creativity research agenda

Creativity in the marketing and consumer behavior literature: a structured review and a research agenda

• Published: 18 February 2020
• Volume 2020 , pages 85–124, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Gaetano Miceli   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6869-6161 1 &
• Maria Antonietta Raimondo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3883-592X 1  

1230 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

Creativity is one of the most studied concepts in social sciences. Its relevance in disparate disciplines has stimulated the production of a plethora of contributions. Not surprisingly, marketing and consumer behavior scholars have devoted significant efforts to the study of creativity and have offered a relevant though fragmented corpus of contributions that needs a synthesis to guide further research on such a pervasive, yet crucial, concept. This article presents and discusses a structured review of studies on creativity published in eight major marketing and consumer behavior journals. We classify previous research upon a popular alliterative model—the 4Ps of creativity, person, process, product, and press—to present a comprehensive view of the state of research on creativity. The review is instrumental to the identification of eight research directions, two for each of the 4Ps areas, for future research that marketing and consumer behavior scholars can pursue to produce novel and meaningful contributions on one of the most elusive constructs in social sciences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Giving Creative Credit Where Credit Is Due: A Socio-cultural Approach to Consumer Creativity

Clarifying the Creative Consumer: An Abstract

Understanding the Creative Process

(articles marked with * were included in the structured review as “low centrality” papers, and those marked with ** were included in the structured review as “high centrality” papers).

*Aboulnasr, K., Narasimhan, O., Blair, E., & Chandy, R. (2008). Competitive response to radical product innovations. Journal of Marketing, 72 (3), 94–110.

Google Scholar  

*Althuizen, N. (2017). Communicating a key benefit claim creatively and effectively through five conveyor properties. Psychology & Marketing, 34 (1), 5–18.

*Althuizen, N., & Sgourev, S. V. (2014). Pièces de Résistance? Core and casual consumers’ valuations of aesthetically incongruent artworks. Psychology & Marketing, 31 (8), 604–614.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity . New York, NY: Springer.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context . Boulder CO: Westview.

**Andrews, J., & Smith, D. C. (1996). In search of the marketing imagination: Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (2), 174–187.

**Andrus, R. R. (1968). Creativity: A function for computers or executives? Journal of Marketing, 32 (2), 1–7.

**Ang, S. H., & Low, S. Y. (2000). Exploring the dimensions of Ad creativity. Psychology & Marketing, 17 (10), 835–854.

**Ang, S. H., Lee, Y. H., & Leong, S. M. (2007). The Ad creativity cube: Conceptualization and initial validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (2), 220–232.

*Ashley, C., & Tuten, T. (2015). Creative strategies in social media marketing: An exploratory study of branded social content and consumer engagement. Psychology & Marketing, 32 (1), 15–27.

*Atakan, S. S., Bagozzi, R. P., & Yoon, C. (2014). Consumer participation in the design and realization stages of production: How self-production shapes consumer evaluations and relationships to products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31 (4), 395–408.

Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domain. Creativity Research Journal, 4 (1), 23–29.

Baer, J. (1993). Divergent thinking and creativity: A task-specific approach . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11 (2), 173–177.

Barron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 (3), 478–485.

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32 (1), 439–476.

Bauerly, R. J., & Johnson, D. T. (2005). An evaluation of journals used in doctoral marketing programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (3), 313–329.

Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time. Journal of Marketing, 67 (2), 123–139.

Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychology . New York: Appleton-Century.

*Blankenship, A. B. (1961). Creativity in consumer research. Journal of Marketing, 25 (6), 34–38.

**Boso, N., Donbesuur, F., Bendega, T., Annan, J., & Adeola, O. (2017). Does organizational creativity always drive market performance? Psychology & Marketing, 34 (11), 1004–1015.

Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Aha! Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10 (3), 730–737.

Braun, M., & Moe, W. W. (2013). Online display advertising: Modeling the effects of multiple creatives and individual impression histories. Marketing Science, 32 (5), 753–767.

Bruce, N. I., Murthi, B. P. S., & Rao, R. C. (2017). A dynamic model for digital advertising: The effects of creative format, message content, and targeting on engagement. Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (2), 202–218.

Bruner, J. S. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, & E. M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking: A symposium held at the University of Colorado (pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Atherthon Press.

Bullot, N. J., & Reber, R. (2013). The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36 (2), 123–137.

*Burke, R. R., Rangaswamy, A., Wind, J., & Eliashberg, J. (1990). A knowledge-based system for advertising design. Marketing Science, 9 (3), 212–229.

**Burroughs, J. E., Dahl, D. W., Moreau, C. P., Chattopadhyay, A., & Gorn, G. J. (2011). Facilitating and Rewarding Creativity During New Product Development. Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 53–67.

**Burroughs, J. E., & Mick, D. G. (2004). Exploring Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Creativity in a Problem-Solving Context. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 402–411.

**Carson, S. J. (2007). When to give up control of outsourced new product development. Journal of Marketing, 71 (1), 49–66.

*Chen, F., & Sengupta, J. (2014). Forced to be bad: the positive impact of low-autonomy vice consumption on consumer vitality. Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 1089–1107.

**Chen, J., Yang, X., & Smith, R. E. (2016). The effects of creativity on advertising wear-in and wear-out. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (3), 334–349.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention . New York, NY: Harper Collins.

**Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2007). Thinking inside the box: Why consumers enjoy constrained creative experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3), 357–369.

*Davis, D., Morris, M., & Allen, J. (1991). Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect on selected entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational characteristics in industrial firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19 (1), 43–51.

Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 37–52.

**Dean, T., Griffith, D. A., & Calantone, R. J. (2016). New product creativity: Understanding contract specificity in new product introductions. Journal of Marketing, 80 (2), 39–58.

*Dickerson, M. D., & Gentry, J. W. (1983). Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home computers. Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (2), 225–235.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), 627–668.

Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (5), 586–598.

Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A Theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (2), 95–109.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153–1166.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1998). Reward, intrinsic interest, and creativity: New findings. American Psychologist, 53, 676–679.

Escalas, J. E. (2007). Narrative versus analytical self-referencing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (4), 421–429.

Feinstein, J. (2006). The nature of creative development . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2 (4), 290–309.

**Ferguson, B. (2009). Creativity and integrity: Marketing the “in Development” Screenplay. Psychology & Marketing, 26 (5), 421–444.

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

**Ganesan, S., Malter, A. J., & Rindfleisch, A. (2005). Does distance still matter? Geographic proximity and new product development. Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), 44–60.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind . New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Ghiselin, B. (1985). The creative process: A symposium . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

**Gill, T., & Dubé, L. (2007). What is a leather iron or a bird phone? Using conceptual combinations to generate and understand new product concepts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (3), 202–217.

Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (2013). Handbook of creativity . New York, NY: Springer.

**Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). The fundamental templates of quality ads. Marketing Science, 18 (3), 333–351.

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 701–721.

**Griffiths-Hemans, J., & Grover, R. (2006). Setting the stage for creative new products: Investigating the idea fruition process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (1), 27–39.

Guidry, J. A., Guidry Hollier, B. N., Johnson, L., Tanner, J. R., & Veltsos, C. (2004). Surveying the cites: A ranking of marketing journals using citation analysis. Marketing Education Review, 14 (1), 45–59.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence . New York (NY): MacGraw-Hill.

Hamby, A., Brinberg, D., & Daniloski, K. (2017). Reflecting on the journey: Mechanisms in narrative persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27 (1), 11–22.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61 (1), 569–598.

**Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (3), 283–295.

**Im, S., & Workman, J. P., Jr. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68 (2), 114–132.

*Isen, A. M. (2001). An influence of positive affect on decision making in complex situations: Theoretical issues with practical implications. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11 (2), 75–85.

Jeon, K.-N., Moon, S. M., & French, B. (2011). Differential effects of divergent thinking, domain knowledge, and interest on creative performance in art and math. Creativity Research Journal, 23 (1), 60–71.

**Kilgour, M., & Koslow, S. (2009). Why and how do creative thinking techniques work? Trading off originality and appropriateness to make more creative advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (3), 298–309.

*Kravets, O., & Sandikci, O. (2014). Competently ordinary: New middle class consumers in the emerging markets. Journal of Marketing, 78 (4), 125–140.

Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 332–351.

Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and mobile marketing: Research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for future inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80 (6), 146–172.

Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13 (3–4), 295–308.

MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 136–154.

Manning, S., & Bejarano, T. A. (2017). Convincing the crowd: Entrepreneurial storytelling in crowdfunding campaigns. Strategic Organization, 15 (2), 194–219.

**Marin, A., Reimann, M., & Castaño, R. (2014). Metaphors and creativity: Direct, moderating, and mediating effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (2), 290–297.

Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53–80.

**Marton, K., & Berkman, K. A. (1976). A systems approach for the generation of new product ideas. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 4 (1–2), 520–526.

**Mehta, R., Dahl, D. W., & Zhu, R. (2017). Social-recognition versus financial incentives? Exploring the effects of creativity-contingent external rewards on creative performance. Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (3), 536–553.

Mehta, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2019). Creativity: Past, present, and future. Consumer Psychology Review, 2 (1), 30–49.

**Mehta, R., & Zhu, M. (2016). Creating when you have less: The impact of resource scarcity on product use creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (5), 767–782.

**Mehta, R., Zhu, R., & Cheema, A. (2012). Is noise always bad? Exploring the effects of ambient noise on creative cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 784–799.

*Monga, A. B., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2012). The influence of mating mind-sets on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (4), 581–593.

*Moorman, C. (1995). Organizational market information processes: Cultural antecedents and new product outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (3), 318–335.

**Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (1), 91–106.

**Moreau, C. P., & Dahl, D. W. (2005). Designing the solution: The impact of constraints on consumers’ creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 13–22.

**Moreau, C. P., & Gundersen Engeset, M. (2016). The downstream consequences of problem-solving mindsets: How playing with LEGO influences creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (1), 18–30.

