Relationship between creativity and depression: the role of reappraisal and ruminationuse asterix (*) to get italics

Chin Yui Lam and Jeffrey Allen SaundersPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2023

<p>Previous research has found mixed evidence about whether increased creativity is associated with higher depression. We investigated the relationship between creativity and depression, and the role of two emotion regulation strategies: rumination and reappraisal. Previous research has found that rumination is a common factor that contributes to creativity and depression, which we attempted to replicate using a simplified model. No research has tested the relationship between reappraisal frequency and creativity. We hypothesized that controlling for reappraisal frequency could reduce the correlation between creativity and depression, or even reverse the relationship. To test the hypotheses, we measured creativity, self-reported rumination tendency and reappraisal frequency, and trait depression in an online survey of N=201 participants. We found a small overall negative association between creativity and depression. Further analysis found support for the hypothesis that self-reflective rumination is a common factor for creativity and depression. Rumination was associated with both creativity and depression, and there was no association between creativity and depression when self-reflective rumination was controlled. We found no association between reappraisal frequency and creativity, and no change to the relationship between creativity and depression when reappraisal frequency was controlled. Our results suggest that creativity and depression are only weakly associated, and that the emotional regulation strategy of self-reflective rumination, not reappraisal frequency, could account for the overall relation between creativity and depression.</p>

creativity, depression, reappraisal, rumination

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Social sciences

Kate Button suggested: Sorry for decline but I’m on maternity leave until November. , Kate Button suggested: B/w , Kate Button suggested: Kate

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

2023-07-27 11:42:43

Chris Chambers