Working Papers

R & D

PROMOTING CREATIVE NEW PRODUCT DESIGN: THE INFLUENCE OF INTRINSIC MOTIVATION, EXTRINSIC REWARDS, AND VISUALIZATION

by

P. MOREAU*

D. W. DAHL** A. CHATTOPADHYAY†

and G. J. GORN††

2001/95/MKT

* Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Edwin L. Cox School of Business, Southern MethodistUniversity, PO Box 750333, Dallas, TX 75275-0333, USA.

** Assistant Professor of Marketing at the I.H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba,

MB, Canada, R3T 2N2. † The l’Oréal Chaired Professor of Marketing, Innovation and Creativity, Professor of Marketing

at INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77305 Fontainebleau Cedex, France. †† Professor of Marketing at the School of Business and Management, Hong Kong University of

Science and Technology, Hong Kong. A working paper in the INSEAD Working Paper Series is intended as a means whereby a facultyresearcher's thoughts and findings may be communicated to interested readers. The paper should beconsidered preliminary in nature and may require revision. Printed at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

Promoting Creative New Product Design: The Influence of Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Rewards, and Visualization

Page Moreau Darren W. Dahl

Amitava Chattopadhyay Gerald J. Gorn*

* Page Moreau is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Edwin L. Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, PO Box 750333, Dallas, TX 75275-0333, Phone (214) 768-3180, Fax (214) 768-4099, pmoreau@mail.cox.smu.edu. Darren W. Dahl is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the I.H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba. Amitava Chattopadhyay is the L’Oreal Chaired Professor in Marketing- Innovation, and Creativity at INSEAD. Gerald J. Gorn is Professor of Marketing at the School of Business and Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The authors would like to thank Amanda Thomas for her assistance in running the design sessions. The authors would also like to acknowledge the valuable comments of Jacob Goldenberg, Roger Kerin, and Don Lehman on an earlier draft of this paper. The financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and R&D INSEAD is gratefully acknowledged.

1

Promoting Creative New Product Design:

The Influence of Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Rewards, and Visualization

Companies are well aware that their future success depends largely upon the development

of new products. Less obvious, however, is the way to achieve this objective

successfully. In our research, we examine three drivers likely to have an important

influence on the quality of new product ideas: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic rewards, and

the ability to visualize. We present and test a conceptual framework explaining the

influence of designers’ motivation and ability on the two essential components of

creativity - the originality and the usefulness - of their designs. Overall, the results

suggest that the three drivers differentially and interactively influence originality and

usefulness and that they do so by encouraging task enjoyment and effort.

2

Introduction

Developing a stream of successful new products is crucial to the survival and growth of

firms in today’s hypercompetitive environment, with firms expecting to generate an average of

45.6% of their revenues from products launched during the past five years (Griffin 1997a;

Product Development and Management Association 1997). Companies are well aware that their

future success depends largely upon the development of new products. Doing it successfully,

however, is another matter: Despite their importance, almost half of new products fail, a rate that

has remained unchanged for the past 25 years (Hultink, Hart, Robben, and Griffen 1997)!

New products fail for a variety of reasons, but the primary reason cited for a failure is a new

product’s inability to be perceived as unique (Crawford and Di Benedetto 2000). Managers

recognize that generating creative ideas lies at the heart of a successful NPD process (e.g., Cooper

2000; Dahl, Chattopadhyay and Gorn 1999; Sutton 2001). So much so that thinking “outside of the

box” followed only “the new millennium,” on the list of the most over-used clichés of 1999

(The Washington Post 1/03/2000). In an effort to improve managers’ abilities to think creatively,

well-established corporations have gone to great extremes and expense. Procter and Gamble, for

example, recently sent 22 members of its cosmetics product development team on a five-day

thinking expedition described as “an Outward Bound boot camp for the mind” designed to

demonstrate and teach more effective ideation techniques (Muoio 2000). Evidence supporting

the effectiveness of such adventures, however, is lacking. In fact, surprisingly little empirical

research has examined the drivers of creativity or identified the situational factors influencing the

development of creative ideas (Amabile 1996; Dahl et al. 1999).

3

Research in psychology has consistently linked three major factors to an individual’s

creative performance: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic rewards, and creative-thinking skills

(Amabile 1983). While the evidence suggests that intrinsic motivation is a strong, positive

predictor of creativity (Collins and Amabile 1999; Heinzen, Mills, and Cameron 1993; Shalley

and Perry-Smith 2001), the link between the second factor, extrinsic rewards, and creativity is far

more equivocal. For the third factor, creative thinking skills, a variety of approaches have been

suggested but there has been little effort to test their value empirically (Amabile 1983).

Further complicating the picture is the fact that creativity is widely conceptualized as a

combination of originality and usefulness (e.g., Amabile 1983, 1999; Deci and Ryan 1987;

Gardner 1993; Finke, Ward, and Smith 1992; Mumford and Gustafson 1988; Stokes 2001;

Unsworth 2001). While there is some theoretical evidence suggesting that certain personality

traits and environmental factors may differentially influence originality and usefulness (Collins

and Amabile 1999), no prior empirical research has systematically examined the effects of

intrinsic motivation, extrinsic rewards, and training on these two components of creativity.

Our research addresses this void, making both theoretical and practical contributions.

Theoretically, our conceptualization and the empirical test of the hypotheses that follow from it,

provide a better understanding of the creative design process and its outcome. Practically, we

demonstrate the independent and interactive influence of intrinsic task motivation, extrinsic

rewards, and visualization training on both the originality and usefulness of designs. Since

recent research has demonstrated that an employee’s motivational orientation towards their job is

relatively stable, tests of intrinsic motivation, using a straightforward screening test such as the

Work Preference Inventory (WPI), may be a key factor in hiring decisions (Amabile, Hill,

Hennessey and Tighe 1994). Extrinsic rewards and visualization training, clearly under direct

4

managerial control, can also be used to effectively enhance the quality of the new product design

process.

