Psychomusicology A Journal of Research in Music Cognition Furuya, Shinichi Smith, Leigh M. Kaneshi - Probing Neural M
Psychomusicology A Journal of Research in Music Cognition Furuya, Shinichi Smith, Leigh M. Kaneshi - Probing Neural M
Psychomusicology A Journal of Research in Music Cognition Furuya, Shinichi Smith, Leigh M. Kaneshi - Probing Neural M
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
James C. Kaufman
Malevolent creativity (MC), or intending to inflict harm in original ways, is an aspect of creativity that
has received little empirical attention. It reasons that generating malevolently creative products in
response to a problem is dependent upon individual differences and environmental factors, especially
with regard to the social and emotional content of a particular problem. A personality variable strongly
associated with how individuals acknowledge and respond to such social and emotional content is
emotional intelligence (EI). Individuals with higher EI often solve problems in cooperative, beneficial,
and positive ways, which seems contrary to solving a problem with MC. In addition to testing whether
EI is negatively related to MC in general, we analyzed whether that negative relationship would persist
even after controlling for cognitive ability and task effects. Those questions were examined across two
studies. Results suggest that individuals with lower EI are more likely to respond to different types of
problems with increased instances of MC even when the social or emotional content of those problems
are factored out. The implications and limitations of these studies, as well as future directions for the
study of MC, are discussed.
Keywords: malevolent creativity, emotional intelligence, task effect, creative problem solving
counterproductive work behaviors. Note that MC is not synonymous with any of those acts by themselvesalthough most of
those examples are necessarily harmful, they are not always original.
The dark side of creativity has garnered much interest in
recent years (e.g., Cropley, Cropley, Kaufman, & Runco, 2010).
For example, attention is being given to the application of creativity in criminal activities and lawbreaking (Eisenman, 2008;
Cropley & Cropley, 2011). Likewise, empirical evidence supports
the notion that individuals who are better divergent thinkers are
more creative liars (Walczyk, Runco, Tripp, & Smith, 2008) and
creative individuals are more likely to be dishonest (Beaussart,
Andrews, & Kaufman, 2012; De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008; Gino &
Ariely, 2012). However, empirical research on the construct of MC
is rather limited. Clark and James (1999) found that individuals
will respond to unjust situations with MC. Situational justice was
manipulated in their study through the use of lottery tickets.
Participants were instructed to perform a mundane task and were
told they would receive one to six lottery tickets that would go
toward a $50 raffle, depending on their performance. Participants
in the just condition received all six tickets whereas participants in
the unjust condition received no tickets. After participants either
received or did not receive their tickets, each participant responded
to two problem-solving tasks. One task instructed participants to
generate creative ways of raising funds for a nonprofit organization that was having financial problems; this problem was framed
to be positive and beneficial. The other task instructed participants
to generate creative ways of clandestinely giving a potential client
defaming information about a competitor; this problem was
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
238
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence (EI) is defined as the ability to process
ones own and others emotions, or in other words the ability to
tend to, understand, use, and manage emotions (Mayer, Salovey, &
Caruso, 2004, 2008). People higher in EI can acknowledge, understand, and control their emotions better than people lower in EI
(Fulmer & Barry, 2004). That emotional control may affect how
problems are responded to; people with higher EI are more likely
to respond to problems in positive and collaborative ways, whereas
people with lower EI are more likely to respond to problems in
negative or avoidant ways, both at the individual (Jordan & Troth,
2002a,2002b; Morrison, 2008) and team (Ayoko, Callan, & Hrtel,
2008; Jordan & Troth, 2004) levels.
Children and adolescents with higher EI have been rated by their
peers as more cooperative and less aggressive and were rated by
teachers as more prosocial (Mavroveli, Petrides, Rieffe, & Bakker,
2007; Petrides, Sangareau, Furnham, & Frederickson, 2006).
Lower EI was found to be related to problem and deviant behaviors, and poor interpersonal relationships (Brackett, Mayer, &
Warner, 2004; Siu, 2009). EI was also found to be related to
coping styles, with high EI being positively related to adaptive
coping styles but negatively related to maladaptive coping styles
(Mavroveli et al., 2007; Mikolajczak, Petrides, & Hurry, 2009).
