PROBLEM SOLVING - DEMAND
HOME
AM GOV
ECONOMICS
AP GOV
AP ECON
SPECIAL EVENTS
ASSIGNMENT BOARD
Having studied the concepts behind demand, it’s time to apply them to real decisions. With a small group, work through each of the following problem solving activities - but, in all you do, make sure that the concepts are used appropriately to arrive at your answers.
A. Demand at the Grocery Store
Use the Weis flyer (or other provided store flyer) to locate examples of each of the following demand concepts. Cut out the portion of the flyer (picture or actual ad) that provides the appropriate example, post it on the given paper, and write a brief explanation on the paper of how it exemplifies the concept. When each have been completed, staple the the posted examples together as a packet. (15 points total - accurate examples & complete explanations)
1. Change in price of a substitute2.2. Change in price of a complement
3. Diminishing marginal utility4. Change in income (inferior vs. normal goods)5. Greater concern for health
2.B. Sell More Tickets - For the Same Price
Your group has become the officers for the Econ Club. You are selling tickets ($10) for an upcoming fundraising dance and sales are not what you hoped. How can you sell more tickets without dropping the price of the ticket? Create a plan that can be used to increase sales considering the concepts of demand. Explain your plan in a paragraph as a group and be able to share the idea.
We propose that problem-solving demand (PSD) is an important job attribute for employees' creative performance. Applying job design theory, we examined the relationship between PSD and employee creativity. The theorised model was tested with data obtained from a sample of 270 employees and their supervisors from three Chinese organisations. Regression results revealed that PSD was positively related to creativity, and this relationship was mediated by creative self-efficacy. Additionally, intrinsic motivation moderated the relationship between PSD and creative self-efficacy such that the relationship was stronger for individuals with high rather than low intrinsic motivation. We discuss our findings, implications for practice, and future research.
We propose that problem-solving demand (PSD) is an important job attribute
for employees’ creative performance. Applying job design theory, we examined
the relationship between PSD and employee creativity. The theorised model
was tested with data obtained from a sample of 270 employees and their
supervisors from three Chinese organisations. Regression results revealed that
PSD was positively related to creativity, and this relationship was mediated by
creative self-efficacy. Additionally, intrinsic motivation moderated the relationship between PSD and creative self-efficacy such that the relationship was
stronger for individuals with high rather than low intrinsic motivation. We
discuss our findings, implications for practice, and future research.
INTRODUCTION
Increasing global competition, financial crises, job restructuring, and the
flattening of organisational hierarchies have dramatically increased the creative problem-solving requirements of employees’ jobs (Shalley, Gilson, &
Blum, 2009). These trends have increased the velocity and frequency of
change (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995), reducing structure, predictability, and
supervision within the work environment (Moreland & Argote, 2003). As a
consequence, there has been a greater need for creativity at all levels and
across different types of jobs (Shalley et al., 2009). Reflecting the significance
of employee creativity, a growing body of literature has investigated individual and contextual influences on employee creativity (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Yet despite these advances,
* Address for correspondence: Qin Zhou, ISCTE Business School, ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal. Email: [email protected]
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2012, 61 (1), 56–80
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00455.x
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.few studies have examined how basic elements of an employee’s job design
influence his or her creativity. There has, however, been an increasing recognition that creative ideas may be stimulated by employees’ work
experiences—and in particular aspects of job design (e.g. Mumford, Whetzel,
& Reiter-Palmon, 1997; Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2006; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Further, a small but promising line of
research has found that a job’s design may be a potent source of creativity
(Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Unsworth, Wall, & Carter, 2005). These
studies illustrate that the cognitive requirements of a job, in combination
with individual characteristics, predict creative performance.
Extending previous research, the present study seeks to understand how
and when a job’s problem-solving demands influence employee creativity.
