ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Variability in the Effects of Mood and Cognitive Stimulation on Creative Generation: A Task-Dependent Perspective
Bedirhan Gültepe,
Cantürk Akben,
Ahmet Yasin Şenyurt,
Hamit Coskun,
Bedirhan Gültepe
Department of Psychology, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorCantürk Akben
Department of Psychology, Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorAhmet Yasin Şenyurt
Department of Psychology, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Hamit Coskun
Department of Psychology, Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey
Correspondence:
Hamit Coskun ([email protected])
Search for more papers by this authorBedirhan Gültepe,
Cantürk Akben,
Ahmet Yasin Şenyurt,
Hamit Coskun,
Bedirhan Gültepe
Department of Psychology, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorCantürk Akben
Department of Psychology, Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorAhmet Yasin Şenyurt
Department of Psychology, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Hamit Coskun
Department of Psychology, Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey
Correspondence:
Hamit Coskun ([email protected])
Search for more papers by this authorFirst published: 13 January 2025
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
ABSTRACT
This research comprises two studies investigating the impact of mood and cognitive stimulation on creativity, with a focus on the role of task type. The first study focused on idea generation, whereas the second explored slogan generation, revealing differing outcomes for distinct tasks. Positive and negative moods were induced through memory recall, and cognitive stimulation was manipulated using cue words in varying quantities. In Study 1, participants were tasked with brainstorming about the advantages and disadvantages of having an extra thumb. The initial hypothesis, proposing that a positive mood and cognitive stimulation enhance ideational fluency, was supported through the flexibility pathway. Study 2 shifted the focus to slogan generation, emphasizing originality, which aligns with the nature of slogan generation. The hypothesis was that mood and cognitive stimulation would not impact fluency but might influence originality. Surprisingly, participants in the negative mood condition generated more slogans, challenging the common belief that positive moods consistently boost creativity. Those without cognitive stimulation also performed better in terms of originality, which is in line with past studies indicating that examples can inhibit originality. In conclusion, this study underscores the intricate and context-dependent nature of creativity, advocating for a nuanced approach to creativity studies.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Open Research
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
- Acar, S., and M. A. Runco. 2014. “Assessing Associative Distance Among Ideas Elicited by Tests of Divergent Thinking.” Creativity Research Journal 26, no. 2: 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901095.
- Agogué, M., N. Poirel, A. Kazakçi, et al. 2013. “The Impact of Type of Examples on Originality: Explaining Fixation and Stimulation Effects.” Journal of Creative Behavior 48, no. 1: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.37.
10.1002/jocb.37 Google Scholar
- Akben, C., and H. Coskun. 2019. “Reintroduction of Odor Combined With Cognitive Stimulation Supports Creative Ideation via Memory Retrieval Mechanisms.” Creativity Research Journal 31, no. 3: 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1641686.
- Althuizen, N., and A. Reichel. 2016. “The Effects of IT-Enabled Cognitive Stimulation Tools on Creative Problem Solving: A Dual Pathway to Creativity.” Journal of Management Information Systems 33, no. 1: 11–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2016.1172439.
- Baas, M., M. Roskes, D. Sligte, B. A. Nijstad, and C. K. W. De Dreu. 2013. “Personality and Creativity: The Dual Pathway to Creativity Model and a Research Agenda.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7, no. 10: 732–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12062.
10.1111/spc3.12062 Google Scholar
- Bendetowicz, D., M. Urbanski, C. Aichelburg, R. Levy, and E. Volle. 2017. “Brain Morphometry Predicts Individual Creative Potential and the Ability to Combine Remote Ideas.” Cortex 86: 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.10.021.
- Bouchard, T. J., Jr., and M. Hare. 1970. “Size, Performance, and Potential in Brainstorming Groups.” Journal of Applied Psychology 54, no. 1p1: 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028621.
- Camacho, L. M., and P. B. Paulus. 1995. “The Role of Social Anxiousness in Group Brainstorming.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68, no. 6: 1071–1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1071.
- Coskun, H. 2005. “Cognitive Stimulation With Convergent and Divergent Thinking Exercises in Brainwriting: Incubation, Sequence Priming, and Group Context.” Small Group Research 36, no. 4: 466–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405276475.
- Coskun, H., P. B. Paulus, V. Brown, and J. J. Sherwood. 2000. “Cognitive Stimulation and Problem Presentation in Idea-Generating Groups.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 4, no. 4: 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089–2699.4.4.307.
10.1037/1089-2699.4.4.307 Google Scholar
- Davis, M. A. 2009. “Understanding the Relationship Between Mood and Creativity: A Meta-Analysis.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108: 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.001.
