Fostering Creative Performance of Platform Crowdworkers: The Digital Feedback Dilemma

Figures & data

Figure 1. Creative Self-Efficacy and Mastery Goal Orientation Matrix

Figure 2. The Conceptual Model with Hypotheses

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Alpha Reliabilities, and Correlations among Variables

Variables	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Age	3.21	0.76	N/A	—
Education	1.64	0.62	N/A	0.06	—
Gender	1.43	0.49	N/A	0.13*	−0.01	—
Work tenure	3.01	1.10	N/A	0.66**	0.01	0.09	—
Task 1 creative performance	3.28	1.26	N/A	−0.02	0.07	−0.12*	−0.03	—
Mastery goal orientation	3.71	0.70	0.90	−0.05	−0.04	0.04	0.01	0.01	—
Creative self-efficacy	4.08	0.82	0.93	0.08	−0.04	−0.04	0.17**	0.00	0.51**	—
Task 2 creative performance	3.07	1.13	N/A	0.01	−0.03	0.02	−0.04	0.11	0.00	−0.01

Note: N = 298. Age was placed into five classes: 1 = younger than 18, 2 = 18–24, 3 = 25–34, 4 = 35–54, and 5 = 55 and older. Education was placed into five classes: 1 = junior high school diploma, 2 = senior high school diploma, 3 = bachelor’s degree, 4 = master’s degree, 5 = doctorate degree. 1 = female, 2 = male.

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Task 2 Creative Performance by Feedback Manipulation Conditions

Conditions	Sample size	M	SD
No feedback	98	2.80	1.17
Negative digital feedback	101	2.79	1.02
Positive digital feedback	99	3.59	1.01

Figure 3. The Two-Way Interaction between Creative Self-Efficacy and Feedback Valence in Predicting Creative Performance

Figure 4. The Three-Way Interaction between Creative Self-Efficacy, Feedback Valence, and Mastery Goal Orientation in Predicting Creative Performance