Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/obhdp

Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity

through conflict and integration
Ella Miron-Spektor a,⇑, Francesca Gino b,1, Linda Argote c,2
a
The Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
b
Harvard University, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA 02163, United States
c
Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Across industries, organizations operate in increasingly complex and uncertain environments. To succeed
Received 26 March 2010 in such environments, organizations require their members to think creatively and integrate conflicting
Accepted 31 March 2011 demands. We propose that the adoption of paradoxical frames—mental templates that encourage indi-
Available online 7 May 2011
viduals to recognize and embrace contradictions—increases creativity. In four laboratory studies using
Accepted by Linn Van Dyne
different creativity tasks and different manipulations for eliciting paradoxical frames, participants who
adopted paradoxical frames were more creative than their counterparts who did not. Our results suggest
Keywords:
that the positive influence of paradoxical frames on creativity is due to the paradoxical relationship
Paradoxical frames
Creativity
between task elements and not merely to their joint activation. This paradoxical relationship creates a
Paradox sense of conflict in individuals and enhances their ability to integrate contradictions, which in turn
Conflict increases creativity.
Integrative complexity Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction Mahajan, 1997). By contrast, overemphasis on specifications and

constraints can thwart the flexibility and exploration required for
Creativity management in organizations is rife with tensions creativity (Benner & Tushman, 2003).
and paradoxes (DeFillippi, Grabher, & Jones, 2007), requiring It has been suggested that, to facilitate the integration of con-
employees to integrate conflicting agendas and contradictory de- flicting agendas and contradictory demands, managers and
mands (Lewis, 2000). Copywriters, for example, are asked to gener- employees should adopt paradoxical frames (Lewis, 2000; Smith &
ate original slogans that are also meaningful and useful as Tushman, 2005). According to Lewis, ‘‘[p]aradox denotes contradic-
advertisement campaigns (Beersma & De Dreu, 2005). Similarly, tory yet interrelated elements—elements that seem logical in isola-
product developers have to consider cost issues and follow specifi- tion but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously’’
cations when developing new ideas (Lewis, Welsh, Dehler, & Green, (Lewis, 2000, p. 760). Accordingly, paradoxical frames are mental
2002; Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004); and employees have to think templates that individuals impose on an environment in order to
outside of the box when solving problems and at the same time of- recognize and embrace contradictions (Smith & Tushman, 2005,
fer practical solutions that can be implemented given organiza- p. 523). More specifically, throughout this paper, we define para-
tional constraints (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). doxical frames as mental templates individuals use to embrace seem-
Organizational members’ typical reactions to these and other ingly contradictory statements or dimensions of a task or situation.
contradicting demands include a sense of threat, defensiveness, When embracing the paradox, individuals recognize the contradic-
and a tendency to focus on one demand at the expense of the other tions inherent in the dimensions or statements, yet understand
(Lewis, 2000). Yet focusing on only one demand can be maladap- their potential relationship as complementary or reinforcing. For
tive. Too much focus on originality, for example, with little or no example, an employee may receive directions from her boss that
emphasis on constraints (such as cost) may result in novel but seem contradictory (e.g., ‘‘Make sure everything is planned and or-
overpriced products that do not meet consumers’ needs (Wind & ganized for the release of our new product. Also be sure to remain
flexible so that we can deal with last-minute requests from cus-
tomers in a timely manner’’). If a paradoxical frame is activated
⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +972 3 738 4106.
when an employee receives these directions, she recognizes the
E-mail addresses: emironsp@[Link] (E. Miron-Spektor), fgino@[Link]
(F. Gino), argote@[Link] (L. Argote).
inherent incompatibility of simultaneously achieving high levels
1
Fax: +1 617 495 5672. of planning and flexibility but also understands the potential for
2
Fax: +1 412 268 9525. planning and flexibility to complement or positively reinforce

0749-5978/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.03.006
230 E. Miron-Spektor et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240

one another. Planning and organizing, for example, can help pre- verse knowledge allow greater flexibility and generation of new
pare for alternative reactions of customers and thus enable greater connections between activated elements. For example, comic book
flexibility when addressing their needs (Vera & Crossan, 2005). But writers who combined diverse knowledge from various genres
if a paradoxical frame is not activated, then the employee is likely were more creative than those who based their ideation process
to focus on only one dimension and not the other and miss the on a limited number of genres (Taylor & Greve, 2006). Similarly,
opportunity to achieve both. priming individuals with two knowledge categories (e.g., nutrition
In general, paradoxical frames encourage ‘‘paradoxical inquiry,’’ and hygiene) increased their creativity compared to priming them
in which a problem is identified, its contradictory elements and with only one category (Rietzschel et al., 2007). In a similar vein,
their links are revealed and explored, and alternative solutions people primed with paradoxical frames are likely to generate more
are found and tested (DeFillippi et al., 2007; Luscher & Lewis, ideas compared to individuals primed with only one of the contra-
2008). The degree to which managers understand and accept con- dictory elements (an either/or frame).
tradictions affects whether they ‘‘embrace the tensions and benefit Creative ideas can also result from an unusual perspective on
from them or are halted by the inconsistencies’’ (Smith & Tushman, old problems as well as from new combinations of familiar ideas
2005, p. 526). Furthermore, scholars have argued that adopting (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Schooler & Melcher, 1995). Paradoxical
paradoxical frames improves managers’ ability to attend to and frames reduce the likelihood that people will fall back on conven-
deal with strategic contradictions (Smith & Tushman, 2005) and tional lines of thought (Luscher & Lewis, 2008). Research suggests
leads managers to reach new insights to existing problems (Lus- that individuals tend to draw primarily on typical thinking, or im-
cher & Lewis, 2008). Despite these important insights into the pos- plicit assumptions and prior experience, when solving a problem.
sibilities of paradoxical frames, no empirical study has examined Specifically, they tend to approach a problem in the usual way
the effects of paradoxical frames on creativity. for that class of problems, to make implicit assumptions without
Addressing this gap, the present work examines the influence of their own awareness, and to be guided by mental mindsets ac-
paradoxical frames on the ability of individuals to be creative. We quired through prior experience (Smith, 2003). Even when individ-
bring the phenomenon of paradoxical frames into a controlled lab- uals are encouraged to think creatively and respond uncritically to
oratory setting and manipulate paradoxical frames using different problems (Paulus, Larey, & Ortega, 1995; see also Paulus & Yang,
priming tasks. Across four laboratory studies, we also employ dif- 2000), they may apply creative solutions discovered within a given
ferent creativity tasks to examine the generalizability of our find- context to other contexts (Goldenberg, Mazursky, & Solomon,
ings and explore the psychological mechanisms explaining the 1999).
relationship between adopting paradoxical frames and creativity. The atypical relationship between primed task elements in a
paradoxical frame signals that an environment is unusual and al-
Paradoxical frames and creativity lows elements that would typically be perceived as contradictory
to be reconciled (Smith & Tushman, 2005). This perception of the
Paradoxical frames provide individuals with a structure of environment may result in frame-breaking experiences and recog-
assumptions and boundaries that influence the way they make nition of new combinations of old knowledge into new meanings
sense of a situation, seek information, and make decisions (Smith and solutions (Lewis, 2000). For example, research examining the
& Tushman, 2005). Instead of eliciting ‘‘either/or’’ thinking, para- relationship between ambivalent emotions and creativity found
doxical frames elicit the type of ‘‘both/and’’ thinking that can result that individuals who perceived an environment as unusual showed
in the discovery of links between opposing forces and the genera- an enhanced ability to recognize unusual associations (Fong, 2006).
tion of new frameworks and ideas (Lewis, 2000; Luscher & Lewis, In a similar vein, paradoxical templates have been found to be
2008). When adopting a paradoxical frame, one acknowledges associated with greater tolerance for interpersonal conflicts and
the tension between opposing task elements, yet understands that willingness to solve them through compromise (Peng & Nisbett,
combining opposing task elements tempers the undesirable side 1999).
effects of each element alone and leads to new solutions that inte- By inspiring individuals to discover how contradictory elements
grate both elements (Gebert, Boerner, & Kearney, 2010; Lewis, can coexist and even reinforce each other, paradoxical frames stim-
2000). ulate the reconciliation of elements that are assumed to be contra-
Paradoxical frames may be especially effective in helping peo- dictory. Goldenberg et al. (1999) showed that the activation of
ple perform creative tasks. Creativity is commonly defined as the uncommon mental templates channeled the ideation process and
generation of novel yet useful ideas or solutions to a problem enhanced the originality and value of generated ideas in a prod-
(Amabile, 1983; Amabile, 1996). The ideation process consists of uct-development task. Similarly, we suggest that paradoxical
making new combinations of associative elements and selecting frames channel individuals’ idea generation process and encourage
an idea or solution that is useful or appropriate to a given problem them to integrate seemingly opposing elements into new concepts
(Mednick, 1962). This process is guided by the available cognitive and solutions. Specifically, we propose that individuals who em-
elements that individuals bring to the process and combine into ploy a paradoxical frame are more likely to engage in creative
new ideas or solutions as well as by the relationship between these behavior and to combine knowledge in new ways than are individ-
elements (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992). The larger the number of uals not primed with paradoxical frames or individuals primed to
cognitive elements that are relevant to the task and activated dur- focus on only one of the contradictory elements. Thus, we hypoth-
ing the ideation process, the higher the likelihood that unusual esize that:
associations or solutions will be generated and the larger the pool
of available novel ideas (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Hypothesis 1. Individuals are more creative when they are primed
Simonton, 1999). Yet, only knowledge accessible to memory can be with paradoxical frames than when they are primed with other
used in the creativity process. Increasing the accessibility of less cognitive frames.
retrievable knowledge enlarges the number of generated ideas
(Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2007).
Compared to either/or frames, paradoxical frames encourage Explaining the link between paradoxical frames and creativity
cognitive juxtaposition of inconsistent elements and therefore in-
crease the breadth of attention and the accessibility of knowledge We propose that paradoxical frames elicit a sense of conflict in
related to the different elements. Broader attentional span and di- individuals and increase their willingness and ability to recognize
 E. Miron-Spektor et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240 231