Drawing upon job design theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) and research
(Dean & Snell, 1991; Wall, Corbett, Clegg, Jackson, & Martin, 1990), this
study introduces and applies the concept of problem-solving demand (PSD)
to examine its influence on employee creativity. PSD refers to the extent to
which a job requires employees to actively utilise their knowledge and skills
to “diagnose and solve problems” at work (Wall et al., 1990, p. 208),
thereby challenging employees to develop new solutions to problems
stretching their knowledge and skill bases. PSD is a specific aspect of job
complexity (Campbell, 1988; Dean & Snell, 1991). Job complexity refers to
the level of stimulating and challenging demands associated with a particular job (Valcour, 2007) and encompasses many different facets. Complex
jobs may require individuals to juggle different tasks, learn a great deal of
procedural knowledge, as well as engage in challenging problem-solving to
provide solutions to applied problems. It is this latter aspect, involving fluid
cognitive functioning (Horn & Noll, 1997), that we are most interested in,
since it captures the extent to which the job requires the individual to
develop new and useful solutions to problems. In our view, PSD differs
from the extent to which employees are motivated to engage in creative
processes. Such “creative engagement” refers to an employee’s motivation
to develop creative problem solutions, while PSD pertains to the extent to
which the job design “stretches” the individual to develop skills and new
solutions to problems.
PSD provides employees with opportunities to apply their skills and
stretch their capabilities. We propose that PSD may promote creative selfefficacy in several ways. First we propose, consistent with social learning
perspectives (e.g. Bandura, 1986; Davis & Luthans, 1980; Sims, 1983;
Wood & Bandura, 1989), that employees develop and acquire new skills
and insights about their tasks through this experience. In turn, as a consequence of skill acquisition and potentially mastering new tasks, employees
develop confidence and a greater belief that they are able to solve problems
creatively (i.e. creative self-efficacy; Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Tierney &
PROBLEM-SOLVING DEMAND AND CREATIVITY 57
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.Farmer, 2002). Thus, we propose and test whether PSD is related to creativity through creative self-efficacy.
When seeking to understand the effects of PSD on employee beliefs and
behavior, it is important to understand the individual’s motivation, as not all
employees will respond similarly to challenging job demands. Theory
(Amabile, 1996) and research (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999) highlight
that the extent to which an individual is intrinsically motivated to perform a
particular task plays an important role in understanding how the individual
reacts to PSD (as evidenced by the extensiveness of problem-focused strategies adopted to resolve these challenges). Intrinsic motivation is one’s interest
in activities because of the inherent learning, stimulation, and enjoyment of
these activities (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Individuals who are intrinsically motivated will be more predisposed to invest effort and persist when they face
difficulties, thereby leveraging the knowledge-related benefits of challenging
work conditions. Furthermore, they are more likely than those low in intrinsic motivation to capitalise on the opportunities provided by PSD and
develop higher levels of creative self-efficacy. Thus a further objective of this
research is to examine the moderating effects of intrinsic motivation on the
relationship between PSD and creative self-efficacy.
This research contributes to the creativity literature in at least three ways.
First, the study extends a promising and growing body of literature that
applies learning derived from job design theory to the creativity literature.
Second, by testing the mediating influence of creative self-efficacy, we specify
the processes by which a job’s design stimulates creativity. Further, we shed
light on the inconsistent association between intrinsic motivation and creativity, by testing Shalley and colleagues’ prediction that motivation may be
a necessary but not sufficient condition to promote creativity (Shalley et al.,
2004). Consistent with our focus that creativity is increasingly important in a
wide array of jobs, we obtained data from a multi-organisational sample
comprising a variety of work functions and job types in the People’s Republic
of China. This sampling strategy also allowed us to examine the predictive
utility of European/American theory in a different cultural context—a key
direction for future research (Drazin & Shoonhoven, 1996; Farmer, Tierney,
& Kung-McIntyre, 2003; Shalley et al., 2004). Figure 1 depicts the relationships examined in this study.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
PSD and Creativity
We define creativity as employees’ generation of novel and useful ideas
concerning products, procedures, and processes at work (Amabile, 1988;
Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley et al., 2004). Reflecting calls by scholars
58 ZHOU ET AL.
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.that creativity research should focus not just on contexts where creativity is
anticipated (e.g. R&D teams) but also on contexts where creativity is not
necessarily expected as a matter of course (Ford & Gioia, 2000; Mumford &
Gustafson, 1988; Tierney & Farmer, 2002), we examine creative performance
that involves incremental developments or adjustments, which are common
in a context where creativity is not an expected outcome (Mumford &
Gustafson, 1988).
