Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 3;15(8):e0236987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236987

Individual differences in trait creativity moderate the state-level mood-creativity relationship

Mi Zhang 1, Fei Wang 1, Dan Zhang 1,*
Editor: Carlos Andres Trujillo2
PMCID: PMC7398526  PMID: 32745087

Abstract

The relationship between mood states and state creativity has long been investigated. Exploring individual differences may provide additional important information to further our understanding of the complex mood-creativity relationship. The present study explored the state-level mood-creativity relationship from the perspective of trait creativity. We employed the experience sampling method (ESM) in a cohort of 56 college students over five consecutive days. The participants reported their state creativity on originality and usefulness dimensions at six random points between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., along with a 10-item concurrent mood state report. Their trait creativity was measured by the Guildford Alternative Uses Test (AUT) and the Remote Associates Test (RAT). We found moderating effects of the participants’ trait creativity on their state-level mood-creativity relationship. Specifically, whereas the positive correlation between positive mood state and originality of state creativity was stronger for the participants with higher AUT flexibility scores, stronger positive correlations between negative mood state and originality of state creativity were observed for individuals with higher AUT originality scores. Our findings provide evidence in support of introducing individual differences to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the mood-creativity link. The results could be of practical value, in developing individualized mood state regulation strategies for promoting state creativity.

Introduction

Creativity, the ability to develop novel and useful ideas, has been suggested as the key driving force behind scientific, technological, and cultural innovation [1,2]. For decades, creativity has been regarded as a relatively stable dispositional trait, and individual differences in trait creativity have been linked to other psychological traits such as personality and intelligence [35]. Studies have reported a multi-dimensional construct of trait creativity. One of the most well-studied dimensions is the ability of divergent thinking, which refers to the generation of multiple ideas or solutions for a single problem [6]. Another trait that recently received increasing attention is convergent thinking ability, which is associated with finding a single solution to a problem in an analytical and deductive way [7]. Although it was once seen as blocking creativity, the necessity of convergent thinking for creative production has received increasing attention. For instance, Brophy [8] found that even divergent thinkers spent most of their time doing convergent thinking during creative problem-solving tasks; the blind variation and selective retention (BVSR) theory proposed that both divergent and convergent thinking are necessary processes throughout the phases of creativity [7,9].

Creativity can also be viewed as a dynamically fluctuating state, as individuals do not always maintain their peak creative performance [1012]. Accordingly, recent studies are starting to explore possible contextual or situational factors that influence state creativity. In particular, the relationship between mood state and state creativity has attracted the attention of many researchers [1318]. Meta-analytical studies have shown that positive moods, such as happiness, enhance creativity, especially creative ideation, as compared to neutral or negative moods [14,15]. Several possible explanations were proposed. For example, Isen and associates proposed a theory that positive feelings on one hand facilitate extensive and diverse positive materials in memory and on the other hand influence the way in which cognitive materials are organized and related [1921]. What’s more, positive moods may increase cognitive flexibility, which in turn enhances individuals’ sensitivity to novel stimuli and their divergent thinking performance [13,2224]. Positive moods can also be a signal of a non-threatening environment and can motivate individuals to explore broadly [2527]. Regarding negative mood states, while some studies provided evidence for inhibition of creativity by negative moods such as anger, sadness, etc. [2830], other studies reported that negative moods promote creative performance compared to neutral moods [3133]. Moreover, several studies have shown that negative moods exert a non-significant effect on creativity [34,35]. Recently, it has been suggested that these apparently inconsistent findings pertaining to negative mood states could be partially resolved by further differentiating the distinct functional roles of different negative moods [14,22], deconstructing the complex components of creativity [36], or decomposing creativity into different stages [18].

Exploring individual differences may provide important information to further clarify the complex mood-creativity relationship. Several recent studies are beginning to investigate these relationships and have reported promising results on the moderating roles of some trait-level factors, such as personality and emotional intelligence, on the mood-creativity link. Conner and Silvia [28] showed that people with greater amounts of the openness trait had stronger mood-creativity relationships: their self-rated everyday creativity was more likely to be affected by their daily mood states. Parke and colleagues [37] suggested that employees with higher emotion facilitation ability, which is a facet of emotional intelligence, are better at utilizing their positive moods to enhance creativity, thus strengthen the positive mood-creativity link. The reported interactions between within-participant factors (i.e., mood) and between-participant factors support the interactionist perspective that the interaction between state factors and individual differences can foster or inhibit creativity [11,38,39]. In other words, different individuals may have different yet stable mood-creativity relationships. The individual difference perspective also has practical implications: effective creativity facilitation solutions can be achieved in an individualized manner depending on each individual’s trait factor scores. Nevertheless, the above-reviewed studies were limited in revealing the trait-state interplay, as possible trait-level influences were addressed only from certain specific domains.

Investigating trait creativity may provide a comprehensive and complete overview from the individual difference perspective. Trait creativity is conceptualized to describe people’s creative capabilities, therefore could reflect a good combination of possible creativity-related dispositional factors. Using trait creativity measurements such as the Guildford Alternative Uses Test (AUT) [6], the Remote Associates Test (RAT) [40] and other classical tests, researchers have found significant correlations between trait creativity and personalities (especially openness and extraversion [5]), intelligence [41], and working memory [42,43], etc. Establishing a link between the trait-level and state-level components of creativity is expected to deepen our understanding of the state-level mood-creativity relationship. Moreover, such an investigation is also of greater practical value, as the single trait creativity measurement is hypothesized to provide more effective facilitation other than any other domain-specific trait factors (e.g. openness, emotional intelligence).

