alsobe other activities that are purely extrinsically motivated

(Amabile, 1993). Furthermore, intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation could synergistically aid creative perform-ance. Intrinsic motivation may be essential for thenovelty in the work, although extrinsic motivation canhelp to ensure a timely and complete output (Amabile,1993). Hence, we hypothesized the moderating role ofextrinsic motivation in creativity.

Hypothesis 6: Extrinsic motivation will moderate therelationship between openness to experience andcreativity.

Hypothesis 7: Extrinsic motivation will moderate therelationship between self-efficacy and creativity.

Hypothesis 8: Extrinsic motivation will moderate therelationship between perseverance and creativity.

METHOD

Data Collection Procedure and Participants

Data were collected from 124 undergraduate studentswho were enrolled in one of the four sections of an intro-ductory management course at a large southeasternuniversity. The sample consisted of 58% men andapproximately 98% were of junior or senior standingwith an average age of 21.7 years (SD 1.7). Partici-

pation was voluntary and completely anonymous.Creative personality consists of both domain-specific

traits and domain-general traits (Feist, 1999; Runco,1990). Because our study focused on the domain-generaltrait, we chose this particular management coursebecause it comprised students from varied curriculums.It included students majoring in marketing (15.32%),accounting (13.7%), finance (13.7%), business adminis-tration (12.1%), aviation management (7.26%), engin-eering (6.45%), building science (3.23%), informationsystems management (5.65%), and others (22.58), suchas consumer affairs, entrepreneurship, HR management,logistics, criminology, history, economics, public relations,

fishery, health administration, communication, biomedi-cal science, pharmacy, and animal and dairy science.

Measures

Creativity. Creativity was measured using the WhatKind of Person Are You? (WKOPAY) inventory, a 50-item self-report checklist designed to assess individualsperception of their own behavior (Khatena & Torrence,



6/15

1976). The WKOPAY asked individuals to choosebetween two descriptors of personality, i.e., (a) I prefertasks that challenge me; (b) I do work on time. Thehigher the total scores on WKOPAY, the greater an indi-viduals characteristics or qualities associated with a cre-ative personality. The total creativity score wascalculated by summing up those items that were typically

chosen by creative people, and it could range from 0 to50. The WKOPAY inventory demonstrated adequatetestretest reliabilities, ranging from .71 to .97. The man-ual for the WKOPAY instrument reported construct,content, and criterion-related validity. Content validitywas supported by the findings of studies on the creativepersonality and on the judgments of experts; constructvalidity was determined in terms of attitude patterns,personality characteristics, and factor analysis; and cri-terion-related validity was determined by establishingrelations with measures of creative thinking, personalityinventories, biographical reports, and rating scales (seeKhatena & Torrance, 1976, pp. 3557, for tables and

extensive reporting of reliability, validity, and descriptivestatistics). Khatena and Torrence (1976) reported spilt-half and testretest reliabilities for the WKOPAY ran-ging from .50 to .99. We found a rather modest reliabilitywith Cronbachs alpha measuring .68.

Openness to experience. Openness to experiencewas measured by using the subscale of the NEOFiveFactor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992)It contains 12 items that were summed to obtain anoverall score for openness to experience. Respondentsindicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreedwith each of the items on a five-point scale ranging from1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal con-sistency (coefficient alpha) obtained in the current studywas .77, in line with that reported in the NEO-FFI man-ual (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Self-efficacy. The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scalewas used in this study for measuring self-efficacy. It isa 10-item psychometric scale that is designed to assessperceived self-efficacy. Each item refers to successfulcoping and implies an internal-stable attribution of suc-cess (Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1992). General self-effi-cacy aims at a broad and stable sense of personal

competence to deal effectively with a variety of stressfulsituations (Scholz, Gutierrez-Do~nna, Sud, & Schwarzer,2002). The scale had a strong reliability (Cronbachsalpha .83).

