more than your right brain

Using Insights from Neuroscience to EnhanceCreative Potential in Organizational Teams

More Than YourRight Brain

By Rebecca Austin EmmonsVanderbilt University

i

In an increasingly complex world, organizations need to be innovative toremain competitive. Innovation is the product of creativity. Creative individualshave the ability to enable creativity in teams. Teams that tackle complexproblems are the subunits that drive creativity and innovation in organizations.Insights from Neuroscience offer leaders a unique perspective on how toeffectively enhance creative capability in organizational teams. Everyone in the organization has a brain. Understanding how the brainworks allows us to see the facilitating and limiting factors that impact creativepotential. The brain-based phenomenon of creativity is an inherent humanpotential enabled by our associative memory and the chemical messengers,Oxytocin, Dopamine and Norepinephrine. The business case for learning,diversity, empathy and collaboration becomes clear by understanding thesebiological mechanisms of creativity. Learning primes an individual to engagein the creative process. Diversity broadens the team’s collective brain network.Empathy exercises the brain to imagine beyond. Collaboration empowersteams to arrive at novel and useful solutions.

Executive Summary

1

IntroductionThe Business Case for Creativity and Innovation

Creativity is an imperative for organizations facing change. In fact, a 2010 IBMstudy identified creativity as the single most important leadership quality to handlethe increasing complexity in the marketplace by interviewing over 1500 managers,executives and CEOs from 33 industries and 60 countries.[1] Studies havedemonstrated that creative individuals are better problem solvers than their non-creative peers.[2] Individuals alone cannot drive creative change though. In fact,creativity is generated in the smaller teams that comprise an organization.[3]Because creativity is the foundation for innovation and change, it is imperative thatorganizations adopt climates and strategies that facilitate the creative process.[4] Considerable research has been done on creativity and innovation. Insights fromthe fields of neuroscience and cognitive psychology provide a unique perspective onhow to use strategies that foster creativity with the brain in mind. Insights from thesefields build a business case for creativity from a biological perspective. The commondenominator in your organization is the human brain - everyone has one! With this inmind, there is a clear need for organizations to employ learning, empathy anddiversity strategies in order to enhance creative potential on teams.

2

What is Creativity and Who is Creative?

Creativity is afunction of the brain.

Everyone has thecapacity to becreative and

everyone has theability to enhance his

or her creativepotential.

Not everyone is a Picasso or Michelangelo. Fortunately, to discover or fostercreative talent in your team, you don’t need to screen for artistic ability. Creativity inthe organizational sense refers to the ability to generate novel and useful solutions toproblems.[5] Innovation then, is when creativity is focused on a specific product,service or system.[6] Perspectives from neuroscience suggest that to have a brain is tohave creative cognition, or the fundamental cognitive tools to produce creativethought.[7] In fact, studies of adults and children performing the same creative taskssuggest that “non-creativity” is learned as we age.[8] Creativity begins as an individual process because the generation of novelideas, although potentially aided by contact with others, happens in an individual mind.[9] The capability of individuals to be creative comes from an individual brain system, acapability that can arguably be enhanced by engaging in a larger network of brains in ateam setting.[10] At least the potential for creativity is increased when teams are puttogether, and yet some research has demonstrated that teams are no more creative thanthe sum of their individual’s creative power.[11] This suggests that there are barriers tocreative synergy. Understanding the neurobiological capacity for creativity in individuals,and how that can contribute to team creative cognition will make it easier to understandthe brain based motivators and threats to creative performance. If creativity is an inherent humancapability - then it makes sense that we can usetraining to enhance that skill set. But how do weflex the creative muscle? Creativity training thatteaches the underlying cognitive concepts hasbeen shown to enhance an individual’s ability togenerate novel ideas,[12] more specifically thereis evidence that understanding the neuroscienceof creativity will enhance creative potential.[13] Simply giving individuals the directions toexplicitly generate novel responses, resulted inmore creative ideas compared to others whowere just told to generate ideas.[14] In anotherstudy, individuals who did a self-reflectionactivity prior to doing a creativity test,performed better than those who had not.[15]These examples show that creativity can belearned and improved upon with training andinterventions. Creative capacity is not limited tocertain individuals.

3

The second stage of the classical model happens when an individual abandonsconscious thought. You have to give your brain a break. Incubation and preparation arehelpful for complex problem solving.[19]

The third stage refers to what is commonly called insight or the ‘aha’ experience. Thisis when a potential answer to the problem suddenly emerges. Investigations into thisexperience show that insight is strongly related to feeling and intuition.[20]

In the final stage of the classical model, creative ideas have to be checked forapplicability. Remembering the definition of creativity as something that is both novel,and useful, this is the stage where an idea is tested to determine if it is in fact, useful.