Our findings provide much needed guidance to managers, as firms across a variety of

industries and geographic regions do not seem to have a clear handle on whom to entrust creative

activities and how to obtain the most from these people. Our discussions with senior innovation

managers, including global and regional innovation heads at firms as diverse as Coca-Cola, Ford,

Ignition (industrial design), Procter and Gamble, Texas Instruments, and Unilever revealed

widely divergent and inconsistent views, in terms of individual characteristics of successful

innovators. While some believed that ‘anyone can be creative,’ others cited only age (young

more creative than old) and newness to the firm or industry as characteristics of successful

innovators. None mentioned intrinsic motivation as a characteristic, nor did they report using

any systematic screening technique (e.g., personality testing) for selecting members of NPD

teams. Indeed, the view of our interviewees is resonated in the comments of Bernard Arnault,

Chairman of LVMH, in a recent interview with the Harvard Business Review. Arnault noted

that selecting an artist with commercial instincts “takes years of practice - trial and error”

because it’s “buried in the DNA” (Wetlaufer 2001, p. 119).

When asked about rewards (extrinsic motivators) for innovation, these firms did not

report any incentive structures specifically tied to innovation, with one exception, where bonuses

of those in the innovation group were tied to specific annual innovation targets. Most

compensated their employees solely on a straight salary system.

In the following sections, we develop a model and specific hypotheses describing the

independent and interactive effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic rewards, and visualization

training on creativity. We then describe the empirical research undertaken and the results.

5

We end with a discussion of our findings, their implications for theory and practice, and the

limitations, which provide directions for future research.

Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

Despite recent research examining the relationship between motivation and creativity, the

question still remains as to whether different types of motivation have different effects on the

two components of creativity: originality and usefulness. In the following section, we present a

set of hypotheses suggesting that they do. At the core of our conceptual model is the premise

that intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards, differentially influence participants’ behavior

during a task (i.e., enjoyment and effort), which in turn, influences originality and usefulness.

Figure 1 shows the comprehensive model we propose and contains the links suggested by the

hypotheses.

--- Insert Figure 1 about here ---

Influencing the Design Process: the Effects of Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Rewards

Intrinsic Motivation. Intrinsic motivation is defined as an individual’s inner-directed

interest in a task because they perceive it to be innately challenging, involving, and/or satisfying

(Shalley and Perry-Smith 2001). Early motivation theorists suggested that intrinsic motivation

facilitated creativity because the motivated individual would become totally immersed in the

task, focusing more attention on the process at hand rather than on the outcome (Crutchfield

1962). More recent work (e.g., Collins and Amabile 1999) has continued to rely on this

explanation.

In our research, we agree that task immersion is likely to facilitate creative performance.

However, we propose that this is a limited explication of the outcome of intrinsic motivation.

Prior research hints that the observable outcomes of a high level of intrinsic motivation may be

6

multi-dimensional. For example, Albert (1990) examined a number of renowned inventors,

noting that many of them sought out and intentionally tackled the most challenging and risky

problems. Consistently, the problems required a great deal of effort to solve. However, the

inventors were intrinsically motivated to commit the resources to do so because of the pleasure

they derived from using their knowledge and skills (Perkins 1988).

Csikszentmihalyi’s work on flow states (1999; 1990), a motivational construct, supports

these findings more generally for a heightened motivational state by proposing that when the

challenge of a task matches the individual’s skill level, one experiences a flow state which leads

to both a heightened level of enjoyment and a centering of concentration. Hoffman and Novak

(1996) have introduced the flow construct in to the marketing literature, in the context of

describing consumers’ navigational behavior on the internet. Their description of the outcome of

the flow state as “characterized by fun” and by “concentration so intense that there is little

attention left to consider anything else” (p. 58), also supports the multidimensionality of the

outcome of heightened motivation. Thus, we propose:

H1: Individuals with high levels of intrinsic task motivation experience more enjoyment in performing a task than those with low levels of intrinsic motivation.

H2: Individuals with high levels of intrinsic task motivation exert more

effort in performing a task than those with low levels of intrinsic motivation.

Hypotheses 1 and 2 predict that intrinsic motivation is an antecedent of both task

enjoyment and effort, but they do not address the relationship between the two constructs.

Clearly, prior research suggests that there is a positive correlation between the two (e.g., Albert

1990; Torrance 1987; Csikszentmihalyi 1999). However, separating the constructs remains

important given that intrinsic and extrinsic rewards may influence the two differently.

7

Extrinsic Rewards. As noted at the outset, findings with regard to the effects of extrinsic

rewards on creativity have been equivocal. Some have reported that extrinsic rewards undermine

creativity (e.g., Amabile 1983) while others have found extrinsic rewards to enhance creativity

(e.g., Deci and Ryan 1985). Those who have argued for a positive effect of extrinsic rewards on

creativity have argued that extrinsic rewards enhance creativity by encouraging task persistence

(Deci and Ryan 1985). Task persistence, all else equal, results in greater effort being expended.

Thus, we hypothesize:

H3: Individuals who are provided with the possibility of an extrinsic reward exert more effort in performing a task than those who are not offered the possibility of a reward.

Those arguing to the contrary (e.g., Amabile 1983, 1996) note that certain types of

extrinsic rewards lead to a reduction in the enjoyment of the task itself, reduced risk taking, and

playfulness, because of a shift of focus away from the task to the outcome. Since it is those who

are high in intrinsic motivation that are expected to enjoy the task to begin with, the effect of

extrinsic rewards will be to reduce their enjoyment of the task. For the rest, a reduction may not

be possible due to low levels of enjoyment of the task to begin with, i.e., a floor effect. Thus we

hypothesize:

H4: The provision of an extrinsic reward diminishes the task enjoyment of those with high levels of intrinsic motivation.Visualization Training. We do not make

any a priori predictions that training will directly influence either task enjoyment or effort given

the lack of existing literature in this area. As we predict later, we do expect training to directly

influence design outcomes.

