Ministry of Education, Research and Yo uth „Babeş-Bolyai University” Cluj-a!oca "e!art#ent of $sycholo%y and Education &ciences $sycholo%y &!eciali'ation LICENCE PAPER 2012 Creative Performance under Time Pressure : Exploring The Moderating Influence of Regulatory Focus &cientific Coordinator( )raduate( "rd* Claudia Rus +ana $o!ovici
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
6he results of @ammond's et al. 2$% meta8analysis of the predictors of
individuals' innovation at work support the notion that individuals need some driving
force to help them overcome challenges associated with creative work. 1e consider that
self regulation through the promotion state represents that driving force.
6he two most frequently cited organizational creativity theories include factors in
the individual and the organization &mabile -, --0% or the individual, group, and
organization 1oodman et al. --*%, as well as interactions between these levels
@ennessey " &mabile, 2$$%. @owever, although many theorists and researchers have
broadened our perspective on creativity, their efforts do not extend far enough.Ivcevic 2$$-% suggests that the study of creativity would benefit from a focus on
creative behaviour and its determinants in the interaction of individual potential and
social environment. Consequently, this study is intended to view creativity at the
workplace from the interaction of three different levels of analysisA the individual, the
environment and the creative product, enriching studies e.g., &mabile, -*, @unter et
al., 2$$=, 1oodman et al., --*% of creativity that adopt an interactionist approach.
6he interactionist model proposed by 1oodman and choenfeldt --, --$%
suggests that creativity is the complex product of a personBs behaviour in a given
situation. 6he situation is characterized in terms of the contextual and social influences
that either facilitate or inhibit creative accomplishment. 6he person is influenced by
various antecedent conditions, and he or she brings to bear both cognitive abilities and
noncognitive traits or predispositions 1oodman et al., --*%.
1e consider this study to be also in alignment with the person environment fit
approach that examines the 4oint influence of person and environment factors on
standing in a class by themselves +ichards, -%. till, it has been argued that although
the study of exceptional persons or events might cast an interesting light on creativity, in
general it appears to be more useful to concentrate on average people ?urbiel, 2$$-%.
?eghetto and Faufman 2$$-% developed the !our C model of creativity. 6hey
argued that in addition to the study of ?ig C< eminent% creativity and little c<
everyday% creativity, it is also essential to explore the idea of mini c<, creativity
inherent in the learning process which involves the construction of personal knowledge
and understanding, and )ro8c<, professional8level expertise in any creative area.
It is clear that the phenomenon of creativity is extremely complex. 6he study of creativity has different perspectives and approaches and psychologists have a long history
of disagreement over the definition of creativity. &ccording to Finnon apud +adu et al.,
--%, the concept of creativity does not refer to a precise theoretical construct, but to a
general heading that comprises general psychological processes. 6he main psychological
aspects of creativity areA the creative process, the creative person, the creative
environment and the creative product +adu et al., --%. 6he following sections of this
article present a literature review of each of these four aspects of creativity.
6.!.6. The 9reative *rocess
3any of the earliest definitions of creativity focused on process, on the dynamic
events surrounding the creative act itself. 3ost of these models depend on a balance
between analytical and synthetic thinking, and usually describe the creative process as a
sequence of phases that alternate between these states. !or example, the model of
creativity developed by #raham 1allace in -20 consists of four phasesA preparation8
definition of the problem/ incubation8ignoring the problem for a while/ insight8the
moment when a new idea emerges/ and verification8analysis of the new idea. )reparation
and verification depend on analytical thinking, whereas insight is an expression of
synthetic thinking, emerging abruptly and unexpectedly, often at a time when the sub4ect
is not consciously thinking about the problem Geumann, 2$$=%.
?eginning with !reud -2, -;*%, but especially since Fris' explorations of the
creative processes Fris, -;2%, psychoanalytic theorists have described relationships
among creativity, primary process, and a particular kind of ego control that permitsadaptive use of primary process. 6he concept regression in the service of the ego< refers
to a momentary and at least, partially controlled use of primitive, nonlogical, and drive
dominated modes of thinking in the early stages of the creative process )ine " @olt,
-0$%.
