Creators and Presses: The Person–Situation Interaction in Negative Creativity

Given the recent emphasis on exploring valence in creative behavior, this study examines negative creativity via a person–situation interactionist perspective. By manipulating goal valence (uses or misuses) and object valence (positive or negative), four conditions of an adapted Divergent Thinking task were used to predict positive and negative creativity. Participants (N = 178, 103 females, M_age = 23.82, SD = 4.03, range: 18–38) responded to a single condition along with the Big Five and Dark Triad personality scales in a between-groups design. Hierarchical multiple regressions revealed that goal and object valence significantly explained variance in valences of creative responses, beyond individual differences of personality. Furthermore, the congruence between goal and object valence predicted valenced creativity; that is, the positive objects and goals condition yielded more positive-original ideas, and the negative objects and goals condition yielded more negative-original ones. Object valence alone (material presses) did not contribute significantly to explaining valenced creativity. Negative-original responses were inversely related to conscientiousness, and directly to intellect/imagination and secondary psychopathy. Thus, negative creativity was attributed relatively more to person as compared to situation variables. Results are discussed from a valence-based and interactionist perspective.     

“Who said it?” How contextual information influences perceived profundity of meaningful quotes and pseudo-profound bullshit

Psychological research on pseudo-profound bullshit—randomly assembled buzz words plugged into a syntactic structure—has only recently begun. Most such research has focused on dispositional traits, such as thinking styles or political orientation. However, none has investigated contextual factors. In two studies, we introduce a new paradigm by investigating the contextual effect on pseudo-profound bullshit and meaningful quotes. In Study 1, all participants rated the profundity of statements in three contexts: (a) isolated, (b) as allegedly said by a famous author, or (c) within a vignette (short story). Study 2 serves as a conceptual replication in which participants rated statements in only one of three contexts. Overall, our results demonstrate that although contextual information such as author's name increases the perceived profundity of bullshit, it has an inconsistent effect on meaningful quotes. The present study helps to better understand the bullshit receptivity while offering a new line of research.