Ministry of Education, Research and Youth

Babe-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca

Department of Psychology and Education Sciences
Psychology Specialization

LICENCE PAPER
2012

Creative Performance under Time Pressure : Exploring

The Moderating Influence of Regulatory Focus

Scientific Coordinator:

Graduate:

Drd. Claudia Rus

Oana Popovici

Ministry of Education, Research and Youth

Babe-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca
Department of Psychology and Education Sciences
Psychology Specialization

LICENCE PAPER
2012

Creative Performance under Time Pressure :Exploring

The Moderating Influence of Regulatory Focus

Scientific Coordinator:

Graduate:

Drd. Claudia Rus

Oana Popovici

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
ABSTRACT

I THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.1. Introduction 1
1.2. Creativity as seen from different levels of analysis 4
1.2.1. The Creative Process ..

2.1.2. The creative person .. 7

2.1.3. The creative environment 8
2.1.4. The creative product 10
1.3. Conceptualizing Creativity in the web design domain11
1.3. Time Pressure and Creative Performance . 13
1.4. The Moderating Effect of Regulatory Focus in the Time
Pressure - Creative performance Relationship . 16
1.5. Objectives and Hypothesis .. 20
1.5.1. Objectives . 20
1.5.2. Hypothesis 20

II METHODS
2.1. Overall design 21
2.2. Participants 22

2.2.1. Population 22
2.2.2. Sampling Frame and Judge Selection 22
2.2.3. Sampling Strategy .. 23
2.2.4. Proposed Sample . 23
2.3. Instruments . 23
2.4. Procedure .. 25
2.5. Data analysis . 28
2.6. Follow-up tests .. 30

III EXPECTED RESULTS . 31

IV DISCUSSION .. 33
Theoretical Implications .. 33
Practical Implications .. 34
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 36
Conclusion . 37
References . 38
Appendix A Website Preference Scale
Appendix B Work Regulatory Focus Scale

Creative Performance under Time Pressure:

The Moderating Influence of Regulatory Focus

Abstract

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 2 (time pressure vs. no time pressure) experimental design.
We first assessed individual differences in regulatory focus using the Work Regulatory
Focus Scale (Neubert et al. 2008). We randomly assigned promotion focused and
prevention focused subjects to a specific time pressure condition and asked them to
create two web pages, which were in turn evaluated by the Website Preference Scale
(Rosen & Purinton, 2008). We expect the results of a 2x2 ANOVA to reveal that under
time pressure, promotion focused individuals report a higher creative performance than
individuals characterized by a prevention focus. Implications for theory and research, as
well as avenues for future research, are discussed. Practical implications for managerial
interventions to optimize both organizational climate and employees creative
productivity are also presented.

CHAPTER 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 (Ford & Gioia,
2000). And indeed, scholarly research has long identified creativity and innovation as the
raison dtre of todays business corporation (Palo, 2003).
Research (e.g., Amabile, 1988; Ford, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993,
Madjar, Oldham & Pratt, 2002) on employee creativity point to the impact of the social
environment as employees engage in creative endeavours in the workplace (Tierney &
Farmer, 2004). Reiter-Palmon (2011) considers this recent emerge of interest to be a
result of the recognition that creativity and innovation are necessary for organizational
adaptation and survival. According 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).

For 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 snack-foods (Milliken & Dunn-Jensen, 2005). In order to
compete successfully, enterprises now feel intense pressure to cut their lead times on the
production of products and services.
Globalization also drives the perceived need for increased efficiency in order to
compete with companies operating in countries with access to low-wage labour (Milliken
& Dunn-Jensen, 2005).
With 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. Time pressure is often cited as a problem experienced by members
of formal organizations. Moreover, it is an administratively interesting factor, since it is
one over which management may have substantial influence (Andrews & Farris, 1972,
p. 3).
Unfortunately, studies examining the effect of time pressure are inconsistent. In a
meta-analysis of 76 experimental studies, Byron et al. (2010) found that stressors (i.e.,
perceived time pressure or perceived competition) could have a positive, negative, or
curvilinear relationship to creativity. Other studies found a nonsignificant relationship
with creativity (Amabile et al., 1996).
The present study acknowledges the previously mixed results as we argue that
regulatory focus may act as a moderator in the time pressure-creative performance
relationship.

The results of Hammonds et al. (2011) meta-analysis 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. We consider that
self regulation through the promotion state represents that driving force.
The two most frequently cited organizational creativity theories include factors in
the individual and the organization (Amabile 1988, 1996) or the individual, group, and
organization (Woodman et al. 1993), as well as interactions between these levels
(Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). However, although many theorists and researchers have
broadened our perspective on creativity, their efforts do not extend far enough.
Ivcevic (2009) 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 analysis: the individual, the
environment and the creative product, enriching studies (e.g., Amabile, 1983, Hunter et
al., 2007, Woodman et al., 1993) of creativity that adopt an interactionist approach.
The interactionist model proposed by Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1989, 1990)
suggests that creativity is the complex product of a person's behaviour in a given
situation. The situation is characterized in terms of the contextual and social influences
that either facilitate or inhibit creative accomplishment. The person is influenced by
various antecedent conditions, and he or she brings to bear both cognitive abilities and
noncognitive traits or predispositions (Woodman et al., 1993).
We consider this study to be also in alignment with the person environment fit
approach that examines the joint influence of person and environment factors on

outcomes. The P-E fit literature predicts outcomes based on the fit between person and
environment characteristics. Relevant person characteristics include values and abilities
while relevant environment characteristics include supplies and demands (Livingstone et
al., 1997).