8

Influencing Design Outcomes: The Antecedents of Originality and Usefulness

Antecedents of Originality

Task Enjoyment. Individuals enjoying an activity can be broadly described as being in a

state of, or experiencing positive affect (Isen, Daubman, and Nowicki 1987; Kahn and Isen

1993). From anecdotal accounts (e.g., Einstein’s reliance on “play” for creative inspiration) to

controlled experiments (e.g., Hirt, McDonald, Melton, and Harackiewicz 1996), positive affect

has been linked to divergent and flexible thinking (Finke, Ward, and Smith 1992). For example,

in their classic study of problem solving, Isen et al. (1987) found that subjects in a state of

positive affect were more likely to overcome functional fixedness in solving Duncker’s (1945)

candle problem and to outperform control subjects in the Remote Associates Test.

Findings such as these, combined with research documenting the power of play, joy, and

humor in original and divergent thinking (e.g., Lieberman 1977), lead to the following

hypothesis:

H5: Higher levels of task enjoyment lead to more original new product designs.

Effort. While it is intuitively logical that the harder people work, the better they will

perform at a task, few empirical studies have attempted to study the strength of this relationship

(Brown and Peterson 1994). Nevertheless, researchers in both marketing and organizational

behavior conceptualize effort as the mechanism that converts motivation into task

accomplishment (Brown and Peterson 1994; Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen 1980). Thus,

we hypothesize:

H6a: Higher levels of effort lead to more original new product designs.

9

The Antecedents of Usefulness

Effort. Using the same rationale, given a task goal of producing a useful end design, we

would also expect that the harder people work at the design task, the more useful it will be.

Thus, we hypothesize:

H6b: Higher levels of effort lead to more useful new product designs. Visualization Training and Motivation. Much has been written about the ways in which

the ability to think creatively can be enhanced (Sutton 2001). As noted earlier, these have been

primarily suggestions that have never been empirically verified. One exception is the use of

visualization. Recently, Dahl et al. (1999) examined the effects of different types of

visualization on the efficacy of new product design. A central finding that is of relevance here is

that visualizing the customer during the design process enhances the usefulness of the design

outcome. In practice, while visualization is regarded as important in creative thinking, it is “not

common practice” (Leonard and Rayport 1997, p.104).

While the direct effect of training on designers’ output has been established, we are

unaware of any research examining the interactive effects of motivation on training. Such an

omission is surprising given the extensive work in marketing, documenting the influence of

motivation and ability on consumer learning, information processing, and choice. The basic

findings from this research suggest that motivation and ability interact synergistically to

influence the extent of a person’s elaboration on a particular topic (Petty, Unnava, Strathman

1991). That is, motivating those who are high in ability has a much bigger effect on outcome

than motivating those less able. These findings hold regardless of whether the motivation was

intrinsic or whether it was induced by an extrinsic reward.

10

In the design context, these findings suggest that motivating those trained in visualization

and thus having greater ability, should have a much bigger effect on the usefulness of the design

than motivating those not trained in visualization. This effect should hold for both those

intrinsically motivated and those motivated through extrinsic rewards. Thus, we hypothesize:

H7: Intrinsic task motivation interacts with visualization training to increase the perceived usefulness of the design.

H8: Extrinsic rewards interact with visualization training to increase the perceived

usefulness of the design.

The Value of Originality and Usefulness

As noted in the introduction, a number of firms are committed to the belief that creative

products and ideas are inherently valuable. However, more original and useful products are only

valuable to firms and their shareholders if consumers are willing to pay for them. To assess

consumers’ willingness to pay, prior to investing in a product’s full-scale development, firms

often use concept tests to evaluate a product’s potential value (Crawford and Di Benedetto

2000).

In this study, we include such a concept test to evaluate the relative value of originality

and usefulness in driving consumers’ perceived value. Because no prior empirical work has

examined this issue, we do not offer any formal hypotheses.

Research Design

Two experimental factors (extrinsic rewards and visualization training) were manipulated

in a between-subjects design. One additional factor, intrinsic motivation, was measured. Thus,

the design was a 2 (extrinsic reward vs. no extrinsic reward) by 2 (visualization training vs. no

visualization training) between-subjects design.

11

Sample

Designers participating in the study were 122 undergraduate engineering students who

had completed course-work in design fundamentals. Participants were recruited in design

engineering classes through announcements offering $10 compensation. Previous research in

product design has used qualified engineering students (e.g., Dahl et al. 1999; Jansson and Smith

1991).

Procedure

In order to ensure that no unintended contextual factors influenced the designers during

the task, each designer participated in the study individually. Each designer scheduled an

appointment with a research assistant, who was also responsible for conducting the experimental

sessions. The research assistant completed all 122 sessions over a three-week period.

Upon arrival to the session, the designer was randomly assigned to one of the four

manipulated conditions. If the condition called for visualization training, the research assistant

provided it at the beginning of the session. Following the training (if provided), all designers

received a description of the design task. The product chosen for the design task was a car jack

for seniors (i.e., individuals aged 60 years or older), to use when changing a tire (see Dahl et al.

1999). The design task instructions were as follows:

You are asked to develop an innovative and effective car jack design for elderly adults (age 60+). Please produce a thumbnail sketch of your design and include any brief written comments that are necessary to explain your design. Please disregard any economic, material, or regulatory constraints as you develop your idea. You have up to one hour to complete your design.

