More Than Your Right Brain

Using Insights from Neuroscience to Enhance
Creative Potential in Organizational Teams
More Than Your
Right Brain
By Rebecca Austin Emmons
Vanderbilt University

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

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

2
What is Creativity and Who is Creative?
Creativity is a
function of the brain.
Everyone has the
capacity to be
creative and
everyone has the
ability to enhance his
or her creative
potential.
Not everyone is a Picasso or Michelangelo. Fortunately, to discover or foster
creative talent in your team, you don’t need to screen for artistic ability. Creativity in
the organizational sense refers to the ability to generate novel and useful solutions to
problems.[5] Innovation then, is when creativity is focused on a specific product,
service or system.[6] Perspectives from neuroscience suggest that to have a brain is to
have creative cognition, or the fundamental cognitive tools to produce creative
thought.[7] In fact, studies of adults and children performing the same creative tasks
suggest that “non-creativity” is learned as we age.[8]
Creativity begins as an individual process because the generation of novel
ideas, although potentially aided by contact with others, happens in an individual mind.
[9] The capability of individuals to be creative comes from an individual brain system, a
capability that can arguably be enhanced by engaging in a larger network of brains in a
team setting.[10] At least the potential for creativity is increased when teams are put
together, and yet some research has demonstrated that teams are no more creative than
the sum of their individual’s creative power.[11] This suggests that there are barriers to
creative synergy. Understanding the neurobiological capacity for creativity in individuals,
and how that can contribute to team creative cognition will make it easier to understand
the brain based motivators and threats to creative performance.
If creativity is an inherent human
capability - then it makes sense that we can use
training to enhance that skill set. But how do we
flex the creative muscle? Creativity training that
teaches the underlying cognitive concepts has
been shown to enhance an individual’s ability to
generate novel ideas,[12] more specifically there
is evidence that understanding the neuroscience
of creativity will enhance creative potential.[13]
Simply giving individuals the directions to
explicitly generate novel responses, resulted in
more creative ideas compared to others who
were just told to generate ideas.[14] In another
study, individuals who did a self-reflection
activity prior to doing a creativity test,
performed better than those who had not.[15]
These examples show that creativity can be
learned and improved upon with training and
interventions. Creative capacity is not limited to
certain individuals.

3
The second stage of the classical model happens when an individual abandons
conscious thought. You have to give your brain a break. Incubation and preparation are
helpful for complex problem solving.[19]
The third stage refers to what is commonly called insight or the ‘aha’ experience. This
is when a potential answer to the problem suddenly emerges. Investigations into this
experience show that insight is strongly related to feeling and intuition.[20]
In the final stage of the classical model, creative ideas have to be checked for
applicability. Remembering the definition of creativity as something that is both novel,
and useful, this is the stage where an idea is tested to determine if it is in fact, useful.
The above-described four-step creativity model applies to insight problem solving
where problems are complex and characterized by a lack of direct steps to get an
answer.[21] For less complex problems, simply brainstorming may generate an idea that
can then be tested, effectively skipping stages two and three. Regardless of the
number of phases engaged in the creative process, understanding the science behind
it can enhance an individual’s potential to solve complex problems using creative skills.
The Creative Process
The classic model of creativity designed by Wallace in 1926 outlines the creative
process in four stages [16]:
This stage comprises problem
identification and information
gathering. It could include
divergent thinking activities like
brainstorming where new ideas are
generated, or simply refer to having
a base of applicable knowledge.[17]
In all cases of creative problem
solving, knowledge is a prerequisite
for creative endeavors.[18]
1.Preparation
2.Incubation
3.Illumination or Insight
4.Verification
Preparation Incubation
IlluminationVerification

