UNIVERSITEIT GENT
Faculteit Psychologie en Pedagogische Wetenschappen
Academiejaar 2012-2013
Eerste Examenperiode
Every rose has its thorn:
When negative affect leads to creativity
Thesis subscribed for the degree of
master Personnel Management, Work and Organizational Psychology
Kenneth De Smet
Promotor: Dr. Ronald Bledow
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that the contents of this thesis may be consulted
and/or reproduced provided that the source is acknowledged.
Kenneth De Smet
i
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
ii
Foreword
This thesis was established by the help and support of some persons. First, I
would like to thank my family for their encouragement. Secondly, I want to say thank
you to my fellow students and friends who were willing to provide feedback on the
manuscript of the thesis. Third, I would like to thank especially my mom, Annick
Vekens, and my partner, Femke Verhaeghe, who are creativity raters for the first and
third study. Fourth, I would like to express my thanks to all participants of the studies
without their input this research would have been impossible.
At last, but not least, I want to express my gratitude to Ronald Bledow, the
promotor, who aided me enormously with the thesis. I found it very pleasant to work
with him as his guidance was outstanding. He was always prepared to answer questions,
even in the evening or in the weekend.
Ghent, 21 mei 2013,
Kenneth De Smet
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
iii
Abstract
We examined if and how negative affect leads to creativity. Building on moodcreativity research, and the view that a dynamic interplay of negative affect and positive
affect fosters creativity, we focused on the core self-regulatory processes that down
regulate negative affect and up regulate positive affect. Self-relaxation, the ability to
down regulate negative affect effectively, and self-motivation, the capability to up
regulate positive affect, are both used to examine the relation between negative affect
and creativity. Individual differences in these self-regulatory processes are expected to
influence the link between negative affect and creativity.
We conducted three studies to examine our hypotheses. One experimental study
which demonstrated an interaction of negative affect and self-relaxation on creativity,
an experience-sampling study that explored the relationship in a work environment, and
an experimental studied which showed the interaction between negative affect and selfrelaxation and between negative affect and self-motivation.
We find that negative affect enhances creativity when an individual is able to
down regulate negative affect and is able to up regulate positive affect. Furthermore, we
found a curvilinear relationship between self-relaxation and creativity as well as
between self-motivation and creativity after a phase of negative affect. This finding
shows that the effect of negative affect on creativity is moderated by self-relaxation and
self-motivation. Moreover, we found that medium rather than maximum levels of selfrelaxation and self-motivation were optimal for creativity in response to negative
experiences.
Keywords: mood, creativity, negative affect, self-relaxation, self-motivation
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
iv
Samenvatting
Dit onderzoek bestudeert hoe negatief affect of gemoed, gevoelens van
onbehagen, kan leiden tot creativiteit. Negatief affect kan gedefinieerd worden als een
negatieve stemming of gevoelens van onbehagen. Voortbouwend op voorgaand
onderzoek in het mood-creativity domein en de opvatting dat een dynamische
wisselwerking tussen negatief affect en positief affect creativiteit voortbrengt, richtten
we ons op de zelfregulerende processen die negatief affect neerwaarts reguleren en
positief affect opwaarts reguleren. Self-relaxation, de capaciteit om negatief affect
efficiënt neerwaarts te reguleren, en self-motivation, de vaardigheid om positief affect
opwaarts te reguleren worden beide gebruikt om de relatie tussen negatief affect en
creativiteit te onderzoeken. Individuele verschillen bij deze zelfregulerende processen
worden verwacht de verhouding tussen negatief affect en creativiteit te beïnvloeden.
We voerden drie studies uit om de relatie tussen negatief affect en creativiteit te
onderzoeken. Eén experimentele studie die de interactie tussen negatief affect en selfrelaxation op creativiteit aantoont, een dagboekonderzoek die de verhouding onderzocht
in een werkomgeving, en een experimenteel onderzoek die de interactie demonstreert
tussen negatief affect en self-relaxation en tussen negatief affect en self-motivation op
creativiteit.
Ons onderzoek toont aan dat negatief affect creativiteit voortbrengt wanneer de
persoon negatief affect efficiënt neerwaarts kan reguleren en positief affect efficiënt
opwaarts kan reguleren. Daarenboven detecteerden we een kromlijnig verband tussen
self-relaxation en creativiteit net als tussen self-motivation en creativiteit. Dit resultaat
geeft aan dat het effect van negatief affect op creativiteit wordt gemodereerd door selfrelaxation en self-motivation. Daarenboven kunnen we besluiten dat een gemiddeld
level ten opzichte van extreme levels van self-relaxation en self-motivation optimaal
bleken om creativiteit voort te brengen na negatieve affect.
Kernwoorden: gemoedsstemming, creativiteit, negatief affect, self-relaxation,
self-motivation
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
v
Table of contents
Foreword ......................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... iii
Samenvatting.................................................................................................................. iv
Table of contents ..............................................................................................................v
Introduction .....................................................................................................................1
Literature Review ............................................................................................................1
Significance of Creativity.......................................................................................................... 1
Components of Creativity ......................................................................................................... 2
The link between Mood and Creativity ..................................................................................... 3
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 6
Self-relaxation and Self-motivation as Mechanisms of Affect-Regulation .............................. 8
Study 1 ............................................................................................................................10
Method Study 1 ....................................................................................................................... 10
Result study 1 .......................................................................................................................... 13
Discussion Study 1 .................................................................................................................. 14
Study 2 ............................................................................................................................15
Method Study 2 ....................................................................................................................... 15
Results study 2 ........................................................................................................................ 18
Discussion of Study 2.............................................................................................................. 19
Study 3 ............................................................................................................................20
Method Study 3 ....................................................................................................................... 20
Result Study 3 ......................................................................................................................... 23
Discussion study 3................................................................................................................... 26
General Discussion ........................................................................................................28
Implications ............................................................................................................................. 29
Limitations & Future research................................................................................................. 30
References ......................................................................................................................32
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
1
Introduction
“The things we fear most in organizations—fluctuations, disturbances, imbalances—
are the primary sources of creativity”.
Margaret J. Wheatley
Margeret J. Whealey, management consultant specialized in organizational
behavior and Associate Professor of Management at the Brigham Young University,
Cambridge College and Marriot School of Management, states that in her long career
she witnessed creativity after phases of distress and unpleasantness. In this thesis, I
examine this notion scientifically and examine how negative affect can lead to
creativity. The analogy that every rose has its thorn expresses this core idea.
Literature Review
Significance of Creativity
Many definitions exist of creativity and people have the habit to hold the concept
exclusive for musicians or artists (Glaveanu, 2010). For that reason, many creative acts
are not recognized as such. We follow the definition of creativity as the development of
novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1996; Barsade & Gibson, 2007, Lubart, 2003). This
signifies that creativity can be applied in very different domains and in very different
tasks. Creativity thus exists outside the domain art and outside the laboratory (Fischer,
Giaccardi, Eden & Sugimoto 2005). Further on, creativity is essential to solve complex
problems in a new and unique way and is so a key function to prosperity in today’s
society (Runco, 2004; Simonton, 2003). Besides the advantage of being able to solve
complex problems, creativity enables that an individual can adapt to new situations.
This makes the individual very flexible in an ever changing world (Runco, 2004).
Organizations and society tend to become more complicated carrying more and more
complex problems. Knowledge on how creativity can be stimulated will lead to benefits
for the individual as for society and thus for companies too. A review on creativity
research so far found that most of the research indicated that creativity is beneficial to
problem solving and adaptability (Runco, 2004). This illustrates the importance of
creativity on the workplace where many problems must be solved during a workday and
innovation is a key factor in success. One author even states that creativity is the most
valuable resource of this century (Florida, 2002). Although the significance of creativity
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
2
is clear, we do not fully understand how creativity arises. More research is therefore
needed that furthers the understanding of how creativity arises and that shows ways to
enhance creativity.
Components of Creativity
According to Guilford (1976) creativity exists out of three different but
correlated components: originality, fluency, and cognitive flexibility (see also Torrance
1966). First, originality refers to the uniqueness of an idea or solution. As stated in the
quote in the beginning, creativity can be seen as “defeating the habit”. Originality can
be examining the responses to a question such as “What can a brick be used for?”
