licenta popovici oana

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



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



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



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



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.



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%.



!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



6he results of @ammond's et al. 2$% meta8analysis of the predictors of

individuals' innovation at work support the notion that individuals need some driving

force to help them overcome challenges associated with creative work. 1e consider that

self regulation through the promotion state represents that driving force.

6he two most frequently cited organizational creativity theories include factors in

the individual and the organization &mabile -, --0% or the individual, group, and

organization 1oodman et al. --*%, as well as interactions between these levels

@ennessey " &mabile, 2$$%. @owever, although many theorists and researchers have

broadened our perspective on creativity, their efforts do not extend far enough.Ivcevic 2$$-% suggests that the study of creativity would benefit from a focus on

creative behaviour and its determinants in the interaction of individual potential and

social environment. Consequently, this study is intended to view creativity at the

workplace from the interaction of three different levels of analysisA the individual, the

environment and the creative product, enriching studies e.g., &mabile, -*, @unter et

al., 2$$=, 1oodman et al., --*% of creativity that adopt an interactionist approach.

6he interactionist model proposed by 1oodman and choenfeldt --, --$%

suggests that creativity is the complex product of a personBs behaviour in a given

situation. 6he situation is characterized in terms of the contextual and social influences

that either facilitate or inhibit creative accomplishment. 6he person is influenced by

various antecedent conditions, and he or she brings to bear both cognitive abilities and

noncognitive traits or predispositions 1oodman et al., --*%.

1e consider this study to be also in alignment with the person environment fit

approach that examines the 4oint influence of person and environment factors on

*



standing in a class by themselves +ichards, -%. till, it has been argued that although

the study of exceptional persons or events might cast an interesting light on creativity, in

general it appears to be more useful to concentrate on average people ?urbiel, 2$$-%.

?eghetto and Faufman 2$$-% developed the !our C model of creativity. 6hey

argued that in addition to the study of ?ig C< eminent% creativity and little c<

everyday% creativity, it is also essential to explore the idea of mini c<, creativity

inherent in the learning process which involves the construction of personal knowledge

and understanding, and )ro8c<, professional8level expertise in any creative area.

It is clear that the phenomenon of creativity is extremely complex. 6he study of creativity has different perspectives and approaches and psychologists have a long history

of disagreement over the definition of creativity. &ccording to Finnon apud +adu et al.,

--%, the concept of creativity does not refer to a precise theoretical construct, but to a

general heading that comprises general psychological processes. 6he main psychological

aspects of creativity areA the creative process, the creative person, the creative

environment and the creative product +adu et al., --%. 6he following sections of this

article present a literature review of each of these four aspects of creativity.

6.!.6. The 9reative *rocess

3any of the earliest definitions of creativity focused on process, on the dynamic

events surrounding the creative act itself. 3ost of these models depend on a balance

between analytical and synthetic thinking, and usually describe the creative process as a

sequence of phases that alternate between these states. !or example, the model of

;



creativity developed by #raham 1allace in -20 consists of four phasesA preparation8

definition of the problem/ incubation8ignoring the problem for a while/ insight8the

moment when a new idea emerges/ and verification8analysis of the new idea. )reparation

and verification depend on analytical thinking, whereas insight is an expression of

synthetic thinking, emerging abruptly and unexpectedly, often at a time when the sub4ect

is not consciously thinking about the problem Geumann, 2$$=%.

?eginning with !reud -2, -;*%, but especially since Fris' explorations of the

creative processes Fris, -;2%, psychoanalytic theorists have described relationships

among creativity, primary process, and a particular kind of ego control that permitsadaptive use of primary process. 6he concept regression in the service of the ego< refers

to a momentary and at least, partially controlled use of primitive, nonlogical, and drive

dominated modes of thinking in the early stages of the creative process )ine " @olt,

-0$%.

:.). #uilford -;$% distinguished the thought processes of creative people from

those of other people in terms of convergent and divergent thinking. Convergent thinking

refers to the capacity to quickly focus on the one best solution to a problem. In contrast,

divergent thinking8 the kind most closely associated with creativity and originality8

involves the ability to envision multiple ways to solve a problem trickland, 2$$%.