According to Amabile (1996), when tasks are complex and intellectually
demanding, employees are likely to experience “interest, involvement, curiosity, satisfaction, or positive challenge” (p. 115). This, in turn, leads to
creativity. The positive relationship between complex job demands, such as
job complexity, and creativity has received some empirical support in extant
literature (see Shalley et al., 2004, for a review). PSD (Jackson, Wall, Martin,
& Davids, 1993; Wall et al., 1990; Wall, Jackson, & Mullarkey, 1995) is
defined as the extent to which individuals perceive their work to be challenging, exposing them to novel and unexpected events. PSD also relates to
whether the job requires the individual to apply job-specific accumulated
knowledge as well as adopting new approaches to develop solutions to problems. More importantly, however, we propose that PSD stands out as a
particularly important job attribute for creativity within a work context where
creativity is not explicitly required. It is arguable that creativity is not a
natural option in such a context. Employees may prefer familiar and routine
options and forsake novel creative options (Ford, 1996). While we acknowledge employees’ motivation as important in influencing their response to
challenging situations, we expect that on average PSD will “jolt” employees
out of their routines and point them in new directions (Csikszentmihalyi,
1993). When PSD is high, employees have to deal with problems that they
have not encountered before. In order to diagnose and solve these new
problems, employees are prompted to seek new information, knowledge, and
skills. Thus, PSD provides opportunities for employees to be open to possibilities and to let go of their usual ways of doing things. At the same time, the
Creativity
Problemsolving demand
Creative
self-efficacy
Intrinsic
motivation
FIGURE 1. Hypothesised model for the relationship between PSD and
creativity.
PROBLEM-SOLVING DEMAND AND CREATIVITY 59
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.extended knowledge base of jobs where PSD exists is likely to lead to creative
performance (Amabile, 1996). In contrast, when PSD is low, employees have
easy access to solutions. They will resort to routine approaches which consequently inhibit creative performance. Therefore, we hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 1: PSD is positively related to creativity.
The Mediating Influence of Creative Self-Efficacy
Reacting to the notion that one’s judgment of capability is domain specific
(Bandura, 1997), Tierney and Farmer (2002) developed the construct of
creative self-efficacy for applicability in a creativity context. Creative selfefficacy refers to “the belief that one has the ability to produce creative
outcomes” (Tierney & Farmer, 2002, p. 1138). It is a relatively new theoretical construct; even so, research evidence suggests that creative self-efficacy is
an important source of creativity (Gong et al., 2009; Tierney & Farmer, 2002,
2004). We hypothesise that creative self-efficacy is also a mediator of the
association between PSD and employee creativity.
PSD seems conducive to the formation and maintenance of employee
creative self-efficacy for several reasons. First, the experience of grappling
with complex problems will provide employees with greater confidence in
their capacity to deal with obstacles (Wood & Bandura, 1989), promoting
resilience and a sense of belief in one’s ability. Compared with low PSD tasks,
high PSD tasks stimulate employees to try new approaches to reduce
demands rather than follow established methods. Since these processes
promote flexibility and creativity in analyzing and identifying solutions,
employees working in high PSD situations will be more likely to experience
increased creative self-efficacy. Furthermore, challenging work offers opportunities to acquire new skills and task-related knowledge, enhancing the
arsenal of skills an individual possesses (cf. McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, &
Morrow, 1994). This, in turn, promotes self-belief, as well as the capacity to
develop creative solutions to problems. Further, researchers have concluded
that employees are unlikely to learn new skills and knowledge in repetitive
and restricted jobs (e.g. Frese, 1982) . When PSD is high, employees do not
have easy access to solutions. Rather, employees need to undergo extended
searches to obtain relevant information. For example, they may need to get
to know the operations of other work areas in order to diagnose and generate
solutions to problems that occur in their work area. PSD, therefore, engenders useful learning experiences which eventually lead to individuals’ belief in
their work abilities.
Finally, the definition and measurement of PSD in terms of the cognitive
problem-solving requirements of the task relates directly to an employee’s
perception of the extent to which the job encourages skill acquisition and
60 ZHOU ET AL.
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.ultimately mastery of particular activities (as opposed to an evaluation of
their difficulty or non-job-related obstacles such as organisational politics).
In turn, development promotes a greater sense of capability. Empirical
research supports this hypothesised association, illustrating that more
broadly defined challenging job attributes such as task complexity have been
shown to be conducive to creative self-efficacy, in turn enhancing employee
creativity (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Thus we hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 2a: PSD is positively related to creative self-efficacy.
Theorists have suggested that self-efficacy constitutes an indispensable
dimension of the motivational process important for individual creativity
(Bandura, 1997; Ford, 1996). As Bandura stated, “Effective personal functioning is not simply a matter of knowing what to do and be motivated to
do”. Rather, one needs to have efficacy beliefs which “activate cognitive,
motivational and affective processes that govern the translation of knowledge and abilities into proficient action” (1997, pp. 36–37). Only when individuals are confident about their ability to be creative will they engage in the
activities leading to creative performance (Bandura, 1997; Ford, 1996) .
Tierney and Farmer (2002) provide two reasons why creative self-efficacy
may be related to employee creativity. First, they argue that creative selfefficacy constitutes a motivational mechanism important for creativity. Creative performance involves challenges, risks, and potential failures. It is
important for one to be persistent in the face of difficulties (Amabile, 1983).
When individuals have high levels of creative self-efficacy, they hold a
strong belief in their ability to be successful in spite of difficulties. This
belief will help them to set creative goals, to be persistent, and to put in
more effort in their creative endeavors (Bandura, 1997). Second, creative
self-efficacy also serves as a cognitive mechanism important for creativity.
Creativity requires creativity relevant processes as well as domain-relevant
knowledge (Amabile, 1983, 1996). When individuals have high levels of
creative self-efficacy, they will sustain effort at seeking work-related information (Bandura, 1997), leading to a better understanding of work-related
knowledge. Furthermore, individuals who hold a strong belief in their creativity abilities will not be satisfied with ordinary and routine ideas or solutions (Ford, 1996). Rather, they will put in more effort to use cognitive
resources (e.g. knowledge, memory, analytic skills) to come up with unique
ideas. This is consistent with the notions of “divergent thinking” and
breaking “mental set”, which are inherent in creativity relevant processes
(Amabile, 1983). Such notions are consistent with research evidence that
creative self-efficacy is positively related to creativity (Tierney & Farmer,
2002, 2004).
As discussed, PSD prompts employees to develop and apply problemsolving knowledge and skills by directly dealing with work-related problems.
PROBLEM-SOLVING DEMAND AND CREATIVITY 61
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.The resulting attainments or mastery experiences will lead to elevated creative self-efficacy. Since creative self-efficacy is related to creativity (Tierney
& Farmer, 2002, 2004), it constitutes an underlying motivational mechanism
through which PSD is related to creativity. Accordingly, we hypothesised
that:
Hypothesis 2b: Creative self-efficacy mediates the relationship between PSD and
creativity.
The Moderating Influence of Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation relates to whether individuals are internally driven to
complete a task due to a personal interest in the task itself. Thus, intrinsic
motivation refers to the motivational state in which employees are attracted
to and energised by the task itself, rather than the external outcomes that
doing the task might yield (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsic motivation is
related to other stable personality traits, such as learning goal orientation
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988), mastery orientation (Kagan, 1972), and growth
need strength (GNS; Hackman & Oldham, 1975). However, intrinsic motivation is conceptually distinct from these individual differences. For some
tasks, individuals may have an orientation to learn, grow, and achieve (i.e.
high learning goal orientation, high mastery orientation, or high GNS), and
yet they may not enjoy working on the task (i.e. low intrinsic motivation)
(Shalley et al., 2009).
To date, to our knowledge no study has examined the moderating
influence of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between demanding job attributes (e.g. PSD) and individual outcomes. However, there is
strong evidence that when individuals are intrinsically as opposed to
extrinsically motivated they are more willing to tackle difficult tasks or
goals (cf. Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004), and persist at these (Vallerand, Pelletier, Blais, Briere, Senecal, & Vallieres, 1992; Ryan & Connell,
1989). Therefore, they are less likely to be affected by the failure and dif-
ficulties entailed by challenging tasks, e.g. PSD. We argue that the relationship between PSD and creative self-efficacy may be a function of an
individual’s intrinsic motivation: those with higher levels of intrinsic motivation will respond more favorably to PSD situations. Individuals high in
intrinsic motivation are more likely to accept difficult problems and be
persistent when they encounter difficulties and challenges in looking for
solutions.
