Improv to Improve: The Impact of Improvisational Theater on Creativity, Acceptance, and Psychological Well-Being

Abstract

Improvisational theater (improv) is a form of theater where dialog, characters, and story are created spontaneously by its actors on stage. In the last years, different improv techniques have gained increasing popularity and spread into fields beyond comedy and performing art, e.g., business organizations and educational programs. However, the beneficial impact of improv on psychological variables has barely been investigated. In this study, we aim to fill this gap and contribute to a scientific investigation of improvisational theater on various variables that measure creativity, acceptance, and psychological well-being. In a controlled trial, 30 participants in the intervention group and 28 in the waiting control group completed six different tests and questionnaires prior and post to a 6-week improv intervention or waiting time, respectively. We found significant improvement in participants’ creativity and psychological well-being due to the intervention but no evidence for enhanced acceptance.

Full text

Running head: IMPROV TO IMPROVE 1
Improv to Improve: The impact of improvisational theatre on creativity, acceptance, and
psychological well-being
Diana Schwenke, Maja Dshemuchadse, Lisa Rasehorn, Dominik Klarhölter &
Stefan Scherbaum
Published in Journal of Creativity in Mental Health
To cite this article: Diana Schwenke, Maja Dshemuchadse, Lisa Rasehorn, Dominik
Klarhölter & Stefan Scherbaum (2020): Improv to Improve: The Impact of Improvisational
Theater on Creativity, Acceptance, and Psychological Well-Being, Journal of Creativity in
Mental Health, DOI: 10.1080/15401383.2020.1754987

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 2
Abstract
Improvisational theatre (improv) is a form of theatre where dialog, characters, and story
are created spontaneously by its actors on stage. In the last years, different improv
techniques have gained increasing popularity and spread into fields beyond comedy and
performing art, e.g. business organisations and educational programs. However, the
beneficial impact of improv on psychological variables has barely been investigated. In
this study we aim to fill this gap and contribute to a scientific investigation of
improvisational theatre on various variables that measure creativity, acceptance and
psychological well-being. In a controlled trail, 30 participants in the intervention group
and 28 in the waiting control group completed 6 different tests and questionnaires prior
and post to a 6-week improv intervention or waiting time respectively. We found
significant improvement in participants’ creativity and psychological well-being due to
the intervention but no evidence for enhanced acceptance.
Keywords: applied improv; training; psychological well-being; social skills; creativity

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 3
In recent years, improvisational theatre (improv) has become increasingly popular. In
2018, 91 improv training courses alone were conducted by Germany’s largest improv group
‘The Gorillas’ (Berlin). 1191 active improv groups are currently listed worldwide, according
to the improwiki [https://improwiki.com/en/list_of_improv_groups_worldwide] . But the
beneficial impact of improv has barely been investigated. Here, we contributed to a scientific
investigation and demonstrated that improv supports participants’ creativity and
psychological-well-being. In the following, we will first illustrate the nature of improv and its
special features compared to traditional theatre and then outline existing research highlighting
particularly important results. In the last part of introduction, will focus on the measured
variables and their implication on mental health.
Improvisational Theatre
Improv includes a variety of styles of verbal and nonverbal theatrical performances, as
well as improvisational comedy in its wider sense. It refers to a form of theatre where dialog,
characters, and story are created spontaneously by its players on stage. In its purest form, a
scene emerges in complete freedom without the limitations of a prepared plan or script
(Johnstone, 1999).
Although improv appears to be utterly chaotic, there are several guiding principles
relating in particular to the actors’ performances in order to boost creativity and cooperation.
The so-called “Yes, and…” principle is considered as the cornerstone of improv. It suggests
that an actor accepts anything that a co-actor has stated ("yes") and expands the situation by
adding new material (“and”). For example, when player 1 addresses player 2 as “Doctor,
those pills of yours have worked wonder!”, player 2 accepts the role of a doctor and responds
to it by adding a new element. A second principle, called “Mistakes are gifts”, states that there
is no right or wrong on stage, but only opportunities. Thus, players should take everything as
an offer, even misunderstanding or mental blockades, and treat them as a contribution to the

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 4
story. Actors are therefore encouraged to use their very first inspiration without hesitation or
uncertainty.
In order to follow those principles, improv players must obviously develop a set of primary
skills and abilities (Hoffmann-Longtin, Rossing, & Weinstein, 2017; Rossing & Hoffmann-
Longtin, 2016). First, they must make decisions in short time and take risks instead of
considering each move and evaluating possible failures. Second, they must focus and stay in
the present to be able to observe the play offers made by other players. And third, they must
accept each other’s ideas radically to form a group of players that engages in a trustful
collaborative and fair interplay.
Applied Improv
If one looks at the abilities that are required in order to play “good improv”, it
becomes clear that these abilities are not only useful on stage, but also in everyday life.
Therefore, it is not surprising that different techniques and principles of improv theatre spread
into fields beyond comedy and performing art, referred to as “applied improv”. Improv is
advertised as a tool for business organizations to improve communication skills, creativity,
and problem-solving (Gee & Gee, 2011; Huffaker & West, 2005; Keefe, 2003; Scinto, 2015;
Shaw & Stacey, 2006). Further, educational programs for clinicians include improv
techniques for a better physician-patient interaction (Ballon, Silver, & Fidler, 2007;
Hoffmann-Longtin et al., 2017; Kursen, 2012). It has also been argued that improv may
increase social cognitive skills like empathy and theory of mind as a consequence of enhanced
perspective taking though role-playing activities (Ballon et al., 2007). Improv is also
expected to shape processes that are associated with enhanced well-being (Bermant, 2013)
and mental health (Phillips Sheesley, Pfeffer, & Barish, 2016) supposedly due to several
similarities between exercising improv and other psychological interventions like body
awareness, mindfulness, and psychotherapy.

