Evaluating the Work Preference Inventory and its Measurement of Motivation in Creative Advertising Professionals

Mark W. Stuhlfaut The Work Process Inventory (WPI; Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe 1994) measures motivation to work; but the instrument has not been used in the field of advertising. This study evaluates the WPI by testing it with working creative advertising professionals. Generally, the results were consistent with its developmental research, but reliability and validity measures indicate that more work needs to be done to achieve a truly useful tool. Eighteen external influencers of motivation, relevant to the creation of advertising, were also tested. Data analyses determined that two factors showed promise, and a new set of scales is proposed.
The Work Preference Inventory (WPI) is a set of scales that measures motivation in people towards work (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, and Tighe 1994, 1995), and it has been used to evaluate the desire to be creative (Amabile 1996). The WPI was developed originally through research conducted on many different groups, including students, managers, military personnel, railroad workers, hospital workers, and secretaries (Amabile 1996). Subsequently, other researchers have used the WPI to evaluate motivation orientations among additional samples of students in the United States, Canada and the Peoples Republic of China. Advertising is a business that thrives on creativity (Nixon 2006), and the absence in WPI research of samples comprised of advertising professionals is conspicuous and concerning, particularly because the field would seem to offer more face and external validity to measuring motivations of creativity than offered by the previous groups studied. Advertising as a industry would benefit, because the more that is known about what intrinsically and extrinsically motivates creative professionals, the better those in the field could promote conditions that lead to positive outcomes. Those who study the creative process in advertising would also benefit from having the valid and reliable measurement of motivation. This paper reports the results of two applications of the WPI to advertising-professional samples; and it compares these new results to those obtained during the original development of the WPI. As a next step, the paper also evaluates 18 additional exMark W. Stuhlfaut (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an Assistant Professor at the University of Kentucky. (email: mark.stuhlfaut@uky.edu)

ternal influences to work that are more relevant to the production of advertising.

The Study of Motivation

When discussed in relation to work, intrinsic motivation refers to the causes that stimulate the desire to work primarily for its own value, such as when the task is viewed as interesting, challenging, or personally satisfying (Loo 2001). Intrinsic motivation is evident through a commitment to a meaningful purpose, the choice of activities to accomplish the task, the personal sense of competence gained through performance, and the activity of monitoring progress toward the purpose (Thomas 2000). On the other hand, extrinsic motivation refers to those extra-personal stimuli that affect the desire to work, such as money, rewards, and recognition, or because of some external threat (Loo 2001).

Motivation and Creativity

Motivation has been viewed as fundamental for creativity. Intrinsic motivation is conducive to creativity; controlling extrinsic motivation [defined as those extrinsic motivating factors that control or undermine creativity, such as win-lose competitions, expected negative evaluations, and concern for rewards] is detrimental to creativity, but informational or enabling extrinsic motivation [defined as those extrinsic motivational factors that enable creativity by providing information, such as establishing objectives, providing feedback, offering support, or giving recognition] can be conducive,
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Volume 32, Number 1 (Spring 2010).

82

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

particularly if initial levels of intrinsic motivation are high (Amabile 1996, p. 119). Another set of five critical extrinsic detriments to creativity is: expected rewards, expected evaluation, surveillance, deadlines, and competition (Hennessey 2003). The effects of motivation on creativity also have been studied directly and indirectly in advertising. Advertising is an inherently extrinsically driven activity for people in the business who must respond to pressures from clients, competitors, peers, and economic factors (Moeran 2005). Professionals in commercial design have been analyzed to be more neurotic, more open to experience, somewhat extroverted, and less conscientious than professionals and managers in occupations that are not evidently creative (Gelade 1997). The prospect of evaluation by outside experts appeared to reduce self-perceptions of creativity among advertising students (Klebba and Tierney 1995). Top-level creative people in advertising are exceedingly aware of the oversight pressure they received from account management to produce better creative ideas (Reid, King, and DeLorme 1998). In contradiction to the idea that competition and deadlines are detrimental to motivation and creativity (Hennessey 2003), senior creative directors at U.S. and Canadian advertising agencies believe competition, deadlines and awards have a positive effect (West 1993). Perhaps the reason deadlines do not affect advertising creativity detrimentally is because, as Burgess, Enzle and Schmaltz (2004) suggest, subjects in experiments with deadlines negate the extrinsic effect of a deadline by imposing their own time constraint, which thereby increases their sense of self-determination. The benefits of competition in producing more effective advertisements have been corroborated by Vanden Bergh, Reid and Schorin (1983), who generally concluded on the basis of an experiment that the more alternatives generated, the better the chances of obtaining more interesting creative ideas.