The above-described four-step creativity model applies to insight problem solvingwhere problems are complex and characterized by a lack of direct steps to get ananswer.[21] For less complex problems, simply brainstorming may generate an idea thatcan then be tested, effectively skipping stages two and three. Regardless of thenumber of phases engaged in the creative process, understanding the science behindit can enhance an individual’s potential to solve complex problems using creative skills.

The Creative Process

The classic model of creativity designed by Wallace in 1926 outlines the creativeprocess in four stages [16]:

This stage comprises problemidentification and informationgathering. It could includedivergent thinking activities likebrainstorming where new ideas aregenerated, or simply refer to havinga base of applicable knowledge.[17]In all cases of creative problemsolving, knowledge is a prerequisitefor creative endeavors.[18]

1.Preparation

2.Incubation

3.Illumination or Insight

4.Verification

Preparation Incubation

IlluminationVerification

4

Associative Memory

The Science Learning, memory and creativity are all linked and they are all known to be neuro-biological phenomenon.[22] There is a pervasive myth that if you’re a “right brain person,”you’re creative.[23] In fact, creativity biology isn’t that simple, and it isn’t that exclusiveeither. To best understand what enhances creative potential we can look to two specificdomains of neuroscience: associative memory and neurotransmitters. Individual creativity isthe building block for team creativity so it is important to understand the creative mind froman individual perspective.

Creative capability is arguably a function of the associative memory more thananything else. Your brain is a vast and dense network of cells called neurons. At any giventime, these neurons fire causing a cascade of electrochemical activity lighting up specificparts of your brain depending on what you’re doing. These pathways of thought can bestrengthened the more you use them and that is how you learn.[24] Knowledge then isrelated to the size of the network and how connected it is. [25]When we learn and experience our daily lives, we code memory in a specific way thatenables creative thought. Instead of storing memories as whole concepts such as “table,”our brain stores that memory by it’s features: “wood,” “brown,” “flat.” [26] Different featurescorrespond with different sets of neurons. When you encounter a table, the respectiveneurons fire enabling you to recognize the object. Because neurons are arranged in anetwork, neurons that are close to one another tend to fire when one is stimulated. Thisleads to overlaps in coding-- where one thought can trigger another. The more detail thatwe code with - the more potential overlap.[27] The other important thing to know aboutassociative memory is that features are coded by how they are related even if we are notconsciously aware of that relationship.[28] What does this matter? It means that when you go to solve a problem, you arereconstructing memories to find a potential solution, and in the time since your brain hascoded them, they have been arranged in patterns of which you are not consciously aware.When you apply what you know to a new problem, you combine concepts, and novelty hasthe potential to emerge.[29] You are capable of thinking beyond what you already know.[30] Recalling the creative process, after Incubation is Insight or Illumination.[31] Themoment of insight that seems to come from nowhere is a phenomena that is explainablebecause of the neurobiology described above. Your brain is working even when you are notconscious because it is accessing remote connections in your associative memory. Creative individuals have a more widely distributed network that enables them toaccess more remote and novel connections when they approach a problem,[32] andanyone can enhance their ability to access more remote connections by practicingdivergent thinking.[33]

5

OxytocinCreativity is enabled by oxytocin.[35] This neurotransmitter is associated withsocial bonding, trust, cooperation, and flexible thinking.[36] Additionally,oxytocin has been shown to increase divergent thinking ability which meansthat it enhances an individual’s ability to generate novel ideas.[37] Oxytocindoes not work alone though. It works in conjunction with Dopamine to enhancesocial affiliation.[38] Oxytocin is known to decrease stress.[39]

Norepinephrine

DopamineThe chemical Dopamine is strongly related to cognitive flexibility, novelty-seeking,

holding interest and arousal.[40] Increased levels of Dopamine have been connected tobetter performance in insight and problem solving, likely because it enables individualsto more rapidly switch their attention, potentially accessing a wider neuron network.[41]

Remembering that knowledge is critical for a strong associative memory, and associativenetwork, it is important to understand that Dopamine has a critical role in holding an

individual’s attention. Dopamine works on the attention system of the brain[42] and isactive when individuals experience passion and complete attention to a task. Dopamine

has also been shown to facilitate goal-oriented activity.[43]

Neurotransmitters Remember the brain works because of electrochemical signals that fire up neurons in ahuge network. The chemical component of electrochemical refers to neurotransmitters, thebrain’s chemical messengers. There are a multitude of neurotransmitters that have differentfunctions in the brain and creativity has been specifically linked to three: Oxytocin,Dopamine and Norepinephrine. [34]

Norepinephrine has multiple purposes but it is most commonly associated with stress andarousal.[44] While Norepinephrine is important for attention and learning because of itsrole in arousal- too much or too little has a negative impact on cognitive ability.Specifically, high levels of Norepinephrine decrease the cognitive flexibility that is requiredin creative tasks.[45] Additionally, Norepinephrine focuses our attention on external stimuli,redirecting our thoughts to the outside world and making it harder for remote internalconnections to emerge.[46] Norepinephrine and stress can overwhelm your frontal lobe, thepart of the brain that facilitates decision making and problem solving.[47] Too much focuson the problem decreases the potential for novel concepts to emerge. This is why theIncubation period of the creative process is so important. During relaxation, Norepinephrinelevels decrease, allowing individuals to engage in reflection and rest leading to a betterability to integrate new experiences with memory.[48]

6

Individuals, Teams, andCreativity An individual brain can be thought ofas a vast network of connectedexperiences and knowledge from whichthe potential for creativity emerges.Enabling creative potential occurs whennetworks are broadened by adding otherbrains, and remove collaborationbarriers. Teams have a higher potentialfor creativity because the brainpower isexpanded, and others can trigger newideas in an individual.[49] Increasing thenumber of creative individuals on a teamhas been demonstrated to elevate theteam creative capability. [50] Althoughthe potential exists, it is not enough tojust combine brain capacities in problemsolving; creative synergies emerge fromteam collaboration.[51] When teamsembrace creativity and collaborationthey have the potential for enablingteam creative cognition, or a sharedinventory of creative processes that isengaged during group problem solvingtasks.[52] Higher team cohesion resultsin higher creativity.[53]

Broadening the Network

7

Employing Passion and Cultivating Curiosity

Learning is the foundation forassociative memory. In order tostrengthen potential overlaps in codingand increase the potential for remoteconnections,[54] and ultimately novelinsights, organizations need to buildteams that have curious teammembers. Recall the neurotransmitterDopamine. This chemical is crucial infacilitating learning and building newassociations in our memory.[55] Itmakes sense then, that individuals witha learning orientation have a higher

potential for creativity, and that that potential is enhanced in encouraging teams.[56]Encouraging learning is the first step in broadening an associative memory. Individuals who are engaged and passionate about the task at hand are going tostimulate the Dopamine in relevant brain systems. This increase in Dopamine is alsoresponsible for an individual’s ability to filter through stimuli that was originallyconsidered irrelevant.[57] Recall that the more remote connections in the brainnetwork, the more potential for novelty. Dopamine enhances the ability to recognizenovel connections. In other words, passion and salience mobilize the biologicalmechanisms that enable insight.

8

Diversity and Empathy

Individuals can broaden their brain network by continuously learning and teams broadentheir creative capacity by diversifying. The benefit of diversity in teams is derived from thecross pollination of ideas that occurs when teams learn together.[58] In order to producethe most novel and useful solutions, you must engage with a wide variety of ideas. Teamsthat specifically leverage brain based differences have a higher potential for collaborationand problem solving.[59] Diversity in every sense, expertise and social category, widens therange of knowledge and experience to draw upon and is therefore a critical component forenhancing team creative potential. Creative potential is also enhanced when teammembers bring diverse outside ties into the group learning.[60]

Diversity works by broadening the potential network but it also requires that individualsexercise their own brain networks through cognitive empathy. Cognitive empathy is theability to take on a role from another point of view.[61] When individuals envision themselvesin the shoes of someone else they are asked to imagine beyond what they know - thusengaging their associative network. This process of cognitive role taking can generate newimages and ideas.[62] Individuals mirror one another, meaning that exposure to other ways of problem solvingcan shape how they approach similar problems in the future.[63] This explains how multi-cultural experiences can enhance team creativity.[64] When we are asked to take onanother role or use a new problem solving approach, we activate our unique brain networkin a new way, which allows insight to emerge.

Removing Barriers to Collaboration

Patients who suffered braindamage to the regions of the brainthat connect reason and emotion,demonstrated an inability to performcomplex problem solving tasks.[65]Teams must attend to their feelings.Stress and threat can drive downcreative potential. These threats mayarise from individuals feeling thatother group members are criticizingtheir ideas,[66] the result ofstereotypes[67] or other unmanagedgroup conflict. These threats inducestress which involves Norepinephrine.Because Norepinephrine candiminish the ability to recognizeremote connections, [68] it isimperative that threats bedecreased.