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 5
In view of this, it becomes obvious that improv techniques are being used in an increasing
number of settings to improve a variety of psychological outcomes. Yet, it must be said that
the potential effects on those variables have not yet been sufficiently investigated. An
exception to this are studies on divergent thinking skills, the ability to generate multiple
solutions to a specific problem. Hainselin, Aubry, and Bourdin (2018) demonstrated that
divergent thinking in teenagers improved due to a 11-week improv training course using a
randomized-controlled design. Lewis and Lovatt (2013) demonstrated that even after a very
short improv session of 20 minutes divergent thinking skills improved compared to a control
condition. Using a similar controlled design, it has been shown that an after-school improv
class had a positive effect on the students self- concept, but only for those children who
showed a low level of self-concept at the beginning of the class (DeBettignies & Goldstein,
2019).
Further, patients with Parkinson disease have been studied using a randomized, modified
cross-over-design, but only one out of ten variable improved significantly, namely ‘activities
of daily living’, while all other variables did not reach significance (Bega et al., 2017).
However, other studies targeting psychological variables do not provide the necessary
methodological quality to make reliable contributions. For example, one study found a
positive impact of improv on depression and anxiety after a 4-week intervention (Krueger,
Murphy, & Bink, 2017) and a school-based improvisational theatre program claims to
decrease symptoms of social anxiety (Felsman, Seifert, & Himle, 2019). However, due to the
fact that both studies used single-group designs, the missing control group asks for caution in
interpreting these results. In addition to that, there is an extensive body of literature that points
to the beneficial effect of improv-based educational programs for pharmacy students (Boesen,
Herrier, Apgar, & Jackowski, 2009), nursing (Hanley & Fenton, 2007), and medical students
(Shochet & King, 2013; Watson, 2011), but again cannot infer that the findings were a result

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 6
of the intervention due to the lack of a systematic comparison between the intervention and a
control group.
With this study we aim to fill this gap and contribute to a scientific investigation of the
potential effects of improvisational theatre. As improv has been suggested to influence a
variety of variables, we here focus on a selection of psychological constructs. In the following
section we describe the variables in more detail and explain how we operationalized these
constructs.
Creativity. Creativity can be described as the ability to generate various, origin, and
useful solutions to a problem, although there have been several interpretations of the
processes through which creativity emerges, e.g. the idea of incubation (Wallas, 1926),
divergent thinking (Guilford, 1967), associative processes (Megalakaki, Craft, & Cremin,
2012), or different processing activities (Mumford, Mobley, Reiter-Palmon, Uhlman, &
Doares, 1991). In this study we refer to the cognitive approach that primarily focusses on
creative thinking skills according to Guilford's Structure of Intellect theory (Guilford, 1967).
In his theory Guildford highlighted the distinction between convergent and divergent
production: Whereas converged thinking leads to the most coherent or single best answer to a
problem, divergent thinking explores many different possible solutions. Divergent thinking
tasks are therefore considered as a valid measurement for creativity (Kenett et al., 2014; Kim,
2006).
Acceptance. We conceptualized acceptance as representing two established
psychological concepts, mindfulness and the intolerance of uncertainty.
Mindfulness. Mindfulness is commonly defined as a form of non-judgmental attention
from moment to moment (Kabat-Zinn, 1990), a concept that is derived from the Buddhists’
practice of meditation. Over the last years, mindfulness has become increasingly popular in
western society. Western psychotherapy in particular has developed various therapeutic

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 7
applications based on mindfulness training courses targeting patients with mental health
problems like depression and anxiety (Bohlmeijer, Prenger, Taal, & Cuijpers, 2010; Hayes,
2016) or personality disorder (Linehan, 2018). Further, the practise of mindfulness reduced
stress and increased self-compassion in mentally healthy subjects (Chiesa & Serretti, 2009).
The clinical and non-clinical subjects benefited from an increased awareness for the present
moment, i.e. from the ability to observe their own thoughts, feelings or body sensations with
an open, peaceful, and most importantly accepting mind.
Intolerance of uncertainty. The concept of intolerance of uncertainty describes
peoples’ cognitive and emotional reaction to unexpected, stressful, or threating stimuli
(Krohne, 1989, 1993). A closely related concept, Intolerant of ambiguity, was introduced by
Frenkel-Brunswik, (1949) and describes whether a person interpreters an ambiguous stimuli
as potential source of harm or discomfort. As the concept integrates perception, motivation
and personality, intolerance of uncertainty determines peoples’ coping mechanisms when
extreme events possibly endanger their personal life and livelihoods (Dalbert & Warndorf,
1995; Dugas, 1997). It does also play an important role in the acquisition and maintenance of
anxieties disorders (Dugas, 1997; Dugas et al., 2005; Shihata, McEvoy, & Mullan, 2017). In
this study we use the term ‘tolerance of uncertainty’ to emphasize a positive perspective on
this issue.
Psychological well-Being. We conceptualized psychological well-being as being
affected by three well established psychological constructs, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and
resilience.
Self-esteem. Self-esteem reflects the individual attitude towards the self and the
subjective positive or negative evaluation of one’s own worth. It thereby includes emotional
states as well and cognitive beliefs. Several studies have emphasised the role of self-esteem as
an influential predictor of overall well-being (Barendregt, van der Laan, Bongers, & van

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 8
Nieuwenhuizen, 2015; Baumeister, Campbell, & Krueger, 2003), satisfaction in relationships
(Larson, Anderson, Holman, & Niemann, 1998; Luciano & Orth, 2017), and academic
achievement (Cvencek, Fryberg, Covarrubias, & Meltzoff, 2018; Damian & Robins, 2011).
Further, it is considered as a central construct in explaining eating disorders, depression and
anxiety (Brechan & Kvalem, 2015; Furnham, Badmin, & Sneade, 2002; Ghaderi, 2003;
Sowislo & Orth, 2013; Steiger, Allemand, Robins, & Fend, 2014).
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as the personal belief in the ability to achieve
goals and to manage environmental demands. Such perceptions are believed to determine
whether we engage in courses of action that are required to deal with challenging situations
(Bandura, 1970). A high confidence in one’s abilities correlates with a higher level of
performance and a lower level of emotional arousal (Bandura, Reese, & Admas, 1982). It can
alter the use of coping strategies and their effects on stress (Bandura et al., 1982; Burger &
Samuel, 2017; Crego, Carrillo-Diaz, Armfield, & Romero, 2016).
Resilience. Resilience describes the general capacity to recover from a traumatic
event or stage of life. People with high level resilience have the ability to somehow adapt to
the cruses and return to pre-crisis status quickly (Chmitorz et al., 2018; Hornor, 2017).
Despite suffering from experiences that would be expected to result in serious negative health
consequences, they appear to be relatively unaffected and life on without any long-term
negative consequences. There are several finding that resilience plays a mentally protective
role (Dray et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2017; Halkitis, Krause, & Vieira, 2016).

