See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30428186

Effects of Mood States on Creativity

Article in Current Psychology Letters: Behaviour, Brain and Cognition · December 2002
Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

9 1,776

2 authors:

Franck Zenasni Todd Lubart

Paris Descartes, CPSC Paris Descartes, CPSC
88 PUBLICATIONS 846 CITATIONS 153 PUBLICATIONS 6,158 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sciences & Bonheur View project

Divergent thinking assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Franck Zenasni on 12 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EFFECTS OF MOOD STATES
ON CREATIVITY

AbstractExperimental studies of the effects of emotion on creativity have yielded

conflicting results. We present a study in which mood was induced through recall of
life events and performance on creativity-related tasks was measured. The results
show that the effects of emotions on creativity depend on numerous conditions. In
general, a positive mood promoted creative performance. However, the nature of the
creative task, the kind of performance score, and the nature of the induced emotion
modulated this trend. A post-experimental questionnaire suggested, moreover, that
people differ on their conceptions of how emotion may influence task performance.

*Universite Rene Descartes - Paris 5

Laboratoire Cognition et Developpement
C.N.R.S., D.M.R. 8605, France

Correspondence to :
Franck Zenasni
Laboratoire Cognition et Developpement
C.N.R.S., U.M.R. 8605
71 Avenue Edouard Vaillant
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt
E-mail: franckz@free.fr/lubart@psycho.univ-paris5.fr
 Inspired by the importance of emotions for eminent creators, their
mood instability and emotional disorders related to creative work, research
conducted during the last fifteen years has examined the effect of induced
emotional state on creativity in "average" people. The results diverge. Some
studies indicate that a positive mood state improves creativity and a nega-
tive mood has no influence. Others show that a positive mood state such as
happiness inhibits creativity and a negative mood state facilitates it. Most
studies focus on mood valence (the positive--negative nature of mood
states) but some indicate that mood intensity has an effect on creativity.
Various interpretations have been proposed for the diverse results that are
observed.

In order to study the relation between a mood state and creativity, the
experimental approach has dominated. In this work, mood is induced;
analysis of variance is employed to test mean differences between an
experimental condition (induction of a positive or a negative mood state)
and a control condition (no induction or induction of a neutral mood state),
with creative thinking task performance used as the dependant variable.

Isen and colleagues, in a series of studies, examined systematically the

effect of mood (or emotion) on creativity (Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1994;Isen,
Daubman & Nowicki, 1987;Isen & Williams, 1988). They observed that a
positive mood induction consistently fostered creativity. Participants in a
positive mood state, compared to those in a control group, increased signifi-
cantly their performance on the Candle Task (Duncker, 1945) and the
Remote Associate Test (RAT,Mednick, 1962). In the Candle Task, partici-
pants are given a box of matches, a candle, and a box of thumbtacks. The
goal of the task is to attach the candle on the wall in such a way that the wax
does not drip on the wall or on the floor when the candle burns. In the RAT,
the task consists of finding one word that is associated with three apparently
unrelated words. According to Isen, positive mood facilitates access to
positive elements present in memory (Isen, 1985; Isen, Shalker, Clark &
Karp, 1978;Teasdale & Forgaty, 1979). As positive information in memory
is hypothesized to be more richly interconnected than negative information
for most people, positive emotional states should promote spreading acti-
vation and cue a larger and a more diverse set of cognitive material consti-
tuting a "complex cognitive context". This, in turn, may facilitate perception
of diverse characteristics and qualities of the objects included in the task
and enhance the possibility of combining different elements, and perceiving
new relations (Carnevale & Isen, 1986;Isen & Daubman 1984).To support
this interpretation, physiological data are employed to argue that positive
effects of mood state on creativity are due to the release of dopamine.
Dopamine is believed to facilitate flexible deployment of attention and mul-
tiple cognitive perspectives, consequently enhancing cognitive flexibility
and creativity (Ashby, Isen & Turken, 1999).