:.). #uilford -;$% distinguished the thought processes of creative people from
those of other people in terms of convergent and divergent thinking. Convergent thinking
refers to the capacity to quickly focus on the one best solution to a problem. In contrast,
divergent thinking8 the kind most closely associated with creativity and originality8
involves the ability to envision multiple ways to solve a problem trickland, 2$$%.
3ore recently, within the cognitive perspective, creativity is conceived as a
product of two different types of mental processes. !irst, some processes are used in the
generation of cognitive structures memory retrieval, association, mental synthesis,
mental transformation, analogical transfer and categorical reduction%. 6he second type of
processes cover those used to explore the creative implications of the structures attribute
some personality variables that occurred in both groups. Creative scientists and artists
were found to be open to new experiences, less conventional, less conscientious, but
more self8 confident, self8accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant hostile, and impulsive.
&rtists were found to be more affective, emotionally unstable, less socialized and less
accepting of group norms than scientists. cientists were found to be more conscientious
than artists. 6hese findings seem to suggest why it is has proved difficult to produce a
comprehensive list of the personality characteristics of creative people !urnham "
Chamorro8)remuzic, 2$$;%.
&mabile --*% reported that intrinsic motivation is an essential element of creativity, since it allows the individual to remain on task in problem8solving situations
for long periods of time.
Eubart and ternberg --, --;% proposed an investment theory of creativity.
&ccording to this theory, creative people are ones who are willing and able to buy low
and sell high in the realm of ideas. 20n particular buying low and selling high typically
means defying the crowd so that one has to be willing to stand up to conventions if one
wants to thin" and act in creative ways ternberg, 2$$0, p.=%.
6.!.:. The creative environment
6he original research tended to adopt an excessively individualistic perspective.
Creativity was viewed as a process that took place in the mind of a single individual who
possessed the appropriate personal characteristics and developmental experiences.
?eginning with the late -=$s, however, more psychologists began to recognize that
have also been found to encourage innovation. !lexible structures are associated with
increased autonomy and the belief that new ideas will be accepted Fanter, -*%.!inancial and material resources must be available for the task at hand as well as
appropriate production systems, resources for market analysis, informational resources,
relevant training, and the time to engage in long8term thinking are important to
endeavours. &n unsupportive climate may also have a stronger negative effect on low8
ability individuals in that it may be perceived as indicative of organizational norms
against creativity. Consequently, it appears that the creative ability of employees may
either enhance or attenuate the detrimental efects o inhibitory
contextual actors.
6.!.4. The creative product
9espite the long8standing proeminence of the trait approach, &mabile -*%argues that this approach is incomplete, that creativity is best conceptualized not as a
personality trait or a general ability, but as a behavior resulting from particular
constellations of personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and social environments.
2This behavior which is evidenced in products or responses can only be completely
explained by a model that encompasses all three sets of factors &mabile, -*, p. *;%
8 a social psychology of creativity.
Currently, the product definitions are widely regarded as the most useful for
creativity research, even among those who attempt to study the creative process or the
creative personality. &mabile, -*% argues that this is because the identification of a
thought process as creative< must finally depend on the outcome of that processA a
product or response. Eikewise, even if it is possible to identify a constellation of personality traits that marks outstandingly creative individuals, the identification of
individuals on whom such personality research would be validated must depend in some
way on the quality of their work. 6he creativity of products is typically the focus of
experimental paradigms that vary the conditions under which one or more individual's
creativity is assessed. @ere creativity is seen as a fleeting and largely situation8dependent
state rather than a relatively stable and enduring personality trait% @ennessey "
&mabile, 2$$%.
+egarding the components of the creative production, &mabile -*% also states
that domain relevant skills can be considered as the basis from which any performance
must proceed. 6hey include factual knowledge, technical skills and special talents in the
domain in question. Creativity relevant skills include cognitive style, application of
heuristics for the exploration of new cognitive pathways, and working style. 6ask motivation accounts for motivational variables that determine an individual's approach to
a given task.