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 9
Our Aim and Study and Hypotheses
In this study, we aim to test the positive influence of an improvisational theatre
program on a variety of psychological variables. Therefore, a 6-week intervention was
conducted as a group-based format of improv training which unfolded in various individual
and collaborative improv exercises. 30 participants in the intervention group (IG) and 28 in
the waiting control group (CG) completed 6 different tests and questionnaires prior and post
to the intervention. Using a controlled pre-post intervention design, we provided a valid
evaluation of the improv training effects on three psychological dimensions that are
considered to be influenced by improv according to the claims of the improv community.
Hypothesis 1. First, we studied the probably most common claim, namely that improv
improves creativity (Johnstone, 1987, 1999; Nelson, 2017). We expect that the IG will show
more improvement in verbal productive creativity than the CG.
Hypothesis 2. Another widely spread assertion is that improv supports an open,
present-oriented and accepting mind-set (Richter, 2018), which we here refer to as
acceptance. We expect that the IG will show more improvement in self-reported mindfulness
and tolerance of uncertainty than the CG.
Hypothesis 3. Finally, we study whether improv affects general psychological well-
being as stated theoretically (Bermant, 2013) as well as implied by improv training materials
(Bedore, 2003; Richter, 2018; Spolin, 1999). We expect that compared to the CG, the IG will
show more improvement in self-reported self-esteem, self-efficacy, and resilience.

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 10
Methods
Ethics Statement
The study was performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of
Helsinki and of the German Psychological Society. An ethical approval was not required since
the study did not involve any risk or discomfort for the participants. All participants were
informed about the purpose and the procedure of the study and gave written informed consent
prior to the study. All data were analysed anonymously.
Procedure
We recruited participants for a 6-week training program in improv via flyer, posters
and social media. In order to increase compliance, participants were charged with a 40€ fee
for the training program, of which 30€ were refunded after they completed all post-
intervention questionnaires. Participants were assigned to an intervention group (IG) or a
control group (CG).
One week prior the start of the intervention, all participants received a link to a
Website including all questionnaires. For pre-post intervention comparison, participants were
instructed to generate a personalized code allowing anonymous data analysis and matching of
pre-post-data-sets. Afterwards they provided demographic information (sex, age, final degree,
their experiences with improv) and then answered all pre-intervention questionnaires and tests
via the German online system SoSciSurvey [https://www.soscisurvey.de]. In the following 6
weeks, we conducted the intervention program (see section Intervention) for the IG, while the
CG continued their lives unaffected by the study. The day after the last training session in the
intervention program, participants received another invitation to the SoSci Survey Website via
E-Mail. They again were instructed to generated their personalized code and completed all
questionnaires and tests. Furthermore, they were asked open questions about their experiences

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 11
in the course and if they had suffered any life-changing event in the last 6 weeks. Afterwards,
all participants were refunded as agreed upon and participants in the CG were invited to join
one of four intensive weekend training courses as a compensation for their waiting-time.
Participants
For each of the three training courses, we estimated a maximal number of 10
participants in order to ensure a high-quality intervention, good personal support for each
participant, and hence the largest possible effect of the course on each participant. To
determine the sensitivity of our design with the aspirated 30 participants, we performed a
sensitivity analysis under the following assumptions: For statistical tests we assumed a t-test
between two independent means with a maximal sample size of N = 30 (per group), a power
of 80%, and an alpha error probability of 5%. This allowed us to detect an effect of size of
about d = 0.65.
In order to approach this sample size, we initially recruited 99 participants for a 6-
week training program in improv via flyer, posters and social media. Eligibility criteria for
participation were as followed: Participants must be aged between 20 and 40 years, (2) must
not have any experiences in improve, and (3) must be able to attend at weekly sessions over a
six-week period. 74 participants finally registered to the study by completing all pre-
intervention questionnaires. The first 34 participants were assigned to the intervention group
(IG), the remaining 40 were assigned to a waiting-control group (control group, CG). For pre-
versus-post intervention analyses we excluded participants who (1) did not participate in at
least 5 or more sessions of the intervention (4 from IG), (2) did not complete all post-
intervention questionnaires (10 from CG), and (3) who stated that he or she had suffered any
significant positive or negative life-event during the 6 week-intervention period (1 participant
from CG who stated that she found a new job after a long period of unemployment), (4)

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 12
violation of the eligibility criteria (1 from CG). The final sample for data analysis consisted of
30 (11.76% drop out) participants in the intervention group and 28 (30.00% drop out)
participants in the control group. On average, participants were 26.55 (SE = .52) years old and
65.52% were female (see Table 1 for group-specific demographic characteristics). In order to
examine any group-specific differences, we tested whether or not both groups showed
significant differences in their demographic characteristic and found no significant difference
for any demographic variables all t(56) < 0.830, all p > .410
[TABLE 1]
Measures
Prior and after the intervention, all participants completed six questionnaires and tests
(see Table 2) via SoSci Survey. Participants needed approximately 25-30 minutes to complete
all questions.
[TABLE 2]
Intervention
The intervention took place over a six-week period, with six two-hour sessions (total
of 12h practise). Each participant in the IG registered for one of three courses based on their
personal time preference (Monday, Tuesday, or Thursday evening course; in exceptional
cases, participants were allowed to switch courses).

