licenta popovici oana
Post on 04-Feb-2018
248 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 1/56
Ministry of Education, Research and Youth
„Babeş-Bolyai University” Cluj-a!oca
"e!art#ent of $sycholo%y and Education &ciences
$sycholo%y &!eciali'ation
LICENCE PAPER
2012
Creative Performance under Time Pressure : Exploring
The Moderating Influence of Regulatory Focus
&cientific Coordinator( )raduate(
"rd* Claudia Rus +ana $o!ovici
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 2/56
Ministry of Education, Research and Youth
„Babeş-Bolyai University” Cluj-a!oca
"e!art#ent of $sycholo%y and Education &ciences
$sycholo%y &!eciali'ation
CECE $.$ER
/01/
Creative Performance under Time Pressure :Exploring
The Moderating Influence of Regulatory Focus
&cientific Coordinator( )raduate(
"rd* Claudia Rus +ana $o!ovici
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 3/56
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
ABSTRACT
I THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………… 1
1.2. Creatiit! a" "een #ro$ di##erent %ee%" o# ana%!"i" …………… &
1.2.1. The Creative Process ……………………………….. '
2.1.2. The creative person ………………………………….. (
2.1.) . The creative environment …………………………… *
2.1.& . The creative product ………………………………… 1+
1.). Conce,tua%i-in Creatiit! in t/e 0e de"in do$ain…………11
1.). Ti$e re""ure and Creatie er#or$ance ……………………. 1)
1.&. T/e Moderatin E##ect o# Reu%ator! Focu" in t/e Ti$e
re""ure 3 Creatie ,er#or$ance Re%ation"/i, ……………………………. 14
1.'. O5ectie" and H!,ot/e"i" …………………………………….. 2+
1.'.1. Objectives ……………………………………………. 2+
1.'.2. Hypothesis …………………………………………… 2+
II METHO6S
2.1. Oera%% de"in …………………………………………………… 21
2.2. artici,ant" ……………………………………………………… 22
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 4/56
2.2.1 . Population …………………………………………… 22
2.2.2. Sampling Frame and Judge Selection……………… 22
2.2.). Sampling Strategy ………………………………….. 2)
2.2.&. Proposed Sample ……………………………………. 2)
2.). In"tru$ent" ……………………………………………………. 2)
2.&. rocedure ……………………………………………………….. 2'
2.'. 6ata ana%!"i" ……………………………………………………. 2*
2.4. Fo%%o03u, te"t" ………………………………………………….. )+
III E7ECTE6 RES8LTS …………………………………………………. )1
I9 6ISC8SSION …………………………………………………………….. ))
T/eoretica% I$,%ication" …………………………………………….. ))
ractica% I$,%ication" ……………………………………………….. )&
Li$itation" and Sue"tion" #or Future Re"earc/ ………………… )4
Conc%u"ion ……………………………………………………………. )(
Re#erence" ……………………………………………………………. )*
A,,endi: A We"ite re#erence Sca%e
A,,endi: B Wor; Reu%ator! Focu" Sca%e
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 5/56
Creative Performance under Time Pressure:
The Moderating Infuence of Reguator! "ocus
A#stract
Time pressure has been shown to relate differentially to creative performance. This study
proposed that regulatory focus can help explain the differences reported by the
previously mixed results. We suggested that two regulatory processes (promotion focus
and prevention focus) may act as moderators in the time pressure-creative performance
relationship. 84 web designers were assigned to the conditions of a 2 (regulatory focus
promotion vs. prevention) x ! (time pressure vs. no time pressure) experimental design.
We first assessed individual differences in regulatory focus using the Wor" #egulatory
$ocus %cale (&eubert et al. !''8). We randomly assigned promotion focused and
prevention focused subects to a specific time pressure condition and as"ed them to
create two web pages which were in turn evaluated by the Website *reference %cale
(#osen + *urinton !''8). We expect the results of a !x! ,&, to reveal that under
time pressure promotion focused individuals report a higher creative performance than
individuals characteri/ed by a prevention focus. 0mplications for theory and research as
well as avenues for future research are discussed. *ractical implications for managerial
interventions to optimi/e both organi/ational climate and employees1 creative
productivity are also presented.
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 6/56
CHATER I
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.1. Introduction
In an era when the competitive environment demands that organizations develop
new products, processes and revisions to accepted ways of thinking and doing, there are
increasingly frequent calls to pursue creativity as a source of competitive advantage.
Consequently, one might expect intense scholarly interest in the study of organizational
factors that encourage creative action because creative actions represent variations from
established routines that facilitate organizational change and innovation !ord " #ioia,
2$$$%. &nd indeed, scholarly research has long identified creativity and innovation as the
raison d'(tre of today's business corporation )alo, 2$$*%.
+esearch e.g., &mabile, -/ !ord, --0/ 1oodman, awyer " #riffin, --*,
3ad4ar, 5ldham " )ratt, 2$$2% on employee creativity point to the impact of the social
environment as employees engage in creative endeavours in the workplace 6ierney "
!armer, 2$$7%. +eiter8)almon 2$% considers this recent emerge of interest to be a
result of the recognition that creativity and innovation are necessary for organizational
adaptation and survival. &ccording to the author, this should not come as a surprise
considering the fact that the rapid advancement of technology, globalization, and
increased competition have all served as forces that require organizations to adapt and
change ibidem%.
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 7/56
!or example, greater levels of research and development and an increased pace of
innovation in the economy have shortened the duration of the competitive advance of
industry leaders in many industries, ranging from consumer electronics to airlines to
computer software and even snack8foods 3illiken " 9unn8:ensen, 2$$;%. In order to
compete successfully, enterprises now feel intense pressure to cut their lead times on the
production of products and services.
#lobalization also drives the perceived need for increased efficiency in order to
compete with companies operating in countries with access to low8wage labour 3illiken
" 9unn8:ensen, 2$$;%.1ith the increased demand for speed in organizations, there may be a concomitant
increase in the number of deadlines that the average professional and managerial
employee is facing. 2Time pressure is often cited as a problem experienced by members
of formal organi/ations. 3oreover it is an administratively interesting factor since it is
one over which management may have substantial influence< &ndrews " !arris, -=2,
p. *%.
>nfortunately, studies examining the effect of time pressure are inconsistent. In a
meta8analysis of =0 experimental studies, ?yron et al. 2$$% found that stressors i.e.,
perceived time pressure or perceived competition% could have a positive, negative, or
curvilinear relationship to creativity. 5ther studies found a nonsignificant relationship
with creativity &mabile et al., --0%.
6he present study acknowledges the previously mixed results as we argue that
regulatory focus may act as a moderator in the time pressure8creative performance
relationship.
2
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 8/56
6he results of @ammond's et al. 2$% meta8analysis of the predictors of
individuals' innovation at work support the notion that individuals need some driving
force to help them overcome challenges associated with creative work. 1e consider that
self regulation through the promotion state represents that driving force.
6he two most frequently cited organizational creativity theories include factors in
the individual and the organization &mabile -, --0% or the individual, group, and
organization 1oodman et al. --*%, as well as interactions between these levels
@ennessey " &mabile, 2$$%. @owever, although many theorists and researchers have
broadened our perspective on creativity, their efforts do not extend far enough.Ivcevic 2$$-% suggests that the study of creativity would benefit from a focus on
creative behaviour and its determinants in the interaction of individual potential and
social environment. Consequently, this study is intended to view creativity at the
workplace from the interaction of three different levels of analysisA the individual, the
environment and the creative product, enriching studies e.g., &mabile, -*, @unter et
al., 2$$=, 1oodman et al., --*% of creativity that adopt an interactionist approach.
6he interactionist model proposed by 1oodman and choenfeldt --, --$%
suggests that creativity is the complex product of a personBs behaviour in a given
situation. 6he situation is characterized in terms of the contextual and social influences
that either facilitate or inhibit creative accomplishment. 6he person is influenced by
various antecedent conditions, and he or she brings to bear both cognitive abilities and
noncognitive traits or predispositions 1oodman et al., --*%.
1e consider this study to be also in alignment with the person environment fit
approach that examines the 4oint influence of person and environment factors on
*
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 10/56
standing in a class by themselves +ichards, -%. till, it has been argued that although
the study of exceptional persons or events might cast an interesting light on creativity, in
general it appears to be more useful to concentrate on average people ?urbiel, 2$$-%.
