Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

Personality and Creativity: The Dual Pathway to CreativityModel and a Research Agenda

Matthijs Baas1*, Marieke Roskes2, Daniel Sligte1, Bernard A. Nijstad3

and Carsten K. W. De Dreu11University of Amsterdam2Ben Gurion University of the Negev3University of Groningen

AbstractTo better understand the relation between personality traits and creativity, we invoke theDual-Pathway to Creativity model (DPCM) that identifies two pathways to creative outcomes: (1)flexible processing of information (cognitive flexibility) and (2) persistent probing, and systematicallyand incrementally combining elements and possibilities (cognitive persistence). DPCM furtherproposes that dispositional or situational variables may influence creativity through either their effectson flexibility or persistence. Here, we propose the idea that approach-related traits (e.g., openness toexperience, extraversion, positive affectivity, and power-motivation) may lead to greater creativitybecause they link to enhanced cognitive flexibility, whereas avoidance-related traits (e.g., negativeaffectivity and neuroticism) under the right circumstances may lead to greater creativity because theylink to enhanced cognitive persistence. Empirical support for this proposition is discussed, and aresearch agenda for future work on personality and creativity is set.

Introduction

The scientific investigation of creativity has resulted in a long list of personality traits and in-dividual differences that relate to creativity (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Feist, 1998;MacKinnon, 1965), with creativity being broadly defined as the production of ideas, insights,or products that are both novel and appropriate (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Sternberg & Lubart,1999). For example, extraverts are more creative than introverts (Furnham & Bachtiar,2008; McCrae, 1987), people scoring high on openness to experience and trait positive affec-tivity are more creative than those scoring low (Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008; Feist, 1998;McCrae, 1987), and individual differences in intelligence and working memory capacity arepositively related to creativity (De Dreu et al., 2012; Oberauer et al., 2008; Silvia, 2008). Thisnotwithstanding, these studies on the traits typical of the creative person largely leave unan-sweredwhat the underlying processes are:When and why do personality factors drive or dimin-ish creative performance? Answering this question is important because a good understanding ofthe mechanisms through which personality affects creative performance may reveal the natureand development of creativity, and allows us to shape the ideal circumstances for people toachieve creative outcomes.Here, we present the Dual-Pathway to Creativity Model (DPCM; also Baas et al., 2008;

De Dreu et al., 2008; Nijstad et al., 2010) that was developed to explain how personalitytraits and situational states may have their effects on creativity. The model assumes that thereare two pathways to creative outcomes, the flexibility pathway and the persistence pathway,and that psychological traits and states influence creativity through their impact on eitherof these pathways. Nijstad et al. (2010) reviewed empirical studies linking psychological

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Person, Process, and Creativity 733

states, such as moods and information processing styles, to creativity through their influenceon flexible processing or persistent thinking. Here, we invoke DPCM to better understandthe relation between personality traits and creativity. First, we explain our model in moredetail and discuss how creativity tasks (e.g., ideation tasks and insights tasks) may be usedto test it. Then we link several personality traits and individual differences that have beenrelated to creativity in earlier research to DPCM. We propose that extraversion, opennessto experience, power-motivation, and positive affectivity are all associated with the approachsystem, which has been meaningfully linked to cognitive flexibility. Alternatively, negativeaffectivity and neuroticism are associated with the avoidance system, which has beenmeaningfully linked to structured and persistent processing. We then survey the empiricalsupport for this proposition. Where possible, we discuss research on trait-related differencesin creativity, flexibility, and persistence, but when this research is unavailable, we invokerelevant work on related psychological states. We end with a research agenda for future workon personality and creativity.

Dual Pathway to Creativity Model

To understand and explain trait and state-based variations in creativity, DPCM identifies twopathways to creative outcomes (Baas et al., 2008; De Dreu et al., 2008; Nijstad et al., 2010).Figure 1 shows that in DPCM we identify three creativity outcome variables: originality,fluency, and insight performance. Outcomes (e.g., ideas, solutions, drawings, and musicalimprovisations) are original when they are infrequent or uncommon (Amabile, 1996;Guilford, 1967). Fluency refers to the number of unique ideas, products, and solutions thatan individual generates (e.g., Torrance, 1966). Originality and fluency are often studied withideation tasks – open-ended assessments of an individual's ability to generate multiplealternative solutions (Mumford, 2001). For example, participants are asked to generate asmany possible uses for a brick, and independent coders count the number of non-redundantideas as a measure of fluency and rate these ideas for originality (i.e., the extent to which anidea is unusual and novel; e.g., Guilford, 1967; Torrance, 1966). Insight performance, finally,refers to solving problems that have only one correct but not immediately apparent solutionand thus require the individual to approach the problem from different and unexpectedangles to “see” the correct solution (Schooler & Melcher, 1995).

Figure 1. Trait-related differences in the dual pathway to creativity model.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

734 Person, Process, and Creativity

Originality, fluency, and insight performance may be correlated (as in the adage that“quantity breeds quality”, Osborn, 1953; see also Simonton, 1997), but they need not to be– for example, someone may solve a relatively large number of insight problems, with thesolutions themselves not being particularly original (Förster et al., 2004). Moreover,according to DPCM, creative outcomes (originality, fluency, and insights) can be achievedthrough different cognitive processes: flexibility or persistence. Cognitive flexibility isdefined as the ease with which people can switch to a different approach or consider adifferent perspective. It involves the use of broad and inclusive cognitive categories (Eysenck,1993; Mednick, 1962), holistic (as opposed to detailed) processing of information (Förster,2009), and the adaptive switching among categories, approaches, and sets (Ashby et al.,1999; Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006). For example, when generating possible uses for a brick, aperson is considered more flexible when generating responses in many different conceptualcategories (e.g., use a brick not only to build something but also as a weapon, a weight, ora musical instrument). Flexibility leads to many and original responses because it facilitatesaccessibility of remote knowledge and finding new connections among ideas (Friedman &Förster, 2010), and consideration of many categories also leads to the generation of ideasin categories that are not habitually considered (Nijstad et al., 2010; Paulus & Brown, 2007).Alternatively, creativity can be achieved through cognitive persistence, the extent to