The measures of intrinsic motivation followed this description for all participants. For

the designers in the extrinsic reward condition, a description of those rewards then followed.

The research assistant next indicated that the designer should first spend some time using scratch

paper to sketch out their initial design ideas. Once they had selected their best idea, the designer

12

should draw their final design on special bond paper. After the designer had completed the

design task, they were asked to complete a questionnaire containing the process measures and

manipulation checks.

Independent Variables

Intrinsic Motivation. Given the task-specific nature of intrinsic motivation, we adapted a

four-item scale designed by Collins and Amabile (1999) to capture an individual’s inherent

interest in, anticipated enjoyment of, and perceived challenge presented by an opportunity to

design a new product. Designers were asked to indicate their level of agreement with four

separate statements on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = disagree, 7 = agree). The four statements

read as follows: generating new ideas is fun; imagining new products and being able to design

them is something I really like to do; imagining new things and designing them in a functional

way is very rewarding; when I took my design courses, I hoped to become better at doing design

tasks like this one. Coefficient alpha for the four items was .84, and all items loaded onto a

single factor.

Extrinsic Rewards. Designers who were in the conditions that provided the possibility of

receiving extrinsic rewards for the design task received the following information:1

An expert panel of judges will evaluate the resulting designs. The panel will be composed of 5 individuals from design firms located here in the community. Three cash prizes will be awarded to the students producing the first, second and third rated designs ($250, $100, and $50, respectively). The judges will evaluate the entire pool of designs, and their ranking of all the designs will be published in the local media. Visualization Training. Designers who received training were first provided with the

following information:

In solving design problems, many designers find that forming visual images (pictures in the mind) can help them produce innovative and effective designs. One visualization strategy that has been shown to aid in the design process involves visualizing the potential customer of the product. Seeing in your mind, a product-user being involved and interacting with a proposed product design can facilitate the development of design solutions.

13

After these initial instructions, the designers were given a five-minute training task. The training

task used a guided visualization procedure. This involved the designers reading a short story about

a young adult putting together a television stand. As the designers read the short story they were

instructed to stop after reading each sentence in the story and try to picture in their minds the events

about which they had just read.

Manipulation Checks

Extrinsic Rewards. To assess the effectiveness of the extrinsic reward manipulation,

designers indicated their agreement on two seven-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree,

7 = strongly agree) to statements indicating that the possibility for public recognition and having

the design evaluated influenced them during the design task.

Visualization Training. On one scale item, designers indicated the extent to which they

visualized the customer while they were developing their design (1 = Did not use images of the

customer, 7 = Used a lot of customer images). Further, in an open-response question, designers

then listed and described the customer images, if any, that they had during the design task. Two

research assistants, blind to the purpose of the study, assessed each designer’s list and description of

their customer images. Specifically, the assistants provided three ratings of the designer’s

visualization: 1) the number of times the designer reported visualizing an elderly person using a jack

and 2) two seven-point Likert scale items (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) indicating the

extent to which the designer relied on customer-centered visual images (i.e., the end-user was the

primary focus of the subject’s visual images, the subject visualized the end-user a lot during the

design task). Agreement between the research assistants was high (r = .87), so their responses were

averaged for each measure. Each of the four measures (1 self-report + 3 rated) was then

standardized, and the four were summed to form an index of customer visualization (� = .96).

14

Process Measures

The measures of both enjoyment and effort were developed using multiple sources. First,

as indicated above, designers provided retrospective process measures by answering a series of

Likert scale items (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) about their experience. These self-

report measures included two items measuring the amount of effort they expended and three

items assessing how much they enjoyed the process. Items measuring effort included: I devoted

a lot of effort to this design exercise and the necessary work was put into meeting the objective

outlined in the design brief. Enjoyment items included: I enjoyed creating new combinations of

existing things to make something new, I had a lot of fun coming up with my design, and

I would do this design experiment for free.

Second, the research assistant who

conducted all 122 sessions completed a three-item Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 =

strongly agree) at the end of each session assessing the designers’ apparent enjoyment of the

task. Items included: The designer seemed to enjoy him/herself, the designer showed a great

deal of enthusiasm during the task, The designer seemed to enjoy the process. The research

assistant also timed each session, thereby providing an objective measure of time. While

subjects were told they would have up to an hour to complete the design task, the research

assistant did not enforce that deadline. Thus, sessions were as short as seven minutes and as long

as 119 minutes. The average session length was

38 minutes.

All of these process measures were subjected to a factor analysis, and two factors

emerged: The three self-reported scale items for enjoyment and the three observer scale items

for enjoyment loaded onto the first factor. The coefficient alpha for these six items measuring

15

enjoyment was .79. The two self-reported items measuring effort and the length of the session

loaded on the second factor. The coefficient alpha for the three items measuring effort was .82.

The operational measures of enjoyment and effort, used in subsequent analyses, were constructed

by standardizing each measure, and summing across the measures loading on each factor.

Dependent Measures

Originality and Usefulness. A sample of eight consumer judges (i.e., drivers over the age

of 60) was utilized to assess the originality and usefulness of the designer’s output (Dahl et al.,

1999; Goldenberg, Mazursky, and Solomon 1999.) To qualify, each judge was required to have

a valid driver’s license and to have driven a vehicle in the past year. Each of the eight judges

received a booklet containing the 122 designs. The order of the designs was randomized across

booklets. The judges were blind to the identity of the designers, to one another, and to the

purpose of the experiment. They were paid $50 each for their participation.