Several studies have explored the relationship between EI and
creativity. EI was found to be related to higher readiness to create
and innovate in a sample of employees from various organizations
in the United Arab Emirates (Suliman & Al-Shaikh, 2007). In
addition, Wolfradt, Felfe, and Kster (2002) found that selfperceived emotional intelligence, particularly a facet called emotional self-efficacy, positively related to creative performance and
self-perception of creativity. Snchez-Ruiz, Hernndez-Torrano,
Prez-Gonzlez, Batey, and Petrides (2011) also found that creative performance positively relates to EI. Finally, individuals with
higher EI might prefer thinking styles that are more complex and
creative (Murphy & Janeke, 2009). However, Ivcevic, Brackett,
and Mayer (2007) did not find a significant relationship between
EI and creativity. In those studies, creativity was divided into
cognitive creativity and behavioral creativity. Cognitive creativity
was operationalized with both a divergent thinking (consequences)
task and the Remote Associates Test. Behavioral creativity was
operationalized based on self-reported scales of artistic activity
and artistic expression and appreciation. Overall, an individuals
creativity might be positively related to, or even influenced by, his
or her own EI only in certain contexts, especially socially oriented
contexts with emotionally laden content.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Study 1
Method
Participants. One hundred ninety-two students from a Midwestern university received extra credit for participating in the
study, with 65 males (34%) and 127 females (66%) having a mean
age of 22.56 (SD 5.00).
Procedure. Undergraduate students signed up to participate in
this study in exchange for extra credit for their classes. When
participants arrived in the designated testing room, they were given
an informed consent sheet to read and sign. They were then given
one of the three problem vignettes and were asked to generate as
many solutions as possible in response to the problem they received. They then completed the BarOn EQ-I test and filled out a
demographic survey. All materials were administered in paperand-pencil format. Participants were then debriefed, thanked for
their time, and assured that they would receive extra credit for their
participation.
Measures.
Problem-solving task. Each participant generated multiple solutions in response to one of three randomly presented problems.
The problems pertained to Sally, Brian, and ACME. Sally is a
timid new student to a college and is assigned a roommate, who
smokes marijuana, which makes Sally uncomfortable. However,
despite her timidity, she is afraid that the situation will escalate if
nothing is done about her roommates behavior. Brian is an upand-coming manager at a large bank who hired a friends sister
into his department. Although Brians friend highly recommended
his sister and she gets along well with coworkers, her work and
meeting attendance have been substandard. Brian also has to
consider that a majority of the employees in his department are
men. Finally, ACME has an engineering department that has
recently seen increased turnover and decreased productivity. Headhunters are enticing potential engineers away from ACME, and the
department has a hold on wage increases to a particular percentage.
All three problems have been used in previous studies (e.g.,
Reiter-Palmon, Illies, Cross, Buboltz, & Nimps, 2009).
The three problems differed in their social and emotional content, likely due to the different values elicited within each problem
(i.e., values and beliefs about smoking pot, handling troublesome
employees, or the appropriate means by which to financially revive
an organization). Sixty-four participants responded to Sallys problem, 62 participants responded to Brians problem, and 66 participants responded to ACMEs problem.
Emotional intelligence. The measure of EI used in this study
was the BarOn EQ-I test (Bar-On, 1997). The measure contains
133 items with a 5-point response scale (1 very seldom or not
true of me, 5 very true of me or true of me). Bar-On (1997)
239
found that the testretest reliability of this scale was .85 after 1
month and .75 after 4 months. Using Cronbachs alpha, the reliability of the composite measure in this study was .96.
Cognitive ability. Self-reported college GPA has been found
to be an adequate proxy measure for cognitive ability (Mumford,
Supinski, Baughman, Costanza, & Threlfall, 1997). As such, selfreported college GPA was used to measure cognitive ability.
