Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:52:17.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Regulatory Focus Differences in Creative Ideation: An Examination of Prevention and Promotion Mindsets on Novelty and Usefulness

Part of: Collaborative Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Rianne Wally Meurzec ,
Brandon Koh ,
Georgios Koronis ,
Jacob Kai Siang Kang ,
Christine Yogiaman  and
Arlindo Silva
Rianne Wally Meurzec*
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design;
Brandon Koh
Affiliation:
Singapore Management University
Georgios Koronis
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design;
Jacob Kai Siang Kang
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design;
Christine Yogiaman
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design;
Arlindo Silva
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design;
*
Contact: Meurzec, Rianne Wally, Singapore University of Technology and Design International Design Center, Singapore, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The purpose of this work is to compare impact of regulatory focuses, namely preventive and promotional contexts, on creative ideation measured by novelty and usefulness. The study consisted of Singaporean students from an undergraduate university, and assessed their personality using the Big Five, Regulatory Focus, Creativity type and creativity outcomes measured with the Consensual Assessment Technique by completing a Collaborative Sketch exercise. Participants were randomly assigned to either the preventive, promotional or a baseline condition and tasked with a design problem necessitating a solution in the form of sketches. This study found the three conditions to yield significantly different novelty scores, but not usefulness scores. The most impactful condition on novelty was the baseline, indicating novice designers are capable of creating novel products and services. Those in the promotion condition created the second most novel sketches, or design solutions, followed lastly by the prevention condition. This may be so as novice designers consider larger space of solutions and may generate more ideas. This research is useful in creative pedagogy and for design professionals.

Keywords

Design cognitionDesign educationHuman behaviour in design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 49 - 58
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Amabile, T.M. (1983), “The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization”, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 45 No. 2, p. 357.Google Scholar
Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context (Westview, Boulder, CO).Google Scholar
Amabile, T.M. and Pillemer, J. (2012), “Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Baas, M., De Dreu, C.K. and Nijstad, B.A. (2008), “A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?”, Psychological bulletin, Vol. 134 No. 6, p. 779.Google Scholar
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis”, Personnel psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Bartlett, M.S. (1954), “A note on the multiplying factors for various χ 2 approximations”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), pp. 296–298.Google Scholar
Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T. and Furnham, A. (2010), “Individual differences in ideational behavior: Can the big five and psychometric intelligence predict creativity scores?”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 90–97.Google Scholar
Bittner, J.V. and Heidemeier, H. (2013), “Competitive mindsets, creativity, and the role of regulatory focus”, Thinking skills and creativity, Vol. 9, pp. 59–68.Google Scholar
Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2004), “Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis”, Journal of applied psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, p. 901.Google Scholar
Cesario, J., Higgins, E.T. and Scholer, A.A. (2008), “Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions”, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 444–463.Google Scholar
Dean, L.D., Hender, J.M., Rodgers, T.L. and Santanen, E.L. (2006), “Identifying quality, novel, and creative ideas: constructs and scales for idea evaluation1”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 10, p. 646.Google Scholar
Friedman, R.S. and Förster, J. (2001), “The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity”, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 81 No. 6, p. 1001.Google Scholar
Gilson, L.L. and Madjar, N. (2011), “Radical and Incremental Creativity: Antecedents and Processes. Psychology of Aesthetics”, Creativity and the Arts, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 21–28.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1990), “An alternative “description of personality”: the big-five structure”, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 59 No. 6, p. 1216.Google Scholar
Hennessey, B.A. (2003), “The social psychology of creativity”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 253–271.Google Scholar
Higgins, E.T. (1997), “Beyond pleasure and pain”, American psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 12, p. 1280.Google Scholar
Higgins, E.T. (2000), “Making a good decision: value from fit”, American psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 11, p. 1217.Google Scholar
John, O.P. and Srivastava, S. (1999), “The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical perspectives”, Handbook of personality: Theory and research, Vol. 2 No. 1999, pp. 102–138.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H.F. (1970), “A second generation little jiffy”, Psychometrika, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 401–415.Google Scholar
Leung, A. K.-y. and Chiu, C.-y. (2008), “Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and openness to experience on creative potential”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, 376–382.Google Scholar
Leung, A. K.-y. and Chiu, C.-y. (2010), “Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness, and creativity”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 5-6, 723–741.Google Scholar
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H. and Kunda, Z. (2002), “Motivation by Positive or Negative Role Models: Regulatory Focus Determines Who Will Best Inspire Us”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 854–864.Google Scholar
Ma, H.H. (2009), “The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta-analysis”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 30–42.Google Scholar
Poropat, A.E. (2009), “A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance”, Psychological bulletin, Vol. 135 No. 2, p. 322.Google Scholar
Soto, C.J. and John, O.P. (2017), “The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 113 No. 1, p. 117.Google Scholar
Sung, S.Y. and Choi, J.N. (2009), “Do Big Five personality factors affect individual creativity?”, The moderating role of extrinsic motivation. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 941–956.Google Scholar
Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J.O.W. and Schuler, H. (2007), “Meta-analysis of the relationship between the Big Five and academic success at university”, Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, Vol. 215 No. 2, pp. 132–151.Google Scholar
White, C.K., Wood, K.L. and Jensen, D. (2012), “From brainstorming to C-sketch to principles of historical innovators: ideation techniques to enhance student creativity”, Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, Vol. 13 No. 5.Google Scholar
Yuan, J.T.J., Kong, K.Y., Parveen, H., Zhixiang, H., Rajasekaran, G., Behera, J.K., Sanaei, R., Otto, K.N. and Holtta-Otto, K. (2014), “An overview of design cognition between experts and novices”, ICADRE 2014.Google Scholar
Zhao, H. and Seibert, S.E. (2006), “The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review”, Journal of applied psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, p. 259.Google Scholar