9

Recognizing Emotion and Threat

Threats are not the only stress team members can face during intra-teamproblem solving. When individuals engage in problem solving there may be atendency to overthink or attempt to find the answer through rational steps. Sometimes that works. When it comes to insight problem solving in particularthough, it is imperative that individuals recognize the role of emotion and intuition.Too much focus on the problem decreases the potential for novel concepts toemerge because Norepinephrine levels rise.[69] This is why the Incubation period ofthe creative process is so important. During relaxation, Norepinephrine levelsdecrease.[70] This explains why individuals who are relaxed and rested are able tobetter integrate new experiences with memory. Knowing that Norepinephrine plays such a crucial role in our stress and threatresponse, and that it also has the capability to overwhelm the rational decisionmaking part of the brain enables us to understand a critical barrier to creativepotential.

10

Organizations are more likely to be perceived as creative if the employees reporthigh levels of psychological well-being.[71] However, it is also more than perception:employees who reported more positive moods had higher levels of Dopamine and hadhigher levels of cognitive flexibility.[72] It makes sense then that organizations that showhigh commitment to employee well-being are more likely to be innovative.[73] Theorganization at large has a critical role in building an environment that enables individualemployees to be creative in teams. From the team perspective, the primary objective for enhancing creative potentialshould be enabling trust. Team members need to trust that their work climate is supportiveof creativity and innovation.[74] Additionally, individuals need to trust one another. Trust ishow the barrier of threat is overcome. Neuroscience demonstrates that trust stimulates anincrease in Oxytocin, which in turn decreases our stress response system activity.[75]Fostering collaboration comes from overcoming threat. Teams where individuals have ashared identification are able to overcome the perceived threat of stereotypes.[76]Getting buy in for a shared vision, increasing group member communication, and settingteam goals are all ways to establish a shared team identity. These factors along withvision, communication, and goal interdependence are predictors of team creativity.[77]As team members and team leaders, it is imperative that Oxytocin is increased and trust isfounded.

Interestingly, embarking on a creative endeavor as a group can increase trust betweenmembers.[78]

Fostering Collaboration

11

Integrating the SystemHow Insights from Neuroscience Can EnhanceCreative Potential on Teams Insights from Neuroscience have a lot to offer leaders who want to enhance creativepotential in organizational teams. The unique way that the human brain codes experienceinto the associative memory underscores the importance of the first stage of creativity:Preparation. Knowledge is the foundation that enables and prepares your brain for thecreative tasks. Understanding the critical role that the neurotransmitter Dopamine plays infacilitating learning as well as flexible thinking, demands that team leaders employindividuals who are passionate and curious. Those team members who are engaged aremore likely to activate the brain mechanisms that are essential for insight problem solving.In the team setting, it is essential that teams broaden their network by diversifying teammembers, and by consequence their individual brain networks. In order to prepare for trulynovel concept emergence, teams must integrate these diverse brain networks by fosteringempathy. The architecture of associative memory also sheds light on the second and thirdsteps of the creative process: Incubation and Illumination. During this unconscious phasethe brain is hard at work wading through remote connections, which can lead to novelconcept emergence. In addition to associative memory, incubation is reliant uponspecific chemical balances such as Oxytocin, Dopamine and Norepinephrine.Decreasing Norepinephrine by diminishing threats and stressors allows the brain to betterattend to internal stimuli and access remote connections. Rest and relaxation areimportant for enabling creative insight to emerge. Increasing Oxytocin by building teamtrust can directly impact the brain’s stress response system and overcome theNorepinephrine challenge. Creating a supportive atmosphere that increases employeewell-being can increase Dopamine and thus better facilitate cognitive flexibility. It is important to remember that creativity is a brain based phenomenon because itempowers individuals to recognize their inherent creative potential. The need fororganizational creativity and innovation is the need for novel and useful ideas to complexproblems. In the final phase of the creative process, Verification, creative ideas are put tothe test. In order to achieve creative verification, leaders must first create diverse,empathetic, and collaborative teams.

I

End Notes[1] IBM. (2010). Capitalizing on Complexity. IBM Global Services,1518(3), 1–75. http://doi.org/10.2190/HFLG-14N9-KF8L-4FMD

[2] Schmajuk, N., Aziz, D. R., & Bates, M. J. B. (2009).Attentional–Associative Interactions in Creativity. CreativityResearch Journal, 21(1), 92–103.http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633574

[3] Rasulzada, F., & Dackert, I. (2009). Organizational Creativityand Innovation in Relation to Psychological Well-Being andOrganizational Factors. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2–3),191–198. http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902855283

[4] Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2007). The emergence ofTeam Creative Cognition: the Role of Diverse Outside Ties,Sociocognitive network Centrality and Team Evolution. StrategicEntrepreneurship Journal, 1(2), 23–41. http://doi.org/10.1002/sej

[5] Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship betweenindividual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating acrosspeople and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2),235–257. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.240

