Journal of Creativity in Mental Health

ISSN: 1540-1383 (Print) 1540-1391 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcmh20

Creativity as an Attribute of Positive Psychology:

The Impact of Positive and Negative Affect on the
Creative Personality

Christine Charyton, Shannon Hutchison, Lindsay Snow, Mohammed A.

Rahman & John O. Elliott

To cite this article: Christine Charyton, Shannon Hutchison, Lindsay Snow, Mohammed A.
Rahman & John O. Elliott (2009) Creativity as an Attribute of Positive Psychology: The Impact of
Positive and Negative Affect on the Creative Personality, Journal of Creativity in Mental Health,
4:1, 57-66, DOI: 10.1080/15401380802708791

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15401380802708791

Published online: 21 Feb 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1388

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcmh20
Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 4:57–66, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1540-1383 print/1540-1391 online
DOI: 10.1080/15401380802708791

Creativity as an Attribute of Positive

1540-1391
1540-1383
WCMH
Journal of Creativity in Mental Health,
Health Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2009: pp. 1–14

Psychology: The Impact of Positive and

Negative Affect on the Creative Personality

CHRISTINE CHARYTON
Creativity
C. Charytonas et
anal.
Attribute of Positive Psychology

Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

SHANNON HUTCHISON and LINDSAY SNOW

Department of Psychology, Ohio State University
at Newark, Newark, Ohio, USA

MOHAMMED A. RAHMAN
Senior Statistical Consultant, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

JOHN O. ELLIOTT
Department of Neurology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

Positive psychology explores how optimism can lead to health,

happiness, and creativity. However, questions remain as to how
affective states influence creativity. Data on creative personality,
optimism, pessimism, positive and negative affect, and current
and usual happiness ratings were collected on 161 college students
enrolled in an introductory psychology class. Results indicated
that both positive and negative affect, usual self-reported happi-
ness ratings, and pessimism contributed to a creative personality
in college students. Demographic characteristics such as gender,
age, and class level were also factors. Males, younger students, and
higher academic level college students displayed more creative per-
sonality characteristics. Findings suggest that both positive and
negative attributes influence creativity.

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2006 Ohio Psychological Association
(OPA) Convention in Worthington, Ohio, as a part of OPA programming as a continuing
education workshop titled, “Gender Similarities and Differences in Coping with Depression
Through Creativity and Positive Psychology Therapies.”
Address correspondence to Christine Charyton, Ohio State University, Department of
Psychology, 130 Lazenby Hall, 1827 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. E-mail: charyton.1@
osu.edu

57
58 C. Charyton et al.

KEYWORDS positive psychology, creativity, creative personality,

positive affect, negative affect, optimism, pessimism

Factors associated with positive psychological states include positive emo-

tions, distinct personality traits, and association with positive organizations
and individuals. Furthermore, overall life satisfaction has been associated with
higher levels of creativity, modesty, appreciation of beauty, judgment, and
love of learning (Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2006). Meaning in life can also
be found through adversity and loss. For example, Peterson et al. (2006)
found that individuals who had recovered from a psychological disorder had
higher levels of creativity, curiosity, gratitude, love of learning, and apprecia-
tion of beauty. Creative flow, another aspect of positive psychology, is
defined as being fully absorbed in the present moment and enjoying an activ-
ity for its own intrinsic rewards (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Flow
occurs during activities that require skill and attentional engagement, such as
playing a musical instrument, participating in an emotionally meaningful con-
versation, painting, and other creative endeavors (Karwoski, Garratt, & Ilardi,
2006). Activities that produce flow tend to enhance mood and reduce anxiety.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT

Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, and Staw (2005) investigated how positive and
negative affective states are related to creativity in work settings. By generat-
ing a new idea or solving a difficult problem, individuals may experience
beneficial emotions and may begin a cycle of enhanced creativity and
enjoyment. Amabile et al. (2005) stated that “when reactions to a person’s
ideas were positive, that person felt happy, whereas negative reactions led
to feelings of anger or disappointment” (p. 394). Thus, it can be argued that
creativity and affective states may interact in a cyclical manner, recursively
influencing one another. From these interactions, distinct behaviors and
self-perceptions may be explored.
Isen and Reeve (2005) investigated positive affect on intrinsic motivation.
Participants with positive affect derived greater satisfaction and showed
higher levels of motivation on task completion. They also spent more time on
interesting and enjoyable tasks and worked on tasks earlier than the control
group. In addition, emotional states are related to behaviors and perceptions
of the world. When individuals interact with negative affect or in maladaptive
ways, they may disconnect from others, give up on tasks, or develop behav-
iors to justify their negative schemas. Conversely, when individuals engage in
self-care, positive and optimistic thinking, and connecting with others in
authentic ways, they tend to feel energetic, creative, and friendly, and seek to
reach out to others (Ben-Artzi & Mikulincer, 1996). Furthermore, Ludwig
 Creativity as an Attribute of Positive Psychology 59

