ArticlePDF Available

The effect of anger on malevolent creativity and strategies for its emotion regulation

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The current study aimed to explore the effect of anger on malevolent creativity and its underlying mechanisms and to determine whether such an effect could be modulated by strategies of emotional regulation. Experiment 1 compared the differences of malevolent creativity between individuals in anger, sadness, and neutral emotions and found that individuals in anger produced more and more novel malevolent ideas, emotional arousal, and implicit aggression mediate the effect of anger on the malevolent creative performance. Experiment 2 explored how different emotion regulation strategies (cognitive reappraisal, expressive inhibition) influenced the malevolent creative performance of angry individuals. It was found that the cognitive reappraisal group and the expression inhibition group had lower levels of malevolent creativity than the control group. Emotional arousal and implicit aggression mediated the effects of two kinds of emotion regulation strategies on malevolent creativity. These results suggest that anger promotes creativity by enhancing implicit aggression and emotional arousal, and the cognitive reappraisal and expression inhibition strategies can be used as effective strategies to weaken the malevolent creativity of the angry individuals.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Acta Psychologica Sinica ©2021 Chinese Psychological Society
2021, Vol. 53, No. 7, 847860 https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00847
Received Date: September 8, 2020
This work was funded by the Humanity and Social Science foundation of Ministry of Education of China (17YJA190007).
Corresponding author: HAO Ning, E-mail: nhao@psy.ecnu.edu.cn
The original article is in Chinese, translated by Lingocloud and proofread by the authors. The Chinese version shall always prevail in case of any discre-
pancy or inconsistency between the Chinese version and its English translation.
The effect of anger on malevolent creativity and strategies
for its emotion regulation
CHENG Rui, LU Kelong, HAO Ning
(Shanghai Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Psychological Crisis Intervention, School of Psychology and
Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China)
Abstract
The current study aimed to explore the effect of anger on malevolent creativity and its underlying mechanisms and to determine
whether such an effect could be modulated by strategies of emotional regulation. Experiment 1 compared the differences of malevo-
lent creativity between individuals in anger, sadness, and neutral emotions and found that individuals in anger produced more and
more novel malevolent ideas, emotional arousal, and implicit aggression mediate the effect of anger on the malevolent creative per-
formance. Experiment 2 explored how different emotion regulation strategies (cognitive reappraisal, expressive inhibition) influenced
the malevolent creative performance of angry individuals. It was found that the cognitive reappraisal group and the expression inhibi-
tion group had lower levels of malevolent creativity than the control group. Emotional arousal and implicit aggression mediated the
effects of two kinds of emotion regulation strategies on malevolent creativity. These results suggest that anger promotes creativity by
enhancing implicit aggression and emotional arousal, and the cognitive reappraisal and expression inhibition strategies can be used as
effective strategies to weaken the malevolent creativity of the angry individuals.
Key words malevolent creativity, anger, emotional arousal, implicit aggression, emotion regulation
1 Introduction
Creativity usually refers to the ability of an individual to
produce novel (original, unexpected) and appropriate (not out
of context and useful) ideas and products in a given environ-
ment (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). Creativity has always seemed to
have a natural aura of being “Good for the individual, good for
society.” However, creativity can also have a negative impact
on individuals and society if it is used maliciously, that is, it has
a “Dark side” (A. J. Cropley, 2010). Malevolent creativity is a
classic expression of the “dark side” of creativity, which refers
to creativity that intentionally harms others, property, processes,
and symbols (D. H. Cropley et al., 2008; Plucker et al., 2004).
Malevolent creativity is closely related to general creativity,
both of which require individuals to generate novel and useful
ideas or solutions to problems. Previous research has found that
general creativity positively predicts malevolent creativity (Hao
et al., 2016; Hao et al., 2020; Perchtold-Stefan et al., 2020). In
this sense, general creativity may be the basis of malevolent
creativity. On the other hand, malevolent creativity requires the
individual’s motivation to deliberately harm other objects,
which is different from general creativity, and the relationship
between the two and some factors is different. For example, the
study found a positive correlation between malevolent creativ-
ity and aggression but no correlation between general creativity
and aggression (Hao et al., 2016; Hao et al., 2020).
The products of malevolent creativity are common, ranging
from new forms of fraud and money laundering to murder and
terrorist attacks. It is of great social significance to reveal the
influential factors of malevolent creativity and explore effective
regulation strategies to reduce the potential harm of malevolent
creativity to society. Malevolent creative performance may be
influenced by factors such as unfair situations, emotional intel-
ligence, and motivational tendencies (Gill et al., 2013; Gut-
worth et al., 2016; Hao et al., 2020; Harris et al., 2013), as well
as individual emotional states. In particular, anger is likely to
influence an individual’s creative malevolence. On the one
hand, malevolent creativity usually requires an individual to
intentionally harm another object, which is often triggered by
anger (Anderson & Bushman, 2002); on the other hand, past
research has shown that anger boosts general creative per-
formance (Russ & Kaugars, 2001; van Kleef et al., 2010).
These findings suggest that anger may be an important factor in
malevolent creativity, and it is an interesting and novel topic to
explore how anger affects malevolent creativity.
The pathway of the influence of anger on malevolent crea-
tivity can be analyzed from two aspects: emotional arousal and
implicit aggression (IA). First, a meta-analysis (Baas et al.,
2008) suggests that low arousal and approaching negative emo-
tions (such as sadness) had no significant effect on general
creative performance. High arousal and avoidant negative emo-
tions (such as fear and anxiety) decreased cognitive flexibility
and inhibited general creative performance. Anger as a highly
arousal and approaching negative emotional state (Baas et al.,
2008; Lang, 1995; Russell, 2003) promotes general creative
performance. The researchers believe that anger enhances the
individual’s cognitive state (arousal), enables the individual to
mobilize more cognitive resources to participate in the current
task, and thus promotes the individual’s general creative per-
formance. Based on the same logic, it can be inferred that dur-
ing the malevolent creativity task, when the individual’s anger
Acta Psychologica Sinica
is aroused, the increase of emotional arousal may cause the
individual to allocate more cognitive resources to participate in
the current task, which in turn increases the malevolent creative
performance. That is, emotional arousal may play an important
role in how anger affects the malevolent creative performance.
Second, anger is associated with high levels of aggression
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002) and predicts aggression prefer-
ence (Molho et al., 2017). Under the influence of the social
approval effect, individual aggression can be explicit and imp-
licit (Richetin & Richardson, 2008). Harris and Reiter-Palmon
(2015) have shown that high levels of IA can predict malevo-
lent creative performance. It can be inferred that the level of IA
may also play an important role in the process that anger affects
the malevolent creative performance.
If anger promotes the malevolent creative performance, it is
of great social significance to regulate the anger so as to wea-
ken the individual’s malevolent creativity. Emotion regulation
is a series of cognitive processes that regulate or alter the ap-
pearance, intensity, and duration of emotional states (Eisenberg
et al., 2000; Gross & Thompson, 2007). Cognitive reappraisal
and expressive suppression are two of the most common and
effective emotion regulation strategies (Webb et al., 2012). The
former refers to changing the emotional state by giving new
meaning to the situation and reinterpreting the situation stimu-
lus from other perspectives (Gross & Thompson, 2007); the
latter refers to deliberately suppressing the forthcoming or on-
going emotional expression (Gross, 1998). Studies have shown
that both strategies are effective at regulating negative emotions
but with different effects (Goldin et al., 2008; Ray et al., 2008).
We believe that cognitive reappraisal and expressive inhibition
can also effectively regulate anger and influence the malevolent
creativity of angry individuals.
To sum up, this study focuses on the effect of anger on mal-
evolent creative performance and the moderating effect of emo-
tion regulation strategies on malevolent creative performance.
Specifically, the following two scientific questions were addre-
ssed: (1) what are the effects of anger on the malevolent crea-
tive performance and its underlying mechanism? (2) if anger
promotes the malevolent creative performance, can the emotion
regulation strategy weaken the malevolent creative perform-
ance of the angry individuals, and what is the underlying mech-
anism? In Experiment 1, participants in the anger and sadness
groups were asked to complete the 5-min autobiographical
memory task to induce corresponding emotions, and the parti-
cipants in the neutral emotion group were instructed to com-
plete a 5-min control task (record the schedule for the day in
detail). Sadness and anger are both emotions associated with an
unfulfilled state of purpose (or achievement), and closely rela-
ted to promotion-focus self-regulating strategies (focusing on
the pursuit or achievement of a goal), and thus reflects an app-
roaching motivation (Carver, 2006; Higgins, 1997, 2001, 2006).
That is to say, sadness is a negative emotion with low arousal
and approaching orientation, while anger is a negative emotion
with high arousal and approaching orientation. The three
groups completed the malevolent creativity task and the general
creativity Task, and completed the preference-phrase task and
the subjective emotion self-rating scale to measure the IA level
and the emotional arousal state. Experiment 1 compared the
differences of general creativity performance and malevolent
creative performance among individuals in anger, sadness, and
neutral emotion states and examined whether anger affected
malevolent creative performance through IA and emotional
arousal. In Experiment 1, we hypothesized that: (I) anger can
promote the malevolent creative performance, and both IA and
emotional arousal may be the pathways by which anger influ-
ences the malevolent creative performance. In Experiment 2,
the participants were first asked to use the autobiographical
recall task to induce their anger, then the participants were
asked to use the cognitive reappraisal strategy and the expres-
sion inhibition strategy to regulate their emotion, and the control
group without emotion regulation was designed. The malevo-
lent creative performance of the three groups was compared in
the stage of emotion induction and the stage of emotion regula-
tion. It also examined whether the emotion regulation strategy
affected the malevolent creative performance of the angry indi-
viduals through emotional arousal and IA. In Experiment 2, we
hypothesized that (II) emotion regulation strategy could effec-
tively attenuate the malevolent creativity of the angry individu-
als, and this attenuating effect might be produced through two
pathways: emotional arousal and IA. In order to eliminate the
influence of general creative potential, malevolent creative
potential, and daily aggressive level on the experimental results,
the above variables were measured in both experiments. The
study has been approved by the East China Normal University
(Grant No. HR 084-2018; 281-2019).