Furthermore, individuals high in intrinsic motivation are likely to see
PSD in terms of the opportunities it presents for them to fully apply capabilities and develop better problem-solving skills. Such positive attitudes
towards PSD will help them achieve better learning outcomes and higher
62 ZHOU ET AL.
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.creative self-efficacy. In contrast, low intrinsic motivation individuals may
feel threatened by PSD situations. Instead of trying to overcome problem
situations and develop problem-solving skills, individuals low in intrinsic
motivation are likely to avoid problems or not take advantage of opportunities to apply and develop their knowledge and skills. Consequently,
individuals low in intrinsic motivation are less likely to experience increased
creative self-efficacy. On the basis of these arguments, we hypothesised
that:
Hypothesis 3a: Intrinsic motivation will moderate the relationship between PSD
and creative self-efficacy such that the relationship between PSD and creative
self-efficacy will be stronger for individuals with high rather than low intrinsic
motivation.
If creative self-efficacy mediates the relationship between PSD and creativity, as predicted in Hypothesis 2b, and the impact of PSD on creative selfefficacy is dependent on intrinsic motivation, as predicted in Hypothesis 3a,
it is likely that intrinsic motivation may moderate the strength of the mediated relationship between PSD and creativity via creative self-efficacy, such
that the mediated relationship will be stronger for individuals high rather
than low in intrinsic motivation. This effect pattern is referred to as moderated mediation (Muller, Yzerbyt, & Judd, 2005; Preacher, Rucker, &
Hayes, 2007).
Hypothesis 3b: Intrinsic motivation will moderate the mediated effect of PSD on
creativity via creative self-efficacy such that the mediated effect will be stronger for
individuals with high rather than low intrinsic motivation.
METHOD
Sample and Procedure
Three issues were considered in the selection of participating organisations.
First, this study aims to examine creativity in an environment where the
requirements for creativity are not salient. This is different from creativity
studies that focus on R&D teams, where creativity is the expected outcome
(e.g. Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994;
Tierney et al., 1999). Second, it is important to have participants from different functional groups. By so doing, a representative sample (of a general
work environment) can be achieved. Lastly, like many other creativity
studies, supervisor ratings were used to measure employee creativity. Therefore, it is important to identify supervisor–subordinate dyads, whereby the
supervisor is in an appropriate position to observe subordinates’ creative
performance. Three organisations located in the city of Wuxi, the People’s
PROBLEM-SOLVING DEMAND AND CREATIVITY 63
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.Republic of China satisfied the preceding requirements and were invited to
participate in this study. In meetings with Human Resources (HR) managers
of each of the companies, the first and second authors explained the aims of
the study and asked them to identify individual work units within the
company for possible participation in the research. We made it clear that we
were not focusing specifically on work units with high creative performance,
but instead examining job-related characteristics across all or most functional areas of the business. Units were selected in order to be representative
of the organisation as a whole.
Employees in the identified units were informed of this survey through
the HR department of each company before the questionnaires were distributed. A survey coordinator was assigned by each HR department to
help the first author distribute questionnaire packages to respondents.
Separate questionnaires were administered to subordinates and supervisors.
Subordinate questionnaires were distributed to 320 employees while
supervisor questionnaires were distributed to 60 immediate supervisors of
the subordinates. Employees completed a questionnaire that included
measures of PSD, creative self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and demographics variables. Separately, each supervisor was asked to rate the creativity of an average of five subordinates. A cover letter attached to each of
the questionnaires informed respondents of the purpose of the survey.
Respondents were assured of the confidentiality of their responses and their
personal ID (provided at the top right hand corner of the questionnaire)
would only be used to match their responses to the ratings provided by
their supervisors.