- De Dreu, C. K. W., M. Baas, and B. A. Nijstad. 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, no. 5: 739–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.94.5.739.
- Diehl, M., and W. Stroebe. 1987. “Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497.
- Dugosh, K. L., P. B. Paulus, E. J. Roland, and H. Yang. 2000. “Cognitive Stimulation in Brainstorming.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, no. 5: 722–735. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022–35I4.79.5.722.
- Faul, F., E. Erdfelder, A. Buchner, and A. G. Lang. 2009. “Statistical Power Analyses Using G*Power 3.1: Tests for Correlation and Regression Analyses.” Behavior Research Methods 41: 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
- Fink, A., R. H. Grabner, D. Gebauer, G. Reishofer, K. Koschutnig, and F. Ebner. 2010. “Enhancing Creativity by Means of Cognitive Stimulation: Evidence From an fMRI Study.” NeuroImage 52, no. 4: 1687–1695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.072.
- Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. “The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions.” American Psychologist 56, no. 3: 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218.
- Friedman, R. S., J. Förster, and M. Denzler. 2007. “Interactive Effects of Mood and Task Framing on Creative Generation.” Creativity Research Journal 19, no. 2–3: 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410701397206.
- Gade, M., and I. Koch. 2007. “The Influence of Overlapping Response Sets on Task Inhibition.” Memory & Cognition 35: 603–609. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193298.
- Gallupe, R. B., L. M. Bastianutti, and W. H. Cooper. 1991. “Unblocking Brainstorms.” Journal of Applied Psychology 76, no. 1: 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.1.137.
- George, J. M., and J. Zhou. 2002. “Understanding When Bad Moods Foster Creativity and Good Ones Don't: The Role of Context and Clarity of Feelings.” Journal of Applied Psychology 87, no. 4: 687–697. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.687.
- George, T., and J. Wiley. 2020. “Need Something Different? Here's What's Been Done: Effects of Examples and Task Instructions on Creative Idea Generation.” Memory & Cognition 48, no. 2: 226–243. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-01005-4.
- Goldenberg, O., and J. Wiley. 2019. “Individual and Group Brainstorming: Does the Question Matter?” Creativity Research Journal 31, no. 3: 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1619399.
- Grabner, R. H., J. Krenn, A. Fink, M. Arendasy, and M. Benedek. 2018. “Effects of Alpha and Gamma Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS) on Verbal Creativity and Intelligence Test Performance.” Neuropsychologia 118: 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.10.035.
- Grawitch, M. J., D. C. Munz, E. K. Elliott, and A. Mathis. 2003. “Promoting Creativity in Temporary Problem-Solving Groups: The Effects of Positive Mood and Autonomy in Problem Definition on Idea-Generating Performance.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 7, no. 3: 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.7.3.200.
- Grawitch, M. J., D. C. Munz, and T. J. Kramer. 2003. “Effects of Member Mood States on Creative Performance in Temporary Workgroups.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 7: 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089–2699.7.1.41.
- Gray, J. R., T. S. Braver, and M. E. Raichle. 2002. “Integration of Emotion and Cognition in the Lateral Prefrontal Cortex.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, no. 6: 4115–4120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.062381899.
- Guilford, J. P. 1950. “Creativity.” American Psychologist 5: 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487.
- Gültepe, B., and H. Coskun. 2016. “Music and Cognitive Stimulation Influence Idea Generation.” Psychology of Music 44, no. 1: 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615580356.
- Harari, O., and W. K. Graham. 1975. “Tasks and Task Consequences as Factors in Individual and Group Brainstorming.” Journal of Social Psychology 95, no. 1: 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1975.9923234.
- Harmon-Jones, E., T. F. Price, and P. A. Gable. 2012. “The Influence of Affective States on Cognitive Broadening/Narrowing: Considering the Importance of Motivational Intensity.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6, no. 4: 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00432.x.
10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00432.x Google Scholar
- Hass, R. W., and R. E. Beaty. 2018. “Use or Consequences: Probing the Cognitive Difference Between Two Measures of Divergent Thinking.” Frontiers in Psychology 9: 2327. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02327.
- Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050.
- Hirt, E. R., E. E. Devers, and S. M. McCrea. 2008. “I Want to Be Creative: Exploring the Role of Hedonic Contingency Theory in the Positive Mood-Cognitive Flexibility Link.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94, no. 2: 214–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.214.
- Hubbs-Tait, L., A. M. Culp, R. E. Culp, and C. E. Miller. 2002. “Relation of Maternal Cognitive Stimulation, Emotional Support, and Intrusive Behavior During Head Start to Children's Kindergarten Cognitive Abilities.” Child Development 73, no. 1: 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00395.
