publication . Part of book or chapter of book . Conference object . Other literature type . 2017

Enhancing Creative Thinking by the Manipulation of Computational Feedback to Determine Emotional Intensity

Alwin de Rooij;
Open Access English
  • Published: 22 Jun 2017
  • Publisher: ACM
Abstract
Positive emotions can enhance the ability of people to generate original ideas, and its intensity can determine the degree to which people are able to think originally. How to design a technology that can be used to hack into this link between the intensity of positive emotion and creative thinking is, however, still an open problem. To address this we have conceived, developed, and experimentally evaluated a proof-of-concept interactive system that generates believable computational feedback about the originality of a user's own ideas in real-time. This system can manipulate this feedback to make a user's own ideas appear more or less original than people would...
Subjects
ACM Computing Classification System: ComputerApplications_COMPUTERSINOTHERSYSTEMS
free text keywords: BF, HD28, QA76, creativity, idea generation, computational feedback, positive emotion, Originality, media_common.quotation_subject, media_common, Computer science, Creative thinking, User experience design, business.industry, business, Open problem, Negativity effect, Emotional intensity, Human–computer interaction, Ideation
Related Organizations
34 references, page 1 of 3

1. Akhbari Chermahini, S. and Hommel, B. 2012. More creative through positive mood? Not everyone!. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6, 319.

2. Baas, M., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Nijstad, B.A. 2008. A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?. Psychological Bulletin 134, 6: 779-806. [OpenAIRE]

3. Baas, M., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Nijstad, B.A. 2011. When prevention promotes creativity: the role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of personality and social psychology 100, 5: 794-809. [OpenAIRE]

4. Banerjee, S. and Pedersen, T. 2002. An adapted Lesk algorithm for word sense disambiguation using WordNet. In International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, 136- 145.

5. Blair, C.S. and Mumford, M.D. 2007. Errors in idea evaluation: Preference for the original?. Journal of Creative Behavior 41, 3: 197-222.

6. Brans, K. and Verduyn, P. 2014. Intensity and duration of negative emotions: Comparing the role of appraisals and regulation strategies. PLoS ONE 9, 3: e92410. [OpenAIRE]

7. Brehm, J.W. 1999.The intensity of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3, 2-22.

8. Calvo, R.A. and Peters, D. 2014. Positive computing: technology for wellbeing and human potential. MIT Press.

9. Campbell, W.K. and Sedikides, C. 1999. Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology 3, 23-43.

10. Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. 1998. On the selfregulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press.

11. Cropley, A. 2006. In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal 18, 3: 391-404. [OpenAIRE]

12. de Rooij, A., Broekens, J. and Lamers, M.H. 2013. Abstract expressions of affect. International Journal of Synthetic Emotions 4, 1: 1-31. [OpenAIRE]

13. de Rooij, A., Corr, P. and Jones, S. 2015. Emotion and creativity: Hacking into cognitive appraisal processes to augment creative ideation. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, 265-274.

14. de Rooij, A. and Jones, S. 2015. (E)Motion and creativity: Hacking the function of motor expressions in emotion regulation to augment creativity. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, 145- 152.

15. de Rooij, A. and Jones, S. 2013. Mood and creativity: An appraisal tendency perspective. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition, 362-365.

34 references, page 1 of 3
Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue