Rewards and creativity the next step

REWARDS AND CREATIVITY: THE NEXT STEP
by
Muhammad Abdur Rahman Malik
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Suleman Dawood School of Business,
Lahore University of Management Sciences.
May, 2013

ii
© 2013
Muhammad Abdur Rahman Malik 2013
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iii
ABSTRACT
Though research has shown a consistent and positive relationship between
intrinsic rewards and creative behavior, the research to explore the impact of extrinsic
rewards on creative behavior has yielded mixed and non-conclusive results. The
mechanisms and psychological processes through which rewards affect creative behavior
and the boundary conditions within which rewards trigger creative behavior are largely
unknown. Most of the reward – creative behavior research is based on three assumptions,
a- The relationship between rewards and creative behavior is direct and un-moderated, b-
Rewards have same impact on individuals, irrespective of their dispositional differences
and contextual settings, and c- All types of rewards produce similar type of creative
behavior. This study challenges all of these assumptions and forwards the reward -
creativity research by identifying factors that mediate and moderate the relationship
between rewards and creative behavior.
The results based on the data collected through survey forms from 260 employees
and their supervisors, suggest that rewards affect individuals differently, depending on
their personal dispositions and on contextual factors. The study shows that intrinsic and
extrinsic rewards produce different types of creative behavior. The results also show that
contextual and personal variables such as organizational climate, locus of control and
goal orientation affect the relationship between rewards and creative behavior. Thus, the
study makes it clear that impact of rewards on creative behavior depends on several
personal and contextual factors and ranges from significant positive to significant
negative. The study guides managers about how to use rewards to enhance creative
behavior of their employees, and how to trigger different types of creative behaviors, by

iv
aligning rewards with personal and contextual factors. The study advances the reward -
creativity debate from cognitive – behaviorism dichotomy to the social cognitive
paradigm.

vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this dissertation, and my PhD would not have been realized without
the help and guidance of many key individuals. There can not be enough words to thank
Dr. Arif N. Butt, my supervisor, for the support, guidance and mentorship that he has
provided during the past few years. He is a very fine administrator, teacher and
researcher, but probably an even better supervisor. It has been (and will always remain)
an honor to be his first PhD student.
I express my appreciation to Dr. Abdul Karim Khan and Dr. Kamran Ali Chatha, my
committee members for their support, feedback and help. My thanks also go out to the
anonymous international reviewers of my dissertation for their suggestions. I also want to
thank my fellow PhD students, the reviewers and participants of the conferences where I
have presented parts of my research for their feedback and appreciation. Finally I want to
mention contributions of Dr. Junaid Ashraf, the Research Director SDSB, and his
assistant Shoaib Khan for performing the thankless and never ending administrative
processes that ensured a timely completion of my PhD.
Lastly I would like to thank my family for their support and encouragement. It would not
be possible for me to keep the persistence and meet the requirements of PhD program
without the prayers of my mother and trust and sacrifice of my wife.
If there is a connection between this world and the hereafter, I am sure that my father
would be a happy person today.
Muhammad Abdur Rahman Malik
Lahore University of Management Sciences
May 2013.

ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One
1. Introduction
1.1 Statement of Research Problem and Research Question 1
1.2 Research Significance 6
1.3 Definitions 7
1.3.1 Creativity 8
1.3.2 Radical and Incremental Creative Behavior 8
1.3.3 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards 8
1.3.4 Enjoyment 9
1.3.5 Creative Intention 9
1.3.6 Locus of Control 9
1.3.7 Self Efficacy 10
1.3.8 Goal Orientation 10
1.3.9 Organizational Climate 10
1.3.10 Support for Creativity 11
1.4 Arrangement of the Remaining Dissertation 11
Chapter Two
2. Creativity and Reward – Creativity Research 13
2.1 Definition and Measurement of Creativity 13
2.2 Classification of Creativity 15
2.2.1 Incremental and Radical Creativity 15

x
2.3 Relationship between Rewards and Creative Behavior 17
2.4 Relationship between Rewards and Classification of
Creative Behavior 20
2.5 The Cognitive Perspective 22
2.5.1 Over Justification Hypothesis 23
2.5.2 Cognitive Evaluation Theory 23
2.5.3 Intrinsic Motivation Theory 25
2.5.4 Empirical Research Supporting Cognitive Perspective 26
2.6 The Behaviorist Perspective 28
2.6.1 Learned Industriousness Theory 28
2.6.2 Creativity as an Intentional Decision 29
2.6.3 Empirical Research Supporting Behaviorist Perspective 30
2.7 Importance of Rewards 32
2.8 Convergence of Cognitive and Behaviorist Perspective 33
Chapter Three
3. Personal & Contextual Factors and Creativity 37
3.1 Personality and Creativity – Historical Research 37
3.1.1 Personality and Creativity in Pre FFM Period 38
3.1.2 Personality and Creativity in the FFM Period 39
3.2 Personality in Perspective of Rewards –
Creativity Relationship 41
3.2.1 Locus of Control and Self Efficacy 42

xi
3.3 Environmental Models and Theories of Creativity 52
3.4 Contextual Factors in Perspective of Rewards –
Creativity Relationship 53
3.4.1 Support for Creativity 54
3.4.2 Organizational Climate and Creativity 56
Chapter Four
4. Method 61
4.1 Sample and Data collection 61
4.2 Biases in Survey based Research 64
4.3 Measures 65
4.3.1 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Rewards for Creativity 65
4.3.2 Enjoyment in the task 66
4.3.3 Importance of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Rewards 66
4.3.4 Creative Intention 67
4.3.5 Creative Self Efficacy 67
4.3.6 Locus of Control 67
4.3.8 Support for Creativity from Supervisor and Coworkers 69
4.3.9 Organizational Climate 69
4.3.10 Incremental and Radical Creative Behavior 70
4.3.11 Control Variables 70

xii
4.4 Analysis and Hypotheses Testing 70
Chapter Five
5. Analysis and Results 73
5.1 Data Validation 73
5.2 Rewards and Creative Behavior – Direct Effects 74
5.3 Mediation of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship 75
5.4 Rewards’ Importance as Moderator of Reward –
Creative Behavior Relationship 78
5.5 LOC and CSE as Moderators of Reward – Creative
Behavior Relationship 80
5.6 Goal Orientation as Moderator of Reward –
5.7 Support as Moderator of Reward – Creative
Behavior Relationship 83
5.8 Organizational Climate as Moderator of
Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship 85
5.9 Post hoc Analysis 89
Chapter Six
6. Discussions, Implications and Limitations 95
6.1 Discussions of the Results 95
6.1.1 Rewards and Creative Behavior – Direct Effects 97

xiii
6.1.2 Mediation of Reward – Creative Behavior Relationship 99
6.1.3 Rewards’ Importance in the Context of Reward –
6.1.4 LOC and CSE in the Context of Reward –
6.1.5 Goal Orientation in the Context of Reward –
6.1.6 Support in the Context of Reward –
6.1.7 Organizational Climate in the Context of Reward –
6.2 Theoretical Contributions 108
6.3 Practical Implications 113
6.4 Limitations 118
6.5 Future Research Directions 119
Tables 121
Figures 144
References 156
Appendix 1 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis 176
Appendix 2 The Questionnaires 179

xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities and Inter scale correlations
Table 2 Regression Results for Direct Effects of Rewards on Creative Behavior
Table 3a Mediating Effects of Intrinsic Rewards on Radical Creative Behavior
Table 3b Mediating Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Incremental Creative Behavior
Table 4 Rewards’ Importance as moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior
Relationship
Table 5 LOC and CSE as moderators of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative
Behavior Relationship
Table 6a Goal Orientation as moderator of Intrinsic Reward – Radical Creative
Table 6b Goal Orientation as moderator of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative
Table 7a Support as moderator of Intrinsic Reward – Radical Creative Behavior
Relationship
Table 7b Support as the moderator of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative
Table 8a Innovation Climate as moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior
Relationship
Table 8b Traditional Climate as the moderator of Reward – Creative Behavior
Relationship
Table 9a Combined effects of moderators on Extrinsic rewards – Incremental
Creativity Relationship

xv
Table 9b Combined effects of Moderators on Intrinsic rewards – Radical Creativity
Relationship
Table 10a Enjoyment and Creative Intention as the mediators of relationship between
Intrinsic Rewards and Radical Creative Behavior
Table 10b Enjoyment and Creative Intention as the mediators of relationship between
Extrinsic Rewards and Incremental Creative Behavior
Table 11 Moderated Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Radical Creative Behavior
Table 12 Predictors of Radical Creative Behavior
Table 13 Moderated Effects of Intrinsic Rewards on Incremental Creative Behavior
Table 14 Interactional effects of Intrinsic Rewards and LOC & CSE
Table 15a Summary of Hypotheses and Results related to Direct effects of Rewards
on Creative Behavior
Table 15b Summary of Hypotheses and Results related to Mediated effects of
Rewards on Creative Behavior
Table 15c Summary of Hypotheses and Results related to Moderated effects of
Rewards on Creative Behavior

xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Rewards, Motivation and Behavior
Figure 2a, b Frameworks for Mediated and Moderated Effects
Figure 3 Moderation of Extrinsic Reward – Incremental Creative Behavior
Relationship through Rewards’ Importance
Figure 4 Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative Behavior
through Locus of Control (LOC)
through Creative Self Efficacy (CSE)
Figure 6 Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative Behavior through
Learning Goal Orientation (LGO)
through Performance Goal Orientation (PGO)
Climate for Innovation
Climate for Tradition
through Climate for Tradition
Figure 11 Mediated Moderation of Intrinsic Rewards – Radical Creative Behavior
Figure 12 Mediated Moderation of Extrinsic Rewards – Incremental Creative
Behavior