- Isen, A. M., K. A. Daubman, and G. P. Nowicki. 1987. “Positive Affect Facilitates Creative Problem Solving.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 1122–1131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1122.
- Jones, E. E., and J. R. Kelly. 2009. “No Pain, No Gains: Negative Mood Leads to Process Gains in Idea-Generation Groups.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 13, no. 2: 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013812.
- Jones, L. L., and Z. Estes. 2015. “Convergent and Divergent Thinking in Verbal Analogy.” Thinking & Reasoning 21, no. 4: 473–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1036120.
- Kaufmann, G. 2003. “Expanding the Mood-Creativity Equation.” Creativity Research Journal 15, no. 2–3: 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651405.
- Kaufmann, G. 2015. “ The Mood and Creativity Puzzle.” In The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, edited by C. E. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, and J. Zhou, 141–158. London: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199927678.013.0007.
- Marsh, R. L., J. D. Landau, and J. L. Hicks. 1996. “How Examples May (And May Not) Constrain Creativity.” Memory & Cognition 24, no. 5: 669–680. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201091.
- Nijstad, B. A., C. K. W. De Dreu, E. F. Rietzschel, and M. Baas. 2010. “The Dual Pathway to Creativity Model: Creative Ideation as a Function of Flexibility and Persistence.” European Review of Social Psychology 21, no. 1: 34–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463281003765323.
- Nijstad, B. A., W. Stroebe, and H. F. M. Lodewijkx. 2002. “Cognitive Stimulation and Interference in Groups: Exposure Effects in an Idea Generation Task.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38, no. 6: 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022–1031(02)00500–0.
- Osborn, A. F. 1957. Applied Imagination. New York, NY: Scribner.
- Paulus, P. B. 2000. “Groups, Teams and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea Generating Groups.” Applied Psychology. An International Review 49: 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00013.
- Peterson, D. R., and M. W. Pattie. 2024. “Think Outside and Inside the Box: The Role of Dual-Pathway Divergent Thinking in Creative Idea Generation.” Creativity Research Journal 36, no. 2: 272–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2110738.
- Pill, S., M. Hewitt, J. Rankin, and B. Suesee. 2021. Coaching by Problem Solving (Convergent Discovery), 74–79. London: Routledge Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003041443-10.
10.4324/9781003041443-10 Google Scholar
- Rietzschel, E. F., B. A. Nijstad, and W. Stroebe. 2010. “The Selection of Creative Ideas After Individual Idea Generation: Choosing Between Creativity and Impact.” British Journal of Psychology 101, no. 1: 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X414204.
- Schwarz, N. 1990. “ Feelings-As-Information: Informational and Motivational Functions of Affective States.” In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, edited by E. T. Higgins and R. M. Sorrentino, vol. 2, 527–561. New York: Guilford.
- Schwarz, N., H. Bless, and G. Bohner. 1991. “ Mood and Persuasion: Affective States Influence the Processing of Persuasive Communications.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by M. P. Zanna, vol. 24, 161–197. New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60329-9.
- Smith, S. M., T. B. Ward, and J. S. Schumacher. 1993. “Constraining Effects of Examples in a Creative Generation Task.” Memory & Cognition 21: 837–845. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202751.
- Stroebe, W., B. A. Nijstad, and E. F. Rietzschel. 2010. “ Beyond Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: The Evolution of a Question.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 43, 157–203. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43004-X Google Scholar
- Torrance, E. P. 1967. “The Minnesota Studies of Creative Behavior: National and International Extensions.” Journal of Creative Behavior 1, no. 2: 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00021.x.
- Ward, T. 2008. “The Role of Domain Knowledge in Creative Generation.” Learning and Individual Differences 18, no. 4: 363–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.07.002.
- Xiao, X., W. Chen, and X. Zhang. 2023. “The Effect and Mechanisms of Music Therapy on the Autonomic Nervous System and Brain Networks of Patients of Minimal Conscious States: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Frontiers in Neuroscience 17: 1182181. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1182181.
- Yerkes, R. M., and J. D. Dodson. 1908. “The Relation of Strength of Stimulus to Rapidity of Habit Formation.” Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology 18: 459–482.
- Zenasni, F., and T. Lubart. 2002. “Effects of Mood States on Creativity.” Current Psychology Letters 8: 33–50. https://doi.org/10.4000/cpl.205.
10.4000/cpl.205 Google Scholar
- Zenasni, F., and T. I. Lubart. 2008. “Emotion-Related Traits Moderate the Impact of Emotional State on Creative Performances.” Journal of Individual Differences 29, no. 3: 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.29.3.157.