Solution ratings. Solutions to the problems were rated for
originality and negativity. A solutions originality was determined
by how unique it was, how imaginative or humorous it was, and
how structured it was by the problem. Originality was rated by two
trained raters using a 6-point Likert-type scale. Each rater first
scored the solutions individually, and then they reached consensus
on their ratings (e.g., Reiter-Palmon et al., 2009). Solutions rated
a 1, 2, or 3 were unoriginal, with 1 being very unoriginal, and
solutions rated a 4, 5, or 6 were original, with 6 being very
original. A solution was deemed original if it had a score higher
than a 3.
A solutions negativity was determined by its harmful nature. A
positive solution was one that attempted to solve the problem
without using physical or mental harm against oneself or another
party, including organizations, groups, or other individuals. On the
other hand, a negative solution was one that attempted to solve the
problem through the use of physical or mental harm to oneself or
another party. Note that this rating is onlyfor the negativity (i.e.,
harmfulness) of a solution, not its negative creativity. The negativity of the solutions was rated by using the Positivity versus
Negativity Solution Evaluation Scale (PNSES), a rating scale
created specifically for this study. The PNSES, like the originality
scale, was used by two trained raters. The raters judged the
solutions in three steps. First, the raters placed each solution into
either a positive category or a negative category so as to have
maximum agreement. Second, the raters gave each solution a score
from the 6-point scale, with 1 being highly positiveand 6 being
highly negative. Third, and as with the originality ratings, the raters
were asked to reach consensus regarding their ratings. A solution
was deemed negative if it had a score higher than a 3.
After the solutions were rated on originality and negativity,
those two scores were evaluated together to determine whether a
solution was malevolently creative. A solution was deemed malevolently creative if it was both negative and original. The main
dependent variable of this study was the number of malevolently
creative solutions generated by each participant.
240
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of GPA, EI, and Number of Malevolently Creative Solutions for Study 1
1. GPA
2. EI
3. Number of malevolently creative solutions
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Note.
SD
3.14
439.57
1.12
.50
56.15
1.57
.13
.12
.11
Study 2
Method
Participants. Seventy-nine students from a Midwestern university received extra credit for participating in the study, with 33
males (42%) and 46 females (58%) having a mean age of 24.50
(SD 7.37).
Procedure. Undergraduate students signed up to participate in
this study in exchange for extra credit for their classes. When
participants arrived in the designated testing room, they were given
an informed consent sheet to read and sign. They were then given
Table 2
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Number of Malevolently Creative Solutions From GPA, Problem Type, and Emotional
Intelligence
Model
SE
1 Constant
GPA
2 Constant
GPA
Brians problem
Sallys problem
3 Constant
GPA
Brians problem
Sallys problem
Emotional intelligence
.27
.43
.98
.47
.30
1.57
.77
.52
.19
1.56
.004
.90
.28
.85
.26
.31
.30
1.25
.26
.31
.30
.002
.30
1.53
1.15
1.81
.99
5.17
.61
2.03
.62
5.18
1.87
.13
.14
.09
.45
.16
.05
.44
.15
R2
R2
2.34
.02
10.69
.19
14.64
.17
9.03
.21
3.49
.02
95% CI
[2.05, 1.52]
[.13, .99]
[2.65, .70]
[.04, .98]
[.30, .91]
[.97, 2.17]
[1.71, 3.25]
[.01, 1.03]
[.42, .80]
[.97, 2.16]
[.01, .00]
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
241
General Discussion
These two studies tentatively indicate that EI predicts MC after
controlling for cognitive ability and task effects. The results of the
second study in particular suggest that EI can predict an individuals MC even in situations that are not social or emotionally
laden. It must be noted that any implications drawn from the
results of both studies must be done so with caution because both
regression analyses were marginally significant with small effect
sizes, suggesting only partial support of our hypotheses. A particular strength of the current investigation, however, is that consistent effects were found across two very different experimental
contexts, which included two different creativity tasks and two
different measures of EI; the relationship between EI and MC,
while weak, may therefore be generalizable to other types of
situations. The results indicate that people lower in EI might be
more willing to disclose negative ideas, do not know such ideas are
inappropriate, or perhaps are not concerned with how others perceive them. If people lower in EI are willing to generate negative
solutions for others to see, then it is possible that those people are
willing to act on such negative ideas.