Completed and usable questionnaires from 270 supervisor–subordinate
dyads were received. This represented a response rate of 84 per cent for
subordinates and 90 per cent for supervisors. Of the 270 respondents, 66
per cent were male. Respondents reported an average age of 28.35 years
(SD = 5.25) and average job tenure of 2.93 years (SD = 3.03). In terms of
highest level of education achieved, 23 per cent (62) respondents had completed high school (12 years of education), 50 per cent (135) college degree
(15 years of education), 25.2 per cent (68) Bachelor’s degree (16 years of
education), and 1.9 per cent (5) Master’s degree (19 years of education). It
should be noted that in China a college degree, “Da Zhuan”, is a qualifi-
cation lower than a bachelor degree, “Ben Ke”. The duration of a college
degree is normally three years whereas that of a bachelor degree is normally
four years. Participants were from different functions of the companies:
administration and HR (88 respondents, 33.1%), production (78 respondents, 29.3%), finance/accounting department and quality control (57
respondents, 21.4%), logistics (20 respondents, 7.5%), and sales and marketing and others accounted for 23 respondents (8.7%). Four respondents
did not indicate their job function.
64 ZHOU ET AL.
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.Measures
Following procedures suggested by Brislin (1980), the questionnaire was
developed originally in English and translated into Chinese. The Chinese
version of the questionnaire was back-translated into English. A third
person, an English native speaker, compared the original version with the
back-translation.
PSD. A five-item scale originally developed by Jackson et al. (1993) and
later improved and validated by Wall et al. (1995) was used to measure PSD.
Items include “To what extent are you required to deal with problems which
are difficult to solve?” “To what extent do you have to solve problems which
have no obvious correct answer?” “To what extent do you need to use your
knowledge of work processes to help prevent problems arising in your job?”
“To what extent do the problems you deal with require a thorough knowledge of the work process in your area?” and “To what extent do you come
across problems in your job you have not met before?” Response options
ranged from (1) “not at all” to (5) “a great deal”. The scale’s alpha reliability
is .76.
Creative Self-Efficacy. A three-item scale developed by Tierney and
Farmer (2002) was used to measure creative self-efficacy. A sample item is “I
have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively”. Response
options ranged from (1) “strongly disagree” to (7) “strongly agree”. The
scale’s alpha reliability is .87.
Intrinsic Motivation. A 12-item scale originally developed by Vallerand
and his colleagues in an academic context (see Vallerand, 1997), and later
adapted by Van Yperen and Hagedoorn (2003) to a work context, was used
to measure intrinsic motivation. It represents three types of intrinsic motivation: intrinsic motivation to know (items 1–4), to accomplish things (items
5–8), and to experience stimulation (items 9–12). Respondents were asked,
“Why do you do this job?” Sample items are: “for the pleasure it gives me to
know more about my job” (intrinsic motivation to know); “because I feel a
lot of personal satisfaction while mastering certain difficult job skills” (intrinsic motivation to accomplish things); “for the excitement I feel when I am
really involved in my job” (intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation).
Response options ranged from (1) “strongly disagree” to (7) “strongly
agree”. We conducted both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test: (1) whether a three-factor structure holds
for intrinsic motivation; and (2) whether the three factors attributed to one
factor. EFA illustrated that two items displayed cross-loading. They were
therefore deleted. The remaining 10 items loaded onto thee factors, respecPROBLEM-SOLVING DEMAND AND CREATIVITY 65
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.tively, i.e. intrinsic motivation to know (three items), to accomplish things
(three items), and to experience stimulation (four items). The CFA results
confirmed that three first-order latent variables loaded onto one secondorder latent factor (c
2
= 97.39, df = 32, p < .001, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA
= .08). Consequently, we combined the three subscales to create a composite
index for intrinsic motivation. The scale’s alpha reliability is .94.
Creativity. A 13-item scale developed by Zhou and George (2001) was
used to measure creativity. Supervisors rated the creative performance for
each of their subordinates who participated in the survey. A sample item is:
“This employee is a good source of creative ideas”. Response options ranged
from (1) “not at all” to (5) “to a great extent”. The scale’s alpha reliability is
.96. Since supervisors rated more than one employee, there was a risk that the
creativity rating scores received by individual employees were dependent on
rater identity. Following Dansereau and Yammarino (2000), we conducted
within and between analysis (WABA) (Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino,
1984) to test the assumption of independence of creativity ratings that each
supervisor provided for multiple subordinates. The E ratio (tests of practical
significance) for creativity was .96, less than 1.0, and therefore indicated that
the variation within groups was significantly greater than the variation
between groups. Furthermore, the corrected F-test (tests of statistical signifi-
cance) was statistically nonsignificant (1/F = .28). Together, these WABA
results supported the assumption of independence for creativity and the
appropriateness of conducting the analysis at the individual rather than the
group level.