1.2 Creativity as seen from different levels of analysis

I discuss the subject of creativity with considerable hesitation, for it represents an

area in which psychologists generally, whether they be angels or not, have feared to
tread (Guilford, 1950)

Although many psychologists have expressed an interest in the phenomenon of

creativity, psychological research in this topic is commonly said to have begun with Joy
Paul Guilfords APA presidential address in 1950. In his article, Guilford (1950) claimed
that this topic deserved far more attention than it was then receiving. Fortunately, many
psychologists responded to his call, and creativity research really boomed in the 1960s
and early 1970s (Dietrich & Kanso, 2010; Simonton, 2000). In 2009, Kaufman and
Beghetto stated that a quick PsycINFO search revealed more than 10,000 papers that
have been written within the last 10 years, across different areas of psychology including
cognitive, clinical, social, developmental and organizational.
Views of what constitutes a creative outcome vary markedly. Some studies have
reserved the distinction for the accomplishments of a handful of people throughout
history- individuals such as Beethoven or Einstein, whose achievements are view as

standing in a class by themselves (Richards, 1988). Still, 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 (Burbiel, 2009).
Beghetto and Kaufman (2009) developed the Four C model of creativity. They
argued that in addition to the study of Big 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 Pro-c, professional-level expertise in any creative area.
It is clear that the phenomenon of creativity is extremely complex. The study of
creativity has different perspectives and approaches and psychologists have a long history
of disagreement over the definition of creativity. According to Kinnon (apud Radu et al.,
1991), the concept of creativity does not refer to a precise theoretical construct, but to a
general heading that comprises general psychological processes. The main psychological
aspects of creativity are: the creative process, the creative person, the creative
environment and the creative product (Radu et al., 1991). The following sections of this
article present a literature review of each of these four aspects of creativity.

1.2.1. The Creative Process

Many of the earliest definitions of creativity focused on process, on the dynamic

events surrounding the creative act itself. Most 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. For example, the model of

creativity developed by Graham Wallace in 1926 consists of four phases: preparationdefinition of the problem; incubation-ignoring the problem for a while; insight-the
moment when a new idea emerges; and verification-analysis of the new idea. Preparation
and verification depend on analytical thinking, whereas insight is an expression of
synthetic thinking, emerging abruptly and unexpectedly, often at a time when the subject
is not consciously thinking about the problem (Neumann, 2007).
Beginning with Freud (1921, 1953), but especially since Kris explorations of the
creative processes (Kris, 1952), psychoanalytic theorists have described relationships
among creativity, primary process, and a particular kind of ego control that permits
adaptive use of primary process. The 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 (Pine & Holt,
1960).
J.P. Guilford (1950) 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 thinking- the kind most closely associated with creativity and originalityinvolves the ability to envision multiple ways to solve a problem (Strickland, 2001).
More recently, within the cognitive perspective, creativity is conceived as a
product of two different types of mental processes. First, some processes are used in the
generation of cognitive structures (memory retrieval, association, mental synthesis,
mental transformation, analogical transfer and categorical reduction). The second type of
processes cover those used to explore the creative implications of the structures (attribute

finding, conceptual interpretation, functional inference, contextual shifting, hypothesis

testing and searching for limitations (Decortis & Lentini, 2009). The 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 : associative and analytical which
are under cognitive control through the executive functions of the brain (DeHaan, 2009).
While 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 (Katz,
2001).

1.2.2. The creative person

In the attempt to understand creativity, other researchers have focused on the

creative person. Guilford (1950) 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. Since
1950, many studies have examined the link between personality and creativity. As a
result, the list of traits found to occur commonly in creative individuals has become more
exact, precise, and encompassing. Traits that have been identified are, among others,
tolerance of ambiguity, autonomy, intrinsic motivation, and openness to experience
(Haller & Courvoisier, 2010).
Feist (1999) presented a summary of research regarding the influence of
personality on creative achievement in the Arts and in Science. He 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 self- confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant hostile, and impulsive.
Artists were found to be more affective, emotionally unstable, less socialized and less
accepting of group norms than scientists. Scientists were found to be more conscientious
than artists. These findings seem to suggest why it is has proved difficult to produce a
comprehensive list of the personality characteristics of creative people (Furnham &
Chamorro-Premuzic, 2005).
Amabile (1993) reported that intrinsic motivation is an essential element of
creativity, since it allows the individual to remain on task in problem-solving situations
for long periods of time.
Lubart and Sternberg (1991, 1995) proposed an investment theory of creativity.
According to this theory, creative people are ones who are willing and able to buy low
and sell high in the realm of ideas. In 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 think and act in creative ways (Sternberg, 2006, p.7).

1.2.3. The creative environment

The 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.
Beginning with the late 1970s, however, more psychologists began to recognize that

creativity takes place in a social context (Simonton, 2000). As Sternberg (2006) stated,
one needs an environment that is supportive and rewarding of creative ideas. An
individual could have all of the internal resources needed in order to think creatively, but
without some environmental support, the creativity within him/her might never be
displayed.
Perhaps the most critical factor in the environment is the level of support for
individuals innovative actions. A flexible structure, adequate resources and enriched jobs
have also been found to encourage innovation. Flexible structures are associated with
increased autonomy and the belief that new ideas will be accepted (Kanter, 1983).
Financial 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 long-term thinking are important to
developing new ideas (Amabile, 1988; Farr & Ford, 1990). Enriched jobs enhance
creativity because autonomy gives job 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 (Livingstone, et al., 1997).
In a recent study, Choi et al., (2009) 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
self-efficacy, lack of confidence, and a higher perception of risk of failure in creative

endeavours. An unsupportive climate may also have a stronger negative effect on lowability 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 effects of inhibitory
contextual factors.

1.2.4. The creative product

Despite the long-standing proeminence of the trait approach, Amabile (1983)

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.
This behavior, which is evidenced in products or responses, can only be completely
explained by a model that encompasses all three sets of factors (Amabile, 1983, p. 358)
- 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. Amabile, (1983) argues that this is because the identification of a
thought process as creative must finally depend on the outcome of that process: a
product or response. Likewise, 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. The creativity of products is typically the focus of

10

experimental paradigms that vary the conditions under which one or more individuals
creativity is assessed. Here creativity is seen as a fleeting and largely situation-dependent
state (rather than a relatively stable and enduring personality trait) (Hennessey &
Amabile, 2010).
Regarding the components of the creative production, Amabile (1983) also states
that domain relevant skills can be considered as the basis from which any performance
must proceed. They 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. Task
motivation accounts for motivational variables that determine an individuals approach to
a given task.

1.3. Conceptualizing creative performance in the web design domain

Using 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 (Byron et al., 2010). A product is novel if it isnt just a simple copy of
previous products, if it is a unique product, which, subsequently may be the object of a
reproduction (Radu et al., 1991). To this end, a product, or an outcome is creative if it is
consistently judged as such by two or more independent, knowledgeable observers
(Cureu, 2010).
In the context of this study, creative performance describes a particular individual
outcome, namely two web pages.