contradictory elements and to identify possible new linkages and Integrative complexity
synergies between them. These cognitive operations, in turn, en- Paradoxical frames may also increase individuals’ willingness
hance exploration of each element and generation of new associa- and capacity to tolerate different perspectives and to integrate these
tions and ideas (Smith & Tushman, 2005). Below, we elaborate on different perspectives by generating new linkages among them. That
each of these psychological processes. Fig. 1 portrays the set of is, paradoxical frames can increase integrative complexity (Tetlock,
relationships included in our theoretical framework. Peterson, & Berry, 1993). Integrative complexity was originally con-
ceived to reflect individual differences in thinking style. Individuals
A sense of conflict who are low on integrative complexity dislike ambiguity and disso-
When individuals adopt paradoxical frames, they are faced with nance, seek cognitive closure, and tend to form dichotomous (good-
contradictory dimensions or factors that are not commonly associ- or-bad) impressions of other people. In contrast, individuals who
ated or linked. The contradictory relationships between dimen- score high on integrative complexity have a more flexible, open-
sions and the atypicality associated with this experience may minded, and multidimensional stance toward the world. They are
lead individuals to experience a sense of conflict and discomfort. able to recognize contradictions and can tolerate inconsistencies
Drawing on cognitive tuning theory (Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz & in others’ motives and behavior. Although most past research
Bless, 1991), we suggest that this sense of conflict signals the type viewed integrative complexity as a stable disposition, more recent
of context in which a person finds herself and directs her to think studies have demonstrated the effect of situational and environ-
and behave in ways that will help her adapt to the context. In an mental cues on integrative complexity. It was found, for example,
attempt to adapt to the context, people are likely to draw on their that integrative complexity is affected by accountability pressures,
creative thinking and become more sensitive to complementary stress and value conflict (Tetlock, Peterson, & Lerner, 1996); by a
relationships between seemingly contradicting stimuli (Fong, sense of conflict resulting from exposure to a different culture
2006). This explorative processing style facilitates insight-related (Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006; Tadmor, Tetlock, & Peng, 2009); and by
processing, bolstering the ability to break away from inappropriate exposure to inconsistent verbal and nonverbal expressions
initial assumptions and strategies, and enabling an unconstrained (Miron-Spektor, Efrat, Schwarz-Cohen, Rafaeli, in press).
mental search for novel information. Integrative complexity is commonly conceptualized in terms of
Indeed, a sense of conflict has been suggested to be a crucial two cognitive processes: evaluative differentiation and conceptual
trigger for perspective taking and exploration of novel associations integration. Differentiating entails recognizing contradictions and
(Huang & Galinsky, 2010). For instance, people who live abroad clarifying distinctions between contradictory elements. Integrating
‘‘may experience culture shock, feeling anxious and disoriented,’’ involves identifying new linkages between the elements (Smith &
and this disorientation is a fundamental factor in explaining the Tushman, 2005). High levels of integrative complexity (high differ-
relationship between multicultural experience and creativity entiation and integration) reflect the capacity to juxtapose contra-
(Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008). Similarly, the sense of dictory elements, understand their sources, and search for ways to
disorientation and conflict individuals experience when reading amalgamate them (Tetlock, Armor, & Peterson, 1994).
an absurd short story has been shown to enhance their desire to Adopting paradoxical frames is likely to increase the sensitivity
learn novel patterns (Proulx & Heine, 2009). Research testing the to contradictory elements in the environment as well as the capac-
effect of a conflict mindset on creativity has shown that individuals ity to understand them and search for ways to combine them. The
experiencing a conflict mindset generated broader conflict-related mental activation of contradictory elements leads to deep exami-
categories and more original solutions to conflict-related situations nation and improved understanding of each element. This deeper
compared to individuals experiencing a cooperation mindset (De exploration of concepts and categories increases the generation
Dreu & Nijstad, 2008). In a similar vein, experienced conflict of ideas related to the category and enhances creativity (Rietzschel
increases the tendency of team members to scrutinize and deeply et al., 2007). Activating paradoxical frames also stimulates the inte-
explore different alternatives and, as a result, to find novel insights gration of opposing elements. Forming new linkages and synergies
(e.g., Beersma & De Dreu, 2005; Nemeth, Personnaz, Personnaz, & between commonly unrelated or opposing elements is a vital
Goncalo, 2004). Based on this reasoning, we hypothesize the source of creativity (Simonton, 1999).
following: Consider, for instance, the creativity-cost efficiency tension
which is often present in product development settings. Viewing this
Hypothesis 2A. Individuals experience a greater sense of conflict
tension through a paradoxical lens allows the exploration of differ-
when they are primed with a paradoxical frame than when they
ent elements as well as a search for new solutions in which creativity
are primed with a control frame.
and efficiency coexist and reinforce each other (Lewis, 2000). When
differentiating between creativity and efficiency, individuals realize
Hypothesis 2B. Individuals’ sense of conflict mediates the rela- that, while creativity requires exploration, risk taking, flexibility,
tionship between adopting a paradoxical frame and creativity. and tolerance of mistakes, efficiency, by contrast, is associated with

Sense of
conflict

Paradoxical
frames Creativity

Integrative
complexity

Fig. 1. Theoretical framework.

232 E. Miron-Spektor et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240

exploitation, adherence to constraints, and structure (Lewis et al., ined whether paradoxical frames enhance creativity relative to
2002; Miron-Spektor, Erez & Naveh, 2011). By contrasting these ele- the activation of a single element (i.e., creativity-frame or effi-
ments, individuals gain a better sense of the antecedents and conse- ciency-frame). To test whether the paradoxical relationship be-
quences of each element and as a result can integrate them tween the activated elements matters for creativity, we also
effectively, searching for new strategies, processes, and structures included a creativity–efficiency-frame condition in which both cre-
that allow their coexistence. Organizational examples of such new ativity and efficiency-frames were activated together, but in con-
solutions are ambidextrous organizations (Benner & Tushman, trast to the paradoxical-frame condition, the paradoxical
2003) and semi-structures (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). Represent- relationship between them was not specified.
ing wholes that are composed of contradictions (Lewis, 2000), these
solutions enable both creativity and efficiency to thrive. Method
In short, we suggest that paradoxical frames increase both
differentiation and integration thought processes (as reflected in Participants and design
individuals’ level of integrative complexity), and these processes Eighty-one students (52% females; Mage = 22.92, SD = 3.13) par-
in turn augment individual creativity. Thus, we hypothesize, ticipated in the study in exchange for $10 payment. The study em-
ployed four cognitive frame conditions (creativity, efficiency,
Hypothesis 3A. Individuals demonstrate greater integrative creativity–efficiency, and paradoxical) and a between-subjects de-
complexity when they are primed with paradoxical frames than sign. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four exper-
when they are primed with other cognitive frames. imental conditions.