Each judge completed three seven-point scales measuring originality (not at all

original/very original, not at all innovative/very innovative, not at all creative/very creative) and

three measuring usefulness (not at all useful/very useful, not at all effective/very effective, not at

all sensible/very sensible) for each design. Scale items were drawn from previous research

(i.e., Andrews and Smith 1996; Besemer and O’Quin 1986; Dahl et al. 1999), and were subjected

to a factor analysis. As expected, two factors emerged, with the three original and three useful

items loading on their own factor. Thus, each set of three items was averaged to form an overall

originality index (�’s for each judge > .79) and an overall usefulness index (�’s for each judge >

.81) for each design.

Value (Willingness-to-Pay). A similar procedure was used to assess consumers’

preferences for each design. A separate sample of eight customer judges, meeting the same age

16

and driving requirements, rated each of the 122 designs on three Likert scale items (good,

appealing, preference compared to other designs, � = .91) and one scale capturing the amount

customers would be willing to pay for each of the new design ideas ($5 - $150).

Results

Manipulation Checks

Regression analysis was used to determine the effectiveness of our two manipulated

factors (extrinsic rewards and visualization training). Two analyses were conducted using as

predictors a dummy variable for each of the manipulated factors, a continuous variable for

intrinsic motivation, and the corresponding interaction terms among the three. The results

demonstrate that our manipulations worked. Only the main effect for extrinsic rewards was

significant in predicting the extent to which the designer indicated being influenced by potential

recognition and evaluation, and only the main effect for training significantly predicted the

extent to which the designer visualized the consumer during the design task (both p’s < .01).

The Effects of the Antecedent Variables on the Design Process

Regression analysis was used to test Hypotheses 1-3, which pertain to the influence of

intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards on the design process. Since the process measures

(task enjoyment and effort) are taken at the individual level, the sample size in these analyses is

122, the number of participating designers. The results are presented in Table 1.2

--- Insert Table 1 about here ---

Task Enjoyment. The results support Hypothesis 1, revealing a positive relationship

between intrinsic motivation and task enjoyment (B = .83, p < .001). Neither the presence of

extrinsic rewards nor visualization training had a significant direct effect on task enjoyment.

17

As predicted by Hypothesis 4, the strong main effect of intrinsic motivation was qualified

by an interaction with extrinsic rewards (B = -.25, p < .05). To better understand this negative

interaction, we examined the effect of extrinsic rewards on task enjoyment for designers with

low, medium, and high levels of intrinsic motivation. The means, shown in Figure 2, suggest

that the presence of extrinsic rewards enhances task enjoyment for designers with low and

moderate levels of intrinsic motivation, but actually decreases task enjoyment for those who are

highly motivated. Thus, managers may have to make a tradeoff between effort and enjoyment

when providing incentives designed to yield a creative outcome.

--- Insert Figure 2 about here ---

Effort. The results also support Hypotheses 2 and 3, which predict that both intrinsic

motivation and the presence of extrinsic rewards, respectively, will be positively related to

higher levels of effort. As Table 1 illustrates, only the main effects of intrinsic motivation

(B = .38, p < .01) and extrinsic rewards (B = .29, p < .01) were significant predictors of effort.

Here, the two antecedents work independently to yield a higher level of effort in designers.

Notably, the effect of intrinsic motivation is higher than that of the extrinsic reward

manipulation.

The Effects of Antecedent Variables and Design Process on the Design Outcomes

Regression analysis was also used to test Hypotheses 5-8, which pertained to the factors

that influence a design’s perceived originality and usefulness. In order to make the most

effective use of the data, the dependent variable in these analyses was the judge’s rating of each

design on the relevant outcome measure (originality index or usefulness index (Hutchinson,

Kamakura, and Lynch 2000). Thus, the sample size in these analyses is 976

(8 judges X 122 designs). To control for heterogeneity among the eight judges, seven judge-

18

specific dummy variables were included as predictors in each regression. According to Nunnally

(1978, p.232), judges “often develop their own idiosyncratic methods of scoring, and although

each individual is consistent in employing his or her method, the individuals do not agree with

one another. This works like other sources of measurement error to attenuate relations found

between variables in research.”

Originality. Hypothesis 5 predicts a positive relationship between task enjoyment and

the design’s perceived originality, and as shown in Table 1, this hypothesis is supported. In the

full model, task enjoyment positively predicts originality (B = .14, p < .001). The additional

models included in Table 1 (“Antecedents” and “Process”), are provided to show additional

support for the conceptual model in Figure 1 since they allow for tests of mediation. In the

antecedents model, only intrinsic motivation significantly predicts perceived originality

(B= .12, p < .001). The process model then establishes the relationship between task enjoyment

and originality (B = .10, p < .001). When the two models are combined into the full model, the

previously-significant effect of intrinsic motivation is eliminated, thereby demonstrating that task

enjoyment fully mediates the influence of intrinsic motivation on originality (Baron and Kenny

1986).

Hypothesis 6a predicts that task effort will also have a positive influence on the design’s

perceived originality. Both the process and full models provide support for this hypothesis

(B’s = .09 and .10, respectively, p’s < .01). These models also enable us to compare the relative

influence of the two process measures on originality and show that, ceteris paribus, task

enjoyment has a slightly larger influence.

Usefulness. Hypothesis 6b predicts that task effort will also have a positive influence on

the perceived usefulness of the design. Support for this hypothesis is demonstrated in both the

19

process and full models (B’s = .08 and .09, respectively, p’s < .01). When combined with the

antecedents model, the role of effort in the full conceptual model can also be tested.

In the conceptual model, we expected that effort would fully mediate the main effect of

extrinsic rewards on usefulness. The antecedents model establishes this main effect (B = .13,

p < .001), but the full model provides evidence of only partial mediation, with the coefficient of

extrinsic rewards dropping from .13 to .10 (t (961) = 11.54, p < .01) with the inclusion of effort

in the model (Keppel 1991). Even after controlling for the process measures, the offer of an

extrinsic reward prior to the design task continues to significantly increase the perceived

usefulness of the design. Effort does, however, fully mediate the main effect of intrinsic

motivation on perceived usefulness.

