USER CREATIVITY IN CROWDSOURCING COMMUNITY: FROM …...USER CREATIVITY IN CROWDSOURCING COMMUNITY:...
Transcript of USER CREATIVITY IN CROWDSOURCING COMMUNITY: FROM …...USER CREATIVITY IN CROWDSOURCING COMMUNITY:...
Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)
PACIS 2014 Proceedings Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems(PACIS)
2014
USER CREATIVITY IN CROWDSOURCINGCOMMUNITY: FROM EXTRINSICMOTIVATION PERSPECTIVELingfei ZouHuazhong University of Science and Technology, [email protected]
Weiling KeClarkson University, [email protected]
Jinlong ZhangSchool of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, [email protected]
Kwok Kee WeiCity University of Hong Kong, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014
This material is brought to you by the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has beenaccepted for inclusion in PACIS 2014 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, pleasecontact [email protected].
Recommended CitationZou, Lingfei; Ke, Weiling; Zhang, Jinlong; and Wei, Kwok Kee, "USER CREATIVITY IN CROWDSOURCING COMMUNITY:FROM EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION PERSPECTIVE" (2014). PACIS 2014 Proceedings. 45.http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/45
USER CREATIVITY IN CROWDSOURCING COMMUNITY:
FROM EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION PERSPECTIVE
Lingfei Zou, School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, Hubei, China; Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, [email protected]
Weiling Ke, School of Business, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, USA,
Jinlong Zhang, School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, Hubei, China, [email protected]
Kwok Kee, Wei, Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong, [email protected]
Abstract
Lack of creative ideas is always the biggest challenge that firms are facing in their innovative activity
(Leimeister et al. 2009), and firms are increasing use crowdsourcing to capture diversity ideas from
external people. Unfortunately, these crowdsourcing activities can sometime lead to ideas with less
creativity than those ideas generated by internal employees (Blohm et al. 2011; Boudreau 2012;
Leimeister et al. 2009). This research investigates the effect of users’ extrinsic motivation on idea
creativity within the crowdsourcing community. Based on self-determination theory, we propose that
four types of extrinsic motivation will positively affect the creativity of ideas generated by
crowdsourcing community. Through a survey of 202 participants in China biggest crowdsourcing
community, we find our research model is generally supported. We further observe the significant
moderating effects of promotion focus on the relationship between extrinsic motivation and creativity.
Our research provides both theory and practice implications
Keywords: Crowdsourcing, self-determination, promotion focus, creativity
1 INTRODUCTION
Lack of creative ideas is one of the biggest challenges that firms are facing in their innovative
activities (Leimeister et al. 2009). In recent years, crowdsourcing has become a widely popular
phenomenon, which allows an organization to capture fresh ideas from people external to the
organization through platforms such as InnoCentive and Threadless. However, the creativity of ideas
generated by crowdsourcing communities often falls short of the organization’s expectations (Blohm
et al. 2011; Boudreau 2012; Leimeister et al. 2009). According to creativity literature and electronic
brainstorming research, participant’s motivation plays an important role in influencing their creativity.
Motivation can be divided into two types: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Ryan et al.
2000a). Intrinsic motivation is inherent in people and thus firms can hardly influence intrinsic
motivation in crowdsourcing communities. In contrast, extrinsic motivation is determined by what is
afforded by the environment and can be stimulated by some practices such as transformational
leadership (Shin and Zhou 2003). Therefore, a research on extrinsic motivation’s effects on the
creativity in crowdsourcing communities would shed new light on our understanding of how the
organization can proactively influence the crowdsourcing communities and truly benefit from such
open innovation practice.
A careful literature review reveals that the research findings on extrinsic motivation’s effects on
creativity are mixed and even controversial. For example, when Amabile (1985) first investigated the
effect of extrinsic motivation on creativity, she found that extrinsic motivation would decrease
creativity. In contrast, Burroughs et al. (2011) found that, with specific trainings, external rewards can
improve individual’s creativity. The mixed findings can be attributed to two reasons. First, scholars
conceptualize extrinsic motivation differently. While some researchers focus on financial rewards and
social reputation as extrinsic motivation for individuals’ participation in open innovation communities,
others conceptualize extrinsic motivation as improving capabilities and identifying with the
communities (Boudreau et al. 2013; Kaikati et al. 2013; Kosonen et al. 2013; Organisciak 2010). With
the different conceptualizations and operationalization of the construct of extrinsic motivation, it is no
surprise that different studies report quite different effects of extrinsic motivation (Shao et al. 2012;
Leimeister et la. 2009; Zheng et al. 2011; Battistella et al. 2012; Brabham 2010; Majchrzak et la.
2013). Second, prior research has primarily focused on the direct effects of extrinsic motivation and
ignored the possible moderating effects of psychological factors. It is well established that the effects
of extrinsic motivation are contingent upon an individual’s orientation (Grant et al. 2011; Hirst et al.
2009). Neglecting such moderating effects could cause the problem of inconsistent findings of
previous studies.
To address these shortfalls of the existing literature, we intend to explore the effects of a spectrum
of extrinsic motivation in crowdsourcing communities and examine how these effects are moderated
by the participants’ promotion focus. Specifically, drawing upon the Self-Determination Theory (SDT),
we categorize extrinsic motivation into four categories, rather than regarding it as a unitary construct.