*Nishikawa, H., Schreier, M., & Ogawa, S. (2013). User-generated versus designer-generated products: A performance assessment at Muji. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30 (2), 160–167.

O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S. (1989). The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale. Creativity Research Journal, 2 (4), 267–278.

Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11 (2), 179–182.

*Plucker, J. A., Kaufman, J. C., Temple, J. S., & Qian, M. (2009). Do experts and novices evaluate movies the same way? Psychology & Marketing, 26 (5), 470–478.

**Rangaswamy, A., & Lilien, G. L. (1997). Software tools for new product development. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (1), 177–184.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42 (7), 305–310.

**Ridgway, N. M., & Price, L. L. (1994). Exploration in product usage: A model of use innovativeness. Psychology & Marketing, 11 (1), 69–84.

Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 127–152). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rothenberg, A. (1970). Inspiration, insight and the creative process in poetry. College English, 32 (2), 172–183.

Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55 (1), 657–687.

Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and everyday creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 20 (2), 93–98.

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 92–96.

Runco, M. A., & Richards, R. (1997). Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and health . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Schooler, J. W., Fallshore, M., & Fiore, S. M. (1995). Epilogue: Putting insight into perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 559–587). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

**Sellier, A. L., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). Focus! Creative success is enjoyed through restricted choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (6), 996–1007.

**Sethi, R., Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (2001). Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (1), 73–85.

Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 151–158.

Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 475–494.

**Smith, R. E., MacKenzie, S. B., Yang, X., Buchholz, L. M., & Darley, W. K. (2007). Modeling the determinants and effects of creativity in advertising. Marketing Science, 26 (6), 819–833.

Spence, C., Puccinelli, N. M., Grewal, D., & Roggeveen, A. L. (2014). Store atmospherics: A multisensory perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 31 (7), 472–488.

**Stathopoulou, A., Borel, L., Christodoulides, G., & West, D. (2017). Consumer branded #hashtag engagement: Can creativity in TV advertising influence hashtag engagement? Psychology & Marketing, 34 (4), 448–462.

Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36 (2), 311–322.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

*Stoner, J. L., Loken, B., & Stadler Blank, A. (2018). The name game: How naming products increases psychological ownership and subsequent consumer evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (1), 130–137.

Suler, J. R. (1980). Primary process thinking and creativity. Psychological Bulletin, 88 (1), 144–165.

*Tauber, E. M. (1972). HIT: Heuristic Ideation Technique. A systematic procedure for new product search. Journal of Marketing, 36 (1), 58–61.

**Titus, P. A. (2018). Exploring creative marketing thought: Divergent ideation processes and outcomes. Psychology & Marketing, 35 (3), 237–248.

Topolinski, S., & Reber, R. (2010). Gaining insight into the “Aha” experience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19 (6), 402–405.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms and technical manual . Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Press.

**Toubia, O. (2006). Idea generation, creativity, and incentives. Marketing Science, 25 (5), 411–425.

**Toubia, O., & Netzer, O. (2017). Idea generation, creativity, and prototypicality. Marketing Science, 36 (1), 1–20.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207–222.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440–463.

*Twedt, D. W. (1969). How to plan new products, improve old ones, and create better advertising. Journal of Marketing, 33 (1), 53–57.

**Valsesia, F., Nunes, J. C., & Ordanini, A. (2016). What wins awards is not always what I buy: How creative control affects authenticity and thus recognition (but not liking). Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (6), 897–914.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought . New York, NY: Hartcourt Brace.

**Wang, Q., Bradford, K., Xu, J., & Weitz, B. (2008). Creativity in buyer-seller relationships: The role of governance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25 (2), 109–118.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2), xiii–xxiii.

**Weijo, H. A., Martin, D. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2018). Consumer movements and collective creativity: the case of restaurant day. Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (2), 251–274.

*Weiss, L., & Johar, G. V. (2013). Egocentric categorization and product judgment: Seeing your traits in what you own (and their opposite in what you don’t). Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 185–201.

Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4 (2), 167–183.

Wisniewski, E. J., & Bassok, M. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 39 (3–4), 208–238.

**Yang, H., Chattopadhyay, A., Zhang, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2012). Unconscious creativity: When can unconscious thought outperform conscious thought? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (4), 573–581.

**Yang, X., & Smith, R. E. (2009). Beyond attention effects: Modeling the persuasive and emotional effects of advertising creativity. Marketing Science, 28 (5), 935–949.

**Yang, X., Ringberg, T., Mao, H., & Peracchio, L. A. (2011). The construal (in) compatibility effect: The moderating role of a creative mind-set. Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (4), 681–696.

*Zenker, S., Gollan, T., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2014). Using polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology to make a stronger case for value congruence in place marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 31 (3), 184–202.

Download references

This study was funded by the Italian Ministry for Education, University and Research (MIUR), Grant SIR 2014, RBSI14NQER.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Business Administration and Law, University of Calabria, Campus of Arcavacata, Cubo 3C, 87036, Rende, CS, Italy

Gaetano Miceli & Maria Antonietta Raimondo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaetano Miceli .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

See Table  5 .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Miceli, G., Raimondo, M.A. Creativity in the marketing and consumer behavior literature: a structured review and a research agenda. Ital. J. Mark. 2020 , 85–124 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-020-00003-8

Download citation

Received : 07 December 2019

Accepted : 04 February 2020

Published : 18 February 2020

Issue Date : March 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-020-00003-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Appropriateness
• Divergent thinking
• Convergent thinking
• Research agenda
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2023

Creativity and productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic

• Yvonne Görlich 1  

Scientific Reports volume  13 , Article number:  14615 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1858 Accesses

Metrics details

• Health care

This study explored impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on creativity and productivity and how personality variables moderated these impacts. Two online self-report surveys were conducted. 863 (spring 2020) and 421 (spring 2021) participants were asked how the corona crisis affected their creativity and productivity. In addition, personality variables, namely the Big Five (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism), as well as interpersonal trust, need for cognition, risk-taking, and life satisfaction, were assessed. As a result of the crisis, the group of participants appeared more creative in 2020, while no significant group effect of the pandemic was found for productivity. In 2021, however, the crisis had a negative impact on creativity and productivity. In 2020, predictors for an improved creativity were openness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and life satisfaction; predictors for improved productivity were conscientiousness, negative interpersonal trust, and life satisfaction. In 2021, only life satisfaction predicted improved creativity, while improved productivity was predicted by conscientiousness, negative neuroticism, and life satisfaction. At its beginning, the COVID-19 pandemic had, on average, a positive effect on creativity and a neutral one on productivity. Later, the impact turned negative on both creativity and productivity. Here, lower life satisfaction was particularly relevant.

Similar content being viewed by others

Loneliness trajectories over three decades are associated with conspiracist worldviews in midlife

Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Introduction.

The COVID-19 pandemic, with its contact restrictions and lockdowns, has affected the daily lives of nearly everyone. Many people have been studying and working from home, suffering from a lack of childcare. Social leisure activities have been severely restricted. One might assume that restrictions on personal freedom can be demotivating and impede creativity and productivity 1 , 2 . On the other hand, crises provide opportunities and challenges for creativity, necessitate and accelerate transitions in work processes 3 . Illuminating those opposing effects is thus a timely task for psychological research, in particular from a crisis management perspective.

Various surveys have revealed an increase in adverse psychological symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and stress during the COVID-19 crisis 4 , 5 , 6 . Chinese studies during the COVID-19 pandemic showed positive correlations between negative mood and creativity 7 , 8 . Engaging in creative tasks can potentially buffer the negative effects of living through the pandemic 9 . One study reported significant positive correlations between creativity and death reflections, while there was little or no negative correlation between creativity and death anxiety 10 .

Creativity is defined as the discovery of novel and useful products and ideas 11 , 12 . Other authors 13 , 14 added surprising as a third point to this definition: This is about experiencing the "Aha!" or eureka moment. Creativity can be subdivided into everyday creativity (little c) and eminent creativity (big c) 15 . Creativity is relevant in various domains, e.g., science, engineering, music, art, crafts, humour, literature, architecture, mechanics, cooking, sports, dance, drama, invention, performance, and (information) technology. Productivity can be measured as performance at work or at school, as a subjective self-evaluation or an evaluation by others (e.g., teachers, supervisors), or by more objective criteria like sales figures, the output of academic publications, or more globally as Gross Domestic Product. Productivity is about the production of products, concrete results, and performance.

Studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on creativity and productivity have produced differential results. One study did not see any significant differences in professional creativity before and during the lockdown but everyday creativity appeared significantly increased during lockdown with a small effect ( d  = 0.15) 16 . Another study, conducted from May to June 2020, reported significant correlations with a small effect between the perceived impact of COVID-19 and creativity 17 . Teachers mostly reported that the pandemic had limited their options for providing creative opportunities to students 18 . Another study revealed that researchers in the field of radiation oncology felt less productive during the pandemic 19 . A survey of software developers, conducted at two-week intervals during the Covid-19 pandemic, revealed no productivity differences to the pre-pandemic situation 20 .

Another study showed that children had higher originality scores and came up with more ideas when seated separately from classmates 21 . Thus, social distancing necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic can positively influence creativity, especially in people who like to be alone.

Creativity and productivity may be related to social interactions, environmental factors, and personality traits. The five-factor model of personality (Big Five) distinguishes openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism 22 . Above all, openness 23 , 24 , 25 and extraversion 26 , 27 are associated with creativity. Productivity, job and academic performance are related to conscientiousness 28 , 29 , 30 .

Interpersonal trust can be relevant for performance 31 and creativity 32 . Also, the need for cognition 33 , 34 is positively associated with academic performance (Elias and Loomis, 2002, #6125}, 35 , and creativity or innovative behaviour 36 , 37 , 38 .

