When prevention promotes creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure.

Promotion-focused states generally boost creativity because they associate with enhanced activation and cognitive flexibility. With regard to prevention-focused states, research evidence is less consistent, with some findings suggesting prevention-focused states promote creativity and other findings pointing to no or even negative effects. We proposed and tested the hypothesis that whether prevention-focused states boost creativity depends on regulatory closure (whether a goal is fulfilled or not). We predicted that prevention-focused states that activate the individual (unfulfilled prevention goals, fear) would lead to similar levels of creativity as promotion-focused states but that prevention-focused states that deactivate (closed prevention goals, relief) would lead to lower levels of creativity. Moreover, we predicted that this effect would be mediated by feelings of activation. Predictions were tested in 3 studies on creative insights and 1 on original ideation. Results supported predictions. Implications for self-regulation, motivation, mood, and creativity are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Group creativity and innovation: A motivated information processing perspective.

The authors review the Motivated Information Processing in Groups Model (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008) to understand group creativity and innovation. Although distinct phenomena, group creativity and innovation are both considered a function of epistemic motivation (EM; the degree to which group members tend to systematically process and disseminate information), and prosocial motivation (PSM; the extent to which group members seek collective [rather than personal] gain). EM is considered a function of, for example, time constraints, accountability pressures, preference diversity, openness to experience, and ambiguity aversion. PSM is stronger under, for example, participative decision making, shared social identity, and collective reward schemes. A review of the authors' work, and that of others, supports the prediction that group creativity and innovation is higher when group members combine high EM with a PSM. Avenues for new research and practical implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model.

To understand when and why mood states influence creativity, the authors developed and tested a dual pathway to creativity model; creative fluency (number of ideas or insights) and originality (novelty) are functions of cognitive flexibility, persistence, or some combination thereof. Invoking work on arousal, psychophysiological processes, and working memory capacity, the authors argue that activating moods (e.g., angry, fearful, happy, elated) lead to more creative fluency and originality than do deactivating moods (e.g., sad, depressed, relaxed, serene). Furthermore, activating moods influence creative fluency and originality because of enhanced cognitive flexibility when tone is positive and because of enhanced persistence when tone is negative. Four studies with different mood manipulations and operationalizations of creativity (e.g., brainstorming, category inclusion tasks, gestalt completion tests) support the model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Taking the easy way out: Preference diversity, decision strategies, and decision refusal in groups.

It has often been argued and found that preference diversity is beneficial for the quality of group decisions. However, this literature has neglected the fact that in many situations, it is also possible not to choose. Further, preference diversity can be based on attractions, aversions, or both. The authors argue that some types of preference diversity can lead to biased discussions and choice refusal (i.e., the group refuses to choose any of the available options). In a laboratory experiment, three different patterns were observed. When group members held different aversions before discussion, discussions were aversion driven and group members quickly agreed to refuse all alternatives. When each alternative had both a proponent and an adversary, discussions were longer and unbiased but still often led to refusal, which was accompanied by relatively low levels of outcome satisfaction. Only when preference diversity was based only on attractions did it lead to unbiased discussion, low prevalence of refusal, and high outcome satisfaction. Implications for group decision making are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity.

The extent to which groups are creative has wide implications for their overall performance, including the quality of their problem solutions, judgments, and decisions. To further understanding of group creativity, we integrate the motivated information processing in groups model (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008) with work on epistemic social tuning (Lunn, Sinclair, Whitchurch, & Glenn, 2007). Three propositions were advanced: (a) Groups produce more ideas when members have high rather than low epistemic motivation, especially when members also have a prosocial rather than pro-self motivation; (b) these ideas are more original, appropriate, or feasible when a group norm favors originality, appropriateness, or feasibility; and (c) originality is valued more in individualistic cultures (e.g., the Netherlands), whereas appropriateness is valued more in collectivist cultures (e.g., Korea). Four studies involving 3-person groups generating ideas supported these propositions: Epistemic motivation (mild vs. intense time pressure; presence vs. absence of process accountability) stimulated production and originality, especially when prosocial rather than pro-self motives were present and participants were Dutch or originality norms were experimentally primed. When appropriateness norms were primed or participants were Korean, epistemic motivation stimulated production and appropriateness, especially when prosocial rather than pro-self motives were present. We discuss implications for research on group processes and for work on culture and creativity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Do our psychological laws apply only to Americans?

Comments on an article by J. J. Arnett (see record 2008-14338-003) regarding the assertion that American psychology focuses too narrowly on Americans while neglecting the other 95% of the world’s population. The authors challenge Arnett's methodology in his research and question the ways in which he drew his conclusions. They claim that a major weakness of Arnett’s argumentation is that he failed to distinguish between research that tests general laws of behavior and research aimed at describing the impact of societal factors on behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?

This meta-analysis synthesized 102 effect sizes reflecting the relation between specific moods and creativity. Effect sizes overall revealed that positive moods produce more creativity than mood-neutral controls (r = .15), but no significant differences between negative moods and mood-neutral controls (r = -.03) or between positive and negative moods (r = .04) were observed. Creativity is enhanced most by positive mood states that are activating and associated with an approach motivation and promotion focus (e.g., happiness), rather than those that are deactivating and associated with an avoidance motivation and prevention focus (e.g., relaxed). Negative, deactivating moods with an approach motivation and a promotion focus (e.g., sadness) were not associated with creativity, but negative, activating moods with an avoidance motivation and a prevention focus (fear, anxiety) were associated with lower creativity, especially when assessed as cognitive flexibility. With a few exceptions, these results generalized across experimental and correlational designs, populations (students vs. general adult population), and facet of creativity (e.g., fluency, flexibility, originality, eureka/insight). The authors discuss theoretical implications and highlight avenues for future research on specific moods, creativity, and their relationships. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mental set and creative thought in social conflict: Threat rigidity versus motivated focus.

According to the traditional threat-rigidity reasoning, people in social conflict will be less flexible, less creative, more narrow-minded, and more rigid in their thinking when they adopt a conflict rather than a cooperation mental set. The authors propose and test an alternative, motivated focus account that better fits existing evidence. The authors report experimental results inconsistent with a threat-rigidity account, but supporting the idea that people focus their cognitive resources on conflict-related material more when in a conflict rather than a cooperation mental set: Disputants with a conflict (cooperation) set have broader (smaller) and more (less) inclusive cognitive categories when the domain of thought is (un)related to conflict (Experiment 1a-1b). Furthermore, they generate more, and more original competition tactics (Experiments 2 - 4), especially when they have low rather than high need for cognitive closure. Implications for conflict theory, for motivated information processing, and creativity research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)