The present study aimed to investigate the state-level mood-creativity relationship from an individual difference perspective using trait creativity. The experience sampling method (ESM) was employed to record state creativity and mood states in daily life situations [4447]. Participants reported both originality (i.e., the relative rarity of creation within a given reference group) and usefulness (i.e., being comprehensible and socially meaningful) of their daily creative activities. The dissociation of originality and usefulness is expected to provide a better description of state creativity, as these two dimensions are believed to provide distinct yet complementary information about creativity [4851]. The participants' trait creativity was measured procedure using the two classical tests of the AUT and the RAT. The AUT and RAT have different focuses, with the former focused on divergent thinking and the latter on convergent thinking [42,52,53]. As several trait factors (i.e., openness, emotion intelligence) have been reported to moderate the state-level mood-creativity relationship and trait creativity can be regarded as an integrated concept possibly covering all creativity-related trait factors, we expected to see a moderating role of trait creativity on the state-level mood-creativity relationship. Following previous studies on the trait-state interplay of creativity in relevant domains [11,28,3739], we hypothesize to observe a stronger state-level mood-creativity relationship for individuals with higher trait creativity scores. Specifically, a more positive state-level correlation between positive mood and state creativity is expected to be found for more (trait) creative individuals. Given the controversial findings on the direction of the link between negative mood and state creativity, the moderating effect of trait creativity on this link remains to be explored.

Materials and methods

Participants

Fifty-six healthy Chinese undergraduates (21 females) participated in this study. The mean age of the participants was 19 years (ranging from 18 to 23). The participants were recruited on an introduction to psychology course at Tsinghua University and were given course credits for their participation. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments, or comparable ethical standards. Approval was given by the local Ethics Committee of Tsinghua University. To encourage compliance in administering the ESM survey, participants all had a regular daily routine and an internet-ready mobile phone. Among them, two participants failed to reach the minimum completion rate (33%) and were excluded from the analysis.

Materials and procedures

Trait creativity

A paper-and-pencil measurement composed of the Guilford AUT [6] and the RAT [40] Chinese version from Xiao, Yao, & Qiu [54] was given to each participant to assess their trait creativity before the ESM procedure.

The AUT asked examinees to list as many possible uses for common prompts as they can within 5 min. “Newspaper” and “plastic bottle” were used in the present study. Four independent coders (two for each prompt), blind to the identity of the participants, were invited to code the answers together, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Before scoring, two coders simplified the answers for each prompt by cutting unnecessary particles and excluding impossible uses and incomprehensible expressions. Another two coders (one for each prompt) then categorized the coded answers according to a predetermined catalog after Qun [55]. For the newspaper, the uses were categorized into graphing, stage property, encasement, weapon, filler, physical and chemical properties, cleaning, recycling, information, and others; For the plastic bottle, the uses were categorized into the container, stage property, weapon, recycling, handcraft, and others. Following Dippo’s scoring procedure [56]: AUT originality was defined as the number of uses that occurred in less than 10% of all the answers; AUT fluency scores were calculated as the total number of uses in one participant’s answer; AUT flexibility was calculated as the total number of categories. The three final component scores were obtained by calculating the sum of the z-scores for the two prompts.

The RAT asks participants to come up with a word associated with three presented words that appeared to be semantically unrelated. The Chinese version of the RAT, developed by Xiao and colleagues [54], provides standard answers for reference. The score of RAT was defined as the number of items where a participant reached a single, correct answer. In the present study, each participant had five minutes to complete the 15 items.

The participants also filled out a web-based scale to provide necessary demographic information (age, gender, etc.) and take the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) test.

State creativity and mood states

The experience sampling method was used to collect the participants’ momentary data on state creativity and mood states. Before the study, the experimenter introduced the procedure to the participants and explained all necessary concepts, i.e., the definitions of two dimensions of creativity (originality and usefulness) and all the mood state terms. The participants installed an app called Psychorus on their mobile phones, which is a customized questionnaire platform for ESM data collection (Psychorus, HuiXin, China).

During five consecutive working days (21 of 54 participants were involved during 2017/4/10 to 2017/4/14, and the others participated during 2017/4/17 to 2017/4/21), the Psychorus app sent six questionnaire notifications per day to each participant at random time points between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., with a minimal interval of 90 minutes. The questionnaires came with sound and vibration alerts as notifications. Upon receiving the notification, the participants were instructed to complete a questionnaire and report their mood states and state creativity related to their activities over the preceding 30 minutes (relative to the questionnaire completion start time). Participants were required to answer all questionnaires as soon as possible after each notification. In cases where participants did not immediately begin the ESM questionnaire after receiving the notification, the system would remind them every five minutes until one hour had passed, after which the push notification would disappear, and the questionnaire would close.

We designed a 12-item ESM questionnaire, with two questions for state creativity and ten for mood states. The questionnaire was kept short in order to minimize overall participant burden and improve compliance, following previous ESM studies [57,58] and especially those in the field of creativity [28,45]. The two questions for state creativity asked the participants to rate the originality and usefulness of their activities, the questions were: “During the last 30 minutes, how original/useful were your ideas or products?” Participants responded on a 100-point scale (0 = lowest, 100 = highest). The within-participant reliabilities for the everyday creativity assessments were 0.91 for originality and 0.91 for usefulness computed using the guidelines of Heck, Thomas, & Thomas [59]. The ten items for mood states were similar to the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) but followed a previous ESM study on affective ratings [60]. The selected ten items were relaxed, tired, happy, stressed, concentrated, sleepy, interested, active, angry, and depressed (five positive items and five negative items). Participants reported their mood states on a 100-point scale (0 = not at all, 100 = extremely). Mood state scores from five positive items and five negative items were first averaged to achieve a combined measure of the positive affect (PA) state and the negative affect (NA) state [61,62]. The within-participant reliabilities of mood state assessment were 0.90 for PA and 0.95 for NA.