The average life satisfaction is related to productivity in 20 European countries 39 . Another study showed that well-being is associated with less productivity loss 40 . For creativity, a meta-analysis found an effect of r = 0.14 with well-being, which is associated with life satisfaction 41 . With a focus on the COVID-19 pandemic, one study found a medium correlation between self-reported creativity and well-being 17 .

For risk-taking, studies have found a positive correlation with creativity 42 , 43 and performance 44 . Creative risk-taking can be a moderator of creative outcomes in crises 45 . Dynamics and the uncertainty of COVID-19 necessitate creative and innovative solutions 46 .

Studies during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that especially the personality trait neuroticism was significantly positively associated with perceived stress, depression, and loneliness 47 , 48 , 49 and negatively with well-being 50 .

The crisis led to creative solutions to specific problems of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as measures for reducing exposure to the coronavirus at the onset of the crisis, the design of medical ventilators, or pharmaceutical companies repurposing existing drugs (like Remdesivir or Molnupiravir) to treat COVID-19 symptoms 46 .

Contacts in pandemic times were often only virtual; working from home allowed for more time flexibility, and saved time otherwise spent for commuting. The cessation of many leisure activities should have left more time for and reduced interference with productivity and creativity.

Flexible working conditions or online groups can increase productivity 51 and creativity 52 . In virtual teams, creativity is found to be positively correlated with the establishment of rapport and participation equality, and negatively correlated with conflict 53 . It has been shown experimentally that working from home can improve performance 54 . However, in an interview during the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic, the author of this study also suggested that being forced to work from home while teaching and caring for children was not conducive to performance 55 . He analysed the impact of Covid-19 on business productivity and found that the factor productivity (TFP) fell by up to 5% during 2020–2021 56 .

The present study took the pandemic as a unique opportunity to study the impacts of a crisis situation, crisis-related changes in working conditions and restrictions on personal freedom, on creativity, performance and productivity. It was also a unique opportunity to study personal traits as modifiers of a crisis response. As the crisis lasted for quite a long period of time, with new virus variants and challenges emerging, this also invited to study these crisis effects over time.

Study design

Two online surveys were conducted via LimeSurvey in Germany, exploring impacts of the Corona crisis on creativity and considering personal traits as modifiers. The samples were convenience samples, acquired through the author and students. The first survey took place during the first lockdown in spring 2020, from 30th March to 4th June 2020, the second during the second lockdown in spring 2021, from 11th April 2021 to 25th May 2021. During the lockdowns in Germany, most stores were closed, students’ lessons were mostly held online, working from home was made possible and encouraged, and strict contact restrictions were enforced, wearing masks in public was mandatory.

A total of 1284 participants took part in the study: 863 in spring 2020 and 421 in spring 2021. The description of the samples can be found in Table 1 . The age ranged from 18 to 91 ( M  = 33.01; SD  = 14.89) in spring 2020 and from 18 to 85 ( M  = 33.76; SD  = 15.99) in spring 2021. Between the two samples were no significant differences in age, gender or mother tongue (see Table 2 ) as well as in highest school-leaving qualification (Mann–Whitney- U -test: p  = 0.399).

Measurements

Single items were used to evaluate the impact of the Corona pandemic on creativity and productivity. The following questions were asked: Has the Corona crisis had an impact on your creativity? Response options on a 7-step scale: 1 = I am much less creative; 2 = I am less creative; 3 = I am rather less creative; 4 = no impact; 5 = I am rather more creative; 6 = I am more creative; 7 = I am much more creative. Has the Corona crisis had an impact on your productivity? Response options on a 7-step scale: 1 = I am much less productive; 2 = I am less productive; 3 = I am rather less productive; 4 = no impact; 5 = I am rather more productive; 6 = I am more productive; 7 = I am much more productive. After each question, the answer could be detailed in a free text field: What is the reason for this? How does it show?

BFI-10 57 was used to measure the personality factors openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. BFI-10 is a ten-item-scale (each factor is measured via 2 items) with response options on a 5-step scale from 1 = disagree strongly to 5 = agree strongly; retest-reliability after 6 to 8 weeks were for openness 0.72, for conscientiousness 0.77, extraversion 0.83, for agreeableness 0.68, and for neuroticism 0.74 57 .

The construct of interpersonal trust was measured via KUSIV3 58 , a three-item-scale with response options on a 5-step scale from 1 = don’t agree at all to 5 = agree completely with a retest reliability (interval of 6 to 10 weeks) of 0.57 and an McDonadls Omega of 0.85. Cronbach’s Alpha, calculated in the present study, were in sample 1 (spring 2020) 0.78 and in sample 2 (spring 2021) 0.79.

Need for cognition (NFC) was assessed by NFC-K-2 59 , a five-item scale with response options on a 7-step scale from 1 = does not apply at all to 7 = fully applies. Cronbach´s alpha was 0.69 59 , in this current study, Cronbach´s Alpha was for sample 1 (spring 2020) 0.73 and for sample 2 (spring 2021) 0.69.

Risk-taking was measured via R-1 60 , a single-item scale with response options on a 7-step scale from 1 = not at all willing to take risks to 7 = very willing to take risks. The retest reliability after 6 weeks was 0.74.

Life satisfaction was measured via L-1 61 , a single item scale with response options on a 7-step scale from 1 = not at all satisfied to 7 = completely satisfied; the retest reliability after 6 weeks was 0.67.

For all scales with more than one item, the mean of the items was the total value.

In addition, demographic questions were asked about age, gender, school-leaving qualification, and current occupation.

Statistical procedures

Data were analysed with IBM SPSS Statistics (version 25). Mean value comparisons were performed by t -test for one sample and for independent samples. In the one sample t-test, the value 4 = no impact was used as the reference value for comparison. Effect sizes are given as Cohen’s d 62 . Correlation analyses were calculated as Pearson correlations ( r ). Dichotomous variables were assigned dummy codes. Regression analyses were calculated in a linear fashion. Cronbach’s α was calculated for each survey scale with more than 2 items. The open questions on the justification were summarized in terms of content.

All persons participated in the surveys voluntarily and anonymously, they gave written informed consent. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the PFH Private University of Applied Sciences Göttingen, followed the ethical guidelines of the PFH Private University of Applied Sciences Göttingen and was in accordance with the guidelines of the German Psychology Association (DGPs).

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on creativity

In spring 2020, respondents indicated a significant increase in their creativity as a result of the Corona Crisis (one sample t -test: mean difference = 0.33; SD  = 1.14; t  = 8.43; df  = 862; p  < 0.001; 95% CI 0.25; 0.40; d  = 0.29). The detailed response pattern is shown in Fig.  1 : 38% of respondents described themselves as more creative (ranging from rather to much more creative) as a result of the crisis. 15% experienced themselves as less creative (ranging from rather less to much less creative) and 47% saw no impact of the Corona Crisis on their creativity. By contrast, in spring 2021, a significant decrease in creativity (one sample t-test: mean difference = 0.22; SD  = 1.30; t  = − 3.52; df  = 420; p  < 0.001; 95% CI − 0.35; − 0.10; d  = 0.17) was evaluated. This time, no impact on their creativity was seen by 33%, 28% experienced themselves as more creative (ranging from rather to much more creative) and 39% as less creative (ranging from rather to much less creative).

Impact of the Corona crises on creativity.

Reasons for more creativity during the COVID-19 pandemic

In 2020 and 2021, a very frequently cited reason for more creativity during the Corona crisis was more available time. Other reasons included: fewer distractions, new problems to solve (more mentions 2020), own biorhythms, active corona research, better focus, better ideas due to rest, more balance, and finding new ways/alternatives.

Reasons for less creativity during the COVID-19 pandemic

Individuals who perceived themselves as less creative as a result of the crisis cited the following reasons: Double burden of work and childcare/homeschooling (2020), unstructured everyday life, different daily routine, distractions, less inspiration due to lockdown, missing impressions from the outside world, exchange with colleagues and creative meetings were missing, always being in the same place leading to fewer ideas, lack of motivation, monotony, stress, tension, more thoughts, worries, uncertainty, uncertain future, irritability, listlessness, laziness, boredom, dissatisfaction with the situation, lack of concentration, restriction of freedom, compulsion to stay home and existential fears. In 2021, depression and actual COVID-19 infections were added.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on productivity

In 2020, there was no significant change in productivity because of the Corona crisis (one sample t-test: mean difference = − 0.09; SD  = 1.29; t  = − 1.96; df  = 862; p  = 0.050; 95% CI − 0.17; 0.00; d  = 0.07). In 2021, however, a significant decrease in productivity (one sample t-test: mean difference = 0.43; SD  = 1.33; t  = − 6.64; df  = 420; p  < 0.001; 95% CI − 0.56; − 0.30; d  = 0.32) was found. Figure  2 shows the pattern of responses: 35% (2020) resp. 46% (2021) felt at least "rather less productive" as a result of the crisis, and 31% (2020) resp. 21% (2021) as at least rather more productive, 34% (2020) resp. 33% (2021) of respondents saw no impact of the Corona crisis on their productivity.

Impact of the Corona crises on productivity.

Reasons for more productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic

The following reasons were cited for being more productive during the crisis: more available time, free time management, enjoyment of working or learning from home (2020), no need to travel, working focused from home, getting unfinished things done (2020), fewer distractions or other commitments, working hours adaptable to individual daily and sleep rhythms, better focus due to fewer private appointments, being well-rested, no pressure, less exhaustion, better project management due to digital solutions, working in healthcare, to-do-lists (2021), more turnover, more customers (2021).

Reasons for less productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic

People who experience themselves as less productive gave the following reasons: no daily structure, lack of drive, no motivation, lack of social contacts, no workplace at home (2020), distraction, lack of orders, lack of pressure, incompatibility of working from home and childcare (2020), poorer working or studying from home. In 2021 the following were added: lack of variety, depression, no vacation, listlessness, stress, fatigue, lack of compensation, less concentration, too much work.