4
Associative Memory
The Science
Learning, memory and creativity are all linked and they are all known to be neuro-
biological phenomenon.[22] There is a pervasive myth that if you’re a “right brain person,”
you’re creative.[23] In fact, creativity biology isn’t that simple, and it isn’t that exclusive
either. To best understand what enhances creative potential we can look to two specific
domains of neuroscience: associative memory and neurotransmitters. Individual creativity is
the building block for team creativity so it is important to understand the creative mind from
an individual perspective.
Creative capability is arguably a function of the associative memory more than
anything else. Your brain is a vast and dense network of cells called neurons. At any given
time, these neurons fire causing a cascade of electrochemical activity lighting up specific
parts of your brain depending on what you’re doing. These pathways of thought can be
strengthened the more you use them and that is how you learn.[24] Knowledge then is
related to the size of the network and how connected it is. [25]
When we learn and experience our daily lives, we code memory in a specific way that
enables creative thought. Instead of storing memories as whole concepts such as “table,”
our brain stores that memory by it’s features: “wood,” “brown,” “flat.” [26] Different features
correspond with different sets of neurons. When you encounter a table, the respective
neurons fire enabling you to recognize the object. Because neurons are arranged in a
network, neurons that are close to one another tend to fire when one is stimulated. This
leads to overlaps in coding-- where one thought can trigger another. The more detail that
we code with - the more potential overlap.[27] The other important thing to know about
associative memory is that features are coded by how they are related even if we are not
consciously aware of that relationship.[28]
What does this matter? It means that when you go to solve a problem, you are
reconstructing memories to find a potential solution, and in the time since your brain has
coded them, they have been arranged in patterns of which you are not consciously aware.
When you apply what you know to a new problem, you combine concepts, and novelty has
the potential to emerge.[29] You are capable of thinking beyond what you already know.
[30] Recalling the creative process, after Incubation is Insight or Illumination.[31] The
moment of insight that seems to come from nowhere is a phenomena that is explainable
because of the neurobiology described above. Your brain is working even when you are not
conscious because it is accessing remote connections in your associative memory.
Creative individuals have a more widely distributed network that enables them to
access more remote and novel connections when they approach a problem,[32] and
anyone can enhance their ability to access more remote connections by practicing
divergent thinking.[33]

5
Oxytocin
Creativity is enabled by oxytocin.[35] This neurotransmitter is associated with
social bonding, trust, cooperation, and flexible thinking.[36] Additionally,
oxytocin has been shown to increase divergent thinking ability which means
that it enhances an individual’s ability to generate novel ideas.[37] Oxytocin
does not work alone though. It works in conjunction with Dopamine to enhance
social affiliation.[38] Oxytocin is known to decrease stress.[39]
Norepinephrine
Dopamine
The chemical Dopamine is strongly related to cognitive flexibility, novelty-seeking,
holding interest and arousal.[40] Increased levels of Dopamine have been connected to
better performance in insight and problem solving, likely because it enables individuals
to more rapidly switch their attention, potentially accessing a wider neuron network.[41]
Remembering that knowledge is critical for a strong associative memory, and associative
network, it is important to understand that Dopamine has a critical role in holding an
individual’s attention. Dopamine works on the attention system of the brain[42] and is
active when individuals experience passion and complete attention to a task. Dopamine
has also been shown to facilitate goal-oriented activity.[43]
Neurotransmitters
Remember the brain works because of electrochemical signals that fire up neurons in a
huge network. The chemical component of electrochemical refers to neurotransmitters, the
brain’s chemical messengers. There are a multitude of neurotransmitters that have different
functions in the brain and creativity has been specifically linked to three: Oxytocin,
Dopamine and Norepinephrine. [34]
Norepinephrine has multiple purposes but it is most commonly associated with stress and
arousal.[44] While Norepinephrine is important for attention and learning because of its
role in arousal- too much or too little has a negative impact on cognitive ability.
Specifically, high levels of Norepinephrine decrease the cognitive flexibility that is required
in creative tasks.[45] Additionally, Norepinephrine focuses our attention on external stimuli,
redirecting our thoughts to the outside world and making it harder for remote internal
connections to emerge.[46] Norepinephrine and stress can overwhelm your frontal lobe, the
part of the brain that facilitates decision making and problem solving.[47] Too much focus
on the problem decreases the potential for novel concepts to emerge. This is why the
Incubation period of the creative process is so important. During relaxation, Norepinephrine
levels decrease, allowing individuals to engage in reflection and rest leading to a better
ability to integrate new experiences with memory.[48]

6
Individuals, Teams, and
Creativity
An individual brain can be thought of
as a vast network of connected
experiences and knowledge from which
the potential for creativity emerges.
Enabling creative potential occurs when
networks are broadened by adding other
brains, and remove collaboration
barriers. Teams have a higher potential
for creativity because the brainpower is
expanded, and others can trigger new
ideas in an individual.[49] Increasing the
number of creative individuals on a team
has been demonstrated to elevate the
team creative capability. [50] Although
the potential exists, it is not enough to
just combine brain capacities in problem
solving; creative synergies emerge from
team collaboration.[51] When teams
embrace creativity and collaboration
they have the potential for enabling
team creative cognition, or a shared
inventory of creative processes that is
engaged during group problem solving
tasks.[52] Higher team cohesion results
in higher creativity.[53]

