Advertising Creativity: A Review and Empirical Investigation of External Evaluation, Cognitive Style and Self-Perceptions of Creativity Joanne M. Klebba and Pamela Tierney Creativity is a critical component in the advertising process, but it has yet to attract comparable attention in the literature. To amplify the research venue the discussion reviews the findings and methodology of creativity research in advertising and explores applied research formats, An empirical study examines (a) the effect of external evaluation on self perceptions of creativity and (b) the relationship of personal cognitive style to creativity. The ‘findings document a significant relationship between external evaluation and self-percep- tions of creativity and support the hypothesized relationship with cognitive style. Creativity plays a pivotal role in the advertising process, so much so that it is commonplace to de- velop agencies around the creative genius of a single person (Cummings 1984). It is enigmatic, therefore, that creativity research has not drawn equivalent at- tention in the advertising literature (Zinkhan 1993; Reid and Moriarity 1983). It is possible that the re- search process is encumbered by situation specific definitions of creativity (Mumford and Gustafson 11986), the unobservable nature of the creative act (Van Gundy 1987), the diversity of creative output (Hocevar and Bachelor 1989), and/or the complex organiza- tional environment that surrounds advertising cre- ativity. This discussion considers advertising creativity from several vantage points. Initially a basic model of the creative process is presented that structures a review of the advertising literature. Subsequently, applied research perspectives are inspected in an attempt to amplify the creativity research venue. Finally, an em- Pirical study is reported that tests a portion of the model. The study examines the relationship between the presence or absence of external evaluation (inde- pendent variable) and self-perceptions of creativity (dependent variable) in an advertising task environ- Joanne M. Kiebba (Ph.D. University of Minnesota) is Professor of Marketing et Prtand Sate Univerty, Portland, Oregon. Pamela Tierney (PhD, University of Cincinnati is Assistant Pro- {cso of Management at ordand Ste Univer, erdand, Or com “This project was partially funded received by Profesor tba om he Faculty Developme’ omniic et Foviend Stake Univeniy. ment. The ensuing analysis examines the association between individual cognitive style (predictor variable) and self-perceptions of creativity and the attendant implications for advertising creativity. Review of the Literature Creativity in the Advertising Agency The fundamental purpose of the advertising agency is to create competitively viable advertising messages for the client. Agency personnel, client representa- tives and the creative team serve as powerful influ- ences on the creative individual and his/her efforts to develop strategic advertising. In practice an advertis- ing agency is a complex social system that influences and interacts with the creative person and process. From an organizational perspective, creativity is defined as “the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or small group of individuals work- ing together” (Amabile 1988, p. 126). Although the definition readily accepts the scope of creative efforts in an advertising agency, the factors that influence creativity merit review. The following discussion briefly reviews models of organizational creativity in order to identify elements that are common to each. Organizational creativity has been studied in a va- riety of contexts including advertising. Based on a stream of research, Amabile (1988) presented and empirically documented a social-psychological model of organizational innovation that focused on creative Journal of Current Ieues and Research in Advertising, Volume 17, Number? (Fall 1995).4 Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising ‘output. The model depicted the influence of organi- zational characteristics (organizational motivation to innovate, resources in the task domain and manage- rial skills) and similar individual and/or group char- acteristics such as intrinsic motivation, task domain skills and creative thinking skills (Amabile and Gryskiewicz 1987). Amabile: that these char- acteristics interact and modify the organizational in- novation process and output. According to Amabile (1988) creativity levels should be highest at the point where individual and organizational resources, tech- niques and motivations overlap. Another series of studies (Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin 1993; Woodman and Schoenfeldt 1990, 1989) described creative output as the complex product of contextual, social and individual influences. These authors proposed a model that focused on the inter- action of context factors in the organization (culture, resources, rewards, strategy, structure, technology), social and group factors (norms, cohesiveness, size, diversity, roles, task, problem solving approaches) and individual characteristics (personality, cognitive fac- tors, intrinsic motivation, knowledge). Tierney’s work (1992) modeled and investigated the role of leadership, individual characteristics and or- ganizational characteristics in the workplace. Find- ings suggested that the relationship between the su- pervisor, employee cognitive style, task motivation and a team environment can be conducive to work- place creativity Likewise, advertising scholars have recognized the role of organizational and individual influences on creativity. Reid and Rotfeld (1976) described adver- tising creativity as a problem solving process and noted the role of organizational forces (problem defi- nition, background data, advertising objectives and strategy) and individual attitudes on the copywriter. Similarly Vanden Bergh and Adler (1983) modeled advertising creativity as a problem solving process. ‘They identified characteristics that are external (agency philosophy, coworkers, budget, time, media con- straints) and internal (experience, psychological state) to the individual throughout the development of ad- vertising. In an attempt to model the creative decision making process in a single agency, Mondroski, Reid and Russell (1983) described the role of interpersonal influences as well as task constraints. The study iden- tified agency supervision, client objectives and group influences as operative in the creative decision pro- cess. The foregoing studies and models document the influence of Organizational, Social/Group and Indi- vidual characteristics in the creative process. These components and their relationship to the creative pro- cess are portrayed in the Basic Model of the Creative Process in the Advertising Agency (Figure 1). As the model indicates, contextual and individual character- istics influence the creative process and resultant cre- ative output. The ensuing discussion reviews and cat- egorizes advertising creativity research according to the components of the model. The Advertising Literature Organizational Characteristics ‘An advertising agency harbors a unique blend of forces that make up the context of its activities. Al- though such contextual influences can encroach on the creative effort and the subsequent development of the creative message, they are customarily outside the control of the creative staff. Among these influ- ences are structural factors within the agency (cen- tralization, account assignment and specialization, procedures, hierarchy, etc.) and task resources /con- straints (budget, deadlines, technological support, etc). Structural factors in the advertising agency may exert a strong influence on advertising creativity. Scholarly investigations of these issues are yet to be attempted, Scholars have explored two types of task resource/ constraints that are peculiar to advertising creativity: work deadlines and budgetary limitations. In a dis- cussion of Young's (1960) model, Bengston (1982) ar- gued that deadlines might serve as a stimulant to the creative process. This view was supported in an ex- ploratory study by Moriarity and Vanden Bergh (1964), ie,, creative personnel recognized the pressure asso- ciated with deadlines, but did not view them nega- tively. Lavery (1993) probed the impact of budgetary constraints on advertising creativity and documented declines in the quality of the creative product and creative “freedom” as well as changes in hiring crite- ria for creative personnel. ‘Technology is another element in the work envi- ronment that can enhance or hinder the creative pro- cess. Although not empirically investigated, two stud- ies itemized the potential impact of computer tech- nology on advertising creativity. Gross and Cannon (1988) cited the planning potential of computer-based systems throughout the development of creative mes- sages. Alvey (1991) discussed the potential impact of computer technology on different stages of design in the advertising creative process.Fall 1995, Figure 1 Basic Model of the Creative Process In the Advertising Agency Organizational Characteristics (EG, Agency Structure (Hierarchy, Centralization, Account Assignment), Procedures, Resource/ Task Constraints (Budget, Deadlines, Technology)] Social/Group Characteristics Creative Creative (EG, Agency /Client Cohesiveness, Task/Process Output Evaluation, Conflict, Norms, Peer (Development of |B] (Advertisement Influences, Supervision) the Advertising and/or Campaign)} Message) Individual Characteristics (EG,, Intrinsic Motivation, Knowledge, Personality, Cognitive Abilities, Cognitive Style, Experience and Background) SociaYGroup Characteristics Creative personnel freely interact with the creative team, supervisors, clients, production experts and re- search consultants, among others. This broad range of interpersonal contacts present numerous opportu- nities for social/group forces to infringe on the cre- ative process. The Social /Group influences include: cohesiveness, evaluation, conflict, group norms, di- versity, supervision (Woodman et al. 1993; Amabile 1983). A number of social / group factors have been exam- ined by advertising scholars. Wicks, Smith and Vanden Bergh (1966) investigated the degree of interpersonal and interdepartmental conflict between creative and account personnel. The findings indicated greater con- flict between ts than within departments. Sources of conflict within three advertising agencies, were compared by Tinkham, Lane and Leung (1987). ‘These authors documented significant differences on attitudes, task dimensions, communication flow, or- ganizational structure, management style and the na- ture of the role. Hotz, Ryans and Shanklin (1982) iden- tified four potential problem areas between clients and agencies: high personnel turnover in agencies, client assistance to the agency, ineffectiveness in the client organization and agency role confusion. The study indicated areas of agreement and disagreement between agency executives and clients on these fac- tors. The issue of creative supervision and judgment has been studied analogously in the classroom by Reid (1977, 1978a, 1978b). He reported a positive correla- tion between student scores on the Remote Associates Test and the educator's assessment of their creativity. Individual Influences Innon advertising studies, intrinsic motivation, per- sonality, cognitive ability, cognitive style, knowledge, experience and background have each been linked toJournal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising individual creativity. Advertising scholars and pro- fessionals have struggled, however, to discem the per- sonal characteristics of those who create noteworthy advertising, Advertising writings in the 1970's focused ‘on the personal characteristics of advertising creatives. Politz (1975) argued the importance of imagination in the development of advertising and related it to the concept of ideation. A similar view was offered by Walston (1990), who encouraged creative personnel to “look inward” and “trust their instincts” for the great idea. Atabout the same time Mathews addressed the comprehensive yet elusive nature of advertising creativity when he wrote: All the senses, all the instincts, all the acquired characteristics, all the techniques of expression, all the personal abilities ... are involved to some de- agree in all kinds of creativity. But .. that which draws most heavily on common sense, the 6th sense, a sense of timing, a sense of the practical, sense of propriety, a sense of value, a sense of the fitness of things, and dollars and cents sense makes up the total creative mix which produces the best advertising (1975, p. 16) Empirical investigations of the creative person fo- cus on personality dimensions and cognitive abilities. ‘Auer (1976) examined the presence of empathy in copywriting students. The findings suggest that em- pathy could be related to advertising creativity. ‘Moriarity and Vanden Bergh (1984) queried advertis- ing professionals about the personal characteristics of advertising creatives and identified openness, percep- tiveness and deliberateness as important to the cre- ative process. In a different approach to individual creativity, Moriarity (1988) examined the relationship Of three creativity scales [Edmund's Learning Style Identification Exercise (ELSIE), Mednick’s RAT and the Raudsepp Creativity Quotient] with creative apti tude in the classroom. The visualization score was positively related to the final grade; however, the ELSIE scores were not significantly correlated with either of the other measures. Associative ability, intentionally linking previously disparate ideas /concepts, has been empirically exam- ined by advertising scholars. This cognitive ability has been studied as part of the broader construct of ideation. In the study noted earlier, Reid and Rotfeld (1976) found a positive correlation between students’ associative ability, task attitude and creativity. Reid’s (1977, 1978a, 1978b) classroom studies noted a pos tive correlation between students’ associative ability and assessment of their creativity. Vanden Bergh (1984) reported a positive correlation between students’ as- sociative ability and copywriting assignments for magazines, newspaper and television. A negative re- lationship was observed, however, with radio assign- ments. Creative Task/Process The focal point of the model (Figure 1) is the cre- ative process, i.e, development of the advertising message. The creative process, also termed ideation, encompasses the cognitive activities and behaviors engaged in the production of novel solutions to prob- lems. Wallas (1926) characterized the stages of cre- ativity as: preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. In an application of the typology to ad- vertising, Young (1960) divided the preparation stage into the stages of ingestion and digestion. In addition, other advertising scholars and professionals ampli- fied and applied the typology (cf Hutchinson 1964; Osborn 1953). Although the stages of creativity /ideation have been discussed and applied in advertising, empirical in- vestigation is uncommon, White (1972) specifically described the incubation and illumination stages of the process as the vital stages for advertising. Dillon (1975) detailed the characteristics and constraints in- volved in developing advertising, Ina study that can. be linked to the preparation stage of the creative pro- cess, Winter and Russell (1973) noted the benefits of psychographic data to advertising creatives, but re- ported survey data that creative personnel did not value such information, Stephens and Burke (1974) recommended that students be encouraged to “make their path themselves,” the Zen approach. Bengston. (1982) examined the paradoxical elements in Young’s (1960) approach. More recently Moriarity (1992) rec- ommended that creative personnel be more involved in qualitative research in order to change perceptual sets and enrich their knowledge base. A substantial portion of the discussion and investi- ‘gation of the creative process focuses on ideation. In arly discussions of creativity, Politz (1975) advocated the generation of many ideas as important to produc- ing a single noteworthy idea. A mathematical model of the creative screening process was offered by Gross (1972) which indicated that advertisers could benefit by increasing expenditures to create and screen ad- vertising ideas. Subsequently Vanden Bergh, Reid and Schorin (1983) empirically examined ideation with students. The study suggested that more creative al- ternatives lead to a more effective campaign strategy. Inexploratory interviews, advertising creatives iden- tified work styles and approaches similar to the stages of ideation (Moriarity and Vanden Bergh 1964). AFall 1995 comprehensive review of ideation was offered by Reid and Moriarity (1983) that decried the paucity of stud- ies on a topic so vital to the industry. Creative Product The culmination of advertising creativity is the stra- tegic execution of the advertisement and/or campaign. Accordingly, the industry recognizes exceptional cre- ative effort through awards and public ceremonies. It, is disturbing to note, however, that scholarly investi- gations of advertising rarely attempt to assess the cre- ativity of the advertisement. Perhaps the difficulty of the task was best captured by White when he noted that the advertisement was the critical link between the consumer and the advertiser, but characterized creativity as the “X factor” in advertising and noted that perhaps “we are chasing a will-of-the-wisp...” (1972, p. 29). Several discussions of advertising creativity link “effectiveness” and creative output. For example, Daniels (1974) recommended that the creative mes- sage be “productive.” Dillon (1975) refined this view by noting that the creative message must be “profit- ably productive.” More recently, Blasko and Mokwa (1986,1988) suggested that the incorporation of oppo- site or contradictory ideas within advertising mes- sages could lead to increased effectiveness. Frazer (1983) delineated the strategic potential and advan- tages of creative executions. On a similar note, Can- non and Boglarsky (1991) recommended using the four functional need categories of attitude theory (in- strumental, adjustive, utilitarian or ego-defensive) to define creative strategy. Literature Summary An overview of the research indicates that advertis- ing scholars examine certain aspects of each