Measuring Motivation
Many early studies of motivation in regards to work typically measured the amount of free time that subjects were willing to spend on an experiment and interpreted their response to a reward as evidence of an effect. A meta-analysis, however, found support only for the negative effect of extrinsic motivation on intrinsic motivation in the free-time condition, thus suggesting that the effect depends on how the independent variable is measured (Wiersma 1992). A better measure of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation would be useful at an individual level to help

people assess their own motivations and then make educational, job, and career choices that ensure a good fit between their motivations and their life choices (Loo 2001). Assessing motivational levels should help researchers understand and predict behavior, including how people might be more creative, and working professionals might also be more productive if they became more conscious of positive and negative influences on their psychological state (Amabile 1996). The only measure of motivation, relevant to the desire to produce advertising, that was found through a literature review was a three-item scale: 1) the product or service offered a number of creative directions; 2) designing advertising for this product or service was fun; and 3) working with this product or service was interesting (Sasser 2006). This scale was subsequently refined to a two-item scale: designing advertising for this product or service was fun; and working with this product or service was interesting (Sasser, Koslow, and Riordan 2007). The question here is: Are there scales from the broader study of creativity that can be applied to the creative production of advertising? The Work Preference Inventory (WPI) is a set of scales that assesses the individual differences in the degree to which adults perceive themselves to be intrinsically and extrinsically motivated in work situations (Amabile et al. 1994, p. 952). It was developed initially by testing the scales on samples of students and working adults. Since its initial publication, researchers have cited the WPI more than 80 times in academic literature and have used it to analyze motivation orientations of students (Brownlow, Gilbert, and Reasinger 1997; Conti 2001; Moneta 2004; Moneta and Siu 2002), people in business (Malka and Chatman 2003), and professional artists (Amabile 1996). Variations of three items from the extrinsic scale of the WPI were used to evaluate the effect of rewards on creativity using undergraduate students (Cooper and Jayatilaka 2006). The WPI consists of 30 statements (Table 1) administered with four-point scales (never or almost never true, sometimes true, often true, or always or almost always true) to force positive- or negative-valence responses. Fifteen statements comprise two subscales for intrinsic motivation (IM), Challenge and Enjoyment, and 15 statements comprise two sub-scales for extrinsic motivation (EM), Outwardness and Compensation. These subscales were originally developed from a review of the literature about intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, factor analysis, and retesting. The IM scales were built on five underlying constructs: self-determination, competence, task involvement, curiosity, and interest; and the EM scales were built on five other constructs: evaluation, recognition, com-

Spring 2010

83

petition, rewards, and control. The authors of the WPI created the scales, based on the underlying assumption that the extrinsic and intrinsic motives coexist, with the intention that the bifurcated measures could be used independently. The authors also sought to assess motivation directly, rather than through general causal orientations, the approach used by Deci and Ryan (1985). The purpose of the subscales was to determine if intrinsic and extrinsic motivations contained any meaningful dimensions. The WPI was developed by surveying 2,418 respondents, comprised of 1,363 students and 1,055 working adults, such as research scientists, chief executive officers, railway workers, hospital employees, and secretaries (Amabile et al. 1994). As developed, the WPI primary scales were essentially orthogonal with the scales correlated at -.08. Test-retesting showed generally very good stability as reliabilities with student and adult groups were maintained over intervals of 6, 12, 24, 42 and 54 months (Amabile et al. 1994). While the instrument was stated to be reliable in evaluating working adults with Cronbachs alphas of .75 for the IM scale and .70 for the EM scale, its primary and secondary scales (see Table 2) fell short of .80, the generally accepted standard for basic research (Nunnally 1978). The primary scales also fell slightly short of the standards of .76, the mean alpha for studies of motivation, and .77, the mean alpha for studies of businesspersons and for scale development (Peterson 1994). Some problems also have been reported using student samples in regards to a lack of fit with the two-factor intrinsic-extrinsic structure and weaker support for the extrinsic scale than the intrinsic scale; still, other researchers have concluded that the WPI shows promise as a useful tool in describing and understanding work motivation in the field of education (Loo 2001). As a possible indication of the WPIs usefulness for studying working adults in advertising, its IM scale correlated positively in its developmental testing with a measure of creativity, the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (Kirton 1976}, r =.41, p<.001, as predicted, and EM scale correlated negatively: r=-.18, p<.01 (Amabile et al. 1994). Generally, WPI scores were reported to be independent of response bias, based upon a lack of correlation with Marlowe-Crowne social-desirability scores, except for the Extrinsic Outward (EO) scale, but the result was thought to be not problematic due to the scales lower means and the possibility of some false negatives (Amabile et al. 1994). There has been a long tradition of studying gifted people to understand what makes them more creative than the everyday person (e.g. Gardner 1993; Albert 1990; Stokes 2006). The WPI was developed using samples of people in uncreative professions or,