Broadening the Network
7
Employing Passion and Cultivating Curiosity
Learning is the foundation for
associative memory. In order to
strengthen potential overlaps in coding
and increase the potential for remote
connections,[54] and ultimately novel
insights, organizations need to build
teams that have curious team
members. Recall the neurotransmitter
Dopamine. This chemical is crucial in
facilitating learning and building new
associations in our memory.[55] It
makes sense then, that individuals with
a learning orientation have a higher
potential for creativity, and that that potential is enhanced in encouraging teams.[56]
Encouraging learning is the first step in broadening an associative memory.
Individuals who are engaged and passionate about the task at hand are going to
stimulate the Dopamine in relevant brain systems. This increase in Dopamine is also
responsible for an individual’s ability to filter through stimuli that was originally
considered irrelevant.[57] Recall that the more remote connections in the brain
network, the more potential for novelty. Dopamine enhances the ability to recognize
novel connections. In other words, passion and salience mobilize the biological
mechanisms that enable insight.

8
Diversity and Empathy
Individuals can broaden their brain network by continuously learning and teams broaden
their creative capacity by diversifying. The benefit of diversity in teams is derived from the
cross pollination of ideas that occurs when teams learn together.[58] In order to produce
the most novel and useful solutions, you must engage with a wide variety of ideas. Teams
that specifically leverage brain based differences have a higher potential for collaboration
and problem solving.[59] Diversity in every sense, expertise and social category, widens the
range of knowledge and experience to draw upon and is therefore a critical component for
enhancing team creative potential. Creative potential is also enhanced when team
members bring diverse outside ties into the group learning.[60]
Diversity works by broadening the potential network but it also requires that individuals
exercise their own brain networks through cognitive empathy. Cognitive empathy is the
ability to take on a role from another point of view.[61] When individuals envision themselves
in the shoes of someone else they are asked to imagine beyond what they know - thus
engaging their associative network. This process of cognitive role taking can generate new
images and ideas.[62]
Individuals mirror one another, meaning that exposure to other ways of problem solving
can shape how they approach similar problems in the future.[63] This explains how multi-
cultural experiences can enhance team creativity.[64] When we are asked to take on
another role or use a new problem solving approach, we activate our unique brain network
in a new way, which allows insight to emerge.

Removing Barriers to Collaboration
Patients who suffered brain
damage to the regions of the brain
that connect reason and emotion,
demonstrated an inability to perform
complex problem solving tasks.[65]
Teams must attend to their feelings.
Stress and threat can drive down
creative potential. These threats may
arise from individuals feeling that
other group members are criticizing
their ideas,[66] the result of
stereotypes[67] or other unmanaged
group conflict. These threats induce
stress which involves Norepinephrine.
Because Norepinephrine can
diminish the ability to recognize
remote connections, [68] it is
imperative that threats be
decreased.
9
Recognizing Emotion and Threat
Threats are not the only stress team members can face during intra-team
problem solving. When individuals engage in problem solving there may be a
tendency to overthink or attempt to find the answer through rational steps.
Sometimes that works. When it comes to insight problem solving in particular
though, it is imperative that individuals recognize the role of emotion and intuition.
Too much focus on the problem decreases the potential for novel concepts to
emerge because Norepinephrine levels rise.[69] This is why the Incubation period of
the creative process is so important. During relaxation, Norepinephrine levels
decrease.[70] This explains why individuals who are relaxed and rested are able to
better integrate new experiences with memory.
Knowing that Norepinephrine plays such a crucial role in our stress and threat
response, and that it also has the capability to overwhelm the rational decision
making part of the brain enables us to understand a critical barrier to creative
potential.

10
Organizations are more likely to be perceived as creative if the employees report
high levels of psychological well-being.[71] However, it is also more than perception:
employees who reported more positive moods had higher levels of Dopamine and had
higher levels of cognitive flexibility.[72] It makes sense then that organizations that show
high commitment to employee well-being are more likely to be innovative.[73] The
organization at large has a critical role in building an environment that enables individual
employees to be creative in teams.
From the team perspective, the primary objective for enhancing creative potential
should be enabling trust. Team members need to trust that their work climate is supportive
of creativity and innovation.[74] Additionally, individuals need to trust one another. Trust is
how the barrier of threat is overcome. Neuroscience demonstrates that trust stimulates an
increase in Oxytocin, which in turn decreases our stress response system activity.[75]
Fostering collaboration comes from overcoming threat. Teams where individuals have a
shared identification are able to overcome the perceived threat of stereotypes.[76]
Getting buy in for a shared vision, increasing group member communication, and setting
team goals are all ways to establish a shared team identity. These factors along with
vision, communication, and goal interdependence are predictors of team creativity.[77]
As team members and team leaders, it is imperative that Oxytocin is increased and trust is
founded.
Interestingly, embarking on a creative endeavor as a group can increase trust between
members.[78]
Fostering Collaboration

11
Integrating the System
How Insights from Neuroscience Can Enhance
Creative Potential on Teams
Insights from Neuroscience have a lot to offer leaders who want to enhance creative
potential in organizational teams. The unique way that the human brain codes experience
into the associative memory underscores the importance of the first stage of creativity:
Preparation. Knowledge is the foundation that enables and prepares your brain for the
creative tasks. Understanding the critical role that the neurotransmitter Dopamine plays in
facilitating learning as well as flexible thinking, demands that team leaders employ
individuals who are passionate and curious. Those team members who are engaged are
more likely to activate the brain mechanisms that are essential for insight problem solving.
In the team setting, it is essential that teams broaden their network by diversifying team
members, and by consequence their individual brain networks. In order to prepare for truly
novel concept emergence, teams must integrate these diverse brain networks by fostering
empathy.
The architecture of associative memory also sheds light on the second and third
steps of the creative process: Incubation and Illumination. During this unconscious phase
the brain is hard at work wading through remote connections, which can lead to novel
concept emergence. In addition to associative memory, incubation is reliant upon
specific chemical balances such as Oxytocin, Dopamine and Norepinephrine.
Decreasing Norepinephrine by diminishing threats and stressors allows the brain to better
attend to internal stimuli and access remote connections. Rest and relaxation are
important for enabling creative insight to emerge. Increasing Oxytocin by building team
trust can directly impact the brain’s stress response system and overcome the
Norepinephrine challenge. Creating a supportive atmosphere that increases employee
well-being can increase Dopamine and thus better facilitate cognitive flexibility.
It is important to remember that creativity is a brain based phenomenon because it
empowers individuals to recognize their inherent creative potential. The need for
organizational creativity and innovation is the need for novel and useful ideas to complex
problems. In the final phase of the creative process, Verification, creative ideas are put to
the test. In order to achieve creative verification, leaders must first create diverse,
empathetic, and collaborative teams.

