Content uploaded by Darren Dahl
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Darren Dahl on Dec 10, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Marketing Research
Vol. XLIV (August 2007), 357–369
357
© 2007, American Marketing Association
ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic)
*Darren W. Dahl is Fred H. Siller Professor in Applied Marketing
Research, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia (e-
mail: darren.dahl@sauder.ubc.ca). C. Page Moreau is Associate Professor
of Marketing, Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado (e-mail:
page.moreau@colorado.edu). The authors are listed alphabetically and
contributed equally to the research. The authors thank Jennifer Argo, Ami-
tava Chattopadhyay, Amna Kirmani, Antonia Kronlund, and Art Markman
for their comments on prior versions of the article. The financial support
from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is
gratefully acknowledged.
To read and contribute to reader and author dialogue on JMR, visit
http://www.marketingpower.com/jmrblog.
DARREN W. DAHL and C. PAGE MOREAU*
From cooking kits to home improvement shows, consumers are
increasingly seeking out products that are designed to help them be
creative. In this research, the authors examine why consumers
participate in creative activities and under what conditions these
experiences are the most enjoyable. A qualitative study explores the
diverse motivations for undertaking creative tasks and identifies the role
of constraints in such endeavors. Then, the authors conduct two
experimental studies to understand the importance of constraints (e.g.,
instructional guidance, target outcomes) in facilitating a balance between
perceived competence and autonomy for consumers involved in a
creative task. When consumers engage in creative activities with a sense
of both autonomy and competence, they enjoy the experience more. The
authors discuss implications for managers and provide opportunities for
further research.
Thinking Inside the Box: Why Consumers
Enjoy Constrained Creative Experiences
Since paint-by-number kits surged in popularity in the
1950s, consumers have sought out products that are
designed to assist them in being creative. “Self-expression
for the time deprived,” as a recent article in Forbes (Rossant
1996) deemed the phenomenon, has created demand for
products offered by firms ranging from specialty crafts
(e.g., Martha Stewart) to home improvement (e.g., Lowe’s).
Between 2000 and 2002, U.S. consumers spent approxi-
mately $29 billion on hobbies and crafts alone, making this
sector one of the fastest-growing areas of the economy
(Craft and Hobby Association 2003). Among the many
products offering constrained creative experiences are kits
(e.g., model trains, needlepoint, paint-by-number), how-to
guides (e.g., cookbooks, home repair, landscaping), and
inspirational sources (e.g., home improvement programs,
cooking shows, paint-your-own pottery stores). These prod-
ucts offer “constrained” creative opportunities because the
1Prior work has examined experiential consumption (e.g., Holbrook et
al. 1984; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Holt 1995; Kozinets et al. 2004;
Penaloza 1999; Sherry 1998), but it has largely focused on how consumers
interact with products in which the “consumption object is controlled by
others” (Holt 1995, p. 7). Specifically, these studies have examined con-
sumers’ experiences interacting with video games, professional baseball
games, ESPN Zone Chicago, and Nike Town Chicago.
products themselves explicitly constrain elements of the
process (e.g., with a set of instructions) and/or of the out-
come (e.g., with a visual representation of the end product).
The recent sales growth in these categories suggests that
consumers value these types of constraints, and a central
objective of this research is to understand why.
Consumer researchers have both highlighted the need for
more research on the topic of play (e.g., hobbies, leisure
activities, creativity) (Holbrook et al. 1984) and acknowl-
edged the importance that such activities have on con-
sumers’ self-esteem (Csikszentmihalyi 2000). Despite these
implicit endorsements of the topic’s importance, little
empirical work has examined playful activities in general
(Kozinets et al. 2004) or, more specifically, why products
offering constrained creativity have become so popular with
consumers. With little exception, the recent articles on cre-
ativity appearing in the marketing literature (e.g., Bur-
roughs and Mick 2004; Dahl and Moreau 2002; Golden-
berg, Mazursky, and Solomon 1999; Moreau and Dahl
2005) have focused on the factors determining the creativity
of the outcomes. In these articles, a set of independent
judges is used to assess outcome creativity, and little
emphasis is placed on participants’ subjective experiences.1
Because the consumers’ own satisfaction with their experi-
358 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 2007
ence is likely to be a better predictor of future consumption
than the opinion of an objective observer, we examine the
effects of different constraints on consumers’ experiences.
The goals of this research are (1) to understand con-
sumers’ motivations for engaging in creative tasks and (2)
to examine how constraints influence the quality of those
experiences. We employ a qualitative study to address these
goals. Then, two experiments build on the qualitative
results, offering the first experimental evidence document-
ing the conditions under which consumers enjoy creative
activities. The experiments also measure and test specific
mediators to explain why consumers enjoy such tasks and
to identify a key moderator, prior skill level, as a segmenta-
tion variable. By engaging participants in hands-on creative
tasks rather than hypothetical scenarios, the experiments
add more realism and allow for greater generalizability.
EXPERIENTIAL CREATION
What constitutes a creative task? In this research, we
broadly define experiential creation as the universe of
activities in which a consumer actively produces an out-
come. Such a definition allows for a continuum of creativ-
ity, ranging from extremely limiting cases in which a prod-
uct is simply assembled (e.g., putting together an IKEA
desk) to extremely creative cases in which the product is
both conceptualized and realized (e.g., painting an original
picture). Constrained creative experiences fall within this
2A recent publication titled “How Many Interviews Are Enough? An
Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability” (Guest, Bunce, and
Johnson 2006, p. 6) found “that saturation occurred within the first twelve
interviews, although basic elements for meta-themes were present as early
as six interviews.”
range. Two critical factors vary across these activities to
determine the level of creative thought the consumer
requires: (1) the extent to which a target outcome is dictated
(e.g., either the outcome of the creative task is given by the
product, as with IKEA, or it must be generated by the con-
sumer, as with an original picture) and (2) the amount of
instruction or direction available (e.g., either the task is
guided by instructions, as with a cookbook, or it is
unguided, as with a reproduction of a known example). Fig-
ure 1 highlights the different types of creative products/
activities and how they vary along these two dimensions.
STUDY 1
The goal of this qualitative study is to understand both
consumers’ motivations in undertaking creative tasks and
the influence of constraints on those experiences. We col-
lected data using semistructured interviews to provide con-
sistency in discussion across creative domains. We con-
ducted 12 interviews with informants who represented eight
different hobby areas (scrapbooking, modeling, cooking,
jewelry making, card making, sewing, carpentry, and quilt-
ing).2We taped each interview and transcribed it. After each
Figure 1
EXPERIENTIAL CREATION
Thinking Inside the Box 359
interview was conducted, we analyzed the data to ensure
that the ensuing interviews would reflect any additional
relevant issues that were raised (Corbin and Strauss 1990).
We recruited informants using advertisements placed at
hobby stores in a major North American city. The inter-
views lasted from 30 to 60 minutes and were conducted at
the informant’s home or place of business. Informants were
eight women and four men, ranging in age from 20 to 62
years. Their occupations indicated a wide range in socio-
economic status, including accountant, teacher, student,
engineer, librarian, administrator, full-time mother, and
carpenter.