?eghetto and Faufman 2$$-% developed the !our C model of creativity. 6hey
argued that in addition to the study of ?ig C< eminent% creativity and little c<
everyday% creativity, it is also essential to explore the idea of mini c<, creativity
inherent in the learning process which involves the construction of personal knowledge
and understanding, and )ro8c<, professional8level expertise in any creative area.
It is clear that the phenomenon of creativity is extremely complex. 6he study of creativity has different perspectives and approaches and psychologists have a long history
of disagreement over the definition of creativity. &ccording to Finnon apud +adu et al.,
--%, the concept of creativity does not refer to a precise theoretical construct, but to a
general heading that comprises general psychological processes. 6he main psychological
aspects of creativity areA the creative process, the creative person, the creative
environment and the creative product +adu et al., --%. 6he following sections of this
article present a literature review of each of these four aspects of creativity.
6.!.6. The 9reative *rocess
3any of the earliest definitions of creativity focused on process, on the dynamic
events surrounding the creative act itself. 3ost of these models depend on a balance
between analytical and synthetic thinking, and usually describe the creative process as a
sequence of phases that alternate between these states. !or example, the model of
;
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 11/56
creativity developed by #raham 1allace in -20 consists of four phasesA preparation8
definition of the problem/ incubation8ignoring the problem for a while/ insight8the
moment when a new idea emerges/ and verification8analysis of the new idea. )reparation
and verification depend on analytical thinking, whereas insight is an expression of
synthetic thinking, emerging abruptly and unexpectedly, often at a time when the sub4ect
is not consciously thinking about the problem Geumann, 2$$=%.
?eginning with !reud -2, -;*%, but especially since Fris' explorations of the
creative processes Fris, -;2%, psychoanalytic theorists have described relationships
among creativity, primary process, and a particular kind of ego control that permitsadaptive use of primary process. 6he concept regression in the service of the ego< refers
to a momentary and at least, partially controlled use of primitive, nonlogical, and drive
dominated modes of thinking in the early stages of the creative process )ine " @olt,
-0$%.
:.). #uilford -;$% distinguished the thought processes of creative people from
those of other people in terms of convergent and divergent thinking. Convergent thinking
refers to the capacity to quickly focus on the one best solution to a problem. In contrast,
divergent thinking8 the kind most closely associated with creativity and originality8
involves the ability to envision multiple ways to solve a problem trickland, 2$$%.
3ore recently, within the cognitive perspective, creativity is conceived as a
product of two different types of mental processes. !irst, some processes are used in the
generation of cognitive structures memory retrieval, association, mental synthesis,
mental transformation, analogical transfer and categorical reduction%. 6he second type of
processes cover those used to explore the creative implications of the structures attribute
0
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 12/56
finding, conceptual interpretation, functional inference, contextual shifting, hypothesis
testing and searching for limitations 9ecortis " Eentini, 2$$-%. 6he idea that there are
two stages to the creative process is consistent with the results from cognition research
indicating that there are two distinct modes of thought A associative and analytical which
are under cognitive control through the executive functions of the brain 9e@aan, 2$$-%.
1hile the cognitive approach appears to have merit from the point of view of the
construct validity, there are obvious difficulties associated with the measurement of the
internal cognitive processes that are assumed to underlie the creative process Fatz,
2$$%.
.2.2. The creative person
In the attempt to understand creativity, other researchers have focused on the
creative person. #uilford -;$% suggests that creativity represents patterns of primary
abilities, patterns which can vary with different spheres of creative activity and, each
primary ability is a variable along which individuals differ in a continuous manner. ince
-;$, many studies have examined the link between personality and creativity. &s a
result, the list of traits found to occur commonly in creative individuals has become more
exact, precise, and encompassing. 6raits that have been identified are, among others,
tolerance of ambiguity, autonomy, intrinsic motivation, and openness to experience
@aller " Courvoisier, 2$$%.
!eist ---% presented a summary of research regarding the influence of
personality on creative achievement in the &rts and in cience. @e found that there were
=
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 13/56
some personality variables that occurred in both groups. Creative scientists and artists
were found to be open to new experiences, less conventional, less conscientious, but
more self8 confident, self8accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant hostile, and impulsive.
&rtists were found to be more affective, emotionally unstable, less socialized and less
accepting of group norms than scientists. cientists were found to be more conscientious
than artists. 6hese findings seem to suggest why it is has proved difficult to produce a
comprehensive list of the personality characteristics of creative people !urnham "
Chamorro8)remuzic, 2$$;%.
&mabile --*% reported that intrinsic motivation is an essential element of creativity, since it allows the individual to remain on task in problem8solving situations
for long periods of time.
Eubart and ternberg --, --;% proposed an investment theory of creativity.
&ccording to this theory, creative people are ones who are willing and able to buy low
and sell high in the realm of ideas. 20n particular buying low and selling high typically
means defying the crowd so that one has to be willing to stand up to conventions if one
wants to thin" and act in creative ways ternberg, 2$$0, p.=%.
6.!.:. The creative environment
6he original research tended to adopt an excessively individualistic perspective.
Creativity was viewed as a process that took place in the mind of a single individual who
possessed the appropriate personal characteristics and developmental experiences.
?eginning with the late -=$s, however, more psychologists began to recognize that
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 14/56
creativity takes place in a social context imonton, 2$$$%. &s ternberg 2$$0% stated,
one needs an environment that is supportive and rewarding of creative ideas. &n
individual could have all of the internal resources needed in order to think creatively, but
without some environmental support, the creativity within himJher might never be
displayed.
)erhaps the most critical factor in the environment is the level of support for
individuals' innovative actions. & flexible structure, adequate resources and enriched 4obs
have also been found to encourage innovation. !lexible structures are associated with
increased autonomy and the belief that new ideas will be accepted Fanter, -*%.!inancial and material resources must be available for the task at hand as well as
appropriate production systems, resources for market analysis, informational resources,
relevant training, and the time to engage in long8term thinking are important to
developing new ideas &mabile, -/ !arr " !ord, --$%. Dnriched 4obs enhance
creativity because autonomy gives 4ob holders more opportunities to make decisions by
themselves, they are more challenging and require more complex mental activities, and
they are more meaningful to the person and thus motivate the person to improve his or
her performance Eivingstone, et al., --=%.
In a recent study, Choi et al., 2$$-% found that unsupportive climate has a
particularly adverse effect on creative performance primarily for persons with low
creative ability, whereas it did not affect the level of creativity of highly creative
individuals. Individuals with low creative ability may be more susceptible to the negative
effects of contextual factors such as an unsupportive climate, because of feelings of low
self8efficacy, lack of confidence, and a higher perception of risk of failure in creative
-
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 15/56
endeavours. &n unsupportive climate may also have a stronger negative effect on low8
ability individuals in that it may be perceived as indicative of organizational norms
against creativity. Consequently, it appears that the creative ability of employees may
either enhance or attenuate the detrimental efects o inhibitory
contextual actors.
6.!.4. The creative product
9espite the long8standing proeminence of the trait approach, &mabile -*%argues that this approach is incomplete, that creativity is best conceptualized not as a
personality trait or a general ability, but as a behavior resulting from particular
constellations of personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and social environments.
2This behavior which is evidenced in products or responses can only be completely
explained by a model that encompasses all three sets of factors &mabile, -*, p. *;%
8 a social psychology of creativity.
Currently, the product definitions are widely regarded as the most useful for
creativity research, even among those who attempt to study the creative process or the
creative personality. &mabile, -*% argues that this is because the identification of a
thought process as creative< must finally depend on the outcome of that processA a
product or response. Eikewise, even if it is possible to identify a constellation of personality traits that marks outstandingly creative individuals, the identification of
individuals on whom such personality research would be validated must depend in some
way on the quality of their work. 6he creativity of products is typically the focus of
$
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 16/56
experimental paradigms that vary the conditions under which one or more individual's
creativity is assessed. @ere creativity is seen as a fleeting and largely situation8dependent
state rather than a relatively stable and enduring personality trait% @ennessey "
&mabile, 2$$%.