Hypotheses 7 and 8 predict that both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards, when

combined with visualization training, will positively influence the perceived usefulness of the

design. Support for these two synergistic relationships are demonstrated in the full model

(B = .06, p < .05 and B = .09, p < .001, respectively). As illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, when

motivation is combined with ability, designers can produce more useful results independently of

both the amount of effort they exert and the extent to which they enjoy the task. Interestingly,

when training was provided to those who were lacking in either intrinsic motivation or extrinsic

reward, perceived usefulness was lower than for those who received no training at all.

--- Insert Figures 3 & 4 about here ---

It is worth noting that there was no effect of task enjoyment on the perceived usefulness

of the design outcome. This finding supports our assertion that it is critical to separate the

creativity construct into its relevant components of originality and usefulness, given that

different antecedents and processes differentially influence them.

20

Aside from the predicted effects, only one effect reached conventional levels of statistical

significance: the interaction term between extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation on

originality which emerges in the full model (B=.07, p<.05). While this finding could simply

have resulted by chance, it may also point to a more interesting possibility. The positive synergy

between extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation emerged only after task enjoyment was

included as a predictor of originality. Recall that task enjoyment had been negatively impacted

by this same interaction. Once the negative synergy had been controlled for in the model by the

inclusion of task enjoyment, an independent, yet positive synergy between intrinsic motivation

and extrinsic rewards emerged. This finding suggests that the relationship between these two

variables may be even more complex than prior research has noted and highlights an opportunity

for future research.

The Value of Originality and Usefulness

To further suggest the importance of the creativity construct, we ran additional analyses

to understand whether the consumer places value on originality and usefulness when assessing

their preference and willingness to pay for the developed designs. Two regression analyses were

used, with each of the eight consumer judges’ preference and willingness-to-pay measures for

each design serving as the dependent measures. Seven dummy variables to control for

heterogeneity among the ten consumer judges were included as additional predictors. The results

of these analyses are provided in Table 2.

--- Insert Table 2 about here ---

Both regression models show a strong effect for both originality and usefulness.

Usefulness was shown to be the most important predictor of customer preferences (B = .17,

p < .001). Originality was also shown to be a significant predictor (B = .07, p < .01). The most

21

important predictor of consumers’ willingness-to-pay was the perceived originality of the design

(B = .16, p < .001). Usefulness, while also important, had a smaller effect on overall perceived

value (B = .13, p < .001). An interaction term, used to capture potential synergy between

originality and usefulness, was not significant.

Discussion

We began this paper stressing the importance of the development of a stream of

successful new products to a company’s survival and growth. A conceptual model for the

creation of new products that would have customer appeal was put forward. In it, customer

appeal was proposed to be a function of both a product’s originality and its usefulness. How can

companies generate new products that are perceived to be both original and useful? The model

and empirical findings suggested that, at least in part, this might be accomplished by increasing

the task enjoyment and task effort of those involved in designing the new products. Our results

show that a product designer’s motivation and ability can play an important role in fostering

enjoyment and effort. Intrinsic motivation would be at the heart of the process. Through its

effects on both enjoyment and effort, intrinsic motivation affected both the new product’s

perceived originality and perceived usefulness. The results also point to the importance of

extrinsic motivation as it was shown to have a positive effect on the resulting usefulness of the

design outcome. Finally, the importance of ability in enabling creative design outcomes was

demonstrated. When motivated, a designer receiving visualization training produced end designs

that were perceived to be more useful by the consumer.

Managerial Implications

These findings carry significant implications for the management of the new product

development process. Foremost is the significance of intrinsic motivation. Clearly, identifying

22

and hiring personnel that are interested and excited about design is of paramount importance.

Given this, companies should spend sufficient resources on finding and screening prospective

employees to ensure that only intrinsically motivated employees are pursued and retained.

Additionally, we can speculate that it is important that the company maintain a work atmosphere

that is conducive to and fosters the inherent intrinsic motivation of design personnel.

Challenging design tasks, non-routinized processes, and an enjoyable work environment would

assist an organization in achieving this goal. Some experts even advise hiring people who are

slow to learn the company culture for positions requiring creative thought (Sutton 2001). These

low self-monitors can retain their independence over time, avoiding the tendency to become

carbon copies of all other employees, and insuring a more continuous supply of new ideas.

Our findings also point to the potential benefits and pitfalls of providing extrinsic

rewards. We observed that the extrinsic rewards enhance effort and this in turn can positively

affect originality and usefulness. However, extrinsic rewards reduce the enjoyment of the task

itself and this is particularly the case for those who are intrinsically motivated. This negative

effect on enjoyment, in turn, reduces the originality of the design outcome. Thus, extrinsic

rewards are a double-edged sword and need to be used with caution. It remains for future

research to explore the impact of extrinsic rewards in more detail such that reward structures can

be designed to maximize the positive effects through enhanced effort while eliminating or

minimizing the negative impact on task enjoyment.

This research also provides an important insight into the effective use of training. Our

findings imply that efforts by management to enhance the abilities of designers, through formal

training programs and other educational activities, will result in better design output only if the

designer is sufficiently motivated. By ensuring that the best employees receive training, or by

23

providing using facilitating extrinsic rewards in conjunction with training programs, companies

can be assured that their training dollars are being effectively invested.