which the individual invests cognitive resources and systematically focuses attention andeffort on the task at hand (e.g., Nijstad et al., 2010). Solving problems and generating novelideas can be achieved through prolonged and motivated effort (Eisenberger & Rhoades,2001; Fodor & Carver, 2000), and systematic exploration of problem space and incrementalsearch processes (Newell & Simon, 1972). Persistence is reflected in the generation of manyideas within a few categories (i.e., high within-category fluency; Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006)and with longer time-on-task (De Dreu et al., 2008) and captures the notion that creativitycan also result from systematic examination of possible solutions and in depth survey of only afew categories or perspectives (Nijstad et al., 2010; Rietzschel et al., 2007). For example,when generating possible uses for a brick, through persistence, individuals systematicallyexplore an existing category (e.g., a brick to build something) by retrieving knowledge about“bricks” and “building” from memory and by combining and adding features they come upwith several successive ideas within that category (e.g., a brick to build a wall, a house, and apalace for their fish). Critically, the relationship between within-category fluency andoriginality of ideas depends on time-on-task (staying longer within a category): Only afterunoriginal ideas have been generated will more original ideas within that category beexamined (Nijstad et al., 2010).DPCM finally proposes that any trait or state that stimulates flexibility and/or persistence

will increase creativity. However, some traits and states may affect creativity primarilythrough their influence on cognitive flexibility, while others affect creativity primarilythrough their influence on cognitive persistence. It is also possible that states or traitsnegatively relate to one pathway (e.g., flexibility) but positively to the other (e.g., persistence).In the next sections, we discuss recent work linking personality traits and individual differencesto creativity through persistence and flexibility.

Personality, approach, avoidance, and the dual pathway to creativity model

Converging evidence suggests a close relation between personality, affect, and motivation(Carver et al., 2000; Depue & Collins, 1999; Gray, 1990; Read et al., 2010; Watson et al.,1999). Some traits and affective states are closely linked to the motivational system that is

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

Person, Process, and Creativity 735

grounded in dopamine pathways in the brain (Ashby et al., 1999; Depue & Collins, 1999)and deals with appetitive motivation and approach behavior toward rewarding stimuli(Carver et al., 2000). For example, extraverts, usually described as sociable, fun-loving,assertive, socially dominant, and affectionate (Depue & Collins, 1999; McCrae, 1987), showstronger reactions to rewarding stimuli (Robinson et al., 2010) and increased pleasure oncethey obtain rewarding stimuli (Lucas & Diener, 2001). Likewise, people experiencehappiness and joy in response to the attainment of desired goals (Carver et al., 2000; Idsonet al., 2000). Indeed, individual differences in positive affectivity (PA), the extent to whichpeople experience activating positive emotions (happiness, joy), have been linked to theapproach system (Thrash et al., 2010;Watson et al., 1999) and to the release of the neurotransmit-ter dopamine in the brain (Ashby et al., 1999). Unsurprisingly, factor analyses point to approachmotivation as the underlying factor for both extraversion and PA (Elliot & Thrash, 2002).Other traits and affective states are closely linked to the motivational system that deals with

withdrawal motivation and avoidance behavior away from aversive stimuli (Carver et al.,2000). For example, people who score high on neuroticism show stronger reactions tonegative stimuli and are disposed toward negative cognitions (Reed & Derryberry, 1995),score high on avoidance temperament (De Fruyt et al., 2000), and experience emotions thathave been linked to the avoidance system (Eysenck, 1994). Likewise, people experienceanxiety and tension when dealing with threatening situations and relief in response tosuccessful regulation of aversive goals (Baas et al., 2011; Carver et al., 2000; Idson et al., 2000).Indeed, individual differences in negative affectivity (NA), the extent to which people experienceactivating negative emotions (anxiety, tension, and worries), have been linked to the avoidancesystem (Watson et al., 1999). Factor analyses corroborated these findings, revealing avoidancemotivation as the underlying factor for both neuroticism and NA (Elliot & Thrash, 2002).Although previous work has mainly focused on extraversion and PA as traits originating

from the approach system, and on neuroticism and NA as traits originating from theavoidance system, it stands to reason that other traits may also link to either approach oravoidance. For example, power-motivation is the need to exert influence on others and toexperience recognition for these power-oriented activities (Fodor & Carver, 2000). Powerfulpeople show more approach behavior (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Keltner et al., 2003), andthe need for dominance has been associated with approach (Depue & Collins, 1999).Furthermore, openness to experience is characterized by a preference for novelty, variety,exploration, and intense experience (McCrae, 1987). Preferences for novelty and exploratorybehavior are linked to the approach system (Frank et al., 2009) and high positive affect(Fredrickson, 2001); moreover, recent work shows strong correlations between openness toexperience, extraversion, and approach motivation (De Fruyt et al., 2000; Thrash & Elliot, 2004)and that people who score high on openness to experience are more engaged in tasks for whichpositive and aspired goals are set (Vaughn et al., 2008). In conclusion, like extraversion and PA,power motivation and openness to experience may be strongly related to the approach system.Below, we discuss research showing that approach has been linked to cognitive flexibility

and avoidance to persistence. Our core thesis thus is that approach-related traits associate withcreativity mainly because of increased cognitive flexibility and that avoidance-related traitsassociate with creativity mainly through increased cognitive persistence.

Approach, flexibility, and creativity

Approach states engender a broad attentional scope – a tendency to perceive holistic rather thandetailed structures, along with a focus on general rather than specific features (Förster, 2009).