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 13
Two experienced improv-players developed a manualised training program using
classical improv techniques and exercises. Both trainers instructed the participants in
accordance with the manual to ensure a uniform intervention for all three courses (for the
detailed manual https://osf.io/y2hku/. Summarized, the intervention was considered as a
group-based format of improv-training which unfolded in various individual and collaborative
improv exercises comprising the following elements: (1) Learning: Theoretical introduction
to the nature of a core principles in improv. (2) Practicing: Individual and collective practical
exercises related to that principle. (3) Discussion: Reflection on the individual experiences
and views.
Design and Data
The study comprised a 2x2 design with one within factor time (pre versus post
intervention) and one between factor group (IG versus CG). As dependent variables, we
measured raw summative scores from the questionnaires. We carried out each statistical
analysis using repeated measured ANOVA with the within-subject factor time (pre vs. post)
and the between-subject factor group (improv group vs. control group). Statistical testing was
carried out using JASP 0.9.1.0 (JASP Team, 2018).
Results
Demographic Variables
We examined demographic variables in relation to the dependent measures and found
no effects of age, all t < 1.206, all p > .114 (independent t-tests). We found a significant
positive correlation between age and the dependent variable verbal creativity in the pre-
intervention score, Pearson’s r = 0.396, p < .001, indicating that older participants showed
higher scores for verbal creativity. All other pre and post scores did not show any significant
correlation with age, all r < .240, all p > .060.

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 14
Effects of the Improv Training Intervention
For each effect of interest, we performed an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the
within-subject factor time (pre vs. post) and the between-subject factor group (improv group
vs. control group). A significant interaction effect between time and group would indicate that
the training program resulted in an improvement in self-rated psychological well-being.
We found no significant main effect for group for any of the six measurements, all
F(1, 56) < 2.083, all p > .155. We found a significant main effect for time for self-esteem,
F(1, 56) = 5.624, p =.021, ηp2 = 0.091; for Resilience, F(1, 56) = 9.078, p =.004, ηp2 = 0.139;
and for self-efficacy F(1, 56) = 6.613, p =.013, ηp2 = 0.106; while all other measures did not
reach significance, all F(1, 56) < 2.204 and all other p > .143.
The results of the interaction effect signalling the effect of the intervention program
are demonstrated in Table 3 and Fig. 1. In summary, we found that compared to the control
group (CG), the improv group (IG) showed more improvement in creativity and self-reported
psychological well-being regarding the dimension self-esteem, and self-efficacy. In addition,
we found a trend indicating an effect of improv training over time for the variable resilience.
[TABLE 3]
[FIG 1]
Discussion
In this study, we investigated the potential effects of an improvisational theatre
(improv) training intervention on various variables that address the three following

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 15
dimensions: creativity, acceptance, and psychological well-being. The intervention was
considered as a group-based format of improv training which unfolded in classical individual
and collaborative improv exercises and games. 30 participants in the intervention group (IG)
and 28 participants in the waiting control (CG) group completed 6 questionnaires and tests
before and after the intervention. Our results indicated that participants in the IG have partly
benefited from the intervention and that the intervention was very well received as
demonstrated by very high attendance rates.
For the first dimension, creativity, we found that the participants in the IG showed
more improvement in verbal productive creativity than participants in the waiting control
group. This, indicates that participants’ verbal productive creativity increased as a
consequence of the improv training intervention, as predicted. Due to the artistic nature of
improv we consider this finding first of all as a credibility check for our training intervention.
Further, this finding is consistent with previous research demonstrating a beneficial effect of
improv on divergent thinking skills (Hainselin et al., 2018; Lewis & Lovatt, 2013). Hence, our
findings contribute conclusive evidence that improv promotes peoples’ ability to find creative
and resourceful solutions and that therefore it can help us to think in more diverse ways or
even break away from ingrained patterns of behaviour.
Beyond this expectable result, we aimed to study the impact of improv on
psychological variables that are more related to peoples’ ability to cope with real-world
challenges and to this end to their mental health. For the dimension acceptance, we
investigated the effect of improv on mindfulness and tolerance of uncertainty. However,
contrary to our prediction, we found no beneficial effect of improv. It is unclear what the
implications of these findings are. While it is always possible that the instruments we used
were not suitable for obtaining measurements of change or the sample was too small to detect
any effect of interest, we think that even assuming that improv did not affect acceptance could

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 16
bear interesting consequences. It asks to speculate whether acceptance might be a more
complex construct than is usually assumed in the community: Acceptance might indeed
include mindfulness and tolerance of uncertainty, but this could be completely different to the
trained acceptance in improvisational theatre. Mindfulness is commonly defined as a form of
non-judgmental attention from moment to moment (Kabat-Zinn, 1990), whereas tolerance of
uncertainty refers to as peoples’ cognitive and emotional orientation towards unexpected,
unsafe or critical situations. Both concepts imply an accepting and peaceful attitude towards
stressful or unexpected life events that is relatable to the challenges of improvisational
performances on stage. Various improv games challenge the players’ ability to cope with
unexpected and sudden events. The “Yes, and” principle most certainly suggests to stay
focused in the present moment and to accept any play-offer whether they are “good or bad”.
However, despite this substantial overlap, a closer look reveals that the accepting attitude in
improv might be more directed towards an action-related behaviour and less towards non-
judgmental perception and awareness. Future research could shed light on the question
whether different training interventions can target theses different aspects of acceptance
specifically in order to disentangle the impact of improv related interventions and
mindfulness-based interventions.
For the dimension psychological-wellbeing, we found a beneficial effect of improv on
self-esteem and self-efficacy. Furthermore, a statistical trend for resilience points in the same
direction but should be interpreted with care and therefore should be studied with a bigger
sample in further research. Together, these findings indicate that improv helps to develop a
mind-set that welcomes and embraces possible failures or shortcomings and enhances an
attitude towards self-respect and self-acceptance, as expected. While the experience of
repeated exposure on stage seems to stimulate self-esteem and self-efficacy, the essential