Finally, we are able to provide evidence that the components of creativity, i.e., originality

and usefulness, are both linked to customer preference and a willingness on the part of the

customer to pay more for these characteristics. This finding establishes the validity of this

research and points to the need for management to pursue strategic initiatives to make creativity

in the NPD process a central goal.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations of this research that provide opportunities and direction for

future research. Foremost is the fact that the designers used in our experimental study were

design students rather than actual design practitioners. Professional designers may have been

less susceptible to an extrinsic reward manipulation and the benefits derived from the

visualization training may not have been so easily realized. Thus, the use of design students to

test our theoretical framework may limit the generalizability of our findings. It is interesting to

note however, that a recent article in the Harvard Business Review has indicated that when an

organization seeks creativity - ignorance is bliss (Sutton 2001). The authors argue that creativity

is better fostered by individuals with little to no experience. Comparing the abilities of novice

and expert designers in an experimental context represents an opportunity for future

investigation.

A second limitation of our research is found in the nature of the design task we utilized.

The experimental nature of the investigation created an atmosphere (e.g., time pressure, scope of

design mission) that might have influenced the relationships observed in this research. Future

24

research should vary the conditions inherent in the design task we used to provide

generalizability to our findings.

As noted earlier, opportunities for future investigation are also presented by the observed

relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Another possible extension of this

research is a broadening of the extrinsic motivation construct we chose to explore. Extrinsic

motivation can be achieved by both controlling and facilitative stimuli. While we chose to

examine facilitative extrinsic rewards, it remains to be seen if positive effects for all forms of

extrinsic motivation are possible

The research we have conducted in this investigation has looked only at the importance

of motivation and ability in fostering creative ideation. Motivation and ability are factors that

managers need to understand throughout the entire new product development process.

Opportunities exist to build on the proposed framework and investigate the role of these

constructs throughout the process. Both at the individual level (i.e., as a designer) and in a group

situation (i.e., a design team), the effects of motivation and its relationship to ability can and

should be assessed throughout the various stages of NPD.

25

Endnotes

1 A pre-test confirmed that the judges' evaluations and the monetary rewards were believable extrinsic rewards that did not attempt to limit or control the way in which the designer performed the task, and did not affect intrinsic motivation. 2 In this and all subsequent analyses, we also tested a regression model including a three-way interaction among intrinsic motivation, extrinsic rewards, and visualization training. In no case, did these models outperform the models presented in the results section (all F’s < 1).

26

Table 1 Tests of the Conceptual Model (Standard Coefficient Estimates)

Antecedents Process Measures

Dependent Variable

Intrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic Rewards

Visualization Training

Intrinsic

Motivation X

Visualization Training

Extrinsic Rewards

X Visualization

Training

Extrinsic Rewards

X Intrinsic

Motivation

Task Enjoyment

Effort

R2 Process Measures (n=122)

Task Enjoyment .83c .21 -.04 .04 -.01 -.25 a .43 Effort .38 b .29 b .11 .03 .03 .01 .22 Outcomes (n=976)d

Originality

1) Antecedents 2) Process 3) Full Model

.12c .01

.05 -.01

-.04 -.04

.04 .06

-.01 -.01

.03 .07 a

.10 b .14 c

.09 b

.10b

.19 .13 .23

Usefulness

4) Antecedents 5) Process 6) Full Model

.06a .03

.13 c .10 b

.02 .01

.07 b .06 a

.10 c .09 c

.03 .02

.01 -.01

.08 b

.09 b

.31 .20 .32

a p<.05, b p<.01, c p<.001 d Seven judge dummies were also included as predictors in these analyses to control for any potential heterogeneity across judges. Because any variance that they explain is considered “meaningless” (Nunnally 1978), their standardized coefficients are not presented.

27

Table 2 Predictors of Willingness-to-Pay (Standard Coefficient Estimates)d

Dependent Variable

Original

Useful

R2

Preference

.07b

.17c

.14

Willingness-to-Pay

.16c

.13c

.22

a p<.05, b p<.01, c p<.001 d Seven judge dummies were also included as predictors in these analyses to control for any potential heterogeneity across judges. Because any variance that they explain is considered “meaningless” (Nunnally 1978), their standardized coefficients are not presented. The standardized coefficient for the interaction between originality and usefulness is also omitted given its lack of significance.

28

Figure 1 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

Antecedents Process Measures Outcomes

H1 H5 H2 H4 H3 H6a H6b

H7 H8

Intrinsic Task

Motivation

Extrinsic Rewards

Visualization Training

Enjoyment

Effort

Originality

Usefulness

29

Figure 2 The Interactive Effects of Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation on Task Enjoyment

-3.47

-1.72

3.73

-2.37

1.08

2.42

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

low medium high

Intrinsic Motivation

Task

Enj

oym

ent

no extrinsicextrinsic

30

Figure 3 The Interactive Effects of Training and Intrinsic Motivation on Perceived Usefulness

3.33

4.1

3.81

3.713.70

3.95

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

low medium high

Intrinsic Motivation

Perc

eive

d U

sefu

lnes

s

no trainingtraining

31

Figure 4 The Interactive Effects of Training and Extrinsic Rewards on Perceived Usefulness

3.82

3.43

4.18

3.65

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

no yes

Extrinsic Rewards

Perc

eive

d U

sefu

lnes

s

no trainingtraining

32

References

Albert, Robert S. (1990), “Identity, Experiences, and Career Choice among the

Exceptionally Gifted and Eminent.” in M. A. Runco and R. S. Albert (Eds.) Theories of

Creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 13-34.

Amabile, Teresa M. (1983), “The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential

Conceptualization,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-377.

---- (1996), Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.

----, Karl G. Hill, Beth A. Hennessey, and Elizabeth M. Tighe (1994), “The Work

Preference Inventory: Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientation,” Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (5), 950-968.

Andrews, Jonlee and Daniel C. Smith (1996), “In Search of the Marketing Imagination:

Factors Affecting the Creativity of Marketing Programs for Mature Products,” Journal of

Marketing Research, 18 (May), 174-187.

Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenney (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable

Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical

Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-82.