(Lamm & Trommsdorff, 1973). The answer that a brick can be used to build a house is
obvious and does not indicate nor imply originality. A more original answer could be:
“to use as a flowerpot”. Second, fluency refers to the number of new ideas that are
generated. When asked the same question, we can simply count the numbers of ideas
the respondent provides within a certain time. Third, cognitive flexibility refers to the
number of different semantic categories that are used. An answer: “to build a house with
and to use as a flowerpot” indicates two different categories, building material and
decoration. In short, fluency and cognitive flexibility can be understood as the quantity
of ideas and originality as the quality of ideas. Note that one person can generate 15
ideas within the same semantic category and another person can produce only three
highly original ideas in three different semantic categories. The three highly original
ideas can be better than the 15 average ideas depending on the situation. This example
illustrates that the three components of creativity (originality, fluency, and cognitive
flexibility) need to be accounted for when assessing creativity.
Psychological research on creativity started around 1950 with the work of J.P.
Guilford (Guilford, 1950). At first, creativity was seen as a stable construct with
individual differences, there was no attention for the effect of situational factors on
creativity. More recently researchers see creativity as a less stable construct and since
then research developed in very different subareas, from biology to economy and from a
historiometric perspective to an organizational one (March, Fisher, Ashkanasy, & Rowe
2011; Runco, 2004). One of the psychological factors that consistently shows to be
closely related to creativity is affect. In the sections below, we will try to build on the
literature on mood-creativity research and try to deduct the role of negative affect on
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
3
creativity, which is not fully understood. Further on, we will demonstrate that the role of
negative affect depends on self-regulation.
The link between Mood and Creativity
Research on the mood-creativity relation attempts to understand how and when
affective states influence creativity. Mood, emotion, and affect are commonly linked to
each other as emotional sensations which have their impact on human behavior and thus
also on creativity (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008). Affect can be seen as an umbrella
term including mood and emotion as two subdomains. An emotion is directed to a
specific stimulus and is more briefly in time compared to a mood, which is more a
stable tendency. (Watson & Clark, 1984). A person can get angry because a computer
functions badly but when this problem is fixed the emotion will disappear and the
person will shift back to his original state. Moods are more enduring and not attached to
a specific stimulus. As Parrott (2001) said “a person in an irritable mood is not
necessarily angry about anything in particular he or she is just generally grumpy”.
For more than 25 years, research on the mood-creativity relation examined if a
specific mood enhances or inhibits creativity directly. Most of the time, a mood
(positive, neutral, or negative) was induced to study the direct effect on creativity. The
accumulated evidence suggests that positive mood encourages people to be more
creative (De Dreu, Baas, Nijstad, 2008). It was argued that individuals in a positive
mood gained more access to uncommon and various information and so were more able
to solve complex problems by the aid of richer information (Kaufmann and Vosburg,
1997; Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener, 2005). The evidence regarding the influence of
negative affect on creativity is ambiguous. Some studies report a positive effect of
negative affect on creativity, where others indicate the reverse (Clapham 2001; Vosburg
1998 a). Other authors didn’t find any effect of negative affect (Verhaeghen, Joormann,
& Khan, 2005). These results led Davis (2009) to propose that the influence of affect on
creativity is context dependent rather than general. Furthermore, Ashby, Isen, & Turken,
(1999) stated that the effect of negative affect on creativity is more complex and
difficult to predict than it is the case for the effect of positive affect. The purpose of this
thesis is to shed light on how and when negative affect enhances creativity.
In the literature, three theories tried to clarify the effect of mood on creativity
(Runco, 2004). The hedonic tone theory states that positive moods (e.g. happy) increase
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
4
creativity more than neutral (e.g. bored) or negative moods (e.g. sad) (Baas, Carsten, &
Nijstad, 2008). This theory is in line with the dopaminergic theory of positive affect
(Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999) which states that a positive mood leads to higher
dopamine levels in the anterior cingulated cortex which makes alternative cognitive sets
more available. Furthermore it is argued that moods have a signaling function (Forgas,
1995). Positive mood signals a secure state and directs the individual to a more loose
way of processing information (Fiedler, 2000). In contrast, a negative mood signals a
dangerous setting which calls for a more careful approach (Ambady & Gray, 2002).
Information is then processed in a detailed way focusing on concrete facts (Forgas,
2002). In short it can be comprehended that an individual in a secure environment and
thus in a positive mood will be more open to try new ways.
The second theory, the activation theory claims that activating mood states (e.g.
happy) trigger creativity more than deactivating mood states (e.g. relaxed) do (Baas et
al., 2008). The idea holds that complex thinking depends on the level of arousal and
activation. This function is curvilinear where too low activation leads to low
performance and too high activation to a reduction in the available capacity of the
individual to cope with the situation (Berridge & Waterhouse, 2003). On moderate
levels of arousal and activation individuals perform the best. They are set to perceive
the given information and to create an answer (De Dreu et al., 2008). Note that a relaxed
state is considered to be a positive mood and so contradicts the hedonic tone theory.
The third theory is the regulatory focus theory which can be understood as an
interaction between regulatory focus and activation (Idson, Liberman, & Higgins,
2000). The regulatory focus can be divided into two distinct concepts. On the one side
there is a “promotion focus” and, on the other side, a “prevention focus” (Baas & De
Dreu, 2011). A promotion focus appears when an individual presumes that his behavior
can lead to a positive outcome such as gaining a bonus. A prevention focus arises when
an individual thinks his behavior can lead to avoiding a negative outcome such as a
punishment. The different effects of the two concepts on creativity is explained as
promotion focus leads to a broad and global attentional scope and facilitates the access
to mental representations. Prevention focus on the other hand leads to narrowing down
the possible information, focusing on specific details which hinders for instance
flexibility, a component of creativity (Förster, Friedman, Ozelsel, & Denzler, 2006;
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
5
Förster & Higgins, 2005). This focus, as suggested by the theory, interacts with the
level of activation and arousal. A person in an activating mood with a promotion focus
should perform best compared to the other arrangements of regulatory focus with
activation, for example a deactivating mood with a promotion focus or an activating
mood with a prevention focus. The activating mood directs the motivation and
persistence where the promotion focus broadens the focus of attention. It is claimed that
these two effects should enhance the effect on creativity.
A meta-analysis tested all three theories and the results indicated that the link
between mood and creativity cannot be understood by hedonic tone or activation level
alone. The authors indicated that mood determines how creativity is achieved, through
originality for instance, and that activation in general relates to creativity. Yet the
authors also concluded that regulatory focus has its part in creativity. The authors
indicated that the evidence was far from decisive (Baas et al., 2008). It is our view that
all these ambiguous findings suggest that there is a need for a theoretical change. We
will try to integrate all the findings so far in a new conceptual framework.
The results of the meta-analysis highlight a key limitation of research on the
mood-creativity link. We simply do not fully understand the effect of mood or affect on
creativity yet. The underlying reason may be that instead of looking at the effect of one
isolated affective state on creativity, we need to shift to a more dynamic view on the
creativity process. If we take for instance the workplace into consideration, we notice
that a worker experiences a stream of affect during his workday (March et al., 2011). In
line with the dual-tuning perspective of George and Zhou (2007), we suggest that both
positive and negative affect have a key function and that creativity arises from their
dynamic interaction.
In the sections below, we will build on the argument that a change to a dynamic
perspective is required to understand how creativity arises (Bledow, Rosing, & Frese,
2013). We will ground our line of reasoning in Personal-Systems-Interaction (PSI)
theory to provide a better understanding of the process of how creativity arises. PSI
theory suggests that creativity arises from the interaction of cognitive systems which are
modulated by negative and positive affect. We utilized this framework to develop a
theoretical rationale of the dynamic effects of affect on creativity.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
6
Conceptual Framework
Personal-Systems-Interaction (PSI) theory views human behavior as the result of
the interaction between cognitive and affective sub-systems (Kuhl, 2000). The theory
states that different cognitive systems are active depending on which affective state a
person is experiencing and that changes in affect regulate the interplay between
cognitive systems. According to the theory, affect influences creativity through the
activation of distinguishable cognitive systems. Positive and negative affect are the
result of activation of the motivational reward and punishment systems. These two
systems are mutually inhibitory. Positive and negative affect therefore vary on two
distinct dimensions that are negatively correlated (Watson, 1988). The simultaneous
presence of high negative affect and high positive affect is therefore an uncommon
event (Fong, 2006).
PSI theory claims that the regulation of positive affect influences cognitive
functioning in such a way that either a fast and automatic mode of processing (high
positive affect) or a slow and controlled mode of processing (low positive affect) results
(Kazen & Kuhl, 2005). If positive affect is high, cognition proceeds in a heuristic and
effortless manner thereby facilitating thought-action repertoires and broadening the
scope of attention (Fredrickson, 2005; Frederickson & Branigan, 2003). On the other
hand, the regulation of negative affect drives cognitive functioning in a manner that
information is processed in a detailed manner (high negative affect) or in a broad and
flexible manner (low negative affect) (Baumann & Kuhl, 2002). If negative affect is
present, the attention is directed to new and unexpected information which is processed
in a sequential-analytical manner (Bless, Clore, Schwarz, Golisano, Rabe, & Wölk,
1996). It follows from PSI theory that negative affect momentarily inhibits creativity
and that positive affect enhances creativity. This is in line with past findings that
positive moods facilitates creative behavior, where negative moods inhibits creative
behavior. (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999; De Dreu et al., 2008)
For creativity, the down-regulation of negative affect and up-regulation of
positive affect plays a particularly important role. During the process of downregulation of negative affect, the focus of the psychological system shifts from isolated
elements to a global mode of processing (Koole & Jostmann, 2004). PSI theory argues
that the information gained during a phase of negative affect can be integrated when a
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
7
shift to a more positive state of mind happens. The information is then entered into
associative networks of memory and can be used for complex cognitive operations like
creativity (Kuhl, 2000). As such, we define the term affective shift as a sequence of
decreasing negative affect followed by increasing positive affect (Kuehnel, Sonnentag,
& Bledow, 2012; Bledow et al., 2013).
As one experiences only positive affect, high level intuitive processes attached
to negative affect will not have been activated. Furthermore we state that a phase of
negative affect can activate a sense of urgency within the individual, creating the
persistence necessary for creativity. An experimental study found that participants who
experienced negative affect produced more ideas because of higher persistence (De
Dreu, et al. 2008). Additionally, the authors found that participants in a high positive
affect condition were more cognitive flexible and generated more qualitative distinct
ideas. Where participants in the high negative affect condition produced many parallel
ideas. This might specify the distinct function of affect on cognition. Note that we claim
that negative affect alone inhibits creativity as the attentional focus is narrowed. It is
only when the negative affect is down regulated that creativity can prosper.
Building on the article of Bledow et al. (2013), we argue that the interaction
between the process of down-regulation of negative affect and the process of upregulation of positive affect enables creativity. We claim that negative affect leads the
individual to process information in a sequential-analytic manner compared to positive
affect who fosters a more loose way of processing information (Bless et al., 1996).
Down-regulation of negative affect activates the associative networks of memory which
forms the basis of complex thinking such as creativity while up-regulation of positive
affect leads to behavioral activation which enables previously developed intentions
(Koole & Joostmann, 2004; Kuhl et al., 1999). Furthermore an increase of positive
affect will lead behavioral control to proceed in a spontaneous and effortless manner.
Cognitive processing then widens and contains explorative thoughts and action
(Frederickson, 2005). Additionally, we claim that this activation will be the strongest
after a phase of negative affect (Kuhl, 2001; Bledow et al., 2013). Note that we claim
that the interaction, and not the processes alone, between down-regulating negative
affect and up-regulating positive affect fosters creativity.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
8
Self-relaxation and Self-motivation as Mechanisms of Affect-Regulation
PSI theory describes two different mechanism of how an individual implicitly
regulate his or her feelings. Self-relaxation is defined as the capability to decrease
feelings of hopelessness and anxiety while self-motivation is the ability to conquer
feelings of listlessness (Baumann, Kaschel, & Kuhl, 2007). In other words, selfrelaxation is the ability to down regulate negative affect while self-motivation is the
capability to up-regulate positive affect (Kuhl & Kazén, 1999). Individuals differ in
how efficient they are in self-motivation and self-relaxation. These individual
differences are often referred to as facets of the concept of action-state orientation.
There exists an extensive body of research on action state-orientation (Brunstein, 2001;
Koole & Jostmann, 2004; Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994).
Action and state orientation are the poles of the two continua of self-motivation
and self-relaxation. Low self-relaxation and low self-motivation refer to state
orientation and high self-relaxation and high self-motivation refer to action orientation
(Kuhl, 1994a). The concept of action-state orientation can explain why two individuals
with similar abilities don’t succeed to achieve the same level of performance
(Diefendorff, Hall, Lord, & Strean, 2000). As discussed before, self-relaxation and selfmotivation can be comprehend as volitional control over one’s emotion (Koole, Kuhl,
Jostmann, & Vohs, 2005). Individuals high in self-relaxation and high in selfmotivation can, compared to individuals low in self-relaxation and self-motivation,
regulate affect more quickly and more effectively under stressful circumstances
(Bauman, 2007). Their emotion-control mechanisms are more able to protect goals from
other tendencies and are more capable to keep specific cognitive systems devoted to that
goal (Kuhl, 1994a). When for instance facing failure, they can more quickly move
forward and look for opportunities in the future (Van Putten, Zeelenberg, & van Dijk,
2010). In contrast, individuals low in self-relaxation and self-motivation have more
difficulty keeping their feelings in check. They tend to get more stuck in the moment
and need more time to effectively regulate affect. This process of self-regulation is for
them more enduring and effortful.
An experiment on the sunk cost fallacy compared individuals low in selfrelaxation and low in self-motivation to individuals high in self-relaxation and selfmotivation. The sunk cost fallacy describes the tendency to finish an unfavorable action
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
9
that already took off. For instance, finishing your meal at a restaurant although you
don’t like it. The authors found that state-oriented people, individuals low in selfrelaxation and self-motivation, tend to use prior investment as a reason to continue their
behavior. It seems that action-oriented people, individuals high in self-relaxation and
self-motivation, are more prepared to change their behavior and to quit a failing project.
This is in line with the reasoning that state-oriented people need more time to get their
emotion in check and thus need more time to change their behavior (Van Putten et al.,
2010).
Several benefits of effective affect regulation have been confirmed in literature.
Researchers found that successful affect regulation enhances emotional well-being
(Baumann et al., 2007) and interpersonal relations (Butler, Egloff, Wilhelm, Smith,
Erickson, & Gross, 2003). Further on, more than 60 studies showed that high selfrelaxation and high self-motivation facilitates starting difficult intentions more than low
self-relaxation and low self-motivation in several domains like health and the workplace
(Palfai, 2002; Diefendorff, Richard, & Gosserand, 2006). Additionally, these effects
remain after controlling for achievement motivation (Heckhausen & Strang, 1988),
confidence (Koole & Joostmann, 2004) and “Big Five” personality measures (Baumann
et al., 2002, Diefendorff et al., 2000).
Whether high self-relaxation and high self-motivation enable creativity still
needs to be seen. As discussed before, we claim that the process of down-regulation of
negative affect and the up-regulation of positive affect enables creativity as different
cognitive sub-systems can then communicate with each other. Individuals differ in how
quickly they can down regulate negative affect and how quick they can up regulate
positive affect. Yet very fast affect regulation doesn’t seem always better. When for
instance down-regulation of negative affect is long and effortful, the individual will
gather more specific detailed information and his associative networks will be longer
activated than an individual who quickly down regulates negative affect. As negative
affect inhibits creativity at any given moment, negative affect needs to be down
regulated in order to enable creativity. As a long and effortful regulation of affect,
down-regulation of negative affect and up-regulation of positive affect, might be fruitful
in the long term, there is not always much time available to come up with new and
useful ideas. From this logic we assume that individuals high in self-relaxation and high
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
10
in self-motivation will perform more creative compared to individuals low in selfrelaxation and low in self-motivation when time is limited. Yet when time is available,
which lets individuals low in self-relaxation and low in self-motivation down regulate
negative affect and up regulate positive affect effectively, state-oriented individuals
should perform more creative compared to individuals high in self-relaxation and high
in self-motivation.
In the sections below, we provide results of three studies, two experimental
studies and one experience sampling study, to examine when negative affect leads to
creativity. We used the concept self-relaxation in relation to the different timeframes of
the studies to understand how and when negative affect leads to creativity. In the last
study we also examine self-motivation as it should play a role for creativity through the
up-regulation of positive affect and thus in transforming negative affect to creativity.
Study 1
The dynamic self-regulatory process of down-regulation of negative affect needs
to be accounted for to understand the effect of negative affect on creativity. Downregulation is defined as the capability to more or less maintain intentions and to pursuit
goals when faced with aversive events (Diefendorff et al., 2000). Individual differences
in self-relaxation will influence the efficacy of self-regulation of negative affect and will
so regulate the efficacy of down-regulation of negative affect for creativity.