at least, professions with a lack of artistic production. This is not to say that nurses, railroad workers and managers cannot be creative, but if the instrument is going to be used to evaluate the motivation to be creative, the developmental samples should have been designed to include people known to exhibit creativity. Only one adult sample from the original research consisted of 34 employees from an advertising company, and its report (Amabile et al. 1994) did not specify if the company was an advertising agency or whether or not the participants were people directly responsible for the creation of advertisements. This is problematic for the study of motivation and creativity, because the advertising company could have been a sign company, a media sales company, or an advertising specialties firm, which all are not involved necessarily in the development of new creative ideas. For example, a sign company may be merely executing the ideas of others in making an advertisement. Further, the lack of specificity in the description of the advertising company may be problematic because even if it was an advertising agency, the sample could have included account managers, media planners and buyers, researchers and various staff personnel, who were not directly involved and not responsible for the creation of advertising. This paper argues that, to properly assess the motivation to be creative in advertising, the testing of the WPI should focus on the population of creative professionalssuch as art directors, copywriters, and creative directorswho are primarily involved in the creative function. If the WPI is generally valid and reliable for studying motivation orientation to work, a representative sample of creative advertising professionals should extend the use of the WPI and corroborate the measurement of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Therefore, the following research question is warranted: RQ1: How useful is the WPI for measuring the motivation of creative professionals in advertising?

Method
A cross-sectional, quantitative study was conducted using the WPI to evaluate the motivation of creative advertising professionals. The study was split into two samples to test a possible effect of using six-point scales as opposed to the original four-point scales. In hindsight, splitting the sample by scales was unproductive, and it complicated the analysis, but as will be explicated here, a transformational method was employed to combine the two sets of data to see if the larger data set produced any increase in reliability.

84

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

Results are reported here for each sample, and then additional results are given for a combined data.

Samples
The sample consisted of copywriters and art directors who work with in advertising agencies in the United States. These individuals are the people in the business who generate the initial advertising ideas and make the initial judgments about which of these ideas are the most creative. The population of these creative professionals, from which the sample was drawn, is difficult to determine because there is no accurate census; therefore, advertising agencies served as a sampling frame from which to select the desired participants. There are approximately 5,000 advertising agencies in the United States (LexisNexis 2006). Using a random number to start, the name of a copywriter or an art director was selected in an alternating manner from every fourth listing. In most cases, however, the selected listing did not provide a name of the desired individuals. When this occurred, the name of the creative director was chosen, because this person typically has an art or copy background, and many creative directors remain active in their craft, particularly in small agencies. Creative directors also supervise art directors and copywriters, so they could serve as excellent intermediaries to recruit additional participants for the study. In a small number of cases, the Red Book listing did not list any creative personnel. This was typical for smallsized agencies, and in these cases, the name of the president was chosen as the contact person who would be asked to forward the survey to creative personnel. In summary, this method produced a sample of 1,002 names, comprised of 198 art directors, 115 copywriters, 604 creative directors, and 85 presidents, at 971 agencies. The number of names is larger than the number of agencies because large agencies have multiple offices and multiple creative directors per office, and they were included to ensure adequate coverage of large agencies.

week and two weeks later to non-respondents. No incentive was offered, other than the offer to provide participants with a copy of the general results. Semantically, there was one problem with the wording of the WPI that was corrected prior to the fielding of the survey. Items 17 and 20 in the original text of the scales used the word promotion to refer to the motivation of improvements in a persons career, as in: I am keenly aware of the promotion goals I have for myself. This word would be confusing to people in advertising, and it might lead to unreliable results with samples in this field, because promotion is a word that people in advertising use to refer to general marketing communication strategies or to specific advertising tactics that reduce prices at the point of sale (see Engel, Warshaw, Kinnear, and Reece 2000). To keep the integrity of the WPI and to make sure Items 17 and 20 related to career development, the words, advancement or careers were substituted for all uses of promotions. The returned responses were tabulated automatically using the Web Surveyor software program, and the data was downloaded to the researchers computer for analysis. Reliability analyses were conducted on the responses to the WPI scales using SPSS 15.0 software. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFIs) were conducted on the combined data set using AMOS 7.0 software to examine the validity of the scales.

