Product Inventors and Creativity: The Finer Dimensions of Enjoyment

This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]On: 12 November 2014, At: 04:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Product Inventors and Creativity: The Finer Dimensionsof EnjoymentSheila J. HendersonPublished online: 22 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Sheila J. Henderson (2004) Product Inventors and Creativity: The Finer Dimensions of Enjoyment,Creativity Research Journal, 16:2-3, 293-312, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2004.9651460

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2004.9651460

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10400419.2004.9651460

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2004.9651460

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Product Inventors and Creativity:The Finer Dimensions of Enjoyment

Sheila J. HendersonKaiser Permanente

ABSTRACT: Four product inventors and 2 controlparticipants were interviewed intensively about theircreative process and given a series of personality as-sessments. The inventors expressed a profound levelof emotional experience as part of their creative pro-cess. Though many emotions were mentioned, the in-ventors spoke repeatedly and consistently about theirenjoyment of innovation work. Personality assess-ments indicated, however, that personality alonecould not explain this high level of career happiness.The inventor discussions of their emotional experi-ence were analyzed using the Russ (1993, 1999)model of affect and creativity. Every dimension of theRuss model was found evident in the inventors’ inno-vation experiences. The inventor discussions encour-aged an elaboration and expansion of the model. Onecategory, cognitive integration and modulation of af-fect, was expanded to include the role of intuition.Four new categories were added: affective pleasurein technical perspective-taking, in focus, in creating,and in self-expression. The resulting expanded modelof affect and creativity offers myriad opportunities forfuture researchers interested in scale developmentand in qualitative inquiry with other creative profes-sions. Educators, counselors, and managers seekingto understand how to best foster innovation and ca-reer happiness may also benefit.

Many researchers have noted the joys and frustrationsassociated with the creative process (Bruch, 1988;Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Mace, 1997; Rossman, 1964).Though the inherent pleasure in creativity has been dis-cussed for decades (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996), studiesof affective experience within the creative process haveemerged only within the last 15 years (Shaw, 1989;Shaw & Runco, 1994). Russ (1993, 1999) has offered

perhaps the most comprehensive model of creativityand affect. This model combines research evidence onaffective processes in the creative play of children withother creativity research on the influence of personalityand cognition to provide an integrative model linkingkey personality traits, specific affective dimensions,and cognitive processes.

Concurrently in the last few years, product inven-tors have drawn increasing attention in corporate ini-tiatives (Hewlett-Packard Co., 1999) and the popularand business media (MacFarquhar, 1999; Stipp, 1999).This is a refreshing trend, as traditionally entrepre-neurs leading such organizations (such as Bill Gates,Jim Clark, Bill Hewlett, and David Packard) have gar-nered public interest. In the creativity literature how-ever, there is a glaring neglect of inventors as foci of re-search in general. Historically, creativity literature hasemphasized the personality and cognitions of primar-ily artists and scientists. Although there are many biog-raphies of famous inventors and books that chronicledthe lesser known inventors and their creations, only afew psychological studies of inventors exist (seeBrown, 1988; Henderson, 2002, 2004a, 2004b;Lemelson-MIT Program and National Science Foun-dation, 2004; Rossman, 1964).

Creativity Research Journal2004, Vol. 16, Nos. 2 & 3, 293–312

Copyright © 2004 byLawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Creativity Research Journal 293

I am grateful for in-depth conversations with Paul Costa (NationalInstitute of Health), Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (Claremont GraduateUniversity), Erik Engelson (Versant Ventures), Sam Green (ArizonaState University), David Harrington (UC Santa Cruz), Yvonna S.Lincoln (Texas A&M), Michael Mumford (University of Oklahomaat Norman), Sandra Russ (Case Western Reserve), as well as AlbertBandura, James Gross, Alexis Kaminsky, John Krumboltz, and thelate Rolfe Faste and Buddy Peshkin (all from Stanford University).

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent toSheila J. Henderson, P.O. Box 1063, Palo Alto, CA 94302. E-mail:[email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Feist (1999) called for research on the emotions as-sociated with the scientific process, explaining, “Thereis little empirical evidence regarding the kind and in-tensity of affect experienced in the process of doingscience” (p. 103). Feist also hypothesized that problemsolving is the most likely context in which scientistswill experience intense emotions. It stands to reason,then, that there is a unique opportunity to study the af-fective processes of product inventors, as prob-lem-solving is at the very core of most inventing pro-cesses (Adams, 1972; Faste, 1972). An analysis ofinventors’ expressed experience of the creative processhas the potential to illuminate and expand on currenttheory of affect and creativity.

Russ (1993, 1999) has outlined five affective di-mensions found to be significant in the creative pro-cess: access to affect laden thoughts, openness to affectstates, affective pleasure in challenge, affective plea-sure in problem solving, and cognitive integration ofaffective material. Consequently, this affective processportion of the Russ model (1993, 1999) provided anideal framework for analyzing transcript data fromqualitative interviews with inventors. An in-depth per-spective on the creative processes of four inventors andtwo comparable engineering professionals, using theRuss model, is presented herein.

Background

Inventors as People

Traditionally, inventors have come from all walks oflife. In today’s technological arena, inventors are likelyto be well trained in engineering or other technicalfields. Ironically, actual inventors seldom seem to re-semble the eccentric image depicted in popular mov-ies, such as Christopher Lloyd’s role in Back to the Fu-ture (Gale, 1985). Instead, they tend to be expertproblem solvers who might not stand out in a crowd(MacFarquhar, 1999; Rogers & Larsen, 1986;Rossman, 1964). They are expert problem solvers be-cause the process of inventing new products involvesfirst finding technological conundrums and then dis-covering novel solutions. Some of these new productsmay indeed disrupt and leapfrog current technology,but many are “improvements or intensive inventionswhich add to or improve the existing inventions” (Rog-ers & Larsen, 1986, p. 15). Most are patented. An in-ventor might work alone, in a start-up venture, or in a

large corporate setting, making his or her living creat-ing new products.

Definitions of Creativity

Traditional definitions of creativity have referred tosocial or eminent contributions that lead to the produc-tion of novel ideas or products that solve a problem, fita situation, or accomplish a goal with significance in abroader social context (Amabile, 1983; MacKinnon,1962; Vosburg & Kaufmann, 1999). The prob-lem-solving nature of creative behavior is particularlyrelevant to this study given the focus on inventors.Torrance (1974) explained that problem solving isdeemed creative when the process entails novel and un-conventional thinking as well as high motivation andpersistence. What is missing in these definitions is anymention of the role of emotion. Becker (1994) ad-dressed this by saying creativity is “the healthy enjoy-ment of making something that is original” (p. 170).

Emotions and the Creative Process

The emotional dynamic of creative problem solvingis a topic of emerging interest. In his recent qualitativestudy with 11 engineers and scientists, Shaw (1989,1994) has offered a heuristic model detailing the emo-tional highs and lows that seem to be associated withthe process of scientific discovery. Using McNally’s(1982) phases of creative process (immersion, incuba-tion, illumination, explication, and creative synthesis)as an underlying structure, Shaw (1989, 1994) has of-fered a descriptive reference for what emotions are typ-ically encountered throughout the technical discoveryprocess. As an addition to earlier literature on the in-herent enjoyment of creativity, Shaw (1989, 1994) em-phasized that negative emotions are a normal part ofthe process as well.

What is it about creativity that generates such an ar-ray of emotions? On the neuroanatomical level, cre-ativity is a complex process of cognition and emotion,drawing on the cortex and the limbic system (e.g.,thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, septum, and me-dial forebrain bundle), which in turn stimulate anequally complex array of physiological processes (viathe hypothalamus and pituitary) to support the neuralactivity (Damasio, 1994; Ekman & Davidson, 1994;Sapolsky, 1998). On a finer level, it appears that theneurotransmitter dopamine is intimately associated

294 Creativity Research Journal

S. J. Henderson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

with the creative process (Isen, 1999). Resulting fromthese neuroanatomical and neurochemical processesare emotions, emotional episodes, moods, and affect.

What is the distinction between emotions, emo-tional episodes, mood, and affect? Specific emotionswith positive and negative valence (dimension) aregenerated in the moment in response to specificthoughts or events (Feldman Barrett & Russell, 1999;Gross, 1998). Emotional episodes endure longer butstill remain related to a thought or event. Moods, on theother hand, are less contextual and longer lastingstates, and they themselves can dramatically influencethoughts and behavior (Isen, 1999). Affect, also lesscontextually bound, is considered the superordinatecategory (Feldman Barrett & Russell, 1999; Gross,1998). Because emotions and moods are componentsof affect, this latter term can be best thought of as a pre-disposition toward specific moods and emotions(Feldman Barrett & Russell, 1999; Gross, 1998; Isen,1999; Vosburg & Kaufmann, 1999). As an illustration,someone might feel intense annoyance over a momen-tary encounter while still profoundly enjoying a week-end and have a generally positive outlook on life.

