Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis of 62 experimental and 10 non-experimental studies was conducted to evaluate the positive-mood-enhances-creativity generalization. While the results demonstrate that positive mood enhances creativity, the strength of that effect is contingent upon the comparative or referent mood state (i.e., neutral or negative mood) as well as the type of creative task. Further, the pattern of effect sizes supports a curvilinear relationship between affective intensity and creative performance. In general, a contextual perspective of mood–creativity relations is supported. 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. A large body of theoretical and empirical work testifies to the keen interest in how affective states influence work-related cognition and behavior (Forgas & George, 2001). One domain that has received considerable attention is the relationship between affect and creativity. The current emphasis that many firms place on enhancing creativity, a key to organizational effectiveness and competitive advantage (Amabile, 1996;Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), is a strong impetus for creativity research. Further, there is general agreement that tasks of creative thinking are mood sensitive. Unfortunately, whether positive or negative moods facilitate or inhibit creativity is an ongoing debate in the literature. On the one hand, a number of studies support the view that positive mood facilitates creativity across a range of tasks (e.g., Forgas, 2000; Hirt, 1999; *Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987) leading some researchers to conclude that ‘‘pleasant moods promote original thinking” (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). On the other hand, findings that contradict the positive mood—enhanced creativity perspective have been reported. In fact, some studies demonstrate that positive moods can inhibit creativity and negative moods can facilitate it (George & Zhou, 2002; Kaufmann & Vosburg, 2002). Consequently, Kaufmann, 2003 contends that a positive-mood-promotes-creativity generalization is premature; rather, researchers should adopt a contingency view that incorporates contextual characteristics and conditions likely to moderate mood–creativity relationships. To shed some light on this debate, this paper presents a meta-analytic review of mood–creativity research. Given the conflicting perspectives on the relationship, a primary objective of the research is to provide evidence for the direction and magnitude of mood effects on creativity, and investigate moderator variables with the potential for altering those effects. The criteria for including or excluding studies for any meta-analysis necessitate a coherent definition of the focal constructs. In fact, varying theoretical and empirical definitions employed in mood–creativity studies may explain some of the inconsistent results in this literature. Accordingly, the paper begins with an overview of creativity. Next, concepts and definitions of mood are addressed. Lastly, theory and hypotheses linking mood and creativity are presented. Conceptualizations of creativity When discussing creativity, it is useful to distinguish creative outcomes from creative processes. Amabile (1983, 1996) and others define creative performance in terms of the creative outcome: ‘‘Creativity means a person’s capacity to produce new or original ideas, insights, restructuring, inventions, or artistic objects, which are accepted by experts as being of scientific, aesthetic, social, or technological value (Vernon, 1989, p. 94).” This definition describes creativity in terms of results, which are judged on the dual standards of (1) novelty or uniqueness and (2) usefulness or value. Although standards for recognizing creative outcomes are essential, an obvious question remains ‘‘what processes bring about creative outcomes?” Runco and Chand (1995) posit a two-tiered componential model of creative thinking that may be useful for understanding these processes. The 0749-5978/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.001 q I thank Philip Bobko and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments; and William McDowell and Zhen Li for assistance in data