[6] Lewis, T., & Wright, G. A. (2012). How does CreativityComplement Today’s Currency of Innovation? Journal ofStrategic Innovation and Sustainability, 7(3), 9. Retrieved fromhttp://psu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQSLNINUk0SrI0B7Y-E1MMTZMNk4AJwzLRPNXE2DgRfEMEYu0TUmnuJsTAlJonyiDn5hri7KELKxrjU3Jy4o3MLI0NzYxAWVOMgTcRtPo7rwS8SyxFgkHBMMXE0sIkBWiRiamJYXIy0GEWKaZJyaZp5ilmRmmGAEMbJbU

[7] Shalley & Perry-Smith (2008), see 4

[8] Onarheim, B., & Friis-Olivarius, M. (2013). Applying theneuroscience of creativity to creativity training. Frontiers inHuman Neuroscience, 7(October), 656.http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00656

[9] West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in TopManagement Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6),680–693.

[10] Williams Woolley, A., Richard Hackman, J., Jerde, T. E.,Chabris, C. F., Bennett, S. L., Kosslyn, S. M., … Kosslyn, S. M.(2007). Using brain-based measures to compose teams: Howindividual capabilities and team collaboration strategies jointlyshape performance. Social Neuroscience, 2(2), 96–105.http://doi.org/10.1080/17470910701363041

[11] Paulus, P. B., Levine, D. S., Brown, V., Minai, A. A., & Doboli, S.(2010). Modeling Ideational Creativity in Groups: ConnectingCognitive, Neural, and Computational Approaches. Small GroupResearch, 41(6), 688–724.http://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410369561

[12] Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., Mumford, M. D., Scott, G., Leritz, L. E.,The, M. D. M., … Mumford, M. D. (2016). The effectiveness ofcreativity training : A quantitative review The Effectiveness ofCreativity Training : A Quantitative Review. Creativity ResearchJournal, 419(September), 361–388.http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549

[13] Onarheim, & Friis-Olivarius, (2013) see 8

[14] Yoruk, S., & Runco, M. A. (2014). Neuroscience of DivergentThinking. Journal for Neurocognitive Research, 56(1), 1–16.

[15] Wen, M. C., Butler, L. T., & Koutstaal, W. (2013). Improvinginsight and non-insight problem solving with brief interventions.British Journal of Psychology, 104(1), 97–118.http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02107.x

[16] Aldous, C. R. (2007). Creativity, problem solving andinnovative science: Insights from history, cognitive psychologyand neuroscience. International Education Journal, 8(2), 176–186.

[17] Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, andneuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. PsychologicalBulletin, 136(5), 822–848. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019749 ,Paulus et. al (2010), see 11

[18] Heilman, K. M., Nadeau, S. E., & Beversdorf, D. O. (2003).Creative Innovation: Possible Brain Mechanisms. Neurocase, 9(5),369–379.

[19] Hélie, S., & Sun, R. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creativeproblem solving: a unified theory and a connectionist model.Psychological review (Vol. 117). http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019532

[20] Aldous, C. R. (2006). Attending to feeling: Productivebenefit to novel mathematics problem-solving. InternationalEducation Journal, 7(4), 410–422.

[21] Hélie, & Sun (2010), see 19

[22] Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We Feel,Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and SocialNeuroscience to Education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3–10.http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x

[23] Vartanian, O., Bristol, A. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013).Neuroscience of creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

[24] Yaniv, D. (2012). Dynamics of creativity and empathy in rolereversal: Contributions from neuroscience. Review of GeneralPsychology, 16(1), 70–77. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0026580

[25] Heilman, Nadeau, & Beversdorf (2003), see 18

[26] Paulus et. al (2010), see 11

[27] Vartanian, Bristol, & Kaufman,, (2013) see 23




[31] Aldous, (2007). See 16

[32] Heilman, Nadeau, & Beversdorf (2003), see 18, Yoruk., &Runco,. (2014) see 14

II

[33] Wen, Butler, & Koutstaal, (2013) see 15

[34] Heilman, Nadeau, & Beversdorf (2003), see 18, Paulus et. al(2010), see 11, De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Boot, N. C. (2015).Oxytocin enables novelty seeking and creative performancethrough upregulated approach: Evidence and avenues for futureresearch. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(5),409–417. http://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1354

[35] De Dreu., Baas, & Boot, (2015), see 34

[36] De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D. J., Ebstein,R. P., Chew, S. H., … Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2014). Oxytonergiccircuitry sustains and enables creative cognition in humans.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(8), 1159–1165.http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst094



[39] De Dreu et. al. (2014) see 36

[40] Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Franconeri, S. L., Kounios, J., & Beeman,M. (2015). Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visualinputs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1814–1819.http://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0845-0, Flaherty, A. W.(2005). Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of ideageneration and creative drive. In Journal of ComparativeNeurology (pp. 147–153). http://doi.org/10.1002/cne.20768

[41] Paulus et. al (2010), see 11

[42] Schmajuk., Aziz., & Bates, (2009) see 2, Paulus et. al (2010),see 11

[43] Flaherty, (2005) see 40

[44] Koob, G. F. (1999). Corticotropin-releasing factor,norepinephrine, and stress. Biological Psychiatry, 46(9), 1167–1180.http://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00164-X

[45] Beversdorf, D. Q., Hughes, J. D., Steinberg, B. a, Lewis, L. D.,& Heilman, K. M. (1999). Noradrenergic modulation of cognitiveflexibility in problem solving. Neuroreport, 10(13), 2763–2767.http://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199909090-00012, Renner, K.H., & Beversdorf, D. Q. (2010). Effects of naturalistic stressors oncognitive flexibility and working memory task performance.Neurocase : Case Studies in Neuropsychology, Neuropsychiatry,and Behavioural Neurology, 16(4), 293–300.http://doi.org/10.1080/1355479090346360

[46] Heilman, K. M. (2016). Possible brain mechanisms ofcreativity. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31(4), 285–296.http://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw009

[47] Chakravarty, A. (2010). The creative brain - Revisitingconcepts. Medical Hypotheses, 74(3), 606–612.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.10.014

[48] Chakravarty,(2010) see 47, Paulus et. al (2010), see 11

[49] Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward More Creativeand Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming. Social and PersonalityPsychology Compass, 1(1), 248–265. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x

[50] West, & Anderson, (1996) see 9, Pirola-Merlo, & Mann,(2004) see 5

[51] Paulus et. al (2010), see 11, Shalley & Perry-Smith (2008), see4


[53] Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. (2014). Do high-commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevelcombinational approach to employee creativity. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 99(4), 665–80.http://doi.org/10.1037/a0035679

[54] Yaniv, (2012) see 24

[55] DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The neuromodulator of exploration:A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality. Frontiersin Human Neuroscience, 7(November), 762.http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762

[56] Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A Cross-Level Perspective on Employee Creativity : Goal Orientation ,Team Learning Behavior , and Individual Creativity. Academy ofManagement Journal, 52(2), 280–293.

[57] Chakravarty,(2010) see 47, DeYoung, (2013) see 55

[58] Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning andPerformance in Multidisciplinary Teams: The Importance ofCollective Team Identification. Academy of Management Journal,48(3), 532–547.

[59] Williams Woolley et. al (2007) see 10


[61] Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2011). The Neural Bases forEmpathy.pdf. Neuroscientist, 17(1), 18–24.http://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410379268

[62] Yaniv, (2012) see 24


[64] Tadmor, C. T., Satterstrom, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J. T. (2012).Beyond Individual Creativity: The Superadditive Benefits ofMulticultural Experience for Collective Creativity in CulturallyDiverse Teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(3),384–392. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435259

[65] Aldous, (2007). See 16

[66]Paulus et. al (2010), see 11

[67] Van Der Vegt, & Bunderson, (2005) see 58

Endnotes Continued

III

Endnotes Continued[68]Heilman, (2016) see 46

[69]Chakravarty,(2010) see 47

[70] Paulus et. al (2010), see 11Chakravarty,(2010) see 47

[71] Rasulzada, & Dackert,(2009) see 3

[72] Akbari Chermahini, S., & Hommel, B. (2012). More creativethrough positive mood? Not everyone! Frontiers in HumanNeuroscience, 6(November), 319.http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00319

[73] Chang,et. al (2014) see 53

[74] West, & Anderson, (1996) see 9, Pirola-Merlo, & Mann,(2004) see 5

[75] Paulus et. al (2010), see 11

[76] Van Der Vegt, & Bunderson, (2005) see 58

[77] Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009).Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensivemeta-analysis spanning three decades of research. The Journalof Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145.http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978

, Rasulzada, & Dackert,(2009) see 3

[78] Sellaro, R., Hommel, B., de Kwaadsteniet, E. W., van deGroep, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Increasing interpersonal trustthrough divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(June), 561.http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00561

References1. Akbari Chermahini, S., & Hommel, B. (2012). More creative through positive mood? Not everyone! Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(November),319. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00319

2. Aldous, C. R. (2007). Creativity, problem solving and innovative science: Insights from history, cognitive psychology and neuroscience.International Education Journal, 8(2), 176–186.

3. Aldous, C. R. (2006). Attending to feeling: Productive benefit to novel mathematics problem-solving. International Education Journal, 7(4),410–422.

4. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,45(2), 357–376.