According to SDT, based on the degree to which the value and regulation of the task have been
internalized and integrated, extrinsic motivation can be of four types, i.e., external motivation,
introjected motivation, identified motivation, integrated motivation varying from controlled regulation
to autonomy regulation(Deci et al. 2000; Gagne et al. 2005; Ryan et al. 2000b). Indeed, the many
motivations identified by previous research on crowdsourcing communities, such as financial rewards,
job opportunities, enhancing working sills, self-development, gaining recognition from peers,
identifying with the community(Battistella et al. 2012; Boudreau et al. 2013; Brabham 2010; Franke et
al. 2012; Hossain 2012; Majchrzak et al. 2013; Organisciak 2010; Zhao et al. 2012; Zheng et al. 2011),
can be categorized into these four types. As such, we investigate how these four types of motivation
differentially affect participants’ creativity. Also, following the Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT), we
explore the moderating effects of promotion focus on the relationships between extrinsic motivation
and creativity. According to RFT, there are two types of motivation systems, namely promotion and
prevention focus (Higgins 1998; Higgins 2000). In particular, promotion focus encourages an
individual to strive for growth and achievement by taking risk, thereby facilitating motivation’s
leading to creative outcomes (Higgins 2000; Wallace et al. 2006). Therefore, we choose to focus on
the moderating effect of promotion focus. Our research model is generally supported by data collected
data from ZhuBajie, the biggest crowdsourcing community in China.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Self-determination theory
Motivation has been recognized as an important factor affecting human behavior and
performance (Locke et al. 2004). SDT provides us a systematic model to categorize different
motivations. SDT contends that motivation is not a unitary construct. Instead, extrinsic motivation can
be divided into four forms: external motivation, introjected motivation, identified motivation,
integrated motivation, based on the degree to which that individuals internalize the value and
regulation underlying tasks (Deci et al. 2000; Gagne et al. 2005; Ryan et al. 2000b). External
motivation is the most controlled motivation. It refers to an individual’s performing a task in order to
obtain a reward or satisfying an external demand. With external motivation, individuals will take
action only when it is instrumental to those outcomes. Introjected motivation refers to individuals’
understanding the regulation and value but not accepting it as their own. Identified regulation is a
relatively self-determined extrinsic motivation that energizes an individual to perform a task because
he identifies the value underlying the specific task. Regarding to integrated motivation, it means
individuals fully assimilate regulation and regard it as part of themselves (Ryan et al. 2000b).
Prior research has identified a lot motivating factors for participating in crowdsourcing
communities (Afuah et al. 2012; Archak 2010; Bayus 2013; Bloodgood 2013; Boudreau et al. 2013;
Brabham 2010; DiPalantino et al. 2009; Dodge et al. 2013; Hossain 2012; Huberman et al. 2009;
Kaikati et al. 2013; Kosonen et al. 2013; Majchrzak et al. 2013; Olson et al. 2012; Stewart et al. 2010).
For example, Bayus (2013) found that sense of community membership would motivate participants to
comment on others’ ideas more actively, while Brabham (2010) suggested that participants were
motivated by the opportunity to get financial reward and take up freelance work. However, these
factors are examined solely in different studies, and the influence mechanism varies across different
type of motivations (Deci et al. 2000). In order to gain insights into how motivations affect
participants’ creativity performance, we need to draw on a consolidated theoretical lens to categorize
the various motivations into a unified framework. This can also help us recognize how to stimulate
participants for novel and quality ideas. According to SDT, the identified factors can be categorized
into different types of motivation as shown in Table 1. We identified factors related with financial
rewards and job opportunity as external motivations. We regard factors indicating reputation and self-
development as introjected motivation because their values are relatively controlled. Factors related
with personal importance are categorized into identified motivation. Factors pertaining to individual
beliefs and value are identified as integrated motivation.
According to SDT, different motivations reflect different degree to which that the regulation and
value of the related behavior are internalized and integrated (Ryan et al. 2000a; Ryan et al. 2000b).
Different motivations vary from controlled to autonomous and will lead to different experiences and
outcomes. Specially, more autonomous motivations usually relate to higher positive outcomes, such as
better performance (Miserandino 1996), longer persistence(Vallerand et al. 1992), greater engagement
(Connell et al. 1991) and higher learning quality (Grolnick et al. 1987). Motivation Type Motivations in Crowdsourcing community
External motivation To make money by contribute creative ideas or solutions(Bayus 2013)
To share profit by sell creative ideas to firms(Horton et al. 2010)
To improve job prospect (Brabham 2008; Brabham 2010)
Introjected motivation To burnish reputation in specific field(Boudreau et al. 2013; Brabham
2008; Brabham 2010)
To demonstrate own ability(Battistella et al. 2012; Zheng et al. 2011)
To alleviate peer pressure(Hossain 2012)
Identified motivation Identify the value of sponsored firms(Hossain 2012)
Identify the value of crowdsourcing community(DiPalantino et al. 2009)
Desire to increase the welfare of other people(Hossain 2012)
Integrated motivation Believe that he belongs the crowdsourcing community(Brabham 2010)
Past success makes participants sense of belong to the sponsored company.
(Bayus 2013)
The challenge of solving difficult problems(Afuah et al. 2012)
Intrinsic motivation Feel happy to express creative ideas freely(Battistella et al. 2012)
Be interested in the firms’ new product development process(Brabham
2008; Brabham 2010)
Addiction to the tasks proposed and love to the community(Estelles-Arolas
et al. 2012)
Table 1 Mapping of Motivation in Crowdsourcing Community to SDT Theory
2.2 Regulatory focus theory
According to motivation theory, the effect of motivation on performance depends on individual’s
orientation (Judge et al. 2002). In this research we choose regulatory focus as an important orientation
that would affect how different types of extrinsic motivation affect performance outcomes in
crowdsourcing communities. According to RFT, there are two different but co-existing self-regulatory
systems: promotion focus and prevention focus. With promotion focus, individuals try to satisfy their
needs for growth, advancement and achievement, and pursuit ideal self. They are sensitive to the
presence and absence of positive outcomes. In the contrast, individuals with prevention focus seek
security needs and try to pursuit ought self. They are sensitive to presence and absence of negative
outcomes. With two different self-regulatory focus systems, individuals will take different strategies
and preference to fulfill their goals.
In crowdsourcing, participants can take two different ways to get their ideas adopted. On the one
hand, promotion-focused participants can try to reduce discrepancies between task requirement and
their work result. Therefore, they would be eager take commission errors and take more risks. On the
other hand, prevention-focused participants can try to avoid their work result violating firms’
requirements, therefore, they are eager to take omission errors and are more sensitive (Higgins 1998;
Higgins 2000). As different means to achieve goals, regulatory focus will affect individuals’ selective
information processing, and thus moderate the effect of motivation on task performance (Lanaj et al.
2012; Yoon et al. 2012). Specifically, under high information overload, individuals tend to rely on
information which is consistent with his regulatory focus. When performing creative tasks, people
always have a high information overload as they need to combine large amount of information into a
new and comprehensive idea. Promotion focused individuals usually rely on positive and potentially
useful information and prevention focused individuals usually rely on negative and task-related
information. Consequently, with different regulatory focus, participant’s motivation will trigger
different creative performance.