Data Analysis
We analyzed informants’ responses following a constant
comparative technique (Strauss and Corbin 1998). First, we
read the transcripts and noted specific themes in the data.
We analyzed each discussion with open coding to identify
the different types of responses or themes that appeared.
Second, we engaged in an independent process of axial cod-
ing to identify common patterns and connections between
the first set of codings. Through joint discussions and itera-
tive referrals to the creativity literature, we reached consen-
sus and also ensured that each factor or theme appeared in
the data repeatedly to achieve concept saturation (Glaser
and Strauss 1967; Kirmani and Campbell 2004; Wallendorf
and Belk 1989).
Findings
Basic motivations for undertaking creative tasks. Table 1
lists the seven different motivations that emerged from the
data. The first and most frequently mentioned motivations
were those of competence and autonomy, both of which are
underlying factors that contribute to a consumer’s private
Basic Motivation Definition Examples
Competence Anticipated satisfaction derived from
completing a creative project
successfully.
“Most of the time I feel really good because you’re taking pieces of something and putting it
into an actual finished product.”
“Producing something tangible is a really nice feeling.”
Autonomy Enjoyment derived from the freedom
to choose the process and/or design
of the creative task.
“You made it yourself; you chose the colors and stuff, so it’s customized. It feels like it
belongs to you.”
“I feel happy when I do my models. I feel like I can accomplish something. All the choices
you make are your own. You make every decision for yourself.”
“I make a lot of things you can’t find [in stores]. For originality and fabric quality, I prefer to
make certain things myself.”
Learning Desire to attain or improve the skills
necessary for completing creative
projects.
“I like the learning opportunity and sort of look at what the other guy is doing. At meetings,
they’ll do little presentations on techniques.”
“I learned through mistakes. The first five or six car models I bought, I was able to build
them, but they didn’t look as good as the models I build now.”
Engagement and
relaxation
Anticipated satisfaction derived from
immersion in the creative process
itself.
“Sitting in an office all day, coming home, and building something with my hands and taking
all my attention is a good way to me to relax and wind down.”
“It’s meditative; plus it’s a relaxing thing.”
“There’s something about working with wood that’s very pleasing to a lot of the senses.”
Self-identity Desire to reinforce or enhance self-
perceptions of creativity.
“I think I’m creative, and people at work tell me I’m creative because nobody else does stuff
like this. I kinda came to realize that I’m different sort of.”
“It makes me feel unique because not everybody does this kind of work. People think I’m
creative.”
Public sense of
accomplish-
ment
Anticipated satisfaction derived from
others’ recognition of one’s own
creative accomplishments.
“It’s also for self-gratification when you show it to the person and they ooohhh and ahhhh….
It’s gratifying to have someone appreciate it when you give it to them.”
“The other morning for a contest, I finished a model at 4 A.M., and then the first thing I did
was take pictures and post it on the net for my friends to see.”
“At weddings, when we give the quilts, our family and friends look at us and admire what
we’ve done and the fact that we’re so close.”
“Well, it’s gratifying when you’re cooking for a group of people who are really appreciative
and they give you a lot of compliments.”
“My husband really likes [the scrapbook], and that makes me happy.”
Community Desire to share creative experiences
with others who are similarly
motivated.
“Everyone’s a bit different, not my normal social group, but something like this brings us
together…. We share information, and there’s a positive feeling in model groups.”
“We go to one or two meetings a month, and it’s the same people,… even though I don’t do
stuff with them outside of that. I thought about giving up ‘Stamp It Up’ because I’m not
making money, but I can’t give it up. I’d have to give up that whole part of my life.”
Ta b l e 1
BASIC MOTIVATIONS FOR UNDERTAKING CREATIVE TASKS
360 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 2007
sense of accomplishment. When asked why he participated
in his hobby, the model plane builder responded simply,
“There’s a sense of accomplishment;… look at what I’ve
created from start to end.” In Table 1, other examples of
these motivations are presented that also demonstrate how
competence (e.g., completing the task successfully) and
autonomy (e.g., customizing the design) work together to
create an overall sense of personal accomplishment. More
discussion time was spent on these two motivations than on
each of the other five.
Learning how to improve on a skill set also serves as an
important impetus for participation in the hobby. As the
card maker explained, “I’ll do exactly what I’m told to do
when I go to a class because I want to learn how someone
else does it.” Learning opportunities enable people to
develop a more refined set of skills and techniques.
Notably, learning often involves a community of fellow
crafters meeting a social need; we discuss this in greater
detail subsequently.
In contrast to the private sense of accomplishment, which
is derived largely from the creative outcome, the motivation
for relaxation and engagement appears to be process
related. For many of the informants, the process was
engrossing but simultaneously relaxing, freeing their minds
from other concerns of the day. The hobbies also appear to
create or reinforce the hobbyist’s own sense of identity. For
many, the hobby enables them to attribute certain character-
istics to themselves (e.g., “I am creative”) by providing self-
reflective feedback.
Closely related to that is the motivation for a public sense
of accomplishment. Informants cited examples of positive
feedback from peer hobbyists, appreciation from gift recip-
ients, and admiration from friends and family as important
outcomes of the creative process. A hobbyist community
also provides a forum for public accomplishment, but
beyond that, the community provides a set of people with
uniquely common interests, the final key motivator for
many of the informants. Although several hobbyists men-
tioned that they would not normally socialize with the
people in their hobbyist groups, they found the companion-
ship invaluable. As one of the modelers described it, “I’ve
been to a couple of regional shows. Very enjoyable. You go
down with [three or four] guys, watch it together, have a
few drinks afterwards. It’s an escape.”
More examples of each of these motivating factors
appear in Table 1, and there are strong connections among
the motivations. For example, the community provides
learning opportunities that help improve hobbyists’ skills
and knowledge. In turn, these enhanced skills increase hob-
byists’ private and public senses of accomplishment. Taken
together, the qualitative data provide a richer understanding
of the real-world motivations underlying consumers’ deci-
sions to participate in creative pursuits. In the following
subsection, we examine how external constraints imposed
by creativity products influence these motivations, both
positively and negatively.
The pros and cons of external constraints. Almost exclu-
sively, the informants discussed how creativity products
(e.g., kits, how-to guides) affect their private sense of
accomplishment. The tension and trade-offs between com-
petence (e.g., instructional guidance) and autonomy (e.g.,
creative freedom) associated with the creative products
were highly salient to the hobbyists, dominating the bulk of
the discussions on the topic of constraints. Table 2 summa-
rizes the pros and the cons and provides multiple examples
of each.
Across the hobbies, four major pros were reported for
creativity products (e.g., kits, models, patterns, recipes).