Kaufmann (1995), and Kaufmann and Vosburg (1997), criticized, in part,

Isen's experiments and disagreed with her interpretations. They used
insight tasks similar to the ones used by Isen and found that a positive
mood led to decreased creativity,whereas a negative mood led to better per-
formance. Based on differences in the creativity tasks used (Isen's procedure
allowed participants to adjust their answers due to feedback during task
performance whereas Kaufmann and Vosburg's procedure consisted of a
paper-pencil task with no feedback), they suggested two alternative inter-
pretations. First, according to cognitive tuning theory (Schwarz, 1990)a per-
son may have lower criteria of satisficing in a positive mood state than in a
neutral or a negative mood state. A positive mood state signals that a per-
son is in a satisfactory position. Consequently the participant may not be
motivated to exert extra cognitive effort. Thus, in a creative task, partici-
pants may produce fewer ideas because they are more rapidly satisfied by
their initial ideas. In contrast, a negative mood state indicates implicitly that
there is a problematic situation and that some extra effort is needed in order
to return to a neutral situation. Participants may be more optimizing (seek-
ing the best solution) in such situations and consequently more efficient in
creative tasks. Second, they noticed that a positive mood increased partici-
pants' sensitivity to different cognitive biases (Isen, Means, Patrick &
Nowicki, 1982).In both creativity and insight tasks, participants activated
responses that did not correspond to the problem.

Finally, in 1997,Kaufmann proposed a model which integrates his data with

Isen's results (see Kaufmann, 1997;Vosburg & Kaufmann, 1998).According
to this model, optimizing versus satisficing criteria for solutions must be
distinguished. Optimizing refers to an ideal method, examining all the
alternative solutions of a problem and persevering in this work until find-
ing the most effective solution. However, due to the limited capacity of the
cognitive system for information processing, individuals often use a strat-
egy of satisficing. Thus, the first solutions considered satisfactory will be
accepted. Kaufmann places these two types of orientations at the extremes
of a continuum; there are different degrees of satisficing and of optimizing
behavior. Participants in a positive mood state will perceive a task as a prob-
lem requiring a lax criterion for solution, whereas participants in a negative
mood will select answers according to a stricter criterion.
These last interpretations are coherent with Abele's (1992)work. Observing
a facilitative effect of negative mood on creativity, she defined emotion as a
motivational moderator. An individual in a negative mood state is motivated
to find ways that will help him or her to return to a neutral mood state. Thus,
flexibility of ideas and fluency are strategies of "mood repair". The induction
of positive mood can also favor creativity with emotion acting as a cognitive
moderator: individuals in a positive mood are "looser." Consequently they
are more intuitive and more flexible. Fluency is greater when the idea pro-
duced is congruent with the mood state of the participants.

According to Hirt (1999),we may consider that Martin, Ward, Achee and
Wyer (1993) have a similar view of the effects of emotion on production.
They observed that mood effects for an association task (generate a list of
birds) are relative to context. Experiencing a same positive emotion, the
quantity of ideas produced is different if participants stopped when they no
longer enjoyed the task then when they stopped based on their achievement
(mood as input paradigm). Happy participants generated a greater number
of responses with an enjoyment-based stop rule whereas sad participants
produced more responses with a perfomance-based stop rule. According to
the mood as information theory (Schwarz & Clore, 1983), Martin et al.
explained that positive mood informs individuals that they feel good about
their performance, so they think that the productions are already sufficient
and do not continue to produce ideas. Negative moods inform participants
that their performance is not sufficient and leads them to greater effort to
produce more ideas. Hirt, Levine, Mc Donald, Melton and Martin (1997)
confirmed these results and found that individuals in a positive mood were
more interested and had more fun with the task compared to individuals in
a negative mood. However, they found also that this effect depends on con-
text, and it is observed only for the quantitative aspect of idea production
and not for the qualitative characteristics (originality) of the ideas pro-
duced. The effects of mood on quantitative measures of performance (such
as the quantity of ideas) are distinct from those that underlie qualitative
indices of performance (originality).Thus, mood may be linked to creativity
in various ways.

Some authors have interpreted differently the effects of mood on creativity.

Adaman and Blaney (1996)observed that the induction of positive or nega-
tive mood shows better results than the induction of a neutral mood for the
Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. They emphasized the intensity of the
emotion, suggesting that people seek to decrease intense mood states
through creative activities. Russ (1993, 1998),in a synthesis of research on
creativity and emotion, proposed a theoretical model indicating that per-
sonality-related individual differences could effect emotion and hence cre-
ativity, for example openness to internal emotions influences tolerance for
ambiguity, which in turn influences creativity.