Previous research mainly regards regulatory focus as chronic characteristics which derive from
personality and culture (Higgins 1997; Higgins 2000). However, recent researches increasingly regard
regulatory focus as a psychology state that varies across different situations (Wallace et al. 2006).
Molden et al. (2009)also suggest that social exclusion (Being rejected vs. being ignored) will cause
different regulatory focus. Therefore, individuals possess both promotion focus and prevention focus,
and which one becoming salient depends on the motivations that stimulated by the situation
factors(Higgins 1997; Wallace et al. 2006). In this research, we mainly focus on promotion focus
because crowdsourcing aims to trigger and capture creativity ideas, thus highly encouraging and
tolerating novel or breakthrough ideas. This kind of environment will make promotion focus
conducive to extrinsic motivations’ influencing participants’ creativity.
3 HYPOTHESES
Figure 1. Hypotheses Testing Results
3.1 Extrinsic motivations and creativity
According to SDT, motivation stimulates people for initiating and persisting at behaviors to the
extent that they believe their effort would lead to a desired outcome (Deci et al. 2000). In
crowdsourcing context, extrinsic motivation would positively affect participant’s creative performance.
As crowdsourcing is a completely open platform, there is no constrain or restriction imposed on
participants. They participate in crowdsourcing simply because of they want to get something they
expect from this community. Sauermann et al. (2010) suggest that extrinsic rewards can drive
participants to improve their creative performance through two channels: quality of effort (i.e. the
number of hours worked) and character of effort (i.e. allocation of effort to different cognitive activity).
Burroughs and Eisenberger also proved that when extrinsic rewards were contingent on creativity,
individual creative performance would increase (Burroughs et al. 2011; Eisenberger et al. 1998).
Particularly, external motivation (most controlled motivation) drives participants to work hard to
generate creative ideas. In crowdsourcing communities, rewards are outcome-oriented and contingent
on creativity. In order to get the expected rewards, such as money or job opportunities, participants
must contribute creative ideas that can satisfy firm’s requirement. This is especially true when firms
reward for only several best ideas. If the ideas contributed can’t meet the organization’s requirements,
the participant is not going to get the expected reward. Kahai et al. (2003) found that individual
rewards could reduce social lofting and facilitate the generation of original ideas in electronic meeting
systems. With external motivation, participants usually choose tasks that they are familiar with and
feel competent about. In order to satisfy the reward requirements, they will try to search task-related
information and combine it with their expertise to generate new solutions. According to Volf and
Tarasova, monetary reward is more effective in activating creative ideas than verbal stimulus (Volf et
External
Motivation
Introjected
Motivation
Identified
Motivation
Integrated
Motivation
Creative
Performance
Promotion
Focus
Control variables
· Group Size
·Professional Experience
·Working Time
al. 2013). Furthermore, the relationship between external motivation and creative performance is also
supported by prior studies(Burroughs et al. 2011; Eisenberger et al. 1998). Therefore, we have the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1a: External motivation is positively related to creative performance in the
crowdsourcing community.
With introjected motivation, a participant wants to get recognition from peers and demonstrate
his ability in crowdsourcing community. According to achieved status theory, one’s reputation is
determined by his contribution and achievement (Gould 2002). In crowdsourcing communities, a
participant’s reputation and status is ranked by only one indicator — the number of creative ideas
adopted by firms. In order to develop recognition, the participant must increase his number and rate of
adopted ideas. In this situation, they would try their best to generate creative ideas, work harder and
try different cognitive effort. Moreover, Gong et al. (2012) posit that ability proving would lead to the
generation and contribution of creative ideas. With ability proving motivation, participants tend to
share task-related information and accept useful suggestions from others. It is established in the
knowledge management literature that exchanging of knowledge and ideas would provide individuals
the opportunity to access previously unreachable knowledge or combine previously uncombined
knowledge, therefore, generating more creative ideas. Hence, we have the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1b: Introjected motivation is positively related to creative performance in the
crowdsourcing community.
Identified motivation is a relative self-determined motivation. It refers to participants’ idetifying
the crowdsourcing community or firm’s value as his own. Myer et al. (2004) argued that identification
with an organization usually leads to an affective commitment to that organization. With a strong
affective commitment, participants would adjust his goal in accordance with the community’s
goals(Johnson et al. 2010; Meyer et al. 2012). With identified motivation, participants will show
significant organizational citizenship behavior and not care about personal gain or loss (Carr et al.,
2003). Furthermore, to generate creative ideas, it takes a lot of time and energy to solve specific
problem for the community. That is, when identifying the value of the crowdsourcing community,
participants would feel their efforts are worthy (Oldham & Cummings, 1996) and are thus willing to
expend effort to attain the community goals (Ackfeldt & Coote, 2005). Thus, we have the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1c: Identified motivation is positively related to creative performance in the
crowdsourcing community.
With integrated motivation, an individual integrates the crowdsourcing community’s core value
(i.e. express creative ideas freely, help others) as one important part of himself. Participants feel the
community provides a good place for them to express unconventional thoughts without any concern.
They regard their participation in the crowdsourcing community as very important and meaningful. As
a result, integrated motivation will inspire participants’ flexible cognitive effort that would lead to
creative ideas. So we have the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1d: Integrated motivation is positively related to creative performance in the
crowdsourcing community.
3.2 Promotion focus and creativity
Generating creative ideas needs flexible cognitive style that encourages individuals to take risk
by violating the conventional way of seeking novel problem solutions (Baer et al. 2003; Kirton et al.
1994; Tierney et al. 2004), such as Steve Jobs’s providing revolutionary IPhone to challenge the
traditional definition of mobile phones. However, this creative behavior is more likely to happen when
the individual has a promotion focus. In the crowdsourcing context, regulatory focus refers to
participants’ try to achieve ideal self with approach methods. With promotion focus, individuals are
eager to try different ways to solve problem even if they will take commission error (Crowe et al.
1997). As they are sensitive to presence and absence of good outcomes, they tend to have an
exploratory orientation and are open to novel information (Friedman et al. 2001; Liberman et al. 1999).