5. Bechtereva, N. P., Danko, S. G., & Medvedev, S. V. (2007). Current methodlogy and methods in psychophysiological studies of creative thinking.Methods, 42(1), 100–108. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2007.01.009

6. Beversdorf, D. Q., Hughes, J. D., Steinberg, B. a, Lewis, L. D., & Heilman, K. M. (1999). Noradrenergic modulation of cognitive flexibility in problemsolving. Neuroreport, 10(13), 2763–2767. http://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199909090-00012

7. Bunce, D. ;, & West, M. A. (1996). Stress management and innovation interventions at work. Human Relations; Feb, 49(2).

8. Chakravarty, A. (2010). The creative brain - Revisiting concepts. Medical Hypotheses, 74(3), 606–612. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.10.014

9. Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. (2014). Do high-commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevel combinational approach toemployee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 665–80. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0035679

10. Cowan, N. (2014). Working Memory Underpins Cognitive Development, Learning, and Education. Educational Psychology Review.http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y

11. De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Boot, N. C. (2015). Oxytocin enables novelty seeking and creative performance through upregulated approach:Evidence and avenues for future research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(5), 409–417. http://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1354

12. De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D. J., Ebstein, R. P., Chew, S. H., … Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2014). Oxytonergic circuitry sustainsand enables creative cognition in humans. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(8), 1159–1165. http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst094

13. de Sousa, F. C., Pellissier, R., & Montiero, I. P. (2012). Creativity, Innovation and Collaborative Organizations. The International Journal ofOrganizational Innovation, 5(1), 1–39. Retrieved from http://www.apgico.pt/outros_ficheiros/IJOI.pdf

14. Decety, J. (2010). The neurodevelopment of empathy in humans. Developmental Neuroscience, (32), 257–267.http://doi.org/10.1159/000317771

15. DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality. Frontiers in HumanNeuroscience, 7(November), 762. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762

16. Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 822–848.http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019749

17. Ding, X., Tang, Y. Y., Tang, R., & Posner, M. I. (2014). Improving creativity performance by short-term meditation. Behavioral and Brain Functions,10(1), no pagination. http://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-10-9

18. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724.http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.799

19. Fink, A., Benedek, M., Grabner, R. H., Staudt, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2007). Creativity meets neuroscience: Experimental tasks for theneuroscientific study of creative thinking. Methods, 42(1), 68–76. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.001

20. Flaherty, A. W. (2005). Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative drive. In Journal of Comparative Neurology(pp. 147–153). http://doi.org/10.1002/cne.20768

21. Foxall, G. R. (2014). Cognitive requirements of competing neuro-behavioral decision systems: some implications of temporal horizon formanagerial behavior in organizations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(April), 1–17. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00184

IV

References22. Goldstein, T. R., & Winner, E. (2012). Enhancing Empathy and Theory of Mind. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13(1), 19–37.

23. Heilman, K. M. (2016). Possible brain mechanisms of creativity. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31(4), 285–296.http://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw009

24. Heilman, K. M., Nadeau, S. E., & Beversdorf, D. O. (2003). Creative Innovation: Possible Brain Mechanisms. Neurocase, 9(5), 369–379.

25. Hélie, S., & Sun, R. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: a unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychological review(Vol. 117). http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019532

26. Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A Cross-Level Perspective on Employee Creativity : Goal Orientation , Team LearningBehavior , and Individual Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.

27. Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering Team Creativity: Perspective Taking as Key to UnlockingDiversity’s Potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982–996. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159

28. Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanningthree decades of research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978

29. IBM. (2010). Capitalizing on Complexity. IBM Global Services, 1518(3), 1–75. http://doi.org/10.2190/HFLG-14N9-KF8L-4FMD

30. Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We Feel, Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education.Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3–10. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x

31. Jackson, S. E. (1996). The Consequences of Diversity in Multidisciplinary Work Teams. Handbook of Work Group Psychology, (October), 53–75.Retrieved from http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~sjacksox/PDF/TheConsequencesofDiversityInMultidisciplinaryWorkTeams.pdf

32. Koob, G. F. (1999). Corticotropin-releasing factor, norepinephrine, and stress. Biological Psychiatry, 46(9), 1167–1180.http://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00164-X

33. Lewis, T., & Wright, G. A. (2012). How does Creativity Complement Today’s Currency of Innovation? Journal of Strategic Innovation andSustainability, 7(3), 9. Retrieved from http://psu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQSLNINUk0SrI0B7Y-E1MMTZMNk4AJwzLRPNXE2DgRfEMEYu0TUmnuJsTAlJonyiDn5hri7KELKxrjU3Jy4o3MLI0NzYxAWVOMgTcRtPo7rwS8SyxFgkHBMMXE0sIkBWiRiamJYXIy0GEWKaZJyaZp5ilmRmmGAEMbJbU

34. Li, W., Li, X., Huang, L., Kong, X., Yang, W., Wei, D., … Liu, J. (2015). Brain structure links trait creativity to openness to experience. SocialCognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(2), 191–198. http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu041

35. Lin, G. G., & Scott, J. G. (2008). The Unconcious Mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 73–79.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2011.02.012.Investigations

36. Mccaffrey, T. (2016). A Visual Representation to Quantitate, Diagnose, and Improve Creativity in Insight Problem Solving. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 0(0), 1–17. http://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.132

37. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43.

