EMOTIONS AS CONSTRAINING AND FACILITATING FACTORS FOR CREATIVITY

Emotions as Constraining and

Facilitating Factors for Creativity:
Companionate Love and Anger
Jen-Shou Yang and Ha Viet Hung
Generally the literature has favoured the notion that positive affect facilitates creative performance. However, a recent critical review has demonstrated that negative affect can enhance
cognitive performance and improve motivation. Moreover, with a few exceptions, previous
research comparing positive and negative affect as either a facilitator of or a constraint on
creativity factors has rested primarily on the valence approach. Unfortunately, the results were
mixed. This paper explores the effects of two common specific emotions elicited in work team
processes, anger and companionate love, on individual creativity, with the cognitiveactivation and the functions-of-emotions perspectives. The results from our experiment demonstrate that positive emotions can constrain and negative emotions can foster creative
performance. More specifically, we found that companionate love constrains creativity,
whereas anger facilitates it. Furthermore, our qualitative analyses of interviews with
employees justify the implications of the experimental results in an organizational context.
Our findings suggest that nurturing a moderate degree of hostility towards opposing ideas
from others in an idea-generation process while concurrently encouraging thoughtfulness in
an idea-implementation process can facilitate managing organizational innovation processes.

Introduction

nnovation is essential for organizational survival and prosperity in an ever changing

environment. Creativity, the capacity to
produce novel and useful ideas, is a necessary
precursor of innovation (Mostert, 2007).
Accordingly, creativity has been considered a
crucial contributor to organizational success
(Amabile, 1996; Castro, Gomes & de Sousa,
2012; Rego et al., 2007).
Researchers have responded to the significance of creativity by attempting to identify the
factors that influence organization members
creative performance. Among the many variables that have been shown to predict creativity,
emotion stands out as one of the most widely
studied (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008; Isen &
Baron, 1991; Mumford, 2003). Although the
idea that positive affect enhances individual
creative performance has been dominant in the
literature, a recent critical review has demonstrated the beneficial effects of negative affect
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

for cognition, judgements, motivation and

social behaviour (Forgas, 2013). Moreover,
with a few exceptions, previous studies on the
role of affect as either facilitating or constraining factors for creativity has rested primarily on
the valence approach. Nevertheless, the issue of
whether positive and negative emotions are
either facilitators or barriers of individual creative performance is still controversial.
Empirical studies about whether positive or
negative emotions facilitate or inhibit individual creativity remain inconclusive. A large
number of studies concluded that positive
emotions facilitate creativity (e.g., Hirt et al.,
1997; Isen, Daubman & Nowicki, 1987; Murray
et al., 1990) and that negative emotions
constrain creativity (e.g., Mikulincer, Paz &
Kedem, 1990; Vosburg, 1998). However, other
studies have demonstrated that negative emotions may be more effective than positive or
neutral emotions at enhancing creative performance (e.g., Akinola & Mendes, 2008; Gasper,
2003).

Volume

Number

2014

10.1111/caim.12089

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

According to evolutionary theories, all of

human affective states function as modules
that produce adaptive benefits in certain
circumstances (Forgas, 2013; Frijda, 1986;
Lazarus, 1991). Researchers should augment
the valence approach with alternative theories
to explore the effects that identically valenced
specific emotions can have on individual creativity. Among these alternative theories, the
functions-of-emotions perspective and the
cognitive-activation perspective are useful
(Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008; Fessler,
Pillsworth & Flamson, 2004). Emotions with
moderate activation can facilitate creativity
(Baddeley, 2000; Broadbent, 1972; De Dreu,
Nijstad & Baas, 2011). Different emotions with
the same valence can be distinguished by activation. For example, whereas anger is an activating emotion, sadness is a deactivating one
(Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008). Passionate
love is an activating emotion, whereas companionate love may be a deactivating one
(Hatfield & Walster, 1978; Lamm & Wiesmann,
1997). Each emotion functions as a module
with distinct functional goals, behavioural tendencies, and cognitive activities in adaptation
to environmental events, which may influence
creative performance. For example, a functional goal of anger is the removal of an
obstruction (Frijda, 1986; Roseman, Wiest &
Swartz, 1994), which might be beneficial for
problem solving and creativity. The functional
goal of companionate love is maintenance of
positive interpersonal relations (Hatfield &
Rapson, 1996; Lazarus, 1991), which might
dampen individuals proposal of novel ideas.
Organizations are increasingly entrusting
new product development to teams; new ideas
are typically generated and implemented by
work teams within organizations (Hlsheger,
Anderson & Salgado, 2009). The interactionist
theory of innovation (Woodman, Sawyer &
Griffin, 1993) suggests associations between
team cohesion as well as communication and
team innovation. Studies have revealed both
positive (Chen, 2006) and negative (Lovelace,
Shapiro & Weingart, 2001) correlations
between task conflict and team innovation.
Moreover, certain studies have regarded cohesion as a necessary precondition for team
innovation (West & Farr, 1989; Woodman,
Sawyer & Griffin, 1993), whereas others have
observed that social cohesion among team
members exerts an adverse effect on team
innovation (Sethi, Smith & Park, 2001). An
approach to ascertain the effects of conflict and
cohesion on team innovation is to examine the
effect of emotions activated by conflict and
cohesion on individual creativity.
Various team processes elicit diverse emotions. Task conflict refers to disagreements

Volume

Number

2014

among team members about the content of the

tasks being performed, including differences
in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions (Jehn,
1995, p. 258). A major emotion in conflicts is
anger (Baron, 1991). Team cohesion involves
an affective state of interpersonal attraction
and ties among team members (Beal et al.,
2003). One of the major emotions activated in a
cohesive team is companionate love. Individual behaviours are the building blocks of team
behaviours. Determining the effects of anger
and companionate love on individual creativity can elucidate the effects of team conflict
and team cohesion on the creativity and innovation of work teams.
The purpose of this study is to examine the
effects of companionate love and anger, which
are two major emotions activated in team processes, on individual creative performance
using an experiment and qualitative research.
In conducting this study, we have used two
perspectives, the cognitive-activation perspective and the functions-of-emotions perspective, to predict the effects of companionate
love and anger on creative performance. Most
research on relations between negative emotions and creativity has focused on sadness
and fear (see the review by De Dreu, Baas &
Nijstad, 2008). Anger as one of the most frequently experienced emotions in work teams,
at least among individuals in the United States
(Lerner & Tiedens, 2006) is not well understood in terms of its effects on individual creative performance (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad,
2008). Companionate love is commonly experienced by the members of cohesive work
teams. Early studies have examined the effects
of companionate love on certain organizational
variables. However, to our knowledge, no contemporary published research has substantively examined the relationship between
companionate love and creativity. Discovering
the effects of the two emotions on individual
creativity can provide a micro basis for the
inquiry into conflict and cohesion effects on
work-team innovation.
This paper contributes to creativity and
innovation management in organizations by
investigating the effects of anger and companionate love on individual creativity, a topic that
is rarely investigated, but commonly occurs in
the idea-generation process of work teams.
Most creative ideas in organizations are generated, evaluated and implemented by work
teams. The original contribution of this study
is the finding that companionate love constrains creativity. This finding challenges the
traditionally held notion that positive affect
enhances creativity, and provides evidence
against the popular notion that cohesion is a
precursor of team innovation (West & Farr,
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

EMOTIONS AS CONSTRAINING AND FACILITATING FACTORS FOR CREATIVITY

1989; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993), from

an emotional perspective. An incremental
contribution of this study is the finding that
anger enhances creativity. Although few
studies have presented this result, we further
demonstrated the probable causes of this
result by collecting data from organizational
settings. This finding also supports the positive correlations between task conflict and
team innovation (Chen, 2006) from an emotional perspective. In summary, our study
determined the effects of anger and companionate love on individual creativity, and the
findings provide evidence of the effects of conflict and cohesion on team innovation.