2 Experiment 1: The effect of anger on general creativity
and malevolent creativity
2.1 Participants
A total of 102 participants were recruited, including 84 fem-
ales and 18 males (age: M = 20.51, SD = 2.21). Participants
were randomly assigned to the anger group, sadness group, and
neutral emotion group (control group) with a gender balance
(28 women and 6 men in each group).
2.2 Experimental tasks and tools
Alternative uses task (AUT) was used to assess an individual’s
general creative performance. The AUT requires participants to
report as many original uses for an everyday item as possible
(Runco et al., 2016). For example, “What are original uses for
candles?” The experiment evaluated general creativity per-
formance using fluency and originality (Runco et al., 2016;
Runco & Acar, 2012). Fluency refers to the number of valid
ideas generated by the participants. Originality refers to the
degree to which an idea is original. The raters rated the origi-
nality based on the frequency ratio of each idea in the experi-
mental sample. Specifically, values of 2,1 and 0 were assigned
for ideas with frequency ratios 1%, 1% to 5%, or more than
5%, respectively (Hao et al., 2017; Runco et al., 2016). The
final originality score was the sum of the originality scores of
all the ideas of each participant.
The malevolent creativity task (MCT) was used to assess an
individual’s creativity performance. MCT is adapted from a
realistic-presented problem that requires individuals to report as
many original and malevolent solutions as possible for an
open-ended, real-world problem (Hao et al., 2020). For exam-
ple, “Xiao Wang had a crush on a person for a long time, but
now a rival suddenly appeared. Please come up with an original
way to destroy the image of the rival.” The experiment evalu-
ated the malevolent creative performance by three indicators:
fluency, originality, and harmfulness. Fluency and originality
ratings were the same as AUT scoring procedures. Harmfulness
refers to the degree of harmfulness with which ideas are gener-
CHENG Rui et al.: The effect of anger on malevolent creativity and strategies for its emotion regulation
ated. Each of the five raters independently scored the harmful-
ness of each idea using a 5-point Likert scale (ICC = 0.84). The
harmfulness score for each viewpoint was the mean of the five
raters’ scores. The final harmfulness score was based on the
average harmfulness score of all the ideas of each participant.
The preference-phrase task was used to assess the level of
IA (Zhu et al., 2006). The task consists of 25 trials, each con-
sisting of a probe word and three target words. The target word
consists of a word that can form offensive words with the probe
word, a word that can form neutral words with the probe word
and a jamming word. In each test, if the participant chose the
target word that forms the offensive word with the probe word,
a score of 1 would be scored, and 0 would be scored for the
other choices. A higher total score indicated higher implicit
aggression.
The Self-Assessment scale (SAM) was used to assess the
level of valence and arousal (Bradley & Lang, 1994). Partici-
pants were asked to rate their emotional valence (1 for “very
sad,” 9 for “very happy”) and arousal (1 for “very calm,” 9 for
“very excited”) on a nine-point scale. Ten emotional states were
measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS) (Bradley & Lang, 1994; Watson et al., 1988). Par-
ticipants were asked to rate their emotional state (1 for “not at
all” and 9 for “very”) on a nine-point scale.
The Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) was used
to evaluate the aggression of individuals in their daily life
(Buss & Perry, 1992). Participants were asked to rate 22 item
descriptions on a 5-point scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.84). The
higher the score, the more aggressive they were. The Runco
Ideal Behavior Scale (RIBS) was used to assess an individual’s
tendency to engage in creative behavior in daily life (Runco
et al.., 2001). Participants were asked to rate 19 item descrip-
tions on a 5-point scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.83). The higher the
score, the higher the general creative potential. Individual ten-
dency to engage in malevolent creative behavior was assessed
using the Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale (MCBS) (Hao
et al., 2016). The participants were asked to rate 13 items on a
5-point scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.90). The higher the score, the
higher the malevolent creativity potential.
2.3 Experimental procedures
The participants completed the pretest SAM and PANAS.
Next, participants in the anger and sadness groups completed
autobiographical recall tasks (Brewer et al., 1980) that evoked
anger and sadness, respectively, while those in the neutral
mood group completed only a control task (detailing the day’s
schedule). The emotion induction lasted five minutes. After
emotion induction, the participants filled out the post-test SAM
and PANAS again. The participants then orally completed one
MCT and one AUT, which was recorded by a voice recorder
and then transcribed into texts for subsequent analysis. Based
on previous studies, the task duration of MCT was designed as
10 minutes and AUT as 5 minutes (Jiang et al., 2012; Lu et al.,
2019). Finally, the participants completed the preference-phrase
task, BPAQ, RIBS, and MCBS scales (see Figure 1).
2.4 Results
2.4.1 Validation of emotion induction
In order to validate emotion induction, paired-sample t-tests
were respectively conducted on the pre-tests and post-tests of
emotions for 3 groups (see Table 1). The results showed that, in
the anger group, emotional arousal and anger were significantly
higher in the post-test than in the pre-test, and emotional val-
ence was significantly lower in the post-test than in the pre-test.
In the sadness group, the emotional valence and arousal were
significantly lower in the post-test than in the pre-test, and
sadness was significantly higher in the post-test than in the
pre-test. There was no significant difference in the control
group. This indicated that emotion induction was successfully
manipulated.
2.4.2 The effect of emotions on malevolent creative per-
formance and general creative performance
A one-way MANOVA using EMOTION as the between-
group factor was conducted on MCT fluency, originality, and
harmfulness. Box’s M = 68.30, p < 0.001. The results showed
that the covariance matrices of these dependent variables were
not homogeneous, and the data did not fit MANOVA. Thus,
one-way ANOVAs using EMOTION as the between-group
factor were conducted on MCT fluency, originality, and harm-
fulness. Results showed that the main effect of EMOTION on
MCT fluency was significant, F (2, 99) = 14.80, p < 0.0001, η2
p =
0.23. Post hoc tests showed that MCT fluency was significantly
higher in the anger group (M = 8.94, SD = 4.77) than in the
sadness group (M = 6.32, SD = 2.40, p = 0.005, Cohen’s d =
0.69) and control group (M = 4.56, SD = 2.23, p < 0.001, Co-
hen’s d = 1.18). No significant difference was observed be-
tween the sadness group and control group (p = 0.096; see Fig-
ure 2A). The main effect of EMOTION on MCT originality
was significant, F (2, 99) = 15.83, p < 0.0001, η2
p = 0.24. Post
hoc tests showed that the anger group had significantly higher
MCT originality (M = 9.79, SD = 7.73) than the sadness group
(M = 4.68, SD = 4.08, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.83) and control
group (M = 2.91, SD = 2.43, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.20).
There was no significant difference between the sadness group
and control group (p = 0.504; see Figure 2B. The main effect of
EMOTION on MCT harmfulness was significant, F (2, 99) =
4.01, p = 0.021, η2
p = 0.08. Post hoc tests showed that the anger
group had significantly higher MCT harmfulness (M = 2.91, SD =
0.27) than the sadness group (M = 2.65, SD = 0.44, p = 0.051,
Cohen’s d = 0.71) and control group (M = 2.65, SD = 0.53, p =
0.044, Cohen’s d = 0.62). There was no significant difference bet-
ween the sadness group and control group (p = 1.00; Figure 2C).
Figure 1. Experimental procedure in experiment 1.
Acta Psychologica Sinica
Tab le 1
Experiment 1: descriptive statistics of emotions (M ± SD) and
paired-sample t-tests
Experimental conditions Pre-test Post-test t (33) p
Anger group
Valence 6.18 ± 1.22 3.74 ± 1.58 8.80 0.000***
Arousal 4.97 ± 1.57 5.91 ± 2.15 2.26 0.030*
Anger 1.56 ± 0.93 5.18 ± 1.83 10.80 0.000***
Sadness 2.74 ± 1.85 3.15 ± 1.86 1.19 0.242
Sadness Group
Valence 5.65 ± 1.18 3.27 ± 1.40 8.41 0.000***
Arousal 4.82 ± 1.31 3.56 ± 1.71 4.07 0.000***
Anger 1.97 ± 1.64 2.62 ± 1.74 1.55 0.131
Sadness 2.03 ± 1.19 5.00 ± 1.81 7.70 0.000***
Control group
Valence 5.62 ± 1.30 5.38 ± 1.21 1.19 0.224
Arousal 4.71 ± 1.36 4.59 ± 1.64 0.37 0.711
Anger 1.88 ± 1.30 1.79 ± 1.18 0.46 0.646
Sadness 2.53 ± 1.85 2.62 ± 2.03 0.26 0.795
Note. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
A one-way MANOVA using EMOTION as the between-
group factor was conducted on AUT fluency, originality. Box’s
M = 24.05, p < 0.001. The results showed that the covariance
matrices of these dependent variables were not homogeneous,
and the data did not fit MANOVA. Thus, one-way ANOVAs
using EMOTION as the between-group factor were conducted
on AUT fluency, originality. Results showed a significant main
effect of EMOTION on AUT fluency, F (2, 99) = 6.43, p =
0.002, η2
p = 0.12. Post hoc tests showed that the anger group (M =
11.26, SD = 6.20) had significantly higher AUT fluency than
the control group (M = 7.26, SD = 3.44, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d =
0.80; see Figure 2D). The main effect of EMOTION on AUT ori-
ginality was also significant, F (2, 99) = 7.84, p < 0.001, η2
p =
0.14. Post hoc tests showed that the anger group (M = 15.29,
SD = 8.85) had significantly higher AUT originality than the
sadness group (M = 11.21, SD = 5.50, p = 0.042, Cohen’s d =
0.55) and control group (M = 8.91, SD = 5.23, p = 0.001, Co-
hen’s d = 0.88). No significant difference was observed bet-
ween the sadness group and control group (p = 0.489; see Fig-
ure 2E).