I
End Notes
[1] IBM. (2010). Capitalizing on Complexity. IBM Global Services,
1518(3), 1–75. http://doi.org/10.2190/HFLG-14N9-KF8L-4FMD
[2] Schmajuk, N., Aziz, D. R., & Bates, M. J. B. (2009).
Attentional–Associative Interactions in Creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 21(1), 92–103.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633574
[3] Rasulzada, F., & Dackert, I. (2009). Organizational Creativity
and Innovation in Relation to Psychological Well-Being and
Organizational Factors. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2–3),
191–198. http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902855283
[4] Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2007). The emergence of
Team Creative Cognition: the Role of Diverse Outside Ties,
Sociocognitive network Centrality and Team Evolution. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(2), 23–41. http://doi.org/10.1002/sej
[5] Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between
individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across
people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2),
235–257. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.240
[6] Lewis, T., & Wright, G. A. (2012). How does Creativity
Complement Today’s Currency of Innovation? Journal of
Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 7(3), 9. Retrieved from
http://psu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXM
wY2BQSLNINUk0SrI0B7Y-
E1MMTZMNk4AJwzLRPNXE2DgRfEMEYu0TUmnuJsTAlJonyiDn5hri7
KELKxrjU3Jy4o3MLI0NzYxAWVOMgTcRtPo7rwS8SyxFgkHBMMXE0
sIkBWiRiamJYXIy0GEWKaZJyaZp5ilmRmmGAEMbJbU
[7] Shalley & Perry-Smith (2008), see 4
[8] Onarheim, B., & Friis-Olivarius, M. (2013). Applying the
neuroscience of creativity to creativity training. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 7(October), 656.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00656
[9] West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in Top
Management Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6),
680–693.
[10] Williams Woolley, A., Richard Hackman, J., Jerde, T. E.,
Chabris, C. F., Bennett, S. L., Kosslyn, S. M., … Kosslyn, S. M.
(2007). Using brain-based measures to compose teams: How
individual capabilities and team collaboration strategies jointly
shape performance. Social Neuroscience, 2(2), 96–105.
http://doi.org/10.1080/17470910701363041
[11] Paulus, P. B., Levine, D. S., Brown, V., Minai, A. A., & Doboli, S.
(2010). Modeling Ideational Creativity in Groups: Connecting
Cognitive, Neural, and Computational Approaches. Small Group
Research, 41(6), 688–724.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410369561
[12] Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., Mumford, M. D., Scott, G., Leritz, L. E.,
The, M. D. M., … Mumford, M. D. (2016). The effectiveness of
creativity training : A quantitative review The Effectiveness of
Creativity Training : A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research
Journal, 419(September), 361–388.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549
[13] Onarheim, & Friis-Olivarius, (2013) see 8
[14] Yoruk, S., & Runco, M. A. (2014). Neuroscience of Divergent
Thinking. Journal for Neurocognitive Research, 56(1), 1–16.
[15] Wen, M. C., Butler, L. T., & Koutstaal, W. (2013). Improving
insight and non-insight problem solving with brief interventions.
British Journal of Psychology, 104(1), 97–118.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02107.x
[16] Aldous, C. R. (2007). Creativity, problem solving and
innovative science: Insights from history, cognitive psychology
and neuroscience. International Education Journal, 8(2), 176–186.
[17] Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and
neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological
Bulletin, 136(5), 822–848. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019749 ,
Paulus et. al (2010), see 11
[18] Heilman, K. M., Nadeau, S. E., & Beversdorf, D. O. (2003).
Creative Innovation: Possible Brain Mechanisms. Neurocase, 9(5),
369–379.
[19] Hélie, S., & Sun, R. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative
problem solving: a unified theory and a connectionist model.
Psychological review (Vol. 117). http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019532
[20] Aldous, C. R. (2006). Attending to feeling: Productive
benefit to novel mathematics problem-solving. International
Education Journal, 7(4), 410–422.
[21] Hélie, & Sun (2010), see 19
[22] Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We Feel,
Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social
Neuroscience to Education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3–10.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x
[23] Vartanian, O., Bristol, A. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013).
Neuroscience of creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
[24] Yaniv, D. (2012). Dynamics of creativity and empathy in role
reversal: Contributions from neuroscience. Review of General
Psychology, 16(1), 70–77. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0026580
[25] Heilman, Nadeau, & Beversdorf (2003), see 18
[26] Paulus et. al (2010), see 11
[27] Vartanian, Bristol, & Kaufman,, (2013) see 23
[31] Aldous, (2007). See 16
[32] Heilman, Nadeau, & Beversdorf (2003), see 18, Yoruk., &
Runco,. (2014) see 14