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Capability to visualize and materialize creative solutions, flexibility to adapt to
changing situations and taking the fullest advantage of human imagination have become not
only the sources of competitive advantage for organizations, but also the predictors of their
survival and success (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Cooper & Jayatilaka, 2006).
Consequently, high research attention has been focused towards identifying various
predictors of creative behavior. Creativity research has attracted a huge research focus and
has generated more than 9000 studies during the last four decades (Prabhu, Sutton & Saucer,
2008), however, there are still unanswered questions and issues that the creativity researchers
are facing. One such issue is concerned with the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on
creative behavior of employees (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1998). Another area that warrants
more research effort is classification of different types of creative behavior and identification
of their predictors (Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Unsworth, 2001). The purpose of this study is to
address both of these issues and to try to answer some of the unresolved questions. In the
following section these two research avenues are briefly introduced and the research
questions for this study are formulated.
1.1 Statement of Research Problem and Research Questions
The debate regarding the impact of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards on creative
behavior is quite old (Cummings, 1965). There are two research streams that have tried to
explain the impact of rewards on creative behavior. Cognitive perspective subscribes that key
predictor of creative behavior is intrinsic motivation and that high level of intrinsic

2
motivation results in higher levels of creative behavior (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe,
1994). The cognitive research stream considers that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic
motivation (Amabile, 1985) and suggests that the impact of extrinsic rewards on creative
behavior is generally negative. Several empirical studies have supported this view and have
shown that extrinsic rewards lower intrinsic motivation as well as creative behavior (Amabile,
1979; Amabile, 1985). On the other hand, behaviorist research suggests that repeated
trainings and positive consequences can reinforce human behavior such as force, frequency
and novelty (Skinner, 1938). This view suggests that as creativity is a behavioral dimension,
appropriate intrinsic and extrinsic rewards can enhance creative behavior (Eisenberger &
Cameron, 1998). Thus the behaviorist perspective has advocated the application of extrinsic
rewards and has considered these rewards as a tool for enhancing creative behavior
(Eisenberger, Armeli & Pretz, 1998). Some empirical studies have supported this view and
have shown that extrinsic rewards can enhance intrinsic motivation as well as creative
behavior (Eisenberger et al., 1998; Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). Thus, although a general
consensus has emerged regarding the positive effects of intrinsic rewards on creative
behavior, the impact of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior is highly contested.
The conflicting findings of cognitive and behaviorist research streams are confusing
for researchers and managers. On one hand, research has clearly signified the value of
creative behavior for organizational and personal success; however on the other, it has failed
to predict - with confidence - the effects of various rewards on creative behavior of
employees. Thus a high research priority should be to explore the impact of these rewards on
creative behavior and also to identify factors that affect this relationship.

3
One of the basic purposes of this study was to clarify the ambiguous relationship
between rewards and creative behavior. One step that can bring more clarity to the reward
creativity debate is the study of underlying processes through which rewards affect creative
behavior of employees. A better understanding of these processes can not only add to the
body of knowledge in the reward – creativity research paradigm, but also can help
researchers to understand and hypothesize the specific direction in which different types of
rewards may affect creative behavior. Despite of the importance of studying these underlying
processes, previous research has considered reward – creative behavior relationship as a
black box and very little research effort has been directed towards studying the underlying
processes that connect rewards with creative behavior. The list of all such factors that can
mediate the relationship between rewards and creativity is inexhaustible. Thus the first
research question of this study was to identify some of the underlying processes through
which rewards affect creative behavior. In other words, the first aim of this study was to
identify some of the factors that mediate the reward – creative behavior relationship.
Research Question 1: What are some of the processes that mediate the relationship between
rewards and creative behavior?
Although the findings of cognitive and behaviorist research streams are at sharp
contrast to each other, they share some similar characteristics. Both of these research streams
have explored only the direct and un-moderated effects of extrinsic rewards on creative
behavior (i.e. Amabile, 1985; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). This could be the result of
research findings that show a consistent and direct relationship between intrinsic rewards and

4
creative behavior (i.e. Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 2001). Probably most of researchers have
expected a similar relationship between extrinsic rewards and creative behavior. Another
similarity between cognitive and behaviorist research is the expectation that extrinsic rewards
affect individuals in a similar fashion, irrespective of their dispositional characteristics and
contextual settings. There are only very few studies in the reward – creativity research that
have explored the possibility of varying effects of rewards on individuals, based on their
individual differences.
The debate regarding the comparative strength of personal and contextual factors as
the predictor of human behavior (i.e. Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989) is almost settled. It is
now generally accepted that human behavior is better predicted by considering the interaction
between personality traits and contextual factors (Sternberg, 2006). This approach suggests
that interaction between personality and context can explain human behavior more
effectively than either of these two alone (House, Shane & Herold, 1996). As creativity is a
behavioral dimension, it is safe to believe that it is also evoked by interaction of personal and
contextual factors. However, to date, the research exploring the interaction between rewards
and personal (or contextual) factors is extremely scarce. Creativity research has shown that in
certain situations, the reward – creative behavior relationship become positive and significant
(i.e. Eisenberger, Pierce & Cameron, 1999) whereas in others, the same relationship has
emerged as negative and significant (i.e. Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999). This situation points
towards presence of moderators that moderate the relationship between rewards and creative
behavior. Although reward – creative behavior research has attracted a lot of research interest
in general, the research to identify the moderators of reward – creative behavior relationship
is extremely scarce. The research to identify the moderators of this relationship is limited on

5
specific aspects of extrinsic rewards such as their significance, contingency and importance
(Yoon & Choi, 2010; Eisenberger et al., 1999). In the existing reward – creativity literature,
the research to identify the moderators of reward – creative behavior relationship (other than
the reward related aspects discussed above) is extremely scarce. The second purpose of this
research was to fill this gap and to identify some of the personal and contextual factors that
interact with rewards to produce creative behavior. Thus the second research question for the
current study is:
Research Question 2: What are some of the personal and contextual factors that moderate the
relationship between rewards and creative behavior?
Creativity has historically been considered as a unidirectional construct (Gilson &
Madjar, 2011, Unsworth, 2001). This narrow conception is one of the reasons of conflicting
research findings about the predictors and consequences of creative behavior (i.e.
Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Deci et al., 1999). However, recently, the creativity researchers
have focused on differentiating creative behavior in distinct types (i.e. Taggar, 2002; Gilson
& Madjar, 2011) and exploring the specific predictors of each type of creative behavior (i.e.
Madjar, Greenberg & Chen, 2011).
The third and final aim of this study was to explore the predictors of two distinct
types of creative contributions i.e. radical and incremental, in perspective of the reward –
creative behavior debate. In other words, the study aimed to explore the relationship between
the two types of rewards (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic) and the two types of creative behavior
(i.e. radical and incremental). The study also aimed to explore the boundary conditions in

6
which these predictors operate. This was reflected in the third research question of the
current study.
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between different types of rewards (intrinsic
and extrinsic) and different types of creative behavior (radical and incremental), and under
which conditions these rewards invoke creative behavior?
1.2 Research Significance
This study has two major aspects that contribute significantly to the creativity
research. First, it bridges the cognitive and behaviorist perspectives by showing the
conditions under which the impact of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior is positive (or
negative). The study suggests that personal and contextual factors moderate the reward –
creative behavior relationship and these factors determine the nature of impact that rewards
exert on creative behavior. It is important to mention that individual differences have never
been shown as the moderators of reward - creative behavior relationship in previous research
and thus this opens a new avenue in creativity research. Although the general cognitive –
behaviorist debate has embraced the social cognitive (or cognitive – behaviorism) paradigm
(Bandura, 1986), the reward – creative behavior debate is still focused on cognitive –
behaviorism dichotomy. This study is an effort to take the reward – creative behavior debate
to the next level, by combining cognitive (such as mental processes and cognitive styles) and
social (such as support and climate) elements in a framework to determine the impact of
rewards on human behavior.

7
Second, as creativity has largely been considered as a unidimentional construct, very
little research interest has been directed towards exploring the predictors of different type of
creative behaviors (Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Unsworth, 2001). This study adds to the body of
knowledge by connecting two distinct types of rewards i.e. extrinsic and intrinsic, with two
distinct type of creative behavior i.e. radical and incremental, and also by defining the
boundary conditions within which these rewards invoke specific types of creative behavior.
This is one of the earliest studies in the reward – creative behavior research paradigm that has
operationalized creative behavior as multidimensional construct and has linked specific
rewards with specific type of creative behavior.
The research findings of the current study would be significant for managers in three
ways. First, it would help them in designing incentive schemes and contextual conditions
under which they can use rewards to enhance creative behavior of their employee. Second,
the results of this research would help managers to understand how personal and contextual
factors interact with each other to produce creative behavior and hence, it will help them to
create the environment which compliments the personal dispositions of its employees.
Finally, it would inform managers about the specific personal and contextual factors that
affect the incremental and radical creative outcomes, hence enabling them to utilize the
resources of organizations more efficiently and to achieve the type of creative behavior
which the organization requires.
1.3 Definitions
In this section the definitions of psychological constructs that are used in the current
study are presented.