Procedure. The study consisted of two parts: a priming task to

Hypothesis 3B. Individuals’ integrative complexity mediates the manipulate cognitive frames and a creativity task to assess our
relationship between paradoxical frames and creativity. dependent measure.
Overview of the research
Priming task. We manipulated cognitive frames by using a priming
We conducted four laboratory studies to test whether adopting task in which participants read a description of a craft product and
paradoxical frames enhances creativity through a sense of conflict then wrote about features they believed made the product success-
and integrative complexity (i.e., identifying and integrating multi- ful. The product was the same across conditions, but several ele-
ple perspectives). To examine the robustness of the link between ments in its description were varied to create a paradoxical
paradoxical frames and increased creativity, we used multiple frame, a creativity frame, an efficiency-frame, or a creativity–effi-
methods to prime paradoxical frames and multiple measures of ciency-frame.
creative thinking, including insight, category inclusiveness, and The description all participants received read:
associative ability tests. These creativity measures require individ-
uals to generate original and useful insights or to recognize under- Below are pictures of a prototype for a table vehicle that was
lying connections and associations among seemingly unrelated developed by ‘‘Forever Young Toys,’’ a small but highly success-
stimuli. In addition, we used both a general priming task to induce ful company in the toy business. The table vehicle is able to
paradoxical frames by having individuals think of paradoxical carry a small cup of water for a distance of 3.28 feet (1 meter)
statements (Studies 2 and 3) and more specific manipulations in without spilling the water. This prototype was chosen by a com-
which we activated paradoxical frames regarding two dimensions mittee of product designers out of 200 prototypes due to its
that are often viewed as contradictory in product-development high creativity (creativity-frame condition)/ low production cost
tasks, namely creativity and efficiency (Studies 1 and 4). (efficiency-frame condition)/ high creativity and low production
Our studies also examined whether the effect of paradoxical cost (paradoxical-frame condition and creativity–efficiency condi-
frames on creativity is due to the activation of two contradictory tion). This prototype was chosen to represent the company in
elements or to the paradoxical relationship between them (Study Simple Design, a prestigious competition of designers.
1), and whether it derives from the contradictory relationships be-
tween elements, their complementary relationship or from both Next, the instructions reported the product designers’ impres-
the contradictory and complementary relationships between ele- sions and explanations for choosing this product (the ‘‘Twisting
ments (Study 4). Slide’’) to represent the company. The impressions varied across
Furthermore, our studies investigated the psychological pro- conditions. We used this procedure to activate different cognitive
cesses underlying the relationship between paradoxical frames frames through which the participants would filter their knowl-
and creativity. We proposed and found that a sense of conflict edge and attention (Smith & Tushman, 2005).
and discomfort explains this link. We measured people’s feelings In the creativity-frame condition, the frames emphasized the
of conflict by using both an explicit self-reported measure (Study product’s uniqueness and novelty (e.g., ‘‘This product is unique
2) and an implicit measure (Study 3) (a word-fragment task, see and creative. Especially I like the novel uses the designers found
Tulving, Schacter, & Stark, 1982). Thus, we tested whether the for the materials’’). In the efficiency-frame condition, the descrip-
self-reported measures of feelings of conflict experienced when tions emphasized the product’s low cost and efficient production
adopting paradoxical frames as well as the accessibility of con- process (e.g., ‘‘This product is very cheap. I can tell that the de-
flict-related concepts mediate the relationship between adopting signer carefully chose the materials to assure that the final product
paradoxical frames and creativity. In addition, we demonstrated would not be expensive’’). In the paradoxical-frame condition, the
that the effect of paradoxical frames on creativity is mediated by impressions emphasized both the creative and efficient aspects
both feelings of conflict and increased integrative complexity of the product as well as the tension between creativity and effi-
(Study 3). ciency (e.g., ‘‘This product is both unique and efficiently built.
The most difficult thing is to make creative products that are
Study 1: Paradoxical frames and creativity cheap’’). Finally, in the creativity–efficiency-frame condition, partic-
ipants’ material read: ‘‘This prototype was chosen by a committee
In Study 1, we tested our first hypothesis by using a commonly of product designers out of 200 prototypes. Some judges liked the
employed creativity task (Fong, 2006; Mednick, 1962). We exam- fact it is efficient while others liked its creativity’’). In the reported
 E. Miron-Spektor et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240 233