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 17
therapeutic mechanism lies in the acceptance of others. Improv most of all provides a positive
atmosphere of openness and trust fostered by group coherence and mutual support.
Our findings are of great interest since both variables are directly linked to mental health
issues. More specifically, self-esteem is considered as a central construct in explaining e.g.
eating disorders, depression and anxiety (Brechan & Kvalem, 2015; Furnham et al., 2002;
Ghaderi, 2003; Sowislo & Orth, 2013; Steiger et al., 2014). Similar, the level of self-efficacy
is correlated with arousal, the use of coping strategies and eventually stress (Bandura et al.,
1982; Burger & Samuel, 2017; Crego et al., 2016). There is a great interest in the subject of
work-related stress and depression and its treatment options for our modern society. A report
prepared by the Dachverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK) estimated that mental illness
in Germany alone accounted for approximately 16% of all sick days (Knieps & Pfaff, 2018)
corresponding to an annual cost of at least 44 million €. In the light of our findings, we argue
that practicing improv techniques and exercises could add an essential element to modern
mental health care.
Because improv is subsumable to performing arts, the similarities between improv-
based interventions and drama therapy seem apparent. Individual or group based drama
therapy has been used effectively in forensics and various mental health settings (Blacker,
Watson, & Beech, 2008; D’Amico, Lalonde, & Snow, 2015; Listiakova, 2014; McAlister,
2000; Meldrum, 1994) by including the experience of role play and storytelling and the use of
variable settings, masks or puppets (Langley, 2006). These methods pave the way for a
metaphorical expression of personal problems, an intense communication with oneself as well
as the activation of projective identification processes, i.e., the phenomenon of experiencing
feelings that the other person is unable to feel (Jones, 1996). Through this act of dramatic self-
presentation, drama therapy focuses particularly on raising self-awareness for individual
inner-conflicts or unhealthy behavioural patterns and is therefore assumed to be an action-

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 18
based form of modern psychodynamic therapy. Therefore, we see two major differences
between the therapeutic approach based on drama therapy and the mental health approach
based on improv. First, modern psychanalyses differentiates between mental disorders that
results from unconscious, repressed conflicts and limited or dysfunctional structural abilities
(Force, 2008; Rudolf, 2018). This dichotomy (or rather this continuum) of mental disorders
reflects, in a way, the different therapeutic purpose of drama therapy on the one hand, and
improv-based interventions on the other. While the first might serve well for patients that
benefit from treatments that focus on repressed conflicts and thus the awakening and
expansion of the consciousness, improv could be a valuable enrichment especially for patients
who benefit from treatments that focus on the development of structural abilities, e.g., general
coping skills that are necessary for effective emotional regulation or regulation of self-esteem.
Second, since drama therapy focusses on concrete conflicts and traumatic episodes of
patients, it poses a certain entry demand to patients since they have to commit to facing these
situations and hopefully solving them to allow for further personal growth. In contrast, improv
allows anyone to start playing and discover areas of personal growth without ever addressing
(or being aware of) concrete conflicts. Notably, such untreated conflicts might pose a threat to
growth in improv and instructors should be aware of this caveat. Hence considering the
question ‘who can benefit from improv-based interventions?’ is particularly necessary for
counsellors and therapists in order to plan the appropriate procedure and include improv as an
additional element in a multimodal mental health treatment. Compared to standard mental
health treatments, improv provides the additional advantage of being less focused on
somebodies’ flaws and shortcoming. Instead this approach is focused exclusively towards
activation of resources, mutual support, and a fruitful interlinkage of somebodies’ existing
potentials with newly established resources. It is more creative, more body-related, more
playful (West, Hoff, & Carlsson, 2017). Therefore, it can be assumed that improv could

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 19
provide a treasured and efficient treatment especially for mental health patients that are
difficult to reach with standard mental health approaches.
Limitations
In this study we contributed to a scientific investigation of improv. With the
implementation of a waiting control group as a valid comparison to the improv training
intervention, we successfully managed to combine a high scientific standard and equitable
treatment for all participants. Our controlled pre-post intervention design allowed us to rule
out major factors that could have contributed to the beneficial effect of the intervention, i.e.
repeated testing, history effects, or maturation (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Due to the fact that
all participants were promised a training course, the influence of self-selection can be ruled
out to a high degree, with one noteworthy limitation: At the time participants registered for
the study, they were not aware if they would receive the weekly or the intense training
intervention. Following that, it has to mentioned that 10 participants in the waiting control
group withdraw their participation in the study after they were assigned to the intense
weekend intervention. In addressing problems like this, it is indispensable to conduct studies
that comprise a randomized-controlled design with an alternative intervention group in future
research. In addition to that, it would be of benefit to explore in further studies the
intervention itself. While the current study carried out an intervention that lasted only 6-
weeks, trained improv players have long years of experience in various improv techniques
and exercise. Hence, several questions remain open: Does the length of the intervention have
an impact on the size of effects? Does improv affect other domains like cognition,
communication, or social interaction dynamics? How long do these effects last? It would also
be interesting to measure psychological well-being via evaluation tools that capture real life
behaviour instead of self-reported ratings.

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 20
A further limitation is that we were only able to use gender, age and level of education
as possible modulating variables. As laid out above, it is of great importance to determine
which individual characteristics might influence the possible positive impact of improv-based
interventions, a questions that remains open. Therefore, future research should address these
questions and study the differential effects of demographic variables in more detail.
Outlook
While the implementation of improv techniques beyond comedy and performing art is
trending, the field of business and educational programs have been the centre of attention for
the last years. With this study we hope to expand this point of view and highlight the
psychological impact of improv, in particular the impact on peoples mental well-being. We
hope that further research will be conducted to confirm and expand our findings to assess the
psychological impact of improv on emotional and cognitive processes in clinical and non-
clinic subjects.

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 21
Funding
This work was supported by the Volkswagen Foundation under Grant 89426.
Disclosure Statement:
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Data Availability Statement
All data and JASP scripts are openly available on the Open Science Framework platform at
https://osf.io/y2hku/.
Supplemental Online Material:
Intervention manual is openly available on the open Science Frameword platform at
https://osf.io/y2hku/ in German.