Notably, all four advantages served to improve the hobby-
ist’s sense of competence (see Table 2). The creativity prod-
ucts enabled the informants to complete a creative task with
greater ease and/or less time. In many cases, these products
enabled people to accomplish their creative goals, even with
low levels of task-relevant skills. These products also gave
respondents more confidence or assurance regarding the
outcome of their project. As the cook noted, “If you have a
picture and a recipe, you’re pretty well guaranteed that it
will come out looking like that and taste what you think it’s
going to taste like.” Finally, the products helped consumers
develop hobby-related skills, again reinforcing their sense
of competence.
Three consistent cons to the creativity products emerged
across the different activities. Informants cited the lack of
freedom in the process and lack of uniqueness of the out-
come as the primary drawbacks to kits, patterns, models,
and recipes (see Table 2). Both factors limit consumers’
autonomy. Informants also were critical of the creativity
products that offered tasks that did not match their own skill
level. As one of the modelers put it, “You don’t want [the
kit] too simple; you don’t want it too hard. If it’s too hard,
you just spend months and months on it.” This factor mir-
rors the ease and efficiency factor and is largely an indicator
of perceived competence.
Discussion
This qualitative study illuminates people’s diverse moti-
vations for undertaking creative tasks and how constraints
influence these experiences. The two motivations discussed
most frequently, competence and autonomy, were also the
two most affected by the constraints imposed by kits (i.e.,
instructions and target outcomes). Creativity products
across the differing hobbies were shown to provide the
needed guidance (and often raw materials) necessary to
complete a creative task competently and in a reasonable
time. The creativity products also reduced perceived auton-
omy but allowed sufficient opportunity for customization
and improvisation of the process and/or the outcome.
These findings suggest the relevance of the cognitive
evaluation theory (CET) for further study of consumers’
creative experiences (Deci and Ryan 1985; Ryan and Deci
2000). The CET is a contemporary motivational theory that
investigates “people’s inherent growth tendencies and
innate psychological needs that are the basis for their self-
motivation” (Ryan and Deci 2000, p. 68). The theory is
highly relevant for our examination of creative experiences
because it focuses specifically on the two important deter-
minants of self-motivation identified in the qualitative
study, the need for autonomy (DeCharms 1968) and com-
petence (Harter 1978). The CET defines the need for
automony as people’s desire to believe that they are the
originator of their own actions; it is a need for self-
governance, volition, choice, and a self-organized experi-
ence (DeCharms 1968; Ryan and Deci 2000; Sheldon and
Elliot 1999). In the context of a creative task, these choices
and self-organization also encompass a need for self-
expression. The CET describes the need for competence as
Thinking Inside the Box 361
Pros Examples
Ease of use/efficiency “I first started when my parents bought me a little model. They’re very easy to assemble. Right off the bat, you cut and
glue it on. That’s it.”
“There are people who do scratch building [without the kit]. It is much more difficult. I don’t have the time to do that.”
Low skill requirements “I think [novice stampers] like it when they first try it and it looks good,… even the first time.”
“It gives you a starting point and gives you the basics to put something together. Because you know, I’m not a seamstress.
I’m not that skilled so it definitely gives me a starting point.”
“I can see [the kit] being helpful for, you know, a beginner who doesn’t really have the schooling for doing blueprints, and
doing cutting lists and actually figuring out how many sheets of plywood they need to buy.”
“I wouldn’t have the imagination to come up with the different ingredients,… like a pumpkin spice cream cheese icing,…
on my own.”
Certainty of the outcome “I do like to have a picture so I know what it’s supposed to look like, so I can see if mine looks as good as the picture
does.”
“If you have a picture and a recipe, you’re pretty well guaranteed that it will come out looking like that and taste what you
think it’s going to taste like.”
“I’m a big fan of box kits. If you buy it from the box, you try to make it look like the box.”
Learning opportunities “I learned from the models how to paint. You have to spray fast. There are a lot of skills to painting.”
“When I was first learning how to sew, that’s what you did was follow the pattern, which gives you lots of instructions. I
couldn’t sew without them.”
Cons Examples
Uniformity of the outcome “It is good to have a product that looks exactly like the picture, but then it is not special anymore, right?”
“With kits, there’s nothing on your own there. It’s just someone else’s, and all you’re doing is assembly. It’s like buying at
IKEA and saying that you made it.”
“Kits are like the lazy man’s easy way out. Scratch is just the classier thing to do.”
“I like to customize the kit in order to ‘put my own stamp on it.’”
“I’ve outgrown the kits. Sometimes I do use the same pattern, but I try different colors, and sometimes the designs look
actually quite a lot different.”
“I definitely like it when I come up with my own idea, just because I don’t want to copy something else. I would feel kind
of lame. I would rather make it myself and have my own idea and feel like I was creative.”
Decrease in process
enjoyment
“When you’re following such strict guidelines, it’s pretty frustrating and probably more challenging than when you’re just
freewheeling. It’s pretty constricting.”
“I think it’s less fun if someone is telling me exactly what step to do and what to do because it’s not creative.”
“I use the pattern as a starting point and go from there. It’s like, who wants to follow anything exactly by the rules?”
Mismatch between the
challenge of the task and
the hobbyist’s skill level
“Some of the companies have products that are a lot more complicated than they ever have been in the past. They’ve got
all these new technologies that they use, and the parts are a lot smaller; they’re a lot finer; they’re a lot more delicate.…
You’ll beat yourself over the head over one of these things.”
“[The kits] are for those self-proclaimed noncreative people. I see those kits and think, ‘Oh God.’ They’re premade. You
just literally glue it on.”
Ta b l e 2
THE PROS AND CONS OF THE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY CREATIVITY PRODUCTS (KITS, MODELS, RECIPES, AND PATTERNS)
people’s desire “to interact proficiently or effectively with
their environment” (Kowal and Fortier 1999, p. 358).
Notably, the two needs do not necessarily influence intrin-
sic motivation independently. In a creative context, the same
factors that are designed to increase perceptions of compe-
tence (i.e., instructions and a target outcome) may ironically
decrease perceptions of autonomy, choice, and self-
expression.
EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS AND THE CREATIVE
EXPERIENCE
The primary benefit that many of the creativity products
on the market offer is external guidance. These products
typically come with instructions and may also come with a
picture of the target outcome. These external constraints,
which dictate both the process and the outcome, help non-
professional artists, builders, bakers, landscapers, or hobby-
ists participate in creative activities, even if they lack a high
level of knowledge or skill in the area. “Simply stated,
hobby kits, like paint by number, functioned as a compro-
mise between genuine creativity and the responsibilities of
homemaking and earning a living” (Bird 2001, p. 17). How
do the constraints offered by these kits influence percep-
tions of competence and autonomy?
Competence
Creative products (e.g., kits) offering well-specified
instructions should increase consumers’ perceptions of
competence during a task because they inform consumers
about the appropriate plan for completion, saving them the
362 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 2007
time and effort of learning and/or developing the rules on
their own. When such guidance is provided, consumers are
likely to feel proficient, even the first time through a task.