Perseverance. A truly creative achievement isalmost never the result of a sudden flash of insight, butcomes after years of hard work (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).As mentioned earlier, creativity requires individuals to

be perseverant, especially in the face of challengesthat are a part and parcel of creative work (Shalley &Gilson, 2004). Whiteside and Lynam, (2001) statedthat, Perseverance refers to an individuals ability toremain focused on a task that may be boring or difficult.Individuals low in (lack of) perseverance are able tocomplete projects and to work under conditions that

require resistance to distracting stimuli (p. 685).Because this definition was appropriate for the

present research we measured perseverance by usingone of the four subscales of the UPPS Impulsive Beha-vior Scale (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). The UPPSimpulsivity scale is a 45-item inventory designed to mea-sure four distinct personality pathways to impulsivebehavior: Urgency, (lack of) Perseverance, (lack of)Premeditation, and Sensation Seeking. The pathway,(lack of) Perseverance, assesses an individuals abilityto persist in completing jobs or obligations despiteboredom and=or fatigue.

Respondents indicated the extent to which they

agreed or disagreed with each of the 10 items on afour-point scale. Because the scale measured lack of per-severance, the four-point scale was reverse coded with 4(agree strongly) to 1 (disagree strongly) so that the sumof the responses measured perseverance and not the lackof it. Cronbachs alpha measured .81.

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Work Pref-erence Inventory was used to measure intrinsic andextrinsic motivation (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, &Tighe, 1994). The intrinsic motivation scale includes 15items that assess the degree to which respondents enjoy

the challenge of the work at hand. Sample items are Ienjoy tackling problems that are completely new tome and I enjoy trying to solve complex problems.Cronbachs alpha for the intrinsic scale was 0.71. Extrin-sic motivation was also measured with a 15-item scale.This scale includes items such as I am strongly moti-vated by the grades I can earn and As long as I cando what I enjoy, Im not that concerned about exactlywhat grades or awards I can earn. Cronbachs alphafor the extrinsic scale was 0.65. Each item for both theintrinsic and extrinsic scale was followed by a four-pointscale where 1 Never or almost never true of you, 2 Sometimes true of you, 3 Often true of you, and 4

Always or almost always true of you.

RESULTS

Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, and corre-lations among all the variables. Correlations among theindependent and mediator=moderator variables had amedian value of .07 and a maximum value of .47, with



7/15

a maximum variance-inflation factor less than 2; hence,multicollinearity was not a severe problem that wouldpreclude interpretation of the regression analyses(Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1983). Creativity wassignificantly and positively related to self-efficacy(r .30, p .001). This suggested complete supportfor Hypothesis 1, which was further tested by regressing

creativity on self-efficacy (R2

.09, p

.001). However,Hypothesis 2, which predicted a positive relationbetween creativity and perseverance, was not supported,as perseverance was not correlated to creativity. Thiswas further confirmed by regressing creativity on per-severance (R2 .005, ns). As expected, intrinsic motiv-ation (r .39, p .00) and openness to experience(r .35, p .00) were both significantly and positivelycorrelated to creativity. Intrinsic motivation was alsosignificantly related to all three personality traits (open-ness to experience, r .33, p .00; self-efficacy, r .45,

p .00; perseverance, r .28, p .002). In addition,extrinsic motivation exhibited a negative association

with creativity (r .20, p .023).To test for mediation, R. M. Barron and Kenny

(1986) suggested a three-step procedure: (a) themediator was regressed on the independent variable,(b) the dependent variable was regressed on the inde-pendent variable, and finally, (c) the dependent variablewas regressed on both the independent variable and onthe mediator. However, to test for complete mediation,the independent variable needs to be controlled in thethird step. Hence, a simple regression was performedfor step one, but for steps two and three a hierarchicallinear regression was employed. A formal test of the sig-nificance of mediation was provided by the Sobel test

(Sobel, 1982; see MacKinnon, Warsi, & Dwyer, 1995).For testing Hypothesis 3, which suggested that intrin-

sic motivation mediated the relationship between open-ness and creativity, we first regressed intrinsicmotivation on openness. This was followed by a two-step hierarchical linear regression (see Table 2). In stepone, creativity was regressed on openness to experience,followed by step two wherein openness was controlledand intrinsic motivation was introduced. Finally we cal-

culated the Sobels test (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2001).Formula for the test was drawn from MacKinnon,Warsi, and Dwyer (1995). The same procedure wasrepeated for testing the mediating role of intrinsic motiv-ation between creativity and self-efficacy as mentionedin hypothesis 4. Table 3 summarizes the results of theregression analyses. The results supported hypotheses

3 and 4.As shown in Table 2, the regression coefficient forintrinsic motivation was significant in contributing tocreativity when openness to experience was controlled,indicating the mediating role of intrinsic motivation(b .31, p .001; R2D .08, p .001). The signifi-cance of openness to experience decreased in step 2,which signified that intrinsic motivation partiallymediated the relationship between creativity and open-ness to experience. The Sobel test revealed significantevidence of partial mediation by intrinsic motivation,z 2.28, p .02.