The literature indicates that there is no consensus on a single effect of emo-

tion on creativity. It is possible that the experimental results and the related
interpretations diverge because the nature of the induced emotional state is
not identical from one study to another. In the majority of studies, authors
induced "negative mood state" and "positive mood state" but they rarely
examined the specific quality of the emotion. A negative mood state may
correspond, for example, to sadness, disgust, or anger. Isen et al. (1987)
through her positive-mood induction with a comic movie may have
induced more specifically humor than happiness. Some studies point out
that a specific emotion can have a specific effect on cognitive processes. For
example, in a study concerning the influence of mood state on social judge-
ment, Bodenhausen et al. (1994a,1994b)found that angry people produced
patterns of results comparable with those of happy participants but differed
significantly from the pattern shown by sad people. Bodenhausen con-
cluded that all negative affects do not create the same kind of response and
introduced the notion of mood-state-specific effects. In a similar way, we
may expect different effects of emotion on creativity as a function of their
nature, rather than as a function of their valence.

Finally, the results may vary because the creativity tasks differed from one
experiment to another (divergent thinking task, Remote Associate test,
Insight Task). Given that creativity is considered partially domain and task
specific, it would not be surprising if the effect of emotional state differed
from one study to another.

These differences of variables, procedures and creativity tasks do not enable

us to compare closely the existing experiments. However, certain common-
alities among the studies allow us to make some general remarks:
First, it seems that emotion has an effect on ideational fluency and flexibil-
ity as opposed to originality. In this regard, Weisberg (1995)studying the
link between manic-depression and creativity observed that a positive
mood state in the composer Robert Schumann was linked to an increase of
the quantity of his production, but not the quality. Vosburg (1998)observed
a significant link between the valence of the emotional state and the num-
ber of ideas produced by the participants in a divergent thinking task, but
not between the valence and originality of ideas.

Second, there seems to be two categories of effects of mood states on cre-

ativity. One of these corresponds to a motivational aspect. Authors speak
about mood repair, research of optimal or appropriate responses: indi-
viduals are motivated to be creative. The other category corresponds to per-
turbing or disturbing effects of mood state on creativity. Authors speak, for
example, about use of automatic processing and satisficing which decrease
the quality or the quantity of ideas produced in a creativity task.

Third, it appears that the authors have not taken into account individual
differences in mood management, which may explain, in part, the diver-
gence of results. Some traits may modulate the influence of an emotional
state on creativity.

The main goal of the current study was to examine several variables such as
the nature of the emotion, intensity of the emotion, the nature of the creativity
task, and interindividual differences that may be relevant to the relationship
between emotion and creativity.

The experiment was designed to determine the conditions that influence the
link between emotion and creativity. We induced mood state and then
measured the specific nature of participants' affects. These measures were
linked to multiple indices of performance in two creative thinking tasks
(verbal and figurative).

Materials
Induction of mood. To induce mood, we used the life-event recall technique
(Brewer,Doughtie & Lubin, 1980).Participants were asked to recall an event
of their life that was either happy, sad or neutral, depending on the experi-
mental condition, and to describe this event in writing. This procedure took
approximately 10 minutes. This technique has been used in previous
research studying links between emotion and creativity (Abele, 1992) as
well as other studies (Bless, Bohner, Schwarz & Strack, 1990; Brewer,
Doughtie & Lubin, 1980) and is considered effective. Some research sug-
gests that the induced mood state tends to last approximately 15 minutes
(Abele, 1992;Morris, 1989).

Evaluation of mood. Participants evaluated their mood state using four dif-
ferent scales. The first scale measured valence of the emotional state with a
9-point continuum between a positive mood (high score) and a negative one
(low score) (Bradley & Lang, 1994).The center of the scale corresponded to
a neutral mood. A second 9-point scale measured the intensity of the emo-
tional state (1=low,9=high, Bradley & Lang, 1994).Also we used two nine-
point unipolar scales to measure happiness and sadness respectively. These
scales allowed us to consider happiness and sadness as independent dimen-
sions, and they evaluated more specific emotional states than those evalu-
ated by the valence scale.

Creativity tasks. Two tasks from the Torrance Tests Creative Thinking
(Torrance, 1976)were used. In the "box" task, participants had to generate
during 10 minutes as many unusual ideas as possible for using a cardboard
box. In the "parallellines" task, participants had to make as many draw-
ings as possible during 10 minutes using sets of two parallel lines. Three
scores were calculated for each task: (a) fluency; the number of ideas pro-
duced (b) flexibility; the number of different categories of ideas (c) mean
originality, in which total originality is divided by fluency (see Mouchiroud
& Lubart, 2001).For a sample-specific originality score based on the relative
rarity of ideas, two points are given for each idea generated by less than 2%
of participants, one point for each idea generated by 2% to 5% of partici-
pants, and zero points for each idea generated by more of 5% of partici-
pants.