8
1.3.1 Creativity
There are several definitions of creativity, however, for the purpose of this
dissertation, creativity is defined as an outcome - in the form of a product, service, procedure
or process - which is novel as well as useful (Amabile, 1983; Amabile 1996a). Creativity can
be operationalized as idea generation, behavioral exhibition or individual difference.
However, for this study, creativity is conceptualized and operationalized as ‘creative
behavior’, thus although theoretically distinct, the words ‘creativity’ and ‘creative behavior’
are used interchangeably throughout this dissertation.
1.3.2 Radical and Incremental Creative Behavior
Gilson and Madjar (2011) defined radical creative behavior as behaviors that “differ
substantially from existing practices and alternatives”. Such behavior results in “new and set-
breaking frameworks or processes”. The same authors defined incremental creative behavior
as behaviors that result in “changes in frameworks and approaches and modifications to the
existing practices and products.”
1.3.3 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards
Intrinsic motivation is defined as the desire of performing an activity as an end in
itself, to have the enjoyment of performing the activity without any expectation or desire of
extrinsic reward (Lepper, Grene & Nisbett, 1973; Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe, 1994).
The rewards that induce intrinsic motivation in individuals are termed as intrinsic rewards.
On the other hand, extrinsic motivation refers to the desire of performing an activity to
achieve an outcome, other than the activity itself. The rewards that induce extrinsic
motivation in individuals are referred to as extrinsic rewards.

9
Rewards (especially extrinsic rewards) can enhance creative behavior only when it is
clear to the recipients that rewards are dependent on exhibition of creative behavior. There
is also sufficient research evidence that rewards’ contingency is a basic requirement for the
conversion of rewards into creative behavior (Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001). Without this
reward contingency, the relation between rewards and creative behavior is insignificant
(Eisenberger et al., 1998). Thus this study employs the approach suggested by Yoon and
Choi (2010), which is to replace intrinsic and extrinsic rewards with ‘intrinsic rewards for
creativity’ and ‘extrinsic rewards for creativity’. Throughout this study the word ‘rewards’
(both intrinsic and extrinsic) refers to the rewards that are contingent on creative behavior.
1.3.4 Enjoyment
Enjoyment is defined as the degree to which performing an activity is perceived as
providing pleasure and joy in its own right aside from performance consequences (Venkatesh,
2000; p 351).
1.3.5 Creative Intention
Creative intention is defined as “the degree of motivation an individual has to engage
in creative behavior within a given setting” (Choi, 2004).
1.3.6 Locus of Control
Locus of control refers to “the perception about who is in control of events around
us” (Rotter, 1966). Research on LOC has revealed that individuals can be classified in two
categories i.e. internals and externals. Internals or the individuals with an internal LOC
attribute their success and failures to their own capabilities and have high expectations about
their control on the situations and events that affect them. Externals – the individuals with

10
external LOC – perceive external factors as controlling the events around them and have a
low sense of self control (Rotter, 1966).
1.3.7 Self Efficacy
Self efficacy (SE) has been defined as an individual’s belief in his / her capabilities to
meet a situational demand (Wood & Bandura, 1989). High self efficacy does not indicate the
presence of capabilities but rather a perception about the presence of such capabilities. Thus,
individuals with high SE have a strong belief in their capabilities and competence.
1.3.8 Goal Orientation
Elliott and Dweck (1988) defined goal orientation as “individual’s response to
achievement setting” and proposed it as the major determinant of achievement pattern. Goal
orientation has also been defined as the orientation which “determines individuals’
interpretation and response to achievement situations” (Elliott & Church, 1997). In other
words, goal orientation of individuals predicts their behavior in achievement situations such
as failures and successes. Goal orientation has been classified in two types, i.e. learning goal
and performance goal orientation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). The primary goal of individuals
with a learning orientation is to increase their competence whereas the primary goal of
individuals with a performance goal orientation is to demonstrate their ability and to avoid
negative judgments about their competence.
1.3.9 Organizational Climate
Litwin and stringer (1968) defined organizational climate as “a set of measurable
properties of the work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the people who live
and work in this environment” (p 1). Researchers have classified organizational climate in

11
different types such as climate for innovation, climate for tradition, climate for quality and
climate for welfare etc. (Patterson et al., 2005).
1.3.10 Support for creativity
Support for creativity is defined as “the extent to which individuals aid and encourage
employees' creative performance” (Madjar, Oldham & Pratt, 2002). Madjar et al. (2002)
classified support for creativity in two distinct types, i.e. support for creativity from
supervisors and support for creativity from coworkers. The current study also employed the
same operationalization of support for creativity.
1.4 Arrangement of the Remaining Dissertation
This dissertation is being arranged in six chapters. This, the first chapter introduced
the research problem, identified the research questions, presented the significance of study
and provided the definitions of psychological constructs used in the subsequent chapters. The
second and third chapters are dedicated for review of the relevant literature.
The second chapter deals with definition and classification of creativity. It further introduced
the reward – creative behavior debate and links this debate with the classification of creative
behavior. Finally, it reflects on the cognitive processes through which rewards invoke
creative behavior in individuals.
The third chapter starts with an overview of the personality and creativity literature
and the relationship between the two. The chapter then moves towards the debate regarding
the impact of reward on creative behavior and links several personal and contextual factors
with this debate. At the end of this chapter a framework is constructed, using the hypotheses
developed in chapter two and three. The framework connects the three research questions (i.e.

12
classification of creative behavior, mediators of reward – creative behavior relationships and
the moderators of reward – creative behavior relationship) with each other.
The fourth chapter discusses the methods that are used to test the framework
constructed in the third chapter. It presents the details of sampling plan and data collection
processes. The measures used to operationalize the constructs and tools used to analyze the
data are also discussed.
The fifth chapter is dedicated for the presentation of results. It starts with data
validation and then moves on to test the hypotheses one by one. Finally it addresses the
questions that the results have invoked.
The last chapter discusses the results in detail. It highlights the theoretical and
practical implications of the findings and finally presents the limitations of the current study.

13
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
CREATIVITY AND REWARD – CREATIVITY RESEARCH
Guilford (1950) pointed out in his presidential address to the American
Psychologist Association that creativity was an important area of study, but largely
neglected in the scientific research. This has resulted in much research interest and effort
towards studying the individual and contextual predictors of creative behavior (Shalley,
Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Creative research has generated more than 9000 studies during
the last four decades (Prabhu et al., 2008), however there are several unanswered
questions and issues that the creativity researchers are facing. One such issue is defining
creativity.
2.1 Definition and Measurement of Creativity
For psychometric work, any variable requires an unequivocal definition and a
reliable and valid measure (Batey & Furnham, 2006). This is exactly the point where the
problem for creativity researchers starts. Defining creativity is a complex task, as
creativity can be defined in terms of thought process (such as divergent thinking), in
terms of behavior (such as finding new ways of doing repeated tasks) and also in terms of
a final product (such as inventing a new machine). Mooney (1963) has noted four
significantly different approaches, with which creativity can be defined. These four
approaches are:
1- The environment in which the creation comes about or the creative environment,
2- The output of creativity, or the creative product,

14
3- The process of creativity, or the creative process, and
4- The person who is creative, or the creative personality.
Based on these four approaches, Taylor (1988) identified 50 different definitions
of creativity proposed over the last five decades. He suggested that these definitions are
so different that a highly creative person according to one definition might not be
considered as creative with respect to another definition. Batey and Furnham (2006)
remarked that creativity has been defined in so many diverse ways that it has almost
ceased to mean anything. These researchers identified eight different methods used in
research to operationalize individual creativity. These eight methods were divergent
thinking tests, attitudes and interest inventories, personality inventories, biographical
inventories, judgments of products, ratings of eminence, self-reported creative activities
and ratings by peers, teachers, and supervisors (Batey & Furnham, 2006). One can easily
appraise that some of the methods view creativity as a cognitive process, others view it as
a behavior or attitude and yet others consider it as a personality trait and as individual
difference. Focusing on these issues, Simonton (1999) noted that a single definition of
creativity which could satisfy all of the diverse approaches is difficult to achieve and
Sternberg (1999) suggested that the “essence of creativity cannot be captured in a single
variable” (p. 84).
Despite the issues in defining creativity, there are some definitions that are widely
used and accepted. I use one such definition of creativity which defines creativity as an
outcome - in the form of a product, service, procedure or process - which is novel as well
as useful (Amabile, 1983; Amabile 1996a). This definition is comparatively broader than
many of the other definitions, as it incorporates several aspects of creativity by including

15
the outcomes (whether a product or service) as well as the process of reaching to that
outcome (such as exhibiting creative behavior) in the realm of creativity. This makes the
definition equally valid in varying contexts where the creative outcome is apparently
different from each other, and hence, this definition has been frequently used by
creativity researchers (i.e. Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron, 1996; Oldham &
Cummings, 1996; Shalley, Gilson & Blum, 2000; Fong, 2006; Gilson & Madjar, 2011).
2.2 Classification of Creativity
Creativity has been classified in several different ways, such as on the basis of
level of analysis (i.e. team versus individual creativity (Taggar, 2002)), on the basis of the
nature of creative outcome (i.e. incremental versus radical creativity (Gilson & Madjar,
2011)) and on the basis of relationship with existing paradigm (i.e. replication, re-
direction and re-initiation (Sternberg, 2006)). I will briefly discuss one of these
classifications that is relevant for the present framework, i.e. incremental and radical
creativity.
2.2.1 Incremental and Radical Creativity
Creativity has generally been defined as production of an idea, a process or a
product that is both novel and useful (Amabile, 1996a). One criterion that has frequently
been used to classify creativity is the extent to which the idea, product or process is novel
(Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). The ‘novel-ness’ may range from a minor adaptation to
“set-breaking heuristics and radical breakthroughs” (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). Somewhat
similar distinction is present in the innovation literature which defines ‘exploration’ and
‘exploitation’ differently (e.g. Dewar & Dutton, 1986; March, 1991). Exploration is