Data analysis

Since the collected data had a nested structure, the multi-level modeling method was employed in the present study. For each state creativity (originality or usefulness), we built a two-level random model with mood states, trait creativity, and two-way interactions between them, as specified by the following equations:

Creativity_sij=β0j+β1jPAij+β2jNAij+εij (1)
β0j=γ00+γ01AUT_FLUj+γ02AUT_FLEj+γ03AUT_ORIj+γ04RATj+μ0j (2)
β1j=γ10+γ11AUT_FLUj+γ12AUT_FLEj+γ13AUT_ORIj+γ14RATj+μ1j (3)
β2j=γ20+γ21AUT_FLUj+γ22AUT_FLEj+γ23AUT_ORIj+γ24RATj+μ2j (4)

Creativity_sij refers to the state creativity score (originality or usefulness) of participant j at the i-th sampling which was predicted by the simultaneous mood state at level 1. PA and NA were group-centered before entering the model. AUT_FLUj, AUT_FLEj, AUT_ORIj, and RATj are the trait creativity scores for the three divergent thinking components (AUT fluency, AUT flexibility, and AUT originality) and convergent thinking, respectively, for participant j. Here β1j and β2j explicitly express the state-level mood-creativity relationship and they were dependent upon trait-level creativity as stated in (2)~(4). Significant coefficients γ11 - γ14 and γ21 –γ24 from Eqs (3) and (4) would indicate significant moderating effects of trait creativity on the relationship between mood and state creativity.

In addition, we built a similar two-level random model controlling for intelligence level (measured by RAPM; designated as RAPMj for participant j):

Creativity_sij=β0j+β1jPAij+β2jNAij+εij (5)
β0j=γ00+γ01AUT_FLUj+γ02AUT_FLEj+γ03AUT_ORIj+γ04RATj+γ05RAPMj+μ0j (6)
β1j=γ10+γ11AUT_FLUj+γ12AUT_FLEj+γ13AUT_ORIj+γ14RATj+γ15RAPMj+μ1j (7)
β2j=γ20+γ21AUT_FLUj+γ22AUT_FLEj+γ23AUT_ORIj+γ24RATj+γ25RAPMj+μ2j (8)

Note that the trait-level variables in the above models were the original trait creativity scores (and intelligence in the second model). Although significant pairwise correlations between some of these trait-level variables were observed (see Results, Table 1), the problem of multicollinearity was not severe, with the maximal variance inflation factor (VIF) being 7.5 (less than the empirical threshold of 10).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among situational and individual factors.

M SD Range Skew. Kurt. S_ori S_use PA NA RAT AUT_FLU AUT_FLE AUT_ORI
S_ori 45.62 23.93 0–100 0.16 -1.01 0.29** 0.43** -0.12**
S_use 57.17 23.26 0–100 -0.36 -0.97 0.31* 0.17** -0.12**
PA 55.79 15.93 9.0–100.0 -0.07 -0.21 0.54*** 0.34* -0.57**
NA 34.89 15.74 0.0–94.0 0.34 -0.15 0.02 -0.23 -0.48***
RAT 10.33 2.12 4–14 -0.83 0.77 0.19 -0.01 0.27* 0.00
AUT_FLU 0.36 1.68 -2.42–5.14 0.59 0.32 0.08 0.09 -0.12 0.11 -0.05
AUT_FLE 0.24 1.35 -3.50–3.10 -0.18 0.28 -0.02 0.07 -0.04 0.20 -0.13 0.45***
AUT_ORI 0.45 1.85 -2.06–5.57 0.73 -0.08 -0.01 -0.06 -0.19 0.09 -0.10 0.91*** 0.29*
RAPM 27.93 5.05 8–35 -1.35 3.34 0.01 -0.08 0.00 -0.02 0.37** 0.20 0.15 0.22

S_ori = state originality; S_use = state usefulness. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and ranges of situational variables are calculated by directly aggregating all records. Correlation coefficients below the diagonal are calculated at the between-participant level, in which the state-level variables (S_ori, S_use, PA, NA) were averaged within participants and the correlated with the trait-level variables across all participants (N = 54 for the correlation analyses). Cross-sectional correlations are presented above the diagonal, in which the state-level data were pooled together across participants (N = 1317 for the correlation analyses). Pearson’s correlation was used.

* p < .05

** p < .01

***p < .001.

It should also be noted that the multi-level modeling method rather than the panel analysis method with fixed effects was employed to approach the problem of cross-level interaction. The multi-level modeling method is believed to be more suitable for the consideration of the research assumption of the present study. Specifically, the mood-creativity links (β1j and β2j) were explicitly expressed as a random effect, emphasizing a quantitative description of these links by the participants’ individual differences by their trait creativity. Such an assumption is in line with most previous studies on individual differences in the field of psychology [28,63] and allows for better generalizability of the findings beyond the sample population [6466]. All the data analyses were performed in Mplus (version 7.4).

Results

On average, the 54 participants completed 81.40% of all ESM questionnaires, which resulted in 1317 valid records. The valid number of records per participant ranged from 15 to 29 (the maximal number of records is 5 days × 6 per day = 30). A basic summary of the recorded data is provided in Table 1. Table 1 also shows the correlation at both between-participant (i.e. with each participant’s average momentary, state-level data) and cross-sectional (i.e. with all participants’ momentary, state-level data pooled together) levels. At the between-participant level, there was a negative correlation between PA and NA (r = -.48, p < .001), and significant positive correlations between PA and the measures of state creativity (originality, r = .54, p < .001; usefulness, r = .34, p = .01). There was a positive correlation between PA and RAT score (r = .27, p = .048) and a positive correlation between the two-state creativity ratings (originality vs. usefulness, r = .31, p = .02) as well. The correlations among the three components of AUT were significant, however the correlation between AUT fluency and AUT originality (r = .91, p < .001) was much stronger than the other two (AUT flexibility and AUT originality: r = .29, p = .034; AUT flexibility and AUT fluency: r = .45, p < .001). At the cross-sectional level, significant correlations were observed between the mood states (both PA and NA) and the daily state creativity (both originality and usefulness), at a similar level as the between-participant correlation results.

Table 2 shows the participant-wise correlations between trait-level and state-level creativity. The average and variance of the state-level creativity ratings (originality and usefulness) per participant were calculated and then correlated with the corresponding trait-level creativity (RAT and AUT scores). Only weak and non-significant correlation coefficients were obtained, suggesting no systematic changes of one’s daily state rating patterns by his/her trait-level creativity. In other words, these correlation results demonstrated sufficient independence among these variables for the subsequent multi-level analysis.