Post-experimental questionnaire. A post-experimental questionnaire measured

if participants considered that the mood induction was effective and how
mood was perceived to influence creativity. We asked participants whether
they believed their emotional state had an effect on their task performance
and if so to describe the nature of this influence.

Participants
Participants were 120 psychology students (mean age = 22.67, SD = 3.21,
range 20-39,49 males, 71 females). They were distributed in six groups of 20
participants, with each group corresponding to an emotional state (positive,
negative, neutral) and a creativity task (Box, Parallel lines). Participants
received course-related credit for their participation.

Procedure
Participants were told that the study concerned thinking and problem solving.
Participants were randomly assigned to the mood induction conditions.
First, each participant recalled either a sad, happy or neutral event for the
emotional induction. Then, mood state was evaluated using the four scales
described earlier. Next, the creativity task was completed. Finally, partici-
pants evaluated again their emotional state and answered the post-experi-
mental questionnaire. Each participant completed only one creativity task
after mood induction due to the limited duration of induced mood states
and the possible influence of completing a creativity task on subsequent
mood. In order to not interfere with the mood induction procedure, we did
not evaluate mood before the induction. We were interested primarily in the
post-induction emotional state of individuals before they began the creativ-
ity task.

Effect of mood induction: analysis for all participants

together regardless of their creativity task

Mean differences between experimental groups. Analyses of variance

indicated that the mood induction was generally effective. We observed sig-
nificant differences on valence (F(2, 115) = 3.24, P < .05), sadness (f(2, 115)
= 4.89 p< .05) and happiness (F(2, 115) = 5.28, P < .05). We did not observe
differences for arousal (F(2, 115) = 1.83, n.s.). No gender differences were
found.

Table 1
Means (and standard deviations) for each mood scalefor the three experimental
conditions: Induction of happiness, induction of sadness, induction of a neutral
mood
Happy condition Neutral condition Sad condition

Valence scale 6.92 (1.62) 6.55 (1.58) 5.89 (2.15)

Arousal scale 5.57 (2.17) 5.02 (2.10) 5.86 (1.57)
Happiness scale 6.10 (1.60) 6.15 (1.25) 5.07 (1.99)
Sadness scale 2.55 (1.69) 2.22 (1.76) 3.55 (2.34)
Correlations between scales. Correlations between mood evaluation scales
(valence, happiness, and sadness) corresponded to our predictions. The
valence scale correlated positively with the happiness scale (r = .89, P <.01)
and negatively with the sadness scale (r = -.80, P <.01). The correlation
between the happiness and sadness scales was r = -.71 (p <.05). Emotional
valence was not correlated with emotional intensity (r = -.13, n.s.).

Influence of emotional state on creativity: The unusual uses

of a box task

Differences between experimental groups. Analyses of variance were con-

ducted for fluency, flexibility and originality scores.
The results indicate non-significant differences between mood induction
groups for fluency and flexibility (F < 1). We observed a significant effect
of experimental condition on mean originality (F(2, 57) = 3.18, p<.05).
Individuals in the happy mood condition (M = 0.80,SO = 0.23)were signifi-
cantly more original than those in the neutral condition (M = 0.65, SO =
0.17), F(I, 57) = 4,76, p<.05 and the sad condition (M = 0.65, SO = 0.23), F(I,
57) = 4.78, p<.05. There were no gender related differences.

When examining these results, it is important to note, however, that the

induction of mood state was partially efficient. Analyses of participants'
responses on the mood-related scales (valence, happiness, sadness, and
intensity) indicated that some participants' mood states did not correspond
to their experimentally - induced mood condition. For this reason we con-
ducted further analyses in which we (a) weighted participants according to
the correspondence between their self-reported emotional state and the
experimental mood condition, (b) created mood-condition groups based
only on participants' self reports, and (c) conducted correlation-based
analyses of the relationship between perceived mood state and creative per-
formance measures.

Weighted ANOVA. We conducted analyses that weighted participants'scores

who had self-reports that fit with the experimental mood condition (e.g.
more weight to participants in the happiness condition who responded
being happy). As in the non-weighted Anova, the weighted analysis indi-
cated a significant effect of induced emotion on mean originality (F(2, 82) =
4.27 P < .05). Participants were more original when positive mood was
induced.