(1989) and Rothenberg (2001) have suggested that creativity is a healthy and
adaptive response to unhealthy conditions. Those who engage the world cre-
atively enhance their creative capacities. However, mood states may impact
an individual’s ability to respond in creative ways. According to Jamison
(1995), creative productivity varies with mood; creativity can be high during
manic episodes and low during depressive episodes of bipolar disorder.
Other research has shown that bipolar disorder disrupts the thinking pro-
cesses associated with creativity and negatively affects creative processing
(Guastello, Guastello, & Hansen, 2004). Additional research has established
that negative affect depresses creative abilities (Clapham, 2000, 2001). How-
ever, Clapham reported that these studies are suggestive and need further
research. In this study, we sought to further investigate the relationship
between creativity and emotional expression. We hypothesized that negative
emotions such as anxiety may impede creative performance. We further
hypothesized that optimism would predict creative personality characteristics.

METHOD
Sample and Procedures
After receiving institutional review board approval, data were collected from
161 psychology students from a large, Big 10 university in the Midwestern
United States. Participants were tested in groups of six on computers in the
psychology lab. These computers contained a link with Zoomerang ques-
tionnaires. After entering the lab, participants were administered a demo-
graphic questionnaire related to age, gender, ethnicity, intended college
major, class level, and current and usual happiness ratings on a scale from 1
to 10, the Creative Personality Scale (CPS) of the Adjective Checklist (ACL;
Gough, 1979), the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R), and the Positive
Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS).

CPS
The CPS/ACL (Gough, 1979) was administered to assess creativity attributes.
This assessment for creative thinking was chosen because it has been
shown to be reliable and is widely used as a creativity test. For example,
Plucker and Renzulli (1999) stated:

Oldham and Cummings (1996) in a comparison of personality traits,

environmental characteristics, and product ratings, found evidence that
people with specific personality traits (i.e., as judged by Gough’s [1979]
Creativity Personality Scale) produced creative products when chal-
lenged by their work and supervised in a supportive “noncontrolling
fashion” (p. 609). (p. 46)
60 C. Charyton et al.

LOT-R
The LOT-R was developed to measure dispositional optimism. The original
LOT has been revised so that equal numbers of positively and negatively
worded items are used in the calculation. Correlations within items on the
scale range from .43 to .63, suggesting that each item measures relatively
the same construct, but not to the extent that they are redundant (Scheier,
Carver, & Bridges, 1994). Cronbach’s Alpha for all six items were found to
be .78. This suggests an acceptable internal consistency level. The LOT-R
was also found to be reliable across time (Scheier et al., 1994). The measure
has also been found to be relatively valid with modest correlations. For
example, correlations among women ranged from .54 with self-esteem to −.36
with neuroticism. Correlations between the original LOT and the revised
LOT have also been found to be similar, suggesting that they measure simi-
lar characteristics.

PANAS
The PANAS was designed to measure positive affect (i.e., the extent to
which a person feels enthusiastic) and negative affect (i.e., a dimension of
subjective distress and unpleasurable engagement including a variety of
aversive mood states; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The scale has been
found to provide “reliable, precise, and largely independent measures of
positive affect and negative affect, regardless of subject population studies
or time frame and response format used” (Watson et al., 1988, p. 1067).
Reliability estimates for nonstudent samples were found to be .86 for
PANAS positive affect scales and .87 for PANAS negative affect scales.
Correlation between the scales was found to be −.09. The scale was also
found to have adequate validity. “Descriptors have strong primary loadings
(.50 and above) on the appropriate factor, and secondary loadings are all
acceptably low. Thus all PANAS items are good markers of their corre-
sponding factors” (Watson et al., 1988, p. 1066). Watson et al. (1988) “offer
the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule as a reliable, valid, and efficient
means for measuring the two important dimensions of mood” (p. 1066).

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics of the participants are described in Table 1.