Hence, when solving problems, promotion focused individuals usually access a variety of knowledge
and try different combinations of different types of knowledge. They are more likely to generate more
alternatives. A number of studies have proved the positive relationship between promotion focus and
creative performance (Crowe et al. 1997; Friedman et al. 2001; Neubert et al. 2008; Wu et al. 2008).
What’s more, promotion focus also stimulates a positive emotion which is very important to individual
creativity (Carver et al. 2000).
In addition, creative tasks are usually complex and uncertain. When performing creative task, it’s
very natural for participants to run into obstacles. Promotion focus would lead the individual to persist
and invest more physical, cognitive and emotional resource in these tasks (Kahn 1990). According to
Higgins, promotion-focused individuals prefer to overcome difficulty and challenge as it will make
them develop and grow (Higgins 1997). Crowe et al. (1997) also suggest promotion focused
individuals would perform better when they experience failure or interruption. Therefore, we have the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Promotion focus is positively related to creative performance in the crowdsourcing
community.
3.3 Moderating effect of promotion focus
In prior research, there is some evidence suggesting that extrinsic reward would (i.e. money,
reputation, social status) undermine creativity (Amabile 1985; Amabile 1997). Extrinsic rewards are
believed to decrease creativity by reducing intrinsic motivation (i.e. individual’s interest in the task
itself). It has motivated a lot of studies to investigate how and why extrinsic rewards undermine
individual creative performance. For example, Hennessey and colleagues conducted an experiment
and found that when emphasized the intrinsic aspect of performing well, student with extrinsic reward
showed higher creativity than student with no rewards. Burroughs et al. (2011) also found that with
creative training, extrinsic rewards would increase employee’s creativity. These studies speculate that
the effect of extrinsic rewards on creativity is affected by individual’s understanding of extrinsic
rewards’ role in creative process. Rewards can be regarded either as constrain (external control on his
behavior) or informational (i.e. providing positive information).
Promotion focused people tend to perceived extrinsic rewards as informational as they are more
sensitive to positive outcomes. The desire for good outcomes will make participants put more effort to
get expected rewards in crowdsourcing communities. According to expectancy theory, one individual’s
decision on whether to take a task and how much effort to contribute depends on one judgment: how
important the reward is important to him. With different external motivations, participants want to get
different rewards, such as money, reputation, sense of belonging, or satisfaction of self. With
promotion focus, participants would emphasize on these rewards. With the orientation toward realizing
the ideal self and pursuing achievements, these participants would give these external motivations
more meaning and will derive psychological satisfaction from creative outcomes.
Moreover, according to regulatory focus theory, individual prefer to take action and expend more
effort when the task fits their regulatory focus orientation (Higgins2000). A lot of research has argued
that individuals with promotion focus are most motivated by positive information (Lockwood et al.
2002). Cesario and Higgins (2008), and Kim (2006) confirmed this result in their research that they
found people with promotion focus are more easily persuaded by positive nonverbal cues and
messages about possible gains. Chatterjee found the moderating role of regulatory focus on the
positive advertisement information and brand evaluation (Chatterjee et al. 2010). Pierro et al also
proved that promotion focus would act as moderator in the relationship between leadership and
followers’ satisfaction (Pierro, 2009). Specifically, Zhou et al found the interactive effect of promotion
focus and context stimulation (Zhou et al 2012). In crowdsourcing communities, individuals with
extrinsic motivation would regard all the possible rewards such as financial rewards and career
advancement as what they may gain from their participation, which allow them to sense a fit between
the tasks and their orientation. Therefore, given the same level of extrinsic motivation, promotion
focus would mobilize the individual to exert more effort and thus lead to higher creative performance
outcomes in the crowdsourcing communities. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3a: Promotion focus strengthens the relationship between external motivation and
creative performance in the crowdsourcing community.
Hypothesis 3b: Promotion focus strengthens the relationship between introjected motivation and
creative performance in the crowdsourcing community.
Hypothesis 3c: Promotion focus strengthens the relationship between identified motivation and
creative performance in the crowdsourcing community.
Hypothesis 3d: Promotion focus strengthens the relationship between integrated motivation and
creative performance in the crowdsourcing community.
4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Data collection
In order to test our research model, we conducted a survey to collect data. The biggest
crowdsourcing community in China, Zhubajie.com, was chosen as our research context. Zhubajie is a
third-party platform in which any registered company or individual can post their tasks in the form of
an open call and provide some rewards for the tasks. Participants can contribute their ideas or
solutions under each task. After the deadline, firms or individuals will choose solutions that best
satisfy their requirements and give rewards to the contributors. We post our survey announcement in
Zhubajie, inviting participants who have ever participated in creative tasks to fill out the questionnaire.
At the beginning of questionnaire, we provide a detailed introduction that describe the purpose and
requirement of our survey, and assure that all the information will be kept strictly confidential. As a
token of appreciation, we pay 20 RMB for complete questionnaire. Finally, we received 204 responses
and 2 responses were disregarded due to respondents never participate in creative tasks.
4.2 Measurement
All the items in our questionnaire were adapted from validated scales in prior studies. As all the
items are derived from Western culture, we used standard translation and back translation method to
ensure the scales’ face validity in Chinese context. Before formal investigation, we sent our
questionnaire to 10 crowdsourcing participants. They filled out the questionnaire and report a few
unclear or inappropriate questions. After two times revision and improvement, we released our
questionnaire on Sojump.com. Four categorizes of motivation were measured on the basis of extant
literature (Allen et al. 1996; Amabile 1993; Becker et al. 1996). A sample item reads, “I am strongly
motivated by the money I can earn through performing tasks in this community”. Promotion focus was
adapted from Haws et al. (2010). A sample item reads “When I seen an opportunity for performing
tasks, I get excited right away”. Creativity was measure on the basis of Tierney et al. (1999). A sample
item reads “My solution provides new perspective for this kind of tasks”. Table 3 shows the
descriptive statistics of the variables.