Some kits also provide a picture of what the outcome
should look like. By acting as a concrete reference, a target
outcome may increase perceptions of competence by pro-
viding visual information that is useful in developing an
appropriate plan for task completion. The consumer may be
able to infer a set of steps that will enable competent com-
pletion of the project by simply looking at the target. When
such a target is provided with instructions, however, the
positive influence of the target on perceived competence
would likely be reduced because the visual instructional
information provided by the target is likely to be partially
redundant with the information in the written instructions.
The target also provides feedback on each action taken
toward achieving the goal, which is critical information for
assessing competence. When a component of the task is
successfully achieved (e.g., the shape of the consumer’s
holiday cookie matches the one from Martha Stewart’s kit),
consumers’ perceptions of competence increase. However,
when a component of the task is not successfully achieved
(e.g., the shape of the cookie bears little resemblance to that
on the box), perceptions of competence decrease. Because
the target outcome could be made more or less difficult to
achieve, its effect on perceived competence would depend
on the level of difficulty presented by the task. Many cre-
ativity products that provide target outcomes offer them at
various levels (beginning, intermediate, or advanced). In
this research, participants were given a target outcome that
was pretested to be challenging. Thus, the feedback derived
from the target outcome is likely to decrease perceptions of
competence.
We hypothesize an interaction between the instructions
and target outcome factors for perceived competence. When
instructions are provided but no target outcome is dictated,
perceived competence should be significantly greater than
in each of the other three conditions. In this condition, per-
ceived competence is enhanced by the provision of step-by-
step instructions and is not diminished by the negative feed-
back, which could arise from a comparison to the kit’s ideal
target. When such a target is provided, however, the nega-
tive feedback would likely reduce perceived competence.
Furthermore, the potential offsetting positive effect of
enhanced guidance offered by a target outcome would be
minimized because of its redundancy with the instructional
information. Taken together, this reasoning leads to the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H1: When instructions are provided and no target outcome is
dictated, perceived competence is higher than when no
instructions are provided and/or a target outcome is given.
Autonomy
When a target outcome is provided, the consumer is dis-
couraged from expending the cognitive effort to visualize or
imagine what that outcome might be. Rather, consumers are
effectively told what to make and that there is a “right” out-
come. This type of pressure to attain a specific outcome
may make the locus of causality an external one (Shalley
and Perry-Smith 2000). Under these conditions, there is
likely to be a decrease in perceived autonomy. Similarly,
instructions are likely to decrease perceptions of autonomy
because the instructions reduce people’s perceptions of self-
governance, choice, and a self-organized experience.
For autonomy, we also predict an interaction between the
two external constraints because there is likely to be a nega-
tive synergy when the two are active simultaneously. When
instructions are provided and a target outcome is dictated,
participants have little opportunity for volition, choice, and
a self-organized experience. However, when given a target
outcome in the absence of instructions, participants can
determine their own way to achieve the outcome based on
visual information; when given instructions in the absence
of a target outcome, participants can choose how their own
outcome will look. In either of these two cases, relaxing one
of the two constraints should enhance perceived autonomy.
Relaxing both constraints should also enhance autonomy
over the two-constraint condition. Formally,
H2: When instructions are provided and a target outcome is dic-
tated, perceived autonomy is lower than when no instruc-
tions are provided and/or no target outcome is given.
External Constraints and Enjoyment
The previous section highlights how external constraints
are expected to influence the motivational antecedents dif-
ferently. Specifically, a constraint that enhances perceptions
of competence, such as instructions, may also decrease per-
ceptions of autonomy. Motivation researchers theorize that
intrinsic motivation is enhanced only when perceptions of
competence are accompanied by perceptions of autonomy
(Fisher 1978; Ryan 1982). Such a balance is likely to be
best achieved when instructions are provided without a tar-
get outcome. In this condition, consumers are allowed to
imagine and create a unique outcome (autonomy) but know
how to complete the task (competence). Thus:
H3: When instructions are provided and no target outcome is
dictated, overall task enjoyment is higher than when no
instructions are provided and/or a target outcome is given.
STUDY 2
Design and Procedure
We manipulated two factors between subjects: (1)
instructions (step-by-step instructions with tool descriptions
versus tool descriptions only) and (2) target outcome (pic-
ture of final product provided versus no picture). The inputs
for the creative task were held constant across all condi-
tions. Thus, the study was a 2 ×2 between-subjects design.
Participants were 100 undergraduate students from a large
northwestern university who participated in the study for
course credit. Participants were randomly assigned to one
of the four conditions and were run in groups of two to five.
On arrival, each participant was seated at a testing station
(see Web Appendix A at http://www.marketingpower.com/
content84062.php), which contained a set of tools, premade
cookie dough, and premade white icing. At that point, both
experimental manipulations occurred. Participants in the
no-instructions condition were given the following verbal
instructions and a listing of the ingredients and tools pro-
vided (see Web Appendix B at http://www.marketingpower.
com/content84062.php): “Your workstation includes all of
the ingredients and tools you will need to make a cookie.
Once you are ready for baking, please signal the experi-
Thinking Inside the Box 363
menter. When the cookie has baked, it will be returned to
you for decoration.”
Participants in the “instructions” condition were given
the same set of verbal instructions and the tool listing. In
addition, they were provided with written step-by-step
directions that detailed how to use the tools and ingredients
correctly at each stage of the cookie-making process. The
instructions covered all aspects of the process: rolling and
cutting the dough and baking and decorating the cookie.
Participants were not required to use all the ingredients or
tools.
We used a picture of a decorated cookie to manipu-
late the target outcome. Participants assigned to the target
outcome condition were given a color picture of a deco-
rated cookie and were instructed to make that cookie (see
Web Appendix C at http://www.marketingpower.com/
content84062.php). Participants in the condition with no
target outcome were simply told to make a cookie.
In all the conditions, participants had exactly the same set
of tools and ingredients. The research assistants weighed
out the dough and carefully measured the specified amount
of icing and decorations for each participant. The dough
and the icing were made fresh each morning, and the three
convection ovens and the tools were cleaned after each
experimental session.
After finishing the cookie-making process, participants
were asked to complete a survey instrument that contained
the dependent variables of interest. The enjoyment con-
struct was measured first, followed by demographic ques-
tions and the measures of competence and autonomy. On
completion, participants were debriefed and thanked.
Dependent Measures
Competence. We used four items to measure competence.
On four nine-point scales, participants reported the extent to
which they felt smart, competent, talented, and intelligent
while performing the task. All items loaded on a single, dis-
tinct factor, and we summed them to create an overall com-
petence index (M = 21.9, range = 4–36; α= .88).
Autonomy. We also measured autonomy using four nine-
point scales to capture how free participants felt to make
choices and express themselves during the task and also
how controlled and pressured they felt (reverse scored). All
items loaded on a single factor, and we summed them to
create an autonomy index (M = 23.4, range = 4–36; α=
.78).