We claim that participants who down regulate negative affect during the
experiment will show an activation of associative memory networks so that they are
more creative than the participants with delayed down-regulation of negative affect. In
other words, we argue that the individuals with high self-relaxation are able to down
regulate negative affect in the short period of time in the experimental condition and
thus will be more creative after a phase of negative affect.
Hypothesis 1: Self-relaxation is positively related to creativity after the
experience of negative affect
Method Study 1
The experiment tested the assumption that down-regulation, through selfrelaxation, of negative affect relates to creativity. To do so, the experiment contains an
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
11
experimental condition where negative affect was induced followed up by an induction
of positive affect, compared to a control condition where first neutral affect was induced
and secondly positive affect.
This study was conducted by Bledow et al., (2013). Below, a summary is
provided of the experiment, for full details please consult the original article.
Sample
The sample holds 80 master students of psychology (25% men) who participated
for €5 in the experiment.
Procedure
We build an experiment based on the paradigm from De Dreu et al. (2008) to
influence affect and assess creativity. The research was administered in group session of
ten. Participants were randomly allocated to the control or experimental condition. In
each condition they were asked to complete three independent eight-minute paper-andpencil tasks. Participants were told that the two first tasks contained autobiographical
memory. For the experimental condition the first task was used to induce a negative
affective state, the second task was used to foster a positive affective state. For the
control condition the first task was used to induce a neutral affective state and the
second task to cause a positive affective state. For both conditions the last task consisted
out of a brainstorming exercise where they were asked to write down as much ideas as
possible. The brainstorming task requested participants to come up with ideas to
improve teaching at the university. They were told that the university was actively
looking for ways to improve its teaching. Note that each task lasted no more than eight
minutes. An experimenter controlled the timing and told participants when to proceed to
the next task during the experiment. Afterwards, participants were debriefed about the
purpose of the study.
Two independent raters assessed the variable creative fluency of creativity. They
did so by counting the number of unique ideas each participant wrote down. Interrater
reliability was high (ICC = .99).
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
12
Material
The experiment consists out of three tasks. In the first two tasks participants
were requested to recall autobiographical events. These autobiographical memory tasks
influenced participants’ affective state. In the experimental condition participants had
first to describe a situation that made them feel afraid, distressed, or nervous (maximum
one page). They were asked to recall the situation as intensely and detailed as possible.
Furthermore, they were asked to underline parts of the text that caused the emotions. In
the control condition, participants were requested to write down all the activities they
did the day before. Fong (2006) states that this procedure can be used to induce a
neutral affective state. To check the manipulation of affect, participants had to fill in a
short survey containing two five-point rating scales about how negative and how
positive they felt. The second task was the same for both conditions. Participants were
asked to write a short essay (maximum one page) about an event that made them feel
happy, inspired, or enthusiastic. Once more, participants were asked to recall the
situation as intensely and detailed as possible. Furthermore they were asked to underline
parts of the text that caused the emotions. After the second task participants had to fill in
a short survey containing two five-point rating scales about how negative and how
positive they felt.
The third tasked, which was also the same for both conditions, consisted out of a
brainstorming task where participants were asked to come up with ideas, solutions, or
suggestions that could improve teaching at the university. They were told that the
university needs to systematically improve its quality of teaching and they were
interested in the participants’ suggestions. The participants were asked to write down
their ideas in bullet points and to come up with as many answers as possible.
We included the action-control scales by Kuhl (1994b) to measure selfrelaxation. We only used the dimensions hesitation and preoccupation as they appeared
most related to our study. The dimensions were assessed by eight items each who
describe a certain situation for example: “If I've worked for weeks on one project and
then everything goes completely wrong with the project, (a) it takes me a long time to
adjust to it, (b) it bothers me for a while, but then I don't think about it anymore”. In this
example option (a) represents low-self-relaxation. We utilized the items proposed by
Diefendorff, et al. (2000). Answers are coded with 0 and 1 so that higher values
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
13
signifies lower self-relaxation. The average scores across the eight items were used for
all analyses. Cronbach alpha was .68. The relatively low internal consistency is due to
situational variance and the short version of the scales we applied. Respondents take the
situation into account and do not respond uniformly to items (Bledow & Frese, 2009).
These scales are not created to maximize internal consistency for reasons of validity
(Kuhl, 1994)
Result study 1
The manipulation of affect was confirmed by a mixed analysis of variance. Time
was used as a within-subject factor and negative affect as dependent variable.
Furthermore, we found that the experimental condition reported higher levels of
negative affect than the control condition after the first manipulation of affect (M = 2.74
vs. M = 2.00, SE = .19, p < 0.01). Please consult the original article by Bledow et al.
(2013) for more details on the manipulation check.
As reported by Bledow et al. (2013) the experimental condition did not score
significantly higher than the control condition for creative fluency (M = 9.19, SE = 3.70,
M = 8.79, SD = 3.34, p = .62). For this research we reanalyzed the data and examined
the interaction between self-relaxation and creative fluency in the experimental
condition in order to test hypothesis 1. To do so, we ran a multiple regression analysis.
Figure 1 shows a significant interaction between self-relaxation and the experimental
condition for creative fluency (β = -.39, p = .02, R2 = 9%). Individuals who were
capable of down regulating the negative affect in the experimental condition,
outperform those who were less capable. Furthermore, participants low on selfrelaxation produced more ideas in the control condition where only positive affect was
induced.
Creative Fluency (Number of Ideas)
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
14
High in
self-relaxation
Low in
self-relaxation
Control condition
Experimental condition
Figure 1. Average creative fluency of individuals high and low in self-relaxation in the two conditions.
Discussion Study 1
Study 1 provides evidence that the effect of negative affect on creativity depends
whether an individual could down regulate negative affect or not. As this experiment
was rather short we found that individuals high in self-relaxation prospered of the
negative affect induction. While individuals low on self-relaxation produced less ideas.
Furthermore, the finding that individuals low on self-relaxation are more successful on
experimental tasks in positive affect condition has been found before in literature.
(Koole & Joostmann, 2005; Kuhl, 1994a).
This finding illustrates the importance of down regulating negative affect in
order to provide more ideas on a brainstorming task. The information gained during the
phase of negative affect seems only integrated when the individual was able to down
regulate negative affect. As this was a slightly short experiment only individuals high in
self-relaxation were able to down regulate the negative affect effective.
One limitation contains that we only examined creative fluency as an indicator
of creativity. As stated by Guilford (1976) creativity includes three different aspects:
creative fluency, originality, and cognitive flexibility. A second limitation is the timeframe of our study. Our study did not leave much time to participants in the
experimental condition to down regulate negative affect. As we might expect from our
theoretical perspective that individuals low in self-relaxation may outperform
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
15
individuals high in self-relaxation if they are given the time necessary to down regulate
negative affect. To verify how negative affect influences creativity at a later point in
time we conducted a second study.
Study 2
We found in study 1 that after experiencing negative affect individuals high in
self-relaxation were creative as they were able to down regulate negative affect
effectively in that short timeframe. Yet, from our theoretical rationale we reasoned that,
activation of associative memory networks should be particularly strong for people with
low self-relaxation after a long phase of negative affect and when they ultimately
managed to reach a positive state of mind. In contrary, individuals high in selfrelaxation will quickly down regulate negative and will not make full use of the
potential of negative affect. To test this rationale we designed a study with a longer
time-frame, a full workday.
Hypothesis 2: There is a three-way interaction between self-relaxation, negative
affect in the morning, positive affect during the day, and creativity. For low selfrelaxation, there is a strong positive relation between negative affect in the
morning and creativity if positive affect during the day is high.
Method Study 2
In order to address the limitations of study 1, we reanalyzed the data of an
experience sampling study which was implemented as a field study. We relate changes
of affect during one workday with creativity measured at the end of that day. This study
was administered by Bledow et al. (2013), when addressing the effect of an affective
shift on creativity. In this study we will decompose the affective shift and focus on
negative affect. We expect that as participants are given more time to down regulate
negative affect effectively, individuals low in self-relaxation will be high in creativity
after a phase of negative affect. For more details on the study, please consult the
original article.