Construct Min Max Mean Std. Deviation
External Motivation 1.25 7.00 4.72 1.02
Introjected Motivation 1.00 7.00 4.70 1.10
Identified Motivation 3.00 7.00 5.17 0.83
Integrated Motivation 2.00 7.00 4.82 0.96
Promotion Focus 3.75 7.00 5.70 0.82
Creative Performance 2.25 7.00 4.84 0.74
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Variables
4.3 Common methods bias
As all the data are subjective and collected from one single source, common method bias may
become a serious issue due to participants’ halo effect or leniency biases (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Like
most research, we adopt most widely used Harman’s single factor method to test whether there is
common method bias in our measurement. The result showed that there were six constructs whose
eigenvalues were greater than 1 and they accounted for 76.09% of total variance. The first construct
accounted only 32.94% of the total variance. Hence, the result demonstrated that there was no serious
common method bias in this research.
5 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT
We take two steps to conduct our data analysis. First, we used confirmatory factors analysis to
test reliability and validity of our measurement. Second, we used multi-regression analysis with SPSS
to examine our research hypotheses.
5.1 Measurement model
To test our measurement model, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis to assess the
reliability and validity of all the constructs. Reliability was assessed by the Cronbach’s alpha. As
Barclay et al. (1995) suggested that Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7 indicated a good reliability. As shown
in Table4, all constructs’ Cronbach’s alpha were greater than 0.7. Hence, we could conclude that our
measurement had a good reliability.
Construct validity contained two dimensions: convergent validity and discriminant validity.
Convergent validity was assessed by (1) Composite reliability (2) Average variance extracted (AVE) (3)
Item loadings. Composite reliability of each construct should be higher than 0.7, and all the constructs
satisfied this standard as shown in Tale 4. Ave captures the amount of variance that explained by its
indicators. Fornell et al. (1981) suggested that AVE above 0.5 indicated a good convergent validity.
The CFA results showed that all constructs AVE were greater than 0.6. In addition, items belonging to
the same construct should correlate with each other highly. Our analysis results also satisfied this
requirement. Hence, all three conditions were satisfied by our measurement, indicating a good internal
consistency and convergent reliability.
Discriminant validity was assessed through two ways. First, according to Fornell and Larcker, the
square root of AVE should be greater than the correlation coefficient between the corresponding
construct and other constructs(Fornell et al. 1981). In table 4, the numbers on diagonal are square root
of AVE, and the off-diagonal are the correlation coefficient between constructs. From the results, we
can see all the diagonal numbers are much higher than off-diagonal numbers. Therefore, there is good
discriminant validity. Second, item loading on its corresponding construct should be much higher than
on other construct. Based on Gefen’s recommendation, it’s better that the difference between item
loading on corresponding construct and other construct should be more than 0.10 (Gefen et al. 2005).
As shown in Table 5, all the item loadings higher than 0.72 while item cross loadings are lower than
0.50. So we can confirm good validity of our measurement.
Constructs Cronbach’s Alpha
Composite Reliability
AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 External Motivation
0.78 0.86 0.60 0.77
2 Introjected Motivation
0.88 0.91 0.72 0.37 0.85
3 Identified Motivation
0.86 0.91 0.78 0.27 0.48 0.88
4 Integrated Motivation
0.86 0.91 0.78 0.35 0.46 0.49 0.88
5 Promotion Focus
0.88 0.92 0.73 0.24 0.24 0.41 0.37 0.85
6 Creative Performance
0.83 0.90 0.75 0.38 0.20 0.49 0.43 0.43 0.87
Table 4. Internal Consistency and Discriminant Validity of Constructs
External
Motivation
Introjected
Motivation
Identified
Motivation
Integrated
Motivation
Promotion
Focus
Creative
Performance
EXTE_2 0.78 0.45 0.26 0.29 0.17 0.27
EXTE_3 0.83 0.32 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.39
EXTE_4 0.72 0.22 0.13 0.26 0.05 0.19
EXTE_5 0.76 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.12 0.27
INTR_1 0.34 0.85 0.39 0.33 0.23 0.22
INTR_2 0.24 0.82 0.39 0.42 0.24 0.10
INTR_3 0.35 0.89 0.49 0.45 0.18 0.17
INTR_4 0.30 0.84 0.36 0.41 0.18 0.16
IDEN_2 0.30 0.45 0.90 0.47 0.41 0.52
IDEN_3 0.20 0.39 0.86 0.38 0.34 0.38
IDEN_4 0.18 0.43 0.88 0.43 0.32 0.36
INTE_2 0.38 0.39 0.35 0.87 0.31 0.37
INTE_3 0.27 0.39 0.43 0.92 0.33 0.43
INTE_4 0.27 0.47 0.52 0.86 0.34 0.32
PRMF_2 0.23 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.82 0.34
PRMF_3 0.18 0.22 0.38 0.31 0.85 0.32
PRMF_4 0.17 0.20 0.37 0.37 0.88 0.41
PRMF_5 0.25 0.16 0.37 0.29 0.88 0.39
CRPF_2 0.41 0.16 0.37 0.30 0.35 0.85
CRPF_3 0.28 0.18 0.47 0.40 0.38 0.88
CRPF_4 0.30 0.19 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.87
Table 5. Cross Loading of Measurement Items to Latent Variables
5.2 Structural model
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a series of multi-regression analysis. In model 1, we only
include control variables to predict participant creative performance. In model 2, we include control
variables, extrinsic motivations and promotion focus to predict participant creative performance. In
model 3, we include interactions of promotion focus and different motivations into model 2. From the
table 6, we can see that model 2 has a much higher variance explain power than model 1 with
R2=0.426. The F value of comparison between model 1 and model 2 is 13.542. Also model 3 has a
much higher variance explain power than model 2 with R2=0.511. The F value of comparison between
model 2 and model 3 is 12.383. Taken together, there multi-regression analysis result provide solid
evidence to test our hypotheses.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Coefficient T-Value Sig. Coefficient T-Value Sig. Coefficient T-Value Sig.