16
termed as turning towards new practices and ideas, something which is entirely new and
different from the past, whereas exploitation is used to describe progression of current
practices, small gains in efficiency and performance, and improvements in existing
products (March, 1991). Benner and Tushman, (2003) noted that these are different types
of creative contributions and one is not superior to the other. Both of these contributions
are critical for organizational success and are key drivers of performance.
Research on counterfactual mindsets (i.e. Kray, Galinsky & Wong, 2006) also
supports the distinction between incremental and radical creative behavior. Persons with
counterfactual mind-sets are defined as the ones who frequently compare reality with
what might have been, and frequently ask ‘what if’ type of questions (such as, ‘if I had
married that other person, what would have happened’). In a study to explore the effects
of counterfactual mind-sets on the cognitive processes and creative behavior, Kray et al.
(2006) found that individuals with counterfactual mind-sets performed better on ‘creative
association’ tasks (creative tasks requiring ‘thinking inside the box’) whereas they
performed poorly on ‘creative generation’ tasks (creative tasks requiring ‘thinking
outside the box’). The distinction between creative association and creative generation is
similar to that between incremental and radical creative behavior. Creative generation and
radical creative behavior correspond to creating something new, totally different from the
existing products and processes whereas both creative association and incremental
creative behavior refer to minor adaptations and building on the existing products and
processes (March, 1991).
Radical and incremental creativity may be viewed as two ends of a single
continuum, with several points between the two extremes. This idea is strengthened by

17
the propulsion model of creativity (Sternberg, 2006) that classified creative contributions
in eight different types divided in three categories. On one end are the contributions that
accept the current paradigm, such as ‘replication’ and ‘redefinition’. These types of
creative contributions are quite close to what was termed as incremental creativity by
Gilson and Madjar (2011). On the other end of Sternberg’s classification are creative
contributions such as redirection, reconstruction and re-initiation that reject the current
paradigm. These are close to what has been defined as radical or breakthrough creativity.
The radical and incremental creative behaviors are useful in different stages of
problem solving process and are triggered by different set of predictors. In one of the
very few empirical studies to differentiate between radical and incremental creative
behavior, Gilson and Madjar (2011) showed that radical creative behavior is useful in the
early part of problem solving such as problem identification and construction, whereas,
incremental creative behavior is more useful at the later part of problem solving process
such as at the solution identification and execution stage. In an empirical study to identify
the predictors of incremental and radical creative behavior, Madjar et al. (2011) found
that willingness to take risk and career commitment were strongly related with radical
creative behavior, whereas presence of creative coworkers and organizational
identification were more strongly related with incremental creative behavior.
2.3 Relationship between Rewards and Creative Behavior
In this rapidly changing world, flexibility to adapt to new environments and
providing innovative solutions to the customers are becoming major competitive
advantages and the most important predictors of organizational success and survival

18
(Cooper & Jayatilaka, 2006; Hunter, Bedell & Mumford, 2007; Mumford & Gustafson,
1988). This has resulted in a high research interest towards studying various predictors of
creative behavior. An area which has gathered a lot of research interest within the
creativity research paradigm is the impact of extrinsic rewards (such as verbal
encouragement, tangible rewards and recognition) in comparison with intrinsic rewards
(such as feeling involvement and playfulness in activity and getting fun and self
satisfaction from it) on creative behavior. Intrinsic rewards induce intrinsic motivation,
referred to the desire of performing an activity as an end in itself, to have the enjoyment
of performing the activity without any expectation or desire of extrinsic reward (Lepper
et al., 1973; Amabile et al., 1994). On the other hand, extrinsic rewards induce extrinsic
motivation, referred to the desire of performing an activity to achieve an outcome, other
than the activity itself. Deci and Ryan (1985) suggest that extrinsic motivation results
from the perception of an instrumental connection between the behavior and some
extrinsic rewards, whereas in case of intrinsic motivation, there is no connection between
behavior and any external reward (Cooper & Jayatilaka, 2006). Figure 1 clarifies the
distinction between rewards, motivators and motivation.
Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are two important types of motivators (Eisenberger
& Shanock, 2003). These rewards induce certain type of motivation (i.e. intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, respectively) in individuals and this motivation leads towards the
exhibition of certain type of behavior, such as creative behavior (Deci et al., 2001). The
present study has explored the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and
creative behavior, however it should be kept in mind that this relationship works through
the inducement of certain type of motivation in the individuals (Wiersma, 1992). As

19
rewards are not psychological constructs, the relationship at the theoretical level exists
only between motivation and individual behavior and not between specific rewards and
behavior. The relationship between rewards and behavior exists at the observable /
empirical level (Deci et al., 1999).
The debate regarding the impact of rewards on creative behavior is probably as
old as the research on creativity itself (Cummings, 1965). There are two distinct research
streams that connect extrinsic rewards with creative behavior, though in somewhat
conflicting manner. The first is the cognitive perspective, sometimes referred as
‘romanticism’ (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). This view subscribe that the fundamental
pre-requisite and key predictor of creative behavior is intrinsic motivation and that high
level of intrinsic motivation results in higher level of creativity. Most of the researchers
converge on this point, i.e. high intrinsic motivation in an activity leads to creative
behavior, however the role of extrinsic motivation (and rewards that induce this
motivation) is the departing point of the two research streams. The cognitive research
stream suggests that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation which is the key to
creative behavior (Amabile, 1985) and thus the role of extrinsic rewards is viewed as
detrimental to creative behavior. This view holds the position that extrinsic rewards, with
a few exceptions (i.e. verbal and unexpected rewards) are generally detrimental for
creative behavior (Deci et al., 1999). On the other hand is the behaviorist research stream
which assumes that any performance dimension such as rate, force and novelty can be
reinforced, using intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (Skinner, 1938). This view suggests that
repeated training and reinforcement can control human behavior and as creativity is a
behavioral dimension, it can also be controlled and enhanced by using appropriate

20
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. This research stream suggests that with the help of
properly administered extrinsic rewards, creative behavior can be enhanced and the
negative effects of external rewards on creative behavior are not generalizable to every
situation (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1998). The behaviorist perspective encourages the use
of extrinsic rewards and views these rewards as a tool for enhancing creative behavior
(Eisenberger et al., 1998).
2.4 Relationship between Rewards and Classification of Creative Behavior
In the above sections, I have briefly summarized the apparently conflicting
research findings of cognitive and behaviorist researchers. One possible reason of the
inconsistent research findings is forwarded by Unsworth (2001). She proposed that the
creative outcome can differ because of the reason behind the creative behavior and
because of different starting points of the creative process. Gilson and Madjar (2011) also
proposed that the established view of creativity as a unidimensional construct without
considering various types of creative behavior could be a potential source of error and it
is possible that both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards trigger creative behavior – but of
different types.
Human behavior that is driven by intrinsic interest in an activity has higher level
of involvement in that activity compared to the behavior that is initiated by extrinsic
rewards (Amabile 1996a). It suggests that intrinsic rewards produce the type of creative
behavior that requires higher level of involvement. In contrast, extrinsic rewards cannot
produce high involvement in the activity and thus can produce the type of creative
behavior which is less dependent on involvement. High level of involvement in an

21
activity produces breakthrough and novel ideas and the type of creative behavior that is
resulted from such cognitive processes is generally radical in nature (Gilson & Madjar,
2011). In contrast, incremental creative behavior is produced when there is less
involvement in the activity and the ideas produced are based on replication and
redefinition of the current practices. Based on the same grounds, Gilson and Madjar
(2011) suggested that the relation between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior
is much stronger than that between extrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior.
Similarly the relation between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior is
stronger than that between extrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior. Gilson, Lim,
D'Innocenzo and Moye (2012) also suggested that the persistence and absorption that
radical creative behavior requires can come from intrinsic interest in the activity and not
from extrinsic rewards. Presence of high intrinsic rewards results in increased risk taking
behavior, increase persistence to face unfavorable evaluations and hence facilitates the
exhibition of radical creative behavior (Gilson et al., 2012). Thus it appears that the deep
level of involvement that comes from intrinsic rewards in an activity trigger creative
behavior that is radical in nature, whereas extrinsic rewards produce creative behaviors
that are less radical and are incremental in nature. Using the same logic, I hypothesize
that:
Hypothesis 1: Intrinsic rewards for creativity trigger radical creative behavior.
Hypothesis 2: Extrinsic rewards for creativity trigger incremental creative
behavior.