Sample
In total 140 individuals were approached and 116 declared to be willing to take
part in the study. To capture the possible effect of a stream of affect on creativity, we
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
16
assume that we can only take participants into account who filled in the daily e-survey
for at least three out of five days. Unfortunately 14 participants neglected to complete
the survey more or equal than three out of five days. These participants did not diverge
significantly from the participants of the final sample in demographic variables or the
variables of the study. We included 102 participants in the final sample (response rate =
73%).
Respondents’ ages ranges from 20 to 57 with an average of 34 years. An
university degree was hold by 75% and 58% were men. Respondents had professions in
private as well as in public organizations. The most recurrent professional backgrounds
were: business (34%), psychology (18%), engineering (15%), IT-engineering (8%°, and
teaching (6%). A profession in enterprises with more than 500 employees was hold by
44 %, 24% in organizations with fewer than 500 employees, and 27% worked in small
companies with fewer than 50 employees.
Procedure
Along with some students, we approached each participant separately and
requested them to support a scientific study on work behavior. We made use of personal
contacts to guarantee participants’ commitment as they committed themselves to answer
the survey three times a day. We contacted a heterogeneous sample of at least half-time
employees who work in several jobs across different industries. We tried to generate
participants with different backgrounds and professions to allow us to generalize our
findings across jobs and industries. To verify if the profession of the participants
requested creativity we asked the participants to indicate if their profession called for
the generation of novel and valuable ideas. All participants stated this was the case. The
participants were asked to complete a general questionnaire before a daily online survey
which lasted one workweek. The daily online survey needed to be filled in three times a
day: before work, during lunch and after the workday.
Material
The general questionnaire sustains several demographic and control variables
like age, gender, occupation, organizational size, and educational level. Furthermore, to
inspect the validity of the daily measure of creativity, we enclosed a 10-item measure of
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
17
the Big Five Inventory of Personality (BIF-10). In the BIF-10 each personality
dimension is measured by two items. Rammstedt and John (2007) found that the scales
are both reliable and valid. They found a selfpeer convergent validity correlation of .44,
test-retest, reliability of .75, and part-whole correlation of .83 for all of the five scales:
conscientiousness,
extraversion,
agreeableness,
openness
to
experiences,
and
neuroticism.
We included the action-control scales by Kuhl (1994b) to measure selfrelaxation. We only used the dimensions hesitation and preoccupation as they appeared
most related to our study. We utilized the items as proposed Diefendorff, et al. (2000).
Answers are coded with 0 and 1 so that higher values signifies lower self-relaxation.
The average scores across the eight items were used for all analyses. Cronbach alpha
was .68. The relatively low internal consistency is due the short version of the scales
and situational variance. Respondents do not respond uniformly to items as they take
the specific situation into account (Bledow & Frese, 2009). These scales are not created
to maximize internal consistency for reasons of validity (Kuhl, 1994)
By the online survey participants were asked to complete each morning before
work, each noon before lunch, and at the end of each workday a short e-survey which
measured positive and negative affect. We used the PANAS inventory to measure
positive and negative affect as a psychological state (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
The morning measurement of affect is mentioned as T1, the noon measurement of affect
is stated as T2, and the end of the work day measurement of affect is referred as T3.
Positive affect is assessed by six items: excited, interested, strong, active, inspired, and
alert. Negative affect is assessed by seven items: scared, guilty, distressed, afraid,
nervous, hostile, upset, and angry. In the morning participants were asked to rate their
affective state for each adjective on a five-point scale (one = not at all, five =
extremely). This procedure is repeated for the noon measurement. In the evening
measurement participants were asked to evaluate their affective state and to indicate
how creative they had been that day.
We used a scale of five items to assess creativity (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen,
1999). This scale was adapted by Ohly and Fritz (2010) to the level of a workday.
“Today, I generated novel but operable work-related ideas” and “Today, I served as a
good role model for creativity” are examples of items. Respondents were asked to rate
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
18
these items on a five-point scale (one = not at all, five = extremely). Note that we
measured within-person variability of positive and negative affect three times a day and
creativity only once.
Results study 2
Bledow et al. (2013) reported that respondents were more creative if they
showed negative affect in the morning and positive affect in the evening (y = .56, p <
0.01, R2 = 8%). We reanalyzed the data to verify if the relationship between morning
negative affect, positive affect during the day with creativity is moderated by persons’
individual differences in self-relaxation. We found that when self-relaxation was low,
creativity was high, when participants reported negative affect in the morning and
positive affect in the evening. (Model: γ = 1.82, p = .02, R2 = 10%). In other words, the
harder it was for the individual to down regulate the negative affect, the more creative
the individual was, if the down-regulation of negative affect succeeded.
This finding was controlled for an alternative explanation. Perhaps participants
report higher levels of creativity because of the affective shift that arose. It can be that
they were biased to view a work day more positive after they experienced a shift of
negative affect to positive affect. If so, the participants would not be more creative but
recognize themselves as more creative. Such an effect will not only affect creativity
measures but also other evaluations of aspects of a work day. To check this alternative
explanation, we included a measure on recognized strain, which consists four items, at
the end of each day (Cohen & Williamson, 1988). Recognized stain related negatively
to positive affect and positively towards negative affect. However the interaction term,
of negative and positive affect did not produce significant variance in recognized strain.
This finding speaks against the alternative explanation.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
19
Discussion of Study 2
The experience sampling study delivers evidence that down-regulation of
negative affect by self-relaxation fosters creativity. Work days on which participants
reported the occurrence of negative affect in the morning and positive affect in the
evening were characterized by high levels of creativity. Furthermore, individual
differences in self-relaxation moderated individual creativity performance. The less
individuals were able to down regulate negative affect effectively, the more the process
of down-regulation of negative affect was fruitful if they could to down regulate
negative affect. The down-regulation of negative affect seems more demanding for
individuals low in self-relaxation but is in the end more productive.
As this was an experience sampling studies based on correlations we can’t
propose any direct causal relations. Also, it could be that affect is the consequence of
creativity and not the cause. Respondents may have reported a decrease of negative
affect and an increase of positive due to their creativity (Klimoski & Mohammed,
1994). Furthermore, we examined overall change in affect during a workday and its link
with overall creativity of a day. We did not capture short term affect and its result.
Furthermore another limitation could be the self-report measurement of affect
we used to calculate creativity. However, we reason that self-report may be a valid
measurement of creativity on a certain workday (Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade,
Schwarz, & Stone, 2004; Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009) as creativity does not indicate
that individuals mention this to colleagues nor implement new and useful ideas right
away. Creativity is therefore not inevitably viewed by others nor replicated in objective
outcomes. The third limitation is the self-report of affect by the respondents. As such
we only observed in study 2 consciously available positive and negative affect.
Cognitive functioning is nevertheless regulated by affective processes that are only
partially available (Barsade, Ramarajan, & Westen, 2009; Quirin, Kazén, & Kuhl,
2009).
In study 1 we found that individuals high in self-relaxation were able to down
regulate negative affect and thus were more creative. While in Study 2 individuals low
in self-relaxation were more creative after the presence of negative affect. In order to
clarify this pattern we conducted a third study. As the up-regulation of positive affect
leads to behavioral activation which enables previously developed intentions we
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
20
included it next to self-relaxation in our study (Koole & Joostmann, 2004; Kuhl et al.,
1999). This lets us verify how both self-regulatory processes transform negative affect
into creativity.
Study 3
Study 3 tries to address the inconclusive pattern that arose from the previous two
studies. To do so, we designed an experimental study based on the paradigm from De
Dreu et al., (2008). We expect that there exists a curvilinear relation between the two
self-regulatory processes, self-motivation and self-relaxation, and creativity. On the one
hand people will need to be able to down regulate negative affect and to up regulate
positive affect. On the other hand, if these processes occur to quickly, the potential of
negative affect for creativity should not be made use of. A medium standing on the two
dimension of self-relaxation and self-motivation should be the ideal condition under
which a creative mindset can unfold. People will then be able to engage in the necessary
regulatory processes after experiencing negative affect and they will be sufficiently
intensive so that an activated and creative mind set arises.
Hypothesis 3a: There exists a curvilinear relation between self-relaxation and
creativity after the experience of negative affect.
Hypothesis 3b: There exists a curvilinear relation between self-motivation and
creativity after the experience of negative affect.
Method Study 3
Sample
The sample exists out of 144 master students of psychology (75% women) who
participated in the experiment as part of an obligated class. The experiment was handled
in eight groups of 18 participants. Respondents’ age varied from 20 years to 35 years
(M = 22.18, SE = 1.58).