+egarding the components of the creative production, &mabile -*% also states
that domain relevant skills can be considered as the basis from which any performance
must proceed. 6hey include factual knowledge, technical skills and special talents in the
domain in question. Creativity relevant skills include cognitive style, application of
heuristics for the exploration of new cognitive pathways, and working style. 6ask motivation accounts for motivational variables that determine an individual's approach to
a given task.
1.). Conce,tua%i-in creatie ,er#or$ance in t/e 0e de"in do$ain
>sing the product based approach, we define creativity as the production of ideas,
solutions, and products that are novel i.e., original% and appropriate i.e., useful% in a
given situation ?yron et al., 2$$%. & product is novel if it isn't 4ust a simple copy of
previous products, if it is a unique product, which, subsequently may be the ob4ect of a
reproduction +adu et al., --%. 6o this end, a product, or an outcome is creative if it is
consistently 4udged as such by two or more independent, knowledgeable observers
CurKeu, 2$$%.
In the context of this study, creative performance describes a particular individual
outcome, namely two web pages.
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 17/56
In his book, %oftware 9reativity, +obert #lass apud Faluzniacky, 2$$7% states that
creativity is an essential part of the work of software development. 6he author states that
analysis and design are arguably the most intellectual and creative of the life cycle
phases. @e identifies both intellectual and clerical tasks in software development. &mong
the intellectual tasks he includes constructing models and representing relationships, as
well as identifying the impact of design changes and generating screen mock8ups.
Identifying rules violations, maintaining lists of requirements, and storing versions of a
design are counted among clerical tasks. & number of intellectual tasks, he proposes, will
require creativity in their accomplishment Faluzniacky, 2$$7%.9esign is considered as a problem solving activity in cognitive psychology,
because it requires important cognitive resources like producing an artefact that fits a
specific function while satisfying various requirements Chevalier " ?onnardel, 2$$=%.
&ccording to +osen and )urinton 2$$7%, web sites are cognitive landscapes which, in
turn are the result of efficient information processing. 6hus, how information is presented
can facilitate or impede its utilization.
6he creativity of the web pages refers to the novelty, uniqueness and
distinctiveness of design e.g., a memorable component, a landmark%. 6he complexity of
the web pages refers to the richness of the elements used in the web page design e.g.,
colors, product selection suggestion, photos, and tables%. 6he informational coherence of
the web pages refers to the extent to which the landscape of the web pages is consistent,
and it relies on the redundancies of elements and textures used in the design. @owever,
these three distinct elements are closely relatedA a more creative web page is likely to be
2
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 18/56
more complex and, because of the use of several features information richness%, it is also
likely to be more coherent CurKeu, 2$$, +osen " )urinton, 2$$7%.
6he next section introduces the second level used to analyze creativity in this
studyA the environmental approach. 5ne specific aspect of the work environment, namely
time pressure is discussed in relation to the creative product.
1.&. Ti$e re""ure and Creatie er#or$ance
ubstantial evidence now suggests that employee creativity makes an important
contribution to organizational innovation, competitiveness and survival e.g., &mabile,
-/ !ord, --0/ 1oodman, awyer " #riffin, --*, +eiter8)almon, 2$%. &s a
consequence there has been increasing interest in identifying the contextual conditionsthat influence such creativity ?aer " 5ldham, 2$$0%. 5f all specific aspects of the work
environment, time pressure has perhaps received the most research attention recently
from organizational psychologists studying creativity @ennessey " &mabile, 2$$%.
till, the literature in this area to date comprises conflicting messages. 5n the one hand
there are those studies e.g., Eynn, 2$$7, ?yron et al., 2$$% which suggest that time
pressure decreases employee innovation, either through time deficit or anxiety. 5ne the
other, there are those who suggest &ndrews and !arris, -=2, halley et al. 2$$$, and
>nsworth et al. 2$$;% that time pressure increases innovation, apparently through a sense
of necessity and challenge >nsworth, 2$$7%.
*
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 19/56
<hough time pressure has been studied intensively by psychologists and
behavioral scientists, a generally accepted definition does not exist. Gevertheless, it has
been commonly operationalized as the time available for task performance @wang,
--7%.
It is certainly conceivable that when people know they are under time pressure,
they will attempt to work faster. uch an attempt would likely result in the exclusion of
difficult components of tasks on the part of the sub4ects whenever possible, and also on a
reliance upon what is already known and done. !or instance, in designing a spill8proof
coffee cup, the sub4ect might focus on what he knows about the characteristics of thecoffee cup which he used that morning, because that would be the first occurring thought,
and the sub4ect would feel the need to get something immediately down on paper to
ensure task completion. 6hus, one could logically expect time pressure to inhibit creative
performance Eynn, 2$$7%. &nd, indeed studies searching for simple linear relations have
generally found no relation or weak negative relations &mabile et al., --0, 2$$2%,
indicating that, overall, time pressure may be detrimental to creativity at work. imilarly,
&ndrews and mith --0% showed that product managers who experienced high time
pressure developed marketing programs low on creativity. In a meta8analysis of the
relationship between stressors and creativity, ?yron et al., 2$$% also found that a mostly
negative correlation between uncontrollable elements, including making a task more
difficult by increasing time constraints and creative performance, suggesting however the
existence of moderator effect.
@owever, there is some research that suggests time pressure can act as a motivator
and, in contrast to the previous set of results, actually increase employee's creative
7
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 20/56
performance. &ndrews and !arris -=2%, halley et al. 2$$$% and >nsworth et al. 2$$;%
found that time demands were positively related to creativity. Dven the work of &mabile
and #ryskiewicz -=% found that time pressure was cited in Lhigh creativity' events by
2M of respondents, and that the urgent needs of the organization led to innovation by
22M of respondents >nsworth, 2$$7%.
o how do we integrate these two conflicting sets of resultsN >nsworth et al.
2$$;% suggest that this discrepancy may occur due to the way in which time demands are
interpreted - 20f the participant or the norms that influence the participant view time
demands as a challenge to be overcome then it is li"ely that time demands will be
positively related to creativity. 0f however they are viewed as an unsurpassable barrier
then time demands will probably be negatively related to creativity p.;;0%.
In a study that explored the moderating effect of time pressure on organizational
innovation, @su and !an 2$$% found that challenging work was positively related to
time pressure and creativity. 6he results indicated that challenging work could be
influenced by creative self8efficacy and it was proposed that employees with strong self8
efficacy will interpret time pressure as challenging and cope with time pressure more
effectively.
&mabile et al. 2$$2% also reported that time pressure could have both a positive
and a negative effect, depending upon certain environmental contingencies like
distraction and fragmentation in the work.
)epinsky et al. -0$%, in their study of the effects of task complexity and time
pressure upon team productivity showed positive evidence that the teams were more
productive when working on a task that was sufficiently complex to reduce boredom, but
;
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 21/56
when changes in time pressure occurred, the effect upon changes in team productivity
was curvilinear. !inally, ?aer and 5ldham 2$$0% found an inverted >8relation between
time pressure and creativity for employees who scored high on the personality trait of
openness to experience while simultaneously receiving support for creativity.
In view of the inconsistency in results that have been found between time pressure
and creative performance, we further suggest an examination of the moderating effect of
an individual variable. pecifically, we argue that regulatory focus in the context of time
pressure and creative performance, will best explain this relationship.
1.'. T/e Moderatin E##ect o# Reu%ator! Focu" in t/e Ti$e ,re""ure3Creatie
,er#or$ance Re%ation"/i,
In order to survive and adapt to their environment, specially the social
environment, people must learn about their personal capabilities, about their strengths
and weaknesses, and to control the self and the environment 6eodorescu, 2$%.
Reu%ator! #ocu" t/eor! @iggins, --=, --% proposes that self8regulation in
relation to strong ideals versus strong oughts differs in regulatory focus. Ideal self8
regulation involves a promotion focus, whereas ought self regulation involves a
prevention focus. )eople are motivated to approach desired end8states, which could be
either promotion focus aspirations and accomplishments or prevention focus
responsibilities and safety @iggins, --=%. 6he theory distinguishes between two ma4or
categories of desired goalsA those related to advancement and growth and those related to
0
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 22/56
safety and security. It further proposes the existence of distinct regulatory systems that
are concerned with acquiring either nurturance or security. IndividualsB self8regulation in
relation to their hopes and aspirations ideals% satisfies nurturance needs. 6he goal is
accomplishment, and the regulatory focus is promotion. IndividualsB self8regulation in
relation to duties and obligations oughts% satisfies security needs. 6he goal is safety, and
the regulatory focus is prevention Eiberman, et al., ---%.