Table 2. Participant-wise correlations between trait-level and state-level creativity.

AUT_FLU AUT_FLE AUT_ORI RAT
M(S_ori) 0.08 -0.02 -0.01 0.19
M(S_use) 0.09 0.07 -0.06 -0.01
Var(S_ori) -0.03 0.24 -0.06 -0.11
Var(S_use) -0.02 0.14 -0.01 0.00

M(S_ori) is the individual mean of state creativity originality; M(S_use) is the individual mean of state creativity usefulness; Var(S_ori) is the variance of individual state creativity originality; Var(S_use) is the variance of individual state creativity usefulness. Pearson’s correlation was used.

The results of multilevel modeling analyses are summarized in Table 3. Similar results were obtained with/without controlling for the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) test score (Model 1 vs. Model 2), excluding the possible confounding factor of individual intelligence difference. As Model 2 provides a more comprehensive consideration of all variables, we focus on the results from Model 2 in the following report and discussion.

Table 3. Coefficients of the multilevel model and multilevel model with covariates.

Model 1 Model 2
Originality Usefulness Originality Usefulness
B(PA) 0.7*** [0.62,0.79] 0.2** [0.08,0.33] 0.7*** [0.62,0.79] 0.2** [0.07,0.32]
B(NA) 0.23*** [0.13,0.34] 0.01 [-0.1,0.12] 0.23*** [0.13,0.34] 0.01 [-0.1,0.12]
B(AUT_FLU) 3.45* [0.58,6.32] 5.62* [1.95,9.29] 3.35* [0.69,6.01] 5.53* [1.86,9.19]
B(AUT_FLE) -0.82 [-2.82,1.19] -0.71 [-3.16,1.75] -0.73 [-2.59,1.13] -0.63 [-3.08,1.83]
B(AUT_ORI) -2.59 [-5.26,0.07] -4.84* [-8.01,-1.67] -2.45 [-4.93,0.03] -4.71* [-7.87,-1.55]
B(RAT) 0.77 [-0.07,1.62] -0.31 [-1.49,0.88] 0.88 [-0.13,1.9] -0.2 [-1.5,1.1]
B(RAPM) -0.11 [-0.82,0.6] -0.11 [-0.54,0.33]
B(PA*AUT_FLU) -0.02 [-0.12,0.08] 0.07 [-0.12,0.25] -0.02 [-0.11,0.08] 0.06 [-0.13,0.24]
B(PA*AUT_FLE) 0.08* [0.02,0.14] -0.03 [-0.13,0.07] 0.08* [0.02,0.14] -0.02 [-0.12,0.08]
B(PA*AUT_ORI) 0.04 [-0.04,0.12] -0.07 [-0.22,0.08] 0.03 [-0.04,0.11] -0.05 [-0.21,0.11]
B(PA*RAT) 0 [-0.03,0.03] -0.03 [-0.09,0.03] -0.01 [-0.04,0.03] -0.01 [-0.07,0.06]
B(PA*RAPM) 0.01 [-0.01,0.02] -0.02 [-0.04,0]
B(NA*AUT_FLU) -0.21 [-0.41,-0.02] -0.02 [-0.2,0.16] -0.21 [-0.4,-0.02] -0.03 [-0.22,0.17]
B(NA*AUT_FLE) 0.05 [-0.06,0.15] 0.04 [-0.05,0.13] 0.04 [-0.06,0.15] 0.04 [-0.05,0.14]
B(NA*AUT_ORI) 0.22* [0.08,0.36] 0.07 [-0.1,0.24] 0.21* [0.07,0.36] 0.08 [-0.1,0.26]
B(NA*RAT) 0.07* [0.01,0.12] 0.02 [-0.04,0.08] 0.06 [0.01,0.12] 0.03 [-0.04,0.09]
B(NA*RAPM) 0 [-0.01,0.02] 0 [-0.02,0.01]

B = unstandardized coefficients; B(PA) = γ10; B(NA) = γ20; B(AUT_FLU) = γ01; B(AUT_FLE) = γ02; B(AUT_ORI) = γ03; B(RAT) = γ04; B(RAPM) = γ05; B(PA*AUT_FLU) = γ11; B(PA*AUT_FLE) = γ12; B(PA*AUT_ORI) = γ13; B(PA*RAT) = γ14; B(PA*RAPM) = γ15; B(NA*AUT_FLU) = γ21; B(NA*AUT_FLE) = γ22; B(NA*AUT_ORI) = γ23; B(NA*RAT) = γ24; B(NA*RAPM) = γ25

95% confidence intervals are shown in brackets.

* p < .05

** p < .01

***p < .001.

The main effects of PA on state creativity were significant (originality: γ10 = .70, p < .001, 95% CI [0.62, 0.79]; usefulness: γ10 = .20, p = .01, 95% CI [0.07, 0.32]). The main effect of NA on state creativity was only significant for originality (γ20 = .23, p < .001, 95% CI [0.13, 0.34]). There were also significant influences of trait creativity on state creativity. The main effects of AUT fluency score on state creativity originality and usefulness were both significant (originality: γ01 = 3.35, p = .048, 95% CI [0.69, 6.01]; usefulness: γ01 = .5.53, p = .013, 95% CI [1.86, 9.19]). AUT originality score had a negative impact on usefulness of state creativity (γ03 = -4.71, p = .014, 95% CI [-7.87, -1.55]).

More importantly, significant cross-level interactions were obtained between mood states and trait creativity. The relationship between the positive mood state and the originality rating of state creativity was significantly moderated by the AUT flexibility score (γ12 = .08, p = .029, 95% CI [0.02, 0.14]): A stronger positive correlation was observed for individuals with higher AUT flexibility scores than for those with lower scores (Fig 1). Meanwhile, the relationship between the negative mood state and the originality rating of state creativity was significantly moderated by the AUT originality score (γ23 = .21, p = .015, 95% CI [0.07, 0.36]): the individuals with higher AUT originality score showed a stronger positive correlation (Fig 2). The moderating model is illustrated in Fig 3.