II
[33] Wen, Butler, & Koutstaal, (2013) see 15
[34] Heilman, Nadeau, & Beversdorf (2003), see 18, Paulus et. al
(2010), see 11, De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Boot, N. C. (2015).
Oxytocin enables novelty seeking and creative performance
through upregulated approach: Evidence and avenues for future
research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(5),
409–417. http://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1354
[35] De Dreu., Baas, & Boot, (2015), see 34
[36] De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D. J., Ebstein,
R. P., Chew, S. H., … Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2014). Oxytonergic
circuitry sustains and enables creative cognition in humans.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(8), 1159–1165.
http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst094
[39] De Dreu et. al. (2014) see 36
[40] Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Franconeri, S. L., Kounios, J., & Beeman,
M. (2015). Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visual
inputs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1814–1819.
http://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0845-0, Flaherty, A. W.
(2005). Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea
generation and creative drive. In Journal of Comparative
Neurology (pp. 147–153). http://doi.org/10.1002/cne.20768
[41] Paulus et. al (2010), see 11
[42] Schmajuk., Aziz., & Bates, (2009) see 2, Paulus et. al (2010),
see 11
[43] Flaherty, (2005) see 40
[44] Koob, G. F. (1999). Corticotropin-releasing factor,
norepinephrine, and stress. Biological Psychiatry, 46(9), 1167–1180.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00164-X
[45] Beversdorf, D. Q., Hughes, J. D., Steinberg, B. a, Lewis, L. D.,
& Heilman, K. M. (1999). Noradrenergic modulation of cognitive
flexibility in problem solving. Neuroreport, 10(13), 2763–2767.
http://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199909090-00012, Renner, K.
H., & Beversdorf, D. Q. (2010). Effects of naturalistic stressors on
cognitive flexibility and working memory task performance.
Neurocase : Case Studies in Neuropsychology, Neuropsychiatry,
and Behavioural Neurology, 16(4), 293–300.
http://doi.org/10.1080/1355479090346360
[46] Heilman, K. M. (2016). Possible brain mechanisms of
creativity. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31(4), 285–296.
http://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw009
[47] Chakravarty, A. (2010). The creative brain - Revisiting
concepts. Medical Hypotheses, 74(3), 606–612.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.10.014
[48] Chakravarty,(2010) see 47, Paulus et. al (2010), see 11
[49] Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward More Creative
and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-
Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 1(1), 248–265. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-
9004.2007.00006.x
[50] West, & Anderson, (1996) see 9, Pirola-Merlo, & Mann,
(2004) see 5
[51] Paulus et. al (2010), see 11, Shalley & Perry-Smith (2008), see
4
[53] Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. (2014). Do high-
commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevel
combinational approach to employee creativity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99(4), 665–80.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0035679
[54] Yaniv, (2012) see 24
[55] DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The neuromodulator of exploration:
A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality. Frontiers
in Human Neuroscience, 7(November), 762.
[56] Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A Cross-
Level Perspective on Employee Creativity : Goal Orientation ,
Team Learning Behavior , and Individual Creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.
[57] Chakravarty,(2010) see 47, DeYoung, (2013) see 55
[58] Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and
Performance in Multidisciplinary Teams: The Importance of
Collective Team Identification. Academy of Management Journal,
48(3), 532–547.
[59] Williams Woolley et. al (2007) see 10
[61] Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2011). The Neural Bases for
Empathy.pdf. Neuroscientist, 17(1), 18–24.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410379268
[62] Yaniv, (2012) see 24
[64] Tadmor, C. T., Satterstrom, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J. T. (2012).
Beyond Individual Creativity: The Superadditive Benefits of
Multicultural Experience for Collective Creativity in Culturally
Diverse Teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(3),
384–392. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435259
[65] Aldous, (2007). See 16
[66]Paulus et. al (2010), see 11
[67] Van Der Vegt, & Bunderson, (2005) see 58
Endnotes Continued

III
Endnotes Continued
[68]Heilman, (2016) see 46
[69]Chakravarty,(2010) see 47
[70] Paulus et. al (2010), see 11Chakravarty,(2010) see 47
[71] Rasulzada, & Dackert,(2009) see 3
[72] Akbari Chermahini, S., & Hommel, B. (2012). More creative
through positive mood? Not everyone! Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 6(November), 319.
[73] Chang,et. al (2014) see 53
[74] West, & Anderson, (1996) see 9, Pirola-Merlo, & Mann,
(2004) see 5
[75] Paulus et. al (2010), see 11
[76] Van Der Vegt, & Bunderson, (2005) see 58
[77] Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009).
Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive
meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. The Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
, Rasulzada, & Dackert,(2009) see 3
[78] Sellaro, R., Hommel, B., de Kwaadsteniet, E. W., van de
Groep, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Increasing interpersonal trust
through divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(June), 561.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00561