Task enjoyment. We measured task enjoyment using six
nine-point scales. Participants reported the degree to which
they enjoyed and had a good time during the creative
process, how fun and satisfying the process was, and how
annoyed and frustrated they felt during the task (reverse
scored). Again, all items loaded on a single, distinct factor,
and we summed them to create an enjoyment index (M =
41.2, range = 6–54; α= .94).
Results
Competence. We used a two-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to test H1; instructions and target outcome served
as the two independent factors. No significant main effects
emerged, but the results revealed the predicted interaction
(F(1, 99) = 4.46, p< .05; see Figure 2, Panel A). As we
expected, when instructions were provided without a target
outcome, participants reported the highest levels of compe-
tence (Minstructions, no target = 24.4), a level significantly dif-
ferent from participants in the other three cells (Minstructions,
target = 19.9, Mno instructions, target = 21.4, and Mno instructions,
no target = 21.1; ps < .05).
Autonomy. A two-way ANOVA revealed a significant
interaction (F(1, 99) = 4.46, p< .05; see Figure 2, Panel B),
providing support for H2. As we predicted, perceived auton-
omy was at its lowest when both instructions and a target
outcome were provided (Minstructions, target = 15.4), a level
significantly different from those in the other three cells
(Mno instructions, target = 19.7, Minstructions, no target = 26.4, and
Figure 2
STUDY 1:THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF INSTRUCTIONS AND TARGET OUTCOME ON COMPETENCE AND AUTONOMY
A: Competence B: Autonomy
364 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 2007
Mno instructions, no target = 25.5; ps < .05). The results also
revealed a main effect that showed that the provision of a
target outcome decreased perceived autonomy (F(1, 99) =
37.47, p< .001; Mno target outcome = 25.9 versus Mtarget
outcome = 17.8).
Task enjoyment. We also used a two-way ANOVA to test
H3, and this revealed the predicted interaction (F(1, 99) =
6.82, p< .01; see Figure 3). When no target outcome was
given, participants who received the full set of instructions
reported higher levels of enjoyment than those who
received no instructions (Minstructions, no target = 44.0 versus
Mno instructions, no target = 38.7, p< .05). Participants in this
condition also reported higher levels of enjoyment than
those who received a target outcome and instructions
(Minstructions, no target = 44.0 versus Minstructions, target = 37.6,
p< .05). Notably, however, participants who received a tar-
get outcome with no instructions also reported relatively
high levels of enjoyment (Mno instructions, target = 42.4 versus
Minstructions, no target = 44.0, not significant). Apparently, the
mix of constraints in this condition (no instructions, target
outcome provided) also achieves a balance of competence
and autonomy that is satisfying for the consumer.
We performed mediation tests (Baron and Kenney 1986)
to determine the influence of competence and autonomy on
overall task enjoyment. For competence, each of the four
requirements for mediation was met. First, the two inde-
pendent factors interacted to predict competence. Second,
the two independent factors also interacted to predict task
enjoyment. Third, when competence was added to this
model as a covariate, it was significant (F(1, 99) = 39.22,
p< .0001). Fourth, in this same model, the interactive effect
of the independent factors became nonsignificant
(F(1, 99) = 2.95, p> .10; Sobel = –2.01, p< .05).
For autonomy, the first three requirements were also met,
indicating partial mediation (Baron and Kenney 1986).
However, adding autonomy as a covariate to the model pre-
dicting enjoyment did not completely erode the significance
of the interaction; it only reduced it (Sobel = –1.74, p=
.08). Thus, whereas autonomy is an important factor influ-
encing overall enjoyment of the creative task, perceived
competence provides stronger explanatory power of the
route through which the manipulated factors influence per-
ceived task enjoyment.
Discussion
These findings highlight the importance of balancing per-
ceptions of competence with perceptions of autonomy to
enhance overall task enjoyment. Ironically, it was not the
overall goal of the task (“make any cookie” versus “make
this exact cookie”) that drove participants’ enjoyment of the
task. Rather, it was the extent to which participants experi-
enced a balance between autonomy and competence. Those
who received no target outcome and a set of instructions
had both the ability to follow task guidance successfully
(competence) and the freedom to create an individualized
design (autonomy), which resulted in higher levels of task
enjoyment.
On a broader scale, the results from Study 2 are the first
to examine empirically the relationship between task enjoy-
ment and its motivational antecedents, perceived compe-
tence and autonomy. By using an experimental approach to
examine consumers engaged in an actual creative task, this
study also provides insight into how the constraints offered
by certain creative products influence consumers’ overall
experience. As did the manufacturers of paint-by-number
kits 50 years ago, in this study, we assumed no level of prior
experience in our study participants. Through randomiza-
tion, we effectively mitigated any effects that such differ-
ences in skill would have on task enjoyment and outcome
satisfaction. However, prior skill levels are likely to have an
important influence not only on a person’s likelihood of
purchasing a product that offers constrained creativity but
also on the likelihood of enjoying the experience offered.
THE INFLUENCE OF SKILL LEVEL AND EXTERNAL
CONSTRAINTS ON PERCEIVED COMPETENCE AND
AUTONOMY
Numerous studies have demonstrated that people with
greater skill at a particular task are better able to use their
own internal knowledge as a source of guidance than those
with lower levels of skill (see Alba and Hutchinson 1987;
Sanbonmatsu, Kardes, and Herr 1992). For consumers who
undertake creative activities as hobbies rather than careers,
products offering constrained creativity offer an alternative
to this time-consuming and all-encompassing approach.
Nonetheless, there is likely to be a variance in consumers’
existing skill levels when they engage in these creativity
tasks. Even in this nonprofessional arena, people with
higher skill are also likely to be better equipped to provide
their own guidance and feedback than those with less skill.
When a task offers them the freedom to follow their own
internal guidance, highly skilled people are likely to enjoy a
task more than those with lower skill levels. We look to the
motivational antecedents of competence and autonomy
again to explain this prediction.
Competence
Several factors can affect the difficulty of the creative
task. First, marketers may offer a range of target outcomes,
Figure 3
STUDY 1:THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF INSTRUCTIONS
AND TARGET OUTCOME CONSTRAINTS ON TASK
ENJOYMENT
Thinking Inside the Box 365
3Both skilled and unskilled members of the sample population rated the
creative task equally difficult when a target outcome was provided
(Mhigh skill = 12.9 versus Mlow skill = 12.0, not significant). When no target
was provided, those with high skill viewed the task as less difficult than
those with low skill (Mhigh skill = 10.7 versus Mlow skill = 15.1, p< .01).
from the simple to the advanced. Second, the presence of a
target outcome itself can affect how challenging a creative
task is deemed to be. When a target outcome is not offered,
consumers are required to complete an additional cognitive
step: design a unique outcome. In our experiments, we con-
trol for the first factor by holding constant the level of diffi-
culty of the target. We manipulate the second factor with the
presence or absence of a target, thus manipulating the num-
ber of steps that require cognitive thought.
When no target outcome is provided, skilled bakers
would likely need to devote fewer cognitive resources to
physically cutting out and baking the cookie than non-
skilled bakers, leaving more resources available for imagin-
ing and designing their own cookie. Nonskilled bakers,
however, may not have these excess resources available and
thus may be overwhelmed with the full set of task demands.