Responses
Two hundred twenty-four completed surveys were received: 90 for Sample 1 (with the original 4-point WPI scales) and 134 for Sample 2 (with 6-point scales). Cleaning the data and removing several participants who did not complete major portions of the survey or who indicated a job function that was outside of the creative department produced 89 participants for Sample 1 and 130 participants for Sample 2 that were used for analysis with a total number of 219 participants. Among the 219 responses, 103 were from art directors, 93 from copywriters, 2 were from people who performed both functions, and 21 were from creative directors who can be assumed to have either an art or copy background; thus the objective of reaching a nationwide sample of copywriters and art directors was achieved. Response rates were difficult to calculate precisely, due to the design of the sample. As mentioned above, names and addresses could not be obtained directly for copywriters and art directors from each selected agency, which necessitated requesting creative directors to pass the survey to an indeterminate number of copywriters and art directors. While this method did not produce specific response rates, its advantage was that it enabled

Procedure
Due to the difficulty of contacting art directors and copywriters directly (Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan 2003, 2006), creative directors at the targeted agencies were sent either an email message or a letter, depending upon the availability of an email address, to request that they ask the copywriters and art directors at their agency to participate in the study. They were given an address of a site on the Internet to access for completion of the studys test instrument. Follow-up e-mails or post cards were sent approximately one

Spring 2010

85

Table 1 Work Preference Inventory Items and Scales (Amabile et al. 1994, p. 956)

Item

Primary Scales Secondary Scales Intrinsic Extrinsic Motivation Motivation Enjoyment Challenge Outward

Compensation

1. I enjoy tackling problems that are completely new to me. 2. I enjoy trying to solve complex problems. 3. The more difficult the problem is, the more I enjoy trying to solve it. 4. I want my work to provide me with opportunities for increasing my knowledge and skills. 5. Curiosity is the driving force behind much of what I do. 6. I want to find out how good I really can be at my work. 7. I prefer to figure out things for myself. 8. What matters most to me is enjoying what I do. 9. It is important for me to have an outlet for self-expression 10. I prefer work I know I can do well over work that stretches my abilities. 11. No matter what the outcome of a project, I am satisfied if I feel I gained a new experience. 12. Im more comfortable when I can set my own goals. 13. I enjoy doing work that is so absorbing that I forget about everything else. 14. It is important to me to be able to do what I most enjoy. 15. I enjoy relatively simple, straight forward tasks. 16. I am strongly motivated by the money I can earn. 17. I am keenly aware of the career1 goals I have for myself. 18. I am strongly motivated by recognition I can earn from other people. 19. I want other people to find out how good I really can be at my work. 20. I seldom think about salary and advancement1. 21. I am keenly aware of the income goals I have for myself.

X X X

X X X

X X X X X X R2

X3 X3 X X X X R2

X X X X R2 X X X X R2 X

X X X X R2 X X X X R2 X (continued)

86

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

Table 1 (continued) Work Preference Inventory Items and Scales (Amabile et al. 1994, p. 956)

Item
22. To me, success means doing better than other people. 23. I have to feel that Im earning something for what I do. 24. As long as I can do what I enjoy, Im not that concerned about exactly what Im paid. 25. I believe that there is no point in doing a good job if nobody else knows about it. 26. Im concerned about how other people are going to react to my ideas. 27. I prefer working on projects with clearly specified procedures. 28. Im less concerned with what work I do than what I get for it. 29. I am not that concerned about what other people think of my work. 30. I prefer to have someone set clear goals for me in my work.

Primary Scales Secondary Scales Intrinsic Extrinsic Motivation Motivation Enjoyment Challenge Outward

Compensation

X X

X X

R2

R2

X X X R2 X

X X X R2 X

1. The word used in the original WPI for advancement or careers was promotions, and this word, meant to relate to career development, would be confusing for people in advertising, who more likely use the word to describe an advertising strategy. Therefore, the words, advancement and career, have been substituted to clarify Items 17 and 20. 2. Reverse coded 3. As corrected in Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, and Tighe (1995).

the study to survey a difficult-to-reach population, and it increased the total number of participants. Demographically, respondents were primarily men (72.6%) and tended to be experienced with 56% having spent more than 10 years in advertising. All age groups were represented from 21-24 to more than 50; however, 38% were in the 30- to 39-year category. Agencies of all sizes were represented, but the largest number of respondents (32.4%) described their agency as having 21- to 50-employees, and 23% from agencies with more than 200 employees.

Results Reliability Analyses

The results for reliability of the two samples and a combination of the two samples are reported in Table

2 along with the results reported for the workingadult sample by Amabile et al. (1994) to facilitate a comparison. To build the combined set, the four-point scale items of Sample 1 were converted into six-point values by subtracting one from each data point, multiplying the result by 1.667, and then adding back one. The converted four-point data set then was merged with the six-point data set of Sample 2 into one data file. Across the obtained samples, all levels of Cronbachs Alpha were below the standard of .80 (Peterson 1994) and most were below .70, the accepted standard for advertising and marketing (Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson 2006); however, the obtained alphas were similar to the previous reported levels for working adults in Amabile et al. (1994) that were deemed then to be satisfactory. As shown in Table 2, combining the data did not increase the reliabilities of the scales; the Cronbach-Alpha values fell between

Spring 2010

87

Table 2 Reliability Analyses of WPI Scales with Creative Advertising Professionals (Cronbachs Alpha)