Theoretically, the results from these two studies offer several
points of interest. First, we have offered further evidence toward
strengthening the notion that MC is a distinct type of creativity.
These studies address a new area in the creativity literature that is
deserving of further attention. Second, we have offered a novel and
refined definition and operationalization of MC. We expanded on
the definition proposed by Cropley et al. (2008), defining MC as
the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which
an individual or group produces novel and useful ideas as defined
within a social context that are intended to mentally, materially, or
physically harm oneself or others (based on Plucker et al., 2004).
We combined components proposed in previous studies and operationalized MC as a product that is both original and harmful.
Those refinements will hopefully allow for more discerning and
precise research in the area of MC. Third, MC has been further
explained with regard to a personality-based antecedent. Finally,
our results suggest that the relationship between EI and MC may
not be related to, dependent on, or influenced by the social and
emotional factors of a situation requiring problem-solving.
Practically, these results suggest that EI may allow us to identify
people who are more likely to engage in malevolently creative
behaviors. EI may therefore become an important variable to
consider when hiring for certain occupations, such as those that are
high-stress or those in which the utilization and self-knowledge of
ones emotions is paramount to success and high performance.
Similarly, employees with lower EI could be trained to enhance
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of GPA, EI, and Number of Malevolently Creative Ideas for Study 2
1. GPA
2. EI
3. Number of malevolently creative ideas
Note. M Mean; SD Standard deviation.
p .05 (2-tailed).
SD
3.21
123.85
.51
.54
11.59
1.08
.04
.07
.24
242
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 4
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Number of Malevolently Creative Solutions From GPA, Instructions, and Emotional
Intelligence
Model
SE
1 Constant
GPA
2 Constant
GPA
Instructions
3 Constant
GPA
Instructions
Emotional intelligence
.17
.07
.21
.06
.08
2.49
.08
.02
.02
.70
.22
.71
.22
.11
1.36
.21
.12
.01
.25
.33
.30
.27
.68
1.84
.40
.18
1.95
R2
R2
.11
.002
.29
.01
.47
.01
1.47
.07
3.81
.06
.04
.03
.09
.05
.02
.25
95% CI
[1.23, 1.57]
[.36, .50]
[1.20, 1.62]
[.38, .50]
[.31, .15]
[.22, 5.20]
[.34, .51]
[.25, .21]
[.04, .00]
p .10.
Because the construct of MC is so new, exploring its antecedents and consequents can take many different directions. However,
of highest import is to further refine how MC is operationalized.
Operationalizing MC as an idea that is both original and harmful
instead of just one or the other is a step in the right direction, but
it is still short of fully encapsulating the theoretical complexity of
MC. Other operationalizations could include ratings that are common within the creativity literature, such as flexibility and elaboration. These additional ratings would provide evidence as to
whether different contexts and goals influence the type and amount
of thought put into original and harmful ideas, as well as any
variables that differentially predict complex ideas that are beneficial and original versus complex ideas that are harmful and original. Another possible approach would be to use historiometric
analysis (e.g., Simonton, 2009). Past incidents of MC could be
studied in terms of personal attributes of those who are more likely
to engage in MC, or in terms of the eventual repercussions of such
acts.
Also important is to study how MC relates to varying components of the creative process. This paper pertained only to idea
generation, but future studies could examine the relationship between MC and problem construction, information searching, idea
evaluation, and idea implementation. Individuals who are planning
to be harmful in some way might frame problems, and weigh goals
and constraints, differently than people who are planning to be
beneficial. Similarly, being harmful might require that individuals
seek out information that vastly differs from information sought
after when attempting to be beneficial. The evaluation and implementation of original ideas also likely depend on whether those
ideas are beneficial or harmful.