Individuals with a chronic or situationally induced promotion focus are inclined
to utilize approach strategic means in order to attain their goals. Conversely, individuals
with a prevention focus tend to use avoidance strategic means in order to attain their goals @iggins et al. 2$$%.
Individuals in a promotion focus have strong ideals, prefer gainJnon8gain situations, are
sensitive to presence or absence of positive outcomes, insure hits and insure against
errors of omission and have cheerfulnessJde4ection emotions. Individuals in a prevention
focus have strong oughts, prefer non8lossJloss situations, use avoidance as strategic
means, insure correct re4ections and insure against errors of commission and have
quiescenceJagitation emotions. elf8regulatory focus can also be seen as a dispositional
trait, which can be activated by situational circumstances. Dmotions, event sensitivity,
problem solving, decision8making, performance, preferences, all vary depending on
whether self8regulation involves a promotion focus or a prevention focus 6eodorescu,
2$%.
!ailures in self8regulation can stem from the absence of standards, from a lack of
attention to the correspondence between oneBs actions and oneBs intentions, from the
attempt to regulate a variable that cannot be regulated, and from the attempt to regulate
=
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 23/56
with respect to a standard that ultimately is not relevant to oneBs overall goal. !ailures can
also stem from holding standards that are too demanding and from conflicts when one
important standard is at odds with another Carver " cheier, 2$$-%.
3any studies have shown that a promotion focus, in general, is more likely to
enhance creativity than is a prevention focus e.g., !riedman " !orster, 2$$, Eam "
Chiu, 2$$2, @erman " +eiter8 )almon, 2$%. 6his is because promotion states generate
a broad and global attentional scope and facilitate conceptual access to mental
representations with lower a priori accessibility. )revention states, in contrast, induce a
narrow attentional scope, a focus on local perceptual details, and a decrease in conceptualaccess to mental representations with lower a priori accessibility ?aas, 9e 9reu, "
Gi4stad, 2$$%.
& promotion focus, for example, enhances the capacity of individuals to identify
many novel and suitable uses of a brick, partly because this orientation focuses attention
on novel opportunities and possibilities 3oss, 2$$%. &lso, a person in promotion focus
might persist in a difficult anagram rather than quitting to insure against omitting a
possible word @iggins, --=%.
Eam and Chiu 2$$2% found that promotion focus encouraged individuals to
search for more strategies, and as a consequence increase fluency in idea generation.
Individual differences in regulatory focus as well as induced regulatory focus resulted in
the same outcomes.
&ccording to ?aas, 9e 9reu, and Gi4stad 2$%, the effect of regulatory focus on
creativity depends on whether or not the aspirations or duties were fulfilled. >nsuccessful
attempts, at either a promotion or prevention focus, should enhance creativity.
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 24/56
)resumably, unsuccessful attempts to fulfill a goal may sustain alertness, improving effort
and creativity. 6hey also argue that successful attempts to fulfill a promotion goal should
also enhance creativityA the excitement of these achievements fosters confidence,
motivating individuals to pursue steeper goals. In contrast, successful attempts to fulfill a
prevention goal, however, should hinder creativity, because the individuals already feel
content and hence their level of alertness or activation decreases.
&ccording to Feller 2$$=%, regulatory focus can also influence the perception of
stimuli as threat or challenge. @is results suggested that the impact of the activated
negative stereotypic expectancy on participants' test performance depended heavily onthe activated mode of self8regulation.
1ithin the context of time pressure, we predict that time pressure is most likely to
be perceived as threatening and result in poorer creative performance when the
prevention mode of self8regulation prevails because people are most likely to experience
anxiety about not meeting minimal goal standards. & different picture should be observed
under promotion focus conditions. In promotion8focused individuals, time pressure is not
particularly likely to elicit apprehension about meeting minimal goal standards and hence
unlikely to be perceived as threatening. 5n the contrary, promotion8focused sub4ects
might perceive time pressure as an eagerness8eliciting challenge rather than a threat%
because of their exploratory orientation and pursuit of ideals and gains.
-
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 25/56
1.4. O5ectie" and H!,ot/e"i"
6.;.6. bectives
6his study examines the role of two regulatory processes promotion focus and
prevention focus% as moderators in the time pressure creative performance relationship.
pecifically it will try toA
8 evaluate the differences in regulatory focus trait that assign individuals to a
promotion or prevention state in order to establish for whom time pressure most strongly
predicts creative performance/8 test whether the causal relationship between time pressure and creative
performance changes as a function of regulatory focus/
8 measure the differential effect of time pressure on creative performance as a
function of regulatory focus/
6.;.!. <ypothesis
+egulatory focus moderates the effects of time pressure on creative performance
in such a way that, under time pressure, promotion focused individuals will perform the
best, whereas prevention focused individuals facing time pressure, will perform the
worst.
2$
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 26/56
CHATER II
METHO6S
2.1. Oera%% 6e"in
1e randomly assigned the participants to the conditions of a 2 regulatory focusA
promotion vs. prevention% x 2 time pressure vs. no time pressure% experimental design
with the last factor manipulated between8sub4ects. 6he participants were unaware of
condition assignment.
Creative performance was viewed here as the outcome dependent% variable. 6he
impact of time pressure as a predictor independent variable% with two levelsA time
pressure and no time pressure the control condition%. !inally, regulatory focus was
viewed as a moderator variable which also had two levelsA promotion focus and
prevention focus. &ccordingly, we proposed to conduct a four8group experiment where
each group comprised a different combination of the levels of the two factorsA
. promotion focus x time pressure/
2. promotion focus x no time pressure/
*. prevention focus x time pressure/
7. prevention focus x no time pressure.
)rior empirical research indicated that educational level had a positive effect on
creativity, reflecting task domain expertise or knowledge ?aer " 5ldham, 2$$0%.
6herefore, this study controlled for educational level, which ranged from a bachelor's
degree level to a doctoral level.
2
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 27/56
2.2. artici,ant"
!.!.6. *opulation
6he population from which the sample of this study was drawn was that of web
designers employed in the +omanian companies or agencies. In the field of web site
design, studies show that there are at least two kinds of web designersA web designers
working in large companies, who can collaborate with many specialists, such as graphic
designers, user interface designers, etc., and web designers working in smaller companies, who very often create web sites alone, and therefore have to develop skills in
all these different areas Chevalier et al., 2$$-%.
!.!.!. %ampling $rame and =udge %election
6he sample was drawn from professional web designers of several small
companies activating in four cities situated in the Central &rea of +omania Clu48Gapoca,
?raKov, ibiu, 6Orgu 3ureK%. 1e sampled the companies as needed until we obtained the
planned minimum sample. Considering the fact that creative performance was evaluated
by 4udges, their selection was based on field knowledge, accomplishments and
professional status, each holding the title of Hice )resident.
!.!.:. %ampling %trategy
22
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 28/56
1e employed a non8random sample of convenience. 1e obtained permission
within each company, and the investigator solicited the participation of every web
designer specialized in the development of e8commerce sites.
!.!.4. *roposed %ample
1e aimed for a sample of 7 web designers. 1e used the #P)ower software to
analyze power. 6hus, a minimum of 7 graphic designers can expect a power of .-;,
assuming an effect size of .$, two8tailed significance test at the .$; alpha level.
&ccording to guidelines suggested by Cohen 2$$%, d Q .$ is considered a large effectsizeA not so large as to be obvious from causal observation, but large enough to have a
good chance of being found statistically significant with a modest number of sub4ects.
Dach sub4ect was assigned to one of the four groups so that each group had an
equal number of 2 participants.
2.). In"tru$ent"
6he instrument packet comprised two previously developed and validated
measures and a background questionnaire.
1e measured the creative performance manifested in designers' work products by
the item We"ite re#erence Sca%e 1)/ +osen " )urinton, 2$$7%.