Theoretical Foundation
and Hypotheses
Creative Performance and Emotion
It is useful to differentiate creative outcomes
from creative processes when discussing creativity (Davis, 2009). Regarding outcomes,
Amabile (1983, 1996) defined creative performance using the criteria of novelty and usefulness. Concerning creative processes, Runco
and Chand (1995) posited a two-tiered componential model. The primary tier includes three
components of creative thinking: problem
finding, ideation and evaluation. The secondary tier consists of knowledge (declarative and
procedural) and motivation (intrinsic and
extrinsic), which plays the role of contributing
to the primary tier. Moreover, prior research
concluded that creative performance is influenced by cognitive flexibility and cognitive
persistence in creative processes (Amabile,
1983; Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2011).
Provided creative outcomes are the products of creative processes, previous studies
have demonstrated that affect influences creative performance through its effects on creative thinking processes. On the one hand,
individuals in a positive mood should be able
to access a fuller, more diverse range of information from their long-term memory. They
should be able to make connections among
ideas both in greater numbers and to greater
degrees. Hence, positive moods promote cognitive flexibility and thus ideation and creative
performance (Isen & Baron, 1991). On the
other hand, whereas positive moods signal a
state of satisfaction and activate a relaxed
approach to tasks, negative moods indicate
danger or threat, which activate more effortful,
systematic thinking relative to tasks. Accordingly, negative moods foster a more critical,
discerning and detail-oriented processing
strategy, which promotes cognitive persistence
and thus individual creative performance
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

(George & Zhou, 2002). That is, whether positive and negative emotions either facilitate or
constrain individual creative performance is
still undetermined.
Each emotion is a module for quickly
responding to survival issues, seizing opportunities or escaping threats (Forgas, 2013;
Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991). The module consists of at least three elements: functional goals,
action tendencies and appraisal tendencies
(Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Frijda, 1986;
Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, Wiest & Swartz, 1994;
Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). The emotion module
is characterized by an inner congruency such
that appraisal tendencies support action tendencies. Action tendencies are dictated by
functional goals. The principle of congruency
guarantees the efficiency and the effectiveness
of emotion modules for human survival. Creativity may be another element of emotion
module that is associated with functional
goals, action tendencies and appraisal tendencies. Therefore, emotions should influence
creativity through effects on cognitive flexibility or persistence (George & Zhou, 2002; Isen
& Baron, 1991).
For both flexibility and persistence to come
about, the individual needs some level of cognitive activation (Baddeley, 2000; Broadbent,
1972; De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008; De Dreu,
Nijstad & Baas, 2011). Cognitive activation
refers to increased engagement of centrally
organized motivational systems to mobilize
energy in ways that sustain attention and effort
invested in goal-related activities (Baas, De
Dreu & Nijstad, 2011; Lang & Bradley, 2010). It
is accompanied by physiological indicators of
the sympathetic nervous system, such as
increased blood pressure and heart rate (Lang
& Bradley, 2010) and metabolic load (Gailliot
et al., 2007). Activating emotions are typically
associated with greater motivation, higher
levels of dopamine and noradrenalin, and an
enhancement of working memory capacity
(Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008). These, in turn,
should facilitate cognitive flexibility, abstract
thinking, processing speed and access to longterm memory (Baddeley, 2000; Damasio, 2001).
By contrast, deactivating emotions interfere
with cognitive flexibility and with deliberate,
analytical and focused processing and departing of information. Recent works indeed have
shown that moderate activation is associated
with enhanced creativity (De Dreu, Baas &
Nijstad, 2008; Gilet & Jallais, 2011).

Companionate Love and

Creative Performance
Love is considered most meaningful for its
sentiments (Harrison & Shortall, 2011) and

Volume

Number

2014

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

one of the basic emotions experienced by

humans (Lazarus, 1991; Oatley & JohnsonLaird, 1987). Two main kinds of love are companionate love and passionate love (Hatfield &
Rapson, 1996; Lazarus, 1991; Sternberg, 1986).
Companionate love is the kind of love that
centres generally on intimate, deep affection
of a non-sexual type and is a common state in
everyday life and work teams. Passionate love
is generally an intense, sexually charged emotional state (Wang & Nguyen, 1995). Whereas
passionate love is characterized by a state of
strong longing for union with another with
profound physiological arousal, companionate love is a warm feeling of affection and tenderness with mild but comfortable feelings
(Hatfield & Rapson, 1996; Hatfield & Walster,
1978; Kim & Hatfield, 2004). Lamm and
Wiesmann (1997) found that the differences
between companionate love (love and liking)
and passionate love (being in love) are varied:
companionate love involves tolerance, relaxedness or calmness, and altruistic and
co-operative behaviour, while passionate love
involves arousal.
Moreover, companionate love, as in the love
between two best friends, grows out of a
mutual enjoyment in companionship and the
intimacy of a close friendship. Companionate
love is often portrayed as friendship love and
involves shared values, long-term commitment and intimacy (Hatfield & Rapson, 1996;
Sternberg, 1986). Companionate love is typically more reciprocal liking and respect
between partners (Kim & Hatfield, 2004). This
kind of love is found among co-workers
in work teams (Shah & Jehn, 1993; Tse,
Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2008).
Companionate love may hinder creative
performance based on cognitive-activation
and functions-of-emotions perspectives. The
functional goal of companionate love is to
maintain positive relations with others; the
action-related tendencies associated with
companionate love are displays of warmth,
decency, attentiveness, tolerance, respect and
altruistic and co-operative behaviour (Hatfield
& Rapson, 1996; Lamm & Wiesmann, 1997;
Lazarus, 1991). When it is activated, feelings
of security, care and comfort dominate
(Tennov, 1979). It would seem that compliance
with social norms, rather than a violation of
them, and empathy, rather than creativity, are
beneficial for both attaining the functional
goals and carrying out the action tendencies
cited above. Furthermore, people who share
companionate love would focus on interpersonal relations rather than problem solving.
Therefore, such people would likely have
limited cognitive resources available for creating novel ideas. In turn, a plausible assertion is