compo- nent of the model. In the Organizational Characteris- tics component, the review identifies conceptual and exploratory work in the area of task resources/con- straints on the creative process. Structural variables, however, have not been addressed. There are empiri- cal studies of Social and Group influences that are descriptive in nature and based on surveys of adver- tising personnel. The body of research on Individual Characteristics includes studies that empirically link associative ability to advertising creativity by using student samples. With respect to the creative process, there are a few studies of ideation, but none that take a comprehensive approach to the stages of advertis- ing creativity. Finally, scholars and professionals ap- pear stymied as to how to assess the creativity of the advertising message; contributions are primarily con- ceptual in nature. Froma methodological perspective, the review dem- onstrates that advertising scholars pursue research environments that permit examination of issues and concepts. Elaboration of issues and extension of the topics/findings to applied environments, however, has been difficult. It is not that the body of research is inappropriate to the topic, but rather that it is modest at best. The complex problems that surround the as- sessment of creativity undoubtedly exacerbate the problem (Michael and Wright 1989). Suggested Directions As we strive for applicable research, it is advanta- geous to recall the series of articles by Calder, Phillips and Tybout (1982, 1981) that characterize research pro- cedures that lead to generalizable findings. These au- thors hold that individual projects need not be held to the rigorous standard of immediate generalization in order to make a contribution. Rather, scientific theory evolves through a combination of research that is con- cerned with “effects” and “theory” application. According to Calder et al. (1982, 1981), effects appli- cation research assesses the status of a specific theory in a real-world situation and requires methodologies that ensure a correspondingly similar representation of the real world. Generalization of the findings to the real world is consequently permissible. Studies of con- flict between or within agencies that use statistically representative samples in an applied research setting exemplify effects application research. Impediments to conducting this type of research are access to ap- propriate samples and research venues that meet de- sign requirements and as well as other factors related to operationalization of variables. Research directed toward theory application at- tempts to produce findings that are generalizable be- yond the research setting through falsification proce- ‘ures. Such procedures indicate whether the theory is testable or viable. According to Calder et al. (1981), two types of falsification research are possible: one that tests a concept/variable predicted to perform in the real world (termed intervention research), and another that ensures the abstract theory is testable. In the former situation, a variable of interest is tested under conditions similar to the real world and its impact is monitored by appropriate research proce- dures. Advertising copytests could exemplify this ap-Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising proach. The objective of this research is to determine the performance of the variable. In the second type of theory application research, abstract theory is tested in a controlled environment. The choice of sample, research setting and experi- mental design attempt to control extraneous influ- ences as the performance of the variable of interest is monitored. The primary advantage of a controlled research setting and experimental design is that it permits investigation of a causal relationship between independent and dependent variables. Advertising studies of ideation with student samples illustrate tests of theory. The research context is not of interest, but rather the inferences that can be drawn between con- structs and the corresponding implications for explo- ration outside the research setting. The controlled re- search environment, therefore, provides a powerful resource to examine the existence of phenomena, in- teraction of variables and their role within a theoreti- «cal model, The foregoing discussion summarizes a variety of research techniques and procedures that uniquely con- tribute to applied research. Each type of research has been sparingly used in studies of advertising creativ- ity with some success. The frail collection of creativity research emphasizes the need for advertising schol- ars to move beyond conceptualization and supposi- tion into the realm of empirical documentation, veri~ fication and amplification. At issue is a need for theory that frames relationships and methodology that con- tributes to generalization. It is not surprising, there- fore, that Zinkhan (1993) calls for academics and pro- fessionals to broaden their perspective and to address creativity in innovative and substantive ways. A full range of methodological resources are needed to elabo- rate creativity as it functions in the advertising agency. The Study ‘As the literature review indicates, many relation- ships in the advertising agency and hence between the components of the model have yet to be exam- ined, Henceforth, we report the results of an empiri- cal investigation that exemplifies theoretical elabora- tion. In reference to Figure 1, the study examines the relationship of self-perceptions of creativity to exter- nal evaluation (Social /Group Characteristic) and cog- nitive style (Individual Characteristic). The two latter variables have ties to creative output, but their rela- tionship to self-perceptions of creativity has yet to be empirically demonstrated. The discussion of the lit- erature begins with a review of self-perception and proceeds through external evaluation and cognitive style. Study Background Self-Perceptions and Creativity Empirical and conceptual work indicate that self- perceptions of creativity play an important role in creative behavior. There are three areas of research that have relevance to self-perceptions of creativity: (1) the value attached to creative activities, (2) self- confidence and identification with creativity, and (3) the choice of creative tasks and creative output. Social psychology findings suggest that each per- son holds a variety of self-perceptions and that these perceptions hold consequences for the perceiver (Pelham 1991). Findings indicated that there is an as- sociation between the positive or negative nature of the self-perception and the extent to which the person valued the activity (e.g,, Pelham and Swan 1989). Con- sequently, people who possessed affirming views of their own creativity (ie, “I am a creative person”) perceived creative activities as worthwhile endeav- ors. ‘A generous amount of creativity research focuses on the specific characteristics of renowned creators. Psychologists (e.g., Rogers 1959; Chambers 1964; McDermid 1965; Stein 1975, 1974) have identified a core list of personal characteristics or attributes re- lated to creative performance. This research indicates that creative individuals report a strong self image congruent with creativity. Likewise, they have a high degree of confidence in their ability to generate cre- ative products (Barron and Harrington 1981; Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi 1976). In other words, individu- als with the propensity to produce creative work hold strong self-perceptions of their creativity. Research also supports the association between self-perceptions of creativity and creative productivity. An examina- tion of activity choice in organizations indicated that individuals gravitated toward tasks that coincided with their self-perceptions (Lawler 1973, 1971). In summary, the extent to which people view them- selves as creative may be important tocreative effort/ output. In an advertising context we would expect successful creative personnel to perceive themselves as creative, value their creative work, have confidence in their creative abilities, and, therefore, choose to engage in creativity-related tasks. In relation to the current study, it is therefore rel- evant to examine self-perceptions of creativity because they may influence an individual's sense of his/her ‘own creativity. Based on these research findings, the relationship between contextual factors and the cre- ative act appears more complex than portrayed in Figure 1. An Extended Model of the Creative Process,Fall 1995 39 Figure 2 Extended Model of the Creative Process In the Advertising Agency Organizational Characteristics IEG., Agency Structure (Hierarchy, Centralization, Account Assignment), Procedures, Resource/ Task Constraints (Budget, Deadlines, Technology)| Individual Creative Creative Self Task/Process Output Perceptions | Development of [PP] (Advertisement the Advertising and/or Campaign) Message) SociallGroup Characteristics (EG. Agency /Client Cohesiveness, Evaluation, Conflict, Norms, Peer Influences, Supervision) Individual Characteristics Background) EG, Intrinsic Motivation, Knowledge, Personality, Cognitive Abilities, Cognitive Style Experience and in the