Scale
Extrinsic-Outward Extrinsic-Compensation Primary Extrinsic Motivation Intrinsic-Challenge Intrinsic-Enjoyment Primary Intrinsic Motivation

Amabile et al.1994 n=1,055 4-pt. scales

.63 .62 .70 .73 .67 .75

Sample 1 n=89 4-pt. scales

.53 .74 .66 .68 .75 .79

Sample 2 n=130 6-pt. scales

.58 .70 .68 .73 .56 .70

Combined n=219 6-pt. scale

.54 .70 .66 .67 .69 .76

Table 3 Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Scale
Extrinsic Compensation Extrinsic Outward Primary EM Intrinsic Challenge Intrinsic Enjoyment Primary IM

Df

P
.000 .000 .746 .001 .000

GFI
.883 .943 .999 .942 .900

AGFI
.648 .910 .993 .909 .865

RMSEA
.238 .069 .000 .063 .067

66.941 5 71.704 35 CFA not conducted .586 2 65.398 35 175.446 89

those obtained for the two subsidiary samples. The results reinforced one conclusion by Amabile et al. (1994) that further development of the secondary Extrinsic-Outward scale would be useful. A weakness in the reliability of the Intrinsic-Enjoyment (IE) scale was also evident.

Validity Analyses
Despite the finding that no scale reached the .80 threshold of reliability, CFAs were conducted to examine the structure of the secondary and primary WPI scales (Table 3). In doing so, it is noted that the WPIs authors stated that the actual structure was probably more complex than the simple intrinsicextrinsic distinction suggested by the literature (Amabile et al. 1994, p. 957); but the WPIs authors accepted the scales basic structure for three reasons: the items groupings were conceptually meaningful, the fit was generally considered satisfactory, and each item correlated highest with its own scale (Amabile et al. 1994). That being noted, confirmatory factor analyses for this study first showed excellent fit with the Intrinsic-Challenge (IC) scale (2=.586, df=2, p>.05, 2/

df=.293, RMSEA=.000). Second, although the chisquare tests for the Extrinsic-Outward, Intrinsic-Enjoyment, and primary Intrinsic-Motivation scales were significant, which may be the result of a bias of sample size (Byrne 2001), the rest of the indicators for fit with these scales appeared to be adequate (Table 3). Third, fit of the model and the data were not acceptable for the Extrinsic-Compensation (EC) scale, primarily due to the large approximation of the root-mean-square error, and, because of this finding, a CFI was not conducted for the primary Extrinsic-Motivation scale.

Discussion
The Work Process Inventory (WPI) measure of motivation, which has been used extensively elsewhere, had not been used in field of research on advertising creativity before this study, and other scales used in this field seemed to be inadequate. This research tested the WPI instrument with people who directly are responsible for the creation of advertising. Valid and reliable results would have extended the application of the scales and given this field a credible tool to measure motivation in creative work environments.

88

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

Table 4 Extrinsic MotivationOutward Secondary Scale Rotated Component Matrix

Item*
19 18 22 26 30 27 25 28 29 23 Eigen Value % of Variance

Factor 1 .772 .749 .716 .464 -.021 .178 .119 .083 .037 .016
2.249 19.38

Factor 2
.169 .144 -.014 -.128 .792 .765 -.014 .077 -.093 .252 1.235 13.57

Factor 3
.007 .024 .110 .316 .066 -.006 .714 .646 -.064 .470 1.181 12.68

Factor 4
.022 .195 -.193 .035 .058 -.094 .113 -.385 .830 .494 1.080 11.82

*See Table 1 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Table 5 External Motivators Affecting the Creation of Advertising

How do the following factors influence your desire to be creative?

The objective of the project The profit of the agency The type of product or service Competition with other creative teams Going along with your team Your desire to get the job done The possibility of a salary increase Gaining your supervisors approval of your work The possibility of a monetary bonus Getting feedback from your supervisor while you work on an assignment Budget of the project Advancing your career by getting another job Deadline of the project Entering your work in award competitions Building your creative reputation as a creative talent Getting the clients approval Building your portfolio Getting a promotion to a new position within the agency

Scale: 1. Strong negative influence 2. Moderate negative influence 3. Mild negative influence 4. Weak positive influence 5. Moderate positive influence 6. Strong positive influence

Spring 2010

89

Table 6 External MotivatorsDescriptive Statistics (n=219)

Item
Objectives Profit Product type Internal competition Going along with team Job completion Salary increase Supervisor approval Bonus Supervisor feedback Budget of project Career advancement Deadline of job Award competitions Reputation Client approval Build portfolio Get promotion The results showed, however, that, while the reliability scores for the scales were near those obtained during the development of the scales, the alpha levels were not as high as accepted standards. This problematic finding is just as useful as a finding that confirms the scales, and perhaps more so, because it serves to caution future researchers in the use of the WPI, and it should stimulate the field to find improved measures of motivation.