>sing an approach from cognitive psychology, +osen and )urinton 2$$7% created
a website preference scale. 6heir initial construct for website characteristics were
coherence, complexity, legibility and mystery. Dxploratory factor analysis was applied,
2*
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 30/56
important factor for me when loo"ing for a obR%, to pursue aspirations R ,t wor" 0 am
motivated by my hopes and aspirationsR%, and to maximize gains R 0 tend to ta"e ris"s at
wor" in order to achieve successR%. +espondents provide their agreement with each item
on a Eikert scale ranging from strongly disagree% to ; strongly agree%.
Geubert, Facmar, Carlson, Chonko, and +oberts 2$$% developed this scale to
ensure the measure represents needs8that is, security versus achievement, self guides8that
is, ought and ideals, as well as means to achieve goals8that is, eagerness versus vigilance.
&lpha reliability was .-* and .- for prevention and promotion respectively Geubert,
Facmar, Carlson, Chonko, " +oberts, 2$$%. & copy of 1+! is provided in &ppendix ?.
?ac"ground @ata Auestionnaire
6he ?ackground 9ata Suestionnaire Fatz, 2$$% contained demographic
questions, information regarding the participants' experience in the field and in their
current position in organization.
2.&. rocedure
?ecause regulatory focus was considered to be a stable personal characteristic, we
did not manipulate promotion focus or prevention focus. Instead we conducted a mass
testing to 2 months prior to the current study in order to determine their regulatory
orientation at work.
1eb designers could only participate in the study if they scored in the highest
tertile of the promotion focus scale and the lowest tertile of the prevention focus scale, or
2;
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 31/56
vice versa. 1e selected them on the basis of these two tertiles, as we were interested in
web designers who were predominantly promotion focused or predominantly prevention
focused. 1e also wanted to ensure that the findings in this study were not biased by
respondents who were socialized with both types of regulatory focus or lacked both cf.
Fnollmann " 1ild, 2$$=%. 1e aimed for an equal number of participants who could be
either categorized as % high promotion low prevention focused or 2% high prevention
low promotion focused.
1e computed an overall regulatory focus scale and used it to divide the sub4ects
into promotion focused and prevention focused. )articipants in both these categories werecontacted by phone and asked to volunteer for a study of individual creativity. 6hey were
assured of the confidentiality of their data and of the fact that they would free to
discontinue their participation at any time.
5verall, we assigned each participant to a specific regulatory focus condition
prevention or promotion% and to a creativity task characterized by a specific time
pressure condition time pressure or no time pressure%. @alf of the sub4ects were
promotion focused and the other half were prevention focused. In one condition, the
sub4ect received a task characterized by time pressure. In the control condition, the
sub4ect received the same task, but characterized by no time pressure. 1e randomly
assigned half of the promotion focused sub4ects to one of the two time pressure condition,
as we did with half of the sub4ect characterized by a prevention focus. 6hus each group
completed one of the four possible conditions.
20
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 32/56
5n arrival, the participants were placed in separate rooms, each with its own
computer and a closed door to avoid external noise. Dach volunteer first completed a
consent form and a 9emographic 9ata Inventory.
)articipants were then asked to create two web pages for presenting a seller of
bathrooms the homepage and another of their own choice to present a category of the
client's products%. & previous study Chevalier et al., 2$$-% reported that approximately
one hour and a half is a sufficient amount of time to complete this task. &ccordingly, the
groups in the time pressure condition were given a 7; minutes time limit to create the
product. Dvery ; minutes, an investigator informed them of the remaining time. 6hegroups in the control condition were told that they could take as much time as they
needed to complete the task.
6he designers created web pages based on the assigned conditions and
instructions. 6hey were also provided supporting paper and electronic documents
photographs of the client's store and products, contact information for the store%. 6o
create the web pages they used an authoring tool, such as 3acromedia 9reamer or &dobe
#oEive.
&fter the data collection phase of the study, three 4udges evaluated the participants'
creative performance on the web pages generated using the 1ebsite )reference cale.
?efore evaluating the pages, we provided the 4udges an explanation of each dimensions
and subdimensions and asked to rate several samples using the instrument.
2.'. 6ata ana%!"i"
2=
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 33/56
1e coded and keyed all the data for analysis using the tatistical )ackage of the
ocial ciences for 1indows Hersion =.$. !or the initial description of the data we
obtained frequency distributions, analysis of the distributions' symmetry and descriptive
statistics including means, standard deviations and inter8correlations among all the
variables. 6he internal consistency reliability coefficient, Cronbach's alpha and )earson's
r were obtained for all the scale scores.
Inter84udge reliability on the creative performance rating scores was evaluated
using the inter84udge agreement method. &ccording to &mabile --$%, this method is themost popular method in line with the conceptualization of creativity within the product
based approach. Gext, a two8way &G5H& was employed to examine a moderator effect.
6he hypothesis stated that regulatory focus moderates the effects of time pressure
on creativity in such a way that individuals who adopt a promotion focus when facing
high levels of time pressure will perform the best, whereas individuals facing high levels
of time pressure, but who adopt a prevention focus will perform the worst. 1ithin this
framework, moderation implied that the causal relation between two variables changes as
a function of the moderator variable. 6he statistical analysis tested the differential effect
of the independent variable on the dependent variable as a function of the moderator
?aron " Fenny, -0%. In this case, both moderator and independent variables were
categorical variables time pressure vs. no time pressure/ promotion focus vs. prevention
focus%. 1hen both the predictor and variable are categorical, 2x2 &G5H& is used for
testing moderating effects Fim, Faye " 1right, 2$$%.
2
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 34/56
6he two8way &G5H& provided main effects for the predictor variables. Gext,
&G5H& provided the effect for the interaction between the predictors. If the interaction
term was statistically significant, our moderator hypothesis would be supported.
pecifically, we calculated both the sum of squares % and mean square for the
followingA
. error variance
2. the main effect of variable time pressure
*. the main effect of variable regulatory focus
7. the time pressure x regulatory focus interaction 1e then calculated a value of $ for each main effect and interaction we were
testing. Dach of these calculated values of ! was then compared to the critical value of !.
?ecause we proposed for 7 sub4ects in total and four groups, the degree of freedom for
the denominator was $. 6he degree of freedom for the numerator for the ! test of the
regulatory focus factor was the same as that for the time pressure factor as well as for the
interaction. ?ecause each factor had two levels, all of the three df were . !or the main
effects and for the interaction we needed $ $.; , $% which was approximately 7.$$. If
the three $ ratios were greater than the critical $ , 7.$$, our results would fall in the
re4ection zone of the $ distribution and we could re4ect the three null hypotheses that the
population means were equal.
2-
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 35/56
2.4. Fo%%o03u, te"t"
&ssuming &G5H& revealed a significant effect for an independent variable with
two levels no further statistical tests were necessary. 6he significant $ 8test told us that the
two means of the independent variable differ significantly, and we could inspect the
means to understand the direction and magnitude of the difference between them Eeary,
2$$%. @owever, assuming the interaction was statistically significant, the effects of one
independent variable variable differed depending on the level of another variable. In
order to determine precisely which condition means differed within the interaction, weconducted tests of simple main effects. pecifically, we examined four simple main
effectsA
. 6he simple main effect of time pressure at the promotion focus 9id the means of
time pressure and no time pressure differed for the promotion focused
participantN%
2. 6he simple main effect of time pressure at the prevention focus 9id the means of
time pressure and no time pressure differed for the prevention focused
participantN%
*. 6he simple main effect of regulatory focus at time pressure 9id the means of
promotion and prevention focus differed for the participants in the time pressure
conditionN%
7. 6he simple main effect of regulatory focus at no time pressure 9id the means of
promotion focus and prevention focus differed for the participants in the no time
pressure conditionN%
*$
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 36/56
CHATER III
E7ECTE6 RES8LTS
1e expect no time pressure and promotion focus to be significantly and positively
correlated with employee creativity, whereas time pressure and prevention focus to be
negatively correlated with employee creativity. 6his shouldn't come as a surprise since
previous studies have shown the same results e.g., &mabile et al., --0, 2$$2, &ndrews
and mith, --0, ?yron et al., 2$$, !riedman " !orster, 2$$, Eam " Chiu, 2$$2,
@erman " +eiter8 )almon, 2$, ?aas, 9e 9reu, " Gi4stad, 2$$%.