Emotions and Behavior in General

It is widely recognized that emotion has a direct ef-fect on motivation and behavior (Clore, 1994a;Damasio, 1994; Levenson, 1994; Sapolsky, 1998). Al-though people do seem to share some universal charac-teristics of emotion (Ekman, 1994), the range of emo-tional response varies considerably by individual(Averill, 1994) and by culture (Diener & Suh, 2003).Therefore, one universal emotion (e.g., anger or joy)will have different motivating effects across individu-als to varying degrees of efficacy (Averill, 1994).

What accounts for this variation in emotional re-sponse across individuals? People interpret real, re-membered, or imagined events through individualizedmeaning-making or appraisal processes (Averill, 1994;Clore, 1994b). These conscious and unconscious ap-praisal processes depend on three cognitive structures:goals, standards, and attitudes (Clore, 1994b). As anindividual interprets a given event in terms of thesethree precepts, precortical and cortical appraisal pro-cesses will give rise to particular feelings through thelimbic system with corresponding physiological reac-tions. Progress toward or movement away from an in-dividual’s goals or consistency or discord with one’s

standards and attitudes will give an emotion its valence(Frijda, 1994).

Emotions and Creative Behavior inParticular

Emotion and mood are thought to have critical in-fluences on cognitive processing (Levenson, 1994;Martin, Ward, Achee, & Wyer, 1993; Schwarz, 1990).Emotions work in conjunction with cognition pro-cesses to lead individuals to act purposively in their en-vironments (Toobey & Cosmides, 1990). This blend-ing of emotion and cognition is in direct contrast to thesingular emphasis on cognition in traditional creativityliterature (Runco, 1994). In addition, the exploration ofone’s environment is a fundamental human motivation(Cassidy, 1999; Piaget, 1954; White, 1959). Noveltyand variety in the environment are therefore inherentlypleasing to most people.

What is it that will attract the focus of people’s cre-ative energies? The exploration of any environment of-ten involves unexpected circumstances and problemsto be solved. Runco (1994, 1999) has argued that ten-sion arises when one encounters a product, process, orevent that is unexpected, puzzling, or annoying. Forsome, this tension will then spark enough emotion tomobilize a creative energy directed at resolving thisdiscord through creative expression, exploration, dis-covery, or invention. In this respect, problem findinghas been found to be a critical cognitive process (Getz& Lubart, 1999) and central to the process of success-ful artists (Getzels, 1976). It comes as no surprise,then, that creating a “bug list” (a list of things that arebothersome, problematic, or in need of improvement)is a central process for inventors and new product de-signers (Adams, 1972; Faste, 1972; Henderson, 2004;MacFarquhar, 1999).

What is clear now from the literature is that creativ-ity can no longer be fully understood without seriousconsideration of emotions. If tension (mild negativeemotion) motivates creative energy, then positive af-fect acts as the engine. Positive affect is believed to ex-pand cognition and facilitative creative behavior (Feist,1999; Getz & Lubart, 1999; Isen, 1999; Runco, 1999;Russ, 1993, 1999; Shaw & Runco, 1994). Feist (1999)argued that affect is both antecedent and consequent tocreative behavior. Shaw (1989, 1994) has provided evi-dence that a range of emotion, both positive and nega-tive, is concurrent to the creative process.


Product Inventors and Creativity

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The following research questions directed thisstudy of affective process of product inventors: Towhat extent are Russ’s (1993, 1999) five affective pro-cesses found in the expressed emotional processes ofhighly creative people, namely, product inventors?More specifically, along what dimensions is their expe-rience consistent? Where is their experience unique?How does the expressed experience of inventors illu-minate the Russ (1993, 1999) category definitions?Along what dimensions does their experience offer anexpansion or elaboration of the Russ (1993, 1999)model? Finally, is the emotional experience of inven-tors related to personality? This study is unique in itsfocus on the psychology of inventors.

Method

Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered viapersonal interviews and personality assessments withindividuals currently making a living by inventing andwith comparable professionals doing other kinds ofwork. This study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1involved a series of individual and focus group inter-views that explored the creative process of 5 productinventors. The goal of Phase 1 was to generate hypoth-eses about the intra- and interpersonal, environmental,social, and cultural factors influencing the process ofinventing. Phase 2 involved a post facto analysis of theinterview transcripts, as preliminary analyses fromPhase 1 revealed rich data on the emotional experienceaccompanying the creative process. In this secondphase, the interview transcripts were analyzed for con-sistency with Russ’s (1993, 1999) integrative modelcovering personality, affect, and cognition. Whereaspersonality was evaluated via assessment, the qualita-tive data analysis focused exclusively on the affectiveportion of the overall model.

Participants

Seven participants were recruited through word ofmouth, composing a sample of convenience. The 5 in-ventor participants were White, male, and ages 31 to40 years, and they had formal education in engineeringat the bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral level (see Table1). One inventor consented to the assessments but

dropped out of the interview portion of the study be-cause of time constraints, leaving 4 inventorsparticipating fully. The participating inventors had pat-ented inventions for consumer products, consumer andindustrial robotic designs, and medical devices. Twononinventor professionals were recruited later for pur-poses of contrast and comparison (Miles & Huberman,1994). These latter 2 individuals were White and Asianand were 33 and 36 years of age, respectively. Theyboth had master’s level training in engineering butwere making a living as technical marketing profes-sionals—1 working as an independent consultant and 1as a manager in a large corporation.

Procedure

The principle investigator and author conducted allindividual and focus group interviews and adminis-tered the personality assessments.

Measures. The participants consented to the fol-lowing battery of assessments: the Costa McCrae NEOFive Factor Inventory, Form S (Costa & McCrae,1992); the Barron–Welsh Art Preference Scale (Welsh,1987); and the Myers–Briggs Personality Type Indica-tor (Briggs & Myers, 1998). These three assessmentswere chosen for their ease of administration, reliabilityand validity, general orientation toward healthy per-sonality, and prior use in small case studies (McCrae,1993–1994; Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, & Ones, 2000)as advocated by Costa and McCrae (1998). Perhapsless well-known, the Barron–Welsh assessment con-sisted of 85 black and white figures for which the par-ticipants expressed dichotomous preference (like ordislike).

Interviews. A critical issue in any qualitative re-search design is the trade-off between depth andbreadth. The decision point in this study was either tointerview many product inventors once or interview asmaller number with greater depth. Consistent with theprinciple of prolonged engagement (Lincoln, 1985),this study emphasized depth by interviewing a smallnumber of product inventors over a series of individualand focus group interviews.

In this respect, the inventors were invited to become“partners” in the process of research. Because 3 of theinventors worked in the same start-up company, they


S. J. Henderson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

were interviewed individually on site once weekly for3 consecutive weeks. Each week, after the individualinterviews were completed, the principal investigatorand the participants gathered collaboratively as a focusgroup to discuss their impressions and ideas arisingfrom the earlier individual meetings. On Week 4, thepersonality assessment results were reviewed witheach participant individually. (These discussions weretaped but not transcribed.) The other inventor, whoworked at another start-up company, was interviewedseparately, also over a period of 3 weeks. Because ofthe proprietary nature of the work discussed, he did notparticipate in the focus group with the other inventors.His assessments were also reviewed during Week 4.

The individual interviews were semistructured andguided by a list of open-ended questions. In line withthe multivariate perspective of creativity (Csikszent-mihalyi, 1990a; Harrington, 1990; Mumford, 1988),the inventor participants were asked for their perspec-tive on the intrapersonal, interpersonal, environmental,social, and cultural factors influencing their inventivesuccess. The interviewing prompts were designed toelicit affective rather than descriptive content.

The focus group meetings were not guided by inter-view protocols. The conversation instead focused onsynthesizing the learning that had come earlier that dayduring the individual interviews. There are advantagesand limitations of such an interview strategy (Morgan,1993). Gathering as a group allowed us to combine ourimpressions and move beyond our current understand-ing of the creative process. In this spirit, the inventorschallenged each other’s thinking and my own. Certainissues were explored much more deeply than wouldhave been possible on an individual basis. However,gathering as a group also allowed the inventors to influ-ence each other’s perspectives on the creative process.Given the exploratory nature of this study, the advan-tages of such a focus group are believed to consider-ably outweigh any disadvantages.

The two noninventing professionals were inter-viewed using the same interview protocol. Because ofinsurmountable logistics, they were interviewed byphone. No focus group was conducted for the controlgroup.

All inventor interviews were audio- and videotapedand transcribed verbatim; the control group phone in-terviews were audio-taped and similarly transcribed.As was recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994),

the tapes and written transcripts were reviewed be-tween each round of weekly interviews.1

Given the collaborative nature of our research pro-cess, the inventor participants voiced curiosity in Week2 about what outcomes were arising from our conver-sations. To address their intrigue, I conducted a“real-time” interim analysis of the transcript data be-tween the second and third round of interviews. Thisinterim review served to explicate the multivariate in-fluences discovered thus far and also to check the prin-cipal investigator’s evaluative conclusions againstthose of the inventor participants. These interim resultswere shared with each inventor participant individuallybefore their third interview and again during the focusgroup. Finally in the fourth meeting, all assessmentswere scored and reviewed with the participants and re-lated to what we had learned about the creative processin general.

The interim review facilitated three important de-velopments in the overall interview process. First, theprincipal investigator was able to improve the accuracyof the overall data analysis by comparing interim con-clusions with the inventor participants’ actual lived ex-perience of inventing work. Second, these inventor par-ticipants were intelligent individuals in fast-pacedindustries in which time was at a premium. Individ-ually and as a group, they were investing significanttime into the research and therefore were interested inthe practical significance of their participation. This in-terim review responded in real time to their expressedneeds for a process review, the results of which ap-peared to sustain the participants’ enthusiasm for con-tinued time investment. Third, and perhaps most im-portant, we were able deepen our exploration of theinvention process one step beyond the interim results.

This collaborative strategy was consistent withqualitative method suggested by constructivist, phen-omenological researchers promoting participatory ac-tion research (Whyte, 1991), such as interim caseanalysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and responsive



1Minor problems were encountered at the outset of the inventorinterviews. The audio tape of the first interview was damaged, andthe videotape quality was not good enough for accurate verbatimtranscription. In response to this event, I instituted redundant au-dio-tape recordings for all subsequent interviews, avoiding any fur-ther mishap. In addition, I observed significant transcription error inthe first two sets of interviews. These transcripts were retranscribedby another transcriber. No further problems were encountered.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

298C

reativity Research Journal

S. J. Henderson

Table 1. Participant Profiles, Scores, and Affective Processes

Name (Pseudonym) Comparison With Norms

Russell Paul Jason Troy Martin Alex Ben M SD

%AmongSample

%Norms

Profession Inventor Inventor Inventor Inventor Inventor Marketingengineer

Marketingconsultant

Study Participation Full Full Full Full Partial Full FullAge 40 38 31 34 37 36 33Race White White White White White Asian WhiteEducation BA BA BA MA PhD MA MAField Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering

Costa McCrae NEO Five Factor Inventory (T scores)a

Neuroticism 59 36 63 38 34 37 63 50 10Extraversion 44 55 43 21 51 62 70 50 10Openness to Experienceb 52 57 74 75 69 57 65 50 10Agreeability 44 60 20 46 48 64 40 50 10Conscientiousness 41 57 41 52 67 57 41 50 10

Barron–Welsh Art Preference Scalec

BW Sum 24 12 50 36 29 35 10 15 11RA Sum 27 20 49 37 23 44 14 17 12BW–Like 13 11 16 13 9 16 6BW–Dislike 11 1 34 23 20 19 4RA–Like 20 19 24 19 8 24 12RA–Dislike 7 1 25 18 15 20 2

Myers–Briggs Personality Type Indicatord

Type ENFP INTP ENTP INTP E-INFP ENTP ENFPExtroversion (E)–Introversion (I) 14–7 10–11 13–8 10–11 10–10 18–3 19–2 33–67 49–51Sensing (S)–Intuition (N) 5–21 13–13 3–23 3–23 4–21 3–23 2–24 0–100e 73–27Thinking (T)–Feeling (F) 7–17 18–6 19–5 19–5 10–14 15–9 5–19 43–57 40–60Judging (J)–Perceiving (P) 3–19 10–12 4–18 1–21 6–16 10–12 5–17 0–100f 54–46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Creativity R

esearch Journal299

Product Inventors and C

reativity

Name (Pseudonym)

Russell Paul Jason Troy Martin Alex Ben

Comparison With Categories of Affective ProcessOriginal Russ Model Categories

Access to Affect Laden Thoughts X XOpenness to Affect States X X X XAffective Pleasure in Challenge X X X X X XAffective Pleasure in Problem-Solving X X X X X XCognitive Integration/Modulation of Affect X X X X X X

New CategoriesAffect Pleasure in Technical Perspective Taking X X X X XAffective Pleasure in Focus X X X X XAffective Pleasure in Creating X X X X X XAffective Pleasure in Self-Expression X X X X

Note. BW = Barron-Welsh; RA = Revised Art Scale; ENFP = Extroversion Intuition Feeling Perceiving; INTP = Introversion Intuition Thinking Perceiving; ENTP = Extroversion Intu-ition Thinking Perceiving; E-INFP = Extroversion–Introversion (equal) Intuition Feeling Perceiving. BW and RA used in combination in overall assessment (Welsh, 1987). Underliningdenotes significant pattern of scores.aNorms for the NEO Five Factor Inventory are based on scores from 500 men selected from three larger validity studies (Costa and McCrae, 1992) bz-value for Openness to Experience =2.29 (p = 0.02) relative to normative representative sample. cRough comparison for the Barron–Welsh is from a study of 75 males; comprehensive norms are not available (Welsh, 1975,1987). dNorms for the Myers–Briggs Personality Type Indicator are based on scores from a national representative sample of 3,036 people (49% male, 73% white, mean age = 46) eForintution, χ2(1, 7) = 15.4, p = .0001, relative to normative sample proportions. fFor perceiving, χ2(1, 7) = 6.19, p = .0129, relative to normative sample proportions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

evaluation (Stake, 1975). In addition, Y. S. Lincoln(personal communication, March 30, 2003) advocatedthe value of responding to opportunities to give back toparticipants during the qualitative research process.Positivists, on the other hand, look at qualitative re-search in terms of potential threats to validity(Maxwell, 1992). In a comparative discussion of “va-lidity” for qualitative and quantitative research, Winter(2000) offered the following: “An understanding of[the] nature of ‘truth’ is central to any theorisation of‘validity’” (p. 1). In his comparison of validity con-cepts for both types of research, Winter (2000) sug-gested that the appropriate inquiry in qualitative re-search is as follows: “Is it measuring the kind of ‘truth’it hoped to measure?” (last ¶). When the interim reviewis considered from the point of view of Winter’s (2000)inquiry, the accuracy of the data analysis as an accuratereflection of the “true” lived experience of the inventorparticipants in their creative work was clearly en-hanced by the interim review.

Analysis. The process of analysis involved bothinductive and deductive analysis of the data in fivesteps. First, the author reviewed all 20 transcripts(200+ pages) from the individual and focus group in-terviews for expressions of emotion. These expres-sions were compared with the five categories of affec-tive process offered in the Russ (1993, 1999) model.The existing model captured some expressions. Forothers, new categories of affective process emerged.Formal definitions were drafted for the resulting ninecategories (see Table 2).

Second, two graduate students in psychology wererecruited to participate as paid raters. A coding manualwas developed to train and guide the raters. All categorydefinitions were rewritten and expanded for clarity. Atest was constructed to evaluate the raters’ understand-ing of the categories. The category definitions and ratermanual were reviewed with Sandra Russ during twoseparate2-hr-longphoneconversations.Theratersweretrained and tested for their preparedness for coding.

Third, using a chunking technique (Miles &Huberman, 1994), the principal investigator read againall transcripts from the individual and focus group inter-views. This time, the expressions of affect were high-lighted for later coding.

Fourth, the two raters separately reviewed randomlyselected groups of transcripts and coded each expres-sion of affect using letter codes associated with the

nine categories of affective processes in Table 2. Theprincipal investigator coded all transcripts using thesame process. Once the coding was finished, the ratersreported in their ratings. Interrater reliability was cal-culated to evaluate each rater’s consistency with theprincipal investigator’s coding (81% and 84%) andtheir consistency with each other (75%).

Fifth, after the ratings were reported, the principalinvestigator and the coders discussed all inconsisten-cies to find areas of consensus. New interraterreliabilities were calculated. After these consensusmeetings, the raters showed a 92% consistency witheach other and a 93% and 97% consistency with theprincipal investigator’s ratings.