Procedure
The experiment consisted out of two phases. First, a manipulation of affect was
followed by an independent three minute paper-and-pencil task. This sequence was
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
21
repeated three times. The second stage contained a survey with a state-action orientation
scale (ACS 90) accompanied by the control variables age and gender. Participants had
to complete the first stage before moving on to the second stage. Each manipulation of
affected lasted seven minutes and participants were three minutes for each
brainstorming task. An experimenter managed the timing and directed the respondents
when to advance to the next task.
We designed two experimental conditions and two control conditions. In the
experimental condition we induced negative affect before the first brainstorming task.
For the control conditions we manipulated in one condition a neutral affective state and
in the other positive affect before the first brainstorming task. After task 1, we induced
neutral and positive affect in all conditions before the remaining brainstorm tasks. Note
that after each manipulation of affect, participants were requested to fill in a
brainstorming task.
The answers on the brainstorming task were evaluated by independent raters.
Interrater reliability is high (ICC = .88). Intra correlation coefficients indicate the
reliability of the mean between raters (McGraw & Wong, 1996).
To assess creativity the three facets of creativity, as stated by Guilford (1960),
were evaluated: originality, cognitive flexibility, and fluency. Three independent raters
rated originality on a scale from one to five (one = not original at all, five = very
original). The raters judged how unique the answers were. Cognitive flexibility was
measured by the number of content categories the participant used to provide answers.
As discussed before, cognitive flexibility will be greater if a higher number of
categories is used to generate ideas. For each object (brick, piece of paper, and rope)
seven unique categories were developed to assess cognitive flexibility. For a brick the
categories are: leisure activities, construction, tool, weapon, decoration, sport, and other
were defined. The categories: leisure activities, accessory, tool, weapon decoration,
sport, and other were used to rate cognitive flexibility for the object rope. The categories
for a piece of paper consisted out of: leisure activities, clothes, tool, weapon, decoration,
used for writing, and other. Two independent raters provided ratings for cognitive
flexibility. For creative fluency, one rater counted the number of unique ideas each
participant wrote down.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
22
Material
Two methods were applied to manipulate affect. To induce a positive affective
state, participants were requested to describe, maximum one page, an autobiographical
situation that made them happy, inspired, or enthusiastic and to point out how they felt.
Further on, they were asked to underline the parts in their text that caused the reported
emotions. To induce a negative affective state, participants were invited to describe an
autobiographical situation that made them afraid, distressed, or nervous and to point out
how they felt. Further on, they were requested to underline parts of their text that caused
the reported emotions.
To induce a neutral state equal to a neutral affective state induced by an
experiment (Fong, 2006), we asked respondents to write down the activities they did the
preceding day. After each manipulation of affect, two five-point rating scales were used
to verify the manipulation. Participants evaluated on these scales (one = not at all, five =
extremely) how positive and negative.
At the brainstorm participants were encouraged to write down as much answers
as possible. The tasks contained questions like “what can a piece of paper be used for?”.
During the experiment participants answered this question for a brick, a piece of paper,
and a rope. Remember that we asked the participants to complete three paper-pencil
tasks which all three lasted three minutes. The experiment was set up that the each of
the three objects appeared to all participants in one of the brainstorming tasks. The
sequence of the object (brick, piece of paper, or rope) was randomly allocated for all
participants.
To assess self-relaxation and self-motivation, we used the action-control scales
by Kuhl (1994b). We only used the dimensions hesitation and preoccupation as they
appeared most related to our study. The dimensions were measured by eight items each
who describe a certain situation and where respondents are asked to choose one answer.
An example is “If I've worked for weeks on one project and then everything goes
completely wrong with the project”. The participant then can choose between (a) “it
takes me a long time to adjust to it and (b) “it bothers me for a while, but then I don't
think about it anymore”. In this example option (a) represents low self-relaxation and
self-motivation. We utilized the items proposed by Diefendorff, et al. (2000). Answers
are coded with 0 and 1 so that higher values signifies lower self-relaxation and self-
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
23
motivation. The average score across the eight items were used for all analyses.
Cronbach alpha was .68. The relatively low internal consistency is due to situational
variance and the short version of the scales. Respondents take the situation into account
and do not respond uniformly to items (Bledow & Frese, 2009). These scales are not
created to maximize internal consistency for reasons of validity (Kuhl, 1994b).
Result Study 3
We first analyzed the relation between self-motivation and self-relaxation as
predictors and creative fluency, originality, and cognitive flexibility as dependent
variables across all participants and all tasks. To do so, we summed creative fluency,
averaged originality, and cognitive flexibility for each participant across the three tasks.
Table 1 presents the three regression analyses in which we included the linear and the
quadratic term of self-relaxation and self-motivation. For creative fluency the quadratic
term of self-relaxation (β = -.27, p < 0.05) and self-motivation (β = -.20, p < 0.05) was
significant. For originality the quadratic term for self-relaxation (β = -0.20, p < 0.05)
and self-motivation was also significant (β = -.17, p < 0.05). For cognitive flexibility
only self-relaxation (β = -.22, p < 0.05) had a significant curvilinear effect. Figures 2-4
illustrate these relationships. The scores on the three facets of creativity became higher,
as self-motivation and self-relaxation increased. However, after a tipping point scores
on the three facets of creativity declined.
Second, we examined differences between the experimental and the control
groups. In the experimental conditions we found for creative fluency, a significant
curvilinear relation for self-motivation (β = -.29, p < .05) and self-relaxation (β = -.39, p
< .01) in the experimental conditions. For the control conditions the quadratic term of
self-motivation (β = -.12, p = .28) and self-relaxation (β = -.12, p = .35) were not
significant. However, there was a significant main effect of self-motivation (β = .31, p <
.05). For originality, in the experimental condition, the quadratic term for self-relaxation
(β = -.37, p < 0.05) was significant, whereas the quadratic term for self-motivation was
just not significant (β = -.18, p = 108). In the control conditions neither of the quadratic
terms was significant for originality. For cognitive flexibility, only the quadratic term of
self-relaxation (β = -.32, p < 0.05) was significant in the experimental condition,
whereas it was not significant in the control condition.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
24
In sum, these results show that the curvilinear relations appeared only in the
conditions in which negative affect was initially induced. Moreover, they show that
self-relaxation, that is the down-regulation of negative affect, rather than self-motivation
was the process most closely linked to originality and cognitive flexibility after the
induction of negative affect. In other words, we find evidence for hypothesis 3a, which
stated that there exists a curvilinear relation between self-relaxation and creativity after
the experience of negative affect while hypothesis 3b could only be partial confirmed.
We found a curvilinear relation between self-motivation and creative fluency but not
with the other two facets of creativity, originality, and cognitive flexibility.
We further explored differences between the two experimental and the two
control conditions and examined the level of creativity on each of the three tasks
separately. In sum, these detailed analyses provided further support for the analyses and
conclusions we presented above.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
25
1…
9
7
4
2
0
2.2
4.4
6.6
8.8
Self11
relaxation
0
Number of
Ideas
Selfmotivation
Figure 2. Number of ideas in relation to self-relaxation and self-motivation.
1…
9
7
4
2
0
2.2
4.4
6.6
8.8
Self11
relaxation
0
Originality
Selfmotivation
Figure 3. Originality in relation to self-relaxation and self-motivation.
26
Cognitive Flexibility
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
Low Self-Relaxation
High Self-Relaxation
Figure 4. Cognitive flexibility in relation to self-relaxation.
Discussion study 3
Study 3 provides evidence for a curvilinear relationship of self-relaxation and
the three facets of creativity after a phase of negative affect. For self-motivation, the
curvilinear relation was present for the outcome variable creative fluency. We detected
no curvilinear relations between self-relaxation or self-motivation and creativity in the
control conditions. These findings show that more self-relaxation or more selfmotivation does not necessarily mean more creativity after a phase of negative affect.
The results suggest that there exists for both affect dimensions of self-regulation
systems an optimal tipping point in relation to creativity. For medium levels of selfrelaxation and self-motivation a creative mind-set is most likely after the experience of
negative affect.
It is noteworthy that we find a link between self-relaxation and idea quality,
originality and cognitive flexibility after a phase of negative affect. This is in line with
our theoretical rationale that down-regulation of negative affect should primarily active
remote associations and thereby improve idea-quality, originality, and cognitive
flexibility, rather than idea-quantity, creative fluency (Bauhmann & Kuhl, 2002). We
found further a relation between self-motivation and idea quantity after a phase of
negative affect. These findings have been documented before in literature where selfmotivation is more linked with idea quantity and negative affect more with idea quality.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
27
Table 1.