judges’ impressions and explanations for choosing this product, Results

some judges emphasized its creativity (e.g., ‘‘This product is unique
and creative. Especially I like the novel uses the designers found for Hypothesis 1 predicts that creativity will be higher when indi-
the materials’’) and others its efficiency (e.g., ‘‘This product is very viduals are primed with paradoxical frames than when they are
cheap. I can tell that the designer carefully chose the materials to primed with other cognitive frames. Supporting this hypothesis,
assure that the final product would not be expensive’’). In contrast an ANOVA analysis revealed a significant effect of cognitive frame
to the paradoxical-frame condition, none of the judges evaluated on creativity performance (F[2, 59] = 3.36, p < .05, g2 = .12). Partic-
the product as being both creative and efficient, and none of them ipants solved a significantly higher number of RAT problems in the
referred to the relationship between creativity and efficiency. paradoxical-frame condition (M = 6.00, SD = 2.59) than in either
the creativity-frame (M = 4.20, SD = 2.54; p < .05), the efficiency-
frame (M = 3.71, SD = 3.34; p < .01), or the creativity–efficiency-
Creativity task. In the second part of the study, participants com-
frame (M = 3.72, SD = 2.27; p < .01) conditions. Differences in
pleted the Remote Association Task (RAT, Mednick, 1962), a com-
creativity as measured by the number of correctly solved RAT
monly used measure of creativity. The RAT has been shown to
problems between the creativity-, efficiency- and creativity–effi-
capture changes in creative performance resulting from situational
ciency-frame conditions were insignificant.
factors (Fong, 2006). This task requires individuals to form ‘‘mutu-
ally distant associative elements into new combinations which are
useful and meet specified as well as unforeseen requirements’’ Study 2: activating paradoxical frames through paradoxical
(Mednick, 1962). The RAT measures divergent and creative think- statements
ing by testing the ability of individuals to identify associations be-
tween words that are normally associated. In this task, participants The results of Study 1 demonstrated that paradoxical frames
are asked to find a word that is logically linked to all of three words enhance creativity: Participants were more creative in the para-
provided. For instance, ‘‘cold’’ is the common word linking the doxical-frame condition than in the creativity-, efficiency-, or cre-
words ‘‘sore-shoulder-seat’’ together. Participants had six minutes ativity–efficiency-frame conditions. Importantly, the findings also
to solve ten RAT items. Based on instructions developed by showed that the positive effect of paradoxical frames on creativity
Mednick (1962), we counted the number of correct responses for was due to the paradoxical relationship between creativity and
each individual and used this number as our measure of creativity efficiency (i.e., the paradoxical-frame condition) and not merely
in the analyses presented below. to their joint activation (the creativity–efficiency-frame condition).
In our second study, we tested whether paradoxical frames lead
to increased individual creativity when they are activated without
Pilot study. We conducted a pilot study to test the validity of our specific dimensions or criteria. Furthermore, the study included
framing manipulation. A non-overlapping group of participants various creativity tasks. In addition to sensitivity to association
(N = 92) was randomly assigned to one of the four conditions measured through the RAT, we investigated the effects of paradox-
of the priming task. Afterwards, all participants indicated their ical frames on creative insight (the solution of which require a
agreement with six statements using a 7-point scale (1 = strongly change in approach and problem representation) and on category
disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Three of these statements measured inclusiveness (Isen & Daubman, 1984), which assesses participants’
conflict between creativity and efficiency ([1] It is very difficult perceptions of how prototypical exemplars are of a particular cat-
to create a new product that is also very cheap; [2] Saving costs egory. Broader inclusive categories reflect cognitive flexibility in
when developing new products is almost impossible; and [3] The generating new associations (Rietzschel et al., 2007).
designers of the Twisting Slide invested in creativity but did not
pay enough attention to cost restrictions), and the other three
Method
statements measured complementarity between these two
dimensions ([1] The Twisting Slide is an example of a very cre-
Participants and design
ative product that is not too expensive; [2] Compared to other
One hundred eighty-three individuals (Mage = 30.36, SD = 10.31;
products the Twisting Slide is economical and novel; and [3]
98 males) participated in the study for pay. They were randomly
The designers of the Twisting Slide created a product that is
assigned to one of two conditions: paradoxical statements versus
both creative and affordable). We aggregated each set of items
neutral statements.
into a measure for conflict (a = .91) and complementarity
(a = .82).
Procedure
Conflict ratings varied by condition, F[3, 88] = 7.25, p < .001,
As explained to participants, the study consisted of several tasks
g2 = .20: they were higher in the paradoxical-frame condition
and questions that examined individuals’ decision-making behav-
(M = 5.62, SD = 1.25) than in either the creativity-frame (M = 4.03,
ior in different cognitive and social contexts. The first task partici-
SD = 1.23; p < .01), the efficiency-frame (M = 3.96, SD = 1.36;
pants encountered was a ‘‘Recall Skills task’’ in which we
p < .01), or the creativity–efficiency-frame (M = 4.29, SD = 1.66;
introduced our manipulation of paradoxical frames. The task was
p < .05) conditions. Differences in conflict ratings between the cre-
followed by a series of questions measuring participants’ sense of
ativity-, efficiency- and creativity–efficiency-frame conditions
conflict and disorientation, three different tasks measuring creativ-
were insignificant. Similarly, complementarity ratings varied by
ity, manipulation checks, and a few demographic questions.
condition, F[3, 88] = 18.88, p < .001, g2 = .39: they were higher in
the paradoxical-frame condition (M = 5.59, SD = 0.75) and in the
Manipulation of paradoxical frames. The instructions to the Recall
creativity–efficiency-frame condition (M = 5.67, SD = 0.87) than in
Skills task informed participants that, in this part of the study,
either the creativity-frame (M = 4.23, SD = 0.97; both ps < .001) or
we were interested in how people recall their past experiences.
the efficiency-frame (M = 4.04, SD = 1.18; both ps < .001).
Participants were asked to engage in a writing task for a few min-
These results indicate that only in the paradoxical-frame condi-
utes after reading the task instructions. In the paradoxical-frames
tion ratings for conflict and ratings for complementarity were both
condition, the instructions read:
high, suggesting that both relationships were primed in this condi-
tion. Thus, the priming task used in the main study was effective in Please think of paradoxical statements you encountered in the
manipulating paradoxical frames. past, or paradoxical statements that you think are interesting.
234 E. Miron-Spektor et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240

Then, please write them in the space provided below. PLEASE (Maddux & Galinsky, 2009). Thus, there is a hidden solution to the
PROVIDE AT LEAST THREE SUCH STATEMENTS. By ‘‘paradoxical’’ problem that is inconsistent with the preexisting associations and
we mean seemingly contradictory but nonetheless possibly expectations individuals bring to task (Duncker, 1945; Glucksberg
true. For instance, one such statement could be ‘‘it is paradoxi- & Weisberg, 1966).
cal that standing is more tiring than walking.’’ Creativity task #3: Category inclusion task: We assessed category
inclusiveness by asking participants to rate how prototypical
In the control condition, instead, the instructions read: exemplars were of a particular category (1 = not at all, 11 = very
Please think of statements you encountered in the past, or state- prototypical). For each of the four categories we used, three exem-
ments that you think are interesting. Then, please write them in plars were presented, one being strongly, one being moderately,
the space provided below. PLEASE PROVIDE AT LEAST THREE and one being weakly prototypical (Isen & Daubman, 1984; Rosch,
SUCH STATEMENTS. For instance, one such statement could 1975). Specifically, the four categories (with strong, intermediate,
be ‘‘people often believe that standing is more tiring than and weak exemplars) were vehicle (bus, airplane, camel), vegetable
walking.’’ (carrot, potato, garlic), clothes (skirt, shoes, handbag), and furni-
ture (couch, lamp, telephone).
Participants spent a few minutes thinking and writing down
their statements. Then, they progressed to the next task. Manipulation check. After completing the creativity tasks, partici-
pants were asked to think back to the initial Recall Skills task
A sense of conflict. On an 11-point scale (ranging from 1 = not at all, and then indicate the extent to which they agreed with the follow-
to 11 = very much), participants indicated how much discomfort, ing statements regarding the statements they had created: (1) In
conflict, and disorientation the sentences they created made them the statements there are conflicts about ideas or factors; (2) In
experience and feel. We aggregated these three items into a mea- the statements there are differences of opinions or contradictions;
sure we refer to as experienced conflict (a = .80). and (3) In the statements there are disagreements on how things
Creativity task #1: Association task: As in Study 1, we assessed are or how things should be done. Participants answered all ques-
participants’ associative ability using the RAT. For each of seven- tions on an 11-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, and 11 = strongly
teen association problems, we asked participants to find a word agree). The three items were highly correlated, so we aggregated
that was logically linked to all three of the words provided. Partic- them into a composite measure (a = .83).
ipants were instructed to solve as many problems as possible in
four minutes.
Results
Creativity task #2: The Candle task: The second creative task we
employed was the Duncker candle problem (Duncker, 1945).
Table 1 reports the means and standard deviations of the main
Participants were shown a picture containing several objects on a
measures included in the study by condition.
table: a candle, a pack of matches, and a box of tacks, all of which
were next to a cardboard wall. Participants were given three
minutes ‘‘to figure out, using only the objects on the table, how Manipulation check
to attach the candle to the wall so that the candle burns properly Participants in the paradoxical-frame condition rated the state-
and does not drip wax on the table or the floor.’’ The correct ments they created to be more contradictory and conflicting
solution consists of emptying the box of tacks, tacking it to the (M = 7.55, SD = 2.10) than did participants in the control condition
wall, and placing the candle inside, so that the box of tacks is used (M = 6.73, SD = 2.70), t(181) = 2.29, p < .03.
as a candleholder. In this task, finding the correct solution is
considered a measure of insight creativity because it involves the Association task
ability to see objects as performing atypical functions (i.e., the On average, participants solved a significantly higher number of
box is not just a repository for tacks but can also be used as a stand) RAT problems in the paradoxical-frame condition (M = 6.42,

Table 1
Means (and standard deviations) of main measures, Study 2.