Volume

Number

2014

that companionate love would likely hamper

creative performance.
Moreover, companionate love may be a kind
of deactivating emotion on the basis of its
module property, which constrains creative
performance. As mentioned earlier, companionate love is a comfortable feeling of security
and relaxedness or calmness and is associated
with displays of warmth, decency, tolerance
and respect, which reflects deactivation rather
than activation. Hence, we predict that companionate love is likely to constrain individual
creative performance.
In line with team innovation studies,
researchers have considered cohesion as a necessary precondition for team innovation (West
& Farr, 1989; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin,
1993) because strong personal ties among team
members build a psychologically safe environment where team members feel comfortable to
challenge the status quo (King, Anderson &
West, 1991; West & Wallace, 1991) and are
more likely to co-operate and exchange ideas
(Hlsheger, Anderson & Salgado, 2009).
However, consistent with groupthink literature, high levels of cohesion can cause a convergent thinking style and a confirmatory
approach to appraising information, which is
unlikely to lead to creativity and innovation
(Nijstad & De Dreu, 2002). Sethi, Smith and
Park (2001) observed that above a moderate
level, social cohesion among team members
exerts an adverse effect on innovativeness. We
assert that companionate love elicited by team
cohesion is beneficial for team member
co-operation and ideas exchange but is detrimental to team member idea generation.
Taken together, we propose the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Experiencing companionate love
is likely to constrain creative performance.

Anger and Creative Performance

Anger is a basic, common and activating
emotion (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008;
Lazarus, 1991; Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 1987).
Direct tests of the association between anger
and creative performance have been sporadic
(Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008, 2011).
Anger may facilitate creative performance
based on cognitive-activation and functionsof-emotions perspectives. The functional goals
of anger are, in short, to regain freedom of
action and to remove obstruction (Ellsworth &
Scherer, 2003; Frijda, Kuipers & Schure, 1989;
Roseman, Spindel & Jose, 1990; Roseman,
Wiest & Swartz, 1994; Smith & Ellsworth,
1985). Angers action tendencies include
moving against, fighting, hurting or getting
back at someone. In addition, its appraisal
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

EMOTIONS AS CONSTRAINING AND FACILITATING FACTORS FOR CREATIVITY

tendencies are certainty, anticipated effort, selfcontrol, and amplified power, adjustment and
coping abilities. Creativity has its definite
advantages for removing obstructions and
fighting others. Moreover, by appraising their
own certainty or power, angry individuals
might be able to explore new ideas that would,
in turn, facilitate the attainment of personal
goals (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008). In short,
the action tendencies of anger lead individuals
to persistently fight against opposing viewpoints in disputations. An angry attitude
towards transgression can induce flexibly
inventive solutions by restructuring thoughts,
and thus may enhance creativity in problem
solving.
From the cognitive activation point of view,
anger may enhance creative performance. As
mentioned earlier, angry individuals are
inclined to move against, fight and hurt others
to regain control and to remove obstruction.
Their intentions should arouse physiological
and cognitive activation. Indeed, anger is portrayed as an emotion that mobilizes energy
and activates individuals (Depue & Iacono,
1989; Kreibig, 2010). In addition, there is some
evidence that anger is associated with
enhanced creativity. Using a sample of children, Russ and Kaugars study (2001) showed
that children who reported feeling happy or
angry gave significantly more original
responses on the divergent thinking task than
children who reported feeling neutral. De
Dreu, Baas and Nijstad (2008) found the activating moods (e.g., anger, fear, happiness,
elation) lead to more creative fluency and
originality than do deactivating moods (e.g.,
sadness, depression, relaxation, serenity).
Baas, De Dreu and Nijstad (2011) found that
anger in contrast to sadness and moodneutral control states leads to initially higher
levels of creativity. The current study set out to
replicate the above findings.
In line with team innovation studies, Jehn
(1995) indicated that in performing nonroutine tasks, task conflict is beneficial for
team innovation. De Dreu (2006) indicated that
work teams are more innovative when the
level of task conflict is moderate. However,
Lovelace, Shapiro and Weingart (2001)
observed that task conflict and contentious
communications in cross-functional new
product teams are negatively associated with
team innovation. De Dreu and Weingarts
(2003) meta-analysis results indicated that
both task and interpersonal conflict have
strong and negative correlations with team
performance and team member satisfaction.
We suspect that anger activated by task conflict is beneficial for team member creativity
but is detrimental to their satisfaction and
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

co-operation. Taken together, we propose the

following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Experiencing anger is likely to
facilitate creative performance.

Method: Study 1
This experiment rests on a between-subject
design. After receiving emotion induction,
participants took a creativity test. To measure
creative performance, we used the Chinese
Remote Association Test (Jen et al., 2004),
developed from a theory proposed by
Mednick (1962).

Participants
For this study, we recruited 60 voluntary participants drawn from a class. This group consisted of 30 female and 30 male students
(Mage = 23.5 years, age range: 2048 years,
SD = 3.5) and received no monetary compensation. They were randomly assigned to one
of the three emotional-condition groups: the
companionate love, anger or neutral group. To
counterbalance gender effects, we ensured
that half of the participants in each group were
male.

Emotion Induction and Procedure

We manipulated emotion induction by using a
story-entailed instruction procedure adapted
from Raghunathan and Pham (1999). First, a
meta-analysis of Westermann et al. (1996)
showed that a film/story procedure is very
effective at inducing both positive and negative emotions. The aforementioned study also
found that when instructions are added to procedures where participants are explicitly asked
to imagine and get involved in the situation,
the effects of the film/story procedure significantly increase. Consequently, the film/storyentailed instruction procedure is significantly
more effective than all other emotioninduction procedures, like those targeting
imagination, music, gifts and facial expressions. Second, we aimed at examining the
effects of specific emotions. It is important to
manipulate these emotions independently. The
story procedure has the advantage of controlling the details of scenarios so that pure emotions can be induced whenever possible.
For the emotion-induction step, participants
read one of three one-page essays and projected themselves into the fictitious scenarios
depicted in the given essay. Participants were
informed that this study was researching
peoples ability to react to hypothetical situations. Participants received a booklet entitled

Volume

Number

2014

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Empathy study. The first page informed them

that empathy is the ability to respond with
emotions similar to those of others. In order
for participant involvement to stand a greater
likelihood of being substantial, participants
were informed that highly empathetic people
are generally better parents, lovers, spouses
and managers. In addition, they were told In
the following pages, we will ask you to read an
essay. While reading the essay, please try to
imagine and get involved in the story with you
as the protagonist.
We had designed two essays each of which
presented a scenario addressing anger or companionate love on the basis of the core relational themes of these two emotions (Lazarus,
1991). The companionate love scenario called
for participants to imagine that they were born
into a poor family. They have a younger brother
who loves them very much and who, in point of
fact, quit school so that he could work and earn
money to support their university studies. This
younger brother is not resentful, however;
indeed, at his wedding, he expressed immense
gratitude to the siblingparticipants for their
tender loving care in his childhood.
The anger scenario called for participants to
imagine that they had been putting significant
effort into operating an online store rated as
highly trustworthy by customers. One day,
they noticed that criminals were using their
online store to defraud customers. They
immediately contacted the websites hosting
company and the police to put a stop to the
fraudulent behaviour as soon as possible.
However, both the company and law enforcement declared that the process could take days
owing to the numerous formal procedures
involved in such an action.
In the neutral-affect scenario, participants
read an essay that described a series of
commonplace events taking place in a day in
the life of someone.
Upon reading the first page of the instructions, the instructor had the participants take
three deep breaths to enhance concentration.
Participants were then instructed to listen
to and read synchronically the emotioninduction essay. Afterwards, participants had
five minutes in which to complete a six-item
creativity test that, sampled from the Chinese
Remote Association Test, served as a creativity
measure. When the time was up, the instructor
handed the participants a pack of chocolates
before informing them, Thank you for your
participation. Chocolate makes people happy.

