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, zlfiy123@gmail.com

Weiling KeClarkson University, wke@clarkson.edu

Jinlong ZhangSchool of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, prozhangjl@gmail.com

Kwok Kee WeiCity University of Hong Kong, isweikk@cityu.edu.hk

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 elibrary@aisnet.org.

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, zlfiy123@gmail.com

Weiling Ke, School of Business, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, USA,

wke@clarkson.edu

Jinlong Zhang, School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,

Wuhan, Hubei, China, prozhangjl@gmail.com

Kwok Kee, Wei, Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong, Hong

Kong, isweikk@cityu.edu.hk

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.