Manipulation Feelings of conflict RAT Candle Category inclusion: Category inclusion: Category inclusion:
check (mediator) problems task weak moderate strong
Paradoxical frames 7.75 5.80 6.42 31/89 5.34 7.12 8.31
(2.10) (2.68) (5.02) (35%) (2.00) (1.82) (2.61)
Control 6.73 5.03 4.95 20/94 4.61 6.56 8.35
(2.70) (2.20) (4.28) (21%) (2.03) (1.82) (2.52)

Correlations among main measures, Study 2

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
1. Paradoxical frames .17⁄ .16⁄ .16⁄ .15⁄ .18⁄ .15⁄ .01
2. Manipulation check .09 .08 .05 .04 .07 .13^
3. Feelings of conflict .40⁄⁄⁄ .34⁄⁄⁄ .09 .01 .13^
4. RAT problems .41⁄⁄⁄ .19⁄ .05 .27⁄⁄⁄
5. Candle task .11 .03 .07
6. Weak category inclusion .25⁄⁄ .34⁄⁄⁄
7. Moderate category inclusion .47⁄⁄
8. Strong category inclusion
^
p < .10,
⁄
p < .05,
⁄⁄
p < .01,
⁄⁄⁄
p < .001.
 E. Miron-Spektor et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240 235

SD = 5.02) than in the control condition (M = 4.95, SD = 4.28), ing paradoxical frames enabled participants to identify creative
t(181) = 2.13, p < .04. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, adopting para- linkages among seemingly unrelated stimuli and enhanced their
doxical frames increased participants’ ability to find associations. ability to discover hidden insights. Furthermore, adopting paradox-
ical frames led participants to expand their categories, seeing dis-
Candle task tantly associated exemplars as representative members of super-
A larger percentage of participants correctly solved the candle ordinate categories. The results also indicated that participants
task in the paradoxical-frames condition (35%, 31/89) compared who adopted paradoxical frames experienced a sense of conflict,
to the control condition (21%, 20/94), v2(1,N = 181) = 4.18, as they were asked to embrace and consider seemingly contradic-
p < .05. This result suggests that adopting paradoxical frames en- tory dimensions. In turn, this sense of conflict accounted for the
hanced participants’ creative insight. relationship between paradoxical frames and both associative abil-
ity and creative insight.
Category inclusion In Study 3, we examined whether paradoxical frames enhance
Following previous research (e.g., Isen & Daubman, 1984), we creativity also because they increase integrative complexity
conducted separate t-tests on weak, intermediate, and strong (Hypotheses 3A and 3B). Integrative complexity refers to the com-
exemplars. Compared to the control condition (C), adopting para- plexity of thought that individuals use when processing and syn-
doxical frames (PF) led to greater category inclusiveness ratings thesizing social information. We test whether adopting
on weak (MPF = 5.34, SD = 2.00 vs. MC = 4.61, SD = 2.03), paradoxical frames increases individuals’ ability to differentiate
t(181) = 2.44, p < .02, and intermediate exemplars (MPF = 7.12, and integrate multiple perspectives when they analyze a social sit-
SD = 1.82 vs. MC = 6.56, SD = 1.82), t(181) = 2.09, p < .04. For strong uation and whether this ability enhances creative thinking. Follow-
exemplars, the difference was not significant (MPF = 8.31, SD = 2.61 ing the methods employed in prior research, we assessed
vs. MC = 8.35, SD = 2.52), t(181) < 1, p = .90. Consistent with integrative complexity by showing participants a vague picture
Hypothesis 1, adopting paradoxical frames led participants to ex- from the Picture Story Exercise (Tetlock et al., 1993) and then ask-
pand the boundaries of conceptual categories, seeing atypical ing them to write a complete story about the picture, including a
(i.e., weak and intermediate) exemplars as representative mem- beginning and an end.
bers of cognitive categories. In addition, Study 3 examined whether adopting paradoxical
frames implicitly triggers a sense of conflict in individuals. That
is, we investigated whether experiencing a sense of conflict is a
Feelings of conflict
mechanism through which paradoxical frames enhance creativity
Consistent with Hypothesis 2A, participants reported experi-
by employing an implicit measure (i.e., accessibility to conflict-re-
encing a significantly higher sense of conflict in the paradoxical-
lated concepts). Including this measure allows us to test whether
frame condition (M = 5.80, SD = 2.68) than in the control condition
the accessibility of conflict-related concepts mediates the relation-
(M = 5.03, SD = 2.20), t(181) = 2.12, p < .04.
ship between adopting paradoxical frames and creativity.

Mediation analyses Method

Hypothesis 2B predicted that participants’ sense of conflict
would mediate the relationship between adopting paradoxical Participants and design
frames and creativity (as measured by number of correct solutions One-hundred twenty-one individuals (Mage = 26.97, SD = 8.42;
in the Remote Association Task). We tested this mediation hypoth- 69 males) participated in the study for pay. They were randomly
esis (Baron & Kenny, 1986) using bootstrapping procedures, which assigned to one of two conditions: paradoxical statements vs. neu-
establish a confidence interval for the indirect effect; mediation is tral statements.
established when the confidence interval does not include zero
(MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The Procedure
effect of adopting paradoxical frames was reduced to non-signifi- This experiment used the same procedure as in Study 2 to
cance (from b = .16, p < .04, to b = .10, p = .16) when participants’ manipulate cognitive frames. After the manipulation, participants
experienced conflict was included in the equation, and this sense were given a word-completion task (our implicit measure of expe-
of conflict was a significant predictor of associative ability rienced conflict), the integrative complexity task, the RAT, and a fi-
(b = .38, p < .001). A bootstrap analysis showed that the 95% bias- nal questionnaire. The questionnaire included a manipulation
corrected confidence interval for the size of the indirect effect ex- check (the same questions we employed in Study 2, a = .76), and
cluded zero (0.061, 1.265), suggesting a significant indirect effect a few demographic questions.
of conflict on creativity (MacKinnon et al., 2007; Shrout & Bolger,
2002). Association task. We measured associative ability using seventeen
We conducted similar analyses using creative insight (as mea- RAT problems. Participants were instructed to solve as many prob-
sured by finding the correct solution for the candle task) as the lems as possible in four minutes.
dependent variable. Participants’ sense of conflict again mediated
the effect of adopting paradoxical frames on creative insight (95% Conflict-related word-completion task. Participants next completed
bias-corrected CI = 0.005, 0.103).3 Taken together, these results pro- a word-completion task that involved turning word fragments into
vide support for Hypothesis 2B. meaningful words using the first word that came to mind. We
wanted to determine whether adopting paradoxical frames in-
Study 3: paradoxical frames, conflict, integrative complexity, creases the mental accessibility of conflict-related words. Of the
and creativity six word fragments, three (B _ T _ _ _, CON _ _ _ _ _, and _ _ R) could
be completed as conflict-related words (battle, conflict, and war) or
The results of Study 2 demonstrated that adopting paradoxical as unrelated words (e.g., bottle, consumer, and car).
frames led to increased creativity across a variety of tasks. Adopt-
Integrative complexity. We assessed integrative complexity by
3
We conducted similar mediation analyses using category inclusion as the using a vague picture from the Picture Story Exercise (Tetlock
dependent variable but did not find evidence for mediation. et al., 1993). Participants were presented with a picture and were
236 E. Miron-Spektor et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240

asked to spend four minutes writing an imaginative complete story ability. A bootstrap analysis showed that the 95% bias-corrected
about the picture. The story had to include a beginning, middle, confidence interval for the size of the total indirect effect (of para-
and an end. The instructions read: doxical frames through both conflict and integrative complexity)
excluded zero (.43, 2.67), suggesting a significant indirect effect
Try to portray who the people in the picture might be, what
(MacKinnon et al., 2007; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). This was also
they are feeling, thinking, and wishing for. Try to tell what led
the case for each of the two separate indirect effects (conflict:
to the situation depicted in the picture and how everything will
[.11, 1.51], and integrative complexity: [.15, 1.52]).
turn out in the end. Don’t worry about grammar, spelling, punc-
tuation – they are of no concern here. If you have seen this pic-
ture before, feel free to react to it as you did before or Study 4: from conflict to integration
differently, depending on how you feel now. You will have
about 4 minutes for writing the story. Here are some guiding Study 3 provided additional support to the psychological mech-
questions. NO need to answer them specifically. What is hap- anisms that mediate the effect of paradoxical frames on creative
pening? Who are the people? What happened before? What thinking. The results indicated that paradoxical frames implicitly
are the people thinking about and feeling? What do they want? activate a sense of conflict and they increase individuals’ ability
What will happen next? to reason with greater integrative complexity. A sense of conflict
and integrative complexity, in turn, mediated the relationship be-
tween paradoxical frames and creativity.
Three independent raters who were blind to the hypotheses of
In Study 4, we further investigated the link between paradoxical
the study read the stories participants wrote following the integra-
frames and creativity by unpacking paradoxical frames into the
tive complexity scoring manual (Baker-Brown et al., 1992). With
underling processes of differentiating and integrating. Specifically,
this scoring system, higher scores are given to stories that both
we manipulated whether or not the elements included in a para-
incorporate disparate and competing themes and that make con-
dox are presented as contradictory (differentiation) and whether
nections and links between these different and competing perspec-
or not they are integrated into a solution (integration). The inclu-
tives. The three raters showed good inter-rater reliability (a = .78).
sion of this additional manipulation allowed us to examine
whether the positive effect of paradoxical frames on creativity is
Manipulation check. We used the same three statements as in
derived from the contradictory relationships between elements,
Study 2 as manipulation check questions.
their integration, or a combination of these processes.
Results
Method
Table 2 reports the means and standard deviations of the main
measures included in the study by condition. Participants and design
One hundred eighty-nine individuals (Mage = 30.18, SD = 10.38;
Manipulation check 87 males) participated in the study for pay. They were randomly
Participants in the paradoxical-frame condition rated the state- assigned to one of four experimental conditions in a 2 (differenti-
ments they created to be more contradictory and conflicting ation: high vs. low)  2 (integration: high vs. low) between-sub-
(M = 6.80, SD = 2.35) than did participants in the control condition jects design.
(M = 5.72, SD = 2.08), t(119) = 2.69, p < .01.