Advertising Agency is presented in Figure 2 that reflects a corresponding modification of the rela- tionships. The latter model introduces “Self-Percep- tions of Creativity” as an additional intervening vari- able. Organizational, Social/Group and Individual characteristics are depicted as influencing the creative individual's self-perceptions and the subsequent im- pact on the creative task and output. In the tradition of theory falsification, the proposed relationships re- quire empirical investigation to clarify, affirm or re- fate the hypothesized phenomena. External Evaluation and Creativity External evaluation, a source of evaluation outside the individual and of which the person is aware, is considered a routine aspect of organizational life. It also represents an element in the Social/Group envi- ronment that could significantly influence creativity. Conceptual and empirical works in the social sciences have explicitly linked external evaluation and creativ- ity. A series of studies that examine external evalua- tion and creative performance support the proposi- tion that when placed under conditions of expected evaluation from external sources, individual creativ- ity was undermined. ‘Amabile (1979) found that subjects engaged in cre- ative tasks with the expectation that their work would be evaluated by expert judges showed a markedly lower level of creativity than respondents who had not anticipated external evaluation. Similar findings were reported in another study in which subjects were asked to be verbally creative (Amabile, Goldfarb, and Brackfield 1982). In that study, subjects not exposedJournal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising to external evaluation composed more creative works than subjects who expected external evaluation. Fi- nally, participants from an interview field study cited external evaluation as one of the top contextual fac- tors that was detrimental to their creativity (Amabile and Gryskiewicz 1985). Amabile (1987) explained that external evaluation represents a type of constraint or pressure that weak- ens creative performance via intrinsic motivation mechanisms. In a discussion of her comprehensive model of creativity in organizations, Amabile de- scribed the impact of evaluation on creativity as fol- lows: Evaluation pressure, where people feel threatened by unfavorable performance reviews for failures, canlead to extremely low levels of risk-taking and, asa result, low levels of creativity. (1988, p. 149) In contrast to the external evaluation findings of Amabile and others, numerous advertising profes- sionals routinely and successfully produce creative ideas in the face of external evaluation. For example, creative personnel frequently embrace decisions made by creative vice presidents, account supervisors and art directors, among others. In addition, client repre- sentatives habitually direct and debate creative objec- tives, as well as voice their agreement and disagree ment with creative output. It appears that external evaluation is invited throughout and might be inherent to the develop- ment of advertising messages and strategy. The ap- parent paradox between the highly judgmental cre- ative environment in the advertising agency and the creative person merits systematic investigation. The only advertising studies related to external evalua- tion were conducted by Reid (1978a, 1978b, 1976) and Reid and Rotfeld (1977) when professors’ evaluation of students associative ability were examined. These studies did not address the impact of such evaluation on the student or his/her self-perceptions of creativ- ity External Evaluation and Self-Perceptions of Creativity The relationship between external evaluation and creative self-perceptions has not been explicitly ex- amined. Although as early as 1975 Prince noted the critical nature of the advertising development pro- cess and its negative impact on self-esteem. Exposure to external evaluation may represent a social pressure to perform that results in increased levels of anxiety. ‘The self-perception that an individual has the at to master a task stems from external as well as inter- nal sources (Bandura 1977). Elements in the task envi- ronment may cause “emotional arousal” (Brief and ‘Aldag 1961) which may cause people to question their capabilities. Negative self-perceptions related to the task may result (Saranson 1976), ‘These findings indicate that external pressure may have a negative impact on the individual's motiva- tion to perform and perceptions of self-efficacy in his/ her work domain. When the streams of self-percep- tion research are considered in relation to the findings on external evaluation, we hypothesize that external evaluation negatively affects self-perceptions of cre- ativity. Hypothesis 1: External evaluation will be negatively associated with self-percep- tions of creativity. Cognitive Style and Creative Self- Perceptions An additional variable, cognitive style, may have special relevance to self-perceptions of advertising cre- ativity. Cognitive style is routinely classified and ac- knowledged as an individual characteristic (Woodman et al. 1993; Tierney 1992; Woodman and Schoenfeld 11989; Amabile 1988). The concept of cognitive style is defined as an individual's natural or preferred orien- tation for decision-making or problem solving. It rep- resents an individual characteristic that each creative person brings to the creative task. Kirton (1976) concluded that people fall along a cog- nitive style continuum ranging from highly innova- tive to highly adaptive. An individual with an inno- vative cognitive style was likely to seek and integrate diverse information, redefined posed problems in new ways, and generate ideas that deviated from the norm (Kirton 1989). An individual with an adaptive cogni- tive style tended to utilize data within a set domain, accepted problems as defined, and generated ideas consistent with accepted convention. Kirton’s use of the term “innovative” raises a ques- tion about its relationship to creativity. It is instruc- tive, therefore, to distinguish between cognitive style and creativity. Although a person’s cognitive style may influence his/her creative work, Kirton (1976) pointed out that the two phenomena are distinct. Cog- nitive style represents an orientation toward a pre- ferred mode of decision-making, In contrast, creativ- ity is a potential outcome of one’s cognitive style. ‘Although research investigating cognitive style and organizational creativity is still in its nascent stages, findings suggest that individuals with adaptive cog- nitive styles tended to display personality traits andFall 1995 a attitudes substantially different from individuals with innovative cognitive styles (Kirton 1976; Goldsmith 11989; Goldsmith and Matherly 1986). Individuals with adaptive styles had a tendency to be more compliant, conforming, and more easily influenced by external pressures (Kirton 1989). Individuals with an innova- tive cognitive style displayed a higher degree of irrev- erence for social norms and likewise exhibited a greater insensitivity towards, and lack of concern for, the ex- pectations of others. These people were char- acteristically field independent and were at times con- sidered rebellious in terms of their thinking and di- rected behavior. Most relevant to the current study is literature that suggests that individuals with an innovative cogni- tive style displayed a higher level of confidence in their ability to generate creative ideas, and tended to view themselves as creative people (Kirton 1989). In view of the evidence, it appears that Kirton’s innova- tors are similar to creative individuals as described by psychological research. The higher confidence level of individuals with an innovative style could have special relevance to advertising. In an advertising en- vironment, the innovator might be more able to with- stand the pressures of external evaluation than the adapter. It is hypothesized, therefore, that self-per- ceptions of the person with an innovative cognitive style should be positively associated with an individual's self-perceptions of creativity. Hypothesis 2: Innovative cognitive style will be positively associated with self-percep- tions of creativity. Gender and Creativity Gender represents a personal characteristic that could influence creativity. Gender differences in cre- ativity have been examined for several decades with conflicting results. Psychologists and social-psycholo- gists routinely cite cultural influences as the origin for documented sex differences in the literature (Vernon 11989; Woodman and Schoenfeldt 1990, 1989; Maccoby and Jacklin 1974). Recent findings support this con- tention, eg, researchers found no significant gender differences in verbal and nonverbal abilities (Richardson 1986; Gupta 1981). There is an additional explanation for previous findings that claim gender differences, viz., examiner bias. If assessment of cre- ative performance is based on examiners’ evaluations, there is an opportunity for bias to enter the research environment (Grim and Torrance 1977). On the other side of the issue, scholars note that biological and hormonal factors cannot be discounted and could in- fluence “aggression, exploration and