The next step in research pertaining to MC, with its refined
operationalization and a better understanding of how it relates to
the creative process in general, is to determine which cognitive,
affective, or motivational factors influence MC, at both the individual and team levels. Of particular interest would be to determine whether malevolently creative individuals exist, or rather
people who generally seem to interpret and respond to the world in
original, albeit harmful, ways. In the opposite light, a promising
line of research would be to determine which individual differences, like EI, are negatively associated with MC. For example,
our studies could be repeated using measures from positive psy-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
References
Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Hrtel, C. J. (2008). The influence of team
emotional intelligence climate on conflict and team members reactions
to conflict. Small Group Research, 39, 121149. doi:10.1177/
1046496407304921
Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Users manual.
Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Beaussart, M. L., Andrews, C. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Creative liars:
The relationship between creativity and integrity. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and
incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 11471158. doi:
10.1177/0146167203254596
Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional
intelligence and its relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36, 13871402. doi:10.1016/S01918869(03)00236-8
Clark, K., & James, K. (1999). Justice and positive and negative creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 12, 311320. doi:10.1207/
s15326934crj1204_9
Cropley, A., & Cropley, D. (2011). Creativity and lawbreaking. Creativity
Research Journal, 23, 313320. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.621817
Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. (Eds.). (2010).
The dark side of creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511761225
Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2008). Malevolent
creativity: A functional model of creativity in terrorism and crime.
Creativity Research Journal, 20, 105115. doi:10.1080/
10400410802059424
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Mental set and creative
thought in social conflict: Threat rigidity versus motivated focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 648 661. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.95.3.648
Eisenman, R. (2008). Malevolent creativity in criminals. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 116 119. doi:10.1080/10400410802059465
Fulmer, I. S., & Barry, B. (2004). The smart negotiator: Cognitive ability
and emotional intelligence in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 245272. doi:10.1108/eb022914
243
Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers
can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102, 445 459. doi:10.1037/a0026406
Ivcevic, Z., Brackett, M., & Mayer, J. (2007). Emotional intelligence and
emotional creativity. Journal of Personality, 75, 199 235. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-6494.2007.00437.x
James, K., Clark, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Positive and negative
creativity in groups, institutions, and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 211226. doi:
10.1207/s15326934crj1203_6
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002a). Emotional intelligence and conflict
resolution: Implications for human resource development. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 4, 6279. doi:10.1177/
1523422302004001005
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002b). Emotional intelligence and conflict
resolution in nursing. Contemporary Nurse, 13, 94 100. doi:10.5172/
conu.13.1.94
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team
problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human
Performance, 17, 195218. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1702_4
Kaufman, J. C., Cropley, D. H., Chiera, B. A., & White, A. E. (2012). Is
Hannibal Lecter creative? How we evaluate the creativity of different
levels of malevolence. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lee, S., & Dow, G. (2011). Malevolent creativity: Does personality influence malicious divergent thinking? Creativity Research Journal, 23,
73 82. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.571179
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Rieffe, C., & Bakker, F. (2007). Trait
emotional intelligence, psychological well-being and peer-rated social
competence in adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 263275. doi:10.1348/026151006X118577
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence:
Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197215.
doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1503_02
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence:
New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63, 503517.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503
Mikolajczak, M., Petrides, K. V., & Hurry, J. (2009). Adolescents choosing
self-harm as an emotion regulation strategy: The protective role of trait
emotional intelligence. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 181
193. doi:10.1348/014466508X386027
Morrison, J. (2008). The relationship between emotional intelligence competencies and preferred conflict-handling styles. Journal of Nursing
Management, 16, 974 983. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00876.x
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27 43.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.27
Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P., &
Threlfall, K. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problemsolving skills: V. Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 10,
73 85. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1001_8
Murphy, A. A., & Janeke, H. C. (2009). The relationship between thinking
styles and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. South African
Journal of Psychology, 39, 357375.
Peterson, C., & Steen, T. A. (2009). Optimistic explanatory style. In S. J.
Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology
(2nd ed., pp. 313321). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., Furnham, A., & Frederickson, N. (2006).
Trait emotional intelligence and childrens peer relations at school.
Social Development, 15, 537547. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006
.00355.x
Plucker, J., Beghetto, R., & Dow, G. (2004). Why isnt creativity more
important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future
directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 8396.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
244