Creativity Task
In this study, we measured creative performance by choosing the Remote Association

Volume

Number

2014

Test (RAT; Mednick, 1962). First, it can capture

changes in creative performance resulting
from situational factors, such as emotional
experiences (Fong, 2006). Second, the RAT has
been demonstrated to correlate with supervisor ratings of creativity (Mednick, 1963). In a
meta-analysis of affectcreativity research,
Baas, De Dreu and Nijstad (2008) also concluded that their analysis results were generalizable with few exceptions across such
facets of creativity measurement as fluency,
flexibility, originality and eureka/insight.
Third, the RAT has been used in organizational
settings. For example, Estrada, Isen and Young
(1994) used seven moderate difficulty items
from the RAT to examine whether happy physicians (at Henry Ford Hospital and Medical
Centers) had higher creativity than physicians
in a control group. Finally, this approach is
simple and objective, and does not involve
subjective assessments.
This study used the Chinese Remote Association Test (CRAT) (Jen et al., 2004) to
measure creative performance. The CRAT
rests on the same theoretical basis as the one
underlying RAT (Mednick, 1962), which has
helped researchers examine the effects of both
positive and negative emotions on creativity
(e.g., Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2011; Estrada,
Isen & Young, 1994; Fong, 2006; Isen,
Daubman & Nowicki, 1987). Using RAT,
researchers specifically have measured divergent and creative thinking by testing the
ability of individuals to identify associations
between words that are not normally associated with each other. The higher an individuals score on RAT, the better the individual
is at linking his or her associative abilities to a
creative task.
The reliability and validity of CRAT as
measures of creativity have been well established. Early studies (Chen, Peng & Wu, 2011;
Jen et al., 2004) have shown that the CRAT can
yield split-half reliability coefficients ranging
from 0.64 to 0.77, the Cronbachs alpha coefficients can range from 0.58 to 0.74, the test
retest reliability can range from 0.79 to 0.88,
and CRAT scores are significantly correlated
with insight task performance, fluency and
flexibility.
The current study assesses the influence of
emotion on creativity by using six items from
CRAT. We sampled two easy, two moderate
and two difficult items randomly from the
total of 60 CRAT items. We used six items
because an emotion is experienced for an
instant, which may last seconds or minutes
(Beedie, Terry & Lane, 2005). Therefore, we
decided to shorten the duration of participants creativity test implementation. In addition, the authors of CRAT suggest 2025
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

EMOTIONS AS CONSTRAINING AND FACILITATING FACTORS FOR CREATIVITY

Figure 1. Emotional Score in Each Emotional Condition. The Error Bars Represent the Standard Error

minutes for 30 items. Therefore we decided to

use six items and five minutes.
Each CRAT item consisted of three Chinese
characters followed by a blank space. Participants received instructions on filling the blank
with a Chinese character that can be combined
with each of three other Chinese characters
respectively, thus yielding three meaningful
two-character Chinese phrases. Participants
had five minutes to complete the task, but they
did not know about the time limitation in
advance (for reasons having to do with the
avoidance of time-pressure interference). They
also saw an example as follows:
, , :

Emotion Manipulation Check

To ensure that the participants scenario readings were effectively producing the desired
emotional states, we used self-reported ratings
of emotion. The main experiment did not
include an emotion manipulation check
because it might reduce the effects of emotion
induction (Raghunathan & Pham, 1999).
Instead, a manipulation check was applied to
another sample from the same source of participants in the main experiment. We recruited
72 voluntary undergraduate and graduate students to complete the experiment in exchange
for a chocolate bar. There were 23, 25 and 24
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

participants in the companionate love, anger

and neutral conditions, respectively. After the
emotion induction, participants rated how they
currently felt on a seven-point scale ranging
from 1 (Does not describe my current feelings at
all) to 7 (Describes my current feelings very well).
We selected eight basic emotions from the
literature (e.g., Lazarus, 1991; Oatley &
Johnson-Laird, 1987): disgust, sadness, happiness, anxiety, surprise, fear, anger and love.
Then we used two items for each emotion to
measure participants emotional reactions.
With two additional items for neutral state,
there were 18 items in total. We computed a
score of felt companionate love by averaging
two items: love and gratitude. We computed a
score of felt anger by averaging two items:
anger and irritation. And we computed a score
for the neutral state by averaging two items:
not in a good or bad mood and not up or down.

Results: Study 1
Manipulation Check
The scale reliabilities (alpha) were 0.92, 0.94
and 0.69 for the companionate love, anger and
neutral conditions, respectively. Figure 1 presents the mean response of felt emotions in
each emotional condition. In terms of overall
effects, the 3 (emotional score) 3 (emotional

Volume

Number

2014

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Figure 2. The Effects of Emotional Condition on the Correct Score of the CRAT. The Error Bars
Represent the Standard Error
condition) mixed ANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect between the emotional
score and the emotional condition, F(4,
138) = 43.50, p < 0.01, p2 = 0.56. As shown in
Figure 1 regarding between-subject comparisons, felt companionate love was significantly
higher in the companionate love condition
(M = 6.35) than in the other two conditions
(Manger = 2.10, Mneutral = 3.48), F(2, 69) = 83.23,
p < 0.01, p2 = 0.22. Felt anger was significantly
higher in the anger condition (M = 5.34) than
in the other two conditions (Mlove = 1.65,
Mneutral = 2.21), F(2, 69) = 64.22, p < 0.01, p2 =
0.65. Felt neutrality was significantly higher in
the neutral condition (M = 4.50) than in the
other two conditions (Mlove = 2.97, Mneutral =
2.98), F(2, 69) = 9.42, p < 0.01, p2 = 0.22.
Furthermore, in within-subject comparisons, as shown in Figure 1, participants in the
companionate love condition felt more companionate love than anger or neutrality, F(2,
21) = 143.14, p < 0.01, p2 = 0.93. Participants in
the anger condition felt more anger than companionate love or neutrality, F(2, 23) = 40.90,
p < 0.01, p2 = 0.78. Participants in the neutral
condition felt more neutrality than companionate love or anger, F(2, 22) = 25.18, p < 0.01,
p2 = 0.70. Overall, it was determined that the
scenarios successfully manipulated participants emotional states.