22
Although motivation and creativity literature – in general - suggests a significant
link between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior and between intrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior, some real life examples suggest otherwise. The
careers of many great scientists and mathematicians showed that anticipated rewards
enhanced creative behavior to the extent that it resulted in major breakthroughs.
Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) cited an example of famous scientist, James Watson, the
co-discoverer of molecular mechanism of human heredity transfer, for whom the desire
to win a nobel prize was instrumental in returning him back to work from the extended
periods of diversion. In this case, the desire of getting an extrinsic reward triggered
radical creative behavior. Thus, although I hypothesize that the relation between intrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior would be stronger than that between extrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior, I do not exclude the possibility of extrinsic
rewards leading towards radical creative behavior and this remains an exploratory part of
the current study.
In the next sections I will explore the cognitive and behaviorist perspectives and
the theories underlying these perspectives in detail.
2.5 The Cognitive Perspective
More than five decades back, Crutchfield (1961) proposed that intrinsic rewards
facilitate creative thinking and extrinsic rewards inhibit it (Kasof, Chuansheng, Himsel &
Greenberger, 2007). There is a lot of empirical research that backs this view (Cooper &
Jayatilaka, 2006; Conti, Collins & Picariello, 2001; Deci et al., 2001). Cognitive
researchers maintain that under normal working conditions in our institutions such as

23
schools, colleges and industry, extrinsic rewards inhibit creative behavior. These theorists
have proposed several theories to explain how extrinsic rewards negatively affect creative
behavior. Some of these are discussed here.
2.5.1 Over Justification Hypothesis
Most of the cognitive research stems from the ‘Over justification’ hypothesis
presented by Lepper et al. (1973). It suggests that individuals, while performing an
activity, attribute their behavior either to internal (intrinsic) or to external (extrinsic)
factors. Further, it suggests that in the presence of extrinsic factors, the tendency of
attributing an action to the internal factors is reduced. In these situations, individuals feel
less personal interest, less competence and more behaviorally controlled (Cooper &
Jayatilaka, 2006). Hence even when performing an interesting activity, individuals would
be less intrinsically motivated, if extrinsic rewards are present or if those individuals have
previously worked under the pressure of extrinsic rewards. Over justification hypothesis
become the foundation stone for several theories such as cognitive evaluation theory and
intrinsic motivation theory.
2.5.2 Cognitive Evaluation Theory
Deci (1971) argued that there are some activities that are intrinsically rewarding and
hence no extrinsic rewards are required to perform those activities. This was an important
step towards the development of Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET). Later, Deci and
colleagues (Deci, 1971; Deci & Cascio, 1972; Deci, Nezlek & Sheinman, 1981) explored
the question that ‘what would be the impact of extrinsic rewards on these intrinsically
rewarding activities’. These reserchers found negative effects of extrinsic rewards on
these activities (Deci, 1971; Deci & Cascio, 1972). Several extrinsic rewards (threat,

24
deadlines, competition, and climate) were shown to negatively affect intrinsic interest in
the activity. Discovering the negative effects on extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation
proved to be the second and decisive step in the formulation of CET.
Deci and Ryan (1980) proposed CET which suggests that extrinsic rewards affect
intrinsic motivation through the mechanisms of self determination and competence. This
theory suggests that rewards that induce the perceptions of lowered self control and
reduced self competence negatively affect intrinsic motivation. For cognitive theorists,
these two dimensions, especially the first one (controlling) are present in almost every
extrinsic reward, as rewards are perceived as a means to control human behavior. Hence
the rewards that signal an external control (as opposed to internal control) and in-
competency, lower the perceptions of self control and competence, and are considered to
be detrimental to intrinsic motivation as well as for creative behavior (Deci et al., 2001).
Although cognitive researchers recognize that some extrinsic rewards (such as verbal
encouragement) can enhance creative behavior (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri & Holt, 1984,
Deci et al., 2001), in most of the cases researched by cognitive researchers, the overall
effect of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior is negative. The most damaging rewards
are found to be performance contingent rewards, when the participants fail to get the
maximum reward (Deci et al., 2001) and hence the reward signals in-competency on part
of the receiver.
Early cracks in CET started appearing in the 1980s. Several studies showed that
negative effects of rewards are limited only to those activities that require a high level of
intrinsic interest whereas other activities are not affected negatively by extrinsic rewards.
In one of the earliest meta analysis on the effects of extrinsic reward, Rummel and

25
Feinberg (1988) showed that although the impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
motivation is negative, the impact is positive for job performance. In subsequent
experiments, conducted by behaviorist researchers (i.e. Eisenberger & Cameraon, 1996;
Eisenberger, Pierce & Cameron, 1999), several other conditions were identified in which
the negative effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation can be avoided. Some
studies even reported positive effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation and
creative behavior (i.e. Eisenberger et al., 1998). This raised serious doubts about the
external validity of CET and it started to lose its appeal as well as explaining power.
Eventually, Deci and Ryan (1985) proposed the self determination theory (SDT),
acknowledging that some extrinsic rewards are internalized in a way that these can
enhance intrinsic motivation and creativity (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
2.5.3 Intrinsic Motivation Theory
Intrinsic motivation theory suggests that the intrinsically motivated individuals
are deeply involved in the activity for the sake of the activity itself. These individuals are
not concerned primarily about external factors, outside of the activity and hence they are
more playful with ideas and materials. In the absence of extrinsic rewards such as
deadline and rewards to complete the activity, they are free and willing to explore
different and divergent aspects of that activity (Amabile et al., 1994). The theory further
suggests that these individuals are more prone to taking risks as they are not distracted by
the thoughts of negative outcomes. These individuals see the activity not as a means to a
desirable end but as the end in itself and not as work but as play. This deep involvement,
playfulness, enjoyment and indulging in divergent ideas facilitates the exhibition of
creative behavior (Amabile et al., 1994). Ruscio, Whitney and Amabile (1998) presented

26
an interesting example of rats exploring the maze field. When their exploration is not for
the sake of searching an exit, but just for the pleasure of exploring the maze field, they
are more likely to discover those unobvious exits which other rats - that are searching for
the easiest escape - are not able to locate.
Thus intrinsic motivation theory suggests that the presence of intrinsic rewards to
perform an activity results in a higher level of enjoyment, involvement and interest in that
activity and these cognitive states lead towards exhibition of creative behavior. In other
words, enjoyment, involvement and interest mediate the relationship between intrinsic
rewards and creative behavior. Although these three cognitive states (enjoyment,
involvement and interest) are significantly related with intrinsic rewards, two of these (i.e.
involvement and interest) are also related with extrinsic rewards, though less significantly
(Amabile et. al, 1994). Hence, enjoyment is the only cognitive state that is triggered
exclusively from intrinsic rewards and not from extrinsic rewards. Thus I formulate the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Enjoyment in performing an activity will mediate the positive and
significant relationship between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior.
2.5.4 Empirical Research Supporting Cognitive Perspective
Research, supportive of the inhibiting creativity perspective is in abundance (Jung,
2000; Amabile, Hennessey & Grossman, 1986). In one of the studies, Deci (1971) found
that in the presence of financial rewards, intrinsic motivation to perform an activity
decreases, however, verbal reinforcement and positive feedback enhanced intrinsic
motivation. In another experiment, Amabile (1979) studied the effects of external

27
evaluation on the artistic creativity of college students. She found that the non evaluation
group performed significantly higher on judged creativity and was more intrinsically
motivated than the evaluation group. In another experiment, young adults were asked to
write two brief poems (Amabile, 1985). After writing the first poem, extrinsic feelings
were induced in half of the participants and intrinsic feelings in the others, and both were
asked to write another poem. Researchers found that there was no significant difference
in the first poems, however after the motivational manipulation, the creativity of subjects
in which intrinsic feelings were induced significantly increased whereas creativity of the
extrinsically charged group dropped even below than its initial level.
Some meta-analyses also support this perspective. In one of the earlier meta-
analysis, Rummel and Fienberg (1988) viewed 45 studies published between 1971 and
1985. They found that of the 88 effects studied, 83 showed that extrinsic rewards
undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999). Wiserma (1992) found through a
meta-analysis that on one hand extrinsic rewards undermine creative behavior while on
the other, they enhance performance and efficiency. In a meta-analysis of 128 studies,
Deci et al. (1999), found that all tangible extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic
motivation significantly.
The cognitive researchers suggest that extrinsic rewards can enhance efficiency
and performance for those activities that do not require divergent thinking and path
breaking ideas, such as day to day operations. However as creativity by definition is
divergent thinking and breaking established norms, external rewards downplay those
tasks that require creativity and innovation (Amabile et al., 1986). Amabile et al. (1986)
also cited the examples where extrinsic rewards are found to negatively affect the tasks

28
involving memory, attention and verbal learning. On the basis of these arguments,
cognitive theorists propose that in industrial and educational organizations, only those
rewards should be offered that highlight the importance of intrinsic motivation. Amabile
(1996b) suggested that:
“If managers operate on the simplistic “scientific management”
notion that extrinsic motivation is always necessary and always
positive, they can wander into a hopeless quagmire. It is extremely
difficult to establish extrinsic reward systems that elicit exactly the
behaviors that are desired; these systems are almost always
flawed” (p 9).
2.6 The Behaviorist Perspective
The other research stream reflects on the issue from a behaviorist perspective. The
basic behavior theory assumes that any performance dimension such as rate, duration,
force, variability and novelty etc. can be reinforced, using internal and external rewards
(Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). Fundamental to this view is the utilitarian perspective of
human nature which holds that behavior can be strengthened and reinforced through
positive consequences (Skinner, 1938). This view also holds that as creativity is a
behavioral dimension, it can also be reinforced using appropriate intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards, (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). Several theories, stemming from the
behavioral theory support this perspective.
2.6.1 Learned Industriousness Theory
A theory that predicts the positive effects of rewards on creative behavior is
‘Learned Industriousness theory’ (Eisenberger 1992). This theory assumes that people

29
subconsciously learn the dimension of performance (accuracy, productivity, creativity
etc) that is generally rewarded. Later, under reward conditions, these people focus their
efforts on that dimension whereas other performance dimensions get secondary
consideration (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997). The behaviorist theorists hold opinion that
in most of organizational settings, the rewards are generally contingent on efficiency and
not on creativity. Hence under rewards conditions, people tend to focus on increasing
their productivity and efficiency whereas creativity gets only a secondary importance.
Sometimes the cognitive resources are so engaged in enhancing the efficiency that
creativity is sacrificed and it fell below its normal level. Eisenberger and Cameron (1998)
suggested that it is an easily avoidable situation and by changing the reward contingency
to creativity, the negative effects of rewards on creative behavior can easily be avoided.
Through several experiments, Eisenberger and colleagues showed that when rewards are
contingent on creative behavior, the impact of extrinsic rewards is positive on job
performance, job motivation, intrinsic motivation as well as on individual creativity
(Eisenberger et al., 1998).
2.6.2 Creativity as an Intentional Decision
Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) suggested that creativity is an intentional
decision. They proposed that if extrinsic rewards are perceived as important by the
receivers and are contingent on creative behavior, they produce an intentional decision
(intention) to behave creatively. Intrinsic rewards on the other hand, do not produce an
intentional decision of being creative to get the rewards, as people indulge in the activity
not to get the rewards but for fun and enjoyment in the activity (Amabile, et. al, 1994),
which further leads to creative behavior.