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

736 Person, Process, and Creativity

Moreover, they facilitate access to semantic concepts with lower a priori accessibility(Derryberry & Tucker, 1994; Friedman & Förster, 2005). Because creative insight andideation benefit from restructuring of problem information and access to remotely associatedsemantic material (Martindale, 1995; Mednick, 1962; S. M. Smith & Blankenship, 1991), itwould benefit from a broader scope of attention (Förster et al., 2004; Rowe et al., 2007).Indeed, holistic processing stimulates cognitive flexibility and creativity (Förster et al., 2004),and greater originality and better insight performance associate with performing approachbehavior (Friedman & Förster, 2000) and pursuing positive goals (Baas et al., 2011; Friedman& Förster, 2002; Roskes et al., 2012) and emerges in individuals who are more strongly focusedon positive and aspired goals (Friedman & Förster, 2001). Finally, activation of thedopaminergic brain circuitry that is supposed to ground the approach system associates withenhanced flexibility and creativity (Ashby et al., 1999; Chermahini & Hommel, 2010;Dreisbach &Goschke, 2004; Flaherty, 2005). These findings are all consistent with the idea thatapproach orientation leads to enhanced creativity through cognitive flexibility.De Dreu et al. (2011) recently tested the idea that the approach system is associated with

creativity mainly through flexible processing. The approach system corresponds to thebehavioral activation system (BAS), which is activated by reward and produces positive activatingemotions (Gray, 1990; Read et al., 2010). Thus, individual differences in behavioral activation –the chronic tendency to engage in goal-directed efforts and to experience positive feelings whenbeing exposed to cues of impending reward (Carver & White, 1994; Elliot & Thrash, 2002;Gray, 1990) – may constitute a viable driver of flexible processing and creativity.De Dreu et al. (2011) tested this prediction using the logic of moderation-of-process

designs (Spencer et al., 2005)1 in which factors known to facilitate or inhibit flexibleprocessing were manipulated and flexible processing was measured. For example, inExperiment 4, behavioral activation was assessed with the BAS scale (Carver & White,1994). Participants then engaged in an ideation task about either a broad and encompassingtopic (improving education at the university) or a narrow topic (improving classroomteaching at the university, which is a subtopic of improving education). Ideas were ratedfor originality2 and coded into conceptual categories to obtain flexibility (i.e., number ofcategories explored). De Dreu et al. (2011) predicted an interaction effect among individualdifferences in behavioral activation and processing mode on creativity, such that when abroad problem is presented, stronger behavioral activation would promote flexible thinkingand originality; however, this association between behavioral activation and creativitywould not be observed when situational factors make flexible processing less likely orimpossible (i.e., when the problem is narrowly defined).Results showed the predicted behavioral activation× topic breadth interaction. In the broad

topic condition, stronger behavioral activation positively related to originality; in the narrowtopic condition, behavioral activation was negatively but non-significantly related to originality.The same interaction was observed with flexibility as the criterion. Finally, the effect onoriginality was mediated by flexibility: high BAS people were more original in the broad topiccondition because they were more flexible than low BAS people. Thus, behavioral activationpromotes originality because of increased cognitive flexibility, but only on tasks or taskstructures that capitalize on cognitive flexibility (in the broad topic condition).

Avoidance, persistence, and creativity

Avoidance states engender a narrow attentional scope and a focus upon local perceptualdetails (Derryberry & Tucker, 1994; Förster et al., 2004), leading to a lowered ability to shift

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

Person, Process, and Creativity 737

attention (Derryberry & Reed, 1998), consideration of a few perspectives and categories(De Dreu et al., 2008), and reduced cognitive flexibility (e.g., Baas et al., 2008; Carnevale& Probst, 1998). At the same time, because avoidance motivation is usually triggered inthreatening and unpredictable situations, avoidance oriented individuals are vigilant andexperience a strong impulse to improve the situation and a high need to structure andunderstand their situation (Baas et al., 2012; Friedman & Förster, 2010). In turn,avoidance states associate with the use of a more constrained, systematic, and analyticalprocessing mode (De Dreu et al., 2008; Friedman & Förster, 2010), with persistence incognitive activities (e.g., Derryberry & Reed, 1998), and with recruitment of executivecontrol (Koch et al., 2008).Higher need for structure (Rietzschel et al., 2007), enhanced executive control (De Dreu

et al., 2012; Oberauer et al., 2008), and consideration of only a few rather than manyperspectives (Baas et al., 2012; Rietzschel et al., 2007) all lead to persistent, systematic, andstructured ideation. From this, it follows that avoidance motivation promotes cognitivepersistence (Roskes et al., 2012), which, in turn, may enhance creativity. Althoughapparently a strong possibility, this prediction would be inconsistent with work showing thatavoidance relative to approach states and traits sometimes associate with reducedperseverance (Day et al., 2003), cognitive performance in general (Carver et al., 1983;Eysenck et al., 2007, but see Barker et al., 2002; Friedman & Förster, 2000), and creativityin particular (Friedman & Förster, 2000, 2002, 2005). Accordingly, while some may arguefor linear and negative relationships between avoidance orientation and creativeperformance, we surmise that the relations among avoidance, persistence and creativeoutcomes depend on a narrow set of critical moderators. As we argue below and is shownin Figure 1, these include time-on-task, task engagement, and working memory capacity.First, the relation between avoidance, persistence, and creative outcomes may depend on

time-on-task. According to DPCM only after unoriginal ideas have been generated within aparticular category will more original ideas be examined (Nijstad et al., 2010). Indeed, inexperiments in which participants received relatively little time for idea generation (1min),avoidance motivation was associated with reduced creativity (cf. Friedman & Förster,2000, 2002), whereas in experiments in which participants received ample time for ideageneration (4–16min), avoidance motivation was associated with enhanced creativity(Baas et al., 2011; Roskes et al., 2012).Second, persistence is relatively effortful and requires the individual to remain engaged in

the task (Baas et al., 2011; Eysenck et al., 2007; Oertig et al., ; Roskes et al., 2012). Ingeneral, people are reluctant to spend (cognitive) effort unless the benefits of expending thiseffort outweigh the costs (Tooby & Cosmides, 1990), and it follows that avoidancemotivated people would only engage in this kind of effortful cognitive processing if thisenables them to attain valuable outcomes. Indeed, recent work shows that compared topeople focusing on positive goals (i.e., approach motivation), those focusing on negativegoals (i.e., avoidance motivation) can be as creative, but their performance is more effortfuland depleting and happens only when creative performance helps achieving important goals(De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008; Roskes et al., 2012).Third, and in part because persistence requires more effortful and bottom-up structuring

and computation (Finke, 1996; Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006), persistence both requires and taxesworking memory capacity (WMC; De Dreu et al., 2012; Unsworth et al., 2011), the systemresponsible for holding information available in an active state for complex cognitiveactivities (Barrett et al., 2004; Cowan, 2001)3. An implication is that WMC and availabilityof cognitive resources influence the creative performance of individuals with avoidanceorientation more than those with approach orientation. Roskes et al. (2012) tested this