Control Variables. We controlled for education level and job tenure,
because both reflect individual knowledge level (Tierney & Farmer, 2002),
which has been related to individual creativity (Amabile, 1983; Woodman,
Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Education level was measured on a 4-point scale
(1 = “high school and below”, 2 = “college degree”, 3 = “Bachelor’s degree”, 4
= “Master’s degree”). Job tenure was measured in years. Age has been associated with creativity (Amabile, 1983) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). There
are gender differences in perceptions of capabilities to do a certain type of job.
For instance, compared with men, women generally perceived themselves to
be less efficacious in doing some types of jobs, such as scientific jobs (Matsui &
Tsukamoto, 1991). Consequently, we also controlled for age and gender. Two
dummy variables (org 1 and org 2) were created to control for the difference
in creativity receptivity or perceived expectation for creativity (Ford, 1996)
that might exist among the three organisations. Finally, we controlled for job
type. Following Tierney and Farmer (2002), we distinguished two job types:
production versus operations (including administration and HR, finance/
66 ZHOU ET AL.
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.accounting, logistics, sales and marketing, and others). A dummy variable was
created for job type: production = 0 and operations = 1.
Data Analysis Procedures
We conducted CFA to test the distinctiveness of the variables. The overall
model chi-square measure (c
2
), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; Tucker &
Lewis, 1973), the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and the root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993)
were used as key indicators of overall model fit (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). For
TLI and CFI, a value of .90 is seen as a reasonable minimum for model
acceptance (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), whereas for RMSEA, a value of .08 or
less is indicative of a good model fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
To test for mediation (Hypothesis 2b), we followed procedures suggested
by Baron and Kenny (1986). According to Baron and Kenny (1986), the
following conditions must be met to demonstrate a mediating effect: (1)
independent variable (PSD) must be related to mediator (creative selfefficacy); (2) independent variable (PSD) must be related to dependent variable (creativity); (3) mediator (creative self-efficacy) must be related to
dependent variable (creativity); and (4) independent variable (PSD) must
have no effect on dependent variable (creativity) when mediator (creative
self-efficacy) is held constant (full mediation) or should become significantly
smaller (partial mediation).
Hypothesis 3b proposes moderated mediation. To test for this possible
relation, we followed the procedures described by Muller et al. (2005),
Edwards and Lambert (2007), and Preacher et al. (2007). Specifically, we
examined four conditions: (1) significant effect of PSD on creativity; (2)
significant interaction effect between PSD and intrinsic motivation in predicting creative self-efficacy and creativity; (3) significant effect of creative
self-efficacy on creativity; and (4) indirect effect of PSD on creativity signifi-
cantly differs at high and low levels of intrinsic motivation.
RESULTS
We compared the fit of our hypothesised four-factor model to a number of
nested alternative models: (1) a three-factor model where two motivational
constructs, intrinsic motivation and creative self-efficacy were loaded on one
factor; (2) a two-factor model where all self-report variables, PSD, intrinsic
motivation, and creative self-efficacy were loaded on one factor; and (3) a
one-factor model where all variables loaded on one factor. The fit indices
indicate that our hypothesised four-factor model fit the data best (c
2
= 537.72,
df = 246, p < .001, TLI = .91, CFI = .93, RMSEA=.07), suggesting support for
the distinctiveness of the variables in this study.
PROBLEM-SOLVING DEMAND AND CREATIVITY 67
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 1.
PSD was significantly and positively correlated with creativity (r = .21,
p < .01) and creative self-efficacy (r = .32, p < .01), while creative self-efficacy
was significantly and positively correlated with creativity (r = .20, p < .01),
indicating preliminary support for the relationships suggested in Hypotheses
1, 2a, and 2b.
To test the hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical regression analysis.