Group Size 0.028 0.347 0.729 -0.014 -0.219 0.827 -0.015 -0.246 0.806
EXPINF 0.175 2.131 0.035 0.217 3.333 0.001 0.235 3.846 0.000
Work
Time
-0.066 -0.800 0.425 -0.109 -1.688 0.094 -0.080 -1.298 0.196
External
Motivation
(EXTE)
0.220 3.200 0.002 0.164 2.406 0.017
Introjected
Motivation
(INTR)
-0.211 -2.743 0.007 -0.170 -2.150 0.033
Identified
Motivation
(IDEN)
0.340 4.326 0.000 0.254 3.247 0.001
Integrated
Motivation
(INTE)
0.195 2.468 0.015 0.150 1.986 0.049
Promotion
Focus
(PMF)
0.253 3.561 0.000 0.301 4.405 0.000
EXTE*PM
F
0.148 2.109 0.037
INTR*PM
F
-0.103 -1.162 0.247
IDEN*PM
F
0.270 3.273 0.001
INTE*PM
F
0.039 0.454 0.650
R2 0.031 0.426 0.511
Adjust R2 0.011 0.395 0.470
F 1.586 13.542*** 12.383*** Note: *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001. EXTE refers to external motivation. INTR refers to introjected motivation. IDEN
refers to identified motivation. INTE refers to integrated motivation. PMF refers to promotion focus.
Table 6. Multi-Regression Analyses Results
From model 2, we can see that only one control variable experience in professional field (β=
0.217, p≤0.001) has a positive effect on participant’s creative performance. Regarding to effect of
extrinsic motivation on creative performance, not all the effects are as same as supposed. External
motivation (β= 0.217, p<0.001), identified motivation (β= 0.340, p<0.001), integrated motivation (β=
0.195, p<0.01) have a positive effect on participant’s creative performance. Therefore, hypotheses 1a,
1c, 1d are supported. However, introjected motivation (β= -0.211, p<0.01) have a negative effect on
participant creative performance. Hence, Hypotheses 1b are not supported. Furthermore, the
participant’s promotion focus (β= 0.253, p<0.001) also has a positive effect on participants’ creative
performance, supporting hypotheses 2.
To test the moderating effect of promotion focus, we add interaction variable of promotion focus
and extrinsic motivation into regression model. As shown in Table 6, the three interaction variables
significantly increase the R square from 42.6% to 51.1% (with an increase of 8.5%, and F=12.383,
p<0.001). Also, the results of model 3 shows that the interaction item of external motivation and
promotion focus (β= 0.148, p<0.05) is significant, thus providing support to hypotheses 3a. The
interaction item of introjected motivation and promotion focus (β= -0.103, p>0. 1) and the interaction
item of integrated motivation and promotion focus (β= 0.039, p>0.1) are not significant. Therefore, the
positive moderate effects of promotion focus on the relationship between introjected motivation
(integrated motivation) and creative performance are not supported. The interaction item of identified
motivation and promotion focus (β= 0.270, p≤0.001) is significant, hence, supporting the positive
moderating effect of promotion focus on the relationship between integrated motivation and creative
performance.
Figure 2. Hypotheses Testing Results
6 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION
6.1 Implications for research and theory
Our research makes some important theoretical contributions. First, we made a distinction among
participant’s extrinsic motivations in open innovation communities. Our research review extent
crowdsourcing research and identified factors that motivate people’s participating online communities.
Prior IS research generally regards extrinsic motivation as a broad category of participate motivation
and measure it by the extent of desire to get compensation. Although this measurement assesses the
quantity of extrinsic motivation, it doesn’t reflect the different nature of various motivations. This
research is the first to provide a framework to classify manifold motivations identified by increasingly
crowdsourcing research. According to SDT, we provide a framework to sort extrinsic motivations into
four types: external motivation, introjected motivation, identified motivation and integrated
motivation(Deci et al. 2000; Ryan et al. 2000b). This classification enriches our understanding of the
influencing mechanism of motivation on creativity.
Second, we investigate creative performance in the open innovation communities. As
crowdsourcing is a new type of online community, most research mainly focus on how to attract
people to participate. Although the number of members and their participation behavior is very
important for community continuance, only creative ideas can provide firms with innovation
opportunity. Prior IS research investigates user’s innovative use of IS or how IS increase individual’s
general performance, but hardly pays attention to user’s creative performance. To the best of our
knowledge, our research makes the first attempt to investigate the different effect of various extrinsic
motivations on creative performance.
External
Motivation
Introjected
Motivation
Identified
Motivation
Integrated
Motivation
Creative
Performance
Promotion
Focus
+/+
+/-
+/+
+/+ +/+
+/+
+/o
+/+
+/o
Control variables
· Group Size
·Professional Experience
·Working Time
Note:
+/+: Hypothesized positive and empirically positive
+/—: Hypothesized positive and empirically negative
+/o: Hypothesized positive and empirically no effect
Moreover, as one of few studies to explore the relationship between motivations and creativity by
taking promotion focus into consideration, our study reveals that types of extrinsic motivations have
different effects on creative performance and their effects are moderated by participants’ regulatory
focus, promotion focus in particular. Such findings are quite different from previous researches which
argue that extrinsic motivation would decrease individual creativity. But they are consistent with what
is suggested by Hennessey and Burroughs (Burroughs et al. 2011; Hennessey et al. 1989), namely
extrinsic motivation’s effect is contingent upon individuals’ psychological orientation and
interpretation of the creative process.
6.2 Implications for practice
This study investigates the relationship between motivations and creative performance. We have
shown that not all the extrinsic motivation would enhance participant’s creative performance in
crowdsourcing communities. In particular, external motivation, identified motivation and integrated
motivation have positive effect while introjected motivation has negative effect. In order to facilitate
participants’ generating creative ideas, firms could increase financial incentives or the number of
winners to activate participant’s strong external motivation. In order to decrease participants’
introjected motivation, firms should try to avoid emphasizing the responsibility or setting too many
detail requirements in their task call. Moreover, SDT suggest that perceived needs (autonomy,
competence, relatedness) could lead to identified motivation and integrated motivation. Some simple
and easy task will help participants feel confident in finishing task and increase their enthusiasm.
While a convenient and rich-media communication tools could decrease the psychological distance of
participants. They would develop a close relationship with others and trust the community. Also firms
should not set threshold for their tasks, so participants can choose any tasks freely. In this situation,
they would feel great autonomy when performing tasks.
In addition, firms should also understand the positive effect of participant’s promotion focus,
which strengthen the positive effect of external motivation and identified motivation on creativity.