When the scores of BPAQ, RIBS and MCBS were entered
as covariants, the above main effects were still significant:
MCT fluency, F (2, 96) = 13.15, p < 0.001, η2
p = 0.22; MCT
originality, F (2, 96) = 13.52, p < 0.001, η2
p = 0.22; MCT harm-
fulness, F (2, 96) = 3.78, p = 0.026, η2
p = 0.07; AUT fluency, F
(2, 96) = 6.33, p = 0.003, η2
p = 0.12; AUT originality, F (2, 96) =
7.94, p = 0.001, η2
p = 0.14.
2.4.3 The mediation analyses of implicit aggression and
emotional arousal
To t est whet her E MOTION has an effect on IA, a one-way
ANOVA was conducted on IA. Results showed a significant
main effect of EMOTION on IA, F (2,101) = 3.32, p = 0.040.
Post hoc tests showed that anger group (M = 9.62, SD = 3.27)
had significantly higher IA than the sadness group (M = 7.91,
SD = 3.21, p = 0.045, Cohen’s d = 0.53) and control group (M =
7.62, SD = 3.85, p = 0.019, Cohen’s d = 0.56).
To further test whether the effect of anger on malevolent and
general creative performance was mediated by IA, the
PROCESS was used to perform Bootstrap-based mediation
effect analysis (Hayes, 2013; Hayes & Preacher, 2014), with IA
score as the mediator, the independent variables coded as
dummy variables (1 = anger group, 0 = control group), and
fluency, originality as well as harmfulness of the tasks as the
dependent variables. The sample size was 5000 and the confi-
dence interval was 95%. The results showed that anger had a
significant direct effect on MCT fluency, b = 3.84, p < 0.001,
CI = [2.01, 5.67], and a significant indirect effect on MCT flu-
ency through IA, b = 0.54, CI = [0.01, 2.07] (note: 2.00 × 0.27 =
0.54; see Figure 3A). Anger had a significant direct effect on
MCT originality, b = 5.83, p < 0.001, CI = [3.08, 8.57], and a
significant indirect effect on MCT originality through IA, b =
1.06, CI = [0.12, 3.62] (see Figure 3B). Anger had a significant
direct effect on MCT harmfulness, b = 0.37, p = 0.007, CI =
[0.10, 0.64], and a significant indirect effect on MCT harmful-
ness through IA, b = 0.08, CI = [0.004, 0.236] (see Figure 3C).
In addition, anger had a significant direct effect on AUT flu-
ency, b = 3.49, p = 0.009, CI = [0.91, 6.07], but no significant
indirect effect on AUT fluency through IA, b = 0.31, CI =
[0.31, 1.71]. Anger had a significant direct effect on AUT
originality, b = 5.98, p = 0.002, CI = [2.27, 9.70], but no sig-
nificant indirect effect on AUT originality through IA, b = 0.40,
CI = [0.46, 1.94]. The results indicated that IA partially medi-
ated the effects of anger on malevolent creative performance
but did not mediate the effects of anger on general creative
performance.
Figure 2. Malevolent and general creative performance in different emotion groups in Experiment 1.
Note. (A) MCT fluency; (B) MCT originality; (C) MCT harmfulness; (D) AUT fluency; (E) AUT originality. The error bars represent standard errors. *p < 0.05,
**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
CHENG Rui et al.: The effect of anger on malevolent creativity and strategies for its emotion regulation
Figure 3. Mediation analysis using IA as the mediator in Experiment 1.
Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. The coefficient is non-standard coefficient, and the standard error is presented in ().
The mediation analysis using emotional arousal as the medi-
ator showed that anger had a significant direct on MCT fluency,
b = 3.80, p < 0.001, CI = [1.99, 5.62], and a significant indirect
effect on MCT fluency through emotional arousal, b = 0.58, CI =
[0.08, 1.66] (see Figure 4A). Anger had a significant direct
effect on MCT originality, b = 6.08, p < 0.001, CI = [3.26,
8.89], and a significant indirect effect on MCT originality
through emotional arousal, b = 0.80, CI = [0.08, 2.41] (see
Figure 4B). Anger had a significant direct effect on MCT
harmfulness, b = 0.42, p = 0.004, CI = [0.14, 0.69], but no sig-
nificant indirect effect on MCT harmfulness through emotional
arousal, b = 0.03, CI = [0.03, 0.18]. Anger had a significant
direct effect on AUT fluency, b = 2.58, p = 0.032, CI = [0.23,
4.92], and a significant indirect effect on AUT fluency through
emotional arousal, b = 1.22, CI = [0.27, 2.62] (see Figure 4C).
Anger had a significant direct effect on AUT originality, b =
4.60, p = 0.008, CI = [1.23, 7.96], and a significant indirect
effect on AUT originality through emotional arousal, b = 1.79,
CI = [0.42, 3.91] (see Figure 4D). These results suggested that
emotional arousal partially mediated the effects of anger on
fluency and originality of malevolent and general creative per-
formance, but did not mediate the effect of anger on MCT
harmfulness.
A similar mediating effect analysis was conducted for the
sadness group. The independent variables were coded as virtual
variables (1 = sadness, 0 = control), with fluency, originality,
and MCT harmfulness as the dependent variables, IA scores,
and emotional arousal as the mediating variables. Results
showed no significant mediating effect.
2.5 Interim discussion
The main findings of Experiment 1 were as follows: (1) anger
promoted not only general creative performance but also male-
volent creative performance; (2) both emotional arousal and IA
mediated the promotion effect of anger on malevolent creative
performance; (3) only emotion arousal mediates the promotion
effect of anger on general creative performance. The findings
answered question 1. These findings not only confirmed previous
findings that anger promotes general creative performance
(Baas et al., 2011; Russ & Kaugars, 2001) but also broadened the
understanding of the relationship between anger and malevolent
Figure 4. Mediation analysis using emotional arousal as the mediator in Experiment 1.
Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. The coefficient is non-standard coefficient, and the standard error is in ().
Acta Psychologica Sinica
creativity. That is, anger can also promote malevolent creativity.
It should be noted that we found that the anger group had high-
er MCT fluency than the sadness and control group did, while its
AUT fluency was merely higher than the control group. Based
on the results of the mediating effect analysis, we speculated
that anger increased IA, which promoted malevolent creative
performance but has no effect on general creative performance.
This may further widen the performance gap between angry
and sad individuals on MCT. In addition, emotional arousal
mediated the effects of anger on malevolent and general crea-
tive performance (fluency and originality), whereas IA me-
diated the effects of anger on three indices of malevolent crea-
tivity: fluency, originality, and harmfulness. This indicated that
anger affected malevolent and general creative performance in
different ways, and IA is the specific pathway that anger affects
malevolent creative performance.
3 Experiment 2: the effect of anger regulation strategy
on malevolent creativity
3.1 Participants
A total of 120 participants were recruited, including 90 fem-
ales and 30 males (age: M = 20.40, SD = 2.02). The participants
were randomly assigned to three groups: cognitive reappraisal
group, expressive inhibition group, and control group. The sex
ratio was balanced among the groups (30 women and 10 men in
each group).
3.2 Experimental tasks and tools
Two MCTs were used to assess malevolent creative per-
formance before and after emotion regulation. A pilot study
showed that there was no significant difference between these
two MCTs concerning difficulty, familiarity, and malevolence (t
(29) = 1.56, p = 0.13; t (29) = 0.95, p = 0.35; t (29) = 0.11, p =
0.92). This guarantees the homogeneity of the two MCTs. Par-
ticipants were also required to complete the preference-phrase
task, SAM, PANAS, BPAQ (Cronbach’s α = 0.86), RIBS
(Cronbach’s α = 0.81), and MCBS (Cronbach’s α = 0.86).
3.3 Experimental procedures
As shown in Figure 5, participants first completed the
pre-tests (SAM and PANAS). Participants’ anger was induced
by using the autobiographical recall task. After emotion induc-
tion, participants completed post-tests (SAM and PANAS) and
one MCT (5 minutes). Then, during the emotion regulation
stage, the cognitive reappraisal group and expression inhibition
group respectively used the corresponding emotion regulation
strategy to regulate anger (3 minutes), while the control group
only completed one copying task (3 minutes). The contents of
the copying task were taken from the expository text “A fruitful
science: phenology.” After emotion regulation, participants
rated the difficulty of emotion regulation tasks, completed a
post-test of SAM and PANAS and another MCT (5 minutes).