Table 3 shows a significant regression coefficient for

intrinsic motivation, which contributed to creativitywhen self-efficacy was controlled; this again indicatedthe mediating role of intrinsic motivation (b .32,

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations Among Variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Creativity 25.3 5.6 12 Intrinsic motivation 2.9 .33 .39

13 Extrinsic motivation 2.8 .32 .2 .11 1

4 Openness to experience 3.2 .55 .35 .33 .18 1

5 Self-efficacy 3.2 .37 .3

.45

.03 .12 16 Perseverance 3.3 .44 .07 .28 .12 .03 .47 1

Note. N 124.p < .05.p < .01.

TABLE 2

Summary of Regression Analyses Predicting the Mediating Role of

Intrinsic Motivation in the Relation between Creativity and Openness

to Experience

Sobel Test

D R2 z p

Regression 1a .11

Openness to experience .33

Regression 2b

Step 1 .12

Openness to experience .35

Step 2 .08

Openness to experience .25 2.28 .02Intrinsic motivation .31

Note. N 124.aDependent variable is Intrinsic Motivation.bDependent variable is Creativity.p < .01. p < .001.



8/15

p .001; R2D .08, p .001). Self-efficacy was statisti-

cally insignificant in step 2, which suggested that intrin-sic motivation completely mediated the relationshipbetween creativity and self-efficacy. The Sobel test(1982) revealed significant evidence of completemediation by intrinsic motivation, z 2.89, p .003.

Intrinsic motivation was also significantly and posi-tively related to perseverance. However, perseverancewas not significantly related to creativity. Thus,Hypothesis 5, which suggested the mediating role ofintrinsic motivation between perseverance and creativity,was not supported.

To test Hypotheses 68, related to the moderatingrole of extrinsic motivation, we carried out moderated

regression analyses. We found support for the moderat-ing role of extrinsic motivation in self-efficacy andperseverance but not in openness to experience.

Table 4 shows that the regression coefficient for theinteraction term between self-efficacy and extrinsicmotivation was significant, thereby confirming the

moderating role of extrinsic motivation between creativ-

ity and self-efficacy. As seen in Figure 3, a two-wayinteraction was observed between self-efficacy andextrinsic motivation. Table 5 indicates that the slopesfor extrinsic motivation are significant at low and meanlevels, thereby suggesting that self-efficacy interactedwith extrinsic motivation such that the positive relation-ship between creativity and self-efficacy was significantat low and mean levels of extrinsic motivation, but notat high levels of extrinsic motivation.

Table 6 shows that the regression coefficient for theinteraction term between perseverance and extrinsicmotivation is significant, thereby confirming the moder-ating role of extrinsic motivation between creativity and

perseverance. Note that in the absence of the interactionterm, there is no significant relationship betweenperseverance and creativity. This suggests that extrinsicmotivation completely moderates this relationship. Asseen in Figure 4, a two-way interaction was observedbetween perseverance and extrinsic motivation.Table 7 indicates that the slope for extrinsic motivationis significant only at the high level, thereby suggestingthat perseverance interacted with extrinsic motivationsuch that in the presence of high levels of extrinsic

TABLE 3

Summary of Regression Analyses Predicting the Mediating Role of

Intrinsic Motivation in the Relation Between Creativity and

Self-Efficacy

Sobel Test

b D R2 z p

Regression 1a .19

Self-efficacy .45

Regression 2b

Step 1 .09

Self-efficacy .30

Step 2 .08

Self-efficacy .16 2.89 .003Intrinsic motivation .32

Note. N 124.aDependent variable is intrinsic motivation.bDependent variable is creativity.p < .01. p < .001.