Analysis of variance for contrasted groups. We created three groups of

participants contrasted on their self-reported mood valence (positive, neu-
tral, negative), two groups of participants contrasted on their emotional
intensity (high intensity, low intensity) and three groups of participants
contrasted on the specific nature of their self-reported emotion (happy, neu-
tral, sad). For valence, participants with a score lower or equal to 3 on the
valence scale comprised the "negative valence" group, participants with a
score equal to five comprised the neutral group, and participants with a
score greater or equal to 7 comprised the "positive valence" group. For
intensity, participants with a score lower or equal to 4 on intensity scale
constituted the "low intensity " group whereas participants with a score
higher or equal to 6 comprised the "high intensity group". To constitute
groups of participants contrasted on the specific nature of emotion, we cal-
culated the difference score between the happy and sad scales. All individ-
uals with a negative score constituted the "sad" group; all participants with
a positive score constituted the "happy" group; all participants with a score
equal to 0 constituted the "neutral" group.

Participants in a positive mood state were more fluid and flexible than par-
ticipants in a negative or neutral mood state. Participants in a high intensity
emotional state were more original than participants in a low intensity emo-
tional state. However, these effects of valence and intensity were not signif-
icant.

Correlation analyses and regressions. We observed positive, significant

correlations between valence, fluency and flexibility. The more the partici-
pants reported being in a generally positive mood state, the greater the
number of ideas generated (r = .32, P <.05) and the greater the flexibility of
ideas (r = .30, p<.05). There was no relation between self-reported valence
and mean originality scores (r=-.03, n.s.). For self-rated arousal, we
observed weak positive correlations with fluency (r=.21, n.s.), flexibility
(r=.08, n.s.) and mean originality (r = .27, p<.05).

To complete the correlational analyses, we conducted hierarchical regres-

sion analyses, with creativity dimensions as dependent variables and
valence, intensity and their interaction as predictors. The regressions indi-
cated that a model with these three variables (valence, intensity,
valence*intensity)accounted for 13.1%of the variance for the fluency variable
(F(3, 56) = 2.82, P < .05) with a significant regression coefficient for valence
(t = 2.20,p<. 05).Moreover, there was no effect of the interaction. With mean
originality as a dependant variable, the model explained 9.6% of variance
(F(3, 56) = 1.98,P <.12)with a significant coefficient of regression for arousal
(t = 2.37,p<.05). Concerning flexibility,the regression model did not account
for a significant part of variance.
 Is;;!
'I).
Table 2
m Means (and standard deviations) for mood contrasted groups on fluency, flexibility, and originality (unusual uses of a box
u
-g task and parallel lines task)
os

Task Group Fluency Flexibility Mean Originality

Happy induction group 14.25 (6.90) 9.00 (3.53) .80 (.23)

Neutral induction group 12.85 (4.48) 7.70 (2.47) .65 (.17)
Sad induction group 12.25 (5.19) 8.65 (2.96) .65 (.23)
Positive valence group 14.68 (6.21) 9.10 (3.42) .68 (.22)
Unusual uses of Neutral valence group 9.71 (4.39) 6.42 (2.94) .75 (.21)
a box task Negative valence group 11.80 (4.73) 7.70 (2.67) .71 (.043)
High intensity group 14.15 (5.75) 8.50 (2.70) .73 (.26)
Low intensity group 12.60 (5.93) 8.30 (2.96) .59(.16)
Happy group 14.22 (6.39) 8.75 (3.44) .68 (.30)
Neutral group
Sad group
12.00 (4.32)
12.63 (4.72)
7.92
8.09
(3.39)
(2.64)
.71 (.20)
.75 (.15) Ii::::l
Z
N
Happy induction group 10.40 (5.11) 7.40 (4.00) 1.24 (.61) 0
0
N

Neutral induction group 10.33 (3.34) 7.22 (3.77) 1.20 (.67) ~

::::l
Sad induction group 8.45 (2.90) 6.45 (2.91) 1.08 (.57)
~
Positive valence group 11.50 (4.22) 7.50 (3.67) .933 (.67) II:
w
Parallel lines task Neutral valence group 9.94 (2.22) 7.57 (2.94) 1.21 (.25) ~
Negative valence group 7.25 (1.41) 5.00 (1.41) 1.16 (.72) -'
>-
C!l
High intensity group 10.08 (3.78) 7.08 (2.51) 1.11 (.73) 0
-'
0
Low intensity group 10.46 (5.65) 7.92 (5.36) 1.29 (.73) J:
U
Happy group 7.66 (1.30) 7.66 (2.76) 1.25 (.87) >-
(J)
Q.