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

738 Person, Process, and Creativity

hypothesis. In their article, people had to solve 10 items of the Remote Associates Test(RAT, Mednick, 1962) in which participants are provided with three words (e.g., envy, golf,and beans) and are instructed to generate a word that relates to all of these three words(i.e., green). To come up with the correct solution, participants need to identify potentiallycorrespondent attributes and relations associated with the three provided words. While doingthis task, people had to memorize two (low cognitive load) or five (high cognitive load) digitnumbers. Whereas insight performance of approach motivated individuals only marginallydeclined when working under high load, performance of avoidance motivated individualsdropped dramatically (Roskes et al., 2012). It thus seems to be the case that working memorycapacity and availability of cognitive resources have a greater impact on the creativeperformance of avoidance motivated individuals than approach motivated individuals(also see Eysenck et al., 2007). Thus, avoidance leads to creativity through persistence,but only for those people that have high working memory capacity.In conclusion (also see Figure 1), because of the strong link between approach and

flexibility, we predict that approach-related traits and states promote creativity primarilybecause of enhanced cognitive flexibility. Furthermore, because of the strong link betweenavoidance and systematic and persistent processing, we predict that avoidance-related traitsand states promote creativity primarily because of enhanced cognitive persistence. However,the latter relation is only expected given enough time-on-task, when individuals areactivated and engaged in the creativity task, and for individuals with sufficient workingmemory capacity.

Traits Associated with Approach in the Flexibility Pathway

Positive affectivity

Positive affectivity (PA) relates positively to measures of flexibility, originality, fluency, andinsight performance (Ashby et al., 1999; Baas et al., 2008). Moreover, work on the relationbetween induced positive mood and creativity shows that positive activating moods (e.g.,happiness and elation) engender a perceptual focus on global form as opposed to local details(Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Gasper & Clore, 2002), the use of broad and inclusivecategories (Isen, 1999), and the consideration of relatively many semantic categories duringidea generation (Murray et al., 1990). To test whether positive activating moods enhancecreativity through cognitive flexibility, De Dreu et al. (2008; Study 4) measured specificpositive mood states by asking participants to rate their current mood. Hereafter, participantsengaged in an 8min brainstorming task on the education topic. Ideas were reliably coded forfluency (number of non-redundant ideas), originality, flexibility (number of surveyedconceptual categories), and persistence (within-category fluency). Results showed positiveactivating moods significantly and positively predicted flexibility, fluency, and originalitybut were not related to persistence. Moreover, flexibility mediated the effects of positiveactivating moods on originality and fluency. This is consistent with the prediction thatapproach-related traits and states lead to original ideation through the consideration of manyconceptual categories (i.e., flexibility).

Power, holistic processing, and creativity

People with a chronic power motive and those with a high need for dominance over othershave been shown to be more creative (Feist, 1998), especially when they are provided withpositive performance feedback (i.e., under benign circumstances when the approach system is

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

Person, Process, and Creativity 739

engaged; Fodor & Carver, 2000). That power relates to creativity mainly through flexibilityof thought follows from work on state power – real or perceived control over other people(Galinsky et al., 2008). As power liberates one from the influence of others, having powerbears a strong relationship with attentional flexibility (Guinote, 2007) and a holistic asopposed to a narrow attentional focus (Smith & Trope, 2006). Consequently, research shows thatpowerful people are more creative than their less powerful counterparts (Galinsky et al., 2008)with flexibility driving this effect (Sligte et al., 2011).

Extraversion and openness to experience

Extraversion and openness to experience are positively related to a variety of creativityoutcomes (Feist, 1998; Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001), especially oncreativity tasks that tap divergent thinking (King et al., 1996; McCrae, 1987). This suggeststhat extraversion and openness to experience are associated with the flexibility pathway.Further evidence comes from research showing that extraversion and openness to experienceare associated with the use of flat associative hierarchies (Martindale, 1995) and with alowered ability to filter out from current attentional focus those stimuli previouslyexperienced as irrelevant (Peterson et al., 2002). As a result, more seemingly irrelevant stimuliare allowed to enter working memory, which in turn increases the availability and diversityof elements to work with during a creativity task, leading to more flexibility and originalresponses (e.g., Carson et al., 2003; Eysenck, 1993). Although this evidence suggests thatthe approach-related Big 5 traits extraversion and openness to experience are linked tocreativity through enhanced cognitive flexibility, future work may link scores on these traitsdirectly to DPCM to gain more conclusive evidence for flexibility as the mediator.

Traits Linked to Avoidance in the Persistence Pathway

While extraversion, openness to experience, PA, and power-motivation are associated withthe approach system, which leads to creativity through flexible processing, other traits may bemore strongly related to the persistence pathway. In this section, we discuss work on the linkbetween the avoidance-related traits NA and neuroticism, and creativity.

Negative affectivity

Negative affectivity (NA) relates negatively to measures of flexibility (Baas et al., 2008;Mikulincer et al., 1990) but positively to systematic and constrained information processing(e.g., Ambady & Gray, 2002; Schwarz & Clore, 2007). Activating negative moods also seemto engender a perceptual focus on local details as opposed to holistic forms (Derryberry &Tucker, 1994; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005) and persistence in cognitive activities (e.g.,Derryberry & Reed, 1998; Strauss et al., 1981). For example, De Dreu et al. (2008; Study3) induced, through self-generated imagery, negative activating moods (fearful and anxious)and negative de-activating moods (depressed and sad) and measured participants' creativeinsight performance. Consistent with the idea that persistence requires the individual to beactivated and engaged in the task, result showed better insight performance for activatingnegative moods than for de-activating negative moods. Further, because persistence requirestime, it was expected that participants in activating negative moods (as compared to all otherconditions) would be relatively slow in finding solutions but that for them time-on-taskwould positively relate to insight performance. Supporting DPCM, among activatingnegative moods, longer time-on-task associated with more correct responses. Together with

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

740 Person, Process, and Creativity

other findings showing that creativity-enhancing effects of negative activating moods ondivergent thinking tasks are mediated by within-category fluency (i.e., reflecting persistence;Study 4), the findings of De Dreu et al. (2008) fit the idea that avoidance related affectpromotes creativity through persistence well.As discussed earlier, avoidance-related traits and states are expected to promote creativity

through persistence but only when enough time for task completion is given, whenindividuals are engaged in the task at hand, and when enough cognitive resources areavailable. Unsurprisingly, the relation between NA and trait anxiety on the one hand, andcreativity on the other, shows inconsistent findings. Sometimes, NA and anxiety areassociated with reduced creativity (Byron & Khazanchi, 2010) and sometimes with enhancedcreativity (Carlsson et al., 2000; Madjar & Oldham, 2002), and sometimes no effects areobtained (George & Zhou, 2002). A fruitful avenue for future research is to link scores onNA directly to DPCM to gain more conclusive evidence for persistence as the mediatorand to test the three predictions that NA relates positively to creativity especially for peoplethat score high onWMC (see Roskes et al., 2012), which are highly engaged in the creativitytask by linking valuable outcomes to creative performance (see Roskes et al., 2012) andwhich are given enough time for task completion.

Neuroticism

Because the relation between avoidance and creativity depends on some moderator variables,it is unsurprising that the link between neuroticism and creativity is likewise plagued withinconsistent findings. Sometimes, positive correlations are obtained (Götz & Götz, 1979;Kaufman, 2001), sometimes negative correlations (Batey et al., 2010), and sometimes null-findings (McCrae, 1987). With regard to indicators of persistence, people high in neuroticismshow facilitated processing of local targets (Derryberry & Reed, 1998). Moreover, especiallyamong people that score high on neuroticism, better performance is obtained for those thatare highly engaged in the task (Smillie et al., 2006) and those with high cognitive abilities(Perkins & Corr, 2005). Although speculative at best, these findings suggest that under theright conditions, neuroticism may positively relate to creativity. As was the case for NA,future research is needed to explore similar conditions under which neuroticism positivelyrelates to creativity and to link scores on neuroticism directly to DPCM to gain evidencefor persistence as the mediator.

General Discussion

The Dual-Pathway to Creativity model proposes that creative outcomes are a function ofcognitive flexibility or cognitive persistence. More importantly, it argues that some traits orstates influence creativity because of their association with cognitive flexibility, while otherstates or traits influence creativity because they are associated with cognitive persistence. Ina number of studies, using different approaches, we have explored traits that lead to creativitythrough their impact on either of these pathways. From these studies, (1) it can be concludedthat consideration of relatively many conceptual categories (flexibility) and systematicexploration of relatively few conceptual categories and longer time-on-task (persistence)can both lead to original ideas, and (2) research findings suggest that traits associated withthe approach system (openness to experience, extraversion, PA, and power-motivation)may lead to greater creativity because they link to enhanced cognitive flexibility, whereastraits associated with the avoidance system (NA and neuroticism) under the rightcircumstances may lead to greater creativity because they link to enhanced cognitive persistence.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

Person, Process, and Creativity 741

DPCM thus provides a useful framework to understand when and why personality traits drivecreative performance. In this final section, we will discuss some boundary conditions of themodel, followed by future directions for research on personality and creativity, the applicabilityof the model to other variables, and some practical implications.

Boundaries of the model

Although the model may help to explain why and how certain traits relate to creativeideation, it cannot fully explain differences in the strength of the relationship between thosetraits and creativity. Creative ideas build on existing knowledge and rely on the combinationof concepts that are retrieved from long-term memory (Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006; Paulus &Brown, 2007). DPCM applies to the nature of the combination process, which involvesswitching between and combining (features of) different semantic categories (i.e., cognitiveflexibility) or generating clusters of semantically related ideas within a few semantic categories(i.e., persistence). However, the creativity of ideas is determined not only by the processleading to those ideas but also by the very nature of the knowledge (e.g., its uncommonnessand appropriateness) that is retrieved from long-term memory (Amabile, 1996; Ericsson,1998). Although the latter is not accounted for by DPCM, it may explain differences inthe strength of the relation between certain approach- or avoidance-related traits andcreativity. For example, although the approach-related traits openness to experience andextraversion are both associated with enhanced creativity, the first has been found to be astronger predictor than the latter (Feist, 1998). Because openness to experience associateswith the active exploration and acquisition of new skills, knowledge, and diversifyingexperiences (Leung & Chiu, 2008; McCrae, 1994), it may very well be that people scoringhigh on openness to experience have a more diverse and atypical knowledge base to workwith during idea generation, thus explaining the particularly strong relation betweenopenness to experience and creativity. Additionally, some traits covary with other factors thatare conducive to creativity. For example, openness to experience is more strongly related tocognitive capacities than extraversion (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Day et al., 2003), andcognitive capacities are associated with enhanced creativity (De Dreu et al., 2012; Nusbaum& Silvia, 2011; Simonton, 1997). This may be another reason for the observed difference.Second, the model applies to situations in which individuals actively engage in the

generation of creative outcomes, such as ideas, insights, and drawings (Nijstad et al., 2010).However, generation of creative outcomes is but one stage in a broader process of innovationin which potential outcomes are evaluated and selected, pursued and modified to meetsituational constraints, and ultimately championed, realized, and implemented (Rietzschelet al., 2009). Although beyond the scope of DPCM, it would be interesting to see how traitsrelate to different stages following the generation of creative outcomes. For example,individuals scoring high on openness to experience generate ideas that are particularlycreative, whereas individuals with a strong approach temperament become particularly motivatedto pursue and follow up on creative ideas (Thrash et al., 2010). Likewise, people high inextraversion may be particularly good at championing ideas (Bateman & Crant, 1993).

Future directions

Throughout the article, we highlighted possible avenues for future research on thepersonality–creativity link. Although findings strongly suggest that the approach-related traitsextraversion, openness to experience, and power-motivation are linked to creativity through

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

742 Person, Process, and Creativity

enhanced cognitive flexibility, future work may link scores on these traits directly to DPCMto gain more conclusive evidence for flexibility as the mediator. Future research is alsoneeded to explore the conditions under which avoidance-related traits neuroticism andNA positively relate to creativity and to link scores on neuroticism and NA directly toDPCM to gain evidence for persistence as the mediator. Such new research may alsoendeavor to find support for our notion that approach and avoidance are crucial underlyingfactors in driving the effects personality traits have on creativity.Another important avenue for future research is to link other personality traits that

characterize creative people (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Feist, 1998; MacKinnon,1965) to either the approach system and flexible thinking or the avoidance systemand persistent and structured processing. For example, individual differences in howmuch self-confidence, autonomy, and intrinsic motivation people experience ineveryday life (e.g., Brown et al., 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986)may tap into the approach and avoidance systems and the accompanying cognitiveprocesses. Indeed, intrinsic motivation (experiencing enjoyment and interest in anactivity for its own) is associated with spontaneity, curiosity, and flexibility (Sternberg& Lubart, 1999) and thus stimulates creativity (Amabile, 1983). Extrinsic motivators,such as payment or evaluation-threat (Deci et al., 1999) and avoidance goals (Elliot &Harackiewicz, 1996), have been found to undermine intrinsic motivation, and in somecases creativity (Amabile, 1983; Hennessey & Amabile, 1998). However, extrinsicmotivators do not always undermine creativity, for example, when rewards are directlyrelated to the creativity of output (Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001). Future researchcould test the idea that, even though extrinsic motivation may diminish flexibleprocessing, it may instead under certain circumstances lead to creative productivitythrough persistent processing.Once we understand the cognitive processes that accompany certain traits, and which

processes are conducive to creativity under what conditions, we may infer how to shapethe ideal circumstances for creativity to come about. For example, once we understandthat extraversion is linked to flexibility of thought (McCrae, 1987), and that flexibleprocessing leads to creativity especially when such processing is enabled (De Dreuet al., 2011), we may infer that extraverts generate original ideas and insights especiallywhen they work on broad and encompassing problems. Likewise, once we realize thatfear and anxiety are linked to systematic and persistent thinking (De Dreu et al.,2008), and that persistence leads to creativity only when given enough time (Nijstadet al., 2010), we may infer that anxious people are able to achieve creative outcomeswhen enough time is given for task completion. Thus, by integrating scientific workon the processes that underlie creativity with work on trait-related differences increativity, one can help managers to shape the ideal work circumstances that arebeneficial to employee creativity and aid HRM to select people with the purpose ofenhancing organizational creativity.

Conclusion

Possible applications aside, the current review suggests that the relationship betweenpersonality processes and creative performance can be understood well in terms of afew basic propositions and insights. First, many personality processes can be meaningfullyrelated to approach versus avoidance systems at both the brain and behavioral level.Second, approach and avoidance systems can be meaningfully related to cognitive

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

Person, Process, and Creativity 743

flexibility and cognitive persistence respectively, which in turn drive creative cognitionand performance. As such, the merging of recent insights into the basics of personalityprocesses with on-going work on the psychology of creative performance provides fora fruitful and exciting outlook on new research into our understanding of the intricatelinks between personality and human creativity.

Acknowledgment

This work was facilitated by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for ScientificResearch (NWO-451-12-023) to Matthijs Baas.

Short Biographies

Matthijs Baas received his PhD in Psychology from the University of Amsterdam andcurrently is Assistant Professor of Organizational Psychology at the University ofAmsterdam. His research focuses on the affective, cognitive, and motivationalunderpinnings of creativity and decision making. His work has appeared in journals suchas Emotion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, Psychological Bulletin, and Science.Marieke Roskes is an Assistant Professor at Ben Gurion University of the Negev in the

Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management. She conducts research onmotivation, goals, and creativity. Her work has appeared in journals such as Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Emotion Review,and Psychological Science. Her current research focuses on how motivational andenvironmental constraints influence performance, and creative performance in particular.She teaches courses on creativity and innovation, and motivation. She has a BA inPsychology from Utrecht University, an MA in Social Psychology from the FreeUniversity of Amsterdam, and a PhD in Organizational Psychology from the Universityof Amsterdam.Daniel Sligte is a PhD candidate in Organizational Psychology at the University of

Amsterdam. He has published in journals such as Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Psychological Science. Upon finishing his PhD,he will become an entrepreneur in stress management and accommodate organizationsin keeping their employees healthy and wholesome.Bernard Nijstad received his PhD in Social Psychology from Utrecht University and

currently is a full professor of Organizational Behavior at the University of Groningen(The Netherlands). His research interests include (group) creativity and (team) innovation,behavioral decision making, and indecision. Recent publications focus on individual andteam-level creativity and on group decision deferral.Carsten K. W. De Dreu (PhD, 1993) is Professor of Psychology at the University of

Amsterdam, fellow of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, and former presidentof the European Association of Social Psychology. He trained over 25 PhD students and10 postdoctoral fellows, now working across Europe and beyond. With them, and others,he published over 150 research articles and 40 book chapters on the neurobiological, cog-nitive, and motivational underpinnings of human cooperation and conflict, group decisionmaking, and creative performance. Carsten De Dreu published several books, includingConflict and Conflict Management in Organizations (with Gelfand; Lawrence Erlbaum,2008/2012).

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

744 Person, Process, and Creativity

Endnotes* Correspondence: Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, TheNetherlands. Email: m.baas@uva.nl

1 In such designs, the proposed psychological mechanism is directly manipulated with a third variable (the moderator).In this particular case, enabling or disabling flexible processing with task structure (the proposed moderating variable)influences the relation between behavioral activation (the independent variable) and creativity (the dependent variable)through its effect on cognitive flexibility (the psychological mechanism). According to Spencer et al. (2005), thesedesigns provide strong causal support for a psychological process.2 Most of the work discussed here focused on originality of ideas. Although originality is considered the hallmark ofcreativity (Amabile, 1996; Guilford, 1967), for an idea to be considered creative, it should also be appropriate or feasible.In the research discussed here, appropriateness is captured by insight problem solving tasks for which the solutions mustfit the problem in order to be correct. Moreover, a recent meta-analysis of correlations among idea generation measuresshows that flexibility and persistence relate positively to idea originality, but they do not influence appropriateness ofideas (Nijstad et al., 2010). Thus, the positive effects of flexibility and persistence on originality do not seem to occurat the expense of appropriateness.3 That persistence requires and taxes WMC should not be seen as inconsistent with work showing a positive associationamong WMC and flexibility (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011; Troyer et al., 1997). In fact, these two lines of evidence suggestthat WMC is important to both persistence and flexibility.

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits.Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 45, 357–376.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to “The Social Psychology of Creativity”. Boulder, CO, US: Westview Press.Ambady, N., & Gray, H. M. (2002). On being sad and mistaken: Mood effects on the accuracy of thin-slice judgments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 947–961.

Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach andinhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377.

Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence oncognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529–550.

Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of research on mood and creativity:Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 739–756.

Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). When prevention promotes creativity: The role of mood,regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 794–809.

Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2012). Emotions that associate with uncertainty lead to structuredideation. Emotion, 12, 1004–1014.

Barker, K. L., McInerney, D. M., & Dowson, M. (2002). Performance approach, performance avoidance and depth ofinformation processing: A fresh look at relations between students' academic motivation and cognition. Journal ofExperimental Educational Psychology, 22, 571–589.

Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 553–573.

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.

Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Individual differences in ideational behaviour: Can the BigFive and psychometric intelligence predict creativity scores? Creativity Research Journal, 22, 90–97.

Brown, S. D., Tramayne, S., Hoxha, D., Telander, K., Fan, X., & Lent, R. W. (2008). Social cognitive predictors ofcollege students' academic performance and persistence: A meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior,72, 298–308.

Byron, K., & Khazanchi, S. (2010). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship of state and trait anxiety toperformance on figural and verbal creative tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 269–283.

Carlsson, I., Wendt, P. E., & Risberg, J. (2000). On the neurobiology of creativity: Differences in frontal activitybetween high and low creative subjects. Neuropsychologia, 38, 873–885.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

Person, Process, and Creativity 745

Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1300–1309.

Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creativeachievement in high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 499–506.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impendingreward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.

Carver, C. S., Peterson, L. M., Follansbee, D. J., & Scheier, M. F. (1983). Effects of self-directed attention onperformance and persistence among persons high and low in test anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 333–354.

Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging conceptualintegration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 741–751.

Chermahini, S. A., & Hommel, B. (2010). The (b)link between creativity and dopamine: Spontaneous eye blink ratespredict and dissociate divergent and convergent thinking. Cognition, 115, 458–465.

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. TheBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.

Day, E. A., Radosevich, D. J., & Chasteen, C. S. (2003). Construct- and criterion-related validity of four commonlyused goal orientation instruments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 434–464.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Mental set and creative thought in social conflict: Threat rigidity versusmotivated focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 648–661.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation in the mood–creativity link:Towards a Dual Pathway to Creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739–756.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Baas, M. (2011). Behavioral activation links to creativity because of increasedcognitive flexibility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 72–80.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., Baas, M., Roskes, M., & Wolsink, I. (2012). Working memory benefits creativeinsight, musical improvisation and original ideation through maintained task-focused attention. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 38, 656–669.

De Fruyt, F., Van De Wiele, L., & Van Heeringen, C. (2000). Cloninger's psychobiological model of temperament andcharacter and the Five Factor Model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 441–452.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects ofextrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.

Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentivemotivation and extraversion. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–569.

Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (1998). Anxiety and attentional focusing: Trait, state, and hemispheric influences.Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 745–761.

Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Motivating the focus of attention. In P. M. Niedenthal & S. Kitayama (Eds.),The Heart's Eye: Emotional Influences in Perception and Attention (pp. 167–196). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at thecost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 343–353.

Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 81, 728–741.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Amediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach–avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidancetemperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804–818.

Ericsson, K. A. (1998). The scientific study of expert levels of performance: General implications for optimal learningand creativity. High Ability Studies, 9, 75–100.

Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147–178.Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Personality: Biological foundations. In P. A. Versnon (Ed.), The neuropsychology of individualdifferences (pp. 151–207). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentionalcontrol theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 2, 290–309.

Finke, R. A. (1996). Imagery, creativity, and emergent structure. Consciousness and Cognition, 5, 381–393.Flaherty, A. W. (2005). Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative drive. The Journal ofComparative Neurology, 493, 147–153.

Fodor, E. M., & Carver, R. A. (2000). Achievement and power motives, performance feedback, and creativity. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 34, 380–396.

Förster, J. (2009). Relations between perceptual and conceptual scope: How global versus local processing fits a focus onsimilarity versus dissimilarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 138, 88–111.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

746 Person, Process, and Creativity

Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking:Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 177–189.

Frank, M. J., Doll, B., Oas-Terpstra, J., & Moreno, F. (2009). The neurogenetics of exploration and exploitation: Striataland prefrontal dopaminergic components. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 1062–1073.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory ofpositive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought–actionrepertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 313–332.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2000). The effects of approach and avoidance motor actions on the elements of creativeinsight. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 477–492.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2002). The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on creative cognition.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 41–55.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2005). The influence of approach and avoidance cues on attentional flexibility.Motivationand Emotion, 29, 69–81.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2010). Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: An integrative review. PsychologicalBulletin, 136, 875–893.

Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 45, 613–617.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of thesituation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450�1466.

Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visualinformation. Psychological Science, 13, 34–40.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don't: The role ofcontext and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687–697.

Götz, K. O., & Götz, K. (1979). Personality characteristics of professional artists. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 327–334.Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269–288.Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.Guinote, A. (2007). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 43, 685�697.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T.M. (1998). Reward, intrinsic motivation, and creativity.American Psychologist, 53, 674–675.Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from non-losses and losses from non-gains: Aregulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252–274.

Isen, A. M. (1999). Positive affect. In T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of Cognition and Emotion(pp. 521–539). New York: Wiley.

Kaufman, J. C. (2001). The Sylvia path effect: Mental illness in eminent creative writers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35,37–50.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.King, L. A., McKee-Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Research inPersonality, 30, 189–203.

Koch, S., Holland, R. W., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2008). Regulating cognitive control through approach–avoidancemotor actions. Cognition, 109, 133–142.

Leung, A. K., & Chiu, C. (2008). Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and openness to experience on creativepotential. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 376–382.

Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understanding extraverts' enjoyment of social situations: The importance ofpleasantness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 343–356.

Mackinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American Psychologist, 20, 273–281.Madjar, N., & Oldham, G. R. (2002). Preliminary tasks and creative performance on a subsequent task: Effects of timeon preliminary tasks and amount of information about the subsequent task. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 239–251.

Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The CreativeCognition Approach (pp. 249–268). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 52, 1258–1265.

McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of Factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8,251–272.

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.Mikulincer, M., Kedem, P., & Paz, D. (1990). The impact of trait anxiety and situational stress on the categorization ofnatural objects. Anxiety Research, 2, 85–101.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

Person, Process, and Creativity 747

Mumford, M. D. (2001). Something old, something new: Revisiting Guilford's conception of creative problem solving.Creativity Research Journal, 13, 267–276.

Murray, N., Sujan, H., Hirt, E. R., & Sujan, M. (1990). The influence of mood on categorization: A cognitive flexibilityinterpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 411–425.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186–213.

Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). Towards a dual-pathway to creativity model:Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 34–77.

Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence, executiveprocesses, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39, 36–45.

Oberauer, K., Süss, H.-M., Wilhelm, O., & Wittmann, W. (2008). Which working memory functions predictintelligence? Intelligence, 36, 641–652.

Oertig, D., Schüler, J., Schnelle, J., Brandstätter, V., Roskes, M., & Elliot, A. J. (forthcoming). Avoidance goal pursuitdepletes self-regulatory resources. Journal of Personality. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12019

Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied Imagination. New York: Scribner.Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive–social– motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 248–265.

Perkins, A. M., & Corr, P. J. (2005). Can worriers be winners? The association between worrying and job performance.Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 25–31.

Peterson, J. B., Smith, K. W., & Carson, S. (2002). Openness and extraversion are associated with reduced latentinhibition: Replication and commentary. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1137–1147.

Read, S. J., Monroe, B. M., Brownstein, A. L., Yang, Y., Chopra, G., & Miller, L. C. (2010). A neural network modelof the structure and dynamics of human personality. Psychological Review, 117, 61–92.

Reed, M. A., & Derryberry, D. (1995). Temperament and attention to positive and negative trait information.Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 135–147.

Rietzschel, E. F., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2007). Personal need for structure and creative performance:The moderating influence of fear of invalidity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 855–866.

Rietzschel, E. F., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2009). What are we talking about, when we talkabout creativity? Group creativity as a multifaceted, multistage phenomenon. Research on managing groups andteams, 12, 1–27.

Robinson, M. D., Moeller, S. K., & Ode, S. (2010). Extraversion and reward-related processing: Probing incentivemotivation in affective priming tasks. Emotion, 10, 615–626.

Roskes, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2012). Necessity is the mother of invention: Avoidance motivationstimulates creativity through cognitive effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 242–256.

Rowe, G., Hirsh, J. B., Anderson, A. K. (2007). Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 383–388.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, socialdevelopment, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments ofindividual differences in children's perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550–558.

Schooler, J. W., & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S. M. Smith, M. Steven, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke(Eds.), The Creative Cognition Approach (pp. 97–133). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.),Social Psychology: A Handbook of Basic Principles (2nd edn., pp. 385–407). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Silvia, P. (2008). Another look at creativity and intelligence: Exploring higher-order models and probable confounds.Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1012–1021.

Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks.Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.

Sligte, D. J., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). Power, stability of power, and creativity. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 47, 891–897.

Smillie, L. D., Yeo, G. B., Furnham, A. F., Jackson, C. J. (2006). Benefits of all work and no play: Therelationship between neuroticism and performance as a function of resource allocation. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 91, 139–155.

Smith, S. M., & Blankenship, S. E. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. The AmericanJournal of Psychology, 104, 61–87.

Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: Power priming andabstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578�596.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062

748 Person, Process, and Creativity

Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often moreeffective than meditational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,89, 845–851.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3–15). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, H., Hadar, M., Shavit, H., & Itskowitz, R. (1981). Relationship between creativity, repression, and anxiety infirst graders. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 275–282.

Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2004). Inspiration: Core characteristics, component processes, antecedents, and function.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 957–973.

Thrash, T. M., Maruskin, L. A., Cassidy, S. E., Fryer, J. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Mediating between the muse andthe masses: Inspiration and the actualization of creative ideas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 469–487.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptation and the structure of ancestralenvironments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 375–424.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.Troyer, A. K., Moscovitch, M., & Winocur, G. (1997). Clustering and switching as two components of verbal fluency:Evidence from younger and older healthy adults. Neuropsychology, 11, 138–146.

Unsworth, N., Spillers, G. J., & Brewer, G. A. (2011). Variation in verbal fluency: A latent variable analysis of switching,clustering, and overall performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 447–466.

Vaughn, L. A., Baumann, J., & Klemann, C. (2008). Openness to experience and regulatory focus: Evidence ofmotivation from fit. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 886–894.

Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaida, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structuralfindings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,820–838.

Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story writing, and hobbies. EuropeanJournal of Personality, 15, 297–310.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 732–748, 10.1111/spc3.12062