1.). Conce,tua%i-in creatie ,er#or$ance in t/e 0e de"in do$ain
>sing the product based approach, we define creativity as the production of ideas,
solutions, and products that are novel i.e., original% and appropriate i.e., useful% in a
given situation ?yron et al., 2$$%. & product is novel if it isn't 4ust a simple copy of
previous products, if it is a unique product, which, subsequently may be the ob4ect of a
reproduction +adu et al., --%. 6o this end, a product, or an outcome is creative if it is
consistently 4udged as such by two or more independent, knowledgeable observers
CurKeu, 2$$%.
In the context of this study, creative performance describes a particular individual
consequence there has been increasing interest in identifying the contextual conditionsthat influence such creativity ?aer " 5ldham, 2$$0%. 5f all specific aspects of the work
environment, time pressure has perhaps received the most research attention recently
from organizational psychologists studying creativity @ennessey " &mabile, 2$$%.
till, the literature in this area to date comprises conflicting messages. 5n the one hand
there are those studies e.g., Eynn, 2$$7, ?yron et al., 2$$% which suggest that time
pressure decreases employee innovation, either through time deficit or anxiety. 5ne the
other, there are those who suggest &ndrews and !arris, -=2, halley et al. 2$$$, and
>nsworth et al. 2$$;% that time pressure increases innovation, apparently through a sense
<hough time pressure has been studied intensively by psychologists and
behavioral scientists, a generally accepted definition does not exist. Gevertheless, it has
been commonly operationalized as the time available for task performance @wang,
--7%.
It is certainly conceivable that when people know they are under time pressure,
they will attempt to work faster. uch an attempt would likely result in the exclusion of
difficult components of tasks on the part of the sub4ects whenever possible, and also on a
reliance upon what is already known and done. !or instance, in designing a spill8proof
coffee cup, the sub4ect might focus on what he knows about the characteristics of thecoffee cup which he used that morning, because that would be the first occurring thought,
and the sub4ect would feel the need to get something immediately down on paper to
ensure task completion. 6hus, one could logically expect time pressure to inhibit creative
performance Eynn, 2$$7%. &nd, indeed studies searching for simple linear relations have
generally found no relation or weak negative relations &mabile et al., --0, 2$$2%,
indicating that, overall, time pressure may be detrimental to creativity at work. imilarly,
&ndrews and mith --0% showed that product managers who experienced high time
pressure developed marketing programs low on creativity. In a meta8analysis of the
relationship between stressors and creativity, ?yron et al., 2$$% also found that a mostly
negative correlation between uncontrollable elements, including making a task more
difficult by increasing time constraints and creative performance, suggesting however the
existence of moderator effect.
@owever, there is some research that suggests time pressure can act as a motivator
and, in contrast to the previous set of results, actually increase employee's creative
with respect to a standard that ultimately is not relevant to oneBs overall goal. !ailures can
also stem from holding standards that are too demanding and from conflicts when one
important standard is at odds with another Carver " cheier, 2$$-%.
3any studies have shown that a promotion focus, in general, is more likely to
enhance creativity than is a prevention focus e.g., !riedman " !orster, 2$$, Eam "
Chiu, 2$$2, @erman " +eiter8 )almon, 2$%. 6his is because promotion states generate
a broad and global attentional scope and facilitate conceptual access to mental
representations with lower a priori accessibility. )revention states, in contrast, induce a
narrow attentional scope, a focus on local perceptual details, and a decrease in conceptualaccess to mental representations with lower a priori accessibility ?aas, 9e 9reu, "
Gi4stad, 2$$%.
& promotion focus, for example, enhances the capacity of individuals to identify
many novel and suitable uses of a brick, partly because this orientation focuses attention
on novel opportunities and possibilities 3oss, 2$$%. &lso, a person in promotion focus
might persist in a difficult anagram rather than quitting to insure against omitting a
possible word @iggins, --=%.
Eam and Chiu 2$$2% found that promotion focus encouraged individuals to
search for more strategies, and as a consequence increase fluency in idea generation.
Individual differences in regulatory focus as well as induced regulatory focus resulted in
the same outcomes.
&ccording to ?aas, 9e 9reu, and Gi4stad 2$%, the effect of regulatory focus on
creativity depends on whether or not the aspirations or duties were fulfilled. >nsuccessful
attempts, at either a promotion or prevention focus, should enhance creativity.
