How Does the Intensity of Our Emotions Affect Creativity?

Recent research studies the link between creativity and emotional states, offering answers to the age-old question, "How can I be more creative?" 


The trope is that great artists feel more intensely than other people, but a recent study done by Eddie Harmon-Jones et al. shows that the more intense the feeling, the less creative we are. The conclusion was that it didn’t matter if our emotions were positive or negative, but that it be felt mildly, because when an emotion is too intense, it narrows our focus. What seems odd about that to me is the exhaustive list of creative works that have been born out of the most extreme of emotions: I would doubt that Jackson Pollock or Sylvia Plath had “low motivational intensity” when they did their best work.

Scott Barry Kaufman, however, cites other research that indicates There’s something about living life with passion and intensity, including the full depth of human experience, that is conducive to creativity.” That seems more accurate.

But what can we do, then, to increase states of creativity? Inducing states of both positive and negative emotions (“emotional ambivalence”) is suggested, as is creating an environment that is unusual. This may be why you’ve never heard someone say, “Cubicles? That’s where I do my best thinking!” and why companies in both tech and film curate quirky workspaces. If our brains go nuts for variety, it makes sense that we would need our stimuli randomized. What if you are not one of these fortunate people that work in a proudly too-cool office? Even small changes in your regular routine can make your brain light up like a Christmas tree. Stirring your coffee the opposite way, taking a different route to work, or changing up your routine can all lead to a more active and engaged brain.

There is no magic trick to make you more creative, and although there are steps we can take to cultivate these states, creativity may always be a tricky and elusive vixen. Eric Kandel, Nobel laureate and Columbia University professor of brain science, describes the "aha phenomenon" and speculates on ways that humans and groups can think more creatively.


Image courtesy of iStock / Ben Silva

In 1999, David Bowie knew the internet would change the world

Musican. Actor. Fashion Icon. Internet Visionary?

Technology & Innovation
  • David Bowie was well known as a rock star, but somehow his other interests and accomplishments remain obscure.
  • In this 1999 interview, he explains why he knows the internet is more than just a tool and why it was destined to change the world.
  • He launched his own internet service provider in 1998, BowieNet. It ceased operations in 2006.
Keep reading Show less

People who constantly complain are harmful to your health

Moans, groans, and gripes release stress hormones in the brain.

Photo credit: Getty Images / Stringer
popular

Could you give up complaining for a whole month? That's the crux of this interesting piece by Jessica Hullinger over at Fast Company. Hullinger explores the reasons why humans are so predisposed to griping and why, despite these predispositions, we should all try to complain less. As for no complaining for a month, that was the goal for people enrolled in the Complaint Restraint project.

Participants sought to go the entirety of February without so much as a moan, groan, or bellyache.

Keep reading Show less

​Is science synonymous with 'truth'? Game theory says, 'not always.'

Good science is sometimes trumped by the craving for a "big splash."

Videos
  • Scientists strive to earn credit from their peers, for grants from federal agencies, and so a lot of the decisions that they make are strategic in nature. They're encouraged to publish exciting new findings that demonstrate some new phenomenon that we have never seen before.
  • This professional pressure can affect their decision-making — to get acclaim they may actually make science worse. That is, a scientist might commit fraud if he thinks he can get away with it or a scientist might rush a result out of the door even though it hasn't been completely verified in order to beat the competition.
  • On top of the acclaim of their peers, scientists — with the increasing popularity of science journalism — are starting to be rewarded for doing things that the public is interested in. The good side of this is that the research is more likely to have a public impact, rather than be esoteric. The bad side? To make a "big splash" a scientist may push a study or article that doesn't exemplify good science.