Finally, participants completed the preference-phrase task, BPAQ,
RIBS, and MCBS.
3.4 Results
3.4.1 Validation of emotion induction and regulation
The one-way ANOVA using STRATEGY as the between-group
factor was conducted on difficulty scores of the emotion regu-
lation task. The results showed that the main effect of STRATEGY
was not significant, F (2, 117) = 0.61, p = 0.546. The results
showed that there was no significant difference in difficulty
scores among the cognitive reappraisal task (M = 3.48, SD =
1.69), expression inhibition task (M = 3.85, SD = 2.23), and
control task (M = 3.33, SD = 2.57).
The results of emotion induction showed that low-valence
and high-arousal anger was successfully induced in all three
groups. The results of emotion regulation showed that both
cognitive reappraisal and expression inhibition strategies incr-
eased the emotional valence, decreased emotional arousal, and
regulated anger effectively (see Table 2).
3.4.2 Effects of emotion regulation on malevolent creative
performance
Two-way mixed-design ANOVAs with STRATEGY as the
between-group factor and TEST (pre-test: the MCT after emo-
tion induction vs. Post-test: the MCT after emotion regulation)
as the within-group factor were performed on MCT fluency,
originality, and harmfulness.
Results showed a significant main effect of TEST on MCT
fluency, F (1, 117) = 5.89, p = 0.017, η2
p = 0.05. Post hoc tests
showed that MCT fluency was significantly lower in the
pre-test (M = 7.03, SD = 3.12) than in the post-test (M = 7.68,
SD = 2.84, p = 0.017, Cohen’s d = 0.22; Bonferroni corrected).
The main effect of STRATEGY was not significant, F (2, 117) =
1.11, p = 0.333. The interaction effect of STRATEGY × TEST
was not significant, F (2, 117) = 1.96, p = 0.145 (see Figure
6A). When scores of BPAQ, RIBS, and MCBS were entered as
covariates, the main effect of TEST became not significant. F
(1, 114) = 1.31, p = 0.26.
Results showed no significant main effect of TEST, F (1, 117) =
0.02, p = 0.885; or STRATEGY, F (2, 117) = 2.53, p = 0.084 on
MCT originality. The interaction effect of STRATEGY × TEST
was significant, F (2, 117) = 3.25, p = 0.042, η2
p = 0.05. The
Figure 5. Experimental procedure of Experiment 2.
CHENG Rui et al.: The effect of anger on malevolent creativity and strategies for its emotion regulation
Table 2
Experiment 2: descriptive statistics of emotion induction and regulation (M ± SD) and ANOVAs
Experimental conditions Pre-test PI PR F (2, 78) p Post hoc tests
Cognitive reappraisal group
Valence 6.25 ± 1.35 4.15 ± 1.33 5.93 ± 1.10 40.77 0.000*** Pre-test > PI***
PI < PR***
Arousal 4.65 ± 1.75 5.33 ± 2.07 4.40 ± 1.39 3.50 0.035* PI > PR*
Anger 1.63 ± 1.01 4.15 ± 1.72 1.98 ± 1.03 60.64 0.000*** Pretest < PI***
PI > PR***
Expression inhibition group
Valence 6.38 ± 1.31 4.25 ± 1.37 5.03 ± 1.39 42.54 0.000*** Pre-test > PI***
Pre-test > PR**
IR < PR***
Arousal 4.85 ± 1.31 5.93 ± 1.64 4.25 ± 1.50 12.23 0.000*** Pre-test < PI*
PI > PR***
Anger 1.70 ± 0.94 4.47 ± 1.75 2.88 ± 1.47 54.97 0.000*** Pretest < PI***
Pretest < PR**
PI > PR***
Control group
Valence 6.25 ± 1.71 4.33 ± 1.54 4.28 ± 1.78 25.17 0.000*** Pre-test > PI***
Pre-test > PR
Arousal 4.72 ± 1.31 5.50 ± 1.95 5.15 ± 1.96 2.02 0.14
Anger 1.79 ± 1.18 4.35 ± 2.34 4.00 ± 2.92 24.11 0.000*** Pretest < PI***
Pretest < PR***
Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. ‘PI’ indicates post-tests after emotion induction; ‘PR’ indicates post-tests after emotion regulation.
Figure 6. The pre-test and post-test malevolent creative performance in different groups in Experiment 2.
Note. (a) MCT fluency; (b) MCT originality; (C) MCT harmfulness. The error bars represent standard errors. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. ‘Pre’ indicated
the pre-test and ‘post’ indicated the post-test.
simple effect analysis showed that there was no significant
difference among the three groups in the pre-test (ps > 0.1).
However, in the post-test, MCT originality was significantly
lower in the cognitive reappraisal group (M = 7.20, SD = 4.67,
p = 0.003, Cohen’s d = 0.66) and expression inhibition group
(M = 7.63, SD = 4.71, p = 0.010, Cohen’s d = 0.57) than in the
control group (M = 10.45, SD = 5.13). There was no other sig-
nificant difference (ps > 0.1) (see Figure 6B). Additionally, The
results showed that there was no significant difference between
the pre-test and post-test in the cognitive reappraisal group and
expression inhibition group (ps > 0.1), but there was marginal
difference between the pre-test (M = 8.48, SD = 4.27) and
post-test (M = 10.45, SD = 5.13; p = 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.42)
(see Figure 6B). When scores of the above scales were entered
as covariates, the interaction effect remained significant, F (2,
114) = 3.96, p = 0.022, η2
p = 0.07.
Results showed a significant main effect of TEST on MCT
harmfulness, F (1, 117) = 27.79, p < 0.001, η2
p = 0.19. But the
main effect of STRATEGY was not significant, F (2, 117) =
2.35, p = 0.100. The interaction effect of STRATEGY × TEST
was significant, F (2, 117) = 3.91, p = 0.023, η2
p = 0.06. The
simple effect analysis showed that there was no significant
difference among the three groups in the pre-test (ps > 0.1).
However, in the post-test, the cognitive reappraisal group (M =
2.26, SD = 0.36, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.80) and expression
inhibition group (M = 2.26, SD = 0.31, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d =
0.85) were significantly lower than the control group (M = 2.57,
SD = 0.41). There was no other significant difference (ps > 0.1)
(see Figure 6C). Additionally, there was significant difference
between the pre-test (M = 2.63, SD = 0.59) and post-test (M =
2.26, SD = 0.36; p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.76) in the cognitive
reappraisal group. There was also significant difference be-
tween the pre-test (M = 2.72, SD = 0.52) and post-test (M =
2.26, SD = 0.31; p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.07) in the expression
inhibition group. There was no significant difference between
the pre-test and post-test (ps > 0.1) in the control group (see
Acta Psychologica Sinica
Figure 6C). When scores of the above scales were entered as
covariates, and the main effect (F (1, 114) = 8.61, p = 0.004,
η2
p = 0.07) and interaction effect of STRATEGY × TEST (F (2,
114) = 4.45, p = 0.014, η2
p = 0.07) remained significant.
To sum up, in comparison with the control group, MCT ori-
ginality and harmfulness decreased after emotion regulation.
3.4.3 The mediation analyses of implicit aggression
To test whether STRATEGY has an effect on IA, a one-way
ANOVA was conducted on IA. Results showed a significant
main effect of STRATEGY on IA, F (2, 119) = 6.75, p = 0.002.
Post hoc tests showed that the control group (M = 10.65, SD =
3.22) had significantly higher IA than the cognitive reappraisal
group (M = 8.88, SD = 2.45, p = 0.005, Cohen’s d = 0.62) and
expression inhibition group(M = 8.55, SD = 2.51, p = 0.001,
Cohen’s d = 0.73). There was no significant difference between
the cognitive reappraisal group and expression inhibition group
(p = 0.598).
To further test whether the effect of emotion regulation
strategies on malevolent creative performance is mediated by
IA, the bootstrap method was used to perform the mediation
effect analysis. IA score was set as the mediator, the between-group
factor coded as the dummy variable (1 = anger group, 0 = control
group), and MCT fluency, MCT originality as well as MCT
harmfulness as the dependent variables. The sample size was
5000, and the confidence interval was 95%. The control group
was taken as the reference. The bootstrap-based nonparametric
percentile method was performed using the MEDIATE plug-in
(Hayes & Preacher, 2014). The sample size was 5000, and the
confidence interval was 95%. The results showed that cognitive
reappraisal had no significant direct effect on MCT fluency, b =
–0.61, p = 0.390, but a significant indirect effect on MCT flu-
ency though IA, b = 0.49, CI = [1.16, 0.06] (see Figure 7A).
Expression inhibition had no significant direct effect on MCT
fluency, b = 1.02, p = 0.157, but a significant indirect effect
on MCT fluency though IA, b = 0.58, CI = [1.32, 0.10] (see
Figure 7B). Cognitive reappraisal had a significant direct effect
on MCT originality, b = 2.34, p = 0.032, and a significant
indirect effect on MCT originality through IA, b = 0.91, CI =
[1.98, 0.19] (see Figure 7C). Expression inhibition had no
significant direct effect on MCT originality, b = 1.75, p =
0.111, but a significant indirect effect on MCT originality
through IA, b = 1.07, CI = [2.27, 0.28] (see Figure 7D).
Cognitive reappraisal had a significant direct effect on MCT
harmfulness, b = 0.22, p = 0.006, a significant indirect effect
on MCT harmfulness through IA, b = 0.08, CI = [0.15,
0.02] (see Figure 7E); Expression inhibition had a significant
direct effect on MCT harmfulness, b = 0.21, p = 0.010, and a
significant indirect effect on MCT harmfulness through IA, b =
0.10, CI = [0.18, 0.03] (see Figure 7F). These results indi-
cated that IA mediated the effects of cognitive reappraisal
strategy and expression inhibition strategy on malevolent crea-
tive performance.
3.4.4 The mediation analyses of emotional arousal
The mediation analysis using emotional arousal as the medi-
ator showed that cognitive reappraisal had no significant direct
effect on MCT fluency, b = 0.52, p = 0.431, but a significant
indirect effect on MCT fluency through emotional arousal, b =
0.58, CI = [1.13, 0.01] (see Figure 8A). Expression inhibi-
tion had no significant direct effect on MCT fluency, b = 0.90,
p = 0.174, but a significant indirect effect on MCT fluency
through emotional arousal, b = 0.70, CI = [1.27, 0.13] (see
Figure 8B). Cognitive reappraisal had no significant direct
Figure 7. Mediation analysis using IA as the mediator in Experiment 2.
Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. The coefficient is non-standard coefficient, and the standard error is presented in ().
CHENG Rui et al.: The effect of anger on malevolent creativity and strategies for its emotion regulation
Figure 8. Mediation analysis using emotional arousal as the mediator in Experiment 2.
Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. The coefficient is non-standard coefficient, and the standard error is presented in ().
effect on MCT originality, b = 2.21, p = 0.026, and a signifi-
cant indirect effect on MCT originality through emotional
arousal, b = 1.04, CI = [1.97, 0.02] (see Figure 8C). Expr-
ession inhibition had no significant direct effect on MCT origi-
nality, b = 1.57, p = 0.113, but a significant indirect effect on
MCT originality through emotional arousal, b = 1.25, CI =
[2.24, 0.21] (see Figure 8D). Cognitive reappraisal had a
significant direct effect on MCT harmfulness, b = 0.28, p =
0.001, but no significant indirect effect on MCT harmfulness
through emotional arousal, b = 0.03, CI = [0.08, 0.003].
Expression inhibition had a significant direct effect on MCT
harmfulness, b = 0.28, p = 0.001, but no significant indirect
effect on MCT harmfulness through emotional arousal, b =
0.03, CI = [0.09, 0.01]. These results suggest that emotional
arousal only mediated the effects of cognitive reappraisal strat-
egy and expression inhibition strategy on MCT fluency and
MCT originality.
3.5 Interim discussion
The main findings of Experiment 2 were as follows: (1) both
cognitive reappraisal and expression inhibition strategies could
effectively reduce individual emotional arousal and IA; (2) both
of the two emotion regulation strategies effectively weakened
the malevolent creative performance of the angry individuals
(originality and harmfulness); (3) both emotional arousal and
IA mediated the effects of emotion regulation strategies on
malevolent creative performance of angry individuals. These
findings answered Question 2. That is, emotion regulation
strategies could successfully impair the malevolent creative
performance of angry individuals. It should be noted that this
study only observed the effect of emotion regulation strategies
on the malevolent creative performance of angry individuals in
idea originality and harmfulness, but not in idea fluency. This
might suggest that the moderating effect of emotion regulation
strategies on the malevolent creative performance of angry
individuals is more qualitative than quantitative. In other words,
reducing an individual’s anger could not decrease the number
of malevolent ideas, but it could reduce the harmfulness and
originality of the generated ideas. In addition, these findings
further indicated that emotional arousal and IA played important
roles in the relationship between anger and malevolent creativity.
4 Discussion
This study mainly showed that anger could promote indivi-
dual malevolent creative performance, while emotion regula-
tion strategies such as cognitive reappraisal and expression
inhibition could weaken individual malevolent creative per-
formance. Both emotional arousal and IA mediated the positive
effect of anger on malevolent creative performance and the
passive effect of emotion regulation strategies on malevolent
creative performance of angry individuals. In addition, effect
size analysis showed a moderate or higher level of the effect
size of the main findings in this study, which meant that the
results of this study had high reliability.
Both experiments showed that IA and emotional arousal
were two important pathways through which anger affected
individual malevolent creative performance. Emotional arousal
was a common pathway that anger affected individual malevo-
lent creativity and general creativity. There are two possible
reasons for this. On the one hand, in order to maintain
goal-related attention and effort during creation, individuals
need to maintain a certain level of cognitive activation to enha-
nce the involvement of the cognitive system (Byron et al., 2010;
Gilet & Jallais, 2011). Anger is a kind of emotional state with
high arousal, which can enhance the level of individual cogni-
tive activation, allocate more cognitive resources to participate
in the current task, and eventually enhance individual creative
performance. On the other hand, studies have found that anger
(high arousal) activates a broader semantic network (Gilet &
Jallais, 2011), while sadness (low arousal) inhibits the activa-
tion of semantic networks (Bless et al., 1992; Bolte et al., 2003).
A broader semantic activation helps individuals find new con-
nections between different categories and concepts, thus facili-
tating the generation of novel ideas and enhancing creative
performance (Friedman & Förster, 2010). These two may exp-
lain why emotional arousal is a common pathway through which
anger affects both general creativity and malevolent creativity.
IA may be a specific way through which anger affects indi-
vidual malevolent creative performance. In Experiment 1, we
found that although IA could not mediate the effect of anger on
general creative performance, it could mediate the effect of
anger on malevolent creative performance. In both experiments,
Acta Psychologica Sinica
only IA was observed to mediate the effect of anger on idea
harmfulness. Studies have shown a strong link between anger
and aggression (Anderson et al., 1996; Berkowitz, 1990;
Roseman et al., 1994). On the one hand, anger interferes with
high-level cognitive processing, including moral reasoning and
judgment (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). On the other hand,
anger may provide justifications for aggressive behaviors and
cause emotional misattribution, which in turn increases aggres-
sion (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). That is, anger may interfere
with individuals’ moral judgments and emotional attributions of
aggressive behaviors, which in turn stimulate a high level of IA,
making them more inclined to seek harmful ideas. In order to
successfully achieve the goal of harm others, individuals tend
to generate more and more novel (unexpected) harmful ideas.
The results showed that both cognitive reappraisal and expr-
ession inhibition strategies could effectively reduce the level of
emotional arousal and IA. Mediation effect analysis showed
that the decreases of emotional arousal and IA, which were
caused by emotion regulation strategies, could effectively reduce
MCT fluency and originality. Moreover, the decrease of IA
could effectively reduce idea harmfulness. These findings not
only proved that cognitive reappraisal and expression inhibition
strategies could effectively attenuate the malevolent creative
performance of angry individuals but also further reveal the
underlying mechanism, namely, the malevolent creativity of
angry individuals can be attenuated by reducing individual
emotional arousal and IA.
This study has a certain significance, theoretically and prac-
tically. Theoretically, it enriches the researches on the influenc-
ing factors of malevolent creativity and provides evidences and
explanations for the effect of anger on malevolent creativity
and its underlying mechanism. Practically, it proves that cogni-
tive reappraisal and expression inhibition strategies can effec-
tively attenuate the malevolent creativity of angry individuals.
Meanwhile, this study emphasizes the necessity of regulating
anger to avoid or reduce potential social harm caused by the
negative side of creativity (malevolent creativity).
There were several limitations that should be noted in this
study. First, in order to make the conditions consistent in terms
of task sequences and thus facilitate the comparison of task
performance among different conditions, sequences of tasks
were not balanced in Experiment 1. The potential effects of task
sequence on findings need to be further examined by future
studies. Secondly, considering the accuracy and ecological
validity of emotion induction, this study only used autobio-
graphical recall tasks to induce emotion. Future studies can use
other emotion induction strategies such as a combination of
visual, auditory, and other sensory materials or embodied indu-
ction such as facial expressions and postures. Thirdly, this
study only selected the two most commonly used and effective
emotion regulation strategies. Future studies can apply other
types of emotion regulation strategies such as avoidance, dis-
tracting attention and etc., to compare the effects of different
emotion regulation strategies. Finally, a larger proportion of
female participants were recruited in this study. The potential
effect of gender on the effects of anger on individual malevo-
lent creative performance and its underlying mechanism rem-
ains to be further explored in the future.
5 Conclusion
(1) Anger not only promotes general creativity, but also mal-
evolent creativity.
(2) Implicit aggression and emotional arousal are two imp-
ortant pathways through which anger affects individual male-
volent creative performance. Meanwhile, the implicit aggress-
ion pathway is specific to the effect of anger on individual mal-
evolent creative performance (compared with general creativity).
(3) The cognitive reappraisal strategy and the expressive inhi-
bition strategy can effectively regulate individual anger and
attenuate the malevolent creative performance of the angry
individuals. Implicit aggression and emotional arousal play an
important mediating role in the attenuating effect of emotional
regulation on malevolent creativity.
References
Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E. (1996). Examining
an affective aggression framework: Weapon and temperature effects
on aggressive thoughts, affect, and attitudes. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 366–376.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.
Baas, M., de Dreu, C. K. W., & 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.
Baas, M., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). Creative produc-
tion by angry people peaks early on, decreases over time, and is rel-
atively unstructured. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
47(6), 1107–1115.
Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and
aggression: A cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American
Psychologist, 45(4), 494–503.
Bless, H., Hamilton, D. L., & Mackie, D. M. (1992). Mood effects on
the organization of person information. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 22(5), 497–509.
Bolte, A., Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (2003). Emotion and intuition: Ef-
fects of positive and negative mood on implicit judgments of se-
mantic coherence. Psychological Science, 14(5), 416–421.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: the
self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59.
Brewer, D., Doughtie, E. B., & Lubin, B. (1980). Induction of mood
and mood shift. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36(1), 215–226.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. P. (1992). The aggression questionnaire.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459.
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship
between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining com-
peting theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1),
201–212.
Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of
affect and action. Motivation & Emotion, 30, 105–110.
Cropley, A. J. (2010). The dark side of creativity: What is it? In D.
Cropley, A. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The
dark side of creativity (pp. 1–14). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2008). Malevolent
creativity: A functional model of creativity in terrorism and crime.
Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 105–115.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dis-
positional emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting
quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78(1), 136–157.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2010). Implicit affective cues and atten-
tional tuning: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5),
875–893.
Gilet, A.-L., & Jallais, C. (2011). Valence, arousal and word associa-
CHENG Rui et al.: The effect of anger on malevolent creativity and strategies for its emotion regulation
tions. Cognition and Emotion, 25(4), 740–746.
Gill, P., Horgan, J., Hunter, S. T., & Cushenbery, L. D. (2013). Male-
volent creativity in terrorist organizations. Journal of Creative Be-
havior, 47(2), 125–151.
Goldin, P. R., Mcrae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The neural
bases of emotion regulation: Reappraisal and suppression of nega-
tive emotion. Biological Psychiatry, 63(6), 577–586.
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regula-
tion: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and phy-
siology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1),
224–237.
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Concep-
tual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regula-
tion (pp.3–24). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gutworth, M. B., Cushenbery, L., & Hunter, S. T. (2016). Creativity
for deliberate harm: malevolent creativity and social information
processing theory. Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(4), 305–322.
Hao, N., Qiao, X., Cheng, R., Lu, K., Tang, M. Y., & Runco, M. A.
(2020). Approach motivational orientation enhances malevolent
creativity. Acta Psychologica, 203, 102985.
Hao, N., Tang, M. Y., Yang, J., Wang, Q. F., & Runco, M. A. (2016).
A new tool to measure malevolent creativity: The malevolent crea-
tivity behavior scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 682.
Hao, N., Xue, H., Yuan, H., Wang, Q., & Runco, M. A. (2017). En-
hancing creativity: Proper body posture meets proper emotion. Acta
Psychologica, 173, 32–40.
Harris, D. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2015). Fast and furious: the influ-
ence of implicit aggression, premeditation, and provoking situations
on malevolent creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity, and
the Arts, 9(1), 54–64.
Harris, D. J., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). The effect of
emotional intelligence and task type on malevolent creativity. Psy-
chology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 237–244.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-Based approach. New York:
Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis
with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psycholo-
gist, 52(12), 1280–1300.
Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention experiences: Relating
emotions to nonemotional motivational states. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.),
Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 186–211). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement.
Psychological Review, 113(3), 439–460.
Jiang, J., Dai, B. H., Peng, D. L., Zhu, C. Z., Liu, L., Lu, C. M. (2012).
Neural synchronization during face-to-face communication. Journal
of Neuroscience, 32(45), 16064–16069.
Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and atten-
tion. American Psychologist, 50(5), 372–385.
Lu, K. L., Xue, H., Nozawa, T., & Hao, N. (2019). Cooperation makes
a group be more creative. Cerebral Cortex, 29(8), 3457–3470.
Molho, C., Tybur, J. M., Balliet, D., Güler, E., & Hofmann, W. (2017).
Disgust and anger relate to different aggressive responses to moral
violations. Psychological Science, 28(5), 609–619.
Perchtold Stefan, C. M., Fink, A., Rominger, C., & Papousek, I.
(2020). Creative, antagonistic, and angry? Exploring the roots of
malevolent creativity with a real world idea generation task. The
Journal of Creative Behavior. doi: 10.1002/jocb.484.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t crea-
tivity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pit-
falls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psy-
chologist, 39(2), 83–96.
Ray, R. D., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2008). All in the mind’s eye?
Anger rumination and reappraisal. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 94(1), 133–145.
Richetin, J., & Richardson, D. S. (2008). Automatic processes and
individual differences in aggressive behavior. Aggression and Vio-
lent Behavior, 13(6), 423–430.
Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology,
behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 206–221.
Runco, M. A., Abdulla, A. M., Paek, S. H., Al-Jasim, F. A., & Alsu-
waidi, H. N. (2016). Which test of divergent thinking is best? Crea-
tivity. Theories – Research - Applications, 3(1), 4–18.
Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of
creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of crea-
tivity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2001). Development and
psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativ-
ity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 393–400.
Russ, S. W., & Kaugars, A. S. (2001). Emotion in children’s play and
creative problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2),
211–219.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of
emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145–172.
van Kleef, G. A., Anastasopoulou, C., & Nijstad, B. A. (2010). Can
expressions of anger enhance creativity? A test of the emotions as
social information (EASI) model. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 46(6), 1042–1048.
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.
Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: A
meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the
process model of emotion regulation. Psychological Bulletin,
138(4), 775–808.
Zhu, C. M., Gong, H. L., & Zheng, X. F. (2006). An experimental
research on character of implicit aggression among juveniles. Psy-
chological Exploration, 26(2), 48–50.
... Therefore, anger could facilitate creative performance [34][35][36][37]. Cheng et al. conducted an experimental study with the malevolent creativity task (MCT) and found that malevolent creativity performance can be significantly promoted in anger group [38]. Therefore, anger may be a potential mediating variable between justice sensitivity and malevolent creativity. ...
... Numerous studies showed that high level emotion regulation could effectively down-regulate an individual's anger mood and the related physiological responses [42,[44][45][46]. Cheng et al. also found that cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression could effectively reduce the emotional arousal and significantly reduce the malevolent creativity of angry individuals [38]. Based on previous findings, it is reasonable to expect that cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression may also attenuate the possible effects of justice sensitivity on anger and then weak the impact on malevolent creativity. ...
... This result was consistent with previous studies. Some researchers found that justice sensitivity positively predicted anger [38,76,77]. Schmitt et al. described justice sensitivity as: "Individuals differ in how sensitive they are to justice; how easily they are able to perceive injustice; and how strongly they react to perceived injustice" [11]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background the AMORAL model emphasizes the close connection of individuals’ belief system and malevolent creativity. Belief in a just world theory (BJW) states that people have a basic need to believe that the world they live in is just, and everyone gets what they deserve. Therefore, justice matters to all people. Justice sensitivity, as one of individual trait, has been found associated with negative goals. However, relevant studies have not tested whether justice sensitivity can affect malevolent creativity and its psychological mechanisms. Additionally, researchers have found that both anger and emotion regulation linked with justice sensitivity and malevolent creativity, but their contribution to the relationship between justice sensitivity and malevolent creativity remained unclear. The current study aims to explore the influence of justice sensitivity on malevolent creativity, the mediating effect of trait anger/state anger on the relationship between justice sensitivity and malevolent creativity, and the moderating effect of emotion regulation on this mediating effect. Methods A moderated mediating model was constructed to test the relationship between justice sensitivity and malevolent creativity. A sample of 395 Chinese college students were enrolled to complete the questionnaire survey. Results Justice sensitivity positively correlated with malevolent creativity, both trait anger and state anger partly mediated the connection between justice sensitivity and malevolent creativity. Moreover, emotion regulation moderated the indirect effect of the mediation model. The indirect effect of justice sensitivity on malevolent creativity through trait anger/state anger increased as the level of emotion regulation increased. The results indicated that justice sensitivity can affect malevolent creativity directly and indirectly through the anger. The level of emotion regulation differentiated the indirect paths of justice sensitivity on malevolent creativity. Conclusions Justice sensitivity and malevolent creativity was mediated by trait anger/state anger. The higher sensitivity to justice, the higher level of trait anger/state anger, which in turn boosted the tendency of malevolent creativity. This indirect connection was moderated by emotion regulation, individuals with high emotion regulation are better able to buffer anger from justice sensitivity.
... External environmental factors include social exclusion, unfair conditions, and provocation, which can spur more original creative ideas. Research using a modified version of the Prisoner's Dilemma Task to manipulate social threats and the Alternate Use Task (AUT) for creativity assessment showed that social threats increased cognitive aggression and malevolent creativity, with participants generating more malevolent creative ideas compared to the control group (Harris et al., 2013;Harris and Reiter-Palmon, 2015;da Costa et al., 2020;Cheng et al., 2021). Despite these advances, few studies have discussed the mechanisms behind these different effects of malevolent creativity. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction This study investigated the association between parenting styles and malevolent creativity. Methods It used latent profile analysis to compare the differences in malevolent creativity between different combinations of parenting styles with an online sample (N = 620). Results The results of the study suggest that a three-profile solution best fits the data, and the three profiles were labelled positive open parenting, undifferentiated parenting and negative limited parenting. Subsequent analyses revealed that there were significant differences in malevolent creativity performance among the three parenting styles, with participants in the positive open parenting having more malevolent creativity. Those with undifferentiated parenting had the lowest scores. Discussion The findings provide theoretical guidance for parenting strategies. Future intervention studies on malevolent creativity should also consider the potential impact of parenting style to obtain better results.