Hierarchical linear models with creative fluency, originality, and cognitive flexibility as dependent variables
Independent variables
Cognitive Fluency
Model 1 β
Originality
Model 2 β
Model 1 β
Cognitive Flexibility
Model 2 β
Model1 β
Model2 β
Intercept
32.66**(0.0)
36,47** (0.00)
2.91**(0.00)
3.14**(0.00)
3.376**
3.53**
Self-relaxation
.22** (0.006)
.33** (0.00)
0.13 (0.13)
0.21** (0.02)
0.10 (0.33)
0.20* (0.30)
Self-motivation
.29**(.000)
.24** (0.02)
0.14† (0.09)
0.1 (0.22)
0.08 (0.21)
0.05 (0.58)
Quadratic Selfrelaxation
-.27** (0.02)
-.20** (0.03)
-.22** (0.02)
Quadratic Selfmotivation
- .20** (0.07)
-.17** (0.04)
-.11 (0.18)
R²
.13**
.22**
0.02
0.07**
0.01
0.04*
F
11.56**
20.91**
2.79 †
7.74**
1.36
5.35*
∆R²
.10**
0.06**
0.05*
∆F
9.35**
5.00**
0.02**
Note. The values are standardized parameter estimates for regression weights (γ). Standard errors are indicated in parenthesis. N = 148.
R² = Adjusted variance explained in creativity by the variables in the model. † p < .10, *. p < .05, **. p < .01. (two-sided test of significance)
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
28
General Discussion
The three studies address how negative affect relates to creativity. Previous
research was inconclusive whether negative affect enables creativity or not. (Clapham
2001; Vosburg 1998 a; Verhaeghen et al., 2005) Our results indicate that negative affect
enables creativity if the negative affect is effectively down regulated through selfrelaxation and is followed by up regulating positive affect through self-motivation. To
come to this result we used the concepts of self-relaxation and self-motivation. We
tested if the relationship between negative affect and creativity was moderated by selfrelaxation and by self-motivation. To do so, we conducted studies with different timeframes. We expected that the more time is available to down regulate negative affect,
the more individuals with low self-relaxation and low-motivation would be creative.
In study 1, we found that the down-regulation of negative affect is related to
creativity. Moreover we discovered that self-relaxation, one’s ability to conquer feelings
of hopelessness and anxiety, is positively related to creative fluency after a phase of
negative affect. This finding demonstrates that in order to be creative after a phase of
negative affect the individual needs to be able to down regulate the negative affect
effectively. As this study was relatively short we found that persons with high selfrelaxation performed best on the brainstorming task in the condition where negative
affect was induced. This is in line with the reasoning that negative affect first needs to
be down regulated in order to enhance creativity.
Study 2 verified the relationship of down-regulation negative affect with
creativity in the time frame of one day. We found that individuals which had more
difficulty with down regulating negative affect perceived themselves as more creative
when they were able to down regulate negative affect during the day. This finding
contrasts study 1, yet was in line with our theoretical rationale that it is the process of
down-regulation of negative affect itself that plays a causal role for creativity. And that
the activation of remote associations will be stronger with individuals who need more
effort and time to effectively down regulate negative affect.
Study 3 shows a curvilinear relation between creativity and self-relaxation after
the induction of negative affect. Furthermore we found a curvilinear relationship
between self-motivation and creative fluency after a phase of negative affect. These
findings illustrate that not only self-relaxation but also self-motivation relates to
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
29
creativity after negative affect. Furthermore the curvilinear relations demonstrate that
more self-relaxation and more self-motivation does not necessarily mean more
creativity and that there exist some optimal middle ground.
Implications
In past research on the mood-creativity domain, creativity was usually directly
linked to certain affective states. Moreover, past research was inconclusive whether
negative affect enhances, inhibits or is not linked to creativity. Our research points out
that the relationship between negative affect and creativity is mediated by selfregulatory processes as our findings indicate that it is not the negative state itself but the
ability of the person to down regulate negative affect effectively and up regulate
positive affect effectively that explains if creativity is enabled or not. Moreover, in line
with our results, we claim that in order to understand the effect of affect on creativity,
research must shift to a more dynamic and interactive view on creativity. Negative
affect enhanced creativity in a later stage if negative affect was effectively down
regulated. Additionally, we did not only find evidence of the necessity to down regulate
negative affect for creativity but also the necessity of up-regulating positive affect after
an induction of negative affect.
Furthermore, our research demonstrated that the ideal level of self-relaxation and
self-motivation to transform negative affect into creativity depended on contextual and
on temporal factors. Study 1 showed that individuals high in self-relaxation were more
creative after the induction of negative affect, compared to individuals low in selfrelaxation, as only they were able to down regulate negative affect. Study 2 showed that
individuals low in self-relaxation were more creative than individuals high in selfrelaxation, if negative affect was effectively down regulated. Study 3 provides evidence
for a curvilinear relation between self-relaxation and creativity and self-motivation and
creative fluency after the induction of negative affect. It seems that the process of downregulating negative affect and up-regulating positive affect can foster creativity for each
individual. Yet, whether creativity appeared after a phase of negative affect depended
on whether the individual had the time available to use his self-regulatory systems
effectively.
This implies that when trying to improve creativity not everybody will face the
same challenges. Depending on whether they are high or low in self-relaxation and self-
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
30
motivation different strategies could be successful. For instance, individuals low in selfrelaxation and self-motivation, could benefit from strategies, like techniques of selfrelaxation and seeking out a supportive environment, that enable them to down regulate
negative affect and up regulate positive affect so they don’t get stuck in a negative
phase (e.g., Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, & Walach, 2004). While individuals high in
self-relaxation and self-motivation may benefit from enlarged acceptance of negative
affect, as too quick down-regulation of negative affect is not advisable. A strong focus
on information that provokes negative affect, like directing attention towards favored
alternatives or reflecting on difficulties that could hinder goal pursuit (e.g., Oettingen,
Mayer, Thorpe, Janetzke, & Lorenz, 2005) could show beneficial for these individuals.
Our research indicates that individuals will not all benefit from the same strategy to
improve their creativity.
At last, as our research provides evidence that negative affect enables creativity
if it can be down regulated, a one-sided approach on positive affect to enhance
creativity is misguided. It seems that negative affect delivers a state of cognitive
functioning that is useful for creativity. Creativity needs complexity in terms of
cognitive and affective processes and needs to integrate this complexity (Bledow, Frese,
Anderson, Erez, & Farr, 2009). Affect-regulation plays an important part in this
integration as it is responsible for the down-regulation of negative affect and the upregulation of positive affect.
Limitations & Future research
One limitation for the three studies is that we were only able to view the effect
of down-regulation of negative affect and up-regulation of positive affect on creativity
independent of which information the participants processed. In study 1 and 3
participants were unaware of which task they had to complete after a manipulation of
affect. In study 2 we did not check the information individuals processed and the
content of creativity they reported. As such we did not measure the cognitive content
that was related to the cognitive processes that connect changes in affect to creativity.
The role of task-related information on down-regulation of negative affect and upregulation of positive affect was thus not studied by the research we conducted.
Future research can address this limitation. Research can study how the downregulation of negative affect and up-regulation of positive affect influences the
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
31
processing of specific task-related content. More in detail, future research can measure
which information is elaborated during down-regulation of negative affect and upregulation of positive affect and link this to the content of creativity, in order to
calculate the relative contribution and the interplay of these mediating self-regulatory
systems. Note, that we found a relation between self-relaxation and idea quality and
self-motivation and idea quantity in study 3. Perhaps there is a distinct effect on
creativity of these self-regulatory systems.
Further on, we found that down-regulation of negative affect and up-regulation
of positive affect after a phase of negative affect enhances creativity. This positive
effect could exist for other variables too. Bledow, Schmitt, Frese, and Kuehnel (2011)
found high levels of work engagement by software engineers after sequence of negative
affect followed by positive affect.
Furthermore in order to give the opportunity to persons to improve their
creativity research should examine methods to effectively down regulate negative affect
and effectively up regulate positive affect. Note that we define effectively here as not
too quick nor too slow as we found a curvilinear relation in study 3. Not only should
this research focus on methods that only the individual can apply. The research should
expand to strategies of how a work environment, for instance a boss, can help an
employee to down regulate negative affect when an employee tends to get stuck in a
negative phase or how a boss can counter too quick down-regulation of negative affect.
As innovation is key in business, methods and strategies to improve creativity for each
individual should focus on how consciously better make use of self-regulatory systems.
To sum up, we refer to the “every rose has its thorn” analogy. With some
equivalence to a rose, which has thorns hidden underneath the blossom our research
indicate that creativity can benefit from negative affect. To do so, the individual needs
to effectively down regulate negative affect as showed by study 1 and 2. Further on, we
found in study 3 that a middle ground of the self-regulatory processes, self-relaxation as
well as self-motivation, is best to foster creativity after an induction of negative affect.
On the one hand, the self-regulatory processes need to be able to overcome the negative
affect and on the other hand the activation of associative networks is stronger as more
time and effort is invested to regulate the negative affect.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
32
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: update to “the social psychology of
creativity”. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.
Ambady, N. & Gray, H. M. (2002). On being sad and mistaken: mood effects on the
accuracy of thin-slice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
4, 947-961.
Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of
positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529550.
Averill, J. R. (2001). Studies on anger and aggression: implications for theories of
emotions. In G. W. Parrott (Ed.), Emotions in social psychology: a book of
readings (pp. 337-352). Philadelphia: Academic Psychology Press.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of
mood-creativity research: hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?
Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779-806.
Barsade, S. G. & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 36-59.
Barsade, S. G., Ramarajan, L., & Westen, D. (2009). Implicit affect in organizations. In
B. M. Staw & A. P. Brief (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 135–
162.). Greenwich: JAI.
Baumann, N. & Kuhl, J. (2002). Intuition, affect, and personality: unconscious
coherence judgments and self-regulation of negative affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1213-1223.
Baumann, N., Kaschel, R., & Kuhl, J. (2007). Affect sensitivity and affect regulation in
dealing with positive and negative affect. Journal of Research in Personality,
41, 239-248.
Bledow, R. & Frese, M. 2009. A situational judgment test of personal initiative and its
relationship to performance. Personnel Psychology, 62, 229-258.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic
perspective on innovation: conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and
ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 305-337.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
33
Bledow, R., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. A (2013). A dynamic perspective on affect and
creativity. Academy Journal of Management, 56, 432-450..
Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. (2011). The affective shift model of
work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1246-1257.
Bless, H., Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., Golisano, V., Rabe, C., & Wölk, M. (1996). Mood
and the use of scripts: does a happy mood really lead to mindlessness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 665.
Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wilhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J.
(2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3, 48-67.
Clapham, M. M. (2001). The effects of affect manipulation and information exposure
on divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 335–350.
Cohen, S. & Williamson, G. (Eds.). (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of
the United Sates. Newbury Park: Sage.
Davis, M. A. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: a
meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108,
25-38.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation
level in the mood-creativity link: toward a dual pathway to creativity model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739-756.
Diefendorff, J. M., Hall, R. J., Lord, R. G., & Strean, M. L. (2000). Action-state
orientation: construct validity of a revised measure and its relationship to workrelated variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 250-263.
Diefendorrff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Gosserand, R. H. (2006). Examination of
situational and attitudinal moderators of the hesitation and performance relation.
Personnel Psychology, 59, 365-393.
Fiedler, K. (2000). Toward an account of affect and cognition phenomena using the
BIAS computer algorithm. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role
of affect in social cognition (pp. 223-252). Paris: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y., (2005). International
Journal for Human-computer Studies, 63, 482-512.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, life,
community, and everyday life. New York: Baxic Books.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
34
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 1016-1030.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model. Psychological
Bulletin, 116, 39-66.
Förster, J. & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global vs. local processing fits regulatory
focus. Psychological Science, 16, 631-636.
Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., Ozelsel, A., & Denzler, M. (2006). Enactment of approach
and avoidance behavior influences the scope of perceptual and conceptual
attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 133-146.
Fredrickson, B. L, & Branigan C. (2003). Positive emotions broaden the scope of
attention and thought‐action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 313-332.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2005). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. In F.
Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne (Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 217238). New York: Oxford University Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of
human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678-686.
George, M. J. & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint
contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to
employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605-622.
Glaveanu, V. (2010). Principles for a cultural psychology. Culture Psychology, 16, 147163.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based
stress reduction and health benefits: a meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 57, 35–43.
Heckhausen, H., & Strang, H. (1988). Efficiency under record performance demands:
exertion control-an individual difference variable? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 489-498.
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from non-gains: a regulatory focus perspective on hedonic
intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252-274.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
35
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D.A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A
survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction
method. Science, 306, 1776-1780.
Kaufmann, G. & Vosburg, S. K. (1997). Paradoxical mood effects on creative problemsolving. Cognition & Emotion, 11, 151-170.
Kazén, M. & Kuhl, J. (2005). Intention memory and achievement motivation: volitional
facilitation and inhibition as a function of affective contents of need-related
stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 426.
Klimoski, R. & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: construct or metaphor?
Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.
Koole, S. L. & Jostmann, N. B. (2004). Getting a grip on your feelings: effects of action
orientation and external demands on intuitive affect regulation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 974-989.
Koole, S. L., Kuhl, J., Jostmann, N. B., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). On the hidden benefits of
state orientation: can people prosper without efficient affect regulation skills. In
A. Tesser, J. Wood, & D. A. Stapel (Eds.), On building, defending and
regulating the self: a psychological perspective (pp. 217-243). London: Taylor
& Francis.
Keuhnel, J., Sonnentag, S., & Bledow, R. (2012). Resources and time pressure as daylevel antecedents of work engagement. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 85, 181-198.
Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: the
dynamics of personality system interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111-169). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Kuhl, J. (2001). Motivation and personality: interaction of psychological systems.
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Kuhl, J. (1994a). A theory of action and state orientations. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann
(Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 9-46).
Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
Kuhl, J. (1994b). Action versus state orientation: psychometric properties of the action
control scale (ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
36
personality: State versus action orientation (pp. 47-60). Göttingen: Hogrefe &
Huber.
Kuhl, J., & Kazén, M. (1999). Volitional facilitation of difficult intentions: Joint
activation of intention memory and positive affect removes stroop interference.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 128, 382–399.
Lamm, H. & Trommsdorff, G. (1973). Group versus individual performance on tasks
requiring ideational profiency (brainstorming): a review. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 3, 161-388.
Lubart, T. & Guignard J. (2004). The generality-specificity of creativity: a multivariate
approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity:
from potential to realization (pp. 43-56). Washington: American Psychological
Association.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect:
does happiness lead to success. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.
March, L., Fisher, C. D., Ashkanasy, M. N., & Rowe, P. A. (2011). Within-person
relationships between mood and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
599-612.
Mcraw, K. O. & Wong, S. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation
coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46.
Nijstad, B., De Dreu, C., Rieschel, E., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to
creativity model: creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence.
European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 34-77.
Oettingen, G., Mayer, D., Thorpe, J. S., Janetzke, H., & Lorenz, S. (2005). Turning
fanatasies about positive and negative futures into self-improvement goals.
Motivation and Emotion, 29, 237-267.
Ohly, S. & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and
proactive behavior: a multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31,
543-565.
Palfai, T. P. (2002). Action-state orientation and the self-regulation of eating behavior.
Eating Behaviors, 3, 249-259.
Parrott, W. G. (Ed.). (2001). Emotions in social psychology: essential readings.
Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Every rose has its thorn: When negative affect leads to creativity
37
Quirin, M., Kazén, M., & Kuhl, J. (2009). When nonsense sounds happy or helpless:
The implicit positive and negative affect test (IPANAT). Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 97, 500–516.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need
strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 489–505.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and
employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel
Psychology, 52, 591-620.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creativity. Princeton: Personnel Press.
Van Putten, M., Zeelenber, M., & van Dijk, E. (2010). Who throws good money after
bad? Action vs. state orientation moderates the sunk cost fallacy. Judgement and
Decision Making, 5, 33-36.
Verhaeghe, P., Joormann, J., & Khan, R. (2005). Why we sing the blues: the relation
between self-reflective rumination, mood, and creativity. Emotion, 5, 226-232.
Vosburg, S. K. (1998a). The effects of positive and negative mood on divergent
thinking performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 165-172.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative Affectivity: the disposition to experience
aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: the panas scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.