Effects of Emotions on Creative Performance

The results of this experiment support our
initial predictions, as shown in Figure 2. The

Volume

Number

2014

omnibus ANOVA, with the mean correct score

as the dependent variable and emotion and
gender as the independent variables, shows
that the main effects of both emotion and
gender were significant but the interaction
between emotion and gender was not significant, F(2, 54) = 9.09, p < 0.01, p2 = 0.25; F(1,
54) = 6.10, p < 0.05, p2 = 0.10; F(2, 54) = 0.47,
p > 0.6, p2 = 0.02, respectively. Female participants (M = 3.80, SD = 1.19) outperformed male
ones (M = 3.07, SD = 1.39). Hypothesis testing
is reported next, with specific two-mean
comparisons.
The results of our comparison between
companionate love and the neutral state
support hypothesis 1s assertion that companionate love decreases creative performance.
Specific two-mean comparisons reveal that
individuals in the companionate love condition (M = 2.7, SD = 1.3) correctly completed
significantly fewer CRAT items than did
individuals in the neutral condition
(M = 3.5, SD = 1.3), F(1, 36) = 4.19, p < 0.05,
p2 = 0.10.
The results of our comparison between the
anger and neutral states support hypothesis
2s assertion that anger strengthens creative
performance. Individuals in the anger condition (M = 4.2, SD = 1.0) correctly completed
significantly more CRAT items than did individuals in the neutral condition (M = 3.5,
SD = 1.3), F(1, 36) = 4.68, p < 0.05, p2 = 0.12.
We also noted that the participants in the anger
condition correctly completed significantly
more CRAT items than did individuals in the
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

EMOTIONS AS CONSTRAINING AND FACILITATING FACTORS FOR CREATIVITY

companionate love condition, F(1, 36) = 19.44,

p < 0.01, p2 = 0.35.

Method: Study 2
In this qualitative research, we sought to
justify the implication of our experimental
results in organizational settings. We interviewed 15 employees from various organizations to collect their experiences regarding
emotional effects on idea generation.

reflect the short-term rather than long-term

effects of emotions. All interviews lasted for
2038 minutes. We conducted trial runs with
three employees to check for relevance and
clarity and slightly revised questions according to the results. For example, we emphasized
to reflect on events before responding to
interviewees because we observed that people
are apt to consider positive emotions as beneficial and negative emotions as harmful because
of lack of deliberation.

Research Design and Participants

Results: Study 2

Participants were employees who had experienced anger and companionate love at the
workplace. To collect experiences that were as
diversified as possible, our participants consisted of managers and non-managers, men
and women, seniors and juniors, and employees from various organizations. All participants were volunteers, recruited to the
study through personal contacts. The final
sample consisted of 15 employees from 12
organizations, seven managers and eight nonmanagers, 11 men and four women. Average
job tenure was 11.7 years.

Most of the participants reported that emotions in the workplace influenced idea generation to a certain extent. Twelve interviewees
responded that companionate love constrains
creativity and anger fosters creativity; whereas
two interviewees argued the reverse. Only one
interviewee stated that both emotions decrease
creativity. The main effects of how anger and
companionate love influence creativity and
exemplary quotations are summarized in
Table 1.
Table 1 indicates that the effects of anger on
organizational innovation involve behavioural
and cognitive facets. The behavioural effects of
anger lead employees to criticize imperfection,
correct errors, propose ideas boldly and take
spontaneous actions. These behaviours are
advantageous for asserting and evaluating
ideas. The cognitive effect of anger enhances
creativity and increases cognitive fluency.
However, anger can cause distractions at work
and hurt relationships and co-operation among
co-workers. In summary, anger is beneficial for
idea creation, assertion and evaluation, but is
detrimental to idea implementation.
Employees in a state of companionate love
tend not to criticize others and to show agreement, tolerate mistakes and worry about
failure. These behavioural tendencies can
damage the efficiency of idea creation, idea
evaluation and prevent employees from adopting innovative ideas. However, companionate
love enhances solidarity and co-operation,
which is beneficial for idea implementation.
The aforementioned results are consistent
with our experimental results, that anger
enhances creativity and companionate love
constrains creativity. More importantly, our
qualitative research justifies the influence of
the two emotions on organizational innovation. Whereas anger is valuable for idea
creation, assertion and evaluation, but unfavourable for idea implementation, companionate love is unfavourable for idea creation
and idea evaluation, but beneficial for idea
implementation.

Data Collection and Analysis

In addition to the question, How long have
you worked in your organization; what is your
job title and job description?, the interview
protocol comprised two questions regarding
how emotions, particularly anger and companionate love, influence creative performance
at the workplace, as follows.
Question 1: In your work experience, when
your supervisor needs new ideas immediately in a meeting or discussion, what types
of affective climate does he or she cultivate
that are more useful to foster new ideas? Is
a moderately angry climate effective or is an
intimate and warm climate effective? Please
reflect on events at the workplace you have
experienced to explain your opinion.
Question 2: In your experience, does a state
of slight/moderate anger help you immediately produce new ideas or does companionate love accomplish this? Please reflect
on events at the workplace you have experienced to explain your opinion.
The first question obtained interviewee
observations of emotional influence on idea
generation in work meetings. The second question sought to explore participants personal
experiences regarding the emotional influence
on idea generation at the workplace. We
emphasized to generate ideas immediately to
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Volume

Number

2014

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

10

Table 1. The Main Effects of Anger and Companionate Love

Main effects

Exemplary quotations

Behavioural effects of companionate love: In meetings with my students and colleagues in a lab, when I felt
a) Not to criticize; show agreement
warm and close towards them, it was difficult to point out their
b) Tolerate mistakes
mistakes, propose alternative ideas, and ask them to meet higher
standards. However, it was the opposite situation when I felt
angry (University faculty).
Behavioural effects of anger:
a) Criticize imperfection
b) Correct error

Although I saw my front-line workers make mistakes many times, I

did not say anything because I appreciated their hard work. One
day, someone annoyed me before I went to the construction site.
Again, I saw the same mistakes. At that moment, I felt angry about
the mistakes and ruined the construction. At the same time, I
found the problem and a new method to finish the rest of a long
canal embankment (Construction manager).

Cognitive effects of anger:

a) Stimulate new ideas spontaneously

I use emotions strategically. At the beginning of a project, I typically

challenge and criticize my team members ideas in the kick-off
meeting. I observed that they were slightly annoyed at me but
they suggested many useful ideas boldly. When the project was
nearing its end, I wanted my supervisor to accept the project as it
was. I showed my appreciation and gratitude to my supervisor
and top managers in an audit meeting. In response, they approved
my project without much criticism (Project manager).
In our meeting for an advertisement-proposal selection, each group
presented and defended their proposal and criticized the
proposals of others. Because there was only one winner, the
meeting was typically hostile, and people were angry at others
criticisms. However, I observed that those meetings were
favourable for idea generation and for producing an innovative
advertisement project (Advertisement designer).