Fig 1. Moderating effect of divergent thinking (flexibility) on state originality.

Fig 1

Simple slopes for the influence of positive mood state on state originality for individuals with different AUT flexibility (AUT_FLE) scores based on centered data (high = M + 1 SD, low = M– 1 SD). Units of the y-axis reflect raw scores.

Fig 2. Moderating effect of divergent thinking (originality) on state originality.

Fig 2

Simple slopes for the influence of negative mood state on state originality for individuals with different levels of AUT originality (AUT_ORI) score based on centered data (high = M + 1 SD, low = M– 1 SD). Units of the y-axis reflect raw scores.

Fig 3. Illustration of the moderating effects of trait creativity on the state-level mood-creativity correlations.

Fig 3

The state-level originality was significantly influenced by trait creativity of AUT fluency, the interaction between positive mood state (PA) and AUT flexibility (β1), and the interaction between negative mood state (NA) and AUT originality (β2). The significant interactions showed moderating effects.

Discussion

In the present study, we employed ESM to study the mood-creativity relationship in a daily life context. By calculating the correlation of self-report data on mood states and state creativity six times per day over five consecutive days, we found that individual creativity states of originality and usefulness were positively and negatively correlated with their simultaneous positive and negative mood states, respectively. Importantly, we found that participants’ trait creativity moderated state-level mood-creativity relationships. The positive correlation between positive mood state and originality of state creativity was stronger for the participants with higher AUT flexibility scores. More interestingly, stronger positive correlations between the negative mood state and originality of state creativity were also found for individuals with higher AUT originality scores.

By decomposing state creativity into originality and usefulness, our results contribute towards a deeper understanding of the functional role of positive mood states. While the overall positive correlation between the positive mood state and the state creativity was in good agreement with previous studies [14,15], our results showed that the positive mood states might contribute more toward state originality than toward state usefulness, as reflected by the much larger coefficient values of the positive mood states in the originality model as compared with the usefulness counterpart. The negative mood states also showed distinct contributions to the two-state creativity dimensions, with significant contributions only to state originality. As state originality is probably the most studied creative state, our results are in accordance with those that reported a promotion effect of negative moods on creative performance [3133]. Although further studies are necessary to elucidate the underlying mechanism of these links, this observation provided support for the necessity of the decomposition of state creativity into originality and usefulness and for the first time showed the influence of mood states on the usefulness dimension of state creativity.

More importantly, we demonstrated that individual differences in trait creativity could influence these state-level mood-creativity links. For the participants with a possibly better divergent thinking capability (reflected by their AUT flexibility score), the impact of the self-referenced intensity of the positive mood states had a stronger positive influence on their state creativity of originality. While the positive link is in accordance with the mood-congruent retrieval theory and the broaden-and-build model suggesting that the positive mood state can facilitate creative processes by increasing material gathering and switching [25,67], we made further extensions on an individual difference perspective: Individuals more capable of flexibly switching between categories in divergent thinking could perform material gathering and switching more efficiently during positive mood state for enhanced creativity.

Our findings on the relationship between negative mood state and state creativity provide evidence that may help resolve the controversy from the perspective of individual differences. Whereas the originality rating of state creativity seemed to be facilitated by experiencing a relatively more negative mood state for the participants with higher divergent thinking (AUT originality) ability, weak (even negative) effects were seen for participants with lower divergent thinking ability. As a signal of a problematic situation, negative mood states are likely to indicate problems at hand, as well as the necessity of higher effort and persistence [26,68]. Under relatively high negative moods, participants with higher originality in divergent thinking abilities may benefit more from the extra effort by rejecting a familiar conventional approach and reaching for a more original idea [3133].

The interaction effects could also be interpreted under the framework of the dual pathway to creativity model [22]. While it has been proposed that positive mood states promote creativity by facilitating cognitive flexibility and negative mood states promote creativity by increasing cognitive persistence, our results provide further evidence in support of this model for an individual difference perspective. Specifically, positive mood states could have a larger influence on individuals with higher cognitive flexibility capacities (reflected by the AUT flexibility score), leading to enhanced state creativity. Individuals with higher AUT originality scores might be associated with better cognitive organization capacities [20], therefore experiencing a larger benefit by negative mood states.

There are several limitations to the present study to be noted. First, the recruited participants were college students and they were mostly engaged in their college life on campus when their daily data were collected. To further validate the generalizability of the present findings, it would be preferred to collect data from a more diverse population, e.g. including working people in their working environment [69]. Also, here we relied on the participants’ self-evaluation of their state-level mood and creativity. Given the rapid development of wearable bio-sensing technologies and machine learning methods [7072], it is expected to have a momentary evaluation of one’s state creativity and mood states in an objective way that could further our understanding of the mood-creativity link. Last but not least, while the mood states were categorized into positive and negative moods, it might be necessary to have a more fine-grained categorization. Specifically, it has been recently re-ignited to explore the specific impact of different kinds of fine-grained affect or mood on daily life [25,73,74].

In summary, the present study explored how individual differences in trait creativity could moderate the state-level mood-creativity relationship. The daily tracking data revealed the dependence of state-level mood-creativity correlations on an individual’s trait creativity. These results not only demonstrate a complex interaction between trait creativity and the state-level mood-creativity relationship but also are of practical value in developing individualized mood state regulation strategies for promoting state creativity.

Supporting information

S1 File. Dataset for this study.