30
Sternberg (2006) in the ‘Investment Theory’ of creativity suggested that creativity
is not just a skill or ability but also a decision and attitude towards life. His basic premise
was that “creativity is in large part a decision that anyone can make but that few people
actually do make because they find the costs to be too high” (Sternberg, 2006: p 97). This
view also proposed that creative behavior is intentional and any factor (including
extrinsic rewards) that helps to build this intention can enhance creative behavior.
Choi (2004) proposed that creative behavior is mediated through ‘creative intention’ and
‘creative self efficacy’. In other words, extrinsic rewards initiate a desire and intention to
exhibit creative behavior, in order to get the rewards. This intention results in a conscious
effort to produce creative behavior. This phenomenon points towards a difference
between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in triggering creative behavior. Intrinsic rewards
generate creative behavior at subconscious level through the feelings of enjoyment and
involvement whereas extrinsic rewards generate creative behavior by initiating a
conscious desire to behave creatively. Thus, I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4: Creative intention will mediate the positive and significant
relationship between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior.
2.6.3 Empirical Research Supporting Behaviorists Perspective
Several empirical studies and meta-analyses support the behaviorist perspective
(Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Choi, 2004; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001). In most of
these studies, either it was explicitly stated that the reward was contingent on creative
performance or the creative performance was reinforced by awarding divergent thoughts
prior to the experiment. Eisenberger et al. (1998), in a study of fifth and sixth grade
children, explicitly announced before the experiment to half of the participants that the

31
rewards were contingent on novelty and creativity of their performance. The other
participants were not told about the reward. The researchers found that the group to
which reward was promised performed significantly higher on the creativity dimension
than the group to which no reward was offered. In another experiment, reported in the
same study, half of the participants were given training of divergent thinking through an
unusual task and were verbally appreciated for their divergent thinking ability. The other
half of the participants were given a usual task and were appreciated for common and
routine thinking. Later on, all the participants were asked to perform a creative task. The
researchers found that the first group (that was earlier awarded for divergent thinking)
exhibited significantly higher level of creativity than the group that was awarded for
usual and non divergent thinking. These experiments suggest that extrinsic rewards can
enhance creative performance in two situations. Either it is to be explicitly informed that
the reward is contingent on divergent thinking or the divergent thinking should be
reinforced with the help of prior rewards or activities (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003).
Behaviorist theorists propose that as most of the studies performed by cognitive
researchers did not fulfill either of these conditions, they failed to capture the positive
effects of extrinsic rewards on creative behavior (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003).
Behaviorist theorists suggest that as the reward contingency can be easily manipulated in
common day activities, extrinsic rewards can play an important role in promoting
creative behavior in schools, colleges and industries (Eisemberger & Aselage, 2009).
Eisenberger and Cameron (1998) suggest that the negative effects of rewards on creative
behavior occur under ‘highly restricted’ and ‘easily avoidable’ conditions and that the
positive effects of rewards on creative behavior are ‘readily attainable’. Eisenberger &

32
Shanock (2003) are of the view that the careers of many great scientists and
mathematicians show that anticipated rewards often increase creativity. Yuan and
Woodman (2010) also found that outcome expectations and employee reputation of being
innovative relates positively with creative behavior, suggesting a link between extrinsic
rewards and creative behavior.
In a meta-analysis of 20 studies, Winston and Baker (1985) found compelling
evidence that if creative behavior is previously awarded, the future rewards can
effectively enhance divergent thinking (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997). Another meta-
analysis by Eisenberger et al. (1999) found that when the criterion of reward distribution
was creativity, rewards significantly increased intrinsic motivation to involve in that
activity. These research findings suggest that extrinsic rewards can play an important role
in fostering creativity and that the detrimental effects of rewards are more limited than
the common belief (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). Bandura, criticizing the general
condemnation of extrinsic rewards suggested that:
“Indiscriminate indictment of positive incentives as underminers of
interest reflects for the most part, the triumph of doctrine over
evidence” (Bandura, 1997; p 211).
2.7 Importance of Rewards
Expectancy theory suggests that rewards can influence human behavior only
when rewards are perceived as important by the individuals to whom these are offered
(Vroom, 1964). Schwab, Olian-Gottlieb and Heneman (1979) showed that when the
rewards were highly valued by the performers, the relationship between reward and

33
performance became stronger. Yoon and Choi (2010) showed that the effects of extrinsic
rewards on creative behavior were significant only when the rewards were perceived to
be important. This is probably true for all types of rewards, as rewards (either intrinsic or
extrinsic) affect human behavior only when these are perceived to be important and
meaningful. As every individual pursue different goals and put different weight to
various rewards (Luna-Arocas & Tang, 2004), it is reasonable to believe that the same
reward may affect different individuals differently depending upon the importance that
the individuals place on that reward. In other words, importance of rewards moderates the
relationship between rewards and human behavior, such as creativity. Hence I
hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 5: Importance of intrinsic rewards moderates the relationship
between intrinsic rewards and radical creative behavior such that the relationship
between rewards and creativity is stronger when the rewards are perceived to be
important.
Hypothesis 6: Importance of extrinsic rewards moderates the relationship
between extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior such that the
relationship between rewards and creativity is stronger when the rewards are
perceived to be important.
2.8 Convergence of Cognitive and Behaviorist Perspective
After taking strict positions in the past, cognitive and behaviorist researchers have
recently explored some common grounds. Behaviorists have found instances when
extrinsic rewards failed to enhance creative behavior and instead suppressed it, wherever

34
cognitive theorists theorized situations in which extrinsic rewards can enhance creative
behavior.
Eisenberger and Armeli (1997) found that when the reward was too big and
salient, it undermined creative behavior of students. They suggested that such rewards
shifted the attention and focus from the activity and thus inhibited creative behavior.
Eisenberger et al. (1998) also found that when the rewards were not contingent on
creative behavior, they also failed to enhance creative behavior.
Deci et al. (2001) suggested that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are
interrelated and all kinds of extrinsic rewards do not necessarily undermine intrinsic
motivation. SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985) incorporates the basic elements of CET, but is
much broader in its scope. SDT blurs the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation by suggesting that some forms of extrinsic rewards have the same effect on
behaviors (such as creative behavior) as the effects of intrinsic rewards. SDT suggests a
dichotomy between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation, the former
enhancing creative behavior whereas the later suppressing it. SDT also explains the
process through which some forms of extrinsic rewards become identical as autonomous
rewards, i.e. internalization of extrinsic factors (such as rules) so that the external factor
becomes an integral part of one’s identity and personality (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
Some researchers have proposed that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are two
independent and theoretically distinct constructs. These can attain high or low values
independent of each other, thus an increase in one is not essentially at the cost of the
other. Amabile et al. (1994), after studying extrinsic and intrinsic motivational levels in

35
hundreds of individuals, suggested that individuals can be divided in four types: “dually
motivated, intrinsically motivated, extrinsically motivated and unmotivated” (p 966).
Amabile (1985) suggested that there is the possibility of synergetic interaction between
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. She proposed that intrinsic motivation is more
important in some stages of the creative process such as problem presentation and idea
generation while extrinsic motivation may be more important in stages such as working
out fine details and idea communication. Amabile (1993) also suggested that extrinsic
motivation can combine synergistically with intrinsic motivation if the initial level of
intrinsic motivation in an activity is high.
A similar idea is forwarded by Kasof et al. (2007) who suggested that the journey
leading to creativity is not entirely made up of interesting and favorable situations in
which intrinsic reward can acquire driving seat. They proposed that at least some part of
the journey is unappealing where intrinsic interest cannot be the sole driver to continue
the creative journey and that extrinsic rewards play a more important role in those parts
of the creative journey. Hence they are of the view that the task of making a creative
product is dependent upon both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Intrinsic rewards are more
important for getting high involvement in the interesting tasks while extrinsic rewards are
important in passing by the tough and unappealing hurdles. They suggested that this
interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards is the strongest driver of creative
behavior. Gerrard, Poteat and Ironsmith (1996) found that the children with high
intrinsic as well high extrinsic interest were rated highest in creativity, suggesting an
interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.

36
Despite of these insights, the mainstream approach of cognitive and behaviorist
researchers is still that the former see most of extrinsic rewards as undermining intrinsic
motivation (and thus creativity) whereas the latter believes extrinsic rewards, if applied
correctly, as creativity enhancers.