Association task Procedure

On average, participants solved a significantly higher number of The study consisted of two parts: a priming task to manipulate
RAT problems in the paradoxical-frame condition (M = 7.75, cognitive frames and induce paradoxical thinking and a creativity
SD = 4.86) than in the control condition (M = 6.05, SD = 4.07), task in which we assessed our dependent measure. Participants
t(119) = 2.09, p < .04. also completed a final questionnaire with a manipulation check
and demographic questions.
Conflict-related words accessibility
Participants in the paradoxical-frames condition generated Priming task. We manipulated cognitive frames by adapting the
more conflict-related words (M = 0.41, SD = 0.76) than did those priming task used in Study 1. As in Study 1, we used the same
in the control condition (M = 0.13, SD = 0.39), t(119) = 2.51, product across conditions, but varied product designers’ impres-
p < .02, demonstrating that adopting paradoxical frames enhanced sions that participants received in the various conditions.
the accessibility of conflict-related concepts. In the low differentiation-low integration condition, product
designers viewed the product as either novel or inexpensive. The
Integrative complexity instructions read, ‘‘Some of the committee members thought that
Integrative complexity scores were higher in the paradoxical- it is efficient while others thought it is creative.’’ Some of the prod-
frames condition (M = 3.37, SD = 1.47) compared to the control uct designers’ comments emphasized the product’s novelty (e.g.,
condition (M = 2.73, SD = 1.45), t(119) = 2.42, p < .02. ‘‘This is a wonderful example for a very creative prototype! You
can see that the designers looked for an unusual idea for a prod-
Mediation analyses uct’’), while others emphasized the product’s cost effectiveness
We tested whether the implicit measure of experienced conflict (e.g., ‘‘This product is very cost-effective’’).
and integrative complexity mediated the relationship between In the high differentiation-low integration condition, product
adopting paradoxical frames and creativity (Baron & Kenny, designers were portrayed as viewing novelty and low cost to be
1986). The effect of adopting paradoxical frames was reduced to incompatible. The instructions read, ‘‘The committee members
non-significance (from b = .19, p < .04, to b = .03, p = .73) when thought that the product is highly creativity but too expensive.’’
the two mediators were included in the equation, and both the im- The product designers’ comments emphasized this contrast (e.g.,
plicit measure of conflict (b = .36, p < .001) and integrative com- ‘‘This product is unique. I haven’t seen such a model before! How-
plexity (b = .38, p < .001) were significant predictors of associative ever it seems that the designer did not consider cost issues’’).
 E. Miron-Spektor et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240 237

Table 2
Means (and standard deviations) of main measures, Study 3.

Manipulation check Conflict-related words (mediator) RAT problems Integrative complexity

Paradoxical frames 6.80 0.41 7.75 3.38
(2.35) (0.76) (4.86) (1.47)
Control 5.72 0.13 6.05 2.73
(2.08) (0.39) (4.07) (1.45)

Correlations among main measures, Study 3

2. 3. 4. 5.
1. Paradoxical frames .24⁄⁄ .22⁄ .19⁄ .22⁄
2. Manipulation check .20⁄ .25⁄⁄ .05
3. Conflict-related words .54⁄⁄⁄ .45⁄⁄⁄
4. RAT problems .55⁄⁄⁄
5. Integrative complexity
^
p < .10,
⁄
p < .05,
⁄⁄
p < .01,
⁄⁄⁄
p < .001.

In the low differentiation-high integration condition, the instruc- Results

tions did not emphasize that novelty and low cost were incompat-
ible but rather mentioned that both were achieved. The Association task
instructions read, ‘‘The committee members thought that the prod- We conducted a 2 (differentiation)  2 (integration) ANOVA
uct is both highly creativity and inexpensive.’’ The product design- using the number of RAT problems correctly solved as the depen-
ers’ comments reflected both qualities as complementary (e.g., dent variable. This analysis revealed a significant main effect for
‘‘This product is both unique and efficiently built’’). both differentiation (F[1,185] = 7.72, p < .01, g2 = .04) and integra-
Finally, in the high differentiation-high integration condition, the tion (F[1,185] = 18.80, p < .001, g2 = .09). More interestingly, we
instructions emphasized that although novelty and affordability found a significant interaction between the two manipulations,
often incompatible, they can be achieved together. The instructions F(1,185) = 3.98, p < .05, g2 = .02 (depicted in Fig. 2). When differen-
read, ‘‘The committee members thought that despite the great dif- tiation was low, integration did not produce significant differences
ficulty of saving costs when developing new products, this product in creativity (the difference was only marginally significant,
is both highly creative and inexpensive.’’ The product designers’ F[1,185] = 2.80, p = .10). But when differentiation was high,
comments reflected both qualities as complementary (‘‘This is a creativity was higher in the presence of high rather than low inte-
wonderful example for a very creative prototype that is also very gration (F[1,185] = 20.59, p < .001).
cheap!’’). As part of the manipulation, participants wrote a descrip-
tion of five features of the prototype that they thought influenced
Table 3
its success.
Manipulation check for pilot study, Study 4.

Conflict ratings Complementarity

Association task. Associative ability was assessed using ten of the ratings
RAT problems, which participants were asked to solve in 4 min. Low differentiation Low integration 3.62 (1.55) 3.91 (0.79)
High integration 3.61 (1.27) 5.24 (0.92)

Pilot study High differentiation Low integration 5.35 (0.64) 3.67 (1.53)
High integration 5.59 (0.59) 5.84 (0.45)
We conducted a pilot study on a non-overlapping group of
participants (N = 112) to test the validity of our manipulations
for differentiation and integration. Using a 7-point scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), participants indicated
their agreement with each of the six statements used in Study
1 to assess conflict (a = .83) and complementarity (a = .86). Mean
and standard deviations for both types of ratings are reported in
Table 3. A 2 (differentiation)  2 (integration) between-subjects
ANOVA using conflict ratings as the dependent variable revealed
a significant main effect for differentiation (F[1,108] = 88.00,
p < .001, g2 = .45) but not for integration (p = .58), nor for their
interaction (p = .53). A similar analysis using complementarity
ratings as the dependent variable revealed a significant main ef-
fect for integration (F[1,108] = 80.99, p < .001, g2 = .43) but not
for differentiation (p = .36). In this case, the interaction was also
significant, F(1,108) = 4.70, p < .05, g2 = .04. These results indicate
that ratings for conflict and complementarity were both high only
in the high differentiation/high integration condition, thus sug-
gesting that the manipulations employed in the main study were Fig. 2. Number of RAT problems correctly solved by condition, Study 4. Error bars
effective. represent standard errors.
238 E. Miron-Spektor et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240