The datasets generated for this study.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mr. Di Zhou, Dr. Zhen Sun, and Dr. Zhehan Jiang for statistical analysis consultancy.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: 61977041 to DZ and U1736220 to DZ and FW), the National Key Research and Development Plan (grant number: 2016YFB1001200 to DZ), and the National Social Science Foundation of China (grant number: 17ZDA323 to DZ). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Gabora L, Kaufman SB. Evolutionary Approaches to Creativity In: Kaufman JC, Sternberg RJ, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. [cited 2018 Oct 20]. p. 279–300. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9780511763205%23c51366-2402/type/book_part [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI. The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms In: Sternberg RJ, editor. Handbook of creativity [Internet]. Cambridge University Press (New York, NY, US); 1999. [cited 2018 Mar 31]. p. 3–15, Chapter ix, 490 Pages. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/619353383/1E1D1FD3B14D4433PQ/7 [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Batey M, Chamorro-Premuzic T, Furnham A. Intelligence and personality as predictors of divergent thinking: The role of general, fluid and crystallised intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2009. Apr;4(1):60–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Feist GJ. A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1998. November 1;2(4):290–309. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kandler C, Riemann R, Angleitner A, Spinath FM, Borkenau P, Penke L. The nature of creativity: The roles of genetic factors, personality traits, cognitive abilities, and environmental sources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2016;111(2):230–49. 10.1037/pspp0000087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Guilford JP. The nature of human intelligence New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill; 1967. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cropley A. In Praise of Convergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal. 2006. July;18(3):391–404. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Brophy DR. Comparing the Attributes, Activities, and Performance of Divergent, Convergent, and Combination Thinkers. Creativity Research Journal. 2001. October 1;13(3–4):439–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Simonton DK. On Praising Convergent Thinking: Creativity as Blind Variation and Selective Retention. Creativity Research Journal. 2015. July 3;27(3):262–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.George JM. Creativity in Organizations. The Academy of Management Annals. 2007. December 1;1(1):439–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shalley CE, Gilson LL. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly. 2004. February 1;15(1):33–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zhou J, Shalley CE. Research On Employee Creativity: A Critical Review and Directions for Future Research In: Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management [Internet]. Bingley: Emerald (MCB UP); 2003. [cited 2018 Sep 7]. p. 165–217. Available from: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22004-1 [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Amabile TM, Barsade SG, Mueller JS, Staw BM. Affect and Creativity at Work. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2005. September 1;50(3):367–403. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Baas M, De Dreu CKW, Nijstad BA. A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin. 2008;134(6):779–806. 10.1037/a0012815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Davis MA. Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2009. January;108(1):25–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.George JM, Zhou J. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002. August;87(4):687–97. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Isen AM. On the relationship between affect and creative problem solving In: Affect, creative experience, and psychological adjustment. Psychology Press; 1999. p. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Madrid HP, Patterson MG. Affect and Creativity In: Individual Creativity in the Workplace [Internet]. Elsevier; 2018. [cited 2018 Aug 25]. p. 245–65. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780128132388000115 [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Isen AM. The influence of positive and negative affect on cognitive organization: Some implications for development In: Psychological and biological approaches to emotion. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1990. p. 75–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Isen AM, Daubman KA. The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1984. December;47(6):1206–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Isen AM, Daubman KA, Nowicki GP. Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987;52(6):1122–31. 10.1037//0022-3514.52.6.1122 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.De Dreu CKW, Baas M, Nijstad BA. Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008;94(5):739–56. 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.739 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hirt ER, Devers EE, McCrea SM. I want to be creative: Exploring the role of hedonic contingency theory in the positive mood-cognitive flexibility link. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008;94(2):214–30. 10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yamada Y, Nagai M. Positive mood enhances divergent but not convergent thinking: Positive mood and creativity. Japanese Psychological Research. 2015. October;57(4):281–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Fredrickson BL. The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology. Am Psychol. 2001. March;56(3):218–26. 10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Friedman RS, Förster J, Denzler M. Interactive Effects of Mood and Task Framing on Creative Generation. Creativity Research Journal. 2007. July 20;19(2–3):141–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Schwarz N. Feelings-as-Information Theory In: Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 1 [Internet]. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012. [cited 2018 Dec 1]. p. 289–308. Available from: http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_socialpsychtheories1/n15.xml [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Conner TS, Silvia PJ. Creative days: A daily diary study of emotion, personality, and everyday creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2015. November;9(4):463–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mikulincer M, Kedem P, Paz D. The impact of trait anxiety and situational stress on the categorization of natural objects. Anxiety Research. 1990;2(2):85–101. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vosburg SK. The Effects of Positive and Negative Mood on Divergent-Thinking Performance. Creativity Research Journal. 1998. April;11(2):165–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Adaman JE, Blaney PH. The Effects of Musical Mood Induction on Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 1995. June 1;29(2):95–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Carlsson I. Anxiety and Flexibility of Defense Related to High or Low Creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 2002. October 1;14(3–4):341–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Clapham MM. The Effects of Affect Manipulation and Information Exposure on Divergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal. 2001. October 1;13(3–4):335–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Göritz AS, Moser K. Mood and flexibility in categorization: a conceptual replication. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2003. Aug;97(1):107–19. 10.2466/pms.2003.97.1.107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Verhaeghen P, Joorman J, Khan R. Why We Sing the Blues: The Relation Between Self-Reflective Rumination, Mood, and Creativity. Emotion. 2005;5(2):226–32. 10.1037/1528-3542.5.2.226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.George JM, Zhou J. Dual Tuning in a Supportive Context: Joint Contributions of Positive Mood, Negative Mood, and Supervisory Behaviors to Employee Creativity. The Academy of Management Journal. 2007;50(3):605–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Parke MR, Seo M-G, Sherf EN. Regulating and facilitating: The role of emotional intelligence in maintaining and using positive affect for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2015. May;100(3):917–34. 