Behavioural effects of companionate love: When taking wedding photos for my close friends, although I tried
a) Increase risk-aversion; constrain
to do my best, the photos were good, but not unique. Perhaps I
creative behaviour
was worried about failing to accomplish my responsibility. When
taking photos for children, it was difficult to help them follow my
Cognitive effects of anger:
instructions, which made me feel slightly angry; however, I can
a) Enhance creativity
take fantastic art photos from time to time (Professional
photographer).
Behavioural effects of anger:
a) Propose ideas boldly
b) Take actions spontaneously
Cognitive effects of anger:
a) Create ideas fluently
Behavioural effects of anger:
a) Hurt relationship and co-operation

When in an angry state, I could propose any ideas or act

spontaneously without shyness or caring about others unpleasant
feelings. This helped me create new ideas, similar to poets who
compose a poem, overflowing with inspiration and without
inhibition (Marketing officer).
When I needed new ideas for improving performance in a meeting, I
criticized my subordinates performance and said that they should
have reached a higher standard than they had. However, when
they became extremely angry, they could not control themselves.
This can produce negative thoughts and hurt co-operation and
unit performance (Unit manager).

Behavioural effects of companionate love: Although I did not count on the feelings of closeness to stimulate
a) Enhance solidarity and co-operation
creative thinking, the feelings of closeness and companionship can
develop solidarity to enhance co-operation among co-workers in
my unit. (Unit manager).
Behavioural effects of companionate love: In my experience, when I felt intimate with co-workers, I became
a) Feel free to express ideas
confident and open-minded in the group. This led me to express
my ideas freely. I prefer a friendly work environment to an angry
Cognitive effects of anger:
environment. If my supervisor, co-workers or I am angry, I cannot
a) Cause distraction at work
do my work well, especially tasks that demand concentration
(Non-manager).

Volume

Number

2014

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

EMOTIONS AS CONSTRAINING AND FACILITATING FACTORS FOR CREATIVITY

11

Discussion and Conclusion

Theoretical Contributions

Innovation is one of the core drivers of

organizational outcomes, especially for
organizations facing a dynamic environment.
As a result, employees creative performance
helps determine organizational survival and
prosperity. One crucial factor that influences
individual creativity is emotion. Moreover,
organizations are increasingly relying on
work teams to generate and implement innovative ideas. Both team conflict and team
cohesion are critical factors that influence
team innovation. A major negative emotion in
team conflict is anger; a major positive
emotion in cohesive teams is companionate
love. We hypothesized and found in the
experimental study that companionate love
constrains creativity, whereas anger facilitates
it. The findings in our study obviously run
counter to the arguments that positive affect
promotes creativity (e.g., Hirt et al., 1997;
Isen, Daubman & Nowicki, 1987). However,
our findings are consistent with the argument
that cognitive activation enhances creativity
(Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2011; De Dreu,
Baas & Nijstad, 2008; Gilet & Jallais, 2011). As
a deactivating emotion, companionate love
may interfere with cognitive flexibility and
restructuring and, thus, appears capable of
hampering creative performance. In contrast,
anger, as an activating emotion, facilitates
creativity.
The current findings are reasonable from
the perspective of the functions of specific
emotions. The abilities beneficial to both
the functional goals and the action tendencies
of companionate love are interpersonal
rather than problem solving in nature; put
another way, the abilities emphasize conventional merit over novel ideas. As a result,
limited cognitive resources are allotted to
the restructuring of thought, in turn restricting cognitive flexibility and lowering creativity results. In contrast, angry people
would likely leverage considerable cognitive
flexibility in order to remove obstructions or
to counter others points of view. Consequently, anger can lead to higher creative
performance.
Our qualitative research provides additional supporting evidence that anger leads
employees to enhance creativity, criticize
imperfection, correct errors, propose ideas
boldly, take spontaneous actions and increase
cognitive fluency, which are beneficial for idea
creation, assertion and evaluation. By contrast,
companionate love leads employees to show
agreement, tolerate mistakes and worry about
failure, which has potential disadvantages for
idea creation and evaluation.

Because anger and companionate love are two

major emotions in team processes, this paper
makes several theoretical contributions to
creativity and innovation research in organizations. The most crucial contribution is the
finding associated with companionate love.
That companionate love, although categorized
as a positive emotion, constrains idea generation, is an original finding. Our qualitative
analysis revealed that companionate love is
also detrimental to other activities in the ideageneration process, such as idea evaluation. An
incremental contribution of this study is the
replication of the anger effect on individual
creativity. We provided arguments for possible
benefits of anger for idea generation. Our
qualitative research revealed that anger is
helpful for idea creation, idea assertion and
idea evaluation in organizational innovation
processes.
Combined with previous research (Baas, De
Dreu & Nijstad, 2011; De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad,
2008; Gilet & Jallais, 2011), we suggest a novel
avenue for analysing how specific emotions
influence creativity. Researchers should consider cognitive activation and emotional function when investigating emotional effects on
employee creative performance.
Another theoretical contribution of this
paper is that it provides evidence from the
emotional perspective to ascertain the effects
of conflict and cohesion on team innovation.
Based on the results of our experimental and
qualitative analysis, we propose that task conflict with anger enhances team innovation in
the idea-generation stage, including idea creation, idea assertion and idea evaluation. This
finding aligns with studies by Jehn (1995) and
De Dreu (2006) indicating that moderate task
conflict is beneficial for team innovation.
However, anger can constrain team innovation
in the idea-implementation stage if interpersonal conflict is induced and remains. This
argument aligns with De Dreu and Weingarts
(2003) meta-analysis results that task and interpersonal conflict have negative correlations
with team performance and team member satisfaction.
According to the results of our experimental
and qualitative analysis, we propose that team
cohesion with the emotion of companionate
love is detrimental to idea generation, including idea creation, idea assertion and idea
evaluation. This finding is consistent with previous results that high levels of cohesion
causes a convergent thinking style and a confirmatory approach to appraising information
and exerts an adverse effect on innovativeness
(Nijstad & De Dreu, 2002; Sethi, Smith & Park,

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Volume

Number

2014

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

12

2001). Our finding that companionate love

enhances solidarity and co-operation suggests
that team cohesion is beneficial for idea implementation in work teams. This argument is
consistent with previous results that team
cohesion enhances team member co-operation
(Hlsheger, Anderson & Salgado, 2009). In
summary, our findings call for further study to
distinguish the different effect of team conflict
and cohesion on idea generation from that on
idea implementation in the study of team
innovation.