TABLE 4

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting the

Moderating Role of Extrinsic Motivation in the Relation Between

Creativity and Self-Efficacy

b D R2

Step 1 .14

Self-efficacy 4.66

Extrinsic motivation 3.76

Step 2 .07

Self-efficacy 3.70


Self-efficacyExtrinsic motivation 11.21

Note. N 124.p < .01. p < .001.

FIGURE 3 Creativity predicted by the two-way interaction between

self-efficacy and extrinsic motivation.

TABLE 5

Regression Slopes Depicting the Association Between Creativity andSelf-Efficacy at Different Levels of Extrinsic Motivation

Interaction Slopes SE t

Self-efficacyExtrinsic motivation

Low 7.28 1.47 4.96Mean 3.70 1.27 2.93High .12 1.86 .06

Note. N 124.p < .01. p < .001.



9/15

motivation there is a negative relationship between crea-tivity and perseverance, but not at low or mean levels ofextrinsic motivation.

DISCUSSION

Creativity is indispensable for progress in any givenfield. Imagine life without novelty and originality, whichform the basis of creativity (Amabile, 1983). The presentstudy adds to the creativity literature in several ways.First it empirically tested the influence of three person-ality traits (openness to experience, self-efficacy, andperseverance) on creativity. As anticipated, creativitywas closely related to openness to experience and self-efficacy. Although earlier research had suggested thatperseverance is one of the important traits of a creativeindividual (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996), the results revealed

no empirical support for such a relationship.Second, and more importantly, the potential mediat-

ing role of intrinsic motivation was empirically tested.Intrinsic motivation partially mediated the relationship

between creativity and openness to experience and com-pletely mediated the relationship between creativity andself-efficacy.

Finally, we tested the moderating role of extrinsicmotivation and found that it completely moderatedthe relationship between creativity and perseverance. Itis interesting to note that at low and mean levels ofextrinsic motivation, perseverance was not related tocreativity, but at high levels of extrinsic motivation,perseverance had a negative association with creativity.Additionally, extrinsic motivation partially moderatedthe relationship between self-efficacy and creativity.

Limitations and Future Research

Intrinsic motivation has been considered as the keyingredient in creativity (Amabile, 1988). It is now alsowell-documented that extrinsic motivation has anincremental effect on creativity (Eisenberger & Rhoades,2001). However, we found that extrinsic motivationundermined creativity. One of the reasons could be thelack of a field setting. Oldham and Cummings (1996)

stated, Unfortunately little is known about the con-ditions that promote the creative performance of indi-vidual employees in organizations (p. 607). SimilarlyAmabile (1993) pointed out that, in the real world,things are not that simple and found that, indeed, manyof the extrinsic motivators did appear to underminecreativity in settings such as a research and developmentlaboratory (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989), which maynot hold true in a field experiment.

Also, as Choi (2004) pointed out, Extrinsic motiv-ation per se may neither increase nor decrease creativity.Instead people with high extrinsic motivation may dis-play high creative performance when reward criteriainvolve creativity, whereas the same people may stickto conventional approaches when the situation signalsthat efficiency, rather than creativity, will be rewarded(p. 196). Neither of these conditions were present inthis study setting, as participation in this study was vol-untary. For future research, this same study could bereplicated in an organizational setting.

We also did not find a positive relation between per-severance and creativity. In fact, in the presence of high

TABLE 6

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting the

Moderating Role of Extrinsic Motivation in the Relation Between

Creativity and Perseverance

b D R2

Step 1 .04

Perseverance .56


Step 2 .05

Perseverance .48


Perseverance Extrinsic motivation 8.51

Note. N 124.p < .05. p < .01.

FIGURE 4 Creativity predicted by the two-way interaction betweenPerseverance and extrinsic motivation.

TABLE 7

Regression Slopes Depicting the Association Between Creativity and

Perseverance at Different Levels of Extrinsic Motivation

Interaction Slopes SE T

PerseveranceExtrinsic motivationLow 2.23 1.57 1.42

Mean .48 1.13 .42

High 3.19

1.53 2.09

Note. N 124.

p < .05.