Table 2 shows the results for the tests of mediation as suggested in Hypotheses 1, 2a, and 2b. The results supported Hypotheses 1, 2a, and 2b as follows:
(1) PSD was significantly related to creative self-efficacy in model 1. (2) PSD
was significantly related to creativity in model 2. (3) The regression coefficient
for creative self-efficacy was significantly related to creativity and the coeffi-
cient for PSD became non-significant (b = .13, p = .06) in Model 3, indicating
the mediating effect of creative self-efficacy on the relationships between PSD
and creativity (Baron & Kenny, 1986). We also conducted a Sobel test (Sobel,
1982) with “Calculation for the Sobel Test” provided by Preacher and
Leonardelli (2004). The results revealed that PSD had significant indirect
effects on creativity through creative self-efficacy (Sobel = 2.08, p < .05),
providing support for Hypothesis 2b.
Table 3 displays the regression results for testing the moderating effect of
intrinsic motivation on the relationship between PSD and creative selfefficacy (Hypothesis 3a) and the mediated effect of PSD on creativity via
creative self-efficacy (Hypothesis 3b). Following Aiken and West (1991), we
centered all the variables used in the interaction analysis. In Model 4 creative
self-efficacy was regressed on the control variables, PSD, intrinsic motivation, and the interaction term of PSD and intrinsic motivation. In Model 5,
creativity was regressed on the control variables, PSD, intrinsic motivation,
and the interaction term of PSD and intrinsic motivation. In Model 6,
creativity was regressed on the control variables, PSD, intrinsic motivation,
creative self-efficacy, the interaction term of PSD and intrinsic motivation,
and the interaction term of intrinsic motivation and creative self-efficacy
(Muller et al., 2005). In support of Hypothesis 3a, the change of the multiple
squared correlation coefficient (DR
2
) for the interaction term of PSD and
intrinsic motivation was statistically significant, explaining a significant
amount of variance in creative self-efficacy (DR
2
= .02, p < .05). To interpret
the nature of this interaction, we calculated regression equations for the
relationship between PSD and creative self-efficacy at the high and low levels
of intrinsic motivation. Following Cohen and Cohen (1983) we defined the
high and low values as plus and minus one standard deviation from the mean.
Figure 2 shows that the form of the interaction was as predicted in that the
relationship between PSD and creative self-efficacy was stronger for individuals with high intrinsic motivation. For those with low intrinsic motivation, the link between PSD and creative self-efficacy was not as significant. A
68 ZHOU ET AL.
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
a Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Org1
a
– – – –
2 Org2
a
– – – -.81** –
3 Job type
b
– – – -.82** .65** –
4 Gender
c
– – – .24** -.27** -.29** –
5 Education – – – -.36** .17** .45** -.20** –
6 Age – 28.35 5.25 .02 -.04 .05 -.08 .01 –
7 Job tenure – 2.93 3.03 .06 -.03 -.04 -.13* -.04 .41** –
8 PSD .72 3.03 0.60 -.14* .04 .09 .20** .16* .02 .06 –
9 Creative self-efficacy .87 5.00 1.02 .16* -.15* -.08 .19** .08 .03 .01 .32** –
10 Intrinsic motivation .94 5.47 1.12 .11 -.11 -.09 .09 -.08 .01 -.15** .22** .28** –
11 Employee creativity .96 2.97 0.66 .07 -.13 -.02 .06 .04 .12 .19** .21** .20** .01 –
a
Dummy variable
b
Production = 0, Operations = 1
c
Female = 0, Male = 1
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
PROBLEM-SOLVING DEMAND AND CREATIVITY 69
© 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International
Association of Applied Psychology.further simple slope analysis revealed that when intrinsic motivation was
high (i.e. one standard deviation above the mean), the slope was significant
and the relationship between PSD and creative self-efficacy was positive
(simple slope = .64, p < .001). However, when intrinsic motivation was
low (i.e. one standard deviation below the mean), the slope was insignificant
(simple slope = .17, p = ns), indicating that the relationship between PSD
and creative self-efficacy became insignificant when intrinsic motivation
was low.
To test Hypothesis 3b, i.e. moderated mediation effects, we examined
four conditions (described in the data analysis section). PSD was positively
related to creativity in Model 5 (b = .20, p < .05), showing an overall effect
of PSD on creativity, demonstrating that condition one was present. As
described in the results previously, the interaction effect between PSD and
intrinsic motivation was positively related to creative self-efficacy (Model