Creativity and Well‐being: A Meta‐analysis

Creativity and well‐being are popular subjects in psychological and organizational studies. The recent literature presented mixed perspectives about the nature of the relationship between the two. Whereas the mad‐genius hypothesis, which was often explored among eminently creative individuals, seems...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of creative behavior 2021-09, Vol.55 (3), p.738-751
Main Authors: Acar, Selcuk, Tadik, Harun, Myers, Danielle, Sman, Carian, Uysal, Recep
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Creativity
Hierarchical Linear Modeling
mad‐genius hypothesis
Meta Analysis
positive psychology
Predictor Variables
Well Being
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Creativity and well‐being are popular subjects in psychological and organizational studies. The recent literature presented mixed perspectives about the nature of the relationship between the two. Whereas the mad‐genius hypothesis, which was often explored among eminently creative individuals, seems to imply a negative relationship between the two, trends in the field of creativity, such as everyday creativity and general psychology (i.e., positive psychology) linked them positively. The present meta‐analysis study synthesized 189 effect sizes obtained from 32 samples in 26 different studies based on a total sample of 8,189. Analyses with multilevel modeling yielded a mean effect of r = .14. The moderator analysis tested the impact of age, gender, measure of creativity, measure of well‐being, stimulus type of creativity measure, and index of creativity measure. Only the creativity measure explained the variation in the study outcomes. The relationship between creativity and well‐being was significantly higher when creativity was measured by instruments focusing on creative activity and behavior (r = .22) than the divergent thinking tasks (r = .06). Those findings are discussed in terms of theoretical and practical implications.
ISSN:0022-0175
2162-6057
DOI:10.1002/jocb.485