initiative in males and nurturance in females,” and that such traits might underlie certain talents in males and females (Vernon 1989, p. 107). In summary, empirical methodology has not delineated the specific impact of gender dif- ferences on creativity and there is no consensus on the role of gender in creativity. In order to have a testable hypothesis, we postulate that there are gen- der differences but we are unable to predict the direc- tion of that difference. Hypothesis 3: External evaluation will differ- entially affect male and female self-per- ceptions of creativity. Methodology Research Design A repeated measures experiment under controlled conditions was employed to examine 1) the effect of external evaluation on self perceptions of creativity and 2) the relationship of personal cognitive style to creativity. The development of a magazine advertise- ment served as the creative task in the study. The initial testing of hypothesized relationships under laboratory conditions permitted examination of the variables of interest while maintaining a certain level of control over confounding extraneous factors. Con- sequently, the methodology maximized the inferences that can be drawn between the independent and de- pendent variables. The methodology was consistent with theory falsification research and the investiga- tion of an independent variable (external evaluation) of unknown power and a dependent variable (self- perceptions of creativity) that had not previously been measured. The repeated measures design provided informa- tion about (1) subjects exposed to the experimental variable under two conditions (first or second exer- cise), (2) the net effect between the two conditions for each individual and (3) subjects in a controlled condi- tion. As Table 1 indicates, the design permitted ex- amination of the effects of external evaluation in the experimental and control condition (within subject changes). A second benefit of the design is that it also allows for the examination of the effect of order of exposure to the experimental variable. Since each par- ticipant received the experimental condition at the beginning of either the first or second task assign- ment, it was necessary to take into account order ef- fects. In addition, the repeated measures design fac- tors out between-subjects’ variance that is unrelatedJournal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 2 Table 1 Experimental Condition by Group Order Condition Of Task Experimental Controt 1st Task Group A Group B (With Evaluation) (No Evaluation) 2nd Task Group B Group A (With Evaluation) (No Evaluation) to external evaluation. This is particularly important in creativity research, where individual differences are empirically documented. Sample ‘The respondents were enrolled in two sections of a university level introductory advertising course. The course was a junior level course without prerequisites which drew students from varied backgrounds. The students participated in the experiment as part of an in-class exercise. Enrollment in the classes was simi- lar (N = 35 and N = 40), Sixty percent of the partici- pants were males and 40% were females. The age of the participants ranged from 22 to 52 with a mean age of 27. Procedures During the first meeting of the class participants in the study were administered a cognitive style inven- tory and informed that at the end of the term they ‘would be given feedback on their cognitive style as it related to their work patterns. The respondents in the study were systematically assigned to one of the two conditions by alternating alphabetical order. The promise of an external evalu- ation was made to the subjects in the experimental condition. In the control condition the idea of external evaluation was not introduced. All groups were given an in-class, not for credit or grade, exercise. A second in-class exercise was administered within one week. The respondents given the control condition in the first exercise were given the experimental condition in the second exercise and vice versa. The same proce- dure was followed in both classes and is summarized in Table 1. After assignment to a group (experimental or con- trol), the participants were directed to separate class- rooms to undertake a creative exercise. The exercise was consistent with course content and objectives. All groups were instructed to develop a magazine adver- tisement for the product. A creative copy platform for a consumer product was distributed to all partici pants. The participants under both conditions were provided assorted materials (colored markers, colored Paper, scissors, glue, magazines, etc.) to use in creat- ing their ad. They were instructed to “use any of the materials” and “do their best..to develop a creative ad.” When the participants finished developing their magazine advertisement they were asked to complete the perceived creativity questionnaire Inthe experimental condition, participants were also told: “creative executives from local advertising agen- cies have indicated an interest in your work. These advertising creatives have agreed to review the ads you develop... and provide some feedback about your ‘work. Do your best...to develop a creative ad.” This additional statement was the only difference between the experimental and control groups. The second exercise was conducted in the same manner as the first. The assignment to the experimen- tal/control condition was reversed for the second cre- ative exercise. Participants were again provided with a copy platform for a different consumer product. No feedback was provided to the subjects regarding their performance on the first advertising task prior to their participation in the second task. Measurement Hypothesis 1: External evaluation will be negatively associated with self-percep- tions of creativity. Independent Variable. External evaluation (EE) was operationalized by telling the subjects in the experi- mental group that their advertisements would be evaluated by an outside panel of advertising profes- sionals. The EE variable contained two levels, evalua- tion/no evaluation. ‘A second independent variable was the effect of evaluation order (EO). The EO variable indicates whether the subject received the prompt of external evaluation during the first or second task assignment. EO was operationalized by the order in which the participants were introduced to the experimental and control conditions. Each participant received the ex- perimental condition at the onset of either the first or second task assignment. Dependent Variables. Although self-report measures of creativity exist (cf. Hocevar and Bachelor 1989), these measures focus on an individual's creative outFall 1995, Richards 1965), or attitudes and interests (e. and Davis 1976: Khatena and Torrance 1976). They do not assess self-perceptions of creativity. In the absence of existing measures of self perceptions of creativity, three single-item questions were used. Each item fo- cused on a different aspect of perceptions of creativ- ity: Perceived Creativity (PerCr): The extent to which subjects view themselves as creative. The extent to which subjects feel creative. The strength with which subjects view their potential to be creative Feelings of Creativity (FeeCr): Potential Creativity (PoCr): The first two items utilized a 5-point Likert scale ig from 1 = not at all creative, to 5 = extremely creative. The third item used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all strong, to 5 = extremely strong. The written instructions for each item asked the participants to circle the number that best de- scribed their self-perceptions on the item. Hypothesis 2: Innovative cognitive style will be positively associated with self-percep- tions of creativity. Predictor Variable. Cognitive Style (CS) was assessed using an adapted version of the Kirton Adaptation- Innovation Inventory (KAI) (1976). The KAI Inven- tory taps individual orientation to different modes of, cognitive style and exhibits Chronbach Alphas rang- ing from .91 to .83 (Kirton 1989). Although the origi- nal KAI contains 32 items, due to space and time considerations a 25-item version was used in the cur- rent study. The internal reliability of the 25-item in- ventory as measured by Chronbach’s Alpha was 0.98. Respondents were asked to report how often they could be described in terms of a series of descriptive items. The measure contained a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = never, to 6 = always. The higher the score on the inventory, the more innovative the subject's cognitive style. Hypothesis 3: External evaluation will dif- ferentially affect male and female self-per- ceptions of creativity. ‘Subject Variable. Gender is included in the study as a subject variable. Data Analysis and Results The initial sample contained 75 subjects. Statistical testing was conducted at the outset to determine the appropriateness of combining the two classes into a single sample. The analysis revealed no significant differences between the two classes on age and gen- der. The two classes were combined for the subse- quent analyses. Ifa participant missed one of the ses- sions, first or second, s/he was dropped from the sample. An analysis of the attrition rate indicated