Under these conditions (and with step-by-step instructions
provided for all participants), participants with higher skill
levels should report greater perceptions of competence than
those with lower skill levels.
If a target outcome is provided, however, consumers of
all skill levels face fewer cognitive tasks because the target
outcome is given. Thus, the effect of skill-based differences
on perceived competence should be significantly reduced in
this less stringent cognitive task. Participants’ perceptions
of competence will be subjected to the potential negative
effects of feedback provided by a challenging target out-
come and, consequently, are likely to be lower. Indeed,
people of all skill levels will be novices at producing the
specific, novel target outcome provided in this research.3As
such, the target solution may provide relatively equally
valenced feedback to people of both high and low skill lev-
els. Thus, we expect that perceptions of competence will be
lower for people who receive a target outcome than for
those who do not. Furthermore, we expect that competence
perceptions will be less influenced by overall skill level
when the target is present. Taken together, this theorizing
leads to the following hypothesis:
H4: When no target outcome is provided and skill levels are
high, perceived competence is higher than when a target
outcome is provided and/or skill levels are low.
Autonomy
In Study 2, the provision of a target outcome decreased
perceptions of autonomy, regardless of whether instructions
were provided. We expect the main effect to be evident in
this study as well. A more interesting question, however, is
how existing skill levels interact with external constraints
(e.g., a target outcome) to influence perceptions of auton-
omy. Because participants with higher skill levels will have
more resources available to visualize their own solutions,
they should report higher levels of autonomy when given
the opportunity to imagine their own outcome (e.g., when
no target outcome is provided). Conversely, when a target
outcome is provided, its presence may reduce the perceived
autonomy of high-skilled participants more than that of
4We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this possibility.
low-skilled participants, given their greater ability to gener-
ate numerous outcomes.4Effectively, the presence of a tar-
get outcome might stifle the autonomy of a skilled person
more than that of an unskilled person. Thus:
H5: When no target outcome is provided, higher skill levels
lead to higher levels of perceived autonomy. When a target
outcome is provided, higher skill levels lead to lower levels
of perceived autonomy.
Task Enjoyment
Thus far, we have predicted that more highly skilled
people will feel both more competent and more
autonomous than their lesser skilled counterparts when no
target outcome is provided. When a target outcome is pro-
vided, we expect the advantage in competence for the
higher-skilled people to disappear. More dramatically, the
advantage in autonomy is likely to be reduced to a level
below that of the lower-skilled people. Thus:
H6: When no target outcome is provided and skill levels are
high, task enjoyment is higher than when a target outcome
is provided and/or skill levels are low.
STUDY 3
Design and Procedure
We used Study 2’s baking task as the creative task, but
with the following changes: First, we manipulated only one
factor (target outcome) between subjects. All participants
were provided with full instructions. Second, we measured
and dichotomized prior baking skill to create a high-skill
and a low-skill group. Third, across all conditions, each par-
ticipant was told to roll out, cut, and bake a cookie in a par-
ticular shape (see Web Appendix C at http://www.marketing
power.com/content84062.php) and were given instructions
to do so. Thus, the target outcome manipulation related only
to decorating the cookie (i.e., “decorate it in any way you
would like” versus “decorate it exactly like this one”). Par-
ticipants were 112 undergraduate students from a large
northwestern university who participated in the study for
course credit.
Measures
We measured baking skill before the task using a three-
item scale. Participants reported how frequently they baked
and the extent to which they were a good baker and a better
cook than most of their peers (α= .90). We measured com-
petence, autonomy, and task enjoyment using the same
scales reported in Study 2.
Results
Competence. We used a two-way ANOVA to test H4.
Although no main effects emerged, there was a significant
interaction between skill level and target outcome (F(1,
111) = 5.34, p< .05; see Figure 4). As we predicted, when
no target outcome was provided, participants with high skill
levels reported higher levels of competence than those with
low skill levels (Mhigh skill = 27.4 versus Mlow skill = 20.8,
p< .01). Participants in this condition also reported higher
levels of competence than those in the two conditions who
366 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 2007
Figure 4
STUDY 2:THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF SKILL AND
TARGET OUTCOME CONSTRAINTS ON COMPETENCE
Figure 5
STUDY 2:THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF SKILL AND
TARGET OUTCOME CONSTRAINTS ON TASK ENJOYMENT
received a target outcome (Mhigh skill, target = 21.2, and Mlow
skill, target = 22.1; ps < .05).
Autonomy. We also used a two-way ANOVA to test H5.
Consistent with Study 2’s findings, the provision of a target
outcome decreased perceived autonomy (F(1, 111) = 6.75,
p< .01; Mno target outcome = 19.2 versus Mtarget outcome =
16.3). A main effect of skill level also emerged from this
analysis; high skill levels were positively related to greater
perceptions of autonomy (F(1, 111) = 4.41, p< .05; Mhigh
skill = 19.0 versus Mlow skill = 16.4). However, the two inde-
pendent factors did not jointly influence perceived auton-
omy. Thus, these findings provide only partial support for
H5because perceived autonomy was higher for skilled than
for unskilled participants when no target outcome was pro-
vided. However, the identified main effect for skill level
directly contrasted with our expectation that the provision
of a target outcome would lower perceived autonomy for
highly skilled participants. Skilled participants felt more
autonomy than unskilled participants when a directed out-
come was provided. It is possible that these skilled partici-
pants realized autonomy by creating their own process for
realizing the target. An opportunity for further research lies
in exploring this unexpected outcome.
Task enjoyment. We also used a two-way ANOVA to test
H6. An interaction between the skill level and the target out-
come was significant (F(1, 111) = 4.35, p< .05; see Figure
5), and there was an unanticipated main effect of skill level
(F(1, 111) = 6.02, p= .01). The interaction was consistent
with H6, and the main effect was consistent with our unex-
pected findings for autonomy. When no target outcome was
provided, participants with higher skill levels reported
higher task enjoyment than those with lower skill levels
(Mhigh skill = 43.7 versus Mlow skill = 35.3, p< .01). These
participants also reported higher enjoyment than the two
groups that received a target outcome (Mhigh skill, target =
40.0, and Mlow skill, target = 39.3; ps < .05).
To explain the pattern of task enjoyment, we again con-
ducted mediation tests (Baron and Kenney 1986) separately
for competence (for the interaction) and for autonomy (for
the main effect). Similar to Study 2, each of the four
requirements for mediation was met for competence. First,
as we described previously, the two independent factors
interacted to predict competence. Second, the two inde-
pendent factors also interacted to predict task enjoyment.
Third, when we added competence as a covariate to the
model predicting enjoyment, it was significant (F(1, 111) =
12.45, p< .001). Fourth, with competence as a covariate,
the interactive effect of the independent factors became
nonsignificant (F(1, 111) = 2.10, p> .10), as did the main
effect of skill level (F(1, 111) = 3.44, p> .05; Sobel =
–1.95, p= .05).