6he population from which the sample of this study was drawn was that of web
designers employed in the +omanian companies or agencies. In the field of web site
design, studies show that there are at least two kinds of web designersA web designers
working in large companies, who can collaborate with many specialists, such as graphic
designers, user interface designers, etc., and web designers working in smaller companies, who very often create web sites alone, and therefore have to develop skills in
all these different areas Chevalier et al., 2$$-%.
!.!.!. %ampling $rame and =udge %election
6he sample was drawn from professional web designers of several small
companies activating in four cities situated in the Central &rea of +omania Clu48Gapoca,
?raKov, ibiu, 6Orgu 3ureK%. 1e sampled the companies as needed until we obtained the
planned minimum sample. Considering the fact that creative performance was evaluated
by 4udges, their selection was based on field knowledge, accomplishments and
professional status, each holding the title of Hice )resident.
1e employed a non8random sample of convenience. 1e obtained permission
within each company, and the investigator solicited the participation of every web
designer specialized in the development of e8commerce sites.
!.!.4. *roposed %ample
1e aimed for a sample of 7 web designers. 1e used the #P)ower software to
analyze power. 6hus, a minimum of 7 graphic designers can expect a power of .-;,
assuming an effect size of .$, two8tailed significance test at the .$; alpha level.
&ccording to guidelines suggested by Cohen 2$$%, d Q .$ is considered a large effectsizeA not so large as to be obvious from causal observation, but large enough to have a
good chance of being found statistically significant with a modest number of sub4ects.
Dach sub4ect was assigned to one of the four groups so that each group had an
equal number of 2 participants.
2.). In"tru$ent"
6he instrument packet comprised two previously developed and validated
measures and a background questionnaire.
1e measured the creative performance manifested in designers' work products by
the item We"ite re#erence Sca%e 1)/ +osen " )urinton, 2$$7%.
>sing an approach from cognitive psychology, +osen and )urinton 2$$7% created
a website preference scale. 6heir initial construct for website characteristics were
coherence, complexity, legibility and mystery. Dxploratory factor analysis was applied,
vice versa. 1e selected them on the basis of these two tertiles, as we were interested in
web designers who were predominantly promotion focused or predominantly prevention
focused. 1e also wanted to ensure that the findings in this study were not biased by
respondents who were socialized with both types of regulatory focus or lacked both cf.
Fnollmann " 1ild, 2$$=%. 1e aimed for an equal number of participants who could be
either categorized as % high promotion low prevention focused or 2% high prevention
low promotion focused.
1e computed an overall regulatory focus scale and used it to divide the sub4ects
into promotion focused and prevention focused. )articipants in both these categories werecontacted by phone and asked to volunteer for a study of individual creativity. 6hey were
assured of the confidentiality of their data and of the fact that they would free to
discontinue their participation at any time.
5verall, we assigned each participant to a specific regulatory focus condition
prevention or promotion% and to a creativity task characterized by a specific time
pressure condition time pressure or no time pressure%. @alf of the sub4ects were
promotion focused and the other half were prevention focused. In one condition, the
sub4ect received a task characterized by time pressure. In the control condition, the
sub4ect received the same task, but characterized by no time pressure. 1e randomly
assigned half of the promotion focused sub4ects to one of the two time pressure condition,
as we did with half of the sub4ect characterized by a prevention focus. 6hus each group
5n arrival, the participants were placed in separate rooms, each with its own
computer and a closed door to avoid external noise. Dach volunteer first completed a
consent form and a 9emographic 9ata Inventory.
)articipants were then asked to create two web pages for presenting a seller of
bathrooms the homepage and another of their own choice to present a category of the
client's products%. & previous study Chevalier et al., 2$$-% reported that approximately
one hour and a half is a sufficient amount of time to complete this task. &ccordingly, the
groups in the time pressure condition were given a 7; minutes time limit to create the
product. Dvery ; minutes, an investigator informed them of the remaining time. 6hegroups in the control condition were told that they could take as much time as they
needed to complete the task.
6he designers created web pages based on the assigned conditions and
instructions. 6hey were also provided supporting paper and electronic documents
photographs of the client's store and products, contact information for the store%. 6o
create the web pages they used an authoring tool, such as 3acromedia 9reamer or &dobe
#oEive.