it was unrelated to experimental conditions. Of the three data collection points (cognitive style, first exercise, second exercise) in either of the classes, 3-4 respon- dents missed each. The final sample consisted of 54 subjects. ‘Hypothesis 1. The data were analyzed using a Multi- variate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). A three- factor mixed design was used to examine the effect of evaluation order, external evaluation (a repeated mea- sure) and gender. The results of the analysis are con- tained in Table 2. The analysis indicates a significant interaction be- tween external evaluation (EE) and evaluation order (EO) (Wilks lambda ~ .84, F = 2.99, p<.05). Accord- ingly, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Statistical power for the analysis, therefore, is not at issue since the analy- sis indicates that a null hypothesis would be rejected. A follow-up univariate Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were employed to examine the response of the individual dependent variables. Table 3 summa- rizes these analyses and indicates significant F values for the dependent variables, Perceived Creativity (F = 4.27, p = .044) and Feelings of Creativity (F = 5.96, p = 018). The third dependent variable, Potential to be Creative, was indeterminate (F = 3.34, p = .074). The plotted means for the interaction are presented in Fig- ures 3, 4 and 5. Hypothesis 2. A positive relationship between inno- vative cognitive style and self-perceptions of creati ity was hypothesized and analyzed through acorrela- tion analysis. The hypothesis was supported. The zero- order corzelation between innovative cognitive style and self-perceptions of creativity showed a positive relationship for all three perceptual variables [PerCr (= 42, p <.01), PoCr (r = .28, p <.05), FeeCr (r= 32, p<.05)}. An additional correlation analysis was performed between cognitive style and the three self-perceptions in order to examine possible evaluation and order effects. Data were divided into the following four groups: (E1) Evaluation 1st task, (E2) Evaluation 2ndJournal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising a Effect of External Evaluation & Cognitive Style on Set pereptions of Crest MANOVA ANOVA Sources Wiks F-vaiue df PerGr df PoCr_df__FeeGr_af Main Effects: External 92 142 1 4.27 1 1.07 1 381 Evaluation (EE) Evaluation 88 224 41 395 1 1.90 1 420° 1 Order (EO) Gender (G) 83 3.34" 1 10.38" 1 65" 1 436° 1 Interactions: EEXEO 84 299° 1 427 1 3.34 1 5.96" 1 EEXG 98 28 0641 00 1 52 1 381 EOXG 97 37 4 67 1 57 1 00 1 EEXEOXG 93 1211 00 1 72 1 257 1 *p<.05 *p<.ot task, (C1) Control 1st task and (C2) Control 2nd task. The El and C2 data were from the respondents in Group A (Table 1). The E2 and C1 data were from respondents in Group B. Results of the second correction analysis are pre- sented in Table 4. This analysis reveals a significant association between Innovative Cognitive Style and Perceived Creativity in all four groups. The Potential to be Creative variable was significantly related to Innovative Cognitive Style for participants who re- ceived the external evaluation for the first task (Group El) and for the same participants when they were placed in a second task situation but received no ex- ternal evaluation (Group C2). The correlation in the second condition increased when external evaluation ‘was not present. In fact, the relationship was stronger for Group C2 when external evaluation was not present. Hypothesis 3. On the subject variable, the analysis indicates a gender effect, ie, differences between males and females (Wilks lambda = 83, F = 3.34, p<.05). ‘The mean scores for males on the self-perception vari- ables were: PerCr = 3.33, PoCr = 3.76 and FeeCr = 3.02. For females the mean score on the dependent variables were: PerCr = 2.61, PoCr = 3.13 and FeeCr = 2.58. Hypothesis 3 is supported. The way in which the sexes differed, however, was consistent across both EE and EO, ie., there were no interactions involving gender. Discussion External Evaluation - Hypothesis 1 This study documents an interesting relationship between external evaluation and self-perceptions of creativity in an advertising task environment. Study results suggest that when participants are exposed to task evaluation in the process of creating magazine advertisements, their creativity-related self-percep- tions are negatively influenced. In general, external evaluation appears to reduce self-perceptions of cre- ativity. ‘Two of the dependent variables in the study re- sponded as hypothesized. The measure of Perceived Creativity significantly decreased in the face of exter-Fall 1995 45 Table 3 Anova Analysis of Self-Perceptions of Creativity by External Evaluation, Evaluation Order and Gender Souroe ss of MS FE B Perceived Creativity Between Subjects EO 5.49 1 5.49 3.95 052 Gender 14.43 1 14.43 10.38 002 EO x Gender 93 1 8 87 AB Residual 69.47 50 1.39 Within Subjects EE 69 1 69 427 044 EOXEE 69 1 69 427 1044 Gender x EE 00 1 00 00 947 EO x Gender x EE 00 1 00 00 947 Residual 8.05 50 16 Potential To Be Creative Between Subjects EO 1.47 1 1.47 20 348 Gender 10.67 1 10.67 651 014 EO x Gender 93 1 93 57 454 Residual 81.99 50 1.64 Within Subjects EE 01 1 01 07 798 EOxEE 84 1 64 3.34 074 Gender x EE 10 1 10 52 473 EO x Gender x EE 14 1 14 72 402 Residual 9.52 50 19 Feolings Of Creativity Between Subjects EO 473 1 473 4.20 046 Gender 491 1 491 4.38 042 EO x Gender 00 1 00 00 538 Residual 56.32 50 1.13 Within Subjects EE 04 1 04 10 752 EOXxEE 215 1 2.15 5.96 018 Gender x EE 14 1 14 38 538 EO x Gender x EE 93 1 93 257 115 Residual 18.07 50 36 nal evaluation, and Feelings of Creativity exhibited an even stronger decrease in the external evaluation condition. The third dependent variable, Potential to be Creative, showed the same directional support for the hypothesis, but was not significant. These three variables are closely related to each other, but their slightly different focus indicates that they may access different aspects of the perceived creativity construct, The self-perception variables were assessed with a single question. An empirical investigation of each ofJournal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising Figure 3 Mean Scores on Perceived Quatity Variable Means 3.75 3.70 3.65 3.60 3.55 3.50 3.45 3.40 No Evaluation 3.35 3.30 3.25 3.20 3.15 3.10 3.05 3.00 2.95 2.90 2.85 2.80 2.75 2.70 2.65 2.60 2.55 2.50 2.45 With Evaluation Tst Task these constructs in future research would help us to more fully understand the components of perceived creativity. In the first creative exercise, the dependent vari- ables behaved as expected, i.., self-perceptions were higher in the control group than in the groups that were exposed to external evaluation. In the second creative exercise, however, an unexpected result oc- curred. Although the mean scores for the second task show similar decreases compared to the control group in the first task, self-perceptions in the control group during the second task were appreciably lower than With and No Evaluation 2nd Task in the control group during the first task. In fact, self- perceptions in any of the other groups never reached a level commensurate with those of the first control group. At least two reasons for this come to mind. It may be that external evaluation in a creative environ- ment has a carry-over effect. Even though the partici- pants were not told that they would be evaluated in the second creative task, they may have assumed it. In the research situation, the participants were not specifically told that they would not be evaluated. ‘Another possible explanation is that the participants based on their perceived performance on the first ex-Fall 1995 a7 Figure 4 Mean Scores on Potential to be Creative Variable Means 3.75 3.70 3.65 No Evaluation 3.60 3.55 3.50 | With Evaluation 3.45 3.40 3.35 3.30 3.25 3.20 3.15 3.10 3.05 3.00 2.95 2.90 2.85 2.80 2.75 2.70 2.65 2.60 2.55 2.50 2.45 Tst Task cercise may have revised their self-perceptions of their own creativity. Cognitive Style - Hypothesis 2 ‘The analysis of cognitive style provides support for the hypothesized relationship between innovative cog- nitive style and self-perceptions of creativity. The find- ings indicate that people with innovative cognitive styles view themselves as more creative. The innova- tive cognitive style is positively related to Perceived No Evaluation With Evaluation ‘2nd Task Creativity in all groups and to Potential to be Creative in the experimental group (first task) and the control group (second task). The relationship between cogni- tive style and the Potential to be Creative grew stron- ger during the second task, that is, following expo- sure to external evaluation in the first creative exer- cise. It is important to stress the significance of this finding. Perceived potential to be creative was not adversely affected by external evaluation. Although this occurred only on the Potential to be Creative variable, this re-Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising Figure 5 Meen Scores on Fesiings of Creetivity Variable Means 3.75 3.70 3.65 3.60 3.55 3.50 3.45 3.40 3.35 3.30 3.25 3.20 3.15 3.10 3.05 3.00 2.95 2.90 2.85 2.80 2.75 2.70 2.65 2.60 2.55 2.50 2.45 No Evaluation With Evaluation Tst Task sponse