Currently, firms usually hold one-time innovation contest in which participants contribute ideas and
firms choose best ideas. Participants usually are concerned about whether their work are fairly
evaluated. If firms can interact with participants and give them feedback timely, participants can
understand that their efforts are valued by firms and learn how to adjust their work outcomes. Such
interactions would satisfy participants’ need for growth and self-development, which would help
nurture a strong promotion focus and improve creative performance in crowdsourcing communities.
6.3 Limitations and future research
It’s important to recognize that our research has some limitations, which also predict the future
research direction. First, all the data are collected from one single crowdsourcing community, which
would limit our result’s external validity. Although conduct survey in a single context can alleviate
confound variable’s influence and increase research rigor, the relationship between extrinsic
motivation and creative performance my not hold in other crowdsourcing community. In the future, we
can conduct a cross-sectional research increase the generalizability of our finding.
Second, all though all the items are adapted from validated scales, the data are self-reported by
participants, leading to possible common method bias. We have used Herman’s one-factor analysis to
check this problem and found no serious problem. In the future, we can collect objective data to
measure participant’s creative performance or let firms to evaluate their creativity.
Third, we collect all the data from participant at one time. The causal relationship between
motivation and creativity can’t be observed. In the future, we would conduct a longitudinal study to
offer information on how the variation of motivations affects participant’s creative performance across
time, and how crowdsourcing environment affect participant’s motivation.
References
Afuah, A., and Tucci, C. L. 2012. "CROWDSOURCING AS A SOLUTION TO DISTANT
SEARCH," Academy of Management Review (37:3) Jul, pp 355-375.
Allen, N. J., and Meyer, J. P. 1996. "Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity," Journal of vocational behavior (49:3), pp
252-276.
Amabile, T. M. 1985. "Motivation and creativity:effects of motivational orientation on creative
writers," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (48:2), pp 393-399.
Amabile, T. M. 1993. "Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation in the workplace," Human Resource Management Review (3:3), pp 185-201.
Amabile, T. M. 1997. "Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what
you do," California management review (40:1), pp 39-58.
Archak, N. Year. "Money, glory and cheap talk: analyzing strategic behavior of contestants in
simultaneous crowdsourcing contests on TopCoder. com," 19th international conference on
World wide web2010, pp. 21-30.
Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. 2003. "Rewarding creativity: when does it really
matter?," The Leadership Quarterly (14:4), pp 569-586.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., and Thompson, R. 1995. "{The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal
modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration}," Technology studies (2:2) //,
pp 285-309.
Battistella, C., and Nonino, F. 2012. "Open innovation web-based platforms: The impact of different
forms of motivation on collaboration," Innovation-Management Policy & Practice (14:4) Dec,
pp 557-575.
Bayus, B. L. 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm
Community," Management Science (59:1) Jan, pp 226-244.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., and Gilbert, N. L. 1996. "Foci and bases of employee
commitment: Implications for job performance," Academy of management journal (39:2), pp
464-482.
Blohm, I., Bretschneider, U., Leimeister, J. M., and Krcmar, H. 2011. "Does collaboration among
participants lead to better ideas in IT-based idea competitions? An empirical investigation,"
International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations (9:2), pp 106-122.
Bloodgood, J. 2013. "Crowdsourcing: Useful for Problem Solving, But What About Value Capture?,"
Academy of Management Review (38:3), pp 455-457.
Boudreau, K. J. 2012. "Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app
developers and patterns of innovation," Organization Science (23:5), pp 1409-1427.
Boudreau, K. J., and Lakhani, K. R. 2013. "Using the Crowd as an Innovation Partner," Harvard
Business Review (91:4) Apr, pp 60-+.
Brabham, D. C. 2008. "Moving the crowd at iStockphoto: The composition of the crowd and
motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application," First Monday (13:6).
Brabham, D. C. 2010. "Moving the Crowd at Threadless," Information, Communication & Society
(13:8), pp 1122-1145.
Burroughs, J. E., Dahl, D. W., Moreau, C. P., Chattopadhyay, A., and Gorn, G. J. 2011. "Facilitating
and rewarding creativity during new product development," Journal of Marketing (75:4), pp
53-67.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., and Scheier, M. F. 2000. "Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging
conceptual integration," Personality and social psychology bulletin (26:6), pp 741-751.
Connell, J. P., and Wellborn, J. G. 1991. "Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational
analysis of self-system processes,").
Crowe, E., and Higgins, E. T. 1997. "Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and
prevention in decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(69:2), pp 117-132.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. 2000. "The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-
determination of behavior," Psychological Inquiry (11:4), pp 227-268.
DiPalantino, D., and Vojnovic, M. 2009. "Crowdsourcing and all-pay auctions," in 10th ACM
conference on electronic commerce.
Dodge, M., and Kitchin, R. 2013. "Crowdsourced cartography: mapping experience and knowledge,"
Environment and Planning A (45:1) Jan, pp 19-36.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., and Pretz, J. 1998. "Can the promise of reward increase creativity?,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (74:3), p 704.
Estelles-Arolas, E., and Gonzalez-Ladron-de-Guevara, F. 2012. "Towards an integrated
crowdsourcing definition," Journal of Information Science (38:2) Apr, pp 189-200.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. 1981. "Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error," Journal of marketing research), pp 39-50.
Franke, N., Keinz, P., and Klausberger, K. 2012. ""Does This Sound Like a Fair Deal?": Antecedents
and Consequences of Fairness Expectations in the Individual's Decision to Participate in Firm
Innovation," Organization Science).
Friedman, R. S., and Forster, J. 2001. "The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (81:6), pp 1001-1013.
Gagne, M., and Deci, E. L. 2005. "Self-determination theory and work motivation," Journal of
Organizational Behavior (26), pp 331-362.
Gefen, D., and Straub, D. 2005. "A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and
annotated example," Communications of the Association for Information Systems (16:1), p 109.
Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., and Zhu, J. 2012. "A Multilevel Model of Team Goal Orientation,
Information Exchange, and Creativity," Academy of Management Journal (56:3), pp 827-851.
Grolnick, W. S., and Ryan, R. M. 1987. "Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and
individual difference investigation," Journal of Personality and social Psychology (52:5), p
890.
Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M., and Bearden, W. O. 2010. "An Assessment of Chronic Regulatory
Focus Measures," Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) (47:5), pp 967-982.
Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T. M., and Martinage, M. 1989. "Immunizing children against the
negative effects of reward," Contemporary Educational Psychology (14:3), pp 212-227.
Higgins, E. T. 1997. "Beyond pleasure and pain," American psychologist (52:12), pp 1280-1300.
Higgins, E. T. 1998. "Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as A Motivational Principle," (30),
pp 1-46.
Higgins, E. T. 2000. "Making a good decision: Value from fit," American psychologist (55:11) Nov,
pp 1217-1230.
Horton, J. J., and Chilton, L. B. 2010. "The labor economics of paid crowdsourcing," in Proceedings
of the 11th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pp. 209-218.
Hossain, M. 2012. "Users' motivation to participate in online crowdsourcing platforms," in 2012
International Conference on Innovation, Management and Technology Research: Malacca,
Malaysia, pp. 310-315.
Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., and Wu, F. 2009. "Crowdsourcing, attention and productivity,"
Journal of Information Science (35:6) Dec, pp 758-765.
Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H., and Yang, L. Q. 2010. "Commitment and motivation at work: The
relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus," Academy of Management Review (35:2),
pp 226-245.
Judge, T. A., and Ilies, R. 2002. "Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-
analytic review," Journal of Applied Psychology (87:4), pp 797-807.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., and Avolio, B. J. 2003. "Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards
on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context," The
Leadership Quarterly (14:4-5), pp 499-524.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. "Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work,"
Academy of management journal (33:4), pp 692-724.
Kaikati, A. M., and Kaikati, J. G. 2013. "Doing business without exchanging money: The scale and
creativity of modern barter," California management review (55:2), pp 46-71.
Kirton, M. J., and Kirton, M. J. 1994. Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem
solving, (Routledge London.
Kosonen, M., Gan, C., Olander, H., and Blomqvist, K. 2013. "My Idea Is Our Idea! Supporting User-
Driven Innovation Activities in Crowdsourcing Communities," International Journal of
Innovation Management (17:03), p 1340010.
Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., and Johnson, R. E. 2012. "Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: a
review and meta-analysis," Psychol Bull (138:5) Sep, pp 998-1034.
Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., and Krcmar, H. 2009. "Leveraging Crowdsourcing:
Activation-Supporting Components for IT-Based Ideas Competition," Journal of Management
Information Systems (26:1) Sum, pp 197-224.
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., and Higgins, E. T. 1999. "Promotion and prevention
choices between stability and change," Journal of personality and social psychology (77:6), p
1135.
Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. 2004. "What should we do about motivation theory? Six
recommendations for the twenty-first century," Academy of Management Review (29:3), pp
388-403.
Majchrzak, A., and Malhotra, A. 2013. "Towards an information systems perspective and research
agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation," The Journal of Strategic Information Systems
(22:4), pp 257-268.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., and Parfyonova, N. M. 2012. "Employee commitment in context: The
nature and implication of commitment profiles," Journal of Vocational Behavior (80:1), pp 1-
16.
Miserandino, M. 1996. "Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived
competence and autonomy in above-average children," Journal of Educational Psychology
(88:2), p 203.
Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Gardner, W. L., Dean, K., and Knowles, M. L. 2009. "Motivations for
prevention or promotion following social exclusion: being rejected versus being ignored,"
Journal of personality and social psychology (96:2) Feb, pp 415-431.
Myer, J. P., Becker, T. E., and Vandenberghe, C. 2004. "Employee commitment and motivation: a
conceptual analysis and integrative model," Journal of Applied Psychology (89:6) Dec, pp
991-1007.
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 servant leadership on employee
behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology (93:6), p 1220.
Olson, D. L., and Rosacker, K. 2012. "Crowdsourcing and open source software participation,"
Service Business (7:4), pp 499-511.
Organisciak, P. 2010. Why bother? Examining the motivations of users in large-scale crowd-powered
online initiatives, University of Alberta.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. "Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies," J Appl
Psychol (88:5) Oct, pp 879-903.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. 2000a. "Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions," Contemporary educational psychology (25:1), pp 54-67.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. 2000b. "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being," American psychologist (50:1), pp 68-78.
Sauermann, H., and Cohen, W. M. 2010. "What Makes Them Tick? Employee Motives and Firm
Innovation," Management Science (56:12), pp 2134-2153.
Stewart, O., Lubensky, D., and Huerta, J. M. 2010. "Crowdsourcing participation inequality: a
SCOUT model for the enterprise domain," in ACM Workshop on Human Computation, pp.
30-33.
Tierney, P., and Farmer, S. M. 2004. "The Pygmalion process and employee creativity," Journal of
Management (30:3), pp 413-432.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., and Graen, G. B. 1999. "An examination of leadership and employee
creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships," Personnel Psychology (52:3), pp 591-620.
Vallerand, R. J., and Blssonnette, R. 1992. "Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors
of behavior: A prospective study," Journal of Personality (60:3), pp 599-620.
Volf, N. V., and Tarasova, I. B. 2013. "The influence of reward on the performance of verbal creative
tasks: Behavioral and EEG effects," Human Physiology (39:3), pp 302-308.
Wallace, C., and Chen, G. 2006. "A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regualtion, and
performance," Personnel Psychology (59:3), pp 529-557.
Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J., and Yi, X. 2008. "The influence of leader regulatory focus on
employee creativity," Journal of Business Venturing (23:5), pp 587-602.
Yoon, Y., Sarial-Abi, G., and Gürhan-Canli, Z. 2012. "Effect of Regulatory Focus on Selective
Information Processing," Journal of Consumer Research (39:1), pp 93-110.
Zhao, Y. X., and Zhu, Q. H. Year. "Exploring the Motivation of Participants in Crowdsourcing
Contest," Thirty third international conference on Information Systems, Orlando, 2012.
Zheng, H. C., Li, D. H., and Hou, W. H. 2011. "Task Design, Motivation, and Participation in
Crowdsourcing Contests," International Journal of Electronic Commerce (15:4) Sum, pp 57-
88.