11

In his book, Software Creativity, Robert Glass (apud Kaluzniacky, 2004) states that
creativity is an essential part of the work of software development. The author states that
analysis and design are arguably the most intellectual and creative of the life cycle
phases. He identifies both intellectual and clerical tasks in software development. Among
the intellectual tasks he includes constructing models and representing relationships, as
well as identifying the impact of design changes and generating screen mock-ups.
Identifying rules violations, maintaining lists of requirements, and storing versions of a
design are counted among clerical tasks. A number of intellectual tasks, he proposes, will
require creativity in their accomplishment (Kaluzniacky, 2004).
Design 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 & Bonnardel, 2007).
According to Rosen and Purinton (2004), web sites are cognitive landscapes which, in
turn are the result of efficient information processing. Thus, how information is presented
can facilitate or impede its utilization.
The creativity of the web pages refers to the novelty, uniqueness and
distinctiveness of design (e.g., a memorable component, a landmark). The 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). The 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. However,
these three distinct elements are closely related: a more creative web page is likely to be

12

more complex and, because of the use of several features (information richness), it is also
likely to be more coherent (Cureu, 2010, Rosen & Purinton, 2004).
The next section introduces the second level used to analyze creativity in this
study: the environmental approach. One specific aspect of the work environment, namely
time pressure is discussed in relation to the creative product.

1.4. Time Pressure and Creative Performance

Substantial evidence now suggests that employee creativity makes an important

contribution to organizational innovation, competitiveness and survival (e.g., Amabile,
1988; Ford, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993, Reiter-Palmon, 2011). As a
consequence there has been increasing interest in identifying the contextual conditions
that influence such creativity (Baer & Oldham, 2006). Of all specific aspects of the work
environment, time pressure has perhaps received the most research attention recently
from organizational psychologists studying creativity (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010).
Still, the literature in this area to date comprises conflicting messages. On the one hand
there are those studies (e.g., Lynn, 2004, Byron et al., 2010) which suggest that time
pressure decreases employee innovation, either through time deficit or anxiety. One the
other, there are those who suggest (Andrews and Farris, 1972, Shalley et al. 2000, and
Unsworth et al. 2005) that time pressure increases innovation, apparently through a sense
of necessity and challenge (Unsworth, 2004).

13

Although time pressure has been studied intensively by psychologists and

behavioral scientists, a generally accepted definition does not exist. Nevertheless, it has
been commonly operationalized as the time available for task performance (Hwang,
1994).
It is certainly conceivable that when people know they are under time pressure,
they will attempt to work faster. Such an attempt would likely result in the exclusion of
difficult components of tasks on the part of the subjects whenever possible, and also on a
reliance upon what is already known and done. For instance, in designing a spill-proof
coffee cup, the subject might focus on what he knows about the characteristics of the
coffee cup which he used that morning, because that would be the first occurring thought,
and the subject would feel the need to get something immediately down on paper to
ensure task completion. Thus, one could logically expect time pressure to inhibit creative
performance (Lynn, 2004). And, indeed studies searching for simple linear relations have
generally found no relation or weak negative relations (Amabile et al., 1996, 2002),
indicating that, overall, time pressure may be detrimental to creativity at work. Similarly,
Andrews and Smith (1996) showed that product managers who experienced high time
pressure developed marketing programs low on creativity. In a meta-analysis of the
relationship between stressors and creativity, Byron et al., (2010) 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.
However, there is some research that suggests time pressure can act as a motivator
and, in contrast to the previous set of results, actually increase employees creative

14

performance. Andrews and Farris (1972), Shalley et al. (2000) and Unsworth et al. (2005)
found that time demands were positively related to creativity. Even the work of Amabile
and Gryskiewicz (1987) found that time pressure was cited in high creativity events by
12% of respondents, and that the urgent needs of the organization led to innovation by
22% of respondents (Unsworth, 2004).
So how do we integrate these two conflicting sets of results? Unsworth et al.
(2005) suggest that this discrepancy may occur due to the way in which time demands are
interpreted - If the participant or the norms that influence the participant, view time
demands as a challenge to be overcome, then it is likely that time demands will be
positively related to creativity. If, however, they are viewed as an unsurpassable barrier,
then time demands will probably be negatively related to creativity (p.556).
In a study that explored the moderating effect of time pressure on organizational
innovation, Hsu and Fan (2010) found that challenging work was positively related to
time pressure and creativity. The results indicated that challenging work could be
influenced by creative self-efficacy and it was proposed that employees with strong selfefficacy will interpret time pressure as challenging and cope with time pressure more
effectively.
Amabile et al. (2002) 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.
Pepinsky et al. (1960), 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

15

when changes in time pressure occurred, the effect upon changes in team productivity
was curvilinear. Finally, Baer and Oldham (2006) found an inverted U-relation 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. Specifically, we argue that regulatory focus in the context of time
pressure and creative performance, will best explain this relationship.

1.5. The Moderating Effect of Regulatory Focus in the Time pressure-Creative

performance Relationship

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 (Teodorescu, 2011).
Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) proposes that self-regulation in
relation to strong ideals versus strong oughts differs in regulatory focus. Ideal selfregulation involves a promotion focus, whereas ought self regulation involves a
prevention focus. People are motivated to approach desired end-states, which could be
either promotion focus aspirations and accomplishments or prevention focus
responsibilities and safety (Higgins, 1997). The theory distinguishes between two major
categories of desired goals: those related to advancement and growth and those related to

16

safety and security. It further proposes the existence of distinct regulatory systems that
are concerned with acquiring either nurturance or security. Individuals' self-regulation in
relation to their hopes and aspirations (ideals) satisfies nurturance needs. The goal is
accomplishment, and the regulatory focus is promotion. Individuals' self-regulation in
relation to duties and obligations (oughts) satisfies security needs. The goal is safety, and
the regulatory focus is prevention (Liberman, et al., 1999).
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 (Higgins et al. 2001).
Individuals in a promotion focus have strong ideals, prefer gain/non-gain situations, are
sensitive to presence or absence of positive outcomes, insure hits and insure against
errors of omission and have cheerfulness/dejection emotions. Individuals in a prevention
focus have strong oughts, prefer non-loss/loss situations, use avoidance as strategic
means, insure correct rejections and insure against errors of commission and have
quiescence/agitation emotions. Self-regulatory focus can also be seen as a dispositional
trait, which can be activated by situational circumstances. Emotions, event sensitivity,
problem solving, decision-making, performance, preferences, all vary depending on
whether self-regulation involves a promotion focus or a prevention focus (Teodorescu,
2011).
Failures in self-regulation can stem from the absence of standards, from a lack of
attention to the correspondence between one's actions and one's intentions, from the
attempt to regulate a variable that cannot be regulated, and from the attempt to regulate