We also conducted simple effect tests to examine differences that significantly enhance or inhibit creative performance, such
within the same integration level. When integration was low, dif- as job complexity (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Farmer, Tierney,
ferentiation did not produce significant differences in creativity & Kung-McIntyre, 2003; Oldham & Cummings, 1996), prior experi-
(F < 1). But when integration was high, creativity was higher in ence (Gino, Argote, Miron-Spektor, & Todorova, 2010; Gino,
the presence of high rather than low differentiation (F[1,185] = Todorova, Miron-Spektor, & Argote, 2009), supervisory (Amabile
12.18, p = .001). & Conti, 1999; Frese, Teng, & Wijnen, 1999; Shalley & Gilson,
These results indicate that the highest levels of creativity can be 2004) and coworker (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002; Zhou &
reached by highlighting the contradictory relationships between George, 2003) relationships, rewards and evaluation systems
two elements (in this case, efficiency and creativity) and stressing (Amabile, 1996; Baer, Oldham, & Cummings, 2003; Zhou & Shalley,
the possibility that, while contradictory, they can complement one 2003), the physical workspace (Oldham, Cummings, & Zhou, 1995;
another. Shalley & Oldham, 1997), and psychological safety (George, 2008;
Lee, Edmondson, Thomke, & Worline, 2004), to mention just a
General discussion few. Here, we identified an important new factor, namely paradox-
ical frames. Unlike this previous work, our research focused on an
In four studies using different manipulations for activating par- individual state: a mental frame that individuals can adopt when
adoxical frames and different creativity tasks, we demonstrated facing tasks that require creativity. We showed that this mental
the positive effect of paradoxical frames on creativity. Participants frame can be manipulated and activated by situational and exter-
who were primed with a paradoxical frame demonstrated higher nal factors.
creativity levels than did participants who were primed with crea- Second, we contribute to prior work on cognitive tuning theory
tivity, efficiency, or creativity–efficiency-frames. Our findings also to understand the link between internal states and creativity. Our
shed light on the psychological processes through which paradox- findings support the idea that people use their current phenome-
ical frames enhance creativity. Paradoxical frames elicit an implicit nological experiences or somatic states as cues to identify the type
or explicit sense of conflict and enhance individuals’ complex of environment they are in and the type of cognitive approach they
thinking. These processes in turn increase exploration, sensitivity should take (Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1991; Forgas, 2000; Izard
to unusual associations, and generation of new associations be- & Tomkins, 1966; Mowrer, 1960; Schwarz & Clore, 1983; Schwarz
tween seemingly contradictory elements. Finally, we demon- & Clore, 1996; Smith & Lazarus, 1990). Similar to emotional ambiv-
strated that the combination of differentiation and integration alence, where two contradictory emotions are mentally experi-
contribute to creativity above and beyond the contribution of each enced simultaneously (Fong, 2006), adopting paradoxical frames
process in separation. signals that one is in an unusual environment and therefore should
Together, this consistent pattern of results across our studies embrace atypical exemplars. The current findings extend Fong’s
suggests that adopting paradoxical frames is particularly likely to work (2006) by showing that ambivalence also occurs between
lead people to embrace atypical possibilities, thus enhancing their two seemingly contradictory dimensions, which a person is simul-
creativity. Importantly, this effect was produced using different taneously considering when embracing a paradox.
manipulations of paradoxical frames as well as multiple tasks to Third, our findings extend prior research on the effect of conflict
measure creative performance, demonstrating the robustness of on creative thinking. Although the overall effect of conflict on per-
the link between paradoxical frames and creativity. formance has been shown to be negative (De Dreu & Weingart,
The finding that paradoxical frames enhanced creativity may 2003), recent studies suggest that conflict has opposite effects on
seem counterintuitive in light of prior creativity research (e.g., performance on divergent and convergent tasks (Beersma & De
Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996) demonstrating that Dreu, 2005). Conflicts enhance divergent thinking and deep pro-
people were more creative when focusing exclusively on a difficult cessing of task-relevant information as well as the exploration of
creativity goal than when focusing on both difficult creativity and new ideas (Jehn, 1995; Nemeth et al., 2004). Building on this liter-
efficiency goals (Kremer & Erez, 2007). By contrast, we found that, ature, our findings suggest that when individuals experience a
compared to a frame that focuses attention solely on creativity, sense of conflict activated by paradoxical frames (and not by an
focusing attention on the paradoxical relationship between crea- adversary), they react in a more creative way.
tivity and efficiency enhanced creative performance. Thus, while Finally, our research contributes to prior work on the role of
providing both creativity and efficiency goals may elicit incompat- paradox in organizational life. In the past, scholars have proposed
ible action tendencies that reduce performance, providing a frame that adopting paradoxical frames improves managers’ ability to at-
that reconciles creativity and efficiency enhances creative tend to and deal with strategic contradictions (Smith & Tushman,
performance. 2005) and leads them to reach new insights to existing problems
Paradoxical frames shift the focus from competitive to comple- (Luscher & Lewis, 2008). Despite this important work, no prior
mentary thinking, thus allowing people to accept the inherent con- empirical study had explored the effects of paradoxical frames on
tradiction and find ways in which both task demands can be creativity. Our research addressed this gap directly by investigating
accomplished. We found that when participants perceived creativ- the influence of paradoxical frames on the ability of individuals to be
ity and efficiency as simultaneously contradictory and comple- creative and on the psychological processes underlying such link.
mentary, they were most creative. Our findings are consistent
with a related effect documented in the emotions literature, which Limitations and future research
shows that individuals primed with contradictory emotions are
more creative than those primed with only one emotion (Fong, The primary limitation of this work is the use of laboratory
2006; George & Zhou, 2007). studies, which may limit the external validly of our findings. Van
den Bos (2001) suggested that researchers working with new mod-
Theoretical and practical contributions els and theories should first test their hypotheses in experimental
settings and then take these models into the field for further vali-
Our research offers four main contributions to the existing liter- dation. We began our investigation of the effects of paradoxical
ature. First, we add to the creativity literature by offering new in- frames on creativity in a controlled laboratory setting. By taking
sights on the importance of adopting paradoxical frames in order advantage of random assignment and creativity measures that
to increase creativity. Prior work has identified several variables have been validated in previous research, our laboratory study
 E. Miron-Spektor et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240 239