Results

As an overarching theme, the inventors in this studyspoke repeatedly and consistently about how much theyenjoyed their innovation work. There was a blithesomequality to how they talked about this enjoyment. Ratherthan evoking themes of emotional intensity, the partici-pantsexpressedsentimentsmoreassociatedwithplayasexpressed by one participant inventor, Jason (all namesare pseudonyms): “I think the act of creating is fun. Ihave a blast. Some days we sit around and spend half theday brainstorming good ideas and things. That’s justfun.” Not only did fun seem to come out of the creativeproductbut it alsoseemedtobeanessential ingredient tothe creative process. Jason remarked:

I think that there’s got to be an atmosphere of funand play to it. Not to say that that’s absolutely re-quired because there’s certainly been a lot oftimes when that atmosphere has not been presentand you still come up with good solutions toproblems. … But I think if you are really goingto foster people’s creativity and you are going tofoster the job satisfaction of creative people, thenthat has to be there. And most places that I’vebeen that have been like that, it’s a hotbed ofpractical joking.

However, the inventor participants confirmed the de-manding nature of inventing work, requiring persistenteffort over long hours without immediate reward, con-sistent with findings in two prior studies of inventors


S. J. Henderson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

(Brown, 1988; Rossman, 1964). Paul talked about onesuch relentless effort enduring over 2 years:

We went back and forth and forth and back onthat and spent really two solid years trying to getto a … [product] which would do all those things… we kept coming back at it, looking at just doz-ens of different designs, making one design afteranother, one day after another … working dayand night to come up with a design that wouldwork … a whole lot of effort. I probably spent awhole lot more time there than anybody else,coming back to work in the evening because itjust takes a certain amount of work … it was a lotof fun, and I wanted to make it work.

How is it, then, that these inventors can experience thismerriment alongside grueling effort? The results fromthe personality assessments and from the analysis of

affective processes help to sort out the psychologicalfoundation of their happiness.

Personality Assessments

Humor and play have been recognized as a criticaldimension of productivity (Epstein, 2000; Kelley,2001; Oech, 1998). One might suppose that these in-ventors are generally happy people, and therefore theiroverall positive outlook naturally reflects itself in theirblithesome approach to innovation. Certainly, researchhas indicated that people with high Extraversion (E)and low Neuroticism (N) tend to have higher levels ofoverall subjective well-being (Costa & McCrae, 1980;Larsen & Ketalaar, 1991).

NEO Five Factor Inventory and Myers–BriggsPersonality Type Indicator. The inventor partici-pants demonstrated personality assessment scores that



Table 2. Affective Processes: Elaboration and Expansion of the Russ (1993, 1999) Model

Category Description

Original Russ Categories1. Access to Affect Laden Thoughts A blending of affect and cognition in thoughts and mental images. Imagination,

fantasy, and images in daydreams. Ideas coming forth from a relaxed state ofmind, sometimes between dreaming and waking.

2. Openness to Affect States Ability to experience, tolerate and enjoy affect in its broad range of feeling.Comfort with intense affect. Ability to experience and tolerate negativeaffect, such as frustration, anxiety, anger, and disappointment.

3. Affective Pleasure in Challenge Experience of tension, excitement and pleasure associated with the process ofworking on a difficult task. Valuing the challenge of the creative process.

4. Affective Pleasure in Problem Solving Deep pleasure in solving a problem and achieving insight. The fun and relief ofhaving worked long and hard and finally done it!

Modified Russ Category5. Cognitive Integration and Modulation of Affect A sense of intuition based on integration of cognitive and affective signals. A

problem-solving approach that includes thinking and feeling. Letting a senseof intuition lead in the discovery process. Having a feel for the answer, oftenexpressed in the abstract or relative to problem solving.

New Categories6. Affective Pleasure in Technical Perspective Taking Ability to consider a product in terms of dimension, functionality, and aesthetic

properties through imagination. Being able to think, feel and act like aparticular product that is being created. A kind of technicalperspective-taking that goes one step beyond intuition. Being able to take theperspective of the product or that of the potential customer.

7. Affective Pleasure in Focus Taking pleasure in moments of intense focus. Deep emotional engagement inthe process.

8. Affective Pleasure in Creating Enjoyment and pleasure and pride in creating value, making an improvement orbringing something new into existence. Forging a new path, a new idea.Coming to a new understanding.

9. Affective Pleasure in Self-Expression Pleasure in self-expression. Enjoying bring something forth that is a deepexpression of self in terms of personal thoughts, feelings and novel ideas thatcomes deeply from within.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

were in contrast to the “happy” profile (high E, low N)found in other studies (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Larsen& Ketalaar, 1991). The participants instead showedmixed profiles on the N and the E dimensions of theNEO; the extroversion–introversion dimension on theMyers–Briggs also showed mixed scores among theparticipants (see Table 1). The small sample size obvi-ated calculation of statistical significance between theparticipant scores. Small differences between partici-pants may therefore seem more significant than theywould be among a larger sample. However, the com-parison of participant scores with published norms re-vealed some interesting trends:

1. All participants scored average to very high onOpenness to Experience (O) on the NEO. A statisticalcomparison of these scores with the normative repre-sentative sample suggested that this result occurredmore often than would be expected by chance. Anonparametric (Wilcoxon signed-rank) test revealed az value of 2.29 (p = .02).

2. All participants showed equal or stronger traitsin intuitive and perceiving scores on the Myers–Briggsthan would be expected by chance. A comparison ofthese scores with the normative sample using aone-sample proportion test with continuity correctionrevealed, for intuition scores, χ2(1, N = 7) = 15.4, p =.0001, and, for perceiving scores, χ2(1, N = 7) = 6.19, p= .0129.

The high “openness to experience” (O) scores areconsistent with previous studies that have establishedcorrelation between this dimension and creativity ingeneral (Costa & McCrae, 1980). Also the O dimen-sion on the NEO has been found positively correlatedwith the intuitive dimension on the Myers–Briggs inother studies (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Myers,McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998). Of interest,high scores in Conscientiousness (C) on the NEO aretypically associated with strong judging scores on theMyers–Briggs (Myers et al., 1998). In this sample,however, the inventors who scored high on the C di-mension of the NEO still showed average or strongerperceiving scores on the Myers–Briggs. This generalpattern of scores may make sense when viewed as anopenness–intuition–perceiving profile also found to beassociated with creativity by Costa and McCrae (1980)and by Myers et al. (1998). This openness–intu-ition–perceiving profile may suggest an eye for possi-

bilities, unknown patterns, curiosity, and perceptive-ness, coupled with openness to experience and a flexi-ble “wait and see” orientation. This profile also may besimilar to the “delay in problem foreclosure” found inthe process of creating novelty in art. Both Getzels(1976) and Mace (1997) provided evidence that thelonger artists considered and experimented with differ-ent solutions, the more original the artistic outcome.Therefore, evidence for the openness–intuition–per-ceiving profile found in this study may suggest a corre-lative relationship between these personality dimen-sions and originality in invention that could be tested infuture research.

Overall, the assessment scores presented in Table 1offer inspiration for future research on how creative en-deavor can be incorporated into the daily experience ofpeople struggling to attain happiness in their work andpersonal lives.

Barron–Welsh Art Preference Scale. To studythe artistic preference for complexity among the inven-tor participants and to illustrate how those scores com-pare to their personality profiles, I analyzed the scoreson the Barron–Welsh Art Preference Scale and thencompared them with the scores on the NEO and theMyers–Briggs. Consistent with prior studies evaluat-ing creativity, the participants scored divergently onthe Barron–Welsh Art Preference Scale. The norma-tive samples indicated that the highest art complexitypreferences are associated with professions such as ar-chitecture, fine art, writing, and music. In this norma-tive sample, engineers and scientists tended to score ataverage levels of preference for artistic complexity.

The inventor participant scores ranged from verylow to very high, indicating varied preferences for aes-thetic complexity (see Table 1). In terms of how the in-ventor participant art preference scores compared withtheir personality assessment metrics, the participantswith higher O scores on the NEO tended to have thehigher art scores, but not universally. This is consistentwith prior studies evaluating construct validity of theart scale. Specifically discussing convergent validity,Welsh (1975) explained that the correlates of this test“are no simple matter” (p. 67). Similarly, a more recentstudy found mixed correlations between this test andother measures of creativity (Furnham, 1999). Themixed nature of these results may both be consistentwith weak convergent validity of the assessment itself


S. J. Henderson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

and may indicate that preference for artistic complex-ity is not central for success in technical innovation.

The qualitative study did explore what role artplayed in the inventor participants’ lives. The interviewanalyses suggested that these art scores tended to re-flect each participant’s level of exposure to, interest in,and aesthetic appreciation for art, just as purported byWelsh (1975), rather than specific innovation talent.For example, the two inventors with the highest artscores (Jason and Troy in Table 1) spoke of their enjoy-ment of creating fine art: sculpture, painting, writing,and music. Troy, in particular, had written about hisphilosophy of incorporating fine art into engineeringdesign. Alex (in the control group) also had a high artscore. In the interviews, he spoke about his enjoymentof fine art, his docent service in an art museum, and hisknack for writing skits and stories both inside and outof work. Art did not play as strong of a role in Russell’slife, reflected in his midrange scores, though he didspeak of enjoying art museums. Paul and Ben ex-pressed less interest in art than did the others, whichmay account for their relatively low scores. Therefore,one might hypothesize that the Barron–Welsh Art Pref-erence Scale results may be correlated with exposureto, involvement in, and interest in art rather than spe-cific ability in inventing per se.