37
CHAPTER 3: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
PERSONAL & CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND CREATIVITY
Early conceptions of creativity drew on mystical interpretations and saw creativity
as a divine intervention (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). This conception changed gradually
and creativity became an individual trait and people focused their attention towards
genetics and heredity (Galton, 1869/1962). Development of personality inventories
advanced personality – creativity research, however, researchers soon realized that the
relationship between personality and creativity is largely moderated through contextual
factors (Batey & Furnham, 2006). This conception resulted in opening a new era of
creativity research, in which several theorists proposed ‘environmental models of
creativity’ (Amabile, 1996a). I have discussed these research streams one by one in the
following sections, and then have linked these research streams with the reward –
creativity debate, introduced in the second chapter.
3.1 Personality and Creativity – Historical Research
The efforts to predict creative behavior through individual differences are quite
old (Meehl, 1962: Mednick, 1962; Wallach, 1970). Before the formation of the five
factor model of personality (FFM), the efforts to link creativity and personality were
generally non conclusive. The period is referred as the period, “when we had no
personalities” (Goldberg, 1993). With no established scale to measure personalities,
various researchers operationalized personality variables inconsistently and sometime in

38
contradictory fashion (Batey & Furnham, 2006). In the following sections, I discuss the
research findings related to personality – creativity research in pre and post FFM period.
3.1.1 Personality and Creativity in Pre FFM Period
One of the relatively sound measures of personality in the pre FFM era was
Eysenck’s personality scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). It identified three personality
dimensions, i.e. extroversion, emotional stability and psychoticism. Research suggested
the third dimension (psychoticism) to be related with creativity. Interestingly, the same
personality dimension of psychoticism was empirically shown to be related with
psychopathology (Batey & Furnham, 2006). Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) suggested this
dimension to be related to illusive thinking and over inclusiveness, two phenomena that
they proposed as common predictors of creativity and psychopathology. Some
researchers also found significant correlations between individual creativity and
schizophrenia / bipolar disorder (Mechl, 1962; Nettle, 2006). Despite these findings,
theorists were not able to propose a definite and conclusive link between personality and
creative behavior. Martindale and Dailey (1996) concluded that no significant relation
exists between creativity and any of the three dimensions of Eysenck personality scale,
however they suggested confluence between different dimensions to be related with
creativity.
Another personality dimension that has been frequently associated with creative
behavior is intelligence. The relationship between intelligence and creativity has long
attracted researchers (Dearborn, 1898; Colvin & Meyer, 1906; Chasell, 1916), however
they didn’t discover any definite or established relationship between the two. Creativity
has been considered as a subset of intelligence (Guilford, 1975), as a distinct but related

39
criterion (Barron & Harrington, 1981) and even as an unrelated construct (Wallach &
Kogan, 1965). These findings were dependent on the method with which intelligence and
creativity were operationalized. When creativity was measured through real life
professional achievements, it correlated moderately with intelligence, however when it
was measured through self or others reported tests, its correlation with intelligence was
low and insignificant (Ivcevic, Brackett & Mayer, 2007). This relationship was also
dependent on the domain in which creativity was measured. Gilhooly, Wynn and Osman
(2004) found the correlation between creativity and intelligence to be 0.33 (and
significant) when studied in a sample of military officers, however this correlation
dropped to -0.08 (and insignificant) when the sample consisted of architects. The
threshold theory (Torrence, 1962; Guilford, 1981) is probably the best generalization of
the relationship between creativity and intelligence. It suggests that at low levels of
intelligence, there is little variation in creativity and both are highly related (low
intelligence is accompanied by low creativity). However at higher levels of intelligence
(above 120 IQ points, Guilford, 1981) variation in creativity is high and there is no
definite relation between the two.
3.1.2 Personality and Creativity in the FFM Period
Establishment of the FFM advanced the efforts to link personality and creativity.
The five factor model is now considered to be the most accurate representation of human
personality and is believed to be universal in nature (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Out of the
five dimensions, openness to experience (O) has been consistently proved to be a
predictor of creative behavior, however the link between other dimensions and creative
behavior is problematic (Gelade, 1997; George & Zhou, 2001; King, Walker & Broyles,

40
1996). The relationship between different personality traits and creative behavior has
been found to be inconsistent and even contradictory. Neuroticism (N), for example, has
been shown to positively relate with artistic creativity but negatively related with
employees’ creativity. Some theorists even suggested that the personality research is
largely flawed and nothing more than a mirage (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989). They
found that one reason for the inconsistent relation between personality and creativity was
the effect of different occupational domains and environmental factors on creativity. For
example, conscientiousness (C) has been shown to be positively related with individual
creativity in organizational contexts but negatively with artistic creativity. Similarly the
relation of extraversion (E) with creativity of sales persons was found to be positive
whereas its impact on employees doing routine jobs (such as assembly line workers) was
negative (Feist, 1998; Soldz & Villant, 1999; King et al., 1996).
Table from Batey and Furnham (2006)

41
Batey and Furnham (2006) summarized the research findings related to personality –
creativity research as mentioned in the above table.
With the repeatedly failing attempts to predict creative behavior with the help of
established personality inventories, the creative theorists gradually turned their focus
towards other avenues such as cognitive styles (i.e. Kirton, 1994), environmental factors
(i.e. Anderson & West, 1998) and interactional models (Amabile, 1996a). Researchers
such as Kirton (1994) and Allinson and Hayes (1996) developed inventories to
operationalize cognitive styles and linked cognitive styles with creative behavior. Other
researchers developed environmental models and used them to predict creative behavior
(Anderson & West, 1998). Some other researchers developed models including both
contextual and individual factors to predict creative behavior (Sternberg, 2006). These
models suggest that both personality and environmental factors interact with each other to
trigger creative behavior.
The following section links the personality research with the reward – creativity
debate.
3.2 Personality in Perspective of Rewards – Creativity Relationship
Attempts to predict creativity using individual differences employed personality
inventories such as FFM and EPS, however these attempts failed to find any direct and
un-moderated relation between the two (Batey & Furnham, 2006). The next phase of
research efforts used factors other than these personality inventories to explore the
relationship between personality and creativity. In the first part of this section I have
discussed the research findings relating two personality dimensions i.e. locus of control

42
(LOC) and self efficacy (SE). These two personality factors have been selected to address
concerns raised by cognitive theorists that extrinsic rewards hinder intrinsic motivation
and creativity because they engender perceptions of external control and incompetence
(Gagne & Deci, 2005). If individuals possess traits that assure stable levels of self-control
and competence, then they are likely to become immune to the negative consequences of
extrinsic rewards. Personality research has recognized that locus of control and self-
efficacy belief offer stable levels of self-control and competence perceptions.
Although both of these factors have been shown to be associated with creativity in
previous research (Choi, 2004; Jaswal & Jerath, 1991; Prabhu et al., 2008; Richmond &
Serna, 1980), previous research has studied only the direct effects of these personality
traits on creative behavior of employees. In the second part of this section, I have
discussed the relationship between goal orientation and creativity, a new but promising
research avenue.
3.2.1 Locus of Control and Self Efficacy
Locus of control refers to the perception about who is in control of events around
us (Rotter, 1966). Research on LOC has revealed that individuals can be classified in two
categories i.e. internals and externals. Internals or the individuals with an internal LOC
attribute their success and failures to their own capabilities and have high expectations
about their control on the situations and events that affect them. Externals – the
individuals with external LOC – perceive external factors as controlling the events
around them and have a low sense of self control (Rotter, 1966).
One of the earliest studies exploring the relationship between LOC and creativity
showed that children with an internal LOC scored higher in creative tasks than the

43
children with an external LOC (DuCette, Wolk & Friedman, 1972). Several other
researchers explored the relation between LOC and creativity, however they yielded
mixed and even conflicting findings. Jaswal and Jerath, (1991) found that internality is
significantly related with creative behavior for persons with high intelligence, but not for
less intelligent people. Cohen and Oden (1974) found a positive relationship between
LOC and creative behavior for female students but negative for male students, whereas
Richmond and Serna (1980) found a negative relation between LOC and creative
behavior in college students. These studies suggested that although a direct relation
between LOC and creative behavior does not exist, LOC is related to creative behavior
through some other mechanisms.
CET and SDT point towards a potential relationship between LOC and creative
behavior, in the perspective of reward – creative behavior relationship. Both of these
theories suggest that extrinsic rewards impact (intrinsic motivation and) creative behavior
through two mechanisms, i.e. perceptions of self control and self competence. These
theories suggest that the factors which lower the perception of self control affect
creativity negatively whereas the factors that enhance the perception of self control have
a positive effect on creativity (Gagne & Deci, 2005). These theories also suggest that
extrinsic rewards lower the perceptions of self control and self competence, and thus
these theories view extrinsic rewards as detrimental to creative behavior. Personality
theories, on the other hand, suggest that impact of contextual factors (such as presence of
extrinsic rewards) on human behavior somewhat depends on individual differences due to
different perception and attribution (Ajzen, 1991). Hence, it is reasonable to believe that
presence of extrinsic rewards may induce different perceptions in different individuals

44
and that these rewards affect individuals differently. Thus, personal traits that inoculate
individuals against the perceptions of lowered self competence and control, can make
them immune to the negative effects of extrinsic rewards, as suggested by cognitive
researchers.
The definition of LOC suggests that individuals differ in their perceptions about
control over the events in their life. Some people are more inclined towards attributing
external factors to be controlling their behavior whereas others perceive a greater sense of
self control over their behavior. It suggests that the influence of external factors on the
perceptions of self control may depend somewhat on the LOC of individuals. The same
event which induces a feeling of lowered self control in one individual can fail to produce
similar perception in another. In other words, individuals with an external locus of
control are more likely to view external factors (such as extrinsic rewards) as controlling
their behavior than the individuals with internal locus of control. It follows that the
impact of extrinsic rewards is more likely to be negative on individuals with an external
locus of control because of the perception of lowered self control. In the absence of this
lowered perception of control, the impact of extrinsic rewards on individuals could be
positive because of the formation of a strong creative intention to act creatively. Thus I
hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 7: LOC moderates the relationship between extrinsic rewards and
incremental creative behavior such that the relationship between rewards and
creativity is negative for individuals with external LOC and positive for
individuals with internal LOC.