Neutral group 7.04 (.71) 7.04 (.71) 1.16 (.10) f-

Z
Sad group 5.50 (1.42) 5.50 (1.42) 1.12 (.72) w
II:
II:
::::l
U
Analysis of the post-experimental questionnaire. The questionnaire
offered supplementary information about the influence of induced emotion
on creativity. In response to the question of whether mood state influenced
creativity, participants replied in several different ways: (a) positive mood
state had a favorable effect (6 individuals); (b) emotional state had no effect
because they put it aside before undertaking the creativity task (12 indi-
viduals); (c)negative mood state had a disturbing effect (8 individuals); and
finally (d) mood had no influence because the participant's level of creativity
was too low in any case (8 individuals). Other participants were in a neutral
state or did not specify an influence of mood state. We observed significant
differences on fluency (F(3/30) = 3.20/ p<.05) and flexibility (F(3/30)= 6.79/ P
<.05) between these four groups but there were no differences on original-
ity (F(3/30) = 2.00/ P >.10). Using these three dependant variables,
MANOVA indicated a significant overall difference between these four
groups (R Rao(9, 68) = 2.04/ P <.05). Participants' task performances were
coherent with their perceptions and showed that those "motivated" by a
positive emotional state were the most fluid and flexible. The individuals
"managing" their emotion were more fluid and flexible than individuals for
whom emotional state inhibited their creativity, themselves being more
fluid and flexible than participants judging themselves to have low levels of
creativity in general and thus having no possible effect of mood induc-
tion(see Table 3).

Differences between experimental groups. Analyses of variance were con-

ducted for fluency, flexibility and originality scores.
There were no significant differences on fluency (F(2, 57) = 1.6 p> .10)/
flexibility (F<l) and mean originality (F<l) between the three experimental
conditions.

Weighted ANOVA. A weighted analysis indicated a significant effect of

induced mood on mean originality (F(2/79) = 3.73/ p<.05). Participants were
more original when a positive emotional state was induced.

Analysis of variance for contrasted groups. Participants in a positive

mood state were more fluent than participants in a negative emotional state.
However, this effect was not significant. The contrasted intensity-of-emo-
tion groups showed no differences (see table 2).
Correlation analyses and regressions. In addition to the analysis of mean
differences for emotion-induced groups, we examined the correlations
between emotion-related variables and creativity scores. There was no sig-
nificant link between emotional valence and creativity (r =.00to r=.09, n.s.).
Happiness and sadness were not significantly linked to creativity dimen-
sions (r from r = -.16 to r =.20, n.s.) However, intensity was significantly
linked to fluency (r = 0.28,P <.05),with more intense emotions being related
to producing a relatively greater number of ideas.
Hierarchical regression analyses with fluency as the dependent variable
and valence, intensity and the valence*intensity interaction as predictors
confirmed the significant relation between intensity and fluency. This
model explained 7.8%of the variance (F(2,57) = 2.41, P < .10)with a signifi-
cant Beta coefficient of .28 for intensity (t = 2.20, p<.05). When we intro-
duced the valence*intensity term, we observed that this interaction added
significantly 8.5% of supplementary variance explained (Fchange = 5.66, P
<. 05). This interaction term has a regression coefficient of -. 37, indicating
that participants produce more ideas in particular when the emotion is
negative and intensity is high. For flexibility and originality, the regression
model did not explain a significant part of variance.

Analysis of the post-experimental questionnaire. As for the Box task, we

found the same four groups of individuals: (a) those for whom positive
emotional state had a favorable effect (12 individuals); (b) those for whom
mood state had no effect because they put their emotions aside before
working (8 individuals);(c) those for whom negative mood state had a dis-
turbing effect (6 individuals), and finally (d) those for whom emotion had
no influence because their level of creativity was too low; (8 individuals).
We observed significant differences between these groups on mean origi-
nality (F(3,32) = 4.56, P <.01). The results (see table 3) show that individ-
uals "managing" their emotions and individuals "motivated" by a positive
mood state were more original than participants "inhibited" by a negative
state or judging themselves "weak in creativity" in any case. Differences on
fluency (F(3,32)= 2.44,n.s.) and flexibility (F(3,32)= 1.12,n.s.) were not sig-
nificant (see Table 3).