1e also expect that the reliability coefficients and inter84udge correlations to be
statistically significant, indicating that the raters' scoring is reasonably consistent and that
there is agreement between the raters on the item being evaluated. 6hese results indicate
that the 1ebsite )reference cale can be used as a reliable method for evaluating the
creative performance of individuals in designing a web page.
1e expect to find a significant main effect for time pressure, so that the
participants' creative performance in the high time pressure condition is generally poorer
than the creative performance of the participants in the control group. 1e also expect to
find a main effect for regulatory focus so that the sub4ects who are generally promotion
focused perform higher at the creativity task than sub4ects who are generally prevention
focused.
6he main effects are expected to be qualified, however, by a significant
interaction, that strongly supports the study's prediction that, when facing time pressure
*
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 37/56
during a creativity task, promotion focused sub4ects perform the best, whereas prevention
focused sub4ects, perform the worst. In contrast, when facing a sufficient amount of time
for the creativity task, the participants' scores on the creative performance task don't
differ significantly across the regulatory focus condition.
*2
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 38/56
CHATER I9
6ISC8SSION
Theoretical 0mplications
&s we have already stated, people with promotion goals are sensitive to gains and
nongains, whereas people with prevention goals are sensitive to losses and nonlosses.
&aker and Eee 2$$0% state that these distinct goals prompt people to selectively pay
attention to and rely on information that helps them attain their goal. 3oreover, they
adopt strategies and engage in activities that are consistent with their regulatory
orientation ibidem%.
&ccording to 1allace, Eittle and hull apud 1allace and Chen, 2$$0% a
promotion focus is defined as a moderately stable engagement strategy with a focus on
accomplishing more tasks, more quickly. 5n the contrary, a prevention focus is, in the
authors' view a moderately stable engagement strategy with a focus on performing tasks
accurately and in accordance with one's duties. @ence, it seems plausible to assume that
employees whose promotion8focused orientation converges with high time pressure
demands may demonstrate the greatest creative performance. 6his, we consider to be
because, when characterized by prevention focus, individuals fear they will not meet
minimal goal standards and are more likely to perceive time pressure as threatening,
resulting in poorer creative performance. &s for the promotion focused individuals, time
pressure may act as a challenge, due to their exploratory orientation and pursuit of gains.
**
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 39/56
6his paper is, to our knowledge, the first to relate the concepts of regulatory focus
and time pressure to organizational creative performance in the web design environment.
1e examine whether regulatory focus moderates the individual8level effects of time
pressure on employees' creative performance. If confirmed, our results add to the time
pressure8creativity literature, indicating that time pressure can have very different effects
on creative performance depending on the predominant focus of self8regulation.
6his study contributes to the creativity literature by considering the influence of
the interactionist model of creativity. 1e study creativity from an integrating framework
that combines important elements of the personality e.g., 1oodman, -%, cognitivee.g., @ayes, --%, and social psychology e.g., &mabile, -*%. 1e believe that this
approach represents a more realistic portrayal of creativity at the workplace as we
examine the 4oint contribution of the organizational context and the person to the
prediction of individual performance.
!ord and #ioia 2$$$% suggest that there is a need for theoretical and empirical
work dedicated specifically to understanding creativity across different domains of
action. Consequently, our study also contributes by focusing explicitly on creative
performance in the field of web design since it has been proposed that creativity research
findings from one domain often do not generalize to other domains e.g., ternberg, -,
?arron " @arrington, -%.
*ractical 0mplications
5ur results may have important implications for practice. Dmployees' creativity is
directly influenced by organizational characteristics. 3any of the tasks that must be
*7
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 40/56
performed require the processing of enormous amounts of information in very short
periods of time. If companies want creativity to be a part of their culture, they must
either manage the complexity o the task or manage employee’s
regulatory ocus.
!irst, we consider that, in a work environment characterized by tight deadlines
and high workloads, personnel selection should consider hiring and promoting
individuals with the appropriate personality profiles.
Identifying candidates' chronic regulatory focus at work might prove to be not
only a good predictor of creative performance, but also a tool for consultants and leadersin offering the right feedback. !or example, research !Trster et al., 2$$% showed that
when given positive feedback, individuals exhibiting a promotion focus demonstrate
more motivation. @owever, individuals with a prevention focus are more motivated when
they receive negative feedback. 6hus, in order to obtain more motivational strength and,
therefore high creative performance, companies should consider encouraging promotion8
oriented followers and discouraging those who are prevention8oriented.
Wallace, Little and Shull (2!" ha#e suggested that, although
regulatory ocus descents rom personal stable characteristics, it can
also be in$uenced by context. “This may at frst appear dicult
because o one’s moderately stable tendency or promotion and
prevention, but theoretically it has been suggested and empirically it
has been shown that one’s tendency can be changed by powerul
contextual stimuli (Crowe !iggins, "##$% !iggins, "##$, &''', and
*;
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 41/56
we believe that leaders represent such stimuli (c) *orster et al), &''+%
allace Chen, &''-. (ibidem, p. %2".
<hough promotion focus has been found to be an important antecedent to
individual creativity Crowe " @iggins, --=%, :ohnson and 1allace 2$$a% found that
collective promotion plays an important role in team innovation behaviour and the
resulting entrepreneurial success. 6he same authors 2$b% consider that top
management teams that encourage a promotion focus through explicit action and implicit
behaviour and attitudes may be able to develop an organizational collective promotion
focus that encourages innovation and entrepreneurship.
Bimitations and %uggestions for $uture #esearch
5ur study has a few limitations. !irst, our sample includes web designers
employees only and it is not clear that our results generalize to other populations. !uture
research might attempt to test the ideas developed in this study across different samples
and settings.
econd, we considered regulatory focus to be a stable personal characteristic.
@owever, @iggins --=, 2$$$% and colleagues e.g., !orster et al., 2$$*% have argued
that, individual differences in regulatory focus i.e., chronic tendencies% predispose the
individual toward different forms of strategic engagement promotion or prevention% but
do not necessarily determine the courses of action one will take across all situations andcontexts. Certain powerful contextual variables such as group norms, leadership climate,
and task characteristics may override chronic tendencies and significantly influence
*0
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 42/56
whether one adopts a promotion or prevention focus during a given goal striving episode.
!uture research should also take this in consideration.
6hird, the nature of the independent and the moderator variables precludes the
making of any conclusive causal inference. &lso, our design does not capture possible
important mediators like perception of time pressure as a threat or as a challenge.
East, because the data in this study are proposed to be collected only in the central
&rea of +omania, one may argue that our findings are culturally bound and thus cannot
be generalized to other countries. @owever, +omanian business practices have evolved
and employee creativity and regulatory focus are essentially universal concepts.
CONCL8SION
+esearch examining time pressure and creativity is allowing increased insight into
the processes leading to perform 4ob tasks creatively. 6he present research contributes to
this literature by proposing an examination of the moderating role of regulatory focus. In
doing so, a critical component that needs to be managed to optimize creative performance
has been identified. 6his is the key because it demonstrates the need for managers to be
involved in directing employees' focus during highly complex tasks and tight deadlines.
*=
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 43/56
+D!D+DGCD
Aa;er< =. L.< Lee< A. >. ?2++4@ >nderstanding +egulatory !it<, =ournal of 3ar"eting
#esearch, 7*, ;8-.
A$ai%e< T. M. ?1*2@ ocial )sychology of CreativityA & Consensual &ssessment
6echnique<, =ournal of *ersonality and %ocial *sychology, 7*;%, --=8$*.
A$ai%e< T.M. ?1*)@ 6he ocial )sychology of CreativityA & Componential
Conceptualization<, =ournal of *ersonality and %ocial *sychology, 7;2%, *;=8*=0.
A$ai%e< T. M. ?1**@ 8 & model of creativity and innovation in organizations<,
#esearch in organi/ational behavior , $, 2*80=.
A$ai%e< T. M.< Conti< R.< Coon< H.< La-en!< =.< and Herron< M. ?14@ &ssesing
the work environment for creativity<. ,cademy of 3anagement =ournal , *-;%, ;78
7.
A$ai%e< T. M. ?1)@ 1hat does a 6heory of Creativity +equireN<, *sychological
0nCuiry, 72%, =-82*=.
A$ai%e< T. M.< Mue%%er< =. S.< Si$,"on< W. B.< Had%e!< C. N.< Kra$er< S. =.< and
F%e$in< L. ?2++2@ 3 6ime )ressure and Creativity in 5rganizationsA & Eongitudinal
*
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 44/56
!ield tudy, 6he 6.D.&.3. tudyA Dvents 6hat Influence Creativity.< <arvard ?usiness
%chool @ivision of #esearch.
A$ai%e< T. M.< Bar"ade< S. D.< Mue%%er< =. S.< Sta0< B. M. ?2++'@ &ffect and
Creativity at 1ork<, ,dministrative %cience Auarterly, ;$, *0=87$*.
Andre0"< F. M.< and Farri"< D. F. ?1(2@ 6ime pressure and performance of
scientists and engineersA & five8year panel study<. /rgani0ational 1ehavior and
!uman 2erormance, !, %!&'2.
Baa"< M.< 6e 6reu< C. K.< and Ni5"tad< B. A. ?2++*@ & 3eta8&nalysis of 2; Uears of
3oodCreativity +esearchA @edonic 6one, &ctivation, or +egulatory !ocusN<, *sychological ?ulletin, *70%, ==-$0.
Baa"< M.< 6e 6reu< C. K.< and Ni5"tad< B. A. ?2+11@. 1hen prevention promotes
creativityA 6he role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure<. =ournal of
*ersonality and %ocial *sychology, $$, =-78$-.
Baer< M.< and O%d/a$< D.< R. ?2++4@ 8 6he Curvilinear +elation between Dxperienced
Creative 6ime )ressure and CreativityA 3oderating Dffects of 5penness to Dxperience
&nd upport for Creativity<, =ournal of ,pplied *sychology -7%, -0*-=$.
Baron< M. R.< and Kenn!< 6. A. ?1*4@ 6he 3oderator83ediator Hariable 9istinction
in ocial )sychological +esearchA Conceptual, trategic and tatistical Considerations<,
=ournal of *ersonality and %ocial *sychology, ;0%, =*82.
B!ron< K.< K/a-anc/i< S.< and Na-arian< 6. ?2+1+@ 6he +elationship ?etween tressorsand CreativityA & 3eta8&nalysis Dxamining Competing 6heoretical 3odels<, =ournal of
,pplied *sychology, -;%, 2$822.
*-
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 45/56
Burie%< =. ?2++@ Creativity in research and development environmentsA & practical
review<< 0nt. =ournal of ?usiness %cience and ,pplied 3anagement 72%, *;8;.
Carer< C.S.< and Sc/eier< M. F. ?2++@ elf8+egulation and Its !ailures<,
*sychological 0nCuiry ,n 0nternational =ournal for the ,dvancement of *sychological
Theory =%, *287$.
C/ea%ier< A.< Fouuereau< N.< and 9anderdonc;t< =. ?2++@ 6he influence of a
knowledge8based system on designersB cognitive activitiesA a study involving professional
web designers<, ?ehavior 0nformation Technology, 2%, 7;802.
C/ea%ier< A.< and Bonnarde%< N. ?2++(@ &rticulation of website design constraintsADffects of the task and 9esigner's Dxpertise<, 9omputers in <uman ?ehaviors, 2*2$$=%,
27;;827=2.
Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., and Veillette, A. (2009) – )ontextual
*nhibitors o +mployee )reati#ity in rgani-ations. he *nsulating /ole
o )reati#e 0bility1, 3roup /rgani0ation 4anagement , *7*%, **$8*;=.
Co/en< B. H. ?2++1@ Dxplaining )sychological tatistics<, 2nd Ddition, :ohn 1iley "
ons, Inc., 2-.
Cro0e< E.< and Hiin"< E. T. ?1(@ +egulatory focus and strategic inclinationsA
)romotion and prevention in decision8making<. /rgani0ational 1ehavior and
!uman 5ecision 2rocesses, -#, =*2.
Cureu< . L. ?2++(@ #rupurile Vn organizaWii<, )olirom, 27=827.Cureu< . L. ?2+1+@ 6eam creativity in 1eb ite 9esignA &n Dmpirical 6est of a
ystemic 3odel<, 9reativity #esearch =ournal , 22%, -8$=.
7$
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 48/56
H0an< M. I. ?1&@ 9ecision 3aking under time pressureA a model for information
systems research<, 0nformation +3anagement , 2=, -=82$*.
#5ce5ic, -. (2009) – 6)reati#ity >ap; o5ard the 7ext 6eneration o
heories o )reati#ity1, 2sychology o :esthetics, Creativity, and the
:rts, 8(%", %342%.
=o/n"on< . and Wa%%ace< C. ?2+11@ 8 *ncreasing *ndi#idual and eam
erormance in an rgani-ational Setting through the Situational
0daptation o /egulatory @ocus, Consulting 2sychology 9ournal;
2ractice and <esearch, =8(8", %?42%.
Ka%u-niac;!< E. ?2++&@ 3anaging )sychological !actors in Information ystem
1ork. &n 5rientation to Dmotional Intelligence<. 0nformation %cience *ublishing , Idea
#roup Inc., 2.
Kat-< H. ?2++1@ 6he +elationship of Intrinsic 3otivation, Cognitive tyle and
6olerance of &mbiguity and, Creativity in cientists<, eton @all >niversity Institutional
+eview ?oard for @uman ub4ects +esearch.
Kau#$an< =. C.< and Be/etto< R. A. ?2++@ – “?eyond ?ig and EittleA 6he !our C
3odel of Creativity<, #eview of 5eneral *sychology, *%, 82.
Ke%%er< =. ?2++(@ When 7egati#e Stereotypic +xpectancies urn *nto
)hallenge or hreat; he >oderating /ole o /egulatory @ocus1, 7wiss
9ournal o 2sychology, ==(8", %=84%=!.
Ki$< =. S.< Ka!e< =.< and Wri/t< L. K. ?2++1@ 3oderating and 3ediating Dffects in
Causal 3odels<, 0ssues in mental <ealth &ursing , 22, 0*8=;, )ublisher 6aylor " !rancis,
Inc.
7*
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 49/56
$a', T. 7. "., and Chi, C. 8. (2002) 4 he moti#ational unction o
regulatory ocus on creati#ity1. 9ournal o Creative 1ehavior, +-, %8!4
%&.
$ear, *. R. (2001) 4 *ntroduction to Aeha#ioral /esearch >ethods1,
hird +dition, :llyn 1acon, 28, 28%.
Lier$an< N.< Id"on< L. C.< Ca$ac/o< =. C.< and Hiin"< E. T. ?1@ )romotion
and )revention Choices between tability and Change<, =ournal of *ersonality and
%ocial *sychology, ==0%, *;87;.
$i5in%stone, $. ., Nelson, D. $., and arr, . ". (199)' )erson8
Dnvironment !it and CreativityA&n Dxamination of upply8Halue and 9emand8&bility
Hersions of !it<, =ournal of 3anagement , 2*2%, -870.
L!nn< G. ?2++&@ 6he Dffects of Gegative )riming and 6ime )ressure on Creative
)roblem olving<, @ofstra >niversity httpAJJwww.hofstra.eduJpdfJpsyXarchiveXzach8
lynnX2$$7.pdf
Mi%%i;en< F. =.< and 6unn3=en"en< L. M. ?2++'@ 6he changing time demands of
managerial and professional workA Implications for managing the work8life boundary<. In
D. D. Fossek " . :. Eambert Dds.%, Wor" and life integration rgani/ational cultural
and individual perspectives, 7*8;$.
*oss, . (200:) – 6/egulatory @ocus heory1, sychlopedia,
http;::555.psych'it.com.au:sychlopedia:article.aspCidD==
Neuert< M. =.< Kac$ar< K. M.< Car%"on< 6. S.< C/on;o< L. B.< and Roert"< =. A.
2++*@ +egulatory !ocus as a 3ediator of the Influence of Initiating tructure and
77
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 50/56
ervant Eeadership on Dmployee ?ehaviour<, =ournal of ,pplied *sychology, -*0%,
22$82**.
Neu$ann< C. =. ?2++(@ !ostering Creativity. & model for developing a culture of
collective creativity in science<, Duropean 3olecular ?iology rgani/ation D3?5
reports, *%.
a%o< S. ?2++)@ &chieving Corporate Dxcellence through Creativity 3anagement<,
The =ournal f ?usiness *erspective, 2*8*7.
e,in";!< . N.< e,in";!< H. B.< and a%i;< W. B. ?14+@ 6he Dffects of 6ask
Complexity and 6ime )ressure upon 6eam )roductivity<, 9ournal o :pplied
2sychology, 99(%".
Radu< I.< 6ruu< I.< Mare< 9.< Mic%ea< M.< odar< T.< reda< 9. ?11@ Introducere Vn
)sihologia ContemporanY<, incron, 2.
Reiter/al'on, R. (2011) 4 *ntroduction to Special *ssue; he
sychology o )reati#ity and *nno#ation in the Workplace1, 2sychology
o :esthetics, Creativity, and the :rts, &(%", %42.
Ric/ard"< R.< Kinne!< 6. K.< Benet< M. and Mer-e%< A. . C. ?1**@ &ssessing
Dveryday CreativityA Characteristics of the Eifetime Creativity cales and Halidation
1ith 6hree Earge amples<, =ournal of *ersonality and %ocial *sychology, ;7*%, 7=08
7;.
Ro"en< 6. E. and urinton< E. ?2++&@ 1ebsite designA Hiewing the web as acognitive Eandscape<, =ournal of business research, ;=, ==8=-7.
7;
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 51/56
Sc/$idt< S.< Canta%%o,"< A. S. and i-utti do" Santo"< C. ?2++*@ 6he characteristics
of hotel websites and their implications for website effectiveness<, 0nternational =ournal
of <ospitality 3anagement , 2=, ;$78;0.
S/a/< =.< Hiin"< T. E. ?1(@ Dxpectancy Z Halue DffectsA +egulatory !ocus as
9eterminant of 3agnitude and 9irection<, =ournal of *ersonality and %ocial *sychology,
=**%, 77=87;.
hah, J., "i%%ins, T. &., ried'an, R. . (199:) 4 erormance
*ncenti#es and >eans; <o5 /egulatory @ocus *n$uences6oal
0ttainment1, 9ournal o 2ersonality and 7ocial 2sychology , 39(2", 2!&'
2?8.
halle, C. &., !ilson, $. $., and l', T. C. (2000) 4 >atching
creati#ity reEuirements and the 5ork en#ironment; +fects on
satisaction and intentions to lea#e1. :cademy o 4anagement 9ournal,
98(2", 2%&'228.
Si$onton< 6. K. ?2+++@ 8 Creativity. Cognitive, )ersonal, 9evelopmental, and ocial
&spects<, ,merican *sychologist , ;;%, ;8;.
Sterner< R. =. ?2++4@ Creating a vision on creativityA the first 2; years<,
*sychology of ,esthetics 9reativity and the ,rts %, 282.
Stric;%and< B. R. ?2++1@ 6he #ale Dncyclopedia of )sychology<, 2nd edition, #ale
#roup, ;=8;-.Teodore"cu< 6.S. ?2+11@ )romovare sau )revenire 9ezvoltarea calei de Centrare
CronicY pe ine<, =urnalul #omEn de *sihologie *sihoterapie Fi &euroFtiinGe, 2%, -=8
*2.
70
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 52/56
Tierne!< .< and Far$er< S. M. ?2++&@ 6he )ygmalion )rocess and Dmployee
Creativity<, =ournal of 3anagement , *$*%, 7*87*2.
8n"0ort/< K. L. ?2++&@ !irefightingA 6he Dffects of 6ime )ressure on Dmployee
Innovation<, Wor" Dffectiveness #esearch *rogramme, )resented at the th &nnual
Conference of the &ustralian " Gew [ealand &cademy of 3anagement, 9unedin, Gew
[ealand., k.unsworth\qut.edu.au
;nsorth, K. $., 7all, T. D., and Carter, A. (200<) – 6)reati#e
/eEuirement. 0 neglected construct in the study o +mployee
creati#ityC1, 3roup /rgani0ation 4anagement, 8(&", &9%'&=.
9i%%a%a< E. ?2++*@ 5n creativity. 6owards an understanding of creativity and its
measurments<, Duropean Communities, EuxembourgA 5ffice for 5fficial )ublications of
the Duropean Communities.
7allace, J. C., $ittle, *. $. and hll, A. (200:) / 6 he
>oderating +fects o ask )omplexity on the /elationship Aet5een
/egulatory @oci and Saety and roduction erormance., 9ournal o
/ccupational !ealth 2sychology, %8(2", ?&4%9.
Wood$an< R. W.< Sa0!er< =. E.< Dri##in< R. W. ?1)@ 6oward a 6heory of
5rganizational Creativity<, The ,cademy of 3anagement #eview, 2%, 2-*8*2.
7=
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 53/56
&))DG9IZ &
We"ite re#erence Sca%e
@imensiunea H itemulIcomponenta 6 ! :
9oerenGJ informaGionalJ
)1 este organizatY logic informaWia prezentatY este usor
de VnWeles Ki coerentY%
6extul )1 este bine scris este clar Ki concis%.
)1 este uKor de navigat.
7
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 54/56
9omplexitate
)1 utilizeazY o mare varietate de elemente grafice de exemplu,
text, figuri, poze, elemente de animaWie%.
)1 are hyperlinkuri.
)1 foloseKte multe imagini.
)1 foloseKte diferite tipuri de imagini.
9reativitate
)1 are elemente grafice care Vi dau un caracter distinctiv
atunci cOnd este comparatY cu alte )1.
)1 are o identitate distinctY.
)1 utilizeazY elemente memorabile.
)1 are suficiente caracteristici interesante pentru a ma face
sY revin sY repet vizita%.
GotY A )1 Q paginY web.
&))DG9IZ ?
Wor; Reu%ator! Focu" Sca%e
. 3Y concentrez sY Vndeplinesc corect sarcinile de la locul de muncY pentru a creKte
siguranWa postului. iguranWY%
2. ]mi concentrez atenWia pe realizarea responsabilitYWilor care mi se dau la locul de
muncY. ]ndatoriri%
7-
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 55/56
*. Dste foarte important pentru mine sY Vmi Vndeplinesc sarcinile legate de locul de
muncY. ]ndatoriri%
7. 3Y strYduiesc sY Vndeplinesc responsabilitYWile Ki Vndatoririle primite de la alWii la
locul de muncY. ]ndatoriri%
;. 3Y concentrez adesea pe Vndeplinirea sarcinilor care Vmi vor VntreWine nevoia de
siguranWY la locul de muncY. iguranWY%
0. !ac tot ce Vmi stY Vn putinWY pentru a evita pierderile la locul de muncY. )ierderi%
=. iguranWa locului de muncY este un factor important pentru mine atunci cand Vmi
caut un loc de muncY. iguranWY%. ]mi concentrez atenWia pe evitarea eKecului la locul de muncY. )ierderi%
-. Dvit cu atenWie sY mY expun eventualelor pierderi la locul de muncY. )ierderi%
$. ]mi asum riscuri la locul de muncY pentru a8mi maximiza scopurile de avansare.
COKtiguri%
. 6ind sY Vmi asum riscuri la locul de muncY pentru a obWine succes. COKtiguri%
2. 9acY aK avea ocazia sY particip la un proiect care implicY risc Vnalt Ki recompensY
mare cu siguranWY cY aK lua8o. COKtiguri%
*. 9acY locul meu de muncY nu mi8ar permite oportunitatea de avansare, cel mai
probabil cY mi8aK cYuta unul nou. +ealizare%
7. &tunci cOnd Vmi caut un loc de muncY, un factor foarte important Vl constituie
posibilitatea de a avansa. +ealizare%
;. 3Y concentrez pe realizarea sarcinilor care Vmi vor favoriza avansarea la locul de
muncY. +ealizare%
;$
7/21/2019 licenta Popovici Oana
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/licenta-popovici-oana 56/56
0. )etrec foarte mult timp imaginOndu8mi cum sY Vmi Vndeplinesc aspiraWiile.
Idealuri%
=. Imaginea clarY a ceea ce aspir sY fiu are un impact asupra prioritYWilor de muncY.
Idealuri%
. unt motivat la locul de muncY de speranWele Ki aspiraWiile mele. Idealuri%
top related