provided consistent and robust evidence that paradoxical frames Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity
at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.
enhance creativity. Future research could benefit from investigat-
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, H. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity
ing the effects of paradoxical frames using different methodologi- during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 630–640.
cal approaches and samples within organizations. The correlation Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work
between the effect sizes obtained in the field and those obtained environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231–252.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
in the lab are generally high (Anderson, Lindsay, & Bushman, environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1184–1554.
1999). Therefore, we expect this investigation to strengthen the Anderson, C., Lindsay, J. L., & Bushman, J. (1999). Research in the psychological
generalizability of the present results and uncover important laboratory: Truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9.
Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: When does it
boundary conditions of both the findings and the theory presented really matter? Leadership Quarterly, 14, 569–586.
in this paper. Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E. J., Bluck, S., deVries, B., Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E.
Another limitation of this work is that our manipulations of par- (1992). The conceptual/integrative complexity scoring manual. In C. P. Smith
(Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis
adoxical frames focused on either a general manipulation for (pp. 401–418). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
paradoxical thinking (generating paradoxical sentences) or a spe- Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
cific one (focusing on the dimensions of creativity and efficiency). social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Future research could explore whether specific manipulations for Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). Conflict’s consequences: Effects of
paradoxical frames that focus on other contradicting dimensions social motives on postnegotiation creative and convergent group functioning
(e.g., exploration vs. exploitation; experimentation vs. error pre- and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 358–
374.
vention) operate in the same manner as observed in our studies.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process
In addition to such explorations, our work points to many other management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management
avenues for future research. The four studies presented in the paper Review, 28(2), 238–256.
suggest the importance of further examining the consequences and Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured
chaos. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
antecedents of adopting paradoxical frames. It is necessary for Damasio, A. R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (1991). Somatic markers and the guidance
scholars to gain more knowledge regarding both the positive and of behavior: Theory and preliminary testing. In H. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, & A.
negative consequences of adopting paradoxical frames before fully L. Benton (Eds.), Frontal lobe function and dysfunction (pp. 217–229). New York:
Oxford University Press.
embracing the recommendation to stimulate paradoxical thinking De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Mental set and creative thought in social
at work. Indeed, the sense of conflict individuals experience when conflict: Threat rigidity versus motivated focus. Journal of Personality and Social
they adopt paradoxical frames may affect their job satisfaction or Psychology, 95(3), 648–661.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
even their well-being. In addition, future research could test performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
whether the effects of paradoxical frames demonstrated here persist Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.
over time or should be reactivated before engaging in a creative task. DeFillippi, R., Grabher, G., & Jones, C. (2007). Introduction to paradoxes of creativity:
Managerial and organizational challenges in the cultural economy. Journal of
It is also possible that some individuals may benefit more than Organizational Behavior, 28, 511–521.
others from adopting paradoxical frames. For example, it may be Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58 [5, Serial No.
easier for individuals high on openness to experiences and integra- 270].
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in
tive complexity to adopt paradoxical frames, yet individuals low on
Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal,
these characteristics are more likely to benefit from them (Tierney, 46, 618–630.
Farmer, & Graen, 1999; Zhou, 2003). Paradoxical frames may also Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research,
influence the motivation to engage in a creativity task, and the ex- and applications. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of
tent to which individuals perceive the task as difficult and chal- Management Journal, 49, 1016–1030.
lenging. Research investigating the personal, motivational and Forgas, J. P. (2000). Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition. Paris:
situational factors that trigger paradoxical frames and that moder- Cambridge University Press.
Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems:
ate their effect on creativity may uncover important insights into Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational
our understanding of the role of cognitive frames in organizations. Behavior, 20, 1139–1155.
Finally, future studies could examine the consequences of adopt- Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it
important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21(3),
ing paradoxical frames at multiple levels of analyses and compare 593–608.
the beneficial effects of embracing paradoxes for both individual George, J. M. (2008). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals,
and team creativity. Because groups bring together the diverse per- 1, 439–477.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint
spectives and experiences of individual members, work teams may contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to
benefit more than individuals from developing shared paradoxical employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605–622.
frames that simultaneously focus their attention on contradictory Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. (2010). First get your feet wet:
When and why prior experience fosters team creativity. Organizational Behavior
task requirements. By exploring a paradox together, team members
and Human Decisions Processes, 111(2), 93–101.
can overcome the common tendency of individuals to exploit famil- Gino, F., Todorova, G., Miron-Spektor, E., & Argote, L. (2009). When and why prior
iar knowledge at the expense of exploring new domains. Examining task experience foster team creativity. In research on managing groups and teams:
the effects of adopting paradoxical frames in teams would allow use- Creativity in groups. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 87–110.
Glucksberg, S., & Weisberg, W. R. (1966). Verbal behavior and problem solving:
ful comparisons to the findings presented here. Effects of labeling in a functional fixedness problem. Journal of Experimental
By calling attention to a previously underexplored construct in Psychology, 71, 659–664.
the organizational behavior, that of paradoxical frames, our studies Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). Toward identifying the inventive
templates of new products: A channeled ideation approach. Journal of Marketing
have uncovered a relationship of both theoretical and practical Research, 36(2), 200–210.
importance. We hope this research will stimulate future endeavors Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become
that can further our understanding of how embracing contradic- creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization
Science, 17, 484–500.
tions through paradoxical frames can lead to beneficial effects in Huang, L., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Mind-body dissonance: Conflict between the
organizations. senses expands the mind’s horizons. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
doi:10.1177/1948550610391677.
Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization.
References Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1206–1217.
Izard, C. E., & Tomkins, S. S. (1966). Affect and behavior: Anxiety as a negative affect.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.). Anxiety and behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 81–125). New York:
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview. Academic Press.
240 E. Miron-Spektor et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 229–240

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (vol. 2,
intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. pp. 527–561). New York: Guilford.
Kremer, S., & Erez, M. (2007). Goal specificity, personality and dual creativity and Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1991). Happy and mindless, but sad and smart? The impact
efficiency task performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the of affective states on analytic reasoning. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social
Academy of Management, Philadelphia. judgments (pp. 55–71). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Lee, F., Edmondson, A. C., Thomke, S., & Worline, M. (2004). The mixed effects of Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-
inconsistence on experimentation in organizations. Organization Science, 15, being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of
310–326. Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523.
Leung, A. K.-Y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2008). Multicultural Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T.
experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles
63(3), 169–181. (pp. 433–465). New York: Guilford.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social
Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly,
Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. E., & Green, S. G. (2002). Product development 15, 33–53.
tension: Exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Shalley, C. E., & Oldham, G. R. (1997). Competition and creative performance. Effects
Management Journal, 45, 546–564. of competitor presence and visibility. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 337–345.
Luscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental
sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
51(2), 221–240. Simonton, R. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual York: Oxford University Press.
Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614. Smith, S. M. (2003). The constraining effects of initial ideas. In P. A. Paulus & B. A.
Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 15–31).
relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Oxford University Press: New York.
Social Psychology, 96(5), 1047–1061. Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 609–637). New York:
contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative Guilford.
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–767. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. (2005). Senior teams and managing contradictions: On
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological the team dynamics of managing exploitation and exploration. Organization
Review, 69, 220–232. Science, 16(5), 522–536.
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural Tadmor, C. T., & Tetlock, P. E. (2006). Biculturalism: A model of the effects of second-
values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement culture exposure on acculturation and integrative complexity. Journal of Cross-
each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175–199. Cultural Psychology, 37(2), 173–190.
Miron-Spektor, E., Efrat, D., Schwartz-Cohen O., & Rafaeli, A. (in press). Others’ anger Tadmor, C. T., Tetlock, P. E., & Peng, K. (2009). Acculturation strategies and
makes people work harder not smarter: The effect of observing anger and integrative complexity the cognitive implications of biculturalism. Journal of
sarcasm on complex thinking. Journal of Applied Psychology, doi:10.1037/ Cross-Cultural psychology, 40(1), 105–139.
a0023593. Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformists and combination and experience in innovation teams. Academy of Management
attentive-to-detail members on team Innovation: Reconciling the innovation Journal, 49(4), 723–740.
paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4). Tetlock, P. E., Armor, D., & Peterson, R. S. (1994). The slavery debate in antebellum
Mowrer, O. H. (1960). Learning theory and behaviour. New York: Wiley. America: Cognitive style, value conflict, and the limits of compromise. Journal of
Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 115–126.
role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., & Berry, J. M. (1993). Flattering and unflattering
Social Psychology., 34, 365–374. personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 500–511.
factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634. Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., & Lerner, J. S. (1996). Revising the value pluralism
Oldham, G. R., Cummings, A., & Zhou, J. (1995). The spatial configuration of model: Incorporating social content and context postulates. In C. Seligman, J.
organizations. In G. Ferris (Ed.). Research in personnel and human resources Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.). The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (vol.
management (Vol. 13, pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 8, pp. 25–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. (1995). Performance and perceptions of Tierney, P., Farmer, R. S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and
brainstorming in an organizational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel
17, 249–265. Psychology, 52(3), 591–620.
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis of creativity in Tulving, E., Schacter, D., & Stark, H. A. (1982). Priming effects in word-fragment
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), completion are independent on recognition memory. Learning, Memory and
76–87. Cognition, 8, 336–341.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Cultures, dialectics, and reasoning about Van den Bos, K. (2001). Fundamental research by means of laboratory experiments
contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–759. is essential for a better understanding of organizational justice. Journal of
Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2009). Connections from Kafka: Exposure to meaning Vocational Behavior, 58, 254–259.
threats improves implicit learning of an artificial grammar. Psychological Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams.
Science, 20(9), 1125–1131. Organization Science, 16(3), 203–224.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain Wind, J., & Mahajan, V. (1997). Issues and opportunities in new product
knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity development: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing
and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, Research, 34, 1–12.
933–946. Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity:
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative
Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413–422.
Schooler, J. W., & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader
Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 97–134). emotional intelligence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 545–568.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational and directions for future research. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel
functions of affective states. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.). and human resource management (pp. 165–217). Oxford, England: Elsevier.