10.1037/a0038452 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Shalley CE, Gilson LL, Blum TC. Interactive Effects of Growth Need Strength, Work Context, and Job Complexity On Self-Reported Creative Performance. Academy of Management Journal. 2009. June;52(3):489–505. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Woodman RW, Sawyer JE, Griffin RW. Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity. The Academy of Management Review. 1993;18(2):293–321. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mednick SA. The Remote Associates Test*. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 1968. July 1;2(3):213–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sternberg RJ. The Assessment of Creativity: An Investment-Based Approach. Creativity Research Journal. 2012. January;24(1):3–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lee CS, Therriault DJ. The cognitive underpinnings of creative thought: A latent variable analysis exploring the roles of intelligence and working memory in three creative thinking processes. Intelligence. 2013. September;41(5):306–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lin W-L, Lien Y-W. The Different Role of Working Memory in Open-Ended Versus Closed-Ended Creative Problem Solving: A Dual-Process Theory Account. Creativity Research Journal. 2013. January;25(1):85–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mehl MR, Conner TS. Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life. Guilford Press; 2011. 706 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Silvia PJ, Beaty RE, Nusbaum EC, Eddington KM, Levin-Aspenson H, Kwapil TR. Everyday creativity in daily life: An experience-sampling study of “little c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2014. May;8(2):183–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.To ML, Fisher CD, Ashkanasy NM, Rowe PA. Within-person relationships between mood and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2012;97(3):599–612. 10.1037/a0026097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Han W, Feng X, Zhang M, Peng K, Zhang D. Mood States and Everyday Creativity: Employing an Experience Sampling Method and a Day Reconstruction Method. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2019. [cited 2020 May 9];10. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01698/full [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hennessey BA, Amabile TM. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology. 2010. January;61(1):569–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Runco MA, Jaeger GJ. The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 2012. January 1;24(1):92–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Said-Metwaly S, Noortgate WV den, Kyndt E. Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review. Creativity Theories–Research—Applications. 2017. December 20;4(2):238–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Simonton DK. Creative Ideas and the Creative Process: Good News and Bad News for the Neuroscience of Creativity. In: Jung RE, Vartanian O, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of the Neuroscience of Creativity [Internet]. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2018. [cited 2019 Apr 10]. p. 9–18. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781316556238%23CN-bp-1/type/book_part [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Han W, Zhang M, Feng X, Gong G, Peng K, Zhang D. Genetic influences on creativity: an exploration of convergent and divergent thinking. PeerJ. 2018. Jul 30;6:e5403 10.7717/peerj.5403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lu K, Xue H, Nozawa T, Hao N. Cooperation Makes a Group be More Creative. Cerebral Cortex. 2019;29(8):3457–3470. 10.1093/cercor/bhy215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Xiao W, Yao X, Qiu Y. Constructing Chinese Remote Associates Test (RAT) with Application of Item Response Theory. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis. 2016;52(2):354–362. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Qun Y. The Relationship between Mind Wandering and Creative Problem Solving [Internet] [Master’s thesis]. College of Teacher Education of Zhejiang Normal University; 2015. [cited 2018 Jun 28]. Available from: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Thesis/Y2904176 [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Dippo C, Kudrowitz B. Evaluating The Alternative Uses Test of Creativity. In University of Wisconsin La Crosse, WI; 2013. [cited 2018 Jun 22]. Available from: http://www.ncurproceedings.org/ojs/index.php/NCUR2013/article/view/547 [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hofmann W, Wisneski DC, Brandt MJ, Skitka LJ. Morality in everyday life. Science. 2014. September 12;345(6202):1340–3. 10.1126/science.1251560 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Killingsworth MA, Gilbert DT. A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind. Science. 2010. November 12;330(6006):932–932. 10.1126/science.1192439 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Heck RH, Thomas SL, Thomas SL. An Introduction to Multilevel Modeling Techniques: MLM and SEM Approaches Using Mplus, Third Edition [Internet]. Routledge; 2015. [cited 2019 May 17]. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315746494 [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Muaremi A, Arnrich B, Tröster G. Towards Measuring Stress with Smartphones and Wearable Devices During Workday and Sleep. Bionanoscience. 2013;3:172–83. 10.1007/s12668-013-0089-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Thompson ER. Development and Validation of an Internationally Reliable Short-Form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2007. March 1;38(2):227–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Watson DA, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1988;54(6):1063–70. 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Chi N-W, Chang H-T, Huang H-L. Can personality traits and daily positive mood buffer the harmful effects of daily negative mood on task performance and service sabotage? A self-control perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2015. November 1;131:1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Heisig JP, Schaeffer M, Giesecke J. The Costs of Simplicity: Why Multilevel Models May Benefit from Accounting for Cross-Cluster Differences in the Effects of Controls: American Sociological Review [Internet]. 2017. July 24 [cited 2020 May 26]; Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0003122417717901 [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Antonakis J, Bastardoz N, Rönkkö M. On Ignoring the Random Effects Assumption in Multilevel Models: Review, Critique, and Recommendations. Organizational Research Methods. 2019. October 16;1094428119877457. 10.1177/1094428116676344 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. SAGE; 2011. 370 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Jovanovic T, Meinel M, Schrödel S, Voigt K-I. The Influence of Affects on Creativity: What Do We Know by Now? Journal of Creativity and Business Innovation [Internet]. 2016. April 1 [cited 2019 May 8];2. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3060245 [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Martin LL, Ward DW, Achee JW, Wyer RS. Mood as input: People have to interpret the motivational implications of their moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993;64(3):317–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci. 2010. June;33(2–3):61–83; discussion 83–135. 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Hu X, Chen J, Wang F, Zhang D. Ten challenges for EEG-based affective computing. Brain Science Advances. 2019. March 1;5(1):1–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Poh Ming-Zher, Swenson NC Picard RW. A Wearable Sensor for Unobtrusive, Long-Term Assessment of Electrodermal Activity. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2010. May;57(5):1243–52. 10.1109/TBME.2009.2038487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Siddharth Patel AN, Jung T-P, Sejnowski TJ. A Wearable Multi-Modal Bio-Sensing System Towards Real-World Applications. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019;66(4):1137–47. 10.1109/TBME.2018.2868759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Cowen AS, Keltner D. Self-report captures 27 distinct categories of emotion bridged by continuous gradients. PNAS. 2017. September 19;114(38):E7900–9. 10.1073/pnas.1702247114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Adolphs R, Mlodinow L, Barrett LF. What is an emotion? Current Biology. 2019. October 21;29(20):R1060–4. 10.1016/j.cub.2019.09.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Carlos Andres Trujillo

