skip to main content
10.1145/3059454.3059469acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesc-n-cConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Creativity and Emotion: Enhancing Creative Thinking by the Manipulation of Computational Feedback to Determine Emotional Intensity

Published:22 June 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Positive emotions can enhance the ability of people to generate original ideas, and its intensity can determine the degree to which people are able to think originally. How to design a technology that can be used to hack into this link between the intensity of positive emotion and creative thinking is, however, still an open problem. To address this we have conceived, developed, and experimentally evaluated a proof-of-concept interactive system that generates believable computational feedback about the originality of a user's own ideas in real-time. This system can manipulate this feedback to make a user's own ideas appear more or less original than people would typically judge them to be, and can also vary the order of this manipulation over time. This has enabled us to test experimentally that: (i) the order in which the positivity and negativity of the feedback is varied can be used to condition people's expectations, which (ii) can be used to later determine an intended intensity a positive emotion that a user experience, and which (iii) subsequently influence the degree to which the user is able to generate original ideas. The findings demonstrate that an interactive system can be designed to determine the type and intensity of an emotional response, in a manner that enhances the people's ability to generate original ideas.

References

  1. Akhbari Chermahini, S. and Hommel, B. 2012. More creative through positive mood? Not everyone!. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6, 319.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Baas, M., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Nijstad, B.A. 2008. A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?. Psychological Bulletin 134, 6: 779--806.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Baas, M., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Nijstad, B.A. 2011. When prevention promotes creativity: the role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of personality and social psychology 100, 5: 794--809.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Banerjee, S. and Pedersen, T. 2002. An adapted Lesk algorithm for word sense disambiguation using WordNet. In International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, 136145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Blair, C.S. and Mumford, M.D. 2007. Errors in idea evaluation: Preference for the original?. Journal of Creative Behavior 41, 3: 197--222.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Brans, K. and Verduyn, P. 2014. Intensity and duration of negative emotions: Comparing the role of appraisals and regulation strategies. PLoS ONE 9, 3: e92410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Brehm, J.W. 1999.The intensity of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3, 2--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Calvo, R.A. and Peters, D. 2014. Positive computing: technology for wellbeing and human potential. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Campbell, W.K. and Sedikides, C. 1999. Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology 3, 23--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. 1998. On the selfregulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cropley, A. 2006. In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal 18, 3: 391--404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. de Rooij, A., Broekens, J. and Lamers, M.H. 2013. Abstract expressions of affect. International Journal of Synthetic Emotions 4, 1: 1--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. de Rooij, A., Corr, P. and Jones, S. 2015. Emotion and creativity: Hacking into cognitive appraisal processes to augment creative ideation. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, 265--274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. de Rooij, A. and Jones, S. 2015. (E)Motion and creativity: Hacking the function of motor expressions in emotion regulation to augment creativity. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, 145152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. de Rooij, A. and Jones, S. 2013. Mood and creativity: An appraisal tendency perspective. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition, 362--365. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. de Rooij, A. and Jones, S. 2013. Motor expressions as creativity support: Exploring the potential for physical interaction. In Proceedings of the 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference, 47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Evernote Corporation. 2017. Evernote homepage. Retrieved March 13, 2017 from https://evernote.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Fellbaum, C. 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Frijda, N.H. 2007. The laws of emotion. Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Halácsy, P., Kornai, A. and Oravecz, C. 2007. Hunpos an open source trigram tagger. In Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the ACL on interactive poster and demonstration sessions, 209--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Illgen, D.R. 1971. Satisfaction with performance as a function of the initial level of expected performance and the deviations from expectations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6, 3: 345--361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Kaufman, J. C. and Baer, J. 2005. Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Lyer, L.R., Doboli, S., Minai, A.A., Brown, V.R., Levine, D.S. and Paulus, P.B. 2009. Neural dynamics of idea generation and the effects of priming. Neural Networks, 22, 674--686. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mumford, M.D., Medeiros, K.E. and Partlow, P.J. 2012. Creative thinking: Processes, strategies, and knowledge. The Journal of Creative Behavior 46, 1: 30--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Osborn, A.F. 1963. Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (3rd ed.). Charles Scribner's Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Plucker, J.A., Qian, M. and Wang, S. 2011. Is originality in the eye of the beholder? Comparison of scoring techniques in the assessment of divergent thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior 45, 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Roskes, M., Elliot, A.J., Nijstad, B.A. and De Dreu, C.K.W. 2013. Avoidance motivation and conservation of energy. Emotion Review 5, 308--311.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Rosseel, Y. 2011. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software 48, 2: 1--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Runco, M.A. and Jaeger, G.J. 2012. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24, 1: 92--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Scherer, K.R. 2009. The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component process model. Cognition & Emotion 23, 7: 1307--1351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Schrader, C. et al., 2017. Rising to the challenge: An emotion-driven approach toward adaptive serious games. In Ma, M. and Oikonomou, A. (Eds.) Serious Games and Edutainment Applications, volume II, 2--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Silvia, P.J. et al. 2008. Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2, 2: 68--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Sonnemans, J. and Frijda, N. 1994. The structure of subjective emotional intensity. Cognition & Emotion 8, 329--350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Weiner, B. 1985. An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review 92, 4: 548--573.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Creativity and Emotion: Enhancing Creative Thinking by the Manipulation of Computational Feedback to Determine Emotional Intensity

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      C&C '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition
      June 2017
      584 pages
      ISBN:9781450344036
      DOI:10.1145/3059454
      • General Chairs:
      • David A. Shamma,
      • Jude Yew,
      • Program Chair:
      • Brian Bailey

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 June 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      C&C '17 Paper Acceptance Rate27of94submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate108of371submissions,29%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader