The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought about unprecedented uncertainty and challenges to the worldwide economy and people’s everyday life. Anecdotal and scientific evidence has documented the existence of a positive relationship between the experience of crisis and creativity. Though this appears to be ubiquitous, the crisis-creativity-well-being relationship has not been sufficiently examined across countries and using a working adult sample. The current study drew on a sample consisting of 1,420 employees from China (n = 489, 40% females), Germany (n = 599, 47% females), and the United States (n = 332, 43% females) to examine whether creativity can function as an effective means to cope with crisis and to achieve both flourishing and social well-being. Multivariate analyses showed that perceived impact of COVID-19 was positively related to creative process engagement, which was positively related to employees’ self-reported creative growth. Creative growth was associated with a higher level of flourishing well-being. This sequential mediation model was significant across the three samples. Creativity also mediated the relationship between perceived impact of COVID-19 and social well-being (social connectedness), but this connection was only found for the Chinese sample. Further data analyses revealed that individualism moderated this serial mediation model in that the positive coping effect of creativity on both flourishing and social well-being was stronger for individuals who hold more collectivistic views. Results of the study have implications for crisis management, personal development, and positive functioning of individuals and society.

For much of 2020, countries around the world fought against the COVID-19 pandemic. Many countries went into lockdown to control the fast spread of the virus. The unusual restrictions and confinement of the lockdown brought about new challenges for people’s everyday lives. With flexibility, adaptability, and problem-solving at the core of its nature, creativity has the potential to help people cope with harsh and uncertain circumstances. Were people more, the same, or less creative in their everyday life during the period of lockdown, and in which ways? What are the emotions and motivations underlying their creative or non-creative behaviors? The current study aims to explore these questions from a cross-cultural perspective. A total of 754 comparable employee samples from three Chinese and three German cities were asked about their moods during the lockdown period, their self-rated level of creativity in daily lives before and during the lockdown, and their motivations behind their creative activities. Significant increases in creativity were observed in all everyday activities in both countries with only two exceptions in the German sample. Despite minor differences, a common pattern was found across cultures: whereas the activating positive mood could directly lead to the increase in creativity in some everyday activities, such a direct Mood-Creativity link was limited in the activating negative mood circumstances. In such circumstances, motivation intervened to enable the link to creativity. It was also found that this indirect effect of motivation between mood and creativity was more pronounced with the German participants.

Recent years have witnessed a series of studies of the nomination of the most creative persons using a cross-sectional design. Such studies only provide a “snapshot” of the creativity nomination phenomenon without being able to detect the temporal pattern of the nomination over time. The current study is among the first of such studies that use a time series design. Data were collected from German young adults in 2013 (n = 460, Mage = 28.3, SD = 9.9) and in 2017 (n = 617, Mage = 31.4, SD = 10.6). Consistent patterns emerge from the nomination of the top 10 most creative Germans: (1) Artists are predominantly represented; (2) Male creators are predominantly nominated; (3) Einstein ranks the first in both lists followed by Goethe; (4) Merkel is the only female nominee in both lists. Analysis of all nomination in both years reconfirmed the aesthetic salience and male-dominance and these patterns were more likely to occur in earlier than later nominations. Regression analysis revealed that social contribution (SC) and social acceptance (SA) each mediated the positive relation between creativity and creative fame. Further, the three-path mediation model of creativity on creative fame through SC and SA was also significant for both nomination conditions, with stronger mediating effect on the nomination from the meritorious than the aesthetic areas. Domain-specificity theories and social psychological theories were used to interpret the results.

No abstract

No abstract