Creativity Motivated: New Investigations of Creativity's Motivational Antecedents and Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creativity, the generation of novel and useful ideas, is central to organizational activity and performance. When trying to encourage creativity in others, a common piece of advice is to “think outside-of-the-box”. Although well intentioned, it reveals little about how individuals should go about stimulating their own creative thinking and creative idea generation. To address this gap, the current symposium focuses on intrapersonal motivators of creativity, and employs a diverse mix of laboratory, survey, and field studies. The symposium first explores three intrapersonal motivators of creativity - beliefs about creativity, phenomenological experience, and self-regulatory resource depletion - and then explores how creativity itself can motivate other types of novel and valuable behavior. First, Lucas and Nordgren explore the accuracy of people’s beliefs about creativity over time and how these beliefs motivate creativity. Next, Huang demonstrates how a phenomenological experience - mind-body dissonance - can motivate creativity and problem solving. Third, Chou, Ruttan, and Rong investigate when self- regulatory depletion promotes and when it impairs creativity. Finally, Kouchaki and Vincent demonstrate how creativity can motivate employee voice, a novel and valuable behavior. By demonstrating new motivational antecedents and consequences of creativity, we gain a better understanding of how individuals can stimulate their own creativity and identify potential areas for future research and theory building. Novelty Neglect: The Misunderstood Relationship Between Time and Creativity Presenter: Brian Lucas; Chicago Booth School of Business Presenter: Loran F. Nordgren; Northwestern U. Talking Outside the Box: The Relationship between Creativity and Voice Presenter: Maryam Kouchaki; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management Presenter: Lynne C. Vincent; Syracuse U. Mind-Body Dissonance: A Catalyst to Creativity Presenter: Li Huang; INSEAD Drained yet Inspired: Resource Depletion Fuels Creativity Presenter: Eileen Y Chou; U. of Virginia Presenter: Rachel Ruttan; Northwestern U. Presenter: Yan Rong; Tsinghua U.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".