This study showed significant relations between mood state and creativity,
including emotional intensity. These results are particularly important
because research has tended to neglect the potential effect of arousal on
creativity, focusing exclusively on emotional valence. Although Vosburg
 Table 3
Means (and standard deviations) of implicit theory groups on fluency, flexibility and mean originality

Task Implicit theory group Fluency Flexibility Mean originality

Participants whose postive emotional

state had a favorable effect 18.57 (2.07) 11.71 (1.22) .87 (0.16)
Unusual uses Participants putting aside their
of a box task semotional states 15.21 (5.26) 9.36 (2.92) .69 (0.25)
Participants whose negative
emotional state had a disturbing effect 12.50 (2.82) 7.66 (2.34) .72 (0.16)
Participants whose level of creativity
0 was too low in any case 10.00 (7.23) 5.71 (2.36) .59 (0.14)
c
:Il
:Il
m
z
-i
Participants whose postive emotional
"tI state had a favorable effect 10.57 (4.40) 7.71 (3.94) 1.37 (.43)
en
-<
0 Parallel lines Participants putting aside their
:I:
0 task emotional states 8.60 (2.08) 9.60 (2.00) 1.43 (.61)
5
Gl
-< Participants whose negative
,... 1.00 (.064)
emotional state had a disturbing effect 6.50 (2.12) 5.50 (3.53)
~
m Participants whose level of
:Il
creativity was too low in any case 10.75 (.71) 8.75 (2.12) 1.02 (.10)
~
c
!:(

'~"
z
c
;;::
OJ
m
:Il
ep
(1998) examined the correlation between intensity and fluency, flexibility
and originality of individuals, her results did not take into consideration the
strong correlation between fluency and total originality scores and did not
examine the interaction between valence and intensity. Vosburg (1998)con-
cluded that there was no effect of intensity on originality. In our study, for
the verbal creativity task intensity was positively correlated with originality.
For the figurative creativity task, the interaction between intensity and
valence was related to creativity: intensity was linked to higher ideational
fluency in the case of a negative emotional state and inhibited creativity in
the case of a positive emotional state. These last results indicate the com-
plexity of relations between emotion and creativity because the influence of
emotional intensity on creativity in the parallel lines task appears to depend
on emotional valence.

The data indicate a differential effect of emotions according to the creativity

task. We observed, for the verbal creativity task, significant relations
between valence and fluency and between arousal and originality of ideas
whereas we did not observe these links for the figurative creativity task. For
this latter task, fluency rather than originality was linked to arousal.
However, we noted an effect of the interaction between valence and inten-
sity on fluency: individuals were more fluent when the emotion was nega-
tive and relatively intense. These results may be interpreted, according to
satisficing-optimizing model of Kaufman and Vosburg or to Abele in terms
of mood-regulation or mood repair. In the case of negative mood with high
intensity, individuals are more divergent (optimizing) in order to return to
a neutral position. This effect was specific to figurative creativity in the cur-
rent study. It is possible that only figurative divergent thinking enabled
individuals to repair their mood because this task was particularly fun and
playful. More research has to be conducted to corroborate this hypothesis.
The post-experimental questionnaire indicated that there are individual fac-
tors that may modulate or modify the effect of individuals' emotional states
on creativity. These variables are the initial level of creativity and the par-
ticipants' emotion-related attitudes. The initial level of creativity corresponds
to spontaneous creative performance of the participant in a neutral emo-
tional state. For example, some participants suggested that their mood state
had no effect on their creativity because they are "not creative in any case".
Emotional characteristics refer to affective or mood-relevant traits (expres-
sion of emotions, management of emotions). Some individuals noted that
their felt emotions were "put aside" and that they completed the task of
creativity in a "controlled" state whereas other participants mentioned that
a mood state is like " an engine for creativity" with the creative task allow-
ing them to express their emotions.
It seems necessary to not only induce mood and observe the effect of induc-
tion conditions on creative performance, but also to evaluate the influence
of emotional state based on the perceived mood of participants. This takes
into account individual differences in the effectiveness of mood induction.
Moreover, different emotional parameters must be examined (valence,
intensity, nature of emotion) and different creativity tasks must be used in
order to observe under what conditions emotions influence creativity.