10/15

levels of extrinsic motivation, perseverance was found tobe negatively associated with creativity. However, giventhe theoretical importance of perseverance in creativity,it is plausible that it may be related to creativity in a dif-ferent form of relationship, i.e., a curvilinear relation-ship such that moderate levels of perseverance lead tocreativity, but lower or higher levels of perseverance

would not have the same impact on creativity. It isimportant for a creative person to know when it is timeto give up an idea that is not resulting in anything andaccept that the idea was flawed. A similar relationshipwas suggested by Lubart and Sternberg (1995), i.e., aninverted-U shaped relationship between motivationand creativity emanating from the fact that when a per-son exhibits very high level of motivation, he or she maybecome too focused on the goal, losing sight on thecreative work itself.

It also seems possible that perseverance and intrinsicmotivation may have a two-way relationship. Peoplewho are intrinsically motivated are found to be more

persevering and flexible (McGraw & Fiala, 1982) as theyare motivated because of the challenge and pleasure ofthe work itself, which in turn leads to creativity(Hennessey & Amabile, 1998). But when they arefaced with obstacles and constant failures, it will be theirperseverance that will sail them through the difficultpatch. It will be interesting to further test such arelationship.

One of the major limitations of this study is that allmeasures are self-reported. However, self-report ques-tionnaires and performance-based evaluations havebeen two of the main assessment methods used for mea-suring creativity (Lubart & Guignard, 2004). Plucker

(1998) pointed out that performance-based evaluationsprovided results favoring a domain-specific view of cre-ative behaviors, while the use of self-report question-naires directed to a more general-oriented notion ofcreativity. Additionally, Hocevar (1981) noted thatself-report questionnaires were not only one of the mostcommonly used tools in creative personality, but alsoclaimed that such self-report scales were perhaps themost easily defensible way to identify creative talent(p. 455). Kaufman and Baer (2004) argued that, Self-assessments offer a window into the ways that peopleconceptualize creativity (p. 9). In spite of all this evi-dence in favor of self-report questionnaires in creativity,one cannot ignore the inherent limitations of self-reportdata, such as poor recall, both intentional and uninten-tional distortions by participants, and potential validityissues (Azar, 1997; Rowe, 1997; Schwarz, 1999).

Another limitation was related to common methodvariance, as the data were collected from a single source.Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) men-tioned that one of the most common variables assumedto cause common method variance is the tendency for

participants to respond in a socially desirable manner.They argued that respondents may have less evaluationapprehension and, therefore, are less likely to edit theirresponses to be more socially desirable when anonymityis assured. In the present study, the responses were com-pletely anonymous, thereby protecting the respondentsidentity. Although this does not completely eradicate the

problem of common method bias, it does alleviate it.Also, common method variance was not a significantthreat while testing moderating effects relating toextrinsic motivation. Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler,and Martin (1997) noted that if common methodvariance explains significant relationships, there is norationale why there should be a significant relationshipat one level, but not on another.

External validity could be low, given that the respon-dent sample was undergraduate students, thereby nar-rowing the scope of generalizablility of this study.Finally, the creativity measure had disappointingly lowreliability (b) .68 in this study, suggesting that an

alternative measure should be used in future research.Following are some ideas for future research into the

elusive construct of creativity. Several longitudinal stu-dies have found that the distinguishing traits of creativepeople do not change considerably over time (Camp,1994; Dudek & Hall, 1991; Helson, Roberts, &Agronick, 1995). However, it would still be interestingto observe if the present results would differ in alongitudinal study, especially if carried out in anorganizational setting.

The creativity literature suggests that an individualsbackground characteristics affect his or her cognitiveand noncognitive behavior (Ai, 1999), with gender being

one of the most important characteristics in educationaland psychological literature (Fennema & Carpenter,1998). Psychologists still have a long way to go beforethey come anywhere close to understanding creativityin women and minorities (Helson, 1990). It would beinteresting to test the role of intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation in creativity across gender. Another interest-ing future study would be to replicate this study usingteams. Additionally, the mediational model of intrinsicmotivation could be extended to include the antecedentsof the personality traits, especially for self-efficacy andperseverance. Finally, a natural extension of this studywould be to expand the dispositions studied to deter-mine whether they add incremental variance beyondthose included in the present study.