Mean differences between 2020 and 2021

Compared with 2020, participants in 2021 indicated that the Corona crisis had a negative impact on their creativity ( d  = 0.45, see Table 2 ) and productivity ( d  = 0.26). These differences were significant. Otherwise, only life satisfaction ( d  = 0.17) showed a significant difference between the two samples. There were no significant differences between the groups for openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, interpersonal trust, need for cognition, risk-taking, age, gender and mother tongue (for details, see Table 2 ).

For an interpretation of the mean values of the variables examined, these can be compared with values from reference samples. For the Big Five 63 , interpersonal trust 58 and risk-taking 60 , these are available from a random sample of 1134 participants from the year 2010. These are for openness M  = 3.41, SD  = 0.93, for conscientiousness M  = 4.15, SD  = 0.79; for extraversion M  = 3.47, SD  = 0.95; agreeableness M  = 3.45, SD  = 0.95, neuroticism M  = 2.42, SD  = 0.88, interpersonal trust M  = 3.37, SD  = 0.77, risk taking M  = 3. 61, SD  = 1.59. This means that the participants in this current study showed slightly higher scores in openness, neuroticism, interpersonal trust and risk-taking and slightly lower scores in conscientiousness and agreeableness than the reference group. Life satisfaction at measurement time 1 is comparable to the data from a quota sample ( M  = 5.05, SD  = 1.23, N = 407) 61 , need for cognition in a reference sample was M  = 5.22, SD  = 1.03 59 , so in the study presented here the values are somewhat lower.

Correlation analyses

The correlation of the assessment of the increase in creativity and productivity due to the Corona crisis with other personality variables is shown in Table 3 . In 2020, significant but small correlations with the increase in creativity due to the Corona crisis were found with openness ( r  = 0.17, p  < 0.001), conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness (each r  = 0.09, p  = 0.006 resp. p  = 0.008), and life satisfaction ( r  = 0.11, p  = 0.002). In 2021, only conscientiousness ( r  = 0.10, p  = 0.032), life satisfaction ( r  = 0.17, p  < 0.001) and age ( r  = 0.11, p  = 0.027) correlated with the increase in creativity due to the Corona crisis.

With the increase in productivity, significant correlations were found with conscientiousness ( r  = 0.20, p  < 0.001), extraversion ( r  = 0.09, p  = 0.007), neuroticism ( r  = − 0.09, p  = 0.008), risk-taking ( r  = 0.07, p  = 0.030), and life satisfaction ( r  = 0.17, p  < 0.001) in 2020. While in 2021, conscientiousness ( r  = 0.28, p  < 0.001), neuroticism ( r  = − 0.16, p  = 0.001), interpersonal trust ( r  = 0.11, p  = 0.025), life satisfaction ( r  = 0.24, p  < 0.001) and age ( r  = 0.20, p  < 0.001) significantly correlated with the increase in productivity due to the Corona crisis.

The experienced increase in creativity and productivity due to the corona crisis correlated positively with 0.42 ( p  < 0.001) in 2020 and with 0.44 ( p  < 0.001) in 2021; no significant correlations of these variables with age in 2020 and gender in either year were found.

Multiple regression analyses

Regressions were calculated to account for possible multicollinearities (Table 4 ). In 2020, personality variables correlated with increases in creativity with R  = 0.24 ( R 2  = 0.06), whereas openness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and life satisfaction showed significant standardized beta weights. In 2021 R was 0.22 ( R 2  = 0.05), and only life satisfaction had a significant stand. beta weight.

Regarding the increase in productivity in 2020, conscientiousness, life satisfaction, and negative interpersonal trust had significant beta weights; the multiple correlation coefficient was R  = 0.26 ( R 2  = 0.07). In spring 2021, R was 0.36 ( R 2  = 0.13) with significant standardized beta weights for conscientiousness, life satisfaction, and negative neuroticism (emotional stability).

The Corona crisis, and in particular the measures taken to contain it, had a major impact on everyone's lives. This included isolation, shifting work to home offices, distance learning and lack of childcare. Coping with the crisis required problem solving, it spurred technological transitions such as online meetings, and unleashed creative potential.

Indeed, people in the large sample of the present study felt more creative on average at the start of the crisis (in spring 2020). One year later, they felt less creative. The differences between the time points were significant. This difference can be explained by the novelty of the situation in 2020, while in 2021, the then chronic crisis was no longer stimulating but tiring, depressing and demotivating. This is consistent with a decline in productivity from 2020 to 2021. These negative trends on productivity seem to be favoured by neuroticism.

Self-assessment of the impact of the corona crisis on one's own creativity was significantly related to personality structure, although these correlations are rather small. Thus, openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism (when life satisfaction is also considered) had a positive influence on the increase in creativity in spring 2020. This result is interesting and can be related to previous studies 7 , 8 . People who perceive themselves as more creative may also be more thoughtful, brooding or anxious. However, this is only apparent through the influence of life satisfaction, which had a positive effect on the assessment of the increase in creativity. At the beginning of the pandemic, there were new problems to solve, so respondents experienced a positive effect of the pandemic on their creativity. One year later, the problems caused by the pandemic were no longer new. The fact that life satisfaction was positively related to both increased creativity and productivity may also be related to the effects of psychological stress during the crisis. Studies showed an increase in depression 64 , 65 , which also implies a decrease in life satisfaction.

One main reason for an experienced increase in creativity and productivity was more available time (which held true only when lack of childcare was not an issue), while a main reason for a decrease in creativity and productivity was a lack of daily structure. How people dealt with the lack of daily structure and uncertainties caused by the crisis is also related to personality structure. The lack of motivation, social isolation or fear reported in the present study were also reasons for the decrease in creativity among Brazilian students due to the pandemic 66 .

The personality trait conscientiousness was positively associated with the increase in productivity due to the crisis in both spring 2020 and spring 2021. This is consistent with the results of a study in which lower situational strength due to COVID-19 was associated with a stronger positive effect of conscientiousness on performance 67 .

The regression analyses did not show an effect of the variables extraversion, agreeableness, need for cognition, and risk-taking for either time point, neither for the influence of the pandemic on creativity nor on productivity.

This study also shows clear individual differences. People who stay at home tend to have less structured days. Some are then more creative and productive as they can organise their time flexibly and according to their individual biorhythms. For others, this is a disadvantage, leading, for example, to more procrastination—a trend observed during the pandemic 68 .

Working conditions at home also played an important role. Parents were often double-burdened with childcare while working, with negative feedback on both, productivity and creativity, while others were able to retreat in peace and use this time for undisturbed creative output. Working from home showed negative correlations between productivity and family-work conflict, social isolation, distracting environment and stress, but positive correlations with job autonomy, self-leadership and work engagement 69 .

It is striking that the same reasons tend to lead to a reduction in productivity and creativity for some people and an increase for others. From this, it can be concluded that individual solutions are to be favoured. Thus, which work and which working conditions lead to more creativity and productivity depends partly on the personality, but also on the preferences of the individual. Working or studying from home is very beneficial for some people, but less so for others; some people need the exchange, while others do not. Individuals who are more disciplined and structured in their work feel that working from home increases productivity and creativity, while individuals who need a daily structure and "pressure" are more likely to be more productive and creative in a collaborative work situation.

This has implications for human resource management: a “new reality” that offers new opportunities to which organizational scholars and practitioners will need and want to remain attentive 70 . Innovations in science persist after the Corona pandemic 71 . Therefore, scientific public interest should be present regardless of a pandemic, as should the consensus that society needs science.

Crises can increase creativity, but rather at the beginning of the crisis and not for everyone. To maintain creativity and productivity over a longer period of crisis, it is important to implement measures (e.g. psychological self-help programmes 72 ) that maintain life satisfaction and related well-being.

Limitations

The limitations of the study are: The two surveys in 2020 and 2021 were conducted as independent cohort studies, so they are not comparing the same individuals. The effects on creativity and productivity were asked directly. If the data had been available before the Covid-19 pandemic, an indirect comparison could have been made. Also, in the present study, the impact of the Corona crisis on creativity and productivity was measured globally via one item each. Further studies could, for example, differentiate by areas of creativity (e.g., domains of creativity 73 or forms of creativity 15 ). In this study, participants tended to refer to the "little c" and everyday creativity. A literature review on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the creative industries showed that some sectors, such as IT and software, benefited from the pandemic, while others, such as festivals and culture events, were negatively affected 74 . In addition, the respective study also pointed out that it is above all the restrictions imposed by political regulations that have an impact on creativity and productivity. This has implications for the design of working and living conditions in future crises. The study was conducted in Germany, and it cannot be ensured whether the results are transferable to other countries.

Data availability

All data analysed during this study are included in this published article (see supplementary information file).

Mumford, M. D. Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 10 , 313–351 (2000).

Google Scholar  

Caniëls, M. C. J. & Rietzschel, E. F. Organizing creativity: Creativity and innovation under constraints. Create. Innov. Manag. 24 , 184–196 (2015).

Pearson, C. M. & Sommer, S. A. Infusing creativity into crisis management. Organ. Dyn. 40 , 27 (2011).

Huang, Y. & Zhao, N. Generalized anxiety disorder, depressive symptoms and sleep quality during COVID-19 outbreak in China: A web-based cross-sectional survey. Psychiatry Res. 288 , 112954 (2020).

CAS   PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Görlich, Y. & Stadelmann, D. Mental health of flying cabin crews: Depression, anxiety, and stress before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Psychol. 11 , 581496 (2020).

PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Schelhorn, I. et al. Psychological burden during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Front. Psychol. 12 , 518 (2021).

Du, Y. et al. A positive role of negative mood on creativity: The opportunity in the crisis of the COVID-19 epidemic. Front. Psychol. 11 , 600837 (2020).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wang, Q., Zhao, X., Yuan, Y. & Shi, B. The relationship between creativity and intrusive rumination among Chinese teenagers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Emotional resilience as a moderator. Front. Psychol. 11 , 601104 (2020).