17

with respect to a standard that ultimately is not relevant to one's overall goal. Failures can
also stem from holding standards that are too demanding and from conflicts when one
important standard is at odds with another (Carver & Scheier, 2009).
Many studies have shown that a promotion focus, in general, is more likely to
enhance creativity than is a prevention focus (e.g., Friedman & Forster, 2001, Lam &
Chiu, 2002, Herman & Reiter- Palmon, 2011). This is because promotion states generate
a broad and global attentional scope and facilitate conceptual access to mental
representations with lower a priori accessibility. Prevention states, in contrast, induce a
narrow attentional scope, a focus on local perceptual details, and a decrease in conceptual
access to mental representations with lower a priori accessibility (Baas, De Dreu, &
Nijstad, 2008).
A 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 (Moss, 2008). Also, a person in promotion focus
might persist in a difficult anagram rather than quitting to insure against omitting a
possible word (Higgins, 1997).
Lam and Chiu (2002) 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.
According to Baas, De Dreu, and Nijstad (2011), the effect of regulatory focus on
creativity depends on whether or not the aspirations or duties were fulfilled. Unsuccessful
attempts, at either a promotion or prevention focus, should enhance creativity.

18

Presumably, unsuccessful attempts to fulfill a goal may sustain alertness, improving effort
and creativity. They also argue that successful attempts to fulfill a promotion goal should
also enhance creativity: 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.
According to Keller (2007), regulatory focus can also influence the perception of
stimuli as threat or challenge. His results suggested that the impact of the activated
negative stereotypic expectancy on participants test performance depended heavily on
the activated mode of self-regulation.
Within 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 self-regulation prevails because people are most likely to experience
anxiety about not meeting minimal goal standards. A different picture should be observed
under promotion focus conditions. In promotion-focused individuals, time pressure is not
particularly likely to elicit apprehension about meeting minimal goal standards and hence
unlikely to be perceived as threatening. On the contrary, promotion-focused subjects
might perceive time pressure as an eagerness-eliciting challenge (rather than a threat)
because of their exploratory orientation and pursuit of ideals and gains.

19

1.6. Objectives and Hypothesis

1.6.1. Objectives
This study examines the role of two regulatory processes (promotion focus and
prevention focus) as moderators in the time pressure creative performance relationship.
Specifically it will try to:
- 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;
- test whether the causal relationship between time pressure and creative
performance changes as a function of regulatory focus;
- measure the differential effect of time pressure on creative performance as a
function of regulatory focus;

1.6.2. Hypothesis:
Regulatory 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.

20

CHAPTER II
METHODS

2.1. Overall Design

We randomly assigned the participants to the conditions of a 2 (regulatory focus:

promotion vs. prevention) x 2 (time pressure vs. no time pressure) experimental design
with the last factor manipulated between-subjects. The participants were unaware of
condition assignment.
Creative performance was viewed here as the outcome (dependent) variable. The
impact of time pressure as a predictor (independent variable) with two levels: time
pressure and no time pressure (the control condition). Finally, regulatory focus was
viewed as a moderator variable which also had two levels: promotion focus and
prevention focus. Accordingly, we proposed to conduct a four-group experiment where
each group comprised a different combination of the levels of the two factors:
1. promotion focus x time pressure;
2. promotion focus x no time pressure;
3. prevention focus x time pressure;
4. prevention focus x no time pressure.
Prior empirical research indicated that educational level had a positive effect on
creativity, reflecting task domain expertise or knowledge (Baer & Oldham, 2006).
Therefore, this study controlled for educational level, which ranged from a bachelors
degree level to a doctoral level.

21

2.2. Participants

2.2.1. Population
The population from which the sample of this study was drawn was that of web
designers employed in the Romanian companies or agencies. In the field of web site
design, studies show that there are at least two kinds of web designers: 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., 2009).

2.2.2. Sampling Frame and Judge Selection

The sample was drawn from professional web designers of several small
companies activating in four cities situated in the Central Area of Romania (Cluj-Napoca,
Braov, Sibiu, Trgu Mure). We sampled the companies as needed until we obtained the
planned minimum sample. Considering the fact that creative performance was evaluated
by judges, their selection was based on field knowledge, accomplishments and
professional status, each holding the title of Vice President.

2.2.3. Sampling Strategy

22

We employed a non-random sample of convenience. We obtained permission

within each company, and the investigator solicited the participation of every web
designer specialized in the development of e-commerce sites.

2.2.4. Proposed Sample

We aimed for a sample of 84 web designers. We used the G*Power software to
analyze power. Thus, a minimum of 84 graphic designers can expect a power of .95,
assuming an effect size of .08, two-tailed significance test at the .05 alpha level.
According to guidelines suggested by Cohen (2001), d = .08 is considered a large effect
size: 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 subjects.
Each subject was assigned to one of the four groups so that each group had an
equal number of 21 participants.

2.3. Instruments

The instrument packet comprised two previously developed and validated

measures and a background questionnaire.
We measured the creative performance manifested in designers work products by
the 11 item Website Preference Scale (WSPS; Rosen & Purinton, 2004).
Using an approach from cognitive psychology, Rosen and Purinton (2004) created
a website preference scale. Their initial construct for website characteristics were
coherence, complexity, legibility and mystery. Exploratory factor analysis was applied,

23

rejecting the mystery construct (Schmidt et al., 2008). Later, the construct of legibility
was replaced with creativity. The three factors remaining displayed coefficient alphas
above .70, which suggested a satisfactory level of reliability (Rosen & Purinton, 2004).
Website creativity was measured by a) the web page contains graphic elements that give
it a distinctive character when compared to other web pages; b) the web page has a
distinct identity; c) the web page uses memorable elements.
All items were measured using a five-point Likert scale anchored by strongly agree
to strongly disagree. According to Cureu (2007), the factorial structure of the scale
accomplishes theoretical expectations and it can be used as a valid measure of evaluating
the informational coherence, complexity and creativity of the web pages. Appendix A
provides a copy of the dimensions and items of the WSPS.

