Affect inductions have become essential for testing theories of affect and for conducting experimental research on the effects of mood and emotion. The current review takes stock of the vast body of existing literature on affect induction procedures (AIPs; also referred to as mood inductions) to evaluate the effectiveness of affect inductions as research tools and to test theories of affect (e.g., the bipolarity hypothesis, negativity bias, positivity offset, and theories of emotionality and gender) using meta-analytic data. In doing so, we seek to address whether AIPs are effective for inducing affective states, what conditions maximize their effectiveness, for which emotions they are most effective, for whom they are most effective, and whether affect induction findings can provide insight into theories of affect. A meta-analysis of 874 samples and 53,509 participants suggests that affect inductions are effective on average (δ = 1.32), but this effectiveness varies with the type of affect induction, the emotion being induced, and the gender of the participants. Further, results indicate coupled activation where the induction of positive (negative) emotions leads to a corresponding reduction in negative (positive) emotions, which provides support for the bipolar continuum of positive and negative affect. Results also revealed a negativity bias in which individuals display stronger reactions to negative stimuli than positive stimuli. A practical guide in the choice of affect induction procedures for researchers is presented and implications for emotion theory are discussed.

To what extent are creative processes in one domain (e.g., technology) affected by information from other domains (e.g., music)? While some studies of professional creators suggest that creative abilities are domain-specific, other studies suggest that creative avocations stimulate creativity. The latter is consistent with the predictions of the honing theory of creativity, according to which the iterative process culminating in a creative work is made possible by the self-organizing nature of a conceptual network, or worldview, and its innate holistic tendency to minimize inconsistency. As such, the creative process is not restricted to the creative domain; influences from domains other than that of the final product are predicted to impact the creative process and its outcome. To assess the prevalence of cross-domain influences on creativity we conducted two studies: one with creative experts, and one with undergraduate students from diverse academic backgrounds. Participants listed both their creative outputs, and the influences (sources of inspiration) associated with each of these outputs. In both studies, cross-domain influences on creativity were found to be widespread, and indeed more frequent than within-domain sources of inspiration. Thus, examination of the inputs to, rather than the outputs of, creative tasks supported the prediction of honing theory that cross-domain influences are a ubiquitous component of the creative process.

Creative thought is conventionally believed to involve searching memory and generating multiple independent candidate ideas followed by selection and refinement of the most promising. Honing theory, which grew out of the quantum approach to describing how concepts interact, posits that what appears to be discrete, separate ideas are actually different projections of the same underlying mental representation, which can be described as a superposition state, and which may take different outward forms when reflected upon from different perspectives. As creative thought proceeds, this representation loses potentiality to be viewed from different perspectives and manifest as different outcomes. Honing theory yields different predictions from conventional theories about the mental representation of an idea midway through the creative process. These predictions were pitted against one another in two studies: one closed-ended and one open-ended. In the first study, participants were interrupted midway through solving an analogy problem and wrote down what they were thinking in terms of a solution. In the second, participants were instructed to create a painting that expressed their true essence and describe how they conceived of the painting. For both studies, naïve judges categorized these responses as supportive of either the conventional view or the honing theory view. The results of both studies were significantly more consistent with the predictions of honing theory. Some implications for creative cognition, and cognition in general, are discussed.

This chapter examines 10 methodological issues when assessing and analyzing societal well-being using self-reports. First, there are unit-of-analysis issues: deciding the appropriate level of analysis, accounting for individual-level score variability in societal-level scores, testing isomorphism across levels, and finding ways of aggregating and accounting for score variability. Second, there are comparability issues: researchers have sought to homogenize well-being scales with different response scales or use translated measures to compare across nations. Furthermore, there is the concern of whether well-being measures can capture the full range of well-being (both positive and negative aspects). The final set of issues are prediction issues: well-being measures may be more sensitive to negative than positive events/experiences, societal well-being may not always be linearly related to variables of interest, and domain-specific measures may be more sensitive than general measures of well-being, especially when tracking specific changes in well-being or comparing subgroups.

No abstract