References
1. Akbari Chermahini, S., & Hommel, B. (2012). More creative through positive mood? Not everyone! Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(November),
319. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00319
2. Aldous, C. R. (2007). Creativity, problem solving and innovative science: Insights from history, cognitive psychology and neuroscience.
International Education Journal, 8(2), 176–186.
3. Aldous, C. R. (2006). Attending to feeling: Productive benefit to novel mathematics problem-solving. International Education Journal, 7(4),
410–422.
4. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45(2), 357–376.
5. Bechtereva, N. P., Danko, S. G., & Medvedev, S. V. (2007). Current methodlogy and methods in psychophysiological studies of creative thinking.
Methods, 42(1), 100–108. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2007.01.009
6. Beversdorf, D. Q., Hughes, J. D., Steinberg, B. a, Lewis, L. D., & Heilman, K. M. (1999). Noradrenergic modulation of cognitive flexibility in problem
solving. Neuroreport, 10(13), 2763–2767. http://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199909090-00012
7. Bunce, D. ;, & West, M. A. (1996). Stress management and innovation interventions at work. Human Relations; Feb, 49(2).
8. Chakravarty, A. (2010). The creative brain - Revisiting concepts. Medical Hypotheses, 74(3), 606–612. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.10.014
9. Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. (2014). Do high-commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevel combinational approach to
employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 665–80. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0035679
10. Cowan, N. (2014). Working Memory Underpins Cognitive Development, Learning, and Education. Educational Psychology Review.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y
11. De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Boot, N. C. (2015). Oxytocin enables novelty seeking and creative performance through upregulated approach:
Evidence and avenues for future research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(5), 409–417. http://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1354
12. De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D. J., Ebstein, R. P., Chew, S. H., … Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2014). Oxytonergic circuitry sustains
and enables creative cognition in humans. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(8), 1159–1165. http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst094
13. de Sousa, F. C., Pellissier, R., & Montiero, I. P. (2012). Creativity, Innovation and Collaborative Organizations. The International Journal of
Organizational Innovation, 5(1), 1–39. Retrieved from http://www.apgico.pt/outros_ficheiros/IJOI.pdf
14. Decety, J. (2010). The neurodevelopment of empathy in humans. Developmental Neuroscience, (32), 257–267.
http://doi.org/10.1159/000317771
15. DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 7(November), 762. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762
16. Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 822–848.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019749
17. Ding, X., Tang, Y. Y., Tang, R., & Posner, M. I. (2014). Improving creativity performance by short-term meditation. Behavioral and Brain Functions,
10(1), no pagination. http://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-10-9
18. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.799
19. Fink, A., Benedek, M., Grabner, R. H., Staudt, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2007). Creativity meets neuroscience: Experimental tasks for the
neuroscientific study of creative thinking. Methods, 42(1), 68–76. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.001
20. Flaherty, A. W. (2005). Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative drive. In Journal of Comparative Neurology
(pp. 147–153). http://doi.org/10.1002/cne.20768
21. Foxall, G. R. (2014). Cognitive requirements of competing neuro-behavioral decision systems: some implications of temporal horizon for
managerial behavior in organizations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(April), 1–17. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00184
IV

References
22. Goldstein, T. R., & Winner, E. (2012). Enhancing Empathy and Theory of Mind. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13(1), 19–37.
23. Heilman, K. M. (2016). Possible brain mechanisms of creativity. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31(4), 285–296.
http://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw009
24. Heilman, K. M., Nadeau, S. E., & Beversdorf, D. O. (2003). Creative Innovation: Possible Brain Mechanisms. Neurocase, 9(5), 369–379.
25. Hélie, S., & Sun, R. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: a unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychological review
(Vol. 117). http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019532
26. Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A Cross-Level Perspective on Employee Creativity : Goal Orientation , Team Learning
Behavior , and Individual Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.
27. Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering Team Creativity: Perspective Taking as Key to Unlocking
Diversity’s Potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982–996. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159
28. Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning
three decades of research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
29. IBM. (2010). Capitalizing on Complexity. IBM Global Services, 1518(3), 1–75. http://doi.org/10.2190/HFLG-14N9-KF8L-4FMD
30. Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We Feel, Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education.
Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3–10. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x
31. Jackson, S. E. (1996). The Consequences of Diversity in Multidisciplinary Work Teams. Handbook of Work Group Psychology, (October), 53–75.
Retrieved from http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~sjacksox/PDF/TheConsequencesofDiversityInMultidisciplinaryWorkTeams.pdf
32. Koob, G. F. (1999). Corticotropin-releasing factor, norepinephrine, and stress. Biological Psychiatry, 46(9), 1167–1180.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00164-X
33. Lewis, T., & Wright, G. A. (2012). How does Creativity Complement Today’s Currency of Innovation? Journal of Strategic Innovation and
Sustainability, 7(3), 9. Retrieved from http://psu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQSLNINUk0SrI0B7Y-
E1MMTZMNk4AJwzLRPNXE2DgRfEMEYu0TUmnuJsTAlJonyiDn5hri7KELKxrjU3Jy4o3MLI0NzYxAWVOMgTcRtPo7rwS8SyxFgkHBMMXE0sIkBWiRiamJYXIy0
GEWKaZJyaZp5ilmRmmGAEMbJbU
34. Li, W., Li, X., Huang, L., Kong, X., Yang, W., Wei, D., … Liu, J. (2015). Brain structure links trait creativity to openness to experience. Social
Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(2), 191–198. http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu041
35. Lin, G. G., & Scott, J. G. (2008). The Unconcious Mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 73–79.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2011.02.012.Investigations
36. Mccaffrey, T. (2016). A Visual Representation to Quantitate, Diagnose, and Improve Creativity in Insight Problem Solving. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 0(0), 1–17. http://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.132
37. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43.
38. Onarheim, B., & Friis-Olivarius, M. (2013). Applying the neuroscience of creativity to creativity training. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,
7(October), 656. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00656
39. Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspective
of Brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 248–265. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x
40. Paulus, P. B., Levine, D. S., Brown, V., Minai, A. A., & Doboli, S. (2010). Modeling Ideational Creativity in Groups: Connecting Cognitive, Neural,
and Computational Approaches. Small Group Research, 41(6), 688–724. http://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410369561
41. Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 235–257. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.240
42. Rasulzada, F., & Dackert, I. (2009). Organizational Creativity and Innovation in Relation to Psychological Well-Being and Organizational
Factors. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2–3), 191–198. http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902855283
V

References
43. Renner, K. H., & Beversdorf, D. Q. (2010). Effects of naturalistic stressors on cognitive flexibility and working memory task performance.
Neurocase : Case Studies in Neuropsychology, Neuropsychiatry, and Behavioural Neurology, 16(4), 293–300.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13554790903463601
44. Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Franconeri, S. L., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2015). Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visual inputs.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1814–1819. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0845-0
45. Schmajuk, N., Aziz, D. R., & Bates, M. J. B. (2009). Attentional–Associative Interactions in Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 92–103.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633574
46. Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., Mumford, M. D., Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., The, M. D. M., … Mumford, M. D. (2016). The effectiveness of creativity training : A
quantitative review The Effectiveness of Creativity Training : A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal, 419(September), 361–388.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549
47. Sellaro, R., Hommel, B., de Kwaadsteniet, E. W., van de Groep, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Increasing interpersonal trust through divergent
thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(June), 561. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00561
48. Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2007). The emergence of Team Creative Cognition: the Role of Diverse Outside Ties, Sociocognitive network
Centrality and Team Evolution. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(2), 23–41. http://doi.org/10.1002/sej
49. Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2011). The Neural Bases for Empathy.pdf. Neuroscientist, 17(1), 18–24. http://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410379268
50. Siler, T. L. (2012). Neuro-impressions: interpreting the nature of human creativity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(October), 282.
51. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning, 119(1).
52. Tadmor, C. T., Satterstrom, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J. T. (2012). Beyond Individual Creativity: The Superadditive Benefits of Multicultural
Experience for Collective Creativity in Culturally Diverse Teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(3), 384–392.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435259
53. Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Hashizume, H., Sassa, Y., Nagase, T., Nouchi, R., & Kawashima, R. (2011). Cerebral blood flow during rest associates with
general intelligence and creativity. PLoS ONE, 6(9). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025532
54. Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Hashizume, H., Sassa, Y., Nagase, T., Nouchi, R., & Kawashima, R. (2011). Failing to deactivate: The association between
brain activity during a working memory task and creativity. NeuroImage, 55(2), 681–687. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.052
55. Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and Performance in Multidisciplinary Teams: The Importance of Collective Team
Identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532–547.
56. Vartanian, O., Bristol, A. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Neuroscience of creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
57. Ventura, D. F., Pedro Mello Cruz, A., & Landeira-Fernandez, J. (2011). Psychology and innovation. Psychology and Neuroscience, 4(3), 297–298.
http://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2011.3.001
58. Walinga, J., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2011). Training insight problem solving through focus on barriers and assumptions. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 45(1), 47–58. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01084.x
59. Wen, M. C., Butler, L. T., & Koutstaal, W. (2013). Improving insight and non-insight problem solving with brief interventions. British Journal of
Psychology, 104(1), 97–118. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02107.x
60. West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in Top Management Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 680–693.
61. Williams Woolley, A., Richard Hackman, J., Jerde, T. E., Chabris, C. F., Bennett, S. L., Kosslyn, S. M., … Kosslyn, S. M. (2007). Using brain-based
measures to compose teams: How individual capabilities and team collaboration strategies jointly shape performance. Social Neuroscience, 2(2),
96–105. http://doi.org/10.1080/17470910701363041
62. Xing, B., Li, Y. C., & Gao, W. J. (2016). Norepinephrine versus dopamine and their interaction in modulating synaptic function in the prefrontal
cortex. Brain Research, 1641, 217–233. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2016.01.005
VI

More Than Your Right Brain

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (16)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à More Than Your Right Brain

Similaire à More Than Your Right Brain (20)

More Than Your Right Brain