For autonomy, the first two requirements were met. Skill
level was positively related to both perceived autonomy and
task enjoyment. However, when we added perceived auton-
omy as a covariate to the model predicting enjoyment, it
was not significant, and there was no significant decrease in
the relationship between skill level and enjoyment (Sobel =
.43, p> .10). A reason that autonomy may not have medi-
ated the relationship between skill level and enjoyment is
that skill level may be correlated with other factors that pre-
dict task enjoyment (e.g., interest in baking, enjoyment of
cookies). In summary, although the independent factors in
this study had significant influences on both autonomy and
competence, only perceptions of the latter appeared to
explain the pattern of task enjoyment.
Discussion
The results of this study have implications for manufac-
turers hoping to capitalize on consumers’ desire for a
“somewhat individual” outcome constructed on their own.
This study demonstrates that prior skill level may be a criti-
Thinking Inside the Box 367
5We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this comparison.
cal segmentation variable. Participants with low skill levels
were able to achieve comparable levels of perceived compe-
tence and task enjoyment as those with high skill levels if a
target outcome was dictated. Under these conditions, par-
ticipants of all skill levels had similar perceptions of per-
ceived task difficulty. According to Bird (2001, pp. 41, 47),
paint-by-number kits were “mass appeal items without lim-
itations for age and sex” and were “tested and retested to
ensure that anyone with the patience to complete the paint-
ing would achieve the same result—while earning the dis-
tinction of having painted it oneself.”
For participants with higher skill levels, products allow-
ing for some customization of the outcome appear to be
preferable. Allowing skilled consumers to imagine and real-
ize a unique solution while offering the materials and some
guidance maximized both their perceived competence and
their task enjoyment. For these customers, perceptions of
competence and autonomy declined significantly when a
target outcome was specified, and consequently, task enjoy-
ment declined as well.
Notably, the target outcome manipulation we used in
Study 3 did not provide for a full replication of the effects
on task enjoyment found in Study 2. Recall that in Study 2,
participants in the no-target condition were both given the
freedom to roll out and cut the dough into any shape and
allowed to decorate it in any way they wanted. In Study 3,
however, all participants were forced to cut out a cookie of
the same shape, but those in the no-target condition could
decorate it however they liked. This limited autonomy influ-
enced the pattern of results. In Study 2, the target outcome
manipulation significantly influenced participants who
received full instructions (Mno target = 44.0 versus Mtarget =
37.6, p< .05), but in Study 3, there was no such effect when
enjoyment was averaged across the low- and high-skilled
bakers (Mno target = 39.5 versus Mtarget = 39.7, not signifi-
cant).5Thus, the magnitude of the outcome constraint itself
appears to influence overall task enjoyment.
Other results are also likely to be dependent on the stim-
uli chosen for these studies. For example, if the target out-
come were made more or less difficult, the valence and
amount of feedback provided to the participant would likely
change and influence perceptions of competence; con-
versely, if the instructions varied in their helpfulness or in
their level of control, the effects on both competence and
autonomy would differ. What remains consistent across
both studies, however, is that when external constraints
facilitate a sense of competence together with a sense of
autonomy, task enjoyment is enhanced. These findings are
consistent with the CET, which has long been hypothesized
to be an appropriate theoretical base for examining creative
experiences.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Since Guilford (1950) advocated a research agenda on
creativity in his landmark article in American Psychologist,
the study of creativity has received increasing attention
from researchers across academic disciplines. According to
Sternberg and Dess (2001, p. 332), however, “we do not
know enough about this important psychological process.”
This statement also applies to our understanding of con-
sumers’ creative experiences. Although restricted in its
scope, our research initiates a more thorough examination
of consumers’ creative experiences.
Theoretical Contributions
We used a combination of qualitative research and CET
to understand why consumers participate in creative activi-
ties and the conditions under which they enjoy these experi-
ences. Study 1 provides a broad understanding of the moti-
vations underlying creative pursuits across a wide domain
of activities. Respondents consistently noted a motivation
for personal accomplishment, which was achieved by satis-
fying the needs of both autonomy and competence. Other
motivations included the desires for learning, engagement
and relaxation, self-identity, public accomplishment, and
community. Importantly, this study also provides insight
into the influence of external constraints (e.g., target out-
comes, instructions) on consumers’ creative experiences.
Indeed, the pros and cons of these creative products (e.g.,
kits, models, patterns, recipes) highlight the tension
between consumers’ desire for instructional guidance and
their need for individualism. Hobbyists value the feeling of
competence that creative products provide, and they create
their own strategies to overcome the constraints that such
products impose on both the creative process and the
outcome.
Studies 2 and 3 offer the first experimental evidence
documenting the conditions under which consumers enjoy
creative activities. Using the central themes of competence
and autonomy we identified in the initial interviews, Study
2 explicitly tests the roles of constraints in the creative
experience. Notably, this study shows that participants
receiving a set of instructions without a target outcome had
both sufficient guidance to complete the task successfully
(competence) and the freedom to create an individualized
design (autonomy). This combination resulted in higher lev-
els of task enjoyment, confirming the ideas forwarded in
Study 1.
Study 3 identifies an important moderator of the creative
experience—namely, prior skill level. In this experiment,
skilled consumers reported greater perceptions of compe-
tence when fewer constraints were active. Indeed, partici-
pants with previous baking experience enjoyed the creative
task more when a target outcome was not imposed on them.
These findings have implications for marketers attempting
to capitalize on consumers’ growing interest for creative
products. Defining the correct balance of product con-
straints and making appropriate segmentation decisions are
critical in addressing consumers’ motivations that underlie
their need for creative expression.
Limitations and Future Research Opportunities
As we noted previously, a central limitation of the current
research is inherent in the methodologies we employed. The
experiments we conducted necessitated specific choices
with respect to a creative task and the constraints examined.
368 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 2007
Furthermore, the sample populations for these studies were
not actual bakers or cooking hobbyists but rather student
participants seeking class credit for their involvement. The
qualitative nature of the in-depth interviews conducted in
Study 1 also was limited in its representativeness and gener-
alizability to broader populations.
These limitations provide several directions for future
investigation; foremost are the opportunities created by the
specific nature of our experimental manipulations. It is
likely that changes to the type of target and content of the
instructions will affect the patterns of results for both com-
petence and autonomy. Further research should assess how
different types of target outcomes and forms of instruction
affect the identified effects. For example, in our experimen-
tal studies, the chosen target outcome manipulation was
challenging in nature—how would the results change if the
target outcome were easier to realize? How does the per-
ceived attractiveness of a target outcome affect the con-
sumer’s motivation? It is likely that the attractiveness of the
target outcome is a moderating force that influences con-
sumers’ intentions to purchase the creative product, their
desire to customize or alter the outcome, their enjoyment of
the process, and their overall satisfaction with the outcome.
