Toward a Stronger Motivational Theory of Innovative Performance

Phillip Lawrence Gilmore

Advisor: Lois E Tetrick, PhD, Department of Psychology

Committee Members: Louis Buffardi, Stephen Zaccaro

April 18, 2013, 02:00 PM to 11:00 AM

Abstract:

Three prominent but incompatible hypotheses exist describing how to motivate innovative performance through the use of social expectations and/or rewards: the intrinsic motivation principle of creativity (Amabile, 1990), the reward for creativity hypothesis (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996) and the creative self-efficacy hypothesis (Tierney & Farmer, 2002).  This study contrasts these hypotheses and identifies a practical test for falsifying one or more of them.  Results from a randomized, controlled, intervention-style laboratory study with university students (N = 209) falsified the creative self-efficacy hypothesis and indicated a need for revision of the intrinsic motivation principle.  Theory revision is necessary to explain why contingent rewards motivate innovative performance but lose their impact when mixed with expectations to be innovative.  Revision is also necessary to explain why expectations can simultaneously increase intrinsic motivation while decreasing innovative performance.