Practical Implications
There are several noteworthy practical implications for the role of emotion in creativity and
innovation management. First, the current
finding that anger enhances creativity suggests that organizations should nurture a
culture of criticism. Criticism that activates low
to moderate anger could stimulate creativity,
enhance idea assertion and improve idea
evaluation. Steps taken by Steve Jobs, the
former CEO of Apple, exemplify one form of
this possible criticism. At Apple top 100
meetings, which would present a thorough
review of product plans for the next 18 months
or so, participants would vigorously argue
with one another in a bid to get their own
suggestions on the list of the 10 tasks or goals
the company would prioritize (Isaacson, 2012).
The generation of Apples creative ideas seems
to have rested partly on the activation of
moderate irritation, which was stimulated by
efforts to encourage vigorous debate among
employees. However, when people feel
others criticism is personally demeaning, high
levels of resulting anger may turn cognitive
conflict into emotional conflict. This would
damage the relationships between co-workers
and hurt co-operation and task performance
(Amason, 1996).
Second, facilitating warmth and attentiveness in interpersonal relationships in an
organization can nurture friendship and
companionate love among employees, thus
helping to enhance co-operation and idea
implementation. However, this pattern is not
good for idea creation and idea evaluation,
which is critical in idea-generation processes.
Altogether, to link friendship and cooperation with criticism and creativity in an
organization would appear to be a significantly challenging endeavour. Maybe a culture
of constructive confrontation, as referred to
by Intel, could serve as a practical solution.
Intel trains employees in the theory that they
should confront the problem, not the person;
resolve the problem while maintaining the
working relationship (Grove, 1996). In other
words, organizations management of idea

Volume

Number

2014

generation should differ from their organization of idea implementation.

Limitations and Future Research

Every experiment faces understandable drawbacks, such as those pertaining to external
validity. Therefore, replications based on other
methodologies, emotion-induction methods
and creativity measurements are necessary,
particularly for the verification of the current
results about companionate love. We suggest
a survey in organizational settings because
studies concerning the effects of anger and
companionate love on creativity to date have
all been experimental. An alternative is to use
both emotion-induction passages related to the
workplace and creativity measures having
implications for organizational innovation
(e.g., idea generation for new products, advertising strategies and customer satisfaction
practices). Finally, other positive affects (e.g.,
pride) and other negative affects (e.g., envy)
are all common in team processes. They
should be considered significant targets of
future testing.

References
Akinola, M. and Mendes, W.B. (2008) The Dark Side
of Creativity: Biological Vulnerability and Negative Emotions Lead to Greater Artistic Creativity.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1677
86.
Amabile, T.M. (1983) The Social Psychology of
Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
35776.
Amabile, T.M. (1996) Creativity in Context. Boulder,
Westview Press, CO.
Amason, A.C. (1996) Distinguishing the Effects of
Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for
Top Management Teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 12348.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Nijstad, B.A. (2008)
A Meta-analysis of 25 Years of Mood-Creativity
Research: Hedonic Tone, Activation, or Regulatory Focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779806.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Nijstad, B.A. (2011)
Creative Production by Angry People Peaks Early
on, Decreases over Time, and Is Relatively
Unstructured. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 110715.
Baddeley, A. (2000) The Episodic Buffer: A New
Component of Working Memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 41723.
Baron, R.A. (1991) Positive Effects of Conflict: A
Cognitive Perspective. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 4, 2536.
Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M.J. and McLendon,
C.L. (2003) Cohesion and Performance in Groups:
A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 9891004.
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

EMOTIONS AS CONSTRAINING AND FACILITATING FACTORS FOR CREATIVITY

Beedie, C.J., Terry, P.C. and Lane, A.M. (2005) Distinctions between Emotion and Mood. Cognition
and Emotion, 19, 84778.
Broadbent, D.E. (1972) Decision and Stress. Academic
Press, New York.
Castro, F., Gomes, J. and de Sousa, F.C. (2012) Do
Intelligent Leaders Make a Difference? The Effect
of a Leaders Emotional Intelligence on Followers Creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 17182.
Chen, H.C., Peng, S.L. and Wu, Q.L. (2011) The
Creative Problem Solving Processes of Pure and
Pseudo Insight Problems in Chinese Remote
Association Test. Journal of Creativity, 2, 2551 (in
Chinese).
Chen, M.-H. (2006) Understanding the Benefits and
Detriments of Conflict on Team Creativity
Process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15,
10515.
Damasio, A.R. (2001) Some Notes on Brain, Imagination and Creativity. In Pfenninger, K. and
Shubik, V.R. (eds.), The Origins of Creativity.
Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 5968.
Davis, M.A. (2009) Understanding the Relationship
between Mood and Creativity: A Meta-Analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 2538.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (2006) When too Little or too Much
Hurts: Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship
between Task Conflict and Innovation in Teams.
Journal of Management, 32, 83107.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Baas, M. and Nijstad, B.A. (2008)
Hedonic Tone and Activation in the MoodCreativity Link: Towards a Dual Pathway to Creativity Model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94, 73956.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A. and Baas, M. (2011)
Behavioral Activation Links to Creativity Because
of Increased Cognitive Flexibility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 7280.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003) Task
versus Relationship Conflict, Team Performance,
and Team Member Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 7419.
Depue, R.A. and Iacono, W.G. (1989) Neurobehavioral Aspects of Affective Disorders. Annual
Review of Psychology, 40, 45792.
Ellsworth, P.C. and Scherer, K.R. (2003) Appraisal
Processes in Emotion. In Davidson, R.J., Scherer,
K.R. and Goldsmith, H. (eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press, New York,
pp. 57295.
Estrada, C.A., Isen, A.M. and Young, M.J. (1994)
Positive Affect Improves Creative Problem
Solving and Influences Reported Source of Practice Satisfaction in Physicians. Motivation and
Emotion, 18, 28599.
Fessler, D.M.T., Pillsworth, E.G. and Flamson, T.J.
(2004) Angry Men and Disgusted Women: An
Evolutionary Approach to the Influence of Emotions on Risk Taking. Organizational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, 95, 10723.
Fong, C.T. (2006) The Effects of Emotional Ambivalence on Creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 49, 101630.
Forgas, J.P. (2013) Dont Worry, Be Sad! On the Cognitive, Motivational, and Interpersonal Benefits
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

13

of Negative Mood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 22532.