3ore recently, within the cognitive perspective, creativity is conceived as a

product of two different types of mental processes. !irst, some processes are used in the

generation of cognitive structures memory retrieval, association, mental synthesis,

mental transformation, analogical transfer and categorical reduction%. 6he second type of

processes cover those used to explore the creative implications of the structures attribute

0



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

=



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



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

-



endeavours. &n unsupportive climate may also have a stronger negative effect on low8

ability individuals in that it may be perceived as indicative of organizational norms

against creativity. Consequently, it appears that the creative ability of employees may

either enhance or attenuate the detrimental efects o inhibitory

contextual actors.

6.!.4. The creative product

9espite the long8standing proeminence of the trait approach, &mabile -*%argues that this approach is incomplete, that creativity is best conceptualized not as a

personality trait or a general ability, but as a behavior resulting from particular

constellations of personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and social environments.

2This behavior which is evidenced in products or responses can only be completely

explained by a model that encompasses all three sets of factors &mabile, -*, p. *;%

8 a social psychology of creativity.

Currently, the product definitions are widely regarded as the most useful for

creativity research, even among those who attempt to study the creative process or the

creative personality. &mabile, -*% argues that this is because the identification of a

thought process as creative< must finally depend on the outcome of that processA a

product or response. Eikewise, even if it is possible to identify a constellation of personality traits that marks outstandingly creative individuals, the identification of

individuals on whom such personality research would be validated must depend in some

way on the quality of their work. 6he creativity of products is typically the focus of

$



experimental paradigms that vary the conditions under which one or more individual's

creativity is assessed. @ere creativity is seen as a fleeting and largely situation8dependent

state rather than a relatively stable and enduring personality trait% @ennessey "

&mabile, 2$$%.

+egarding the components of the creative production, &mabile -*% also states

that domain relevant skills can be considered as the basis from which any performance

must proceed. 6hey include factual knowledge, technical skills and special talents in the

domain in question. Creativity relevant skills include cognitive style, application of

heuristics for the exploration of new cognitive pathways, and working style. 6ask motivation accounts for motivational variables that determine an individual's approach to

a given task.

1.). Conce,tua%i-in creatie ,er#or$ance in t/e 0e de"in do$ain

>sing the product based approach, we define creativity as the production of ideas,

solutions, and products that are novel i.e., original% and appropriate i.e., useful% in a

given situation ?yron et al., 2$$%. & product is novel if it isn't 4ust a simple copy of

previous products, if it is a unique product, which, subsequently may be the ob4ect of a

reproduction +adu et al., --%. 6o this end, a product, or an outcome is creative if it is

consistently 4udged as such by two or more independent, knowledgeable observers

CurKeu, 2$$%.

In the context of this study, creative performance describes a particular individual

outcome, namely two web pages.



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



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%.

*



&lthough 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



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

;



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



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

=



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.



)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.

-



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$



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



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



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*



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;



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



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=



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



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-



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%

*$



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

*



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



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.

**



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



performed require the processing of enormous amounts of information in very short

periods of time. If companies want creativity to be a part of their culture, they must

either manage the complexity o the task or manage employee’s

regulatory ocus.

!irst, we consider that, in a work environment characterized by tight deadlines

and high workloads, personnel selection should consider hiring and promoting

individuals with the appropriate personality profiles.

Identifying candidates' chronic regulatory focus at work might prove to be not

only a good predictor of creative performance, but also a tool for consultants and leadersin offering the right feedback. !or example, research !Trster et al., 2$$% showed that

when given positive feedback, individuals exhibiting a promotion focus demonstrate

more motivation. @owever, individuals with a prevention focus are more motivated when

they receive negative feedback. 6hus, in order to obtain more motivational strength and,

therefore high creative performance, companies should consider encouraging promotion8

oriented followers and discouraging those who are prevention8oriented.

Wallace, Little and Shull (2!" ha#e suggested that, although

regulatory ocus descents rom personal stable characteristics, it can

also be in$uenced by context. “This may at frst appear dicult

because o one’s moderately stable tendency or promotion and

prevention, but theoretically it has been suggested and empirically it

has been shown that one’s tendency can be changed by powerul

contextual stimuli (Crowe !iggins, "##$% !iggins, "##$, &''', and

*;



we believe that leaders represent such stimuli (c) *orster et al), &''+%

allace Chen, &''-. (ibidem, p. %2".

&lthough 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



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.

*=



+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

*



!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.

*-



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$



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*



$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

http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/psy_archive_zach-lynn_2004.pdf


http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=66



http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=66



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;



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



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=

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



&))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



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-



*. 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%

;$



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%

licenta popovici oana

Documents