Given the importance of creativity, it is becoming atopic of ever-increasing interest to managers. In todayscompetitive world, the only thing that is constant ischange. A product that may be a huge success todaycould be extinct tomorrow. In the backdrop of suchfierce competition, new ideas and new productshave become a necessity, rather than a luxury. To be



11/15

competitive in the global market, organizations mustdevelop creative and high quality products and services.

However, creativity is an elusive construct, as it istautological to mention that a person produces creativeoutcomesbecauseheorsheisacreativepersonworkinginacreativity-prone environment, leaving the black-boxunopened (Choi, 2004, p. 187). It would be very beneficial

for managers to gain some insight into this black-box.In the present study, we found certain individual and

contextual factors that contribute to creativity; thiscould prove to be very informative to managers as theybear practical implications with respect to tapping intotheir employees creative potential and encouragingcreativity in the workplace (Scott & Bruce, 1994).

Empirical evidence was provided not only for thepositive impact of intrinsic motivation on creativity,but also on its mediating role in the relationship betweencreativity and the personality traits self-efficacy (com-plete mediation) and openness to experience (partialmediation). Managers should, therefore, concentrate

on building a climate that enhances self-efficacy anduse techniques toward the goal of changing employeesself-concept. This may enable them to hit two birds withone stone, because self-efficacy will not only increasecreativity but will aid in increasing an employees intrin-sic motivation, which in turn further increases creativity.Use of certain training methods should be considered, astraining has been found to enhance self-efficacy (see Frayne& Latham, 1987; Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989).

A cautionary note is due to managers about their useof extrinsic motivators. If their sole aim is to increase anemployees creativity, then they should be very carefulusing extrinsic motivators because, although we found

that extrinsic motivation reduces creativity, the exactrole played by extrinsic motivators in creativity stilleludes us. In fact, in the presence of high extrinsicmotivation there is a negative association betweenperseverance and creativity.

The words of Nickerson (1999) seem very appropriatewith respect to the use of extrinsic and intrinsicmotivators:

The question of exactly how external motivators shouldbe used is a continuing challenge for research. I know ofno one who claims they should never be used, but manyurge caution in their use, noting that they can, if used

injudiciously, become de-motivating in the long run.. . . External motivators should be used in such a wayas to encourage the expression of natural abilities andto reinforce internal motivation, to the extent that itexists. (p. 413)

Overall, this study provides a clearer and more com-prehensive picture of (a) the relationship between crea-tivity and the three personality traits (openness toexperience, self-efficacy and perseverance), (b) the role

intrinsic motivation plays in the relationship betweencreativity and the three personality traits, and, finally,(c) the role of extrinsic motivation in creativity, thushelping to gain more insight into creativitya relativelycomplex construct.

REFERENCES

Adelson, B. (2003). Issues in scientific creativity: Insight, perseverance

and personal technique profiles of the 2002 Franklin institute laure-ates. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 340(3), 163189.

Ai, X. (1999). Creativity and academic achievement: An investigationof gender differences. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 329337.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York:Springer Verlag.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in orga-

nizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in orga-nizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123167). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptua-

lizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace.Human Resource Management Review, 3, 185201.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psy-chology of the creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On

doing what you love and loving what you do. California Manage-ment Review, 40, 39.

Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. (1989). The creative environment

scales: The work environment inventory. Creativity Research Jour-nal, 2, 231254.

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. (1994). Thework preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-

tional orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,950967.

Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces:

Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25,231292.Anderson, J. V. (1992). Weirder than fiction: The reality and myths of

creativity. Academy of Management Executive, 6(4), 4047.Azar, B. (1997). Poor recall mars research and treatment. APA

Monitor, 28, 129.Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-effi-

cacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 213229.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social

cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:

Freeman.

Barron, F. X. (1965). The psychology of creativity. In T. Newcomb(Ed.), New directions in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1134). New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Barron, F. X. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York:

Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Barron, F. X., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence,

and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439476.

Barron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator vari-able distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, stra-tegic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.Basadur, M. (1997). Managing creativity: A Japanese model. In

R. Katz (Ed.), The human side of managing technological innovation:

A collection of readings (pp. 6879). New York: Oxford University

Press.