Frijda, N.H. (1986) The Emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Frijda, N.H., Kuipers, P. and Schure, E. (1989) Relations among Emotion, Appraisal, and Emotional
Action Readiness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 21228.
Gailliot, M.T., Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N.,
Maner, J.K., Plant, E.A., Tice, D.M. and
Schmeichel, B.J. (2007) Self-Control Relies on
Glucose as a Limited Energy Source: Willpower
Is More Than a Metaphor. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92, 32536.
Gasper, K. (2003) When Necessity Is the Mother of
Invention: Mood and Problem Solving. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 24862.
George, J.M. and Zhou, J. (2002) Understanding
When Bad Moods Foster Creativity and Good
Ones Dont: The Role of Context and Clarity
of Feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687
97.
Gilet, A.L. and Jallais, C. (2011) Valence, Arousal
and Word Associations. Cognition and Emotion, 25,
7406.
Grove, A.S. (1996) Only the Paranoid Survive: How to
Exploit the Crisis Points That Challenge Every
Company and Career, 1st edn. Currency
Doubleday, New York.
Harrison, M.A. and Shortall, J.C. (2011) Women and
Men in Love: Who Really Feels It and Says It
First? The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 72736.
Hatfield, E. and Rapson, R.L. (1996) Love and Sex:
Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Allyn & Bacon, New
York.
Hatfield, E. and Walster, G.W. (1978) A New Look at
Love. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hirt, E.R., Levine, G.M., McDonald, H.E., Melton,
R.J. and Martin, L.L. (1997) The Role of Mood in
Quantitative and Qualitative Aspects of Performance: Single or Multiple Mechanisms? Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 60229.
Hlsheger, U.R., Anderson, N. and Salgado, J.F.
(2009) Team-Level Predictors of Innovation at
Work: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Spanning Three Decades of Research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 112845.
Isaacson, W. (2012) The Real Leadership Lessons of
Steve Jobs. Harvard Business Review, 90, 93
102.
Isen, A.M. and Baron, R.A. (1991) Positive Affect as
a Factor in Organizational Behavior. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 13, 153.
Isen, A.M., Daubman, K.A. and Nowicki, G.P. (1987)
Positive Affect Facilitates Creative Problem
Solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 112231.
Jehn, K.A. (1995) A Multimethod Examination of
the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 25682.
Jen, C.H., Chen, H.C., Lien, H.C. and Cho, S.L.
(2004) The Development of the Chinese Remote
Association Test. Research in Applied Psychology,
21, 195217 (in Chinese).
Kim, J. and Hatfield, E. (2004) Love Types and Subjective Well-Being: A Cross-Cultural Study. Social
Behavior and Personality, 32, 17382.

Volume

Number

2014

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

14

King, N., Anderson, N. and West, M.A. (1991)

Organizational Innovation: A Case Study into
Perceptions and Processes. Work and Stress, 5,
3319.
Kreibig, S.D. (2010) Autonomic Nervous System
Activity in Emotion: A Review. Biological Psychology, 84, 394421.
Lamm, H. and Wiesmann, U. (1997) Subjective
Attributes of Attraction: How People Characterize Their Liking, Their Love, and Their Being in
Love. Personal Relationships, 4, 27184.
Lang, P.J. and Bradley, M.M. (2010) Emotion and
the Motivational Brain. Biological Psychology, 84,
43750.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991) Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Lerner, J.S. and Tiedens, L.Z. (2006) Portrait of the
Angry Decision Maker: How Appraisal Tendencies Shape Angers Influence on Cognition.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 11537.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D.L. and Weingart, L.R.
(2001) Maximizing Cross-Functional New
Product Teams Innovativeness and Constraint
Adherence: A Conflict Communications Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779
93.
Mednick, M.T. (1963) Research Creativity in Psychology Graduate Students. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 27, 2656.
Mednick, S.A. (1962) The Associative Basis of the
Creative Process. Psychological Review, 69, 22032.
Mikulincer, M., Paz, D. and Kedem, P. (1990)
Anxiety and Categorization 2. Hierarchical
Levels of Mental Categories. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 81521.
Mostert, N.M. (2007) Diversity of the Mind as the
Key to Successful Creativity at Unilever. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 93100.
Mumford, M.D. (2003) Where Have We Been,
Where Are We Going? Taking Stock in Creativity
Research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 10720.
Murray, N., Sujan, H., Hirt, E.R. and Sujan, M.
(1990) The Influence of Mood on Categorization:
A Cognitive Flexibility Interpretation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 41125.
Nijstad, B.A. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2002) Creativity
and Group Innovation. Applied Psychology, 51,
4006.
Oatley, K. and Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1987) Towards a
Cognitive Theory of Emotions. Cognition and
Emotion, 1, 2950.
Raghunathan, R. and Pham, M.T. (1999) All Negative Moods Are Not Equal: Motivational Influences of Anxiety and Sadness on Decision
Making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 5677.
Rego, A., Sousa, F., Pina e Cunha, M., Correia, A.
and Saur-Amaral, I. (2007) Leader Self-Reported
Emotional Intelligence and Perceived Employee
Creativity: An Exploratory Study. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 16, 25064.
Roseman, I.J., Spindel, M. and Jose, P.S. (1990)
Appraisals of Emotion-Eliciting Events: Testing a
Theory of Discrete Emotions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 59, 899915.
Roseman, I.J., Wiest, C. and Swartz, T.S. (1994) Phenomenology, Behaviors, and Goals Differentiate

Volume

Number

2014

Discrete Emotions. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 67, 20621.
Runco, M.A. and Chand, I. (1995) Cognition and
Creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243
67.
Russ, S.W. and Kaugars, A.S. (2001) Emotion in Childrens Play and Creative Problem Solving. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 21119.
Sethi, R., Smith, D.C. and Park, C.W. (2001) CrossFunctional Product Development Teams, Creativity, and the Innovativeness of New Consumer
Products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 7385.
Shah, P.P. and Jehn, K.A. (1993) Do Friends Perform
Better Than Acquaintances? The Interaction of
Friendship, Conflict, and Task. Group Decision and
Negotiation, 2, 14965.
Smith, C.A. and Ellsworth, P.C. (1985) Patterns of
Cognitive Appraisal in Emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 81338.
Sternberg, R.J. (1986) A Triangular Theory of Love.
Psychological Review, 93, 11935.
Tennov, D. (1979) Love and Limerence: The Experience
of Being in Love. Stein and Day, New York.
Tse, H.H.M., Dasborough, M.T. and Ashkanasy,
N.M. (2008) A Multi-Level Analysis of Team
Climate and Interpersonal Exchange Relationships at Work. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 195
211.
Vosburg, S.K. (1998) The Effects of Positive and
Negative Mood on Divergent-Thinking Performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 16572.
Wang, A.Y. and Nguyen, H.T. (1995) Passionate
Love and Anxiety: A Cross-Generational Study.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 45970.
West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (1989) Innovation at Work:
Psychological Perspectives. Social Behavior, 4,
1530.
West, M.A. and Wallace, M. (1991) Innovation in
Health Care Teams. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 30315.
Westermann, R., Spies, K., Stahl, G. and Hesse, F.W.
(1996) Relative Effectiveness and Validity of
Mood Induction Procedures: A Meta-Analysis.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 55780.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W.
(1993) Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293
321.

Jen-Shou Yang (yangjs@yuntech.edu.tw) is

a Professor of Organizational Behavior in
the Department of Business Administration, National Yunlin University of Science
and Technology, Taiwan. His research interests focus on emotion and decision making.
Ha Viet Hung (hunghvts@yahoo.com) is
a PhD candidate in the Department of Business Administration, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan,
and a Lecturer in Nha Trang University,
Vietnam. His research interests include
organizational behaviour, human resource
management and financial markets.

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd