Risk and Creativity by Matt Stewart
Cichomska (2010) investigated links between creativity, risk and mood (affect). A number of studies have cited an association between creativity and risk tolerance (e.g. El-Murad and West, 2003). It is thought that risk tolerance is important for creativity, as the success of new ideas is often unclear. Creativity requires some degree of risk taking and being able to cope with failed endeavours (Sternberg and Lubart, 1993). Therefore, an association between risk tolerance and creativity was predicted. Cichomska also investigated a possible link between risk tolerance and mood, based on evidence suggesting a relationship between the two factors (James, Brodersen and Eisenberg, 2004). Finally, the study also hypothesised a relationship between mood and creativity. Participants (N = 105), all of which were in current employment, completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) to measure affect, the Adjective Check List: Creative Personality Scale (Gough, 1979), looking at creativity and 84 of these participants additionally completed the Risk-Type Compass questionnaire™. All questionnaires were completed online. A series of regression analyses were conducted to test the study hypotheses. Results indicate strong links between creativity and risk tolerance, with the creativity variable being positively related to the Daring:Measured and Calm:Emotional personality scales, as well as the Risk Tolerance Index (see Table 1). This supports the notion that creativity requires a tolerance for risk taking. Table 1. Standardised beta coefficients for the variables in the regression examining the risk variables and creativity. Predictor Variables
Creativity
Calm:Emotional
.38**
Daring:Measured
.38**
Risk Tolerance Index
.51**
**p<0.01 There was also a positive relationship found between positive affect (being in a positive mood) and risk tolerance and a negative association between negative affect (being in a negative mood) and risk tolerance (see Table 2). This implies that those with higher risk tolerance levels were more likely to report being in a positive mood and less likely to report being in a negative mood. Looking at the personality scales, this is driven by Calm:Emotional, concerning the emotional aspect of risk taking. It makes sense for those individuals with a calm and composed temperament to also be in a better mood than those who are less emotionally stable. This notion is supported in the literature (e.g. Costa and McCrae, 1980). Daring:Measured was not found to be related to either affect variable in a preliminary correlation analysis and was therefore not included in the regression analysis.
Copyright Š 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd
www.psychological-consultancy.com
Table 2. Standardised beta coefficients for the variables in the regression examining the risk variables and affect. Predictor Variables
Positive Affect
Calm:Emotional
.38**
Risk Tolerance Index
.31**
Predictor Variables
Negative Affect
Calm:Emotional
-.36**
Risk Tolerance Index
-.29**
**p<0.01 Both negative and positive affect were related to creativity, so that individuals reported as being in a positive mood were more likely to also report being creative (see Table 3). Table 3. Standardised beta coefficients for the variables in the regression examining affect and creativity.. Predictor Variables
Creativity
Positive Affect
.26**
Negative Affect
-.26**
**p<0.01 Finally, the author looked at the mechanisms (or the mediators) by which mood influences creativity. It was predicted that an individual’s reported mood would be related to their risk tolerance, which would in turn influence their creativity. This relationship was indeed confirmed via a regression analysis. The study highlights the importance of risk tolerance in organisations where creativity is a requirement for success. A leap of faith is needed for the best ideas to take off and the Risk-Type Compass questionnaire may help identify those that have the risk tolerance to make these creative steps.
References Cichomska, K. (2010). Risk, Affect and Creativity at Work. Unpublished dissertation, City University, London, United Kingdom. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678. El-Murad, J., & West, D.C. (2003). Risk and Creativity in Advertising. Journal of Marketing Management, 19(5-6), 657-673. Gough, H.G. (1979). A Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398-1405. James, K., Brodersen, M., & Jacob, E. (2004). Workplace affect and workplace creativity: A review and preliminary model. Human Performance, 17(2), 169–194. Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1993). Investing in Creativity. Psychological Inquiry 4(3): 229-232. Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
Copyright © 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd
www.psychological-consultancy.com