... es not necessarily influence employees to increase their creativity. The deviation may be due to other factors present in the environment. A person may not have control over the surrounding environment. Studies have suggested that anger can fuel creativity as it could enhance a cognitive appraisal through the arousal of emotion of the participants ( Cheng et. al., 2021) The third hypothesis aimed to explore whether others' emotions affect creativity (OEA). This hypothesis was not supported. The results deviated from past studies that have shown that OEA is positively associated with employee creativity (Serrat and Serrat, 2017;Tsai and Lee, 2014). This means that employees' ability to recognize other e ...
Article
Full-text available
Employers must cultivate a conducive environment for employee innovation and productivity. This study focused on the impact of emotional intelligence (EI) on creativity and innovation among multi-generational employees in Kuala Lumpur's financial sector. 132 employees participated, with results analyzed using SPSS and SmartPls version 4. Findings reveal that only the Use of Emotions (UOE) dimension significantly boosts creativity, while age moderates the link between creativity and innovation. This study offers insights valuable for recruitment, training, and organizational management. It contributes fresh perspectives to existing knowledge, marking the first of its kind in this context.
... The Malevolent Creativity Task (MCT) was used to evaluate malevolent creativity. Participants were asked to provide as many original and harmful solutions as possible for a specific problem within 5 min (Cheng et a., 2021a(Cheng et a., , 2021bGao et al., 2022a;Hao et al., 2020;Qiao et al., 2022; e.g., Ming will be your opponent in the tennis final, but you are impossible to defeat Ming right now. Please generate novel methods to make Ming injured 'accidentally' and win the tennis final). ...
Article
Full-text available
In response to intergroup threats, group members typically exhibit aggressive behaviors. These aggressive behaviors include malevolent creativity (MC), which refers to the application of novel ideas to intentionally harm others. However, whether and how intergroup threats affect MC remains unclear. This study comprehensively examines the impact of intergroup threats on MC, along with its underlying mechanisms, across three experiments. Study 1 investigated the effects of intergroup threats on MC performance. The results revealed that while intergroup threat improved MC originality, it had no significant impact on general creativity, which indicates that intergroup threat enables individuals to invest more resources in generating original malevolent ideas. Building on these findings, Study 2 focused on how the target directivity of MC influences the relationship between intergroup threat and MC performance. The results demonstrated that MC originality was higher when the MC target was directed at threatening outgroup members rather than at irrelevant persons. These findings imply that threatened individuals tend to retaliate vicariously against out-group members using original malevolent methods. Study 3 explored whether realistic and symbolic threats exerted distinct effects on MC performance. Their results showed that only symbolic threats promoted originality and fluency in MC. This indicates that only symbolic threats compelled the incentives to promote the generation of malevolent ideas. In conclusion, these findings suggested that intergroup threats significantly amplify MC, particularly when directed at perceived threatening outgroup members, while symbolic threats appear more conducive to fostering the generation of malevolent ideas.
... It is consistent with previous studies involving negative moods promoting problem-solving (Shen et al., 2019). Moreover, anger can also enhance individuals' cognitive activation level and enrich more cognitive resources to invest in the current task (Cheng et al., 2021), which could be especially helpful for creation. This reflects an important feature of the task of divergent thinking: people need to break common associations under inflexible rules and construct new associations between previously remote elements (Guilford, 1950). ...
Article
Full-text available
Although reducing students' aggressive behaviors and improving their creativity are both important commitments of educators, they are usually treated independently as unrelated tasks. However, cumulative evidence suggests potential links between aggression and creativity, not only from the perspectives of personality traits and psychological development, but also from their shared cognitive mechanisms. This implies that there may be an approach to achieving these two goals through a single intervention. Moreover, this new approach may overcome the limitation of the usually adopted aggression intervention, which is limited in its regulatory effectiveness and might bring about some disadvantageous impacts on creativity that are closely associated with aggression. To test this possibility, the present study implemented a four‐session, 2‐week creative thinking training (CTT) intervention for students with high aggression scores to examine whether it could simultaneously downregulate aggression and increase creativity. Our results demonstrate that, compared to the control group, the intervention group experienced significant improvements in creativity and a reduction in aggression following the CTT intervention. Furthermore, our findings suggest that this regulatory effect can persist for up to 6 months. The CTT‐induced creativity change (increase) could significantly correlate with and predict the CTT‐induced aggression decrease, thus suggesting that the CTT could transform aggression into creativity.
Article
Full-text available
Criminals allegedly use effective novelty to intentionally exploit and harm others (creative fraud, theft, and murder). However, empirical evidence that criminals possess higher malevolent creativity than individuals without criminal backgrounds is lacking. We compared a male sample of prisoners in a maximum‐security penitentiary ( n = 140), police officers ( n = 122), and the general population ( n = 106) on three different aspects of malevolent creativity: self‐reported malevolent creativity behavior (MCBS), willingness to engage in malevolent creativity on a test (MCT), and malevolent creativity potential on that test (reduced n = 285). Group comparisons (ANOVAs) differed for different malevolent creativity aspects: Prisoners reported more malevolent creativity behavior in daily life (MCBS) than nonprisoners, which may reflect their alleged criminal personality or the effects of confinement on creative coping with threat. However, prisoners also performed worse than police officers in generating creative ideas for taking revenge on others (MCT). No differences in initial willingness to engage in malevolent creativity (MCT) emerged. This discrepancy of self‐report and ability is discussed from several angles, including suitability of the applied measures and heterogeneity of prison populations. This study constitutes the first empirical insights into the often hypothesized but rarely tested malevolent creativity expression in the criminal mind.
Article
A substantial body of empirical research has focused on the interaction between creativity and mood, yet the results regarding the impact of anger on creative performance are notably varied. To clarify the overall relationship between the two, a three-level meta-analysis employing a random effects model was conducted. This analysis reviewed 115 effect sizes from 2,413 participants, revealing that anger is significantly positively correlated with creative performance (r = 0.184, 95% CI [0.111, 0.254]). The strength of this correlation was found to be moderated by the general and malevolent facets of creativity, as well as the procedures used for mood induction. Specifically, anger appears to enhance creative performance, particularly when it is elicited through imaginative processes and directed towards malevolent facet of creativity. However, the link between anger and creative performance was not influenced by the type of creative task used, the reported creative outcome, or the time limitation of the task. These findings contribute to refining the theoretical frameworks of mood and creativity and highlight the practical implications of utilising anger to moderate creative performance.
Article
Creativity which is driven by negative intention can be termed as malevolent creativity (MC). Existing findings revealed that unfairness promoted regular antisocial behavior like aggression or lying. But the relationship between unfairness and creative antisocial behavior (i.e., MC) have not been investigated. Based on AMORAL theory, two studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between unfairness and MC from trait and state levels respectively. In Study 1, participants completed several questionaries about unfairness, MC, and other personality traits in online formats. Results showed that MC was significantly correlated with individuals’ unfairness, aggression, and moral disengagement. Aggression and moral disengagement played mediating roles between unfairness and MC. In Study 2, the Ultimatum Game paradigm was used to activate participants’ feelings of unfairness and they were further asked to solve MC problems in control or unfair conditions. Results showed that the experience of unfair condition enhanced individuals’ MC performance. Anger and implicit aggression played mediating roles between unfairness and MC. These findings indicate that individuals’ MC performance might be enhanced by unfairness and this effect could be related to individuals’ moral disengagement, aggression and anger.
Article
Two studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between Early Life Adversity and Malevolent Creativity as well as its underlying mechanism. Study 1 established a moderated mediation model to explore the mediating role of Belief in a Just World (BJW) and the moderating role of Dark Triad. A total of 353 college students ( M age = 21.25, SD age = 2.21, 58.9% women) were recruited to fill out questionnaires. The results showed that Early Life Adversity positively predicted Malevolent Creativity behavior and indirectly predicted Malevolent Creativity behavior through BJW. Dark Triad reduced the effects of Early Life Adversity on BJW and intensified the effects of Early Life Adversity on Malevolent Creativity behavior. Study 2 explored the effect of threatening BJW on Malevolent Creativity potential. A total of 180 participants ( M age = 20.53, SD age = 1.7, 64.4% women) were investigated with questionnaires and a Malevolent Creativity Problem‐Solving Task. Study 2 validated study 1 and illustrated that the Malevolent Creativity potential (including fluency, originality, and malevolence) was enhanced when Belief in a Just World was threatened. However, greater fluency was only observed in men. As a whole, these finding emphasizes the important linking role of BJW between Early Life Adversity and Malevolent Creativity, and Dark Triad and gender influence the expression of Malevolent Creativity as well.