Regulatory focus was measured by the Work Regulatory Focus Scale (Neubert
et al., 2008).
Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, and Roberts (2008) developed a measure of
work regulatory focus-that is the regulatory focus of individuals in a work environment.
This measure comprises 18 items. Specifically, prevention focus is represented by nine
items, which represent the extent to which participants strive to maintain security (e.g., "I
concentrate on completing my work tasks correctly to increase my job security), to pursue
their duties (e.g., "Fulfilling my work duties is very important to me"), and to minimize
losses (e.g., "I focus my attention of avoiding failure at work").
Promotion focus is also represented by nine items. These items represent the
degree to which respondents strive to realize achievements ("A chance to grow is an

24

important factor for me when looking for a job"), to pursue aspirations ("At work, I am
motivated by my hopes and aspirations"), and to maximize gains ("I tend to take risks at
work in order to achieve success"). Respondents provide their agreement with each item
on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, and Roberts (2008) developed this scale to
ensure the measure represents needs-that is, security versus achievement, self guides-that
is, ought and ideals, as well as means to achieve goals-that is, eagerness versus vigilance.
Alpha reliability was .93 and .91 for prevention and promotion respectively (Neubert,
Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008). A copy of WRF is provided in Appendix B.

Background Data Questionnaire

The Background Data Questionnaire (Katz, 2001) contained demographic
questions, information regarding the participants experience in the field and in their
current position in organization.

2.4. Procedure

Because 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 1 to 2 months prior to the current study in order to determine their regulatory
orientation at work.
Web 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

25

vice versa. We 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. We 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.
Knollmann & Wild, 2007). We aimed for an equal number of participants who could be
either categorized as (1) high promotion low prevention focused or (2) high prevention
low promotion focused.
We computed an overall regulatory focus scale and used it to divide the subjects
into promotion focused and prevention focused. Participants in both these categories were
contacted by phone and asked to volunteer for a study of individual creativity. They were
assured of the confidentiality of their data and of the fact that they would free to
discontinue their participation at any time.
Overall, 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). Half of the subjects were
promotion focused and the other half were prevention focused. In one condition, the
subject received a task characterized by time pressure. In the control condition, the
subject received the same task, but characterized by no time pressure. We randomly
assigned half of the promotion focused subjects to one of the two time pressure condition,
as we did with half of the subject characterized by a prevention focus. Thus each group
completed one of the four possible conditions.

26

On arrival, the participants were placed in separate rooms, each with its own
computer and a closed door to avoid external noise. Each volunteer first completed a
consent form and a Demographic Data Inventory.
Participants 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
clients products). A previous study (Chevalier et al., 2009) reported that approximately
one hour and a half is a sufficient amount of time to complete this task. Accordingly, the
groups in the time pressure condition were given a 45 minutes time limit to create the
product. Every 15 minutes, an investigator informed them of the remaining time. The
groups in the control condition were told that they could take as much time as they
needed to complete the task.
The designers created web pages based on the assigned conditions and
instructions. They were also provided supporting paper and electronic documents
(photographs of the clients store and products, contact information for the store). To
create the web pages they used an authoring tool, such as Macromedia Dreamer or Adobe
GoLive.
After the data collection phase of the study, three judges evaluated the participants
creative performance on the web pages generated using the Website Preference Scale.
Before evaluating the pages, we provided the judges an explanation of each dimensions
and subdimensions and asked to rate several samples using the instrument.

2.5. Data analysis

27

We coded and keyed all the data for analysis using the Statistical Package of the
Social Sciences for Windows Version 17.0. For the initial description of the data we
obtained frequency distributions, analysis of the distributions symmetry and descriptive
statistics including means, standard deviations and inter-correlations among all the
variables. The internal consistency reliability coefficient, Cronbachs alpha and Pearsons
r were obtained for all the scale scores.
Inter-judge reliability on the creative performance rating scores was evaluated
using the inter-judge agreement method. According to Amabile (1990), this method is the
most popular method in line with the conceptualization of creativity within the product
based approach. Next, a two-way ANOVA was employed to examine a moderator effect.
The 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. Within this
framework, moderation implied that the causal relation between two variables changes as
a function of the moderator variable. The statistical analysis tested the differential effect
of the independent variable on the dependent variable as a function of the moderator
(Baron & Kenny, 1986). In this case, both moderator and independent variables were
categorical variables (time pressure vs. no time pressure; promotion focus vs. prevention
focus). When both the predictor and variable are categorical, 2x2 ANOVA is used for
testing moderating effects (Kim, Kaye & Wright, 2001).

28

The two-way ANOVA provided main effects for the predictor variables. Next,
ANOVA provided the effect for the interaction between the predictors. If the interaction
term was statistically significant, our moderator hypothesis would be supported.
Specifically, we calculated both the sum of squares (SS) and mean square for the
following:
1. error variance
2. the main effect of variable time pressure
3. the main effect of variable regulatory focus
4. the time pressure x regulatory focus interaction
We then calculated a value of F for each main effect and interaction we were
testing. Each of these calculated values of F was then compared to the critical value of F.
Because we proposed for 84 subjects in total and four groups, the degree of freedom for
the denominator was 80. The degree of freedom for the numerator for the F test of the
regulatory focus factor was the same as that for the time pressure factor as well as for the
interaction. Because each factor had two levels, all of the three df were 1. For the main
effects and for the interaction we needed F0.5 (1, 80) which was approximately 4.00. If
the three F ratios were greater than the critical F, 4.00, our results would fall in the
rejection zone of the F distribution and we could reject the three null hypotheses that the
population means were equal.

29

2.6. Follow-up tests

Assuming ANOVA revealed a significant effect for an independent variable with

two levels no further statistical tests were necessary. The significant F-test 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 (Leary,
2001). However, 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, we
conducted tests of simple main effects. Specifically, we examined four simple main
effects:
1. The simple main effect of time pressure at the promotion focus (Did the means of
time pressure and no time pressure differed for the promotion focused
participant?)
2. The simple main effect of time pressure at the prevention focus (Did the means of
time pressure and no time pressure differed for the prevention focused
participant?)
3. The simple main effect of regulatory focus at time pressure (Did the means of
promotion and prevention focus differed for the participants in the time pressure
condition?)
4. The simple main effect of regulatory focus at no time pressure (Did the means of
promotion focus and prevention focus differed for the participants in the no time
pressure condition?)