Detailed versus sparse instructional guidance is also likely
to motivate different consumer reactions (e.g., ignoring the
instructions, feelings of frustration) and to have differential
effects on perceptions of competence, autonomy, and enjoy-
ment. Further research should be directed toward identify-
ing the boundary conditions and enhancing the proposed
theoretical framework by testing different characteristics
and combinations of these outcome and process constraints.
More broadly, several research opportunities are seeded
in the qualitative interviews we conducted in Study 1.
Specifically, dialogue with respondents revealed several
creative consumption motivations that remain to be
explored. Although we confirmed the importance of auton-
omy and competence in our experimental studies, it is pos-
sible that other motivations were also responsible for the
enjoyment participants experienced in completing the
experimental task. For example, recall that in Study 2, high
levels of enjoyment were realized when a target outcome
and no instructions were provided. In this situation, other
motivations, such as a desire to learn and become more pro-
ficient in the task, may have also facilitated enjoyment for
participants in this situation. Private motivations (e.g.,
learning, relaxation) and public ones (e.g., sense of commu-
nity, public sense of accomplishment) exist for people that
pursue creativity products. How each of these motivations is
fulfilled, both independently and jointly, in the context of
consumer creativity remains to be explored.
Finally, further research should also investigate how
other individual differences (beyond skill) influence con-
sumers’ creative experiences. For example, Chiu, Hong, and
Dweck (1997) distinguish between people who are entity
theorists and those who are incremental theorists. Whereas
entity theorists view their own failures as an indicator of
their own chronic abilities, incremental theorists have a
greater tendency to ascribe their failures to situational
effects (Chiu, Hong, and Dweck 1997). How this distinction
influences perceptions of personal achievement in creative
tasks (through competence and autonomy) and desire for
different types of tasks (e.g., challenging versus not chal-
lenging) would be an interesting area for further research. It
would also be worthwhile to examine how this distinction
influences the relationship between perceived task perform-
ance and the other motivational antecedents (e.g., self-
identity). It is our hope that the current research provides a
rationale and stimulus for future investigation into why con-
sumers need creativity in their consumption and how these
creative activities are best articulated.
REFERENCES
Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of
Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13
(March), 411–54.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (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.
Bird, William L. (2001), Paint-by-Number: The Craze That Swept
the Nation. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Burroughs, James E. and David Glen Mick (2004), “Exploring
Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Creativity in a
Problem-Solving Context,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31
(December), 402–411.
Chiu, Chi-yue, Ying-yi Hong, and Carol S. Dweck (1997), “Lay
Dispositionism and Implicit Theories of Personality,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (1), 19–30.
Corbin, Juliet and Anselm Strauss (1990), “Grounded Theory
Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria,” Quali-
tative Sociology, 13 (1), 3–21.
Craft and Hobby Association (2003), “Annual Report,” (accessed
November 2004), [available at http://www.hobby.org/pdfs/
protected/CHA2003_Full_Year_Report.pdf].
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (2000), “The Costs and Benefits of
Consuming,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September),
267–72.
Dahl, Darren W. and Page Moreau (2002), “The Influence and
Value of Analogical Thinking During New Product Ideation,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (February), 47–60.
DeCharms, Richard (1968), Personal Causation. New York: Acad-
emic Press.
Deci, Edward L. and Richard M. Ryan (1985), Intrinsic Motiva-
tion and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York:
Plenum.
Fisher, C.D. (1978), “The Effects of Personal Control, Compe-
tence, and Extrinsic Reward Systems on Intrinsic Motivation,”
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21 (3),
273–88.
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm Strauss (1967), The Discovery of
Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Goldenberg, Jacob, David Mazursky, and Sorin Solomon (1999),
“Toward Identifying the Inventive Templates of New Products:
A Channeled Ideation Approach,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 36 (May), 200–210.
Guest, Greg, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson (2006), “How
Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Satu-
ration and Variability,” Field Methods, 18 (1), 59–82.
Guilford, J.P. (1950), “Creativity,” American Psychologist, 5,
444–54.
Harter, Susan (1978), “Effectance Motivation Reconsidered:
Toward a Developmental Model,” Human Development, 21 (1),
34–64.
Holbrook, Morris, Robert Chestnut, Terrence Oliva, and Eric
Greenleaf (1984), “Play as a Consumption Experience: The
Role of Emotions, Performance, and Personality in the Enjoy-
Thinking Inside the Box 369
ment of Games,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (Septem-
ber), 728–40.
——— and Elizabeth Hirschman (1982), “The Experiential
Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and
Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 132–41.
Holt, Douglas B. (1995), “How Consumers Consume: A Typology
of Consumption Practices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22
(June), 1–17.
Kirmani, Amna and Margaret C. Campbell (2004), “Goal Seeker
and Persuasion Sentry: How Consumer Targets Respond to
Interpersonal Marketing Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 31 (March), 573–82.
Kowal, John and Michelle S. Fortier (1999), “Motivational Deter-
minants of Flow: Contributions from Self-Determination
Theory,” Journal of Social Psychology, 139 (3), 355–68.
Kozinets, Robert V., John F. Sherry Jr., Diana Storm, Adam
Duhachek, Krittinee Nuttavuthisit, and Benet Deberry-Spence
(2004), “Ludic Agency and Retail Spectacle,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 31 (December), 658–73.
Moreau, C. Page and Darren W. Dahl (2005), “Designing the
Solution: The Impact of Constraints on Consumer Creativity,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 13–22.
Penaloza, Lisa (1999), “Just Doing It: A Visual Ethnographic
Study of Spectacular Consumption Behavior at Niketown” Con-
sumption, Markets, and Culture, 2 (4), 337–400.
Rossant, Juliette (1996), “Somewhat Individual,” Forbes, 157 (2),
152.
Ryan, Richard M. (1982), “Control and Information in the Intra-
personal Sphere: An Extension of Cognitive Evaluation
Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (3),
450–61.
——— and Edward L. Deci (2000), “Self-Determination and the
Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and
Well-Being,” American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68–79.
Sanbonmatsu, David, Frank Kardes, and Paul Herr (1992), “The
Role of Prior Knowledge and Missing Information in Multiattri-
bute Evaluation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 51 (1), 76–92.
Shalley, Christina E. and Jill E. Perry-Smith (2000), “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.
Sheldon, Kennon M. and Andrew J. Elliot (1999), “Goal Striving,
Need Satisfaction, and Longitudinal Well-Being: The Self-
Concordance Model,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 76 (3), 482–97.
Sherry, John F., Jr. (1998), “The Soul of the Company Store: Nike
Town Chicago and the Emplaced Brandscape,” in Service-
Scapes: The Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets, John
F. Sherry Jr., ed. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books,
109–46.
Sternberg, Robert J. and Nancy K. Dess (2001), “Creativity for the
New Millennium,” American Psychologist, 56 (4), 332.
Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative
Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded
Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wallendorf, Melanie and Russ Belk (1989), “Assessing Trustwor-
thiness in Naturalistic Consumer Research,” in Interpretivist
Consumer Research, Elizabeth Hirschman, ed. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 69–84.