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 22
References
Ballon, B. C., Silver, I., & Fidler, D. (2007). Headspace theater: an innovative method for
experiential learning of psychiatric symptomatology using modified role-playing and
improvisational theater techniques. Academic Psychiatry, 31(5), 380–387.
Bandura, A. (1970). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American Psychologist,
37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(86)91535-0
Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Admas, N. E. (1982). Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a
function of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 43(1), 5.
Barendregt, C. S., van der Laan, A. M., Bongers, I. L., & van Nieuwenhuizen, C. (2015).
Longitudinal Relation Between General Well-Being and Self-Esteem. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(16), 1836–1855.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x15588773
Baumeister, R., Campbell, J., & Krueger, J. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better
performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44.
Bedore, B. (2003). 101 Improv Games for Children and Adults: Fun and Creativity with
Improvisation and Acting. HUNTER HOUSE.
Bega, D., Palmentera, P., Wagner, A., Hovde, M., Barish, B., Kwasny, M. J., & Simuni, T.
(2017). Laughter is the best medicine: The Second City®improvisation as an
intervention for Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, 34, 62–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2016.11.001
Bermant, G. (2013). Working with(out) a net: Improvisational theater and enhanced well-
being. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(DEC), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00929
Blacker, J., Watson, A., & Beech, A. R. (2008). A combined drama-based and CBT approach
to working with self-reported anger aggression. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health,
18(2), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm
Boesen, K. P., Herrier, R. N., Apgar, D. A., & Jackowski, R. M. (2009). Improvisational
exercises to improve pharmacy students’ professional communication skills. American
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(2). https://doi.org/10.5688/aj730235

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 23
Bohlmeijer, E., Prenger, R., Taal, E., & Cuijpers, P. (2010). The effects of mindfulness-based
stress reduction therapy on mental health of adults with a chronic medical disease: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 68(6), 539–544.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.10.005
Brechan, I., & Kvalem, I. L. (2015). Relationship between body dissatisfaction and disordered
eating: Mediating role of self-esteem and depression. Eating Behaviors, 17, 49–58.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its
Role in Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4),
822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Burger, K., & Samuel, R. (2017). The Role of Perceived Stress and Self-Efficacy in Young
People’s Life Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
46(1), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0608-x
Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Stress Management
in Healthy People: A Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine, 15(5), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2008.0495
Chmitorz, A., Kunzler, A., Helmreich, I., Tüscher, O., Kalisch, R., Kubiak, T., … Lieb, K.
(2018). Intervention studies to foster resilience – A systematic review and proposal for a
resilience framework in future intervention studies. Clinical Psychology Review,
59(January 2017), 78–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.002
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-E&perimeni-tation: Design and Analysis Issues
for Field Studies. Chicago, III: Rand McNally College Publishing Co, 115–117.
Crego, A., Carrillo-Diaz, M., Armfield, J. M., & Romero, M. (2016). Stress and Academic
Performance in Dental Students: The Role of Coping Strategies and Examination-
Related Self-Efficacy. Journal of Dental Education, 80(2), 165–172. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26834134
Cvencek, D., Fryberg, S. A., Covarrubias, R., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2018). Self-Concepts, Self-
Esteem, and Academic Achievement of Minority and Majority North American
Elementary School Children. Child Development, 89(4), 1099–1109.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12802
D’Amico, M., Lalonde, C., & Snow, S. (2015). Evaluating the efficacy of drama therapy in
teaching social skills to children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Drama Therapy

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 24
Review, 1(1), 21–39.
Dalbert, C. (1999). Die Ungewißheitstoleranzskala: Skaleneigenschaften und
Validierungsbefunde. Hallesche Berichte Zur Pädagogischen Psychologie Nr. 1.
Dalbert, C., & Warndorf, P. K. (1995). INFORMATIONSVERARBEITUNG UND
DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOME BEI MUTTERN BEHINDERTER KINDER: DIE
BEDEUTUNG VON UNGEWISSHEITSTOLERANZ, SELBSTZUSCHREIBUNGEN
UND HE ILUNGSPROGNOSEN. Zeitschrift Für Klinische Psychologie, 24(4), 328–
336.
Damian, R. I., & Robins, R. W. (2011). Self-Esteem Across the Lifespan: Issues and
Interventions. Journal of Women & Aging, 23(2), 177–179.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2011.561147
DeBettignies, B. H., & Goldstein, T. R. (2019). Improvisational Theater Classes Improve
Self-Concept. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.
https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000260
Dray, J., Bowman, J., Campbell, E., Freund, M., Wolfenden, L., Hodder, R. K., … Wiggers, J.
(2017). Systematic Review of Universal Resilience-Focused Interventions Targeting
Child and Adolescent Mental Health in the School Setting. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(10), 813–824.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.07.780
Dugas, M. J. (1997). Intolerance of uncertainty and problem orientation in worry. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 21(6), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021890322153
Dugas, M. J., Hedayati, M., Karavidas, A., Buhr, K., Francis, K., & Phillips, N. A. (2005).
Intolerance of uncertainty and information processing: Evidence of biased recall and
interpretations. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29(1), 57–70.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-005-1648-9
Felsman, P., Seifert, C. M., & Himle, J. A. (2019). The use of improvisational theater training
to reduce social anxiety in adolescents. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 63, 111–117.
Force, O. P. D. T. (2008). Operationalized psychodynamic diagnosis OPD-2: Manual of
diagnosis and treatment planning. Hogrefe Publishing.
Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of Ambiguity As an Emotional and Perceptual

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 25
Personality Variable. Journal of Personality, 18(1), 108–143.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01236.x
Furnham, A., Badmin, N., & Sneade, I. (2002). Body image dissatisfaction: Gender
differences in eating attitudes, self-esteem, and reasons for exercise. Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 136(6), 581–596.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980209604820
Gao, T., Ding, X., Chai, J., Zhang, Z., Zhang, H., Kong, Y., & Mei, S. (2017). The influence
of resilience on mental health: The role of general well-being. International Journal of
Nursing Practice, 23(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12535
Gee, V., & Gee, S. (2011). Business Improv Creates a Culture of Change and Innovation.
Journal for Quality and Participation, 34(3).
Ghaderi, A. (2003). Structural modeling analysis of prospective risk factors for eating
disorder. Eating Behaviors, 3(4), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1471-
0153(02)00089-2
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
Hainselin, M., Aubry, A., & Bourdin, B. (2018). Improving teenagers’ divergent thinking with
improvisational theater. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(SEP), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01759
Halkitis, P. N., Krause, K. D., & Vieira, D. L. (2016). Mental Health, Psychosocial Challenges
and Resilience in Older Adults Living with HIV. Interdisciplinary Topics in Gerontology
and Geriatrics, 42, 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1159/000448564
Hanley, M. A., & Fenton, M. V. (2007). Exploring improvisation in nursing. Journal of
Holistic Nursing : Official Journal of the American Holistic Nurses’ Association, 25(2),
126–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898010106296958
Hayes, S. C. (2016). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Relational Frame Theory, and the
Third Wave of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies. Behavior Therapy, 47(6), 869–885.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.006
Hoffmann-Longtin, K., Rossing, J. P., & Weinstein, E. (2017). Twelve tips for using applied
improvisation in medical education. Medical Teacher, 40(317), 351–356.
Hornor, G. (2017). Resilience. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 31(3), 384–390.

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 26
https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2018.780
Huffaker, J. S., & West, E. (2005). ENHANCING LEARNING IN THE BUSINESS
CLASSROOM: AN ADVENTURE WITH IMPROV THEATER TECHNIQUES.
Journal of Management Education, 29(6), 852–869.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905277311
Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1999). Skala zur Allgemeinen Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung.
Skalen Zur Erfassung von Lehrer- Und Schülermerkmalen. Dokumentation Der
Psychometrischen Verfahren Im Rahmen Der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung Des
Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen, 1–4.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.307
Johnstone, K. (1987). Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre. Routledge.
Johnstone, K. (1999). Impro for Storytellers: Theatresports and the Art of Making Things
Happen. Faber & Faber.
Jones, P. (1996). Drama as therapy: Theatre as living. Psychology Press.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to
face stress, pain, and illness. (pp. 59–72). pp. 59–72. Delta.
Keefe, J. A. (2003). Improv yourself: Business spontaneity at the speed of thought. John Wiley
& Sons.
Kenett, Y. N., Anaki, D., & Faust, M. (2014). Investigating the structure of semantic networks
in low and high creative persons. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(June), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00407
Kim, K. H. (2006). Can We Trust Creativity Tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2
Knieps, F., & Pfaff, H. (2018). Arbeit und Gesundheit Generation 50+. In Medizinisch
Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.
Krohne, H. W. (1989). The concept of coping modes: Relating cognitive person variables to
actual coping behavior. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 11(4), 235–248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(89)90027-1
Krohne, H. W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research. In

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 27
Attention and avoidance (pp. 19–59). Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Krueger, K. R., Murphy, J. W., & Bink, A. B. (2017). Thera-prov: a pilot study of improv used
to treat anxiety and depression. Journal of Mental Health, 0(0), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2017.1340629
Kursen, N. E. (2012). Improvisation as an adaptive strategy for occupational therapy practice.
Occupational Therapy In Health Care, 26(1), 64–73.
https://doi.org/10.3109/07380577.2011.637609
Langley, D. (2006). Introduction to Dramatherapy. Sage.
Larson, J. H., Anderson, S. M., Holman, T. B., & Niemann, B. K. (1998). A longitudinal study
of the effects of premarital communication, relationship stability, and self-esteem on
sexual satisfaction in the first year of marriage. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy,
24(3), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926239808404933
Lewis, C., & Lovatt, P. J. (2013). Breaking away from set patterns of thinking: Improvisation
and divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 46–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.03.001
Linehan, M. M. (2018). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder.
New york: Guilford Publications.
Listiakova, I. (2014). Evaluation of Dramatherapy Process With Clients of Psychiatric
Hospital. SGEM2014 1 International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference, 1.
https://doi.org/10.5593/sgemsocial2014/b11/s1.023
Luciano, E. C., & Orth, U. (2017). Romantic relationships and self-esteem development.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 307–328.
McAlister, M. (2000). AN EVALUATION OF DRAMATHERAPY IN A FORENSIC
SETTING. Dramatherapy, 22(1), 16–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02630672.2000.9689533
Megalakaki, O., Craft, A., & Cremin, T. (2012). The nature of creativity: Cognitive and
confluence perspectives. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,
10(3), 1035–1056.
Meldrum, B. (1994). Evaluation and assessment in dramatherapy. The Handbook of
Dramatherapy, 187–208.

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 28
Michalak, J., Heidenreich, T., Ströhle, G., & Nachtigall, C. (2008). Die deutsche version der
Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS) Psychometrische befunde zu einem
achtsamkeitsfragebogen. Zeitschrift Fur Klinische Psychologie Und Psychotherapie,
37(3), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443.37.3.200
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Reiter-Palmon, R., Uhlman, C. E., & Doares, L. M. (1991).
Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 91–
122.
Nelson, G. (2017). Creative Thinking, Creative Play: Using Improvisational Games to
Transform People, Classrooms and Organizations. CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform.
Phillips Sheesley, A., Pfeffer, M., & Barish, B. (2016). Comedic Improv Therapy for the
Treatment of Social Anxiety Disorder. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 11(2),
157–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2016.1182880
Richter, D. (2018). Improvisationstheater: Die Grundlagen.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. In Princeton University Press.
Princeton.
Rossing, J. P., & Hoffmann-Longtin, K. (2016). Improv(ing) the Academy: Applied
Improvisation as a Strategy for Educational Development. To Improve the Academy,
35(2), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20044
Rudolf, G. (2018). Psychodynamische Psychotherapie: Die Arbeit an Konflikt, Struktur und
Trauma. Klett-Cotta.
Schoppe, K.-J. (1975). Verbaler Kreativitäts-Test :V-K-T; ein Verfahren zur Erfassung verbal-
produktiver Kreativitätsmerkmale. In Verl. für Psychologie. Retrieved from
http://slubdd.de/katalog?TN_libero_mab21651396
Schumacher, J., Leppert, K., Gunzelmann, T., Strauß, B., & Brähler, E. (2005). Die
Resilienzskala – Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung der psychischen Widerstandsfähigkeit als
Personmerkmal. Zeitschrift Für Klinische Psychologie, Psychiatrie Und Psychotherapie,
53(1), 16–39. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1337097
Scinto, J. (2015). Why improv training is great business training. Forbes Leadership.
Shaw, P., & Stacey, R. D. (2006). Experiencing risk, spontaneity and improvisation in

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 29
organizational change: Working live. Taylor & Francis.
Shihata, S., McEvoy, P. M., & Mullan, B. A. (2017). Pathways from uncertainty to anxiety:
An evaluation of a hierarchical model of trait and disorder-specific intolerance of
uncertainty on anxiety disorder symptoms. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 45, 72–79.
Shochet, R., & King, J. (2013). Thinking on my feet’: an improvisation course to enhance
students’ confidence and responsiveness in the medical interview. Education for Primary
Care, 24(2), 119–124. Retrieved from
https://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=20&sid=7e84ed72-523f-
43a9-85e4-e7b97fa59154%40sessionmgr111&hid=126
Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A
meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 213–240.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028931
Spolin, V. (1999). Improvisation for the Theater. NORTHWESTERN UNIV PR.
Steiger, A. E., Allemand, M., Robins, R. W., & Fend, H. A. (2014). Low and decreasing self-
esteem during adolescence predict adult depression two decades later. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035133
von Collani, G., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2003). Eine revidierte Fassung der deutschsprachigen
Skala zum Selbstwertgefühl von Rosenberg. Zeitschrift Für Differentielle Und
Diagnostische Psychologie, 24(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1024//0170-1789.24.1.3
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the
Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurements, 1(2), 165–178.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03071849308445745
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought.
Watson, K. (2011). Perspective: Serious play: Teaching medical skills with improvisational
theater techniques. Academic Medicine, 86(10), 1260–1265.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822cf858
West, S., Hoff, E., & Carlsson, I. (2017). Enhancing team creativity with playful
improvisation theater: a controlled intervention field study. International Journal of
Play, 6(3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2017.1383000

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 30

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 31
Appendices
Tables
Table 1 Demographic characteristics
Group Mean (SE) t df p
Age IG 26.13 (0.76) 0.830 56 .410
CG 27.00 (0.72)
Female IG 63.33% 0.474 56 .637
CG 57.14%
Final Grade IG 1.95 (0.12) 0.483 53 .637
CG 2.04 (0.13)
Note. Student’s t test

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 32
Table 2 Measure Description
Variables Measures Scale description Cronbach
�
Creativity
Creativity1Test for Verbal Creativity; Verbaler-Kreativitätstest,
VKT; (Schoppe, 1975**)9 subtests -
Acceptance
Mindfulness
Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale, MAAS
(Brown & Ryan, 2003; Michalak, Heidenreich,
Ströhle, & Nachtigall, 2008*)
15 items rated on a
6-point scale 0.83
Tolerance of
Uncertainty
Uncertainty Tolerance Scale;
Ungewissheitstoleranzskala (Dalbert, 1999**)
8 items rated on a 6-
point scale 0.66-0.70
PsychologicalWell-being
Self-Esteem Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, SES, (Rosenberg,
1965; Collani & Herzberg, 2003*)
10 items rated on a
4-point scale 0.84
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy Scale, SWE; Skala zur Allgemeinen
Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung (Jerusalem &
Schwarzer, 1999**)
10 items rated on a
4-point scale 0.80-0.90
Resilience
Resilience Scale, RS-25 (Wagnild & Young, 1993;
Schumacher, Leppert, Gunzelmann, Strauß, &
Brähler, 2005*)
25 items rated on a
7-point scale 0.96
*German translation, this version was used in this study
**Original version is German
1 Creativity: The VKT is a German, standardized test for measuring verbal productive creativity.
There are two versions of the Verbal Creativity Test, version A und version B. To exclude any
response biases, participants completed the version A for pre-intervention questioning and
version B for post intervention questioning. The test consists of nine subtests, of which we only
used 4 subtests with each subtests consisting of 2 items. The measured subtests were as followed:
(1) “Wortanfänge” (Beginning of words): The task was to generate existing but different words,
which start with a given prefix, within 90 seconds (e.g. generate words with the prefix “hi” =
history, hiss, hilarious, highlight, etc.). (2) “Gemeinsame Eigenschaften” (common features): The
task was to name existing but different objects, which can be characterized with a given feature,
within 90 seconds (e.g. “What is flexible?” = material, agreement, etc.). (3) “Ungewöhnliche
Verwendungsarten” (uncommon type of utilization): The task was to name uncommon but
possible types of utilization of a given object within 120 seconds (e.g. “What can you do with a
brick?” = built a house, burglary, etc.). (4) “Utopische Situationen” (utopian situations): The task
was to briefly describe (in keywords) different but possible consequences of an unlikely situation
within 4 minutes (e.g. “What would happen if no one could speak?”).

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 33
Table 3 Interaction effect between group and time
df F p ηp2
Creativity 56 11.382 < .001 0.169
Mindfulness 56 1.231 .272 -
Tolerance of Uncertainty 56 2.678 .107 -
Self-Esteem 56 4.276 .043 0.071
Self-Efficacy 56 7.159 .010 0.133
Resilience 56 3.280 .076 0.055
Note. Repeated Measure ANOVA

IMPROV TO IMPROVE 34
Figures
Fig. 1 Results: Creativity, mindfulness, tolerance of uncertainty, self-esteem, self-efficacy, resilience. Error bars indicate
standard errors of the mean over participants.