30

CHAPTER III
EXPECTED RESULTS

We 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. This shouldnt come as a surprise since
previous studies have shown the same results (e.g., Amabile et al., 1996, 2002, Andrews
and Smith, 1996, Byron et al., 2010, Friedman & Forster, 2001, Lam & Chiu, 2002,
Herman & Reiter- Palmon, 2011, Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008).
We also expect that the reliability coefficients and inter-judge 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. These results indicate
that the Website Preference Scale can be used as a reliable method for evaluating the
creative performance of individuals in designing a web page.
We 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. We also expect to
find a main effect for regulatory focus so that the subjects who are generally promotion
focused perform higher at the creativity task than subjects who are generally prevention
focused.
The main effects are expected to be qualified, however, by a significant
interaction, that strongly supports the studys prediction that, when facing time pressure

31

during a creativity task, promotion focused subjects perform the best, whereas prevention
focused subjects, perform the worst. In contrast, when facing a sufficient amount of time
for the creativity task, the participants scores on the creative performance task dont
differ significantly across the regulatory focus condition.

32

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION

Theoretical Implications
As 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.
Aaker and Lee (2006) state that these distinct goals prompt people to selectively pay
attention to and rely on information that helps them attain their goal. Moreover, they
adopt strategies and engage in activities that are consistent with their regulatory
orientation (ibidem).
According to Wallace, Little and Shull (apud Wallace and Chen, 2006) a
promotion focus is defined as a moderately stable engagement strategy with a focus on
accomplishing more tasks, more quickly. On 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 ones duties. Hence, it seems plausible to assume that
employees whose promotion-focused orientation converges with high time pressure
demands may demonstrate the greatest creative performance. This, 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. As for the promotion focused individuals, time
pressure may act as a challenge, due to their exploratory orientation and pursuit of gains.

33

This 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.
We examine whether regulatory focus moderates the individual-level effects of time
pressure on employees creative performance. If confirmed, our results add to the time
pressure-creativity literature, indicating that time pressure can have very different effects
on creative performance depending on the predominant focus of self-regulation.
This study contributes to the creativity literature by considering the influence of
the interactionist model of creativity. We study creativity from an integrating framework
that combines important elements of the personality (e.g., Woodman, 1981), cognitive
(e.g., Hayes, 1989), and social psychology (e.g., Amabile, 1983). We believe that this
approach represents a more realistic portrayal of creativity at the workplace as we
examine the joint contribution of the organizational context and the person to the
prediction of individual performance.
Ford and Gioia (2000) 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., Sternberg, 1988,
Barron & Harrington, 1981).

Practical Implications
Our results may have important implications for practice. Employees creativity is
directly influenced by organizational characteristics. Many of the tasks that must be

34

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 of the task or manage employees
regulatory focus.
First, 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 leaders
in offering the right feedback. For example, research (Frster et al., 2001) showed that
when given positive feedback, individuals exhibiting a promotion focus demonstrate
more motivation. However, individuals with a prevention focus are more motivated when
they receive negative feedback. Thus, in order to obtain more motivational strength and,
therefore high creative performance, companies should consider encouraging promotionoriented followers and discouraging those who are prevention-oriented.
Wallace, Little and Shull (2008) have suggested that, although
regulatory focus descents from personal stable characteristics, it can
also be influenced by context. This may at first appear difficult
because of ones moderately stable tendency for promotion and
prevention, but theoretically it has been suggested and empirically it
has been shown that ones tendency can be changed by powerful
contextual stimuli (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997, 2000), and

35

we believe that leaders represent such stimuli (cf. Forster et al., 2003;
Wallace & Chen, 2006) (ibidem, p. 102).
Although promotion focus has been found to be an important antecedent to
individual creativity (Crowe & Higgins, 1997), Johnson and Wallace (2010a) found that
collective promotion plays an important role in team innovation behaviour and the
resulting entrepreneurial success. The same authors (2011b) 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.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Our study has a few limitations. First, our sample includes web designers
employees only and it is not clear that our results generalize to other populations. Future
research might attempt to test the ideas developed in this study across different samples
and settings.
Second, we considered regulatory focus to be a stable personal characteristic.
However, Higgins (1997, 2000) and colleagues (e.g., Forster et al., 2003) 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 and
contexts. Certain powerful contextual variables such as group norms, leadership climate,
and task characteristics may override chronic tendencies and significantly influence

36

whether one adopts a promotion or prevention focus during a given goal striving episode.
Future research should also take this in consideration.
Third, the nature of the independent and the moderator variables precludes the
making of any conclusive causal inference. Also, our design does not capture possible
important mediators like perception of time pressure as a threat or as a challenge.
Last, because the data in this study are proposed to be collected only in the central
Area of Romania, one may argue that our findings are culturally bound and thus cannot
be generalized to other countries. However, Romanian business practices have evolved
and employee creativity and regulatory focus are essentially universal concepts.

CONCLUSION

Research examining time pressure and creativity is allowing increased insight into
the processes leading to perform job tasks creatively. The 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. This is the key because it demonstrates the need for managers to be
involved in directing employees focus during highly complex tasks and tight deadlines.

37

REFERENCES

Aaker, J. L., Lee, A. Y. (2006) Understanding Regulatory Fit, Journal of Marketing

Research, 43, 15-19.
Amabile, T. M. (1982) Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment
Technique, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013.
Amabile, T.M. (1983) The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential
Conceptualization, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376.
Amabile, T. M. (1988) - A model of creativity and innovation in organizations,
Research in organizational behavior, 10, 123-167.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., and Herron, M. (1996) Assesing
the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 11541184.
Amabile, T. M. (1993) What does a Theory of Creativity Require?, Psychological
Inquiry, 4(2), 179-237.
Amabile, T. M., Mueller, J. S., Simpson, W. B., Hadley, C. N., Kramer, S. J., and
Fleming, L. (2002) - Time Pressure and Creativity in Organizations: A Longitudinal

38

Field Study, The T.E.A.M. Study: Events That Influence Creativity.Harvard Business
School Division of Research.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., Staw, B. M. (2005) Affect and
Creativity at Work, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367-403.
Andrews, F. M., and Farris, G. F. (1972) Time pressure and performance of
scientists and engineers: A five-year panel study. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 8, 185-200.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., and Nijstad, B. A. (2008) A Meta-Analysis of 25 Years of
MoodCreativity Research: Hedonic Tone, Activation, or Regulatory Focus?,
Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779806.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., and Nijstad, B. A. (2011). When prevention promotes
creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 794-809.
Baer, M., and Oldham, G., R. (2006) - The Curvilinear Relation between Experienced
Creative Time Pressure and Creativity: Moderating Effects of Openness to Experience
And Support for Creativity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963970.
Baron, M. R., and Kenny, D. A. (1986) The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction
in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., and Nazarian, D. (2010) The Relationship Between Stressors
and Creativity: A Meta-Analysis Examining Competing Theoretical Models, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201-212.