38. Onarheim, B., & Friis-Olivarius, M. (2013). Applying the neuroscience of creativity to creativity training. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,7(October), 656. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00656

39. Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspectiveof Brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 248–265. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x

40. Paulus, P. B., Levine, D. S., Brown, V., Minai, A. A., & Doboli, S. (2010). Modeling Ideational Creativity in Groups: Connecting Cognitive, Neural,and Computational Approaches. Small Group Research, 41(6), 688–724. http://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410369561

41. Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 235–257. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.240

42. Rasulzada, F., & Dackert, I. (2009). Organizational Creativity and Innovation in Relation to Psychological Well-Being and OrganizationalFactors. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2–3), 191–198. http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902855283

V

References43. Renner, K. H., & Beversdorf, D. Q. (2010). Effects of naturalistic stressors on cognitive flexibility and working memory task performance.Neurocase : Case Studies in Neuropsychology, Neuropsychiatry, and Behavioural Neurology, 16(4), 293–300.http://doi.org/10.1080/13554790903463601

44. Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Franconeri, S. L., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2015). Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visual inputs.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1814–1819. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0845-0

45. Schmajuk, N., Aziz, D. R., & Bates, M. J. B. (2009). Attentional–Associative Interactions in Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 92–103.http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633574

46. Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., Mumford, M. D., Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., The, M. D. M., … Mumford, M. D. (2016). The effectiveness of creativity training : Aquantitative review The Effectiveness of Creativity Training : A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal, 419(September), 361–388.http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549

47. Sellaro, R., Hommel, B., de Kwaadsteniet, E. W., van de Groep, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Increasing interpersonal trust through divergentthinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(June), 561. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00561

48. Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2007). The emergence of Team Creative Cognition: the Role of Diverse Outside Ties, Sociocognitive networkCentrality and Team Evolution. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(2), 23–41. http://doi.org/10.1002/sej

49. Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2011). The Neural Bases for Empathy.pdf. Neuroscientist, 17(1), 18–24. http://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410379268

50. Siler, T. L. (2012). Neuro-impressions: interpreting the nature of human creativity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(October), 282.http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00282

51. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning, 119(1).

52. Tadmor, C. T., Satterstrom, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J. T. (2012). Beyond Individual Creativity: The Superadditive Benefits of MulticulturalExperience for Collective Creativity in Culturally Diverse Teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(3), 384–392.http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435259

53. Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Hashizume, H., Sassa, Y., Nagase, T., Nouchi, R., & Kawashima, R. (2011). Cerebral blood flow during rest associates withgeneral intelligence and creativity. PLoS ONE, 6(9). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025532

54. Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Hashizume, H., Sassa, Y., Nagase, T., Nouchi, R., & Kawashima, R. (2011). Failing to deactivate: The association betweenbrain activity during a working memory task and creativity. NeuroImage, 55(2), 681–687. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.052

55. Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and Performance in Multidisciplinary Teams: The Importance of Collective TeamIdentification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532–547.

56. Vartanian, O., Bristol, A. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Neuroscience of creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

57. Ventura, D. F., Pedro Mello Cruz, A., & Landeira-Fernandez, J. (2011). Psychology and innovation. Psychology and Neuroscience, 4(3), 297–298.http://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2011.3.001

58. Walinga, J., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2011). Training insight problem solving through focus on barriers and assumptions. Journal ofCreative Behavior, 45(1), 47–58. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01084.x

59. Wen, M. C., Butler, L. T., & Koutstaal, W. (2013). Improving insight and non-insight problem solving with brief interventions. British Journal ofPsychology, 104(1), 97–118. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02107.x

60. West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in Top Management Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 680–693.

61. Williams Woolley, A., Richard Hackman, J., Jerde, T. E., Chabris, C. F., Bennett, S. L., Kosslyn, S. M., … Kosslyn, S. M. (2007). Using brain-basedmeasures to compose teams: How individual capabilities and team collaboration strategies jointly shape performance. Social Neuroscience, 2(2),96–105. http://doi.org/10.1080/17470910701363041

62. Xing, B., Li, Y. C., & Gao, W. J. (2016). Norepinephrine versus dopamine and their interaction in modulating synaptic function in the prefrontalcortex. Brain Research, 1641, 217–233. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2016.01.005

VI

more than your right brain

Documents