33

Besemer, Susan and Karen O’Quin (1986), “Analyzing Creative Products: Refinement

and Test of a Judging Instrument,” Journal of Creative Behavior, 20 (2), l15-126.

Brown, Steven P. and Robert A. Peterson (1994), “The Effect of Effort on Sales

Performance and Job Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing, 58(April), 70-80.

Collins, Mary Ann and Teresa Amabile (1999), “Motivation and Creativity,” In Robert J.

Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press,

297-312.

Cooper, Robert G. (2000), Product Leadership: Creating and Launching Superior New

Products. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Crawford, Merle and Anthony Di Benedetto (2000), New Products Management. Boston:

Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Crutchfield, R. (1962), “Conformity and Creative Thinking,” In H. Gruber, G. Terrell,

and M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking. New York:

Atherton, 120-40.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New

York: Harper & Row.

34

---- (1999), “Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity” in R. J.

Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press,

313-335.

Dahl, Darren W., Amitava Chattopadhyay, and Gerald J. Gorn (1999), “The Use of

Visual Mental Imagery in New Product Design,” Journal of Marketing Research,

36 (February), 18-28.

Deci, E. L. and R. M. Ryan (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in

Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.

---- and ---- (1987), “The Support of Autonomy and the Control of Behavior,” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.

Dunckner, K. (1945), “On Problem Solving,” Psychological Monographs, 58 (5, Whole

No. 270).

Finke, Ronald, Thomas Ward, and Steven Smith (1992), Creative Cognition: Theory,

Research, and Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gardner, H. (1993), Creating Minds. New York: Basic Books.

Goldenberg, Jacob, David Mazursky, and Sorin Solomon (1999), “Toward Identifying

the Inventive Templates of New Products: A Channeled Ideation Approach,” Journal of

35

Marketing Research, 36 (May), 200-210.

Griffin, Abbie (1997), “Drivers of NPD Success: The 1997 PDMA Report” Chicago:

Product Development and Management Association.

---- (1997), “PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends

and Benchmarking Best Practices,” Journal of Product Innovation Management,

November, 429-458.

Heinzen, T. E., C. Mills, and P. Cameron (1993), “Scientific Innovation Potential,”

Creativity Research Journal, 6, 261-269.

Hirt, Edwards R., R. Jeffrey Melton, Hugh E. McDonald, Judith M. Harackiewicz (1996),

“Processing Goals, Task Interest, and the Mood-Performance Relationship: A

Mediational Task,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 245-261.

Hoffman, Donna and Tom Novak (1996), “Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-

mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (July),

50-69.

Hultink, Erik J., Susan Hart, Henry S.J. Robben, and Abbie Griffin (1997), “Launching

New Products in Consumer and Industrial Markets: A Multi-Country Empirical

36

International Comparison,” in Proceedings of the Product Development and Management

Association International Research Conference, Monterey, CA, pp. 93-126.

Hutchinson, Wesley, Wagner Kamakura, and John G. Lynch (2000), “Unobserved

Heterogeneity as an Alternative Explanation for “Reversal” Effects in Behavioral

Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), p. 324-331.

Isen, Alice, Kimberly Daubman, and Gary Nowicki (1987), “Positive Affect Facilitates

Creative Problem Solving,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (6),

1122-1131.

Jansson, David G. and Steven Smith (1991), “Design Fixation,” Design Studies, 12 (1),

3-11.

Kahn, Barbara and Alice Isen (1993), “The Influence of Positive Affect on Variety

Seeking among Safe, Enjoyable Products,” Journal of Consumer Research,

20 (September), 257-270.

Keppel, Geoffrey (1991), Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook, 3rd ed.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leonard, Dorothy and Jeffrey F. Rayport (1997), “Spark Innovation Through Empathic

Design,” Harvard Business Review, 75 (November/December), 102-113.

37

Lieberman, John N. (1977), Playfulness: Its Relationship to Imagination and Creativity.

New York: Academic Press.

Mumford, M. D. and S. B. Gustafson (1988), “Creativity Syndrome: Integration,

Application, and Innovation,” Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27-43.

Muoio, Anna (2000), “Idea Summit,” Fast Company, January 1, p. 150-155.

Naylor, James C., Robert D. Pritchard, and Daniel R. Ilgen (1980), A Theory of Behavior

in Organizations. New York: Academic Press.

Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York : McGraw-Hill .

Perkins, David N. (1988), “The Possibility of Invention,” in R. J. Sternberg (Ed.)

The Nature of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 362-385.

Petty, Richard E., Unnava H. Rao, and Alan J. Strathman (1991), “Theories of Attitude

Change,” Handbook of Consumer Behaviour, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

241-280.

Reuters (2000), “For Millennium, Please E-ject These Words Out of the Box,”

The Washington Post. January 3, Final Edition, CO3.

38

Shalley, Christina E. and Jill E. Perry-Smith (2001), “Effects of Social-Psychological

Factors on Creative Performance: The Role of Informational and Controlling Expected

Evaluation and Modeling Experience,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 84 (1), 1-22.

Stokes, Patricia D. (2001), “Variability, Constraints, and Creativity,” American

Psychologist, 56 (April), 4, 355-59.

Sutton, Robert (2001), “The Weird Rules of Creativity,” Harvard Business Review,

(September), 94-103.

Torrance, E. P. (1987), “Future Career Image as a Predictor of Creative Achievement in

the 22-year Longitudinal Study,” Psychological Reports, 60, 547.

Unsworth, Kerrie (2001), “Unpacking Creativity,” The Academy of Management

Review, 26 (April), 2, 289-97.

Wetlaufer, Suzy (2001), “The Perfect Paradox of Star Brands: An Interview with Arnault

of LVMH,” Harvard Business Review, 79 (October), 116-123.