Gender, ethnicity and class level frequencies are provided. Ages of the par-
ticipants ranged from 18 to 52 years (M = 20.58; SD = 5.47).
Correlations and coefficients among the 28 predictor variables with the
criterion variable were calculated and presented in Table 2. Correlation
coefficients ranged from −.54 to .60. Examination of the correlation matrix
 Creativity as an Attribute of Positive Psychology 61

TABLE 1 Descriptive Characteristics of

College Students

Variable n (%)

Gender
Male 66 (41)
Female 96 (59)
Ethnicity
Caucasian 126 (78)
Non-Caucasian 36 (22)
Class Level
Freshmen 133 (82)
Sophomores 13 (8)
Juniors 10 (6)
Seniors 6 (4)

indicated that gender, usual happiness, interested, excited, upset, strong,

scared, enthusiastic, proud, irritable, nervous, determined, afraid, optimism
and pessimism were significantly correlated with the criterion variable at p <
.05. The correlations of the remaining independent variables with the crite-
rion variable were found to be insignificant at p > .05.
Next, a linear multiple regression analysis was performed to measure
how these variables predicted creativity characteristics. The regression
model included the CPS scores designated as the criterion variable, with
gender, ethnicity, class level, age, self-rated happiness (usually and cur-
rently), emotions in the PANAS, and optimism and pessimism as determined
by the LOT-R designated as predictor variables. The overall fit of the model
was found to be statistically significant (R2 = .452; F = 3.86, p = .000). Signif-
icant predictors of CPS scores included gender, class rank, age, usual happi-
ness, interested, distressed, guilty, nervous, and pessimism on the LOT-R.
Examination of the residual plots indicated no systemic variation of the
error terms with the level of predicted values. Thus, the assumption of
homogeneity of variance was not violated. The tolerance indices for all
predicator variables was close to 1 and this indicates that multicollinearity
was not present in the model. However, while entering data, it was sus-
pected that there were some outliers. To investigate these outlying cases,
postanalysis diagnostic statistics (leverage value, studentized deleted resid-
ual, DFFITS value) were generated for each observation. Using a criterion
value of greater than 2(p/n) = .348 (where p is the number of independent
variables and n is the sample size) as a guide for identifying outlying obser-
vations, the values of leverage point identified six outliers. Using the crite-
rion value of greater than 2(p/n)1/2 = .834 as a guide for identifying
influential observations, absolute values of DFFITS identified 8 influential
observations of these outlying cases. Table 3 provides the final analysis
where problematic cases were deleted from the data set (n = 153) based on
 TABLE 2 Correlation Matrix: Model Building Data

Predictors

Variable X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21 X22 X23 X24 X25 X26 X27 X28

X1 Gender –
X2 Ethnicity .07 –
X3 Class Rank .14 .07 –
X4 Age −.01 .11 .43** –
X5 Usual Happiness .03 .12 −.01 −.08 –
X6 Current Happiness .05 .09 .04 .04 .54** –
X7 Interested .04 .15 .08 .18 .28** .15 –
X8 Distressed .02 −.06 .07 −.02 −.26** −.37** −.03 –
X9 Excited .02 −.04 −.06 −.13 .23** .21** .25** −.01 –
X10 Upset .08 −.16* .06 .01 −.28** −.31** −.08 .58** .05 –
X11 Strong −.06 −.01 .10 −.09 .12 .26** .22** −.04 .50** .03 –
X12 Guilty .09 −.20* .03 −.05 −.22** −.20* −.08 .29** .08. .43** −.01 –
X13 Scared −.02 −.14 .01 −.02 −.21** −.19* −.02 .36** .02 .48** .03 .56** –
X14 Hostile .37** .06 .53** .02 .50** .43*

62
−.08 −.25** −.04 −.07 −.31** −.25** −.10 –
X15 Enthusiastic .09 −.04 −.01 .02 .34** .34** .35** −.11 .56** −.06 .40** −.09 −.04 −.02 –
X16 Proud −.03 .08 .05 −.01 .16* .28** .29** −.08 .39* −.06 .45** −.06 .03 −.09 .43** –
X17 Irritable .11 −.20* −.12 −.06 −.37** −.22** −.24** .43** .08 .48** −.05 .32** .38** .52** .01 −.09 –
X18 Alert −.00 .02 .05 −.03 .13 .10 .21** .08 .33** .07 .33** −.12 −.03 .07 .34** .35** .06 –
X19 Ashamed −.13 .07 .02 −.04 −.25 −.29 −.03 .38** .05 .39** .02 .54** .50** .39** −.09 −.05 .35** −.05 –
X20 Inspired −.07 .03 .11 .11 .06 .16 .30** .02 .28** .01 .43** .05 .09 −.09 .36** .39** −.02 .26** .03 –
X21 Nervous −.02 .02 .11 .06 −.10 −.24** .13 .41** .03 .55** .03 .39** .57** .26** .00 .07 .29** .12 .35** .23** –
X22 Determined −.03 .07 .10 .10 .21** .14 .40** −.03 .24** .00 .39** −.05 −.03 −.10 .40** .42** −.04 .46** −.09 .41** .18 –
X23 Attentive .06 .09 .09 .05 .31** .15 .43** −.10 .25** −.07 .32** −.11 .02 −.14 .44** .31** −.12 .46** −.13 .43** .20* .51** –
X24 Jittery .14 .06 .03 −.01 −.09 −.14 −.10 .38** .08 .39** −.06 .26** .36** .27** −.05 .00 .49** .13 .30** .02 .44** .05 .01 –
X25 Active .05 .06 −.04 .01 .10 .09 .12 .01 .26** .04 .29** −.01 .03 .02 .42** .23** .10 .34** .14 .38** .08 .36** .43 .19* –
X26 Afraid .02 −.11 −.04 −.06 −.12 −.24** .04 .35** .07 .49** .00 .45** .73 .35** −.01 −.01 .37** −.03 .39** .10 .60** −.01 .06 .35** .01 –
X27 Optimism .03 −.10 .03 .03 −.54** −.34** −.33** .23** −.23** .24** −.19* .18* .22** .32** −.36** −.27** .32** −.16* .14 −.26** .11 −.22** −.34** .16* −.20* .18* –
X28 Pessimism .07 .08 −.11 −.06 .33** .22** .21** −.14 .18* −.25** .15 −.06 −.17* −.26** .20* .12 −.19* .07 −.19* .12 −.08 .11 .22** −.15 .04 −.10 −.48** –
Dependent
Creative Personality .25** .14 .15 −.11 .28** .14 .28** −.01 .16* −.22** .22** .04 −.18 −.11 .16* .20* −.19* .06 .08 .14 −.18* .20* .05 −.10 .08 −.18* −.33** .28**

Note: *indicates significance at 5 percent level, **indicates significance at the 1 percent level Overall n = 161.
 Creativity as an Attribute of Positive Psychology 63

TABLE 3 Results of Final Linear Regression Analysis for Creative Personality

for College Students

Analysis of variance

SS df MS F p

Regression 932.40 28 33.30 5.26 .000

Residual 784.54 124 6.33
Analysis of coefficients

Variable b SE β t p
Gender −1.243 .46 −.183 −2.71 .008
Class Rank 1.057 .32 .242 3.34 .001
Age −.108 .04 −.180 −2.45 .016
Usual Happiness .545 .20 .253 2.75 .007
Interested .881 .25 .273 3.51 .001
Distressed .503 .25 .167 2.05 .042
Strong .523 .25 .176 2.06 .042
Guilty .954 .30 .295 3.22 .002
Scared −.626 .31 −.213 −2.04 .043
Nervous −.923 .27 −.343 −3.40 .001
Attentive −.744 .29 −.244 −2.56 .012
LOT-R:
Pessimism .244 .10 .182 2.48 .014

the same model-building variables. The overall fit of the final model was
found to be statistically significant (R2 = .543; F = 5.26, p =.000). Significant
creative personality characteristics are further explored in Table 3.

DISCUSSION

Our findings indicate that both positive and negative affect contribute to
creative personality characteristics. Human beings experience a wide range
of emotions. Although some negative emotions detract from creativity, oth-
ers can actually contribute to creativity. For example, two negative mood
states (scared and nervous) decreased participants’ creativity scores. These
findings supports the literature (Amabile et al., 2005; Clapham, 2000, 2001)
that anxiety can detract from creativity. However, it is interesting to note
that those who reported feeling distressed and guilty demonstrated more
creative personality characteristics. Likewise, pessimism enhanced creativity
but optimism did not have a significant effect. These findings were contrary
to our initial hypothesis that optimism would enhance creativity. We can
speculate that these findings could be explained by brain mechanisms.
Perhaps pessimism, distress, and guilt may be localized by activity in the
right hemisphere, because negative emotions and creativity co-occur in the
right hemisphere. Perhaps some negative emotions influence creativity
64 C. Charyton et al.

whereas nervousness impedes creativity. Furthermore, heightened anxiety,

fear, or nervousness may be detrimental to creativity.
Positive emotions such as a self-perception of being strong, reporting
feeling usually happy, and feeling interested were found to predict higher
levels of creativity. Furthermore, we speculate that if individuals feel strong,
they may exhibit self-confidence, which has been shown to be a character-
istic of creative individuals (Amabile, 1994; Feist, 1999). We also found that
interest increased creativity, which is similar to research indicating that persons
being interested in a task demonstrated more creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990;
Isen & Reeve, 2005; Karwoski et al., 2006). Additionally, it is important to
note that positive affect did not significantly impede creativity—interest,
strength, and usual happiness all contributed to creativity.
Demographic variables were also found to predict creativity in this
study. Gender, age, and class level affected creativity. Contrary to other
studies (Charyton, Basham, & Elliott, 2008; Charyton & Snelbecker, 2007),
males tended to display higher creative personality characteristics. Younger
students and students with higher class levels significantly demonstrated
more creative personality. It is possible that age and class level are some-
what related; however, there was a contrast between age and class level in
our findings.

Limitations
Several limitations influence the scope of this study. Because this study used
correlational and regression models, our results describe relationships and
potential predictors of creativity. These results do not explore causal factors
of creative personalities or attributes of creative individuals. Furthermore,
the study sample was a convenience sample of college students. Care
should be taken to apply these findings to other settings or populations.

Conclusions
Our findings suggest that both positive and negative affect can predict a cre-
ative personality. Contrary to literature emphasizing positive affect (Amabile
et al., 2005; Isen & Reeve, 2005), characteristics of positive affect and nega-
tive affect were related to increased scores on creativity measures. However,
negative affect tended to contribute and detract from creativity whereas
positive affect was related to neutral or increased creativity. Ludwig (1989)
and Rothenberg (2001) suggested that persons can cope adaptively through
creativity. However, our findings suggest that the college population may
adapt to negative emotional states through creative personality characteristics.
Participants who reported feeling usually happy and having high levels of
interest in activities also scored significantly higher on creativity measures.
Those reporting nervousness described themselves with fewer creative
 Creativity as an Attribute of Positive Psychology 65

personality characteristics. The results of this study show that the range of
positive affect and negative affect states on creativity is complex. Further
research is needed to investigate affective states and brain mechanisms as
they relate to creativity. Just as the influence of positive and negative emo-
tions on creativity are complex, brain mechanisms for creativity are more
multifaceted than dichotomous emotions or hemispheric localization.
Creativity offers a tool for individuals to cope and adjust to positive and
negative emotions experienced in everyday life.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1994). The “atmosphere of pure work”: Creativity in research and

development. In W. R. Shadish & S. Fuller (Eds.), The social psychology of
science (pp. 316–328). New York: Guilford Press.
Amabile, T., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity
at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.
Ben-Artzi, E., & Mikulincer, M. (1996). Lay theories of emotion: Four reactions to
negative and positive emotional episodes. Imagination, cognition and person-
ality, 16, 89–113.
Charyton, C., Basham, K. M., & Elliott, J. O. (2008). Examining gender with general
creativity and preferences for creative persons in college students within the
sciences and the arts. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 216–222.
Charyton, C., & Snelbecker, G. E. (2007). General, artistic, and scientific creativity attributes
of engineering and music students. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 213–225.
Clapham, M. (2000, 2001). The effects of affect manipulation and information expo-
sure on divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 3 & 4, 335–350.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper Collins.
Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273–296). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.
Guastello, S. J., Guastello, D. D., & Hanson, C. A. (2004). Creativity, mood disor-
ders, and emotional intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 260–277.
Isen, A., & Reeve, J. (2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrin-
sic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and
self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 297–325.
Jamison, K. (1995). Manic-depressive illness and creativity. Scientific American,
272, 62–67.
Ludwig, A. M. (1989). Reflections on creativity and madness. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 43, 4–14.
Karwoski, L., Garratt, G. M., & Ilardi, S. S. (2006). On the integration of cognitive-
behavioral therapy for depression and positive psychology. Journal of Cogni-
tive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 20, 159–167.
66 C. Charyton et al.

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Synder &
S. J. Lopez (Eds.) Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contex-
tual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Greater strengths of and recov-
ery from illness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 17–26.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of
human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rothenberg, A. (2001). Bipolar illness, creativity, and treatment. Psychiatric Quar-
terly, 72, 131–147.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, S. C., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism
from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevalu-
ation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67, 1063–1078.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.