19 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-31431

Individual Differences in Trait Creativity Modulate the State-Level Mood-Creativity Relationship

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

You will find very useful comments from the reviewers from which I want to highlight 1) the need to explain your work in constrast to the literature mentioned by revierwer 1, and 2) explain very clearly your rationale for choosing multilevel analysis instead of panel data as requested by reviewer 2. I would really apreciate an special effort to explain your findings in a much clearer way. Following the tables is very hard.

I think this paper makes a very good contribution to our understanding of creativity processes.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by may 31 . When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Carlos Andres Trujillo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately.  These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript needs one more careful reading to address some typographical and grammatical errors. Further, it needs to give additional acknowledgement to the extensive work done by Isen and associates on the relationship between mood and creativity, much of which was subsumed in the Bass et al. meta analysis, and to comment on how the findings align with findings from DeDreu et al (2008) when it comes to how different emotional states can influence creative outputs through different channels. A more generous discussion on how findings from this work align with earlier work will affirm the current works contribution to this important research area.

Reviewer #2: In the study “individual Differences in Trait Creativity Modulate the State-Level Mood-Creativity Relationships”, the authors state that creativity, far of being a stable state, depends on contextual factors. The authors focus on mood, one factor that enhances creativity with differences according its dimensions of study (). The authors suggest that a complete understanding of this relationship should consider trait-level factors, whose relevance has been widely demonstrated in other contexts. Thus, the authors empirically explore the influence of creativity traits on the relationship state mood. The findings of the study support that creativity trait has a moderator effect differential according to the creativity state-level.

In the introduction the authors justify the importance of the study for practice. The introduction of state level creativity and mood is concrete and very well explained. Although from the introduction the importance of creativity trait is set, with the strong emphasis on the exploratory character of the study the authors miss the opportunity to make a theoretical construction. This empirical emphasis privates the authors of exploring why to understand how creativity trait from its meaning may be relevant for the academic community.

This theoretical construction is not developed in the document. The authors should note that academics are committed to the generation of knowledge, which goes beyond the focus on practical implications of trait-level factors from specific domains. (p.4).

A minor general comment looks at to standardize the used terms. For example, modulate used as synonym of moderate. If modulation is different to moderation, it is necessary to explain why. The use of modulate distracts, because moderation is the most common term in academic community. It is possible that the authors are talking about interaction, which is slightly different from moderation. However, introducing a methodological term with scarce use is confusing.

Regarding the methodology, the authors have an interesting sample of repeated measured to test the exploratory models. It is necessary to understand if the authors foresee any bias in the fact that the sample is composed of psychology students who use to be involved with the variables of the study.

Given the authors’ interest in the impact of creativity trait as moderator of state mood creativity relationship and that they have one measure of creativity trait for each of the 56 participants (repeated measures), they use multilevel analysis to test these interactions. There are some elements that deserve consideration by the authors in this regard. In multilevel methods observations are nested in contexts that influence differently their behavior. An important outcome of multilevel methods is to identify the environmental variables (2nd level) that influence individual results (1st level). In this study the observations are nested because they belong to the same individual. Although this procedure is statistically appropriate, the authors should consider explaining the bias originated in that the second-level variable (creativity trait), of course, emerges from the same individual who also reported mood and creativity-state during multiple stages of the research. In other words, there are not independence between dependent and independent variables. Furthermore, the independent variable is common for several observations.

Second, given that this study is not interested in understanding how much variance is explained at each level, how and why multilevel method provides better outcomes than a panel with fix-effects by individuals? For the previous two points I strongly recommend the authors to review any edition of Snijders and Bosker’s book.

- Snijders, T. A., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage.

Regarding the results it should be noted that according to the Table 1 there are strong correlations between the variables AUT_FLU, AUT_FLE and AUT_ORI and between RAPM and RAT. However, multi-collinearity is not mention in the manuscript and the author(s) should guarantee that there are not multicollinearity effects associated with the results.

Additionally, the authors should review the notation in Table 2. There are signs in the table without interpretation in the note. Additionally, the note is confusing. It indicates Model 1 is the multilevel model without covariate, and model 2 is the model using RAMP score as covariate. However, both models include covariable and the contrast between the two models is the inclusion of RAMP as an additional covariable.

Although the graphs the authors present seem to have interesting information confirming the significant interactions of the results, the decision to focus on Model 1 (from table 2) is not explained.

The discussion section replicates the results section. Considering that the theoretical construction was not strong in the introduction, it is expected that construction to be tackled in the discussion section.

Finally, What are the conclusions of your study?

In an attempt to summarize the previous comments, I suggest to strengthen the study by developing further theoretical construction from the exploratory results and to evaluate the appropriateness of the methodological procedures, highlighting the possible weak elements and showing how the authors dealt with them.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Carlos Andres Trujillo

10 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-31431R1

Individual Differences in Trait Creativity Moderate the State-Level Mood-Creativity Relationship

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Thank you for addressing the reviewers comments. Unfortunately, one of the reviewers could not revise the ne version in a timely manner, but I was able to go my self trough all the reviews and based on the reviewer 1 acceptance and my own reading I am happy to conditionally accept your manuscript based on the following minor revision:

I just need you to revise tables 1 and 2 to improve clarity. In table 1 there are 6 correlations in the upper right side that provide inconsistent information (e.g. the correlation between S_use and S_ori present two differen values). For table 2 please provide significance levels and the type of correlation calculated. Given the relatively low sample size, pearson correlation may not be appropriate, please clarify which type of correlation was used.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 24 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Carlos Andres Trujillo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors were impressively diligent in addressing earlier comments and recommendations. Confirming the main effects from positive and negative affect on originality and flexibility in a single study has value.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Carlos Andres Trujillo

20 Jul 2020

Individual Differences in Trait Creativity Moderate the State-Level Mood-Creativity Relationship

PONE-D-19-31431R2

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Carlos Andres Trujillo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Carlos Andres Trujillo

22 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-31431R2

Individual differences in trait creativity moderate the state-level mood-creativity relationship

Dear Dr. Zhang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Carlos Andres Trujillo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Dataset for this study.

    The datasets generated for this study.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reply-Final.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES