Vander Ark

Bio: Vander Ark is an academic researcher from Loyola University New Orleans. The author has contributed to research in topics: Child development & Personality psychology. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 8 publications receiving 230 citations.

The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior

Abstract: Self-determination theory (SDT) maintains that an understanding of human motivation requires a consideration of innate psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. We discuss the SDT concept of needs as it relates to previous need theories, emphasizing that needs specify the necessary conditions for psychological growth, integrity, and well-being. This concept of needs leads to the hypotheses that different regulatory processes underlying goal pursuits are differentially associated with effective functioning and well-being and also that different goal contents have different relations to the quality of behavior and mental health, specifically because different regulatory processes and different goal contents are associated with differing degrees of need satisfaction. Social contexts and individual differences that support satisfaction of the basic needs facilitate natural growth processes including intrinsically motivated behavior and integration of extrinsic motivations, whereas those that forestall autonomy, competence, or relatedness are associated with poorer motivation, performance, and well-being. We also discuss the relation of the psychological needs to cultural values, evolutionary processes, and other contemporary motivation theories.

Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication

Abstract: This paper provides a theoretical perspective for dealing with the initial entry stage of interpersonal interaction. The seven axioms and 21 theorems presented suggest a set of research priorities for studying the development of interpersonal relationships. The paper concludes with a discussion of some of the problems to be considered if the theory is to be extended beyond the initial stages of interaction.

Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams.

Abstract: We thank Lotte Bailyn, Keith Mumighan. Elaine RtMnanelli, the Center for Innovation Management Studies. Bob Sutton, and tfie anonymous reviewers at Administrative Science Quarteriy for their support and comments. This article focuses on the activities teams use to manage their organizational environment beyond their teams. We used semistructured interviews with 38 new-product team managers in high-technotogy companies, log data from two of these teams, and questionnaires completed by members of a different set of AB new-product teams to generate and test hypotheses about teams' external activities. Results indicate that teams engage in vertical communications aimed at molding the views of top management, horizontal communication aimed at coordinating work and obtaining feedback, and horizontal communication aimed at general scanning of the technical and market environment. Organizational teams appear to develop distinct strategies toward their environment: some specialize in particular external activities, some remain isolated from the extemal environment, and others engage in multiple external activities. The paper shows that the type of external communication teams engage in, not just the amount, determines performance. Over time, teams following a comprehensive strategy enter positive cycles of external activity, internal processes, and performance that enable long-term team success.*

A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity

Abstract: Theory and research in both personality psychology and creativity share an essential commonality: emphasis on the uniqueness of the individual. Both disciplines also share an emphasis on temporal consistency and have a 50-year history, and yet no quantitative review of the literature on the creative personality has been conducted. The 3 major goals of this article are to present the results of the first meta-analytic review of the literature on personality and creative achievement, to present a conceptual integration of underlying potential psychological mechanisms that personality and creativity have in common, and to show how the topic of creativity has been important to personality psychologists and can be to social psychologists. A common system of personality description was obtained by classifying trait terms or scales onto one of the Five-Factor Model (or Big Five) dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Effect size was measured using Cohen's d (Cohen, 1988). Comparisons on personality traits were made on 3 sets of samples: scientists versus nonscientists, more creative versus less creative scientists, and artists versus nonartists. In general, creative people are more open to new experiences, less conventional and less conscientious, more self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive. Out of these, the largest effect sizes were on openness, conscientiousness, self-acceptance, hostility, and impulsivity. Further, there appears to be temporal stability of these distinguishing personality dimensions of creative people. Dispositions important to creative behavior are parsed into social, cognitive, motivational, and affective dimensions. Creativity like most complex behaviors requires an intra- as well as interdisciplinary view and thereby mitigates the historically disciplinocentric attitudes of personality and social psychologists.

On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures.

Abstract: Theory development typically focuses on relationships among theoretical constructs, placing little emphasis on relationships between constructs and measures. In most cases, constructs are treated as causes of their measures. However, this causal flow is sometimes reversed, such that measures are viewed as causes of constructs. Procedures have been developed to identify and estimate models that specify constructs as causes or effects of measures. However, these procedures provide little guidance for determining a priori whether constructs should be specified as causes or effects of their measures. Moreover, these procedures address few of the possible causal structures by which constructs and measures may be related. This article develops principles for specifying the direction and structure of relationships between constructs and measures. These principles are illustrated using examples from psychological, sociological, and organizational research.