39

Burbiel, J. (2009) Creativity in research and development environments: A practical

review, Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 4(2), 35-51.
Carver, C.S., and Scheier, M. F. (2009) Self-Regulation and Its Failures,
Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological
Theory, 7(1), 32-40.
Chevalier, A., Fouquereau, N., and Vanderdonckt, J. (2009) The influence of a
knowledge-based system on designers' cognitive activities: a study involving professional
web designers, Behavior Information Technology, 28(1), 45-62.
Chevalier, A., and Bonnardel, N. (2007) Articulation of website design constraints:
Effects of the task and Designers Expertise, Computers in Human Behaviors, 23(2007),
2455-2472.
Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., and Veillette, A. (2009) Contextual
Inhibitors of Employee Creativity in Organizations. The Insulating Role
of Creative Ability, Group & Organization Management, 34(3), 330-357.
Cohen, B. H. (2001) Explaining Psychological Statistics, 2nd Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 219.
Crowe, E., and Higgins, E. T. (1997) Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations:
Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 69, 117132.
Cureu, P. L. (2007) Grupurile n organizaii, Polirom, 247-248.
Cureu, P. L. (2010) Team creativity in Web Site Design: An Empirical Test of a
Systemic Model, Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 98-107.

40

Decortis, F., and Lentini, L. (2009) A socio-cultural perspective of creativity for the
design of educational environments, eLearning Papers, No.13, ISSN 1887-1542,
www.elearningpapers.eu
DeHaan, R.L. (2009) - Teaching Creativity and Inventive Problem Solving
in Science, Life Sciences Education, 8, 172181.
Dietrich, A., Kanso, R. (2010) A Review of EEG, ERP, and
Neuroimaging Studies of Creativity and insight, Psychological Bulletin,
135(5), 822-848.
Ford, C. M., and Gioia, D. A. (2000) Factors influencing creativity in the domain of
Managerial Decision Making, Journal of Management, 26(4), 705-732.
Forster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., and Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure

feedback,

expectancies,

and

approach/avoidance

motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 253260.
Friedman, R. S., and Forster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion
and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 10011013.
Furnham, A., and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005) Personality and Intellectual
competence, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 129-137.
Guilford, J. P. (1950) Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Haller, C. S., and Courvoisier, D.S. (2010) Personality and thinking styles in
different creative domains, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(3), 149
160.

41

Hammond, M. M, Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., and

Zhao, X. (2011) Predictors of Individual-Level Innovation at Work: A
Meta-Analysis, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1),
90105.
Hennessey, B. A., and Amabile, T. M (2010) Creativity, Annu. Rev. Psychol. (61),
569-598. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by Harvard University on 06/07/11.
Herman, A., and Reiter-Palmon, R. (2011) The Effect of
Regulatory Focus on Idea Generation and Idea Evaluation, Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 5(1), 1320 193.
Higgins, T. E. (1997) Beyond Pleasure and Pain, American
Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.
Higgins, T. E., Shah, J., Friedman, R. S. (1997) Emotional
Responses to Goal Attainment: Strength of Regulatory Focus as
Moderator, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 515525.
Higgins, T. E., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Chen Idson, L.,
Ayduk, O. N., Taylor, A. (2001) - Achievement Orientations from
subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus prevention
pride, European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3-23.
Hsu, M. L. A. and Hsueh-Liang, F. (2010) Organizational Innovation Climate and
Creative Outcomes: Exploring the Moderating Effect of Time Pressure, Creativity
Research Journal, 22(4), 378-386.

42

Hwang, M. I. (1994) Decision Making under time pressure: a model for information
systems research, Information &Management, 27, 197-203.
Ivcevic, Z. (2009) Creativity Map: Toward the Next Generation of
Theories of Creativity, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 3(1), 1721.
Johnson, P. and Wallace, C. (2011) - Increasing Individual and Team
Performance in an Organizational Setting through the Situational
Adaptation

of

Regulatory

Focus,

Consulting

Psychology

Journal:

Practice and Research, 63(3), 190201.

Kaluzniacky, E. (2004) Managing Psychological Factors in Information System
Work. An Orientation to Emotional Intelligence. Information Science Publishing, Idea
Group Inc., 121.
Katz, H. (2001) The Relationship of Intrinsic Motivation, Cognitive Style and
Tolerance of Ambiguity and, Creativity in Scientists, Seton Hall University Institutional
Review Board for Human Subjects Research.
Kaufman, J. C., and Beghetto, R. A. (2009) Beyond Big and Little: The Four C
Model of Creativity, Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12.
Keller, J. (2007) When Negative Stereotypic Expectancies Turn Into
Challenge or Threat: The Moderating Role of Regulatory Focus, Swiss
Journal of Psychology, 66(3), 163168.
Kim, J. S., Kaye, J., and Wright, L. K. (2001) Moderating and Mediating Effects in
Causal Models, Issues in mental Health Nursing, 22, 63-75, Publisher Taylor & Francis,
Inc.

43

Lam, T. W. H., and Chiu, C. Y. (2002) The motivational function of

regulatory focus on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 138
150.
Leary, M. R. (2001) Introduction to Behavioral Research Methods,
Third Edition, Allyn & Bacon, 230, 231.
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, J. C., and Higgins, E. T. (1999) Promotion
and Prevention Choices between Stability and Change, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77(6), 1135-1145.
Livingstone, L. P., Nelson, D. L., and Barr, S. H. (1997)- PersonEnvironment Fit and Creativity:An Examination of Supply-Value and Demand-Ability
Versions of Fit, Journal of Management, 23(2), 119-146.
Lynn, Z. (2004) The Effects of Negative Priming and Time Pressure on Creative
Problem Solving, Hofstra University http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/psy_archive_zachlynn_2004.pdf
Milliken, F. J., and Dunn-Jensen, L. M. (2005) The changing time demands of
managerial and professional work: Implications for managing the work-life boundary. In
E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural,
and individual perspectives, 43-50.
Moss,

S.

(2008)

Regulatory

Focus

Theory,

Psychlopedia,

http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=66
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., and Roberts, J. A.
(2008) Regulatory Focus as a Mediator of the Influence of Initiating Structure and

44

Servant Leadership on Employee Behaviour, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6),

1220-1233.
Neumann, C. J. (2007) Fostering Creativity. A model for developing a culture of
collective creativity in science, European Molecular Biology Organization, EMBO
reports, 8(3).
Palo, S. (2003) Achieving Corporate Excellence through Creativity Management,
The Journal Of Business Perspective, 123-134.
Pepinsky, P. N., Pepinsky, H. B., and Pavlik, W. B. (1960) The Effects of Task
Complexity and Time Pressure upon Team Productivity, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 44(1).
Radu, I., Druu, I., Mare, V., Miclea, M., Podar, T., Preda, V. (1991) Introducere n
Psihologia Contemporan, Sincron, 182.
Reiter-Palmon, R. (2011) Introduction to Special Issue: The
Psychology of Creativity and Innovation in the Workplace, Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 12.
Richards, R., Kinney, D. K., Benet, M. and Merzel, A. P. C. (1988) Assessing
Everyday Creativity: Characteristics of the Lifetime Creativity Scales and Validation
With Three Large Samples, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 476485.
Rosen, D. E. and Purinton, E. (2004) Website design: Viewing the web as a
cognitive Landscape, Journal of business research, 57, 787-794.

45

Schmidt, S., Cantallops, A. S. and Pizutti dos Santos, C. (2008) The characteristics
of hotel websites and their implications for website effectiveness, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 27, 504-516.
Shah, J., Higgins, T. E. (1997) Expectancy X Value Effects: Regulatory Focus as
Determinant of Magnitude and Direction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73(3), 447-458.
Shah, J., Higgins, T. E., Friedman, R. S. (1998) Performance
Incentives

and

Means:

How

Regulatory

Focus

InfluencesGoal

Attainment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285293.

Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., and Blum, T. C. (2000) Matching
creativity

requirements

and

the

work

environment:

Effects

on

satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal,

43(2), 215-223.
Simonton, D. K. (2000) - Creativity. Cognitive, Personal, Developmental, and Social
Aspects, American Psychologist, 55(1), 151-158.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006) Creating a vision on creativity: the first 25 years,
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, S (1), 2-12.
Strickland, B. R. (2001) The Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2 nd edition, Gale
Group, 157-159.
Teodorescu, D.S. (2011) Promovare sau Prevenire Dezvoltarea Scalei de Centrare
Cronic pe Sine, Jurnalul Romn de Psihologie, Psihoterapie i Neurotiine, 1(2), 97132.

46

Tierney, P., and Farmer, S. M. (2004) The Pygmalion Process and Employee
Creativity, Journal of Management, 30(3), 413-432.
Unsworth, K. L. (2004) Firefighting: The Effects of Time Pressure on Employee
Innovation, Work Effectiveness Research Programme, Presented at the 18 th Annual
Conference of the Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management, Dunedin, New
Zealand., k.unsworth@qut.edu.au
Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., and Carter, A. (2005) Creative
Requirement. A neglected construct in the study of Employee
creativity?, Group & Organization Management, 30(5), 541-560.
Villalba, E. (2008) On creativity. Towards an understanding of creativity and its
measurments, European Communities, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities.
Wallace, J. C., Little, M. L. and Shull, A. (2008) -

The

Moderating Effects of Task Complexity on the Relationship Between

Regulatory Foci and Safety and Production Performance, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 13(2), 95104.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., Griffin, R. W. (1993) Toward a Theory of
Organizational Creativity, The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.

47

APPENDIX A
Website Preference Scale
Dimensiunea itemul/componenta

Coeren informaional
PW este organizat logic (informaia prezentat este usor
de neles i coerent)
Textul PW este bine scris (este clar i concis).
PW este uor de navigat.
48

Complexitate
PW utilizeaz o mare varietate de elemente grafice (de exemplu,
text, figuri, poze, elemente de animaie).
PW are hyperlinkuri.
PW folosete multe imagini.
PW folosete diferite tipuri de imagini.
Creativitate
PW are elemente grafice care i dau un caracter distinctiv
atunci cnd este comparat cu alte PW.
PW are o identitate distinct.
PW utilizeaz elemente memorabile.
PW are suficiente caracteristici interesante pentru a ma face
s revin (s repet vizita).
Not : PW = pagin web.
APPENDIX B
Work Regulatory Focus Scale

1. M concentrez s ndeplinesc corect sarcinile de la locul de munc pentru a crete

sigurana postului. (Siguran)
2. mi concentrez atenia pe realizarea responsabilitilor care mi se dau la locul de
munc. (ndatoriri)

49

3. Este foarte important pentru mine s mi ndeplinesc sarcinile legate de locul de

munc. (ndatoriri)
4. M strduiesc s ndeplinesc responsabilitile i ndatoririle primite de la alii la
locul de munc. (ndatoriri)
5. M concentrez adesea pe ndeplinirea sarcinilor care mi vor ntreine nevoia de
siguran la locul de munc. (Siguran)
6. Fac tot ce mi st n putin pentru a evita pierderile la locul de munc. (Pierderi)
7. Sigurana locului de munc este un factor important pentru mine atunci cand mi
caut un loc de munc. (Siguran)
8. mi concentrez atenia pe evitarea eecului la locul de munc. (Pierderi)
9. Evit cu atenie s m expun eventualelor pierderi la locul de munc. (Pierderi)
10. mi asum riscuri la locul de munc pentru a-mi maximiza scopurile de avansare.
(Ctiguri)
11. Tind s mi asum riscuri la locul de munc pentru a obine succes. (Ctiguri)
12. Dac a avea ocazia s particip la un proiect care implic risc nalt i recompens
mare cu siguran c a lua-o. (Ctiguri)
13. Dac locul meu de munc nu mi-ar permite oportunitatea de avansare, cel mai
probabil c mi-a cuta unul nou. (Realizare)
14. Atunci cnd mi caut un loc de munc, un factor foarte important l constituie
posibilitatea de a avansa. (Realizare)
15. M concentrez pe realizarea sarcinilor care mi vor favoriza avansarea la locul de
munc. (Realizare)

50

16. Petrec foarte mult timp imaginndu-mi cum s mi ndeplinesc aspiraiile.

(Idealuri)
17. Imaginea clar a ceea ce aspir s fiu are un impact asupra prioritilor de munc.
(Idealuri)
18. Sunt motivat la locul de munc de speranele i aspiraiile mele. (Idealuri)

51