Kapoor, H. & Kaufman, J. C. Meaning-making through creativity during COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 11 , 595990 (2020).

Takeuchi, R., Guo, N., Teschner, R. S. & Kautz, J. Reflecting on death amidst COVID-19 and individual creativity: Cross-lagged panel data analysis using four-wave longitudinal data. J. Appl. Psychol. 106 , 1156–1168 (2021).

Guilford, J. P. Creativity. Am. Psychol. 5 , 444–454 (1950).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Runco, M. A. & Jaeger, G. J. The standard definition of creativity. Creat. Res. J. 24 , 92–96 (2012).

Bruner, J. S. The conditions of creativity. In Contemporary approaches to creative thinking: A symposium held at the University of Colorado. (Gruber, H. E. et al. ) (Atherton Press, 1962).

Simonton, D. K. Taking the US Patent Office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal 24 , 97–106 (2012).

Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

Mercier, M. et al. COVID-19: A boon or a bane for creativity. Front. Psychol. 11 , 601150 (2020).

Tang, M., Hofreiter, S., Reiter-Palmon, R., Bai, X. & Murugavel, V. Creativity as a means to well-being in times of COVID-19 pandemic: Results of a cross-cultural study. Front. Psychol. 12 , 265 (2021).

Anderson, R. C., Bousselot, T., Katz-Buoincontro, J. & Todd, J. Generating buoyancy in a sea of uncertainty: Teachers creativity and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Psychol. 11 , 614774 (2021).

Dhont, J., Tella, M. D., Dubois, L., Aznar, M. & Petit, S. Conducting research in Radiation Oncology remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic: Coping with isolation. Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 24 , 53–59 (2020).

Russo, D., Hanel, P. H. P., Altnickel, S. & van Berkel, N. Predictors of well-being and productivity among software professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study. Empir. Softw. Eng. 26 , 945 (2021).

Tobia, V., Sacchi, S., Cerina, V., Manca, S. & Fornara, F. The influence of classroom seating arrangement on children’s cognitive processes in primary school: the role of individual variables. Curr. Psychol. 1–12 (2020).

Goldberg, L. R. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am. Psychol. 48 , 26–34 (1993).

Batey, M., Furnham, A. & Safiullina, X. Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as predictors of creativity. Learn. Individ. Differ. 20 , 532–535 (2010).

Hirsh, J. B. & Peterson, J. B. Predicting creativity and academic success with a “fake-proof” measure of the Big Five. J. Res. Pers. 42 , 1323–1333 (2008).

Yao, X. & Li, R. Big five personality traits as predictors of employee creativity in probation and formal employment periods. Personal. Individ. Differ. 182 , 109914 (2020).

Furnham, A. & Bachtiar, V. Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personal. Individ. Differ. 45 , 613–617 (2008).

Sung, S. Y. & Choi, J. N. Do big five personality factors affect individual creativity? The moderating role of extrinsic motivation. Soc. Behav. Pers. 37 , 941–956 (2009).

Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 44 , 1–26 (1991).

Hurtz, G. M. & Donovan, J. J. Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. J. Appl. Psychol. 85 , 869–879 (2000).

O’Connor, M. C. & Paunonen, S. V. Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personal. Individ. Differ. 43 , 971–990 (2007).

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. & Perrone, V. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organ. Sci. 9 , 141–159 (1998).

Jiang, Y. & Chen, W. K. Effects of organizational trust on organizational learning and creativity. Eur. J. Math. 13 , 2057–2068 (2017).

Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E. & Wolfe, D. M. An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 51 , 291–294 (1955).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. The need for cognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 42 , 116–131 (1982).

Grass, J., Strobel, A. & Strobel, A. Cognitive investments in academic success: The role of need for cognition at university. Front. Psychol. 8 , 790 (2017).

Dollinger, S. J. Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and creativity. J. Create. Behav. 37 , 99–116 (2003).

Wu, C.-H., Parker, S. K. & de Jong, J. P. J. Need for cognition as an antecedent of individual innovation behavior. J. Manag. 40 , 1511–1534 (2014).

Madrid, H. P. & Patterson, M. G. Creativity at work as a joint function between openness to experience, need for cognition and organizational fairness. Learn. Individ. Differ. 51 , 409–416 (2016).

DiMaria, C. H., Peroni, C. & Sarracino, F. Happiness matters: Productivity gains from subjective well-being. J. Happiness Stud. 21 , 139–160 (2020).

Katz, A. S., Pronk, N. P., McLellan, D., Dennerlein, J. & Katz, J. N. Perceived workplace health and safety climates: Associations with worker outcomes and productivity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 57 , 487–494 (2019).

Acar, S., Tadik, H., Myers, D., Van der Sman, C. & Uysal, R. Creativity and well-being: A meta-analysis. J. Create. Behav. 55 , 738–751 (2021).

Merrifield, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R. & Frick, J. W. Interrelationships between certain abilities and certain traits of motivation and temperament. J. Gen. Psychol. 65 , 57–74 (1961).

Dewett, T. Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment. R&D Manag. 37 , 197–208 (2007).

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A. & LePine, J. A. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 , 909–927 (2007).

Beghetto, R. A. How times of crisis serve as a catalyst for creative action: An agentic perspective. Front. Psychol. 11 , 600685 (2020).

Cohen, A. K. & Cromwell, J. R. How to Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic with More Creativity and Innovation. Popul. Health Manag. 24 , 153–155 (2020).

Zacher, H. & Rudolph, C. W. Big Five traits as predictors of perceived stressfulness of the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal. Individ. Differ. 175 , 110694 (2021).

Ikizer, G. et al. Big Five traits predict stress and loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence for the role of neuroticism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 190 , 111531 (2022).

Mourelatos, E. How personality affects reaction. A mental health behavioral insight review during the Pandemic. Curr. Psychol. 42 , 8644–8665 (2021).

Anglim, J. & Horwood, S. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and big five personality on subjective and psychological well-being. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 12 , 1527–1537 (2021).

Hunter, P. Remote working in research: An increasing usage of flexible work arrangements can improve productivity and creativity. EMBO Rep. 20 , 7435 (2019).

Michinov, N. & Primois, C. Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison process: New evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming. Comput. Hum. Behav. 21 , 11–28 (2005).

Martins, L. L. & Shalley, C. E. Creativity in virtual work: Effects of demographic differences. Small Group Res. 42 , 536–561 (2011).

Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J. & Ying, Z. J. Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q. J. Econ. 130 , 165–218 (2015).

Gorlick, A. The productivity pitfalls of working from home in the age of COVID-19. Stanford News. March (2020).

Bloom, N., Bunn, P., Mizen, P., Smietanka, P. & Thwaites, G. The Impact of COVID-19 on Productivity. NBER Working Paper 28233 . (2020).

Rammstedt, B. & John, O. P. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. J. Res. Pers. 41 , 203–212 (2007).

Beierlein, C., Kemper, C. J., Kovaleva, A. & Rammstedt, B. Kurzskala zur Messung des Zwischenmenschlichen Vertrauens: Die Kurzskala Interpersonales Vertrauen (KUSIV3) (2012).

Beißert, H., Köhler, M., Rempel, M. & Kruyen, P. Ein Vergleich traditioneller und computergestützter Methoden zur Erstellung einer deutschsprachigen Need for Cognition Kurzskala. Diagnostica 66 , 37–49 (2019).

Beierlein, C., Kovaleva, A., Kemper, C. J. & Rammstedt, B. Kurzskala zur Erfassung der Risikobereitschaft (R-1). Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS) (2014).

Beierlein, C., Kovaleva, A., Laszlo, Z., Kemper, C. & Rammstedt, B. Eine Single-Item-Skala zur Erfassung der Allgemeinen Lebenszufriedenheit. Die Kurzskala Lebenszufriedenheit-1 (L-1) (2014).

Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988).

Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., Klein, M. C., Beierlein, C. & Kovaleva, A. Big five inventory (BFI-10): Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen. Mannheim: ZIS-GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (2014).

Bueno-Notivol, J. et al. Prevalence of depression during the COVID-19 outbreak: A meta-analysis of community-based studies. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 21 , 100196 (2021).

Hajek, A. et al. Prevalence and determinants of probable depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in seven countries: Longitudinal evidence from the European COvid Survey (ECOS). J. Affect. Disord. 299 , 517–524 (2022).

Neves-Pereira, M. S. Creativity and remote teaching in pandemic times: From the unpredictable to the possible. Creativity 8 , 72–88 (2021).

Venkatesh, V., Ganster, D. C., Schuetz, S. W. & Sykes, T. A. Risks and rewards of conscientiousness during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Appl. Psychol. 106 , 643–656 (2021).

Unda-López, A., Osejo-Taco, G., Vinueza-Cabezas, A., Paz, C. & Hidalgo-Andrade, P. Procrastination during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review. Behav. Sci. 12 , 38 (2022).

Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S. & Toscano, F. Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remote work productivity, engagement, and stress. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 63 , 426–432 (2021).

Carnevale, J. B. & Hatak, I. Employee adjustment and well-being in the era of COVID-19: Implications for human resource management. J. Bus. Res. 116 , 183–187 (2020).

Freedman, T. S., Headley, M. B. & Serwas, N. Lessons of COVID-19: A roadmap for post-pandemic science. J. Exp. Med. 217 , e20201276 (2020).

Meyer, M. L. et al. COVID feel good: Evaluation of a self-help protocol to overcome the psychological burden of the COVID-19 pandemic in a German sample. J. Clin. Med. 11 , 2080 (2022).

Kaufman, J. C. Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 6 , 298–308 (2012).

Khlystova, O., Kalyuzhnova, Y. & Belitski, M. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the creative industries: A literature review and future research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 139 , 1192–1210 (2022).