&fter the data collection phase of the study, three 4udges evaluated the participants'
creative performance on the web pages generated using the 1ebsite )reference cale.
?efore evaluating the pages, we provided the 4udges an explanation of each dimensions
and subdimensions and asked to rate several samples using the instrument.
1e coded and keyed all the data for analysis using the tatistical )ackage of the
ocial ciences for 1indows Hersion =.$. !or the initial description of the data we
obtained frequency distributions, analysis of the distributions' symmetry and descriptive
statistics including means, standard deviations and inter8correlations among all the
variables. 6he internal consistency reliability coefficient, Cronbach's alpha and )earson's
r were obtained for all the scale scores.
Inter84udge reliability on the creative performance rating scores was evaluated
using the inter84udge agreement method. &ccording to &mabile --$%, this method is themost popular method in line with the conceptualization of creativity within the product
based approach. Gext, a two8way &G5H& was employed to examine a moderator effect.
6he hypothesis stated that regulatory focus moderates the effects of time pressure
on creativity in such a way that individuals who adopt a promotion focus when facing
high levels of time pressure will perform the best, whereas individuals facing high levels
of time pressure, but who adopt a prevention focus will perform the worst. 1ithin this
framework, moderation implied that the causal relation between two variables changes as
a function of the moderator variable. 6he statistical analysis tested the differential effect
of the independent variable on the dependent variable as a function of the moderator
?aron " Fenny, -0%. In this case, both moderator and independent variables were
categorical variables time pressure vs. no time pressure/ promotion focus vs. prevention
focus%. 1hen both the predictor and variable are categorical, 2x2 &G5H& is used for
&ssuming &G5H& revealed a significant effect for an independent variable with
two levels no further statistical tests were necessary. 6he significant $ 8test told us that the
two means of the independent variable differ significantly, and we could inspect the
means to understand the direction and magnitude of the difference between them Eeary,
2$$%. @owever, assuming the interaction was statistically significant, the effects of one
independent variable variable differed depending on the level of another variable. In
order to determine precisely which condition means differed within the interaction, weconducted tests of simple main effects. pecifically, we examined four simple main
effectsA
. 6he simple main effect of time pressure at the promotion focus 9id the means of
time pressure and no time pressure differed for the promotion focused
participantN%
2. 6he simple main effect of time pressure at the prevention focus 9id the means of
time pressure and no time pressure differed for the prevention focused
participantN%
*. 6he simple main effect of regulatory focus at time pressure 9id the means of
promotion and prevention focus differed for the participants in the time pressure
conditionN%
7. 6he simple main effect of regulatory focus at no time pressure 9id the means of
promotion focus and prevention focus differed for the participants in the no time
6his paper is, to our knowledge, the first to relate the concepts of regulatory focus
and time pressure to organizational creative performance in the web design environment.
1e examine whether regulatory focus moderates the individual8level effects of time
pressure on employees' creative performance. If confirmed, our results add to the time
pressure8creativity literature, indicating that time pressure can have very different effects
on creative performance depending on the predominant focus of self8regulation.
6his study contributes to the creativity literature by considering the influence of
the interactionist model of creativity. 1e study creativity from an integrating framework
that combines important elements of the personality e.g., 1oodman, -%, cognitivee.g., @ayes, --%, and social psychology e.g., &mabile, -*%. 1e believe that this
approach represents a more realistic portrayal of creativity at the workplace as we
examine the 4oint contribution of the organizational context and the person to the
prediction of individual performance.
!ord and #ioia 2$$$% suggest that there is a need for theoretical and empirical
work dedicated specifically to understanding creativity across different domains of
action. Consequently, our study also contributes by focusing explicitly on creative
performance in the field of web design since it has been proposed that creativity research
findings from one domain often do not generalize to other domains e.g., ternberg, -,
?arron " @arrington, -%.
*ractical 0mplications
5ur results may have important implications for practice. Dmployees' creativity is
directly influenced by organizational characteristics. 3any of the tasks that must be
performed require the processing of enormous amounts of information in very short
periods of time. If companies want creativity to be a part of their culture, they must
either manage the complexity o the task or manage employee’s
regulatory ocus.