45
SE has been defined as an individual’s belief in his / her capabilities to meet a
situational demand (Wood & Bandura, 1989). High self efficacy does not indicate the
presence of capabilities but rather a perception about the presence of such capabilities.
Individuals with high SE have a strong belief in their capabilities and competence and are
somewhat inoculated against the feelings of lowered self competence that extrinsic
rewards may induce.
The relation between self efficacy (SE) and creative behavior is somewhat similar
to that between LOC and creative behavior. Internal LOC inoculates individuals against
the perceptions of lowered self control, whereas high SE inoculates individuals against
the perceptions of lowered self competence.
A few researchers have studied the relationship between SE and creative behavior
(Choi, 2004; Gong, Huang & Farh, 2009; Xiaoling, Jinghuan, Yuxia & Guirong, 2009),
however, most of the research focus has been on studying the direct or mediated effects
of SE on creative behavior of employees. There is no study in reward – creativity
research that has studied self efficacy as the moderator of rewards – creative behavior
relationship. Prabhu et al. (2008) hypothesized extrinsic motivation to moderate the
relationship between SE and creative behavior. Their results showed that at a higher level
of extrinsic motivation, SE and creative behavior were unrelated to each other, however,
at a lower level of extrinsic motivation, there was a significant positive relationship
between SE and creative behavior. These researchers termed this as moderation of the SE
- creative behavior relationship through extrinsic motivation, however, it may also be
seen as moderation of extrinsic motivation – creative behavior relationship through SE.

46
Cognitive evaluation and self determination theories suggest the later to be more
plausible.
CET suggests that extrinsic rewards negatively affect employees’ creativity by
diminishing their sense of self-competence. This negative intermediate process is
unlikely to materialize for employees with a high level of self-efficacy, which may hold
off efficacy threat by extrinsic rewards (Putwain, Kearsley, & Symes, 2011). Instead,
individuals with confidence in their efficacy to perform creatively may interpret extrinsic
rewards for creativity as an opportunity to achieve extra incentives by performing tasks in
which they excel (Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009). Thus, individuals with a strong self-
efficacy will engage in more creative behaviors in the presence of extrinsic rewards. This
process will neutralize the negate effects of extrinsic rewards on employees’ creativity.
By contrast, individuals with low self-efficacy are likely to fall victim to extrinsic
rewards that may highlight their incompetence. They view the situation as a threat that
imposes demands they cannot fulfill (Dewett, 2007; Putwain et al., 2011). Thus, negative
effects of extrinsic rewards on creativity are more likely to occur among individuals with
weak self-efficacy; whereas extrinsic rewards may lead to positive outcomes of enhanced
creativity for individuals with high efficacy, as suggested by behavioral theorists
(Eisenberger & Cameron, 1998).
Researchers have found that self efficacy related to a specific domain better
predicts domain relevant behavior than the generalized self efficacy (Choi, 2004). In line
with this view, I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 8: Creative SE moderates the relationship between extrinsic rewards
and incremental creative behavior such that the relationship between rewards

47
and creativity is negative for individuals with low creative SE and positive for
individuals with high creative SE.
Locus of control and creative SE impacts the perceptions of self control and self
competence, which, according to CET, determine the impact of rewards on creative
behavior. When individuals are under the influence of extrinsic rewards, the perceptions
of self control and self competence are at greater stake as extrinsic rewards can lower the
perceptions of control and competence (Gagne & Deci, 2005). However, when
individuals are performing an activity under the influence of intrinsic rewards they are
involved in the activity for the sake of the activity itself. Thus in the absence of extrinsic
rewards, there are fewer chances of weakening of the perceptions of self control and self
competence. Thus I suggest that LOC and SE moderate the relationship between extrinsic
rewards and creative behavior but not between intrinsic rewards and creative behavior.
3.2.2 Goal Orientation
Elliott and Dweck (1988) defined goal orientation as an ‘individual’s response to
achievement setting’ and proposed it as the major determinant of achievement patterns.
Goal orientation has also been defined as the orientation which ‘determines individuals’
interpretation and response to achievement situations’ (Elliott & Church, 1997). In other
words, goal orientation of individuals predicts their behavior in achievement situations
such as failures and successes. Goal orientation has been classified in two types, i.e.
learning goal and performance goal orientation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). The primary
goal of individuals with a learning orientation is to increase their competence and these

48
individuals are not negatively affected by failures and unfavorable evaluations. The
primary goal of individuals with a performance goal orientation is to demonstrate their
ability and hence these individuals seek to avoid negative judgments and try to gain
favorable judgments about their competence. They are more concerned with the
evaluation of their competence than the competence itself (Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Elliott
& Dweck, 1988). Individuals with a learning goal orientation prefer to indulge in tasks
that can develop their abilities, as for these individuals ability is a fluid concept and can
be enhanced with proper efforts. Individuals with a performance orientation prefer such
activities that can confirm their abilities. For them ability is as fixed as a trait, that cannot
be changed (Vandewalle, 2001).
The conception of goal orientation as a predictor of creative behavior is new and
thus the research on goal orientation – creative behavior relationship is relatively scarce.
Hirst, Knippenberg and Zhou (2009) proposed that learning orientation develops intrinsic
interest in the activity and motivates individuals to acquire domain relevant skills. As
both domain relevant skills and intrinsic motivation are regarded as predictors of creative
behavior (Amabile, 1983; 1996a), it is reasonable to expect a positive relationship
between learning orientation and creative behavior. Working on same grounds, some
researchers have found a significant and positive relationship between learning goal
orientation and creative behavior (i.e. Gong et al., 2009; Hirst et al., 2009).
Some researchers have proposed that the relation between goal orientation and
creative behavior is not direct. Moss and Ritossa (2007) proposed that goal orientation
moderates the relationship between leadership style and followers’ creativity. Young
(2005) suggested that enjoyment, excitement and engagement in activity are more likely

49
to motivate individuals with a learning orientation. It is important to note that enjoyment,
excitement and engagement in an activity indicate the presence of intrinsic rewards in the
activity (Amabile et. al, 1996; Ruscio, Whitney & Amabile 1998). Therefore, intrinsic
rewards are more likely to motivate individuals with LGO than the individuals with a
PGO. It signals that there may be positive synergical effect between intrinsic rewards and
LGO, and that these two may interact with each other to predict creative behavior.
Individuals with a high LGO have a knack to learn and explore new ideas
(Vandewalle, 2001). When this tendency is reinforced with the presence of extrinsic
rewards for creativity, individuals may perceive a better fit between their personal
dispositions and contextual demands. For these employees, the contextual stimuli and
their dispositional inclination will both act to enhance their creative behavior. Hence the
creativity of employees with a high LGO would be higher in the presence of extrinsic
rewards than in the absence of such rewards. However, the presence of rewards for
creativity may initiate a contradiction for employees with a low LGO, as they will find
the contextual forces and their personal disposition acting against each other. For
employees with a very low LGO, the motivation that rewards for creativity produce
might become insufficient to overcome the resistance against the exhibition of creative
behavior, offered by their personality. Hence, employees with a low LGO will not
respond positively to rewards. Thus I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 9a: Learning orientation moderates the relationship between intrinsic
rewards and radical creative behavior such that the positive relationship between
rewards and creativity is stronger for individuals with a high learning orientation
than individuals with a low learning orientation.

50
Hypothesis 10a: Learning orientation moderates the relationship between
extrinsic rewards and incremental creative behavior such that the positive
relationship between rewards and creativity is stronger for individuals with a
high learning orientation than individuals with a low learning orientation.
Researchers have explored that a negative relationship exists between learning goal
orientation and performance goal orientation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). There is also some
research evidence, though limited, that confirms a negative or insignificant relationship
between performance goal orientation and creative behavior (Borlongan, 2008; Janseen
& Yperen, 2004). However, the role of goal orientation as the moderator of reward –
creative behavior has never been studied in the previous research.
Creative behavior may result in outcomes that are unpredictable and such behavior
may also trigger resistance and unfavorable evaluations from others (Dewett, 2007; Jo &
Lee, 2012). Thus creativity research has established that exhibition of creative behavior
requires high risk taking behavior and tolerance for ambiguity (Sternberg, 2006).
Individuals with a high PGO, however, avoid risk taking and negative evaluation and
prefer tasks in which they are confident of their success (Vandewalle, 2001). Thus
individuals with a high PGO will not respond positively to rewards for creative behavior,
as exhibition of creative behavior is something against their personal disposition. Their
preference of avoiding risks and uncertainty may nullify the motivation that rewards
induce to exhibit creative behavior. Thus for the individuals with a high PGO, the
cognitive processes that restrain creative behavior are higher and can suppress the
motivation that drives creative behavior. On the other hand, the presence of rewards may

Rewards and creativity the next step

Rewards and creativity the next step

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Rewards and creativity the next step

Similaire à Rewards and creativity the next step (20)

Plus de International advisers

Plus de International advisers (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Rewards and creativity the next step