Preprint
Full-text available
Music, composed of lyrics and melodies, has an important effect on human emotion, cognition, and behaviors. Researchers have conducted studies on music listening about creativity mainly from the two perspectives of music preference and music exposure, but the dark side of creativity - malevolent creativity - has not been addressed yet. Based on these studies, we focus on three aggression-related music: heavy metal music, rock music, and electronic music, whose relationship with malevolent creativity was verified in our studies. In Study 1, we intended to verify the relationship between aggression-related music preference and malevolent creativity by using questionnaires. In study 2, we further explore the causal relationship between aggression-related music exposure and malevolent creativity through behavioral experiments. Moreover, we also wonder about the internal mechanism. Our results found a strong correlation between aggression-related music (music preference & music exposure) and malevolent creativity, especially electronic music. Meanwhile, the mediation mechanism of negative emotions was not validated. Finally, the main effect of lyrics was confirmed. The negative lyrics group had significantly higher malevolent creativity than the positive lyrics group. The interaction between lyrics and melody on the induction of malevolent creativity showed that there was no significant difference in malevolent creativity across the four music genres under negative lyrics, but electronic music and heavy metal music stood out under positive lyrics. The study's implications extend to understanding the potential dark side of music and its influence on creativity.
Article
Full-text available
Research is currently witnessing more investigations into malevolent creativity—creativity that is used to intentionally harm others. Inspired by previous methods to measure malevolent creativity, in the present study, we introduce a real‐world behavioral task designed to capture individuals’ capacity for using creativity for the purpose of attaining malevolent goals in response to everyday, provocative situations. In a sample of 105 students, we found malevolent creativity positively correlated with fluency in conventional creative ideation, as well as with self‐reported typical malevolent creativity behavior in daily life. Moreover, performance on the malevolent creativity task showed positive correlations with the maladaptive personality trait of antagonism (PID‐5) as well as individuals’ state anger at the beginning of the experiment. Further, our multiple regression analysis revealed that conventional creative ideation, antagonistic personality, and state anger all explained unique, non‐overlapping variance in the capacity for implementing malevolent creativity. As a whole, these findings suggest that different cognitive and affective factors, along with specific personality traits may each contribute to the expression of malevolent creativity in distinct ways. Future investigations striving to further decode the destructive potential of individuals toward others may benefit from this validated behavioral measurement approach to malevolent creativity.
Article
Full-text available
At the heart of emotion, mood, and any other emotionally charged event are states experienced as simply feeling good or bad, energized or enervated. These states - called core affect - influence reflexes, perception, cognition, and behavior and are influenced by many causes internal and external, but people have no direct access to these causal connections. Core affect can therefore be experienced as free-floating (mood) or can be attributed to some cause (and thereby begin an emotional episode). These basic processes spawn a broad framework that includes perception of the core-affect-altering properties of stimuli, motives, empathy, emotional meta-experience, and affect versus emotion regulation; it accounts for prototypical emotional episodes, such as fear and anger, as core affect attributed to something plus various nonemotional processes.
Article
Full-text available
In response to the same moral violation, some people report experiencing anger, and others report feeling disgust. Do differences in emotional responses to moral violations reflect idiosyncratic differences in the communication of outrage, or do they reflect differences in motivational states? Whereas equivalence accounts suggest that anger and disgust are interchangeable expressions of condemnation, sociofunctional accounts suggest that they have distinct antecedents and consequences. We tested these accounts by investigating whether anger and disgust vary depending on the costs imposed by moral violations and whether they differentially correspond with aggressive tendencies. Results across four studies favor a sociofunctional account: When the target of a moral violation shifts from the self to another person, anger decreases, but disgust increases. Whereas anger is associated with high-cost, direct aggression, disgust is associated with less costly indirect aggression. Finally, whether the target of a moral violation is the self or another person influences direct aggression partially via anger and influences indirect aggression partially via disgust.
Article
Full-text available
Divergent thinking (DT) tests are probably the most common-ly used measures of creative potential. Several extensive batteries are available but most research relies on one or two specific tests rather than a complete battery. This may limit generalizations because tests of DT are not equivalent. They are not always highly inter-correlated. Additionally, some DT tests appear to be better than others at eliciting originality. This is critical because originality is vital for creativity. The primary purpose of the present study was to determine which test of DT elicits the most originality. Seven measures of DTwere administered on a sample of 611 participants in eight Arabic countries. The tests were Figural, Titles, Realistic Pre-sented Problems, Realistic Problem Generation, Instances, Uses, and Similarities. The Quick Test of Convergent Think-ing, Runco’s Ideational Behavior Scale, and a demographic questionnaire were also administered. A linear mixed model analysis confirmed that the originality scores in the DT tests differed by test. Post-hoc tests indicated that the Titles and Realistic Problem Generation tests produced the highest mean originality scores, whereas the Realistic Presented Problems test produced the lowest mean originality scores. These differences confirm that research using only one DT test will not provide generalizable results.
Article
Full-text available
People approach pleasure and avoid pain. To discover the true nature of approach–avoidance motivation, psychologists need to move beyond this hedonic principle to the principles that underlie the different ways that it operates. One such principle is regulatory focus, which distinguishes self-regulation with a promotion focus (accomplishments and aspirations) from self-regulation with a prevention focus (safety and responsibilities). This principle is used to reconsider the fundamental nature of approach–avoidance, expectancy–value relations, and emotional and evaluative sensitivities. Both types of regulatory focus are applied to phenonomena that have been treated in terms of either promotion (e.g., well-being) or prevention (e.g., cognitive dissonance). Then, regulatory focus is distinguished from regulatory anticipation and regulatory reference, 2 other principles underlying the different ways that people approach pleasure and avoid pain.
Article
Full-text available
The present study developed the malevolent creativity behavior scale (MCBS), which contains 13 items and was designed to measure individuals’ malevolent creativity through the behavior of daily lives. A total of 958 participants from different regions of China completed the MCBS in an online fashion. Cronbach’s α coefficient, using the 908 MCBSs with entirely complete data, indicated that the MCBS had satisfactory reliability. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that the MCBS had 3 dimensions: hurting people, lying, and playing tricks. MCBS scores were positively correlated with individuals’ aggression, openness, extraversion, and scores on the Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (RIBS). MCBS scores also predicted individuals’ malevolent creativity performances when solving realistic, open-ended problems. The MCBS has a simple response medium and scoring procedure. This, along with the adequate psychometric properties uncovered here, indicates that it is a useful tool for research on malevolent creativity. Given that the MCBS contains a relatively small number of categories and items, further research could expand the categories of items and develop and test more items. Moreover, it would be useful to test MCBS’s reliability and validity with other criteria. Perhaps future research could obtain actual MC data from criminal or other unambiguously malevolent samples.
Article
Three studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between motivation and malevolent creativity (MC). In Study 1, participants completed motivation scales and a measure of MC in online formats. Results showed that approach motivation accurately predicted MC, whereas avoidance motivation was negatively related to MC. In Study 2, participants solved MC problems in either approach or avoidance motivation conditions. Analyses revealed higher MC in the approach than in the avoidance motivation condition. In Study 3, participants were further asked to solve MC problems in one of the following conditions: approach-success/approach-failure/avoidance-success/avoidance-failure. The beneficial effects of approach motivation over avoidance motivation were again observed. Moreover, the experience of 'no closure' (failure in doing something) enhanced individual MC performance and counteracted the negative impact of avoidance motivation on MC. These findings indicate that individual MC performance might be enhanced by approach motivation and the experience of 'no closure'.
Article
This study investigated how cooperative and competitive interaction modes affect the group creative performance. The participants were recruited as dyads to solve 2 problems either demanding divergent thinking (alternative uses task, AUT) or not (object characteristic task, OCT). The dyads solved 1 of the 2 problems in the cooperative mode and the other in the competitive mode. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)-based hyperscanning was used to record their neural activities in the prefrontal and right temporal-parietal junction (r-TPJ) regions. Results revealed the dyads showed higher AUT fluency, AUT originality, OCT fluency, and cooperation level in the cooperative mode than in the competitive mode. The fNIRS data revealed increased (task-baseline) interpersonal brain synchronization (IBS) in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (r-DLPFC) and r-TPJ, only for dyads in the AUT/cooperation condition. In both r-DLPFC and r-TPJ, the IBS of dyads in the AUT/cooperation condition was stronger than in the AUT/competition and OCT/cooperation. Moreover, a stronger IBS was evoked between the regions in prefrontal and posterior temporal regions in the AUT/cooperation condition, as compared with the competition mode. These findings suggest that enhanced IBS may underlie the positive effects of cooperation as compared with the competition in terms of group creativity.
Article
This study tested whether compatibility or incompatibility between body posture and emotion was beneficial for creativity. In Study 1, participants were asked to solve the Alternative Uses Task (AUT) problems when performing open or closed body posture in positive or negative emotional state respectively. The results showed that originality of AUT performance was higher in the compatible conditions (i.e., open-positive and closed-negative) than in the incompatible conditions (i.e., closed-positive and open-negative). In Study 2, the compatibility effect was replicated in both the AUT and the Realistic Presented Problem test (i.e., RPP). Moreover, it was revealed that participants exhibited the highest associative flexibility in the open-positive condition, and the highest persistence in the closed-negative condition. These findings indicate that compatibility between body posture and emotion is beneficial for creativity. This may be because when the implicit emotions elicited by body posture match explicit emotions, the effects of emotions on creativity are enhanced, therefore promoting creativity through the flexibility or the persistence pathway respectively.
Article
Both popular press and academic research laud the benefits of creativity. Malevolent creativity, however, is the application of creativity to intentionally harm others. This study examines predictors of malevolent creativity, considering both contextual and individual difference influences. Social information processing theory suggests that situational cues might be more influential in shaping malevolent creativity. Two experimental laboratory studies test the effects of both formal and informal situational cues and find that these factors are predictive of malevolent creativity components above and beyond individual differences such as personality and cognitive ability. Implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.