!irst, we consider that, in a work environment characterized by tight deadlines
and high workloads, personnel selection should consider hiring and promoting
individuals with the appropriate personality profiles.
Identifying candidates' chronic regulatory focus at work might prove to be not
only a good predictor of creative performance, but also a tool for consultants and leadersin offering the right feedback. !or example, research !Trster et al., 2$$% showed that
when given positive feedback, individuals exhibiting a promotion focus demonstrate
more motivation. @owever, individuals with a prevention focus are more motivated when
they receive negative feedback. 6hus, in order to obtain more motivational strength and,
therefore high creative performance, companies should consider encouraging promotion8
oriented followers and discouraging those who are prevention8oriented.
Wallace, Little and Shull (2!" ha#e suggested that, although
regulatory ocus descents rom personal stable characteristics, it can
also be in$uenced by context. “This may at frst appear dicult
because o one’s moderately stable tendency or promotion and
prevention, but theoretically it has been suggested and empirically it
has been shown that one’s tendency can be changed by powerul
contextual stimuli (Crowe !iggins, "##$% !iggins, "##$, &''', and
we believe that leaders represent such stimuli (c) *orster et al), &''+%
allace Chen, &''-. (ibidem, p. %2".
<hough promotion focus has been found to be an important antecedent to
individual creativity Crowe " @iggins, --=%, :ohnson and 1allace 2$$a% found that
collective promotion plays an important role in team innovation behaviour and the
resulting entrepreneurial success. 6he same authors 2$b% consider that top
management teams that encourage a promotion focus through explicit action and implicit
behaviour and attitudes may be able to develop an organizational collective promotion
focus that encourages innovation and entrepreneurship.
Bimitations and %uggestions for $uture #esearch
5ur study has a few limitations. !irst, our sample includes web designers
employees only and it is not clear that our results generalize to other populations. !uture
research might attempt to test the ideas developed in this study across different samples
and settings.
econd, we considered regulatory focus to be a stable personal characteristic.
@owever, @iggins --=, 2$$$% and colleagues e.g., !orster et al., 2$$*% have argued
that, individual differences in regulatory focus i.e., chronic tendencies% predispose the
individual toward different forms of strategic engagement promotion or prevention% but
do not necessarily determine the courses of action one will take across all situations andcontexts. Certain powerful contextual variables such as group norms, leadership climate,
and task characteristics may override chronic tendencies and significantly influence
Burie%< =. ?2++@ Creativity in research and development environmentsA & practical
review<< 0nt. =ournal of ?usiness %cience and ,pplied 3anagement 72%, *;8;.
Carer< C.S.< and Sc/eier< M. F. ?2++@ elf8+egulation and Its !ailures<,
*sychological 0nCuiry ,n 0nternational =ournal for the ,dvancement of *sychological
Theory =%, *287$.
C/ea%ier< A.< Fouuereau< N.< and 9anderdonc;t< =. ?2++@ 6he influence of a
knowledge8based system on designersB cognitive activitiesA a study involving professional
web designers<, ?ehavior 0nformation Technology, 2%, 7;802.
C/ea%ier< A.< and Bonnarde%< N. ?2++(@ &rticulation of website design constraintsADffects of the task and 9esigner's Dxpertise<, 9omputers in <uman ?ehaviors, 2*2$$=%,
27;;827=2.
Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., and Veillette, A. (2009) – )ontextual
*nhibitors o +mployee )reati#ity in rgani-ations. he *nsulating /ole
o )reati#e 0bility1, 3roup /rgani0ation 4anagement , *7*%, **$8*;=.
Co/en< B. H. ?2++1@ Dxplaining )sychological tatistics<, 2nd Ddition, :ohn 1iley "
ons, Inc., 2-.
Cro0e< E.< and Hiin"< E. T. ?1(@ +egulatory focus and strategic inclinationsA
)romotion and prevention in decision8making<. /rgani0ational 1ehavior and
!uman 5ecision 2rocesses, -#, =*2.
Cureu< . L. ?2++(@ #rupurile Vn organizaWii<, )olirom, 27=827.Cureu< . L. ?2+1+@ 6eam creativity in 1eb ite 9esignA &n Dmpirical 6est of a