Mean
5.14 4.15 4.95 4.55 4.14 4.87 4.47 4.93 4.50 4.67 3.83 4.04 3.95 4.37 5.24 4.84 4.96 4.52

SD
1.000 1.313 .996 1.242 1.126 1.122 1.068 .967 1.085 1.014 1.237 1.256 1.453 1.180 .861 1.105 1.006 1.001 Intrinsic-Enjoyment secondary scale could only be negligibly improved to .70 from .69 by dropping Item 13. In regards to the Extrinsic-Compensation scale, an analysis of reliability demonstrated that the maximum possible Cronbachs-Alpha level of .70 could only be maintained by keeping all five items (Table 1items 16, 17, 20, 21, and 24). More encouragingly, however, a reliability analysis of the five items of the IntrinsicChallenge secondary scale showed that Cronbachs Alpha could be improved to .79 from .67 by reducing the factor to Items 1, 2, and 3 (Table 1).

Possible Refinements
Exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted to determine if higher Cronbachs Alpha values could be produced from these data sets by reducing the number of items. The Intrinsic-Enjoyment and Extrinsic-Outward scales were excellent candidates because ten items in each scale seemed to be cumbersome. An initial EFA of the ten items that comprised the original Extrinsic-Outward secondary scale, however, extracted four factors through principal component analysis (PCA) using a Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization (Table 4). Items 19, 18, and 22 (Table 1) were the only items in the first factor that loaded above .600, and a subsequent reliability analysis with these three items only produced the Cronbachs Alpha, .66, which was the highest reliability value attained with this set of ten items. Similarly, the

More Relevant Indicators

While the WPI was designed to tap motivation at work, its items are general and miss potential external indicators that would be relevant specifically to the creation of advertising, as mentioned earlier in the literature review. A few studies in the field of advertising have already examined the influence of a limited number of extrinsic or external motivators on the creative process (e.g. Ensor, Cottam and Band 2001; OConnor, Willemain and MacLachlan 1996; and West 1993); but no formalized scale has been advanced heretofore. This research, in addition to testing the WPI, measured influences of external motivation by including an aggregated list of 18 indicators from the literature: the objective of the project, agency profit, product

90

Table 7 Correlations of External Motivators

Obj Type Compet Salary Bonus Rep Client

Profit

Go Along Complete Sup App Feedback Budget Career Deadline Awards

Portfolio

Profit Type Competition Go along Completion Salary Super Approval Bonus Feedback Budget Career Deadline Awards Reputation Client Portfolio Promotion .10 .13 .13 .03 .07 -.02 .03 .08 .13* .20** .08 .23** .28** .17* .09 .05 -.06 .04 .12 .02 .13* -.01 .28** .06 .13 .17* .00 .16* .09 .31** .02 .22** .04 .24** .16* -.01 .23** .03 .04 .13 .09 .11 .19** .15* .19** .20** .14* .06 .17* .11 .21** .22** .19** .13 .34** .83** .24** .11 .26** -.02 .24** .17* .01 .21** .54** .25** .33** -.04 .13* -.03 .15* .26** .01 .26** .35** .30** .12 .21 -.01 .17* .11 .04 .13 .44** .08 .13 .15* .08 .14* .05 .19** .24** .18** .33* .13 .07 .22 .08 .07 .03 .29** .29** .01 .39** .33** .08 .09 .17* .08 .02 .45** .02 .43** .28** .14* .45** .32**

.30** .36** -.03 .00 .11 -.06 -.06 -.08 .07 .13* .03 .19** .07 .15* .31** -.03 -.04

.20** .02 .13 .22** .29 .02 .30** .10 .31** .01 .23** .01 .07 .36** .08 .10

.08 .14*

.477

**Significant at the 0.01 level, two-tailed. * Significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed.

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

Spring 2010

91

Table 8 EFA Rotated Component Matrix for External Motivation Indicators

Item Portfolio Awards Reputation Career Bonus Salary Promo Objectives Type Client Profit Go Along Feedback Super Approval Job done Budget Deadline Competition
Eigenvalue % of variance Cronbachs Alpha (italicized items)

F1 .764 .748 .739 .522 .064 .183 .493 .009 .177 .045 -.116 -.002 .023 .235 .219 .097 .043 .117
2.42 13.43 .69

F2
.098 .092 .018 .216 .907 .906 .536 -.071 -.074 .064 .417 -.101 .273 .285 .106 .135 -.120 -.019 2.40 13.30 .91

F3
.031 -.036 .245 -.022 -.029 -.014 .021 .762 .696 .660 .527 .020 .032 -.007 .194 .081 .198 .038 1.92 10.71 .58

F4
.170 -.055 .110 -.079 .103 .088 .198 -.071 .100 .082 .030 .744 .626 .587 .481 -.018 .253 .137 1.73 9.64 .39

F5
.015 .132 -.068 .174 .057 .002 -.074 .075 -.035 .168 .378 .277 .032 -.307 .191 .808 .654 .030 1.53 8.49 .49

F6
.075 -.015 .026 .458 -.011 .009 .050 .005 .168 -.148 -.071 -.083 .229 .115 -.416 -.012 .083 .828 1.21 6.74 .69

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

type, inter-team competition, conformity, task completion, salary, supervisory approval, bonuses, supervisory feedback, budgets, career advancement, deadlines, award competitions, creative reputation, client approval, portfolio building, and promotion to a new position. Participants were asked to evaluate these constructs by their relative effect on creative motivation with six-point scales: strong negative influence, moderate negative influence, mild negative influence, weak positive influence, moderate positive influence and strong positive influence (Table 5). The descriptive statistics are reported in Table 6, and the correlations in Table 7. Most notable are the correlations between award competitions, creative reputation and portfolio building, and between bonuses, salary, and a promotion. An exploratory factor analysis produced six factors (Table 8). Factor 1, eliminating career advancement that cross-loads on Factor 6, is composed of three itemsportfolio, awards, and reputationand the factor has a

Cronbachs Alpha that comes very close to the .70 standard. Factor 2, with only 2 itemsbonus and salarydue to the eliminating of the promotion item that cross-loaded on Factor 1, has an excellent Cronbachs Alpha of .91. Further, a CFA with the items in Factor 1 produced a chi-square of .06, df=2, p>.05, 2/df=.03, and a RMSE of .014, so it may be concluded that Factor 1 is a valid measure of a construct. When these more relevant items are considered in combination with the items from the WPI IntrinsicChallenge scale, it appears that the full spectrum of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation could be measured adequately. Therefore, a new, proposed scale of motivation to create advertising might be as follows: Intrinsic Motivation 1. The more difficult the problem, the more I enjoy trying to solve it. 2. I enjoy tackling problems that are completely new to me.

92

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

3.

I enjoy trying to solve complex problems.

Extrinsic Motivation 1. I work hard to create advertising so I can enter award competitions. 2. Building my portfolio is important to me. 3. I value what my peers think about my reputation as a creative talent. 4. Its worth the effort if I get a bonus at the end of the year. 5. I am strongly motivated to earn more money. The three intrinsic-motivation items were taken directly from the WPI. The extrinsic-motivation items are newly written, based on the constructs tested here: award competitions, portfolio building, creative reputation, bonuses, and salary. The salary item is a simplification of Item 16 in the WPI.

Conclusion
While reliability levels for the WPI were found to be similar to the original research, this study indicated that more development is needed, if the WPI is to be a reliable measure of motivation towards creativity in advertising. Additional evaluation of indicators more relevant to the creative production of advertising showed promise for better results, and a new scale was proposed. More research is needed to test and confirm these scales. The importance of this study is that it examined the measurement of motivation towards creativity in the field of advertising for the first time. Its implication is that the more we know more about what intrinsically and extrinsically motivates creative people in advertisingand the better tools we have to evaluate these influencesthe better researchers may study the effects of motivation and the better the industry may promote conditions that enhance positive outcomes.

References
Albert, Robert S. (1990), Identity, Experience, and Career Choice Among the Exceptionally Gifted and Eminent, in Theories of Creativity, Mark A. Runco and Robert S. Albert, eds., Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Amabile, Teresa M. (1996), Creativity in Context, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Amabile, Teresa M., Karl G. Hill, Beth A. Hennessey, and Elizabeth M. Tighe (1994), The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (November), 950-967. , , , and (1995), The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations: Correction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 (April), 580.

Brownlow, Sheila, Natalie M. Gilbert, and Renee D. Reasinger (1997), Motivation, Personality Preferences, and Interests in College Students, Journal of Psychological Practice, 3 (April), 128-140. Burgess, Mark, Michael E. Enzle, and Rodney Schmaltz (2004), Defeating the Potentially Deleterious Effects of Externally Imposed Deadlines: Practitioners Rules of Thumb, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30 (July), 868-877. Byrne, Barbara M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Conti, Regina (2001), Time Flies: Investigating the Connection between Intrinsic Motivation and the Experience of Time, Journal of Personality, 69 (February), 1-26. Cooper, Randolph and Bandula Jayatilaka (2006), Group Creativity: The Effects of Extrinsic, Intrinsic, and Obligation Motivations, Creativity Research Journal, 18 (2), 153-172. Deci, Edward L. and Richard M. Ryan (1985), The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-Determination in Personality, Journal of Research in Personality, 19 (June), 109-134. Engel, James F., Martin R. Warshaw, Thomas C. Kinnear, and Bonnie B. Reece (2000), Promotional Strategy: An Integrated Marketing Communication Approach, Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources. Ensor, John, Angela Cottam, and Christine Band (2001), Fostering Knowledge Management through the Creative Work Environment: A Portable Model from the Advertising Industry, Journal of Information Science, 27 (3), 147-155. Gardner, Howard (1993), Creating Minds, New York: Basic Books. Gelade, Gary A. (1997), Creativity in Conflict: The Personality of the Commercial Creative, Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158 (March), 67-79. Hackman, Richard and Greg R. Oldham (1980), Work Redesign, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hair, Joseph F., Bill Black, Barry Babin, Rolph E. Anderson, and Ronald L. Tatham (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., London: Collier MacMillan. Hennessey, Beth (2003), Is the Social Psychology of Creativity Really Social? Moving Beyond the Focus of the Individual, in Group Creativity, Paul B. Paulus and Bernard A. Nijstad, eds., New York: Oxford University Press,181-201. Kirton, Michael (1976), Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622-629. Klebba, Joanne M. and Pamela Tierney (1995), Advertising Creativity: A Review and Empirical Investigation of External Evaluation, Cognitive Style and Self-Perceptions of Creativity, Journal of Current Issues and Research, 17 (Fall), 33-52. Koslow, Scott, Sheila L. Sasser, and Edward A. Riordan (2003), What Is Creative to Whom and Why? Perceptions in Advertising Agencies, Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (March), 96. , , and (2006), Do Marketers Get the Advertising They Need or the Advertising They Deserve? Agency Views of how Clients Influence Creativity, Journal of Advertising, 35 (Fall), 81-102. LexisNexis (2006), Advertising Red Books: Agencies, (January), New Providence, NJ. Loo, Robert (2001), Motivational Orientations toward Work: An Evaluation of the Work Preference Inventory (Student Form), Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33 (January), 222-233. Malka, Ariel and Jennifer A. Chatman (2003), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Work Orientations as Moderators of the Effect of Annual Income on Subjective Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (June), 737-746. Moeran, Brian (2005), Tricks of the Trade: The Performance and Interpretation of Authority, Journal of Management Studies, 42 (July), 901-922.

Spring 2010

93

Moneta, Giovanni B. (2004), The Flow Model of Intrinsic Motivation in Chinese: Cultural and Personal Moderators, Journal of Happiness Studies, 5 (June), 181-217. Moneta, Giovanni B. and Christy M. Y. Siu (2002), Trait Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations, Academic Performance, and Creativity in Hong Kong College Students, Journal of College Student Development, 43 (Sept-Oct), 664-683. Nixon, Sean (2006), The Pursuit of Newness: Advertising, Creativity and the Narcissism of Minor Differences, Cultural Studies, 20 (January), 89-106. Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill. OConnor, Gina, Thomas. R. Willemain, and James MacLachlan (1996), The Value of Competition among Agencies in Developing Ad Campaigns, Journal of Advertising, 25 (Spring), 51-63. Peterson, Robert A. (1994), A Meta-analysis of Cronbachs Coefficient Alpha, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September), 381-391. Reid, Leonard N., Karen W. King, and Denise E. DeLorme (1998), Top-level Agency Creatives Look at Advertising Creativity Then and Now, Journal of Advertising, 27 (Spring), 1-16. Ryan, Richard M. and Edward L. Deci (2000), When Rewards Compete with Nature: The Undermining of Intrinsic Motivation and Self-regulation, in Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, Carol Sansone and Judith M. Harackiewicz, eds., San Diego: Academic Press, 14-56.

Sasser, Sheila L. (2006), Creativity, Innovation, and Integration in Global Advertising Agency Channel Relationships: Creativity in the Real World, unpublished dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, retrieved May 22, 2008, from Dissertations and Theses full-text database (Publication No. AAT 3218294). Sasser, Sheila L., Scott Koslow, and Edward A. Riordan (2007), Creative and Interactive Media Use by Agencies: Engaging an IMC Media Palette for Implementing Advertising Campaigns, Journal of Advertising Research, 47 (September), 237-255. Stokes, Patricia D. (2006), Creativity from Constraints: The Psychology of Breakthrough, New York: Springer Publishing Company. Thomas, Kenneth. W. (2000), Intrinsic Motivation at Work, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Vanden Bergh, Bruce, Leonard N. Reid, and Gerald A. Schorin (1983), How Many Creative Alternatives to Generate? Journal of Advertising, 12 (4), 46-49. West, Douglas C. (1993), Restricted Creativity: Advertising Agency Work Practices in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27 (Third Quarter), 200-213. Wiersma, Uco J. (1992), The Effects of Extrinsic Rewards in Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-analysis, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65 (June), 101-114.

Copyright of Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising is the property of CTC Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.