Affective Processes

Another way to examine the inventors’ enjoymentof their work is to review their expressed experienceaccording to the finer dimensions of affective process.The five dimensions of the Russ (1993, 1999) modelwere evident in the participants’ expressed experience,though not universally in the control group. In addi-tion, four other dimensions emerged from the tran-script analysis, thus offering nine affective processes intotal (see Table 2). The participants’ experiences arediscussed subsequently according to these nine catego-ries. See Table 1 for a comparison of the affective pro-cesses in relation to the personality assessments.

Access to affect laden thoughts. This category,an original from the Russ (1993, 1999) model, refers toa blending of affect and cognition in thoughts and men-tal images often occurring in imagination, fantasy, andimages in daydreams. Imagination and fantasy are con-sidered critical to the healthy development of children(Singer, 1998b) and are common in the waking con-

sciousness of adults (Singer, 1998a). These affectladen thoughts might come forth from a relaxed stateof mind, sometimes a time between dreaming and wak-ing, or from alert states of excitement and anticipation.Whereas none of the control group participants dis-cussed such affect experience as part of their work life,2 out of the 4 inventors did refer to their experiences,which seemed to influence either their inventing pro-cess or their personal recreation time. For example, in-ventor Russell’s fantasies about the fanfare his inven-tion would receive were often a powerful motivatingforce as he neared the point of discovery. “I get ex-tremely emotional, like [a] puppy wags its tail,” Rus-sell explained. “I’m thinking of a dozen doctors who Iwant to show this to.” Russell also used this dreamystate in a different way in order to generate ideas:

Sometimes you just kind of like float away, in themind, so deep. It’s just a matter of how much youcan insulate yourself from anything else around.And then as deeper you can go into that, some-how you just go and picking up those ideas. …Just a matter of finding yourself and understand-ing yourself, how to get there.

Troy talked of a similar process that he uses to rechargehis energies:

It’s that period … between sleep and awake. Iused to joke, the time I spent conceptualizing.Everybody else said it was taking a nap, but forme it was conceptualizing, because it was verymuch driving that edge between sleep andawake. So I remember very vividly … warmmemories of that every day.

David Levy, a popular inventor whose story appearedin the New Yorker (MacFarquhar, 1999), talked aboutrelying on a “fantasy method” while lying in bed forhis inventing success. Of interest, Troy recounted asimilar fantasy process that he enjoys when lying inbed:

That ability to put yourself some other place orsome other time and walk around in that worldand sort of experience that world first hand, justlike you’re there. … It’s probably happened acouple of times this week, where I find myselfwalking around outside my house, laying in bed.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Just checking things out. … I can put myself outthere, I can describe the world to you in prettyclear detail, and feel like I’m actually out theredoing it.

This process also plays into Troy’s inventing work, asshown in affective pleasure in technical perspectivetaking.

Openness to affect states. This original Russ(1993, 1999) category refers to the ability to experi-ence, tolerate, and enjoy affect in its broad range offeeling. It involves comfort with intense affect and theability to experience and tolerate negative affect, suchas frustration, anxiety, anger, and disappointment. Thiscategory is consistent with Shaw’s research (1989,1994) on the range of affect experienced by 11 scien-tists and engineers. In this study, 3 of the 4 inventorsand 1 of the control participants discussed their open-ness and willingness to tolerate intense affect. For ex-ample, Jason humorously recounted his unpleasant ex-perience when one of his products failed duringclinical trials:

I came back from the clinicals and it was like,“Shit!” That was pretty stressful. I had a situationwhere it was basically 24 hours a day of consid-eration and trying to figure out what was goingon and sleeping and waking … until somethingjust finally fell together. … I hated my job[laughs]. I wished I’d gone into archeology. Notreally. It was very challenging but it was verystressful, and I think a lot of the stress was proba-bly self-generated. … From feeling the responsi-bility of having designed this thing … that failedin a completely unanticipated way and feelinglike it was my design, it was my failure, it’s myresponsibility to fix it.

Similarly, Russell explained the polarity of emotionthat inventing work evokes:

There can be pain too … you can experience itwith both. If you create something that reallybrings you that satisfaction of making an im-provement. But if you cannot get to it and youjust keep banging into a brick wall, then it’s notpleasant.

Troy was philosophical about the emotional journey ofinventing: “I think in order to do design in any sense, Ithink you need to at least come to terms with the pro-cess if not actually like the process of doing that.”However, later in the interview, he clarified how diffi-cult and exhilarating the work can be:

I don’t mean to make it sound too easy becauseit’s usually terribly traumatic. It’s exhausting. Atthe end of the day you are just completelytrashed and have kind of had it. It’s frightening.There are periods where you are just scared todeath of what you have done when you let yourmind take over and realize what the reality [is] ofwhat you have committed to on the scheduleyou’ve committed to … so it’s frightening, it’sexhausting, it’s totally exhilarating, it’s just ablast, it’s fun, and the moments where you kindof turn the corner and see the vision of theglimpse of all of a sudden where you need to go.

Affective pleasure in challenge. Another cate-gory in the Russ (1993, 1999) model covers the posi-tive pole of inventing—the experience of tension, ex-citement, and pleasure associated with the process ofworking on a difficult task. This process involvesdeeply valuing the challenge of the creative process,which was discussed universally by all the participants,inventors and control. One inventor, Paul, talked abouthow he was motivated by challenge:

It’s probably an element of pride in it that I amnot willing to say, “It can’t be done. ” That’s onething I learned fairly early on is that to say thatsomething “can’t be done” is a totally unreward-ing response. It doesn’t make anybody elsehappy. It doesn’t make you happy. It usually isn’ttrue. Usually, almost anything can be done if youreally want to, if you really try at it hard enough,and so you’ve got to persuade yourself, teachyourself never to say something “can’t be done.”You’ve got to teach yourself to say, “I just have-n’t hit it yet.” And so you definitely learn overtime to keep your mind in a certain frame to beable to keep going at a challenge.

Ben, a marketing consultant from the control group,talked about a very similar energy derived from chal-lenge:


S. J. Henderson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

No, I built a raft because my father thought I wasreally bad with wood. He didn’t think I could doit, and I did it. I would tell you that many of myinnovations and creative things have alwaysseemed to be spurred on by someone saying Icouldn’t do it. They didn’t believe I could do it.So I would do it just because it would piss me offthat someone would think that I couldn’t do it.I’ve done that many times.

Later, Ben went on to say, “So to me, yes, I will tell youI do get energized in a way to go fight the fight.”

Affective pleasure in problem solving. AnotherRuss (1993, 1999) category addresses the deep plea-sure in solving a problem and achieving insight. Ratherthan the involvement in challenge, this is the fun andrelief of having worked long and hard and finally suc-ceeded in discovery. Another seemingly universal pro-cess, all interviewed participants (including controls)discussed their experiences in this regard. Paul, one in-ventor, talked frankly about his perspective:

You can kind of get the problem presented inyour head and develop a sense of urgency aboutit and a sense that you have to solve it and then aget a sense of relief when you have solved it.

Russell, a passionate inventor by nature, discussed hismoments of discovery:

I always love those moments. Those are the mo-ments when you cannot wait to try it … it couldbe instant pleasure. Again, it depends howdeeply you believe that you’ve solved it. …Youare close to it. And that’s very interesting … thenonce I get the idea, it’s a very rewarding emo-tional feeling … there’s relief. [Laughs].

Another enthusiastic inventor, Jason, talked about hisexperience of problem solving:

Usually what happens is you kind of get a firstflash of, “Hey, what if I do this? ” That’s part ofthe answer. But then when you’re sitting in thelab and you’re making, putting something to-gether and all of a sudden something looks likeit’s actually going to work, that’s what’s reallyfun.

Cognitive integration and modulation of af-fect. Russ (1999) defined this category as “the cog-nitive regulation and control of emotional processes”(p. 58). Russ (1993) described this as “a cognitive–af-fective process crucial in adaptive creative function-ing” (p. 13). Establishing the link to the model of cog-nitive processes, Russ (1993) elaborated that “theglobal capacity to cognitively control and integrate theaffective material would be important in enablingevaluative ability, critical thinking, and logical thoughtprocesses to become dominant at appropriate times”(p. 15). Intuition has been defined elsewhere as a pro-cess that often involves not only critical evaluation butalso feeling one’s way through a series of cognitive de-cision-making steps (Damasio, 1994). It is an integra-tion of cognitive and affective signals drawing con-sciously and unconsciously from a broad base oftechnical and experiential knowledge that allows novelinsight and discovery. Therefore, this particular Russ(1993, 1999) category was expanded to include intu-ition as a key component.

Intuition emerged as an important element to the in-ventor participants’ decision processes. All partici-pants, whether in the inventor or the control group,talked about relying on their intuition as they resolvedthe issues in their daily working life. They discussedtheir intuition as a skill derived from a wide breadth ofknowledge built over years of experience, dating backto their childhood years of tinkering and experimenta-tion. Of particular interest was how they seemed to al-low emotion to partner with their cognitive processes,both to hone their insight abilities and to narrow therange of possible solutions under consideration. Themarketing manager, Alex, explained

If they start to go in a direction where they’retalking about something that I don’t think is go-ing to be worthwhile, then I disengage. So defi-nitely, how it plays on my own emotions, how Ifeel about it certainly matters in terms of howI’m going to either redirect it or just stop work-ing on it.

Russell, an inventor, recounted his sense of intuition:“You can smell it. You are close to it.” Later he elabo-rated: “[It’s] a gut feel. When you have many ways togo and you just have a sense of knowing about a certaindirection.” Paul was careful to point out how his senseof knowing worked hand in hand with his critical



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

thinking skills: “It just takes a certain amount of work… you have to get a feel for it. See if what you’ve donereally works the way you want it to and then evolve itagain and again and again.” Jason similarly explainedthat intuition as a process drawing from a breadth ofknowledge:

It’s not a flash of lightening from the blue. It’ssome sort of iterative process. … I don’t eventhink that intuition is necessarily some mysteri-ous thing. I think it’s an application of a subcon-scious experience, subconscious knowledge thatyou’ve collected in the past and now it’s just kindof helping you work towards this conclusion.

Alex, the marketing manager, discussed his intuition asa sequential process of sifting through trade-offs: “Youare your own self-contained conjoint analysis. You’reweighing the various features against one another andfinding out which ones are the most important. So,that’s where intuition comes in a lot.” Jason, Russell,and Troy explicitly described their intuition as a guid-ing force in their cognitive evaluations. Jason and Troy,in particular, talked about how they used their intuitionto save time in the design process, avoiding time-con-suming analysis of less promising alternatives. How-ever, in so doing, they often experienced frustration intrying to articulate their sense of knowing to colleaguesquestioning their process. For example, Jason com-mented

When I’m making decisions based on intuition, alot of the time I don’t consciously know what ex-perience it is that’s leading me there or what for-mal training it is. You know I’m pretty sure thatmy gut feeling somewhere has [a] basis in thosethings, but a lot of the time it’s still just a gut feel-ing. I just know that it’s not going to work. I can’ttell you why it’s not going to work, but if you goahead and test it, I guarantee you it’s not going towork. I’ve had raging battles with people overstatements exactly like that.

Similarly, Troy said

For me it’s just intuitive. Trying to go back andactually put [a] technical description of why I be-lieve this thing is intuitive, it’s kind of an absurdposition to be put in which is trying to put words

around an intuitive sense that this is right, and itjust is.

Affective pleasure in technical perspective tak-ing. As the participants talked about their creativeexperiences, a new category emerged that addressedtheir ability to consider a product in terms of dimen-sion, functionality, and aesthetic properties throughperspective taking. Five of the 6 participants (3 inven-tors, 2 control) talked with pleasure about their abilityto take the perspective of an object or a person—that is,being able to think, feel, and act like a potential productor customer. As illustrated subsequently, this processseems to rely on some form of fantasy (access to affectladen thoughts) as well as to depend on and reinforcetechnical intuition (cognitive integration and modula-tion of affect). However, it stands alone as a new cate-gory because of its unique role in the process of bring-ing products or novel programs into existence.

“You’re trying to project what someone else wouldfeel about it. You get a feeling of what the rank priorityis, and you feel what somebody else is doing,” ex-plained Alex, the marketing manager, as the way heused perspective taking to assess his customer needs.Russell, another inventor of medical devices, ex-plained that “you become one with your project.” Dur-ing a focus group session, Paul concurred with Russell,saying:

It gets so that you can … really see the coils …you just know exactly how that’s twisting andturning, and you know what’s happening withthe coil wire … because it’s in your head, a men-tal image. Not only a picture but the feel ofwhat’s going on with it.

Troy, an inventor, expressed his enjoyment of this pro-cess:

It’s a blast. …To be able to just visualize thingsin your head and move them around and under-stand relationships without having to build them.I prototype a lot in my head. … I create the prod-uct in my head, and I visualize what it is and I vi-sualize the color and the form and I have a pic-ture of it and I can walk around it and I can see it,and then I can kind of look at that and kind oflook internally and go, “Does that create the ex-perience I was looking for?” … This idea of vi-


S. J. Henderson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

sualization and being able to put that up againstthe yardstick that you are looking for, this ulti-mate experience that you are trying to create. …It’s extremely important to me, this idea ofspending time inside my head.

In a separate session, Troy explained that this pro-cess involves, “The idea of being about to empathizewith the object. For me, it had always been working insomething [italics added] as opposed to working on it.”As Troy described the process of creating one of hismost lucrative robotic creations, he recounted

It kind of told me what it wanted to be … theproduct tells you something about who it is justby its structure. Just by what it is. How it takes upspace … just by its presence. These things have apresence, just the way they are, and the way theyinteract with the rest of their surroundings. …Maybe a better way to put it would be to say themoment I saw it, I knew how the product shouldmake you feel.

Affective pleasure in focus. Also new, this cate-gory addresses the pleasure associated with periods ofintense focus—the experience of deep emotional en-gagement in a task. The process mentioned here is con-sistent with Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990b) construct of“flow.” Five out of the 6 participants talked about thisdimension of the creative experience, particularly interms of the pleasure and utility of such a state.

“I enjoy being focused on something—where Idon’t have to worry about a lot of distractions,” com-mented Alex, the marketing manager. Troy, an inven-tor, commented similarly, “I’m a much, much happierperson when I have moments of focus and moments ofcreative flow … it’s a craving, needing that immersionand isolation and trying to get back there.”

The inventors talked about their enjoyment of thisstate of focus even though it did, at times, impinge ontheir personal life. “It does start to consume you more,”Paul said, “and gradually over some point you startspending less time with friends or family or whateverelse you really focus on. You definitely can get con-sumed by it.” Later he went on to say, “I mean it can bedistracting. I can annoy my wife to have me thinkingabout other things all the time … [even so,] it’s a prettygood thing.”

“For me it’s a pretty critical element,” Jason, an in-ventor, said, “Finding that focus and that point of fo-cus.” In a focus group session, Paul agreed, reflectingon the stimulation of their inventing work, “Therearen’t that many things that can really get you com-pletely hooked. With your mind, your whole mindthinking about one thing and enjoying the process ofthinking about one thing.” Another inventor, Russell,explained, “That’s what helps you, I guess, to com-pletely isolate your mind from anything else and justkeeping in the focus.” Troy separately commented on aparticularly prolific period of his inventing career: “Icould go there and just kind of lose myself for hours orliterally days at a time.”

Consistent with Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby,and Herron’s (1996) research on work environmentand its influence on creative innovation, the inventorstalked about how an environment can interfere withtheir ability to deeply engage in their work. “I’d be thehappiest guy in the world if [company name] suddenlywent to offices instead of cubicles,” commented Alex,the marketing manager. Troy talked of similar strug-gles: “So oftentimes it’s now, after hours … where I ac-tually get the opportunity to have three minutes unin-terrupted … So the moments of flow are few and farbetween, between nine and six.” Consistent with theothers, Russell commented on how stress affected hiscreativity: ”I know some people who the more stressedthey get, the more creative they get [laughs]. … I thinkit’s probably very individual. For me, I’m a piece ofshit when I’m stressed.”

Affective pleasure in creating. This new cate-gory captures the enjoyment and pleasure and pride increating value, making an improvement or bringingsomething new into existence. Just as the participantsunanimously discussed the affective pleasure of chal-lenge and the affective pleasure of problem solving, allsix also talked about this particular process on a quali-tatively different level. Here it is simply the enjoymentin creating itself—the act of forging a new path, dis-covering a new idea, coming to a new understanding orcreating something new. One inventor, Russell, ex-plained

You create something that really brings you thatsatisfaction of making an improvement. … If itgoes to market then you know that thousands ofpeople are treated with it every day. And that’s



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

incredible motivation! … Or like if you get athank you letter from someone that says, “thankyou for designing or creating the device whichsaved my child.”

Paul expressed a similar sentiment by saying, “[It’s]the joy of creating things, whether it’s making things,creating things … the creative part is the most fun andit’s what I do well. It’s what I get to do.”

In this respect, the inventors were indeed fortunatein that their work involved creating in some form everyday. The 2 control participants were not as fortunate inthis respect. For example, Alex, the marketing man-ager, said, “I wouldn’t say I’m getting a lot of creativecontent out of my job.” Later, Alex reflected, “It’s kindof sad thinking about ten years worth of work.” Bothcontrol participants, however, talked about how theycompensated for this deficit by finding ways to createoutside their immediate job function. For example,Ben, the marketing consultant, said

The other factor I enjoy is, I like helping organi-zations grow. All during my career [as a graduatestudent], I helped student organizations grow. Iwas always doing [these] other things to keep myhappiness up. … I love the creation. It’s some-thing to do. I love to create and be able to leavethe earth a little bit better than where I left it.

Alex, the marketing manager, talked about how heoften wrote skits for retirement parties, going-awaygatherings, or team-building exercises. He describedthe audience’s response to one successful event:

We got out there, and people were laughing atthings that I didn’t even intend—that weren’tjokes … they were roaring with laughter. Thenthey actually got everything in between. So Idon’t know if it gets any better than that … whenyou can do that for a large group of people. … Itfeels good to do something for people.

Ben talked about similar experiences in which hewas able to create moments for people in either his pastteaching experience or using his literary ability.

Affective pleasure in self-expression. This lastnew category involves the enjoyment of self-expres-sion. Specifically, this process refers to the pleasure as-

sociated with creating something that is a deep expres-sion of self. It does involve the affective pleasure increating but also uniquely reflects personal thoughts,feelings, and novel ideas that come deeply from within.The 2 control participants talked about this process ex-tensively, which is not surprising given the limits totheir creativity in their work settings. However, 2 of the4 inventors also discussed this process and distin-guished it from their inventing work. For example, in-ventor Jason, who is quite artistically inclined, talkedabout his self-expression in music, art, and writing:

Well, there’s no point to it other than you. Youget to be the guy. You can create whatever worldyou want. There’s actually a lot to it. I’m veryimpressed by language, by the use of language,and by the efficient use of language to portray animage and thoughts. … At least in my own writ-ing. The expression of something is very impor-tant to me. And doing it clearly and efficientlyand beautifully. … If truth be told, if I couldmake a living at writing, I might rather do thatthan engineering.

Inventor Troy, referring to his artistic sculpture de-signs, expressed a similar idea: “For me, these are verymuch of a … pure … physical embodiment of heartand soul for me. They’re very, very personal … it’shaving … literally a chunk of yourself in the world forall to see.” Of interest, Troy at times referred to his in-venting work with a similar level of personal identifi-cation:

It’s much more I think ingrained in who I amkind of thing. It seems to come out just naturally.I don’t need like an external motivation to inno-vate. I think I’m compelled to … innovate justbecause of who I am … I have been doing thatsince I was very small. So, it’s a theme for me.It’s sort of part of the landscape, just literallywho I am.

Conclusion

For centuries now, inventors have been “silentcontributors” to our daily lives (Jardin, 1999; Rogers& Larsen, 1986). This study takes one step toward il-


S. J. Henderson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

luminating the emotional processes underlying theprocess of invention. A small group of product inven-tors (and related engineering professionals serving ascontrols) were interviewed intensively about theircreative work and also given a series of personalityassessments. The resulting data were rich in contentsupporting the contemporary multivariate view ofcreativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990a; Harrington,1990; Mumford, 1988). What was particularly com-pelling about these interviews was the degree of af-fect expressed as part of the inventor participants’daily experience. These discussions offered by the in-ventor participants provided evidence to support re-cent theoretical models on the role of affect in thecreative process (Russ, 1993, 1999; Shaw, 1989;Shaw & Runco, 1994). The inventor participantsspoke repeatedly and consistently about how muchthey enjoyed their innovation work. Results from per-sonality assessments conducted in this study indi-cated that personality alone could not explain this no-table level of merriment in work. The assessmentresults did show a strong openness–intuition–perceiv-ing profile. This combination of high O on the NEOFive Factor Inventory and high intuitive and perceiv-ing scores on the Myers–Briggs may speak to thepower of creativity in generating career happiness asfound in other qualitative research (Henderson,2000).

The interview transcripts were analyzed post factoin order to evaluate the affective processes in finer di-mension using the Russ (1993, 1999) model of affectand creativity. Every dimension of the Russ model wasevident in the expressed experience of the inventors.The participants also expressed dimensions of affectthat encouraged an elaboration and expansion of theRuss model. Specifically, one category (cognitive inte-gration and modulation of affect) was expanded to in-clude the role of intuition; four other categories cover-ing affective pleasure in technical perspective taking,in focus, in creating, and in self-expression were addedto the model.

In terms of limitations, this study represents an at-tempt to understand a product inventor’s creative pro-cess by way of a few individuals’ expressed experienceover a series of sequential face-to-face interviews.Caution must be used when generalizing the results toa wider population. Because of insurmountable logis-tics, the control group was interviewed by phone ratherthan in personal interviews, which may have reduced

the comparability of content. Three of the 5 inventorparticipants worked in the same company, which mayhave served to limit the diversity of perspective. Theclose association may also have limited their willing-ness to talk about aspects of personal discontent. None-theless, the in-depth nature of the interviews provideda rich quantity of expressed experience that can nowcan serve as a springboard for more comprehensive re-search.

Because a sample of convenience was used, the in-ventors in the sample were nearly uniform in terms ofgender, age, and race. Although this may reflect thelimits of sampling by word of mouth, one should notinfer that diverse peoples are excluded from the currenttechnological revolution. Many Internet Web sites nowprovide information on recognized inventors amongchildren, African Americans, and women (see About,Inc., 2003; Inventors Museum, Inc., 2002; Smithso-nian Institute, n.d.).

Notwithstanding, the resulting expanded model of-fers myriad opportunities for future researchers. Spe-cifically, the nine categories in the expanded model of-fer rich dimensions for a psychometric scale inaffective processes of creativity. In addition, the ex-panded model could be applied to qualitative inter-views with other product inventors or other creativeprofessionals, such as scientific researchers, fine art-ists, actors, and writers.

The categories in this expanded model also offer arich resource for career counselors seeking to promotehappiness in the work lives of their clients inside andoutside the work setting. Research evidence suggeststhat the ability to explore, discover, and create may bean effective way for individuals to experience theirunique talents (Henderson, 2002, 2004a, 2004b;Lemelson-MIT Program and National Science Foun-dation, 2004). This study presents career counselorswith a new tool to assist clients in developing specificunderstanding on what creative endeavors may interestthem and why. This small study provides evidence sug-gesting that individuals experience their enjoyment ofcreativity according to very different processes. Acommon counseling question might be simply, Howdid you feel during that experience? This study sug-gests that questions derived from the nine categories ofaffect experience might allow a more meaningful dis-cussion. Examples of probes might be: What was itabout that creative experience that you enjoyed? Was itthe challenge of the task, or the fun of having solved



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

the problem? Was it a sense of self-expression that youenjoyed, or was it the joy of creating that was satisfy-ing? How did you come up with your idea? What ledyou to the solution? In what other way was the experi-ence meaningful to you? The resulting guided discus-sion can assist clients in understanding what creativeendeavors are most likely to generate happiness andpersonal meaning.

This research also holds relevance to today’s man-agers seeking to improve the success of creative inno-vation in their organizations. A work environment thatfacilitates deep engagement and focus is critical in fos-tering creative work. Employee surveys can help inevaluating a work environment for innovation potential(e.g., see Amabile, 1995; Amabile et al., 1996). A man-ager who creates an environment conducive to enjoy-ment and engagement will be better able to motivateand optimize creative contribution.

References

About, Inc. (2003). Young inventors. Retrieved March 24, 2003,from http://inventors.about.com/msubmenuyounginventors.htm

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Amabile, T. M. (1995). KEYS: Assessing the climate for creativity.Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M.(1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.

Averill, J. R. (1994). Emotions are many splendored things. In P. E.Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Funda-mental questions (pp. 99–102). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Becker, G. M. (1994). Making it or finding it. In M. P. Shaw & M. A.Runco (Eds.), Creativity and affect (pp. 168–181). Norwood,NJ: Ablex.

Briggs, K. C., & Myers, I. B. (1998). Myers–Briggs Type Indicator.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Brown, K. A. (1988). Inventors at work. Redmond, WA: Tempus.Bruch, C. B. (1988). Metacreativity: Awareness of thoughts and feel-

ings during creative experiences. Journal of Creative Behavior,22, 112–122.

Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of a child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R.Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment theory, research, andclinical applications (pp. 3–20). New York: Guilford.

Clore, G. L. (1994a). Why emotions are felt. In P. E. Ekman & R. J.Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental ques-tions (pp. 103–111). New York: Oxford University Press.

Clore, G. L. (1994b). Why emotions vary in intensity? In P. E.Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Funda-

mental questions (pp. 386–393). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion andneuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy peo-ple.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,38,668–678.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R: Professionalmanual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Six approaches to the expli-cation of facet-level traits: Examples from Conscientiousness.European Journal of Personality, 12, 117–134.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990a). The domain of creativity. In M. A.Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp.190–212). London, England: Sage.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990b). Flow: The psychology of optimal ex-perience. New York: HarperCollins.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: HarperCollins.Damasio, A. R. (1994). Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New

York: Avon.Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (Eds.). (2003). Culture and subjective

well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Ekman, P. E. (1994). Afterword: How is evidence of universals in an-

tecedents of emotion explained? In P. E. Ekman & R. J.Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental ques-tions (pp. 176–177). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ekman, P. E., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The nature of emotion:Fundamental questions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Epstein, R. (2000). The big book of creativity games: Quick, fun ac-tivities for jumpstarting innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Faste, R. (1972). The role of visualization in creative behavior. Engi-neering Education, 63, 124–127.

Feist, G. J. (1999). Affect in artistic and scientific creativity. In S. W.Russ (Ed.), Affect, creative experience, and psychological ad-justment (pp. 93–108). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

Feldman Barrett, & L., Russell, J. (1999). The structure of current af-fect: Controversies and emerging consensus. Current Direc-tions in Psychological Science, 8,10–14.

Frijda, N. H. (1994). Emotions are functional, most of the time. In P.E. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fun-damental questions (pp. 112–122). New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Furnham, A. (1999). Personality and creativity. Perceptual and Mo-tor Skills, 88, 407–408.

Gale, B. (Writer/Producer). (1985). Back to the future: The completetrilogy [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Studios.

Getz, I., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The emotional resonance model forgenerating associations. In S. W. Russ (Ed.), Affect, creative ex-perience, and psychological adjustment (pp. 41–56). Philadel-phia: Brunner/Mazel.

Getzels, K. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision:A longitudinal study of problem-finding in art. New York:Wiley.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An in-tegrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299.

Harrington, D. M. (1990). The ecology of human creativity: A psy-chological perspective. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.),Theories of creativity (pp. 143–169). London: Sage.

Henderson, S. J. (2000). “Follow your bliss”: A process for careerhappiness. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78,305–315.


S. J. Henderson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Henderson, S. J. (2002). Correlates of inventor motivation, creativity,and achievement. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Dissertation Abstracts International.

Henderson, S. J. (2004a). Creative innovation courses: Forums forpersonal growth and career exploration. Unpublishedmanuscript.

Henderson, S. J. (2004b). Inventors: The ordinary genius next door.In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Cre-ativity: From potential to realization. Washington DC: Ameri-can Psychological Association.

Hewlett-Packard Co. (1999). Invent [Hewlett-Packard Co. annual re-port ]. Palo Alto, CA: Author.

Inventors Museum, Inc. (2002). Women’s history month. RetrievedMarch 24, 2003, from http://www.inventorsmuseum.com/women.htm

Isen, A. M. (1999). On the relationship between affect and creativityproblem solving. In S. W. Russ (Ed.), Affect, creative experi-ence, and psychological adjustment (pp. 3–17). Philadelphia:Brunner/Mazel.

Jardin, L. (1999). Ingenious pursuits: Building the scientific revolu-tion. New York: Talese.

Kelley, T. (with Littman, J.). (2001). The art of innovation: Lessonsin creativity from Ideo, America’s leading design firm. NewYork: Currency.

Larsen, R. J., & Ketalaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility topositive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 61, 132–140.

Lemelson-MIT Program and National Science Foundation. (2004).Invention: Enhancing invention for quality of life, competi-tiveness, and sustainability. Report of the committee for studyof invention. Retrieved July 13, 2004, from http://web.mit.edu/invent/report.html

Levenson, R. W. (1994). Human emotions: A functional view. In P.E. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fun-damental questions (pp. 123–126). New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Mace, M. (1997). Toward an understanding of creativity through a

qualitative appraisal of contemporary art making. CreativityResearch Journal, 10, 265–278.

MacFarquhar, L. (1999, December 6). Looking for trouble: How aninventor gets his best ideas. The New Yorker, 78–93.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent.American Psychologist, 17, 484–495.

Martin, L. L., Ward, D. W., Achee, J. W., & Wyer, R. S. (1993).Mood as input: People have to interpret the motivational impli-cations of their moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 64, 317–326.

Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative re-search. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279–300.

McCrae, R. R. (1993–1994). Openness to Experience as a basic di-mension of personality. Imagination, Cognition and Personal-ity, 13, 39–55.

McNally, C. (1982). The experience of being sensitive. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Center for Humanistic Studies, Detroit,MI.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morgan, D. L. (1993). Successful focus groups. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Mumford, M. D. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, applica-tion and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43.

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L.(1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use ofthe Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Oech, R. (1998). A whack on the side of the head: How you can bemore creative. New York: Warner.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York:Basic Books.

Rogers, E. M., & Larsen, J. K. (1986). Silicon Valley fever: Growthof high-technology culture. New York: Basic Books.

Rossman, R. (1964). Industrial creativity: The psychology of the in-ventor. New Hyde Park, NY: University Books.

Rubenzer, S. J., Faschingbauer, T. R., & Ones, D. S. (2000). As-sessing the U.S. presidents using the revised NEO PersonalityInventory. Assessment, 7, 403–420.

Runco, M. A. (1994). Creativity and its discontents. In M. P. Shaw &M. A. Runco (Eds.) Creativity and affect (pp. 102–123).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Runco, M. A. (1999). Tension, adaptability, and creativity. In S. W.Russ (Ed.), Affect, creative experience, and psychological ad-justment (pp. 165–194). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and playin the creative process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates, Inc.

Russ, S. W. (1999). Affect, creative experience, and psychologicaladjustment. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

Sapolsky, R. M. (1998). Why zebras don’t get ulcers: An updatedguide to stress, stress-related diseases, and coping. New York:Freeman.

Schwarz, N. (1990). Happy but mindless? Mood effects on problemsolving and persuasion. In R. J. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp.527–561). New York: Guilford.

Shaw, M. P. (1989). The eureka process: A structure for the creativeexperience in science and engineering. Creativity ResearchJournal, 2, 286–298.

Shaw, M. P. (1994). Affective components of scientific creativity. InM. P. Shaw & M. A. Runco (Eds.), Creativity and affect (pp.3–43). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Shaw, M. P., & Runco, M.A. (1994). Creativity and affect. Norwood,NJ: Ablex.

Singer, J. L. (1998a). Daydreams, the stream of consciousness, andself-representations. In R. Bornstein & J. Masling (Eds.), Empir-ical perspectives on the psychoanalytic unconsciousness (pp.141–186). Washington DC: American Psychological Associa-tion.

Singer, J. L. (1998b). Imaginative play in early childhood: A founda-tion for adaptive emotional and cognitive development. Inter-national Medical Journal, 5(2), 93–100.

Smithsonian Institute. (n.d.). African-American inventors. RetrievedMarch 24, 2003, from http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmah/afinvent.htm

Stake, B. (November, 1975). Program evaluation particularly re-sponsive evaluation (Occasional Paper Series Paper No. 5, Uni-versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Center for Instruc-



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

tional Research and Curriculum Evaluation). Retrieved March30, 2003, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/pubs/ops/ops05.html

Stipp, D. (1999, March). Inventor on the verge of a nervous break-through. Fortune, 105–115.

Toobey, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present:Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environ-ments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 375–424.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking.Lexington, MA: Ginn (Xerox).

Vosburg, S., & Kaufmann, G. (1999). Mood and creativity research:The view from a conceptual organizing perspective. In S. W.Russ (Ed.), Affect, creative experience, and psychological ad-justment (pp. 19–39). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

Welsh, G. S. (1975). Creativity and intelligence: A personality ap-proach.ChapelHill,NC:InstituteforResearchinSocialScience.

Welsh, G. S. (1987). Manual for the Barron–Welsh Art Scale. Red-wood City, CA: Mind Garden.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of com-petence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.

Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Winter, G. (2000, March). A comparative discussion of the notion of“validity” in qualitative and quantitative research. The Qualita-tive Report, 4(3/4). Retrieved March 30, 2003, fromhttp://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html


S. J. Henderson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

07 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Product Inventors and Creativity: The Finer Dimensions of Enjoyment