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, PFH Private University of Applied Science Göttingen, 37073, Göttingen, Germany

Yvonne Görlich

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

YG conceptualized the paper, analysed and interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yvonne Görlich .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Görlich, Y. Creativity and productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci Rep 13 , 14615 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40493-y

Download citation

Received : 09 December 2022

Accepted : 11 August 2023

Published : 05 September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40493-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Personality and creativity: The dual pathway to creativity model and a research agenda

Related Papers

European Review of Social Psychology

محمد العبيدي

The dual pathway to creativity model argues that creativity—the generation of original and appropriate ideas—is a function of cognitive flexibility and cognitive persistence, and that dispositional or situational variables may influence creativity either through their effects on flexibility, on persistence, or both. This model is tested in a number of studies in which participants performed creative ideation tasks. We review work showing that cognitive flexibility, operationalised as the number of content categories surveyed, directly relates to idea originality, but that originality can also be achieved by exploring a few content categories in great depth (i.e., persistence). We also show that a global processing mode is associated with cognitive flexibility, but only leads to high originality in tasks that capitalise on cognitive flexibility. We finally show that activating positive mood states enhance creativity because they stimulate flexibility, while activating negative mood states can enhance creativity because they stimulate persistence. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Guillaume Fürst

Jin Nam Choi , Sun Young SUNG

Creativity has been acknowledged as one of the most predominant factors contributing to individual performance in various domains of work, and both researchers and practitioners have been devoting increasing attention to creative performance. In this study, we examined the potential trait-trait interaction between the Big Five personality factors (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the motivational orientations of individuals in shaping their creative performance. Our hypotheses were empirically tested using longitudinal data collected from 304 undergraduate students at a North American business school. Results showed that extraversion and openness to experience had significant positive effects on creative performance. Analysis also revealed that the positive relationship between openness to experience and creativity was stronger when the person possessed strong extrinsic motivation. Agreeableness was a positive predictor of creative performance only when the person's extrinsic motivation was low. Patterns found relating to personality-motivation interaction as an explanatory factor of individuals' creative performance are described. In a rapidly changing environment, both scholars and practitioners highlight the predominant role of creativity as a core competence required for individuals working in diverse domains of work (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Considerable evidence demonstrates that creativity promotes individual task performance as well as organizational innovation and effectiveness (Amabile, SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2009, 37(7), 941-956

Journal of Research in Personality

Christopher Berg

Creativity and Innovation Management

Chris Grivas

Human Brain Mapping

Journal of Personality

Jordan Peterson , Colin DeYoung , Rachael Grazioplene

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

Delphine Courvoisier

Social Psychological and Personality Science

Matthijs Baas

RELATED PAPERS

Nutrición hospitalaria

ivan Renteria

Adriana Zanki Cordenonsi

Occupational Medicine

Deborah Yates

Alexander Balankin

Maria Wtorkowska

Nauka v sovremennom mire

Vohid Kholov

Pesquisa Brasileira em Ciência da Informação e Biblioteconomia

Silvana Vidotti

Supplier Besar Tally Underwear

supplier besar tally underwear

Pak. J. Bot

Abdul haq Niazi

Serambi Saintia : Jurnal Sains dan Aplikasi

sanjaya alamsyah

adindaadinp

Intereconomics

Gilles Grolleau

Max Nielsen

Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences

Muhammad umair Umair

DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)

Shilpa Chapadgaonkar

Laboratory & Diagnosis

Nahid Einollahi

SSRN Electronic Journal

Chicago Manual Of Style and Politics.

Willie Landfair

Dharmas Education Journal (DE_Journal)

TRI HARTANTI

HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)

Francois Ribac

YUME : Journal of Management

Hasmin Tamsah

Estudios de Cultura Maya

Cédric Becquey

Fernando Dominguez Sardou

arXiv (Cornell University)

Andrzej Buras

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Creativity in Virtual Teams: A Review and Agenda for Future Research

• Articles in this Issue

Published Online : Aug 30, 2021

Page range: 165 - 188, received : may 01, 2021, accepted : jul 01, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/ctra-2021-0011, keywords creativity , innovation , teams , virtual teams, © 2021 roni reiter-palmon et al., published by sciendo, this work is licensed under the creative commons attribution-noncommercial-noderivatives 3.0 license..

As communication technology capabilities have improved and the globalization of the workforce has resulted in distributed teams, organizations have been shifting towards virtual teams and virtual meetings over the last decade. This trend has been accelerated with current work-from-home orders due to COVID-19. Even though virtual collaboration has, in the past, been the focus of multiple studies, there are some surprising gaps in our knowledge. For instance, there are few empirical studies examining the impact of virtual devices and tools on creative problem-solving. While there is a substantial body of research on electronic brainstorming and the use of virtual tools for idea generation, less is known about earlier processes such as problem construction or later processes such as idea evaluation and idea selection. Furthermore, as a dynamic process, creativity and innovation is heavily influenced by the people engaged in the process and their collaborative environment, yet there is a gap in the literature regarding the type of virtual tools used in the process (i.e., audio + video vs. audio alone, or the use of file-sharing technologies). In this paper, we will review the current literature on virtual teams, virtual meetings, and creativity. We will then explore theoretical frameworks such as media richness theory that can help us understand how virtuality and virtual tools may influence team creativity across the dynamic range of the creative problem-solving process. Finally, given the limited research in the domain of virtual team creativity we provide questions to help guide future research. Research questions will help identify those areas where virtual teams may be beneficial for creativity and areas where virtual teams may be likely to perform less effectively on creative tasks.

• Public Lectures
• Faculty & Staff Site >>

Creating a Research Agenda

by UW alumni Justin Reedy, Ph.D., Communication, and Madhavi Murty, Ph.D., Communication, in conversation with UW graduate students

Creating a research agenda should be a major goal for all graduate students—regardless of theoretical interests, methodological preferences, or career aspirations. A research agenda helps you orient yourself toward both short- and long-term goals; it will guide your selection of classes, help you decide which academic conferences (and within those, which specific divisions) to engage in, and steer you in recruiting mentors and research collaborators.

What is a research agenda?  It’s a plan and a focus on issues and ideas in a subset of your field. You cannot study everything in your field during your time in graduate school, so decide what to focus on now, and what to defer until another day.

Research agendas are not set in concrete;  they naturally change over time as your knowledge grows and as new research questions emerge.

Don’t be intimidated.  Many students may start a graduate program with only a few ideas of areas they would like to study, or perhaps a few general research questions. Graduate courses, conversations with faculty and fellow students, and time spent reading the literature in the field can help you start to form a research agenda out of those ideas or research questions.

How to get started

• Talk with faculty members about your general interests. Use faculty as a resource to find out which topics are over-studied and where additional work is needed.
• If there are students with similar or overlapping interests, get their perspectives as well.
• Read a great deal, even in the early weeks of your graduate work. Be open to reading research outside your immediate areas of interests and seeing how they link to your own areas.
• Ask faculty for reading lists or copies of syllabi. Such resources help you familiarize yourself with the research already done in areas that interest you. Be sure to follow up on citations that are interesting or intriguing.
• Identify key authors relevant to your interests. Read their scholarship and understand the work that has informed their research.

Advancing your agenda

• Identify courses that will help advance your research agenda—both in terms of specific knowledge about the issues and relevant methods. Remember that the title of a class might not always fully describe it, so contact the professor to find out more about class content.
• Look both inside and outside the department for classes—and look outside especially in your second year in the program. Graduate students in interdisciplinary fields, for example, may find very valuable classes in diverse departments.
• Think specifically about the research questions you want to ask, and think about how you will answer them. Then pick courses to help you in reaching this goal.
• Try to use class assignments to advance your research agenda. If possible, use each seminar paper as a way to focus on a specific part of your overall agenda —whether it be a literature review or a proposal for a study.
• Don’t be afraid to take a chance on a course that seems somewhat outside of your agenda or your comfort zone. If the topics or research methods covered in the course draw your interest, you could find a way to incorporate those into your overarching research agenda.

Conference papers, colloquia, and research articles

• Ask faculty members if they have research projects in which you can participate.
• Work with more than one faculty member. Different faculty members provide different perspectives even if they are interested in the same concepts.
• Talk to faculty and other graduate students about conferences you should attend (and conference paper deadlines). Use conference paper deadlines to pace your own research production.
• Present your work at conferences, listen to others’ ideas, and solicit feedback on your research.
• Consider working towards the publication of your papers. With enough feedback and guidance from faculty, fellow graduate students, and colleagues in the field, what starts out as a seminar or conference paper could turn into a journal article or book chapter.
• Attend talks and colloquia on campus—both inside and outside your department. These talks can help you generate research ideas and help you see your research in a new light.
• Recruit others to work with you on projects. Student collaborations are especially fruitful when the constituent members have similar interests, but bring different yet complementary perspectives and skills to the endeavor.

Be active: Be a part of the conversation in your field!

• Campus Crime Stats
• Scholarship First Agenda
• Our Achievements
• Our Community

Our Leadership

• Board of Supervisors
• Administration

Our Commitment

• Division of Engagement, Civil Rights & Title IX

Our Campuses

• Baton Rouge
• Pennington Biomedical
• LSU Health New Orleans
• LSU Health Shreveport

Programs & Information

• Certificate Programs
• Academic Programs Abroad
• Academic Calendar
• General Catalog

Academic Offices

• Academic Affairs
• University Registrar
• Global Engagement

Colleges & Schools

• College of Agriculture
• College of Art & Design
• E. J. Ourso College of Business
• College of Coast & Environment
• College of Human Sciences & Education
• College of Humanities & Social Sciences
• Manship School of Mass Communication
• College of Music & Dramatic Arts
• College of Engineering
• School of Veterinary Medicine
• Roger Hadfield Ogden Honors College
• University College
• LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center
• Pinkie Gordon Lane Graduate School
• College of Science
• An Elite and Historic University
• Academic Excellence
• A Vibrant Community
• Lots of Ways to Get Involved
• Help When You Need It
• Financial Aid & Scholarships

Ready to Apply?

• Undergraduate Admissions
• Honors College
• Graduate School Admissions
• Professional Schools
• Request More Information
• Plan a Visit
• Estimated Cost

• Student Affairs
• Center for Advising & Counseling
• Disability Services
• Student Health Center
• Student Financial Management Center
• Campus Safety
• Code of Student Conduct
• Campus Life
• Residential Life
• University Recreation
• Campus Dining
• Events Calendar
• Orientation
• Center for Freshman Year
• Campus Bookstore
• Center for Academic Success
• Geaux Communicate
• Olinde Career Center
• Office of Retention & Student Success
• Student Engagement & Impact

Get Involved

• How to Do LSU
• Organizations
• Student Government
• Research & Economic Development
• Industry & Business
• LSU Innovation
• LSU Discover
• GeauxGrants

Initiatives

• Artificial Intelligence
• Cybersecurity
• Energy Innovation

Communications

• Latest News
• Working for Louisiana
• Research Highlights
• Research Magazine
• LSU Science Café

Online Degrees

• Discover LSU Online
• Master's Degrees
• Graduate Certificates
• Bachelor's Degrees
• Associate Degrees

More Information

• Online Certificates / MicroCreds®
• Professional Development
• Online Distance Learning
• Pre-College Programs

LSU Provost’s Fund Invests $1.2 Million in Highly Competitive Research Teams

May 14, 2024

In a second round of Big Idea seed grants, the largest internal funding program in LSU history, the Provost’s Fund for Innovation in Research is investing $1.2 million in 15 interdisciplinary research teams. Aligned with LSU’s Scholarship First Agenda, the teams and their projects aim to solve pressing problems in Louisiana and everywhere.

“This substantial investment marks a strategic advancement in growing competitively and federally funded research at LSU,” Executive Vice President and Provost Roy Haggerty said. “It directly supports our mission to address critical challenges in Louisiana and to elevate LSU as a comprehensive, leading research university on the national stage.”

Projects include how to restore river deltas and protect coastlines by leveraging the land-building capabilities of soil-microbe-plant ecosystems; develop new treatments for drug-resistant cancers; improve human-robot collaboration; and support the health and performance of student athletes, warfighters, astronauts and first responders as well as older Black people who are four times more likely to suffer from frailty than their white counterparts.

In total, the funded projects will engage 65 faculty across nine colleges and schools on LSU’s flagship campus in Baton Rouge, extending collaboration to LSU Athletics, LSU AgCenter, Pennington Biomedical Research Center and LSU Health New Orleans. Two projects support advances in agriculture; seven projects drive discovery in biomedicine; six projects elevate the coast and environment; six projects protect the state and nation through stronger defense and cybersecurity; and six projects help secure the future of energy.

The goal of the Provost’s Fund is to provide seed funding to transform new ideas into nationally competitive research programs that are likely to attract external support and bring significant federal funding to Louisiana. Beyond the Big Idea grants, the Provost’s Fund also awards Faculty Travel Grants (this spring, to 37 faculty across the disciplines), Research & Creative Activity Support (this spring, to 14 faculty in the arts, humanities, social and behavioral sciences) and Seminar & Collaborator Support (this year, to 10 faculty).

This year’s Big Idea awards are categorized into five Phase 1 grants at $25,000 each (increased from $10,000 last year) to help researchers get organized; eight Phase 2 grants at $75,000 to develop preliminary data and create long-term research agendas; and two Phase 3 grants at $250,000 to develop large, center-scale grant proposals for national impact.

“In Louisiana, we face serious economic and social challenges related to insurance, extreme weather as well as infrastructural and community challenges in the face of natural hazards. Our future prosperity depends on our collective capacity to innovate and problem-solve in the fields of risk management and resilience,” said Thomas Douthat, assistant professor of environmental sciences at LSU and principal investigator for one of the two Phase 3 awards. “This funding will enable collaboration between LSU and LSU AgCenter in coastal sciences, resilient construction, energy, design and policy, and strengthen partnerships and nation-leading research in this field.”

“Our goal, the development of a Center for Exercise Science and Sports Medicine at LSU, is the natural progression of the existing partnership between LSU researchers and members of the LSU Athletics family,” said Guillaume Spielmann, associate professor of kinesiology and principal investigator on the other Phase 3 award. “Together, we will work to maximize holistic health, safety and well-being, culminating in the enduring success of LSU Athletics.”

Learn more about the funded projects and how they will improve lives for everyone in Louisiana and beyond.

Abbi Rocha Laymoun

LSU Media Relations

LSU Office of Research & Economic Development

POPULAR SEARCHES:

Video Modal

Graduate College of Drexel University

2024 research excellence award winners.

Anne Converse Willkomm, Associate Dean of the Graduate College (right) presenting the Research Excellence Award for Most Original and Creative Work to Pratusha Reddy, a PhD student in biomedical engineering (left) at Graduate Student Day on June 1, 2023.

Research Excellence Awards are presented to graduate and professional (master's and doctoral level) students who have completed original, innovative research, scholarship and/or creativity during their career at Drexel.

Graduate College Award Winners

Mohammad Houshmand Khaneghahi - Post-Candidacy

PhD Program in Civil Engineering

College of Engineering

Shreya Soni - Pre-Candidacy PhD Program in Biomedical Engineering School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems

Lauren Tennenbaum - Master's

MS Program in Interior Architecture and Design

Westphal College of Media Arts and Design

Ricardo Whitaker - Most Original & Creative Work

PhD Program in Biomedical Engineering

School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems

Emily Esquea - Expanding the Impact of Research PhD Program in Molecular and Cell Biology and Genetics Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and Professional Studies College of Medicine

Nominees - Post-Candidacy

Elizabeth Espinal

PhD Program in Psychology

College of Arts and Sciences

Farnaz Ghashami

PhD Program in Business Administration

LeBow College of Business

PhD Program in Pharmacology and Physiology

Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and Professional Studies

College of Medicine

Dahlia Stott

PhD Program in Nutrition Sciences

College of Nursing and Health Professions

Xiaohuan Sun

PhD Program in Neuroscience

Danzhen Zhang

PhD Program in Materials Science and Engineering

Nominees - Pre-Candidacy

Golshid Jaferian

PhD Program in Digital Media

Darya Ramezani

Nominees - Master's

Tasha Singh

MS Program in Interior Architecture

Nominees - Most Original & Creative Work

Gina Cusimano

PhD Program in Microbiology and Immunology

Nominees - Expanding the Impact of Research

Better Siri is coming: what Apple’s research says about its AI plans

Apple hasn’t talked too much about ai so far — but it’s been working on stuff. a lot of stuff..

By David Pierce , editor-at-large and Vergecast co-host with over a decade of experience covering consumer tech. Previously, at Protocol, The Wall Street Journal, and Wired.

Share this story

It would be easy to think that Apple is late to the game on AI. Since late 2022, when ChatGPT took the world by storm, most of Apple’s competitors have fallen over themselves to catch up. While Apple has certainly talked about AI and even released some products with AI in mind, it seemed to be dipping a toe in rather than diving in headfirst.

But over the last few months, rumors and reports have suggested that Apple has, in fact, just been biding its time, waiting to make its move. There have been reports in recent weeks that Apple is talking to both OpenAI and Google about powering some of its AI features, and the company has also been working on its own model, called Ajax .

If you look through Apple’s published AI research, a picture starts to develop of how Apple’s approach to AI might come to life. Now, obviously, making product assumptions based on research papers is a deeply inexact science — the line from research to store shelves is windy and full of potholes. But you can at least get a sense of what the company is thinking about — and how its AI features might work when Apple starts to talk about them at its annual developer conference, WWDC, in June.

Smaller, more efficient models

I suspect you and I are hoping for the same thing here: Better Siri. And it looks very much like Better Siri is coming! There’s an assumption in a lot of Apple’s research (and in a lot of the tech industry, the world, and everywhere) that large language models will immediately make virtual assistants better and smarter. For Apple, getting to Better Siri means making those models as fast as possible — and making sure they’re everywhere.

In iOS 18, Apple plans to have all its AI features running on an on-device, fully offline model, Bloomberg recently reported . It’s tough to build a good multipurpose model even when you have a network of data centers and thousands of state-of-the-art GPUs — it’s drastically harder to do it with only the guts inside your smartphone. So Apple’s having to get creative.

In a paper called “ LLM in a flash: Efficient Large Language Model Inference with Limited Memory ” (all these papers have really boring titles but are really interesting, I promise!), researchers devised a system for storing a model’s data, which is usually stored on your device’s RAM, on the SSD instead. “We have demonstrated the ability to run LLMs up to twice the size of available DRAM [on the SSD],” the researchers wrote, “achieving an acceleration in inference speed by 4-5x compared to traditional loading methods in CPU, and 20-25x in GPU.” By taking advantage of the most inexpensive and available storage on your device, they found, the models can run faster and more efficiently. 

Apple’s researchers also created a system called EELBERT that can essentially compress an LLM into a much smaller size without making it meaningfully worse. Their compressed take on Google’s Bert model was 15 times smaller — only 1.2 megabytes — and saw only a 4 percent reduction in quality. It did come with some latency tradeoffs, though.

In general, Apple is pushing to solve a core tension in the model world: the bigger a model gets, the better and more useful it can be, but also the more unwieldy, power-hungry, and slow it can become. Like so many others, the company is trying to find the right balance between all those things while also looking for a way to have it all.

Siri, but good

A lot of what we talk about when we talk about AI products is virtual assistants — assistants that know things, that can remind us of things, that can answer questions, and get stuff done on our behalf. So it’s not exactly shocking that a lot of Apple’s AI research boils down to a single question: what if Siri was really, really, really good?