12/15

Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin C. (1997).When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558583.Camp, G. C. (1994). A longitudinal study of correlates of creativity.

Creativity Research Journal, 7, 125144.

Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, H. J. (1970). Creativity and personality. InP. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 312326). Harmondsworth,

England: Penguin.Cervone, D. (1997). Social-cognitive mechanisms and personality

coherence: Self-knowledge, situational beliefs, and cross-situationalcoherence in perceived self-efficacy. Psychological Science, 8, 4350.

Chambers, J. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical factors

to scientific creativity. Psychological Monographs: General andApplied, 78, 120.

Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative

performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Crea-tivity Research Journal, 16, 187199.

Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. N. (1999). Motivation and creativity. InR. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of creativity (pp. 297312). New

York: Cambridge University Press.Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality

Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-

FFI) professional manual. Odessa, Fl: Psychological AssessmentResources.

Crutchfield, R. (1962). Conformity and creative thinking. In H.Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporaryapproaches to creative thinking (pp. 120140). New York: Atherton.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: Harper Collins.

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsicmotivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18,105115.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and

openness: Further validation of two creative product measures.Creativity Research Journal, 16, 3547.

Dudek, S. Z., & Hall, W. B. (1991). Personality consistency: Emi-nent architects 25 years later. Creativity Research Journal, 4,

213231.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward:Reality or myth. American Psychologist, 51, 11531166.

Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of rewardon creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,

728741.Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L., & Cameron, J. (1999). Does pay for

performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination andintrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77, 10261040.

Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reem-ployment: Helping people to help themselves. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 352360.Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. (1991). Modeling Galatea: Boosting self-

efficacy to increase volunteering. Journal of Applied Psychology,

76, 770780.Eden, D., & Zuk, Y. (1995). Seasickness as a self-fulfilling prophecy:

Raising self-efficacy to boost performance at sea. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 80, 628635.

Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students approaches tolearning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learningstyles (pp. 2149). New York: Plenum Press.

Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for atheory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147178.

Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Creativity and personality. In M. A. Runco

& R. S. Albert (Eds.), The creativity research handbook, (Vol. 1,

pp. 4166). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific andartistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4,

290309.Feist, G. J. (1999). Influence of personality on artistic and scientific

creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.

273296). New York: Cambridge University Press.Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. P. (1998). New perspectives on gender

differences in mathematics: An introduction. Educational

Researcher, 27(5), 45.

Ford, C. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiplesocial domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 11121142.

Frayne, C. A., & Latham, G. P. (1987). Application of social learning

theory to employee self-management of attendance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72, 387392.

Frese, M. (2000). The changing nature of work. In N. Chmiel (Ed.),

Introduction to work and organizational psychology (pp. 424439).Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performanceconcept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 133187).Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human facilities and its development.London: Macmillan.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and

conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactionalapproach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 133142.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analy-sis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of ManagementReview, 17, 183211.

Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternativetraining methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer soft-

ware training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 884891.Golann, S. E. (1963). Psychological study of creativity. Psychological

Bulletin, 60, 548565.

Helson, R. (1990). Creativity in women: Outer and inner view overtime. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity

(pp. 4658). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Helson, R., Roberts, B., & Agronick, G. (1995). Enduringness and

change in creative personality and prediction of occupational crea-

tivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 11731183.Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativ-

ity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 1138).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Reward, intrinsic motiv-ation, and creativity. American Psychologist, 53, 674675.

Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique.Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 450464.

Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource fac-tor in stress appraisal processes. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy:Thought control of action (pp. 195213). Washington, DC:

Hemisphere.Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004) Hawkings haiku, madonnas math:

Why it is hard to be creative in every room of the house. In

R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativityfrom potential to realization (pp. 319). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1976). KhatenaTorrance creative

perception inventory. Chicago: Stoelting.Keynes, J. M. (1956). Newton, the man. In J. R. Newman (Ed.), The

world of mathematics (pp. 277285). New York: Simon & Schuster.

(Original work published in 1942).Lennings, C. J. (1994). An evaluation of a generalized self-efficacy

scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 745750.

Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking andproblem solving (pp. 289332). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.



13/15

Lubart, T. I., & Guignard, J. (2004). The generality-specificity of crea-tivity: A multivariate approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko,

& J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity from potential to realization (pp. 4356). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R. J., (1995). An investment theory of crea-

tivity and its development. Human Development, 34, 131.MacKinnon, D. W. (1960). The highly effective individual. Teachers

College Record, 61, 376378.MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation

study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research,30, 4162.

Martindale, C. (1989). Personality, situation, and creativity. In J. A.

Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of crea-tivity (pp. 211232). New York: Basic Books.

Martindale, C. (1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artis-

tic styles. New York: Basic Books.McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Openness to experience. In

R. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personality (Vol. 1,pp. 145172). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlatesof openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. Johson, & S. Briggs

(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825847). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

McGraw, K. O., & Fiala, J. (1982). Undermining the zeigarnik

effect: Another hidden cost of reward. Journal of Personality, 50,5866.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002).Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships.The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705750.

Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1983). Applied linearregression models. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Newell, A., Shaw, J., & Simon, H. (1962). The process of creativethinking. In H. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Con-temporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 63119). New York:

Atherton.Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

Handbook of creativity (pp. 392430). New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal

and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal,39, 607634.

Perkins, D. N. (1990). The nature and nurture of creativity. In B. F.Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive

instruction (pp. 415443). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates, Inc.

Perkins, D. N. (1994). Creativity: Beyond the darwinian paradigm. InM. A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity (pp. 119142).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for con-

tent generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 4553.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003).Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical reviewof the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(5), 879903.Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001). Calculation for the Sobel

test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests. RetrievedMay 12, 2006, from http://www.unc.edu/~preacher/sobel/sobel.

htmRank, J., Pace, V. L., & Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future

research on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Psy-

chology: An International Review, 53, 518528.Rogers, C. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of

General Semantics, 11, 249260.

Rowe, B. (1997). The science of self-report. APS Observer, 10, 3538.

Runco, M. A. (1990). Implicit theories and ideational creativity. InM. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity

(pp. 234252). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,

657687.

Runco, M. A., Nemiro, J., & Walberg, H. J. (1998). Personalexplicit theories of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 332,

217.Runco, M. A., & Richards R. (1997). Eminent creativity: Everyday

creativity, and health. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Scholz, U., Gutierrez-Do~nna, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is

perceived self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings

from 25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,18, 242251.

Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.

American Psychologist, 54(2), 93105.Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative

behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace.Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580607.

Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals,and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 76, 179185.Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and

goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management

Journal, 38, 483503.Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A

review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder crea-tivity? The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 3353.

Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativityrequirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfactionand intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43,

215223.Sherer, M., & Adams, C. H. (1983). Construct validation of the self-

efficacy scale. Psychological Reports, 53, 899902.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S.,Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Con-

struction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663671.Simon, H. A. (1985). What we know about the creative process. In

R. L. Kuhn (Ed.), Frontiers in creative and innovative management

(pp. 320). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Simonton, D. K. (1989). Shakespeares sonnets: A case of and for

single-case historiometry. Journal of Personality, 57, 695721.Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity and genius. In L. Pervin & O. John

(Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 629652).New York: Guilford.

Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.). (1995). The creative

cognition approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in struc-tural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological method-ology 1982 (pp. 290312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Steiner, G. A. (1965). Introduction. In G. A. Steiner (Ed.), The creativeorganization (pp. 124). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity,

and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,607627.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1992). Buy low and sell high: Aninvestment approach to creativity. Human Current Directions inPsychological Science, 1, 15.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination ofleadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and rela-

tionships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591620.Tipton, R. M., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1984). The measurement of

generalized self-efficacy: A study of construct validity. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 48, 545548.



14/15

Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of ManagementJournal, 26, 289297.

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model andimpulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to under-stand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,

669689.Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability

on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407415.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward atheory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management

Review, 18, 293321.Woodman, R. W., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1989). Individual differences

in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds

(Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 7791). New York: Basic Books.Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and

achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261276.



15/15

Understanding the Mediation Effect of Motivation

Documents

Transcript of Understanding the Mediation Effect of Motivation