is what cognitive style theory would predict. Individuals characterized by an innovative cognitive style are expected to have a stronger resistance to external evaluation. It is also reasonable that this ef- fect is observed on the Potential to be Creative vari- able. We know from theory that those who perceive themselves to be creative will value their creative ef- forts (Pelham and Swan 1989). This finding holds considerable significance for the advertising industry and the evaluative environment that is integral to the development of creative com- munication. The findings indicate that the creative person with an innovative cognitive style is more re- sistant to the evaluative environment of the advertis- No Evaluation With Evaluation 2nd Task ing agency. Further investigation of this effect is needed to clarify the dynamics of the innovative style and its implications for advertising agencies. Even though none of the relationships were signifi cant between Feelings of Creativity and cognitive style, this is none the less interesting, The analysis indicates that Feelings of Creativity do not appear to be influ- enced by cognitive style. One explanation for this find- ing is that Feelings of Creativity represent an affective rather than a cognitive response. The other self-per- ception variables, Perceived Creativity and Potential to be Creative, however, seem to be “cognitive” vari- ables. Both of these latter variables represent beliefs that the person may hold. These findings may be con-Fall 1995 49 Table 4 Zero-order Correlations Between Cognitive Style & Self-perceptions of Creativity by External Evaluation and Evaluation Order Experimental Control rar ang tka aaa Variable Group E1 Group E2 Group C1 Group C2 PerCr 40" ane 40" 5 PoCr 40" 25 08 67 FeeCr 35 10 26 A7 *p <.05,“*p<.01 sistent with Kirton’s assumptions which focus on the assessment of preferences. It is not surprising, there- fore, that feelings of creativity (a distinctly affective response) do not correlate with cognitive style. Gender - Hypothesis 3 ‘The gender effect also merits discussion. The data indicate a significant difference in self-perceptions of, creativity by gender on all three dependent variables. Male subjects exhibited stronger self-views consistent with creativity than did the female subjects. How- ever, changes in performance of males and females by external evaluation and evaluation order were the same, i.e,, the external evaluation variable affected females and males equally. In summary, the study demonstrated that self-per- ceptions of creativity are affected by external evalua- tion. The experiment contained sufficient controls to document the relationship between these variables; the application of the findings, however, are limited due to the experimental environment. It is important to note that this study provides a basis for additional investigation of these relationships in the applied en- vironment of the advertising agency. Study Implications and Recommendations This study is proffered as an initial investigation into a previously unexplored aspect of advertising creativity. Modeling the creative process in the adver- jing agency prompted us to frame the relationships that were examined in a laboratory setting. The de- sign of this study permitted us to draw the strongest possible inferences between the potential impact of external evaluation (Social /Group Characteristic), cog- nitive style (Individual Characteristic) and self-per- ceptions of creativity. The findings amend our under- standing of influences on the creative process and suggest a variety of related investigations—in the ap- plied or controlled research environment. The findings document the presence of self-percep- tions of creativity and their sensitivity to the organi- zational component of the model. There is a clear link between external evaluation and self-perceptions of creativity. It is not surprising that external evaluation resulted in lower self-perceptions of creativity. The potency of the influence of this contextual variable on each aspect of perceived creativity, however, is unex- pected. Several pivotal issues are raised in the study. For advertising creative personnel, the evaluation of their work could diminish creativity to the extent that it is perceived as threatening. Continued investigation is needed to identify the specific impact and conditions of evaluation in the advertising context. The delinea- tion of other influential components in the creative workplace may also prove interesting. The effect of external evaluation could be influenced by the level of agency and /or client supervision (peers to top level executives), the stage of the creative development pro- cess and operating constraints (time pressure, bud- get etc.) of the process. Study of the differences in the climate of evaluation within and between advertising agencies could also be instructive. The findings also raise questions about the role of cognitive style in the development of creative output. Cognitive style may be linked to perceptual impres-50 Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising ee sions of creativity. Creative personnel with an inno- vative cognitive style might be more resistant to ex- ternal evaluation than those with a more adaptive cognitive style. One interpretation is that certain ad- vertising creatives could be somewhat immune to the agency's inherently critical environment. A related question is, “Are those who are immune the more successful members of the creative staff?" The self-perception measures of creativity were ad- equate to document changes in self-perceptions. How- ever, ensuing investigations can be enhanced by the development of a measurement scale to assess the self-perception construct. As the comerstone of the advertising industry, cre- ativity merits comprehensive and critical investiga- tion. Scholars and professionals can avail themselves of the full range of research environments, designs, and methods to elaborate the exact nature of the vari- ables and their significance to advertising creativity. References Alvey, Patricia A. (1991), “Design Revolutions: Technology's Im. pact on the Advertising Designers Creative Problem Solving Process: An Exploration” Proceedings ofthe 1991 American Acad cemy of Advertsing, Rebecca Holman, ed., 104-113. ‘Amabile, Teresa M. (1979), “Effects of External Evaluation on Artis- tic Creativity,” Journal of Personality and Socal Peycholgy, 37 (February), 221-25. (1987), “The Motivation to be Creative,” in Fron- tiers of Creativity Research, .Isaksen, ed, 223-254 (1988), “A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123- 167. — (1983), “The Social Peychology of Creativity: A ‘Componential Conceptualization.” Journal of Personality and Social Peychology, 5, 357-76 -P. Goldfarb and 5. Brackfield (1982), “Effects of Social Facilitation and Evaluation on Creativity,” Unpublished Manuscript, Brandeis University, ‘and Stanley 8. Gryskiewice (1987) Creativity in the RED Laboratory, Technical Report, Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. ‘Auer, Emma (1976), “Creative advertising Students: How Differ ent?” Journal of Advertising, 5 June), 510. Bandura, Albert (1977), “Self Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory ‘of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Revi, 4 (March), 191- 215, ‘Barron, Frank M. and David M. Harrington (1961), “Creativity, Intelligence and Personality.” in Annual Review of Paychology, MR. Rosenweig and L. W. Porter, eds, Palo Alto, CA: An- ual Reviews Press, 32, $39-476, Bengaton, Timothy A. (1982), “Creativty’s Paradoxical Character: "A Postacript to James Webb Young’ Technique for Producing, dens,” Journal of Advertising, 11 (March), 3-9. Blasko, Vincent J. and Michael P. Mokwa (1986), “Creativity in ‘Advertising: A Jarusan Peropective” Journal of Advertining, 15 (December), 8-5. ——__ = (2906), “Paradox, Advertsing and the Creative Process,” Curent Imes end Reser in Advertise ing 11,351-36 Brit, Arthur P. and Raymond J. Aldag (1961), “The ‘Self in Work Organizations: A Conceptual Review,” Academy of Manage ment Review, 6 January), 75-88 Calder, Bobby J, Lynn W. Philips and Alice M. Tybout (1981), “Designing Research for Application,” Journal of Consumer Re- search, 8 eptember), 197-207. - = and (1982),"The Concept of External Validity.” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (Dacern- ber), 240-244 ‘Cannon, Hugh M. and Chery! Boglarsy (1991), Framework for Creative Strategy Development” Proeeingsofthe 1991 Amer can Academy of Advertsing, Rebecca Holman, ed, 102-103. ‘Chamber, J. A. (1964), Relating Personality and Biographical Fac- tors to Scientific Creativity” Paychloptal Monograph, 78. ‘Cummings, Barton A. (198), The Beneotent Dictators Interocws cid ie Advertising Grets, Chicago: Crain Pal Daniela, Draper (1970), “The Second Meaning of the Word “Cr. ‘tive’ Should be First in the Hearts of Advertising People” Tournal of Advertising, 3 (March) 31-32. Dillon, Tom (1979), “The Triumph of Creativity over Communics- tion” Joural of Advertsing 4 (September), 15.18. Frazer, Charles F. (1983), “Creative Strategy: A Management Per- “spective” Journal of Advertising, 12 (December) 264 Getees, Jacob W. and Mihaly Csikszentmihaly (1978), The Creative Visio A Longitudinal Study of Problem Soling in At, New York: Wiley Goldsmith, Rona (1969), “Creative Style and Personality Theory,” ‘nvAdaptors and Innooalors Stylesof Creativity and Preble. Sole ing, MJ Kit, Ed, New York: Rutledge, 97-58. and Timothy A. Matherly (1986), “The Kirton Ad- aptation innovation Inventory, Faking and Socal Desiabi- ity: A Replication and Exterwion,” Paycologial Reports, 58 (February), 269.27 Grim, Carolyn and E, Paul Torrance (1977), "Race and Sex Bias in Interpreting Creativity Test Reaults of Children” The Jounal of Creative Behavior, 13,212 Gross, Andrew Land Hugh M. Cannon (1988), “From Creativity ‘to Computers: Applying Artifical Intelligence to CretiveStrat- gy Development” Prevetings ofthe 1988 Armerian Aeadony of Adverising John D. Leckenby, ed, RO®-RCA2. Greos, Irwin (1972), "The Creative Aspects of Advertising” Slaw Managaement Review, Fall, 5-109. Gupta, Arun K, (1981, “Sex Differences in Creativity: Some Fresh Evidence,” The Journal of Creative Behar 15 (Fourth Quar- ten, 289. Hocevar, Dennis (1979), “The Development ofthe Creative Behavior Inentory” Los Angeles: University of Souther California (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service, No. ED 170350). — and Patricia A. Bachelor (1989), “Taxonomy and Critique of Measurements Used in the Study of Creativity," in Handbook of Creativity: Perpecties on Indfeidual Diferenees, Glover, Ronning and ©. Reynold, eda, New York Plenum Press Holland, John L. and James Richards (1968), “Academic and ‘Noracademic Accomplishment: Correlated or Uncorrelated?” Ieurnal of Educational Poyholgy, 56 (August, 165-174 Hot, Mary Ry John K Ryana Jr. and Willa L. Shanklin (1982, ‘Agency Client Relationships as Seen by Influentials on Both ‘Siden” Journal of Advertiing. 13 (March), 37-4 Hutchinson, Bit D196), “Haw to Think Creatively.” in Creato- ityand he Individual, M1. Stein and S.J Heinze, eda, Cheng: Free Pres of Glencoe, 2625,Fall 1995, 51 Khatena, Joe and Elli P. Torrance (1976), Manual for Kketena-Tor- ‘ance Creative Perception Inventory, Chicago: Stoelting. Kirton, Michael J. (1976), “Adaptors and Innovators: A Description ‘and Measure,” Journal of Applied Peychalgy, 61 (October) 62 6, 1909), “4 meory of Cognitive Style” in Adaptors ‘and Innowtor: Styles of Creatcty end Problem-Solving, Michael J. Kirton ed, New York: Rutledge, 136. Lavery, Roger M. (1953), “The Effect of Bottom Line Preasure on ‘Advertsing Creativity” Proceedings ofthe 1993 American Acad. ‘my of Advertsing, Esther Thoreon, ed. 32. Lawler, Edward EI (1971), Pay and Organizational Efectioeness:A Peycholgical Review, New York: McGraw-Hill (0972), Motiation in Work Organizations, Monterey: Brooks/ Cole. Maccoby, Eleanor . and Carol N. Jackin (1974), The Peychology of ‘Ser Diferencs, Stanford Stanford University ress. Matthews, john E (1975), "A Two-Course Survey of Creative Coun try,” Journal of Advertsing, 4 (March, 1316 McDermid, Charles D. (1965), “Some Correlates of Creativity in Engineering Personne.” journal of Applied Peychology, 49 (Feb- rary), 1419. ‘Michael, William B. and Claudia Wright (1989), “Psychometric Is- ‘sues inthe Assesoment of Creativity,” in Hendboot of Creatio- liy John A. Glover, Royce R Ronning and Cecil R. Reynolds, sede, New York: Plentmn Press 23-52 Mondroskt, Marcia M, Leonard N. Reid and J. Thomas Russel (0983), “Agency Creative Decision Making: A Decision Sys- tems Analysis,” Current lsues and Research in Advertsing, 57- 6. Moriarity, Sandra E. (1992), “The Creative Approach to Insightful ‘Rescarch” Precedings ofthe 1992 American Academy of Adve ting Leonard N. Reid ed, 204-207 =A rs88, “Advertsing Creativity and ELSIE Scores” The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2 (First Quarter), 71-72. — and Bruce G. Vanden Bergh (1954), “Advertising ‘Creatives Look at Creativity” The Journal of Creative Behavior, 18 CThied Quarter, 162-174 Mumford, Michael D and S.B. Gustafson (1986), “Creativity Syn- ‘drome: Integration, Applicaton and Innovation” Paychalog- cal Bulletin, 103,27-43.. Osbom, Alex (1953), Applied Imagination, New York: Charles Seribners Sons. Pelham, Brett W. (1991), “On Confidence and Consequence: The Certainty and Importance of Self Knowledge,” JouralofPer- sonality and Social Peyhology, 60 (Apri), 518-530 a end Wiliam B. Swann, Jr. (1989), “From Sel-Con- ceptions to Self-Worth: On the Sources and Structure of Go- bal Sell-Estem,” Journal of Personality and Social Prycology, 57 (Cctoben), 672-680 Politz, Alfred (1975), “Creativeness and Imagination” Journal of “Advertising, 4 (September), 11-14. Prince, George M. (1973), “Creativity, Self, and Power,” in Perrpec- ties in Creativity, Irving A. Taylor and Jacob W. Getzels, ds, Chicago: Aldine, 249.277. Reid, Leonard N. (1977), "Are Advertising Educators Good Judges of Creative Talent Journal of Advertsing, 6 (September), §1- 6. (19780), “Predicting the Creatives in Advertsing,” “Advances in Advertising Research and Management, Seven E. Permut, Editor. ———— (1978), “Factors Affecting Creativity in Gener tion of Advertising.” Journaiem Quarterly, 55:4 (Winter), 781- 85. and Sandra E, Moriarty (1969), “Ideation: A Re- view of Research,” Current lees and Research in Advertising, n9m. and Herbert] Rotfeld (1976), “Toward an Associa tive Model of Advertising Creativity,” Journal of Advertising, 5, 2429, ‘Richardson, Arthur G. (1986), “Sex Differences in Creativity Among, ‘Sample of Jamaican Adolescents,” The Journal of Creative Behavior, 20 (Second Quarter), 147-153 Rimm, Sylvia and Gary Davis (1976), “GIFT: An Instrument for the Identification of Creativity,” Journal of Creative Behavior, 10 (Third Quarter), 178-182. Rogers, Carl (1958), “Toward a Theory of Creati Philip E. Vernon, ed,, Middlesex, England: Pengui Saranson, Irwin G. (1976), “Ansiety and Self-Preoccupation,” Stress and Anxiety, Irwin G. Saranson and C. D. Spielberger, ‘eds, Vol.2. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Stein, Morris I. (1974), Stimulating Creativity (Vol 1), New York ‘Academic Press. (1975), Stimulating Creativity (Vol. 2), New York: “Academic Press, Stephens, Edward and Thomas Burke (1974), “Zen Theory and the Creative Course,” Journal of Advertising, 3 Qune), 38-41 Tierney, Pamela (1992), "The Contribution of Leadership, Support- ive Environment, and Individual Attributes to Creative Per- formance: A Quantitative Field Study,” PhD. dissertation. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati Tinkham, Spencer F., W. Ronald Lane and Annie Leung (1987), “Conflict Between Account and Creative Personnel Within the Advertising Agency: A Field Investigation,” Proceedings of ‘the 1987 American Academy of Advertsing, Florence G. Fessley, ed, R38-R&2 Vanden Bergh, Bruce G. (1981)"Radio Ad Copy Projects Turn Sti- dent Talent “Upside Down,” Journeliem Educator (January), 1024, — (1984), “Associative Creative Ability and Student Performance on Writing Assignments in Different Media,” Proceedings ofthe 1984 American Academy of Advertising, Donald R.Glover,ed,, 138-135. 1nd Keith Adler (1983), “Managing the Creative ~ Proceas,” Proceedings ofthe 1983 American Academy of Advertise ing, Donald W. Jugenheimer, ed, 108-111. —————., Leonard N. Reid and Gerald A Schorin (1983), “How Many Creative Alternatives to Generate,” Journal of ‘Advertising, 12 (December), 46-49. VarGundy, A.B. (1987), "Organizational Creativity and Innova tion,” in Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the Basics, SG. Isaksen, ed, Buffalo: Bearly Limited. ‘Vernon, Philip E. (1989), “The Nature—Nurture Problem in Cre- tivity,” in Handbook of Creativity: Perspectives on Individual Differences, John A. Glover, Royce R. Ronning and Cecil R Reynold, eds,, New York: Plenum Press, 33-110. Wallae, Graham (1926), The Art of Thought, New York: Harcourt Brace ‘Walston, Carl F (1990), “An Audience of One: The Art of Creating, ‘Advertising for Oneself” Proceedings ofthe 1990 American Acad- cemy of Adverlsing, Patricia A. Stout, Ed, RC29-RCH. White, Gordon E. (1972) “Creativity: The X Factor in Advertsing, “Theory,” Journal of Advertising, 1 (March), 24-28 Wicks, Jan L, Sandra J. Smith and Bruce G, Vanden Bergh (1986), “Views From the Muses: What Creatives Think of Their Co- Workers in Account Services and the Creative Department,” Proceedings ofthe 1986 American Academy of Advertsing, Emest Larkin, Ed, RIIZ-RN5,Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising Winter, Edward and John T. Rusell (1973), “Paychographics and Creativity,” Journal of Advertsing, 2 (March), 3235. ‘Woodman, Richard W,, John E. Sawyer and Ricky W. Griffin (1993), “Toward a Theory of tional Creativity,” Academy of Management Review, 18 (April), 292-321. and Lyle F. Schoenfeldt (1989), “Individual Differ. ‘ences in Creativity: An Interactionist Perepective,” in Hand- book of Creativity: Permpecties on Individual Difference, John. A. Glover, Royce R. Ronning and Cecil R. Reynold, eds., New York: Plenum Press, 77-91. a (2990), “An Interactioniat Model of Creative Behavior,” Jounal of Cretive Behevior, 24, Fourth Quarter, 27-90 Young, James B. (1960), A Teclique for Producing Ideas, Chicago: Crain Books. Zinkhan, George M. (1992), “Creativity in Advertising: Creativity inthe Journal of Advertsing,” Journal of Advertiing,22 June), 1.3.Copyright © 2002 EBSCO Publishing