Abele A (1992). Positive and negative mood influences on creativity evidence for
asymmetrical effects. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 23, 203-221.
Adaman, J. E., & Blaney, P. H. (1996). The effects of musical mood induction on cre-
ativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 22, 95-108.
Ashby, F. G., Isen, AM., & Turken A U. (1999).A neuropsychological theory of posi-
tive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529-550.
Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwarz N., & Strack, F. (1990). Mood and persuasion: A cogni-
tive response analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16,331-345.
Bodenhausen, G. v., Kramer G. P., & Siisser, K. (1994a). Happiness and stereotypic
thinking in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 621-
632.
Bodenhausen, G. v., Sheppard, L. A, & Kramer, G. P. (1994b). Negative affect and social
judgment : The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 24, 45-62.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assesment manikin
and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry, 25, 49-59.
Brewer, D., Doughtie E. B., & Lubin B. (1980). Induction of mood and mood shift.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 215-226.
Carnevale, P.J. D., & Isen, AM. (1986).The influence of positive affect and visual access
on the discovery of the integrative solution in bilateral negotiation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1-13.
Duncker (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58 (Whole nOS).
Estrada, C. A, Isen AM., & Young M. J. (1994).Positive affect improves creative prob-
lem solving and influences reported source of practice satisfaction in physi-
cians. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 285-299.
Hirt, E. R. (1999). Mood. In M. A Runco, S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity.
(pp 241 - 259). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hirt, E. R., Levine, G. M., McDonald, H. E., Melton, R. J., & Martin L. L. (1997). The role
of mood in quantitative and qualitative aspects of performances: single or mul-
tiple mechanisms? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 602-629.
Isen, A M. (1985). The asymmetry of happiness and sadness in effects on memory in
normal college students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114,388-391.
!sen, A. M., & Daubman K. A. (1984).The influence of affect on categorization. Journal
of Personality and Social Psyclwlogy, 47, 1206-1217.
!sen, A. M., Daubman K A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987).Positive affects facilitates creative
problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psyclwlogy, 52, 1122-1131.
!sen, A. M., Means B., Patrick R, & Nowicki, G. P. (1982).Some factors influencing deci-
sion-making strategy and risk taking. In M. S. Clark and S. Fiske. (Eds), Affect
and cognition: The 17th annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp 243-261).
Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clark M., & Karp L. (1978).Affect, accessibility of material in
memory, and behavior : A cognitive loop. Journal of Personality and Social
Psyclwlogy, 36, 1-12.
Isen, A. M, & Williams, K. (1988).The influence of positive affect on variety-seeking among
safe, enjoyable products. Unpublished Manuscript, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Kaufmann, G. (1995).A theory of cognitive strategy preferences in problem solving. In
G. Kaufmann, T. Helstrup, K. H. Teigen (Eds.), Problem solving and cognitive
processes: A festschrift in honour of Kjell Raaheim (pp 45 - 76). Fagbokforlaget :
Bergen / Sandviken.
Kaufmann, G. (1997). The mood and creativity puzzle. Paper presented at the American
Psychological Association Convention, August.
Kaufmann, G., & Vosburg, S. K. (1997). Paradoxical mood effects on creative problem-
solving. Cognition and Emotion, 11, 151-170.
Martin, L. L., Ward, D. W., Achee, J. W., & Wyer, RS., Jr. (1993). Mood as
input:People have to interpret the motivation implications of their mood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 317-326.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological
Review, 69, 220-232.
Morris, W. N. (1989). The frame of mind. New York: Springer.
Mouchiroud, c., & Lubart, T. I. (2001). Children's original thinking: An empirical
examination of alternative measures derived from divergent thinking tasks.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162,382-401.
Russ, S. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process.
Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
Russ, S. W. (1998). Play, affect, and creativity: Theory and research. In S. W. Russ
(Ed.), Affect, creative experience and psychological adjustment (pp 57-75).
Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Schwartz, N. (1990). Feeling as information: Informational and motivational func-
tions of affective state. In E. T. Higgins, R Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of moti-
vation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (vo1.2, pp 527-561). New
York: Guilford.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-
being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513-523.
Teasdale, J. D., & Forgaty, S. J. (1979). Differential effect of induced mood on the
recall of pleasant and unpleasant event from episodic memory. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 88, 248-257.
Torrance, E. P.(1976). Test de pensee creative [Torrance Test of Creative Thinking,
French version]. Paris: Editions du centre de psychologie appliquee.
 Vosburg, S. K. (1998). The effects of positive and negative mood on divergent
thinking performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2),165-172
Vosburg, S. K. & Kaufmann G. (1998). Mood and creativity research: The view
from conceptual organizing perspectives. In S.W. Russ (Ed.), Affect, creative
experience, and psychological adjustment (pp 19-40). Philadelphia : Bruner,
Maze!'
Weisberg R.W. (1995). Genius and madness? A quasi-experimental test of the
hypothesis that manic depression increases creativity. Psychological Science, 5,
361-367.

View publication stats