A group of Apple researchers has been working on a way to use Siri without needing to use a wake word at all; instead of listening for “Hey Siri” or “Siri,” the device might be able to simply intuit whether you’re talking to it. “This problem is significantly more challenging than voice trigger detection,” the researchers did acknowledge, “since there might not be a leading trigger phrase that marks the beginning of a voice command.” That might be why another group of researchers developed a system to more accurately detect wake words . Another paper trained a model to better understand rare words, which are often not well understood by assistants.

In both cases, the appeal of an LLM is that it can, in theory, process much more information much more quickly. In the wake-word paper, for instance, the researchers found that by not trying to discard all unnecessary sound but, instead, feeding it all to the model and letting it process what does and doesn’t matter, the wake word worked far more reliably.

Once Siri hears you, Apple’s doing a bunch of work to make sure it understands and communicates better. In one paper, it developed a system called STEER (which stands for Semantic Turn Extension-Expansion Recognition, so we’ll go with STEER) that aims to improve your back-and-forth communication with an assistant by trying to figure out when you’re asking a follow-up question and when you’re asking a new one. In another, it uses LLMs to better understand “ambiguous queries” to figure out what you mean no matter how you say it. “In uncertain circumstances,” they wrote, “intelligent conversational agents may need to take the initiative to reduce their uncertainty by asking good questions proactively, thereby solving problems more effectively.” Another paper aims to help with that, too: researchers used LLMs to make assistants less verbose and more understandable when they’re generating answers.

AI in health, image editors, in your Memojis

Whenever Apple does talk publicly about AI, it tends to focus less on raw technological might and more on the day-to-day stuff AI can actually do for you. So, while there’s a lot of focus on Siri — especially as Apple looks to compete with devices like the Humane AI Pin, the Rabbit R1, and Google’s ongoing smashing of Gemini into all of Android — there are plenty of other ways Apple seems to see AI being useful.

One obvious place for Apple to focus is on health: LLMs could, in theory, help wade through the oceans of biometric data collected by your various devices and help you make sense of it all. So, Apple has been researching how to collect and collate all of your motion data, how to use gait recognition and your headphones to identify you, and how to track and understand your heart rate data. Apple also created and released “the largest multi-device multi-location sensor-based human activity dataset” available after collecting data from 50 participants with multiple on-body sensors.

Apple also seems to imagine AI as a creative tool. For one paper, researchers interviewed a bunch of animators, designers, and engineers and built a system called Keyframer that “enable[s] users to iteratively construct and refine generated designs.” Instead of typing in a prompt and getting an image, then typing another prompt to get another image, you start with a prompt but then get a toolkit to tweak and refine parts of the image to your liking. You could imagine this kind of back-and-forth artistic process showing up anywhere from the Memoji creator to some of Apple’s more professional artistic tools.

In another paper , Apple describes a tool called MGIE that lets you edit an image just by describing the edits you want to make. (“Make the sky more blue,” “make my face less weird,” “add some rocks,” that sort of thing.) “Instead of brief but ambiguous guidance, MGIE derives explicit visual-aware intention and leads to reasonable image editing,” the researchers wrote. Its initial experiments weren’t perfect, but they were impressive.

We might even get some AI in Apple Music: for a paper called “ Resource-constrained Stereo Singing Voice Cancellation ,” researchers explored ways to separate voices from instruments in songs — which could come in handy if Apple wants to give people tools to, say, remix songs the way you can on TikTok or Instagram.

Over time, I’d bet this is the kind of stuff you’ll see Apple lean into, especially on iOS. Some of it Apple will build into its own apps; some it will offer to third-party developers as APIs. (The recent Journaling Suggestions feature is probably a good guide to how that might work.) Apple has always trumpeted its hardware capabilities, particularly compared to your average Android device; pairing all that horsepower with on-device, privacy-focused AI could be a big differentiator.

But if you want to see the biggest, most ambitious AI thing going at Apple, you need to know about Ferret . Ferret is a multi-modal large language model that can take instructions, focus on something specific you’ve circled or otherwise selected, and understand the world around it. It’s designed for the now-normal AI use case of asking a device about the world around you, but it might also be able to understand what’s on your screen. In the Ferret paper, researchers show that it could help you navigate apps, answer questions about App Store ratings, describe what you’re looking at, and more. This has really exciting implications for accessibility but could also completely change the way you use your phone — and your Vision Pro and / or smart glasses someday.

We’re getting way ahead of ourselves here, but you can imagine how this would work with some of the other stuff Apple is working on. A Siri that can understand what you want, paired with a device that can see and understand everything that’s happening on your display, is a phone that can literally use itself. Apple wouldn’t need deep integrations with everything; it could simply run the apps and tap the right buttons automatically. 

Again, all this is just research, and for all of it to work well starting this spring would be a legitimately unheard-of technical achievement. (I mean, you’ve tried chatbots — you know they’re not great.) But I’d bet you anything we’re going to get some big AI announcements at WWDC. Apple CEO Tim Cook even teased as much in February, and basically promised it on this week’s earnings call. And two things are very clear: Apple is very much in the AI race, and it might amount to a total overhaul of the iPhone. Heck, you might even start willingly using Siri! And that would be quite the accomplishment.

Lego Barad-dûr revealed: Sauron’s dark tower from The Lord of the Rings is $460

Openai releases gpt-4o, a faster model that’s free for all chatgpt users, google i/o 2024: everything announced, apple ipad pro (2024) review: the best kind of overkill, amazon web services ceo to step down.

More from Apple

The best new browser for Windows

How to make the most of Apple Notes

More details emerge about Apple’s plans for AI in iOS 18

On The Vergecast: AI gadgets, iPads, and antitrust

What are you looking for?

Suggested search, 2024 los angeles immigration summit.

The 5th Annual Los Angeles Immigration Summit is a two-day, in-person convening that bolsters the power of L.A.’s immigrant communities. The 2024 Summit theme is: “Leading a Bold, Just, and Inclusive Democracy.”

When : July 11 & 12, 2024 Location : Los Angeles Trade-Technical College (LATTC) 400 W Washington Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90015

The Summit will spotlight the remarkable strides made across California and Los Angeles County to advance immigrant integration and inclusion by convening cross-sector partners, immigrant inclusion advocates, community leaders, philanthropy, elected officials, academia, and media partners for dynamic conversations, immersive learning sessions and scenario planning. Through collaborative dialogue and knowledge-sharing, attendees will learn about the radiating impacts across the region and state, explore innovative approaches and best practices aimed at advancing immigrant inclusion and opportunities to forge a path forward locally and nationally.

The agenda and additional details will be updated soon.

What to Expect

The Summit will include two full-days of informative and engaging plenary sessions and panel discussions that center immigrant voices and showcase intersectionality across issues. Topics will include economic, health and educational equity, racial solidarity, nonprofit sustainability, and more. There will also be intentional opportunities for networking and connecting, including meals.

The Summit also serves as the annual release of the State of Immigrants in Los Angeles County (SOILA) report by the USC Equity Research Institute (ERI). The report will unveil data on how immigrants in LA County are faring to refocus the attention on how key players in Los Angeles can continue advancing a pro­ immigrant agenda. Both the Summit and the SOILA report are a collaborative effort between the California Community Foundation, the USC ERI, the Council on Immigrant Inclusion, and the Immigrants Are LA coalition, that includes stakeholders from business, labor, community-based organizations, local government, funders, and other sectors.

Explore other articles

A new look for eri’s website, unpaved: greening the urban jungle with dr. manuel pastor and sissy trinh | the coolest show, statement of support for students from usc equity research institute, advancing green space equity via policy change: a scoping review and research agenda.

Dexter Callender III awarded 2024 Harold and Arlene Schnitzer Prize in the Visual Arts

Courtesy of Corban Swain

by Amanda Diehl

May 14, 2024

• #computer vision
• #creativity
• Dexter Callender Research Assistant

Light Sculptures

• Media Lab Research Theme: Cultivating Creativity

Share this post

Dexter Callender III ,  a master's student in the Future Sketches group, is one of three recipients of the 2024 Harold and Arlene Schnitzer Prize in the Visual Arts. Callender was awarded this prize for his body of work,  Light Sculptures, Matters of Impermanence . 

Light Sculptures, Matters of Impermanence  are a series of artworks that transform the movement of natural light within architecture into sculptural forms. Callender employs a combination of technology and traditional craftsmanship, using code and computer vision to trace sunlight’s journey across space before shaping it into glass sculptures by hand. Each piece serves as a physical snapshot of time, compressing hours of light movement into a single physical object. Beyond visual artifacts, the sculptures are also reflections of his personal experiences with light.

Callender started this art series by focusing on four prominent architectural landmarks in the Boston/Cambridge area: the MIT Media Lab, Carpenter Center for Visual Arts, Gropius House, and Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. While reflecting on his personal experience with light in these buildings, he also engages with the location’s architectural history.

The Harold and Arlene Schnitzer Prize in the Visual Arts  is awarded to MIT students for excellence in a body of artistic work. A generous endowment allows for the award of graduate student prizes of $5,000 each, and undergraduate prizes of $2,500. This year's recipients will also participate in a joint exhibition in the Wiesner Student Art Gallery, which opens Wednesday, May 22.

The Schnitzer Prize was established in 1996 through an endowment from Harold and Arlene Schnitzer of Portland, Oregon. Harold Schnitzer, a real estate investor, graduated from MIT in 1944 with a degree in metallurgy.

This project transforms light into physical artifacts.  I developed a custom software systems to capture images of sunlight in th…

Live-Coding, Performance, And Computational Art With Char Stiles

Arts in Tech Podcast based in Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon University Interviews Char Stiles from Future Sketches

Lunch Lectures: Computational Typography

Join the Future Sketches group on Fridays from 12 – 1pm ET for the Lunch Lectures Fall 2023 edition about Computational Typography

MIT Arts Startup Incubator finalist: Hex House

Hex House was co-founded by Char Stiles, a master's student in the Future Sketches research group.

Research Group Overview: Future Sketches

Exploring the essence of code as a creative medium.